Financial relations of the papacy with England, Vol. 2 9780910956482

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (page xv)
CHAPTER I
PETER'S PENCE (page 1)
CHAPTER II
THE CENSUS OF EXEMPT AND PROTECTED ECCLESIASTICAL FOUNDATIONS AND THE ROYAL TRIBUTE (page 55)
CHAPTER III
MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES 1327-1389 (page 75)
CHAPTER IV
MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES 1389-1534 (page 119)
CHAPTER V
THE SERVICE TAXES (page 169)
CHAPTER VI
THE SERVICE TAXES CONTINUED (page 233)
CHAPTER VII
ANNATES 1327-1378 (page 307)
CHAPTER VIII
ANNATES 1378-1534 (page 381)
CHAPTER IX
INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY THE PAPACY (page 447)
CHAPTER X
INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES (page 473)
CHAPTER XI
INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL AGENTS 1327-1452 (page 525)
CHAPTER XII
INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL AGENTS 1453-1534 (page 577)
CHAPTER XIII
PROCURATIONS OF PAPAL ENVOYS OTHER THAN THE COLLECTORS (page 621)
CHAPTER XIV
PROCURATIONS OF PAPAL COLLECTORS AND APPROPRIATION OF EPISCOPAL PROCURATIONS BY THE PAPACY (page 693)
APPENDIX I
PETER'S PENCE (page 717)
APPENDIX II
OBLIGATIONS FOR AND PAYMENTS OF SERVICES (page 721)
APPENDIX III
AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE YIELD OF THE SERVICES 1328-1533 (page 825)
APPENDIX IV
AN ESTIMATE OF THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED OF ENGLISH ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS IN ADDITION TO THE SERVICES 1486 TO 1532 (page 835)

Citation preview

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA PUBLICATION NO. 74

FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF THE PAPACY WITH ENGLAND 1327-1534 (STUDIES IN ANGLO-PAPAL RELATIONS

| DURING THE MIDDLE AGES, IT)

BLANK PAGE

STUDIES IN ANGLO-PAPAL RELATIONS DURING THE MIDDLE AGES, II

FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF THE PAPACY WITH ENGLAND — 1327 — 1934 BY

WILLIAM E. LUNT Late Professor of English Constitutional History Haverford College

SVE

Ray

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

1962

The publication of this book was made possible by the grants of funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Alumni of Haverford College.

CopyriGHT BY

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA 1962

Lrprary oF Coneress CaTALoG Carp NUMBER: 62-19287

PRINTED BY THE CrIMSON PrintING Company, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

PREFACE At the time of his death on 10 November 1956 William Edward Lunt left two completed manuscripts concerning the financial relations of the

papacy with England in the later Middle Ages. One of these, entitled ‘Accounts Rendered by Papal Collectors in England 1317-1378’, had been

for a few years in the custody of The Mediaeval Academy of America. It will make a very stout and valuable volume almost exclusively of transcripts from Collectorie and Introitus and Exitus Registers in the Vatican Archives. The long reports on the payments of annates form, for example, another source for the names of benefice-holders and for sidelights on litigation about papal patronage during the Avignonese period. However, the search for a financial subsidy has not as yet been fruitful enough to permit the Mediaeval Academy to undertake its publication. The second manuscript is published herewith. It forms a continuation of Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 which the Mediaeval Academy of America published in 1939 and is the second volume

of Studies in Anglo-Papal Relations during the Middle Ages, a series sponsored by the same academy.

The principal concern of those who have had the responsibility of seeing the manuscript through the press has been to make Professor Lunt’s work available as quickly as feasible. Accordingly, they have limited their

function largely to proofreading. Since the marks and notations on the typescript indicated that Professor Lunt had checked both the text and the footnotes, tampering with his manuscript would have been high presumption. Occasionally, where the citation of cross-references was indefinite, we have sought to supply the proper pagination. An occasional discontinuity in the enumeration of footnotes results not from excision but from inadvertence during the transfer from a page by page to a chapter sequence. Since Professor Lunt submitted his manuscript as a completed work, ready for the printer, we assume that it was not his intention to include appendices similar to those in volume one. We cannot assume, however, that he intended to omit a bibliography of the works cited and an index.

The preparation of a bibliography and index would have delayed the publication of this volume for a long, and indeterminate, time; on balance, it has seemed preferable to avoid that delay. Some of the books and most

of the manuscripts are entered in the List of Sources Cited in Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327; and the footnote citations V

v1 Preface in the present volume are explicit enough to be easily identified. In a detailed and specialized work like this, designed for scholars acquainted with its literature, the lack of a bibliography may be but a minor drawback. On the other hand, it is indeed regrettable that an index to this volume is not printed herewith. Fortunately the straightforward chronological treatment within a clear topical organization permits one to trace a particular matter without perplexing difficulty. In prefaces to his previous books, Professor Lunt has expressed his appreciation for assistance from other students; some will deem his statements rather too generous. Those who have eased his research for this volume must now remain anonymous. For the publication of this book, however, two sources of help must be gratefully acknowledged. First, Dr Van Courtlandt Elliott, Associate Secretary of the Mediaeval Academy of America, patiently bore the heaviest burden in getting the typescript into print and carefully read the proofs. Secondly, to defray the cost of printing, The Mediaeval Academy received substantial aid from the friends and former students of Professor Lunt at Haverford College. All readers will be thankful for the generosity of these donors, who wished to pay tribute to the exacting scholarship and the inspiring teaching of William Edward Lunt. Epcar B. GRaAvEs

4 April 1962

CONTENTS Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . , . , , . , , , , XV CHAPTER I

PETER’S PENCE _. . , . , . . . , , , , l 1. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION. . . , . , , , . 1 General development, 1; delivery to the papal collectors by bishops and archdeacons, 9; administrative methods of the papal collectors, 18.

2. LocaL ADMINISTRATION , . . . . . , . , 25 The local collectors, 25; Peter’s pence retained by local collectors, 32; the right to collect Peter’s pence, 37; the payers, 38; variations in the amounts due from local communities, 48; the date when payments were due, 50; Peter’s pence temporal or spiritual, 52.

CHAPTER II THE CENSUS OF EXEMPT AND PROTECTED ECCLESIASTICAL

FOUNDATIONS AND THE ROYAL TRIBUTE , , , , 55 1. Census or Exempt AND PRoTecTED ECCLESIASTICAL FOUNDATIONS. 55

Monasteries which owed census before 1327, 55; institutions which became payers after 1327: Denney, 56, Chester St Werburgh, 57; Sempringham, 59; St Stephen Westminster, 60, Lewes, 61, Pontefract, 61; Lenton and Great Malvern, 62; Burton Lazars, 63; Holy Cross near the Tower of London, 63; houses exempted without payment of census, 63; administration, 64.

2. Royat TRIBUTE . . . . . . . . , . . 66 CHAPTER III

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES 1327-1389 . 75

1. MANDATORY QUADRENNIAL TENTH 1330-33. . . , , . 75 Vil

Vill Contents 2. Manpatory CrusapINc TENTH 1333-36 . . . , . . 88

1348 : . . . . . : . . : . . 94

3. Royat Request ror THE IMPOSITION oF A MANDATORY TENTH IN

4, FREEDOM OF THE CLERGY FROM PapaL INCOME Taxes 1336-60 . . 94

5. Supsipy GRANTED BY THE CLERGY IN 1362. . , , , , 95 6. FREEDOM FROM CRUSADING TENTHS IMPOSED By URBAN V . . . 103

7. SUuBsipy GRANTED TO GREGORY XI 1372-79 . . . , . , 103 8. DEMANDs FoR SUBSIDIES AND MANDAToRY Taxes BY UrBAN VI . . 114 9, PARLIAMENTARY PROHIBITION OF SUCH TAXES UNLESS THE KING Con-

SENTED TO THEM . . . , . , . , , , 116 CHAPTER IV

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES 1389-1534 , 119 1. ATTEmMpPtTs oF Boniface [X To OBTAIN A SUBSIDY . , , , . 119 2. DEMANDs For SUBSIDIES AND ManpaTory Taxes 1404-18 . . . 122 3. Fatture or Martin V To OBTAIN A TENTH OR A SUBSIDY. . . 125 4. ATTEMPT oF Eucentus IV to Levy a TENTH FoR A CRUSADE AGAINST

THE TURKS AND A SUBSIDY GRANTED TO Him 1444-46. . . 131

1453-65 . : : . . . : . . . . . 140

5. ‘TENTHS ORDERED FOR A CRUSADE AND A SUBSIDY FOR THAT PURPOSE

6. UnsuccessFuL ATTEMPTs TO TAx THE INCOMES OF THE CLERGY 1466-96 150

7. SUBSIDY FOR A CRUSADE 1502-04 _ . . . . . . . 156 8. No DEMANDs For AN INcomME Tax By Jutius II . . . . . 160 9, Farture or Leo X To OBTAIN TENTHS OR SUBSIDIES . . . , 160

10. ConcLusion . . . . . . . . . . . , 168 CHAPTER V

THE SERVICE TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . 169

1. DEFINITION. . . . . . : : . . . . 169 2. Tue Liapmiry or ENGLIisH PRELATES FOR PAYMENT OF THE SERVICES. 169 3. EsTABLISHMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COMMON SERVICE . . . 174

4. Tue Petry Services. . . . , . , . . . 176 5. Os ications To Pay Services Taken BY ENcLisH PRELATEsS . . . 177 6. “[ERMs OF THE PAYMENT OF SERVICES UNDERTAKEN IN THE OBLIGATIONS 184

7. BEGINNING oF A CHANGE FROM PAYMENT By INSTALMENTS TO PayMENT OF CasH ON DELIVERY OF THE BULLS OF PROVISION IN THE

TIME OF BoniFace IX .. . . . . , . , . 186

8. ASSIGNMENTs By URBAN VI anp Bonrrace IX oN THE SERVICES OWED

BY ENGLisH PRELATES . , . . . . . . . 188

Contents 1X 9. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PoLicy oF CAsH ON DELIVERY OF THE BULLS

AFTER THE PONTIFICATE OF BONIFACE IX . . . . . . 193 10. “THE Procrors wHo RENDERED THE PAYMENTS AT THE PAPAL CourT . 195 11. DIFFICULTIES OF THE PRELATES IN MEETING THE PAYMENTS AT THE

Times SET IN THEIR OBLIGATIONS. . . . . . . 199

SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . 203

12. Tse Use or BANKERS By PRELATES FoR MAKING PAYMENTS OF THEIR

13. Liasitiry ror PAYMENT oF SERVICES LEFT UNPAID BY A PREDECESSOR . 217

14. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHuicH SERVICES WERE NOT DUE . . . 224 15. REMIsSION oF PART OF THE SERVICES IN INDIVIDUAL CASES . . . 226

CHAPTER VI

THE SERVICE TAXES CONTINUED . . . . . . . 233 1. ComMMuUTATION TO Fixe ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF THE SERVICES OF SOME

MONASTERIES . . . . . . . . . . 233

2. CHANGES IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF SOME BISHOPRICS . . . . 239

3. ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES REQUIRED oF PRELATES WuHo Paip SERVICES 247

In the camera, 247; traveling expenses, 255; fees of proctors resident at the papal court, 255; the propina of the cardinal who proposed the candidate in consistory and the gratuities to members of his household, 257; expenditures in the chancery and bureau of seals for the expedition of the bulls, 258; payments to members of the papal household, 272; expenditures of archbishops for the pallium, 275; the total of the additional expenditures a heavy burden, 276; examples of the total additional expenditures, 276; estimates of the proportional relationship of the additional expenditures to the services, 278. 4. Metuops py Wuicu PRELATES OBTAINED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE . . 279

Loans, 279; royal grants of issues of the temporalities during preceding

vacancies, 282; subsidies from the clerical subjects of bishops and archbishops, 282; aid to abbots from obedientiaries, convents and tenants, 292.

5. PopuLar CRITICISM OF THE SERVICES . . . . . . . 292 6. [He ABOLITION OF SERVICES IN ENGLAND 1532-1534 . . . . 302 7. COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES Pap To THE PAPACY BEFORE 1533 WITH

THE ANNATES PaIp To THE KING BEGINNING IN 1535 . . 303

SERVICES . . . . . , . . . . . . 305

8. EstTimatep ToraL RECEIPTs BY THE PoPpE AND THE CARDINALS FROM THE

CHAPTER VII

ANNATES 1327-1378 . . . . , . . . . . . 307

Xx Contents 1. DEFINITION. . . . . . . , . . . , 307 2 ANNATES FROM BENEFICES FILLED BY PapaL CoLLEcTION 1326-1334 307

3. A GENERAL Levy oF PAPAL ANNATES 1329-1333. . , . , 309

4. CESSATION OF PaPpaL ANNATES 1334-1342. . . . , , 319 5. ANNATEs IMPOSED BY CLEMENT VI In 1342 AND THEIR CONTINUANCE

‘THEREAFTER . , , . . . , . , , . 320

6. [we Crasses or Benerices RESERVED TO PapaL COLLATION UP TO 1378 320 7. BENEFICES OTHER THAN THOSE RESERVED TO PAPAL COLLATION REQUIRED

To Pay ANNATES BY CLEMENT VI. . . . . . . 323

8. Papa PROVISIONS TO ENGLISH BENEFICES DURING THE REIGN OF EDWARD

Il: tae GENERAL TREND To 1343. , . . , . . 324 AND ExXpecTANCciEs 1342-1350 . . . . . , . . 327

9. ENGLIsH OpposITION AROUSED BY THE INCREASE IN PAPAL PROVISIONS

10. “Tue Protests of CLEMENT VI AGAINST THE ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT

His Richt oF Provision To ENciisH BENEFICES 1343-1352 . . 334

11. Tue Errects oF THE ORDINANCE OF 1343. . . . . . 338 12. THe STATUTE oF Provisors oF 1351 AND Irs ADMINISTRATION. . 342

13. Tse LEGISLATION OF 1352 AGAINST PROVISIONS. . , . , 347 14. FurtTHer ACTIONS OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO

Provisions 1360-1366 . . . . , , , . . 348

15. NEGOTIATIONS WITH GREGORY XI WHICH RESULTED IN THE SO-CALLED

‘TREATY ON PROVISIONS 1373-1377. . . , . . , 351

oF Epwarp III . . . . . . . . . . . 355

16. [He SITUATION WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS AT THE CLOSE OF THE REIGN

17. THe ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES 1342-1378. . . . , 356

18. Tue Yretp or ANNATES 1349-1378 . . , , . . , 379 CHAPTER VIII

ANNATES 1378-1534 . . . . . . . . . . , 381 1. Tue GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROVISIONS AND ANNATES 1378-1417 381

During the reign of Richard II 1378-1399, 381; during the reign of Henry IV _ 1399-1413, 400; during the early years of the reign of Henry V, 406; summary of the policy of the English government with regard to papal provisions, 407.

2. THe ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES 1378-1417 . . , , , 408

1378-1418 . . . . . . . , . . , , 415

3. THe GeneraL MoveMENT For REFORM OF PROVISIONS AND ANNATES 4. Tue ATTEMPT oF Martin V to RECOVER AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO

Make Provisions To ENGLIisH BENEFICES . . . . . . 418

V 1417-1431 . : . . . . . . . . . 428

5. ‘THe ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF MARTIN

6. MANNATES FROM 1431 To 1471 . . . . . . . . . 432

7. ANNATES FROM 1471 To 1534 . . . . . . , . . 436

Contents Xi CHAPTER IX INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY THE PAPACY _. 447 1. “THe DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PLENARY AND PARTIAL INDULGENCES . . 447

LETTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

2. OrRpINARY PLENARY INDULGENCES GRANTED TO INDIVIDUALS BY PAPAL

3. Orprnary PLENARY INDULGENCES GRANTED TO GROUPS OF PERSONS

Wuo RECEIVED THEREFROM NO FINANCIAL PROFIT . . . . 451 4. Tue FINaNciaAL VALUE To THE PAPACY OF THESE Two TyYPEs . , 457

5. INDULGENCES OF THE JUBILEE IN ROME . . . . . . , 459 6. INDULGENCEs OF THE JUBILEE GRANTED By Papa Letters to INDI-

BENEFIT. . . . . . . . . . . , 466

VIDUALS AND TO Groups WuicH RECEIVED THEREFROM NO FINANCIAL

7. “Twe RECEIPTs OF THE PAPACY FROM SUCH LETTERS . . , , 47]

CHAPTER X INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY LOCAL

AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . 473 1. ParttaL INDULGENCES . . . . . . . . . . 473

2. Papat INcoME THEREFROM . . . . . . . . . 481 3. OrpINARY PLENARY INDULGENCES OF WHuiIcH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS

BELONGED TO THE LOcAL ADMINISTRATORS . . . , , 484 4. Papat REVENUES FROM GRANTS OF SucH INDULGENCES . . . . 506 5. PLENARY INDULGENCES OF WHICH THE PROCEEDS WERE SHARED BETWEEN

THE Loca ADMINISTRATORS AND THE PAPACY . . . . . 511

CHAPTER XI INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL

AGENTS 1327-1452 . . . . . . . . . . . §25 1. CrRuSADING INDULGENCES 1327-1377 _. . . . . . . 525

2. Tue Crusape or Norwicy . . . . . . . . . 535 3. Tue CrusavE To CASTILE . . . , . , . , 544 ,

4. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurKs 1394-1396 . . . . . . 548

5. PRojJECTED CRUSADE AGAINST THE ANTIPOPE 1397 . , , , , 549 6. CRUSADE To AID THE EMPEROR OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1398-1401. , 549

7. INDULGENCE FoR FuUNDs To END THE ScHISM 1407 . . . . . 557

8. INDULGENCE To AID THE HosPITALuers 1409-1414 . . , . . 558

X11 Contents 9, CRUSADE AGAINST LaApIsSLAUS OF NAPLEs 1411-1415 . , . , 559

10. CRUSADE AGAINST THE HussiTes 1427-1431 . . . . . . 562

1440 . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

11. INDULGENCE FoR EXPENsEs or UNION WITH THE GREEK CHuRCcH 1439-

12. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurRKs 1444-1445 . . . . . . 573

13. INDULGENCE To Alp THE KiNG oF Cyprus 1451-1452. . . . 574

CHAPTER XII INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL

AGENTS 1453-1534 . . . . . . . . . . . 577 1, THe INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE 1455 . , . . . . . 577 2. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurRKs 1455 . . . . . . . , 582 3. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TURKS 1460-1461 . . . . . . . 583 4, CRUSADE AGAINST THE TURKS 1463-1466 . . . . . . . 584

5. CRUSADE AGAINST THE T uRKs 1472 . . . . . , . , 586

6. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE FoR WAR AGAINST THE TurKs 1476-1478. 586 7. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE FoR War AGAINST THE TurRKs 1478-1480. 590

8. INDULGENCE To AID THE KNIGHTS OF ST JOHN 1479-1482. . . 591 9, INDULGENCE FOR THE GENERAL WAR AGAINST THE JT uRKs 1480-1482. 593

10. INDULGENCE oF SAINTES 1487 . . . . . . . . 594 11. INDULGENCE FOR WARFARE AGAINST THE TURKS 1487-1493. . . 595

1498-1499 . : . . . . . . . : . 599

12. INDULGENCE FOR THE BURDENS AND NECESSITIES OF THE ROMAN CHURCH

13. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE 1501-1502 . . . . , . . 601 14. INDULGENCE FoR St PETER’s Rome 1507-1509. , . . , 604 15. REpUTED INDULGENCE FOR THE WAR AGAINST FRANCE 1512 . . . 608

16. INDULGENCE For St PeTer’s RomMeE 1517-1521 . . . . . 609 17. No More INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED BY PapaL AGENTS IN ENGLAND 611

18. Enexiise PusBLic OPINION CONCERNING PAPAL INDULGENCES . . . 612

CHAPTER XII PROCURATIONS OF PAPAL ENVOYS OTHER THAN THE

COLLECTORS _. . . . . . . . . . . . 621 The laws and customs regulating their amount established by 1327, 621; John XXII 1327-1334, 621; Benedict XII 1334-42, 622; Hugh bishop of St Paul de Trois Chateaux and Roland de Aste, canon of Laon 1335-36, 622; Philip de Cambarlhaco, canon of St Peter’s Rome 1336, 624; Cardinals Peter, priest of S Prassede, and Bertrand, deacon

Contents Xiil of S Maria in Aquiro, and Peter Burgundionis, treasurer of Laon 1337-41, 624; William Bateman, dean of Lincoln 1340, 636; Clement VI 1342-52, 636; Cardinals Peter des Prés, bishop of Palestrina and Anibaldus de Ceccano, bishop of Tusculum 1342-43, 636, Androin de la Roche, prior of Saint-Seine, and Geoffrey de Craunford of the Augustinian Hermits 1343-44, 637; William Bateman, bishop elect of Norwich 1344, 638; Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna, and Peter, bishop of Astorga 1344-45, 639, Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna 1345-46, 639; Cardinals Anibaldus, bishop of Tusculum, and Stephen, priest of Ss Giovanni e Paoli 1345-48, 640, Bernard de Causalone, arch-

deacon of Perpignan 1349-51, 643; Raymond Pelegrini, canon of London 1350-52, 645; Bertrand of Aragon, papal serjeant-at-arms 1350-52, 646; Innocent VI 1352-62, 647; Bertrand of Aragon and Peter de Sancto Marcello 1353, 647; Raymond Pelegrini 1353-54, 647; John, bishop of Perpignan and Androin de la Roche, abbot of Cluny 1355, 648; Simon Sudbury, chancellor of Salisbury 1356, 649, Thomas de

Ringstead, papal penitentiar 1356-57, 650, Cardinals alleyrand, bishop of Albano, and Nicholas, priest of S Vitale 1356-58, 651, Cardinal Peter, priest of the basilica of the Twelve Apostles 1357-58, 656; William de Guillerma, serjeant-at-arms 1358-59, 656, William of Lynn, dean of Chichester 1359-60, 657; Simon de Langres, master of

the order of Preachers, Androin de la Roche, abbot of Cluny, and Hugo of Geneva, lord of Anton 1359-61, 658; Androin, abbot of Cluny 1361, 660; Urban V 1362-70, 661; Gregory XI 1370-78, 662; Cardinals Simon Langham, priest of S Sisto, and John de Dormans, priest of Ss Quattro Coronati 1371-73, 662; Bertrand de Veyroca, donsel of the papal household 1372, 666; William de |’Estrange, bishop of Carpentras 1372, 667; Pileus, archbishop of Ravenna, Bernard, bishop of Pampeluna, Ralph, bishop of Sinigaglia, Giles Sanctii Munionis, provost of Valencia, and William, bishop of Carpentras 1373-79, 669; Urban VI 1378-89, 682; Boniface IX 1389-1404, 683; Damian Cataneis 1390-91, 683; Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola 1391,

684; Damian de Cataneis 1391-92, 684, Bartholomew de Novara, advocate of consistory 1394-96, 685; Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola 1396-98, 686; Peter du Bosc, bishop of Dax, papal chamberlain 1398-

99, 687; Innocent VII 1407-09, 688; James de Ugolinis, canon of Volterra, and Lewis, bishop of Volterra 1405, 688; Charles de Brancaciis, count of Campania 1406, 689; Gregory XII 1407-09, 689; Anthony de Pireto, minister general of the Friars Minor 1407, 689, Anthony, cardinal bishop of Porto 1409, 689; John XXIII 1410-15, 689; 1417-1534, 690.

CHAPTER XIV PROCURA TIONS OF PAPAL COLLECTORS AND APPROPRIATION

OF EPISCOPAL PROCURATIONS BY THE PAPACY _. , . 693

1. PRocurATIONS OF THE PapAL COLLECTORS . . . . . . 693 2. Papat APPROPRIATION OF EpiscopAL PROCURATIONS . . . . 713

XIV Contents APPENDIX I

PETER’S PENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 1. APPROXIMATE Profits or DiocesAN CoLLectors WHo Mape ANNUAL

PAYMENTS TO PAPAL COLLECTORS . . . . . . , 717 2. Diocesan RecEIPTs FROM PETER’s PENCE . . . . . . 718 3. Tue Amounts or PEeter’s Pence Due THE Lorps From MAaANoriAL

CoMMUNITIES AT DIFFERENT TIMES . . . . . . 720 APPENDIX II

OBLIGATIONS FOR AND PAYMENTS OF SERVICES . . . . 721

1. ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS 1327-1400 . . . . . . . 724 Canterbury, 724; Bangor, 728; Bath and Wells, 730; Chichester, 732; Ely, 734; Exeter, 736; Hereford, 736; Lichfield, 738; Lincoln, 740, Llandaff, 740; London, 742; Norwich, 744; Rochester, 746; St Asaph, 748; St Davids, 748; Salisbury, 750; Winchester, 752; Worcester, 752; York, 756; Carlisle, 758; Durham, 760.

2. ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS 1401-1500. . . . . . . 760 Canterbury, 760; Bangor, 762; Bath and Wells, 764; Chichester, 766; Ely, 768; Exeter, 770; Hereford, 772; Lichfield, 772; Lincoln, 774; Llandaff, 776, London, 778; Norwich, 780; Rochester, 782; St Asaph, 786; St Davids, 788; Salisbury, 790; Winchester, 792; Worcester, 792;

York, 794; Carlisle, 796; Durham, 798. , 3. ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS 1501-1533. . . . , . . 800 Canterbury, 800; Bangor, 800; Bath and Wells, 802; Chichester, 802; Ely, 802; Exeter, 802; Hereford, 804; Lichfield, 804; Lincoln, 804; Llandaff, 804; London, 806; Norwich, 806; Rochester, 806; St Asaph, 806; St Davids, 806; Salisbury, 808; Winchester, 808; Worcester, 808; York, 808; Carlisle, 810; Durham, 810.

4. AsBoTs 1327-1522 . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Bourne, 812; Bury St Edmund, 812; Canterbury St Augustine, 812; Chester St Werburgh, 816; Evesham, 816; Waltham, 818; Westminster, 818.

5. MONASTERIES HELD IN COMMENDAM . , . . . , 820 APPENDIX III AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE YIELD OF THE SERVICES

1328-1533 . : : ; : : . . : . . . . 825 APPENDIX IV

AN ESTIMATE OF THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED OF ENGLISH ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS IN ADDITION TO THE

SERVICES 1486 TO 1532. . . . . . . . . . 835

ABBREVIATIONS AA Arm. I-XVI[[—miscellaneous documents in the Vatican Archives. Ann.—Annales or Annals. Arch.—Archivio or Archaeological. Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale—Archivio di Stato in Rome, Archivio

Camerale. |

Arm.—Armario, Vatican Archives. Bibl.—Biblioteca or Bibliotheque. B.M.—British Museum. Cal.—Calendar. Cart.—Cartulary. C.C.R.—Calendar of Close Rolls. Chart—Charter or Chartulary. Chron.—Cbhronicon, Chronica or Chronicle. Col.—Collectorie, Vatican Archives. C.P.L.—Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters. C.P.P.—Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain _ and Ireland: Papal Petitions. C.P.R.—Calendar of Patent Rolls. C.S.P_—Calendar of State Papers. D. & Ch.—Dean and Chapter. D.N.B.—Dictionary of National Biography. ELE.T.S.—Early English Text Society. E..A.R.—English Historical Review. Exch. K.R.—Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer. H.M.C.—Historical Manuscripts Commission. L. & E.—Introitus et Exitus Registers, Vatican Archives. Inst. Misc.—Instrumenta Miscellanea, Vatican Archives. K.R. Eccl. Documents—Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Ecclesiastical Documents. K.R. Memo. Roll—Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Memoranda Roll. L. & P.—Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, XV

XV1 Abbreviations Lamb.—Lambeth Palace Library. L.T.R.—Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. Misc.—Miscellanea or Miscellaneous. M.O.G.—Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung. Mon.—Monumenta. Ob.—Obligationes et Solutiones Registers, Vatican Archives. Ottob. Lat.—Ottoboniano Latino, Vatican Library. P.R.O.—Public Record Office. Q.u.F.—Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken.

Reg.—Register, Registrum, Registre, Regestum, or Regesta.

Reg. Avin.—Regesta Avinionensia, Vatican Archives. | Reg. Lat.—Regesta Lateranensia, Vatican Archives. Reg. Vat.—Regesta Vaticana, Vatican Archives. Rot. Parl—Rotult Parliamentorum. R.Q.—Romische Quartalschrift. T.R.H.S.—Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Vat.—Vatican or Vaticana. Vet.—Vetus or Vetera. W.A.M.—Westminster Abbey Muniments.

FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF THE PAPACY WITH ENGLAND 1327-1534

BLANK PAGE

Cuapter I PETER’S PENCE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION

S ieee Peter’s pence originated as a gift of Anglo-Saxon kings

to St Peter and his representative at Rome, by the eleventh century it was, in the thought of the Roman court, census, which carried with it the connotation of the dependence of England upon the apostolic see. This view became widespread in England long before 1327 * and it continued to prevail to the end of the period now under consideration. Peter’s pence was called census both in the letters of popes? and in the accounts of the papal camera and of papal collectors.* In 1338 Simon Islip, who was then vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln, wrote that a single penny ought to be levied from each head or house throughout England in sign of universal subjection to the Roman court. This census, he explained, was called Peter’s pence by old custom.* In 1424 Robert Leek, a successor of Sumon Islip, designated Romescot or Peter’s pence as the tribute or annual census which should be exacted by many prelates of England ‘in signum subiectionis deo et apostolis dominis Petro et Paulo beatissimis et sacrosancte Romane ecclesie et domino nostro pape’. Over a century later Chapuys, the imperial ambassador in England, described the kingdom as ‘tributary to the Holy See’ ® and in 1534, when he heard the news of the passage of the act of supremacy, he speculated that the king would thereafter have ‘the right to the tribute in money, which the English did

periodically pay to the Apostolic See in token of obedience’. These statements could be based only on the assumption that Peter’s pence was census, since the tribute promised by King John had long since ceased to be paid. When the reign of Edward III began, John XXII, in accordance with

this theory, was still trying to obtain the full amount of Peter’s pence paid annually to the local collectors of the due by the payers thereof. Since at least the fore part of the twelfth century the papacy had received * Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 42-47, 60, 61. * Col. 227, fo. 42; ‘censuo annuo qui denarius beati Petri nuncupatur vulgariter’: Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 266; Jensen, ‘Denarius Sancti Petri’, T.R.H.S., new ser. XIX, 27677; Reg. Vat. 187, fo. 182v. *Col. 11, fo. 140°; I. & E. 146, fo. 23. | *9 July: Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 561¥-62. * Lincoln, Reg. Fleming, fo. 229. °21 February 1531: L. & P. V, 112. “18 November: C.S.P. Spanish, V, pt. 1, p. 329.

2 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 each year a fixed sum from each diocese in which the pennies were levied. The total of these sums amounted to £199 6 s. 8 d., which was much less

than the amount received by the local collectors. From time to time a pope had demanded the full amount paid by those who owed Peter’s pence, but none had succeeded in increasing the amount received by the papal camera. John XXII, who devoted careful attention to the financial rights of the papacy, had made the most determined effort of all. At the beginning of his pontificate he ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury to

make an inquiry and to supply him with information concerning the Peter’s pence which the papacy did not receive. He had also instructed the three collectors whom he had commissioned successively to England before 1327 to obtain the full amount. He had further ordered the local English collectors of Peter’s pence to cease their operations and to permit his collectors to exact the pennies directly from the payers.®

Though all of these mandates had been without result, John XXII was not yet prepared to give up his demand. On 22 August 1328, after Hugh of Angouléme had asked to be relieved of his collectorship, he appointed as his successor Itier de Concoreto. The commission of the new collector included Peter’s pence among the revenues which he was to collect without any explanation of the method which was to be followed. _ It empowered him, however, to prescribe a reasonable term within which any archbishop, bishop, abbot, prior, rector, other prelate, ecclesiastical person, convent or chapter must pay anything which had been retained or subtracted from any of the revenues mentioned in the commission, or incur severe ecclesiastical processes and penalties.? On 9 December Itier sent to those prelates who customarily paid Peter’s pence to the collector a request for payment of what was then due. In this letter he stated that before he left for England the pope had told him in an audience how he had learned by information worthy of credence that those who had col-

lected and were collecting Peter’s pence in England had not paid the whole of their receipts to the Roman church, and how he had given a mandate to the archbishops, bishops and other prelates to assign and pay the money collected and not yet delivered, first, to Rigaud d’Assier and then to his successor Hugh of Angouléme.’° Itier continued that, since Hugh was no longer able to attend to the administration of this mandate and to the other duties committed to him, the pope had put him in Hugh’s place by a commission which had been published at the court of Arches. As part of * Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 38-66. °Col. 227, fo. 427-437,

*°John XXII may have renewed this mandate when Itier’s commission was issued: C.P.L., Il, 486.

Peter’s Pence 3 the execution of these duties the new collector requested and warned the recipient to pay fully before 2 February 1329 what was owed by him for Peter’s pence for the past time in which there had been cessation of payment.** Since Itier was substituted for Hugh, and the bishops and other prelates who rendered Peter’s pence to the papal collector had been ordered to deliver the receipts from that source which they had previously received and retained, Itier’s demand included by implication these sums as well as any of the customary sums due before the date set for payment. If this was an attempt to increase the customary sum which the papacy received from Peter’s pence, as it appears to have been, it met with the same fate as those which had preceded it. Payment of Peter’s pence to the pope

in any other manner than had previously been the custom had been forbidden by the parliament of Carlisle in 1307, and again by both king and parliament in 1318.1? The prelates whom Itier addressed ignored the request for the surpluses of Peter’s pence which they had received. The archbishop of York, who had paid to Hugh the customary amount of Peter’s pence due for three years ending on the Easter fortnight of 1328,** replied blandly that none remained to be paid by him until after the next Easter when the customary annual sum would be due and would be paid. The bishop of Exeter had to ask for a delay while the pennies were being collected on account of the short time allowed by the demand.*® When he later __

forwarded the pennies ‘for the time in which payment of them had ceased’, *® the amount was £9 5 s.’7 which bishops of Exeter had paid annually since time out of mind. The further extant acquittances for this payment specified in each instance the established annual sum.?® Similar

evidence indicates that no change was made in any of these amounts throughout the period of Itier’s collectorship.*®

After the death of John XXII in 1334, the papacy appears to have de11 Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 457-58, York, Reg. Melton, fo. 529, Salisbury, Reg. Mortivall, II, fo. 259. 22 Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 63-65; Documents illustrative of English History

in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, ed. H. Cole, p. 8. 48 An order to one of his ministers to make the payment, dated 13 April 1328: Reg. Melton, fo. 24’. **27 December: ibid., fo. 529. *® Reg. Grandisson, I, 204, 439. Under Itier’s predecessor the date of payment had been

the fortnight after Easter: ibid., I, 343; Reg. Drokensford (Wells), p. 283; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 24. *6 Reg. Grandisson, I, 220. 1" Ibid, I, 481.

*® Wells, Reg. Drokensford, fo. 303; Reg. Drokensford, p. 297; Reg. Charlton (Hereford), p. 43. *° Salisbury, Reg. Mortivall, I, fo. 275¥,; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 27%, 46%, 52, 535v; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), 1, 27; Reg. Grandisson, I, 556; Il, 614, 723.

4 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sisted from further attempts to obtain more than the customary annual sum from Peter’s pence. Benedict XII, the new pope, appointed Bernard de Sistre collector on 13 September 1335. His commission concerning Peter’s pence said nothing about the surpluses kept by local ecclesiastical collectors, although it authorized him to collect the due from both ecclesiastical and secular persons who owed it. Another letter ordered him to

execute and complete any business touching the Roman church or the papal camera which had been committed to Hugh of Angouléme or to Itier de Concoreto by the letters of John XXII.?° Since Hugh had been (commissioned to collect the whole amount of Peter’s Pence?! and Itier apparently had received an oral injunction to that effect,”? this instruction might conceivably have been interpreted as a direction for Bernard to do likewise. Bernard did not so interpret it. He made no attempt to collect the due from secular persons. In his first letters demanding payment of Peter’s pence from the diocesan collectors of them, he asked only for the amounts owed, and in some he indicated the years for which payment was

due.”* The one addressed to the bishop of Worcester named the years from 1331 to 1335 inclusive. Since the bishops of Worcester had been keeping the surplus of Peter’s pence which they received above what they owed to the pope for many years before 1331,?* Bernard apparently had in

mind only the customary sums. That certainly was the interpretation placed upon his summonses by the recipients of them.”° The collector continued to accept each year the standard amounts, and in the final report which covered the whole period of his collectorship no receipt in excess of those sums was recorded.?® Nevertheless, it seems probable that in 1337, when Bernard was absent on a mission to the papal court as the envoy of Edward III,?" his locumtenens, Durantus Katherini, rector of Saint-Sauveur in Montels,?® made a demand for payment to him of surpluses of Peter’s pence retained by the local collectors. ‘The letters of Durantus are lacking

and our knowledge of the incident comes from the replies of John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter. He answered the first communication on 15 May, the day he received it. He said: ‘First, with regard to Peter’s 20 Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, pp. 266-67; Benoit XII: Lettres Closes et Patentes intéressant les Pays autres que la France, 516-18; C.P.L., Il, 559; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 261-62. 21 Jensen, ‘Denarius Sancti Petri’, T.R.H.S., new ser. XIX, 273-74. #2 Above, p. 2. 23 Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 259, 262; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18, 18%, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 32%; Chart. Winchester Cathedral, p. 53. *4Tunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 84. 25> York, Reg. Melton, fo. 57%, 60%; Col. 227, fo. 105-06v. 26 Col. 227, fo. 105-11. 27 C\P.R. 1334-38, p. 427; C.C.R. 1337-39, p. 118, C.P.L., Il, 563.

28 So identified in Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 262.

Peter’s Pence 5 pence, that the same payment is sought twice injuriously, because we have

acquittances up to the past year. And what is owed further for one year we shall pay when it is convenient, because our archdeacons commonly collect those pennies after Easter. And they pay to us only as much, and not an obol more, than we pay to the Roman court, and only they, it is said, collect more.’ He also stated that the archdeacons enjoyed the profit of Peter’s pence. In answer ** to the reply of Durantus to this letter, he spoke again of the same payment being demanded of him twice. He continued: ‘With regard to the archdeacons who receive more, because it is not my concern but yours, you can follow up when you please.’ #° The inference seems to be warranted that the locumtenens asked for a customary annual payment which had already been rendered and for the payment of any Peter’s pence above that sum which the bishop had received. Perhaps in an excess of zeal he placed upon Bernard’s commission an interpretation which Bernard himself did not think was justified. After Clement VI learned that Bernard de Sistre had died in office, on 26 January 1343 he appointed Raymond Pelegrini to carry out all business with which the deceased collector had been intrusted by Benedict XII or by himself.** On 30 January 1344 he issued new commissions to Raymond.*? The one which dealt specifically with Peter’s pence was in approximately the same terms as the one which Benedict XII had issued to Bernard.®* It did not mention the surpluses received by the diocesan col-

lectors above the sums which they rendered customarily to the papal collector.24 What Raymond did about the collection of Peter’s pence is

not well attested. Any accounts which he may have rendered to the camera are lacking, none of his acquittances for payments of the due has come to light, and only one of his demands for payment has been found. On 21 July 1348 he warned the bishop of Hereford to deliver the Peter’s pence owed by him from his diocese for the years 1344 to 1347 inclusive, but the amount was not stated.2> On 12 November 1349, however, his brother Hugh, who had been surrogated for Raymond during Raymond’s absence °* and was consequently acting under Raymond’s commission, sought from the bishop the payment of £18 due for the three years from 1346 to 1348.97 Six pounds was the customary annual sum. The inference *° This letter of the bishop is dated 16 June. °° Reg. Grandisson, 1, 297-99. *" C\P.L., Il, 2; York, Reg. la Zouche, fo. 235%, 236.

2 CPL. Il, 6.

°° Above, pp. 3-4. ““ Reg. Vat. 137, fo. 182%.

*° Reg. Trillek (Hereford), p. 136. °° C.P.L., HI, 40; Reg. Vat. 144, fo. 429. °*7 Reg. Trillek, p. 148.

6 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 that only the standard sums were levied by Raymond is strengthened by two other pieces of evidence. In 1345 the archbishop of York ordered delivery to the collector of £34 10 s. for Peter’s pence owed for the years 1342 to 1344 inclusive.** ‘The archbishop’s annual payment had been £11 10 s. for well over a century and a half.*° After Hugh Pelegrini became collector in his own right on 8 July 1350,*° he collected in several dioceses arrears of Peter’s pence which had become due in his brother’s time. In every instance he was satisfied with the customary sum.**

The accounts which Hugh and his two immediate successors, John de Cabrespino and Arnald Garnerii, rendered to the papal camera have been preserved in full. They leave no doubt that throughout the period from 1350 to 1378 the collectors received from the diocesan collectors only

the customary sums.** Local collectors were left free to enjoy any surpluses which they received. Thereafter the evidence becomes more meagre. In the commission of

Arnald Garneri, which was issued by Gregory XI on 8 October 1371, Peter’s pence was mentioned merely as one of the several revenues which he was to collect.*® The same was true of the commission of his successor, Cosmatus Gentilis, who was appointed by Urban VI on 27 August 1379.*4

In the next commission, issued in 1388, Peter’s pence was not named. It was included under the general phrase ‘fruits, revenues, censuses, tenths and other rents’ owed the church and the camera.*® Subsequently enumeration of specific revenues ceased almost entirely, and only general inclusive terms were employed. Boniface IX spoke only of fruits and revenues,*® Gregory XII used the phraseology of the commission of 1388,** and Alex-

ander V coined the phrase which with slight variations was used for the

remainder of the period under consideration. It was ‘fruits, revenues, rights, censuses and other rents’.** Occasionally Peter’s pence was men°° Reg. la Zouche, fo. 268.

°° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 79. ,

CPL. Il, 46.

*? Col. 14, fo. 24.

42, Col. 14. fo. 29-33, 93-94; 11, fo. 2, 2%, 20, 20%, 140, 140Y, 166, 166%; 12, fo. 2¥-3¥, 22, 22v, 59¥, 60%, 63-657, 93; 13, fo. 2-3, 47%, 48; 12, fo. 206¥-209, 231-33. ** Reg. Vat. 274, fo. 1867-88.

** Tbid., 310, fo. 9-10; C.P.L., IV, 257. *6 C.P.L., TV, 267.

“6 Arm. XXXIII, 12, fo. 199. 7 Ibid., fo. 2719.

**“ Reg. Vat. 339, fo. 8¥-10". The later commissions: Reg. Vat. 348, fo. 2¥-4v; 349, fo. 84v-857; 350, fo. 122¥-23v; 373, fo. 177%-79; 382, fo. 142, 142v, 151-52¥; 383, fo. 20v-23; 433, fo. 63-647; 465, fo. 71-72%; 515, fo. 1307-32; 656, fo. 231-33; 693, fo. 147-49; 932, fo. 231v-32%; Ms. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 65-67; Reg. Vat. 965, fo. 256-57; 1197, fo. 1-3; AA Arm. I-X VIII, 2581, Reg. Vat. 1354, fo. 7-9. For the formulae of such a commission see Lunt,

Papal Revenues, I, 202-04. |

Peter’s Pence 7 tioned in a commission of this type,** but never in a manner that provides any information concerning the method of collecting the revenue. In no

commission is there any indication that the papacy attempted to obtain more from Peter’s pence than the sums established for each diocese by ancient custom.

The practice of the papal collectors after 1378 can be determined reasonably well, in the absence of their accounts, by the documents which they issued in connection with the administration of Peter’s pence. They consist of demands for payment, orders for sequestration to recover arrears and acquittances for payments rendered. Though the documents of these types which have come to my attention do not cover all of the dioceses and do not come from the hands of every collector who held office during the long period, they extend with gaps from 1381 to 1529. They designate without exception the time-honored sums for the several dioceses to which they relate.°° The last in the series is an acquittance issued on 29 November 1529 by Peter Vannes to Nicholas Metcalf, archdeacon of Rochester, for £5 12s, in payment of Peter’s pence owed to the apostolic see for the year 1529. Peter Griphus, who was collector from 1508 to 1511, left a comprehensive list of Peter’s pence due from each diocese.*! It corresponds with the list in the Liber Censuum compiled at the papal court in 1192 in every item except the sum due from the archdeacon of Canterbury,°? which was £7 18 s. in the Liber Censuum and £8 in Peter’s list. The change was made sometime between 1273 and 1317.*?

The ‘act for the exoneration from exactions paid to the See of Rome’ passed by parliament in 1534 not only forbade any person henceforth to pay Peter’s pence ‘to the use of the said bishop or of the See of Rome,’ but also ordained that the due should cease and never more be levied, collected or paid to any person or persons. The legislation was to take effect on “ E. g. Reg. Vat. 382, fo. 142, 142¥, A.A. Arm. I-XVIII, 2581.

°° York, Reg. Neville, I fo. 107%; Reg. Bowet, II (in vol. 17), fo. 36; Reg. Gilbert ‘Hereford), p. 88, Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 342; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 68%. 76; Reg. Bowlers (Hereford), p. 8; Lichfield, Reg. Boulers, fo. 66%, 68; Exeter, Reg. Oldham, fo. 1357, MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 68%; Reg. Bothe (Hereford), pp. 33, 74; Archives of St. John’s College, Cambridge, five acquittances, 1518-29. 5? MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 39V-41.

** Peter noted that in the bull of Gregory V the sum due from the bishop of Bath and Wells was £12 10 s. and that he did not know how it became reduced to £11 10 s. in his own time. This bull, which Peter had seen in several places (fo. 57, 6), was actually issued by Gregory X on 22 April 1273: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 14. In some copies of this bull the amount is given as £12 10 s. and in others as £11 10 s.: Reg. Giffard (Worcester), II, 57, Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Mm. I 41, p. 375; Red Book of the Exchequer, Il, 750; Wells, Reg. Drokensford, fo. 24, 67%. As early as 1317 the sum paid by the bishop to the collector was £11 10 s.: Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 69. The amount of £12 10 s. given in some copies of the bull of 1273 probably rests on scribal error. 5° Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 65, 67, 68.

8 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 24 June unless the king should rule otherwise. Henry VIII made it effective by letters patent on 7 April.®* The render of Peter’s pence to the pope came to an end, but the levy

of the pennies did not stop immediately. In 1534 the churchwardens of St Mary the Great in Cambridge collected Peter’s pence from the parishioners and delivered them to the archdeacon of Ely,** but they entered no receipts from this source in their account for later years. On 31 August 1534 Archbishop Lee of York notified Thomas Cromwell, the king’s adviser on ecclesiastical changes, that he had delivered to a servant of the provost of Beverley £11 10 s. for Peter’s pence and asked Cromwell to send him an acquittance.°® Since the amount was that which the archbishop of York had previously paid annually to the papal collector, Archbishop Lee

apparently thought that the act substituted the king for the pope as the recipient of Peter’s pence. Cromwell appears at one time to have entertained the thought of making that disposition of the revenue.®’ The archbishop may have known this and not have known the contrary terms of the statute which was enacted. Chapuys, in reporting on 17 or 18 November the passage of the act of supremacy, assumed that the king as sovereign chief of the Anglican church would have the right to Peter’s pence,°® but his interpretation of this statute did not take account of the specific termination of Peter’s pence in the earlier statute. Cromwell thought of having an act passed by parliament to substitute for Peter’s pence, which the 1nhabitants of this realm had been wont to pay to the pope ‘for every head or house, a certain small thing for and towards the defense of the realm,’ °°

but he never carried out the project. Within a few years after 1534 the clergy had ceased to collect Peter’s pence. In the annual expense accounts

of the priory of Thetford the payment of Romeschott for two of their impropriated churches is entered every year from 1520 to 1533, but no payments are noted in the accounts from 1534 to 1539.°° A statement of the revenues which the bishop of Lincoln could claim from an archdeacon, written after 1534, says: ‘For Peter-pence he can have nothing; quia non sunt.’ *' Some lords of manors who received Peter’s pence from their tenants may have continued to exact them for a time. Tenants of the manor of Dulwich paid them in January 1535. At a session of the manorial court in 54 Statutes of the Realm, III, 465, 471.

°> Churchwardens’ Accounts of St. Mary the Great Cambridge, ed. Foster, pp. 76-77. s6T & P., VIL, 1104. 57 Cotton MS., Titus B I, fo. 161. °° C.S.P. Spanish, V, pt. 1, p. 329; L. & P., VII, 1437. 5® Cotton MS. Titus B I, fo. 159V, 160; Merriman, Thomas Cromwell I, 134. °° Cambridge Univ. Lib., Addit. MS. 6969, fo. 157%, 165, 171%, 177%, 194¥, 202%, 209, 215%, 222, 229, 236, 242v, 248%, 255¥, 261%, 268v, 276.

* Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, VI, 251. :

Peter's Pence 9 April 1579 payment of them was revived after a long lapse,** but this was probably a most uncommon occurrence.

The promptitude with which the eighteen diocesan collectors who owed Peter’s pence to the pope delivered their payments annually to the papal collectors varied in the course of the period. During the reign of Edward II the payments were generally rendered on time and few were behindhand for more than a year or two, excepting brief periods. Itier de Concoreto, who was inefficient, left six debtors who were in arrears for three years or more.®* Bernard de Sistre recovered these arrears during his administration from 1335 to 1343, allowed the payments of only four payers to fall behind again as much as three years and at his death left only one payer more than two years in debt.** Raymond Pelegrini (1343-1349)

left only the bishop of Hereford indebted as long as three years,*° and during the collectorship of his brother Hugh (1349-1363) the majority paid on time, most of those who were tardy were only a year late and very few held back payments as many as three years.°° The story under John de Cabrespino was different. He was appointed on 15 June 1363 ® and took up the duties of his office on 1 September.** In a report which he rendered at the camera on 20 May 1366 ® the bishop

of Exeter was the only one who had delivered to the collector the quota of Peter’s pence due for 1365 and who owed only for 1366. Five owed their quotas for 1365 and 1366, seven for the three years from 1364 to 1366, and five for longer periods.’° His next account, which covered the period to 18 February 1368,"* displayed seven bishops and archdeacons still in debt for the years 1365 and 1366, three others who still had not paid * Young, History of Dulwich, Il, 295, 303. 68 Col. 227, fo. 1057-067.

®* Col. 227, fo. 105-111; Jensen, ‘Denarius Sancti Petri’, 7.R.H.S., new ser. XV, 206-20.

Col. 14, fo. 24.

°° Col. 14, fo. 52, 122; 11, fo. 2, 2¥.

CPL, IV, 28.

*§ Col. 11, fo. 2, 29.

°° Col. 11, fo. 160; 12, fo. 1, 3. ™ Col. 11, fo. 166, 166%; Jensen, op. cit., pp. 226-28. The inclusion of the payments due

from the diocesan collectors in 1366 as arrears in a report rendered 20 May 1366 was probably nominal. Most of the diocesan collectors did not receive Peter’s pence for the current year before Michaelmas. It was customary for the papal collector to issue after Michaelmas warnings to the diocesan collectors to make deliveries to him in the early part of the next year, below, pp. 18, 20-21. I have not discovered at what date John de Cabrespino demanded the render. His predecessors since 1327 had set various dates between 13 January and Easter fortnight: Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 204, 343, 458, Reg. Shrews-

bury (Wells), I, 77, 127, 259-60, 262; II, 11; Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 148-49; York, Reg. Melton fo. 27%, 52, 529, 535%; Salisbury, Reg. Mortivall, II, 259, 2757, Reg. Wyville,

I, fo. 10¥; Worcester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 17%; Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18; D. & Ch.

Canterbury, Reg. I, fo. 428. 71 Col. 12, fo. 1, 3.

10 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 for 1366 and none who had rendered a payment for 1367 or 1368. 7? When

John concluded his fourth and last report on 1 November 1370,7* this situation had been much improved. There was only one diocesan collector who was still in debt for a payment due in 1365 and only two for payments due in 1366. There were, however, five indebted for the four years from 1367 to 1370 and two for the three years from 1368 to 1370." The most probable explanation of the large amount of arrears which accumulate between 1365 and 1368 is that during 1365 and approximately the first half of 1366 the collector deliberately left the sums owed to the

papal camera in the hands of the debtors and did not attempt to collect them. The purpose was to avoid their impoundage by the royal government. ‘he arrest of the papal funds in the hands of the collector is attested by an undated passage in the second report of John de Cabrespino, which covered the period from 28 February 1364 to 20 May 1366. This report was written by John de Caroloco, prior of Bermondsey and later of Lewes,

whom the collector had appointed his locumtenens and deputy.”> John de Cabrespino left England on 28 February or 6 March 1364 7° and did not

return until the autumn of 1367." The passage reads: “The said John de Caroloco, locumtenens, delivered to Berengar Ferarii £11 for his expenses coming to the court and returning for the purpose of announcing an arrest placed on the moneys of the camera and for the purpose of learning the will of the camera whether the moneys owed to the camera in England should be received under the said arrest or should be left in the hands of the debtors.’ *® The arrest probably occurred early in 1365, since there is

a long gap in the assignments of money by the English collector to the camera from 3 January 1365 to 22 June 1366,” although the pope on 5 June 1365 ordered John de Cabrespino to assign 6000 florins to the factors

of the Alberti in London for transmission to the camera.°° The reason for the seizure was not explained by the collector. A possible cause may have been the papal demand for renewal of the payment of royal tribute 7 Col. 12, fo. 3, 3%, 22, 22%. The inclusion of arrears for 1368 was probably nominal. 73 Col. 12, fo. 587, 63. ™* Col. 12, fo. 63-65%, 95-96; Jensen, op. cit., pp. 231-34. 78 Col. 11, fo. 140, 160.

76 Col. 11, fo. 14, 140. The later date is the more probable. *" His absence is established by the following: Col. 11, 159V, 160, 1617; 114, fo. 53; I. & E. 303, fo. 63%; 321, fo. 10, 34; Kirsch, Die Ruckkehbr der Papste, pp. 27, 28, 32, 33, 40, 43, 55.

He was back in England by 20 November 1367: Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29.

| 78 Col. 11, fo. 161.

7° Col. 11, fo. 160, 160%; I. & E. 303, fo. 54, 63%. Both before and after this interval the assignments were more frequent: I. & E. 303, fo. 44, 63%; 305, fo. 35, 35%, 49; 321, fo. 10, 34, 50; 325, fo. 28; Col. 357, fo. 26-27; I. & E. 331, fo. 11, 21%, 58%; Col. 464, fo. 102, 102V, 104, 109°; 465, fo. 4.

CPL. IV, 18.

Peter's Pence 11 made on 6 June 1365.** If the camera chose to leave the money owed to it in England in the hands of the debtors, the arrears of Peter’s pence would

have accumulated during 1365 and part of 1366.82 The tardiness in the render of the Peter’s pence due in 1367 and 1368 presumably was caused by the previous stoppage. The arrears were being paid in 1367 and 1368, and it was not until 1370 that the majority of bishops and archdeacons caught up with the payments as they fell due currently. Another possible but less probable explanation of the arrears of Peter’s pence in 1365 and 1366 is that the parliament which was in session from 20 January to 17 February 1365 prohibited the payment of Peter’s pence to the pope. The evidence that such a prohibition was established in this parliament is highly inferential. John of Reading, a contemporary chronicler, would appear to have had a good opportunity to obtain information of the proceedings of this parliament, since it met in Westminster and he was a monk of Westminster. He wrote that in this parliament it was proposed (proponitur) that Peter’s pence should not be paid in the future.** He did not say that the proposal resulted in the enactment of an ordinance, statute, or decree, or that any decision was reached.** The author of the Brut, who borrowed his information concerning Peter’s pence from John

of Reading,*° was the one who said it was ordained that Peter’s pence should not be paid in the future.*® He seems to have misinterpreted his source. No such ordinance appears in the published rolls which relate to this parliament,*” but this negative evidence has little weight, since the rolls

do not always record all the business transacted in a given parliament. If such an ordinance was enacted, the resumption of the payment of Peter’s pence in 1366 indicates that it was soon revoked,** and of this there 1s likewise no evidence. The assumption of such an ordinance, moreover, does not explain why payment of the census owed by exempt and protected monasteries was also in a similar state of arrears in 1365 and 1366.8° The enactment of a prohibition of the payment of Peter’s pence to the pope ** Below, p. 69.

** An acquittance for payment of the Peter’s pence due from the archbishop of York for the years 1364 and 1365 was dated 24 October 1366: Reg. Thoresby, fo. 324. °° Chronica, p. 163.

** Tait, the editor of the Chronica, said: ‘Reading is the only original authority for a decision in the parliament of 1365 to withhold payment of Peter’s pence’, but he seems to have had some doubt about it. He said further: “The decision to discontinue the payment of Peter’s pence, if actually taken in 1365, was not ultimately carried into effect’; p. 322. ** ‘Tait introd. and notes to the Chronica, pp. 8-9, 49-50, 322.

°° Ed. Brie, p. 316. Tait even went so far as to say that this statement in the Brut was one of several passages ‘which are merely translations of Reading’. ** Rot. Parl., UH, 283-88, Rot. Parl. Anglie hactenus Inediti, pp. 273-78. °° Workman recognized this: Wyclif, I, 337. °° Col. 11, fo. 167.

12 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 by the parliament of 1365 seems extremely doubtful, though the chronicler’s statement that such action was proposed may well be true. Arnald Garneru, the collector who followed John de Cabrespino,®® brought the collection of Peter’s pence back to what previously had been normal.°* When he concluded his last report on 6 March 1378, only five of the eighteen diocesan collectors were in arrears and three of them owed only for the year 1376. All except two were recorded as in debt for the sums collected from the payers in 1377 and owed to the collector early in 1378, but this probably was technical rather than real. The date which Arnald customarily set for the render of Peter’s pence to him was a few days after Easter fortnight,°? and in 1378 Easter came on 18 April after Arnald had left England. Beginning with the reign of Richard II and lasting at least through the first quarter of the fifteenth century, several of the bishops and archdeacons who owed Peter’s pence to the papal collector were badly behind in their payments at one time or another. In 1381 the archbishop of York paid for the four years from 1377 to 1380,°* in 1385 the bishop of Hereford was in debt for five years,°* and in 1393 the archdeacon of Winchester had not paid what was due for the four preceding years.°® ‘The archdeacon of Ely began to fall behind in 1386. Though he succeeded in making some of the payments thereafter, by 1395 he was indebted for all the annual payments beginning in 1389.°* Late in 1399 the archdeacon of Surrey was cited to pay the annual sums due for four years and the archdeacon of Winchester for eleven years.°” Later the collector ordered the revenues of the archdeacon of Winchester to be sequestrated. The sequestration was finally relaxed on 31 May 1401,°° but the archdeacon continued to be cited from time to time thereafter until 1414.°® Walter Medford, who was collector from 1418 to 1420, summoned Robert Mascall, who was bishop of Hereford from 1404 to his death in 1416, to pay £6 owed for each of the years from 1411 to 1416 and £7 left in arrear by William Courtenay, who had been bishop of Hereford from 1370 to 1375.*° “The monumental example of arrears was provided by the archbishop of York. ‘The amount for which °° Col. 13, fo. 1, 2, 37; C.P.L., IV, 149. °1 Col. 12, fo. 2067-07, 208¥-09, 231-33; 13, fo. 2-3, 477-48.

°? Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 296-97, 324-25, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14. °? Reg. Neville, I, fo. 107%.

°* Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), p. 88. °° Wrykeham’s Reg., I, 437. °° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113, 1137; Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 119, 122. °°" Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 494-95. °8 Ihid., IL, 523, 525.

°° Tbid., II, 537, 550: Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, [, fo. 40¥. 10° HHarl. MS. 862, fo. 63%.

Peters Pence 13 he was responsible each year was £11 10 s. In 1410 Archbishop Bowet delivered £70 in part payment of the Peter’s pence owed to the camera by the church of York, in 1413 he paid £11 10 s. and in 1420 he rendered £187 in full and final payment of Peter’s pence owed by the church of York from 1386 to 1420 inclusive.1°! Yet in 1423, when he died, he was again

in debt for Peter’s pence.’ In the absence of the accounts of the collectors during this period, it must be left in doubt whether such delinquencies in payment as these examples provide were the rule or the exception. Documents of the same types as those which provide the information concerning these arrears display two instances of payments rendered when they were due and four

of arrears rendered for less than a period of four years.’°? Though this evidence is too fragmentary to establish the proportion between the diocesan collectors who were in arrear for their renders to the papal collector for long periods and those who were on time or within a year or two of it, the number of instances of long accumulations of arrears was not paralleled

during the reign of Edward IL, with the possible exception of the period from 1365 to 1368, and the length of some of the periods during which the annual payments ceased was without any precedent between 1327 and 1377.

The difference may be explained by the growth of opposition to the payment of Peter’s pence. As early as 1365 parliament received a proposal to stop the render of the due to the pope.*®* In the first parliament of the reign of Richard II, which assembled on 13 October 1377, a similar demand was considered. One petition presented to the king asked that it be declared in this parliament whether Peter’s pence will be levied and paid to the papal

collector or not. The answer was: ‘Let it be done as before has been the custom.’ 1°° Though the popular opposition, of which this petition was indicative, received no satisfaction from the king, it developed to a point where some of the bishops and archdeacons who owed Peter’s pence to the papal collector found it difficult to obtain the quotas due from subordinate

collectors, and these collectors, in turn, found it difficult to collect the pennies from those who owed them. Occasional instances of such opposition had occurred in one diocese or another at an earlier time,'®® but the 102 Reg. Bowet, I, fo. 72; If Gin vol. XVII), fo. 28, 36. Evidently payments other than these three had been made. *°? Below, pp. 22-23.

198 Wykeham’s Reg., Ul, 343; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 1147; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139, 139%; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 68, 76; Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 342. *°¢ Above, pp. 11-12.

195 Rot. Parl., Il, 21. 2°86 T unt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 71-74; H. M. C., Ninth Report, app. 1, 42, no. 1512; Reg. Corbridge (York), I, 100.

14 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 movement in this period was so much more serious and widespread that papal collectors began to intervene commonly, as they had never done _ before,*°’ to compel payment by payers and by parochial collectors. The earliest example of such intervention by a papal collector, which has come to my attention, was in 1410.*°® Marcellus de Strozis wrote to the archdeacon of Ely, whose payments to the papal collectors had been several years behind in 1395 and presumably were still in arrear in 1410. He explained that according to his information several ecclesiastical persons

and secular persons of both sexes in the archdeaconry detained Peter’s pence owed by them to the Roman church in past years and refused to pay them. He ordered the archdeacon to warn them, in the name of the apostolic see, to pay Peter’s pence owed by them in the past, the present or the future within a peremptory term to be fixed by him and to excommunicate those who should fail to pay within the prescribed period. If that sentence failed to produce the desired result, he was to use other ecclesiastical censures and sequestration of their goods. He was also to cite the delinquents to appear before the papal collector at his house in London on suitable dates set by him.’ The same collector, on 28 October 1410, wrote a similar letter to Bishop Rede of Chichester. The bishop, quoting the letter, explained to his sequestrator that the Peter’s pence owed to him in the name of the apostolic see on 1 August each year from the deaneries of Pagham and Chichester had been withdrawn for several years to his prejudice, since he had to satisfy the papal collector each year for these pence. He ordered the sequestrator to warn the dean of Pagham and the subdean of Chichester

to make full payment of the arrears within fifteen days of the warning under penalty of the greater excommunication. He commanded the dean of Pagham to collect the arrears and pay them to him by the next 13 January and authorized him to use ecclesiastical censures against those who

should be remiss. He ordered the subdean of Chichester to collect the Peter’s pence from the parishes in his jurisdiction, to suspend from the celebration of divine offices the rectors and curates who should fail to pay within fifteen days of his warning and to place their churches under interdict.

Even these vigorous measures were not entirely successful, and the bishop once again sought the help of the collector. On 18 March 1411 Marcellus appointed a commission of four members of the clergy attached

to the cathedral of Chichester and sent to them a list of churches and 7? Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 75-76. 108 The document is not dated. 10° Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74V¥.

Peter’s Pence 15 places from which, though Peter’s pence had been levied and paid from time immemorial, Adam Symound, the subdean, and his predecessors had been unable to exact Peter’s pence for the past twenty years. Since these refusals were contumacious and in contempt of the apostolic see, the collector, with the consent of the bishop, ordered the commission to direct the subdean to collect the arrears and pay them to the bishop, coercing those who should still refuse by sentences of excommunication, interdict and sequestration of the revenues of their benefices imposed by apostolic authority.**° On one aspect of the situation the bishop appealed directly to the pope who, in response, appointed a commission to investigate the charge of the bishop that many prelates, abbots, priors, convents, collegiate churches, colleges and certain individual persons refused to pay him Peter’s pence from lands that had come to them in mortmain.14 Walter Medford issued many letters of the general type employed by Marcellus de Strozis, but they contained some significant variations. One appointed a commission to summon three named vicars and two named chaplains of the diocese of Salisbury to appear before the collector at his house in London within twelve days of the citation prepared to pay the Peter’s pence which they owed to the archdeacon of Dorset and were detaining. Ecclesiastical censures would follow failure to obey.1?* Another ordered a similar summons to be served on the rector of Horsmonden, who was notorious for his detention of Peter’s pence owed annually to the

Roman church in the archdeaconry of Rochester, and the fruits of his church to be sequestrated.*** In the archdeaconry of Canterbury and in the diocese of Norwich all who subtracted and retained Peter’s pence which from old time was owed to the pope were to be suspended from office and

their parochial churches and any chantries, chapels and oratories within their parishes were to be placed under interdict. ‘They were also to be cited

to appear before the collector to render payment."* This form was directed against the local collectors of the pence; another was directed against

the payers of them. It was addressed to the official of the archdeacon of Fxeter and to all rural deans, rectors, vicars, chaplains and other spiritual persons within the archdeaconry. It instructed them to have cited personally in their places of habitation all who were detaining Peter’s pence to appear before the collector or his locumtenens in the church of St Frideswide Oxford on next 14 November, under penalty of excommunication,

™° Reg. Rede, I, 134; II, 412-13. 1 CPL. VI, 305. ™? Harl MS. 862, fo. 72, 727, 73¥. 18 Thid., fo. 64. 114 Ibid. fo. 62%, 63, 657.

16 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to give satisfaction or to show legal reason why they should not pay. Another summons of this type was addressed to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Oxford.1?®

Some local collectors issued similar documents during this period. The abbot of Saint Albans, who received the Peter’s pence owed in the numerous parishes in his jurisdiction, on 3 June 1405, ordered the rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains to warn their parishioners to pay one penny from each house within their parishes, commonly called Peter’s penny, within fifteen days of the day of their warning, under penalty of the greater excommunication. The mandate was issued because in some parishes Peter’s

pence were not being paid. The abbot apparently was not satisfied with the result, for in 1410 he obtained from Alexander V two bulls. One, dated 8 March, was addressed to all established clergy in the land of Saint Albans. It ordered them, because they had been remiss in the collection of Peter’s pence, to collect them with diligence. Failure would bring the pope’s displeasure and his ratification of any sentence the abbot might place upon them. The other, dated 30 March, was addressed to the parishioners who had failed to pay the pennies. It directed them to pay on the prescribed date under similar penalties.**® In 1424 the vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln wrote to the archdeacons of the diocese.’*” He said that Peter’s pence was not being collected by many curates of parishes on whom

its collection fell and by other people *** who were held to collect it or pay it and refused to do either. He, therefore, ordered the archdeacons to warn the curates and other people to levy and pay the Peter’s pence or have

sentence of major excommunication imposed upon them. Manifestly popular opposition to the local payment and collection of Peter’s pence existed in many parts of England. What success the papal collectors had in the collection of Peter’s pence during the remainder of the fifteenth century is rendered problematical by

the paucity of evidence. For the second and the fourth quarters of the century any evidence which may exist has escaped my search and the evidence in the third quarter is scant. Three acquittances issued by Vincent Clement between 1451 and 1455 display Peter’s pence paid for the dioceses of Hereford and Lichfield in the year it was due or in the next year.**® On 31 December 1465 the papal camera received for the Peter’s pence collected 115 Ibid. fo. 63, 659. 116 Gesta Abbatum, III, 505-09.

1177 incoln, Reg. Fleming, fo. 229. The letter is not dated, but it is among the letters of 1424. It is not addressed to any specific archdeacon. It is apparently a form of a letter to be sent to all archdeacons. +28 ‘alios populares’.

119 Reg, Boulers (Hereford), p. 8; Lichfield, Reg. Boulers, fo. 66, 68.

Peter’s Pence 17 by him in a period of fifteen months 1500 florins,!?° which was the equivalent of £250.12? This evidence indicates that Peter’s pence was being delivered to the collector without undue delay, but there is hardly enough of It to justify a conclusion that this was generally true during the whole of

the third quarter of the century. During the sixteenth century the evidence is more plentiful. There are nine acquittances issued by five papal collectors to bishops or archdeacons of the four dioceses of Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln and Rochester, extending chronologically from 1506 to 1529.1*? All except one represent payments made when due, and the exception was only one year late. There are also records of payments made to the collector currently from Exeter and from Bath and Wells in 1504 and from Hereford in 1516.122 On 3 March 1515 Polydore Virgil, who was deputy collector, wrote to Hadrian, cardinal of 5 Crisogono, who was the collector, that few would pay Peter’s pence, because they wished to wait until the dispute over the collectorship had been settled.*** Since 1514 Henry VIII and Wolsey had been trying to persuade Leo X to supersede Hadrian, who had become persona non grata to them, and the pope was loath to comply.’”® The difference was finally compromised on 2 June 1515 by allowing Hadrian to retain the title of collector and having him appoint Andrew Ammonio, Henry’s candidate for the office, deputy collector.***® The delay was, therefore, only temporary.’*” It seems probable that in the sixteenth century, as long as the papacy received Peter’s pence, the annual payments were rendered with reasonable regularity to the papal collector. Evidence concerning the continuance or discontinuance of the popular opposition to the payment of Peter’s pence is almost entirely lacking for the whole of the period after 1425. The only letter of the type that was so common in the late years of the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth, which has come to my notice, was a papal bull addressed to 12071 & E. 463, fo. 73.

2 Calculated at the rate of 3 s. 4 d. for each florin, which was the rate of exchange in 1453: Flynn, ‘Englishmen in Rome’, Modern Philology, XXXVI, 130. +2? Exeter, Reg. Oldham, fo. 1357; MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 687%; Reg. Bothe (Hereford) pp. 33, 74; Archives of St. John’s College Cambridge, five acquittances. 128 Lamb., Reg. Warham, fo. 203%, 216’, 272. 1247. @& P., Il, pt. 1, 2150. 257 o& P., I, 5332, 5457, 5458, 5538, 5651, 5662, 5663, 5665, 5666, 5670-72, 5702, 5706; IT, pt. 1, 12, 238, 268, 269, 312, 491, 558, 574, 635, 865, 926, Cotton MS. Vitel. B II, fo. 114, 120, 128, 131-33, 135%; 136, 138, 147, 157, 158; Jensen, ‘Denarius Sancti Petri’, T.R.H.S., new ser. XIX, 275-76. °° Reg. Vat. 1196, fo. 85-86¥.

**7 Arrowsmith, relying on two instances of prolonged arrears in 1399 and this statement of Polydore which he quotes in part without indication that the nonpayment was temporary, concludes that Peter’s pence was paid very irregularly throughout the whole period after 1395: Prelude, pp. 83-84.

18 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the bishop of Lichfield and the abbot of St Werburgh Chester by Sixtus IV on 8 June 1481.*°* He explained that there had been a failure to pay Peter’s pence in the archdeaconries of the diocese of Lichfield and ordered them to compel payment.

In the administrative methods employed by the papal collectors to obtain payment of Peter’s pence from the bishops and archdeacons who owed it to the pope there was no fundamental innovation in this period other than the previously mentioned assistance given by the papal collectors

to the diocesan collectors by means of compulsory processes against the payers and parochial collectors of the due. Sometime in the autumn after Michaelmas the collector sent to each bishop a letter in which he might command the bishop,’*® but more frequently asked and warned him,**° to pay at the collector’s house in London at some date early in the next year the Peter’s pence due since his last payment. The date varied from 13 January to the fortnight after Easter.*** It was said to be a peremptory term assigned to the bishop with a canonical warning. Hugh of AngouIéme threatened ecclesiastical censures for failure to make delivery on time.**? Itier de Concoreto put it more tactfully by asking the bishop so to act that he would not have to proceed against him but instead could commend him to the pope.*** More commonly the collector made no open or implied threat of censure.*** The use of the threat by Raymond Pelegrini against the bishop of Hereford in 1348 was exceptional, even though the bishop had not paid for four years.*** The collector usually asked the bishop also to certify him immediately of the receipt of the letter."** Late in the fourteenth century the notice sent to the bishops became more informal. The collector merely reminded the bishop that he ought to send Peter’s pence which he owed before a certain date. The date was not said to be a peremptory term nor was there any threat of the use of ecclesiastical censures. Often the notice was a brief statement in a letter which was concerned chiefly with the application by the bishop of citation, censure or sequestration to those in the diocese who owed annates, census or the collector’s procurations.**” 78 Reg. Vat. 610, fo. 24, 247. 12° F’. g. Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 343; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 529, 535%. 89 FY, g. Reg. Grandisson, 1, 457-58, Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 148-49, Salisbury, Reg. Mortivall, I, fo. 275%; I, fo. 259, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18. *8? Above, p. 9, n. 70. *82 Reg. Grandisson, I, 343. 138 Ibid., I, 458.

+84 Fg. Reg. Trillek, pp. 148-49, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18. *8° Reg. Trillek, p. 136. 786 Fg. Reg. Grandisson, I, 343, 458. 87 FY, g. Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 297, 325, Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 86-88; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 114¥, 115.

Peter’s Pence 19 The collectors do not seem to have pressed the bishops unduly for their

payments. If a bishop asked to have a postponement of the date of payment, the request was granted."?* It may be doubted if any of the infrequent threats of ecclesiastical censures for failure to pay on time was ever

carried out for the purpose of forcing a bishop to pay Peter’s pence. Though a collector’s commission gave him the power to issue such sentences against opponents and delinquent debtors of any grade in the hierarchy, he appears to have been expected to use discretion and restraint in applying them to bishops.’*® Indeed there seems to have been a tacit under-

standing that the dignity of a bishop ought to protect him from such an extreme measure on the part of the collector, if used merely to compel the render of Peter’s pence at any given date. John Grandisson, bishop of Fxeter, claimed nightly or wrongly that compulsory power could not be used for that purpose, because the law fixed no date when Peter’s pence had to be received or paid by a bishop.’*° If, as he implied, the locumtenens of Bernard de Sistre threatened him with deposition and degradation from office for failure to execute a mandate as the locumtenens thought it ought

to be done, he quite rightly expressed his disbelief that the locumtenens had a sufficient commission to impose such a penalty.**? The commission of Bernard gave him no such power and no collector whose commission is extant received such power during the whole of the period.**

The collectors dealt with the archdeacons who owed Peter’s pence directly to the cameras in a different spirit. They did not send their citations to the archdeacons, but ordered the bishops to warn their archdeacons

peremptorily to pay the Peter’s pence owed by them at the collector’s residence in London before a stated day.*** Customarily the date was set within the first four months in the year, unless the archdeacon was in arrear, when it might be any time in the year. If an archdeacon was indebted only for the current year, and sometimes if he was no more than a year behind, the collector did not ask the bishop to make any threat of ecclesiastical censures in his warning to the archdeacon.*** If an archdeacon was in 188 Reg, Grandisson, I, 204, 220, 344; Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 72v. 189 Samaran and Mollat note the excommunication of a French bishop by a collector between 1335 and 1342 for failure to pay his debts to the camera: La Fiscalité pontificale,

p 1? Reg Grandisson, 1, 299. 141 Ibid. I, 298.

+42For the customary formulae with regard to ecclesiastical penalties in most of the commissions issued after 1379 see Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 203.

48D). & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. I, fo. 428; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 32%; Wykeham’s Reg. Il, 366, 523, 537: Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25*¥, 40*; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14, 83%, 84, 113, 113”; Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 119, 122, 129, 129%; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139, 139V.

*44D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. I, fo. 428, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14, 147, 83%, 84; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 343.

20 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 arrear, the collector more commonly instructed the bishop to state in his warning that failure to pay the debt at a specified date would result in ecclesiastical censures, unless the archdeacon could explain satisfactorily why he should not do so. Sometimes the censures were not particularized,’*° but the usual threat was excommunication.!4® On one occasion James Dardani, after he and his predecessor in the collector’s office had threatened the archdeacon of Ely with excommunication repeatedly,**? cited the archdeacon to appear and pay what he owed within five months under penalty for failure not only of excommunication but also of suspension from the exercise of archdiaconal jurisdiction.’** Often the collector ordered a bishop to warn a delinquent archdeacon and at the same time to sesquestrate the fruits of his benefices. The collector might wait

for the application of sequestration until the archdeacon had failed to render payment at the date prescribed, but usually sequestration was employed sooner or later.*** The sentences of excommunication and sequestration issued by the collectors were put into effect by the bishops.*°° Neither warnings nor mandates issued by the collectors for the payment of Peter’s pence after 1414 have come to hand, but the acquittances for current payments *** indicate that the date for the annual delivery of Peter’s pence to the papal collector remained the same until the renders ceased in 1534. Most of them are dated between 4 January and 15 February of the year after the payment was made by the taxpayers, two were issued in July of the year after, another on 29 February 1520 for the Peter’s pence of 1518, and two on 29 November 1523 and 1529 for Peter’s pence paid by the taxpayers in the same year. Statements made by Peter Griphus in his treatise on the collector’s office, written about 1511, seem to run counter to this conclusion. He gives 29 June, the festival of Sts Peter and Paul, as the date when Peter’s pence ought to be paid by the debtors to the local collectors and by the diocesan collectors to the papal collector.*°? In tracing the history of Peter’s pence he says that before the year 1000 the rectors and vicars collected the pennies in the week after 27 March and the diocesan collectors +45 Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 32v. #6 Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 119, 122, 129; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139, 139’; Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25*, 40*. “47 Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113, 113%; Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 119. 481 February 1395: Reg. Fordham, fo. 122. *#° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113, 113%; Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 119, 122, 129, 129%; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 437; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139, 139V. *°° Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32%; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 191, 243, 244, 525; Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25*v. *5? Listed above, pp. 16-17. 152 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 39-41.

Peter's Pence 21 paid the papal collector on 29 June.1®? The twenty-ninth of June, however, was not the date when Peter’s pence was due either from the payers or from the diocesan collectors in early times or in the sixteenth century. The only mention of that date for the payment of Peter’s pence in the Anglo-Saxon Jaws is found in a Latin version of a set of Ethelred’s laws.1®4 The original Anglo-Saxon version of this passage gives as the date Peter’s

mass (St Peter in Chains), which was 1 August,?®® and all of the severa! other Anglo-Saxon laws which name the date agree on 1 August.1°* There is an entry in a compilation of laws, made probably late in the thirteenth century or early in the fourteenth, which designates 29 June as the term when householders paid Peter’s pence.1®” The entry appears to be a garbled version of a chapter in the laws of Edward the Confessor which states that the demand for render of Peter’s pence ought to be made on 29 June and that the payer could not delay payment of the penny beyond 1 August."** After 1327, though Peter’s pence was due from the payers at Eastertide

in some parts of England, the first of August was still much the more common date.?°°

In dioceses where this was the date, the diocesan collectors could not receive the proceeds by 29 June and usually did not receive them until Michaelmas or after.'®° The papal collectors, therefore, allowed a few months for their demands for render of the sums due the pope to reach the diocesan collectors and for them to make delivery in London. Peter Griphus admitted that the papal collector did not receive the Peter’s pence due from the diocesan collectors until the end of the year after they were due from the payers.*® Since the end of the year was then 24 March, it was by the reckoning of the present time the fore part of the year after the payers had paid their pennies. On account of a mistaken bit of antiquarianism with regard to 29 June, he attributed this delay to the excessive indulgence of the papal collectors. Actually it was a practice governed by the much later date at which most diocesan collectors received Peter’s pence. When a bishop or an archdeacon died owing Peter’s pence to the pope,

the collector might order sequestration of his goods to recover the amount 158 Ibid. fo. 5¥.

*®“ Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 253. 185 Ibid. I, 252.

°° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 22. *7 Harl. MS. 667, fo. 256. *°® Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 634. *°? Below, pp. 50-51.

*8t MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 39.

+89 Tbid.

22 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 due.*®* On 30 December 1338, just a week after the death of Thomas Hemenhale, bishop of Worcester, Bernard de Sistre ordered the prior of Worcester to sequestrate the goods of the deceased bishop for Peter’s pence

and other sums which the bishop owed to the camera. The prior acted promptly, but he found the king’s escheator in possession on account of debts which the bishop owed to the exchequer.’® Eventually Bernard recovered the sum owed for 1338 from the goods of the bishop located in his manor of Hillingdon near London. The amount due in 1339 was paid partly from the same source and partly by the new bishop.*** Presumably part of the Peter’s pence due the collector early in 1339 had been received by Thomas after Michaelmas in 1338 and the remainder was received by his successor. More commonly the collectors sought the debt from the executors of the deceased prelate.1®° They treated the executors in the same way they treated the archdeacons. Sometimes a collector merely warned executors to deliver the amount due at his residence in London before a certain date.*°° The warning might be accompanied with the threat of excommunication unless the executors appeared before the expiration of the term assigned and either paid or produced valid reasons for not paying, and sometimes sequestration might be applied to the goods of the executors.*®" In one instance executors who were summoned by Walter Medford were able to provide satisfactory reasons for nonpayment. They

were the executors of Alexander, bishop of Norwich, who died in 1413. They were cited to pay the Peter’s pence owed by the deceased bishop for the years 1407 to 1411 inclusive. They appeared and displayed acquittances

issued by previous collectors to Bishop Alexander for all the payments in question. Walter forthwith absolved them of the process he had instituted against them.*®* Nicholas Bildeston, archdeacon of Winchester, acting as the locumtenens of Simon of ‘Teramo, issued a variant from the customary form of summons. On 24 February 1425 he ordered the keeper of the spiritualities of the archbishopric of York, the see being vacant, not to excommunicate Henry Bowet, archdeacon of Richmond and executor of Henry Bowet, who had been bishop of Bath and Wells from 1401 to 1407 and thereafter archbishop of York until his death on 20 October 1423, but to warn the archdeacon for contumacy, to denounce him and to cite him 162 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 619. *°° Worcester Sede Vacante Reg., pp. 266-67. *84 Col. 227, fo. 108%, 109¥.

*®° Col. 227, fo. 105%, 107, 107%, 109, 109%; 11, fo. 2; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 114v.

*°¢ Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 114%; Thompson, ‘Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York in Gloucestershire’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans. XLIII, 157. *®? Harl. MS. 862, fo. 63%; Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 33. 188 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 65. One of the executors was William Paston.

Peter's Pence 23 to come before the collector in London before 1 May prepared to pay from the temporalities of the archbishop the Peter’s pence which the deceased archbishop owed for Bath and Wells and for York. Meanwhile the revenues of the archdeacon were to be sequestrated.1®

A collector who attempted to recover Peter’s pence from the goods of a deceased prelate might meet difficulties of types other than that encountered by Bernard de Sistre. Lewis, bishop of Volterra, shortly before 29 October 1399 ordered the bishop of Winchester to summon the archdeacon of Surrey to pay Peter’s pence for the years from 1395 to 1399 inclusive. On 23 March 1400 the bishop replied that the archdeacon was dead and that his executors, John Newe and John Saunder, had not been summoned because they could not be found.’”° If a collector failed to recover the Peter’s pence owed by a deceased prelate from his goods, the prelate’s successor became responsible for the debt.*7* Sometime between

1418 and 1420 Walter Medford claimed from the executors of Robert Mascall, bishop of Hereford, who died in 1416, £7 of Peter’s pence which had been owed by William Courtenay when he had been bishop of Hereford.1"? He had been translated from Hereford to London in 1375, thence to Canterbury in 1381, and he had died in 1396. In 1420, when Henry Bowet, archbishop of York, paid £187 for the balance of Peter’s pence due from 1386 to 1420 inclusive,"* he was paying in part debts left by his predecessors, since he did not become archbishop until 1407. If a see was vacant when Peter’s pence fell due, the collectors looked

to the keepers of the spiritualities for payment. They might be in the custody of the dean and chapter,*’* or of the archbishop of Canterbury.*”°

If a bishop was translated, he remained responsible for payment of any Peter’s pence which he owed for the see from which he was translated.**® If the collector did not succeed in recovering such a debt from the trans-

lated bishop or from his estate after his decease, the successors of the bishop in the bishopric from which he had been translated were liable for the payment, as in the case of William Courtenay. When Philip Repingdon

was provided to Lincoln on 19 November 1404, he petitioned the pope that neither he nor his church should be disturbed for the several sums *6° York, Sede Vacante Reg., fo. 382. 179 Wykebam’s Reg., Ul, 494-95. 171 Col. 12, fo. 206%, 232. *72 Above, pp. 12-13. 73 Thid,

174 Col. 227, fo. 110, 110%; MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 69.

*7° Col. II, fo. 20, Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 228, 335; Reg. Kemp, fo. 338; Reg. Morton, II fo. 61, 156, 186%; Reg. Warham, fo. 203%, 213, 216%, 272, 275v; Somerset House, Reg. Deane

in Reg. Blamyr, fo. 14, 15; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F., fo. 163%, 271, 283¥, 288. *7 Col. 227, fo. 106, 108, 12, fo. 3%, 206%, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18, 18.

24 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of Peter’s pence for which Henry Beaufort, his immediate predecessor who had been translated to Winchester, was indebted to the camera for the time when he was bishop of Lincoln, since Henry retained them and was able to pay them. The camerarius, acting on the viva voce statement of the pope, absolved Philip and his church and ordered the collector not to molest Philip with regard to them." If a bishop or an archdeacon had a grievance against a papal collector for the manner in which he enforced payment of Peter’s pence, his only remedy was an appeal to the pope or the camera. Bishop Grandisson of Exeter, when he thought that the locumentens of Bernard de Sistre had exceeded his powers, did not appeal to the pope, but he proposed to consult his friends at the papal court with regard to it.17* In 1424 Richard Corden, who was archdeacon of Rochester and an advocate of the papal consistory, petitioned the camerarius against Simon of Teramo, the papal collector in England, who was also a consistorial advocate at the papal court.’”® He claimed that he had paid to the collector every year the Peter’s pence due from his archdeaconry. Yet, when he was staying in the Roman court, Simon proceeded against him to collect it, putting him under excommunication and ordering his revenues sequestrated. He had appealed, but

the sentences were kept in effect. He therefore asked the camerarius to absolve him provisionally. On 30 October the camerarius complied and also ordered the sequestration lifted.**° A few days later he committed the case to the bishop of Rochester. ‘The bishop was to find out how much

the archdeacon owed each year, whether he had paid every year and whether he ought to pay anything owed from the time of his predecessors. The bishop was given power to cite persons and to compel them by censures to give evidence and to exhibit writings before him. He was to send to the camerarius a record of what took place and copies of the acquittances.1®** On 9 May 1425 the camerarius transferred the case to John

de Obizis, an auditor of causes in the sacred palace, who had recently superseded Simon of Teramo as collector in England.**? John was commissioned to terminate the case for the camera.'** As so often happens in

this type of record, we are not informed of the decision which John reached. Since the camerarius, on 28 July 1425, accused Simon of having failed in his duties as collector and of having usurped and detained illegally 7718 December 1404; Reg. Renington, fo. 1. *78 15 May, 1337: Reg., I, 298.

9 CPL. VII, 2.

189 Arm. XXIX, 8, fo. 236, 236Y. 181 Tid. fo. 238, 238°.

182 3 March 1425: Rome, Archivio di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1866, fo. 91V. 188 Arm. XXIX, 9, fo. 59, 59.

Peter's Pence 25 goods belonging to the pope and camera, and the pope had ordered his arrest,*** it seems reasonable to entertain the suspicion that Simon was try-

ing to levy from the archdeacon instalments of Peter’s pence which he had already paid. 2. LocaL ADMINISTRATION

The bishops who owed Peter’s pence to the papal collector usually sent mandates annually to their archdeacons and to others who owed Peter’s pence to them to collect the money from the local collectors or from the payers and to deliver it by a certain date. The order might be sent soon after the payment was due to the archdeacons or other collectors

who rendered Peter’s pence to the bishop, or it might be delayed until the bishop received the papal collector’s demand for payment. The correspondence of John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter, illustrates both practices. On 31 May 1328 he wrote to three archdeacons and to the official of the peculiar. He quoted a letter of Hugh of Angouléme, dated 23 February 1328, ordering him to deliver the Peter’s pence which he owed to the pope at Hugh’s house in London before 17 April. The bishop commanded each archdeacon to collect any Peter’s pence due in his archdeaconry from those who owed Peter’s pence since the last payment had been made, using ecclesiastical censures when necessary to compel payment in full, and to deliver the receipts to him before 6 July, to which

date he had secured extension of the term allowed for his render to the collector. On 28 June he wrote again threatening the archdeacons

with excommunication, if they should fail to carry out the mandate.** After he had made this payment to the collector **® and before he had received any demand for the next annual payment, on 10 October 1328, he wrote to the same officials and ordered them, because the annual payment of Peter’s pence had been due in the diocese at Michaelmas, to collect

Peter’s pence in accordance with the same terms that were stated in his letter of the previous 31 May and to deliver the proceeds to him before the next 8 November.'®*’ This mandate does not appear to have been supplemented by any threat of ecclesiastical censures against the archdeacons. On 29 December, after he had received a citation from Itier de Concoreto to deliver Peter’s pence in London before 2 February 1329, he sent an order to the archdeacons to levy any Peter’s pence still owed and to deliver the money to him before 29 January. This time he told the *85 Reg. I, 343-44, 351-52.

8°17 July: Reg., I, 360. 187 Reg. 1, 408-09.

26 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 archdeacons to use ecclesiastical censures, if necessary against both ecclesi-

astical and secular persons. They would include the vicars, parsons and probably the rural deans who collected the pennies locally as well as the laymen who owed them. The archdeacons, if they failed to execute the mandate, he proposed to report to the pope and the apostolic see.1®*

The mandates of the bishop of Exeter for the collection and delivery of Peter’s pence are typical of those issued by other bishops for the same purpose. Such a mandate might include a threat of ecclesiastical censures for failure of obedience,’®® or it might not,’®® though the power of the

bishop to enforce his mandate with censures was a matter of custom whether it was stated explicitly or not. John de Trillek, bishop of Hereford, like John de Grandisson, sometimes used the threat and sometimes

did not. On 21 July 1348 Raymond Pelegrini warned him to pay the Peter’s pence due from his diocese for the years from 1344 to 1347 inclu-

sive or to expect ecclesiastical censures. The bishop ordered the archdeacons to collect the Peter’s pence demanded by the collector which had not yet been paid and to deliver what they obtained to him before 24 August. He said nothing of censures, though he himself had been threatened with them.’®* On 12 November 1349 Hugh Pelegrini demanded of the

bishop payment of Peter’s pence due for the years from 1346 to 1349 inclusive before 13 January 1350, without mention of penalties. This time the bishop ordered the collection and delivery of the arrears within thirtysix days under pain of greater excommunication.**” The bishops frequently ordered the use of ecclesiastical censures and sequestration against payers and local collectors who were behindhand in the payment of Peter’s pence. On 23 July 1335 the bishop of Lincoln in-

structed the collector in the archdeaconry of Northampton to compel with censures the detainers and occupiers of Peter’s pence owed at the last Easter.?°* Sometimes the terms were stiffer than these. In 1346 the arch-

bishop of York commanded the official of the vacant archdeaconry of Richmond to warn the rural deans and others who collected the revenues of the archdeacon to pay the receipts from Peter’s pence and synodals to the archbishop’s representative within eight days or to be excommunicated and suspended from their churches."** Bishop Buckingham of Lincoln, in 1385, made the period within which debtors for Peter’s pence in the *88 Reg., I, 439.

*°° Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 8, 88. *°° Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 20, 127; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, H, fo. 18. *°? Reg., p. 136. *°? Reg., p. 148.

*°? Reg. Burghersh, fo. 506.

*°*10 February: Reg. la Zouche, fo. 67’.

Peter’s Pence 27 archdeaconry of Lincoln, whom he listed, had to pay their debts or incur the greater excommunication six days.’*°

A bishop sometimes addressed himself directly to the local collectors and payers. On 9 July 1338 the vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln, on the petition of William Whittlesey, archdeacon of Huntingdon, issued a mandate to the archdeacon’s official and to the rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains of the archdeaconry. He explained that the archdeacon was the collector of Peter’s pence which he paid to the bishop. By custom those who did not pay could be compelled. The priests, who were the customary subcollectors, of late years had paid so little to the archdeacon that he had not had enough to pay what he owed to the bishop. In order to provide a remedy he ordered all of them, under penalty of greater excommunication, to warn their subjects who owed Peter’s pence to pay it within a term fixed peremptorily by each of them and to place ecclesiastical censure on those who did not pay before the date set, or who refused to pay. He instructed further the rural deans, rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains to deliver in full to the archdeacon what they received by virtue of their oaths of obedience and under pain of greater excommunication. He told them also to list individually the heads or single houses, and to cite those not paying to appear before him at the cathedral of Lincoln within twenty days.*°® In the fifteenth century sequestration for not paying Peter’s pence was so common that an order for it was included in a formulary. A commissioner

general of a bishop directed his apparitor to sequestrate the fruits and revenues of those whom he had named in the rural deanery of Newport as owing Peter’s pence and synodals to the bishop until the debts had been

satisfied." The archdeacons were primarily responsible for the actual collection of Peter’s pence in all of the dioceses where it was levied. ‘The collection belonged to them ‘de consuetudine.’ 1° In the dioceses of Canterbury, Rochester, London, Winchester and Ely the archdeacons not only levied Peter’s pence but they also delivered to the papal collector what was due from their respective archdeaconries. Any orders which they received

with regard to the collection or delivery of the money came to them through their bishops but originated with the papal collector.? On occa© Reg., fo. 314%. The list is not given. *°° Reg. Burghersh, fo. 561%, 562. 197 Harl. MS. 2179, fo. 28". I read the document previously as E(piscopi) de L(ondonia):

Papal Revenues, Il, 81. It may be E(piscopi) de C(oventre). 198 Statement made by the bishop of Winchester on 17 June 1349 concerning the archdeacon of Winchester: Reg. Edington, II, fo. 21. There is a similar statement concerning an archdeacon in the bishopric of Lincoln: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 561¥. *°° Above pp. 19-20.

28 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sion, however, they might receive assistance from their bishops in the work of collection. The bishop of Winchester, for example, ordered his official to act for him in compelling all holders of benefices in the archdeaconry of Winchester which were exempt from archidiaconal jurisdiction to pay Peter’s pence to the archdeacon notwithstanding the exemption.?°°

In the dioceses of Chichester,?°! Salisbury,?°? Exeter,?°* Bath and Wells,?°* Worcester,” Hereford,?°* Lichfield,?°? Lincoln,?°® Norwich,?% and York **° the archdeacons collected Peter’s pence subject to the orders

of their bishops and were liable each year for delivery to their bishops of

sums which were generally fixed in amount. Though they had ample authority to compel rural deans, rectors, vicars and other local collectors

| to render Peter’s pence which they owed,”** they sometimes sought to have their coercive powers supplemented by those of the bishop or of the papal collector.**?

In several dioceses there were areas in which Peter’s pence was collected and paid to the bishop by someone other than an archdeacon. It was common for a cathedral chapter or the dean or some other official of the chapter to collect the due in the parishes of the cathedral city or °° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 21. 2°? An entry in a cartulary compiled mainly in the thirteenth century (Liber Y and also in Liber K) states that of the Peter’s pence levied in the archdeaconry of Chichester the bishop received £3 10 s. and the archdeacon £1 15 s. 2d.: Chart. High Church of Chichester, p. 178, Bishop’s Registry, Liber Y, fo. 158%. The archdeacon probably would not have received a share of the proceeds, if he had not had a part in collecting them. A list of Peter’s pence due from each rural deanery in the diocese, written probably in the fourteenth century, is headed: ‘Denarii dominorum pape et episcopi in diocesi Cicestrensi per decanos colligendi et episcopo solvendi’: Bishop’s Registry, Liber E, fo. 261; Chart. High Church of Chichester, pp. 336-37; Reg. Rede, Il, 415, n. This may indicate that the deans paid what they collected directly to the bishop, but they may have paid through the archdeacons, as was the custom in most other dioceses. 2°? Harl. MS. 862, fo. 72, 72V. *°8 [bid., fo. 63; Reg. Grandisson, I, 298, 343, 408, 409; Oliver, Monasticon, p. 283, Lamb.

Reg. Warham, fo. 213; D. & Ch. Exeter, 3672, p. 2. *°£D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F., fo. 283%, below, p. 52. *°° Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18; Addit. MS. 37503, fo. 44. Some of the evidence seems to indicate that the rural deans accounted directly to the bishop: Sede Vacante Reg., p. 150; Reg. Brian, I, fo. 2; Reg. Wakefield, fo. 140v. *°* Reg. Trillek, pp. 148-49, Lamb., Reg. Warham, fo. 272. *°7 Reg. Stretton, I, 156; Lamb. Reg. Morton, I, 156; Jeayes, Descriptive Catalogue of Charters of Marquis of Anglesey, no. 661. °° Reg. Burghersh, fo. 561¥, 562; Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 727, 3147; Reg. Fleming, fo. 229; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 65, Chapter Acts of Lincoln, 1520-1536, p. 39; L. & P., VI, 1401. *°° Norwich Diocesan Registry, Domesday Book of Norwich; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F., fo. 1639. *"’ Reg. Honoris de Richmond, app. pp. 62-63; Reg. la Zouche, fo. 679. “*" Dansey, Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424, Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 81. In the arch-

deaconry of Norwich a rural dean who failed to deliver the Peter’s pence owed from his deanery to the archdeacon at Michaelmas had to pay double: Inventory of Church Goods, pp. 34, 44. 72 Above, pp. 13-15, 26 seg.

Peter's Pence 29 in the lands belonging to the chapter or under its jurisdiction and pay a portion of the receipts to the bishop.*** Some monasteries appear to have paid the Peter’s pence due from their impropriated churches or their manors directly to the bishop.?"* There were places exempt from archidiaconal jurisdiction which, un-

like those of the archdeaconry of Winchester, paid no Peter’s pence to the archdeacon. There were several such parishes in the diocese of Ely.**° In the archdeaconry of Norfolk the parishes of Sedgeford and Thornham owed no Peter’s pence to the rural dean of Heacham. One was on a manor of the prior and convent of Norwich and the other was on a

manor of the bishop. Both were consequently exempt from visitation by the archdeacon.??* Here and in several other dioceses there were parishes which paid no Peter’s pence for reasons which are not explained.*** In the

archdeaconry of Norwich were two rural deaneries from which Peter’s

pence was not paid to the archdeacon.?** The prior of St Oswald Gloucester, which was a royal chapel under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of York, paid Peter’s pence to the dean of Churchdown, but the dean, instead of delivering the money to the archdeacon of Gloucester or to the bishop of Worcester, sent it to the archbishop of York.?1® The abbot of St Albans collected the Peter’s pence owed by the parishioners on the lands of the abbey and kept the proceeds.”*° The abbot of Selby did likewise in the parish of Selby.??* Despite such exceptions as these examples

illustrate, the inhabitants of parishes ordinarily paid Peter’s pence, of which the main portion was delivered by the collectors to the archdeacons. The principal local collectors with whom the archdeacons dealt were

the rural deans. In the dioceses of Bath and Wells,??? Canterbury,’** 18 Hereford, Reg. Swinfield, pp. 340, 470, 471; Lamb. Reg. Warham, fo. 272; Chichester, Reg. Rede, Il, 414; Lichfield, D. & Ch., Roll M. 4, mem. 5; Lamb., Reg. Morton, I, fo. 61, York, D. & Ch. Chapter Act Book 1345-50, fo. 21, 22%; Exeter, Reg. Grandisson, I, 343, D. & Ch. 3551 (Chapter Act Book II), fo. 319; Salisbury, H. M. C., Cal. MSS. of D. & Ch. Wells, I, 30. *“* Chart of Cockersand, Ill, pt. 2, 1073. 2° Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis, pp. xxii, XXiil. 26 Norwich Diocesan Registry, Domesday Book of Norwich. There were, however, other parishes exempt from archidiaconal visitation which paid Peter’s pence. 7 Ibid.; Inventory of Church Goods, pp. 44, 115; Chichester Diocesan Registry, Liber E., fo. 241-46; Chart. High Church of Chichester, pp. 308-16, Nichols, Leicestershire, I, app. pp. lxiv, Ixvii, xvii, D. & Ch. Canterbury, Black Book of the Archdeacon of Canterbury, fo. 21-247; Bodleian Library, MS. Willis 1, pp. 553-55. °8 Inventory of Church Goods, pp. 27, 141-45. 1° Reg. Greenfield (York), I, 181-84; Thompson, ‘Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York in Gloucestershire’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., XLIII, 153, 157. 229 Gesta Abbatum, I, 5: III, 507-08. 721 Reg. W. Giffard (York), I, 324-25. 722 Reg. Drokensford, fo. 279, 279V.

72°Dansey, Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424.

30 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Chichester,?* Ely,?*° Exeter,??® Lichfield,??7_ Lincoln,??8 Norwich,?2° Salisbury,?2° Winchester,?2!_ Worcester,22? and York 2%? collected the Peter’s pence from the parochial collectors in his deanery and delivered such of the proceeds as he was not allowed to retain for his own use to the archdeacon.*** ‘There is no reason to suppose that the same practice did not obtain in the dioceses of Hereford, London and Rochester, but proof that it did has not come to my attention.?*° Sometimes rural deans instead

of parochial collectors received Peter’s pence from lay or ecclesiastical lords who collected it from their tenants and from communities of religious who collected it from tne paris 1oners OT their Impropriate cnurcnes.

h Ilected it f h ishi f their 1 iated churches.??°

In some dioceses the render to the rural deans may have been made at a meeting of the ruridecanal chapter.?*” The rural deans presumably had no power of their own to compel parochial collectors to levy Peter’s pence and deliver it to them, but the right to use ecclesiastical censures for the purpose was customarily conferred upon them by the archdeacons,”** and some-

times it might be given to them by the bishop **° or by the papal collector.?*° ‘The bishops or archdeacons also assisted the rural deans by having

their officials issue each year a solemn warning to the rectors, vicars and chaplains of churches to exact Peter’s pence in their parishes and to pay #84Chichester Diocesan Registry, Liber E, fo. 261. °° Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis, p. 72. *26 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 63. “"* Lamb. Reg. Kemp, fo. 338.

°° Richmond, “Three Records of the Alien Priory of Grove’, Bedfordshire Historical Record Soc., Publications, VIII, 33; Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 3147; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 65%; Cotton MS. Nero D X, fo. 154; Cart. Eynsham, Il, p. Ixxvii. °° Inventory of Church Goods, pp. 33, 34, 44, 97 et seq. 39 Flarl. MS. 862, fo. 72-73%. *** Baigent and Millard, History of Basingstoke, p. 20.

**? Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 2; Reg. Wakefield, fo. 140%; Lamb. Reg. Morton, [,

fo. 186V.

*°° York, Reg. Melton, fo. 32; Reg. la Zouche, fo. 67%, D. & Ch. York, Chapter Act Book, 1345-50, fo. 21.

*** As noted above, in the dioceses of Chichester and Worcester the rural deans may have delivered directly to the bishops. “°° Lists of Peter’s pence due from the parishes arranged under rural deaneries in the archdeaconries of Essex and Colchester create a presumption that rural deans were collectors in the diocese of London: Queen’s College, Oxford, MS. 54, fo. 9-117; London, Reg. Gary, fo. 79-80". The archbishop of Canterbury in 1317 and Peter Griphus in 1511 implied that the custom was universal. 8° Richmond, “Three Records’, Bedfordshire Historical Record Soc., Publications, VII, 33, Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Customal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 230: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Black Book of the Archdeacon of Canterbury, fo. 21-24; Bodleian Library, MS. Rawlinson B 336, p. 204. ** Reg. Drokensford (Wells), preface, p. xxxiii. **° Dansey, Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424. *°° Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 314%, Reg. Rede (Chichester), II, 412-13; above, pp.

26 seg. | **° Harl. MS. 862, fo. 63, 65%, 72, 727; Reg. Rede. I, 134.

Peter’s Pence 31 to the deans what they owed at the customary time, under penalty of an interdict on their churches.2*! The archdeacons sometimes received Peter’s pence from local collectors

other than the rural deans, or even directly from the payers. The church-

wardens who collected Peter’s pence from the parishioners of St Mary the Great in Cambridge rendered it to the archdeacon.?*? Two collegiate churches, one in the diocese of Exeter and one in the diocese of Lichfield, paid their Peter’s pence to archdeacons.”** The prior of Dover delivered Peter’s pence to the archdeacon of Canterbury.*** Such

Instances were exceptional.?*° In 1337, when the official of the archdeacon of Wells claimed that from olden time it pertained to him to collect Peter’s pence from the persons in the archdeaconry who were accustomed to pay them the rural deans of the archdeaconry received authority from the bishop to forbid payment of the pence to the official.?*° Evidently an archdeacon or his official could not at pleasure supersede the customary rights of local collectors. The collectors who exacted the pennies directly from those who owed

them were in overwhelming majority the rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains.*7 Sometimes they were designated collectively as parsons,*** priests 74° or curates.2°° There were a few variations. In one instance the yconomus of a church collected the pennies,”°* and churchwardens were the collectors in some parishes.?°? The parochial collectors levied the pennies 41 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 6%; Dansey, Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424. °4°2 Churchwardens’ Accounts of St. Mary the Great, pp. 74, 77. °48 Oliver, Monasticon, p. 283; H. M. C., Report on the MSS. of Lord de V’Isle and Dudley, 1, 191. *44 Haines, Dover Priory, pp. 419, n. 3, 446. For other instances see Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 74, 76. 45 ‘When a church was impropriated and the bishop defined the liabilities of the vicar, Peter’s pence was often among them. Sometimes it was said that the vicar paid it to the archdeacon or the bishop: Addit, MS. 37503, fo. 43%, 44, 33354, fo. 176, Documents relating to Penwortham, pp. 48-49, Jeayes, Descriptive Catalogue of Charters belonging to the Marquis of Anglesey, nos. 240, 660; Reg. Stretton (Lichfield), I, 120-22. Apparently the

statement means only that the vicar was responsible ultimately to the archdeacon or bishop; not that he paid directly to the archdeacon or bishop. *4° Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 310. The official appealed to the court of Canterbury. The result is not stated. **7 Lincoln Reg. Burghersh, fo. 561’, 562 (1338); D. & Ch. York, Chapter Act Book, 134550, fo. 21, 22¥ (1346); Gesta Abbatum, III, 507 (1405); Reg. Rede. (Chichester), II, 413 (1410); Harl. MS. 862, fo. 63, 63%, 65%, 72-73 (1418-10); Dansey Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424 (century XV); Harl. MS. 2179, fo. 28% (century XV); MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo.

6Y (1511).

**8 Llanthony Records, A XII, fo. 547, 55; C.P.L., VI, 305. ** Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 562. °°? Lincoln, Reg. Fleming, fo. 229. *** H. M. C., Ninth Report, app. I, 133.

°°? H. M. C., MSS. of the Earl of Westmorland and Others, p. 446, Churchwardens’ Accounts of St.Mary the Great Cambridge, pp. 72-74, 76, 77.

32 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 in the main directly from the parishioners who owed them,?** though they might receive them from a lord of a manor,?*‘ from the officials of a town

who had collected them from the inhabitants,2®®> or from churchwardens.*°* The parochial collectors were often threatened with ecclesiastical censures by the papal collector, the bishop or the archdeacon for failure to do their work properly and they were sometimes assisted in their work

by the same authorities extending ecclesiastical censures to the payers of Peter’s pence who were tardy or recalcitrant in paying their pennies to the parochial collectors.?*” An interdict on the church of a parochial collector would affect delinquent payers as well as the collector. Nearly all local collectors of Peter’s pence retained for themselves some of the money which they received. The practice, which was already very ancient in 1327, may perhaps have originated in order to give collectors some compensation for their labors, though it was not distributed among the various grades of collectors in proportion to the amount of

their work. The collectors who delivered the payments to the papal collector generally received the largest returns, though there were some exceptions. Of those bishops whose profits can be ascertained none rivaled

the archbishop of York who kept for himself in a normal year in the neighborhood of £98. The profits of the bishop of Lichfield ranged from £26 8 s. to £31 9s. ¥% d, and those of the bishop of Worcester from £20

4s. 1d. to £23 1s. 5 d. Those of the bishops of Chichester, Hereford, Norwich and Salisbury varied from £1 13 s. 4d. to £12 10% d. The excess which went to the bishop of Bath and Wells, however, was only 2 s. and the bishop received exactly the sum which he rendered to the papal collector. The surplus kept by the archdeacons of Canterbury, Colchester, Essex and Ely exceeded that of some of the bishops, the lowest being £1 18 s. 10% d. and the highest £14 16 s. 4 d.?°* The information concerning the profits of archdeacons who paid Peter’s pence to their bishops is less abundant, because archidiaconal records have not been as well preserved as those belonging to bishops. In the diocese of *°3 Based mainly on general statements in such documents as the following: Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 562; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 63, Gesta Abbatum, III, 507-09. Specific illustrations are Exch. K. R. Misc. Book 22, fo. 131-32; Cotton MS. Nero A XII, fo. 33. 254 Knocker, ‘Evolution of Holmesdale’, Arch. Cantiana, XLIV, 204; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Black Book of the Archdeacon of Canterbury, fo. 21. There are numerous examples of payments of Peter’s pence by lords of manors in manorial documents, but they rarely state to whom the payments were made. Sometimes they were rendered to rural deans: above p. 30. 55 HT. M. C., Ninth Report, app. I, 133; Pape, Medieval Newcastle-under-Lyme, pp. 38, 39, 154, 155.

256 ‘Church-Wardens’ Accounts’, Somerset Record Soc., IV, 228. 57 Above, pp. 13-16, 26-27, 30-31.

*°5 Below, app. I.

Peter’s Pence 33 Norwich the figures for the three archdeacons whose receipts are known were as follows: Norwich received from the rural deans £10 12 s.,?°° paid to the bishop £7 and retained £3 12 s.;7®° Norfolk received £23 10 s. 8% d., paid to the bishop £13 13 s. 4 d. and retained £9 17 s. 4% d.; Suffolk received £12 11s. 6% d., paid to the bishop £8 and retained £4 11 s. 6%, d.°*** In the diocese of York the archdeacon of Richmond kept all the Peter’s pence which he collected. It amounted to £47 10 s. 4 d.?® In return

for this and the whole of the synodals the archdeacon rendered £1 annually to the archbishop.?®* The archdeacon of Chichester in the thirteenth century received for himself £1 15 s. 2 d.?®* The archdeacon of ‘Totnes in

the fifteenth century paid the bishop £3 and had 13 s. 7 d. left at his disposal.?*° The archdeacon of York received an undisclosed amount from his collection of the pennies.?®* The dean of Hereford owed the bishop £1

and kept 4 s. as his reward.?° A common compensation received by the rural deans was relief from the payment of Peter’s pence owed to the archdeacon or the bishop from their own churches. This enabled the rural dean to keep for himself the pennies owed by his own parishioners. In the diocese of Chichester this was the universal practice °** and it obtained in some deaneries—and possibly in all of them—in the dioceses of Ely 7° and York.?”° This would make the amount allowed in any rural deanery variable, since the office of rural dean was transferred from time to time from one parson in the

deanery to another.?"* In the archdeaconry of Norwich, late in the fourteenth century, the rural deans received the following amounts: Taverham, 7% d., Blofield 8 s., Flegg, 18 s. 11d., Ingworth 2 s. 6% d.,

Sparham, 1 s. 6 d., Holt, 5 s. 8 d., Walsingham 3 s., Toftrees 8% d., 75° This is less by 4 d. than the figure given in Financial Relations to 1327, p. 79.

°° Compiled from Inventory of Church Goods (century XIV). ®t Compiled from the Domesday Book of Norwich in the Norwich Diocesan Registry (century XV). *6? "The sum given in the document. The items add to £46 9 s. 8d.

*68 Reg. Honoris de Richmond, app. pp. 62-63 (early century XIV). The payment of £1 to the archbishop and a note that the archdeacon owed no Peter’s pence to the archbishop are recorded in the pipe rolls of Henry I: Pipe Roll Soc., Pubs., XXXIV, 79;

XXXVI, 101. *°* Above, p. 28, n. 201. “°° D. & Ch. Exeter, 3672, p. 2. 266 Col. 12, fo. 727.

*°7 Reg. Swinfield, pp. 327, 470-71; Reg. Orleton, p. 277; Lamb. Reg. Warham, fo. 272. "°° Chichester Diocesan Registry, Liber Y, fo. 158%; Chart. High Church of Chichester, p. 178. In the latter ‘Dean’s’ should read “Deans’.’ °° Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis, p. 72. *7° Reg. Honoris de Richmond, app. 64; Reg. Melton, fo. 32. *71 In the archdeaconry of Bath the incumbents of benefices in each rural deanery elected the dean annually: Wells, Reg. Drokensford, fo. 279.

34 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Brisley, 1 s. 2% d., Lynn 8 s. 4 % d., and Breckles 7 d.27? Since in no instance did the amount received by a rural dean correspond exactly with the amount owed by any parish in his deanery and in several deaneries the

sum received by the dean was more than the amount owed by any one parish, the principle on which the remuneration of the rural deans was based differed from that in the dioceses previously mentioned.

Usually the parochial collectors also received from the parishioners more than they paid to the rural deans. Archbishop Reynolds, when he reported to John XXII in 1317 on the amounts of Peter’s pence retained by the local collectors, sent a list of the profits of the rectors and vicars in the diocese of Canterbury as far as he had been able to ascertain them, but unfortunately the list was not copied in his register.?** Its mere existence, however, indicates that such profits existed in his diocese. Any other general statements about the custom have not come under my observation,”“* but there are a few individual examples from various parts of England. When bishops ordained how the income and outgo of an impropriated parish was to be shared between the impropriator and the vicar, he sometimes indicated that a vicar who was made responsible for the payment of Peter’s pence would receive more than he paid. Illustrations come from the dioceses of Canterbury,?” Lichfield,?** Worcester °"" and

York.?78 The churchwardens of St Mary the Great in Cambridge paid to the archdeacon a few pennies less than they received.?"® The parson of St Owen in Gloucester, who paid a farm of 32 d. for the Peter’s pence of his parish, must have thought that he could profit from the transaction.**°

*72 Compiled from Inventory of Church Goods except the deanery of Breckles. For the parish of Threxton the Inventory gives 9 d., which would make the total of the deanery 19 s. 8 d. and leave the dean owing the archdeacon 4 d. more than he received. In my note on the manuscript I have 20 d. for Threxton and I have let that stand. *7° Lamb. Reg. Reynolds, fo. 239, 239v. 7“ In 1338 the vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln ordered the rural deans, rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains to deliver in full to the archdeacon what they should receive from Peter’s pence, but the mandate appears to relate only to arrears due from the parishioners: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 5619. 7° Lamb. Reg. Morton, II, fo. 179. 278 Addit. MS. 33354, fo. 91, 91¥, 176.

"7 Reg. Brian, I, fo. 2; Addit. MS. 37503, fo. 437, 44. "7° Reg. W. Giffard, p. 323. *7° Accounts, pp. 72-74, 76, 77. 8° Llanthony Records, A XII, fo. 54¥. This is one item in a list of the income had from

various sources by the rectors, parsons or perpetual vicars of the churches and chapels in the patronage of the prior. The list is undated, but it is among documents dated 1370. Two incumbents had from Peter’s pence ‘as much as can be collected’, two had 7 d. each, two had 7% d., six had 12 d., one had 14 d., one had 2 s. and one had 4 s. and more. It is not clear whether these amounts represent their profits or their gross receipts from which they had to pay all or part to the rural dean.

Peter’s Pence 35 The extent of the profits of the parochial collectors is rarely stated in the documents of this period.?** The amounts which the parochial collectors rendered to their superior collectors probably remained stabilized by custom in most instances,?°? but they did change in some parishes. Lists of Peter’s pence at two different dates in the archdeaconries of Ely, Leicester and Norwich display changes in the amounts due the rural deans from very few parochial collectors.?8? The changes in the sums received from the rural deans of the dioceses of Worcester and Lichfield may possibly reflect more extensive

alterations of the amounts owed by the parochial collectors in those dioceses.”** It is not, however, a probability, since the changes may have

been due merely to more efficient collection in one year than in another.”*° The diocese of Worcester, however, provides one illustration of a proportionately larger number of changes. In the first half of the twelfth century the bishop granted to the prior and convent of Worcester the Peter’s pence which the parochial collectors had previously paid to the rural deans from nineteen parishes.**° The sums due from each parochial collector in 1463 were the same as they had been in 1285 with one exception. In 1285 18 d. were due from the collector in Teddington and in 1463 184 d. were received from him.?*” In a list drawn up between 1513

and 1516 there were three further items which differed from those in the list of 1285. The sum charged against Tibberton increased from 17 d. to 18 d., against Blackwell from 1714 d. to 18 d., and against Harvington from 22 d. to 33 d.288 Two individual instances offset each other. The

parish of Santon in Norfolk was charged with 10 d. in the Domesday Book of Norwich of the fifteenth century and the ecclesiastical lord paid 10 d. annually from 1520 to 1533.78° The parochial collector in Chingford paid 10 d. in 1289 ?°° and he was charged with 20 d. between 1426 and 1431.79!

Some lay and ecclesiastical lords who collected the Peter’s pence owed by their tenants and some impropriators of parish churches who collected *81 A few earlier examples are supplied in Financial Relations to 1327, p. 79. 282 Ibid., pp. 55-56, 82-84.

283 Tbid., pp. 83, 84; Inventory of Church Goods (century XIV) compared with the Domesday Book of Norwich (century XV). *°4 Below, app. I. 785 Below, pp. 48-49.

8° Reg. Prioratus Wigorniensis, pp. 98a, 98b. 87 T). & Ch. Worcester, A 6 (1) (Ledger Book 1), fo. 15.

288T). & Ch. Worcester, A 12, fo. 519. 88 Cambridge Univ. Lib., Addit MS. 6969, fo. 157¥-248Vv.

°° Financial Relations to 1327, p. 79, n. 7. °1 London, Reg. Gray, fo. 80v.

36 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Peter’s pence owed by the parishioners received more than they delivered to the collectors. Archbishop Reynolds reported to the pope in 1317 that many barons, earls and other temporal lords collected Peter’s pence on their lands, but that he had not been able to find out how much they re-

tained for themselves.*°? The present investigator finds himself in the same position. Records of the Peter’s pence received or paid on a manor are obtainable, but documents which contain the amount received and paid on the same manor are rare. The bailiff of the manor of Grove entered in his account for the year from Michaelmas 1341 to the same date in 1342 the receipt of 13 s. and the payment to the rural dean of Dunstable of 3 s.

, 4 d.*°° The prior of St Radegund Dover, sometime in the thirteenth century, received from the manor of Hallmead 14 d. and paid 6 d. A later

hand changed the latter amount to 44d., but made no notation concerning the amount received.?** The farmer of Alton Barnes in Wilts, which belonged to a college, in 1455 and again in 1456 collected 5% d. of Petrispans and paid 3 d. to the official of the bishop of Salisbury.?®* In the Black Book of the archdeacon of Canterbury, written in the fourteenth century, the sum due the rural dean from Swackliffe was 1 d., from Kennington 12 d. and from Preston 15 d. In the thirteenth century the abbot

of St Augustine Canterbury expected from the first 6 d.,?°° from the second early in the century 28 d.?*" and later in the century 51 d.*°* and

from the third early in the century 36 d.?*® and later in the century 24 d.?°° From Preston the prior and convent of Canterbury also received Peter’s pence, which early in the twelfth century amounted to 16 d.°° The lord of a manor, on the other hand, might suffer a loss from his obligation to pay Peter’s pence for his manor. The lady of the manor of Michinhampton, who was the abbess of La Trinité at Caen, paid annually to the rural dean of Stonehouse 5 s. for Peter’s pence. In 1307 she received only 3 s. 5 d. and in 1316 and again in 1330 3 s. 11 d.9°? Apparently

the sum due the local collector from the manor had become fixed by custom or by composition.®°* Such arrangements were probably common. 292 Reg., fo. 2397.

298 Richmond, ‘Three Records’, Bedfordshire Historical Record Soc., Pubs., VIII, 25. *°* Bodleian Lib., MS. Rawlinson B 336, p. 204. *°5 Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices, I, 705-11.

2°6 Cotton MS. Julius D II, fo. 138. *°7 B. M. Royal MS. 1 B XI, fo. 147.

*°* Reg. St. Augustine’s, I, 235. 79° Royal MS. 1 B XI, fo. 147.

°° Julius D II, fo. 138. °? Domesday Monachorum, p. 80. $9? Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 229-30.

°8 The sum had been 5 s. as early as the reign of Henry II: Birdsall, ‘English Manors of La Trinité, Anniversary Essays by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, p. 38.

Peter’s Pence 37 In 1198 the bishop of Lincoln confirmed an earlier privilege of the abbey of Eynsham to meet its obligation for Peter’s pence from five parishes

by payment to the archdeacon of Oxford of 8 s. annually.*°* In the , fourteenth century it received from four of these five parishes in the neighborhood of 12 s.°°° The abbey of St Augustine’s Canterbury was charged in the archdeacon’s list of the fourteenth century with £2 10 s. for Peter’s pence *°* and paid the same sum in 1432.2°7 In the thirteenth

century the abbey received from its tenants and the parishioners of its , churches Peter’s pence amounting at least to £6 12 s. 2 d.3°° Some of the ecclesiastical possessors of impropriated churches and of

lands held in mortmain were not content in the fifteenth century with a portion of the Peter’s pence paid by their parishioners or tenants; they tried to retain all of them. The archdeacons and the rural deans found it difficult to obtain the share which by custom was their due.®” The right to collect Peter’s pence was subject to transfer, grant and composition. When land on which the tenants owed Peter’s pence was transferred, the new possessor took over the right of collection and also the duty of payment of Peter’s pence to the local collector, unless some other arrangement was made in the grant or contract. The same was true of the impropriator of a parish church.?’? An exception to the first 1s illustrated by a grant of certain rents made in perpetuity by the heiresses of William le Wise to the prior and canons of Bilsington. The recipients

were to pay an annual rent of 4 d. in place of a number of specified services among which was Romescot.**? A common exception to the second was to make the vicar of the impropriated church responsible for the levy and render of Peter’s pence. This was usually done by the bishop’s assessment of the vicar’s share of the income and expenses,*”” but it could be done by an agreement between the impropriator and the vicar.*!3 The local collectors of Peter’s pence could dispose of any part

8°* Cart. Eynsham, I, 47.

$95 Ibid., Il, xii, Ixxvii, 128-33. The sum was probably more rather than less. There is no record of the amount produced by one parish and for another parish. The only record is the number of tenants who owed Peter’s pence. The receipts from the other parishes were recorded in different years. $98 Fo, 21-24.

°°" Boggis, History of St. Augustine’s Canterbury, p. 113. $°8 Items found in Reg. of St. Augustine’s Abbey, passim and in Cotton MS. Julius D II, fo. 134-36.

80° C.P.L., VI, 305; Cal. of Proceedings in Chancery in the Reign of Elizabeth, | Introd. pp. lxxxi-lxxxiii. $10 Thid.

*"* Cart. of Bilsington, pp. 103-04. 912 Fg, Addit. MS. 37503, fo. 43%, 44; 33354, fo. 176; Reg. Stretton (Lichfield), I, 120-22;

Reg. Stafford (Exeter), pp. 351-52; Documents relating to Penwortham, pp. 47-48. *"8 Jeayes, Descriptive Catalogue of the Charters belonging to the Marquis of Anglesey, no. 661.

38 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

of their right to the proceeds. The bishop of Worcester granted to the prior and chapter of Worcester the Peter’s pence paid by the parishioners of several churches.?** A bishop of Lichfield agreed that the archdeacon of Chester should have the profits and emoluments of his office including

Peter’s pence in return for payment to the bishop of £40 a year, and a later bishop reduced the sum to £30.31® Bishops of Lichfield granted to several monasteries the Peter’s pence of their impropriated churches in return for the annual payment of a fixed sum.**® One of the grants was confirmed by Gregory IX.?"" The abbot of St Albans secured acknowledgment by Alexander V of its privilege to have the Peter’s pence of the parishes on its lands and claimed to have earlier papal confirmations.**® Bishop Brian of Worcester decreed in 1368 that the vicar of St Peter in Gloucester should retain half of the Peter’s pence of the parish and pay the other half to the bishop.**® Two abbots made a composition dividing equally between them the receipts from Peter’s pence of a parish in which one of them claimed the parochial right.??° Ecclesiastical collectors could also farm their right to Peter’s pence.*”* It may be deemed highly probable that the right of all local collectors, including the lords of manors, who

rendered fixed sums annually to the collector next above them in the hierarchy of collectors rested on old agreements made by their predecessors or on custom of long standing.°*?

Those who were required to pay Peter’s pence continued in this later period to be determined by customs which varied from one place to another.®?? Occasionally, when an attempt was made to define the liability in general terms, the old formula that a penny was due from each head of a household or from each house was repeated. Early in the period the vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln wrote to the archdeacon of Huntingdon and the parochial collectors in the archdeaconry that a single penny ought to be levied from each head or house and ordered them to collect the pennies and to list each head or house.*** At the end of the period, in 1534, Thomas Cromwell noted in a memorandum that the inhabitants of “4 Above, p. 30. 35 Reg. Stretton, Il, 156. See also above, p. 33 816 Stone Chart., p. 15; Harl. MS. 3650, fo. 40%. See also above, p. 37. *27 Jeayes, op. cit., no. 240.

, 18 Gesta Abbatum, III, 508; Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Ee IV 20, fo. 80v. **° Reg. Brian, I, fo. 2. 29 Cart. Oseney, V, 261-62. *1 Above, p. 34; D. & Ch. Exeter, 3551 (Chapter Act Book II), fo. 319. °22 Above, pp. 35-37, below, pp. 39, 53. *?8 On the earlier customs see my Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 27, 28, 79-82. 249 July 1338: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 5617, 562.

Peter’s Pence 39 the kingdom had been wont to pay smoke pence °° to the bishop of Rome for every head or house.*?° In the course of the fourteenth century the theory that Peter’s pence were due from heads of households or from houses began to cause practical difficulties. In a convocation of the province of Canterbury which met on 16 October 1399 the lower clergy and prelates presented to the archbishops and bishops a long list of grievances.*?7 Concerning Peter’s pence, the blessed bread and pentecostal oblations they asked for a clarification of existing custom. Were these payments due from occupiers of lands containing tenements on which buildings had collapsed or were without inhabitants? Anciently, they said, each parish had been assessed at a certain quota and from such tenants it had been accustomed to levy these payments.*** The reason for their concern is manifest in the question. Many of them were parochial collectors of Peter’s pence. If tenements which had once paid it were to be exempted when they ceased to have any inhabitants upon them, the amount received by the parochial collector from such a parish would be decreased, while the amount due from him to the rural dean, the archdeacon or the bishop would remain the same. What answer was given to this query was not recorded, but the view that Peter’s pence were due from occupiers of the ground within a parish was expressed again by the archdeacon of Norwich in a suit in chancery between 1468 and 1470.%?°

Peter Griphus, the papal collector from 1508 to 1511, put forward a different theory. Peter’s pence, he wrote, was not a personal but a real tribute. It was not due from heads but from houses,**° unless parishes had

compounded for a specified sum to be paid by reason of old houses. In parishes so compounded, if new houses had been built, they were immune from payment of the penny.?*?

Neither of these generalizations applied to the whole of England. Where the practice in parishes or districts can be established some correspondence with one or the other is apparent in some places. Departures from either of them are found in other places. Examples of the principle that every head or house in a community 525 Used sometimes to designate Peter’s pence, although the phrase had another meaning: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 21. 826 Cotton MS. Titus B I, fo. 160. $27 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 239-45. 828 Tbid., Ill, 240; Cart. Eynsham, I, 426. *?° Below, p. 53.

*°°In the Liber Censuum, compiled in 1192 and kept in the papal camera, Peter’s pence was said to be ‘de unaquaque domo: sterlingus’: I, 121. 881 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 6¥.

40 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

owed a penny are few. In 1405 the abbot of St Albans ordered all the rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains in his jurisdiction to warn and induce their parishioners that each of them pay for Peter’s pence one penny from each of their houses.**? This rule seems to have been maintained in practice

with one slight exception. In a formulary of the abbey compiled between 1382 and 1385 the amount of Peter’s pence due from each parish 1s listed. In twenty-four parishes the sum is in whole pennies, but in one it 1s 3 s. 1¥Y, d.288 On 2 November 1447 a list of persons who owed the tithe of hay,

Peter’s pence and some other dues to the rector of Haselor in the diocese of Worcester was drawn up.*** Sixty-four persons are named, of whom all but four owed Peter’s pence. The four owed only the tithe of hay and they may have lived in other parishes. Each of the sixty was charged with one penny except two who were liable for only a halfpenny each. In a cartulary of Daventry, compiled late in the fifteenth century, appears a

similar list of the parishioners who paid Peter’s pence to the vicar of Fawsley in Northants.*8° One penny was due from the tenement of each person or family named.**° There were some variant customs which may have resulted in the pay-

ment of Peter’s pence from all the heads or houses in the community, though not of a whole penny from each. A tradition recorded in the register of Bishop Orlton of Worcester (1327-34) that the penny was once due from each quarter of a hide *8” was still in practice in 1438 in the parishes of the chantry of Shottesbrook located in Berkshire. The first entry in a list of the payers begins ‘from the lord of Shottesbrook for his manor 4 d.’

The amount is crossed out and an insertion added that it contains two

carucates of four virgates each making the amount due 8 d. It then names each tenant and charges him at the rate of a penny for each virgate in his

tenement. There were a few with only half of a virgate and one who owed 1% d. for a virgate and one-half.*** This mode of assessing Peter’s pence is exemplified in none of the other evidence which I have discovered.®3® In those rentals which indicate the size of the holdings of the payers there is no relation between the amount $323 June: Gesta Abbatum, Il, 507. 83 Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Ee IV, 20, fo. 80v. $84 Exch. K. R. Misc. Book 22, fo. 130-32. It is said to be a transcript of an old manuscript stating the liberties, gifts and customs which each rector of the church has collected ‘a tempore cuius contrarii non exstat memoria hominis’. 885 Cotton MS. Claudius D XII, fo. 105.

$86 Fig. “Terra Ade de Eye 1 d.; Terra Holt 1 d’ °°? Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 82.

°° Egerton MS. 3029, fo. 58v. 989 A possible exception comes from Muchelney where the holder of a hide owed 4 d. for Peter’s pence: Muchelney Memoranda, p. 108.

Peter’s Pence 41 of the payment due and the size of the holding. On the manors which the abbey of Glastonbury possessed in Somerset the tenants were grouped as free tenants, holders of a virgate, half a virgate, a furlong (ferdel), half a

furlong and cotters.**° The standard measures for these units on the estates of Glastonbury were forty acres to a virgate and ten acres to a furlong, though there were some variations from the norm.**! Tenants of all these classes who owed Peter’s pence were for the most part charged with one penny each. Several owed a halfpenny each and one owed three farthings. On the manor of Chislet in Kent the tenements of those charged with one penny varied in size from half an acre to seventy acres, those charged with a halfpenny from an acre to thirty acres and five perches, and those with a farthing from two parts of two acres to twenty-five acres.** Similar variations are found on several other manors.?**

Another custom which may have required all the heads or houses in a community to pay Peter’s pence is found in a custumal of the manor of Crowmarsh in Oxfordshire written during the reign of Edward I. After the rents and services of each tenant are defined occurs the statement: “All tenants ought to give Peter’s pence,’ but this is qualified by the “Memorandum that no customary tenant is held to give the penny of St Peter unless ~he has movables to the value of 30 d. or more.’ 344 Whether there were tenants who did not possess movables of that value would depend on what they included and how they were assessed. If they included only horses, oxen, cows, and grain and other products for sale, and if the valuation was low, as in the assessments made in some districts for the levy of royal taxes on movables,*** there may well have been tenants who escaped liability for Peter’s pence. Two tenants held only two and one-half acres each, two held only one acre each and one held only a rood. At Beverley in 1417 the value of chattels or goods which rendered a tenant liable for Peter’s pence was five shillings.**® This custom may go back to the time when the rule for the liability for payment of Peter’s pence in the Danelaw differed from the rule in the rest of England.**? Still another custom, as it was stated in a survey of the priory of Bilsing*49 Egerton MS. 3321, pp. 16-580.

41 Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, pp. xxv, 119, 150. 842 Reg. of St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 105-26.

*48 Bodleian Lib., MS. Rawlinson B 336, pp. 197-203; Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 283-317; Cart. Eynsham, Il, 6-11, 128-36.

*** Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 89-90.

*45 Willard, ‘Assessment of Lay Subsidies’, Report of American Historical Assoc. for 1917, pp. 290-91; idem, Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290-1334, ch. IV. $46 Chapter Act Book of Beverley, II, 308. *“7 Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 27.

42 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ton made in the fifteenth century, should have included all the heads of households. On the fee of the prior a tenant who was a married man owed one penny and a tenant who was a single man or woman a halfpenny.** The status of a tenant with regard to marriage also settled the amount of his indebtedness for Peter’s pence on some of the manors of Glastonbury. A survey of the manor of Shapwick made in the thirteenth century gives

what appear to be two different customs. For tenants holding twenty or seven and one-half acres the liability is said to be ‘i hurtpeni si fuerit uxoratus, et si viduatus non dat nisi ob.’ A tenant who holds five acres ‘dat i hurthpeni si sit uxoratus, si non, non dat nisi medietatem.’ The first statement seems to include only married men, widowers and widows, while the second seems to include them and also bachelors and spinsters. There are similar diverse statements of custom in the surveys of the manors of Ashcot and Wrington.**° Unfortunately the surveys provide no evidence of the

interpretation placed on these rules in practice, because the status with regard to marriage of the tenants who paid Peter’s pence is stated only in the case of a few widows and generally the amount due from individual tenants is not given. Neither of these customs was applied universally to all tenants, since on all three manors there were tenants whose services did not include Peter’s pence. The abbot of Beaulieu in 1331 defined for the vicar of the impropriated church of Shilton in Oxfordshire the ancient custom with regard to Peter’s pence in still different terms. One penny was to be paid from each tenement occupied by a man and a woman; one being dead, a halfpenny was owed by the survivor; both being deceased nothing was due if the tenement remained vacant.®°° While this included widowers and widows, it omitted single men and women, if any should be in occupation of a tenement. What the practice may have been in this parish is not known.

Another variant of this custom existed in Minchinhampton. There it was the requirement as early as the reign of Henry II that all tenants save franklins should pay a penny for their wives, and if they had no wives an obol.?°1 Widows and spinsters were disregarded in this custom. Late in the thirteenth century the practice did not correspond with the custom, 48 Omnes tenentes commorantes in feodo domini Prioris de Bylsyngtone debent soluere ad Romescot, videlicet si sit uxoratus debet soluere i d. si solus vel sola ob . . . et hoc ipsi fecerunt de tempore quo non extat memoria’: Cart. Bilsington, p. 205. *4° Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, pp. 72, 78, 81, 148-56.

*°° Cotton MS. Nero A XII, fo. 33. Such instances as the last were envisaged in the query of 1399. °° Birdsall, ‘English Manors of la Trinité’, Anniversary Essays by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, p. 38.

Peter's Pence 43 if it ever had. Many customary tenants were not burdened with Peter’s pence. Among them were three widows and eleven women whose status with regard to matrimony is not stated, but the men who were exempt numbered many more than the women. There were, moreover, nine women who owed Peter’s pence. One of them was a widow and one had a husband in the army of Edward I.3*? A custom which depended in part on the matrimonial status of the tenants is found in a custumal of the manor of Dengemarsh in Kent drawn up

during the reign of Edward I. Against the amount due from each tenant is marked either ‘cum uxore’ or ‘cum uxore et sine.’ 3°? All those with the first notation were responsible for one penny and presumably the amount could be reduced if the tenement should be held by a single man or woman.

Those with the second notation, several but not all of them being for a halfpenny, presumably could not be changed whatever the status of the tenant with regard to marriage. There were several tenants who were not charged with Peter’s pence. Another usage which seems to have been common made only those persons liable for Peter’s pence who possessed cattle worth at least 30 d. This standard was set forth in the laws of Edward the Confessor and in the laws of William. In the former all men were said to be subject to the rule and in the latter only freemen.*** This divergence still continued in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. On the manors of Dulwich in Surrey and South Stoke in Oxfordshire every tenant who owned cattle of the requisite value owed Romesilver,**° but on the manor of Ewell in Surrey the rule applied only to customary tenants.*°° “These manors also supply variant forms of the custom. At Dulwich and South Stoke a whole penny was due and at Ewell a married man paid a penny and a widow or widower a halfpenny. It is interesting to find this custom in parishes in the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, about which the vicar general of the bishop of Lincoln was writing, when he said that a penny was due from each head or house. In 1252 on the manor of Abbots Ripton the parson was entitled

to a penny from each house where there were working cattle (averia) of the price of 30 d., but on the manor of Broughton each married man who had working cattle of the same value on Christmas eve ought to give to the 852 Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 280-320.

5° Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 43-47. *°* Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 27-28. °° Young, History of Dulwich, Il, 282-83; Cart. Eynsham, Il, 129, 134.

°°° This information was given to me by the late Reverend William Hudson from a rental of 1408 and a customary of 1421.

44 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 parson on 1 August a penny, while a man without a spouse or a widow needed to give only a halfpenny. For other cattle (catallis) no Peter’s pence had to be paid.?°7 All these differing formulations of this custom leave open the probability that in the places to which they applied some persons or houses would be exempt from the payment of Peter’s pence. In this period, if the occupant of a house possessed an ox or a cow, even if it was assessed at a nominal value,*°* he would be liable for a penny or a halfpenny. The requirement on the manor of Eynsham of the possession of an ox or a heifer *°° suggests

that ‘averia,’ the word commonly used in the texts, might be translated working cattle or plough-beasts*®° instead of cattle. If this be accepted as the meaning of the term, there were some tenants who did not have an ox or a cow. In the list of services of a tenant on South Stoke occurs the statement: ‘if he has animalia to the value of 2 s. 6 d. at St Peter in Chains, he will give Petrispans i d.’ 8** This seems to imply the possibility that a

tenant might not have an ox or a cow. The same possibility is indicated by entries of other types. A tenant is to keep five sheep in the lord’s fold; if he does not have them an ‘averium’; if he has neither he is to cut grain. Another is to do a certain service, if he has an ox. If a tenant dies, the lord is entitled to his best ‘averium,’ if he has one.2®? Whether or not ‘averia’ or ‘animalia’ included animals other than oxen and cows, there were tenants who did not owe Peter’s pence on the manor of South Stoke in 1366 and on the manor of Ewell in 1402.

| The most convincing evidence that Peter’s pence was not owed from every head or house comes from rentals or custumals in which the payments

and services due from each tenant on a manor are specified. In a series of rentals of the manors of Glastonbury, compiled mainly at various dates from 1308 to 1326,°** those tenants who owed Peter’s pence were recorded.

Just as in the rentals of the same manors made in the thirteenth century, many tenants are not charged with Peter’s pence. In some instances it 1s stated that the tenant ‘non dat Petrespeny.’ *** More often Peter’s pence simply is not charged against a tenant who does not pay it, but the sum of the Peter’s pence noted against each group of tenants indicates that those 67 Cart. de Rameseia, 1, 321, 331.

58 Willard, ‘Assessment of Levy Subsidies’, Report of the American Historical Assoc. for 1917, p. 291. $59 Cart. Eynsham, Il, 40.

*°° Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, p. 246, Neilson, Customary Rents, p. 198. °81 Cart. Eynesham, II, 129. °°? Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, pp. 109, 121, 154, 184, 213, 214. °° Egerton MS. 3321. *°* E.g., Egerton MS. 3321, pp. 110, 179-82, 249-51, 285-90, 331.

Peter’s Pence 45 who were not individually charged with Peter’s pence did not owe it. On the manor of Wrington 159 tenants were listed of whom 105 paid Peter’s pence, on the manor of Pilton 133 of whom 66 were liable for the due. The proportion varied from one manor to another, but on all of them some tenants and on most of them a significant number of the tenants were exempt from this payment.*°* Other illustrations of tenants of manors who were not responsible for the payment of Peter’s pence come from Kent,** Sussex *°° and Gloucestershire *° late in the thirteenth century, from Oxfordshire in 1360 and 1366,” from Kent °" in the fifteenth century, from Surrey °”* in 1408, and from Suffolk *** in 1438 or 1439. The view that occupiers of tenements which had once had upon them occupied houses but no longer had inhabitants upon them owed Peter’s pence receives little illumination one way or the other. On one manor two tenants who held half a virgate without a house owed 1 d., but the entry does not indicate whether there had ever been a house on the tenement.?** In one parish Peter’s pence was due from the occupiers of lands irrespective of habitation °7° and in another none was due from a vacant tenement.®*® On one manor the lord paid the due for several years during the reign of Richard II on two tenements which were in his hands on account of the black death.*”” The amount of Peter’s pence paid in a community might decrease as a result of a decline of the population,*’* but the evidence is insufficient to prove that this was generally true. It should be noted, however, that the local clerical collectors did not always have to take the loss of income which resulted from such a decrease. When the lord of a manor

*°° Some allowance has to be made for slight errors. On pp. 311-16 in a group of seven holders of virgates six are charged with Peter’s pence and one is not, but the sum is given

as seven pence. Was a tenant who owed Peter’s pence not charged with it, or was a mistake made in addition or copying? Most of the additions correspond with the items, and the differences are usually small. “°° Several manors on which no tenants are charged with Peter’s pence are disregarded

under the assumption that Peter’s pence on them was levied by the parochial collectors. 67 Chislet, Littlebourne and Lenham: Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, 1, 105-27, 187210, 250-53: Dengemarsh: Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 42-52. *°8 Marley: Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 3-16. *°° ‘Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 280-318. 79 Cart. Eynsham, Il, 6-12, 128-37. 871 "Tidenton: Stowe MS. 935, fo. 60-65V. *72 Ewell: information supplied by the late Reverend William Hudson. "8 Palorave: Addit. MS. 45952, fo. 3-50. *"* Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, p. 212. 7° Fly, Reg. Bouchier, fo. 32. *7° Above, p. 42.

*" Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 81, n. 10. °78 Below, p. 49.

46 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 collected the due from his tenants and paid the clerical collector, he might continue to pay the same sum though his receipts were less.37° It was pos-

sible, moreover, to obtain a reduction of the quota due from a parochial collector, though it was not often done.*®°

It may be doubted if the theory of Peter Griphus held good without exception any better than the older theory of each head or house. In one parish it was a real tax, since it was assessed on the amount of land held by the occupier,*** but thereby it was not a tax on houses. The best illustration of the theory comes from a survey of the income of the abbey of St Augustine’s Canterbury from its holdings on the island of Thanet, made probably

late in the thirteenth century. There it is said: “the lord ought to send at St Peter in Chains for romiscot, as it was established in antiquity, through the houses (domos) of old messuages, namely from each messuage | d.,’ 3°? but many tenants owed only a halfpenny.**?

This example appears to be an exception rather than the rule. Mr. Watson, in an admirable study of the manor of Minchinhampton, concludes that there “The payment of Peter’s pence was reckoned a personal payment settled upon the holder (and his descendants) of a particular holding but not upon the holding apart from that particular family, or upon the tenant apart from that particular holding.’ The conclusion is based upon a list of twelve holdings that once had owed Peter’s pence but owed it no longer, and on the discovery that none of these holdings was occupied by members of the family which originally had held it.3** If this inference is valid,?** Peter’s pence was considered personal rather than real at Minchinhampton. Other instances in which Peter’s pence may have been assessed per head and not per house are provided by entries in manorial records of tenants who paid two pence or three pence or some other sum in excess of one penny. Such payments are found on manors where the size of the holding did not affect the liability for payment of Peter’s pence. When such an entry gives indication of the reason for such a payment, the tenement was held by more than one person. Typical entries are a tenant and his °79 Above, p. 36. *8° Above, p. 34. *** Above, p. 40.

8% Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 60. 383 Ibid. I, 30-44.

*8*Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans. LIV,

ee Ie is not the only inference which can be deduced from the evidence. The lady of the manor may have lightened the service to that extent when it was occupied by a new tenant. Such changes in the services of a new tenant were not uncommon. In two instances, for example, a new tenant was relieved of church scot: Addit. MS. 17450, fo. 87¥-88¥; Cart. Eynsham, Il, 19-20.

Peter’s Pence 47 partners (participes) three pence,*** a tenant and his relatives (pares) two | pence and one-half or three pence; **’ the heirs of a former tenant two pence,*** and two brothers two pence.*** If in any of these instances those

jointly responsible for the payment lived in the same house, the liability

was per head. It is improbable that in every such instance each of the parties responsible for the due had his own home. Though some of the examples come from the manor where one penny was said to be owed from each house of an old messuage. If each of the parties had his separate house, one would expect him to be charged individually instead of collectively. It is probable, therefore, that the tax was not always based on houses. It is reasonably certain, on the other hand, that a penny did not come from every house. ‘Though it probably is not true that every person who owed Peter’s pence occupied his own house, most persons did, and it has been

3°

noted above that many tenants of manors were exempt from Peter’s pence.**° In some instances tenements against which no Peter’s pence was

ae 392 | we |

charged are stated to have dwellings upon them.** If there were communities which had a composition exempting new houses from payment of Peter’s pence, some of these exemptions may have been due to such a composition, but others certainly were not.**? ‘That such compositions made by parishioners or tenants collectively with the parochial collector or the

lord were common is doubtful. No arrangement of the sort has come to my attention. The sums which the parochial collectors owed to their immediately superior collectors remained fixed by custom or composition with comparatively few exceptions,*** but the sums which the parochial collectors received from the inhabitants of a village might change.?** Individual payers of Peter’s pence usually owed either a penny or a halfpenny, but payers whose obligation was only a farthing were not uncommon.®*° The only one of the local customs noted above which might provide an explanation for a payment of that amount is the one which assesses Peter’s pence on the basis of the hide and the virgate, but the farthing 1s 88° Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 42-43. 87 Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 30, 33, 36-39, 109, 114, 121. 288 Ibid, I, 41, 42, 118.

$89 Tbid., I, 33, 35, 36, 42. In several instances a tenant and his relatives, or the heirs, or two brothers paid collectively only 1 d. °° Above, pp. 40-45.

°°? F.g., Cart. Eynsham, Il, 8-10, 12, 130-32: Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 3, 14-16; . Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 281, 283-85, 287, 290, 293-97, 306, 312-16.

°°? Watson, loc. cit., pp. 230, 231, 281, 293-94, 315. *°8 Above, pp. 35, 39, 45-46. *°¢ Below, p. 49. 5° Eg. Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 31, 40, 43, 44; Addit. MS. 45952, fo. 47, 6%, 9v10¥, 17v, 187, 20, 24.

48 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 found on manors to which that custom did not apply. On the manor of Chislet, for example, the holdings of only four tenants who owed a farthing were in the neighborhood of a quarter of a virgate, those of five were much less and those of four much more.?** Ina parish in the town of Cambridge Peter’s pence were called Rome farthings 397 and in a parish in the city of Worcester Peter farthings.®°® Occasionally an individual owed three farthings,®°® and on the manor of Chislet four tenants were charged with the unique sum of one-third of a penny each.*°° Both freemen and customary tenants who had the requisite qualifications which were applied in the parish or manor where they resided owed Peter’s pence in some of those places concerning which evidence has been obtained. In some instances this custom is definitely stated.*°* In others inclusive statements, such as each person or each house, or all tenants, in-

cluded both free and bond.* In still others Peter’s pence was charged against both freemen and customary tenants.*°®? On some manors custom-

ary tenants were the only payers. In some cases the freemen are stated to be exempt,*°* and in others free tenants are not charged Peter’s pence while some of the customary tenants are noted as liable for it.*°° Both Fynsham and Glastonbury held some manors on which both free and bond tenants were responsible for the due and others on which only the customary tenants owed it. The only conclusion which this incomplete evidence seems to permit is that no single formula will explain what persons were liable for the payment of Peter’s pence and what persons were not. The responsibility for

payment appears to have varied from place to place. It was determined sometimes by the same rule in more than one place, but there was no rule of universal application. The amount of Peter’s pence yielded by a given local community seems

often to have varied from one time to another where there are figures which permit comparisons. Several causes could effect such a change. If 396 Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 105-26.

°°7 Churchwardens’ Accounts of St. Mary the Great Cambridge, p. 72. 998 FT. M. C., MSS. of Earl of Westmorland and Others, p. 446. 599 Fg, Egerton MS. 3321, pp. 280-84; Reg. St. Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 33, 34, 37-44, 108. 400 Reg, St. Augustine’s Canterbury, J, 121, 125.

“1 Cart. Eynsham, Ul, 134; Chapter Act Book of Beverley, Ul, 308. *°? Cart. Bilsington, p. 205; Cart. de Rameseia, I, 321, 331, Custumals of Battle Abbey, pp. 87, 89, 90. #3 Fgerton MS. 3321, pp. 310-11, 465-68, Addit. MS. 36579, fo. 19; Young, History of Dulwich, pp. 282-83; above, p. 43. *°* Above, pp. 42-43. *°5 Cart. Eynsham, Il, 6-12; Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, pp. 78-80, 152, 203, 224-25, Egerton MS. 3321, pp. 66-72, 122-37, 177-84, 209-15, 243-66, 273-78, 280-84.

Peter’s Pence 49 the record deals with the amounts actually received by a local collector in different years, the changes might be due to more payers being delinquent In one year than in another.*°* The churchwardens of St Mary the Great in Cambridge received for Rome farthings in 1531 2s. 8% d. and in 1534 2s. 5d. They paid to the archdeacon in 1530 21 d., in 1532 22% d. and in 1534 21% d.*% The abbey of Eynsham received for Peter’s pence from Fynsham in 1325 4s. 6 d., in 1390 5 s., in 1406 3 s. 9 d. and in 1415 5 s,; from Shifford in 1360 16 d., in 1403, 1423 and 1428 16% d. and in 1470 21 d.*°* ‘The amounts collected by the lord of Dulwich varied likewise in several years between 1402 and 1535.4° When the record is a statement of the amount owed by the payers in different years other causes must be assigned. On a manor the reeve, the beadle, the hayward and other officials drawn from the customary tenants were sometimes relieved of all or part of their services, and these might include Peter’s pence.*?° When the lord made a new lease of a tenement he might exempt the new tenant from payment of Peter’s pence. Of the twelve tenements in Minchinhampton which once paid Peter’s pence but no longer did,*™! seven were held for life and would revert to the former customary services after the death of the existing tenants. Peter’s pence is specified to have been part of the customary service in three of the seven tenements. A cause assigned *1* and exemplified in contemporary documents was the increase or decline of the population. In 1452 in the parish of Shingay there were crofts where once had been houses. Since the inhabitants of the houses had paid Peter’s pence, the revenues of the church had decreased.*** On some manors of Glastonbury it is possible to compare the amount of Peter’s pence and the number of tenants in the middle

of the thirteenth century and in the first quarter of the fourteenth. In Pilton the number of tenants increased from 76 to 133 and Peter’s pence owed from 29¥4 d. to 60% d., in Street an increase of tenants raised Peter’s *°° In 1397 the men of Hanney paid 2 s. for Peter’s pence due currently, but they owed for previous years 15 s. 2 d.: Accounts of the Obedientiars of Abingdon, pp. 59, 66. "7 Accounts, pp. 72-74, 76, 77. *°8 Cart. Eynsham, IU, Ixii, lxvii, Ixxvii.

*°° Young, History of Dulwich, Il, 282-95. |

”° Cart. Eynsham, Il, 137, Watson, ‘Minchinhampton Custumal’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc., Trans., LIV, 230. #12 Above.

*“?“Romescott, que non est certus redditus, crescit enim et decrescit, est tamen nunc 14 d’: Bodleian Lib. MS. Rawlinson B 336, p. 204. ‘Quantum vero per rectores et vicarios

colligitur sciri de facili non potest, pro eo quod cum per domos inhabitatas colligatur, quibusdam annis plus quibusdam vero minus recipitur de denario antedicto’: Lamb. Reg. Reynolds, fo. 239. “8 Ely, Reg. Bourchier, fo. 32.

50 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 pence from 24¥, d. to 30 d., and in Baltonsborough a decrease of the tenants from 36 to 25 lowered Peter’s pence from 27 d. to 22 d.*!* In other instances the amounts of Peter’s pence are given without sufficient indication of the causes of the changes. In the large majority of the examples set forth below *!® the total sum due from each manorial community changed from one time to another sometimes by a small and sometimes by a large percentage. The date when Peter’s pence was due from the payers appears normally

still to have been the festival of St Peter in Chains on 1 August, as it had been prescribed originally in the Anglo-Saxon laws,*!* though there were local variations from it in some places. The first of August was the date in a considerable number of places in the diocese of Canterbury,*?” on the manors of Glastonbury in the diocese of Bath and Wells,**® in several archdeaconries in the diocese of Lincoln **® and on a manor of Selby in the diocese of York.*?° In the dioceses of Chichester *?* and Salisbury *?? Peter’s pence was owed to the bishop on 1 August, and in 1516 it was said to be due the bishop of Hereford on that date,*?* although in the late years

of the thirteenth century and early years of the fourteenth it had been collected by the archdeacons at Michaelmas and owed by them to the bishop on the same day.*** In these dioceses the payers may have been required to meet their obligations before 1 August, but it is possible that the render of the payers to the parochial collectors, from them to the rural deans, from the rural deans to the archdeacons, and from the archdeacons or the rural deans to the bishops may have been due on the same day. In some dioceses where the rural deans were held to deliver Peter’s pence to the archdeacons at the Michaelmas session of the archidiaconal chapter, the payers were probably responsible for payment of what they owed on 1 August. This was the situation in the diocese of Canterbury. In the fifteenth century an archidiaconal warning was read in each of the 414 A ddit. MS. 17450, fo. 98%, 99; Rentalia Michaelis de Ambresbury, pp. 197-98, 210-16; Egerton MS. 3321, pp. 122-37, 177-84, 280-98.

“° App. I. “6 Above, p. 21.

“17 Cotton MS. Julius D II, fo. 136; Royal MS. I B XI, fo. 147; Reg. St Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 14, 27, 28, 60, 76, Custumals of Battle Abbey, p. 43, Cart. Bilsington, pp. 191, 205, 218; Bodleian Lib., MS. Rawlinson B 336, pp. 204, 216. “8 Rgerton MS. 3321, pp. 123-29, 179-84. 429 Cotton MS. Nero D X, fo. 154; Cart. de Rameseia, I, 321, 331; Cart. Eynsham, Il, 129; Richmond, “Three Records’, Bedfordshire Historical Record Soc., Pubs., VIII, 26. #20 A ddit. MS. 36579, fo. 19. “1 Reg. Rede, Il, 412; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F, fo. 271. #22 Somerset House, Reg. Deane in Reg. Blamyr, fo. 14. “23 Lamb. Reg. Warham, fo. 272.

4 Reg. Swinfield, pp. 471, 483-84, Reg. Orleton, p. 277, Webb, Roll of Household Expenses, p. 165.

Peter’s Pence 51 two annual archidiaconal chapters, held at Easter and at Michaelmas, ordering rectors, vicars and chaplains to pay what they owed to the rural deans before the next chapter.*?° Since Peter’s pence was due only once a year,

one of the two chapters was concerned only with arrears. The session when the annual payment was due must have been at Michaelmas, since the payers generally were not liable for their payments until 1 August. Indeed, the lord of one manor was not liable for his render to the rural dean until Michaelmas *** and on one manor of St Augustine the tenants did not owe Peter’s pence to the lord until Michaelmas.*?” In the dioceses of Norwich,*** Lichfield,*?® and probably in the diocese of York **° the rural deans customarily made delivery to the archdeacons in the synods held at Michaelmas, and the archdeacons became liable for their renders to the bishops on the same day. This was also the term for receipt of the money by the archdeacon of Winchester.**? This practice probably obtained also in the diocese of Exeter. Two statements made by Bishop Grandisson with regard to it seem at first glance to be in conflict. On 15 May 1337 he wrote to the locumtenens of the papal collector: “our archdeacons customarily collect these pennies after Easter,’ but on 10 October 1328 he wrote to his archdeacons: ‘the annual payment of Peter’s pence owed in our diocese terminated at the festival of Michaelmas last past.’ **? These statements are reconcilable, if the system in Exeter was the same as that in the preceding dioceses. The ‘annual payment’ was

due at Michaelmas #8* and what the archdeacons collected after Easter were arrears. Michaelmas, indeed, seems to have been so nearly the common date when Peter’s pence was owed both to the archdeacons and to the bishops *** that Arnald Garnerii in 1374 spoke of it as the universal date.**® It is, therefore, probable that the traditional date of 1 August for the render of Peter’s pence by the payers still held good in most of England.

Of the variations from 1 August one was Easter, but it was far from “> Dansey, Horae Decanicae Rurales, p. 424. “°° Bodleian Lib., MS. Rawlinson B 336, p. 204. £27 Reg. St Augustine’s Canterbury, I, 105-26. “28 Inventory of Church Goods, pp. 34, 44 et seq.; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F, fo. 163. “°T). & Ch. Lichfield, Roll M 4, mem. 1; Lamb., Reg. Kemp, fo. 338, Reg. Morton, I, fo. 61, 61%, 156.

*8° Reg. Honoris de Richmond, app. p. 63; Reg. Wickwane, p. 239. *81 "Winchester, Reg. Woodlock, fo. 2¥. *8? Reg. Grandisson, I, 298, 408. “8°’The annual payment was still due to both the archdeacons and the bishop in 1504: Lamb. Reg. Warham, fo. 213. *°¢ Other than 1 August the only exception I have noted was in the diocese of Worcester

where the rural deans were expected to account with the bishop’s agent shortly before Christmas: Worcester Sede Vacante Reg., p. 150; Reg. Wakefield, fo. 140V. 48° Col. 13, fo. 49.

52 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 universal as Peter Griphus stated.*?* In the archdeaconry of Leicester the rural dean of Leicester was held to pay Peter’s pence at Easter,**” but in all the other rural deaneries of the archdeaconry the date was 1 August.*** In the diocese of Lichfield, where 1 August was the general date, Peter’s pence was due at Easter from five prebends which paid directly to the bishop.**? In the parish of Haselor, which was in Warwickshire and in the diocese of Worcester, Peter’s pence was owed to the rector by the parishioners on 25 July. This was the date for the payment of small tithes — with which Peter’s pence was associated in that parish.**° In the part of Warwickshire which was in the diocese of Lichfield one payer who owed a composition for the Peter’s pence of three parishes was bound to pay it on 15 August.*** Payments by tenants to the lord of the manor of Dulwich in the diocese of Winchester were recorded in the rolls of courts held in September, October or November of 1407, 1412, 1494 and 1523.*#” The parishioners on the lands of the abbey of St Albans owed Peter’s pence on 2 August, which was the second festival (Inventio) of St Alban.**° During most of the period before 1327 Peter’s pence was treated as temporal, though in the later years of the period it was beginning to be regarded as spiritual.*** In 1328 it was definitely decided that the due belonged to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. A rural dean was sued by the archdeacon of Bath in the episcopal court for Peter’s pence and procurations which he had not paid. ‘The defendant obtained a royal writ of prohibition. The bishop consulted the king and his justices and was given the opinion that all the counts were in the cognizance of the ecclesiastical forum. He, therefore, claimed jurisdiction of Peter’s pence as being exclusively spiritualities **® and appointed delegates to try the case.**®

Thereafter during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries disputes and *°° Above, p. 20.

*87 Century XV. ‘Decanatus Leycestre tenetur solvere denare (sic) Petri et sinodalia ad Pascham’: Cotton MS. Nero D X, fo. 154. 488 ‘Q)mnes alii decanatus tenentur solvere denare Petri ad festum eiusdem ad vincula’: ibid. On 23 July 1335 the bishop of Lincoln appointed a rector to collect Peter’s pence for

the term of Easter last past owed to the bishop by reason of the vacancy of the archdeaconry of Northampton: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 506. Whether the reference is to the annual payment or to arrears is not apparent. *8°T), & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. F, fo. 288. In an account of the receipts from Peter’s pence in 1491 or 1492, Peter’s pence in the archdeaconry of Coventry was said to be due in equal portions at Michaelmas and at Easter. This heading is erroneous, since the sums entered under it are for synodals which were due at those two terms: Lamb. Reg. Morton, fo. 61, 619.

440 Rxch. K.R. Misc. Book 22, fo. 131. *41 Harl. MS. 3650, fo. 40V.

*? Young, History of Dulwich, II, 284-85, 293-94. “48 Gesta Abbatum, I, 5, 6; III, 508. *** Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 70-72. **°‘super denariis beati Petri mere spiritualibus’. **° Wells, Reg. Drokensford, fo. 279, 279v.

Peter's Pence 53 appeals concerning Peter’s pence were settled by the bishop,**? the archbishop **° or the pope.**® Only one exception has come to my notice when ecclesiastics were parties to a suit. Between 1468 and 1470 John Morton, who was then archdeacon of Norwich and also keeper of the rolls of the chancery, petitioned the chancellor, who was bishop of Bath and Wells, against the abbot of Langley. He stated that he and his predecessors from

time out of mind had been charged with the payment to the bishop of Peter’s pence *°° collected in his archdeaconry and that he had paid the same yearly to the bishop under trust of repayment from the occupiers of the ground within the parishes of Bodham, Limpenhoe and Thrigby and

within all other parishes in the archdeaconry. He complained that the present abbot of Langley, to whose monastery the three churches were annexed, had withheld Peter’s pence, although his predecessors had paid the due. The abbot pleaded that jurisdiction of the suit belonged to a spiritual court, but nevertheless he replied to the petition. He claimed that not a penny due from Peter’s pence was unpaid. At all times, he said, the occupiers of the ground comprised in the three parishes paid Peter’s pence

to the pope’s collector for the time being or to his deputy, and the archdeacon had no claim, title or interest in the said Peter’s pence. What the abbot meant by this statement is beyond understanding, for the claim of John Morton, made in his rejoinder, that the levying, gathering and paying of the moneys in question rested by real composition of old time between

the bishop and the archdeacon only upon the charge of the archdeacon, was undoubtedly correct, though it may have been by custom rather than by formal composition. Whether the suit was concluded in the court of chancery, or was dismissed, as the abbot sought, because it belonged to the

jurisdiction of a court Christian, does not appear in the record.*°* Lay lords could still enforce payment of Peter’s pence by their tenants in manorial courts,*°? but whether or not suits concerning Peter’s pence regarded as a manorial due continued to come into the royal courts in this

period I do not know. Throughout the period Peter’s pence owed to a bishop during a vacancy of the see was received by the keepers of the spiritualities,*°* and not, as had been the earlier practice, by the royal guardians of the temporalities. “7 Fly, Reg. Arundell, fo. 100, 100%, Reg. Bourchier, fo. 52; Worcester, Reg. Brian,

° ie Rev. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 310. **° Above, pp. 14-17, 24-25.

*°° "The petition included also synodals and procurations for the archidiaconal visitations.

*2 Cals. of Proceedings in Chancery in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, I, Introd. pp. Ixxxi-lxxxil. For this reference I am indebted to Professor Edgar B. Graves. ** Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 71. *°* Above, pp. 23-24.

BLANK PAGE

Cuapter II THE CENSUS OF EXEMPT AND PROTECTED ECCLESIASTICAL

FOUNDATIONS AND THE ROYAL TRIBUTE 1. Census oF ExEmMpr AND PROTECTED ECCLESIASTICAL FOUNDATIONS

Woe the period under consideration began, there were twelve monasteries which owed annual payment of census in return either for being exempted from episcopal jurisdiction and being placed under the immediate jurisdiction of St Peter and the pope, or for being under the protection of the apostolic see. They were Anglesey, Bodmin, Bury St Edmunds, Carlisle, Chacombe, Chertsey, Faversham, Malmesbury,

St Albans, St Mary without Aldgate, Scarborough and Tonbridge. The monasteries of Royston and St Augustine Canterbury had owed census at one time or another before 1327, but they had ceased to pay the due before that date, and they did not renew payment thereafter. Two other monasteries which had once been responsible for census and had ceased payment before 1327 resumed payment before 1534. One seems to have escaped payment by a mistake in the Liber Censuum and the other by omission from it. This was a list of the payers of census compiled at the papal camera in 1192, to which additions were made as new payers undertook the obligation. The monastery of Laund in the diocese of Lincoln appears to have been entered in the Liber Censuum as the monastery of Bredeleia in the diocese of Lincoln. The collectors for a long time were unable to ascertain the identity of Bredeleia, but in 1405 Lodovico, bishop of Volterra, discovered that Laund owed two bezants annually for census, which was the amount charged against Bredeleia in the Liber. By inquiry

at the royal exchequer he found that the value of two bezants was four shillings. From that time the prior and convent of Laund were charged with that amount. Over a century later Laund was in the list of payers of census kept by the papal collector.* The abbey of Tavistock, which obtained its exemption in 1193 in return

for the payment of three aureos yearly, was not entered in the Liber Censuum. Consequently it escaped the attention of papal collectors and as

late as 1511 it was not included in the list of payers drawn up by Peter Griphus. By 1261 its exemption had been forgotten, since it was visited by

the archbishop of Canterbury,” and thereafter bishops of Exeter visited * MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 46; Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 102-04. *Finberg corrects my former statements that the exemption was maintained until 1514,

that the abbot was confirmed by the pope in 1327 and that some previous abbots of the monastery had received papal confirmation: Tavistock Abbey, p. 235, n. 7.

56 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the monastery and confirmed the elections of its abbots from time to time

until 1513.° In that year the abbot claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of the bishop. Arbitrators decided against the abbot’s claim in 1514, and forthwith the abbot and convent obtained a royal license to obtain a confirmation of the exemption of 1193 and a new bull of exemption.‘ | Leo X answered the request on 18 September 1517. He confirmed the old

exemption, enlarged it and changed the amount of census from three aureos, which were the equivalent of six shillings, to half an ounce of gold, valued at twenty shillings of English money.® The bishop acknowledged the exemption of Tavistock in 1525, and the abbot agreed to compensate the bishop for the loss of his jurisdiction by payment of five marks a year

and of £10 4s. after each vacancy of the abbacy.® After the trouble and expense of establishing the exemption anew, the monks were not likely again to have forgotten to pay the census before 1534." After 1327 a number of ecclesiastical foundations which had not before enjoyed exemption became payers of census in order to obtain the privilege. The first of these was the abbess and convent of Franciscan nuns at

Denney. The minoresses moved from Waterbeach to Denney in 1342.° Apparently in connection with that event they sought from the pope ex-

emption from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan. The petition was granted on 18 January 1343. The privilege provided that they should pay each year to the pope one pound of wax.® In an earlier instance a pound of wax was assessed at six pence. No evidence indicates that Denney ever paid census. ‘The item was not

added to the Liber Censuum, and, since the collectors commonly obtained their knowledge of the debtors for census from that source, the liability

of Denney may well have remained unknown to them. No receipts of census from Denney were reported in the accounts of the collectors before

1378, and none was recorded at any time in the registers of the camera where the receipts from census delivered directly to the camera by the payers were usually entered. The list of census compiled by Peter Griphus about 1511 omitted Denney, and that means that Walter Medford, who * Reg. Brantyngham, I, 312-15; II, 667-71, 715-19, Reg. Stafford, p. 346, Reg. Lacy, I, 49-56, 317-24: C.P.R. 1446-52, pp. 54, 410; 1461-67, p. 273, 1485-94, pp. 335, 379, 382; Jenkins, Cardinal Morton’s Register, pp. 56, 62, 63.

* The decision of the arbitrators was rendered on 8 February and the license was dated 18 March: L. @ P., Ill, pt. 1, 428. * [bid.; Oliver, Monasticon, p. 103. ° Exeter, Reg. Veysey, II, fo. 42¥-48.

7Except as otherwise noted, this and the two proceeding paragraphs are based on Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 102-04, 109-10, 640, 681. * Knowles, Religious Houses, p. 142.

°CP.L., Il, 68.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 57 was collector from 1418 to 1420, also did not know of the liability of the abbess and convent. Peter did not examine the books and documents of the apostolic archives before his arrival in England, and no documents concerning the debtors for census, Peter’s pence or annates were delivered to him in England except a corroded codex compiled by Walter Medford.’°

Actually Peter listed several debtors for census who did not assume the obligation until after 1420,"" but he seems to have been dependent on his predecessor’s account for his knowledge of the payments instituted before 1420.

An attempt of the abbot of St Werburgh Chester to obtain an exemption raised a storm of opposition. On 3 January 1345 the abbot and convent petitioned the pope for the exemption of themselves, their church and their

monastery from the jurisdiction of the archdeacon, the bishop and the archbishop. They asked to be subject immediately to the apostolic see and offered to pay a yearly census. Clement VI granted the petition,’? and on 2 January 1346 a bull was issued to that effect. The census was set at ten marks at the rate of five florins for one mark to be paid once every three years.**

Though the convent purportedly joined in the petition, it had never been consulted. When the monks learned of the exemption, some of them were opposed to it, thinking apparently that the abbot had obtained it in order the more freely to give himself up to dissolute living.** Four of the elder monks decided to make an appeal against the exemption. They easily

obtained the support of Edward the Black Prince and of his father the king, both of whom had rights with regard to the monastery which were in-

fringed by the exemption. The Black Prince, in his capacity as earl of Chester, was the patron of the monastery. His license for the petition should have been obtained, but it was neither sought nor given. The king, if his son should die, would lose the admission of the elect to be abbot and the presentation of him to the bishop. He also objected to the monastery becoming subject to census forever and to the contravention of divers of his proclamations by having ‘great sums’ of gold and silver taken out of the realm to obtain the exemption.*®

The prince asked the abbots and convents of Westminster and Chert1° MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 39. 11 Thid., fo. 45¥-46¥.

2 CPP. I, 91. *® Reg. Stretton (Lichfield), II, 156. According to this summary of the bull the 10 marks were to be paid annually. According to the confirmation of this bull in 1392 payment was required only once in three years: C.P.L., IV, 451. ** Reg. of Black Prince, I, 110-11; C.P.P., I, 274. ** CPLR. 1345-48, p. 363; Reg. of Black Prince, I, 111.

58 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

sey to give a home to the four monks, who did not dare to remain at Chester while they were prosecuting the appeal. He also took the monks under his protection *® and his father did likewise.’’ The king soon went further. He learned that some of the monks of Chester had been expelled from the house and that others had been kept in such strict custody that they had left the monastery and gone elsewhere. Chantries, divine offices, alms and hospitality were withdrawn, and it was feared, with the monks scattered, the house would be left desolate and its manors, granges, goods and

treasure would be dispersed. ‘To prevent this outcome he ordered the prince to appoint keepers of the abbey and its property, who should administer its affairs by counsel with three or four monks of the house who were not too favorable to the abbot. The keepers were commissioned on 5 August 1347. A few days later the prince appointed two men to examine

each member of the convent in secret in order to find out whether the exemption was procured with his consent or not." Whatever result these proceedings may have had, the exemption was still in effect when the abbot died. The monks then took an oath to procure the revocation of the exemption and proceeded to elect Richard de Seynes-

bury abbot. Thereafter a new petition was presented to the pope. The petitioners were the Black Prince, the new abbot, the monks and the lay brothers of the monastery. They asked the pope, who was then Innocent VI, to commission some cardinal to inform himself of the facts and on mature consideration to revoke the exemption. On 31 January 1355 the pope appointed the vice chancellor to make the inquiry.*® Whatever the vice chancellor may have done, Innocent VI did not revoke the exemption. The affair was therefore brought to the attention of his successor, UrbanV, by another petition. This time the prince of Wales, the bishop of Lichfield, the abbot, who was then Thomas de Newport, and the convent were the petitioners. They asked simply for the revocation of the exemption.”° This was finally done on 23 May 1363.7"

During this long period of controversy, the payment of census was in abeyance. There is no record of payments either in the collectors’ accounts or in the registers of the camera. The revocation of the exemption was not permanent. On 22 November 1392 Boniface [X annulled it, confirmed the exemption granted by Clement VI and required payment of census as established by that pope.** Several 16 Reg. of Black Prince, I, 104-05, 107. 17 C\P.R. 1345-48, p. 363.

18 Reg. of Black Prince, 1, 110-12.

19 CPP, I, 274. 20 CPP. I, 423.

1 CPL, IV, 88. 2 CPL. IV, 451.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 59 years later a bishop of Lichfield contested the exemption by attempting to visit the monastery. The abbot claimed exemption and the dispute was given to the bishop of Worcester to arbitrate. He decided that the abbot should compensate the bishop for the loss of his jurisdiction by payment of 100 marks. The abbot and the bishop accepted the decision in 1426.?8 The king acknowledged that the election of an abbot needed the confirmation of the pope in 1455.7* The story of the exemption ended in the reign of Henry VIII, when an abbot obtained a confirmation of it by Leo X and then had to obtain a royal pardon for a breach of the statute of provisors.”° The census appears to have been paid after 1392, though it is impossible to determine with what regularity in the absence of collectors’ accounts for

the period. Peter Griphus included St Werburgh in his list of payers of census. He remarked that owing to the carelessness of previous collectors only £6 13 s. 4d, was received for the ten marks, whereas £11 5 s. ought to have been paid.*® The remark indicates that the census had been paid to

some earlier collectors, but his calculation requires an explanation. It is based on the valuation of each mark at 5 florins and the rate of exchange in his own day. At the rate of 54 d. for each florin *7 50 florins were worth £11 5 s.?8

The master, priors, canons, lay brothers, nuns and lay sisters of the order of Sempringham were granted a full exemption by Clement VI on 5 August 1345. Asa sign of the said liberty they were to give to the camera every two years a pound of gold.”? ‘The concession was made at the request of Queen Isabella and certain English nobles. When the amount of census

was made known to them, Queen Isabella and King Edward asked the pope to moderate the charge.*° On 8 October he reduced it to a mark of gold payable once every two years. In this letter the master and all members of the order were said to be exempt from ordinary jurisdiction and to be immediately subject to the pope.**

This item was entered in the Liber Censuum, where it was said that payment was due on the feast of SS Peter and Paul (29 June) and that *? Lichfield, Reg. Heyworth, fo. 117-18. *“Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 2, 63. °° L. & P., IV, pt. 1, p. 232, no. 1278. 26 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 48. 27Tn 1505 and 1506 the camera reckoned 3 florins for a mark or 53 1/3 d. to the florin: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1708, fo. 90%; 1711, fo. 9.

8 Tf the value of 50 florins had been established by the first collector to receive payment after 1392, as was customary, it would have been in the neighborhood of £8 6s. 8 d. The rate of exchange in 1381 was 39 d. to the florin and in 1423 it was 40 d.: C.P.L., IV, 262; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 31. 2° Col. 282, fo. 143.

CPP. I, 86.

1 C.P.L., Ill, 189. Elsewhere the relationship was described as ‘ad ecclesiam Romanam immediate spectante’: I. & E., 270, fo. 37. .

60 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the gold mark was worth 64 florins.*"*) From 1347, when the first payment

became due, until 1363 the receipt at the camera of 64 florins from the master and brothers of Sempringham was recorded regularly every other year in the cameral registers.*? The next payment was made to the papal collector, John de Cabrespino, in 1367 for two biennial periods at the rate of £9 12 s. for each two years.** The payment due in 1369 was again rendered to the camera,** but in 1377 the collector, Arnald Garnerii, received the amount owed for two biennial periods, which was all that was due at the time. On this occasion the rate was £9 15 s. for each period.* Records of the payments thereafter are lost. Renders to the camera ceased, probably after the return of the papacy to Rome, and the accounts of the collectors are lacking. By 1418 the census was certainly being paid to the collector regularly, since the item was entered in Walter Medford’s regis-

ter, and this practice still continued in the time of Peter Griphus. By , Walter’s time the amount in English money of £9 15 s., first established by Arnald Garner, had become fixed, and by Peter’s time the render had become due in the even instead of the odd numbered years.*®

When Edward III founded the collegiate chapel of SS Mary and Stephen in his palace at Westminster, he requested the pope to give it exemption so that the dean would have jurisdiction over the clergy associated with the chapel.*7 Clement VI complied on 19 November 1349 by granting the dean jurisdiction over the canons, vicars, priests and ministers of the

chapel. In acknowledgment of the same he required payment annually to the camera of one mark on the festival of St Stephen.**

The chapel was added to the list of payers of census in the Liber Censuum,*® but there is no trace of the payment of the prescribed mark. Peter Griphus, finding no mention of it in Walter Medford’s register or in any other account, concluded that it never had been paid. Lest he should neglect his duty, he set out to collect it. He prayed, persuaded and warned the dean and canons to satisfy the camera out of reverence for the apostolic see and for the exoneration of their consciences. After a long discussion, they answered that the college did not wish to pay what their predecessors never had paid and asked him to desist from exacting what no collector ‘18 Dated wrongly 7 Clement VI instead of 4: I, 225. 221 & E. 238, fo. 37; 270, fo. 37%; 277, fo. 6%; 283, fo. 27; 295, fo. 3¥; 300, fo. 4; Col. 231, fo. 140; Goller, Einnabmen unter Klemens VI, pp. 26, 31, 41. 38 At the rate of 3 s. for a florin: Col. 12, fo. 15. $43 November 1370: I. & E. 333, fo. 28. ®5 Col. 12, fo. 210, 234. 86 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 47%. 87 C.P.P., I, 186-87.

CPL. Til, 330. 8° TT, 121.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 61 before him had demanded. After he replied, the dean and canons claimed that in the use of this exemption they were subject to the jurisdiction of the abbot of Westminster and that they had paid him each year five marks in acknowledgment thereof.*° Since the college had the support of men of great prestige and of the highest authority, Peter decided that it would be foolish to consult the apostolic see or to apply the rigor of the law and gave up his quest.** Thus it may be deemed reasonably certain that the chapel never paid census. In the last years of the fourteenth century or in the fifteenth the papacy began to issue a new type of exemption which freed a monastery from subjection to a mother house and placed it under the immediate control of the apostolic see. ‘The first of these was granted to the Cluniac priory of Lewes

by Boniface IX, who was pope from 1389 to 1404. According to a reference to this grant in a letter of Clement VII ** it exempted the priory from

episcopal jurisdiction and placed it in ‘nullo medio’ subjection to the papacy, a relationship which must have ended the control of the priory by the monastery of Cluny. Boniface IX, however, does not appear to have imposed the payment of census upon the house. That was done by Sixtus IV, who, on 20 September 1480, again declared the prior and convent of Lewes immediately subject to the apostolic see and exempt from the juris-

diction of Cluny. ‘Ratione exemptionis’ he required the annual payment of one mark of thirteen shillings four pence of English money for census. This was the bull noted both in the Liber Censuum ** and in the list of

Peter Griphus ** as the origin of the payment of census by Lewes. On 26 September 1480 the proctor of the prior and convent pledged his principals for the annual payment of the census to the collector in England on 29 June under the penalties of the camera.*°

The prior and convent of Pontefract was also scheduled by Peter Griphus as owing annually 13 s. 4 d. for census on 29 June. The reason given was the grant by the apostolic see of privileges, of which the nature was not explained.*® Eugenius IV, on the petition of Henry VI, exempted the priory from subjection to the monastery of La Charité-sur-Loire and required that the elected priors should be confirmed by the apostolic see. *° Edward III, in his petition for the exemption, specified that the dean was to receive the cure of souls from the bishop and to be subject to the bishop in all things relating to it. The papal letter of 1349, as it is calendared, made no such exception. “1 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 47, 477. on November 1524, “‘Decet Romanam pontificem’: Reg. Vat. 1443, fo. 171-739. 44 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 45%, 46. “© Fondo Arch. di Stato 1895, fo. 3. 46 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 45.

62 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 His letter contained no reference to census.*7 On 19 April 1453 Nicholas V granted the same exemption anew and took the priory under protection of St Peter and the apostolic see. Because the prior and convent had offered to pay census, he ordered the payment of one mark annually to the camera or its collector in token of the ‘freedom.’ 48 Another Cluniac priory which became a payer of census in the time of Sixtus [V was Lenton. On 27 July 1484 the pope explained in an ‘Ad perpetuam rei memoriam’ bull that Richard Dene, the prior of Great Malvern and administrator of the priory of Lenton, both of which were said to be Cluniac priories, had petitioned to have them made independent and that

the petition was supported by Richard III. He, therefore, placed them under the direct jurisdiction of the pope and authorized them to elect priors without papal approval. ‘In signum exceptionis, liberationis et subjectionis sedi apostolice’ they were to pay to the papal collector in England each year a mark of pure gold.*° Obviously the papal chancery was confused, when it constructed the

terms of this letter. Great Malvern was a Benedictine priory, which had been dependent upon Westminster since as early at least as 1157.°° The staff of the camera seems to have been perplexed by the letter, since it entered the item in the Liber Censuum under Great Malvern. There the item was not dated. The editors of the Liber indicate only that the entry was made after 1236.°" Ina list of the payers of census, based on the Liber Censuum, published by Martin [IV in 1282, Great Malvern was not included. While this might mean that Great Malvern had become a payer of census between 1236 and 1282 and had ceased to pay the due before 1282, since the amount of census recorded in the Liber was a mark of gold —which was an exceptionally large sum—and this was the amount stated in

the bull of 1484, it seems more probable that the entry was not made before 1484.5 When it came to the collection of the census, the papal collectors discovered that the exemption did not apply to the Benedictine priory of

Great Malvern and exacted it from the priory of Lenton. In the list of Peter Griphus Lenton is designated as the debtor on account of ‘a most ample exemption’ granted by Sixtus IV. Though the mark of gold was ‘726 April 1441: C.P.L., IX, 205.

“CPL. X, 133-34.

*° “Quamvis orbis ecclesie’: Reg. Vat. 649, fo. 617-66.

- ee Financial Relations to 1327, p. 112. Cf. Knowles, Religious Houses, p. 66. 52 Before the discovery of the letter of 1484, I inclined to accept the former alternative

ae reservation of the possibility of the latter alternative: Financial Relations to 1327,

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 63 worth much more than the mark of sterlings, the priory was required to pay only 13 s.4d. Payment was due on 29 June.*? Sixtus IV also made two houses of other orders payers of census. On 17 July 1479 he confirmed the independence of the house of Burton Lazars of the order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem from its mother house of Boigni

in France. The privilege had been granted originally by Nicholas V.™* Sixtus added that the master and brothers should enjoy all the privileges of the order, that an elected master could take office immediately and that the house must pay for the exemption ®® annually at Christmas twelve florins of the camera.®* John de Giglis, who was then the collector, assessed the florin at 52 d. and set the amount at £2 12 s. in English money.” Another religious house which received an exemption that carried with it responsibility for the payment of census was Holy Cross near the Tower of London, a priory of the order of the Friars of the Cross. On 24 November 1483 Sixtus IV conceded to it full exemption in return for the payment of census. The amount was not stated in the letter, but was settled by the

collector, John de Giglis. He considered the resources of the priory and established 1 s. 8 d. as the sum to be paid annually.*®

Sixtus IV seems to have been the last pope to impose census on an English religious house which had not paid it previously. In 1512 the abbot and convent of Osney received a royal license to seek from Rome exemption for the monastery and its chapels.®® If the undertaking was successful, it does not follow necessarily that census was exacted. After 1327 as before, the grant of exemption did not always entail census.*° Boniface IX removed a chapel in Newton in Cambridgeshire from the jurisdiction or visitation of legates nati, archbishops, bishops or other ordinaries and received it into the protection of St Peter;°t in 1444 the abbess and convent

of St Saviour Syon, which had been founded by Henry V, was exempt from all jurisdiction inferior to that of the apostolic see;°’ but neither was required to pay census. Leo X, to be sure, increased the census of ‘Tavistock, but he did not institute it. All the English religious houses which assumed the obligation of census after 1327 did so during the pontificate °° MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 46. °* Griphus said Calixtus IV.

°* Griphus put it: ‘ad indicium et recognitionem plene exemptionis et libertatis’. °° Reg. Vat. 547, fo. 77-79V. °7 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 46¥. °8 Ibid., fo. 46¥.

591 & P. I, 3360. °° For the earlier period: Lunt Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 88-90, 106. ** Related in a letter of Alexander V, 8 July 1409: York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 23. °? C.P.R. 1441-46, p. 274.

64 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of Clement VI or of Sixtus IV, with one exception in the pontificate of Nicholas V. The amount of census owed to the papacy thus increased from time to

time throughout the period. In 1327 the twelve monasteries which had been liable for census before 1327 and continued to pay it thereafter owed £4 15s, annually.** The two houses whose former payments were revived

and the seven houses which contracted to pay census for the first time after 1327 and actually paid it owed collectively £12 19 s.7% d.a year. The twelve monasteries which had become payers of census before 1327 were supposed to deliver their annual payments to the collector at Michaelmas.® In a normal year one or none would pay before Michaelmas,

some within the next three months, the majority in the early months of the year following the Michaelmas when the payment had become due, and some at still later dates.°® Sometimes a collector, after Michaelmas, would order a bishop to warn a payer to make delivery at his house in London before a date set in the early months of the next year,®” but the number of such letters is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that this was the uniform practice of all collectors.*® A collector might order the payer to be given a simple warning or a warning with the threat of excommunication for failure to appear at the prescribed date. Sometimes a bishop was also ordered to sequestrate the revenues of the debtor immediately. If

a payer fell too far behind, a collector might order a bishop to summon the debtor to pay at his house in London before a certain date or suffer excommunication, and the warning might make the sentence effective at the expiration of the term without further action on the part of the collector. Such letters usually required the bishop to establish sequestration immediately.*® Bernard de Sistre caused the bishop of Worcester some embarrassment in the execution of a letter of this type. On 3 February

p. 640.

°*'They were Sempringham 1345, £4 17 s. 6 d.; Chester 1392, £2 4s. 5 1/3 d.; Laund 1405, 4.s.; Pontefract 1453, 13 s. 4 d.; Burton Lazars 1479, £2 12 s.; Lewes 1480, 13 s. 4 d.; Holy Cross London 1483, 1 s. 8 d.; Lenton 1484, 13 s. 4 d.; Tavistock 1517, £1. ®° Col. 13, fo. 487, 49; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74.

6 Col. 227, fo. 35-40%, 1117-15; 11, fo. 3. ,

* Such letters were dated from 20 October to 30 December and the dates when payment was demanded varied from 1 January to May: Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 243-44, Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139, 139%; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 112, 142, 1427; York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 3127; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Cartae Antiquae S. 445 88 Those which I have discovered bear dates from 1375 to 1413. °° Bodleian Lib., Kent Roll 6, items r., pp., qq.; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 321; Chart. Winchester Cathedral, p. 53; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18, 18%; Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, pp. 248-49, Wykehbam’s Reg., Il, 366; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), 324-25; Fly, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 164, 164%. Dated from 1331 to 1407.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 65 1336 he ordered the bishop to issue such a warning to the abbot of Chertsey,

though he gave the same order to the bishop of Winchester on the same date. The bishop of Worcester, thinking that Bernard meant Cirencester, warned the abbot of that house to pay as directed before he discovered the collector’s mistake with regard to the diocese in which Chertsey was located.”° While it was the common practice of collectors in the fourteenth century and early years of the fifteenth to utilize the bishops for the issue of such warnings to the payers, in the early years of the sixteenth century Peter Griphus addressed them directly to the debtors.7* During the period for which collectors’ accounts are extant the majority of those who owed census rendered their payments to the collector within a few months of Michaelmas of each year, excepting the disturbed period

from 1365 to 1368. Those who fell into arrears usually met their debts within a year or two, and the few who failed to make any payment for as long as from four to seven years were distinctly exceptional.” Those who became payers of census for the first time after 1327 owed their renders at dates other than Michaelmas, the most common being the festival of SS Peter and Paul on 29 June.” Little appears in the discovered sources concerning the work of collection either from them or, after 1416, from the older payers. In 1467 the vice camerarius and the treasurer issued a letter addressed to all, containing an attested copy of the statement in

the Liber Censuum of the census owed by each English payer. It may indicate that the collector, Vincent Clement, was having difficulty in exacting the census. Peter Griphus demanded payment from Chacombe of £1 16s. 3 d., which represented what was due for twenty-nine years. He also issued a receipt to Anglesey for payment of £2 2 s. covering a period of twenty-one years.”* While these examples demonstrate that arrears had been allowed to accumulate in some instances in the sixteenth century for much longer periods than in any instances in the fourteenth

century, they provide no basis for any conclusion with regard to the general state of the collection of the census in the later period. This type of census and the exemptions which it so often represented aroused some popular criticism during the period. John Wyclif or one of his followers thought that the religious ought not to give a pension of so 7° Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18, 187, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 32V. ™ MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 69, 69V. 72 Col. 227, fo. 35-40¥, 111-115, 146¥; 14, fo. 24v, 34-37%, 94V-95, 1227; 11, fo. 3, 21, 141, 167; 12, fo. 4, 23, 66-67, 96"; 13, fo. 3¥, 4, 48%, 49; 12, fo. 207¥, 209¥, 233v, 234.

78 Peter Griphus gave 29 June as the date when census was due also from most of the monasteries which began to pay it before 1327, MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 44¥-47. 7428 June: Arm. XXIX, 33, fo. 49v, 7 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 69, 69¥.

66 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 much gold to the pope to be exempt from visitations of bishops and from just correction, lest they should wax rotten in sin.”* There was enough opinion adverse to exemptions to cause a debate on the desirability of annull-

ing them in the convocation of Canterbury which elected representatives to the council of Constance.”" In 1440 the abbot of St Albans and a monk of Norwich, who were attending the council of Basle, wrote to the abbot of Bury that the bishops in the council were attacking the exemption of monasteries. They urged him to come to the council to vote in behalf of the privilege of exemption.”* Nevertheless the census survived to 1534.” 2. RoyaL TRIBUTE

When Edward III became king, the tribute of 1000 marks a year which had been pledged by King John for himself and his heirs was owed for thirty years of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II.*° The English government allowed the arrears to accumulate for three more years before it did anything with regard to payment of the tribute. By that time the exchequer was low in funds,®* and it was decided to come to an understanding with the pope concerning payment as a means of obtaining financtal favors. The use of payments of the tribute for that purpose was in accordance with precedents set by the grandfather and father of Edward III.** In September 1329 the government dispatched an embassy to the papal court, of which William Montague and Bartholomew Burghersh were the leading members.** They reached an agreement near the beginning of January 1330 that 1000 of the 33000 marks should be paid immediately for the sum due at Michaelmas 1329,** 1000 should be paid in each of the next two years for the sums due at Michaelmas 1327 and 1328, and thereafter 500 marks should be paid each year until the remaining 30000 marks of arrears had been met. The thousand marks due at Michaelmas of 1330 and of each subsequent year should be paid concurrently as payment fell 76 English Works of Wyclif, ed. Matthew, p. 224. 7" St Albans Chronicle, ed. Galbraith, p. 83. 78 Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, Ul, 252-57.

7° The exemptions may have lasted for a short time after that since a statute of that year provided that the monasteries which had been subject immediately to the apostolic see should be placed under the jurisdiction of the royal chancellor: Statutes of the Realm, III, 461; Constant, La Réforme en Angleterre, I, 59. ®° Actually the tribute was owed for 33 years at the close of the reign of Edward II, but in 1330 pope and king agreed that 30000 marks would cover the indebtedness for the two reigns: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327: pp. 164-72. 81 Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 105-06. Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 164-69. °° Ann. Paulini, p. 348: Tout, Chapters, III, 27-28. **'The papal acquittance for this payment was dated 7 April: C.P.L., Il, 493; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 250.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 67 due.*® In return John XXII imposed by mandate on the English clergy a tenth to run for four years and granted to Edward III half of the proceeds.*° He also conceded to the king one-half the yield of the annates which he had previously ordered the clergy of England to pay for four years.*” ‘The cost to the king did not end with £666 13 s.4d. The expenses of his envoys, which probably included presents to members of the papal court, were £652 3 s. 4 d.88 The investment, however, brought large returns.®?

Despite the undertaking to pay annually the current royal census and instalments on the arrears, nothing was rendered until 1333, when the king desired further favors from the pope. On 10 February the king promised to repay to the Bardi at Whitsuntide £2336 6 s. 8 d. for £2000 which they had

undertaken to deliver to John XXII for the yearly tribute and for £336 6 s. 8 d. to be delivered to certain cardinals for arrears of their pensions.®° A few days later Richard de Bury, dean of Wells, and John de Shoreditch, a knight, were appointed his ambassadors to the pope.®* They left on 22 February and did not return until 20 November.*? The money advanced by the Bardi was not used entirely for the purposes originally specified by the king. The cardinals received their pensions, but only 1500 marks were aid to the pope for the tribute.°* John XXII acknowledged the receipt of 6000 florins, the equivalent of that sum at four florins for the mark, from

Pp le pop 8 P

Richard de Bury on 5 July. He credited 1000 marks for the annual payment due at Michaelmas 1330 and 500 marks for the sum due at Easter 1331.°* In addition notable gifts were made to the vice chancellor, several

relatives of the pope and of the marshal, serjeants at arms, doorkeepers, members of the household attached to the papal chamber, to the squire who brought to John de Shoreditch the news that the king’s petitions had been

granted and to other members of the papal court. They amounted to £176.°° 85 § January: Vat. Lib., MS. Fondo Barberiano Lat. 2166, fo. 132%, Col. 227, fo. 34”. The summary of this letter in C.P.L. is misleading: II, 494-95. See also the king’s reply on 12 April: Rymer, Foedera, II, 786. °° 3 January: below, p. 75. °7 Below, pp. annales 14-15; Rymer, Foedera, Il, 786. 8° C\P.R. 1327-30, p. 513; Rymer, Foedera, II, 789.

°° For the approximate amounts received by the king from the tenth and the annates see below, pp. 86-88. °° C.P.R. 1330-34, p. 407. °? [bid., p. 408; Rymer, Foedera, II, 854. ®2 Exch. K. R. Nuncii, 310/40. °° Exch. K. R. Accounts, 386/11.

° The original bull: Cotton MS. Cleop. E II, fo. 15; Rymer, Foedera, II, 864. Copy in the register: C.P.L., II, 384: Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 259. °° There were additional shillings and pence, but the amount has been lost by a hole in the MS.: Exch. K. R. Accounts, 386/11.

68 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 What favors the king received in return is not explained. While the royal nuncios were at the papal court, a steady stream of provisions, reservations, dispensations of various sorts and appropriations of churches to

monasteries flowed from the chancery at the request of the king and occasionally of Queen Isabella,°* but such grants were made at the royal request more or less as a matter of course. Such large expenditures would not have been made to obtain concessions of that sort. The only possible reference to the main object of the king, which I have discovered, is contained in a papal letter addressed to him on 21 September.

John XXII said that he was prepared to give a favorable answer to the royal petitions presented by Richard de Bury and John de Shoreditch and asked to be excused for the delay caused by the pressure of other business. He did not state the contents of the petitions except to say that it seemed inexpedient to put the one concerning Scotland before consistory.**

No further payment of the royal tribute was ever made. For a time successive popes remained hopeful that payments would be resumed and they sometimes requested their resumption. In 1337 it was rumored at the papal court that Paul de Monte Florum, who had come to Avignon as an envoy of Edward III,°* had brought a large sum of money owed to the papal camera for the royal census and had failed to deliver it. The king took the trouble to deny the rumor, stating that the envoy had received no money from him.®® Between 13 and 19 February 1345 Edward III received two papal nuncios, the archbishop of Ravenna and the bishop of Astorga,*°° whose main business was to persuade him to remove the restrictions recently placed on papal provisions.*°' They also sought from him the extraordinarily large sum of money which they said was owed to the Roman court ‘ab antiquo’.*°? In 1358 Innocent VI attempted to obtain payment of

the tribute. He sent a copy of the letter of Innocent III which acknowledged receipt of King John’s charter sealed with a golden bull and contained a copy of John’s oath to pay 1000 marks a year.*®* This letter ‘was exhibited “in pleno parliamento” in behalf of the Roman court against the king of England.’ *°**) The archbishop of Canterbury, who recorded this event in his register, said nothing of the outcome, but a chronicler °° C.P.L., Il, 375-78, 380-88, 390-96, 406-10.

CPL. I, 512.

°8 Exch. K. R. Nuncii, 311/25. °° Rymer, Foedera, Il, 995. 40° Murimuth, Cont., p. 161. +01 C\P.L., Ill, 12, 15; Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 31; below, p. 335.

*°? Knighton, Chron., II, 31. ,

+°8 The letter is not dated, but it was the one issued on 21 April 1214: Lunt, Fenancial Relations to 1327, p. 136. +082 Lamb., Reg. Islep, fo. 1419.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 69 reported that the king said he would not give tribute to anyone.’°* Another chronicler, whose account of the incident is confused, said: ‘the Pope annuled for himself and his successors all the contract which King John

had yielded by indenture and attornment to the Holy See in the time

of Innocent’.

The latter statement was incorrect, since another request for payment

of the tribute was made by Urban V on 6 June 1365.7° He reminded Edward III that he had not paid the census of 1000 marks due annually for England and Ireland since 7 July 1333 and asked him, now that the war was

over, to pay what was owed and to continue the payments in the future. The bearer of this letter was John, abbot of St Bavon’s in Ghent, who was instructed to give the king fuller information orally. This demand the king put before the parliament which met on 4 May 1366. The chancellor, speaking in behalf of the king, who was present, to the prelates, dukes, earls and barons, explained that the pope, because King

John had done homage for England and Ireland and consequently had undertaken to pay annually in perpetuity 1000 marks, intended to make a process against the king and his realm to recover the said service and census. The king, he said, desired their advice on what he ought to do, if the pope should proceed against him or his realm for this reason. The prelates requested permission to consider the question by themselves, which was granted. On the next day they answered, and the dukes, earls, barons and other great ones joined with them, that King John could not put himself, his realm or his people in such subjection without their consent. The commons, who were then consulted, concurred. Thereupon an ordinance was enacted by common consent. It stated that several pieces of evidence indicated that John had not had the necessary consent and that he, therefore,

had acted against the oath taken at his coronation. The ordinance also contained their promise to resist with all their power any attempt of the pope by process or other means to constrain the king or his subjects to pay what he claimed.?°* This promise was directed against a threat which was not contained in *°* Knighton, Chron., Il, 98. *°8 Gray, ‘Scalachronica’, Scottish Hist. Rev., IV, 268. 16 Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 329, Raynaldus, 1365, 13; C.P.L., IV, 16. Apparently the cardinals also sent a similar letter: Cotton MS., Cleop. E II, fo. 115.*

°7 Rot. Parl., 289-90. Accounts of this incident are given in Eulogium Historiarum, III, 239 and in Reading’s Chron., p. 171. Reading adds that nuncios, who were knights and

not clerks, were sent to the papal court to annul the claim to the tribute. On 19 May Bartholomew de Burghersh left for Avignon and at Paris he was joined by Richard Stafford, another knight, and by the clergymen Thomas de Bolton and John de Carleton. On 22 May Master Thomas de Bukton also left England for Avignon: Exch. K. R. Nuncit, 315/10, 11, 16. See also Rymer, Foedera, III, 798.

70 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the papal letter. The pope merely requested payment without any indication of what might happen if payment should not be forthcoming. The papal nuncio may have suggested that failure to comply with the papal request would result in an attempt to compel payment by constraint, or perhaps the king may have sought the support of parliament against an attempt which he foresaw as possible, though no threat of compulsory process had been made.

The repudiation of John’s contract put an end to payment of the tribute. ‘The vast sum of arrears was left unpaid and no king of England after 1366 rendered any tribute. The papacy apparently accepted the finality of the action, since it made no further requests for payment. Some recent historians have asserted that Gregory XI revived the claim in 1374,?° but this view seems to rest upon a misinterpretation of the statements made by the Continuator of Eulogium Historiarum.’°® He records a debate said to have taken place in a great council held in 1374. The chancellor explained that the pope, claiming to be general lord of all temporals as vicar of Christ and also as capital and spiritual lord of England by gift of King John, was ordering the king to cause a tallage to be levied to aid the pope against Florentine and other rebels. The king, he said, wanted advice on these two bases of the claim to lordship. The revenue in question was not the tribute, but a subsidy which Gregory XI, in 1372, had first asked and

then ordered the English clergy to pay. Several times during 1372 and 1373 he had requested the king to induce the clergy to pay the subsidy, but none of his communications with the king had been in the form of a mandate nor had any of them put forward such claims to lordship as the chronicler included in the chancellor’s speech.**° Actually both of the modern writers who base a renewal of the claim to tribute in 1374 on the Continuator of Eulogium Historiarum acknowledge that the revenue at issue in his account was the subsidy and produce no evidence that it was the tribute.*"?

The confusion has arisen chiefly from the attempt to date a work of John Wyclif in which he recorded speeches that he professed to have heard given by seven secular lords in a certain council.*** He wrote to refute the thesis of an opponent which he stated as follows: ‘All lordship given under *°8 Loserth, “The Beginnings of Wyclif’s Activity’, E. H. R., XI, 320; Workman, W yclif, 7 on TT, 337-39. “° Below, pp. 106-07.

**) Workman, Wyclif, I, 228-29. Loserth recognized that it was a tax to be levied throughout the land, though he does not seem to have understood the nature of the tax:

E. H.R, XI, 326. | ** Determinatio’ in Opera Minora, pp. 424-29.

Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 71 a condition 1s dissolved by the destruction of the condition, but the lord pope gave to our king the kingdom of England under condition that England should pay 700 marks annually to the curia; which condition is removed by time and circumstances; therefore the king of England was previously cut off from the true lordship of England’. The seven lords presented various reasons why the pope ought not to be lord of England and why the tribute should not be paid. Earlier students of Wyclif and his writings thought this work was written in 1366,** and one went so far as to suggest that Wyclif was a member of parliament and heard them there.*** Later scholars have concluded, on what appear generally to be good grounds, that the tract was written after 1374 and probably between 1376 and 1378,"*° but their argument that Wyclif was moved to write by the alleged incident of 1374 and not by the event of 1366 is weak, because he deals with the tribute and not with the subsidy. The speeches are imaginary. That of the seventh lord reproduces approximately the reason for repudiating the tribute stated in the Rolls of Parliament, but the others present arguments typical of Wyclif’s scholastic reasoning. Many of them appear in his other writings as his own arguments.**© Some of them may have reflected or influenced public opinion, but others appear to be too fine spun to have been derived from or to have affected public thought on the subject. The first lord, who was strenuous in arms, said that since England was conquered and defended by the sword, the demand of the Roman court should be denied and any attempt of the pope to extort the tribute should be resisted by force. The second lord based his argument on the principle that tribute ought

to be yielded only by rightful subjects. The pope was not the rightful head, because he ought to be a follower of Christ who did not wish to be the possessor of civil dominion. Since it is our duty to constrain the pope to the observance of his religion, we are held to oppose his exaction of this civil condition.

The third lord introduced his remarks with a phrase from the customary salutation in a papal bull. The pope, he said, ought to be ‘the servant of the servants of God.’ He should not, therefore, receive a tax from England, unless he pays for it with service. Since he helps our kingdom neither spiritually nor materially, but to the contrary takes its temporalities for 8 'Workman, Wyclif, I, 219. *4Lechler, Wycliffe, pp. 122-24, 128-33. 118 EF. H. R., XI, 319-28; Workman, Wyclif, I, 228-37. 116 FH, R., XI, 319-28.

72 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 himself and strengthens our enemies with money, favor and counsel,'!” we ought to withdraw the annual tribute. The fourth lord was more subtle. The pope, he asserted, claimed to be the capital lord of the third or more of the lands which are held in mortmain in England. The proof is that after the vacancy of a particular church by the death of the incumbent, the pope exacts the first fruits. But in civil dominion, if there are two lords, one must be the capital lord and the other inferior. In the time of a vacancy the pope must be the vassal or vice versa.

We wish our king to be the capital lord and the pope during a vacancy, therefore, ought to be a vassal. Since he has failed continuously to render homage and service, he has forfeited his fief. The fifth lord presented three arguments. In his opinion, if John sur-

rendered the kingdom for the benefit of absolution or relaxation of the interdict, the act was simoniacal, because a spiritual benefit cannot be given for the render of a temporal revenue. If the surrender was part of penance and penalty for sin enjoined upon the kingdom by the pope, the alms ought to have gone to the poor of the church of England whom John had injured.

The religion of Christ does not say: ‘I absolve you under condition that you give me so much money annually in perpetuity." The faith of Christ having been broken, the pact ought to be broken. Thirdly, if the pope became thereby capital lord of the kingdom, he could by fictitious forfeiture disinherit the king. We should oppose these principles. The sixth lord contended that if the pope gave the kingdom to our king, as he pretends, he was lord of the kingdom and had no right to alienate it for a return as small as the tribute. The pope is a sinful man, who, accord-

ing to the theologians, forfeited his dominion thereby. It is our right to hold the kingdom immediately from Christ." However wide of any popular views some of these arguments may have been, Wyclif voiced a considerable segment of popular opinion in a statement made in his Dialogus. ‘As the kingdom of England,’ he said, ‘has prudently detained 1000 **° marks in which it is said to have been obliged 47'This complaint appears several times in petitions against one papal exaction or another presented by the commons to the king during the years when England was at

war with France between 1337 and 1377. 48 In one of his English sermons Wyclif says that the vicars of Christ today put hard penance on men. ‘If they dispense therewith, it shall be bought full dear for money’. He then uses the tribute as an illustration of a dispensation bought full dear: Select English Works, II, 61. **° Several similar arguments are given by Wyclif in De Ecclesia, pp. 281-82. For other summaries of the arguments of the seven lords see Workman, Wyclif, I, 233-36; Lechler, Wycliffe, pp. 125-27. 120 900’, text.

a Census of Exempt and Protected Ecclesiastical Foundations 73

annually to him (the pope), so it would be prudent to attempt more.’ ***

Although no tribute was rendered to the papacy after 1333, the

memory of it survived two centuries later. In 1533 Chapuys wrote: Henry VIII thinks to ‘repair the error of kings Henry II and John, who, by deceit, being in difficulties had made this realm and Ireland tributary.’ *”?

227 & P. VI, 235.

BLANK PAGE

CuHaptTer III

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES 1. ManDATORY QUADRENNIAL TENTH, 1330-33

Te first income tax paid to the papacy by the English clergy after

1327 was levied by the order of John XXII. He acted, however, in response to a request of Edward III. Royal ambassadors made the desires of the king known to the pope late in 1329.1 On 3 January 1330 papal mandates addressed to the two archbishops and their suffragans commanded

them to collect in their respective dioceses a tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues and receipts of the clergy beginning the next Easter.” The king, it was explained, needed the financial help of mother church because an empty treasury and heavy debts, due to disturbances and wars at the beginning of his reign, were thwarting his desire to protect the church and the ecclesiastics of his kingdom against injuries and to rule so that upright-

ness might continue ‘steadfastly safe among the wicked.’ But since the papal camera was placed in a similar financial position by the attacks of Italian heretics and schismatics against the Roman church and the catholic faith, the need of the pope was no less than that of the king. The proceeds

were therefore to be divided equally between the two. } The tenth was to be paid according to established custom by both the exempt and nonexempt clergy, excepting only the master and brothers of St John of Jerusalem. It was to be levied on the assessment previously used. Each year one-half the tenth would be due on Midsummer day (24 June) and the other half on Martinmas (11 November). In accordance with the decree of the council of Vienne? the tenth was to be levied in the money current in England, and books, chalices or other ornaments used in divine services were not to be accepted in pledge or in payment. The collectors were directed to enforce payment by ecclesiastical censures and sequestration of the fruits of benefices. They were empowered further to cite the contumacious to appear before the pope or to invoke against them the aid of the secular arm. They could appoint deputy collectors, who were required to take an oath formulated in the bull, promising to * Above, pp. 66-67.

2 C.P.L., If, 494-95; Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 106-09; Lit. Cantuarienses, I, 322-33, Reg.

Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 55; Chart. Winchester Cathedral, p. 145, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 48, 48%; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 433%, Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 4¥-5; York, Reg. Melton, ca. fo. 530; Wat. Lib., MS. Fondo Barberiano Lat. 2126, fo. 131-327; Cotton MS. Vesp. E XXI, fo. 77. >Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 397.

76 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 collect the tenth faithfully, to render an account for it, and to deliver the proceeds to the collector after each of the dates when payment was due. The collectors were to assign the receipts after each term to a receiver to be named by the pope. This appointment of a receiver to apportion the shares between king and pope may have been inspired by the experience which John XXII had had with the last two clerical tenths granted by him to Edward II. The deputy collectors had been named and practically controlled by the royal exchequer. Once the money had been paid to the exchequer, the pope had found it impossible to obtain the greater part of the quarter of the biennial tenth which he had reserved for himself.** To insure still further his receipt of the half of the quadrennial tenth John XXII secured from Edward III the promise that he would leave the collectors undisturbed and would not interfere with the administration of the tenth unless called upon by the collectors to do so.* The papal letter of 3 January was delayed in transmission. Copies of it were sent to the archbishops by Itier de Concoreto, the general papal col-

lector, on 19 July. Along with them went copies of a papal letter of 5 June addressed to Itier. This letter authorized Itier to postpone the payment term of the first year from 24 June to 29 September 1330, leaving the remaining instalments to fall due as scheduled originally in the letter of 3 January. The notice of the postponement was given by the collector in his letter of 19 July.° Within the next few days the archbishop of Canterbury sent copies of Itier’s letter and its enclosures to his suffragans.* They appointed deputy collectors and arranged for them to take the required oath during the remaining days of July or early days of August.’ Similar action was taken in the province of York during the early days of September.* The deputies were ordered to warn the taxpayers in advance when each payment was due.® One deputy, who reported to the bishop how he had carried out the _ order,'® followed what was probably the common practice established by custom.!! He directed the archdeacons and rural deans in his bailiwick to have the date of payment announced in each church in every rural deanIbid., pp. 415-16. *Royal letter of 12 April: Rymer, Foedera, II, 786, Ann. Paulini, I, 348. °C.P.L., Il, 495; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 56; Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 109-10; Lit. Cantuarienses, I, 322-333; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 434, York, Reg. Melton, ca. fo. 530. ° Wells, Reg. Shrewsbury, fo. 29. " Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 56; Lit. Cant., 1, 322-23, 331-33, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 45-45v, 48v-49; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 435; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 4¥-5. * York, Reg. Melton, fo. 530-32v. ° The bishop of Bath and Wells had his official issue this warning: Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 56. *° John, abbot of Sherborne, 1 October 1330; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 4-5. “Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 388-89.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 77 ery and to bring it to the attention also of chapters, convents and colleges, so that none could plead ignorance. Against those who failed to pay on time the deputies were to issue sentences of greater excommunication, suspension and interdict and to sequestrate the fruits of their benefices. Absolution from censures and relaxation from sequestration the bishops reserved

to themselves. Within a stated number of days after an instalment was due—usually six to eight—the deputy was to deliver his receipts to the bishop and to supply a list of those who had failed to render what was due.

Failure in the execution of these duties would subject the deputy to the

sentence of greater excommunication.” ,

Meanwhile, on 30 June, the pope had appointed Itier de Concoreto to receive the accounts of the collectors of the tenth and the sums received by them. He was to deliver half of his receipts to the king and half to the pope and to excommunicate anyone who should lay unlawful hands on the proceeds.** On 31 August Itier sent to the archbishop of Canterbury a letter addressed to him and his suffragans containing a copy of this commission and a peremptory citation, under penalty of ecclesiastical censures, for the archbishop and the bishops of London, Winchester, Chichester, and Rochester to appear before him at his house in London within fifteen days of Michaelmas, the bishops of Salisbury, Bath and Wells, Ely, Norwich and Worcester to appear on or before the twenty-first day after Michaelmas, and the bishops of Lincoln, Lichfield, Hereford, Exeter, Bangor, St Asaph, St Davids and Llandaff on or before the thirtieth day to deliver the money received from the first instalment and to render an account. The archbishop sent a copy of Itier’s communication to each of the bishops named, but each of them instructed his deputies to appear in his place at the prescribed dates.** This substitution was accepted by the papal receiver. On 15 November, after the second payment of the first year had become due, Itier ordered the archbishop and his suffragans to cite their deputy collectors to appear before him at the same respective intervals after the date of the citation.® Thereafter the receiver followed this practice after each instalment with the variation that the three groups were given respectively three, four and five weeks after the date either of the citation or of the render by the taxpayers. After the second payment of 12 Tunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 110-11; Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), II, 637; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus XIX, 107; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 5¥. *8In the papal letter of 5 June Itier was said to have been appointed receiver, but his commission was dated 30 June: C.P.L., II, 496; K. R. Memo. Roll, 109, m. 122%; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 436%; Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 487-49. ** Reg. Grandisson, I, 582; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 58, Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 436¥-37, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 49. *° Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 60; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 440-440v.

78 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 each year the deputies accounted for the whole year,'® and after the last payment due on 11 November 1333 they accounted for the whole period of four years.7”

Itier wrote also to the archbishop of York and his suffragans on 31 August 1330. He quoted the bull of 30 June making him the receiver of the tenth, but he gave no instructions for delivery of the proceeds from the province.** Not until 12 December did he order the archbishop and his suffragans to have their deputy collectors deliver the yield of the first year to the abbot and convent of St Mary York before 6 January 1331.7® Apparently the abbot and convent, who constituted one of the deputies in the diocese of York, were to deliver to Itier and to account for the receipts of the whole province of York. In subsequent years Itier had the deputy collectors in all the dioceses of the province account directly to him once each year. Those of the diocese of York were to appear within a week after 13 January following the instalment due on 11 November,

and those of the dioceses of Durham and Carlisle within two weeks of

that date.?° ,

The payers were expected to deliver the money at the churches of the deputy collectors.?* ‘They sometimes incurred expenses for the transportation of the money, and they paid to the deputies a penny for each acquit-

tance received.?? |

Acquittances issued by the deputy collectors indicate that generally the taxpayers rendered each semi-annual payment within approximately the two weeks before it was due.?® A few were late.?4 At the end of the period of four years there were in the diocese of Ely eight payers in debt *° Date of the citation, 29 June 1331: Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 4487; Jeayes, Descriptive Catalogue of the Charters belonging to the Marquis of Anglesey, p. 128, 23 October 1331: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 452%; Wells, Reg. Shrewsbury, fo. 41%; 23 June 1332: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 462; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 6; Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 99; 26 October 1332: Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 6-6", Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 128, 22 June 1333: issued by Thomas de Asteleye, archdeacon of Middlesex, and Reymund de Mota, commissioners of Itier, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 4657-466; Reg. Shrewsbury, fo. 83, 28 October 1333: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. G, fo. 43¥-44’,; Sede Vacante Scrap Book, p. 174, no. 492. Itier sometimes sent the citation to the archbishop of Canterbury to be forwarded by him to his suffragans. 7 Fig., Addit, MS. 41612, fo. 84-85; Reg. Hethe (Rochester), II, 536-39. *® York, Reg. Melton, fo. 532, 532V. 7° Ibid., fo. 578-79.

°° [bid., fo. 535-535%; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus XIX, 13; Cotton MS. Faust. A VI,

fo. 33¥-34,

2D. Ch. Durham, Locellus XIX, 107. *?D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj. 2. 5, Compotus clerici commune, 1332-34. ** First instalment due 29 September 1330: W.A.M. 29487-89; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Chs. 4169, 4831, 5087, York, Reg. Melton, fo. 28¥, 347; second, 11 November 1330: W.A.M.

29491-94; Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Oxon a 4, no. 266; Durham, Misc. Ch. 4366; third, 24 June 1331: W.A.M. 29498, 29500, 29502-04; fourth, 11 November 1331: W.A.M. 29507-11; fifth, 24 June 1332: W.A.M. 29514-19; Durham, Misc. Ch. 4332; sixth, 11 November 1332:

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 79 for the whole period, seventeen who were in arrear for the whole of the fourth year and one for the second instalment of the fourth year. Two of these were known to be exempt and subsequently five others were proved to have been wrongly charged with income from the diocese, leaving only nineteen who had not paid all which they owed.”? Presumably

the delinquents incurred the sentence of excommunication and had the revenues of their benefices sequestrated. Sometimes a payer labored under the sentence for a long time before he rendered the delayed payment and

obtained absolution. John de Maunte, dean of the church of St Buryan, was excommunicated for failure to pay the instalment due on 24 June 1333. The bishop of Exeter ordered his sentence to be proclaimed every Sunday

and festival with bells and candles in every collegiate, conventual and capitular church in the archdeaconry of Cornwall. He did not absolve the offender from the sentence and order relaxation of the sequestration of the fruits of his church until 16 August 1336.2° The bishop of Carlisle must have been under sentence of excommunication and suspension even longer, since his absolution did not take place until 13 December 1342.7” The deputy collectors were allowed to retain parts of the sums which they received in reimbursement of their expenses. At the end of the four years the prior and convent of Rochester, whose total charge for the tenth £1075 1s. 10 d., asked for £13 6s. 8 d.?8 The prior and convent of Ely, charged with £2705 19s. 9 d., were allowed £26 13 s. 4 d.?°

The king, despite his agreement to the contrary, intervened in the administration of the tenth on several occasions. One of his purposes was to establish exemptions from the tax. On 13 September 1330 a royal writ ordered Itier not to levy the tenth on benefices which did not exceed six marks in value, unless the holder was beneficed elsewhere. The king alleged

correctly that tenths had not previously been imposed on such benefices and that the exaction of the tenth from them was consequently contrary to the usual mode and valuation which the pope had ordered to be observed.*° In 1331 he directed the collector to exempt the prioress and Archives of Christchurch, Oxford, 0.1121; Bodleian, MS. Ch. Oxon a 1, no. 56; Durham, Misc. Chs. 4149, 4255; W.A.M. 2952 (two days late); seventh, 24 June 1333: W.A.M. 2953031; Durham, Misc. Chs. 4151, 4296, 4377; Bodleian, MS. Ch. Oxon a 4, no. 262; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 44; eighth, 11 November 1333: W.A.M. 29533-34, Durham, Misc. Ch. 4211, York, Reg. Melton, fo. 45. *4Durham, Misc. Ch. 4195 (15 days late); Exch. K. R. Ecclesiastical Document 5/47 (5 payers 18 days late); York, Reg. Melton, fo. 45 (4 days late). 25 ‘A ddit. MS. 41612, fo. 847-857.

*6 Reg. Grandisson, II, 706, 824. *” Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, pp. 464-65. 28 Reg. Hethe (Rochester), II, 538.

2° Addit. MS. 41612, fo. 84. °° C.C.R. 1330-33, p. 61.

80 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

nuns of Heynings from the portion of the tenth pertaining to him on account of the poverty of the house.** Later, following a precedent set by Edward II,*? the king pardoned the cardinals any sums owed to him for the tenth from benefices which they held in the kingdom, and this caused the pope to grant them a similar exemption from the portion of the tenth owed to his camera.** On the same ground Edward III exempted the master and brothers of the order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem and commanded Bernard de Sistre, Itier’s successor, to supersede his demand of the tenth from them.*4

In some instances taxpayers petitioned the king for relief from items of the tenth charged against them incorrectly. The chancery brought such cases to the attention of the exchequer with instructions to examine their records or to hold an inquiry to determine the truth of the claim. In this way it was discovered that the bishop of Bath and Wells had no temporalities in the archdeaconry of London,®* that the manor of Arcleston, held by the bishop and chapter of Llandaff, was assessed for lay subsidies and was therefore not subject to taxes imposed on ecclesiastical income,*® that the manor of Morton in the diocese of Hereford was a prebend and not taxable as a temporality,®" and that the rents in Neunham and Lashbrook, charged against the bishop of Lichfield in the valuation of 1291, had been held for life by Roger de Moeland, who had been bishop at that time, and were neither in the possession of the present bishop nor had been in the possession of any bishop of Lichfield by right of his churches.** In these four instances the collectors were ordered to cease their demands for the tenth, to restore any sums collected for it, to notify the exchequer of any amounts delivered to it for these items, and to revoke any ecclesiastical censures which had been issued. In 1333 the abbot of St Mary York was given respite from the king’s share of the tenth for the manor of Whitgift, which the abbot had lost by judicial process, until he could establish his claim to be discharged for the item.*? ‘This he eventually did.*° Finally, a royal writ commanded Bernard de Sistre to supersede his demand on the *. 17 July: ibid., p. 253. °° Rymer, Foedera, Il, 845. °° C.P.L., Il, 509; Baumgarten, Untersuchungen, p. 183, K. R. Memo. Roll 119, Brevia directa baronibus, Michaelmas term, m. 22V. **28 February 1337: C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 34. 5 1331: Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 82. °° 1334-35: K. R. Memo. Roll 111, mems. 21, 104, Reg. Charlton (Hereford), pp. 68-69. °7 1352-54: Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 336-37, 345-46. °° 1336-40: K. R. Memo. Roll 113, mems. 34%, 51%; 117, unnumbered mem. immediately preceding mem. 1 of Records, Michaelmas term. The inquiry was conducted in the neigh-

borhood of the rents by William de Shareshull, baron of the exchequer. 8° 13 April: C.C.R., 1333-37, p. 104.

*°Lunt, ‘Collectors of Clerical Subsidies, English Government at Work, 1327-1336, II, 244.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 81 prior and convent of Durham, deputy collectors of the tenth, for the tenth

of the temporalities of the bishop of Durham while the see was vacant from 7 October to 7 December 1333, because the temporalities were then in the hands of the king and the demand was not consonant with right.*°* This exemption from papal income taxes of temporalities occupied by the king during vacancies had been established by a long series of precedents.** The most important action of the king in relation to the administration of the tenth was to secure the use for its assessment of the new valuation. This was a revision of the valuation made originally between 1291 and 1293 in the dioceses of Carlisle and Durham and in parts of the diocese of York. The revision was made in 1318 and subsequent years in order to make allowance for the devastation wrought by Scottish invasions of the region, and it caused an extensive reduction of the assessment.*? When the collectors began to exact the quadrennial tenth at the rate of the old valuation, the clergy of the dioceses of Carlisle and Durham and of the arch-

deaconries of Cleveland, East Riding, York and Richmond and of the liberties of Allerton and Crayke in the diocese of York petitioned the king to have the new valuation used where it had been made and to have a new valuation made in the parts of the diocese of York where there had not yet been a revision. On 25 October 1330 the king, in response, ordered Itier

not to exact the tenth beyond the rate of the new valuation and not to exact it from benefices not yet yet assessed anew until the next meeting of parliament summoned for 26 November.*? Itier agreed as far as the king’s half of the tenth was concerned. He promised further to write to the pope with regard to his half, and to exact for the pope nothing beyond the new valuation until he had received a reply.** John XXII, although he recognized that the new valuation would reduce the amount of the annual tenth by about £2000, accepted its use if the benefices had not recovered from their dilapidation.*® His successor, Benedict XII, confirmed

his action with the proviso that it should not apply to any other tenth imposed or to be imposed in England.** Those who had paid their tenths

on the old valuation before this ruling went into effect, had the excess #21 May 1339: D. & Ch. Durham, 3 XIII 8 Pontificalium;, Reg. Secandum, fo. 134. “Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 237, 387. *? On this revision see ibid., pp. 406-07; English Government at Work, 1327-1336, II, pp.

OCR. 1330-33, p. 65; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 438. “* Letters of the king, 10 and 15 December: C.C.R. 1330-33, pp. 77-78, York, Reg. Melton,

fo. 530; letter of Itier to archbishop of York, citing king’s writ of 10 December: ibid., fo. 578”. On 1 June 1331 the archbishop of York notified the collector that the prebend of Stillington had been assessed anew by his commissioners at 20 marks: Ancient Corres. ¥ 1°14 September 1332: C.P.L., II, 509. See below, p. 134, n. 3. *° 31 July 1338: Reg. Palat. Dunelmense, III, 218-19; Benoit XII: Lettres closes et patentes intéressant les Pays autres que la France, 1935.

82 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of the old valuation over the new restored to them,*” though the archbishop had to obtain the help of the king to prevent first the exchequer ** and then the collector, Bernard de Sistre,** from exacting the old amount of his tenth. The king began to make assignments on his share of the tenth before the first instalment became due. Nearly the whole yield was assigned to the Bardi.®® At the end of the third year out of the net sum of £27592 11s. 3 d. due the king, £26000 had been paid to that firm.®* A few small sums were assigned to other creditors of the king,®? and some small amounts were delivered to the exchequer or to the wardrobe.** One assignment of £527 8 s. to Anthony Bache, to whom the king was indebted, apparently could not be met out of the king’s half when Anthony demanded it. Itier paid it out of the pope’s half on the promise of the king to repay the loan in a little more than a month.**

On 21 February 1333 a view of Itier’s account for the receipts from the tenth for the first three years was taken at the exchequer.*> The collector was charged with £57075 9s. 5% d., the annual yield being £19025 3s. 1% d., according to the official assessment for the tenth kept in the exchequer. Three deductions from the total charge were allowed. They were £715 5 s. for the benefices of the cardinals which were exempt, £820 1s. 11% d. for the expenses of the deputy collectors, and £355 spent by

: Itier for clerks, notaries and messengers. They left due £55185 2 s. 6 d. Of this the king’s half was £27592 11s. 3 d. Of this amount due the king the collector had paid all but £592 11s. 3 d., which was said to be in the hands of the deputy collectors. When John XXII died in 1334, Itier de Concoreto had not yet rendered

his final account to the exchequer,°* and when the news of the event reached England, he was on the continent.®’ The king, in order to protect ‘7D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Ch. 4319; Bursar’s Roll for 1336, verso; Misc. Ch. 4319. **1 August 1333: K. R. Memo. Roll 109, m. 88V. *°4 December 1336: zbid., 113, m. 55. 5° C.P.R. 1327-30, p. 549; 1330-34, pp. 11, 29, 32, 74, 194, 212, 269, 273, 399; 1334-38, p. 391;

C.C.R. 1330-34, p. 60; Exch. of Receipt, Pells Receipt Roll, 302, last mem. 5} K. R. Memo. Roll 109, m. 125v.

°? [bid., 115, Brevia directa baronibus, Hilary term, m. 2; 117, Brevia irretornabilia, Michaelmas term, mem. not numbered. 58 C.C.R. 1333-37, p. 575; C.P.R. 1334-38, p. 388; 1338-40, pp. 198, 260; 1340-43, p. 56; Exch. L. T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Wardrobe no. 2, m. 36; Cotton MS. Nero C VIII, fo. 199; Exch. K. R. Accounts, 311/37. 54 C.P.R. 1330-34, pp. 32, 117: C.C.R. 1330-33, p. 100. °° K. R. Memo. Roll 109, m. 125¥-126. A copy was sent to chancery: ibid., m. 53. A badly rubbed copy is Chancery Misc. Bdle. 18, file 9, no. 7. It was also placed on the patent roll: C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 454.

°° Rymer, Foedera, II, 899. ” Ibid.: The last procurations paid to him were for his sixth year, which ended in March 1334; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Chs. 4193, 4338, 4765, 5020; D. & Ch. Lincoln, B. J. 2.5.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 83 his interest in the proceeds of the tenth, on 10 December, prohibited the Bardi from paying out any money of the tenth which might be in their hands and promised to hold them indemnified. He also ordered the mayor and sheriffs of London to arrest any money of the tenth found in the hands of anyone in their bailiwick.®* On 12 May 1335 he explained that large sums

of the tenth remained to be paid to him by Itier de Concoreto, his locumtenens, Bertrand Itherius, prior of Bugissent, and his proctor, Pontius de Sancton E'gidio. Since he was not informed of the appointment by Benedict XII of any successor to Itier to levy the money still owed for the tenth, he ordered Bertrand and Pontius to come to him at York before the next Whitsuntide to advise with the king’s councillors on what could be done concerning the collection and receipt of the money due both pope and king. Meanwhile they were to supersede the levy and collection of the tenth. They and the Bardi and Peruzzi were at the same time to deliver to the treasurer at York any collected money of the tenth belonging to the king. Assurance was given that the king would not encroach upon the share of the apostolic see.°®

Whatever the result of this conference may have been, the collection of the arrears of the tenth appears to have ceased until Benedict XII appointed a successor to Itier de Concoreto. Bernard de Sistre was commissioned on 13 September 1335,°° but he did not arrive in London prepared to

undertake the duties of his office until 9 January 1336.°* On 3 February he issued letters citing the deputy collectors of the tenth to deliver to him in London the arrears still due.®°? He was able to establish the amounts by copies of the accounts rendered by them to Itier between December 1333 and March 1334.®* Against debtors who would not pay the deputy collectors what they owed Bernard instituted processes, and, when necessary, asked the king to levy the debts by sequestration or distraint.°* Many items he dismissed on account of exemptions or incorrect charges. He also made some further allowances for the expenses of the deputy collectors.°° In a view of account of the arrears which Bernard had collected, made at the Hilary term of the exchequer in 1339,°* the sums due for the tenth and for the annates, which had been collected nearly contemporaneously °° Rymer, Foedera, II, 899. 59 C.C.R. 1333-37, pp. 485-86.

°° Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, pp. 266-67, C.P.L., Hl, 559. *1 Col. 227, fo. 105, 135.

° Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 262-63; Chart. Winchester Cathedral, p. 53, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32, 32%, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18. °° Above, p. 78. *4 Col. 227, fo. 1277-28.

® Col. 227, fo. 126-297.

°6 Exch. K. R. Accounts, 311/37.

84 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 with the tenth, were lumped together. Bernard was charged with £1306 10 s. 9% d. for the tenth and with £1373 12 s. 44% d. for the annates,®’ making a total of £2680 3 s. 2 d. The half of this due the king amounted to £1340 1 s. 7 d. He was credited with two payments, one of £1000 °° and one of £100.7° These left him in debt for £240 1 s. 7 d. Against this was credited £133 6 s. 8 d. which had been assigned to Bernard on the arrears of the two taxes for his expenses on a mission to the papal court undertaken for the king.71 The remainder of the account 1s illegible, but the allowance would leave due £106 14s. 11 d. Bernard was given also an allowance of £66 13 s. 4d. on the arrears for two years of an annual pension of 50 marks granted to him by the king until he should receive a benefice by royal collation.”? If this is deducted, he was left owing only £40 1 s. 7 d. An acquittance issued on 1 June 1339 for the receipt of that sum ** apparently balanced the view of account. After this view, however, the collector assembled further arrears before he died in office in 1342, and his executors, who accounted with the king

and the pope in 1343, may have secured some additional sums from this source. On 18 November 1340 the king ordered Bernard to pay to a member of the firm of the Alberti £79 from his share of the arrears of the two taxes,"* and two days later a royal acquittance was issued to him for that sum from that source.”® J have discovered no final account rendered to the king by Bernard or his executors, but there is a record of an account with his executors which is far from complete.”® It includes some of the credits allowed in the view of 1339 and omits others, leaving a debt of £1010. It charges the executors with £815 2 s. 734 d. for the king’s share of annates

and £708 6s. %4 d. for his share of the tenth. In the view of 1339 these charges had been respectively £686 16 s. 2% d. and £653 5 s. 4% d.™ °7 A much more detailed account drawn up by Bernard, on which the view at the exchequer appears to have been based, gives these two sums the same, except that the shillings and pence of the sum of the tenth have been lost by a frayed edge: Exch. K .R.

- Ecclesiastical Documents 10/22. °° Acquittance dated 8 March 1337: C.P.R. 1334-38, p. 388.

” Received in March 1337; acquittances dated 8 February and 9 June 1339: Cotton MS. Nero C VIII, fo. 199; Exch. L. T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Wardrobe 2, m. 36; C.P.R. 133840, p. 198.

“The grant was made on 25 July 1337: K. R. Memo. Roll 115, Brevia directa baronibus, Hilary term, m. 2. ? 18 January 1339: ibid. m. 5¥; C.C.R. 1337-39, p. 600. "8 C\P.R. 1338-40, p. 260.

74K. R. Memo. Roll 117, Brevia irretornabilia, Michaelmas term, verso of mem. not numbered. 5 C\P.R. 1340-43, p. 56. 7°L. T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies 3, m. 17%.

"7 One-half of the sums in the view of 1339 which included the sums due both pope and king.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 85 Bernard or his executors apparently paid into the exchequer £183 7 s. 6 d. in excess of the sums credited to the collector when the view was balanced on | June 1339, This figure is probably inaccurate, since it does not correspond with the figure based on the final account for the whole period of Bernard’s collectorship rendered to the papal camera by his executors in 1343. The total received from the arrears of annates in this account was £1651 15 s. 4¥, d. This was not divided equally between pope and king, because the king had remitted the annates in some instances and some payers had rendered the annates due the pope but not those due the king. The share of

the pope was £847 9 s. 414 d. and that of the king £804 5 s. 11% d.™ The king’s share was thus £10 16s. 8 d. less than the £815 2 s. 734 d. claimed by the king in their account with the exchequer. On the basis of this figure the additional sum of annates received by the king between 1339 and 1343

was £117 9 s.9% d."® The king’s share of the arrears of the tenth, on the other hand, was within a farthing the same in the account of the executors with the camera as it was in their account with the exchequer. The total receipt from the arrears of the tenth in the account with the camera was £1430 8% d. The papal share was £721 14s. 734 d., leaving £708 6s. ¥ d. as the share of the king.8° His share was smaller than that of the pope on account of remissions made by him. The amount of the tenth collected after 1 June 1339 was therefore £55 7% d.*1 The total of the annates and the tenth credited to Bernard by the exchequer after 1 June 1339 was therefore £172 75.1% d.

The debts still owed for the tenth after 1343 were few and small. Raymond Pelegrini the successor of Bernard de Sistre, received from the arrears of the tenth and the annates £58 514 d. Of this sum he delivered £50 to the treasury and was allowed to retain for the expenses of collection £8 51% d.8? Against some payers and deputy collectors who were in arrears

for the tenth the king proceeded directly by processes of the exchequer. Among them were the prior of Durham, the archdeacons of Taunton and Totnes and the dean of Wells between 1348 and 1350.°? 78 Col. 227, fo. 126. Elsewhere in the account the papel share is given as £849 2s. 8% d.:

» The difference between £804 5 s. 11 % d. and £686 16 s 2% d. °° Both of these sums are deleted by lines and over each of them is written £725 7 s. % d.: Col. 227, fo. 129v. These sums add to a larger total than £1430 8 % d. In the summary of all the sums (fo. 130%) the pope’s share is given as above, and for that reason I have kept the deleted sums. They add to 7% d. more than the total. 8+ The difference between £708 6 s. % d. and £653 5s.4 % d. °° L. T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies 3, m. 17V. °° D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum, fo. 133-35; Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 71, no. 161; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), Il, 638, 648, 652-53.

86 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Itier never rendered a final account to the exchequer for the tenth. On 26 May 1336 he was authorized to account to the exchequer by attor-

nies,°* but it was not until the Hilary term of 1339 that a view of his account was made on the basis of a roll supplied by him.**° He was charged

with £6428 8s. 10% d. for the annates of England, £500 for the annates and tenth of Ireland and £35592 434 d. for the tenth of England. The charges for the annates and the tenth of England apparently represent what was owed the king for the half of each for four years with allowances for such things as the expenses of the collectors.®* The total of the three charges is £42520 9s. 3% d. The collector had acquittances for payments amount-

ing to £41383 9s. 7 d. He owed therefore £1137 814 d. He claimed that £1095 11s, 3 d. of this sum was in the hands of the Bardi, leaving a balance

due of £41 9s. 5% d. This claim, however, was disallowed, and another hand added at the end of the document that there should be an execution for the levy from Itier of £1137 8% d. This deficit does not seem to have included the sums still in the hands of the deputy collectors and the taxpayers, of which Bernard de Sistre recovered all but a small amount. The deficit represented proceeds which Itier was supposed to have received, but had not delivered to the exchequer. The king sought to recover them by the sequestration of Itier’s income from his English benefices. On 27 February 1339 a writ of levari facias ordered the bishop of London to cause £537 81% d. to be levied from the ecclesiastical goods of Itier in his diocese, and a like writ was sent to the bishop of Lincoln for £600.87 The

two writs covered the whole of the balance due, but later a writ was addressed to the bishop of Salisbury for £100,8° and apparently Bernard de Sistre was ordered to levy on Itier’s income from the archdeaconry of London. The attempt to sequestrate Itier’s revenues met with scant success. In 1340 Bernard delivered £21 which he had obtained from the archdeaconry of London.®? The other writs produced no results, because Itier resigned from or was deprived of his English benefices.°° Nevertheless the writs to

the bishops of London and Lincoln continued to be reissued year after year. In 1364, when the bishop of London replied that Itier had died 84K. R. Memo. Roll 113 m. 37. °° [bid., 115, Status et visus compotorum, Hilary term, m. 1%, Exch. K. R. Accounts 311/37. My figures are based on the latter. *°’The document is stained, making some parts difficult to read, but the explanation of just what the figures represent is inadequate. *7 K. R. Memo. Roll 115, Brevia retornabilia, Hilary term, m. 1. °° [bid., 116, Brevia retorn., Trinity term, mem. not numbered. °° 20 November: C.P.R. 1340-43, p. 56. °° Col. 227, fo. 121%; C.P.R. 1338-40, p. 125; C.P.P., I, 52, 57, 288.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 87 and that he had possessed no goods or ecclesiastical benefices in the diocese of London since 1350,°! the course of the exchequer was not disturbed in the slightest. Each year a new writ was issued automatically, record was made after the copy of the writ on the roll that no return had been received at any one of the terms of the exchequer, and another writ was dispatched the next year. The process continued for ninety-five years after the first writs were recorded in 1339 before a roll is found in which they do not appear.*? Thus the amount received by the king from the tenth cannot be deter-

mined exactly. The amount of the tenth for the four years according to the rolls of the valuation in the exchequer was £76100 12 s. 7 d. After deductions had been made for exemptions, items charged incorrectly and the expenses of the collectors the royal half was £35592 4% d.°* Since the £1137 8Y%, d. owed by Itier was only in part for the tenth, and the arrears

of the tenth collected by Bernard left a comparatively small sum in the hands either of deputy collectors or of taxpayers, the king’s receipts were probably with a few hundred pounds of the net sum owed to him. The pope’s receipts are not as well attested, since the accounts for the tenth rendered by Itier to the camera are lacking. Several acquittances issued to Itier by the camera have been preserved, but some of them do not distinguish the part of the total derived from each revenue.** His final account left him in debt to the camera for £237 19 s. 11 d. This was the unpaid balance of his recorded receipts from all revenues. Bernard discovered that many items which he had received were not entered 1n his account. These brought the total of his indebtedness to £700 2 s. 7 d. Bernard recovered, apparently from deposits which Itier had left with the Peruzzi, £625 3 s. 4 d., leaving only £74 19 s. 3 d. due the camera. The pope, like the king, ordered the sequestration of Itier’s ecclesiastical revenues and he also appropriated the procurations which were still owed to the collector after his final account. From these two sources Bernard obtained £193 12s. 5 d.*° which would seem to have brought to the camera a handsome surplus. The pope must have received his share of whatever °" Reg. Sudbiria (London), p. 59. *? [bid., pp. 46, 59, 62, 67, 71, 82; K. R. Memo. Rolls, under Michaelmas term, 117, Brevia irretorn.; 118, Brevia retorn.; 142, Brevia retorn.; 156, Brevia retorn.; in subsequent rolls under Brevia retorn. et irretorn., 175, 177-178, 180, 188, 191, 199-200, 202, 203, 211. This last roll in which they appear runs from Michaelmas 1434 to Michaelmas 1435. The writs do not appear in the later rolls 212, 215, 218, 222, 226, 238. The course of the writ to the bishop of Salisbury I have not traced. °? Exch. K. R. Accounts 311/37. °* Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 270; C.P.L., Il, 501-08, 513-15, 560; I. & E. 143, fo. 16-167; 146, fo. 23; 150, fo. 26. °° Col. 227, fo. 155.

88 Financtal Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 portion of the tenth Itier de Concoreto had collected. When the executors of Bernard de Sistre rendered his final account, they were left indebted to the camera for £149 5s. 8% d.°® This was the balance due from all sources during the whole period of Bernard’s collectorship. Even if this balance was not paid,®* there is no reason to suppose that the pope did not receive from the tenth approximately the same amount as the king.

With this tenth came to an end a series of tenths imposed upon the English clergy by papal mandate, of which the kings of England received

a portion or the whole of the proceeds by papal grant. They had been begun in 1301 by Boniface VIII and they had been continued by Clement

V and John XXII. They enabled the kings to obtain a revenue from clerical incomes without the consent of the English clergy, which was sometimes difficult—or even impossible—to secure.®* They ceased because

Edward III, beginning in 1336, when relations with France had become strained, was able to persuade the clergy to make such frequent grants of income taxes that they were paying a tenth in every year except two until 1360.°%?

2. MANDATORY CRUSADING TENTH 1333-36

Before the period of the quadrennial tenth had expired, John XXII, on 26 July 1333, ordered the clergy universally to pay a tenth of their

incomes for six years to support a crusade to the Holy Land.’ The initiative in the movement for a crusade was taken by Philip VI of France, who assumed the cross in 1333. He was named by the pope captain general of the expedition, which was to begin on 1 August 1336. Edward III was also attracted by the idea of a crusade. Early in 1332 he consulted parliament about it,*°* and received the advice to postpone his departure until 1335, and meanwhile to consult with the king of France concerning a joint expedition.*°? In 1334 he announced in parliament that he would go to °° Col. 227, fo. 140.

*7 It probably was, though I have found no record of its payment. °8 Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, ch. VII. °° Lunt, ‘Collectors of Clerical Subsidies’, English Government at Work, 1327-1336, II, 230; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 548, 548”, Murimuth, Cont., p. 85; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 374, 377, 381, 402, 414, Ely, Reg. Montacute, fo. 71-72, 74%, 75; Reg. de Insula, fo. 54, 70, 76, 78, 81%, York, Reg. Sede Vacante, fo. 49; Reg. la Zouche, fo. 12, 57-57%, 250%, 251,

256%, 258%, 281; Reg. Thoresby, fo. 5, 87v, 237¥, Chart. Winchester Cathedral, p. 221; Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 23-247, 66, 73, 83, 88%, Reg. Gynewell, fo. 81, 143%; C.C.R. 1346-49, pp. 175, 508; 1349-54, p. 322; Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 49-50¥, 61, 677, 1287, 130, 1327, 134%, 158¥,

159; Rochester, Reg. Sheppey, fo. 258%, 288V; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 408%; Reg. Welton, pp. 30, 42-43, 67-68, 109; Knighton, Chron., II, 86. 100 CPL. Il, 369; K. R. Memo. Roll 113, m. 161-1617. 10% Lit. Cantuarienses, 1, 438-40; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 88. *°? Rot. Parl., Ul, 65.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 89 the Holy Land at his own expense. In 1331 and 1332 and again in the three successive years from 1334 to 1336 he appointed ambassadors to treat

with Philip VI with regard to a common passage,’** but nothing definite had developed from the negotiations when the two kings went to war with each other in 1337.1 The tenth was to be paid on all ecclesiastical rents and revenues except those of the Hospitallers, other military orders and members of the clergy who had license to take part in the crusade. The sexennial period was to run from the date of the bull and each year half a tenth was to be paid on 2 February and another on 24 June. If in any place a tenth imposed by the pope was being levied, the sexennial tenth was to be postponed in order that two tenths might not be concurrent. It was, moreover, to be levied only for a number of years in addition to the period of the existing tenth to make a total of six years for both tenths. This provision, when applied to England, meant that the new tenth would be in effect for only two years after the expiration of the term of the quadrennial tenth at Martinmas 1333. Each archbishop and bishop was to collect the tenth in his diocese by himself or by deputies, according to the mode and custom previously observed and according to the decree of the council of Vienne, on the basis of the assessment previously employed. Against those who failed to pay any instalment when it was due, the collector was to use ecclesiastical censures, which included excommunication, suspension and interdict, and sequestration of the fruits of the delinquent’s benefice. He was also given power to grant absolution from such sentences, dispensation for any irregularities while under the sentence—such as participation in divine services—and relaxation from sequestration, after the delayed payment had been rendered. Only if a delinquent payer was contumacious could the collector ask the aid of the secular arm or cite the payer to appear at the Roman court. The money received was to be deposited in the cathedral church under the care of the chapter, unless some other place should be more suitable. If the custodians of the money should allow it to be converted to uses other than the crusade, they would incur excommunication. The proceeds of the first two years, however, could be distributed by the archbishops and bishops to the inhabitants of their respective dioceses who joined the expedition. Copies of this letter were addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York with instructions to send copies to their suffragans.*°* The arch2° Ann. Paulini, p. 362; Murimuth, Cont., p. 73; Galfredi le Baker, Chron., pp. 53-54. 104 Rymer, Foedera, Il, 837, 883, 895, 915, 941; C.P.R. 1330-34, pp. 223, 273; 1334-38, p. 301.

*°° Viard, ‘Les Projets de Croisade’, Bibl. de PEcole des Chartes, XCVII, 309-16. +98 Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 23-24, York, Reg. Melton, fo. 543¥.

90 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 bishops delayed the notification of their suffragans for a long time. The two years during which the tenth was to run in England did not begin until 26 July 1334 and the first instalment was not due until 2 February 1335. Meanwhile, on 4 December 1334, John XXII died, creating doubt with regard to the continuing validity’ of his decree imposing the tenth.*°* On 31 January 1335 Benedict XII wrote to the archbishops and their suffragans announcing his intention to carry out the plan of his predecessor with regard to the crusade and ordering them to continue the collection of

the tenth as directed in the bull of 26 July 1333.7°° The archbishop of Canterbury complied with the mandate in May 1335 by sending to his suffragans copies of the bulls of both popes with an order for their execution.?°°

The bishop of Worcester received his copy of the archbishop’s letter in time to appoint deputy collectors on 30 June. The bishops of Salisbury, Winchester, Bath and Wells, Exeter and Lincoln did not receive their copies until late in August or early in September. They named their deputies between 21 August and 20 December. The archbishop of Canterbury did not appoint the deputy collector for his own diocese until 22 October,'?° and the archbishop of York delayed until 6 January 1336.77? Evidently payment of the sexennial tenth was not intended to begin until 2 February 1336. The commissions of the deputy collectors quoted the bulls of John XXII and Benedict XII and conferred on them the same powers given to

the bishops by the bulls except those of absolution, dispensation and relaxation. The deputies were to warn the taxpayers of their responsibility

before each instalment became due, exact the money, deliver it to the cathedral chapter and render to the bishop a list of those not paying. The delivery and render were to be made within a brief interval after the date of payment. The archbishop of Canterbury, for example, gave the abbot and convent of Faversham thirty days.*?? In the northern province the new valuation again caused trouble. The *°7 The royal government, for example, assumed that with the death of John XXII the powers of his collector lapsed: C.C.R. 1333-37, pp. 485-86. This doubt arose perennially: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 373-74, 400. 198K. R. Memo. Roll 113, m. 161V; C.P.L., Ul, 523.

°° Letters dated from 7 to 22 May: Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 23-267, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 9-14, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 11-15%, Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 509¥-514"; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 246-47, 251; Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), II, 801-02.

“°D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 191-94. *** Reg. Melton, fo. 543¥-44.

*? In addition to references in note 109 above: B. M. Royal Appendix 88, fo. 6; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, pp. 343, 347, D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 191-94.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 91 clergy of the diocese of Carlisle expressed their belief that the pope did not intend to burden them for tenths at the old valuation which was far above the existing value of their benefices and brought their grievance to the attention of the bishop. He authorized them, as far as was within his power, to pay the tenth according to their consciences until he had had time for fuller counsel.*** Complaint that the collectors were demanding the tenth at the rate of the old valuation under penalty of ecclesiastical censures was made also to the king, who protested to the papal collector, Bernard de Sistre. He explained that John XXII, at the request of Itier de Concoreto, had allowed his half of the quadrennial tenth to be paid on the new valuation in the province of York and asked Bernard to consult the pope with regard to the use of the new valuation for the current tenth. Pending the papal reply, he wished Bernard to order the deputy collectors to accept the tenth of the new valuation.*** What appears to have been the answer of Benedict XII denied the use of the new valuation, but it was not

made until 31 July 1338,’7° when the sexennial tenth had ceased to be levied. Meanwhile the new valuation had been employed, and no attempt was ever made to recover the excess of the old valuation over the new. The collectors also followed a few changes in the valuation made in the official copy of it kept in the royal exchequer, sometimes at the order of

the king. They also allowed exemptions from payment of the tenth , granted by the king which were not specified in the papal mandate, and the papal exemption of the Hospitallers was not always observed.**®

The administrative procedure followed by the deputy collectors differed little from that of the deputy collectors of the quadrennial tenth. Each deputy warned the clergy of his district, usually through the agency of the rural deans, to pay one-half of a tenth on each of the dates set at the church or monastery of the deputy under penalty of greater excommunication and sometimes of interdict as well.217 The abbot of Faversham allowed a week of grace after the date set for payment before fulminating

censures.*7® On 2 July 1336 the prior and convent of Llanthony near Gloucester reported to the bishop of Worcester that they had not pronounced sentence of excommunication against those who had failed to “8 Reg. Kirkby, pp. 347-48. 410 November 1336: C.C.R. 1333-37, p. 720. 418 Above, p. 81.

118 ‘Collectors of Clerical Subsidies, English Government at Work, 1327-1336. Il, 242,

or Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 31; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 194. “8 D—D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 194.

92 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 deliver the payments due on the preceding 24 June, but that they intended to publish the sentences.*’® Brief delays of this sort before the publication of censures appear to have been more or less customary in England.

Acquittances issued by the deputy collectors indicate that most taxpayers rendered the first three instalments on time.’”? On 3 July 1336 the

prior and chapter of Worcester reported to the bishop only four payers who were in arrears for both instalments of the first year and only ten for the second instalment alone. On 2 July the prior and convent of Llanthony notified the bishop similarly that in the archdeaconry of Gloucester fourteen debtors had paid the sums due on 2 February after that date and that only three had not yet paid what they owed for that term. Only four had not already paid the quotas due on 24 June.’** Occasionally doubt arose as to which deputy collector had jurisdiction over a given item of revenue, and this had to be settled by the bishop.’”? In one instance the prior and convent of Canterbury appealed to the archbishop to secure the removal of censures and of sequestration of revenues of one of its churches imposed

by a zealous deputy until the archbishop should decide the question of jurisdiction.’** The taxpayers, as was customary, had to pay small fees for acquittances, and some of them had to pay charges for the carriage of money to a deputy’s monastery.°* The deputy collectors accounted for their receipts to the bishop and deposited them with the dean and chapter.**°

After the two payments of the tenth due in the first year had been collected, the king obtained a large part of the money for his own use. On 20 August 1336 the archbishop of Canterbury informed his suffragans that the king wished them to remove the proceeds of the tenth deposited in their cathedral churches or other safe places and deposit them with the Bardi. Some of the bishops complied with the request. From others, who were deterred by the penalties imposed by the pope on those who should use the money for purposes other than those for which it was intended, the deposits were seized by a sheriff or an escheator.**° ‘The process of seizure was employed to free the collectors and depositaries subjected to it from 1° Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34. #20 Payment due 2 February 1336: W.A.M. 29541-43, D. & Ch. Salisbury, Press IV, Box A 1; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Chs. 3385, 5048; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 57; 24 June 1336, W.A.M. 29545-46; Salisbury, Press IV, Box A 1; Durham, Misc. Ch. 4158; Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Oxon A 1, no. 60; 2 February 1337: W.A.M. 29548, Durham, Misc. Chs. 4653, 4979. *** Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34. 722 Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 279. 22D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 194-95. 24 Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, Il, 82; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj. 2. 5, rolls for 1335-37. #25 Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34, Reg. Grandisson, II, 811. #26 Anonymous, Historia Edwardi Tertii, ed. Hearne, in Hemingford, Historia, II, 410.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 93 any responsibility for misuse of the funds. A little later in the same year the king, on a journey toward Scotland, took directly from several depositaries, sometimes by seizure, for his immediate use the money in their keeping.**” For all these receipts the collectors and depositaries received from the king written guarantees that they would be held harmless against demands of the pope or others for the deposits. Those whose deposits were transferred to the Bardi received also the obligatory letters of that firm for repayment of the sums deposited. The money received by the Bardi, however, was intended to pay them for £10000 which the king owed to them.’”® Early in 1337 a change in the status of the tenth relieved the collectors and

depositaries of any further responsibility to the pope for the proceeds of the tenth and enabled the king to retain permanently the money which he had obtained from them in 1336,?2° During the course of 1336 it became evident that the crusade for which

the tenth was being raised would not take place in the immediate future. Philip VI, on account of his strained relations with Edward III,1°° did not want to leave his kingdom on 1 August, the date set for the beginning of the expedition. On 13 March 1336 he secured from the pope dispensation

from his oath to begin his journey at that date.*' After that date had passed and the probability of any new date being set had become remote, Benedict XII, on 18 December, ordered the further collection of the sexennial tenth to be suspended. The money collected and deposited in cathedrals was to be restored to the taxpayers and any outstanding ecclesiastical censures for nonpayment of the tenth were to be relaxed.**? Because this

mandate did not become operative in England until it was officially announced by the archbishop of Canterbury on 21 March 1337, the third instalment of the tenth due on 2 February was collected. The papal decree did not result in the restoration to English taxpayers of the collected money, because they had already pledged it to the king.

In 1336 the convocations of Canterbury and York granted two tenths to the king, provided the sexennial tenth should be revoked. If that condition should be fulfilled, the part of the sexennial tenth collected or due at the **" Gesta Edwardi Terti auctore Bridlingtoniensi, p. 128, C.P.R. 1334-38, pp. 323, 33337, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34. 28K. R. Memo. Roll 113, m. 8. **° Except as noted, paragraph based on ‘Collectors of Clerical Subsidies’, English Government at Work, 1327-1336, Il, 260-61. 80 Baluze, Vitae, I, 198-99. +8 Benoit XII: Lettres closes et patentes intéressant les Pays autres que la France, 786. 182 “Fx cotidiana instantia’: Vat. Lib., Fondo Barberiniano Lat. 2126, fo. 154-154"; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 1957-96; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 545; C.P.L., II, 534. See also

Murimuth, Cont., p. 78; Anonymous, Historia Edwardi Tertii, ed. Hearne, II, 410-11, Baluze, Vitae, I, 221.

94 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 time was to be assigned to the king and only enough more was to be levied

to complete the payment of a biennial tenth. Thus the papal sexennial tenth became a royal clerical subsidy with only one-half of one tenth still due from taxpayers who were not in arrears. The whole of the proceeds was received by the king and none by the pope.*** 3. RoyaL REQUEST FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A MANDATORY TENTH IN 1348

On one occasion after 1336 Edward III asked the pope to impose a tenth on the revenues of the English clergy for the benefit of his exchequer.

Since the king was having no serious difficulty at the time in obtaining grants of subsidies from the clergy,*** his request had a diplomatic rather than a financial purpose. He suspected that the pope was favoring the king of France in the negotiations for peace which were then taking place. Our knowledge of the incident comes from a letter written by Clement VI to Edward III on 17 April 1348.1°° He explained that he had not granted to the king of France a tenth of French clerical income for six years, as Edward III had been given to understand, but for only two years. He begged the king not to be offended because his petition for a similar grant was denied. He gave his assurance that as mediator he showed no partiality

for the French king. We are not informed of the conclusion which Edward III drew from this letter. 4. FREEDOM OF THE CLERGY FROM Papa INcomME Taxes, 1336-60

The papacy, on the other hand, did not attempt to impose taxes on Eng-

lish clerical income for its own purposes and projects. Clement VI, in 1342, began a new effort to organize a crusade to the Holy Land. On 18 December he urged Edward III and Philip VI to make peace and unite against the infidels, who were persecuting Christians on the other side of the Mediterranean.*** Though this plea was made in vain, two minor expeditions to the Near East took place during his pontificate."*” For these crusades Clement VI, in 1343, imposed a tenth on the ecclesiastical reve*°* Based primarily on ‘Collectors of Clerical Subsidies’, Joc. cit., II, 230-32. The article

also treats the collection of the tenth after it became a clerical subsidy. The conversion to a clerical subsidy was accomplished in the province of Canterbury by the archiepiscopal letter of 21 March 1337; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 301; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 52%; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 34. In the province of York the change was made on 7 June in response to a royal letter dated 4 June: Reg. Melton, fo. 544¥-45.

“5 CPL, Il, 37. ,

784 Above, p. 88.

*8¢ Papal Bulls 11/5.

: 56 auya, The Crusade, pp. 290-316; Gay, Le Pape Clément VI, chs. II-III; Baluze, Vitae,

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 95 nues of the clergy for three years, and in 1345 he extended the duration of the tax for two further years. From this levy the clergy of England, France and Spain were specifically exempted.*** By that time the papal levies of income taxes had become generally un-

popular. Complaints against the practice had been made without success at the council of Vienne in 1311.18® In the conclave for the election of a pope in 1352 the cardinals took cognizance of this popular opinion. They drew up a convention to the effect that the pope could not in the future impose for a prince or for the apostolic camera tenths or subsidies without the consent of two-thirds of the cardinals. All the cardinals signed the document, but some of them made the reservation: ‘if it conforms with the law.’ Among these was the cardinal who was elected Innocent VI. On 30 June 1353 he issued a formal declaration that neither he nor his successors were bound by the convention.'*° On 1 December 1353 he decreed a triennial tenth for a crusade to be levied only in specified provinces, which did not include Canterbury and York.*** ‘Two years later he imposed upon the German clergy a triennial tenth for the recovery of the States of the Church from Italian enemies of the papacy.**? To this tax the English clergy likewise were not asked to contribute. The reason for the freedom of the English clergy from papal taxes on their incomes after 1336 was that in almost every year to the peace of Calsis in 1360 they were paying levies on their incomes which they had granted to the king for the conduct of the war.'** This period of thirtyfour years was the longest vacation from papal income taxes which the English clergy had enjoyed since 1199. 5. SuBsiIpy GRANTED BY THE CLERGY IN 1362

Soon after peace had been made, Innocent VI tried to exploit the resources of the English clergy. On 25 September 1360 he sent requests to the archbishops of Canterbury and York and their suffragans to assist his nuncios, Androin, abbot of Cluny, and Hugh Pelegrini, the papal collector, whom he was sending to seek a subsidy to aid him in the defense of the Patrimony of the church against Barnabo Visconti of Milan.*** 188 Gay, Le Pape Clément VI, pp. 38, 68, Baluze, Vitae, I, 267. °° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 394-96. **° Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, II, 500, Mollat, Les Papes d’ Avignon, pp. 98-99. ** Raynaldus, 1353, 19: Hennig, Die papstlichen Zehbnten, pp. 26-27. *? Hennig, Die papstlichen Zebnten, pp. 27-35. **2Tn 1361 Innocent VI stated that they had not previously been asked for help against the Italian enemies of the pope on account of the war with France: Rymer, Foedera, IU, 623: Marténe et Durand, Thesaurus Novus, Il, 1059-60. M4CPL. Il, 631.

96 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Apparently in response to this latter, Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, on 31 March 1361, ordered the bishop of London to summon the bishops of the province to meet at St Mary Southwark on 7 May, and to summon them to assemble again together with elected proctors of their exempt and nonexempt clergy at the same place on 31 May. The purpose of both assemblies was to consider the execution of the papal letter.*** Record of what was done at these meetings has not come to my attention. If the papal letter considered was the request for a subsidy, either it was denied or an answer was postponed. Later events indicate that no subsidy was granted. Before these groups met, Innocent VI took further action. On 25 April 1361 he directed Androin to exhort all classes of the English clergy to aid the pope to defend the lands of the church not only in Italy, but also in the Venaissin, where the papal court itself was threatened by free companies. For this object he was given authority to convoke the prelates and clergy. He was also given power to collect any subsidy which they might grant, and instructed to list what he received from each person.**° On the same date the pope issued a letter informing the English clergy that he was imposing upon them a tenth for two years, beginning on the next 22 July. By other letters he ordered the archbishops and their suffragans to collect the biennial tenth and prescribed administrative methods for its collection similar to those used for the tenths imposed by John XXII. Still another letter of the same date imposed a tenth on the English clergy for only one year."*” The apparent inconsistency of these letters may be ex-

plained by an inference drawn from a later letter of the archbishop of Canterbury on the subject of the subsidy.t** The levy of a mandatory biennial tenth was apparently intended as a threat to induce the English clergy to grant voluntarily a subsidy of one tenth. If the grant should not be made, the tax to be imposed by mandate was intended to be one tenth. On 21 July 1361 Innocent VI wrote to Edward II. He asked him for assistance with armed men and money against Barnabo Visconti. He also gave notice of his request of a subsidy from the English clergy and asked the king to give to it his aid and favor.**® On 2 November he addressed the king again. He announced that he was sending Simon, abbot of Fer*45 The content of the letter is not explained in the summons. Apparently a copy of the letter was sent to each bishop. Reg. Grandisson, III, 1222-25, Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 47-48, Weske, Convocation, p. 256. 146 Reg. Litterarum Innocentii Sexti, in Marténe et Durand, Thesaurus Novus, Il, 940-42. 147 Tbid., II, 938-40, 965-69.

**° Letter of 14 April 1362: below, p. 97. *4° Papal Bulls 35/10; Rymer, Foedera, Hl, 623, Reg. Litterarum Innocentu Sexti, loc. cit., II, 1036-38.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 97 riéres-en-Gatinais, to explain more fully his intentions with regard to the subsidy. He pointed out that other churches had aided the Roman church with charitable subsidies, when the English clergy had not been asked for help on account of the war, and exhorted the king, now that there was peace, not to hinder the English churches from paying the subsidy which was sought.*°® Edward III did more than to withhold his opposition; he

intervened with the English clergy in favor of the subsidy, and they granted it. Innocent VI expressed his thanks to the king for this action in a letter of 19 December 1361.1°1 The circumstances of the grant were told by the archbishop of Canter-

bury in a letter, dated 14 April 1362, by which he ordered the collection of the subsidy.*°? Recently, he explained, when he and his suffragans and the archbishop of York and his suffragans were congregated at Westminster to treat the affairs of the kingdom,’** they took the opportunity to consider the subsidy requested by the pope. Since the archbishop had learned from friends at the Roman court that the pope planned to impose a heavy burden on the clergy, they besought him to forbear from the mandatory tax *°* and offered to provide him with a gracious aid of less amount. They sent a special nuncio to the pope, who accepted the proposed aid of 100000 florins. The archbishops and bishops in council estimated this sum to be the equivalent of a tenth. The archbishop, therefore, commanded each bishop to collect or have collected from his subjects a tenth of the ecclesiastical goods and benefices

accustomed to pay the tenth, one-half before next 24 June and one-half before 2 February 1363. Ecclesiastical censures were to compel payment, if necessary. The proceeds were to be delivered to Robert de Keteringham, the rector of St Gregory in London, after each term. Accounts, listing those who had paid and those who had not, were to be rendered to the archbishop.

Two principal factors seem to have influenced the archbishops and bishops to make the grant. One was the change in the attitude of the king. After a period of opposition to a subsidy,’®* he approved it. His change 15° Reg. Litterarum Innocenti Sexti, loc. cit., Il, 1059-60.

*®1 Ibid., Il, 1065-66. In this letter he granted for the marriage of the Black Prince a dispensation such as ‘the apostolic see was accustomed to grant very rarely’. +5? Addressed to the bishop of London, who sent copies of it to the other suffragans of the archbishop on 3 May. The archbishop addressed a similar letter directly to the bishop of Winchester on 6 April. *°8 Lamb. Reg. Islep. fo. 184, Wilkins, 127, Concilia, III, 48: Reg. Sudbiria (London), I, 182-84; Worcester, Reg. Barnet, fo. 8%; Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 43. I have not discovered the date of this royal council. *°* Presumably the biennial tenth. *° Implied in the papal letter of 2 November 1361: above, p. 96.

98 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of opinion may have been due to the desire to avoid the levy of a mandatory

tenth, which had not been mentioned when Innocent VI had first sought a voluntary subsidy.*°® The second factor was the threat of a mandatory biennial tenth—the ‘heavy burden’ mentioned by the archbishop—if a gracious aid was not granted. The authority by which the subsidy was imposed was the council of archbishops and bishops of the realm. It is possible that the archbishop of York had the approval of a representative convocation for taking such a

| step. On 4 January 1362 the bishop of Carlisle wrote that he had induced the clergy of his diocese to act with the clergy of the province in a forth-

coming convocation to grant a subsidy to the pope on the new or old valuation.°’ The archbishop of Canterbury does not seem to have consulted his convocation. Many of the clergy of the province were in doubt whether the tenth was imposed by the authority of the archbishops and bishops or by that of the pope. The doubt caused hesitation with regard to putting the levy into effect.°* Apparently some of the clergy questioned the power of the archbishops and bishops to compel them to pay a tax about which they had not been consulted. This ambiguity was soon removed by a papal mandate of 1 April 1362.

It announced that the pope had accepted the offer of the prelates and ecclesiastics of England to give him a ‘gracious subsidy’ *°° of 100,000 florins

to help meet the necessities of the Roman church. It ordered the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Ely, to whom it was addressed, to collect the subsidy from the ‘redditibus et proventibus’ of all the regular and secu-

lar, exempt and nonexempt clergy at the dates fixed by the prelates and clergy. They were to compel payment by censure and sequestration, as was customary once a voluntary subsidy had been granted, and they were given powers of absolution, dispensation and relaxation after delayed payments had been rendered. This communication made it clear that the pope regarded the subsidy as granted voluntarily by the English clergy, but that it was to be levied by papal authority.1*° On 21 May 1362 the archbishop

of Canterbury and the bishop of Ely sent a copy of this mandate to the archbishop of York and to each bishop with a new order to levy the tenth.1® 156 Possibly he hoped thereby also to facilitate the grant of the dispensation desired by the Black Prince. **7 Reg. Welton, p. 82. 58 Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 44. *5° Jiberaliter obtulistis gratuitum subsidium’. 160 Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 644; Papal Bulls 22/9; Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 185-185; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 765. *6 Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 183%, Winchester, Reg. Edington, I, fo. 44-44", D. & Ch.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 99 The administration of the tenth was organized along traditional lines. The bishops were responsible for its collection, but they appointed deputies who did the actual work.’® ‘They accounted to their bishops and delivered the proceeds sometimes to the receiver in London and sometimes to their bishops.*®* The extent of the arrears indicates that some of the collectors and deputies were not as efficient as usual, but there were other important contributory factors.

In many instances there were delays in the appointment of deputy collectors by the bishops. ‘They were due in large part, though not entirely, to the uncertainties with regard to the interpretation of the first mandate issued on 14 April 1362. The archbishop of Canterbury, who naturally had no doubts, appointed a deputy for the diocese of Canterbury on 8 April and for the diocese of Chichester, which was vacant, on 14 April.*° Some of the bishops named their deputies soon after the receipt of the first mandate,*® but others did not commission their deputies until the second mandate had been received.*** Though the abbot and convent of St Mary York were acting as a deputy in the diocese of York by 14 August,*®’ the

archbishop did not forward a copy of the second mandate to the bishop of Durham until 21 August. Only after the receipt of this letter did the bishop appoint as deputy his prior and convent.*®* The bishop of Lichfield did not receive the mandate of 14 April in time to collect the first instalment on 24 June through the fault of the bearer. He did not appoint the deputies until 23 September, when he ordered the first half to be paid on 30 November 1362 and the second on 25 January 1363.* The surviving acquittances issued by the deputy collectors display only one payment of the first instalment which was rendered on or before 24 June,?”° and seven delivered at various dates from 2 July to 29 DecemDurham, Locellus XIX, 68. A copy, dated 18 May, sent to the bishop of London, specified 15 August as the date for the first payment: Reg. Sudbiria, I, 184-85. The mandate of 21 May ordered the first instalment to be paid on 24 June, as the mandate of 14 April had done. +82 The bishop of Winchester, instead of having the deputies warn the taxpayers of

their liabilities, as had been the previous practice, summoned the clergy of the whole diocese to meet in the cathedral for the purpose of giving them notification of the tax: Reg. Edington, II, fo. 43-45. 188 Tbid., Il, fo. 43%, 51%, York, Reg. Thoresby, fo. 323. They received 2 d. for each acquittance and they were allowed to deduct their expenses: Addit. MS. 34560, fo. 90%; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj. 2. 6, compotus for 1362-63; Reg. Edington, II, fo. 51. +64 Tamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 184-184, 238V. 1657 May: Worcester, Reg. Barnet, fo. 8%; 11 May: Winchester, Reg. Edington, fo. 439.

66 3 June: Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 765; between 3 and 20 June, Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell,

fo. 1837-184. 167 T), & Ch. Durham, Misc. Ch. 5070. 168 Thid., Locellus XIX, 68. 169 Reg. Stretton, I, 100-01. 170'W.A.M. 29977A.

100 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ber.*”* ‘The bishop of Lincoln, who received the second mandate on 3 June,

reported that the collection of the first instalment was not made in full because the time was too short.” The second instalment was also delayed in some instances. The abbot and obedientiars of Westminster paid one item before 2 February 1363, but a second was not delivered to the deputy until 18 February.*7? The monks of Wearmouth did not pay until after 5 August.** When the archbishop of Canterbury tried to hasten the delinquents, it

became apparent that another factor contributing to the production of arrears was a spirit of opposition to the subsidy. Many of the clergy belonged to a generation which never before had paid a tax on their incomes to the papacy. The archbishop began his effort to obtain the arrears on 7 March 1363 in a letter to the bishop of St Asaph, who had not yet collected the subsidy. He ordered the bishop to deliver the proceeds to the rector of St Gregory in London before 11 June or suffer ecclesiastical penalties.17* On 10 June

he wrote to the bishop of London, accusing him of inefficiency in the collection of the subsidy. He ordered the bishop to command those of his clergy who had not paid what they owed to satisfy him or his deputies before 10 August, to excommunicate those who failed to heed the command, to forbid their communion with the faithful, and to place an inter-

dict on their benefices. He was to deliver the proceeds to the rector of St Gregory before 15 August. If he did not execute the mandate within twenty days, he was to abstain from entrance of a church. If he sustained that sentence for another twenty days, the archbishop would suspend him from office. He further directed the bishop to address and send copies of this letter to the bishops of Bath and Wells, Salisbury, Chichester, Hereford, St Davids, St Asaph and Llandaff.*7* Bishops who had served as

collectors of previous papal tenths levied after 1327 had never been threatened with such penalties as these.

The archbishop apparently recognized, however, that the difficulties 171 W.A.M. 29978A, 29979, 29981-82; Bodleian Lib. MS. Ch. Oxon A 2, no. 75a; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Chs. 4287, 5070. *7? Reg. Gynwell, fo. 1837-84. 173 'W.A.M. 29987-88.

174 Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 47. It may have been in connection with this subsidy that the abbot and convent of Whitby secured from the papal camerarius in 1364 a certification of the assessment for a tenth of the two portions of the church of Hutton Bushel and the pensions of Whitby therein as contained in a cameral register of the assessment of benefices of the kingdom of England: Cart. Whitby, no. CCXCVIII. *7® Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 191¥.

178 Reg, Sudbiria (London), pp. 186-87, 195-97; Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 194.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 101 of the bishops were due largely to the disinclination of many of the clergy

to pay the subsidy. Other evidence displays this attitude on the part of some of the taxpayers. in 1364 the bishop of Lichfield ordered the official of the archdeacon of Coventry to go to the churches in the archdeaconry for which the abbot and convent of Leicester had refused to pay the tenth and publish warning that it must be paid within a month of the monition.*” In the same year the bishop of Llandaff, in order to collect the subsidy, obtained royal protection to enter lordships and liberties in his diocese where the bishop and his deputies did not dare to go without such protection.*”® As late as 18 July 1367 Simon Langham, the successor of Archbishop

Islip, wrote to the abbot and convent of Cirencester, who had been deputy collectors of the subsidy in the archdeaconry of Gloucester, ordering them

to collect the many arrears in the archdeaconry and to pay them to the rector of St Gregory before the next Michaelmas, under penalty of ecclesiastical censures.?”®

Whatever remained due at that late date represented a surplus above the sum of 100000 florins, since that amount had been assembled two years earlier. The council of archbishops and bishops had overestimated the rate of taxation necessary to produce the equivalent of 100000 florins. A monk of St Augustine Canterbury, assuming the yield of a tenth to be £20958 14s. 344 d., calculated the amount in florins at the rate 2 s. 10 d. for a florin as 147944 florins 444 d.18° The sum of 100000 florins granted to the pope was reckoned at 3 s. for a florin.’*t This rate would reduce the equivalent of the yield of the tenth as stated by the monk to 139724 florins 2 s. 3% d. The figure for the yield of the tenth given by the monk was approximately correct on the basis of the old valuation,**? and the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Ely had ordered that valuation to be used.?°?

In the province of York, however, this caused the customary protest. The abbots of the Cistercian order, the other abbots, the priors and the clergy, in 1362, addressed a petition to the bishop of Ely. He and the archbishop of Canterbury, they said, had placed the contribution of the northern province at one-fifth of the total sum and had ordered a tenth to be levied on the old valuation in order to raise that portion. The petitioners claimed that the old assessment would produce more than a fifth 177 Reg, Stretton, I, 104. 17826 April: C.P.R. 1361-64, p. 491. *7° Lamb. Reg. Langham, fo. 56-57. 189 B, M. Arundel MS. 310, fo. 223V. 181 C.P.R. 1361-64, p. 268.

82 See Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 356, 365, 392-93. 183 Reg, Sudbiria (London), I, 199; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus XIX, 68.

P8

102 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

and that many benefices could not bear it. They asked him therefore to order the levy of the tenth on the new valuation, and, if that should prove

insufficient to produce a fifth, to have a supplementary levy to provide the

remainder.*** ‘The petition must have been granted. On 4 November

1362 the chief collectors acknowledged receipt of £1523 17 s. in part payment of the portion of the subsidy due from the province of York,’® and

on 3 May 1363 they acknowledged that sum to be full payment of that rovince’s share.?8* This sum was less than a tenth according to the new valuation. In a memorandum of the assessment for each diocese compiled at the exchequer in 1333 the total for the province was £2484 4s. 914 d.*8"

The total for the whole assessment was £19025 3 s. 134 d., the amount charged against [tier de Concoreto for each year of the quadrennial tenth from 1330 to 1333.18* This would leave £16540 18 s. 444 d. due from the

province of Canterbury. These are gross figures. Making allowance for exemptions, incorrect charges, expenses of collection and hopeless debts in the province of Canterbury, the net yield there may be put tentatively at £16200.*** If the actual contribution of the northern province is added to this estimate, the total yield of the tenth becomes approximately £17724. This equals, at the rate of three shillings for a florin, 118160 florins.

The payment of 100000 florins to the pope was governed by an arrangement made by Innocent VI with the kings of France and England. He explained it in the bull of 1 April 1363 by which he commissioned the collectors of the tenth. He wished to receive the money as soon as possible and also to avoid the risk, which at the time was great,’®° of transporting so large a sum from England to Avignon.’** King John of France was therefore to pay to him 100000 florins on 27 March 1362, and King

Edward was to deduct that sum from the instalment of John’s ransom which was due on the same date.’®? Edward was to be retmbursed later by receipt of the 100000 florins which the English clergy had pledged to the pope for the subsidy.*°* Robert Keteringham, rector of St Gregory Lon*84T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Ch. 4316. Month and day not given. +85 Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 188%, York, Reg. Thoresby, fo. 318V. **° Reg. Thoresby, fo. 318.

187 K, R. Memo. Roll 109, m. 126. This was a reduction from the old valuation, as

computed by Stubbs, of £1874: Constitutional History, Il, 580. *8® Above, pp. 107-08.

18° Calculated primarily on the basis of the allowances given to Itier de Concoreto in 1333. 79° Mollat, Les Papes, pp. 104-06; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Il, 521-22. 191 CPLR. 1364-67, p. 641.

*°? Also in a papal letter of 1 April 1362 to Edward III: Papal Bulls, 22/14; Rymer,

Foedera, Ill, 643.

*°* Miss Broome apparently errs in her statement that Edward III agreed to deduct 100,000 crowns: The Ransom of John Il, p. xvii. The florin was calculated at 3 s. and the crown at 3 s. 4 d. The amount of crowns was 90,000.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 103 don, who had been commissioned by the archbishop and the bishop of Ely on 12 June 1362 to receive the proceeds of the subsidy and to pay 100000

florins of the money to the royal treasury,’®* delivered £15000 as the equivalent of 100000 florins in a series of instalments extending from 26 November 1362 to 12 October 1365.*°° Qn the latter date the king acknowledged receipt of the whole sum from Robert.*®® In view of that

acquittance the archbishop of Canterbury, on 10 November, acquitted Robert for the full amount of the subsidy of 100000 florins granted to the pope.*?* 6. FREEDOM FROM CRUSADING TENTHS IMposED By URBAN V

Though Urban V attempted to raise money for crusades, he seems to have imposed no taxes on the incomes of the English clergy. He became interested in a crusade when Peter de Lusignan, king of Cyprus, came to

the papal court and urged the necessity for one. On 12 April 1363 he preached a crusade himself and thereafter ordered the expedition, which he set for 1 March 1365, to be preached generally. On the clergy of some countries he imposed a tax of a tenth of their revenues to support the venture.*°° He also wrote to several rulers, among whom was Edward III,

exhorting them to take part. The king of Cyprus went to England to supplement the papal invitation, but Edward III declined on account of his age.’°® Three years later, when the threat to Smyrna from the Turks became serious, he again asked Edward III and other rulers to give help for the defense of Cyprus and Rhodes,” but again his request went unheeded by the king of England. On 21 October 1367 Urban V ordered the imposition of another tenth on clerical incomes.”°* The first tenth did not apply to England, and there is no trace of the second having been levied there. 7. SUBSIDY GRANTED TO GrecGory XI, 1372-79

Gregory XI, early in his pontificate, turned to the English clergy for financial help in a project of a different type. On 10 March 1372 he asked *°* Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 1847; Reg. Sudbiria (London), I, 198-200. *°° Broome, Ransom of John Il, pp. 13-22; C.P.R. 1361-64, p. 268.

*°° C.P.R. 1364-67, p. 164, Rymer, Foedera, III, 776. ,

*°7 Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 211¥-12. *°* Hennig, Die papstliche Zebnten, pp. 35-36; Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale,

Pn C.P.L., IV, 2; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Il, 526-28, Brehier, L’Eglise et Orient, p. 299; Atiya, Crusade, p. 333. 79°6 October 1366: C.P.L., TV, 25. 201 Col. 353, fo. 164, 177, 218.

104 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the king, Simon Langham who was then cardinal of S Sisto acting in England as papal nuncio, the two archbishops and five bishops to give credence to what his nuncio, William, bishop of Carpentras, would tell them with regard to the papal need for a subsidy and to use influence to persuade the prelates and other ecclesiastics of the realm to contribute a suitable sum. The purpose was to aid in the defense of the property of the Roman church

in Italy against the Visconti of Milan. The prelates of England, it was asserted in one letter, were the only ones in all Christendom who had not already given a subsidy, though in another letter the English clergy were said to be nearly the only ones who had not done so.?°? In later letters it appeared that the subsidy had been levied only in France, Spain, Germany and some other places, and that some of the clergy of these countries had not paid it.?°* In Germany the clergy protested vigorously, though they eventually submitted.?°*

The request presented to the English king and prelates was followed on 1 July 1372 by a mandate addressed to the two archbishops and their suffragans. Each was directed to exact in his own diocese, except from benefices of the cardinals, a tenth of ecclesiastical revenues to be paid in 1373, the first half at Easter and the second at Michaelmas. Within a month

after each date the proceeds were to be assigned at Bruges to the Nerotii, who were factors of the firm of the Alberti Antiqui. The collectors were given the usual powers to enforce payment with censures and with citations to appear at the Roman court and to give absolution when tardy payments had been rendered. The reason for the levy was to recover and preserve the lands of the Roman church. This mandate was accompanied by a letter which authorized the clergy, if they preferred, to pay a subsidy of 100000 florins in accordance with the precedent set in the time of Innocent VI.

If they chose the subsidy, the mandate to pay a tenth would become void.? These letters reduced the voluntary aspect of the subsidy to its lowest terms. The only option left to the clergy was between a mandatory tenth amounting approximately to 125000 florins and a subsidy of 100000 florins.

The demand roused the strong opposition of the clergy which had the

support of the king. After the bishop of Carpentras had explained the wishes of the pope and had left England,?°® Gregory XI heard that a 202 The Visconti were not named in this letter, but in one of 21 November 1372: C.P.L., IV, 115-116.

203 C.P.L., IV, 106, 116, 142; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 245. *°4 Hennig, Die pipstliche Zehnten, pp. 37-40; Pastor, History, I, 91-92. 205 CPL. IV, 101.

70° A royal license for him to leave was issued on 27 June 1372: C.C.R. 1369-74, p. 387. According to Perroy the success of the bishop of Carpentras in his interviews caused the

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 105 number of ecclesiastics were preventing the papal letters from entering the realm. Since only the royal government had the power to seize papal letters upon their entry into ports of the kingdom, the king, on his own initiative or at the instance of members of the clergy, must have opposed the levy of a subsidy. Apparently the pope realized this, for on 17 December he besought the king to show no favor to ecclesiastics who refused to pay the subsidy. On the same day he ordered the archbishops, under penalty of excommunication, to collect the tenth, or, if the clergy would pay it more promptly, the subsidy. The payments were to be made at Easter and Michaelmas 1373 and the proceeds were to be delivered within two months of each date to the Nerotii at Bruges. At the same time he wrote to several English bishops urging them to use their influence to secure payment of either the tenth or the sum of 100000 florins.?°” When Gregory XI learned that these letters along with those of earlier

date had not been allowed to reach the clergy, he issued a new mandate dated 2 February 1373. It was addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, their suffragans and their clergy. It commanded them to pay a tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues in two instalments at Easter and Michaelmas. The revenues of the cardinals and of the Cistercians, who had offered the pope a subsidy of 30000 florins, were excepted. The letter summarized

the terms of the previous letters which they had not received and stated that a subsidy of 100000 florins would still be acceptable in place of a tenth.

It commanded the two archbishops to collect one or the other under pain of excommunication. This mandate was posted in Avignon and in places near England.*°® On 13 May 1373 the pope asked Edward III to release a Carmelite friar who had been arrested by royal officials while carrying papal letters touching the subsidy.?°® ‘This communication leaves no doubt about the authority by which the papal mandates had been withheld from

the addressees, though it again asserted that they were being prevented from entering England by English ecclesiastics who were in rebellion against the subsidy.

This was the situation when the king came openly to the support of the clerical opponents of the subsidy and broke the English wall of silence. Late in July 1373 he sent to the pope ambassadors, who remained at the papal court until early in 1374.?*° Their principal business was to obtain pope to issue his mandate of 1 July: L’Angleterre, p. 29. It seems improbable that the pope would have imposed a mandatory tenth, if his initial request had received approval from king and prelates. 207 CPL... IV, 116-17. 28 CPL. IV, 106, 107, 151.

20° CPL. IV, 123-24. °K. R. Nuncit 316/28-30; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 31-32.

106 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 changes in the papal policies with regard to provisions in England, but they also petitioned to have the subsidy postponed until the war had ceased.?™ On the subsidy the pope offered a compromise. Though it was notorious, he said, that neither his letters nor his nuncios were allowed to enter England, he would, nevertheless, grant a delay of the subsidy until Easter 1374,

or even for a month after that date. Once more he requested the king to help obtain the subsidy and not to favor the clergy in their rebellion.*” On the questions raised concerning provisions he suggested a conference between royal and papal ambassadors. In a letter of 11 March the king agreed to send an embassy to Bruges or Calais,?** and on 4 May the pope replied naming three nuncios whom he would send to Bruges.?™* According to the Continuator of the Euwlogium Historiarum,?** before the royal envoys were appointed, a meeting of the great council was held late in May with the Black Prince, spiritual and temporal lords and some friars and monks in attendance. The chancellor asked advice with regard to a tallage which the pope, in a bull, had ordered the king to have levied.

The pope, he said, clasmed in the bull to be lord of England not only in | his capacity as vicar of Christ but also by right of the papal lordship created by King John.**® ‘The debate was concerned solely with these grounds on which the pope based his right to issue such a command. The archbishop

of Canterbury said that he was undeniably the lord of all, and the other prelates took the same view. Of the friars and other ecclesiastics, who were present on account of their knowledge of theology and canon law, some supported and some opposed the alleged papal claims. On the second

day the prince browbeat the archbishop and concluded: ‘Speak up, you donkey!’ The archbishop then replied: ‘It pleases me that he is not lord here,’ and the other prelates agreed. ‘he temporal lords argued that John’s gift of the kingdom was not valid. Nuncios were then sent to the pope to convey this adverse answer. There can be little doubt that this story is a fabrication. The statement attributed to the chancellor is wrong in all particulars. “The pope had requested the king to persuade the English clergy to give a subsidy and not

to support them in opposition to a subsidy or mandatory tenth. He had not commanded the king to levy a subsidy. The papal claims of lordship which the chancellor is purported to have set forth are not found in the papal 11 Below, p. 352; C.P.L., IV, 127; Perroy, L’ Angleterre, pp. 32-33. 21221 December 1373: C.P.L., IV, 127; Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 171-72. 28 C.C.R. 1374-77, pp. 69-70. 724 Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 1002. 215 TIT, 337-39.

716 The claim is stated more fully above pp. 70-71. .

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 107 correspondence concerning the subsidy. In the mandates of Gregory XI, just as in those of previous popes imposing taxes on English clerical income, the right of the pope to exact such taxes 1s taken for granted. This debate

of theories, which the chancellor is represented as putting before the assembly, seems to be completely beside the point, when the practical question was whether the king should support or oppose the papal attempt to

impose a tax on the clergy. The Continuator may have inserted in his narrative an imaginary account of business transacted at a meeting of the king’s council in order to express his own ideas or those of others concerning the right of the pope to tax the incomes of the English clergy.?** The tale reflects the difficulties of the archbishop when the pope attempted to tax the English clergy against the wishes of the king. The royal ambassadors were appointed on 26 July 1374. They included among others two of the envoys who had negotiated at the papal court with regard to the subsidy in 1373 and John Wyclif.2*8 ‘Though the primary subject for discussion was papal provisions, the subsidy was included.

What instructions the royal representatives had with regard to it are unknown, unless one accepts the story told by the Continuator of Eulogium Historiarum. In September some of the royal envoys, including Wyclif, returned, but some remained for further negotiations.?’® The question of the subsidy was not settled until 1375.

Gregory XI either did not know that the subsidy was on the agenda or he became impatient. On 30 December 1374 he appointed the bishop of London to exact and receive the subsidy ‘imposed’ on the clergy of England, ‘where alone of many realms the pope’s censures and sentences have been contemned.’ He gave the bishop faculty to grant to the clergy absolution from the censures after payment had been made in full.??° On 20 March 1375 he commissioned Arnald Garneri, the papal collector, who was returning to England from Avignon, to explain to the papal nuncios in England, William, bishop of Carpentras, and Pileus, archbishop of Ravenna, what he wanted done with regard to the subsidy. On the same day he wrote to several English bishops. The clergy of several regions, he said, had paid the papal subsidy imposed upon them, although they were tired out by the multiple burdens placed upon them by wars and other causes, 217 The Eulogium is the sole authority for the account. Perroy calls it ‘le récit extravagant’: L’Angleterre, p. 28, n. 2, Workman accepts it: Wyclif, I, 228-30. The claims by right of both spiritual and temporal power are refuted by Wyclif on other grounds: Tractatus de Potestate Pape, pp. 226-27. 718K, R. Nuncii 316/35-37; Issues of the Exchequer, ed. Devon, p. 197; Rymer, Foedera, III, 1007; C.P.R. 1370-74, p. 462; Workman, Wyclif, pp. 240-42. 719K. R. Nuncii 316/35-37; Workman, Wyclif, I, 245-46. 20 CPL. IV, 136.

108 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 but the English clergy, who abounded in revenues and were not disturbed by wars, had not yet paid the moderate subsidy imposed upon them. He asked the bishops, therefore, to do what they could to induce the English clergy to pay it.?**

Evidently Gregory XI had not yet been informed of any change in the status of the subsidy caused by the negotiations at Bruges, but within four months he learned that his nuncios had reached a compromise with the

English envoys. The negotiators agreed that the English clergy should pay a subsidy of 60000 florins, one-half on 1 November 1375 and one-half

on 24 June 1376. If the negotiations for peace between Edward III and Charles V, which were being conducted at Bruges, should have a successful outcome, they would pay an additional 40000 florins. Thus it required more than three years for the pope to wear down the opposition to the levy of an income tax on the clergy. The king may have withdrawn his Opposition to obtain concessions made by the pope with regard to provisions and other questions discussed at the same conferences.?**

The pope announced this concord on 15 July 1375 in a mandate addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York. It ordered them to collect the subsidy of 60000 florins at the specified dates from the benefices

of the English clergy except those of the cardinals. It authorized them to use ecclesiastical censures and sequestration to compel payment.?”* ‘The archbishop of Canterbury received his copy of the letter on 6 September. He sent his executory letter, which quoted the papal mandate, to the bishop of Winchester on 29 September.?** The bishop, whom he requested to send copies to the other bishops of the province, complied on 24 October.??°

The archiepiscopal letter ordered the bishops to collect one-half of a tenth of ecclesiastical goods and benefices assessed to the tenth, excepting

those of the cardinals, in order to obtain the required sum. The first of two equal instalments was to be levied before 1 November, if possible; if not, before Christmas. ‘he second was to be assembled by 24 June 1376. The sums received were to be delivered on the last day of each term to Robert Keteringham, rector of St Gregory London, and Ralph, rector of St Botolph without Aldgate, whom the archbishop had appointed receivers. If a bishop should be three days late, he and his deputies would be for2 CPL., IV, 142; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 245-46. *22 Below, pp. 353-54.

28 Lamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 7-77; C.P.L., IV, 111, 218. 24 Wilkins, Concilia, WI, 101-02; Wykeham’s Reg., H, 241; Lamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 29, 8, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 8-9; Salisbury, Reg. Ergham, II, fo. 8-8v. 225 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 241-42, 246-47.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 109 bidden entrance of a church; if six days late, suspended from office; and if nine days late, excommunicated. Each bishop was to certify to the arch-

bishop those who had paid the instalment and those who had not. On 15 October the archbishop substituted John Cantebrigg’, rector of Warfield in the diocese of Salisbury, in place of Ralph as the second receiver of the funds.??®

Most of the bishops did not receive their copies of the archiepiscopal mandate in time to put the administrative organization into operation before 1 November. The archbishop of Canterbury appointed his deputy on 30 September,”*” and the bishop of Winchester, who received notice in advance of the other bishops, commissioned his deputies on 16 October.??®

The action of the bishop of Ely was more typical. On 29 October he summoned a diocesan synod to meet at Trumpington on 18 November to hear the papal mandate and to be notified how much they would owe, and he did not appoint his deputies until 16 November.?”° Christmas thus became the terminal date in most of the dioceses of the province.

The bishop of Winchester delivered a substantial sum to the receivers on 18 December,?*° and he was not the only one to anticipate Christmas. On 21 December the papal collector paid to Italian merchants for transfer to the pope £576 13 s. 4 d. which he had received from the receivers.?#? When Christmas was past, however, a large number of the clergy had not paid their quotas. Up to 30 January 1376 the collector had delivered to Italian merchants for transfer to the papal camera only £1841 15 s.,?°? and the half of half a tenth in the province amounted to more than £4000.7%8 The lists of debtors received by the archbishop led him to confer on several bishops the power to absolve from censures and to dispense for their irregularities those who subsequently should give satisfaction for what they

owed.”84 On 6 May 1376 he ordered the bishop of Lincoln to excommunicate those who had not yet paid the first instalment and to summon them to appear before him within twenty days.”?° On 5 May he commanded the bishop of Hereford, in whose diocese nothing had yet been

paid, to collect the first instalment before 24 June. In that diocese the "336 Lamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 9%; Churchill, Canterbury Administration, 1, 539, n. , 72" Reg. Sudbury, fo. 8. 228 Wykebam’s Reg., Ul, 242.

2° Reg. Arundell, fo. 9-9V. 28° Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 250. 2311. & E. 344, fo. 27; Ob. 42, fo. 62. 282 Tbid., Col. 12, fo. 242. “85 Below, p. 111.

84 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 103, Reg. Sudbury, fo. 23%-24. **° Reg. Sudbury, fo. 21.

110 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 delay was caused by the translation of the preceding bishop to London.**° A vacancy in the see of Salisbury was also responsible for a delay of the first payment in that diocese to 4 July.?*? Elsewhere the extensive arrears seem to have reflected a continuance of the dissatisfaction of the clergy which had first found expression in the attempt to prevent the imposition of the tax. The situation in the province of York 1s less well known. On 7 May 1376 Gregory XI had heard that the archbishop of York and his clergy had not yet paid anything.”*? Actually the prior and convent of Durham had paid the first instalment for their income in the dioceses of York and Durham before Easter 1376,?*? but the papal letter gives reasons for a surmise that the date when that instalment was due in the province was even later than in the southern province. The news which the pope had from the province of Canterbury was evidently different, since on 7 May all that he asked the archbishop to do was to enforce with ecclesiastical censures the render of the unpaid balance of the first instalment.?**

In addition to the two archbishops Gregory XI employed in the administration of the subsidy William, formerly bishop of Carpentras and then archbishop-elect of Rouen. On 22 September 1375, when the pope sent him back to England as nuncio, one of his duties was to explain the papal wishes with regard to the subsidy.?*° On 31 December the pope exhorted him to be solicitous in exacting the subsidy and gave notice that

he was ordering the archbishops of Canterbury and York to assign the proceeds to him. He also gave the nuncio power to enforce payment of the subsidy by ecclesiastical censures and to issue acquittances to the archbishops.?*® He was not expected, however, to exact the subsidy from the

payers or to compel them to pay it by censures. He was concerned only with the proceeds. He received some of them from the archbishop of York

and from the papal collector. He also ordered the payment to others of some of the money in the hands of the collector.**” He was the superior of the archbishops and of the papal collector in the disposal of the funds, but in practice the archbishops delivered most of their receipts to the collector, and he paid by far the greater part of them to the papal camera. The second instalment brought no improvement in the promptness of 740 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 105-06.

* Reg. Ergham, I, fo. 9. 242 CPL. IV, 154-55. 748D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1 January 1375 to 13 April 1376. 244 CPD. IV, 154-55. **° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 119.

0C PL. IV, 112.

247 Col. 12, fo. 243, 251-52.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 111 payment by the taxpayers. On 18 July 1376, three weeks after the second payment was due, the archbishop of Canterbury caused to be drawn up a statement of account,”*8 of which a summary follows:

The half-tenth Paid to the

charged against receivers Still owed

£ s ad £ s ad £ s a

Canterbury 583 12 373,17 442 16 0 13 146° 01% 0 Rochester 87 14 2% 1% 17 London 511 O 10% 199 1020311 1948% Norwich 1163 4 2 300 863 2 Ely 338 «4 «11%, 100 0 0 23804 11% Chichester 298 1 11% 218 18 3% 79 3 8 Winchester 598 12 3 474 17 0 123 15 3 Salisbury 7115% 5 7% 319 844#+$19 391 175Y% 3% Wells 32419 230 0 O Exeter 244 3 11% 202 1 10% 42 2 0% 25° Worcester 368 2 11% 137 6 7 230 146 3% Hereford 276 119 56 111 16OO338 164 19 15 55 Lichfield 432 4 +O Lincoln 2045 1090 St Davids 13618153% 0%955 85 40 I9% 5114 142% 3 Llandaff 103 13 2% nichil —_— — Bangor 43 63 1 3Y% 3 13nichil 4 40 «7 O6Y, St Asaph 11 4% a _Total 8331 2 9% 3948 0 6% 4222 10 — 935 In view of this large amount of arrears the archbishop began the next day to send to each bishop a list of those who had not paid in full with orders to add to the ecclesiastical censures against them, to sequestrate their goods, and to collect what was due within a month. Disobedience by the bishops would entail penalties. ‘These mandates resulted in the recovery of some of the arrears but by no means all of them.?®? On 4 March 1377 new and more stringent orders were issued by the archbishop. This time the bishops were to pronounce the greater excommunication against debtors, to command their deputies to deliver any money of the subsidy in their possession to Henry Willowes, rector of St Olave London, and to obtain absolution from him. A collector who failed to obey was to be cited to appear before Henry in the court of Arches on the twentieth juridical day after the citation to show reasonable cause why he should not pay. Other748 Reg. Witleseye, fo. 172. 749 cxlxvi, text.

°° Tt is noted that this sum was paid later ‘et quietus est’. °°? The total of the sums paid and owed is only £8170 11 s. 3% d. Llandaff and St Asaph have been omitted in the addition of sums owed. If they are included the total amount owed is £4389 15 5.3% d.

*°? Salisbury, Reg. Ergham, II, fo. 9¥-10%; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 18%-19. The prior

and convent of Westminster paid in full for half the tenth due from their revenues in the archdeaconry of London on 8 April 1377: W.A.M. 30120.

112 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 wise the archbishop threatened to write to the pope about the collector.?** At the same time the archbishop commissioned Henry and John Barnet, official of his court of Canterbury, to proceed against any taxpayer who was delinquent and against any collector who had held back accounts or money.*°* Finally, on 3 November 1378 he wrote to various bishops stating specific sums still due from their respective dioceses, as established by the

accounts of Henry Willowes, and ordering them before the next Christmas, under penalty of censures, to cite the deputies to appear before him in London on the next juridical day after 13 January 1379 to pay what

money they had in hand, to account and to supply the names of any debtors.”°*> The sums due from the dioceses of Winchester and Worcester

were respectively £25 11s. 2% d. and £0 12 s. 6% d. When compared with the arrears owed from these dioceses on 18 July 1376, they indicate that in the intervening period of over two years the bulk of the arrears had been collected. On 2 January 1379 the archbishop issued a commission

for the audit of accounts,?°* which presumably would close the record of the collection of the subsidy after the returns from the mandates of 3 November had been received. Nearly all of the money produced by the subsidy was delivered to the

papal collector and all of it recetved before 6 March 1378 was recorded in his final account which he closed on that date. The receipts from the archbishop of Canterbury were £6246 11 s. and from the archbishop of York £1780. The collector calculated the 60000 florins due the pope at three shillings for a florin, making £9000. The sum still owed the pope at that date was, therefore, £973 9 s.?°” Whether the papal camera ultimately received this balance cannot be stated categorically on account of the lack of the accounts of the papal collectors who followed Arnald Garnerii. It probably did. The half of a tenth should have yielded more than £9000. The archbishop of Canterbury charged the local collectors in his province with £8331 2 s.9% d. This together with the sum which the archbishop of York had already paid on 6 March 1378 amounts to £10111 2s. 9% d. In view of the comparatively small sums still owed in the province of Canterbury late in 1378, it should have been possible to complete payment of the sum due the pope and to have a surplus left over.

This tax aroused stronger opposition than any similar papal tax had encountered since the thirteenth century in the period when the papal 53 Fly, Reg. Arundell, fo. 82-82%, Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 268. 54 Reg. Sudbury, fo. 34¥. 55 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 295; Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 137. 58 Churchill, Canterbury Administration, I, 539, n. 287 Col. 12, fo. 146, 242-43, 251-527.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 113 taxation of clerical income was comparatively new. Early in the proceedings it became a choice between a tenth by papal mandate or 100000 florins by clerical grant. The clergy, supported by the king, resisted its imposition for a long time, being opposed to any levy for the papal camera, and par-

ticularly to one for the support of temporal wars of the papacy in Italy. When the compromise which committed the clergy to payment of a subsidy was made at Bruges, the clergy as a whole appear to have had no voice in the decision. Some of the royal envoys who made the concession were clergymen, but they were representatives of the king and not of the clergy. The subsidy was levied by virtue of a papal mandate, but that was the customary procedure after a subsidy had been granted. It was not a mandatory income tax such as the pope had originally threatened to impose, if a subsidy was not granted. On the other hand, it does not seem to have been

a voluntary or gracious subsidy granted with the consent of all the clergy.?°§ The lack of consent probably helped to strengthen clerical resistance to payment of the subsidy, as it is evidenced by the large amount of arrears and the prolonged difficulties in collecting them. The grievance of the clergy, which was shared by laymen, found expression in the good parliament of 1376.7°° Among the articles presented by the commons, one complained that the papal collector was sending abroad to the work of the pope revenues which, including subsidies granted by the clergy, amounted to 20000 marks annually, one year more and another less. Since the subsidy which was current in 1376 amounted to only £9000, the statement was an exaggeration even for that year, and for the years between the collection of the subsidies granted in 1362 and 1375 it was a gross exaggeration. It reflected, however, a growing popular sentiment against the flow of English gold to the papal coffers.*°° A grievance expressed in another article was the use to which the money was put. It reads: ‘As often as the pope wants to have money to maintain his wars in Lombardy or elsewhere, or to spend for the ransom of any of his French friends taken prisoners by the English, he wishes to have a subsidy from the English clergy.’ The second reason assigned for papal requests for subsidies was probably due to a misconception of the relationship of the ransom of the French king to the previous subsidy, but it voiced an English suspicion of long standing that the French popes at Avignon were using money derived from England to support the cause of the French enemy. The complaint concluded with the assertion that the prelates granted the °° Below, p. 114. 759 Rot. Parl., Il, 339.

200 Fg. Rot. Parl., Ul, 228.

114 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 papal requests because they dared not refuse and the subsidy was levied from the clergy without their assent.?* This new spirit of royal, clerical and lay opposition to papal taxes on the incomes of the clergy endured for a long time. The clerk of the chapter of Lincoln, who usually included in his annual financial accounts payments made for papal taxes,?*? began in the account for 1377-78 to note under expenses that no payment for a papal subsidy had been made in that year. This statement was repeated every year until 1396-97, except perhaps the account for 1389-90, which 1s missing, and in the accounts for 1393-95, where papal subsidies were not mentioned.” ‘This long period of immunity was not maintained, however, without the denial both of papal requests for subsidies and of papal mandates imposing income taxes. 8. DEMANDS FOR SUBSIDIES AND MAanpatory Taxes BY URBAN VI

The schism left the popes in straightened financial circumstances and caused them to seek income taxes frequently. The first appeal to the English clergy was a request of Urban VI for a subsidy.?** It was considered by a convocation of Canterbury that met on 1 December 1384. The convocation refused to make a grant on the ground that all the resources of

the clergy were required to meet the royal demands for tenths for the defense of the realm and holy church. The archbishop of Canterbury thought that the clergy would have consented with goodwill, if it had not been for the grants they made to the king.?°° On 10 February 1386 Urban VI ordered the clergy of many lands to pay to him a tenth for three years.*®* The English clergy were not included, for on 24 March, in a bull addressed ‘ad futuram rei memoriam,’ he implored them to help him bear the insupportable burdens of the Roman church and decreed that they should do so by paying to him a twentieth of all their ecclesiastical revenues and receipts for one year. The year was

to begin on 1 April 1386 and the twentieth was to be rendered on the following 15 August. The classes of the clergy who were to pay the impost were listed as secular and regular, exempt and nonexempt archbishops, bishops, prelates and ecclesiastical persons. The tax was to be collected by each archbishop and bishop in his diocese by himself or by deputies. The 61 This seems to imply that the current subsidy did not have the general consent of the clergy. 762 Above, pp. 78, n. 27; 99, n. 163. *63T). & Ch. of Lincoln, Bj 2. 7-9.

64 Graf, Papst Urban VI, pp. 92-105; Hennig, Die pdpstlichen Zebnten, pp. 41-44, Pastor, History, 1, 164. 265 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 185-86, Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 305, n. 2. *6° Graf, Papst Urban VI, p. 100.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 115 customary assessment was to be used and the rules of the council of Vienne

were to be observed. The collectors were ordered to use the compulsion of ecclesiastical censures and of sequestration against tardy payers and they were empowered to call upon the secular arm, if necessary. Another letter commissioned the archbishop of Canterbury to execute the mandate.?®?

Urban VI soon learned that the English clergy could not pay the twentieth at the time prescribed on account of divers and necessary burdens of expenses which they could not escape. Without doubt this circumlocutory phraseology referred to the half of a tenth which the clergy had granted to the king late in 1385 and were paying in 1386.?6° The clergy had long since established by several precedents their freedom from concurrent taxes on their incomes by pope and king. He, therefore, postponed payment of the twentieth until the next year and ordered it to be exacted before Christmas of 1387.7 Before that date arrived, on 6 September 1387, the pope addressed letters to each of the archbishops and bishops which virtually repeated his letter of 25 March 1386, except that the year for the levy of the twentieth was to begin on 1 November 1387 and payment was due on 24 June 1388.?"° In effect this was merely another extension of the date of payment. The reason for it was doubtless the same

as before. A convocation of the province of Canterbury, begun on 5 November 1386, had granted to Richard II two halves of a tenth to be paid during 1387, and the writ for the collection of the first half was issued on 17 January.?"?

Before the last date set for the payment of the papal twentieth two new events interfered with the plan. Between 26 February and 14 March 1388 the convocation of Canterbury granted the king another half of a tenth.?”? The papal twentieth was discussed 1n the merciless parliament, which began on 3 February 1388. The discussion arose in connection with an extraordinary number of translations of bishops made by the pope. They were

made at the initiative of the lords appellant, since their followers were promoted to richer bishoprics and the supporters of the king were relegated to poorer ones.?”* John Malverne, a contemporary monk of Westminster, *67 ‘Quamquam propter varias: Arm. XXXIII, 12, fo. 85-88. 68 Tamb. Reg. Courtenay, fo. 84, 330%; Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 123¥-124; London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 367¥-368, Knighton, Chron., II, 206. 799 19 July 1386, ‘Ad futurum rei memoriam: Dudum videlicet VIII]: Arm. XXXTII, 12, fo. 93-939,

*7° ‘Quanquam propter varias’; ibid. fo. 97¥-100.

7 Lamb. Reg. Courtenay, fo. 85; London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 3717, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113; Knighton, Chron., II, 225. 72 Reg. Courtenay, fo. 73-737, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 372¥,; Reg. Arundell, fo. 114. “50 Stee Richard Il, p. 164, Tout, Chapters, Ill, 436. For the translations see below,

PP: -70.

116 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 seems to imply that the clergy in parliament arranged for the pope to make

the translations in order to divert his attention from the twentieth.?"4 Favent, another contemporary historian of this parliament, says that the pope, by making the translations, secured from the resulting service taxes the equivalent of the twentieth which he had been unable to obtain.?” 9, PARLIAMENTARY PROHIBITION OF SucH Taxes UNLEss THE KING CoNSENTED TO THEM

After the bulls of translation, which were dated 3 April, came to London, the commons debated the question of the amount of gold that would go to Rome as a result of both the translations and of the imposition of the twentieth. They concluded by petitioning the king that all money raised by papal bulls called ‘volumus et imponimus,’ meaning thereby bulls imposing taxes like the twentieth,?”* and by translations should be spent on expeditions against the schismatics in Scotland or elsewhere in order to

maintain the Christian faith. They asked further that one who brought into England bulls for either purpose and one who levied or paid such taxes without the assent of the king or of the realm should be adjudged a traitor. The king answered that he would write to the pope with regard to trans-

lations and that he wished nothing to be levied or paid to the damage of his lieges.?"" ‘The petition was made a statute as far as it related to taxes like the twentieth.7”* The significance of this statute, with its vague royal

approval, was clarified by the interpretation placed upon it in a royal prohibition evoked by another attempt of Urban VI to levy the twentieth. This further effort of Urban VI does not necessarily imply either that he thought the twentieth had been promised to him in return for the translations or that he was ignorant of the parliamentary enactment against it. He was an obstinate man who was not easily deterred by obstacles, however great, from a policy on which he had once embarked. On 9 March 1389 he wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury. He explained that he had *74 Quo in tempore papa petiit subsidium a clero sed illi de parliamento hoc sagaciter advertentes ordinarunt quod faceret translationes episcoporum’: Higden, Polychron., IX, 178. Perroy infers from this statement that the barons informed the pope that the levy of the subsidy would not be authorized as long as the translations were not made: L’ Angleterre, p- 305. Steel accepts the inference, but says that the appellants allowed the subsidy on condition that the translations be made: Richard Il, p. 172. 1 fail to see the justification for either inference. Elsewhere Steel interprets the statement of the monk to the effect that the English clergy ‘evaded the tax by provoking the pope to order this general post among the English bishops’: p. 164, n. 2. "8 Historia mirabilis Parliamenti, p. 22. °76 These terms are used in the papal letters of 24 March 1386 and 6 September 1387. "77 Rot. Parl., Ill, 246-47; Perroy, L’Angleterre, PP. 305-06. *78 Below, p. 117. Steel regards this as a breach of the promise which he thinks the lords appellant gave to permit the levy of the twentieth: Richard II, p. 172.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1327-1389 117 recently exhorted the archbishop and the other prelates of England to give him a ‘charitable subsidy’ for the repression of schismatics and for the recovery of the lands and rights of the Roman church, a circumlocution which was tersely summarized by a chronicler as ‘for his wars.’ "7° The period which he had set for the payment of the subsidy had elapsed on account of internal difficulties in the kingdom. He, therefore, exhorted and commanded the archbishop to collect the subsidy before 1 November next, and sooner if possible. It was to be levied in accordance with the

terms of his previous letters.28° The designation of the twentieth as a charitable subsidy was false, for in all the previous letters, as in this one, the tax was mandatory. The archbishop of Canterbury sent executory letters to the bishops on

15 September 1389. He quoted the papal mandate not only of 9 March 1389 but also the original ‘ad memoriam’ letter of 25 March 1386 by which

the pope had first imposed the twentieth and laid down rules for its levy. The archbishop ordered each bishop to collect the twentieth and threatened

to suspend him from office if he did not. The bishops appointed their deputies in October.?** Thus the collection of the twentieth originally ordered in 1386 finally began in 1389.

Before the levy was well under way, it came to a sudden halt. On 10 October the king intervened with a prohibition addressed to the arch-

bishops of Canterbury and York, to each of their suffragans, to some deputy collectors and to James Dardani, the papal collector.*? The king, the writ stated, was bound by his oath to conserve the laws and customs

of the kingdom. By that law and custom no impost ought to be made or levied on his people without the common counsel and consent of the kingdom. The community of the kingdom petitioned him in the parliament recently held at Westminster 7** to provide a remedy against taxes published and demanded from the clergy by the pope, and suggested that one who should bring any papal bulls for the levy of such taxes or for making any novelties, or one who should cause such a tax or novelty to be levied or paid without the consent of the king and the realm should be adjudged a traitor and executed. This was granted by the king with the assent of parliament. The king has learned that a subsidy imposed by the pope is being col7° Favent, Historia, p. 22. 8° C.P.L., IV, 272-73; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 9; Salisbury, Reg. Waltham, I, fo. 219. *1 3 October: Reg. Waltham, fo. 21%-25, 15 October: Reg. Fordham, fo. 8-9.

82 Wilkins, Concilia, Il, 207; C.C.R. 1389-92, pp. 26-27; Rot. Parl., IIl, 405, Reg.

Fordham, fo. 9V.

*88'The parliament which began on 3 February 1388. The one begun on September 1388 met at Cambridge.

118 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

lected by you without the common counsel and consent of the kingdom

| contrary to the said custom and grant. Such a novelty has not been seen in his kingdom in the past and he ought not to suffer it in his own time. He, therefore, enjoins and commands you, under pain of forfeiture of all you can forfeit, to desist from these new impositions and exactions, to revoke

your mandates for the levy of the subsidy, to repay and restore to the payers any money already collected and not to contribute to the subsidy yourself.?°4

This writ announced a limitation on the papal power to levy income _ taxes on the English clergy which was new, if the consent of the king and the realm meant the consent of king and parliament. Later practice seems to indicate that the consent of the king and his council was sufficient and that the king might even give or refuse consent without consultation of his council. This had long been the custom. Henry III stated in 1240 that it was and had been the custom.?*® During the next few years he forbade the clergy to grant or to pay a subsidy to the pope on several occasions and once at least he had the approval of his council for the action. He also ordered the prelates not to pledge their lay fees to the pope. In the same period two papal collectors sought and obtained his consent to levy a subsidy on the clergy. From 1250 to 1333, however, the kings were content to allow the papacy to impose: mandatory income taxes on clergy, because they obtained large shares of the proceeds. Indeed, many of these levies were made at the invitation of the kings. The only known royal prohibition on such a levy during this long period was made by Edward I in 1301, when, with the advice of his council, he forbade the payment of a mandatory tenth from the temporalities of the clergy. The prohibition delayed the collection of the tax only temporarily, because it was soon revoked.**° ‘Thereafter the power of royal consent was first used to prevent the papal imposition of a tax on the incomes of the clergy in 1372 and this

prohibition was withdrawn in 1375.78" Before 1389 the use of the royal power to prohibit the papal levy of income taxes from the English clergy had been rare; after that date it became common. The statute of 1388 was consequently a turning point of importance in the development of papal taxation of the incomes of the English clergy. *** This writ prepared the way for the grant of a tenth to the king by the convecation ot Canterbury which met on 12 October: Lamb. Reg. Courtenay, fo. 74¥; Reg. Fordham, " 857 unt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 198. 286 Ibid. chs. V-VIL.

“*" The petition of parliament in 1376 seems to indicate that parliament had not been consulted about the revocation.

CHAPTER IV MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY INCOME TAXES, 1389-1534 1. ATTEMPTs OF BontFace [X To OBTAIN A SUBSIDY

Boniface IX, who succeeded Urban VI late in 1389, made haste to seek the financial help of the clergy under his obedience. In 1390 he imposed

a mandatory tenth for two years upon the German clergy,’ but from the English clergy he asked only for a bona fide gracious aid. On 2 January 1390 he wrote to the two archbishops and their suffragans requesting and exhorting them to convoke their clergy excepting the mendicant friars and to persuade them to give him a charitable subsidy to help meet the nearly unbearable burden of expenses caused by the schismatics. If it should be decided by common counsel to grant a subsidy, the archbishops and bishops were to receive it. The bishops were to deliver their receipts to their archbishops, and the archbishops were to pay them to the papal collector.* The convocation of the province of Canterbury, which considered this request, did not meet until 17 April 1391. On 21 April the assembled clergy granted a subsidy of 4 d. in the pound of the established assessment of clerical in-

comes, subject to specified conditions. It was not to be published or collected until the king and the lords of the council had made their consent evident in royal letters patent. If consent was given, the subsidy was not

to be raised before the next Christmas. It was to be levied only from ecclesiastical benefices, portions and pensions assessed to the tenth and accustomed to pay it. The benefices of nuns and others who were notably poor were to be exempt. The proceeds were to be used only for the defense of the pope.®

Meanwhile Boniface [IX had become impatient. On 14 April 1391 he admonished, asked and exhorted the prelates and clergy of England to aid him liberally without delay in the resistance of schismatics. He asked them to give credence to Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola, whom he was sending

to the king as nuncio. He also empowered the bishops, if the subsidy should be granted, to employ ecclesiastical censures against those who did

not pay it at the dates fixed for its render.* The nuncio was received by Richard II and the nobles on 24 June, when he requested the king’s consent

to the levy of the subsidy. The king replied that, if he obtained a peace *Hennig, Die pipstlichen Zebnten, pp. 43, 78-81. 2CP.L. IV, 274. * Wilkins, Concilia, III, 212-13; Lamb. Reg. Courtenay, fo. 75-76. *C.P.L., TV, 278; Arm. XXXIII, 12, fo. 147-48. * John Malverne, in Higden, Polychron., [X, 247.

120 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 or a long truce with France, he would permit the pope to have a subsidy.® ‘This, of course, was tantamount to a refusal. In 1394 Boniface IX again sought to obtain a subsidy from the English clergy. On 14 August he wrote to the archbishops of Canterbury and York

in nearly the identical terms used in his request of 2 January 1390.7 He also sent as nuncio to seek the royal assent Bartholomew of Novara, who arrived in November.* The grant of a subsidy was considered by the convocation of Canterbury in 1394 and 1395,° but what answer was given either by the convocation or the king has not come to my attention. The grant to the king by convocation in 1394 of half a tenth ?° and in 1395 of a whole tenth ** makes it highly improbable that a subsidy was granted

to the pope by convocation or that the levy of one was approved by the king. This conclusion is confirmed by the lack of any evidence of the collection of such a subsidy in episcopal, capitular and monastic records, where it is usually found.” Boniface IX imposed a mandatory tenth upon the English clergy for the first time in 1397. The purpose of the tax was to provide financial aid for an expedition to exterminate schismatics and rebels against Boniface IX

in Italy. It was planned by John Holland, earl of Huntingdon and halfbrother of Richard II. On 1 March the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the papal collector, James Dardani, were ordered to collect the tenth, at dates fixed by them, from all ecclesiastical revenues, except those

of the cardinals, the Hospitallers and the Teutonic knights, on the basis of the customary valuation and in accordance with the decree of the council

of Vienne. They were given the usual powers to enforce payment. The proceeds were to be applied to the expenses of the earl in accordance with | the disposition made by the king.** Thereafter both the king and his brother were fully occupied with more pressing affairs nearer home.** The expedition did not take place, and no indication that the tenth was collected ° [bid., IX, 257; Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard Il, pp. 89-90. ™C.P.L., IV, 288.

*Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 337. ° Churchill, Canterbury Administration, I, 372. *° Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 52-52%; Lonton, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 380; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 120v. Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 68%; Reg. Braybrook, fo. 380V-81,; Reg. Fordham, fo. 122V; Worcester Sede Vacante Reg., pp. 359-60. ** On 31 October 1395 the bishop of Rochester ordered the dean of Iselham in Suffolk to collect a subsidy of 4 d. in the pound in the deanery: Turner and Coxe, Calendar, p. 647. The purpose of the subsidy is not stated in the summary, but it probably was not a papal subsidy.

** C.P.L., IV, 294; Ann. Ricardi Secundi, in J. de Trokelowe, pp. 200-01; Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 343.

** Steel, Richard Il, pp. 229-85; Ramsay, Genesis of Lancaster, Il, chs. XXII-XXV;, Oman, History of England from the Accession of Richard Il, pp. 133-59.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 121 has come to light. The grant to the king by the convocation of Canterbury of a tenth before 6 April in 13977 and of a tenth and a half before 24 July in 1398 1° created a situation in which the levy of a papal tenth would con-

flict with the king’s interests. The chance that Richard II consented to the imposition of the papal tax is most remote. On 13 May 1398 Boniface IX once more tried to obtain a subsidy for himself. In a letter addressed to the prelates and other clergy of England he asked and exhorted them to grant to him and the Roman church such a charitable subsidy as they might choose. Peter, bishop of Dax, who was being sent as nuncio, was to deliver the letter and to ask for and receive the subsidy.*7 The question had to be considered by convocations, since the prelates and clergy were free to grant a subsidy or not. The convocation of Canterbury met on 2 March 1398 7° and either it was still in session or a new convocation was called on 14 June.’® Unless it continued its sessions for some weeks thereafter, Peter probably did not arrive in time to present the papal request to this convocation, since he was still in Rome

on 1 June.?? He may have put it before the convocation which met on 27 January 1399, since he did not leave England before 18 March of that year.”! There is, however, no evidence that he did. It is highly improbable that the convocation of Canterbury granted Boniface IX a subsidy in either

year. The convocation which met on 2 March 1398 was the one which granted the king a tenth and a half, and this tax was still being collected

when the convocation of 27 January 1399 assembled.”* Moreover, the | levy of a papal subsidy, like that of the mandatory tenth, would have been likely to create difficulties in the collection of the royal subsidy. The repeated efforts of Boniface [X to draw upon the resources of the English clergy for the benefit of the papal camera thus ended in failure. Apparently his experience caused him to decide that the parliamentary enactment of 1388, as it was being enforced by the king, rendered such taxation impossible. For the remainder of his pontificate, which lasted until 1404, he did not again try to tax the incomes of the English clergy, although he imposed a triennial tenth on the Bohemian clergy in 1400.7* The att8 Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 124%; Worcester, Reg. Winchcomb, fo. 15%. *® Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 119; London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 381¥-82; Lincoln, Reg. Beaufort, fo. 71.

CPL. IV, 302.

8 Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 119; London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 381-82.

° Proceedings of the Privy Council, I, 81; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 236, Ann. Ricardi Secundi, p. 227; Perroy, L’ Angleterre, pp. 347-48, Handbook of British Chronology, p. 365. 20 C\P.L., IV, 303-04.

2tDate of royal safe-conduct for his departure: Rymer, Foedera, Ill, pt. 4, 155. See also Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 350-51. ” Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 342. ** Hennig, Die papstlichen Zebnten, p. 44.

122 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 tude of the English government as expressed in 1389 may also have influenced him to confine his demands to subsidies which the English clergy

could either grant or refuse. The only mandatory tax which he tried to impose would not have benefited the papacy financially, since the proceeds were to be assigned to the king’s half-brother at the discretion of the king. 2. DEMANDS FOR SUBSIDIES AND Manpatory Taxes, 1404-18

Gregory XII was the next pope to seek financial help from the English

clergy. A plan for the Roman and French popes to meet and to make simultaneous cessions of their offices, leaving the way clear for the election of a single pope to head a united church, was under consideration. Gregory

XII needed money for the expenses of the meeting. On 1 June 1407 he wrote to the archbishops of Canterbury and York exhorting them to give a liberal aid and to induce their suffragans and prelates, such as abbots and priors, to contribute for the same purpose. Whatever they collected they were to deliver to members of the firm of the Alberti for transmission to the pope. He addressed letters also to the prelates of both provinces asking

them to make gifts.?* This subsidy was not intended to be assessed on clerical incomes and its levy did not require the consent of convocation. Each prelate was left free to give as much or as little as he pleased, or to give nothing at all.

Of the financial results which this appeal may have had I have found no record, but it may be doubted if it yielded anything. The clergy of the province of York paid a tenth to the king during 1407,?° and late in that year the clergy of Canterbury granted the king a tenth and a half.?° Before the end of 1407, furthermore, it had become apparent that Gregory XII was avoiding the meeting which had been appointed and was insincere in his proposal to end the schism by cession.?* ‘The English clergy desired unity. After the project of a general council to end the schism was made known in 1408, the clergy of both provinces in convocations voted taxes on their incomes to provide for the expenses of their representatives at the council of Pisa,?® but no evidence indicates that they had had sufficient 24 C.P.L., VI, 96-97; Wylie, History of England under Henry IV, Ul, 23-24. > York, Reg. Sede Vacante, fo. 2719-73, 282v. *6 Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 1v*-2*.

7 Pastor, History, 1, 174-75; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Il, 87-92, Wylie, History under Henry IV, Ill, 16-37. 8 A convocation of the province of Canterbury summoned on 25 June 1408 granted 1% d. in the £ and another which began on 14 January 1409 voted 2% d. additional. The convocation of York late in 1409 granted one-half of a tenth: Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 167, 169, 171; Lamb. Reg. Arundel, I, fo. 73¥-74, II, fo. 8¥,; Regs. W. Giffard and Bowett (Wells),

pp. 77-78, 81-83; Reg. Rede (Chichester), I, 139-140, 145; Reg. Bubwith (Wells), 1, 37, 47-49; Reg. Mascall (Hereford), pp. 60-68; Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 41, 44, D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus XIX, 127; Misc. Ch. 6020; Inventories of Jarrow and Monk—Wearmouth, p. 190.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 123 confidence in the earlier proposed union by way of cession to spend money for it. After Boniface [X, the next pope who attempted to tax the incomes of

the English clergy was John XXIII. On 9 November 1411 he appointed Antonio de Pireto and Paul de Caputgrassis nuncios to England and commanded them to exact during each of three years a tenth of ecclesiastical revenues which he was imposing on the English clergy. It was to be used for the war being waged by John XXIII against Ladislaus, king of Naples. They were to levy it in accordance with the rules usually prescribed in such mandates, one-half at Easter and one-half at Michaelmas of each year,

and they were given the customary powers to enforce payment. The revenues of the cardinals, the camerarius, the Hospitallers and the Teutonic knights were exempted.”? Since the tenth was mandatory, the approval of the convocations was not necessary, but the consent of the king had to be

obtained. Apparently it was not given.?? Though the war was called a crusade, it was virtually a local Italian affair in which the English had no interest. The English clergy, moreover, in each of the three years during which the papal tenth would have been due paid subsidies which they had

granted to the king.** Evidence of the execution of the papal mandate is lacking.

On 1 April 1414 John XXIII appointed Martin Minutolis, Bartholomew, bishop of Pesaro, and Augustine Dellante as nuncios to collect a subsidy from the clergy of England. Its object was to enable him to continue the war against Ladislaus, who was in possession of part of the States of the Church, and to further the council of Constance which was set for 1 November. The nature of the subsidy was not explained.** Three days later he addressed a letter to the clergymen and laymen of England asking them to make gifts for the same cause. The gifts would be received by the bishop of Pesaro.** If this was the subsidy mentioned in the letter of 1 April, it was not assessed on incomes, and individuals were free to give or not, as they chose. If, however, the two letters referred to two separate sources of revenue, gifts from both clergymen and laymen and a subsidy from the

clergy only, the latter may have been intended to be assessed on their incomes.

°0>He refused to allow indulgences for the same purpose to be published (below, p. 560), and his reason, as given by the Continuator of Eulogium Historiarum was that he did not want to pauperize his kingdom for the pope: II, 419. Though the Continuator does not mention it, his refusal may have extended to the tenth. 31 Addit. MS. 25288, fo. 55¥-56; Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 150, 194, York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 30, 38%-39, 311¥, 312; Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 59-59, 64.

82 At least, none is given in the summary in C.P.L., VI, 184-85.

CPL. VI, 183.

124 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The latter alternative is improbable, unless it was known at the papal court that the mandatory tenth was not being levied. Both instalments of the third year of it would have been due in 1414, and the most optimistic pope could hardly have expected the English clergy to pay two income taxes to the papacy in the same year. One bit of evidence seems to indicate that the pope or the officials of the camera thought that the tenth was being collected. On 3 April 1414 the pope ordered the bishop of Pesaro to pay to Anthony de Baldinotis for his services 333 florins 16 s. 8 d., taking the sum from the money collected for the papal camera, from the tenth or from the charitable subsidy.** If it was expected that proceeds of the tenth would be available to the bishop of Pesaro, the clerical subsidy probably consisted of the gifts which individual clergymen might make voluntarily. If the clerical subsidy was intended to be levied on incomes, there is little likelihood either that the convocations granted it, or that the king permitted such a levy to take place. In 1414 and again in 1415 the English clergy paid tenths to the king.®* If convocations had made effective grants of such a subsidy, the result would have been the triple taxation of clerical incomes, since late in 1414 both convocations voted a tax on clerical incomes to provide for the expenses of their representatives at the council of Constance.** Henry V, to be sure, allowed indulgences for the cause to be published in England,** but they did not conflict with the royal subsidies from the incomes of the clergy, as a papal subsidy on their incomes would have done. Certainly, no evidence of the collection of a papal subsidy on incomes has been discovered.

The period of the schism was therefore of decisive importance in the development of papal taxation of English clerical incomes. Unless significant evidence has been overlooked, the papacy, despite repeated attempts, failed to impose a mandatory tax or to obtain a subsidy levied on the incomes of the English clergy. Forty years of successful opposition to such

taxes, supported during thirty years by the law of 1388, established a precedent which Martin V found it impossible to break. Martin V and his successors were also limited to some extent in the imposition of mandatory income taxes by the action of the council of Constance. These taxes caused dissatisfaction in other countries besides England, and at the council demands were made for reform. In one pro°*On 9 February 1415 the same order was given to Paul de Caputgrassis, who had recently been appointed papal collector in England: C.P.L., VI, 183, 186. °° Above, p. 123. Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 194, 225; Cal. MSS. Weils, II, 49; Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 81; York, Reg. Bowet, I, fo. 311¥-12, 314-17; II, fo. 38¥-39. °° Reg. Bubwith, I, 189-94, Reg. Mascall (Hereford), pp. 121-22; London, Reg. Clifford, fo. 64-65; York, Reg. Bowet, I, fo. 285¥-286v. ** Below, p. 560.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 125 gram put before the council the question was raised whether the pope could impose a tenth in a country and pay it to secular princes.** The proposal that the commission of reform debated was that the pope was free to ask for a charitable subsidy in case of need, but could not impose a tenth on the clergy without the consent of a general council.?? The general program of the commission was wrecked largely by the action of the English representatives at the council. They stood with the Germans for a time on the demand that the desired reforms should be enacted before a new pope was elected, but they finally gave way on the order of business

at the command of Henry V. He was anxious to end the schism, and he thought that the English government had already established the right, by means of parliamentary legislation and custom, to check in England many of the papal practices which the commission of reform regarded as abuses.*° Before the new pope was elected, five reforms suggested by the commis-

sion were adopted. Eighteen were left to be settled by the new pope in conjunction with the council. After the election of Martin V, a new commission appointed to deal with these reforms failed to reach agreement. The pope finally submitted his own program of six reforms which was adopted by the council on 21 March 1418. Among them was a modified form of the article concerning tenths. The pope was not to impose a tenth unless there was a weighty cause of concern to the universal church and he had obtained the consent of the cardinals and of the prelates—or of the greater part of them—in the kingdom or province to which the tenth was to apply.*?

3. FarLure oF Martin V to Ostain A TENTH OR A SUBSIDY

Though Martin V became the head of a united church, it was a long time before the financial system could be restored. An inference that he asked the English clergy for a subsidy in 1421 is, nevertheless, unwarranted. In the minutes of a convocation of Canterbury held in that year, it 1s stated that Simon of Teramo, papal collector and nuncio in England, appeared before the assembled prelates and clergy and recommended to them the business of the pope with regard to having provision *” in England. The recommendation was received with suitable reverence,*® but °8 Finke, Acta, II, 584. °° Thid., I, 663.

*’ Kingsford, Henry V, pp. 261-73.

“von der Hardt, Rerum Concilii Constantiensis Corpus, IV, 1539-40; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Ill, 168-72; Salembier, Great Schism, pp. 362-67; Creighton, Papacy, I, 369-70, 388-89; 392-95, 399-402, 405-07.

*’ ‘pro provisione habenda’. | *° Reg. Chichele, Ill, 66.

126 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 no further action upon it is recorded in the minutes.** Duck, in his life of Archbishop Chichele, using these minutes,*® deduces that the papal collector asked for money for the pope. He seems to have thought that the desired provision was financial. He adds, apparently from his imagination, that ‘they gave no ear’ to the request of the nuncio, ‘conceiving that the

Tenths, Annates and other Perquisites which were paid yearly into the Pope’s Exchequer were more than sufficient for his necessities.’ ** Jacob rightly regards the collector’s recommendation to have been concerned with the statute of provisions which Martin V was trying to have repealed in order that he might make provisions to English benefices more freely.*7 The suppression of the Bohemian heretics was the purpose for which Martin V first attempted to tax English clerical income, but the first income

tax which he imposed for that purpose apparently was not extended to England. On 5 August 1423 he announced that the papal camera would contribute a fifth of its income and officials of the papal court a tenth for a crusade being organized chiefly by the Germans. He also assigned a tenth of all ecclesiastical benefices for the project. Omissions in the copy of the bull supplied by Raynaldus ** leave it doubtful whether the tenth was intended to be universal, but no steps appear to have been taken to exact it in England. After this German expedition had been decisively defeated by the Hussites in 1427, Martin V, on 25 October, proclaimed another crusade, and imposed a tenth for one year on the revenues and fruits of churches and other pious places having ecclesiastical benefices or tithes united to them

in the whole of Christendom. The year was to begin on 1 November and continue to 29 June 1428. The tenth was to be paid by patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, prelates and secular and regular ecclesiastical persons both exempt and nonexempt with no exception even to cardinals. The pope and

the officials of the papal court were to contribute at the same rates as in 1423. The receipts were to be used against the Bohemian heretics. The mandate, he said, conformed to the decree of the council of Constance, because it had been approved by the cardinals and by the bishops of the several countries of Europe who were in Rome at the time.*? This tenth applied to England, though a major portion of the English bishops was not 44 Ibid., TH, 66-70. 46 F{Te does not state the source of his information, but he mentions other actions of the convocation recorded only in these minutes. *° Life of Chichele, pp. 103-04. Haller follows Duck, pointing out that he is the only source of this information: ‘England und Rom’, Quellen und Forschungen, VIII, 255. *" Reg. Chichele, I, xlii; below, p. 419. 48 1423, § 19.

“? Raynaldus, 1427, §9; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, III, 203.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 127 present at the papal court. It became a test of the papal power to obtain funds by a levy on the revenues of the English clergy. On the same date the pope wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury announcing the tenth and quoting the above mandate.®° He ordered the archbishop and each of his bishops to collect the tenth in his own diocese by means of deputies, who must be clerks,®* within the time specified. They were to use the customary assessment and observe the decree of the council of Vienne. The collectors could demand nothing extra beyond one boloninus for an acquittance and three bolonini for a process of absolution from excommunication.°? After 29 June the collectors were to enforce payment by censures and sequestration and to invoke the secular arm, if necessary. Payers who incurred censures could be absolved and dispensed for irregularities by the collectors after satisfaction had been given. The money was to be delivered to Cosmo and Laurence, sons of John dei Medici, who had been appointed receivers for the crusade by the cardinals.*° These bulls along with others about the crusade were brought to England by the papal nuncio, Conzo de Zwola, who was an auditor of causes

in the papal palace. On 10 May 1428 he presented to the king’s council papal letters asking the aid of the king and the kingdom for sustaining an army against the heretics of Bohemia.** He also brought the tenth to the attention of the archbishop of Canterbury, for the archbishop, on 20 May, summoned convocation to consider, among other things, ‘the will of our most holy lord, the pope.’ *° Convocation opened on 5 July. On the ninth Conzo appeared before it and asked orally in the name of the pope for a ‘notable subsidy’ to aid the

resistance against the Bohemian heretics. The subsidy, it appears from a later papal letter, was an alternative to the mandatory tenth.°* The archbishop replied that he would consult with the prelates and clergy and give an answer to the pope. Before the subsidy was considered, the king asked fora subsidy. On 19 July both taxes were discussed at the same time. The prelates and clergy reached no decision on either question. They urged 5° Bodleian Lib., MS. Tanner 165, fo. 63°-66Y.

*t The collection of papal tenths by laymen was one of the grievances expressed at

the council of Constance: Finke, Acta, IV, 627. °°? There were 60 bolonini in a florin. If the florin be computed at three shillings, one

boloninus is worth three-fifths of a penny. English deputy collectors had previously charged 1 or 2 d. for an acquittance. °5’These instructions, which are the same as those of older similar bulls with a few additions representing concessions to complaints made at the council of Constance, were employed in later bulls imposing tenths. °4 Proceedings of the Privy Council, II, 295; Gairdner, Lollardy, I, 144. °° Reg. Chichele, Ill, 183. °° Bodleian Lib., MS. Tanner 165, fo. 67.

128 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 that, since the time for gathering hay was upon them and autumn was near, convocation should be prorogued. On the next day they debated both subsidies again without result, and on 21 July the convocation was adjourned to 12 November, on the ground that many bishops and other prelates were absent.*?

At the adjourned session the archbishop, on 20 November, suggested that a committee of prelates and of proctors of the lower clergy should be appointed to facilitate consideration of the business of pope and king. The names of the members elected to the committee were made known to the archbishop on 23 November. Then Conzo and another papal nuncio named James, who had come to England with Cardinal Beaufort in the inter-

val, appeared before convocation. Conzo related how he had previously spoken to convocation and, because several prelates were absent, had received no answer except that convocation would adjourn to 12 November in order that a reply pleasing to the pope might be made. Meanwhile he had notified the pope of the adjournment and its cause, and the pope had let his will be known 1m a letter. This he presented to the archbishop. The nuncios then withdrew and the letter was read to the assembly.°® It was addressed to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, provosts, deans and ecclesiastical persons of England and dated 9 October 1428.%° Martin V said that he had been informed by Conzo of the response which the prelates and clergy recently convened at London ® gave to him about the tenth or subsidy requested for the cause of the faith. This common cause was postponed because the business could be done better by all and some were absent. Since the greater part was there, he could not believe that the answer to the cause, which was regarded by the cardinals and by the prelates and doctors from several nations as so important, was prorogued. The action displeased him and the whole church, and it did great damage to the church and the catholic faith. The clergy of England, therefore, ought to contribute all possible without delay. No other nation had made any difficulty about the tenth or subsidy. The English certainly ought not to do so, for the seeds of this pestiferous and abominable heresy were sown by the followers of Wyclif in England. He exhorted, requested and warned the clergy that, according

| to his hope, they would contribute promptly to the protection of the faith 57 Reg. Chichele, Il, 185-90; Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 493; Chron. Rerum gestarum in Monasterio S Albani, p. 24. °8 Reg. Chichele, Ill, 194-95; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 496.

°° Noviter certiores facti: Bodleian Lib., MS. Tanner 165, fo. 67-68Y.

*°'The letter says that it was convened on 11 November. This seems to represent a confusion between the date when convocation first met with the date of the adjourned

session.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 129 for their honor and for the safety of their souls, as the clergy of other nations had done willingly. The collected money, he added, ought to be expended by those deputed by them, as Conzo would inform them more fully. This presumably meant that the proceeds would be used for the expenses of the army which Car-

dinal Beaufort was raising in England to take part in the crusade.* This projected participation of an English contingent in the crusade was another reason which made the venture of particular interest to Englishmen, though Martin V did not use it as an argument in his letter. Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, cardinal priest of S Eusebio and great uncle of the infant king, had, moreover, been appointed by the pope the leader of the whole expedition.® After this expression of the papal displeasure had been read, the arch-

bishop deliberated with the committee. He exhorted them to placate the pope and to expedite the business so that it could be terminated by convocation. The committee debated it for the next two days and on the second day discussed also a subsidy for the king. On 26 November and again on 6 December the grant of a subsidy for Bohemia and of half a tenth for the king was considered by the convocation. On 7 December the assembly, breaking an age-old precedent, voted half a tenth for the king and a ‘notable subsidy’ of 8 d. in the mark, which is also one-half of a tenth, for Bohemia.

The second grant was made subject to conditions. The only one stated was that neither the king nor the laws of his kingdom should be offended thereby. The others were left by the lower prelates and the clergy to the

decision of the archbishop and the bishops. Convocation was then adjourned to 19 October 1429. One of the reasons assigned for the prorogation was the desire to have full and mature deliberation of the conditions to be attached to the grant.® Before the adjourned convocation met, the Bohemian subsidy was considered by the king’s council. On 18 June 1429 Cardinal Beaufort presented the council with a memorandum asking permission to raise volunteers for a crusading army. The council approved the enlistment of a smaller troop than the cardinal requested. It required that money given on account of devotion to the cause—namely, for indulgences °*—should be accounted for to the king, and that the gold and silver received must be spent for supplies within the kingdom. It also ruled that the pope would have to be content with that much money and must forbear any common charge to be borne ** Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 145. ** Below, p. 563.

°° Reg. Chichele, Ul, 195, 208-10; Wilkins, Concilia, 496-97, 503. °** Below, pp. 566-67.

130 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 by any estates of the realm ‘be it by the clergy or any other.’ ®° This was clearly a prohibition, in accordance with the statute of 1388, of both the

mandatory tenth and the subsidy granted by convocation. Despite the prohibition, when the convocation assembled again on 19 October 1429, it again considered the papal subsidy at the request of the archbishop. The minutes do not state what aspect of it was discussed, but it could hardly have been a proposal to grant a subsidy in defiance of the prohibition. Before any conclusion was reached, the king asked for another subsidy. On 20 December convocation granted the desired subsidy. It was then dissolved without any recorded action having been taken on the papal subsidy.°7

To Martin V, who was attempting to recover the powers which the papacy had lost during the schism, this was a bitter defeat. It must have been the harder to bear, because he had failed in the preceding year, after a prolonged effort, to secure the repeal of the statute of provisors.®* The depth of his feeling is reflected in his accusation of Archbishop Chichele. The papal letter is lacking, but its general nature is made apparent by the archbishop’s letter in defense of himself. He told the pope that the nuncio James, who had just returned from the papal court, had reported falsely that, when the English clergy had granted a notable subsidy to extirpate the heretics of Bohemia, he, the archbishop of York and other bishops of the king’s council had conspired to hinder the grant, thus damaging the projected expedition as much as in them lay. Nothing, he said, had been done about the subsidy without the knowledge and consent of Cardinal Beaufort.°? Evidently Martin V believed that the archbishops and bishops who were members of the council could have prevented the prohibition of the subsidy. This experience appears to have discouraged the papacy for a time, since no further attempt was made to tax English clerical income until 1444. One

piece of evidence which points to the contrary is in all probability erroneous. On 11 September 1448 Nicholas V appointed a member of his household to go to England to investigate the collection of a tenth by Peter de Monte, who had been papal collector in England from 1435 to 1441. The pope was informed that Peter had been granted by Eugenius IV a faculty 6 Proceedings of the Privy Council, II, 330-34; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 145; Correspondence of Bekynton, introd., I, xcvit. °° Between 7 December 1428 and 18 June 1429 Martin V granted Henry VI a favor. On 13 March 1429 he imposed a biennial tenth upon the revenues of the clergy of Normandy co be paid to the duke of Bedford to help the English maintain their possession of Normandy against French attack: Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel, I, 278-80. 87 Reg. Chichele, WI, 210-12; Wilkins, Concilia, II, 514-15. °° Below, pp. 418-27.

°° Correspondence of Bekynton, I, 255-57.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 131 to impose upon and collect from the English clergy a tenth to help pay for a fleet to be used against the Turks, that he had levied the tenth, but that he had never accounted in full to the papal camera for the great sums which he had received from the clergy and people of England.’° The statement that these sums were paid by the people as well as by the clergy creates a presumption that they were not derived from a tenth, since a papal tenth would have been confined strictly to the clergy. Reference to the activities of Peter de Monte while he was collector gives no indication that a papal tenth was imposed upon or paid by the English clergy in that period. The strongest evidence against the claim is that in the final account of his collectorship, rendered to the camera on 30 April 1441, the revenues from which he received the money delivered to the camera are specified and no mention is made of a tenth,”’ though the statement of Nicholas V implies

that he had accounted in part for the proceeds of a tenth. There can be little doubt that the sums to which Nicholas V referred were derived, not from a tenth, but from indulgences which Eugenius IV granted in 1439 in return for gifts for the expenses of the union with the Greek church and

for the protection of the Greeks against the Turks. Peter, who was appointed special collector of these oblations,”’ transmitted to the camera on several occasions sums obtained from this source,”* and they were included in his final account.” In 1444 Eugenius IV, having heard a rumor that Peter had received thousands of sums for these indulgences, though comparatively little money from them had reached the camera, appointed a commission of three English prelates to investigate the truth of the rumor.’° Apparent-

ly Nicholas V heard a version of this rumor which confused indulgences with a tenth.” 4. Atrempt or Eucentus IV to Levy a TENTH For A CRUSADE AGAINST THE TURKS AND A SUBSIDY GRANTED TO Him, 1444-46

The next demand for a tenth of the incomes of the English clergy was CPL. X, 190. 71 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1869, fo. 170. Below, pp. induls.

721 & E. 407, fo. 25, 35, 48. 78 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1869, fo. 170, 186V. 7° C.P.L., VIII, 272; below, p. 572.

77In the compotus of the precentor of the priory of Rochester for Michaelmas 21 Henry VI (1442) to the next Michaelmas is entered under expenses ‘ad subcedium domini pape iii x: D. & Ch. Rochester, C 91. I have found no evidence that a subsidy levied on clerical incomes was paid to the pope in 1442 or 1443. If the word was used to mean aid in a general sense, the payment might possibly have been the precentor’s contribution to the 7 s. owed annually by the priory to the papal collector for his procurations. In the similar accounts of other monastic communities this item was usually entered as paid to the pope’s nuncio, but sometimes as paid to the pope.

132 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 made by the successor of Martin V, Eugenius IV. On 1 January 1443 he issued an encyclical decreeing the universal payment by ecclesiastical persons of a tenth of their revenues and receipts. This tenth, it was explained, had been ordained originally by the council of Basle to meet the expenses of the Greek delegates to the council which had brought about the union of the two churches. The expenses were met by others means and the pope had decided to exact the tenth for another purpose. This was a crusade against the Turks for the protection of the union with the Greeks recently accomplished. The pope was promoting the organization of an army and a fleet for which the proceeds of the tenth would be expended. He was contributing one-fifth of the common services and annates paid to his camera and the cardinals were paying the tenth.”® Though the tenth was to be paid during the year beginning on 27 March 1443, or at latest on 24 June, the mandate was not made operative in England until 13 July 1444, when the pope appointed John de Castiglione, who was the general papal collector in England, and Baptista of Padua, bishop elect of Concordia, who was the nuncio and orator entrusted with the business of the crusade in England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland and Germany, to collect the tenth in all of these countries. ‘Their instructions with regard to the method of collection were the same as those which Martin V had given to the archbishops and bishops of England in 1427 with three exceptions. ‘There were more exemptions, the money was to be delivered to any banker or suitable person for transmission to the papal court, and any other

tenth, even if it had been imposed by papal authority, was to be postponed.”®

The elect of Concordia acquainted the king with the business at an audi-

ence held early in 1445. Henry VI did not want to have established the precedent of a tenth imposed on the clergy by papal mandate, but he desired to have the English clergy make a freewill offering to the common cause in order to maintain the reputation of England for cooperation. He, therefore, asked the bishops who were present at a meeting of parliament to consider the problem. The archbishop of Canterbury and the four of his suffragans who were in attendance decided, at the suggestion of the king, to recommend to the clergy of the province the grant of a subsidy of 1 d. in the mark. It was thought that this would produce a sum of 6000 florins. The king ordered a letter to be written to Eugenius [V granting his request that peace should be made between England and France, and promising, if peace should be concluded, that he would act in a manner that would satisfy the Roman Church and the whole of Christianity. 7° Raynaldus, 1443, §§ 14-19, Cotton MS. Cleop. E III, fo. 84-86v. 7° C.P.L., VIII, 299, Cotton MS. Cleop. E III, fo. 84, 86¥-877.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 133 On 12 March 1445 a committee, consisting of the bishop of Bath, the abbot of Gloucester and Vincent Clement,*®° acting in behalf of the king and the prelates of England, notified the elect of Concordia of this proposed voluntary subsidy. The nuncio expressed his thanks to the king and the prelates and his certainty that the pope would be grateful to them for aiding the cause when the kingdom had so many burdens to bear. He professed to understand that the clergy did not wish to be forced by such an imposition and said that it was not the intention of the pope to make an exaction from them against their will. He said further that when he went to the papal court, he would explain the circumstances in such a way that

the pope and the cardinals would be satisfied. After the nuncio left for Rome, Archbishop Stafford, Vincent Clement and the clergy wrote to the pope.** The content of the letter is not given, but if it was the one ordered by the king, presumably it made any English contribution larger than the voluntary subsidy contingent upon the end of the war. The prelates of the province of Canterbury who made the decision to offer a gracious aid did not wish to summon convocation for fear that the king might take the opportunity to demand a subsidy. They proposed instead that each bishop should summon the prelates and clergy of his diocese to one or more places and ask their consent to the grant and levy of the projected subsidy. The archbishop of Canterbury drew up an executory

letter on 14 March 1445 and sent it to the bishop of London, who dispatched copies of it to the other suffragans on 24 March. It ordered the recipient to convoke his clergy and to obtain the grant of a notable sum. The amount was not specified in this letter, but in a letter of 17 March the archbishop let it be known that a grant of 1 d. in the mark was expected. If the subsidy was granted, the bishop was to have it collected by deputies and to pay the proceeds to the official of the court of Arches on 10 May. Any opponents were to be cited to appear before the archbishop at Lam-

beth on 4 May. The bishops summoned their clergy to consider the subsidy at various dates in April. In the dioceses of Norwich and Lincoln diocesan synods were held and in Worcester and London archidiaconal synods. In the diocese of Norwich the desired penny in the mark was approved, and in Worcester it was granted with the exception that it was not to be paid from pensions and portions. In London it was voted by the clergy of the arch5° On him see below pp. 136-38. 1 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 541-44, 547, Lamb. Reg. Stafford, fo. 45, 45%, Norwich, Reg. Brown, fo. 96-97. 82 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 542-43; Norwich, Reg. Brown, fo. 96, London, Reg. Gilbert, fo. 98-987; Lincoln, Reg. Alnwick, fo. 554-55, Worcester, Reg. Carpenter, I, fo. 16-16¥; Rochester, Reg. Lowe, fo. 202%; Addit. MS. 7096, fo. 174¥-75¥.

134 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

deaconries of Colchester and Middlesex and by the dean and chapter of London, but the clergy of the archdeaconry of Essex granted only a penny in the pound and those of the archdeaconry of London refused to make any grant. ‘The latter were summoned by the bishop to appear before the archbishop on 4 May. The bishops generally appointed their archdeacons deputy collectors. The commission and instructions which the bishop of Norwich issued to his archdeacons required each of them to collect in the name of himself and of the archbishop of Canterbury a penny in the mark from each ecclesiastical person, abbot, prior, other prelate exempt and nonexempt, rector, vicar and any other holding an ecclesiastical benefice or administration in the archdeaconry. The archdeacon or his official was to order these ecclesiastical persons to bring to the next synod the money due from their revenues both assessed and not assessed. The archdeacon was to deliver the proceeds to the official of the court of Arches on 10 May, warn opponents to appear on 4 May before the archbishop, who would treat with them for the purpose of persuading them to contribute, and to report to the archbishop what he had done in the premises. The bishop conferred upon him the power of canonical coercion, if it should be necessary in order to

carry out his instructions.** |

In the province of York the subsidy was treated in a convocation, which, on 30 September 1445, granted the pope a subsidy of 2 d. in the pound of spiritualities and temporalities to be paid on 24 June 1446. The bishop of Durham, whom the archbishop appointed to collect it in his diocese, failed to execute the commission on time. On 31 August 1446 the archbishop commanded him to levy the subsidy and to deliver the money at York before the next Michaelmas.** Records of payments rendered by two monasteries indicate that this mandate was obeyed.* Fugenius IV, despite the expectation of the elect of Concordia to the contrary, was not satisfied with this subsidy. It represented approximately £1000 and was probably no more than an eighteenth of a tenth. On 24 June 1446 he wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury explaining his attitude. In the previous year, he said, he had sent to the king and the prelates of England for a tenth which he willed to be collected. ‘The king was so 88 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 543-44, Norwich, Reg. Brown, fo. 97-97%, Worcester, Reg. Carpenter, I, fo. 11¥, 17-177; Lincoln, Reg. Alnwick, fo. 55, London, Reg. Gilbert, fo. 98°; Rochester, Reg. Lowe, fo. 202”. Records of payments are scarce. The bishop of Hereford sent what money had been raised in his diocese to the official of the court of Canterbury at an unspecified date before the close of 1445: Reg. Spofford, p. 266. °* York, Reg. Kemp, fo. 104¥. 85 Inventories of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 203; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s

Roll 1446-47.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 135 ardent that he was prepared not only to permit the tenth to be collected but also to send warriors at his own expense. While the prelates of the kingdom were considering the exaction of the tenth, a multitude of exigencies

caused them to forbid its collection.®* Since he desired more than ever what had been in his mind a year ago, he was sending to England Louis de Cardona as nuncio and orator to act with his general collector, John de Obizis,*" in collecting the tenth. He exhorted the archbishop not only to approve the levy of the tenth but also to persuade all the prelates and clergy to consent to it. The archbishop was to give credence to what Louis would tell him.87*

Four days later Eugenius [V followed this exhortation with a mandate

to the archbishop. This contained a somewhat different explanation of what had happened in 1445. After summarizing his letters of 1 January 1443 and 13 July 1444, he said that Baptista, the elect of Concordia, and John de Castiglione, previously general papal collector in England, whom he had appointed to collect the tenth, obtained the consent of the king to proceed with the levy, and the king caused 6000 florins to be paid in part payment of the tenth. The two collectors, on account of the burdens on the people caused by the war, demanded the execution only of that minimum of their commission. He felt, however, for the reasons explained in his previous letter (24 June), that the tenth must be collected. He, therefore, ordered the archbishop to collect it himself or by others. The form and procedure prescribed in the papal letter of 13 July 1444 were to be followed, rebels were to be compelled by ecclesiastical censures, and the proceeds were to be delivered to the collector of the apostolic camera in England.** On the same day the pope commissioned Louis de Cardona and John de Obizis to exact the tenth within six months of 1 November next.? On 30 June he empowered these two to receive the payments from the local collectors and to compel payment by them by censures, if they neglected to deliver their receipts within three days. He instructed them further to transmit the money to the camerarius by letters of exchange.” °° This interpretation of events differs from that given by Archbishop Stafford in his register: above, pp. 132-33. Either the elect of Concordia failed to keep the promise which the archbishop thought he had given, or someone else gave the pope a different view of what had taken place. 87 He succeeded John de Castiglione and took the oath of office on 6 August 1445: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 2467, fo. 18. 67a Lamb. Reg. Stafford, fo. 46, Wilkins, Concilia, III, 548-49. °° Wilkins, Concilia, Il, 547-48; Reg. Stafford, fo. 45-46, C.P.L., VIII, 305. A copy of

this letter was sent also to Adam Moleyns, bishop of Chichester, who had been papal collector from 1441 to 1443.

CPL, VIll, 311. CPL. VILL, 306.

136 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

The two letters to the archbishop were delivered to him by Louis de Cardona, who arrived at Croydon on 25 September 1446. The letters were read in the presence of Vincent Clement and Robert, the archbishop’s registrar. The archbishop said that he would do all he could to obey the pope, as he always had done, but on account of the laws of the realm, the papal mandate could not be executed without the consent of the king. Because it touched the other prelates of the kingdom, he wished also to consult them in London. On 26 September he so informed the nuncio, who then went to London to await the coming of the archbishop.*? On 1 October the king, who had been apprised of the nuncio’s business,

wrote from Huntingdon asking the archbishop, on account of the great business he had in his journeying and of other considerations moving him, to make the nuncio wait until he came to London, which would be before

long. This letter, which was in English, was interpreted by Vincent in Latin for the nuncio, who replied that the king ought to be obeyed, but implied that he regarded the delay as disrespectful to the pope. Vincent assured him that the king wished to do honor to the pope by receiving his representative with devotion and solemnity. In October the archbishop convened all the prelates of the kingdom to consider the papal demand. They met on or before 21 October. On that day the archbishop had a conference at breakfast in the palace at Lambeth with John de Obizis, Louis de Cardona, the bishop of Chichester and Vincent Clement, seeking their advice about certain clauses of the bulls which seemed to be inconsistent with one another and about others which seemed to be based on incorrect information on the part of the pope.®? The four

consultants agreed to meet for further discussion on the morrow at the house of the bishop of Chichester. On that day, before the hour set for the

meeting, Louis de Cardona went to the house of Vincent Clement and suggested that they go at once to the bishop’s house to treat the business. When Vincent asked the reason for the change of time, Louis replied that he expected to have from the bishop information concerning the method of obtaining a subsidy for the pope. The bishop, who, he said, had attended the council of the bishops on the preceding day, would not have asked them to meet at his house unless he had learned that the bishops were favorably disposed to the papal proposal. He added that the prelates and clergy of England were bound to pay the tenth under penalty of mortal sin, because they were bound by divine law to pay the tithe to the highest priest. This reasoning, which came from a clergyman who was not only the papal *? Reg. Stafford, fo. 45¥-467. °? Above, pp. 135-36.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 137 nuncio but also professor of theology at Toulouse, alarmed Vincent. He dispatched Louis on his way to the bishop of Chichester and went himself to inform the archbishop of the conversation. The archbishop was also disturbed. He wanted no discussion of that aspect of the subject. He sent John Stokes, his auditor, the abbot of Glouces-

ter and Vincent to the bishop of Chichester with the command that the conference should be confined to deliberation on the clauses in the bulls for which it had been called. The bishop agreed that it would extend to nothing else, since from discussion of the claims of the nuncio evil and disturbance would follow rather than good for the cause of the tenth. Later in the day the abbot of Gloucester and Vincent went to the house of John de Obizis, where Vincent declared the mind of the archbishop to him and to Louis. The archbishop, he said, was prepared to obey the pope as much as in him was, but because the affair involved the king and the king-

dom, communication ought to be had first with the king after his arrival

in London. Then, God granting, he would have an answer, but at the present conference he would allow his opinions to be expressed only concerning the clauses in the papal letters. Louis replied that in them there were no inconsistent clauses or clauses based on false information. Vincent then specified one statement that was incorrect. It was to the effect that in 1445 the prelates had persuaded the archbishop to consent to the exaction of a tenth,®? whereas in fact the exaction had been opposed by them. When Louis tried to defend his stand by frivolous glosses and wanderings that were beside the point, he was called to order. After many words, concord was restored. Later the nuncio, at a meal with the abbot of Gloucester, said he was content that they had not gone to the bishop of Chichester, since that would only have increased the inconveniences and the matter was already sufficiently disturbed. Apparently what he had intended to try to do, and what the archbishop had prevented him from doing, was to commit the bishops to the approval of the levy of the tenth before the king had expressed his wish with regard to it. Louis de Cardona met the king on 11 November for a ceremony attended by the spiritual and temporal lords of the king’s council. ‘The nuncio presented to Henry VI the golden rose conferred by the pope and a

letter from the pope °* which was read to the assembly. The rose, the pope explained, was given by him to some prince who had performed a distinguished service for the Roman church or for the catholic faith. Henry deserved it, because last year, at the papal request, he had promised a tenth

** Dated 24 June 1446.

138 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of his kingdom against the Turks and also the aid of armed men. The rose

was sent with the hope that the king would help the church against the Turks and Louis de Cardona was sent to exact the tenth imposed the year before. He concluded by exhorting the king to do what was necessary and to give further aid to the projected crusade. The archbishop, speaking for the king, expressed thanks for the rose in polished phrases, but the royal answer concerning the tenth was postponed.

The reply was given to Louis de Cardona on 30 November in the presence of the council by the archbishop of Canterbury, speaking in his capacity as chancellor. The king, he said, would send to Rome orators who would expound to the pope his full mind and will concerning the tenth. The king then, with the advice of his council, ordered the archbishop not to attempt anything with regard to the papal petition for the tenth and not to collect it by himself or others.*° In the course of the discussion in the council the archbishop, speaking to the marquis of Suffolk, used the phrase ‘up to or until the orators come

to our lord’ [pope]. The nuncio promptly asked whether it meant the complete prevention of the tenth, or whether it gave some hope that he might learn something worth while to say or to report to the pope. The cardinal of York answered that the royal letters to the pope would lighten his labors in that respect. Notwithstanding this reply, Louis did not give up his endeavor to make a good report. On 6 December, when he met the archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth in the presence of Vincent Clement and William Biconyll, he began to say how it was the intention of the pope and his firmest hope that the archbishop would begin to collect the tenth in his own diocese and so give a good example to others. Before he finished,

he was interrupted by Vincent. He told the nuncio that, if he considered the constant obedience and immaculate faith which the kingdom, in the malice of the times, maintained toward the pope, and if he did not wish by his words and his interpretation of ‘until’ to involve a matter by reason of which a discord could arise between pope and king, he had better hold his peace. He had been told plainly in the king’s court that his majesty would send an embassy to the pope with his answer within a certain time and that

the archbishop was forbidden to collect the tenth. With this reprimand the attempts of Louis to persuade the English clergy to defy the law of the land and the command of the king appear to have ended. The precautions which the archbishop of Canterbury took to excuse to the pope his failure to obtain the tenth form a significant postscript to these negotiations. On 8 December he wrote to Eugenius IV that he had °° A royal letter of 5 December notified the pope of this prohibition.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389~1534 139 received with due reverence the papal letters ordering him to appoint collectors of the tenth. Because the laws and statutes of the kingdom prohibited such things, the license of the king had to be sought. The king, who was sending his orators to let the pope know his mind, ordered him to attempt nothing about the collection of the tenth.®°* The archbishop sent this letter by his own messenger, Thomas Hope, who also carried the king’s letter of 5 December to the pope. The messenger was to have the king’s proctor at

the court carry the royal letter to the pope two or three days before he brought up the business of the archbishop. Hope also bore royal letters under the little and the privy seals, instructing the royal proctor to assist Hope and to do and say what the archbishop should direct.

The archbishop told him in a letter what he should say to the pope ‘verbo ad verbum’ when Hope presented the archbishop’s letter to the pope

in the presence of the venerable English at the papal court. Hope, with the letter in hand, was to say: Most Holy Father, your humble creature, the archbishop of Canterbury, recommends himself to your Blessedness with all devotion and reverence, desiring always to hear of the good condition and prosperity of your person and estate, and sends to you this letter.%” After the pope had read the letter, the king’s proctor was to say to his Holiness that the archbishop in his letter had signified what had been done about

the tenth, and that the royal orators would soon explain to him all the circumstances in the mind of the king. If any information adverse to the archbishop should come to the pope before the arrival of the king’s orators, the royal proctor was to go to the presence of the pope and say: Your Blessedness, we have learned that you

have had adverse information about what the archbishop has done with regard to the tenth. We marvel much that any one should be so perverse as to speak of the archbishop as otherwise than most faithful and obedient to your sanctity, and this will be shown certainly and most notably on the arrival of the king’s orators. The king, the archbishop, the princes, the prelates and the lords of the king intend in this matter only the honor, utility and prosperity of your estate, and those who differ from this wish to make a great scandal between you and the king on account of their passions and frivolous cupidities.*” As a final precaution against the malice of some both in England and in

the papal court, who desired to bring calamity to the English clergy and to the archbishop in the care of his sheep, the archbishop sent to the court remunerations. They were to be given to those laboring in the most pious °6 A copy of this letter is also in Corpus Christi College, MS. 170, p. 208. °7 Paraphased.

140 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 cause for the defense of the weak church of England, and more truly for conserving the obedience and faith to the pope in the kingdom now much diminished by this wickedness.°* ‘Thus was another archbishop forced to defend himself for placing his allegiance to the king above his allegiance to the pope. Although this is the most detailed account which we have of the negotia-

tions concerning a papal attempt to levy an income tax on the English clergy, it leaves some important questions in obscurity. After the first nuncio, Baptista of Padua, the elect of Concordia, returned to Rome, Eugenius IV was led to believe that the king had consented to the levy of a tenth, but that the prelates had opposed it. Since he stated 1n his letter to the king his belief with regard to the royal consent, he must have been sincere init. The source of his belief is not apparent. Baptista may have been responsible, or the information may have come from someone else whom

the pope trusted. Martin V had received incorrect information from one of his nuncios in a similar instance.*® Possibly the letter of Henry VI to Eugenius IV offering to do more if the war with France should be concluded may have been interpreted without sufficient regard for the conditional character of the promise. Since Eugenius IV did believe that the king favored the tenth and the prelates opposed it, his instructions to Louis

de Cardona presumably were to obtain the consent of the clergy. When Louis discovered that the consent of the king was still necessary, creating a situation which the pope apparently had not envisaged, his efforts to pledge the prelates to the tenth may or may not have accorded with what Eugenius IV desired to have done. The result of the negotiations, however, left no doubt that the pope could obtain neither a mandatory nor a voluntary tax on English clerical income without the consent of the king. 5. Tentus ORDERED FOR A CRUSADE AND A SUBSIDY FOR ‘THAT

Purpose, 1453-65

The next subsidy which the English clergy paid to the pope was likewise associated with a crusade against the Turks. On 30 September 1453, after the fall of Constantinople made the danger from the Turks imminent, Nicholas V proclaimed such a crusade. He not only exhorted but he also ordered Christian princes and lords to assist in the defense of the Christian faith with their goods and persons. He announced that he would contribute to the cause all the revenues from benefices which fell to the apostolic see by papal reservations and that the cardinals would give a tenth of their *8 Reg. Stafford, fo. 46-49; given in part by Wilkins, Concilia, IL, 549-52. °° Above, p. 130.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 141 benefices. He decreed that all officials of the Roman court should also pay

one-tenth of their incomes. He further reserved for the sacred cause, by the plenitude of the apostolic power, a tenth of the revenues of all the benefices in the Christian world according to their true value. As usual, pay-

ment was to be enforced by excommunication for failure or disobedience.*°® Apparently he took no steps to institute the collection of this tenth

in England before he died on 25 March 1455.1% | His successor, Calixtus III, was enthusiastic in the cause of the crusade. Shortly after his coronation he renewed the bull of the crusade issued by Nicholas V and set the date for the departure of the expedition at 1 March 1456.*°® He ordered the tenth, which apparently had not yet been levied

anywhere, to be paid to his collectors and deputy collectors. “hey were to observe the rules established by the council of Vienne and to enforce payment by censures.*°* On 25 September 1455 he confirmed again the mandate of his predecessor with regard to the tenth, because the death of Nicholas V had caused doubt to arise with regard to the validity of the decree. This time he exempted the knights of St John, who were defending Rhodes, and set the dates for the render of the tenth one-third on 1 September 1456, another on 2 October and the final third on 3 November.’*®°

To England he sent Nicholas Cusa, cardinal priest of S Pietro in Vincolo, as a legate de latere.°® He was commissioned to obtain the help of Henry VI against the Turks in accordance with the letter previously sent to all rulers. He was further instructed to go in person or by deputy to the archbishops and bishops of England in order to execute the letters by which the pope had imposed a tenth throughout the whole world. The king, nobles, archbishops, bishops and clergy of England were requested to aid the legate. Apparently this commission with regard to the tenth was cancelled,?°’ for within a few days the collection of it was committed to Vincent Clement, who was then the general papal collector in England. Vincent was informed that, if difficulty arose the requirement that the tenth should be paid according to the true value, the customary basis having been the assessed value except for benefices not included in the established 100 Raynaldus, 1453 §§ 9-11. He also offered indulgences to participators and contributors: below, p. 577. +01 Rodocanachi states that the papal camerarius, on 8 May 1453, borrowed 1000 florins and gave in pledge the tenths of the kingdom of England: Histoire de Rome de 1354 a 1471, p. 322. No papal tenth was being levied in England at the time, and it seems improbable that the above tenth was anticipated, since Constantinople was not captured until later in May. *°8 Raynaldus, 1455 § 19.

7411 May 1455: Arm. XXXII, 12, fo. 80. 10° “Ad perpetuam’: Addit. Charter 13331. 106 20 September 1455: C.P.L., XI, 19, Raynaldus, 1455 §27. 76 September: C.P.L., XI, 20.

142 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 valuation, he was to accept the sworn statement of the holder of the benefice in doubtful cases. Before beginning to exercise the commission, he was

to take an oath to the camerarius. The preachers, receivers and bankers whom he might appoint were to take a similar oath to him and to the bishop

of the place.’ These efforts of Calixtus III met with little response except in those countries which were threatened by the Turks. The army led by Hunyadi, which captured Belgrade, was composed chiefly of Hungarians.’° England could take no part in a crusade on account of a civil war. For the same reason the tenth could not be collected.*7° On 29 February 1456 Calixtus

Ill appointed Antonio Ferarii, precentor of Barcelona, nuncio to go to England on the business of the expedition against the Turks. He authorized the nuncio to compel all nuncios of the apostolic see and collectors of the camera in England to account to him and to deliver to him all money collected by them.""* He could have received nothing from the tenth. Pius II, who became pope in 1458, was determined to organize a crusade

against the Turks. On 13 October, soon after his coronation, he issued to all Christ’s faithful an announcement of a congress which he proposed to hold at Mantua on 1 June 1459 to consider ways and means for a common expedition. To the emperor, kings, princes and nobles he extended a general invitation to attend in person or to send distinguished ambassadors equipped with full powers.*** In addition to this letter, Pius II, on 7 January 1459, shortly before he left Rome to go to Mantua, sent to England as his orator, Francis, bishop of Terni, to seek the aid of Henry VI.*** According

to the account of Pius II in his Commentaries, the king, at the request of the orator, appointed some bishops and noblemen to represent him at the

conference. They disregarded the king’s command and did not go. The king then sent two priests as his orators.*‘* The chronology of this narrative is impossible. ‘The two priests met the pope in May, a few days before he completed his journey to Mantua.*?® Francis did not arrive in England *°° 16 and 17 September: C.P.L., XI, 80. *°° Pastor, History, Il, 367-445; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, III, 328-30. *7°'The clergy of the province of Canterbury paid tenths to the king in 1455 and 1456: Lichfield, Reg. Boulers, fo. 69; Cal. MSS. of Wells, II, 82; Turner and Coxe, Catalogue of

Charters, p. 40. :

“1 C\P.L., XI, 31-32. He was designated as receiver general: C.P.L., XI, 387. In a brevium not dated in the register Calixtus III ordered all collectors to deliver money and goods received for the crusade to John Sabelli, his subdeacon. If he did not appear in their kingdom, they were to pay to the commissioner general: Arm. XXXIX, 7, fo. 61. *™? Cribellus, “De Expeditione Pii Pape in Turcas’, Muratori, Scriptores, XXIII, 70-76. * Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 2, 83. “14 Smith College Studies, XXV, 268-69.

*° Pius I to Henry VI, 2 September 1459: Arm. XXXIX, 9, fo. 76¥-77.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 143 before late in May,''® when the priests were already near Mantua. They must have been appointed after receipt of the general papal invitation of 14 October 1458, before the arrival of the papal orator. When the bishop of Terni met the king in June or July 1459,1*7 he asked the king to send a delegation to Mantua. The request was considered by the council, and the bishop of Worcester, the abbot of Peterborough, the archdeacons of St Davids and Chichester, the earl of Worcester, Lord John Dudley and two knights were appointed ambassadors for the purpose. The renewal of the civil war kept them at home.?!® Pius II, who despised such a mean delegation as the two priests, after he learned that they did not have full powers, did not again admit them to his presence.*’® In a letter of 2 September 1459 he exhorted the king to send a solemn delegation to Mantua with full powers to treat of the policies necessary to save the Christian faith.’*° ‘The appeal had no effect and England took no part in the congress.

At its conclusion the pope wrote in his Commentaries: ‘England, now racked with civil war, holds out no hope of help for the crusade.’ ***

On 1 June 1459 no king or prince had come to Mantua nor had any ruler yet sent representatives with full powers. The congress was consequently delayed until September, when the envoys of most of the Italian powers and of some other powers had arrived.’? At a consultation held with the Italian powers on 27 September Pius II proposed that for three years the clergy should pay a tenth and laymen a thirtieth of their incomes and Jews a twentieth of all their possessions to finance the expedition. On 30 September the Italian powers except Venice and Florence agreed.*** The compulsory thirtieth and twentieth were confined to Italy,*** but on 14 January 1460, shortly before the pope left Mantua, he imposed the triennial tenth on the clergy of the whole Roman obedience.*?° Under Calixtus III the clergy of Rouen and the University of Paris had protested the 46 Stone, who was a contemporary monk of Christchurch Canterbury, says Francis came to Canterbury on 31 May and left on 5 June to go to the king: Chronicle, p. 77. The contemporary chronicle in Whethamstede’s Registrum gives the date of his arrival in England as 4 June: I, 331. “17 He stopped several days in London, two nights and a day at St Albans and met the king at Coventry: Whethamstede, Reg., I, 332. The royal chancery was at Coventry during most of July: C.P.R. 1452-61, pp. 504-09, 512. 18 ‘Whethamstede, Reg., I, 332-36. *° Pius Il, ‘Commentaries’, Svith College Studies, XXV, 269. 720 Arm. XXXIX, 9, fo. 76V-77.

1 Smith College Studies, XXV, 278. 722 Pastor, History, III, 59-82. 128 Tbid., IIL, 83-85; Smith College Studies, XXV, 256-57.

*** Pastor, History, III, 328-31; Voigt, Enea Silvio, I, 75; Raynaldus, 1460, §§ 8, 9; Smith College Studies, XXV, 278. *2° Pastor, History, III, 98-99.

144 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 imposition of a tenth for the crusade and had appealed to a general council. Pius II, with this in mind, on 18 January issued a bull declaring such opponents guilty of heresy and of lése-majesté.'*° Although Pius IT felt that it was hopeless to obtain help for the crusade

from England, he made the attempt to levy the tenth. On 18 February 1460 he appointed his nuncio to England, Francis, bishop of Terni, to whom he had previously given the full power of a legate de latere,!?” collector in the realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland of the tenth of all ecclesiastical

benefices which he had imposed at Mantua for the preparation of a fleet against the Turks. He was, however, to exact it for only one year.’?® On 1 April the pope explained more fully to his nuncio his intentions

with regard to the tenth. He had recently proclaimed at Mantua a war against the ‘Turks for three years and a tenth for the same period.’?® Since this proclamation had not yet been published in the British Isles, and since they were still afflicted by civil wars and other calamities, he granted to the bishop of Terni the faculty, if the bishop saw no possibility of doing other-

wise, of reducing the three years of the tenth to one year in those parts, of establishing the whole month of next September for the payment of the tenth, and of doing with regard to the levy whatever else seemed expedient. He further decreed that the censures and penalties promulgated in the letter concerning the tenth and in other letters should be binding in the British Isles only for one year, ending in September or at such other date as the nuncio might determine. If it seemed expedient, he might instead postpone the whole triennial tenth. He could act, indeed, just as if the publication at Mantua had not been made as far as the British Isles were concerned.?®° Since a climax was reached in the civil war in 1460 and 1461, the bishop

of Terni was unable to do anything about the levy of the tenth immediately.***| Meanwhile he became involved in the war as a partisan of the Yorkist cause and abused greatly his powers as legate. The Yorkist leaders promised to let him fulfil his mission, if they secured control of the government.7*? On 4 July 1460 the bishop wrote therefore to Henry VI demanding that he make peace, since otherwise he would become responsible before

God for the blood of his subjects.*** ‘Thereafter the nuncio raised the #26 Raynaldus, 1460, §§ 10-11; Sith College Studies, XXV, 276-77; Rodocanachi, Histoire de Rome de 1454 a 1471, p. 378. *°7 4 December 1459: C.P.L., XI, 397; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 423. 128 C.P.L., XI, 401.

°° Letter of 14 January 1460: Pastor, History, II, 97-99. 189 C.P.L., XI, 402.

181 Smith College Studies, XXV, 269. 182 Ibid, XXV, 269-70.

| oo Original Letters, 3rd Ser., I, 88-97; Cal. S. P. Milan, I, 23-26; Cal. S. P. Venice,

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 145 standard of the church of Rome in the Yorkist army, granted plenary remission of sins to those who fought on the Yorkist side and excommunicated the followers of the king. He did these things without papal authorization

on the claim that the Yorkists were to fight against the enemies of the faith."** Early in 1461 he left the turmoil and departed for Holland and Flanders,**® where he remained until after 23 September, when he expressed his intention to return to England for a month.'** He was probably

there on 20 and 23 November 1461, when Edward IV, to whom he was naturally persona grata, granted him an annual pension of £100 and appointed him a royal proctor at the papal court.7*7 He did not enjoy his English honors for long. When Pius II heard of the part his nuncio had taken in the civil war, he recalled him to Rome and put him in prison."** On 30 August 1462 the pope annuled his censures against the Lancastrians.’*? “Thus the episode came to an end without fruition in a tenth.

After Francis was recalled, Pius II, on 7 November 1463, sent to the king as his nuncios, ‘Thomas Hope, a papal cubicularius and canon of Wells, and Peter Courtenay, archdeacon of Exeter and the proctor of Edward IV at the papal court. Their safe conduct does not state their business,**° but it appears from a letter of Paul II, dated 6 February 1466, that Peter Courtenay was to publish the crusade and to collect the tenth.*** They probably

brought the news that Pius II had undertaken to lead the crusade in person.*4? It was this information which persuaded Edward IV that the English clergy could not ignore the financial need of the pope entirely.*** Since, on the other hand, he was loath to allow a tenth to be levied by papal imposition, he resorted to a voluntary gift similar to that made by Henry VI to Eugenius [V. On 17 May 1464 he put the plan into operation by a letter of which copies were sent to the archbishops of Canterbury and York. The pope,

he said, had determined to take the projected voyage against the Turk. For this purpose he had asked Christian princes for help, had put great charges on the church in all the other realms of Christendom and had willed 184 Smith College Studies, XXV, 270.

+85 Ffe arrived at Brill on 10 February: Cal. S. P. Milan, I, 53. 186] etters from or to him at various dates: Cal. S. P. Venice, I, 101, 107-09, 112. *87 Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 2. 106. 188 Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd Ser., I, 83-84, C.P.L., XI, 675. 189 CPI. XI, 675-76. 40 CPL. XI, 654. 141. CPL. XL, 230. *“* Pius II announced his intention secretly to a few persons in 1462 and at a consistory on 23 September 1463, but he did not proclaim it publicly until 22 October 1463; Pastor, History, Il, 311, 324-27, 331-34. The last bull is given by Raynaldus, 1463, §§ 29-40. An original is AA. Arm. I-XVIII, 6518. 43 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 594-95.

146 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the church of England to bear the imposition of a tenth by bulls which had

come into the kingdom. The king dreaded the peril and inconvenience that might thereafter follow the example of such an impost, the like of which had not often been put into use in the time of his predecessors. Because he did not want such a novelty in his own days, he had sent excuses to the pope and asked him to forbear from such an imposition. He could not honorably make the request in such a cause without making a notable gift to the pope, since the charge to be imposed on the clergy of England was less than that imposed on the clergy of all the other realms of Christendom, and he was proposing to reduce even that smaller charge. He, therefore, exhorted and prayed the archbishops to exhort and require each of their suffragans to assemble the clergy of his diocese and to exhort, move and require them to grant such a notable sum of money as might content the pope, to be levied in all haste in order to be in time for the expedition. This action, the king thought, would be to the pleasure of God, the honor of the kingdom and the quiet of the clergy. Because the collectors of clerical subsidies dreaded to account to the exchequer, he would appoint six receivers, consisting of three clergymen and three laymen of his council, to whom the collectors in each diocese were to account and to deliver their receipts.***

Archbishop Bourchier of Canterbury had entered in his register after the copy of this letter divers notions and considerations which his suffragans could use to persuade the clergy in their diocesan synods to make the grant. The clergy by payment of this gracious aid would escape the tenth imposed by the pope in England for the expedition. They had been spared by the pope the payment of the yearly value of benefices held in plurality or in commendam by papal bull, which he had required for the same purpose in other kingdoms. The pope had displayed for England more grace and tenderness than for any other land, and he ought not to be forgotten for so great a need. He could have obtained the above taxes in England by his power of excommunication, but he would be pleased with the kindness of a grace from the church of England. The charge of a tenth would be right perilous and grievous and the English clergy are not accustomed to bear such a novelty. Its imposition would be a bad precedent. The king, who wishes to avoid it, is sending excuses to the pope by a notable representative, and for that reason needs the subsidy, which should be given to him out of respect. It will be paid to him and by him to the pope. Since the expedition is set for next July and the tenths paid by other realms are due then, it is reasonable to have the subsidy paid at that time. At least twelve 144 T amb. Reg. Bourchier, fo. 22%; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 594-95; Records of the Northern Convocation, pp. 347-49.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 147 or eight pence in the pound ought to be granted. The king has appointed a committee to receive the funds, so that the collectors will not have to account to the exchequer.**°

The executory letter by which the archbishop of Canterbury put the king’s wishes into effect contained none of these suggestions. It quoted the king’s letter and directed the bishop of London to order the archbishop’s suffragans to call diocesan synods and to require the clergy to grant to the king a notable subsidy on their goods assessed to the tenth. It ought to be at least 4 d. in the pound. The suffragans were to appoint collectors and to

certify the grant and the names of the collectors to the king or to his receivers before 1 August. The collectors were to deliver their receipts to the receivers before the same date.** The archbishop’s letter was dated 28 May and the copies of it dispatched by the bishop of London 4 and 5 June.*4 The archbishop’s suggestion of 4 d. in the pound, which was much less than the rate stated in his ‘notions,’ was not satisfactory to the king.*** On 16 June the archbishop sent to the bishop of London another letter to be

forwarded to his suffragans. It announced that he had a report from a person of credible authority recently come from Rome that Pius II was displaying great diligence about going on the crusade and was placing special reliance on the church of England for aid. For this reason the archbishop did not think that 4 d. in the pound would be enough. He, therefore, required his suffragans to exhort the clergy of their dioceses ‘as tenderly as possible’ to grant at least 6 d. in the pound. This was a fortieth, or, as sometimes expressed, one-quarter of a tenth.’*® This amount, he thought, would probably be acceptable to the pope and profitable to the kingdom.*°° In most of the dioceses of the province of Canterbury the synods were held late in June or during July,*** but there were some exceptions. In the diocese of Ely the clergy did not make their grant until 13 May 1465.*° In Worcester they voted 4 d. in the pound on 1 July 1464, but, because **° Reg. Bourchier, fo. 23, 23%; Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 595-96.

+46 Reg. Bourchier, fo. 237-24, Wilkins, Concilia, III, 597. A commission to the six receivers is dated 19 December 1464 (C.P.R. 1461-67, p. 370), but they were performing their functions long before that date. Bishops began in July 1464 to notify them of the grants made by their synods: Salisbury, Reg. Beauchamp, I, fo. 102; Winchester, Reg. Waynflete, I, fo. 21. “7 Lincoln, Reg. Chadworth, fo. 67%; Ely, Reg. Gray, fo. 186-87, Wells, Reg. Bekyngton, fo. 3037; Winchester, Reg. Waynflete, I, fo. 20, 20¥. *48 Worcester, Reg. Carpenter, I, fo. 190. 4° Hist. Croylandensis Cont., p. 534, D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll 1464-65. *6° Reg. Bourchier, fo. 23¥-24, Wilkins, Concilia, HI, 597-98.

51 Wells, 26 June: Reg. Bekyngton, fo. 304, Worcester, 1 July: Reg. Carpenter, fo. 190; Salisbury, 3-5 July: Reg. Beauchamp, II, fo. 99; Canterbury, 5 July: Reg. Bourchier, fo. 24”; Winchester, 10 July: Reg. Waynflete, I, fo. 21; Exeter, 17 July: Harl. MS. 862,

fo. 3119.

°°? Reg. Gray, fo. 187.

148 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

this did not satisfy the king, they met again on 28 May and granted an additional 2 d. in the pound.*** In Rochester the clergy assembled in answer to a summons issued on 16 July 1464 and authorized the levy of only

4 d. in the pound, though requested by the bishop to grant 6 d. Perhaps his persuasion was too tender. Whatever the reason, the clergy of the diocese did not escape the common burden. On 14 January 1465 the bishop received a letter containing commands from both the king and the archbishop to convoke his clergy again. When they came together they were at first unable to agree, but on 28 January they finally granted ‘unanimously’ to the king the desired 6 d. in the pound.** With the exceptions noted and with the exception of Salisbury, where the prelates granted 6 d. and the rectors and vicars only 4 d., the grants were 6 d.in the pound. Most of the grants specified that the subsidy was to be paid on goods, benefices and possessions assessed to the tenth and also on those not assessed which were accustomed to pay the tenth. There were, however, many exemptions. In the dioceses of Canterbury and Salisbury benefices of which the true value was £8 or less were exempted, unless the incumbents were nonresident for reasons other than study at a university. In the diocese of Worcester the figure for the same exemption was £10 or less. In some other dioceses the same exemption was covered by such general phrases as poor benefices, very poor benefices or benefices exempted

by poverty. Other exempted benefices were those of the colleges in the universities, of poor religious and of poor nuns. Some benefices were exempted for reasons not specified. In Salisbury the inclusive phrase was benefices customarily exempt from tenths paid to the king. Lists of the exempt benefices were compiled. The one for the diocese of Winchester included 127 benefices. ‘The date for the payment of the subsidy suggested

by the archbishop in his letter of 28 May was generally accepted, but in the diocese of Canterbury it was set for 8 September. In the dioceses of Ely, Rochester and probably some others the payments were not rendered until 1465. The collectors appointed by the bishops were archdeacons, or abbots or priors with their convents. ‘They were given power to enforce payment by means of ecclesiastical censures.

In the province of York the same procedure was followed. The synod

for the diocese of York was held on 13 July. The grant was 6 d. in the pound, many benefices being exempted. The archbishop appointed his diocesan collectors on 8 August and payment was due on 21 September.*® Records of the synods in the other dioceses of the province are lacking, but **3'The entry in the register is dated 1455, but it is among the letters of 1465. *®4 Reg. Lowe, fo. 239¥.

*°° York, Reg. W. Booth, fo. 347-48, Wilkins, Concilia, III, 598.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 149 the priory of Durham paid a quarter of a tenth between 20 May 1464 and 2 June 1465,7°°

The attempt to impose a tenth on the English clergy for a crusade, begun in 1455 by Calixtus III and continued by Pius II, thus ended ten years later in the payment by the clergy to the king, at his instance, of quarter of a tenth. The tax was called a ‘gratuitous subsidy,’ 1°” but the treatment of the clergy of the dioceses of Rochester and Worcester, after they tried to give less than 6 d. in the pound, demonstrates that the grant of the subsidy to the king by the clergy was a matter of form. The subsidy in fact was far from voluntary, but the compulsory power was not that of the papacy. The king demanded it in order to make a gift to the pope and thus to avoid the levy of a tenth by papal mandate. The gift was not made to Pius II for whom it was intended. Before it was fully collected, he died on 14 August 1464 at Ancona, where he had

gone to embark upon the expedition which he had planned to lead. The proceeds were probably delivered to Paul II, the successor of Pius I, though the evidence of delivery is not conclusive. Paul II heard that Peter Courtenay, whom Pius II had sent to England to collect the tenth, had received a large sum of money which he had not rendered to the camera. On 6 February 1466 he instructed his orator in England, Stephen, bishop of Lucca, to obtain the money from Peter and to transmit it to Rome.’°® Peter cer-

tainly had not collected the tenth. Possibly the yield of the subsidy had been paid to him by the king for transfer to the pope, but probably the rumor was false, as a similar story had been on a former occasion.**® Apparently Paul II did not know until after 1466 that a subsidy had been col-

lected in place of the tenth at the royal initiative. In a letter written to Edward IV on 26 June 1469 he said that he had learned from a letter writ-

ten by Thomas Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury and cardinal of S Ciriac alle Terme, to M(arcus Barbo), cardinal of S Marco, that the king had favored the archbishop in the exaction of a portion of a subsidy ordained by the papacy in England and elsewhere for a crusade. He told the king that whatever remained from the portion of the subsidy which had been collected ought to be sent to Rome, particularly 1000 ducats which were known to be owed.’®” The implication seems to be that the pope had received some of the proceeds and that only a remainder was left in Eng-

land. The thousand ducats appear to have been in the hands of Raynold 88 T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll 1464-65. *°7 York, Reg. W. Booth, fo. 347.

158 CPL, XT, 230. ,

*°? Above, pp. 130-31.

*°° Corpus Christi College, MS. 170, p. 239.

150 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 de Luna, a merchant of Florence, who presumably had received them from the king or from a papal agent for transmission to the pope. Thomas Hope, who was representing Paul II in England in the business of the crusade,** tried to obtain the money from the merchant. He refused to deliver it, and Thomas asked the pope to excommunicate him.1® 6. UNsuccEssFUL ATTEMPTS TO [Ax THE INCOMES OF THE CLERGY, 1466-96

Paul II continued the effort begun by Pius II to organize a crusade, and he sent some financial aid to Hungary and Albania. On 16 May 1468 he wrote that he had spent 200000 florins for the war against the Turks. The control of the money received for the crusade he removed from the papal camera and placed in the hands of a commission of three cardinals,'®? who kept accounts of their receipts and expenditures in volumes which were called Crociate.1%

On 6 February 1466 he sent to England as his orator Stephen bishop of Lucca, whom he empowered to collect from the English clergy the tenth

imposed by Pius II on the clergy of Christendom or one or more fresh tenths, and to proceed against opponents and those who refused to pay with ecclesiastical censures and deprivation, invoking the secular arm if necessary.*®° Stephen was also commissioned to collect money from indulgences for contributions to the crusade.*°® He remained in England until 1469,** but he did not succeed in exacting the tenth, for by letters

written in 1469 the pope still strove to secure its levy. In a letter to the archbishop of York Paul II explained that he was carrying on the project of a crusade begun by Pius II, and that he was sending to King Edward IV on that business Peter Courbeno, his notary, and ‘Thomas Hope, his cubicularius. He concluded by ordering the archbishop to collect a tenth for the crusade.*®* The available copy of this letter is not dated, but ‘Thomas Hope, who had been installed as a cubicularius of Paul II on 17 February 1468,7° was in England in 1469.*"° In the letter addressed to the king on *6 Below, p. 150. 162 James, Catalogue of MSS. in Corpus Christi College, 1, 383. *63 Pastor, History, IV, 80, 84. 184 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1991-95.

16° C.P.L., XII, 230. A similar letter, with the address lacking, but probably to one of the archbishops, appears in Corpus Christi College, MS. 170, pp. 228-29. *°° C.P.L., XU, 230-31; below, pp. indul. 167 A series of entries in the Crociate of payments made for his salary and expenses in

England begins on 9 February 1466 and ends on 10 April 1469: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1993 (Crociata 3), fo. 81%, 85%, 93, 131-132, 137¥, 141-142, 149v. *°® Corpus Christi College, MS. 170, p. 227.

*6° C\P.L., XII, 391-92. He had previously been appointed nuncio to Edward IV on 7 November 1463, and in March 1465, while on his way back to the Roman court, he was robbed near Basle: C.P.L., XI, 654; XII, 353. *7° Above, p. 150.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 151 26 June 1469 Paul II asked not only for the remainder of the subsidy but also for the king’s permission to levy the remainder of the tenth which Pius II had ordained.1™! He failed to obtain either the remainder of the tenth imposed by his predecessor, which amounted to three-quarters of a tenth, or a new tenth. No record of the levy of such a tax occurs in contemporary English documents of the types which might be expected to mention it, and no receipts from such a tax are entered in the Crociate. Sixtus IV, who succeeded Paul II on 9 August 1471, took up the project of a crusade immediately. He sought to create a league of Christian powers against the Turks. On 23 December 1471 he appointed five legates to go to the several countries of Europe to enlist support for a common expedition.*"? Early in 1472, before the legates departed, he ordered a tenth for the crusade to be levied on ecclesiastical revenues.72 Whether the mandate applied to the whole Roman catholic world or only to certain countries is not entirely clear, but it was probably universal.1"* Cardinal Besarion, who was sent to France, Burgundy and England, would no doubt have informed the English clergy, if they were included in the levy, but he did not reach England. In France he became so ill and discouraged that he returned to Italy. His failure to carry out his mission in England probably made little _ difference in the outcome there. The cardinal of Pavia regarded the dispatch of all the legates as useless, because the peoples no longer had faith in the crusading motives of the pope

and cardinals, who, they believed, sought only to exploit them.’ Some of this spirit appears to have prevailed in England. The English government did not propose to have its subjects exploited. It either knew or feared that the tenth applied to the English clergy and took precautions to prevent its levy. On 25 November 1372 Pietro Aliprando, an ecclesiastic, wrote from Gravelines to the duke of Milan. He reported that at Calais he had been prevented from crossing to England because he was suspected of having come from Rome with bulls harmful to the king. No person who came from Rome was allowed to cross. While Pietro was in Calais, an ambassador of the king of Scotland was detained there. He heard that if the ambassador had crossed the sea, he would have been murdered in England, not because the king intended it, but because some thought that he was going to collect tenths.’”® Since Pietro was prejudiced against the English, the sentiment

of the English may not have been as strong as he depicted it, but there 1s *™ Corpus Christi College, MS. 170, p. 239. Paul II, with the consent of Louis XI, imposed a tenth on the French clergy on 18 March 1469: Raynaldus, 1469, 18-19. 72 Pastor, History, IV, 217-21. *78 Raynaldus, 1472, §§ 17-20.

*“* He granted indulgences for the crusade throughout the world: Arm. XXIX, 38, fo. 26. *7° Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Ill, 415-16. 176 Cal. S. P. Milan, 1, 165, 168.

152 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 no reason to doubt that precautions were being taken against objectionable bulls entering England. They were probably effective, since nothing appears to have been done in England with regard to the tenth. Another rumor probably had less foundation. According to gossip in

France, Edward IV and the duke of Burgundy, who, in alliance, were waging war against Louis XI of France, had requested the pope to grant them permission to exact one-fifth of the ecclesiastical revenues in their dominions to meet the expenses of the war. The pope, so the story went, had given them hope of his consent. Louis threatened that, if the pope did consent, he would abolish the pragmatic sanction, appeal to a general council to depose the pope and take everything from the clergy of France until the war was over. This was reported on 11 February 1475 to the duke of Milan by Christofforo di Bollato, his ambassador at the French court.1"” The duke’s agents seem to have had ears attuned to scandal.

The taxation of the clergy by the pope for the benefit of lay rulers was at that time a sore spot. The prohibition of the practice by the council

of Constance was no longer effective. In the conclave of the cardinals where Pius II was elected in 1458 capitulations were drawn up which each cardinal agreed to observe, if he should be elected pope. One of them was that the pope would not grant to any one a tax on the clergy or the goods of the church.*7* However much opposition this practice had elsewhere, it had caused the clergy of England no concern for well over a century. English kings, since the beginning of the hundred years’ war, had succeeded in obtaining such frequent grants of subsidies from their clergy that they had not needed to invoke the mandatory power of the pope—as English kings had done so often in the first third of the fourteenth century—in order to utilize the financial resources of the clergy. ‘The probability that Edward IV made such a request in 1475 is extremely remote.*” During the pontificate of Sixtus IV the English clergy first faced financials demands for the crusade in 1480, when events caused appeals to come from two directions. On 28 May the Hospitallers of St John in Rhodes, who had been besieged by the Turks for four years, sent to the pope a call for help. Sixtus IV passed it along to the rulers of Europe. On 1 July he exhorted Edward IV to give aid to them.*®° On 11 August 1480 the Turks captured the Italian port of Otranto. The pope organized the Italians for 177 Tbid., 1, 191-92.

78 Pastor, History, III, 10.

7°’ The clergy of Canterbury province paid the king a half of a tenth in November 1474, in May and November 1475, and in February 1476: Ely, Reg. Gray, fo. 167%, 171. In 1475 the convocation of York granted the king two tenths: York, Reg. Neville, fo. 11-13, Reg. L. Booth, fo. 61-62’.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 153 defense against the invaders and sought assistance from the rest of Europe.**?

Help for the knights of St John was solicited by means of plenary indulgences which Sixtus IV authorized on 12 December 1479. In England

Edward IV, in 1480, contributed a ship and asked the clergy to provide others. It was done by requesting individual members of the clergy to make gifts in return for which they received indulgences. Each individual was left free to contribute or not as he chose. Judging by the amount obtained in the diocese of Worcester, many exercised their option not to make a gift.**? In a sense this was a subsidy in aid of the Hospitallers of Rhodes, but it was not a subsidy granted by the clergy on the assessed value of their incomes to be levied compulsorily. The need of the apostolic see for protection against the invading Turks

was first brought to the attention of the English clergy in 1481. On 21 January Sixtus [V requested Edward IV to allow a tenth of the revenues of the clergy to be levied and he asked several bishops to use their influence to obtain the royal permission.'** The subject was placed before clergy of the province of Canterbury by John de Giglis, the papal collector in Eng-

land. He spoke before convocation at its opening on 21 March 1481.*°* Before convocation adjourned on 16 April, to enable the clergy to be in their churches at Easter, a committee was appointed to arrange for the levy of a subsidy for the pope and it was given power to make the provisions necessary for its collection. The committee consisted of the archbishop, six bishops, six abbots, six other prelates, three deans, six archdeacons and six proctors of the lower clergy. The committee met first on 5 June 1481 and held its fourth and last session on 12 November 1482. Its final action was to refer the question back to the next convocation without recommendation.!®®

The failure of the committee to take action was probably due to the opposition of the king. On 20 May 1481 he apologized to the pope for not giving a satisfactory answer to his request for a clerical tenth. He and his clergy and laity, he explained, were so engaged against domestic enemies (the Scots) that he was unable to attend to his own and to foreign affairs (the Turks). As a result of the jubilee indulgences and the many indul8° Worcester, Reg. Alcock, fo. 76-76v. *81 Pastor, History, IV, 333-38. 82 Below, pp. 591-93. **8 Gottlob, Aus der Camera, p. 201. *8¢ Reg. Bourchier, fo. 27%; Lincoln, Reg. Russell, fo. 57-58". In Worcester, Reg. Alcock

the date given is 25 March: fo. 85. *®° Reg. Alcock, fo. 85-86, Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 613.

154 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 gences for the knights of Rhodes and for the pope,'®* an infinite amount of money went out of the kingdom, and he was planning to lead an army into Scotland in the summer.*®’ Sixtus IV appears to have accepted the royal decision without demur, for on 8 November he congratulated the king on the victory of his brother Richard in Scotland and urged the necessity of a general peace in order to recover the lands lost to the infidels.**

Thus another pope failed in his efforts to obtain from the English clergy a mandatory tenth or a subsidy levied on their incomes. Innocent VIII, who succeeded Sixtus IV in 1484, made a tentative effort to secure a tenth of English clerical incomes in 1491.18° He instructed Peter Huse, an apostolic notary and archdeacon of Northampton, to inquire secretly whether Henry VII was likely to permit the levy of such a tax. Afterward he was to go to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, explain the circumstances and say that the pope hoped to have their assistance. If he decided to go to the king, he was to give him the papal greeting and benediction and show him a papal brief. The letter was to the effect that, since the finances of the apostolic see were at a low ebb, the pope had levied a tenth on the clergy of other kingdoms such as France,*®® wished to do the same in England and would like the consent of the king.?* If Peter Huse presented this letter to the king, it was the first time in many years that a pope had sought an income tax from the English clergy avowedly for his own needs. Henry VII was indebted to Innocent VIII for various favors, not the least of which were a dispensation for his marriage with Elizabeth of York and the excommunication of those who rebelled against him.*®? On the other hand, he needed funds for the maintenance of order in England and for the expenses of his war with France. The clergy of the province of Canterbury, indeed, granted him a subsidy in a convocation begun on 21 June 1491.'°* Since the clergy had long 786 Below, pp. 586-93.

187 Cal. S. P. Venice, I, 142-43. The convocation of Canterbury begun on 21 March 1481 granted the king a tenth and the convocation of 1482 another: Reg. Bourchier, fo. 27¥-28; Lincoln, Reg. Russell, fo. 57-58%, Chichester, Reg. Story, fo. 56%-63, 96-100v. Later

in 1481 the convocation of York granted a tenth: Reg. Rotherham, I, fo. 291v-92v. 188 Arm., XX XIX, 15, fo. 96-96¥.

*8°In 1487 he began negotiations for permission to obtain what was sometimes called a subsidy, but it was to be derived from an indulgence and not from a levy on the incomes of the clergy: below, pp. induls. pp. 531a-540. 190 This met the suggestion made by Henry VII in 1489 with regard to indulgences: below, p. 596. It was an optimistic statement. Peter Huse was appointed to raise a tenth

in France also, but there, as in England, he had first to obtain the consent of the king: Gottlob, Aus der Camera, p. 202. 191 Cal. S. P. Spanish, 1, 39-40.

*°? March 1486: Papal Bulls 23/1, 6; Reg. Vat. 682, fo. 412-16.

8 Ely, Reg. Alcock, pp. 204-08, Winchester, Reg. Courtenay, fo. 34-36%. On 16 July 1491 papal nuncios in France informed the pope of the belief current in France that the English ecclesiastics were forced to give the king a subsidy: Cal. S. P. Venice, IV, 481.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 155 opposed concurrent royal and papal subsidies, Henry VII, who watched his financial situation with scrupulous care, was not likely to have jeopardized his own income by a favorable answer to the papal request, if it was brought to his attention. No trace of the levy of a papal income tax before Innocent VIII died on 20 August 1492 has been discovered. Alexander VI sought financial aid from the English clergy early in his pontificate. On 5 June 1493 he wrote to the papal collector, Hadrian de Castello. When he came to the papacy, he said, the papal camera owed to merchants and others more than 300,000 ducats and was burdened with

usuries. To relieve this situation he ordered Hadrian to take from the revenues of the English clergy 100000 florins, which was approximately £22222 4s. 5 d.*°* The sum was to be levied pro rata on the assessed value of

clerical income. He was to use ecclesiastical censures against opponents and to seek aid of the secular arm, if necessary.1°° This mandate met with no better success than the more diplomatic approach of Innocent VIII. Without doubt the collector failed to obtain the consent of the king, since no record of the levy of such a heavy tax appears in episcopal registers or other contemporary sources where it could hardly have escaped mention. Alexander VI, however, did not give up after one failure. On 22 July 1496 he appointed John Morton, archbishop of Canterbury and cardinal of St Anastasia, to collect by himself or by others a similar subsidy, assessed

on the income of the clergy in the same way and enforced with censures, to be paid within six months of the publication of the bull. The amount of the subsidy, however, was reduced to 50000 ducats.1°® Henry VII had received from Alexander VI a renewal of the bulls giving dispensation for

his marriage and excommunicating rebels.’°’ He was, moreover, in a

political alliance with the pope. On 18 July 1496 he gave his somewhat nominal adherence to the league of Venice.’*? Yet in 1496 he had great need of the financial resources of his kingdom. The clergy in that year paid him a tenth.’*® Before the year was finished, he asked them for another subsidy. In September James IV of Scotland invaded the north of England in behalf of Perkin Warbeck, a pretender to the English throne. His army was driven back by local troops, but Henry took the occasion to plan an invasion of Scotland. For that purpose he sought large grants 194In 1499 exchange was one mark for three florins: Wells, Reg. King, fo. 57; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1704, fo. 157, 169%.

+° Et si dispositione’: Reg. Vat. 869, fo. 79-807. +6 Ft si dispositione’; Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 132v-34v,

1°74 October 1494: Salisbury, Reg. Blyth, fo. 63-64¥. , *°8 Fisher, History of England, p. 67. 19° Salisbury, Reg. Blyth, fo. 48-51%; Rochester, Reg. Savage, 11-13%, Winchester, Reg. Langton, fo. 59v-62; York, Reg. Rotherham, I, fo. 307-308; Durham, Reg. Fox, fo. 9-9v.

156 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 from both parliament and the two convocations.? Early in 1497 the convocation of York conceded two tenths 2%! and the convocation of Canterbury £40,000.?°? These subsidies left no chance that the king would allow the pope to put an additional financial burden on the English clergy. The projected papal tax was not levied. 7. SUBSIDY FOR A Crusape, 1502-04

On account of attacks launched against Venetian territories by the Turks, Alexander VI decided to revive the project of a universal crusade. On 1 June 1500 he called on Christendom to unite against the Turks. In order to help meet the expenses of an expedition he imposed one tenth to be paid on the true value of the fruits and revenues of all benefices in the Christian world. It was to be collected at terms to be established by the

legates, nuncios or collectors whom he would appoint. Opponents and delinquent payers would suffer excommunication, from which they could be released only by the pope, except at the point of death, unless they later paid what was due. The conditions of the collection would be made known more fully by the collectors.?°*

The agents whom Alexander VI sent to the countries of Europe to proclaim the crusade found enthusiasm for it in few places.?°* In France there was opposition to the tenth because it was imposed without the consent of the French clergy, and a group of them appealed to a general council

against the ecclesiastical censures used to enforce its levy. In 1502 the theological faculty of the university of Paris declared such censures void if they were pronounced after an appeal had been made against them, and that those who had made appeals need not cease the performance of their ecclesiastical functions.?°°

In England the demand for financial support of a crusade met with a more favorable reception than it did in most countries on account of the attitude of Henry VII. After consultation with a council of his lay and ecclesiastical nobles, he declined to send ships on account of the difficulties of carrying sufficient provisions and of meeting adverse winds. The kings of France and Spain, he pointed out, could avoid those difficulties because

they were nearer. If the pope should go in person, as he intended, and neither the king of France nor the king of Spain would go with him, Henry 209 Fisher, History of England, pp. 67-69, Temperley, Henry VII, pp. 141-47. 2°t York, Reg. Rotherham, I, fo. 310, 310%; Durham, Reg. Fox, fo. 14-15. 20? Salisbury, Reg. Blyth, fo. 51%-60, Winchester, Reg. Langton, fo. 66¥-72;, Lincoln, Reg. Smith, fo. 270-72; Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Wilts, a 2, no. 35. 2° Raynaldus, 1500, §§ 7-9. 294 Pastor, History, VI, 95. °° Gotwald, Ecclesiastical Censures, p. 60.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 157 VII was prepared to accompany him, if the pope would provide a place to stay, provisions for the army and free transportation for it. These provisions made Henry’s participation in the crusade a remote possibility. Henry thought, however, that rulers who did not go in person should contribute men and money.”°* His own finances were in good condition at the time and he wished to have England contribute at least to the financial support of the expedition. He preferred, however, not to have a foreign papal legate come to England,?*" and he was opposed to the levy of a tenth by papal mandate. On 5 October 1500, before Henry VII had expressed his wishes with regard to a legate, Alexander VI appointed Cardinal Giovanni Vera to go as legate to Spain, Portugal and England. He was to preach the crusade, to publish an indulgence of the jubilee which was to be issued locally and to receive the proceeds both of the indulgence and of the tenth which were to be used against the Turks.?°* Later he revoked the commission of the cardinal as far as England was concerned, and sent instead as his orator and general commissioner for the administration of the indulgence Jasper Ponce, a learned Spaniard, who was a papal notary and a penitentiar at St Peter’s in Rome, but who did not have the rank of legate.”°° Henry VII believed that the papal decree of a tenth could not become effective in any country without the will of the ruler. In view of the liberties and immunities of his kingdom, he did not wish to have any novelties or bad examples for the future in his time. Consequently he persuaded the pope that the imposition of the tenth should not take place in England. In return he asked the two archbishops to convoke their convocations and secure from them the grant of a subsidy.?*° As a further protection he requested that in the future all convocations should be called in his name and by his authority alone in order to exclude the papal claim to levy tenths in England by a papal bull.?** The king’s request for the summons of convocations was contained in a letter dated 4 December 1501. The archbishop of Canterbury, on 12 December, citing the royal writ, ordered the issue of summonses for convocation to meet at St Paul’s on 1 February 1502. On 14 February the assembly

postponed its answer with regard to the grant of a subsidy against the Turks, because many bishops, prelates and proctors of the clergy were absent. The archbishop prorogued the next session to 11 April, and on 2°6 Cotton MS. Cleop, E. III, fo. 150-56. 207 Thid., fo. 156°.

208 Ibid., fo. 150-150; Pastor, History, VI, 94. 209 Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd Ser., I, 58; Wells, Reg. King, fo. 81. 210 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 646; Wells, Reg. King, fo. 79-80. 211 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 647; Records of the Northern Convocation, p. 204.

158 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 7 March directed new summonses for that date to be dispatched. Between 11 April and 18 May the convocation granted a subsidy of £12000 in aid of the Christian religion against the Turk and an additional sum of £542 to pay the cost of the collection of the subsidy. One-half of the whole sum was to be paid between Michaelmas and Martinmas 1502 and the second half between Easter and Pentecost 1503. It was to be paid according to the method of a tenth from all ecclesiastical goods, benefices, possessions, pensions and portions, from chantries worth £10 yearly, and from alien priories whether they were in clerical or lay hands. It made no difference whether they were assessed to the tenth or not, or whether they were accustomed to pay a tenth or not. Those exempted from the subsidy throughout the province were churches so poor that the offices were not celebrated there, the halls and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, the colleges of Eton and Winchester, the house of Syon, the priory of Bethlehem of the hospital at Shene, the house of St Mary of the Carthusian order in a suburb of London

| and the other Carthusian houses, the nuns of St Clare without Aldgate and the monasteries of Rewley and Barnwell.??? The order of St John of Jerusalem was exempted from one of the two payments as was likewise

the collegiate church of St George in Windsor. Each bishop was permitted to make further exemptions in his own diocese. With these exemptions the sum perhaps represented approximately a tenth of the assessed value of clerical income.?*?

The portion of the £12546 which was to be raised in each diocese was prescribed by the convocation, with the limitation that no payer was to be burdened with an amount larger than he was accustomed to pay for a tenth. The amounts were as follows:

£ s. a. £ 5. d.

Bangor 15 0 0 Norwich 1883 0O 0 Bath & Wells 607 7*4 16 8 Rochester 126 07% QO

Canterbury 959 13. 6 8 4Stjurisdiction Albans of 68 19 0% Chichester 427

Ely 172 0 04 Exeter 46413 13.44St StAsaph Davids 40 86 13

Hereford 345 13. 4 Winchester Salisbury 1228 06 08 Lichfield 524 13 4 973 Lincoln 2759 Llandaff 13 46 3Y 8 Worcester 564 10 0

London 871 0 0 Total 12131 10 0 77°

**® Many of these houses had been exempted permanently by previous kings from clerical subsidies granted to the king by the clergy or by the pope: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 387, 413; C.P.R. 1441-46, pp. 255, 286.

*** One collector of the subsidy designated it as a tenth: W.A.M. 5774. 224617, Wilkins. 715-10, Wilkins.

*6 My addition.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 159 The collectors were to be deputed by the diocesans for the first half before 23 September and for the second half before the next 7 April. None in the lower house of the convocation making the grant could be a collector. In practice abbots or priors with their convents were generally appointed. The collectors were given the power to compel payment by ecclesiastical censures and by sequestration. Each collector was to receive for his work 8 d. in the pound of the sum received. The receipts were to be delivered to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Winchester, but the dis-

posal of the money was to be made at the order of the king.?*7 It was therefore a subsidy granted to the king, but some of the deputy collectors and payers designated it as a subsidy granted or paid to the pope.?"® The archbishop of York placed the king’s request for a subsidy before a convocation which met on 21 February 1502 and was adjourned to 15 October. On that day convocation granted a tenth to the king for defense against the Turks from those ecclesiastical revenues which customarily

paid a tenth granted to the king. The first half was due between Easter and 24 June 1503 and the second between 11 November 1503 and Easter 1504. ‘The list of exemptions which applied to the northern province was longer than that for the province of Canterbury.”!® The collectors were to be appointed in the same way and with the same powers as those in the southern province. Those selected were usually abbots or priors with their convents. Ihe money was to be paid to the archbishop of York for delivery to the king.??° Henry VII kept none of the proceeds of this subsidy for himself??? and his disposal of them anticipated their collection. On 27 May 1502 he announced his intention to contribute financial aid to Ladislaus of Hungary for use against the Turks and appointed an envoy to treat with the Hun-

_ garian king concerning the gift.?*? If this contemplated assistance was actually given, it may have come from sources other than the subsidy, since the payments known to have been made must have exhausted nearly the whole yield of the subsidy. On 20 June 1502 Henry stated that he would "17 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 646; Wells, Reg. King, fo. 79-84, 91-94%, 107-09; Salisbury, Reg. J. Blyth, fo. 118-20; Reg. Audley, fo. 164-66, Lichfield, Reg. G. Blyth, fo. 72¥-74¥; W.A.M. 5774; Turner and Coxe, Cal. of Charters, p. 22. 218 'W.A.M. 5774; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, Pentecost 1503 to Pentecost 1504; Inventories of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 133.

9 Among them were the churches of certain chapters and convents worth £20 or less, the pensions and portions of several monasteries in specified places and some churches in the archdeaconry of Northumberland. 2° Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 647; Records of the Northern Convocation, p. 204-05; York, Reg. Savage, fo. 191¥-94, D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Quintum, fo. 93¥-94v. *22 T. & P. illustrative of the Reigns of Richard Ill and Henry VII, Il, 116-17. 22 Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 173-74.

160 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 give to the emperor £10000 for warfare against the Turks, and on 28 July Maximilian I acknowledged receipt of that sum.?** Sometime during the same year he forwarded to the pope for the same purpose £4000.*** 8. No DEMANDs FOR AN INCOME Tax By JuLius II

Julius II (1503-13) does not appear to have asked the English clergy for a tenth or a subsidy assessed on their incomes. Late in 1515, when the clergy of the lower house of the convocation of Canterbury declined to grant Leo X a half of a tenth, they offered as one excuse for their action the efforts which they had made in the time of Julius II. This reference, however, was not to subsidies which they had paid to the pope, but to subsidies which they had granted to Henry VIII, when he was engaged in a war against France fought in part for the political advantage of the papacy.

He invaded France in 1512 in alliance with King Ferdinand of Spain, who was a member of the Holy League formed by Julius II to drive from Italy the French, who threatened the States of the Church. By 1515 the forces of the League had defeated the French in Italy and the armies of Henry VIII had won victories in France.??° ‘These victories of Henry VIII, the clergy of the lower house said, had removed all dangers from the holy see. Six tenths which they had paid to the king, they claimed, had been for the purpose of defending the Patrimony of St Peter.?°* Whatever advantage the papacy had derived from these grants, they had not been made to the papacy or at papal request. 9, FarLureE oF Leo X To OBTAIN TENTHS OR SUBSIDIES

Leo X began an attempt to obtain financial help from the English clergy soon after he became pope. On 16 August 1514 he asked the permission

of Henry VIII to request the English clergy to pay him a subsidy. He explained his needs, among which was financial aid that he desired to give for the warfare against the Turks.??” What he wanted for a subsidy was the grant of a tenth, but a little over a year later, in a conversation which he had with Silvester de Giglis, bishop of Worcester and the ambassador 228 Tbid., 175, 179.

724 Busch, England under the Tudors, |, 233. °° Fisher, History of England, ch. VII. 26 L. @ P., Il, pt. 1, 1312. Actually payment of the six tenths had not been completed, but they had been granted. The convocation of Canterbury granted four tenths in 1512 in the time of Julius II and two in 1514 after Leo X became pope: London, Reg. Fitz James, fo. 45¥-46, 119; Rochester, Reg. Fisher, fo. 70%, Salisbury, Reg. J. Blyth, fo. 139-40. The convocation of York granted two tenths in 1512, three in 1513 and one in 1516: York, Reg. Bainbridge, fo. 80-81%, 83-84, Reg. Wolsey, fo. 112¥-113. 727 Cotton MS. Vitel. B. II, fo. 95.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 161 of Henry VIII at the papal court, he said that he would be satisfied with a twentieth. He had received from the king and Wolsey what he regarded as promises of a grant of at least a twentieth. He felt so sure of the grant that he asked Wolsey to urge the king to advance the money from the royal treasury and to recover it later from the proceeds of the tax.??® Just what promises the king and Wolsey made cannot be established with certainty, since our information rests upon Leo’s interpretation of them as reported by Worcester. Probably they were promises to support the papal request in convocation. Apparently the pope realized this, but assumed that the grant in convocation would be a formality. After this conversation, probably later in September 1515, Leo X received a letter from Archbishop Warham to the effect that he could give no hope of the grant of half of a tenth for a subsidy against the Turks. The pope put his trust in the contrary assurance of Wolsey.” His trust proved to be misplaced. On 13 December 1515, after convocation had rejected the papal request, Wolsey asked the bishop of Worcester to ‘get him excused for his remissness in the matter of the half disme promised the Pope.’ ??° The promises had been made when Henry VIII and Wolsey were seeking a cardinalate for Wolsey. The adverse action of convocation was taken on 25 November 1515, after they had the cardinalate in hand.*** In convocation the clergy, through the prolocutor of the lower house, _ expressed to the pope their regret that they could not comply with his request, and called his attention to what they had done for the papacy in the time of Julius II.**? In his report of the action to the bishops of the upper house the prolocutor defended the refusal more vigorously. Convocation, he said, had been called for other purposes. The clergy, moreover, would ‘not open a window to so perilous an example . . . lest, when they wish it,

they be not able to shut the door.’ His strongest argument was that the clergy had already granted six tenths,?** though his assertion that they had

been for the defense of the Patrimony of St Peter was open to question. These tenths were collected one in each year bginning in 1512.7°* At the time of the convocation of 1515 the clergy were hopeful that, since the

war was over, the king would remit the portion of the tenths which re28 Worcester to Wolsey, 7 September 1515: L. @ P., Il, pt. 1, 887, 968, 1312; MS. Vitel. B. II, fo. 193. 22° T & P., Il, pt. 1, 966-67. *80T. & P., II, pt. 1, 1280. *8* Wolsey was created a cardinal on 10 September 1515. *8? Above, p. 160.

837. & P., IL, pt. 1, 1312. *8* Wells, Reg. Castello, fo. 98-100, 111¥-12, 118, 127%; Worcester, Reg. S de Giglis, fo. 83¥, 92-94, 1137-149.

162 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 mained to be paid.**° ‘They were not ready, however, to risk the grant of half a tenth to the pope as long as they remained committed to the payment of tenths to the king. Henry VIII did not release them from their obligation. After four tenths had been collected, royal writs were issued in 1517 ordering the collection of the remaining two.??® Whatever Henry VIII may have promised Leo X in 1514 or 1515, it may be doubted if he ever intended to put any pressure on the clergy to grant to the pope one-half of a tenth which would run concurrently with tenths granted to himself. Leo X had approved the levy of the six tenths, and thus had unwittingly helped to create the chief obstacle to the grant of the twentieth which he desired. He had been informed of them by Archbishop Bainbridge of York, a royal ambassador at the papal court, before 14 July 1514.78" Though Leo X was hesitant to grant the favor,”** on 16 August 1514 he authorized

Henry VIII to accept the contributions of the clergy for the support of his wars, notwithstanding any decrees to the contrary of the council of the Lateran, then in session, or of other general councils.”*° He did not know

how many centuries had hardened the custom that the English clergy would not pay taxes on their incomes to king and pope at the same time. Leo X was most unhappy about the rejection of his request. For some reason he had set his heart upon receiving this half of a tenth from the Eng-

lish clergy. In September 1515 he told the bishop of Worcester that he would rather lose three fingers than to have the grant of it miscarry.”*° Its _ failure caused him as much exasperation as his quiet nature permitted him to feel. His bitterness is reflected by his suggestion that if the king distrusted him, he could send his own agent to see that the money was properly expended in Hungary. The action of convocation caused him to lose confidence in English support of the war against the Turks, but he did not give up all hope of the ultimate attainment of his desire. The bishop of Worcester took pains to keep this hope alive. He promised the pope that Wolsey would help him, and he suggested to Wolsey that, since convocation was not sitting, he should borrow for the pope from the king 20000 ducats to be repaid when convocation should grant the money. Wolsey had already made some such suggestion to the king *** without result. On 786 Wells, Reg. Castello, fo. 136-38", Worcester, Reg. S de Giglis, fo. 145-46, London, Reg. Fitz James, fo. 119-20. 87 Worcester to Wolsey, 26 August 1514: L. @ P., I, 5354. Bainbridge died on 14 July. 287 & P., IL, pt. 1, 823.

230 gb P. I, 5331.

240. @& P., Il, pt. 1, 966.

*4* Letters of Worcester to Wolsey and Ammonius, 19 January 1516: L. & P., Il, pt. 1, 1417-18; One letter speaks of ‘the tenths’ and of ‘this moiety of the tenths’. The second

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 163 19 July 1516 the bishop, in a letter to Andreas Ammonius, again urged that the attempt to obtain the twentieth ?4? should not be abandoned and expressed his opinion that ‘it would be discreditable if the Church in this extremity were not helped by the goods of the Church.’ *** Though the bishop did not mention in this letter any further conversation with the pope concerning the half of a tenth, on 9 February 1517 he reported that the pope had again complained of the broken promise with regard to the half-tenth.?*4

In 1517 Leo X tried to tax the English clergy for another purpose. Early in the year Duke Francisco Maria della Rovere, who had been deprived of the duchy of Urbino in the Romagna by Leo X, recovered possession of it by force and held his own against papal troops sent against him. The papal treasury was not only empty but it was in debt. The pope, thus placed under the pressure of financial need,?*° turned to England for help. On 20 June he wrote to Henry VIII for aid, and he also sent Nicholas Scomberg as an envoy to plead his cause.?*®

He wrote to Wolsey on the same subject on 24 August 1517. He informed the cardinal that he had decided to force the English clergy to pay a tenth toward the expenses of the war and ordered him to render the king and the clergy favorable to the project.?*” In another letter to the cardinal of the same date he explained the circumstances. He then pointed out that the apostolic see customarily granted to one appointed to a cathedral church the power to seek and exact a charitable subsidy from those holding benefices in his diocese in order to help him support the burden of his promotion.2*8 How much more, he asked, ought a subsidy to be granted to the pope in his need to defend the rights of the church? Other provisions of the letter, however, demonstrate that it was not a voluntary subsidy which Leo X had in mind. He appointed Wolsey collector of the tenth and gave him license to impose it on the clergy, or, if it should seem more expedient, to grant license to the archbishops and bishops to impose it on their clergy. The clergy were to pay it under sentence of excommunication and deprivation of their benefices for failure. Other penalties, such as fines, might be established by Wolsey. The secular arm could also be invoked. The ordispeaks only of ‘tenths’, All must refer to the half-tenth, since Leo X did not attempt to obtain a whole tenth until 24 August 1517. 242 ‘tenth’ in text.

37 & P., Il, pt. 1, 2194. 247. & P., Il, pt. 2, 2895. *45 Pastor, History, VII, 147-50, 165-70.

746 Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 135; L. @ P., I, pt. 2, 3382: Cotton MS. Vitel. B. II,

fo. 186¥-87. 247 Arm. XXXIX, 31, fo. 340-43.

*4° For subsidies of this type see below, pp. 282-92.

164 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 nance of the council of Vienne was to be observed in its collection. Wolsey was also empowered to appoint deputy collectors.?** In still a third letter of the same date the pope exhorted, warned and asked the cardinal of York and the archbishop of Canterbury to convoke their clergy, secular and regular, exempt and nonexempt, and to force and compel them to aid the pope with at least one whole tenth.*°° Letters similar to the last were

sent also to some, and probably to all, bishops. They concluded with a warning to the recipient that if he failed, the pope would attribute it to his carelessness and fault and would be displeased.?°*

This attempt to impose a mandatory tenth upon the clergy was later given up. The reason is not stated, but it probably was failure to secure the king’s consent. On 6 November 1517 the pope wrote to Archbishop Warham expressing the hope that he and the English clergy would comply with the request for a subsidy for the apostolic see shortly to be put before them by the king.?°? Again the king and the cardinal made promises to Leo X. On 8 November 1517 Worcester wrote to Wolsey. The pope, he said, had such great faith in their promises of the tenth that he would feel the high- | est displeasure and indignation, if he did not receive it. ‘The ambassador dwelled upon the importance of the observance of the promises and urged

Wolsey to use all diligence in having the tenth granted and exacted.” This time the object of Henry VIII and Wolsey was to secure the degradation of Hadrian Castello from his cardinalate.?°* On 28 March 1518 Worcester reported that the pope regretted that he had heard nothing about the tenth promised him.?°° Before 20 May he received news which relieved his mind, since he told the bishop of Worces-

ter that he approved what Wolsey and the archbishop of Canterbury had done with regard to the tenth. He also expressed his high expectation

of the fulfilment of Wolsey’s promise. To this the bishop said in reply that unless he himself kept his promise, no one else would.*°° He alluded to the long delay of Leo X in keeping his promise to deprive Hadrian, and implied that the tenth would not be forthcoming until it was done. Leo X finally fulfilled his promise on 5 July 1518.°°7 When nothing *4° Papal Bulls 26/36; Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 137-38; L. & P., Il, pt. 2, 3617. 759 Arm. XL, 3, fo. 184-85.

751 Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 135; L. @ P., II, pt. 2, 3618-20; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. III,

fo. 200-05.

2. & P., Il, pt. 2, 3776. 253 Ibid., 3781.

*°4T. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 298; below, p. 165. °° TL. & P., Il, pt. 2, 4040; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. III, fo. 145. °° L. @ P., Il, pt. 2, 4179; Vitel. B. III, fo. 262. 257 Cal. S. P. Venice, Il, 1044.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 — 165 was done about the tenth ”°* thereafter, he not only made bitter complaints,

but he also made difficulties about the grant of favors for which Wolsey petitioned. On 29 March 1519 the bishop of Worcester informed Wolsey that the pope would consent neither to enlarge the bull for reforming the clergy nor to remove the restrictions on Wolsey’s legatine authority. He refused because he had not received the half of a tenth which had been promised to him so often. When Worcester explained that the English clergy were so powerful that money could not be exacted from them as it was from the clergy of other countries, the pope remained unreconciled. He replied that he might have had 30000 crowns, if he had saved Cardinal Hadrian, but he had refused them in order to please Henry VIII.7°? On 10 June Worcester wrote that the pope had finally granted the desired legatine powers, because he still hoped to have the twentieth promised to him on the privation of Hadrian. This time the ambassador pointed out that the promise was only to bring the tax to a vote and that the power of

the clergy had made it impossible to obtain it. The pope admitted the excuse, but he continued to resent the failure of any return for the things he had done for Wolsey. ‘The pope would not be content, Worcester concluded, unless a promised attempt to secure the money for him within a year, which had been reported by Cardinal Campeggio, who was acting as a legate in England, should be fulfilled.*°°

Campeggio, on 4 December 1519, after his return to Rome, wrote to Wolsey that he had conveyed to the pope Wolsey’s regret for his failure to obtain the tenth and had explained the difficulty. To this the pope answered that a promise had been made to him and nothing had been done to keep it. He still hoped, however, that the tenths would be forthcoming by Easter.?*1 Campeggio, who had become one of the representatives of Henry VIII at the papal court, wrote again on 1 February 1520. If Wolsey could expedite the tenth, he said, the papal briefs would be sent in the form requested by Wolsey.?** Early in 1521 he sent to Wolsey a bull renewing his appointment as a legate for two years. He reported that the pope, when he granted the renewal, said that he wished Wolsey to acknowledge his kindness, having in mind the half of a tenth. Campeggio added his own 258 The word used is ‘half disme’ and in a later reference it is called ‘half dismes’. There it is clear that the subsidy in question is the one promised him for the degradation of Hadrian: L. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 298. These and the preceding references leave it doubtful

whether Henry VIII and Wolsey promised him in place of the mandatory tenth a subsidy of a tenth or of a twentieth. 29T. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 149. 76° Tbid., 298; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. IV, fo. 13. 217, & P., Ill, pt. 1, 533.

21 & P., Il, pt. 1, 614. |

| 166 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 opinion that Wolsey ought to do his best to satisfy the wish.?** Leo X thus continued nearly to the end of his life, on the one hand, to feel resentment at what he regarded as broken promises, and, on the other, to maintain a hope that the promises might be kept. This prolonged series of complaints makes it evident that neither the tenth which Leo X imposed on 24 August 1517 nor the subsidy promised him in place of it was ever levied. Two obstacles to the levy of the tenth and to the grant of a subsidy in

its place were created by Leo X himself. One was the grant to Wolsey, at the request of Henry VIII, of a tenth to be paid by the king’s clerical subjects to meet the expenses of his promotion to the cardinalate. The grant was made and the English bishops were notified of it on 4 August 1517, the day on which he issued orders for the imposition of a tenth for his own needs. The grant empowered Wolsey to appoint deputy collectors, to fix the times of payment and to enforce payment by ecclesiastical censures.”°* The pope may have thought that gratitude for this grant would influence Wolsey to exert himself to obtain the papal tenth, but 1t seems more probable that, if a tenth was to be collected from the clergy in addition to the one they were paying the king, Wolsey’s tenth would have had precedence. Whatever this speculation may be worth, no evidence of the collection of Wolsey’s tenth has been discovered.**

The other obstacle was an appeal for a tenth as part of a program to finance a crusade against the Turks. From the beginning of his pontificate, Leo X was impressed by the danger of the Turkish advances and sought to help check them.”®* On 16 March 1517 the council of the Lateran proclaimed a general crusade and decreed the levy of a tenth of clerical income

for three years throughout Christendom to help meet the expenses. The pope published the decision,”®” but he did not undertake to organize the crusade until Urbino had been conquered. On 4 November 1517 a committee of cardinals was appointed to plan the crusade. Within a few days it drew up a memorandum which was sent to Christian rulers for com268 Ibid., 1123.

64 Reg. Vat. 1197, fo. 149-50.

265 He had already collected a tenth granted to him by the convocation of the province of York as a contribution to the expense of his promotion to the archbishopric: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Quintum, fo. 156%; Bursar’s Roll 1515-16.

266 Pastor, History, VII, 213-20; Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII, I, 274-75. 267 Raynaldus, 1517, §§ 9-15; Pastor, History, VII, 220. Seebohm states that when talk

of the tenth reached England, the papal collector was immediately sworn not to send any money to Rome: Oxford Reformers, p. 422. He is followed by Pastor, History, VII, 239. This oath was that taken every papal collector, it did1517, not prohibit transmission of money to Rome. It wasby taken by Silvester Darius onand 22 April because he had recently been appointed deputy collector: Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 133.

Mandatory and Voluntary Income Taxes 1389-1534 167 ment,*°* but legates to promote the crusade and to establish the imposition

of the tenth in the several European countries were not dispatched until March 1518.7 Campeggio, who was sent to England, left Rome on 18 April,?”° but he was forced to remain at Calais until Wolsey had been joined with him in the embassy,””* and he did not reach England until 23 July.” Polydore Vergil states that he took up the business of the tenth with zeal, but desisted when he heard that legates elsewhere had attempted the matter without success.?"* His progress certainly was slow. On 29 March 1519 the pope expressed his surprise that he had received no reply from England concerning aid against the Turks, particularly since a convocation had been held at London in the beginning of Lent.’** Nevertheless, Campeggio did

not return to Rome empty-handed. He brought with him a letter from Henry VIII to Leo X dated 18 August 1519. Henry professed himself anxious to comply with the pope’s wishes for an expedition against the infidel, pledged his kingdom to the enterprise, and promised to go in person, if a son should be born to him. He was prepared to contribute 20000 foot and seventy sail, and expenses would be met by a tenth from the clergy and a fifteenth from the laity.?”° This letter was read in consistory on 2 December 1519,?7* with what degree of scepticism is not recorded. By the time the letter was received, it was evident to the pope that sufficient cooperation of Christian princes to produce a general crusade would not be forthcoming.?*7 Henry VIII was never called upon to fulfil his undertakings and the tenth was never levied.

After the pontificate of Leo X the English clergy appear to have received no further papal demands for tenths or subsidies. Beginning in 1526, shortly before the Turks overwhelmed the Hungarians at Mohacs, Clement

VII, from time to time until 5 January 1532, sent appeals to Henry VIII for help against this enemy of Christendom,*’* and the king appears to have contributed several substantial sums to the cause.*”? But neither in the papal 268 Pastor, History, VII, 221-30; Raynaldus, 1517, §§ 32-55. 269 Pastor, History, VU, 231.

7° Cardinal, Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, p. 55. *™1 Wolsey’s commission was dated 17 May: Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 140.

27 & P., IL, pt. 2, 4333. "78 Anglica Historia, p. 256. See also L. @ P., Ill, pt. 1, 162.

247, & P., Ill, pt. 1, 149. 218 Ibid., 432.

276 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell. 2, fo. 133; Acta Misc. 31, fo. 105. *"7 Pastor, History, VII, 253, n.

278 Arm, XXXIX, 46, fo. 102-102v, 189-91; Arm. XL, 11, fo. 230; 13, fo. 54, 137; 31, fo. 146; 41, fo. 7-87, 14-15, L. & P., IV, pt. 3, 5981, 6056, Pastor, History, X, 186-87. 27° Cal. S. P. Venice, Tl, 1224, 1238, 1371; Principi e Titolati 4, fo. 74, L. & P., IV, pt. 3, 5324.

168 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 correspondence nor elsewhere is there any suggestion that money for the purpose should be raised by taxation of the incomes of the English clergy. 10. ConcLusion After the papal jurisdiction over the English church was brought to an end in 1534, the English clergy no longer had to meet papal demands for tenths or subsidies, but the burden of taxation placed upon their incomes by the king was far heavier than that previously placed upon them by the

papacy. In 1534 parliament enacted a law authorizing the king to take yearly in perpetuity one-tenth of the value of the spirituals and temporals of the benefices and offices in the church, beginning at Christmas 1535. It also provided for a new assessment,”®° which, when it had been completed, increased the yield of a tenth by nearly one-half over that produced by the valuation established between 1291 and 1293, which, with changes, was still in use in 1534.7" Some modern historians have represented the change as merely a transfer of tenths from pope to king.?®* Pollard says, for example: ‘First-fruits and tenths were described as an intolerable burden; but they were not abolished; they were merely transferred from Pope to King.’ As far as this statement relates to tenths, it is about as far from the truth as can well be imagined, unless the development traced above is sadly in error. In the two centuries between 1336 and 1534 no pope had succeeded in levying a tenth on English clerical income by mandate. During the same period the English clergy had granted to the papacy, at widely spaced intervals, only five subsidies on their incomes, and the last of these had been granted in 1502. 289 Statutes of the Realm, III, 495-99.

782 Dietz, English Government Finance, pp. 115, 221; Savine, English Monasteries, p. 2. 282 F.g. Pollard, Henry VIII, pp. 220, 222; Arrowsmith, Prelude, pp. 82-83, Gairdner, English Church in the Sixteenth Century, p. 153, Constant, La Réforme en Angleterre, I, 65; Dowell, History of Taxation, I, 174-75.

CHAPTER V

THE SERVICE TAXES , 1. DEFINITION

] N England by 1327 the service taxes were sums paid by archbishops,

bishops and abbots when their elections to office were confirmed by the pope in consistory, or when they obtained office by provision or translation

in consistory. The services consisted of two parts. The common service was in theory a payment equal to one-third of the estimated gross income of the bishopric or abbacy. It was called common because it was divided equally between the papal camera and the camera of the college of cardinals.* ‘The five petty services, each of which was of the same amount, constituted a much smaller sum. The amount of one petty service was variable

during most of the period. It was established by dividing one-half of the common service by the number of cardinals present at the papal court when

the promotion of the prelate took place in consistory. After 1470 the amount of one petty service was stabilized at one-fourteenth of one-half of the common service. The pope received four of the petty services and the college of cardinals one.” Each prelate who was promoted in consistory was required to bind himself by a written obligation to pay the common service and the five petty services due from him. 2. Tne Liasiniry or ENciisH PRELATES FOR PAYMENT OF THE SERVICES

By 1327 the papacy had already acquired the right to appoint or confirm the archbishops and most of the bishops of England by means of general reservations,® and any pope might reserve specially the next collation to a specified benefice.* During the remainder of the pontificate of John XXII (1328-34) and the whole of the pontificate of Benedict XII (133542) these reservations did not include all the bishoprics. After 1327 John XXII provided, translated or confirmed two archbishops and four bishops, who had to pay the services.°” Among them was a bishop of Salisbury who was the first occupant of the bishopric to pay the services.® The bishoprics

, *Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 290. * Below, pp. 176-77.

*Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 83-86; II, 217-30; below, pp. 320-23. ‘E.g. Richard d’Aungerville of Bury, Fragments, p. 3, Papal Bulls, 42/1, 56/20. ° Below, App. II.

° At least, there is no record of obligation for a payment of the services by any

previous bishop of Salisbury.

170 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of Bangor and St Davids, on the other hand, were filled by capitular election and archiepiscopal confirmation in 1328. The services were not due from them because they were not reserved. John XXII had reserved the provision to two other bishoprics which became vacant in the period, but he refrained from the exercise of his right. At the request of the king he granted to John Kirkby that his election to Carlisle and its confirmation by the archbishop of York should hold good.” In 1329 the chapter of Bath and Wells elected Ralph of Shrewsbury bishop and obtained the confirmation of the archbishop of Canterbury. When the chapter and the bishop later learned that the pope had reserved the collation to the see, they both petitioned him to confirm the election. The bishop offered the pope 2000 florins and expressed the hope that he could send more later.* ‘he pope gave the desired confirmation on 30 May 1330,° but neither the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers, which record the obligations to pay the services taken by prelates and the payments made by them, | nor the Introitus et Exitus Registers, which itemize the receipts and expenditures of the papal camera, contain any entry of a payment made by the bishop for the favor.*® These registers likewise omit any mention of a

pledge to pay the services or of payment of them by either of the two bishops.

Benedict XII exacted the services from three bishops whom he provided or translated. Five bishops obtained office in the normal manner without

his intervention. |

From the beginning of the pontificate of Clement VI in 1342 until the breach with Rome in 1534 every vacant archbishopric and bishopric in the

provinces of Canterbury and York was filled in consistory by papal appointment or with papal confirmation,’? except in 1416 and 1417 while the council of Constance was in session. In 1416, before 7 April, parliament

provided that, since the deposition of John XXIII had left the apostolic vacant, the archbishops should confirm the elections to episcopal sees until the vacancy was ended.** Under this arrangement John Wakering became bishop of Norwich, Edmund Lacy bishop of Hereford and John Chandler

bishop of Salisbury. The first two paid no services, but the bishop of 74 December 1333: C.P.L., Il, 403. * Cal. MSS. of Wells, I, 223; C.P.R. 1327-30, p. 409; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 29. °CP.L., Il, 319.

*° Adam Murimuth asserts that the bishop had to redeem himself at the Roman court by a large sum of money: Cont., p. 61. ** Below, App. II.

*? Below, App. II. There are four collations for which I have not found evidence of papal provision or translation. Since the recipients paid the services, there can be no doubt of their papal promotions. 18C.C.R. 1413-19, pp. 302-03; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 2, 156.

The Service Taxes 171 Salisbury, who was confirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury on 7 December 1417, soon after Martin V was elected pope, was not covered by the law. He was given papal confirmation on 15 July 1419 and was held responsible for payment of the services.**

All archbishops and bishops who acquired their offices by papal promotion after 1342 owed the services with certain exceptions. If an archbishopric or bishopric was vacant twice in the same year the services were due only once. Late in the period cardinals resident at the papal court who received English bishoprics were exempt from the services and the same exemption was later extended to certain other officials at the papal court.*° There was one exception which cannot be explained by any of these general rules. Robert Stretton, who was provided to Lichfield on 22 April 1360, does not appear to have undertaken any obligation to pay services or to have paid them. They are not recorded in any of the contemporary cameral registers of obligations and payments. Moreover, when his successor was provided in 1385, the amount of the services due had to be established by an assessment of the revenues of the bishopric.** That would not have been necessary, if the camera had had a record as recent as 1360 of the amount paid for common service by a predecessor in the bishopric.

Robert Stretton was the first new incumbent of Lichfield after 1329, but that alone does not explain his escape. Four other bishops who were the first to be appointed to their respective sees after 1329 were required to pay the services, though none of their predecessors had ever been liable for them. The four were the bishop of St Asaph in 1346, the bishop of Bangor in 1358, the bishop of Chichester in 1362 and the bishop of Bath and Wells in 1364.3"

The abbots who were subject to the service taxes throughout the period - were five whose monasteries were exempt from episcopal jurisdiction and

were subject immediately to the apostolic see. They were Bury St Edmund, St Augustine Canterbury, St Albans, Waltham and Westminster. Since 1215 the abbots of these houses had been required to obtain papal confirmations of their elections.1* They had begun to be responsible for **Below, App. UJ; Puller, Essays, pp. 175-77; Wylie, Reign of Henry V, U, 310-11, 315-16; Reg. Chichele, I, xc-xci, 28-40; Reg. Lacy, p. 1; D. & Ch. Salisbury, Chapter Act Book VIII, pp. 57-76, Reg. Chandler, fo. 8. Arrowsmith says erroneously that 23 bishoprics were filled by free election without papal interference between 1351 and 1534: Prelude, p. 80. ** Below, p. 226

*° Below, pp. 239-40; App. II, p. 718. ** No obligations or payments by their predecessors are recorded in extant Obligationes and Solutiones Registers. For the earlier payment of services by predecessors of the two

archbishops and the other fourteen bishops compare Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp- 678-81 with App. II below. 8Tunt, Papal Revenues, I, 218.

172 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the payment of services at various dates in the second half of the thirteenth century.*°

An abbot of Evesham, which was also exempt, had paid services in 1317.?° His successor, William de Boys, who paid the services in 1345,7* sought to eliminate for future abbots of his house the dangers and the ex-

penses of the journey to the papal court. He claimed that Innocent III, who, on the basis of previous privileges, had declared Evesham to be exempt,?”? had also granted to newly elected abbots of the monastery the

privilege of acting as abbots immediately without confirmation by the apostolic see and of being blessed by any bishop in communion with that see. The original of this privilege had been lost and in the copy of it in the register of the abbey there was a serious error. Urban V, before whom he placed this claim, renewed the alleged grant on 31 August 1363.*° ‘The chronicler of the monastery noted that this indult would save the convent at least £400 on each occasion when a new abbot was elected.?* The next two abbots, who were elected in 1367 and 1379, were blessed in England.*° Neither they nor any subsequent abbot of Evesham paid services. The monastery of St Werburgh Chester obtained an exemption and became subject immediately to the apostolic see on 2 January 1346. Some members of the convent, supported by Edward III and the Black Prince, petitioned to have the exemption revoked.?® That was the state of affairs in 1349 when a vacancy in the abbacy resulted in the election of Richard de Seynesbury.?’ Since the exemption was still in force, he had to have the confirmation of the pope. The English government refused to allow him to go to the papal court. He, therefore, received confirmation from the archbishop of Canterbury, and then petitioned the pope for rehabilitation and papal confirmation. Clement VI, in answer, delegated his authority of confirmation to two English bishops, in 1352.?° “The abbot was not required to pay the services, possibly because the king opposed the exemption.

Further petitions finally resulted in the revocation of the exemption in 1363.*° In the same year, before the exemption ended, Thomas Newport

*° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 677-79. | 0 Ibid., pp. 464, 681. ** Below, App. II.

* Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 89-90. 23 CPL. IV, 32. ** Chron, Abbatiae de Evesham, p. 297, Harl. MS. 3763, fo. 178V. ° Chron. Abbatiae de Evesham, pp. 299, 303-04. *° Above, pp. 57-58.

*" Dugdale, Monasticon, I, 374.

CPL. Ill, 468; C.P.P., I, 354.

*° Above, p. 58.

The Service Taxes 173 was provided to the abbacy of the house.®° He paid the common service, which was set at 500 florins, and the petty services.21 The revocation of 1363 was annuled and the original exemption of 1346 was restored in 1392 by Boniface [X.*? The two abbots who were elected between the revocation and the restitution of the exemption®® did not pay services. ‘Thomas Erdeley, who was the first abbot elected after 1392, was confirmed by the pope in 1415 and pledged himself to pay the services. Thereafter the successive abbots paid the services regularly.** The statement of Peter Griphus, who was papal collector from 1508 to 1511, that the census of £6 13 s. 4 d., which was owed once every three years after the exemption,*° had superseded the common service of 500 ducats, which had been paid to the papal camera at the time of a vacancy of the abbacy before the exemption,*® is erroneous. The services were paid as the result of the papal confirmations of the elections made necessary by the exemption. Another English abbot who was required to pay the services was Simon,

the abbot of Bourne. He was confirmed by the pope in 1335 after the appeal of a disputed election. Why he was made responsible for the payment is not explained in the available documents. Perhaps the case was decided in consistory. The incident established no permanent liability for the payment of services by abbots of the monastery, since none of them was again confirmed or provided by the pope until 1513. In that year the pope granted the abbacy to the bishop of Lydda to be held in commendam and he paid the services. ‘The payment of 1335 had no value as a precedent, because the common service in 1513 was higher than that of 1335.9" The payment of services for abbacies held in commendam seems to have

begun in the fifteenth century. The rule was that a bishop who held a monastery in commendam or a bishopric in administration in addition to the bishopric which he held by title should pay services for the additional church.3* No examples of either are found in England before the fifteenth century. Of bishoprics held in administration there were only two, Ely in 1437 and Bath and Wells in 1518. More monasteries were held in com°° C\P.L., IV, 70. He was blessed by the pope on 25 March: Dugdale, Monasticon, U, 374. The exemption was revoked on 23 May. ** Below, App. IL. *? Above, p. 58.

°° Dugdale, Monasticon, I, 374. ** Below, App. II. John Birchensham, who paid services in 1494, seems to have been the last canonical abbot before 1534. He was ousted for a time by two successive abbots

who appear to have held the office irregularly between 1511 and 1530. In the latter year John was restored. He remained abbot until he died in 1537: Dugdale, Monasticon, II, 374-75. °° Above, pp. 57-59. 86 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 48. ** Below, App. II. °° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 45-47; Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 293.

174 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

mendam, but the practice did not begin in England until 1472, and the number so held remained comparatively small.*° Bishops were sometimes

allowed to hold in commendam churches which were not episcopal or abbatial, but from these annates, and not services, were due. In 1505, for example, Robert Sherborn was provided to St Davids and permitted to hold in addition the archdeaconry of Buckingham and the hospital of Holy Cross in Winchester. For them he paid annates.*® 3. EsTABLISHMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COMMON SERVICE

When a prelate was required to pay the services, it was necessary for the cameras to determine the amount of his common service. If none of the prelate’s predecessors had paid the services, the prelate’s gross income had to be assessed. The common service was intended to be one-third of such an assessment. For this purpose the value of a prelate’s income as stated in the

assessment for the payment of papal tenths was not accepted, but a new assessment was made. This was commonly done in one of two ways. The cameras might appoint a commission of local prelates to make a valuation and report their findings, or they might accept the estimate of the candidate.

If the latter alternative was followed, they might verify the estimate by seeking information of any witnesses likely to have a knowledge of the facts whom they found at the papal court. By the time of John XXII, once the value of an episcopal or abbatial income had been established, the common service was subsequently determined by reference to the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers, which contained the amount of the common service pledged and paid by the predecessors of the candidate.*? In the second half

of the fourteenth century the clerks of the camera compiled a Liber taxarum in which the common services of all the consistorial benefices previously assessed. were listed under the ecclesiastical provinces. Additions of consistorial benefices newly assessed from time to time caused new editions

to be made thereafter. Even after the Liber taxarum had been compiled the clerks might consult also the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers.** The usage may be illustrated by the pledge taken by John Harewell on 30 January 1367, after he had been provided to Bath and Wells. He agreed to pay 4300 florins for the common service with the proviso that the amount would not be binding unless it was found in the obligations of his predecessors to be what they had paid.** Apparently the bishop had not informed °° Below, App. II. *° Lincoln, Reg. Smith, fo. 297. ** Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 467-70; Papal Revenues, II, 260-63. ““ Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 87; Il, 280-83, 285-86; Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 85-92. 48 Ob. 36, fo. 176¥.

The Service Taxes 175 his proctor, John Stratford, who took the obligation, of the amount of the common service for Bath and Wells, and the proctor consequently secured

the introduction of the saving clause. The clerks of the camera were doubtless willing to grant the proviso, because the sum which John Harewell’s immediate predecessor, John Barnet, had undertaken to pay in 1364 was 4300 florins.**

In 1327 the amount of the common service due from all the archbishoprics and bishoprics except five had been established.*® The common service for each of the five was determined the first time the see was filled by papal provision, translation or confirmation after 1327. The bishoprics, the dates and the amounts were Bangor 1357, 126 florins, Bath and Wells 1363, 4300 florins, Chichester 1362, 133314 florins, St Asaph 1346, 470 florins and Salisbury 1330, 4500 florins.** How the amount was established is not recorded in any one of the five instances.

The amount of the common service owed by five of exempt abbeys which paid them was settled before 1327.47 The amount of the common service of St Werburgh Chester does not appear to have been decided until 1363. When Richard de Seynesbury sought papal confirmation of his election,*® he sent the petition by a monk of his house, who, as his proctor, obliged him to pay the services. On 6 October 1351 the pope ordered Hugh Pelegrini, the papal collector, to inform himself of the value of the abbacy and to receive the personal obligation of the abbot for the services.*® The abbot did not pay services and the collector did not make the assessment. When the next abbot, Thomas Newport, on 5 July 1363, obliged himself to pay 500 florins for the common service, he had inserted in the obligation a protest that, since the monastery had not been otherwise assessed, the valuation of 500 florins was not to be prejudicial to the monas-

tery, if it should fall upon hard times.®° The clerks of the camera would not have admitted this protest, if the valuation of the monastery had been “4 Ob. 36, fo. 103°.

** Compare Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 478, n. 2, 678-81 with below, App. IL A bishop of Ely pledged 7500 florins, but the sum was reduced. In 1302 the smaller sum was accepted. In 1337 the amount was restored to 7500 florins and there it remained. A bishop of Lichfield pledged 3500 florins for common service in 1322, but that was overlooked in 1385, when a new assessment was made: above, p. 171; below, pp. 297-98. The pledge of the bishop of Norwich, who promised in 1325 to pay a common service of 5000 florins is in Ob. 6, fo. 49V. ** Below, App. II.

“" Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 467-68, 678-81. The common service of Bury was 500 marks, or 2500 florins, from 1302. The payment of 600 marks in 1313 included 100 marks of private service: the late Professor Alfred H. Sweet brought this to my attention. *“Above, p. 172.

“Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 273-74. °° Ob. 36, fo. 647.

176 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 established a few years before. The protest also implies that the assessment

of 1363 rested upon an agreement between Thomas Newport and the camera without any formal inquiry at Chester. In 1415, the next time the services became due, the abbot committed himself by his proctors to the payment of 500 florins ‘ad quod ipsum monasterium taxatur.’ *! That remained the amount of the common service thereafter.

4, Tue Petry Services The amount of the five petty services, unlike that of the common service, was not specified in the obligation. Until 1470 the value of one petty service was the same as the portion of the half of the common service paid to the college of cardinals which was received by each cardinal. The amount of that portion was established by dividing the half of the common

service by the number of cardinals who were present at the papal court at the time of the promotion.” Each cardinal present was entitled to an equal share. The method may be illustrated by an explanation which John Trefnant had recorded in his register, when he was provided to Hereford in 1389. Hereford was assessed at 1800 florins. At the time of his promotion fifteen cardinals were present at the court. The college received 900 florins, of which each cardinal was entitled to 60 florins. The amount of one petty service was therefore 60 florins. For the five services the bishop owed 300 florins, making his total obligation for services 2100 florins.°* Since the number of cardinals present at the court varied from one time to another, the amount of the petty services varied. The more cardinals present the less the petty services would be. Hereford also illustrates well the extent of the variation of a petty service from one time to another. One petty service was 36 florins in 1344, 56% in 1361, 90 in 1404, 50 in 1420, 69 11s. 6d. in 1421, 90 in 1448, 50 in 1450 and 60 in 1453.°*

On 23 November 1470 Pius II decreed that each petty service thereafter should be calculated as if fourteen cardinals had been present, making the petty service the fixed amount of one-fourteenth of a half of the common service.”> In 1474 one petty service for Hereford was accordingly 64 florins 14s. 6 d.*° 51 Ob. 56, fo. 173%.

Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 89; II, 246; Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 158-59. Previously I thought it was the number present at the time the obligation was taken, but the time was when the promotion was made in consistory: Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), pp. 8-9; Ob. 51, fo. 31%, 37, 56 and passim. °° Reg., pp. 8-9.

°¢ Clergeac, La Curie, p. 159, Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 290. °° Below, App. II. °° Below, App. II.

The Service Taxes 177 Though four of the petty services were paid to the camera of the pope and one to the camera of the cardinals, neither camera used these receipts for ordinary expenditures. Of the four received by the papal camera, one was divided among the officials of that camera and the other three were divided among a large number of specified papal officials and servants. The one received by the camera of the college similarly was divided among certain officials and servants of the college.®’ They constituted part of the income of a large number of members of the papal court.** 5. OBLIGATIONS TO Pay Services TAKEN BY ENGLISH PREDATES

After the candidate for an archbishopric, bishopric or abbacy had been approved in consistory, he had to obtain the bulls of provision, translation or confirmation. Before they would be delivered to him, he had to sub-

scribe by oath to abide by the terms of a written obligation to pay the common service and the five petty services within a given period stated in the document. In the obligation he promised to give the services gratefully, freely and willingly, although he pledged his goods and those of his church

or monastery for their payment at the prescribed time or times. He also agreed, if he failed to keep the terms of the obligation, to accept the jurisdiction of the camerarii of the pope and of the college of cardinals, to appear

before them within four months, to remain at the Roman court until payment had been rendered in full and to accept the penalties of suspension from administration of spiritualities and temporalities, the greater excommunication, interdict of his church and such more serious sentences as the camerarii might impose. The statement that the services were a free gift

was so obviously in conflict with the rest of the document that some cardinals who considered reforms during the pontificate of Martin V (1417-31) suggested that the equivocation should be removed from the formula.°® The suggestion had no effect, and the fundamental provisions of the obligation remained unchanged.*° During the fourteenth century many English prelates went to the papal °* For lists of those who shared in the division at different periods and how much each received see Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 160-62; Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 245-49. 58 In 1369 Urban V ordered that members of his household who were accustomed to receive part of the distribution of petty services should receive them whether they were

present or absent on the day when the division was made. Each for the time when he had been present: Col. 353, fo. 158V. °° Clergeac, La Curie, p. 32.

°° Ibid., pp. 96-97. The obligation taken by Thomas de Colewell, the elect of St Augustine Canterbury, on 21 October 1348, provides an example: Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 274-75. Another obligation dated 1385 is given in full in Addit. MS. 7096, fo. 160-160¥. The obligationes are summarized in the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers. For a typical entry see Richard d@Aungerville of Bury, Fragments, p. 9.

178 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 court and undertook their obligations in person. After the papacy returned to Rome in 1376, the number who appeared at the papal court decreased, and after 1431 the practice nearly ceased. Throughout the whole period the majority assumed the obligation by means of proctors. Proctors had to present a notarial instrument attesting their appointment for the specific purpose of binding their principal by the obligation and their powers had to be carefully defined. William Edington, the elect of Winchester, for example, on 26 December 1345 appointed as his proctors Elias Pelegrini, Simon de Sagio and Geoffrey Durgeys. They were authorized to promise that he would pay to the two cameras the common service and the accustomed petty services in amount and at times fixed by the papal camera, and to pledge his goods and those of his church under specified penalties which were those customarily named in the obligation.®* The officials of the camera were particular about the terms of such a document. If they were inadequate or unsatisfactory for any reason, the camera might require additional proctors, among whom were likely to be members of the papal court and representatives of banking firms who followed the papal court. They became sureties for payment of the services during a period given to the original proctor to obtain from his principal and to deliver to the camera a ratification of the obligation taken by him with defective powers.*? The officials of the camera were so insistent on this procedure that they required a relative of a bishop of Hereford, who took an obligation for the bishop, to provide sureties and obtain ratification, despite a papal order to accept the obligation. Proctors of English prelates were usually allowed a period of several months.®* Sometimes, indeed, the termination of the period coincided with the date when the first instalment of the services was due.** The bulls of provision were given to the

additional proctors with the understanding that they would not be delivered to the prelate until his ratification had been received by the camera. If the ratification was produced on time, the original proctor and the additional proctors were released from their responsibilities. If it was not forthcoming, the original proctor was subject to excommunication and fine, and 6°2 Inst. Misc. 1692. A similar instrument, which Adam Orlton, translated to Winchester in 1333, had executed is Inst. Misc. 1260. Other examples are William Whittlesley translated from Rochester to Worcester, 6 April 1364: Worcester, Reg. Whittlesey, fo. 2%; . Reg. Brian, II, fo. 11; John Chandler confirmed to Salisbury 1 April 1418: Reg. Chandler,

» "The entry in Ob. 14, fo. 17 concerning such an arrangement for ratification of the obligation of Simon Montacute, bishop of Worcester, in 1334 is quoted in full by Clergeac, La Curie, p. 215, n. 2. 25 May 1344: Ob. 6, fo. 215. 68 Fg. Ob. 16, fo. 94. * Fg. Ob. 48, fo. 1277,

The Service Taxes 179 the additional proctors became liable for payment of the services. If there

was reasonable excuse for the delay, an extension of time might be granted.® Beginning near the end of the fourteenth century, the proctor sometimes provided bankers who either paid or guaranteed payment of the services and was thereby exonerated from further responsibility. In the course of the fifteenth century this practice became customary. Several English prelates were required to ratify the pledges taken by their proctors. On 10 January 1334 Andrew Sapiti, who was the royal proctor at the papal court and who frequently acted as proctor for English prelates seeking bulls of provision, obliged John Stratford, who had been translated from Winchester to Canterbury, to pay the common service of 10000 florins and the five petty services, one-half at the next Michaelmas and one-half at the following Easter. He and several members of the banking firm of Peruzzi guaranteed that the archbishop would ratify the obligation. The ratification was delivered on 18 February 1334.* The proctors of Michael Northburgh, who was provided to London in

1353, and of William Whittlesey, who was translated to Canterbury in 1368, had to promise to obtain ratification within a definite period, but they were not required to obtain the surety of additional proctors. The probable reason was that one of the two proctors, who in each instance pledged themselves and their goods for the payment of the services, was a member of a cameral banking firm. Anthony Malabaila was proctor for Michael Northburgh and Roscellus de Stetis for William Whittlesey. Michael Northburgh appeared in person at the papal camera and ratified the agreement of his proctors and promised for himself. The only proctor who suffered a penalty as the result of making an obligation for a principal without adequate procutorial authority was John Trefnant. He was an auditor of causes in the sacred palace, who was provided to Hereford in 1389. On 2 May he pledged himself personally for his own services. ‘Iwo days later he obliged himself and his goods for the services of St Davids, to which John Gilbert had been translated from Hereford, unless he procured a ratification by John Gilbert before Easter 1390, when the first instalment was due. The ratification was produced on °° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 62-68, 214-16.

°° Ob. 16, fo. 8%, 10. Other proctors who had to secure ratification and received it in time were those for Simon Montacute, Worcester, 1334 (Ob. 14, fo. 17); William Wykeham, Winchester, 1367 (Ob. 36, fo. 186%); Roger Whelpdale, Carlisle, 1420 (Ob. 58, fo. 142); and Thomas Spofford, Hereford, 1422 (Ob. 58, fo. 216%). The outcome of the attempt of the proctors of Thomas Arundel, provided to Ely in 1373, and of Richard Medford, provided to Chichester in 1389, to obtain ratifications is not stated in the registers: Ob. 35, fo. 178%; Ob. 48, fo. 1279. °7 Ob. 22, fo. 168¥-69; Ob. 36, fo. 208.

180 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 15 December 1389,°° and before that date John Gilbert had already paid all the services due the cardinals.®® Nevertheless, John Trefnant incurred

the sentence of excommunication, from which he was released by the camerarius of the papal camera only on 4 January 1391, after John Gilbert had completed payment of the services due that camera.’° Why he should have been penalized when the ratification was delivered well within the prescribed term is not apparent.

Thomas Brantingham, who was provided to Exeter in 1370, met a severe requirement which he must have found somewhat amusing in view of its sequel. The proctors who on 3 July undertook his obligation for the common service of 5000 florins and for the five services were four English

prelates. “wo were archdeacons, one was dean of a cathedral and one was a canon. Despite this imposing array of local talent, Roscellus de Rocel-

lo, who was a merchant attached to the papal court, pledged himself and his firm in the amount of 2000 florins to have a ratification before 1 Novem-

ber.“ After this meticulous care with regard to the bishop’s obligation, a careless blunder was made with regard to the payment of his services. On 31 January 1371 Thomas de Southam, archdeacon of Oxford (Oxoniensis) paid to the papal camera 900 florins for the bishop’s common service and 180 florins for his four petty services. The receipt issued to the bishop credited him with payment in full of his common service and four petty services owed to the pope.” In the margin of the cameral register it 1s noted that a mistake had been made in the names of churches. “The common service of Osma (Oxomensis) in Spain was 1800 florins, of which half was

owed to the pope, whereas Exeter (Exoniensis) in England owed 5000 florins. The payment made by Thomas de Southam should have been credited as part of the services due and not as the total. The bishop of Exeter, therefore, should be compelled to pay the balance due.”* This he did on 22 July 1373.™ The proctors whom English prelates employed to make their obligations

were in the fourteenth century mainly English clerks. They were of all grades in the hierarchy from rectors of parish churches to bishops. When a bishop served in this capacity, he usually acted for some other bishop, when he went in person to make his own pledge. Simon Sudbury, when

Ob. 48, fo. he went to Avignon in 1361 to take his obligation for his provision to London, acted as proctor for William Whittlesey who was provided to Roches°° 5 October 1389: Ob. 47, fo. 77. 7 Arm. XXIX, I, fo. 239¥. 1 Ob. 36, fo. 2439. 2 Ob. 39, fo. 102; Reg. Brantyngham, I, 5-6.

73 Ob. 39, fo. 102. 74 Ob. 40, fo. 1127.

The Service Taxes 181 ter and for Roger Cradock who was translated to Llandaff.7> Sometimes a proctor of lower rank acted for more than one candidate.7* A frequent practice was to utilize members of the papal court. In 1353 Richard de Sancto Claro, a servant at arms of tlie pope, acted as proctor for John Sheppey provided to Rochester.” This use of a layman who was not a banker

was exceptional. From 1385 to 1388 John Clifford, John Trefnant and Henry Godbury, all of whom were auditors of causes in the sacred palace, became proctors for English prelates,"* and between 1395 and 1399 Richard

Young, who was an auditor,’ and John Frances, who was a writer of apostolic letters *° served in a similar capacity. Richard Young, when he was provided to Bangor in 1399, had a fellow auditor, John Prene, for his proctor.** William Strickland, provided to Carlisle in 1399, and Richard Clifford, provided to Bath and Wells-in 1400, had for their proctor Baldazare Cossa, who was then a chamberlain and influential adviser of Boniface [X, and who later won notoriety as Pope John XXIIL*? A few other foreign clerks were named proctors by English prelates. Foreigners who were used more frequently were factors of Italian banking firms who had representatives at the papal court. In the middle years of the century they were associates of the firm of Malabaila,** and in the last years of the

firm of Manninin.** A prelate usually appointed only one proctor, but several appointed from two to five.

During the fifteenth century and the early years of the sixteenth the proctors whom the English prelates employed to attend to their obligations

for the services continued to be in majority English clergymen, but the minority of foreign clerks and Italian bankers became much larger than it had been in the fourteenth century. The use of English clerks who held positions in the papal court increased to about 1455, but decreased thereafter. Among those who acted as proctors for arranging the obligations were John Ixworth,** John Catterick *® and John Tybbort,*” who were 78 Ob. 35, fo. 10-11%, 20. Other examples: 1394-95, John Trevor for himself St Asaph, proctor for Edmund Lacy Exeter: Ob. 48, fo. 203%; 52, fo. 73; 1395 Andrew Baret for himself Llandaff, for Tideman of Winchcombe Worcester: Ob. 48, fo. 215-216. 76 E.g, John Risam, archdeacon of Northumberland, took the pledge for Roger Walden provided to Canterbury and Guy Mona provided to St Davids: Ob. 52, fo. 110%, 113¥. 7 Ob. 22, fo. 1359. 78 Ob. 48, fo. 55, 72%, 105-105¥, 106.

7° Ob. 48, fo. 216. °° Ob. 48, fo. 228%; 52, 1107. 81 Ob. 52, fo. 144¥. ®2 Ob. 52, fo. 147, 161. ®2 Ob. 14, fo. 121; 22, fo. 27%, 168¥. ®4 Ob. 48, fo. 224, 229%; 52, fo. 102, 113%, 122.

85 1406-22: Ob. 57, fo. 138, 147-48, 1697; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1830, fo. 2%; Ob. 60, fo. 26. 86 1413: Ob. 56, fo. 139.

87 1421: Ob. 58, fo. 193. |

182 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 referendarii in the chancery, John Blodwell,®® John Rossel ®* and Robert Sutton °° who were abbreviators, John Cliderow ® and Richard Cauton,®” who were clerks in the apostolic camera, and Adam Moleyns ** and Thomas Hope ** papal chamberlains. There were three of whom each served more prelates in this capacity than any one of the preceding. John Forster, a writer of letters in the papal penitentiary, was proctor for five prelates between 1404 and 1426.°° His

contemporary, William Swan, a writer and abbreviator in the chancery, who transacted various kinds of business at the papal court for many Englishmen,°° signed as proctor the obligations of seven prelates.°” His knowl-

edge of the methods employed by the chancery and the camera in the transaction of such business was evidently respected. John Kemp, when he

was translated from Chichester to London in 1421, not only appointed William one of his proctors but also authorized him to use his discretion about paying one-half of the sum due the apostolic see in order to obtain the expedition of the bulls of translation.°* John Stafford, who was seeking papal provision to an English bishopric in 1424 and hoped to obtain Worcester, asked William to see that the bulls were not delayed. If he failed to receive Worcester, William was to try to get him Chichester or Hereford.*® Actually he was provided to Bath and Wells by the intercession of the king,?°° and William became one of his two proctors for taking the obligation.*°* Henry Sharp, a papal chamberlain, arranged for the obligations of five prelates between 1448 and 1453.*° In this period English prelates secured more frequently as proctors for

their obligations clerks who represented the king as proctors or orators. Andrew Oles or Holes, who was a papal subdeacon and a proctor of Henry V1 at the papal court,*®* undertook the obligations of six bishops between *8 1420-22: Ob. 56, fo. 173%; 58, fo. 149%, 180%, 193%, 216V. ®° 1422-26: Ob. 58, fo. 2177; 60, fo. 1517. °0 1433-38: Ob. 64, fo. 179%, 291Y.

°1 1422: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1832, fo. 1. °2 1443-46: Ibid., 1835, fo. 97, 97%, 102¥, 152, Ob. 64, fo. 353%.

°3 1435-36: Ob. 64, fo. 213%, 2417; 67, fo. 29.

®4 1455-72: Ob. 76, fo. 135; 84, 163; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1838, fo. 110. °° Ob. 56, fo. 156%; 57, fo. 120%; 58, fo. 35; 60, fo. 97%, 151V.

°° Jacob, “To and from The Court of Rome,” Studies... M. K. Pope. ®*7 1419-27: Ob. 58, fo. 182, 217%; 60, fo. 26, 122, 152, 152%; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1832, fo. 139%,

°° Cotton MS. Cleop. C. IV, fo. 159¥-60¥. °° Ibid., fo. 1687-69. 100 Ibid. fo. 174¥-75.

101 Ob. 60, fo. 122.

*°? Fondo Arch. di Stato 1836, fo. 32, 54, 162%; Ob. 76, fo. 104-104’. *°8 Correspondence of Bekynton, 1, 239-40; Proceedings of the Privy Council, IV, 281.

The Service Taxes 183 1433 and 1443.°°* Vincent Clement, likewise a papal subdeacon, a Spaniard whose ecclesiastical career was in England, became a proctor for the obligations of three prelates between 1440 and 1444, when he was acting at Rome as the proctor of the same king.*°° William Gray, apostolic prothonotary, who was also the proctor of Henry VI at the papal court, performed a like service for three bishops between 1447 and 1450.1°° John Shirwood, archdeacon of Richmond, papal notary and the orator of Edward IV, between 1480 and 1482, managed the obligations of four bishops, among whom was Lionel Woodville, bishop of Salisbury, and brother-in-law of the king.'°7

Though English prelates continued to use English clerks for proctors from time to time after 1455, they employed foreigners more commonly. Among them were Frenchmen, Germans and Spaniards, but they were in the main Italians. Some of them were officials at the papal court. Such were John de Gerona 1° and Francis de Piscia,1°® writers, Thomasius de Thomasuis,**° abbreviator, and Poggio Gucii,""! a papal secretary who had resided for some time in England.*?? Throughout the period after 1400 factors and members of Italian banking firms at the papal court commonly became proctors for the obligations of English prelates.* The trend during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was to select as proctors for arranging the obligations royal agents at the papal court, officials of the court and bankers attached to it. This practice may have been due in part to the desire of the cameras to have proctors of these types,*** but the better service which such proctors could render on account of their familiarity with the transaction of business at the court probably was a factor in their selection. On rare occasions the camerari allowed the obligation to be taken outside of the papal court. When it was necessary to assess the value of the annual income of the prelate before the amount of the common service could be established, the camerarii might appoint a commission of local ecclesiastics for the purpose and authorize them, after the valuation had been made, to have the prelate undertake an obligation, which was for104 Ob. 64, fo. 291%, 294v-95"; 70, fo. 98; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1835, fo. 61, 86’. 105 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1835, fo. 19, 1027; Ob. 64, fo. 353V. 196 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1835, fo. 180%; Ob. 76, fo. 27, 66. 107 Ob. 84A, fo. 82-82%, 1087.

198 1472-76: Ob. 84, fo. 163, 280.

108 1530-31: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1843, fo. 179; 1844, fo. 149; 1845, fo. 19. 1101500: ibid., 1841, fo. 777. 111 1427: Ob. 60, fo. 1987.

“4? Poggius, Epistolae, I, 48-49, 52, 54-55, 58.

8 Below, App. II. *' Clergeac, La Curie, p. 57.

184 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 warded to the apostolic camera.'!® While this was the most common reason for such procedure, it was not the only one. On 15 December 1372 the papal camera recorded the receipt of a document drawn up by Richard de Croxton, a notary of the diocese of Ely, dated 22 December 1371, in which Nicholas Morris, who had been provided to Waltham on 17 November 1371,''® promised to pay a common service of 480 marks and the five petty services.’*” The reason for this departure from the norm is not stated in the entry, but it was not on account of a new valuation, since the common service of Waltham had been 480 marks since as early as 1303.

The reason why John Tymworth, abbot of Bury St Edmunds, was permitted to take his obligation in England is explained in a letter which the camerarius of the college and the treasurer of the apostolic camera wrote to the bishop of London on 6 January 1385. They said that Urban VI, after an abbot provided by him in 1379 had been opposed both by the monks of Bury and by the king, withdrew the provision and authorized the monks to elect an abbot. The bishop was to act for the pope in confirming the election, but before doing so, he was to have the elect oblige himself for the common and petty services according to the form sent with the letter. After the abbot had been pledged, the bishop was to send the obligation to the camera as soon as possible.*’® As a further guarantee for the execution of the obligation the bulls notifying the king and the tenants of Bury of the papal confirmation were held back until the obligation had been received by the camera.*’® 6. TERMS OF THE PAYMENT OF SERVICES UNDERTAKEN IN THE OBLIGATIONS

The obligation required the payments of the services to be made direct-

ly to the cameras of the pope and the cardinals. The papal collector in England could not receive such payments, unless he was authorized by the pope or by one of the camerari to do so in an individual case. Such direc-

tives were rare.” Each prelate contracted in his obligation to pay his common service and petty services at a definite time in the future. In the fourteenth century almost invariably the payment was to be made in two instalments, each of which was for one-half of the total. The prelates who undertook to pay the whole debt at one time were exceedingly few. The dates for future payments were fixed on holidays. When there were the 46 Ibid., pp. 80-82. 4° Papal Bulls 48/1. 117 Ob. 35, fo. 169¥.

118 A ddit. MS. 7096, fo. 159¥-60¥. See also Cotton MS. Claud. A. XII, fo. 129-38. 449 Arnold, Memorials, III, 132. For the significance of withholding the bulls see below,

P 8 Bg. C.P.L., III, 634; above, p. 175; below, p. 223.

The Service Taxes 185 customary two instalments, the holidays were arranged so that there was an interval of several months between the date of the obligation and of the first instalment and several more months between the first instalment and the second. During the first half of the century the most common intervals were approximately eight or nine months each. Occasionally the intervals were shorter. One, for example, was six months for each instalment. Sometimes the intervals were unequal, such as eight months and six months or seven months and five and one-half months. In few instances was the final instalment due in less than a year from the obligation, and usually it was due in a few months over a year.

Beginning at the time of the black death in 1348 and 1349, the length of the period before the final payment was commonly extended to the neighborhood of two years.’?? John Ufford, who was provided to Canterbury on 24 September 1348, was given a year and eleven months, ‘Thomas de Colewell, provided to St Augustine Canterbury on 3 October 1348, two years and a week, and Simon Langham, provided to Westminster on 26 July 1349, two years and three months. During most of the second half of the fourteenth century the longer intervals were the rule and the shorter intervals the exception. Even the shorter intervals generally gave a total from fourteen to eighteen months. This situation lasted until 1388 and 1389, the last two years of the pontificate of Urban VI, when a return was made to the shorter terms which had prevailed before 1349. The reason for the long terms is a subject for speculation. It is tempting to conjecture that the visitations of the plague in 1348-49 and 1361 may have created economic conditions which made it difficult for the prelates to obtain the cash necessary to meet their obligations. During the remaining years of the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth previous to the council of Constance the majority of prelates were assigned for the two instalments holidays which were within a year or within a year and a few months of the date of their obligations. A minority, however, still received a period which extended to the neighborhood of two years. The large number of prelates who sought postponement of one or the other of the dates when their instalments were due seems to indicate that the shorter intervals were an administrative change which was not entirely in accord with the economic situation. On the other hand, some prelates paid all or a large part of their services at the time of the obligation, or agreed to pay them within a few months of their obligations.

Another change with regard to the intervals at which payments were 121 An abbot of Waltham was given this longer period in 1345.

186 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 due, which became the standard practice during the pontificates of Martin V and Eugenius [V (1417-47), made a tentative appearance before 1417. This was to discontinue the use of holidays to designate the dates when instalments were due and to substitute periods each of an equal number of months. The last instance of the use of holidays, which I have noted, was in 1418. The new custom was to place the date for the render of the first half six months after the date of the pledge and for the render of the second half six months after the first instalment became due. Those were the terms set for a bishop of St Asaph on 28 March 1411, a bishop of St Davids on 9 May 1414 and a bishop of Bangor on 26 January 1418. After 1418 the practice became uniform with the exception that occasionally eight months were granted for each instalment and in one instance nine. The last example of a variation from six months, which has come to my attention, was on 12 August 1440. Thereafter until 1530 the instalments were always due at six and twelve months from the date of the obligation.?”” 7. BEGINNING OF A CHANGE FROM PAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS TO PAYMENT oF CasH ON DELIVERY OF THE BULLS OF PROVISION

IN THE TIME oF Bontrace [X

This innovation had hardly become established before a change in the method of making payments was begun which eventually rendered it a formality. A prelate who received two terms of a number of months each would nevertheless pay the whole of his debt on the date of his obligation

or within a few days of it. The payment was usually made by a banker , or firm of bankers who either had received the necessary funds in advance or would recover the amount subsequently from the prelate. Neither payment through bankers nor payment at the time of taking the obligation was new. Ihe former had been common since 1327, but precedents of significance for the latter were not established until the pontificate of Boniface IX. He instituted a policy of demanding cash on the delivery of the bulls

of provision. Dietrich von Niem, who was an abbreviator in the papal chancery at the time,’** said that Boniface LX required prelates to pay their services in advance. ‘The consequence, as he saw it, was that if they did not

have the cash, they had to borrow at interest from bankers at the papal court.*** This is probably a reference to a rule of the chancery put into effect by Boniface [IX on 31 December 1392. He ordered that no bishop or abbot promoted by the pope could be consecrated or blessed within or +2? Except as noted, this and the three preceding paragraphs are based on App. IL.

#28 Hofmann, Forschungen, I, 4; Jacob, Essays, pp. 26-27. |

124 Vita Jobannis XXIII, in von der Hardt, Rerum Concilii Constantiensis Corpus, Ml, 345-47; Robertson, History of the Christian Church, VU, 225.

The Service Taxes 187 without the papal court, unless previously the letter of provision had been expedited, sealed and registered in the chancery and expedited by the papal camera.**® ‘This has been interpreted to mean that before the final expedition of the bull the services must have been paid.**° This interpretation and Dietrich’s statement seem to contain some exaggeration as far as English prelates were concerned. Tideman of Winchcombe was provided to Llandaff on 13 October 1393 and was consecrated by the pope on the same day.’?7 When he was translated to Worcester on

2 June 1395 he still owed the major portion of the common service for Llandaff.*** Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, on 13 September 1395 had paid only 200 florins of 2500 which he owed the papal camera for his

| common service,’*? but he was consecrated on 20 June 1395.29 Guy Mona, who was provided to St Davids on 30 August 1397, was consecrated on 11 November 1397.**? On 11 September 1397 he paid part of his common service to the college, but he did not pay his common service to the pope until 20 December 1397.78? Henry Bowet paid 2000 florins of 2150

due the papal camera for the common service of Bath and Wells on 24 August 1401 and on 2 June 1402 paid only part of the remainder,'** but he was consecrated on 20 November 1401.1** Since they were provided, they were exceptions to the rule. Apparently the pope or the officials of the papal camera could waive the rule in individual instances. When bishops were translated, the rule did not apply, because they had been consecrated previously. Four bishops who were translated after 1392

did not pay their common services to the papal camera at the time when their obligations were taken. Nevertheless, many of the prelates who were translated were persuaded or compelled by other means to pay the common services when their obligations were taken. ‘Three bishops paid all the common service at that time, two paid all the common service owed the pope

but only part of that due the cardinals, and two who paid all the common service due the cardinals may have paid all due the pope. The lack of a record of the payment by these two of any of the papal share of their common services is due to the loss of the register in which their payments were entered. 7° Fubel, ‘Zum papstlichen Reservations-und Provisionswesen’, R.Q., VIII, 183-84. #27 Handbook of British Chronology, p. 199. 28 Ob. 48, fo. 2157. 129 CPL. IV, 292. +89 Stubbs, Registrum, p. 82. 181 Ibid., p. 83.

82 Ob. 55, fo. 57. 188 Ob. 55, fo. 236, 248.

84 Stubbs, Registrum, p. 84.

188 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Of those who received their bishoprics by papal provision, other than those previously mentioned, two paid all the common service due both pope and cardinals when they assumed their obligations, four paid all the pope’s share but not all the cardinals’ share, two paid the half owed to the cardinals and record of any payments to the pope is lacking, two paid the cardinals’ share by instalments and record of any payments to the pope is lacking, and three are without record of any payments.**° In view of the number of times a bishop paid the full amount of the papal share at the time of the obligation, and paid the college of cardinals by in-

stalments, extending sometimes over a considerable period, the question arises whether the rule applied only to the portion of the common service due the papal camera. Since it was the papal camera which expedited the bulls, that may have been true. It may mean, on the other hand, only that the camera of the college was more lenient in enforcing payment before the bulls were delivered to the prelates. The rule did not apply to the petty services. ‘hey were sometimes paid at the same time as the common service, but frequently payment of them was delayed until later. The large number of prelates who paid at the time of the obligation all the common service or all of it due either the pope or the cardinals marks a complete departure from previous practice. Between 1327 and 1392 only four English prelates made payments on their services when they undertook their obligations, though several of them attended to their obligations in person. Three of the four paid only instalments. The fourth, William Colchester, abbot of Westminster, in 1387, paid all the common service of the cardinals and may have paid that of the pope. Otherwise the policy of Boniface IX was entirely new. The change did not take place in England without comment. In a statute enacted by parliament in 1404 it was said to be a new custom that the whole of the common and petty services, or the greater part, should be paid beforehand.**® 8. ASSIGNMENTS BY URBAN VI anp Boniface [X ON THE SERVICES Ow_ep BY ENGLISH PRELATES

Both Urban VI and Boniface [X anticipated the dates when payments of services owed by English prelates were due by means of assignments. On 8 August 1388 the pope ordered Thomas Arundel, archbishop of York, to pay 2000 florins to Dinus de Guinisiis or to his associates in London. 185 This and the preceding paragraph are based on App. II. 186 The statement is in the preamble. The statute states further that the amounts paid to the camera for services were treble, or at least double, what was accustomed of old time and forbids the payment of greater sums than before: Statutes of the Realm, Il, 148-49. It is a misdirected piece of legislation, because the alleged increases had not been made.

The Service Taxes 189 The merchants were acting as receivers for John Clifford, treasurer of York, and John de Babinglee, rector of Brantingham. John Clifford, on 13 July 1388, had acted as one of two proctors to undertake the obligation of the archbishop.**" The instalments were due on 2 F ebruary and 29 September, but the two Johns on or before 8 August 1388 had paid 2000 florins for part of the services of the archbishop. ‘The camerarius had issued an acquittance to the archbishop for that sum,'** which presumably had been given to the two clergymen who made the payment. They were said to

have used their own money for it, but probably they had borrowed the money from the Guinisii and were only technically the payers. The acquittance must have been transferred to the bankers to enable them to collect the money. By this process the pope arranged for the reimbursement of the payers. On the same date under similar conditions mandates were issued to the bishop of Durham for 2000 florins and to the bishop of Bath and Wells for 1000 florins.?°° Boniface IX resorted to this practice several times. On 1 May 1396 he assigned to John Christofori of Lucca 1400 florins which he had paid from his own money to the papal camera on that day for part of the common service of Richard Medford, bishop of Salisbury. The merchant received the letter of acquittance to the bishop to be delivered only when he, or his

brother Angelus, dwelling in London, had received payment from the bishop. As further insurance for the payment, Boniface [X added to the process a letter ordering the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Lichfield and London to compel the bishop of Salisbury to make the pay-

ment.**° [his arrangement anticipated all but 100 florins of the common service, which was due by the terms of the bishop’s obligation one-half on 15 August 1396 and one-half on 27 March 1397.**? On the same day in the same manner the pope assigned to Peter bishop of Dax, his camerarius, 733% florins which he had advanced for part of the

common service owed by Robert Waldby, bishop of Chichester, to the pope and the college. On 8 May 1396 a similar assignment was made on Tideman of Winchcombe to the four clerical proctors who had paid to the papal camera 950 florins of the bishop’s common service.**” ‘Three years

later, on 26 August 1399, Thomas Poo and Walter Kyng, merchants of London, paid 300 florins more of Tideman’s common service, for which 187 Ob. 48, fo. 106.

188 CPL, IV, 268-69. 189 CPL. IV, 269. 40 CPL. IV, 298. 141 Ob. 48, fo. 221.

142 CPL. IV, 296-97.

190 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 they were to be reimbursed by Tideman.*** Thomas Poo performed a like service for Henry Bowet, bishop of Bath and Wells, in 1402.1*4 In 1398 members of the firm of Alberti Antiqui paid the common service owed the

pope by Richard le Scrope, archbishop of York, and Bernard de Rubeis paid part of his common service due the college. Both used their own funds

to make the payments and were to recover their expenditures from the archbishop.**°

It was not new for a banker to render payment of the services of an English prelate at the papal court and to collect from the prelate afterward. On 11 November 1334 Alexander de Bardes and Franciscus Grandonis,

merchants of the Society of Bardi, issued an acquittance at London to Simon Montacute, bishop of Worcester, for £186 13 s. 4 d. brought to them by John Smale, clerk. ‘This was reimbursement for payments made by them the preceding Michaelmas to the pope and the cardinals for the bishop’s

services.'*° The payment to the pope had been 500 florins for common service and 90 florins 11 s. 914 d. for four petty services.1*7 The payment to the cardinals was likewise somewhat more than 500 florins, though less than that to the pope.*** In the cameral register it is noted that the payment

was rendered by the Bardi, but not that it was made in advance of their receipt of the money from the bishop. There may, therefore, have been other transactions of the sort, of which no record appears in the cameral registers. In an Introitus and Exitus Register it is stated that on 26 May 1352 Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, paid to the papal camera 1040 florins for the services of his predecessor by the hands of Archarius and Ugnetus Malabaila, who used their own money for the payment.**® This type of entry is very rare before 1388. Indeed, the record of this same payment by Simon Islip in the Obligationes and Solutiones Register does not

mention that the firm made the payment from its own money.*°? What appears to have been new about the assignments of this type issued by Urban VI and Boniface [X was the manner in which the pope intervened to help the proctors recover from English prelates the money which they had advanced to pay the services of the prelates. These two popes also made assignments on services owed by English 148 Ob. 55, fo. 120V. 144 Ob. 55, fo. 236.

145 Ob. 55, fo. 74; 59, fo. 109. *#° Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 9. 147 Ob. 13, fo. 105.

48 Based on the supposition that the rate of exchange was 40 d. for the florin. The next year the Bardi paid 1120 florins for the final instalment of the bishop’s services, and presumably they paid the same amount for the first half: Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 9v. *49 Mohler, Einnabmen unter Klemens VI, p. 297. 150 Ob, 26, fo. 208.

The Service Taxes 191 prelates to satisfy some of their creditors. On 5 August 1388 Urban VI authorized Dinus and Michael de Guinisiis and their fellows of Lucca to collect in England from the common services owed by the archbishop of York and the bishop of Durham 6000 florins. From this sum they were to take rermbursement for what they had paid for the carriage of the effects of the pope from Perugia to other places. The merchants were to issue acquittances, which presumably would be honored by the papal camera. The archbishop and bishop were notified by letters of the same date. On 22 September 1388 he ordered the archbishop of York and three bishops each to pay 1000 florins to another firm for a debt owed to it by the papal camera. The payments were to be credited on the common service which each prelate was pledged to pay.**" Boniface LX on two occasions ordered his collector in England, James Dardani, to compel English prelates to pay to him parts of what they owed

to the papal camera for the common services of themselves or of their predecessors. In 1392 he was to obtain from the archbishop of York 3650 florins, the bishop of Ely 1000 florins and the bishop of Llandaff 357 florins. Acquittances for these sums under the seal of the camerarius were forwarded to him. The money was to be delivered to Lazarus Francisci of the Guinisii to meet part of a debt of 10734 florins owed to the firm by the

camera. In 1396 four bishops were ordered to pay from their common services 1000 florins to the collector, who was empowered to give acquittance.*°* What he was to do with the money was not specified. An assignment on the services of the bishop of Exeter was more complicated. On 13 September 1395 Boniface [X authorized Nerotius de Albertis and his associates to recover a loan of 1000 florins which they had made to the camera from the common service owed to the camera by the bishop of Exeter. ‘The bishop had paid only 200 florins and was bound to pay the balance of 2300 florins, part on Christmas 1395 and part on Christmas 1396.*°* His proctors John ‘Trevor, bishop of St Asaph, and John Parch, rector of Withington, became involved, because they had guaran-

teed the payments. If the bishop did not pay the merchants, they could collect from the guarantors. If the thousand florins were not paid to the merchants by Christmas 1395, when the first instalment of the services was due, the abbot of Glastonbury was empowered to absolve the bishops and the rector from the sentences and penalties for breach of the obligation and to give them dispensation from irregularities after the payment was finally 181 O.P.L., 1V, 268.

52 C.P.L., TV, 282, 295.

**3 Obligation dated 23 January 1395: Ob. 52, fo. 73.

192 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

rendered. The abbot could also postpone payment of the balance of the first instalment owed to pope and cardinals.1*4

During the pontificate of Boniface [IX the college of cardinals also arranged to have some of the services owed to it by English prelates disbursed in England. Richard Medford, bishop of Chichester, on 8 January 1390 was credited with payment to the college of an instalment of 625 florins on his common service made by the hand of Damian de Cathaneis, knight of

Genoa and the marshal of the Roman court. The money, it was noted, was assigned in England at the order of the camerarius of the college.’”®

On 4 February 1390 the archbishop of York paid 1400 florins and the bishop of Ely 1500 florins as instalments on the common service which each

owed to the college. Both of these entries in the register are cancelled by strokes of the pen with the notation: “These moneys were not paid; therefore cancelled,’ but another note states that both prelates delivered the money in England and received acquittance there.°* To whom the payments were made 1s not stated, but, since they are said to have been rendered by Michael de Guinisus, they probably represented a debt which the camera of the college owed to that firm.

The assignments of both of these types represent an effort to obtain payments of some part of the services of prelates in advance of the dates on which payment had been pledged, or to satisfy papal creditors by committing to them in advance specific payments of services due at a later date. The policy probably stemmed from the financial difficulties caused by the schism. It was part of the same development that merchants, with increas-

ing frequency, paid to the camera of the pope or the college the whole or part of the common service at the time of the obligation and undertook to recover subsequently from the prelate what they had paid, even without a papal assignment.

After the pontificate of Boniface [X, the assignment to bankers who were creditors of the papacy of services owed by prelates was not uncommon,’*? but I have noted only one instance of such an assignment on the services of English prelates. On 12 June 1460 Pius II acknowledged a debt to the firm of Peter and John de Medicis. Two thousand florins were for a loan and 1250 florins for a tapestry purchased from them. He assigned to them in payment of the debt all money from services the payment of which or the expedition of bulls for which should be committed to them 156 CPL. IV, 292-93. 155 Ob. 47, fo. 83V.

+56 Ob. 47, fo. 86-86". These entries indicate that normally payments made in England on assignments were not recorded im the Solutiones Registers. It is, therefore, impossible to determine the extent to which such assignments were honored. **" Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 222-23, 267-71.

The Service Taxes 193 by their agents or by the agents of the societies of Gerocino Piglis and of the heirs of James de Salviatis dwelling in London, and also by the agents of the same or of other societies dwelling in Bruges.*°* There may have been other instances, but the use of this type of assignment did not become customary. 9, DEVELOPMENT OF THE PoLicy oF CasH ON DELIVERY OF THE BULLS AFTER THE PoNTIFICATE OF BoNnIFACE IX 1598

The successors of Boniface [X did not renew the rule of the chancery on which the immediate payment of all or a large part of the common service was based. Nevertheless, they found ways of obtaining immediate renders in many instances, in spite of the continuance of obligations which gave the payer the right to pay at two intervals of several months each. During the remainder of the period of the schism those records of obligations and payments which are sufficiently complete display a situation comparable to that in the time of Boniface IX. Four prelates paid all their common services when the obligation was taken or within a few weeks of it, two paid all the pope’s share and a large part of the cardinals’ share, one paid all the cardinals’ half with record of payment to the pope lacking and one paid

all the pope’s half with record of payment to the cardinals lacking. Only three paid all which they owed in instalments. Under Martin V the picture was different. Eight paid all their common services at the time of the pledge,**®” three paid all due the pope but paid the cardinals later, one paid all owed the cardinals, but paid the pope later, and one paid the pope in full and the cardinals in large part. These thirteen were outnumbered by nineteen who paid under the old system of instalments.

Beginning in 1431, with the pontificate of Eugenius IV, payment of both common and petty services at the time when the obligation was assumed became nearly the universal practice for the remainder of the period.

Later in the fifteenth century the rule was that the bulls of provision or translation would not be delivered to a prelate until the services had been paid. It was a simpler and more effective rule than that of Boniface IX. It may not have become a rule as early as 1431, but cash on delivery was the practice applied to English prelates from that year onward with few exceptions. *°° 158 CPL. XI, 404. +5ea Except as otherwise noted, this section (9) is based on App. IL.

5°» These include one who paid all within three months and one who pledged to pay in six months and did so. *#°'The bishop of London paid on that basis in 1431.

194 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 In 1436 exceptions were made for what may have been a deliberate experiment. In September and October Anthony de la Casa, a representative of the firm of the Medici, acted as proctor for the obligations of ‘Thomas

Bourchier translated to Ely, William Alnwick translated to Lincoln and Thomas Brouns translated to Norwich. The bulls of provision were given to the Medici, who did not pay the services of the three prelates immediately, but undertook to pay them within eight months or to return the bulls intact. The firm lent 1900 florins to each of the cameras on Lincoln and Norwich and 1000 florins on Ely to the camera of the college. “The money lent would be returned to them, if they brought back the bulls within the

required period. The Medici later secured an extension of the period for two additional months, but they did not need to use it except in the case of Ely. They delivered the money for the services of the other two bishops within eight months. The situation with regard to Ely became complicated. “Thomas Bourchier, after he had paid a large part of the services, had his translation withdrawn on or before 27 September. On that date Lewis of Luxemburg, archbishop of Rouen, was given Ely to hold in administration. On 9 October 1437 the Medici agreed to pay the common and petty services and any other rights owed both by Thomas and Lewis, or to return Thomas’s bulls of translation within eight months. In addition they promised to pay on demand three of the petty services, amounting to 1405 florins 25 s., due from Lewis, and they lent the camera of the college 2125 florins for part of the common service of Lewis. This contract with the Medici was cancelled

on 18 January 1438 by the camerarius at the order of the pope, because the bulls had been sent to the collector in England. Before that time, however, the two cameras had received one full common service and five whole

petty services, payment of which had been made in part by Thomas and in part by Lewis, and only one set of services was demanded of the two bishops. Thus a large part of the services were advanced to the cameras by the merchants before they were due from the bishops. The cameras also secured some of the money due from Lincoln and Norwich immediately and anticipated the remainder by at least eight months, since each bishop had been granted the right to pay the first half in eight months and the second half eight months later.*®*

This experience, which delayed for some months the payment of part of the services, apparently was not regarded as a success. The practice of giving the bulls of English prelates to bankers is not noted again in the cameral registers until 1470, when the Spinelli and the Pazzi paid the services of the abbot of Westminster within a few weeks of the date of the 161 Ob. 64, fo. 255, 260-61; 67, fo. 39; Arm. XXXIII, 11, fo. 86%; Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 253-55.

The Service Taxes 195 obligation.** Thereafter it became the standard practice, but the bankers paid all the charges before receiving the bulls, or paid a large part and promised to pay the remainder within a brief period. They were not given anywhere near eight months in which to pay in full.1® Though delivery of the bulls of English prelates to bankers between 1436 and 1470 is not noted in the cameral registers, it probably was a common practice in that period,*®* since the policy of payment before delivery was maintained. After 1431 the obligations of the prelates continued to allow them two intervals of six months in which to make their payments. It became so meaningless that the keepers of the registers of obligations after 29 October 1455 often omitted the clause in their summaries of the obligations, though not always.*® 10. Tue Procrors WHo RENDERED THE PAYMENTS AT THE Papat Court

English prelates rarely delivered their payments of services at the papal court in person. ‘The employment of proctors for that purpose was nearly universal.*®° Such a proctor received a notarial commission. One which John Grandisson, bishop of Exeter, had executed on 8 March 1329 appointed three English clergymen jointly or severally to render the sum of florins required for the instalments of his services due both cameras on 13 April. He authorized them to seek and receive for him the benefit of restitution and of absolution from sentences of suspension, excommunication and interdict, if it should be necessary, to take an oath on his soul, and to

do generally and specifically whatever else might be necessary in the premises.*®” A similar document in a formulary compiled at the monastery

of St Albans in the neighborhood of 1380 contains practically the same provisions, but it adds that the proctor is to obtain acquittances for the payments.*°°

The agents whom the English prelates employed to render their payments to the cameras were, in the fourteenth century after 1327, either other members of the clergy or bankers. About one-third of the payments recorded in the cameral registers were made by clergymen. Most of them were archdeacons, canons or rectors beneficed in England.**® Some were © Clergeac, La Curie, p. 215. *68 On the relationships of the bankers to the prelates see below, pp. 207-14.

** Delivery of bulls of prelates of other countries to bankers was common in the middle years of the century: Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 216-18. 165 Fg. Fondo Arch. di Stato 1837, fo. 96%; 1838, fo. 13%, 19-20, 110, 125¥. *°° Four exceptions were Chichester 1364 and 1421, St Asaph 1394 and York 1508: below, App. II. 187 Reg. Grandisson, I, 472-73.

*°8 Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Ee. IV, 20, fo. 93¥. 10° Fg. Ob. 13, fo. 142; 18, fo. 71; 21, fo. 70%; 34, fo. 24%; 39, fo. 352%; 59, fo. 115%; I. & E. 278, fo. 18.

196 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 monks,**® and some were designated only as clerks.'"! Officials in the papal

court were used frequently. Most of them were English and only a few were foreign. Among the Englishmen were Robert Stretton, auditor of causes in the papal palace, who acted for William Lynn, bishop of Chichester, and Simon Islip in 1363 and 1365,17? Thomas de Paxton, also an auditor, who rendered eleven payments for three English prelates between 1363 and 1370.*78 Laurence Child, a papal penitentiar, who was a proctor for Thomas Arundel, bishop of Ely, in 1373,1%* Henry Godbury, another auditor, who served in this capacity John Fordham, bishop of Durham and later of Ely, in 1386 and 1389,*7° and John Franceys, an abbreviator, who assisted bishops of Salisbury, Exeter and Ely in this manner in 1397 and 1400.17°

Approximately two-thirds of the payments of services of English prelates before 1401 were rendered by merchants who were bankers. They were Italians with one exception. In 1399 Thomas Poo and Walter Kyng, merchants of London, delivered a payment to the papal camera for the bishop of London.*** Until 1339 the Bardi of Florence were employed for the purpose most frequently by English prelates. The Peruzzi, the Alberti, and the Azayali, all of Florence, were used occasionally. All of these firms were used by the papacy for the transfer to Avignon of the funds assembled by its collectors in England.*** After 1339 it began to be apparent that the Bardi and the Peruzzi were becoming financially weak. Though they did not fail until 1346, Clement VI, in 1342, gave to the firm of Malabaila of Asti a monopoly of the transfer to the papal treasury of the money levied by the papal collectors in England. This was maintained throughout his pontificate and that of his successor Innocent VI (1342-62).*? During this period the Malabaila enjoyed nearly a monopoly on the delivery at the papal court of the payments of the services of those English prelates who utilized bankers for the purpose.**°

171 Fg, Ob. 32, fo. 94; 55, fo. 55; 59, fo. 103, 115°. 721. & E. 300, fo. 14%, 19%; Ob. 37, fo. 88. 173 & EF. 300, fo. 10¥, 13%; 311, fo. 12%; 318, fo. 8%; 321, fo. 23%; 325, fo. 12%; 327, fo. 126%;

331, fo. 36; 333, fo. 33%; Ob. 37, fo. 89, 146, 176; 38, fo. 6%, 46%, 91, 246, 314-3147; 39, fo. 81. 174 Ob. 40, fo. 262. 175 Ob. 47, fo. 27, 71. 178 Ob. 51, fo. 118, 124%, 156%; 59, fo. 92%, 96, 1297. *77 Above, p. 190.

*78 Renouard, Les Relations, pp. 130-38. 17° Ibid., pp. 205-07.

18° The few exceptions were Quentinus Lapi (Cantinus Lupi) in 1345 and 1346, Peter Massilii and companions in 1347, the Alberti Antiqui in 1354 and 1355, and Tancred

Francisci in 1356. All of them were Florentines. Ob. 21, fo. 16; Ob. 30, fo. 55%, 86%, 129%; Mohler, Einnabmen unter Klemens V1, pp. 128, 146.

The Service Taxes 197 After 1362 the Malabaila were no longer employed by English prelates

for the transmission of their services. For the remainder of the century they used a number of different firms for the purpose. They gave more of their business to the Alberti Antiqui than to any other firm,"*’ but several patronized the Strozzi of Florence to about 1375,1®? the Guinisii of Lucca from 1375 to 1400,'*8 and the Mannini of Florence in the closing years of the century.'** A few prelates were served by Nicholas Comitis *®° and by Matthew Clarum,'** both of Florence, between 1362 and 1365, by John Spiefamis of Lucca 8? between 1364 and 1375, by Andrew Thici *** of Pistoia after 1371, and by John Christofori of Lucca 1*° shortly before the close of the century. Each of a considerable number of bankers was used by only one or two prelates.’ In some instances payments of services are recorded in the cameral registers as made by a banker and a clergyman jointly. When John Grandisson paid his final instalment for Exeter on 27 March 1330, John Luterell

and Alexander Bardis of the Bardi made delivery to the papal camera, though Alexander alone was credited with the delivery to the camera of the college.*** In 1337 and 1338 Anthony Bek, bishop of Norwich, had one instalment paid by Roger de Stowe, a rector, and the society of the Bardi, another by the same proctor and the society of the Alberti and the final payment by the rector alone.*®? William Whittlesey, archbishop of Canterbury, rendered several payments in 1373 and 1374 by Richard Dray-

ton, a canon of Wells, and Francis Thici, a member of the society of Strozzi.‘°° A more complicated example is supplied by a payment made in behalf of Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, on 25 November 1396. Simon Magri’ Dini of the Alberti delivered 5330 florins 28 s., John Franceys, referendartus, and Walter Cook and Henry Hamerton, canons of Lincoln delivered jointly 2300 florins and Anthony de Manninis deliv**" Below, App. II. 182 Ob, 38, fo. 134; 39, fo. 148, 304%, 388; 40, fo. 104, 106%, 188, 239%; 41, fo. 155. 188 Ob. 43, fo. 10%, 18¥, 39%; 47, fo. 46%, 66%, 67-68, 76, 78%, 86, 86%; 59, fo. 49. **4T amb. Reg. Arundel, I, fo. 77, 8; Ob. 59, fo. 91-91%, 102, 108%, 110, 110¥.

185 Ob. 34, fo. 21, 121, 197, 209. *88 Ob. 34, fo. 24, 165; 37, fo. 58. He was associated with Ubertus Andree in two of his payments, and Ubertus made one delivery independently: Ob. 37, fo. 129V. 187 Ob. 37, fo. 26%, 30, 64, 91%, 103, 137; 40, 79V. 188 Ob. 39, fo. 132%, 304Y.

18° Ob. 55, fo. 99%; Ob. 59, fo. 49, 82%, 115. 190 Ob. 38, fo. 132%, 161%, 237; 39, fo. 226; 40, fo. 262; 43, fo. 7, 7%, 10%, 16; 47, fo. 74;

59, fo. 277, 52, 73, 82, 109, 116; I. & E. 344, fo. 116%. For the names of the bankers see below, App. II. *°t Reg. Grandisson, I, 489. 1°2 Ob. 13, fo. 142%; 15, fo. 68; 18, fo. 71. *°8 Ob. 40, fo. 102, 188; Col. 466, fo. 126’.

198 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ered 1000 florins.*°* Apparently he did not want to put all his eggs in one basket.

The trend toward the employment of bankers as proctors to attend to the payment of the services became stronger after 1400, though it did not become pronounced until after 1425. During the first quarter of the fifteenth century the proportion between clergymen and bankers remained about the same as it had been in the fourteenth century. The clerical proctors continued to be mainly English. Some of them and nearly all of the foreign clerics were officials at the papal court. There were still a few instances of joint payment by a clerical proctor and a banker. The merchants were Italians with the exception of Thomas Poo. The Alberti transacted much more of this business than any other firm. The Medici, who first acted in this capacity for an English prelate in 1415, were next in importance. The firm of the Bardi delivered seven payments, Anthony Jacobi and Doffus de Spinis, who were associated with the Alberti, six, Peter de Bardellis two and Philip de Alleis one. In one instance the Strozzi acted with the Albert1.1%°

After 1425 English prelates nearly ceased to use clerical proctors for the render of their payments of services. Between 1426 and 1435 only six proctors were clergymen, while twenty were merchants. Thereafter there is no record of payment by a clerical proctor until 15 December 1492, when

the bulls of provision of Thomas Savage to Rochester were delivered to Verius de Castellion, a clerk of Florence, because, after he had taken the obligation for the bishop, he paid his common service. In the Introitus and Exitus Register it is noted, however, that the money was delivered by the Ghinutii. During the remainder of the period after 1492 clerical proctors served English prelates occasionally for the render of payments. Few of them were English and most of them were Italian. After 1425 until 1436 the firms of the Alberti and the Medici shared the business of English prelates with approximate equality. Subsequently the Alberti dropped out, and the Medici had nearly a monopoly of such transactions until 1472. Philip and Charles de Luna and their partners, sometimes in association with the Bruni or the Strozzi, acted for six prelates between 1443 and 1452, Boromeus de Boromeis for three in the same period,

the Cambini for four between 1454 and 1458, the Spinelli for four and the Pazzi for two between 1445 and 1470, the Spanochi for two in 1460 and 1464, and the Martelli for one in 1472. After 1472 the Medici paid the services of only three or four English prelates. ‘The decline of their business

of this type was probably due to a break between Sixtus [V and Lorenzo 1°4T amb. Reg. Arundel, I, fo. 77-8. *°5 Below, App. II.

The Service Taxes 199 de Medicis, since the firm continued to be favored by English kings for the rest of the century."°® From 1473 to 1530 no one firm stood out as particularly favored above others. The firms, each of which served from three

to nine prelates, were the Spinelli, Gaddi, Sauli, Franciotti, Spanochi, Ghinuti, Grimaldi, Martelli and Altoviti. Each of a dozen or more other firms took care of the payments of one or two prelates.'*” 11. DirFICULTIES OF PRELATES IN MEETING THE PAYMENTS AT THE TIMES

: SET IN THEIR OBLIGATIONS

Many prelates found it difficult to meet their instalments at the dates when they had promised to pay them.'®® If a prelate foresaw the difficulty in time, he could ask the camera for a postponement of the date. Both cameras appear to have granted such requests freely. If a prelate was late , with a payment and had not obtained a delay, he suffered the penalties stated in the oath which he had sworn with regard to the payments. When such a payment was finally rendered, the prelate received absolution. In the period from 1328 to 1350 inclusive 47 prelates received office. Eight of them owed no services and record of the payments of one who

did is lacking. Of the remaining 38 prelates 12 rendered both of their instalments within the dates set for them in their obligations. The other 26 prelates were granted 31 extensions of time and received 6 absolutions. They were late with 20 further payments concerning which the registers note neither grants of delay nor grants of absolution. The total number of delays was thus 57.*°® The length of delays which were granted varied greatly, probably depending in part upon the length of time which a prelate requested. Most of them postponed the date of payment for several months. Periods from two to nine months were common. One soon after the black death was for thirteen months. Each of two bishops, however, was only a week late and another was only ten days behind time. During the quarter of a century from 1351 to 1375 the situation with regard to prompt payments deteriorated notably. Forty-six prelates became responsible for services. Only 5 of them delivered both instalments on time.

The other 41 prelates received 48 delays, were given 4 absolutions and rendered 33 late payments concerning which the registers record neither °° Ehrenberg, Capital and Finance, pp. 195-98, Pastor, History, IV, 293. 1°? This and the preceding paragraph are based primarily on App. HU. 18 Clergeac explains the reasons given for such delays by continental prelates: La Curie, pp. 151-56. Concerning English prelates the registers state merely that they were unable to pay on time. 19° These include the exceptional number of twelve delays and one absolution given to Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, who had to pay the services of himself and a predecessor from an income reduced by the black death: below, p. 227.

200 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 grants of delay nor grants of absolution. The total number of delayed payments was 85. The length of the period of delay also increased. A majority received delays varying from 2 to 9 months, the most common period being from 5 to 6 months. A large minority, however, received postponements from 1 to 2 years in length. Several of those who obtained an extension of a few months had to seek one or more further delays. The slowness of the payments in this period may be illustrated further by examples of specific prelates. Simon Sudbury, who became bishop of London in 1361, agreed to render the second half of his services on 1 November 1363. His last payment was made on 11 May 1364, and it was the sixth instalment which he had paid. William Whittlesey also undertook to complete the payment of his services for Rochester on 1 November 1363.

He required nine instalments, of which the last was not delivered until 20 April 1368. His situation was complicated by having to pay contemporaneously the services of Worcester to which he was translated in 1364. Henry Spenser, who was provided to Norwich on 3 April 1370, paid his tenth instalment of services owed to the papal camera on 8 February 1375 and still owed a substantial amount. All the instalments after the first were small sums. Evidently the prelates of this period encountered greater difhculties in raising the money for their services than had the prelates of the second quarter of the century. During the last quarter of the fourteenth century the number of prelates

who paid their services on time increased. This was due in part to the attempt of Boniface [X to obtain the render of all the common service at or near the time the pledge was taken.*°° The number of prelates who were granted postponements was less than in the preceding period, but the number of postponements they received was more. Fifty-one prelates became liable for the payment of services, but the records concerning the pledges or payments of ten of them are so incomplete that they have to be left out

of account. Seventeen of the remaining 41 paid all their services on or before the dates established for them.*°* Sixteen prelates were granted 62 delays. All except 4 received more than one grant and a few had a large number. Guy Mona, bishop of St Davids, was given 5 postponements, but his initial payment was made on 11 September 1397, the day after the date of his obligation, and his final payment on 7 April 1400. Robert Braybrooke, who was promoted to London on 9 September 1381, was conceded 8 postponements in the course of paying his own and his predecessor’s services, and on 16 October 1400 had not yet paid all that was due. John 2% Some who did not pay the petty services when they paid the common service are included, because the amount of a petty service had not been determined at the time.

The Service Taxes 201 Fordham, who was translated from Durham to Ely on 3 April 1388, was granted 17 delays and on 10 April 1406 had not yet completed his payments. There were at least 20 payments which were late without notation of the grant of a delay or of a penalty having been incurred, but only two prelates are recorded as having received absolution. The complete number of delays was 86. The length of the postponements continued to be long. Nearly a third were for a year or over, about one-half were from 4 to 11 months and a few were from 2 weeks to 3 months. Though more prelates in this period kept their contracts, a majority still found themselves unable to render all their payments when they fell due and some appear to have been in great financial difficulties.

The situation with regard to the render of payments improved somewhat during the first quarter of the fifteenth century. Fifty-three prelates pledged themselves to pay services, but, due mainly to the loss of some of the cameral registers of this period, the records of the payment of 15 of them are so incomplete that they have to be omitted from consideration. Of the other 38 prelates 17 kept the terms of their obligations.?°? Another 17 received the grant of 48 delays. There were nine late payments for which neither the grant of a delay nor an absolution from penalties was recorded. Six prelates were absolved and one of them was absolved twice. The whole number of delays was 64. The length of time allowed for a postponed payment was shorter. The common concession was from 3 to 6 months. None was more than a year and only 3 were that long. Although there was a general improvement in the general situation during this quarter of a century, there were still in the early years of it a number of prelates who were badly behind in their payments. This appears to have been common in the countries where the jurisdiction of the Roman popes was acknowledged. On 13 March 1407 Gregory XII gave warning and mandate to prelates who had not paid to the cameras what they owed for the common and petty services and for that reason had lain under sentence of excommunication for a year or more to make payment in full. Italians were to pay before 29 June, Ultramontanes before 1 November and English, Irish and Greeks before Christmas. Those who failed to obey would be deprived of office and the pope would proceed against them as suspected of heresy.*°? ‘To charge a person with heresy for failure to pay on time a debt owed to the pope or the cardinals was an extraordinary penalty. The normal penalties were heavy enough, but this was a climax. The pope ordered the mandate to be posted on the doors of St Peter’s and the papal palace, but did not send it to the debtors or have it published in 7°2 In two of these instances the petty services were late. 203CPI. VI, 95.

202 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the several countries. Several English prelates were more than a year late with their payments, but the record of postponements granted and of sentences of excommunication incurred is so incomplete that it is impossible to say whether any of them had been under the sentence for as long as a year. However that may have been, it may be regarded as reasonably certain that the decree was never enforced in England. Well before Christmas 1407 Gregory XII found himself fully occupied with the attempt to resist the pressure of public opinion for an end of the schism.?°* This outcome was fortunate for England. Enough heresy existed there without widening the definition of the offense. With the second quarter of the fifteenth century came a decisive change in the promptness with which payments were made. Forty-nine of 51 prelates who became liable for services paid them within the limits set by their obligations and most of them paid at the time their promises to pay were given.*°° John Lowe, bishop of St Asaph was late with his first instalment

and had to obtain absolution. George Penhurst, who was confirmed to St Augustine Canterbury only two years after his predecessor had completed payment of his services, was granted five delays, allowing him approximately 444 years to complete his payments. During the long period from 1451 to 1533, 155 prelates were promoted, of whom 9 owed no services. Concerning the payments of services by 20 of those who owed them the evidence is insufficient to indicate whether they were on time or delayed. In view of the stability of the practice of demanding either immediate payments or guarantee of early payment by merchants before the expedition of the bulls, the balance of probability

is that they were rendered promptly. Payments of only two prelates are definitely known to have been behindhand. The delays may have been the fault of the prelates or of the merchants. On 25 June 1478 the proctor of John Marshall, who had been provided to Llandaff, promised payment | of the services by his principal. On the next day the bulls of provision were

delivered to Taddeo de Gaddis. This act indicated ordinarily that the merchant had paid or promised to pay within a brief period the services of the bishop. Against this entry ‘solvit’ is written in the margin,?°* but the payment is recorded as rendered by the Gaddi on 8 March 1485.7°" The other instance also involved the firm of Gaddi. On 13 January 1482 Lionel Woodville, who had been appointed to Salisbury, gave his pledge for the 2°4 Above, p. 122.

*°5 Above, p. 193; and App. II. 206 Ob. 84A, fo. 39. 207 T, & E. 511, fo. 62.

The Service Taxes 203 services through a proctor. On the same day the bulls were given to Taddeo and ‘solvit’ was entered against the item.?°° On this occasion the apostolic camera received its share of the common service, which was 2250 florins,

from the society of Gaddi two days before the pledge was taken.?°? On 27 November 1483, however, the pope wrote to Edward IV, the bishop’s brother-in-law, stating that the bishop, though warned frequently, still postponed payment of 1000 florins owed his camera. He requested the king to induce the bishop to pay the debt to the Bardi in London.*!° This apparent discrepancy can be reconciled by the assumption that the Gaddi had

been able to recover only 1250 florins from Lionel and that the camera either had restored 1000 florins to the firm, or was claiming that a debt actually owed the merchants was owed the camera. Apparently the pope did not think it wise to use the ordinary procedure for the recovery of such a debt against a relative of the king by marriage. After 1431 the difficulties of prelates in meeting their obligations for services are no longer reflected by the entries made in the cameral registers. Whatever difficulties they may have experienced were with the merchants who paid their services. 12. Tue Use or Bankers By PRELATES FOR MAKING PAYMENTS OF THEIR SERVICES

Throughout the whole period from 1327 English prelates had to resort to bankers in order to meet their obligations to pay services at the papal court. Their relations with the bankers were affected by the regulation of the export of money and of the issue of letters of exchange or credit maintained by the English government. The export of money was prohibited. Prohibitions which had a temporary effect began as early as 1299.7" During the reign of Edward III the prohibition became permanent. In 1334 the commons petitioned the king to forbid the export of money on account of its great scarcity in the land. He replied that he would ordain a remedy by his council.?** The statute which resulted in 1335 provided that no religious man nor other man should carry any sterling, gold or silver out of the realm without a royal license.?"* Further prohibitions during the reign extended, supplemented and modified slightly the statute of 1335.7" 208 Ob, 84A, fo. 108V.

209 T, & E. 505, folio the number of which was not noted. 219 Arm. XXXIX, 16B, fo. 180v. *11 Schanz, Englische Handelspolitik, I, 506-07.

*? Rot. Parl. Anglie bactenus inediti, p. 237. 718 Statutes of the Realm, I, 273. *"* [bid., I, 299; Rymer, Foedera, Il, 728, C.P.R. 1374-77, p. 312.

204 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Officials were appointed at the ports to prevent violation by searching those who went abroad.?15

The attempt to keep money from leaving the realm soon led to control by the government of foreign exchange. The Italian merchants who issued

letters of exchange or credit and those who obtained such letters were required to have a royal license.?'® The letters of exchange which went to the papal court did not result ordinarily in the transfer of any money in the form of cash. The Italian merchants in England drew the letters on representatives of their firms stationed at the papal court who paid to the camera the sums which the merchants in England had recetved.?*” If the Italian merchants in England belonged to a firm which had no agents at the papal

court, they could draw on the agents of a firm with which they had arrangements for the transaction of such business.?8

The English system was more carefully defined by statute in 1381. Definite exception to the rule of no exportation was made in behalf of prelates, lords and others who had to make payments beyond seas. Such payments could be made in England to merchants who would arrange for the payments beyond seas by letters of exchange. As before, both the payer and the exchanger had to have a royal license.?** In 1389 the export by letters of exchange was suspended temporarily. In 1390 letters of exchange were again authorized, provided the Italian merchants who issued them would buy within three months English merchandise to the value of the letters of exchange which they sent out of the realm. The exchangers had to promise under penalty of £20000 to fulfil this requirement for letters of exchange sent to the papal court.??° Twenty years later the commons complained that bishops and others provided to benefices by the pope made exchange in London with the Lom-

bards and the Alberti who sent gold and silver out of the realm. They asked Henry IV to require that only wool, cloths and other goods be sent out in payment on pain of forfeiture of the amount of money involved. The reply said that Richard’s statute of 1390 was to be kept and explained how it was to be done.?21_ With renewals and modifications from time to

725 Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 5; C.P.R. 1374-77, p. 312. |

"1° Beardwood, Alien Merchants, p. 23, Statutes of the Realm, 1, 322; C.P.R. 1374-77, pp. 312, 493.

"17 Renouard, Les Relations, pp. 526, 554-55. 718 Clergeac, La Curie, p. 214. 219 Statutes of the Realm, II, 17-18.

2° Perroy, L’ Angleterre, pp. 309-10, 319. Such a requirement may have existed earlier. In 1311 William Testa, papal collector, in the course of transmitting funds to the camera exported twelve sacks of wool to Calais and took a loss on their sale: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 684. The sacks, however, may possibly represent only a payment in kind which he had accepted for some papal due. 27 Rot. Parl. Il, 626.

The Service Taxes 205 time thereafter, the statute remained the law to the end of the period under consideration.””* It was the failure of Erasmus to obtain a letter of exchange which caused the seizure of his money by an inspector at Dover when he left England in 1500, of which he complained so bitterly.?”8 For this service of exchange the prelates had to pay the exchangers. As early as 1351 the exchangers appointed by the king were allowed to

make a profit.??* At that time the profit could be made by the rate of exchange which was charged or by a fee charged for the exchange.”*° In 1375 the abbot of St Augustine Canterbury paid £6 15 s. for the exchange into florins of the English money necessary to meet the expenses at the papal court of his provision.*** Whether the fee went to the exchanger or to the king is not made apparent by the chronicler who mentions it, but the price _ which the king charged for the grant of the right to exchange money indicates that it was a lucrative business for the exchangers. In 1414 Henry V granted for three years a monopoly of the issue of letters of exchange to those going to the court of Rome or elsewhere beyond seas, excepting mer-

grat pay y | pient

chants who needed letters to pay for merchandise. The recipient of the rant was to pay 300 marks a year for it.2?7 In 1418 the recipient of a similar grant agreed to pay £200 annually for 1t.228 Another concession of

the kind was made by Henry VI in 1453. The monopoly was to run for forty years and the exchangers were to pay the king £20 each year. They were allowed to charge for a letter of exchange what might be agreed upon between them and the buyer of a letter, after consideration of the hazards of the place and other perils and of ‘any sums wont to be paid to the king in such exchanges.’??°

A payment to the king by the purchaser of a letter of exchange was a practice which may have been new with Henry V. He and also Henry VI received a fee of 2 d. for each noble exchanged by the Lombards in London for strangers Or clerks going to the Roman court or to other places

beyond the sea.”*° If this fee was new, it might explain why the rental paid by the exchangers to the king was reduced from £200 to £20 a year. 222 Schanz, Englische Handelspolitik, 1, 510-22; Leadam, ‘Polydore Vergil’, 7T.R.AS.,, new ser., XIX, 280-84; Statutes of the Realm, II, 122, 210-11, 215-16, 546, C.C.R. 1399-1402, p. 596; 1402-05, p. 375; 1405-09, pp. 33-36, 49, 176-77, 195, 197, 207, 211; 1409-13, pp. 180-81,

439-56; 1419-22, pp. 216, 230; 1422-29, pp. 49, 145, 477-87; 1429-35, pp. 369-87; C.P.R. 1413-16, p. 240; 1467-77, pp. 41-42; L. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 1073, 1101, 1136. 28 P, Smith, Erasmus, p. 64. 224 Statutes of the Realm, I, 322. °° Renouard, Les Relations, pp. 519-25. 726 Thorne, Chronicle, p. 608. 227 C.P.R. 1413-16, p. 240. 228 C\P.R. 1416-22, p. 135. 220 C.P.R. 1452-61, p. 68.

78° Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 411, 421; C.P.R. 1429-36, p. 282.

206 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The exchangers probably could not charge as much for their services as they could have done if the buyer had not had to pay the royal fee. This seems to be implied in the royal requirement that the exchangers were to take the royal fee into account in fixing their own charges. The royal charge, which was 24 per cent, was being collected in the reign of Edward IV, and the crown was still receiving dues on each letter of exchange in the reign of Henry VII, but at what rate is not apparent.”*? In 1514 the royal fee was 1 d. on each ducat of any money transferred outside the kingdom. On 10 June Leo X complained to Henry VIII that George Ardizono, who was one of two official exchangers,?*? had exacted a ‘vectigal’ of that

amount on money sent by the papal collector to the papal camera. He asked that the practice, which had not been followed by Richard Fox, Ardizono’s predecessor, and which was contrary to custom, should not be applied to the money of the apostolic camera.”** The penny may have been the charge of the exchanger for the letter of exchange, but the papal letter seems to imply that it was the charge levied for the king. If so, the rate had changed since the time of Edward IV. The ducat probably exchanged in this period for 54 d.,7°* making the charge about .0185 percent. This charge added a fairly substantial amount to what a prelate had to

pay for his services. On 28 July 1438 Henry VI remitted to William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury, £26 7 s. 9 d due the king for the exchange of a certain sum used for obtaining the apostolic bulls for his bishopric.**° At the rate of 2 d. for a noble, which then prevailed, the sum was £1055 10s. It was equivalent to 6333 florins.7** Added to £26 7 s. 9 d was a further charge of unknown amount to which the exchanger was entitled. In the sixteenth century the government sometimes made exceptions to the prohibition on the export of money, plate, bullion or jewels in behalf of prelates paying their services. In 1507 Hugh Oldham, bishop of Exeter, was pardoned for infringements of the act of 4 Henry VII forbidding the practice.”*7 He had doubtless committed them when paying his services in 1504. In 1532 Edward Lee, archbishop of York, sought a royal pardon for money paid and to be paid to foreign merchants for expediting his bulls and his pallium.?** Since he had been promoted in 1530 and money re*81 Leadam, ‘Polydore Vergil’, T.R.H.S., new ser., XIX, 283-85. 2327 > P., I, 1816, 3265. 288 Arm. XL, 4, fo. 39; L. @ P., I, 5136. 84 Below, pp. 300-01. 285 C.P.R. 1436-41, p. 182.

286 The rate of exchange in 1422 and again in 1453 was 6 florins to the £: Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 31; Flynn, ‘Englishmen in Rome’, Modern Philology, XXXVI, 130. 237 18 July: C.P.R. 1494-1509, p. 526.

28T & P. V, 918.

The Service Taxes 207 mained to be paid to foreign merchants in 1532, he must have received some credit from them. Ordinarily a prelate could obtain a royal license to purchase a letter of exchange for the payment of his services,?*® unless his appointment by the pope was opposed by the king. Adam of Usk relates in his chronicle

that Innocent VII (1404-06) intended to provide Guy Mona, bishop of St Davids, to the bishopric of London, but was prevented by the opposition of the king and others in England. The king threatened the cardinals with the loss of their benefices in England, if the provision should be made, and he forbade merchants to provide him with money under pain of the expul-

sion of their partners from England. It was this prohibition which the chronicler regarded as the principal reason why the projected provision was not made.**° Such an incident could have happened only rarely, since the popes usually appointed those prelates who were recommended to them by the English government.

The principal service performed by the bankers for the prelates was the transmission from England to the papal court of the money necessary to pay the services. An overwhelming majority of prelates used bankers as proctors for one or more of their payments which are recorded in the cameral registers. In the fourteenth century there were twenty-five prelates whose payments were rendered by clerical proctors only, in the fifteenth there were seven and in the sixteenth there were six.**1 Few, if any, of these proctors carried the money to the papal court. Not only was the export of cash prohibited by the English government, but also its transport would have been subject to a considerable risk of robbery. There can be little doubt that the clerical proctors carried with them letters of credit or exchange drawn on firms at the papal court by bankers in England. The nature of such a transaction is illustrated by documents preserved in the register of John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter. Instalments of the services which, in 1327, he had agreed to pay, were due to both cameras at Easter 1329, which was on 23 April. On 15 February 1329 the bishop had a notarial record made of business transacted at his manor of Chudleigh. The bishop delivered to two messengers, Thomas of Exeter, a canon of Crediton, and William de Braybroke, a clerk, both of whom were members of his household, £500 which were counted and placed in sacks. ‘The 289 Bg, C.C.R. 1374-77, p. 393; 1389-92, p. 220; 1392-96, pp. 528-29, 533, 544, 547; 1396-99, pp. 32, 43, 99, 1402-05, p. 355, 1405-09, pp. 40, 174; 1409-13, pp. 440, 441, 444; 1422-29, pp. 478, 482, 484; 1429-35, pp. 375-76; C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 161. 4° Chron., p. 89. **\ "There are no records of payments by several prelates and there are a few in which the name of the payer is not specified. There are four payers whose status as banker or clerk I could not determine.

208 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

money was to be taken to London to be exchanged into florins by merchants who were to undertake, ‘as the custom is,’ to transmit the florins to the papal court in time for the payment of 3000 florins, which the bishops owed to the two cameras at Easter. The messengers acknowledged receipt of the money, agreed to attend to the business, and set out for London forthwith. The bishop had included in the record a statement that he had arranged for the payment to be made on time, and that it would not be his fault, if it should be late.?*? On 3 March in London James Nicolai and Dinus Forcetti, members of

the society of Bardi, issued a document acknowledging themselves and their firm to be under obligation to deliver and pay at the papal court by the next Easter 2758 florins of Florence and 2 s. 3 d. of sterlings. The cost of each florin was 43 d. It included the rate of exchange and the charge for exchange. Delivery of the florins was to be made at the court to John Luterell, theologian, Ralph de Holebeche, canon of Lichfield, William de Nassington, clerk, and Thomas of Exeter, or to any one of them, who produced the document and a letter close also issued by the merchants.?*#* On

8 March the bishop formally appointed the first three of the four as his proctors to render the payments due both cameras at Easter.?*4 On 27 April the papal camerarius issued an acquittance to Bishop Grandisson for the payment of 1250 florins for part of the common service and of 357 florins and 4 s. 8 d. of Vienne for part of his four petty services, by the hand of John Luterell, stating that the payment had been received within the period of the delay granted to him. On the same day the camerarius of the college issued a receipt in similar terms for 1250 florins for part of the common service and for 89 florins 7 s. 5 d. of small ‘Tours for one petty service delivered by the hand of John Luterell.?*° No other complete record of a similar arrangement has come to light, but evidence indicating that the practice remained customary in later years is not lacking. On 2 August 1382 royal license was given to the attorneys

of William Strete, who was at the papal court under bond to the papal camera to pay the services of William Courtenay, archbishop of Canterbury, to transmit thither by exchange with Angelus Christofori, who was in charge of the royal office of foreign exchange, or with any other Lombard, 10000 florins for the services and 3000 florins for other expenses.?*° Unfortunately the records of the camera for this period are so incomplete 242 Reg. Grandisson, I, 468. 243 Tbid., I, 471.

244 Above, p. 195. |

245 Reg. Grandisson, I, 489. The payments were in excess of the amount which the Bardi had undertaken to deliver to the proctor by 188 florins 12 s. 1 d. of Vienne. Whether the proctor carried with him enough money to meet the excess, or whether he borrowed the sum from the Bardi in the name of his principal is not apparent. 24° C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 161.

The Service Taxes 209

2 livery | g

that the delivery at the papal court to the proctor cannot be established,”*? but the proctor to whom delivery was intended to be made was English. Another instance occurred in 1404. Robert Mascall, bishop of Hereford, obtained the king’s license to exchange 900 marks on 1 June 1404.?*° The

only recorded payments were two instalments of the common service which he owed the college. They were rendered on 19 August and 16 De-

cember 1404 by William Lwel,?4® who certainly was not an Italian banker.?5°

The preceding examples illustrate another practice which was common. The prelates paid the money to the exchangers in London well in advance of the time when their payments of services were due at the papal court. Other illustrations of cash in advance are furnished by bishops whose proctors were Italian. On 3 November 1376 the king licensed Gilbert Aymeri to make to his fellows dwelling in foreign parts a letter for payment there of £460 to the proctor of Ralph Erghum, bishop of Salisbury.?°* ‘The only recorded payment made by the bishop was 1125 florins delivered to the papal camera by Bonacursi Bochi and Peter Hugolini, merchants of Lucca,

on 2 March 1377.2°2 A somewhat different type of arrangement iS explained in a letter written by Thomas Spofford, bishop of Hereford, to Bartholomew de Bardis at Rome on 31 December 1422.7°? The addressee was a banker attached to the papal court who rendered payments of services

for several English prelates in this period. He was associated with the Medici.?°* The bishop said that he had sent with another letter a letter of exchange for 200 marks which equalled 800 florins. He owed the cardinals 900 florins and he asked Bartholomew to pay the balance of 100 florins. He asked him also to pay to the apostolic camera 276 florins 44 s. 28 d. which he owed for the four petty services in order to complete payment

in full to that camera. He further requested the merchant to send him a general acquittance such as he had previously sent from the apostolic camera when the common service had been paid.*°° The bishop promised that if Bartholomew would notify his brother Uberto de Bardis in London 247'The archbishop paid all but 1885 florins 35 s. of his services (Ob. 48, fo. 228%), but record of the payments and of those who paid them is lacking. 248 C.C.R. 1402-05, p. 355. 249 Ob. 59, fo. 174, 177¥.

759For another example see below, p. 211. 251 C.C.R. 1374-77, p. 393. 7521. & E. 345, fo. 11, 15.

°53 Reg. Spofford, p. 31. The year of the date is not given in the letter. It is among letters of which some are dated 1422 and some 1423. The editor dates it 1423. Since the payment for which it arranged was made on 12 February 1423, the date was 1422. 254 Ob. 62, fo. 10%, 35; Arch, di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1862, fo. 73, 93, 108¥, 132¥, 157.

*5°'"The payment of 900 florins of common service to the apostolic camera on 30 September 1422 was credited to John Blodwell, his proctor: I. & E. 379, fo. 96”. Evidently the money had been supplied by Bartholomew.

210 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of the completion of the transaction, he would pay the balance due Bartholomew immediately to his brother, who had recently undertaken in

chancery for his firm, under penalty of 1000 marks, that within three _ months after an exchange made by them they would purchase English commodities to the value of the sum exchanged.?°* The Medici paid to the cardinals 900 florins and also 69 florins 11 s. 6 d. for the one petty service.7°” Record of payment to the papal camera is lacking. If that payment was also made, the whole sum advanced by the Medici was 446 florins 5 s. 8 d., or some shillings over £74. Whatever the sum may have been, it was paid without other guarantee of reimbursement than the bishop’s word.

| Many other prelates secured payment of part or all of their services by merchants whom they reimbursed after the payments had been made. In the fourteenth century and early years of the fifteenth the bankers may have relied solely on the promises of the prelates, as the Medici did in 1423. Perhaps they sometimes required a bond.?°* They could, however, count

on the help of the pope to recover such a debt, if a prelate failed to keep his promise.?°® After the practice of requiring payment of the services to the camera before the bulls of provision would be delivered was well established in the fifteenth century until 1525, a merchant who advanced money for the payment of services received the bulls. This put him in a safe position, since the prelate had to have the bulls as soon as possible. If the merchant failed to obtain reimbursement from a prelate within a number of months specified by the camera, he could recover from the camera what he had paid by returning the bulls.*°° As has been noted, this system was tried with English prelates in 1436.?°”

What appears to have been an early instance of this practice occurred in 1426. A proctor who did not name himself wrote to an English bishop whom he did not name. The bishop was probably Richard Fleming, who had been translated from Lincoln to York in 1424. He had failed to obtain possession on account of the opposition of the king’s council,?°* and was translated back to Lincoln in 1425. The proctor, who apparently was an Englishman, wrote with reference to a letter of 10 January sent to him by the bishop. It prayed him to speed the bulls of translation. He said that on 256 C.C.R. 1419-22, p. 230. In 1421 the merchants complained in parliament that they could not make their purchases in three months and asked to have the period extended to nine months. The king granted the request: Rot. Parl., IV, 155-56. It was put into execution on 23 December 1422: C.C.R. 1422-29, p. 49.

57 12 February 1423: Ob. 62, fo. 147. 258 T have found no examples of this until the sixteenth century. 75° Above, pp. 188-91; below. pp. 215-16. 76° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 215, n. 3, 217-18. 7608 Above, p. 194.

261 Proceedings of the Privy Council, III, 210-11.

The Service Taxes 211 26 August he had had to pay £130 of his own money to get them out of the Lombard’s hands, and expressed his trust that the bishop would reimburse him, since otherwise he would have to seek other remedy.?* The Lombard was a merchant named Alexander (Ferantino), but how he obtained possession of the bulls is not explained in the letter. Hermann de Werg (alias Dwerg, Swerg, Domberg), a papal prothonotary who was German, acted as proctor for Richard Fleming for arranging his obligation.”** On 12 June 1426, five days before the date of the obligation, he paid to the camera of the cardinals 800 florins toward the bishop’s services.*°* “This sum was approximately the equivalent of £130. If Hermann borrowed the money from Alexander, the merchant may have demanded the bulls as security for its repayment by the bishop. After the proctor,

who appears to have been English, paid the merchant and wrote to the bishop, he received compensation. On 18 December 1426 Richard Fleming paid to Alexander Ferantino of the firm of Alberti in London £419 to be delivered to his proctors in Rome.?® This was enough to repay the proctor for what he had expended and to pay a substantial additional instalment on the services of the bishop. The transaction was entered on the memoranda roll of the exchequer because Alexander Ferantino was accused of having delivered the sum to the bishop’s proctor in Rome without a royal license, which was against the statute, and of having disregarded the requirement that goods of that

value should be purchased in England. Ubertino de Bardis was charged with doing the same on 9 December to the amount of 950 marks for William Gray, bishop of London, and of £100 for Thomas Polton, bishop of Worcester. William Swan, the proctor of William, and Herman Mercator, the proctor of Thomas, had obtained the money from Leonard Abbatis and Cosmo de Medicis, who lived in the papal court, and had pledged repayment of the loans in England. These merchants had commissioned Alexander and Uberto to receive the payments.?*° The Medici are recorded in the cameral registers as the payers of the services of both bishops, but

there is no mention of the surrender of the bulls to them.?®" Since the cameral registers also omit reference to the delivery of the bulls of the bishop of Lincoln to a merchant, and all the cases are grouped together in 762 Letters of Margaret of Anjou and Others, pp. 31-33. 268 Ob. 60, fo. 1617. 284 Ob. 63, fo. 55%.

265K. R. Memo. Roll 204, Communia, Michaelmas term, m. 15. 266 Tbid., m. 15-15¥. The merchants accused of breaches of the statute of exchange

thought that the transactions were not illegal and asked for time to prepare their pleas. ‘The case therefore was postponed. 267 Ob. 63, fo. 517; I. & E. 385, fo. 129.

212 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the memoranda roll, the cases were probably alike. The case of William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury, which is mentioned above,?® appears to have been similar, except that he obtained a license for a letter of exchange. The Medici paid his services to both cameras on 4 and 5 June 1438, a few days after 31 May, the date of his obligation.*®® His letter of exchange probably was not obtained before 18 July, when he was pardoned the royal fee for the letter. Later in the fifteenth century and in the sixteenth it became customary for bankers to transact the whole business of obtaining the bulls of provision. A banker appointed a proctor who instituted the proceedings which resulted in the provision being made in consistory, he saw that a solicitor guided the expedition of the bulls through the chancery, he paid the services and the many other fees and gratuities, and he delivered the bulls to the prelate in return for reimbursement for his expenditures.?”° Under these conditions the merchants demanded part or all of the money in advance of the provision. The method followed by Robert Sherborn when he was provided to St Davids in 1505 was probably typical. He went to John Paul de Giglis, a merchant of Lucca residing in England, who was related to Silvester de Giglis. They met in the house of the dean of St Paul about 6 January 1505. He commissioned John Paul to obtain bulls of provision and promised to _ pay him for the expedition of the letters whatever sum Silvester de Giglis,

Robert Haldesworth and John Dyker should certify as correct by their letters. At the meeting he paid to John Paul one-half of the estimated cost

of expedition. About 9 March John Paul delivered to the bishop nine bulls concerned with his promotion to St Davids, which were dated 12 February, and a schedule of expenses signed by Silvester de Giglis. The bishop paid to the merchant the remainder of what he owed for the expedition of the bulls about three weeks after he received them.?"! Wolsey, on the other hand, always arranged to have in Rome all or the greater part of the money to pay for the expedition of the bulls for any bishopric to which he was seeking provision before the provision was made. He was warned by his agents at Rome on occasion that the bulls would be

released only when the services and other fees had been paid. When he was awaiting provision to Bath and Wells, Silvester de Giglis informed him 208 D. 206.

269 Ob. 64, fo. 295%; 68, fo. 367; 69, fo. 437; I. & E., 402, fo. 50. *7° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 214-24. On 14 October 1504 Julius II, writing to John Fisher

about his provision to Rochester, commended the diligence of Ambrose and Lazarus de Grimaldis in the matter: Arm. XXXIX, 22, fo. 193. *“ Lincoln, Reg. Smith, fo. 291, 293-94, 302.

The Service Taxes 213 that the cost would be 6000 ducats and ‘ready money’ was needed.” Gregory Casale and Peter Vannes, the king’s agents, who, in 1529, were trying to obtain a bull to convert certain abbeys into episcopal cathedrals, wrote that if it should be done, annates would have to be paid. Wolsey, in that case, would have to provide the money, for no trust was put in promises at the papal court.?”*? In 1514 Wolsey had in the hands of his proctor 179 ducats more than was needed to pay for the expedition of the bulls for Lincoln.?** In 1523 a banker, Francisco de Bardis had in his possession 10000 ducats for the expedition of the bulls of Durham.?” How the money was transferred to Rome in these instances does not

appear in the correspondence about it, but some light is given on the transactions which took place when he was provided to York and to Winchester. ‘The financial arrangements for the services of the former began

with a contract drawn up in London on 18 August 1514. Anthony de Vivaldis, a merchant of Genoa residing in London, William Botry and Thomas Raymond, merchants of London, agreed to pay the expenses of Wolsey’s promotion and pallium in the papal court. Wolsey provided that they should receive £2000 from John Withers, who was the executor in England of the estate of the recently deceased Cardinal Bainbridge, and that 5704 ducats should be paid to Lazarus de Grimaldis and Andrew Gentili, Genoese merchants at the papal court, by Richard Pace and William Burbank, who were executors of Bainbridge’s estate in Rome. Wolsey further gave bond for £1300 to the three merchants in London as guarantee for the fulfilment of his part of the contract.?”° A few days later Wolsey wrote to Pace, asking him to supply £1260 from Bainbridge’s estate for expediting his bulls. In view of Wolsey’s agreement with the merchants of London this might be expected to have been the equivalent of 5704 ducats, and it probably was. At the rate of 44% ducats to pound 7” the sum was worth 5670 ducats. Pace was able to deliver to the Grimaldi only 4000 ducats on receipt of the letter, but soon after increased the sum to £1000,27® or 4500 ducats. With Wolsey’s bond for £1300 in their hands the merchants probably did not worry about collecting the unpaid balance of 1200 to 1300 odd ducats. For Winchester, which Wolsey hoped to obtain for a reduced common service of 8000 ducats or less, he bought letters of exchange amounting to 727. @& P., Il, pt. 2, 4068, 4179.

728 T. & P., IV, pt. 3, 5235. 2747 & P. I, 4747. 757 & P., Il, pt. 2, 3025. 70T & P. I, 5334.

"7 On the rate see below, pp. 300-01. 7810 September 1514: L. & P., I, 5396; Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd ser., 1, 172-73.

214 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 10000 florins from Anthony Vivaldi in London. The banker sent letters for 8000 ducats to his correspondents in Venice and 2000 to merchants in Florence. On 27 January 1529 Peter Vannes, Wolsey’s proctor in Rome, wrote that he was having trouble in obtaining the money from both the Venetian and Florentine merchants,?”* but on 26 April he wrote that he had spent 8000 ducats, the amount of the common service, and 600 ducats of his own money.?*° Bankers often helped prelates to pay their services in the early part of the period by accommodating them with loans. The prelate who desired a loan for the purpose could seek from the pope a license to offer as security

for the repayment of the loan not only his own goods but also those of his church.?*? If a licensed borrower failed to repay the loan as contracted, the merchant could count on a stringent canonical executory process to help him recover the loan.?*? Between 1327 and 1350 several English prelates received papal licenses to obtain a loan from cameral merchants to enable them to pay part or all of their services. On 25 June 1328 Simon Mepham, elect of Canterbury, was licensed to contract a loan of £2000 for meeting his expenses at the apostolic see. It was to be repaid within four months. Others who received similar licenses were William de Thrulegh, abbot of

St Augustine Canterbury, on 11 January 1344, 1000 florins; Simon de Bercheston, abbot of Westminster, on 2 February 1345, 2000 florins; Thomas de Lisle, bishop of Ely, on 16 July 1345, 12000 florins; John Uf-

ford, archbishop of Canterbury, on 8 November 1348, 16000 florins; Thomas de la Mare, abbot of St Albans, on 1 August 1349, 1000 florins;

and Simon Langham, abbot of Westminster, on the same date for the same amount.?®?

After 1349 such papal licenses to English prelates ceased commonly to

be recorded in the registers of the papal chancery, and no evidence that English prelates contracted loans with cameral merchants for payment of their services has come to light until 1388. If no such loans were made in this period, it may have been a contributory factor in producing the greater amount of dilatoriness in rendering the payments of services. When such a loan appeared again late in the fourteenth century, it was of a different type and the papacy used a different method of helping the merchants to recover it from the borrower. The merchant paid in advance part or all of 81 & P, IV, pt. 3, 5225. 280 Thid. 5496.

*1 Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 333-34. Tangl gives the formula of a license in the fourteenth century: Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 327-28. 8? Lunt, Papal Revenues, 1, 55-56, 333-36; Renouard, Les Relations, pp. 541-42. 83 C\P.L., I, 272; Ill, 4, 26, 39, 176, 350. A banker did not always require a papal license when he advanced money to pay a prelate’s services: above, p. 251.

The Service Taxes 215 the services of a prelate and the pope appointed a commission of local prelates to compel the prelate to repay the merchant. Such a commission could use ecclesiastical censures as part of the compulsory process, if it should be necessary.*** During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, particularly after

the bankers began to receive the bulls, the loans or credits given by the bankers appear usually to have been for short terms.?®° The trend was for the bankers to require payment in full before the provision or payment of part before the provision and of the remainder on delivery of the bulls.?** Occasionally a banker delivered the bulls before full payment had been received from a prelate, but in the last part of the period such an arrangement seems to have been rare.?°”

The papacy continued until 1525 to assist merchants who were unable

to recover from a prelate the money which they had advanced for his services at the papal court. A typical illustration is provided by action taken against Richard Clifford, bishop of Worcester. On 24 August 1401, the day after the bishop’s proctor pledged payment of the services, Doffus de Spinis of the society of Alberti paid to the apostolic camera 1000 florins, which was the full amount of the papal share of the common service,?**

and to the camera of the college a sum not specified,” with the understanding that he was to recover from the bishop the amount expended. He failed to obtain reimbursement from the bishop, and the Alberti petitioned the pope for a remedy. They stated that they had let the bishop have ‘a pure and amicable loan’ for his payments at the Roman court and elsewhere. This he had promised to repay, but he had not kept his promise. In response Boniface [X appointed a commission consisting of the archbishops of Canterbury and York and a foreign bishop. They were to summon the bishop and others concerned, and, if they found the facts to be as stated in the petition, to compel the bishop to pay to the Alberti the sums

paid by them in his behalf as set forth in the acquittances issued by the two cameras. If he did not obey, they were to excommunicate him, put his church under an interdict and, if necessary, invoke the aid of the secular arm.7?°

Another method of protection is illustrated by the case of Reginald Boulers. When he was translated to Lichfield in 1453, the bulls were delivered to Henry Sharp, a papal chamberlain, who acted as his proctor for *8* Above, pp. 215-16. 285 Above, pp. 161-64, 209-10. *°° Above, pp. 212-13.

“7 Above, pp. 202-03, 206-07; below, p. 216. 88 Ob. 55, fo. 248. 22° CPL, IV, 351.

“°° 2 September 1402: ibid. See also Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 220-21.

216 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the obligation. They were delivered without payment of services, because the church was vacant a second time within a year.”®* Henry Sharp, however, was required to obtain from the bishop a guarantee that the merchants who had lent to Nicholas Close, the predecessor of Reginald Boulers, the money necessary for the payment of his services, would receive satisfaction, or else that Reginald’s bulls would be returned within six months.?°? The merchants were the Strozzi who had paid all the services of Nicholas Close at the time when his obligation was undertaken.?°° After 1525 the papacy ceased to provide merchants with protection in their dealings with prelates concerning the services. If merchants furnished money to prelates for the payment of services, they did so at their own risk. ‘The apostolic camera neither guaranteed their advances nor restored to them on return of the bulls any sums which they had paid.?** If merchants failed to carry out an undertaking to pay part or all of the services of a prelate, he might obtain the help of the pope or of the king to

right the wrong. Nicholas Pilestini received wrongfully from Henry Spencer, bishop of Norwich, 144 florins 13 s. 10 d., which he did not want

to restore. Ihe papal camerarius ordered him and his nephew, Lorenzo Spinelli, who was the keeper of his uncle’s goods, to assign the money to the camera to be applied to the common service and the four petty services of the bishop. Lorenzo obeyed and delivered the money on 3 April 1375.?% Henry IV, who came to the assistance of Henry Bowet after 21 August 1401,*°° when he was appointed bishop of Bath and Wells, threatened Doffus and E. de Spinis of the society of Alberti, who lived at the papal court, with dire consequences, if they should fail to remedy a complaint of the bishop. With a royal license the bishop had made exchange with the merchants for 1475 marks which they were to pay to the two cameras for his common and petty services. They had delayed and deferred the payment to the damage and scandal of the bishop; damage and scandal which he asserted he would not have suffered for 10000 florins beyond that sum. The king, therefore, asked them to render the payments to the cameras or to the bishop before the next Pentecost, or else to reach an agreement with the bishop. Otherwise justice would fail and he would proceed against them and their associates by way of reprisal or marque.?9" *°t ‘bis in anno quare nichil solvit’: Ob. 76, fo. 104. 282 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1836, fo. 162. 7°31. & E. 421, fo. 40%; Ob. 77, fo. 112. In another instance a pope may have used diplomacy to assist merchants to recover a debt: above, p. 203. °“ Clergeac, La Curie, p. 224. 2°5 Ob. 41, fo. 88. 79° "The royal letter is undated.

*°7 Letter in a formulary: Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 146.

The Service Taxes 217 If the facts were as alleged by the king, the royal threats seem to have

been without result. The sum given to the merchants was worth 5619 florins.?°8 Since the common service of Bath and Wells was 4500 florins, this sum would have paid not only Henry’s services but also part of the common service of 1500 florins and the five petty services which Henry recognized for his predecessor, Richard Clifford. Doffus de Spinis served as Henry’s proctor for his pledge on 23 August 1401.7°° On the next day he paid to the apostolic camera 2000 of the 2150 florins due for the papal share of the common service. According to the cameral register, however, Doffus still had to collect the money from the bishop.*°° On 2 June 1402 Thomas Poo, a merchant of London, paid 70 florins toward the 150 still due for the common service of the pope. He also was to recover from the bishop.?°? The remaining 80 florins were delivered in a payment which 1s not recorded. In 1404 and again in 1406 small sums were paid to the camera of the cardinals for the common service, and the second instalment was

rendered by the Alberti.2°? When Henry was translated to York on 7 October 1407, he was still in debt for part of the cardinals’ share of his common service, for his five petty services, for 1150 florins of his predecessor’s common service and for his five petty services. His successor in Bath and Wells had to undertake to pay all these arrears.*°*. ‘The cameral regis-

ters do not record that Henry incurred ‘the damage and scandal’ of the sentences imposed on delinquent payers, but he had to obtain several post-

ponements. These facts leave in doubt whether the royal allegation was erroneous or the royal process was ineffective. 13. LiaBitiry FoR PAYMENT oF Services Lerr UNPAID BY A PREDECESSOR

During the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth a prelate had to undertake to pay, in addition to his own services, any part of the services which any of his predecessors in the office to which he was promoted had left unpaid. The services, by the terms of the obligation, were guaranteed both by the property of the prelate and by the property of the church. Therefore, the new holder of the church was liable for any

debts owed by his predecessors in the church for services. In such an obligation the prelate promised to pay his own services and ‘recognized’ 298 At the rate of 42 d., for a florin which obtained in 1390 and 1391: Arm. XXIX, 1, fo. 212, 302. 299 Ob. 57, fo. 66.

899 Ob. 55, fo. 248.

8 Ob. 55, fo. 236. $02 Ob. 59, fo. 173%, 197.

808 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1861, fo. 8.

218 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the debts, for amounts usually specified, of predecessors, who were customarily named, and promised to pay them also. In the period from 1327 to 1350 only two English prelates were so un-

fortunately placed. In 1348 Thomas de Colewell, who was provided to St Augustine Canterbury agreed to pay his own services and the whole of the services of John Devenish, who had been provided to the abbey in 1347 and had died without paying any of his debt. As was common in such circumstances, he was given a liberal amount of time. He was to pay one-third of both debts nine days after the date of his obligation, a second third one year later, and the final instalment one year after that.* The deaths of three archbishops of Canterbury in less than two years overwhelmed the see with a heavy debt for services. On 24 September 1348 John Ufford was provided to the archbishopric and on 6 November he obliged himself for 10000 florins of common service and for five petty services. He died on 29 May 1349 before he had made any payment. His successor, Thomas Bradwardine, was provided on 19 June 1349. Because he was the second archbishop appointed within one year, he was not required to pay any services for himself, but he did undertake to pay the services which John Ufford had promised. Archibishop Bradwardine died on 26 August 1349. He was followed by Simon Islip, whose provision was dated

7 October 1349. Though his promotion was within a year of Bradwardine’s, it was more than a year from Ufford’s. He, therefore, committed himself on 17 November to the payment of his own services and those of Ufford. He was to deliver one-half of his predecessor’s services at the next

_ Christmas and the other half a year later. He was to pay his own at the same dates in the next year. The debt proved to be such a heavy financial strain that, though Innocent VI remitted part of it, Simon paid instalments until his death on 26 April 1366, and his executors paid a substantial instalment in 1367.

In the second half of the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth many more prelates had to become responsible for arrears left by their predecessors. This was due in part to more frequent vacancies. They were produced in part by the much larger number of translations.°®° The arrears generally represented only a part of the services which the predecessor had pledged, but the immediate successor rarely paid the debt of his predecessor in full, and the remainder would have to be undertaken by the second successor. Sometimes several successive successors would have to promise to pay the arrears. Sometimes some of the successors would leave additional unpaid balances for their successors. °°* Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 274-75. *°5 Below, pp. 294-98 and App. II.

The Service Taxes 219 Several archbishops of Canterbury had such experiences, though none of them had a financial burden as heavy as Simon Islip had borne. William Whittlesey in 1368 pledged payment of 878 florins 10 s. 4 d. for common service and 130 florins 17 s. 2 d. for petty services owed by Simon Langham when he left Canterbury to become a cardinal. William paid some instalments on this debt before he died in 1374. Whether he paid the debt in full or whether his successor, Simon Sudbury, had part of it left to pay is not

apparent. Ihe debt had been cleared before Simon met his tragic death during the peasants’ rebellion in 1381, since his successor, William Courtenay, did not have to undertake payment of any arrears left by Simon Lang-

ham. He did, however, agree to pay 884 florins which Simon Sudbury still owed for his own services. William failed to pay any of this debt and did not complete payment of his own services. As a consequence, Thomas Arundel, who was translated from York to Canterbury in 1396, promised to pay the 884 florins left unpaid by Simon Sudbury and 1885 florins 35 s. left unpaid by William Courtenay. He kept his promise. Later archbishops of Canterbury never again fell behind. Archbishops of York did not finally free themselves until 1413 from a debt left by Alexander Neville when he was translated to St Andrews in 1388. His successor, Thomas Arundel, agreed to pay in addition to his own services whatever arrears were shown to be owed by his predecessor by cameral books which were not available at the time. Thomas paid none of Alexander’s debt, and did not succeed in paying all his own before he

was translated to Canterbury. Though he paid all that was owed from Canterbury, he allowed his successors at York to struggle with the deficit which he left for that archbishopric. His successor, Robert Waldby, who was translated from Chichester to York, obliged himself on 4 January 1397 for his own services, for 4300 florins of the common service and for five

whole petty services still owed by Thomas, and for 7000 florins and five petty services left unpaid by Alexander. He was to pay his services one-half by Christmas 1397 and the other half a year later. The services of his predecessors he was to pay in later years. He died on 6 January 1398,°°° a few days after the first instalment of his own services was due. No record of any payment by him has been found in the cameral registers, but he probably paid all his own services, because Richard le Scrope, who was translated from Lichfield to York on 27 February 1398, was not required to undertake responsibility for Robert’s services. Richard pledged his own services and the same amounts for the services of Alexander and Thomas that Robert had pledged. He paid all his services °° Stubbs, Registrum, p. 81.

220 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 and several instalments on the services of his two predecessors before he

died on 14 May 1405. Robert Hallam, who was provided to York on 14 May 1406, found that his responsibility for Thomas had been reduced by Richard to 3730 florins 15 s. 5 d. and one petty service and for Alexander to 5630 florins for common service and 713 florins 25 s. for five petty

services. Because his appointment was opposed by the king, he did not obtain possession of the see,®°’ and on 7 October 1407 he was translated to

Salisbury, having made no payments on the services of himself or his predecessors. For this reason his successor, Henry Bowet, was not held responsible for Hallam’s services. If a prelate who failed to obtain possession had paid all or part of his services, the cameras might retain the money, or restore all or part of it,°°* but if such a prelate had made no payments, his obligation for services ceased.*°° Henry Bowet, therefore, undertook his own services and subscribed to the same sums for Alexander and ‘Thomas as Robert Hallam had done. He paid at least one small instalment on Alexander’s debt, but was still in arrears for the services of his predecessors on

27 April 1413, when John XXIII finally relieved the archbishopric of the burden, under part of which the archbishops had labored for twenty-five years. With the consent of the cardinals he pardoned Henry Bowet for the services of Alexander and Thomas. He also pardoned Thomas Arundel for what he owed at the time he was translated to Canterbury for his own services and those of Alexander. He released them both from the sentences of excommunication which they had incurred and absolved them for their irregularities in conducting masses and services while under the sentences.

He also released from futher liability for the debt their heirs and the church of York.??°

These illustrations drawn from Canterbury and York are sufficiently typical to explain why the practice of forcing prelates to assume the unpaid obligations of their predecessors caused complaint. To some of them the officials of the camera gave heed. Richard II, for example, interceded with Boniface IX in behalf of Alexander Bache, bishop of St Asaph, who was his chaplain. On 10 March 1390 he promised to pay 470 florins of common service and five petty services for himself and in addition an unpaid balance of the services of his predecessor, Laurence Child. ‘The king explained that Alexander could obtain nothing from the goods of Laurence, who died in

Quarti, p. 419. *°8 Below, App. Il, pp. 770-74 (Hals. Exeter 1455, Fleming York & Linc. 1424-26). °° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 130-31. $10 amb. Reg. Arundel, II, fo. 92, 92%; York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 49¥.

The Service Taxes 221 poverty, and that he himself had received less than 300 marks of income from the bishopric during the past year. This was a typical difficulty, but all that the king asked was to have final payment postponed for two years without any sentence of excommunication being issued against him before that time.?** Alexander not only failed to meet Laurence’s obligation but he also left the larger part of his own services unpaid. His successor, John Trevor, promised on 12 November 1394 to pay both debts in addition to his own services, but he endeavored to recover the sums from their goods. In response to his petition Boniface IX ordered the bishop of Hereford and the abbots of Strata Marcella and Valle Crucis in the diocese of St Asaph to levy from the goods of Laurence 150 florins 38 s. 3 d, and from those of Alexander 300 florins 45 s. and to assion them to John Trevor. The two bishops, it was stated, had acquired and disposed of the movable and immovable property of their church.*!* Thomas Arundel made a similar request. After he had paid arrears for Canterbury left by William Courtenay and also arrears left by Simon Sudbury, which William had promised to pay, he felt that he had been treated unjustly. William, he said, had enjoyed the fruits of Canterbury in peace for many years. His argument made sufficient impression to cause the camerarius to provide

the remedy which Thomas sought. He ordered the bishops of Salisbury, London and Hereford to exact the equivalent of 2669 florins 35 s., which Thomas had paid for his predecessor, from the executors of William Courtenay, using ecclesiastical censure and sequestration, if necessary, and to

reimburse Thomas Arundel therewith.*?? We are left in ignorance of the success of these two attempts to collect from the goods of deceased prelates unpaid balances which they owed for services. Whatever the results may have been, the attempts are important because they mark the beginning of a new policy as far as English prelates were concerned. About the same time some prelates who had sworn to pay the arrears of predecessors who had been translated to other sees tried to persuade the pope or the camera to shift the liability to the predecessors. Edmund Bromfield, who was provided to Llandaff in 1389 agreed to pay the remainder of the services owed by his immediate predecessor, William Bottlesham, who had been translated to Rochester. ‘Though William had been bishop of Llandaff nearly four years, he still owed 542 florins for common service and 69 florins 10 s. 8 d. for the five petty services. Edmund asked to have William meet his own debt for Llandaff. On 18 August 1390 Boniface IX 11 Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 85-86.

12CPL., IV, 291. 185 December 1396: Lamb. Reg. Arundel, I, fo. 8-8v.

222 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

ordered the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Winchester to force William to pay that sum.*** The mandate had no effect. After Edmund Bromfield died in 1393, five successive bishops of Llandaff promised

to pay William’s debt for that bishopric and the last of the five gave his promise seven years after William’s death.

John Trefnant, who was provided to Hereford on 5 May 1389, recognized in person the amount which should be found in the books of the camera still charged against his predecessor, John Gilbert,?** who had been translated to St Davids. Nevertheless, he made a protest to the camerarius

and the clerks of the camera which aired this type of problem thoroughly.°*° Having been auditor of causes in the sacred palace, he was familiar with canon and Roman law, and he cited both frequently to support his several statements. His argument, though it was cast in hypothetical form, developed, among others, the following points which related to his own situation. John Gilbert had enjoyed the fruits of Hereford for over thirteen years and should have kept his oath to pay the services. This was the same claim which had been put forward by Thomas Arundel, but John Trefnant carried it further. He suggested that the negligence of the officials of the camera in exacting the debt amounted to a tacit remission of it and that

perhaps they ought to satisfy the camera for it. Apparently he did not expect this placement of responsibility to be taken seriously, since he continued to debate whether he or his predecessor was responsible for the debt. John Gilbert had been voluntarily translated to St Davids, he was receiving the revenues of that bishopric and he was able to meet the debt. His oath to pay the services of Hereford was still binding and the camera, therefore, ought to collect the arrears from him. ‘The secondary debtor ought to pay only if the principal debtor was insolvent.*** What the camera did in response to this protest is not known, but neither John Gilbert nor John Trefnant paid the debt. Robert Mascal, who succeeded John Trefnant in 1404, recognized for John Gilbert 900 florins of common service and four petty services.??® $14 Clergeac, La Curie, p. 103, n. 4, Arm. XXXI, 1, fo. 106%-07¥.

“15 In the cameral register this item is deleted by lines and 823 florins 16 s. is substituted by a different hand: Ob. 48, fo. 117¥. +6 The protest is recorded in his register: pp. 131-35.

*47 In the course of the argument he took occasion to say that the services were not owed by common law or by any other ‘iure incorporato’. They were first established prejudicially by John XXII, as appears in his constitutions, the extravagantes. They are

legal foundation. |

tribute. Common law and the doctors say that if possession of an island is established anew, tribute has to be imposed again. The implication is that the services in 1389 were without

348 Ob. 57, fo. 114”. The obligation does not specify which John, but it must have been John Gilbert, though the amount of the debt was different from that given in the

obligation of John Trefnant. The latter had paid all his own services: Reg. Trefnant, pp. 8-9.

The Service Taxes 223 The conclusion reached by John Trefnant in his protest coincides with a decision made by John XXII and the cardinals in a consistory held in 1334.°*° Under his successors the camera had generally ignored the decision as far as English prelates were concerned. The only exception before 1390

seems to have been made when William Whittlesey was translated from Rochester to Worcester on 6 March 1364. He undertook to pay not only

the services for Worcester but also the remainder which he owed for Rochester. His successor to Rochester, Thomas Trillek, also promised

to pay the arrears left by William, but it was William who paid them. The complaints by English prelates late in the fourteenth century concerning the practice of making a prelate undertake the debt left by their predecessors were not isolated. Similar protests were coming from prelates in other parts of Europe. Under their influence a trend developed in the apostolic camera to treat debts for services as personal obligations rather than as obligations on the church. This is illustrated by the actions taken in response to the petitions of John Trevor and Thomas Arundel. After the council of Constance, during the pontificate of Martin V, this became the established practice with rare exceptions. If a predecessor who left a balance due was deceased, the camera tried to collect the debt from his property through commissioners appointed for the purpose.*”° On 3 February 1420, when the papal camerarius heard that John Chandler, bishop of Salisbury, had died recently, he wrote to Walter Medford, the collector in England, and ordered him to arrest the goods of the deceased bishop and to keep them until the amount still due from him for the services had been satisfied.°?°* This mandate was not executed because the news of John’s

death was false, but it illustrates the procedure established during the pontificate of Martin V. If a predecessor had been translated, he was held responsible for the payment of any remainder that he owed for the services of the bishopric from which he had been transferred. The early episcopal career of John Kemp provides an example of the practice. On 21 June 1419 he was pro-

vided to Rochester for which he undertook to pay the services. When he had paid only a part of the amount due, on 28 February 1421, he was translated to Chichester for which he agreed to pay the services. “Thomas Spofford, who succeeded him at Rochester, was required to promise payment only of his own services and was given no responsibility for the debt left by his predecessor. John Kemp took no new pledge to pay the balance

which he owed for Rochester. His original contract for the services of *1° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 100-01, Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 265. °° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 102-05. 20a Arm. XXIX, 6, fo. 15.

224 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Rochester was regarded as binding, since he continued to pay instalments for Rochester after he became bishop of Chichester. When he had been bishop of Chichester less than a year, on 17 November 1421, he was translated to London. At that time he had not paid any part of the services for Chichester and he still owed part of the services for Rochester. His successor at Chichester did not assume liability for his debt for Chichester and John Kemp did not renew his oath to pay it. Shortly before Christmas 1421 he paid substantial instalments for both Rochester and Chichester. On 31 March 1422 he promised to pay the services for London. Thereafter he continued to render instalments for Rochester and London until, with the aid of several postponements, he appears to have completed payment in full in 1424.°*t For Chichester, on the other hand, John Kemp’s successor paid the balance of the one set of services demanded from that bishopric, because it had been vacant twice in one year.3?? Fven before that time the camera had ceased to require English prelates to undertake the payments of the debts of their predecessors. The last two recognitions, one in 1413 and the other in 1418, were for remainders, if any should be found in the books of the camera. It is unlikely that there was any unpaid balance for either prelate to meet. In large part the more efficient methods of obtaining prompt payment of the services developed in the last years of the fourteenth century and in the fifteenth eliminated the necessity of collecting any arrears after a prelate died or was translated. After 1431 payment of all the services was required in nearly every instance before the bulls of provision were delivered.***

14. Crrcumstrances UNperR Wuicu Services Were Nor DuE There were circumstances under which services were not required from a prelate who received papal provision or translation. In the time of John XXII it was already the custom that if a consistorial benefice was vacant twice within a year, services should be paid for it only once.*?* This principle was generally maintained throughout the period under consideration. The one set of services might be paid by one or the other of the two provisors, or it might be shared between the two.

When John de la Bere was provided to St Davids on 15 September 1447, he had to promise payment of the full amount of the services, although his predecessor, John Langton, had been provided on 23 January 21 The record of the instalments is not quite complete, but the services of Rochester and London are marked respectively ‘totum solvit’ and ‘solvit’. *2? Below, p. 225.

*28 Except where otherwise noted, section 13 1s based on App. Il. *°* Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 264; Financial Relations to 1327, p. 478.

The Service Taxes 225 of the same year. In the register of the camera of the cardinals it was noted that John Langton had paid the whole amount which he owed to the college with the consequence that John de la Bere owed nothing. The college, it was explained, had decreed that if a church was vacant twice in the same year, the second bishop should pay only what the first bishop still owed. In the register of the apostolic camera it was stated more simply in a marginal note: ‘It has been vacant twice in a year, and since his predecessor had

paid, he is not held.’ *° Another prelate who had this good fortune was George Neville, but in his case the cameras appear to have treated his predecessor shabbily. John Hals was provided to Exeter on 20 October 1455 and he subsequently paid the services which he had pledged. He, however, resigned the bishopric without having had possession of it. George Neville was then provided on 4 February 1456. He undertook to pay the services, but was released from his obligation because his predecessor had paid them.*?¢

Sometimes a successor found that the whole of the services had been left in arrears. John Gilbert, who was appointed to Bangor on 17 March 1372 in succession to Howel ap Gronow, who had been provided on 21 April 1371, recognized all the services pledged by Howel, but obliged himself for no services of his own. In the case of John Langdon the process was different, though the result was the same. When he was provided to Rochester on 17 November 1421, he pledged payment of his own services and subsequently paid them. Thomas Spofford, who had been provided to Rochester on 7 April 1421, had promised to pay the services, but he paid no part of them, although he was translated from Rochester to Hereford. If the predecessor paid only part of the services, the successor had to pay the balance due. When John Kemp was translated from Chichester to London on 17 November 1421, he had occupied the see for less than a year. On the day of his translation his place at Chichester was filled by the trans-

lation from Hereford of Thomas Polton. Both were obliged for the full amount of the common service, which was 1433 florins, and of the five services, but actually each of them paid a part. On 24 December 1421 John paid to the cardinals 385 florins 40 s. 4d. On 25 September 1423 Thomas paid to the cardinals 400 florins. ‘This payment was said to complete the render of what was owed to the cardinals. Payment of the remainder was

remitted. That can mean only that Thomas was not required to fulfil his pledge to pay all the common service and one petty service owed the cardinals. The two payments made by John and Thomas exceeded the half of 825 Ob. 76, fo. 34; 77, fo. 32%; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1836, fo. 20V. 826 C.P.L., XI, 30, 148; Ob. 76, fo. 135, 139; 77, fo. 157%; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1837, fo. 27.

226 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the common service due the college, which was 716 florins 25 s., by 69 florins 10 s. 4 d. The excess was therefore the amount of one petty service. On 5 April 1422 John completed payment of 678 florins 30 s. to the papal camera, leaving to be paid 37 florins 35 s. for the common service and the

whole of the four petty services. Record of the payment of this balance is lacking, but Thomas probably paid it, since his account is marked ‘totum solvit.’

Exemption from the payment of services for churches from which they were ordinarily due was given to cardinals who were resident at the papal court.°*” English benefices to which the appointment was consistorial did not begin to be conferred upon resident cardinals until the sixteenth century, and the number of such provisions remained few. Hadrian Castello, who was translated from Hereford to Bath and Wells on 2 August. 1504, after he had been made a cardinal, paid no services therefor. Cardinal Julian de Medici paid no services for Worcester, which he received in 1521, and the pension of 2000 florins a year, which he received from Worcester after he resigned the bishopric in 1522,°?° was also exempt from services. Laurence Campeggio owed nothing for Salisbury to which he was provided in 1524.

Two other exemptions in the sixteenth century are explained by a custom developed during the fifteenth century of expediting gratis bulls of provision granted to certain other members of the papal court.*?° Hadrian Castello was promoted to Hereford in 1502 without cost, because he was secretary and general treasurer of the pope.**° Jerome Ghinucci, who was the auditor of causes of the apostolic camera,*** was given the same favor when he was provided to Worcester in 1522.°** 15. REMISSION OF PART OF THE SERVICES IN INDIVIDUAL CASES

On rare occasions the pope or the cardinals or both remitted part of the services which an English prelate owed. This was done for only the one time and no permanent reduction of the amount of services resulted. The reasons for such remissions to some prelates are not explained in the registers where they are recorded. John Chandler, bishop of Salisbury, was freed by the cardinals from payment of a small remainder still due them on 20 June 1423, Richard Oldham, abbot of St Werburgh Chester, was relieved $27 Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 134-35. 828 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell., II, fo. 208. 2° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 135-36.

880 Celier, Les Dataires, p. 152; Gebhardt, Adrian de Corneto, pp. 9-10.

381 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell., II, fo. 208. 22 Unless otherwise noted this section is based on App. II.

The Service Taxes 227 of payment of 50 of the 250 florins which he owed the pope for common service on 14 January 1456, and Richard Martin, bishop of St Davids, had remitted by the pope 250 of 750 florins which were the papal share of the common service on 8 May 1482. One of the reasons for such a temporary reduction was an exceptionally heavy burden of services due to the assumption of a predecessor’s debts. Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, who was the first English prelate to receive this favor after 1327, was relieved of part of the debt which he owed for his predecessor,*** because Innocent VI was moved to ‘compassion’ by the great difficulties which Simon encountered in meeting his obligation.*** The existence of the difficulties is sufficiently attested by his inability to meet all the debt during the whole of his tenure of office for more than sixteen years and by the small amount of many of the frequent instalments which he paid. The reason for them was the pestilence of 1348 and 1349 which left lands vacant and buildings in decay.3*° So wretched was the financial condition of the see that a contemporary despaired of repair in his own time.**°

In 1409 a sweeping concession was made by Alexander V, recently elected by the council of Pisa, to those whose payments of services were in arrears. On 24 July, with the approval of most of the cardinals and of the council, he pardoned all such debts and those due for the annates of lower benefices as well. A few days later he released those who had failed to pay on time what they owed to the apostolic camera from any censures and penalties which they had incurred.**’ To English prelates this was a boon of great importance because so many of them were behind in their payments *** Alexander V did not keep this promise in its entirety.**? He began, contrary to the grant, to trouble by processes English prelates for

arrears of services existing before the time of the remission. Henry IV asked him for the honor of the statute and of the council to provide a remedy. He also asked the cardinals to cease molestation of his prelates in that way, especially for the debts of their predecessors.**° ‘To what extent “°° Above, p. 218. $34 Co], 385, fo. 168V.

885 FT, M. C., Report VIII, 341.

8° William de Dene, Historia Roffensis, in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, 1, 375-76. °°" Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 24-25; Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 1477-48. °° Above, pp. 200-01. *8° Clergeac, La Curie, p. 25.

*“° Letter of Henry to the cardinals in which he speaks of what he has written to the pope: Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 147¥-48; Harl. MS. 431, fo. 19¥-20. The letter is not dated and the number of the king since the conquest is not specified. It was Henry IV because he says that he learned of the decree from the ambassadors whom he sent to the council. Possibly the letter refers to John XXIII who became pope in 1410.

228 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Alexander V violated the conciliar constitution with regard to English prelates and what effect the king’s plea may have had it is impossible to say, because most of the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers are lacking from 1407 to 1413 inclusive. The pardon granted specifically to archbishops Bowet and Arundel by John XXIII in 1413 for arrears owed from York in part since 1388 °41 indicates that this debt had not been pardoned previously. The payment by Richard Clifford on 4 September 1413 of 100 florins toward three and one-half petty services which he had owed for London since 1407 is another instance in which the pardon was not observed.

Other evidence establishes a probability that it was applied in some other cases. Bishops of Bangor, Bath and Wells, Chichester, Llandaff, St Asaph, Salisbury, Worcester and Carlisle, whose recorded payments before 1409 were not complete for pledges which they had taken at dates between 1394 and 1408, left no arrears which were charged to their immediate successors, whose pledges were taken between 1411 and 1424. Some of these balances due may have been paid between 1407 and 1413, but it seems improbable

that the slate would have been wiped quite so clean, if some of them had not been remitted. Another cause of reductions granted to prelates was the intervention of influential persons with the pope or the cardinals in their behalf. Henry

Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, cardinal of S Eusebio and at the time legate to Bohemia, obtained such a favor for Robert Neville, bishop of Salisbury, in 1428.°* The person who most often secured remissions of part of the services was the king. Henry IV sought the pardon of arrears given to archbishops Bowet and Arundel for York.**? John Catterick received from the cardinals a remission of all the services that he owed to them for Lichfield, because he was the orator of Henry V at the council of Constance and they wished to show their respect for the king.*** ‘The action may have been taken, of course, without any previous request from the king. Henry VII procured a reduction of the common service of Lichfield when William Smith was appointed bishop,**° and the reduced rate was retained for his two successors during the remainder of the reign. It was temporary, because in each instance the pope had to issue a mandate to the camera to maintain it.**® It turned out to be permanent, since the see was not filled 842 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1833, fo. 161. *48T amb. Reg. Arundel, II, fo. 92. *4* Below, p. 241. *4° Below, pp. 274-75.

$46 Arm. XXIX, 55, fo. 51.

The Service Taxes 229 again until 1534, In 1494 the officials of the camera received a similar order from Alexander VI with regard to Durham. Under penalty of excommunication for disobedience, they were to accept 6000 florins in place of 9000

for the common service and to calculate the petty services and the additional fees of the camera at a proportionate reduction. This was a special grace for Richard Fox translated from Bath and Wells on 30 July.*4? Though no request from Henry VII for this grant was mentioned by the pope, the king’s initiative seems probable, since Fox was one of his most trusted advisers.*** This remission, like that for Lichfield, appears to have been received by the three immediate successors of Fox. During the reign of Henry VIII Wolsey tried to secure reductions of the services of two other prelates. His approval of John Voysey’s attempt in 1519 to get the common service of Exeter reduced was a failure.**® In 1521, on the other hand, John Kite, who was translated from Dublin to Carlisle, was favored with a small reduction of his services for Wolsey’s sake.3°°

Wolsey’s efforts in his own behalf produced a mixed bag. When he was provided to Lincoln in 1514, he asked for a reduction of the services. Henry VIII instructed three of his representatives at the papal court to use their influence in Wolsey’s behalf. Both the pope and the cardinals raised objections and at first refused, but ultimately they gave way grudgingly. The pope remitted all the common service owed to him and the cardinals remitted 1000 ducats. The total reduction amounted to 3375 ducats on a common service of 5000 ducats.?°? After Wolsey was made a cardinal, he tried in 1518 to secure the bulls to hold Bath and Wells in administration gratis, as was the privilege of resident cardinals. He was informed that he did ‘not partake in the privileges of (cardinals) not being at Rome.’ Apparently he had to pay all the services without reduction.®°?

When he applied for the richer bishopric of Durham in 1523, he asked only for a remission of part of the services. Cardinal Campeggio, who proposed the provision in consistory, wrote that he had labored for a reduction without success, because the cardinals had opposed it.*** The action of consistory provided him to the bishopric and to the abbacy of St Albans to be , 847 Arm. XXIX, 50, fo. 203. *48Temperley, Henry VII, pp. 12, 36, 43. °° Below, pp. 246-47; L. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 443. 807, @ P., II, pt. 2, 1430. 510, & P., I, 4724, 4747, 5464, 5465, 5542; II, pt. 1, 20; Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 79; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. II, fo. 73-737; III, fo. 126. ‘ 85 L. @& P., II, pt. 2, 4068, 4139, 4179, 4350; Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell., II,

58 Cotton MS Vitel. B. V, fo. 198.

230 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 held in commendam, with the retention of York and the surrender of Bath and Wells for the payment to the pope and cardinals of 9000 ducats.*4 Since St Albans paid an annual sum in lieu of services, Wolsey did not receive as much reduction as his four immediate predecessors in Durham, who paid a common service of only 6000 ducats. Possibly he was not required to pay the five petty services.?*° Wolsey’s last attempt to obtain a reduction in 1528 was more successful. He asked to have Winchester provided to him at little expense. The cardinals, who were badly in need of money as a result of the sack of Rome

and the failure of certain merchants, refused in consistory to make the abatement proposed by Clement VII. The agents of the king and Wolsey then became active at the papal court. The argument with which they finally won his cause was supplied to them by Wolsey. He said that he could keep Durham and have the temporalities of Winchester which were at the disposal of the king. The spiritualities of Winchester were worth no

more than £300. With this threat that the cardinals might be unable to obtain services from either Durham or Winchester was coupled an offer to pay 5000 to 6000 ducats for Winchester. This would leave Durham vacant with its common service of 9000 ducats. Eventually consistory let Winchester go for 8000 ducats in place of the customary 12000.°°° After Wolsey’s downfall, Henry VIII, in 1531, asked for a reduction of the common services of Stephen Gardiner provided to Winchester and of Edward Lee provided to York.?°’ When a small rebate was granted in consistory, it was recorded in the minutes as a grace made to the king of England.*°* It may also have been due to royal influence that Clement VII, in 1530, ordered the officials of the camera to restore to John Stokesley, provided to London, 1000 florins of the customary 3000 florins which his proctor had already paid for common service.*°®

When Henry VIII recommended Thomas Cranmer to the pope for provision to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he was prepared to wring from the pope a concession with regard to the services of his candidate. Early in 1532 parliament had passed the act in conditional restraint of annates which forbade the payment of services, unless the king could ar854 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell. II, fo. 230V. 255, d& P., II, pt. 2, 2917, 2918, 2999, 3025. 856 Ehses, Rémische Dokumente, p. 64, L. &@ P., IV, pt. 2, 4898, 5038; IV, pt. 3, 5225-26,

5228, 5251, 5313, 5496; Burnet, History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, IV, 72; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. XI, fo. 84-847; Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell. 4, fo. 24¥,; Reg. Vat. 1438, fo. 23¥-24.

*57 Pocock, Records, Il, 137; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 598, L. & P., V. 205. 858 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell. 3, fo. 203%.

fo an on for the order is not explained in the entry: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1843,

The Service Taxes 231 range a composition with the pope which would make them more moderate in amount. It left the king free, however, to declare, before Easter of 1533

or before the next parliament, whether or not any part of the act should be put into effect.?®° On 21 March 1532 Henry wrote to William Benet, his ambassador at the papal court, and to Jerome Ghinucci and Gregory Casale, who represented his interests there. He sent to them a copy of the statute and explained that its validation was left to his decision. ‘I do not mean to deceive them’ (i. e. the pope and the cardinals), he said, ‘but to tell them the fact that this statute will be to their advantage, if they show themselves deserving of it; if not, otherwise.’ *** On 29 April his representa-

tives reported that they had explained the matter to the pope according to his letter.?®

What Henry VIII then had in mind as ‘deserving’ was probably the grant of his divorce, since Archbishop Warham did not die until 22 August. When Canterbury became vacant, and a candidate for the office who would do the king’s bidding about the divorce was at hand, the threat of the statute could be utilized to secure his promotion and his exemption from the services by consistory. The king took advantage of it. On 31 January 1533

Edmund Bonner wrote to William Benet at Rome that when Cranmer’s bulls were expedited, it would be advisable that he should be gently handled in the charges and especially in the services. ‘Otherwise,’ he said, ‘the mat-

ter of the annates, which is now only stayed by the king’s goodness, will be determined to the disadvantage of the court of Rome.’ °° The king then, at the suggestion of Thomas Cromwell, lent Cranmer £1000.°°%* This : sum obviously was not enough to meet the services. Nicholas Hawkins, one of Henry’s agents in Italy, estimated the common service at 10000 ducats, the petty services at 3000 to 4000, the pallium at 1000 and the propina of Cardinal Campeggio, who sponsored Cranmer in consistory, at 1500.°®

On 21 February 1533, on the motion of Campeggio in consistory, the church of Canterbury was provided with Thomas Cranmer at the petition of the king of England. In the minute which records the action the items

Redditus (Revenues) and Taxa (Assessment) appear as usual, but the amounts are left blank.*** What is more enlightening 1s the absence of any

entry of an obligation taken by Cranmer or his agent to pay the services 86° Statutes of the Realm, III, 385-88.

3 T. & P., V, 886. 27 & P., V, 971.

see & P. VI, 101. 864 TT, e& P., VI, 131. Elsewhere said to have been 1000 marks: L. @ P., VI, 1474.

85 Tg P. VI, 177. 866 Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancell. IV, fo. 103¥.

232 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 in the volumes of the Obligationes and Solutiones Registers which contain the obligations of 1533.96" “Though the evidence 1s negative, it creates a presumption that Cranmer was exempted from payment of the services.°°° 867 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1845, 1846. The registers in which any payments of services in 1533 would have been recorded are missing. °° Pickthorn’s statement that a small sum was paid in lieu of annates has no evidential

foundation: Early Tudor Government: Henry VIII, p. 194.

CuHapter VI

THE SERVICE TAXES CONTINUED 1. COMMUTATION TO FixeD ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF THE SERVICES OF SOME, MoNASTERIES

The five monasteries which had begun to pay services in the thirteenth century secured in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the commutation of their services and attendant charges to a fixed annual sum. The annual payments were made to the papal collector in England. These payments came to be known as pensions. Sometimes the payments were called census, but it was not census paid as a sign of exemption or protec-

tion in the original meaning of the term. Two of the five houses which obtained commutation of their services owed census before the commutation and continued to pay it afterward. The first to receive this privilege was St Albans. The abbot and convent were influenced to petition for the arrangement by the example of Evesham. They were familiar with the grant made to Evesham by Urban V,_’ since a copy of it appears in the chronicle of the monastery.” They petitioned Boniface [X for the same privilege in order to save the expenses of the trip to Rome which each abbot had to make in order to have his election confirmed by the pope. They were given the support of Richard II, who asked the pope to grant them as much grace as Innocent III and Urban V had conceded to Evesham. In the royal letter it was explained that St Albans was ‘situate in the uttermost parts of the earth,’ that it was slenderly en-

dowed compared with other monasteries of the realm and that it was located in a barren place. If each abbot had to go to Rome, the result would

be that the number of monks would be diminished, devotion would be chilled and hospitality would not be observed. As a final argument in favor of the petition the king reminded the pope that the Black Prince had borne a special affection for the monastery.* The abbot and convent instructed

their proctors to add that they had already cut down nearly all of their woods to pay the sums owed to the papal court and to the king in times of vacancy.*

The abbot and convent, however, seem to have doubted whether they * Above, p. 172. 2 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 165-67. See also C.P.L., IV, 293-94. *26 September before 1395: Diplomatic Corres. of Richard I, pp. 163-64; C.P.L., IV,

7 . Giesta Abbatum, Ml, 148-50.

234 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 could obtain the complete exemption from service taxes enjoyed by Evesham. They supplied their proctors with two alternative petitions which might be presented. One was to commute the services to an annual payment of twenty marks and the other was to seek only freedom from papal confirmation of abbatial elections leaving the requirement of the services standing. ‘The value placed upon each type of concession is indicated by the maximum amount which the proctors were authorized to spend in ob-

taining them. The sums were for the same grace that Evesham had received £1000, for the first alternative 1000 marks and for the second £300. Both the monks and the king sent envoys to present the petition. The

monks’ envoy carried letters making Laurence, a monk of Battle and a papal penitentiar, and Adam de Fenrother, a clerk, their proctors. Adam brought into the negotiations William Strete, who reported from time to time to the abbot of St Albans, Thomas de la Mare. He delivered the petition to a friend, who promised that it would be obtained, if 4000 florins were placed on deposit. William borrowed for the purpose of John Maidenhithe £215 10s. 9 d., which the abbot was informed he must repay withina month. ‘The deposit was not to be used unless the friend secured the

grant of the petition in its existing form. This was that the abbot could act as abbot without papal confirmation and that a payment of twenty florins every three years should be substituted for the services. William said that the king’s proctor had done nothing since his arrival to advance the cause and that the pope had not read a letter which he brought. ‘Your busi-

ness,’ he told the abbot, ‘cannot be carried out here through letters from any one, but only through money.’ The pope granted the petition on 6 May 1395, but it was signed Fiat B, which meant that it would go through the camera and would lack the force of perpetuity. This would be given by a Fiat ut petitur which would go through the chancery. This difficulty caused further delay and the expenditure of more money. William asked the abbot to pay 2000 florins to a Lombard, William Fysy, who would bring the money with him. On 3 August 1395 William acknowledged the receipt of 1377 florins. At this point the account of the chronicler ended without tracing the subsequent steps,” but he did not neglect to say that William Strete and Laurence obtained 600 marks from the abbot by deceit.° The outcome was a bull which was expedited through the chancery bearing the date of 2 October 1395. On account of the petition of Richard II, it authorized abbots of St Albans subsequently elected to be esteemed abbots without papal confirmation. In compensation for annates, the common and petty services and other burdens accustomed to be paid at times 5 Gesta Abbatum, III, 151-81. * Ibid., Il, 181-84, 397-99.

The Service Taxes Continued 235 of vacancy to the pope, the camera, the college of cardinals and the households of the pope and the college for confirmation or provision, the pope

was to receive 20 marks a year to be paid to the collector in England at Michaelmas under penalty of excommunication for failure. Two days later another bull confirmed a letter of Honorius III on which the claim that a newly elected abbot of St Albans could be blessed by any catholic bishop was based.?

The final act in the process was taken by the king. On 1 February 1396 he confirmed the papal indult with regard to the right of the abbots to perform the duties of their office without confirmation of their elections, provided the prior and convent had certified the king of the vacancy, paid for a license to elect a new abbot, obtained the royal assent to the candidate elected and secured the restitution of the temporalities. He also pardoned

the abbot and convent for suing at the apostolic see and for paying the papal collector twenty marks annually.®

Even though the king had assisted the abbot and convent to break the laws of the realm, the pardon was necessary to make the indult valid. On 13 April 1380 the abbot and convent of Cirencester obtained from Urban Via grant which enabled the convent, nothwithstanding any papal reservation, to elect an abbot who could forthwith exercise the powers of the abbot without the confirmation of anyone, and who could receive benediction from any catholic bishop of his choice. The services were not involved, since Cirencester was not an exempt monastery and its abbots did not need papal confirmation. It was the abbot’s diocesan, the bishop of Worcester, who lost the right of confirmation. Richard II prohibited the use of this privilege. On 4 April 1394 he required the abbot and convent to post a bond for £1000 as a guarantee that no successor of the existing abbot would exercise the benefit of the execution of the bull.?®

Bury St Edmunds and Waltham soon followed the example of St Albans. The monks of Bury petitioned for the same privilege on the same grounds of avoiding the perils of the road and the heavy expenses which previously had exhausted their goods and faculties. They also had the support of a petition addressed to Boniface IX by Richard IIL. Their indult was issued on 25 April 1398. Its terms were practically the same as those contained in the privilege of St Albans. The chief difference was that two months of grace were allowed after Michaelmas for the payment of the

twenty marks before the grant would be invalidated.*° An interesting sequel to this grant was a royal license for the abbot and convent to appro7 Ibid., MW, 378; C.P.L., IV, 516-18. ®°C.P.R. 1396-99, pp. 85-86. ° C.CLR. 1392-96, pp. 285-86.

*° Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Ff II, 29, fo. 68-68%; C.P.L., V, 152.

236 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

priate the churches of Thurston and Harlow valued at £33 6s. 8 d. The purpose was to help meet two annual payments which they had undertaken. One was £40 payable to exchequer in return for the royal grant of the right to have all the revenues of the abbey during a vacancy. The other was 20 marks payable to the papal camera in place of the services and other payments due at the time of a vacancy.** The two months of grace allowed to Bury for its annual payment moved John de la Moot, who was abbot of St Albans from 1396 to 1401, to seek a still greater privilege. He obtained from Boniface IX the same extension of time for his monastery and the additional grant that the papal collector could not use ecclesiastical censures for failure to pay on time.’? An abbot of Bury, William Exeter, not to be outdone, on 23 December 1417, secured from Martin V a confirmation of the indult of Boniface [IX which changed completely the penalty for nonpayment within two months after Michaelmas. The delinquency would no longer nullify the grant, but instead would

cause the abbot eo zpso to incur excommunication from which only the pope could absolve him, except in the case of death.**

The abbot and convent of Waltham, at the petition of themselves and Richard II, received the same privilege on 28 January 1399. The only significant difference from the grant to Bury was that the annual sum due the papal collector at Michaelmas was 30 gold florins of the camera.** Louis, bishop of Volterra, who was the collector at the time, accepted £5 as the equivalent of this amount, and that remained the permanent annual payment.?®

The movement among the exempt English monasteries to commute the services to annual payments ceased for a time after the abdication of Richard II, who had been its patron. It was renewed again by the abbot and convent of Westminster.*® In 1421 they put before Henry V a claim that the necessity of seeking confirmation from the pope and paying the services and other customs amounted to more than 800 marks after each vacancy

of the abbacy. With their temporalities in the hands of the king during the vacancy, this burden would cause their ruin. The expenses had just been brought forcibly to their attention by the experience of the new abbot, CPLR. 1396-99, p. 406; Cotton MS. Tiberius B IX, fo. 112-14, 152-54. | 12 Gesta Abbatum, Ill, 436; MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 42. 18 CP.L., VIL, 60.

14 Harl. MS. 391, fo. 175-175¥,; Cotton MS. Faust. A. III, fo. 351-52; C.P.L., V, 267. 15 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 44.

*® Possibly they made an earlier attempt in 1385. John Malverne recorded that John

Bacon, a king’s clerk, had been sent by king and council to the pope to support a privilege in behalf of the debt of Westminster. The project failed because the envoy died in Italy before he reached the papal court: Higden, Polychron., IX, 72. Malverne does. not explain the nature of the debt.

The Service Taxes Continued 237 Richard Harowden. He was confirmed by the pope on 26 February 1421. His services came to 2408 florins 46 s. 2 d., which represented 602 marks.?” We have no record of the additional fees and gratuities, but in 1463, when they had probably increased somewhat, Abbot George Norwich paid for them 373¥, florins,*® or 117 marks.’® If the travelling expenses of their proctors be taken into account, a cost of 800 marks probably was not an exaggeration.

The king responded to the petition on 7 June 1421 by giving the abbot

and convent a license to treat with the pope for permission to have an elected abbot confirmed within the kingdom by any bishop and to pay a certain sum each year in compensation for the services.” If the abbot took advantage of the license, nothing came of it, for they obtained from Henry VI, on 1 December 1433, a confirmation of the license.2_ This likewise had no result, since between 1440 and 1470 three successors of Richard Harowden were provided by the pope and were required to pay the services and the associated fees and gratuities. With the third successor, Thomas Milling, the attempt to commute the

services was renewed. On 4 August 1471 he and the convent received a license from Edward IV to sue before the pope for the same privilege.” Their effort met with no success before Thomas Milling died in 1474. His successor, John Esteney, who was subject to the services, continued the suit with the help of the king. On 23 May 1478 Edward IV petitioned Sixtus IV to grant the boon desired by the abbot and convent. He reminded the pope that he had previously written several letters to the same effect. He pointed out that St Albans and Waltham already enjoyed the privilege sought by Westminster. That abbey, he said, had been reduced to poverty

by expenditures at the papal court caused by the unusually frequent vacancies in its abbatial dignity. He informed the pope that he had instructed his ambassador at the papal court, John, abbot of Abingdon, to promote the cause of Westminster and had made John de Gerona, a member of the college of solicitors at the papal court, his solicitor for the purpose.** On 13 August 1478 Sixtus IV finally issued the desired indult. It was modeled on the grant made by Boniface [IX to Waltham, of which the abbot and convent had apparently submitted a copy along with their petition.** 17 At 4 florins to the mark. *® Below, pp. 276-78.

19 At 50 d. for a florin. 2° 'W.A.M. 5439.

*1 Ibid.. H. M. C., Report, IV, 171. 22 C\.P.R. 1467-77, p. 272.

23 W.A.M. 5457; C.S.P. Venice, I, 465; H. M. C., Report IV, 171.

fo Saons copy of the petition in their cartulary is not dated: Cotton MS. Faust. A. III,

238 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 It differed from the privilege of Waltham in three important particulars. The annual payment was due on 29 June, it was 100 florins, and a year of grace was given before failure to make an annual payment on time would cause the privilege to lapse.?° John de Giglis, who was papal collector at the time, assessed the value of the annual payment in English money at £21 13 s. 4 d.,*° which represented approximately the current rate of exchange. This sum of English money was exacted by later collectors." St Augustine Canterbury did not obtain the commutation of its services and other charges until 1494. The amount which it had to pay annually on 29 June was 100 ducats. Hadrian Castello, the papal collector, reckoned this at £22 10 s.,?° which represented the current rate of exchange. These concessions were of financial value to the monasteries which received them. The yearly payments amounted to a smaller total than the services paid after each vacancy would have produced. St Albans may be taken as an illustration. During the fourteenth century the monastery had six abbots.2® The common service was 3600 florins five times and would have been the same if it had been paid in 1396 after the commutation. The five petty services are known only in three instances. Since the amount was variable, the average of the three, which is 514 florins, is used in the following estimate.

florins £ 5. d. 1310 ” 548 10 g 3 1328 ” 651 7 g 82 1336 ” 651 7 g 33 1349 ” 617 2 0 34 1396 ” 719 19 0% 1303. 4114 «= 5548—Ss«10 g 80

Total 3736 17 8

°5'W.A.M. 5419; H. M..C., Report IV, 171; Widmore, History of Westminster, pp. 117, 205.

26 W.A.M. 9450, 9451, 30445.

27 W_.A.M. 9435, 9444, 9446-48, 9452; MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 437. 28 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 437-44. ° Dugdale, Monasticon, Il, 195-98, Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 679-81; below,

App. Il. °°’The common service pledged was 720 marks at the rate of 5 florins to the mark: Ob. 1, fo. 17%. The rate is 32 d. to the florin and that is used for the above conversion. There is no official record of the amount paid and the record in the Gesta Abbatum (II, 56-58) seems to be inaccurate. ** The pledge was for the same amount as in 1303: Reg. Clementis V, App. I, 117; Ob. 1, fo. 42. *? ‘The pledge was for 3600 florins. The rate of exchange in 1331 was 38 d. to the florin: C.P.L., I, 503. ** The rate in 1335 was 38 d. to the florin: Worcester, Reg. Montacute, fo. 9. **’'The rate was 36 d. to the florin in 1350: Col. 14, fo. 50. *> The rate was 42 d. to the florin in 1391: Arm. XXIX, 1, fo. 302.

The Service Taxes Continued 239 The annual payment of 20 marks for 100 years would have amounted to £1333 6s. 8d. The saving on the services alone, if the commutation had been in operation throughout the fourteenth century, would have been in the neighborhood of £2403 11 s.8° This is only a part of the amount which would have been saved. There were many additional charges and gratuities at the papal court and also the expenses of the journey of the abbot or his proctors to and from the court on each occasion of a confirmation or a provision.®” 2. CHANGES IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF BISHOPRICS

Several bishoprics had the amounts at which the common service was assessed changed. The determination of the amount of the common service by reference to the assessment found in the registers and Libri taxarum of the camera might cause a valuation which had been approximately onethird of the annual income when first established to become in the course

of years or centuries more or less than one-third of the current income. When the variation was notable, it might be possible to secure a revision of the assessment, but it was difficult.** The changes in the assessments of English bishoprics do not appear to have been caused by variations in their incomes.

The first alteration was in the common service of Lichfield. In 1322 Roger Northburgh had obliged himself to pay 3500 florins.*® His immediate successor, Robert Stretton, although he was provided by Innocent VI, took no pledge and paid no services.*° The next bishop, Walter Skirlaw, was provided in 1385. When the officials of the camera prepared to draw up his obligation for payment of the services, they did not find the bishopric ‘in libris camere.’ The probable reason for the failure of their search was that the register containing copies of the obligations of 1322 was not in their possession. Many of the cameral registers which displayed the assessments of consistorial benefices for the common service and the amounts for which prelates had previously obliged themselves were left at Avignon in 1376.

They did not again become available to the camera of the Roman popes until long after 1385. What the cameral clerks appear to have done to meet this situation was

generally to take the word of the prelate for the customary amount of the °° There was a similar saving in the fifteenth century, since a vacancy in the abbatial office was filled six times: Dugdale, Monasticon, II, 198-206. *? Below, pp. 247-79.

°° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 90-91; below, pp. 246-47. 8° Ob. 3, fo. 987; 7, fo. 52¥; I. & E. 54, fo. 13%, 159. *° Above, p. 171. *“ Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 89-90.

240 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 common service and to insert in the obligation a saving clause requiring the prelate to pay more, if it should be found later in the cameral registers

, that the amount was more. In 1395, for example, the bishop of Exeter was obliged for 5000 florins, which was the usual amount. Since the officials of the camera could not find the assessment in the books of the camera, presumably the bishop’s proctors told them what it was. The bishop, however, had to give surety of payment of more at any time, if it should appear in the old books of either camera that the assessment was more than 5000 florins.*” Walter Skirlaw, in 1385, may not have known what his predecessor had paid in 1322. The camerarii, at any rate, had no information. They had to establish the extent of the bishop’s liability for the common service by another method.

They required his proctors to bind their principal to pay whatever sum should be established by a commission appointed to make a valuation

in England. The proctors had further to give their own bond for 5000 florins as a guarantee that the bishop would ratify their act within a year.* The camerariu then appointed Cosmatus Gentilis, the papal collector in England, and the bishop of London to inquire and inform themselves of the fruits, rents, revenues, rights and obventions of the bishopric.** They delegated their authority to three canons of Lichfield, who held an inquisition and examined several witnesses whose names were reported to the apostolic camera and entered upon its books.*® ‘The report, which was made on 5 August 1386, set a true gross annual value which appears in various documents as £330 3 s. 114% d.,4® £330 3s. 114 d.,47 and £339 3s. 9Y, d.* Whatever the precise sum was, the officials of the camera reckoned its equivalent as 2200 florins, which made the common service at one-third of the value 7331 florins.*® Walter Skirlaw paid his common service on this basis, and so likewise did his two immediate successors, Richard le Scrope provided in 1386 and John Burghill provided in 1398.°°

John Catterick, who was translated to Lichfield from St Davids by John XXIII on 1 February 1415, received from the college of cardinals a *? Ob. 52, fo. 73. Other examples: Ob. 48, fo. 138; 52, fo. 52, 79, 88Y. *8 Ob. 48, fo. 55. *4 Addit. MS. 4079. 45 Thid.

*6 C.S.P. Venice, I, 614.

“7 Ob. 74. fo. 70%. In Ob. 48. fo. 55 the figure begins ‘33’, but the remainder of the figure is illegible. 48 Addit. MS. 4079. *° Ob. 48, fo. 55%, 72.

°° Below, App. II. A memorandum made at the camera in 1435 and a letter of Henry VII written in 1491 imply that John Burghill was the first bishop after Walter Skirlaw to pay 733 1/3 florins: Ob. 74, fo. 70%; C.S.P. Venice, I, 614.

The Service Taxes Continued 241 remission of the services due it.°’ There is in the extant Obligationes and Solutiones Registers no record of his obligation,®* or of any payments to the papal camera, but from 29 May 1415, when John XXIII was declared deposed, to 11 November 1417, when Martin V was elected, either registers were not kept with regularity, or some which were kept are now miss-

ing. According to a memorandum drawn up for the information of a proctor concerned with the services of a William who was later bishop of Lichfield,°* John Catterick was asked by the pope to pay more than the assessment of 733 florins. He opposed the demand to avoid prejudice of his churches of Coventry and Lichfield, but gave way before a threat of the withdrawal of the pope’s benevolence and favor and paid more ducats than the assessment. He protested, however, that it ought not to be turned into a custom. What reliance may be placed upon this account is problematical. It was not for the guidance of the proctor of William Heyworth,

who was provided in 1419, since his experience with his services was included in the memorandum. It was for the information of the proctor of either William Booth appointed in 1447 or William Smith appointed

in 1492. The slight balance of probability is that it was prepared for the proctor of the latter,°* who is known to have protested the amount of the common service demanded of him.°® William Heyworth, the next bishop after John Catterick, appointed as his proctors, on 6 February 1420, John Blodwell, canon of St Asaph and

papal abbreviator, and Richard Betty, canon of London. They pledged him to pay the common service and the five petty services, but the record of the obligation in the cameral register does not, as was customary, state the amount of the common service.5* The reason was that the assessment of the bishopric could not be found in the available registers of the cameras of the pope or of the college.°’ The bishop’s proctors produced a copy of the inquisition of 1386 and acquittances for payments in full by predecessors in the see which demonstrated that the assessment was 73314 florins. 19 April 1415: Baumgarten, Untersuchungen, p. cxviii; Ob. 55A, fo. 80", Ob. 61, fo. 72. °? Hoberg also found none: Tavxae, p. 42.

8 Addit. MS. 4079. The document begins with the experience of Walter Skirlaw and ends with that of William Heyworth. °4In the catalogue of the Additional MSS. the document is dated 1441. 5 C.S.P. Venice, I, 614. It may be of significance that William Booth had two proctors: Ob. 76, fo. 27. °6 Ob. 58, fo. 1497.

57 Ob. 70, fo. 70%; C.S.P. Venice, 1, 614. The latter is a letter from Henry VII to Innocent VIII, dated 8 December 1491, requesting that William Smith should not be asked to pay

more for the services than his predecessors had done. It recounts the history of the payments of services by previous bishops of Lichfield from Walter Skirlaw to William Heyworth inclusive.

242 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 They offered to pay the sum, but the vicecamerarius of the apostolic camera would not accept it °° and tried to obtain more. The letter of 1491 states that he demanded 3500 florins. This seems improbable. It was the amount of the assessment of 1322. Since the officials of the camera were unlikely

to have hit upon that sum by chance, it is contradictory to the statement of the camerarius of the college that the assessment could not be found in the available records of either camera. It is more probable that the composer of the royal letter knew that before 1491 the assessment had been restored to 3500 florins ®° and assumed that the attempt had been made in 1420. What sum the vicecamerarius did demand for the common service

is uncertain. He required the two proctors to lend the papal camera 900 florins for which the bishop was to repay the canons.®° This envisaged a common service of at least 1800 florins. The proctors paid 40 florins for part of one petty service and 60 florins for the sacra.** Since the sacra was at that time one-twentieth of one-half of the common service,®? the sum expected for the common service was apparently 2400 florins.

Against the increase William Heyworth appealed to Martin V.® Whether or not it was the result of this appeal, the heads of the two cameras commissioned James, bishop of Trieste, and Simon de Teramo, the papal collector, to determine the true value of the episcopal income without any

deduction of expenses. They went to the place where the greater part of the revenues were, examined books and registers of Lichfield and Coventry which displayed what all the revenues were, and then questioned witnesses

under oath concerning the value of each revenue. The total income they assessed at £357 6s. 8 d.* This represented a small increase of the valuation in sterling, but it did not increase the amount of the common service in florins. The valuation of 1386, which was placed at 2200 florins, valued the florin at 3 shillings, if the assessment was £330 3 s. 11% d. in sterling, and at 3 s. 1 d., if it was £339 3s.9¥% d. The former figure of the valuation in sterling is probably

correct, since it is that given in a contemporary cameral register. If the florin had been valued at the same amount in 1420, the valuation in florins

would have been 2382 and the common service 794 florins. How much William paid for his common service cannot be determined exactly, but on 58 Cotton MS. 4079; Reg. Whethamstede, Il, 369-72.

In 1447.

6° Addit. MS. 4079; C.S.P. Venice, I, 614. 61 Arm. XXXIV, 4, fo. 152.

* On the sacra see below, pp. 247-48. 8° Reg. Whethamstede, Il, 369-72. The document is not dated and it does not state the amount of the increased demand. °* Ob. 74. fo. 70¥-71; C.S.P. Venice, I, 614.

The Service Taxes Continued 243 6 December 1435 ® the camerarius of the college acquitted him for payment of 385 florins and stated that it was all which he owed to the camera for his common service and one petty service, according to the valuation established by the inquiry of the papal collector and the bishop of Trieste.* This sum, which includes one-half of the common service and one petty service, is less than one-half of 794 florins. Sterling, therefore, must have been valued at less than it had been in 1386. In 1423 the rate of exchange was 40 d. for a florin.®” If the camera valued the florin at this rate in 1420, the valuation of £357 6s. 8 d. would be the equivalent of 214614 florins, making the common service a few Roman shillings more than 715 florins. The share of the cardinals would have been 357% florins, and one petty service would have been 2714 florins.** This does not agree with a statement in the letter written by Henry VII in behalf of William Smith that the total of the services paid to the papal camera by William Heyworth was 440 florins.*® Deducting from this total of 440 florins four petty services at 27, florins each, the common service paid the pope would have been 330 florins instead of 357% florins which it should have been at the rate of 40 d. If, however, the value placed on the florin was 39 d., the problem works out almost exactly. The assessment would be 2199 florins, the common service 733 florins, the share of each camera 366% florins and each petty service 18% florins. That this is the right solution is confirmed by the fact that 1844 florins is right within a small fraction for the share which

each cardinal would have received from a payment to their camera of common service amounting to 366% florins.7° One petty service was the same amount as the share of one cardinal. Thus the higher valuation in sterling left the amount of the common service in florins practically the same as it had been 1n 1386.

When William Booth became bishop of Lichfield in 1447, he undertook to pay 3500 florins for his common service. The reason for the increased amount is not explained in the summaries of his obligation,” but it seems to be a safe assumption that the cameral officials had recovered possession °° The payments had been made in instalments between 1423 and 1430. °° Ob. 74, fo. 71-717.

°" Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 31.

°§ The proctors of William had paid 40 florins to the papal camera for part of one petty service, but that had been done before the new assessment had been made. °° C.S.P. Venice, I, 614.

"°’The number of cardinals present is not stated in the obligation of William Heyworth, but in the obligation of Richard Fleming, who was provided to Lincoln on the same day,

20 November 1419, the number is put at 20: Ob. 58, fo. 142. The half of the common service received by the college was divided equally among the cardinals present: above, Ob. 76, fo. 27; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1836, fo. 3%; Arm. XXXII, 2, fo. 209.

244 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of the missing registers and had found the original assessment of 1322. This

sum was maintained thereafter until 1492, when William Smith was appointed to the see. Henry VII, who had recommended him to Innocent VIII for provision to Lichfield, informed the pope on 8 December 1491 that Wiulliam’s bulls had not been expedited because the camera was demanding of him a larger sum than his predecessors had ever paid. He asked that the camera be directed to forward the bulls at once in return for the usual fees.

In support of his request he related the experiences of Walter Skirlaw, John Burghill and William Heyworth, asserted that the churches of Coven-

try and Lichfield were poorer than they had been then, were so ruined, indeed, that 10000 ducats would not pay for their repair, and capped the climax with the statement that a bishop promoted to any church was forbidden to disburse more than the customary fees under penalty of suspension and deprivation of his temporalities.7? The king’s contention that William was being charged more than any of his predecessors was probably

false. “The only proof which he offered related to the bishops promoted between 1385 and 1419. Each of William Smith’s four immediate predecessors had pledged payment of 3500 florins for the common service and some of them had paid that amount.”* One of the king’s agents 7* at the papal court expected to have difficulty in obtaining the expedition of the bulls on those terms. ‘It is one hard matter,’ he wrote to the king, ‘for it toucheth all the officers in the court.’ ** Nevertheless, the king’s plea resulted in the reduction of the common service which William Smith had to pay to 2000 florins."* The concession, however, was a remission of part of the common service in the individual instance. It did not change permanently the assessment of Lichfield for a common service of 3500 florins.” Salisbury is another bishopric of which the common service was reduced

during the period while many of the cameral registers were missing. The first bishop who was required to pay the common service promised for it 4500 florins. The obligation of his immediate successor, who was provided in 1375, is lacking,’® but the first instalment of his payment indicates that 7 C.S.P. Venice, I, 614. The last is probably a reference to the statute of 1404: above,

P One of them was freed from any payment because the see was vacant a second time within a year. William Smith’s obligation has not come to light. ** Probably John Sherwood, bishop of Durham, since the letter was written in English. John de Giglis was his other ambassador: C.S.P. Venice, I, 620.

“H. M. C, Report of MSS. of Lord Middleton, p. 261. The petty services were

divided among a large number of officials. “© He paid 1000 florins for the papal half. He is credited in the papal camera with the payment of only 950 florins, but since 1484 five percent of the papal share was received by the college of solicitors: below, p. 257.

. ** Above, pp. 228-29.

*° Below, App. II; Hoberg, Taxae, p. 107.

The Service Taxes Continued 245 the total sum which he owed was the same.”® The next bishop, John Waltham, was required in 1388 to oblige himself for only 3000 florins. No explanation of the change in amount is given in the summary of his obligation in the register,®° but since he was not required to undertake to pay more if the assessment should later be found to be more, the reduction was probably due to a mistake in the camera. When Richard Medford succeeded John Waltham in 1395, the officials of the camera had come to suspect that the sum of 3000 florins was an error. Richard promised to pay 3000 florins and to pay more if Salisbury should be found to be assessed at more by an inquiry to be made in the locality. He also agreed to pay for his predecessor John any difference between the 3000 florins pledged by him and the assessment so established.*? No local investigation was made at the time, for in 1407 Nicholas Bubwith undertook the same obligation for himself and his two immediate predecessors.*? ‘The pledge of Robert Hallam, who succeeded Nicholas within four months, is lacking, but it would have been only for what his predecessor still owed. When the next bishop, John Chandler, obliged himself, evidence from the locality was still lacking. On 30 June 1419 he was allowed to promise only 3000 florins, at which his proctor, John Fyton, a canon of Salisbury, asserted that the bishopric was assessed. He was required, however, to deliver to the camera within a year a document showing why Salisbury should not be assessed at more than 3000 florins, or otherwise to pay 4500 florins at which it appeared assessed in the books of the camera.**

Apparently the camerarii became apprehensive that this solution of the problem might be inadequate. On 1 October 1419 they wrote to the abbots, priors, deans, scholars, cantors, treasurers, archdeacons, canons and

others holding dignities in the city and diocese of Salisbury. They explained that the books and registers of the two cameras indicated that the bishopric of Salisbury was assessed at 4000 florins for common service, whereas the proctor of Bishop John maintained that it ought to be assessed

in the books of the camera at 3000 florins and that he ought not to bind the bishop for more than that sum. They ordered any of the persons addressed to notify the bishop immediately of any acquittances or other evi7°It was 1125 florins paid to the papal camera. The first instalment was customarily one-half of the whole amount due that camera. ®° Ob. 48, fo. 105%.

81 Ob. 48, fo. 221; 52, fo. 85.

® “et id plus ad quod taxabitur secundum informationem mittendam de partibus’: Ob.

” o Ob 8 fo. 106%. The difference between 3000 florins and the amount of the common service when it should be established, which had been pledged for three of his predecessors, was ignored. These sums were probably included in the arrears pardoned by Alexander V: above, pp. 227-28.

246 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 dence relevant to the question in dispute and to forward certified copies to the camerariil. For an unexplained reason this letter was withheld and kept by the vicecamerarius of the papal camera.** Eventually, on 8 January 1420, after divers altercations, it was declared in full council of the apostolic | camera, with the bishop’s proctor consenting, that the assessment of Salisbury was 4500 florins as it appeared in the books of the camera.** The amount of the common service established for Chichester in 1362, which was 13331 florins, remained in effect until 1396. During that period each of six bishops promised to pay that sum. The next bishop, who was appointed after an interval of twenty-one years, promised in 1418 to pay

1433 florins for his common service. No explanation of the change in amount is given in the summary of his obligation preserved in the cameral register. It was probably part of the deliberate policy of Martin V to raise the amount of the common service of several prelates who became liable for payment of the tax in the early years of his pontificate.** The income of the camera was slender,*” and by the concordat with France which followed the council of Constance the assessments of the common services

of the churches in France were reduced by one-half.** Apparently the increase of the common service of Chichester was made without any new assessment of the revenues of the bishopric. It was noted in the register of obligations that similar increases of the common services of Mainz and Trier were made by the pope in secret consistory.®* It is a reasonable inference that Chichester received the same arbitrary treatment. The higher figure remained in effect thereafter with the slight exception that in 1459 a bishop promised to pay 1433% florins.°° The bishopric of Exeter suffered at the hands of Martin V the same fate as the bishopric of Chichester. It remained assessed at 5000 florins for nearly a century after John Grandisson agreed to pay that amount in 1327. Edmund Lacy, who was translated from Hereford in 1420, undertook to pay 6000 florins at which Exeter was said to be assessed.°* He could probably afford the increase, but his successors continued to have to meet it. John Voysey, the last bishop appointed to Exeter before 1534, when he was provided in 1519, attempted to have the sum decreased on the ground

that it was more than one-third of the annual income of the bishopric. ®4 Ob. 62, fo. 8-10".

8° Ob. 58, fo. 106. °° E.g., Hoberg, Taxae, pp. 14, 21, 70, 74, 84, 123, 124, 135. °" Miltenberger, ‘Versuch’, R.Q. VIII, 393; Pastor, History, I, 210. °° "The pact was to last for five years (Clergeac, La Curie, p. 30), but the reduction continued thereafter: Hoberg, Taxae, passim. °° Hoberg, Taxae, pp. 74, 123. °° In 1438 the amount appears as 1433 florins in one register and as 1433 1/3 florins in another. *1 Ob. 58. fo. 1527.

The Service Taxes Continued 247 Silvester de Giglis, who presented his case, was unsuccessful. The cardinals, he reported, said it was unusual to increase the assessment when the revenue of a bishopric increased, or to decrease it when the revenue diminished.°? Bangor remained assessed at 126 florins until 1494. When Henry Dean

was provided in that year, he agreed to pay 470 florins for the common service. Again no explanation for the change appears in the register.® Since it is most improbable that the poorest bishopric in either province had suddenly become affluent, it is a reasonable surmise that cameral officials confused Bangor with St Asaph which had always been assessed at

470 florins. It was a costly mistake, for each of three later bishops of Bangor had to pay the increased amount.™* 3. ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES REQUIRED OF PRELATES Wuo Paip SERVICES

Prelates who owed services had to pay several additional fees and gratu-

ities. The sacra and the subdeacon were paid to the apostolic camera. Originally these fees were owed only by bishops who were consecrated and by abbots who were blessed at the papal court, but by the closing years of the fourteenth century or the early years of the fifteenth they were collected from all bishops and abbots promoted to churches which they were

to hold by title. During the pontificate of Sixtus IV (147-84) they were extended also to churches held in commendam.®%®

The amount of the sacra during most of the period was one-twentieth of the full amount of the common service. This was true in the time of John XXII,°* in the second half of the fifteenth century *’ and in the sixteenth.*® For a time during the first half of the fifteenth century it was one-twentieth of one-half of the common service. Five payments of the fee made by English prelates between 1421 and 1447 inclusive are calculated on that basis,®® but one made in 1454 was at the normal rate of one-twentieth of the whole service.!°® The reason for this reduction is not known. "21. & P., Il, pt. 1, 443.

°$ Fondo Arch. di Stato 1840, fo. 84. ** This section is based on App. II except as indicated otherwise. °° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 166-67; Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 292. In 1421 this fee paid

by an abbot of St Augustine Canterbury was said to be for the benediction. It was not called the sacra (Fondo Arch. di Stato 2490, fo. 16), though the term had been in use as early as the pontificate of John XXII. By 1421, however, the fee was not necessarily as-

sociated with benediction or consecration at the papal court. William Heyworth of Lichfield, who paid it in 1420 (Arm. XXXIV, 4, fo. 152), was not consecrated at the court: Stubbs, Reg. Sacrum, p. 86. °° Clergeac, La Curie, p. 166. *TTunt. Papal Revenues, Il, 286, 290, 292, 299; Hofmann, Forschungen, Il, 212. °§ M.O.G., XVII, 106; Lincoln, Reg. Smith, fo. 297; Hofmann, Forschungen, I, 226. *°St Augustine Canterbury, 1421, London, 1431, Rochester, 1436, Lichfield, 1447, Winchester, 1447: App. IL.

°° Ely: App. IL.

248 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Prelates who were translated generally received a reduction,*®* but all these prelates were provided. Neither is it known how long before 1421 the sacra

may have been one-twentieth of one-half of the common service.’°? The subdeacon was always one-third of one-twentieth of the whole common service. It remained the same even when the sacra was reduced.

In the fourteenth century and the early part of the fifteenth, a prelate who was required to pay these fees might have to take a separate obligation to pay them at specified dates in the future.1° Beginning late in the pontificate of Martin V or early in that of Eugenius [V it became customary to exact the payments at the time of the expedition of the bulls.?% Though these fees were received by the apostolic camera, the proceeds did not go into the papal treasury. The sergeants at arms received one-half of the sacra, the camerarius a quarter and the cameral clerks the remaining

quarter. The subdeacon, as the name implies, went to the papal sub-

deacons.?°

What English prelates paid the sacra and the subdeacon during the fourteenth century and in the fifteenth century previous to the council of Constance cannot be determined with certainty. Receipts from these fees were not entered in the Solutiones et Obligationes or in the Introitus et Exitus Registers and the sacra and subdeacon are mentioned in them only rarely. There are a few volumes which list receipts from these fees during a few scattered years of the fifteenth century,*°° but similar volumes do not appear to exist for any years of the fourteenth century. It may be regarded as reasonably certain that the bishops consecrated and the abbots blessed at the papal court between 1327 and 1415 owed the sacra and the subdeacon. In the following list of them the sacra is computed at one-twentieth of the full common service and the subdeacon at one-third of the sacra.

Sacra Subdeacon 1328 Simon Mepeham, Canterbury **” 500 0 0 166 16 0** 1328 Richard de Wallingford, St Albans *°° 180 0 0 60 0 0

fi s d fi s a

** Lunt, Papal Revenues, Ml, 292.

*°? Clergeac seems to assume that it remained constant at one-twentieth of the whole common service from the time of John XXII onward: La Curie, p. 166. *°8 Lichfield, 1420: App. II; Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 168-70. *°* Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 170-71. *° [bid., p. 168; Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 290. 7°86 Fondo Arch. di Stato 2490-94.

*°7 The consecration at the papal court of all the bishops listed is based on Stubbs, Reg. Sacrum, pp. 73-85. +°8 ‘There were variations during the period in the number of shillings both of Avignon

and of Vienne reckoned to the florin, but they were mostly between 24 s. and 26 s. For convenience I have calculated 24 s. to the florin uniformly.

*°° Probably: Ob. 16, fo. 12%, Dugdale, Monasticon, II, 196. :

The Service Taxes Continued 249 Sacra Subdeacon

fl s d fl s ad

1334 Thomas Poucyn, St Augustine Canterbury **° 65 0 0 21 16 0

1336. Michael de Mentmore, St Albans *** 180 0 0 60 0 0

1337. Anthony Beck, Norwich 250 O 0 83 8 0 1337 Thomas Hemenhale, Worcester 100 O 0 33 «©688 «(OO

1342 Thomas Beck, Lincoln 250 O 0 83 8 0

1342 William de la Zouch, York 500 O 0 166 16 0 1343 William de Thrulegh, St Augustine **” 65 0 0 21 16 0 1344 William Bateman, Norwich 250 O 0 83 8 0

1345 ‘Thomas de Lisle, Ely 375 0 0 125 0 0 1345 William du Boys, Evesham **® 50 60 C0 16 16 0

1345 Thomas de Wolmersey, Waltham *** 1200 O 0 40 0O 0 1347 John Paschal, Llandaff 35 0 0 11 16 0 1348 Thomas de Colewell, St Augustine *** 65 0 0 21 16 0 1349 Thomas de la Mare, St Albans *** 180 O 0 60 0 0 1349 Simon Langham, Westminster **” 100 0 0 33 «8 «(OO

1352. John Trevor, 8 00 00 1352 Thomas Fastolf,StStAsaph Davids23 7512 0 0025

1353 Gilbert Welton, Carlisle 50 O 0 16 16 0 1357 Thomas de Ringstead, Bangor 1361 Lewis Charlton, Hereford 90 06 70 2302 02 09 1357. Llewelyn ap Madoc ab Ellis, St Asaph 23 12 0 8 0 0

1362. William of Lynn, Chichester 66 16 0 22 5 0

1363 Thomas Appleby, Carlisle 50 0 0 16 16 0 1364 Thomas Trillek, Rochester 65 0 0 21 16 0 1366 Gervase de Castro, Bangor 6 7 2 2 29 1369 William Reade, Chichester 66 16 0 22 5 O 1371 Howel ap Gronow, Bangor 6 7 2 2 29 1373 Thomas Brinton, Rochester 65 0 0 21 16 O 1382 Laurence Child, St Asaph 23 12 0 8 0 0 1386 Richard le Scrope, Lichfield 36 16 0 12 5 0 1388 William de Cratefield, Bury 125 0 0 42 8 0 1388 William Welde, St Augustine **° 65 0 0 21 16 0

1389 Edmund Bromfield, Llandaff 35 0 0 11 16 O

1389 John Trefnant, Hereford 90 0 0 30 0 O

1395 Andrew Barrett, Llandaff 35 0 0 11 16 O

1395 John Trevor, St Asaph 236127 02 82 02 09 1400 Richard Young, Bangor 1404 Robert Mascall, Hereford 90 O 0 30 0 O 1407 Robert Hallam, Salisbury **°

1408 Chichele,St StDavids Davids 75 75 00 00 25 25 00 0. 01414 Henry John Catterick,

Other English prelates may have been liable for the sacra and the subdeacon during some part of this period, if the requirement that all prelates 7° Thorne, Chronicle, p. 482. 1 Gesta Abbatum, Ul, 301. 2"Thorne, Chronicle, p. 503. **8 Probably: Chron. Abbatiae de Evesham, p. 293. *** Probably: Vat. Lib., MS. Borghesiano 125, fo. 11v. “5 Thorne, Chronicle, pp. 557-58. 118 Gesta Abbatum, II, 383.

“7 Probably: Ob. 22, fo. 92%; Dugdale, Monasticon, I, 275. 48 Thorne, Chronicle, p. 666. *1° Since he did not owe the services, he may not have owed the sacra and the subdeacon.

250 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 promoted in consistory to cathedral or abbatial churches not held in commendam went into effect before 1415.1°° The earliest known example of their payment by an English prelate who was not consecrated or blessed at the papal court was in 1419. The proctor of John Chandler, bishop of Salisbury, paid the subdeacon.*** Thereafter, although the records of the payments of these fees by English prelates are few, they are well distributed chronologically.1?? ‘They leave little doubt that the sacra and the subdeacon

were due from all English prelates who paid services after the council of Constance.*?*

A third fee had to be paid for an acquittance for a payment of services to either of the cameras. The fee was as old as 1318,'** and probably much older,’”® but the first notation of the payment of such a fee by an English prelate which I have found in the summaries of acquittances in the Obligationes et Solutiones Registers was on 24 July 1363. Lewis Charlton, bishop of Hereford, paid 450 florins of common service, 113 florins of four petty services and 2 florins for the seal.‘2® Thereafter this fee was entered in the registers more often than not. It continued to be called a fee for the seal until 1370, then for a while a fee for an acquittance and in 1376 and there-

| after a fee for the letter, meaning the letter of acquittance.**” The amount of the fee varied with the amount of money of which the acquittance acknowledged receipt. Tables of the fees were kept in the two cameras, and several of these have been published. Among them some vary slightly in one item or another. Unfortunately none of the discovered tables is dated exactly. Baumgarten supplies a table which is found in Obligationes et Solutiones Register 43.78 This is a volume containing documents which extend from 1376 to 1398 kept by the camera of the college of cardinals. It was begun shortly before the schism and after 1378 was continued by the camera of the cardinals attached to the popes who resided at Avignon. The table is among the documents which precede the first entries of the time of Clement VII.’*° It belongs to the fourteenth century and probably represents the fees current at Avignon before the schism. 120 Clergeac thinks it went into effect by the end of the fourteenth century, but the cited evidence does not seem to prove it: La Curie, p. 167. 121 The amount is not stated: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1862, fo. 64-647. 122 Above, pp. 247-48; Winchester, 1493: App. II. 23 Except Lewis of Luxemburg who was given Ely in commendam in 1437. 24 Kirsch, Die Finanzverwaltung, pp. 53-54. See also Lunt, Papal Revenues, HU, 260. 128 Tt was common to charge a fee for a written acquittance in the thirteenth century. Collectors of papal tenths in England did so: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 355.

128 Ob. 34, fo. 3. ,

127 Two or three times after 1376 it was designated for the seal and two or three times it was called the taxa. 8 Untersuchungen, p. LXXX. 129 Tr is on fo. 29; the first entries of the pontificate of Clement VII began on fo. 57.

The Service Taxes Continued 25) The table may be summarized in English thus: Assessment of letters of the common and petty services

First for a letter of 100 florins is received 1 florin 2 grossi. Second from 100 fl. to 500 exclusive 2 fl. 2 gr. Third from 500 fl. to 1000 exclusive 3 fl. 3 gr. Fourth for 1000 fl. 4 fl. 4 gr. Fifth for 1100 fl. 5 fl. 5 gr. Sixth for 1200 fl. 6 fl. 6 gr. Seventh for 1500 fl. 7 fl. 7 gr. and so for each as in the first thousand. For a schedule of delay 1 fl. 1 gr.

For a schedule of absolution 1 fl. 1 gr. For a schedule of dispensation 1 fl. 1 gr.

In volume 327 of the Collectorie, which contains formulae for documents used by the apostolic camera, there is a table of these fees which corresponds exactly with the preceding table except that it omits the fees for letters of delay, absolution and dispensation.1®° Since the formulae which can be dated range from 1348 to 1354, the table may be assigned to the fourteenth century and probably to an earlier date than the table published by Baumgarten. It indicates that the fees of the two cameras were the same, and this remained true in the sixteenth century.1*" Another table contained in a document which explains the rules and practices followed by the apostolic camera in the assessment and levy of annates and services at some time after 1470 gives the same fees in florins, but omits the grossi.’** The reason for the omission was that the table gives the fees which were divided equally between the camerarius and the clerks

of the camera. The keeper of the seal of the camerarius, it is explained, received the grossi.** What the recipient of the acquittance paid therefore was 1 fl. 2 gr., 2 fl. 2 gr. and so on, as in the above table.*** Three other tables contain variations. A table in Collectorie 359A1%° gives the first item as follows: ‘Primo de littera summe c flor, recepitur 1 fl.

i gr.’ The volume contains memoranda and formulae concerning the business of the camera which date from Boniface VIII to Clement VII and letters of the time of Clement VII beginning in 1381. ‘T'wo tables are pub-

180 Fo, 139, | *91 Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 291; M.O.G., XVII, 106. **? First published by Kirsch in Historisches Jabrbuch, IX, 304-11; translated by Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 289-96. *8°'The clerks of the camera of the college received only the grossi. The florins went at first to the camerarius and later were divided between him and the cardinals: Baumgarten, Untersuchungen, p. LXXX. *** Payments made by English prelates indicate that this interpretation of the document is correct: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1876, fo. 70%, 82, 120%, 1679. 185 Fo, 16V.

252 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 lished by Clergeac without any attempt to locate them chronologically.**° The first table was probably of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, because the fees are expressed in ducats. The second was probably late in the fif-

teenth century or early in the sixteenth, because the fees are not only expressed in ducats but also the banking firm of the Altoviti is mentioned.**” In these tables only the florins are given, but in the original texts the grossi

apparently were included. The first table gives the fee for a sum from 1 florin to 100 as 1 fl. 1 gr.4°® The other fees are the same."*®

In Clergeac’s second table there are three items which differ from all those in the preceding tables. The first item reads: ‘pro primo centenario taxe usque ad 200 solvuntur ducats 2.’ This statement seems to mean that any sum below 200 ducats pays 2 ducats 2 grossi. It makes the rate for a sum below 100 florins higher than in the other tables by 1 ducat. The correctness of this interpretation is substantiated by the fees paid by several English prelates. In 1372, for example, the bishop of Hereford paid 90 ducats and was charged a fee of 2 fl. 2 gr.**° The other differences in the second table are a fee of 3 ducats 3 grossi for a sum between 200 and 500 ducats instead of 2 florins 2 grossi, and a fee of 4 ducats 4 grossi for a sum between 500 and 1000 ducats instead of 3 florins 3 grossi. It agrees with all the other tables on a fee of 4 ducats 4 grossi for 1000 ducats. English prelates paid fees which corresponded sometimes with one table

and sometimes with another. No explanation for the application of one table in one instance and the application of another table in another instance

has come to light. It was not due to one table being current in one period and another in another period, since one table in use late in the fifteenth century displays the same fees as tables in use in the fourteenth century. This is demonstrated even more strikingly by some of the fees actually paid. ‘The bishop of Hereford, who paid 2 fl. 2 gr. on a sum of 90 fl. in 1372, paid only 1 fl. 2 gr. ona sum of 71 fl. 21 s. 4 d. in 1373.**1 The bishop

of Rochester, on 24 November 1374, was charged 3 fl. 3 gr. for an acquittance for 375fl.*** Seventeen days later he was charged 2 fl. 2 gr. for an acquittance for another payment of the same amount.’** The payments provide numerous illustrations of the other variations with one exception. *°° La Curie, p. 171.

*87 The first English prelate to use the Altoviti was the bishop of London on 3 September 1496: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1840, fo. 151. See also Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 73, 176, 216. *°* Clergeac, La Curie, p. 172.

*8°’'They are stated somewhat differently, but if ‘exclusive’ be understood after the second figure in each line, they work out at the same rates. +49 Ob. 39, fo. 3529. 742 Ob. 40, fo. 49. 142 Ob. 40, fo. 166. 148 Ob. 40, fo. 307.

The Service Taxes Continued 253 A fee of 1 fl. 1 gr. in place of 1 fl. 2 gr. was exceptional. The only instance of it was on 22 December 1399, when the camera of the college charged the bishop of Carlisle 1 fl. 1 gr. for an acquittance acknowledging receipt of 100 fl.1*4

English prelates paid a number of fees which did not correspond with the assessments in any of the tables. For some of these explanations are possible. For others none has occurred to me.**° The fee of 1 fl. 1 gr. for a letter authorizing the delay of a payment never appears among the recorded fees paid by English prelates. The fee charged by both the cameras was most commonly 1 fl. 2 gr., but frequently it was 3 fl. 3 gr.*#® In a number of instances, when the fee paid for an acquittance was higher than any contained in any of the tables for the amount of the acquittance, the excess

was the price for a letter of delay and the acquittance contained clauses granting the delay. In 1398 the bishop of Ely paid to the apostolic camera 4 fl. 4 gr. for a letter of acquittance for a payment of 95 fl. 30 s.*47 The acquittance would have been 1 fl. and 1 or 2 gr., if a postponement of the next payment had not been granted. These fees became a moderately heavy charge for those prelates whose common service was high. Roger Walden, archbishop of Canterbury, on 4 November 1397, paid to the camera of the college a fee of 23 fl. 23 gr. on a payment of 5555 fl. 27 s. 9 d., and on 9 November paid to the papal camera a fee of 30 fl. 30 gr. on a payment of 7222 fl. 11 s. 2 d.*4® As these payments illustrate, when the whole of the services was paid at one time, the fee of the camera of the college was less than that of the papal camera, because the former received only one petty service and the latter received four. ‘The total paid by the archbishop for these fees was 58 fl. 3 gr.**® In May 1447 the fees paid by William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, were 26 fl. 26 gr. on 6400 fl. paid to the camera of the cardinals *°° and 24 fl. 24 gr. on 7600 fl. paid for services to the papal camera.*** The latter fee was 7 fl. 7 gr. less than it should have been according to the tables. Even so, his total payment was 60 fl. If a prelate paid his services in several instalments, and particularly if 144 Ob. 59, fo. 1247.

*#° See also Clergeac, La Curie, p. 172. +46 For another type of variation without explanation see below on this page. 147 Ob. 55, fo. 76¥.

48 Ob. 55, fo. 51; Ob. 59, fo. 102. *#°’'The grossi were of Tours. Occasionally they are designated as so many Tours instead of so many grossi: Ob. 40, fo. 277, 307. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ten grossi were computed in one florin or ducat of the camera: K. R. Nuncii 313/22; Dollinger, Beitrage, I, p. X; Baumgarten, dus Kanzlei, p. 322. 15° Ob. 77, fo. 27%.

151 Fondo Arch. di Stato 2494, fo. 149.

254 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

postponements were granted for some of them, the cost of the fees for acquittances might be increased considerably. John Trevor, bishop of St Asaph, paid for his common service and one petty service to the camera of

the college 253 fl. 28 s. 4 d. If the whole sum had been delivered at one time, the fee would have been 2 fl. 2 gr. It was paid in three instalments and the fees amounted to 7 fl. 8 gr.1°? Henry Spencer, bishop of Norwich, paid between 1371 and 1375, ten instalments on the services which he owed to the apostolic camera. For one instalment of 16 fl. 5 s. 4 d. the fee is not

given. On the remaining nine, which amounted to 1827 fl. 18 s. 9 d., he paid for fees 30 fl. 30 gr.1°* A successor, Richard Courtenay, in 1413, paid 11 fl. 11 gr. for an acquittance for all the services due the papal camera. They amounted to 2954 fl. 27 s. 4 d.1®

One further fee had to be paid in the camera in connection with the obligation. Few references to it have been discovered. The earliest is contained in an account of the expenses of an abbot of St Albans for the papal confirmation of his election in 1303. The entry reads: ‘for a copy of the obligation 2 florins and 4 of Tours.’ °° This explanation of its purpose seems reasonable, since the payer would need to know the amounts of his instalments and the dates at which they were due. Further mention of this payment has not come to my attention until 1463, when the accounts of the expenditures in connection with the services made by the proctors or solici-

tors or prelates began to be drawn up and attested in the camera. Thereafter the payment usually appeared in such accounts as ‘pro obligatione.’ The prelate’s need for a copy of the obligation could no longer have been great, since payment of the whole of the services was required at the time the obligation was taken, and the acquittances issued by the cameras gave ample testimony to the principal of what had been paid. Nevertheless, the fees for the obligation continued to be collected. As late as 1513 Leo X regulated the amount of the fee. The fees were more moderate than those for the acquittances. For English prelates they varied from 1 to 13 ducats, depending on the amount of the common service. From 1462 onward the fees, with a few exceptions, corresponded with the rule formulated by Leo X in 1513. They were 1 florin for a common service less than 500 florins, 2 for 500 to 1000 inclusive, and 1 additional florin for each thousand above the first thousand.?°® 152 Ob, 59, fo. 69, 82¥, 949.

158 Ob, 39, fo. 132, 276, 348%; 40, fo. 57, 106%, 159%, 277; 41, fo. 63, 88; Col. 465, fo. 21, 42%, 66¥.

, 154 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1831, fo. 24’. 155 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 56-58; Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 245. In the Gesta the account is placed under 1302, but the obligation was taken in 1303: Ob. 1, fo. 177. 158 Byllarium Romanorum Pontificum, V, 574.

The Service Taxes Continued 255 Before a prelate could learn his financial fate at the camera, he must already have made several expenditures in order to obtain his bulls of promotion. Whether he went in person to the papal court or sent a proctor to transact his business, there were the expenses of the journey and of the sojourn at the court to be met. On the amount of these expenditures we have little information. In 1334 Thomas Poucy, who had been elected abbot of

St Augustine Canterbury, went to Avignon in person to obtain his confirmation. His journey from Dover to Avignon took three weeks and three days and cost £21 18s. 11 d. During his stay at the court, which lasted from 22 April to 9 August, he spent £98 4s. 5% d., but whether the sum covered only his living expenses is not certain. It did not include his services, but it may have included some or all of the fees and gifts that were necessary in order to secure his bulls of confirmation and of the fees and gratuities for his blessing at the court. On the return journey his expenses were £28 8 d. The total was £148 4s. 4% d.1®7 His successor, Michael Pecham, who was provided in 1375, sent proctors to Avignon. They spent £124 3 s. 2 d.*°** This sum probably does represent traveling and living expenses, since other items in the account were £225 2 s. for the services 1°® and £183 2s. 6 d. for permission to be blessed in England. The second sum seems excessive, even if it included all the other fees and gratuities connected with the provision as well as those for bulls allowing the benediction to take place outside the papal court. If a prelate selected as his proctor a resident of the papal court, there would be no traveling expenses. The same would be true if he arranged, as became common in the fifteenth century, for a letter of exchange to be drawn in England on a banker attendant upon the papal court who would transact the business. It seems probable also that a proctor who was going to the Roman court on other business might divide his traveling expenses

among his patrons, or possibly, if he were a friend of the prelate, charge _ him nothing.

Whoever was appointed proctor by a prelate seeking papal confirmation, provision or translation had for his first business to institute proceedings at the court to bring about the promotion of his principal. Adam Orlton, when he appointed two proctors in 1333 to oblige him for his services, authorized them also to seek his letters of translation from Worcester to Winchester.*®° If the proctor was not familiar with the course of business “7 Thorne, Chronicle, p. 482. *°8 Ibid., pp. 605-08.

*°° The amount should be £215 2 s. The services in florins were 1434 and the rate of

exchange was 3 s. for a florin. *69 Inst. Misc. 1260.

256 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 at the papal court, he had to appoint a proctor who was resident there to act for him or with him. When William Wilde, the elect of St Augustine Canterbury, in 1387, sent William Thorne, a monk of his house, to represent him at the papal court in the matter of his confirmation, the proctor presented the case to the pope, and then retained as proctor Master Bartholomew de Novara, who was a consistorial advocate.*®* Such a proctor charged a fee for his services.1® If a prelate appointed as his proctor an employee at the papal court, he would ordinarily have to pay the proctor. When John Stafford, in 1424, asked William Swan, who was a writer in the papal chancery, to obtain his promotion to a bishopric,*®* he promised to pay William for his work and expenses.’** If a royal proctor at the papal court obtained the bulls of provision for an English prelate, it was probably done as part of the services which the proctor performed for the king without any charge to the prelate other than the expenditures which the proctor made to obtain the bulls.

Few illustrations of the amounts paid to curial proctors by English prelates have come to my attention. George Norwich, abbot of Westminster, in 1463, paid to John de Gerona 4 florins for guiding his bulls of provision through the chancery.*® Robert Sherborn, bishop of St Davids, in 1505, paid for the solicitation of his bulls and to proctors 25 florins.*®° At that time the solicitor who saw a prelate’s bulls through the chancery was a member of the college of solicitors and was allowed to charge a fee

of only 12 florins for a church with the common service of St Davids. Other proctors, therefore, received 13 florins. ‘These examples are inade-

quate to establish any general deduction with regard to the cost of the services of a curial proctor, and little seems to be known about the subject.7°"

The college of solicitors was created for the purpose of preventing proctors from padding their accounts. In the second half of the fifteenth century complaints arose that proctors were charging their principals for more than they had actually expended, perhaps for gratuities which had not been given or perhaps for higher fees or gratuities than had been paid. The first experiment to end this practice was instituted on 29 April 1462. The camerarius, acting on the order of the pope, issued a decree requiring anyone who was responsible for the expedition of bulls of promotion to a consistorial church to submit an account of his expenses to the apostolic 101 CPL. IV, 288.

*82 "Thorne, Chronicle, pp. 654-55, 670. *68 Above, p. 182. *** Cotton MS., Cleop. C IV, fo. 1687-69.

*°° Hofmann, Forschungen, Il, 211. *°°Tincoln, Reg. Smith, fo. 297. *®? Clergeac, La Curie, p. 76.

The Service Taxes Continued 257 camera or suffer a heavy penalty. A canieral clerk audited the account with power to require the reduction or elimination of any improper item. When the clerk was satisfied with the account, he signed it. The account was then sent to the prelate with the bulls, which were not released until the account had been certified by a cameral clerk.*®* When this requirement failed to put an end to the abuse, Sixtus IV, on 13 June 1482, established a college of 100 solicitors attached to the chancery. Their duty was to expedite certain types of bulls, including promotions to consistorial benefices, as quickly as possible. One solicitor would attend to the several stages of the passage of the bulls of a prelate, and at the end of the process he would note at the foot of the bull the total cost

of its expedition through chancery. The solicitor was entitled to a fee of six ducats, if the common service of the church was less than 500 ducats, and of 12 ducats, if the common service was 500 ducats or more.'®? This was a new fee for the prelate to pay, but it took the place of what he would have paid a proctor for the same service. A little later the pope ruled that the college should receive in addition to this fee five percent of the papal

half of the common service. This added nothing to the burden of the prelate. He paid the five percent to the college and deducted that amount from the papal share of the common service which he paid to the camera.*” The first step in the process of obtaining the bulls was to secure the appointment of a cardinal who would examine the qualifications of the applicant for promotion and report on the candidate in consistory. ‘The cardinal was named by the pope.*™ The cardinal who acted in this capacity

usually was paid a gift called the propina. The practice goes back at least as far as 1303.'? It was not a payment of money, but a silver vase or some such article which represented an expenditure of money by the candidate.*’° The cardinal might forego a gift in the case of a relatively poor bishopric,*”* but normally it was understood that a gift was in order and that if it was not

forthcoming the cardinal could delay proceedings. William Thorne, in a somewhat prejudiced account of his dealings with Reginald Brancaccio, cardinal deacon of St Vitus in the Shambles, whom Urban VI appointed in 1387 to report in consistory on his principal, William Wilde, implied that the cardinal had to be satisfied with regard to the value of the gift in order to get the business transacted.*”® 168 Mayr-Aldwang, ‘Ueber Expensenrechnungen’, M.O.G., XVII, 90-91. 169 App. IV.

*7° Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 76-79; Tangl, Kanzlet-Ordnungen, pp. 211-12.

71 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 263; Thorne, Chronicle, pp. 655-56. 72 Tunt, Papal Revenues, Ul, 245. 178 Tbid.; Hofmann, Forschungen, 1, 263, n. 1. 174 Hofmann, Forschungen, I, 212; M.O.G., XVII, 94. 78 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 383-84, Thorne, Chronicle, pp. 656-57.

258 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The value of the gift was not fixed by any rule until sometime in the first half of the sixteenth century, probably after 1532 but possibly shortly before, at fifteen percent of the common service on churches assessed above 300 ducats.’"* Before that time the amount appears to have been arranged more or less at the discretion of the proctor or solicitor,*“* who would know what was customary and would perhaps ascertain what would be acceptable. The amount of the gift bore no exact proportion to the common service. The larger the service the larger the gift seems to have been the usual custom, but the amounts of the gifts paid for two prelates whose common service was the same might vary. The percentage of the common service represented by the gift was apt to be larger in relation to a low than to a high common service.*7* The propina paid in 1463 by the abbot of Westminster, with a common service of 2000 florins, was 67 florins and by the bishop of St Davids in 1505, with a common service of 1500 florins, was 60 florins.17®

In addition to the propina it was necessary to pay gratuities to several members of the cardinal’s household. The most important of the recipients was his notary or secretary. He took part in the examination of witnesses, kept a record of the business transacted and affixed the cardinal’s seal to the

schedule which the proctor or solicitor had to have in order to expedite the bulls in chancery.**® Such gifts were as old as the time of Martin V, who forbade one type of them in any form but food and drink.’®* Our information concerning them comes from the period after 1462. Their normal total for churches with common services as high as those of English churches varied from a little more than a third to a little more than a half

of the propina.*®? The payments of the abbot of Westminster and the bishop of St Davids were, respectively, 34 and 36 ducats.*** After the promotion had been made in consistory, the proctor or solicitor who was to obtain the bulls received from the cardinal a memorandum of the action taken which was called the schedule. He took this first to an abbreviator in the bureau of the chancery known as the major parc. There a copy of the schedule and a minute or draft of the bulls were made. For this fees had to be paid to the abbreviator and the writer. How much those

fees were before 1463 I have not discovered. In that year the abbot of “T® Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 190-92.

7 4.6.G., XVII, 107. “78 App. IV. *"° Below, pp. 277-78.

*8° Thorne, Chronicle, pp. 656-57; Hofmann, Forschungen, I, 263, n. 1.

*81 Hofmann, Forschungen, 1, 263, n. 2; II, 231. , *8? App. IV, p. 838. *®° Below, pp. 277-78.

The Service Taxes Continued 259 Westminster *§* and the bishop of Strangis *®° paid 4 ducats, the former to the abbreviator ‘for composing the minute and deciding on the bulls’ and the latter to the abbreviator ‘who made the minutes.’ A separate fee to the writer is not mentioned. Apparently the one fee was sufficient for both the abbreviator and the writer. By 1497, however, the abbreviator alone was charging 2 or 3 ducats. In 1498 the bishop of Freising paid 3

ducats for the minute and 4 ducats for the writing. This apparently remained more or less the standard fee for bishops during all, or nearly all, the rest of the period. An archbishop owed more. In 1500 the archbishop of Trier paid 12 ducats for the writing of the bulls. This fee seems to have sufficed for both the abbreviator and the writer, since no separate fee for the minute is mentioned.1®®

The next step was to take the schedule to the vicechancellor, who signed

a copy of it known as the counter schedule. This authorized the various officials of the chancery to perform the further acts necessary to expedite the bulls. It was given to the proctor or solicitor after the payment of a fee at the office of the vicechancellor.'®” This fee appears to have been small in the time of Pius II. It was determined in each instance at the will of the official in the vicechancellor’s office who collected it. The amount of it increased steadily. In 1463 the abbot of Westminster, whose common service was 2000 florins, paid 5 grossi*®** and the bishop of Penne and Adrien, whose common service was 400 florins, paid 1 florin.**? In 1481 it was 1 ducat in another instance.!9° From 1488 to 1500 it varied from 3 to 12 ducats.*** Late in the pontificate of Alexander VI the fee was related to the common service in a definite proportion. It was 2 ducats for a common service not over 300 ducats, 3 for 301 to 500, 4 for 501 to 1000, and 1 for each additional 500 over 1000. After the sack of Rome in 1525 these fees were increased.?°?

After the proctor or solicitor had obtained the counter schedule, he presented the draft of the bulls to the bureau of writers, where a writer engrossed them; that is, he wrote them in their finished form. In the tax list of John XXII the fees for the bull of provision and each accompanying 84 Below, p. 276. 185 Flofmann, Forschungen, II, 214.

*8°'Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 395; Hofman, Forschungen, I, 218-19, Lunt, Papal Revenues, Ul, 298. *87 Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 193-94. *°° Below, p. 276. *8° Hofmann, Forschungen, Il, 212.

190 .6.G., XVII, 100. 191 M.0.G., XVII, 103, 108; Hofmann, Forschungen, II, 218-19, Lunt, Papal Revenues, " 2 Clergeac, La Curie, p. 194; Hofmann, Forschungen, II, 209.

260 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 letter were for an archbishop 24 grossi, for a bishop 20 and for an abbot 16.*°° ‘The accompanying letters notified interested parties of the provision.

An archbishop had six. They were addressed to the chapter, the king, the clergy of the diocese, the people of the diocese, the vassals and the suffragans.*°* A bishop also had six. They were addressed to the same parties as those of the archbishop except that in place of the one addressed to the suffragans was one addressed to the archbishop.*** An abbot needed only three. They were addressed to the king, the convent and the vassals.1°* These letters were often called ‘conclusiones’ in the accounts of expenses in the chancery.

Examples of the writer’s fees for the bulls of an archbishop are few. In 1362 and 1363 1°” and again in the middle years of the fifteenth century *°* they were 24 grossi for each bull of archbishops of other countries,

making a total of 168 grossi. They were still the same in a handbook of the chancery of 1520,'*° and in 1531, near the close of the period, the tax marked on the bull which notified the king of the provision of Edward Lee

to York was 24 grossi.?°° The evidence concerning the fees paid by a bishop is abundant. Early in the pontificate of Urban V three English bishops paid 20 grossi for each bull,?°" and in 1381 another paid the same.? Beginning with the pontificate of Martin V the fees for the registration of

the letters of provision were noted in the registers. They are given in volumes VIII to XIII of the Calendar of Papal Letters, which extend to 1484.°°° ‘The fee for the registration of the principal bull was the same as that of the writer, but the fee for each of the six conclusions was one-half *°8"Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 108; Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 503.

4 Fig. Reg. Chichele, I, 7-9. This was a translation, but the number of supplementary bulls was the same. The bull to the king is omitted. For the number of bulls see C.P.L., II, 278, 279, 312, 339. In this volume the letters to the clergy and to the people are designated as ‘to the clergy and people’, as if there were only one letter for both. Such is not the case. The phrase is used, for example, for the supplementary letters of Thomas Hatfield, provided to Durham in 1346 (C.P.L., III, 202), but in the register there were six bulls,

including one for the clergy and one for the people: Richard d’Aungerville of Bury, Fragments, pp. 221-24. In later volumes the phrase ‘to the clergy and to the people’ is

of bulls. |

used. Beginning with volume VIII the tax marks are given, and they make clear the number 195 Fg. Episcopal Registers of St Davids, I, 2-19. +98 Fg. C.P.L., Ill, 278, 339; below, p. 276. *°7 Regs. d’Urbain V, 81, 138, 140, 145-146. The fees in this register are those of the

writer, not those for registration. *°8 C.P.L., IX, 129; XI, 323. The fees of the archbishop of Tuam were an exception. In 1430 and again in 1441 they were 22 grossi for each bull: C.P.L., VIII, 181; IX, 225. °° 'Woker, Das kirchliche Finanzwesen, p. 164. *°° Papal Bulls 64/13. 7% Regs. @Urbain V, 159, 199; Reg. Avin. 155, fo. 164¥.

2D. & Ch. Durham, 1, II, 19 Papalium. °° "They can be located by looking up the name of each bishop in the index.

The Service Taxes Continued 261 that of the writer, because bulls were not entered in the register in full.?°4 With one exception the fees are XX. X. X. X. X. X. X.2°5 Each Roman numeral means that many grossi. The writer’s fee for the seven bulls was therefore 140 grossi or 14 florins. A number of original bulls on which the fee of the writer was entered in various years between 1476 and 1523 indicates that the fee for each of the bulls was still the same.2°* The evidence concerning English abbots is sparse, but it is well distributed chronologically. One paid 16 grossi for each of his bulls in 1363,?°7 1457,7°* 1463,*°° and 1470.**° ‘The normal total was 64 grossi.

These fees were for the ordinary letters of provision which did not mention the consecration or benediction of the provisor.*** If the main bull authorized a bishop to be consecrated or an abbot to be blessed locally, the fee for the bull and for each of the conclusions was increased by 2 grossi.7*” Such bulls seem to have been obtained rarely by English prelates.*** The only probable example is the bull providing Richard Beauchamp to Here-

ford in 1448. There seems to be no other reason for the fee of 22 grossi on each letter.?"4

Most English prelates were consecrated or blessed in England,** but ordinarily they obtained an additional letter which granted the faculty of selecting local bishops to perform the ceremony and to receive the oath of which the form was enclosed in the letter.2!® The writer’s fees for this letter in the tax list of John XXII were 10 grossi for an abbot and 12 grossi °° Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 110, no. 236. 2°56 When John Arundel was provided to Chichester on 8 January 1459 only 5 bulls were registered. They were the main bull, 3 conclusions and a bull authorizing consecra-

tion by local prelates. In one of the conclusions both the people and the vassals were included. The tax mark is for six bulls: XX. XXX. XX. XXX. XX. XVI. The last item is for the faculty to be consecrated locally. The other items add to 120 grossi, which was the writer’s fee for the customary 7 bulls. It was in excess of the fee for their registration which was normally 80 grossi.

°° Papal Bulls 26/6, 37/30, 37/39, Warrants for the Great Seal (Chancery), Series I], File 531, 4th document; D. & Ch. Durham, 1, III, 21, 22, 23, Papalium. °7 Regs. d’Urbain V, 111. He had five bulls, though only four are named. His extra one was to the bishop. The one not named was to the king. 28C.P I. XI, 68. °° Below, p. 279. He paid 68 grossi which makes 17 grossi for each bull. Though not so stated, 1 grossus was paid for the parchment of each bull. This was a required payment (below, App. IV), and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the account. 0 CPL. XII, 771. 1 Fig. Richard d’Aungerville of Bury, Fragments, pp. 3-4, 221-22; Reg. Courtenay (Hereford), pp. 2-3. 2 'Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 108, no. 200; Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 503. *“3T have found no example, but I have not searched widely. 214 CPL. X, 388-89. “18 Above, p. 250; below, p. 304 n. 1. 16 Eg. Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter). I, 3-4; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 2-4, Wykebams’ Reg, pp. 8-9; summaries in C.P.L., II-XIII, passim.

262 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 for a bishop.?”” The bishop’s fee remained fixed until 1433,?"7* but by 1436 it had been increased to 16 grossi.?’”” Late in the pontificate of Pius IT it was

raised to 28 grossi. In 1463 the bishop of Strangnias paid 28 grossi for a bull of consecration.?*"° Thereafter the fee remained at 28 grossi both for bishops and for abbots.?174

When this type of letter was obtained, there was no extra charge for the form of the oath of fealty.?’"* If, however, it was sent as a separate letter, the writer received a fee. It seems to have been sent in this manner when the pope commissioned specific local prelates to preside at the consecration or benediction and to receive the oath, instead of allowing the candidate to select the bishops for the ceremony. There was also a fee for the letter of commission. In the time of John XXII the fee for the form of oath was 8 grossi and for the commission 16 grossi.?*"* The fee for the commission remained stationary, with one exception,”’”® until after 1508. In a tax list supposed to have been compiled in 1520 it was 22 grossi?*™ and the charge for the form of oath had been increased to 12 grossi.?*"* Such commissions appear to have been issued for English prelates only when they were translated and had to take the oath of fealty anew.**" No example of a separate charge paid by an English prelate for a form of oath has been found.?78

The fees for a translation were 2 grossi higher than those for a provision.”*® ‘Those for a translation from one archbishopric to another were

for each letter 26 grossi.??° The price for letters of translation from a bishopric to an archbishopric varied throughout the period. In 1363, 1454 and 1514 each of the seven bulls cost 24 grossi.?** In 1363, 1443 and 1465 "7 Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 105, no. 165; idem, ‘Das Taxwesen’, M.O.G., XIII, 84. 2172 CPL... VIII, 167, 458, 463.

17> C.P.L., VIII, 582; [X, 253, 336, 372, 484, 562; X, 426, 698; XI, 324, 359, 377. 17¢ Frofmann, Forschungen, Il, 214. 7274 C.P.L., XII, 431-32, 519; Reg. Lat. 854, fo. 170; 1014; fo. 82, 82%; 1129A, fo. 114V-15,

304-05; Hofmann, Forschungen, II, 218, 224. The payment by Thomas Milling, abbot of Westminster, of 16 grossi in 1470 is an exception: C.P.L., XII, 771. *17¢F¥ofmann, Forschungen, Il, 212, 214, 224.

72 'Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 105, nos. 162-63; Tangl, ‘Das Taxwesen’, M.O.G., XIII, 80. 7278 In 1458 there was a charge of 22 grossi: C.P.L., XII, 15. 217h Reg. Islep, fo. 61%, 64, 154”. 486 Churchill, Canterbury Admiunistration, I, 545.

*87 Farl. MS. 602, fo. 5%; Bodleian, Laud Misc. MS. 723, fo. 62¥-63,; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 73%; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 122%, Wykebam’s Reg. II, 459-60. In the last it is dated 26 March. *°° App. II.

The Service Taxes Continued 287 had no legitimate reason for seeking the subsidy,**® but his judgment may

have been warped by the fact that his monastery, which previously had been exempt from such subsidies, had to pay this one.*#° On the same date the pope appointed three English prelates to levy the subsidy and authorized them to compel payment by ecclesiastical censures. On 21 October 1395 the archbishop of York, acting for the three commissioners, ordered each bishop of the province of Canterbury to have the subsidy collected in his diocese and to have it paid to the archbishop’s receivers in London by

2 February 1396. They were to use ecclesiastical censures if necessary. The bishops appointed local collectors, who assembled much of the money on time, but there were some who refused to pay.**? Although only one other papal indult authorizing a bishop to ask and receive a charitable subsidy from his clergy for the purpose of helping him to pay his services has been found,**? many more were probably issued. In 1517 Leo X stated that it was customary for the apostolic see to grant to those promoted to cathedral churches faculty to seek and exact charitable subsidies from all secular and regular persons holding benefices in their

dioceses in order to support more readily the burdens of their promotions.*#8 Numerous other archbishops and bishops who were granted subsidies by their clergy probably had papal indults which are not mentioned in the available evidence concerning the subsidies. How much freedom the clergy had in the grant of a subsidy authorized by a papal indult is difficult to determine from the available evidence. Since the clergy of the two archdeaconries granted different rates on their incomes to Thomas Hatfield of Durham, they may have been allowed to decide that question, though it is possible that the executory commission set

the diverse rates. William Bateman of Norwich claimed that the papal commission established the rate which he demanded. There is no indication that the executory commission intervened to influence the clergy of the diocese of Canterbury to grant a tenth to Simon Islip in the diocesan synod of 1351, but the executor of the indult for a subsidy from the clergy of the whole province fixed the rate of the subsidy by mandate, as if the consent of the clergy was not necessary. The archbishop, nevertheless, obtained the approval of the bishops of the province, voluntarily reduced *89 VY podigma Neustriae, p. 369.

#40 Harl. MS. 602, fo. 17.

* Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 459-61, Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), pp. 116-20, Ypodigma Neustriae, p. 369; Harl. MS. 602, fo. 6; Bodleian, Laud Misc. MS. 723, fo. 62¥-63¥,; Rochester,

Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 73-75; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 122¥-23¥; W.A.M. 30305-30306; Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 341, n. 1. “4? Granted to Henry Spenser, bishop of Norwich in 1371: C.P.L., [V, 167. “4° Papal Bulls, 26/36; above, pp. 163-64.

288 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the rate and allowed the dates of payment ordered by the executor to go unheeded. The lower clergy, however, had no voice in the grant. With this one exception the subsidies initiated by papal indults were granted by the clergy in archidiaconal or diocesan assemblies. The situation with regard to the indult issued to William Bateman to supplement the previous grant of a subsidy by his clergy is not clear, but the abbot and convent of Bury contested the right of the executory commission to order the rate of the subsidy. Whether the clergy were free to refuse a grant requested by virtue of a papal indult is not settled by these examples. Since the prelates thought it necessary to ask for the subsidy before they could receive it, the right of refusal seems to have been acknowledged. Once a subsidy had been granted it might be described as a subsidy granted by the clergy,** or as a charitable subsidy granted by apostolic authority.**® The use of ‘charitable’ in the latter description, however, carries the implication of the voice of the clergy in the grant. The letter of Boniface [X authorizing William Courtenay to levy 4 d. in the pound from the clergy of his province was sui generis. The archbishop had to obtain no grant from the clergy and the rate was ordered by the pope. Apparently for this reason, the levy aroused so much opposition that in London some learned ecclesiastical lawyers gave the opinion that the clergy were bound by the papal letter to pay the subsidy.***® It did not become a precedent for future papal grants of subsidies. In 1517 Leo X called them grants to seek and exact charitable subsidies. They were still of the same type as the indults issued before the time of Boniface IX. The consent of the clergy had to be sought before a subsidy could be exacted. During the course of the fourteenth century several other prelates received grants of voluntary subsidies from their clergy which they may or may not have been authorized by papal indult to request. In 1349 William de la Zouch, archbishop of York, was granted by the clergy a subsidy of 8 d. in the mark in most archdeaconries of the diocese, but in the archdeaconry of Richmond it was 4 d. in the mark in some deaneries and 6 d. in the mark in others. It was collected in 1349 and 1350.**7 Since he was provided in 1342 and had finished payment of the services owed the pope in 1345,*4® this subsidy may have been intended to help him meet other expenses, though he might still have had to repay loans contracted for the payment of his services. His successor, John Thoresby, was authorized by the clergy in diocesan synod, soon after his accession, to levy a subsidy of 445, WAM. 2988, 28861.

46 Wykeham’s Reg., ll, 461. **7 Reg. la Zouche, fo. 78, 125¥-126, 163. “48 App, IL.

The Service Taxes Continued 289 12 d. in the mark from the regular clergy and 8 d. in the mark from the secular clergy.**° In a letter of thanks to the clergy he explained that with-

out the subsidy he could not have met a debt owed at the Roman court under penalty of heavy ecclesiastical censures.**° Early in 1354 the clergy of the diocese of Carlisle voted Gilbert Welton, who had recently become their bishop, a gracious subsidy for the burdens of his church. It was to be paid part in 1354 and part in 1355.45? In 1357 they granted him another subsidy of 200 marks to be paid in two portions.**? It is not made apparent whether this subsidy was supplementary to the first or for some other purpose. In 1356 the abbot of Ramsey paid his quota of a subsidy of 3 d. in the pound for the bishop of Norwich who had succeeded William Bateman in 1355.453 Two other archbishops of Canterbury received subsidies. Simon Lang-

ham was promised a charitable subsidy of 6 d. in the mark by the clergy of his diocese and apparently was conceded 4 d. in the mark in the rest of the province. His successor, William Whittlesey, found that many who were liable for the subsidy had not paid it. On 10 March 1369 he ordered the collector in the diocese of Canterbury to warn such debtors to pay within thirty days under penalty of suspension, excommunication and interdict. He also appointed collectors in the diocese of Worcester.*** Simon Sudbury, on 19 April 1376, ordered his commissary general to convoke the clergy of the diocese of Canterbury and of his immediate jurisdiction, to explain the urgent necessities of himself and the church of Canterbury and to ask them to grant a charitable subsidy. He had no support from a papal indult which is mentioned. On 1 June the commissary reported that the clergy met and excused themselves on account of their oppressions and burdens. Before 25 April 1377, however, they conceded 4 d. in the mark.**®

Two other archbishops of York also obtained subsidies. Alexander Neville, who was provided on 14 April 1374, received from the clergy of his diocese the concession of a tenth. It was payable one-half in 1374 and one-half in 1375.*°° Richard le Scrope, who was translated on 27 February 1398, was given a ‘gratis’ subsidy of the same amount by the diocesan clergy “4°13 August 1353, an order to have it collected in the archdeaconry of Nottingham: Reg. Thoresby, fo. 20.

*6°Dated London 7 May without the year and without the name of the archbishop.

The subsidy is said to be 8 d. in the mark: Cotton MS. Galba E.X., fo. 78¥. ©. Collector for the first term appointed 29 March, for the second 31 December 1354: Carlisle, Reg. Welton, pp. 5, 13-14. *°? Appointment of a collector on 2 April: tbid., pp. 32, 34-35. £638 Addit. MS. 33445, fo. 110.

*** Reg. Wytleseye, fo. 4-47; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 78. *°° Reg. Sudbury, fo. 13%, 36; Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 105. “°° Reg. Neville, I, fo. 112; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll 1374-75.

290 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 on 29 July 1398. It was collected one-half in 1398 and one-half in 1399.4°7

| John Fordham, who was provided to Durham on 9 September 138], not only obtained a loan from the prior and convent of Durham,**® but also was given a gracious aid by his clergy. About 16 March 1382, in a diocesan synod, the clergy approved the levy of a tenth for relieving his various burdens. Ina cartulary of the priory of Durham it is noted that the riory was exempt by its privileges.*°® Richard Medford, after his translation to Salisbury in 1395, was granted freely by the clergy of his diocese

priory was exempt by its privileg s tr a subsidy of 4 d. in the mark.*®°

After 1400 the archbishops of York had the longest run of grants of which record has been preserved. On 26 August 1428 John Kemp, who had become archbishop on 20 July 1425, secured the consent of the clergy of his diocese for the levy of one-half of a tenth for the burdens of himself and his church.**? William Booth, who was appointed on 21 July 1452, was granted by the clergy of his diocese, on 5 October 1453, a gratuitous subsidy of a tenth according to the new assessment. It was for relief of his burdens and ‘in felicitation of his happy translation to York.’ *® In the collection of this subsidy sequestration was used against those who failed to pay at the dates set.*®* Laurence Booth obtained from a diocesan synod

on 21 October 1477 the concession of a charitable subsidy of a tenth to help him meet the cost of his translation. It was to be levied on spirituals and temporals by the new assessment. Benefices worth ten marks or less and several benefices specified by name were exempt. One-half the tenth was to be paid on 2 February 1478 and one-half a year later.*°* Thomas Rotherham, who was translated on 7 July 1480, in a convocation which began on 29 October 1481, was voted by the clergy of the whole province a charitable subsidy of a tenth for his burdens.** It was paid in two halves in 1482 and 1483.*®* Thomas Savage received the grant of a subsidy from the clergy of the province of York on 12 May 1501,**" Christopher Bain*87 Reg. le Scrope, fo. 115-1157, D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1397-98, 1399-1400. “68 Above, p. 281.

°° TD. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum, fo. 204.

460 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 130%. Not dated. The subsidy was to be paid before the next Easter fortnight.

#613 October 1428: order for the collection which refers only to a grant by the

clergy of the archdeaconry of Richmond: Reg. Kemp, fo. 213%. The subsidy was paid elsewhere in the diocese: D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1427-28.

“2 Reg. W. Booth, fo. 330%; Records of Northern Convocation, p. 182; Wilkins, Concilia, I, 564. The last dates the synod 3 August. *° Reg. W. Booth, fo. 330%-32. The prior and convent of Durham made payment in 1454: Bursar’s Roll, 1454-55. *e4D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum, III, fo. 1817-82.

*65 Reg. Rotherham, I, fo. 294; II, 80¥-817; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 614. *66T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1481-82, 1482-83. **7D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum, II, fo. 118.

The Service Taxes Continued 291 bridge was paid a subsidy of a tenth in 1509 or 1510,*®* and Thomas Wol-

sey, in a convocation of the province of York which lasted from 22 to 30 January 1515, was granted a gratuitous subsidy of a tenth.*® Charitable subsidies received by few other prelates after 1400 are recorded, though there were probably more of them. On 2 May 1453 Reginald Boulers, who became bishop of Lichfield on the preceding 7 February, was conceded by the dean and chapter a charitable subsidy from all exempt and nonexempt benefices, such as the clergy of the several archdeaconries had already granted. The dean and chapter excepted the churches appropriated communally to them and the church of Lichfield, because a subsidy on these churches had never before been granted to a bishop.*”° Evidently similar grants had been made to previous bishops. William Dudley, who was promoted to Durham on 1 August 1476, was similarly favored by the clergy of his diocese later in the same year or early in 1477.47 On 26 February 1487 the convocation of the province of Canterbury authorized John Morton, who had recently become archbishop, to levy a charitable subsidy.**? Many classes of the clergy were exempt. The classes which were to pay and how much they were to pay were stated in detail. Chaplains, for exemple, who received 8 marks or their living and 4 marks were to pay 6 s. 8 d. and those who received 10 marks were to pay 13 s. 4 d. Orders for the collection of the subsidy were sent to the bishops in March.*** A convocation which was in session from 14 January to 27 February 1489 provided a second subsidy to supplement the first. It was similar in type to the first, but was designed apparently to tax the incomes of some classes of the clergy who had not been liable for the first subsidy. It was to be paid part on 25 March and part on 29 September. The writs of collection were dated 1 March. On 12 August the archbishop asked the official of the bishop of London, sede vacante, to notify the bishops of the province that the first instalment had supplied the need of his obligation sufficiently to make it possible to exempt from payment of the second instalment those chaplains who had paid the first instalment.*** On 9 December 1491 the *°8 Whether it was granted by the clergy of the diocese or of the province is not stated. The church on which it was paid was in the diocese of York. That the subsidy was a tenth is established by the amount paid for the church of Eastrington: D. & Ch. Durham,

Bursar’s Roll, 1509-10. *° D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Quintum fo. 1567; Bursar’s Roll, 1515-16. *"° Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Mm. I, 48, fo. 9v.

*"* Payment recorded in Bursar’s Roll, Pentecost 1476 to Pentecost 1477: D. & Ch.

Durham. * Jenkins, ‘Cardinal Morton’s Register’ in Tudor Studies, p. 37. *“° Ely, Reg. Alcock, pp. 153-57. *"* Tbid., pp. 68-70, 171, 176, Reg. Morton, I, fo. 47-487; London, Sede Vacante, bound with Reg. Thomas Kemp, second foliation, fo. 31¥-32.

292 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

archbishop sent out a writ of collection for still a third similar subsidy recently granted to him by convocation.*” The abbots did not have a diocesan clergy to whom they could appeal for help, but some of them obtained some aid. Thomas de la Mare, after he was provided to St Albans in 1349, was given a subsidy by the officers and others of the monastery and the priors of the cells. Presumably the officers were the obedientiaries who contributed from the shares of the monastic income attached to their respective offices. The free and villein

tenants were also asked to contribute, but they paid no more than 50 marks.*7® In 1383 the convent of Bury appears to have helped the new abbot, John Tymworth, to meet his debt to the pope.*”” Since the property of the convent as well as that of the abbot was pledged for payment of the services,*7® the convents of other monastic communities must have contributed to the services.

These methods of financial assistance made the services a burden on many others beside the prelates who paid them. The appeal for loans from friends and acquaintances caused some friction and under some circumstances financial losses.*"® The aid sought from lay tenants, though probably not a widespread practice, brought to some laymen a knowledge of the weight of the services.**° Most potent of all the factors which caused them to be recognized as a general burden were the subsidies paid by the clergy. Though they may have been granted voluntarily, they must have been irksome. ‘The occasional glimpses of opposition to them indicate that the clergy did not always pay them gladly. It was largely this extension of the burden which evoked popular complaints and criticisms. 5. PopuLAR CRITICISM OF THE SERVICES

They were voiced from time to time throughout the whole period. The anonymous writer of the Historia Edwardi Tertti speaks of the attempt which John de Grandisson made in 1327 to secure a reduction of the com-

mon service of Exeter and continues: ‘which service reduced many churches to diabolic servitude, so that it seems almost to smack of simoniac

heresy.’ *8* Robert de Graystanes, a monk of Durham who was elected bishop of Durham in 1333, but failed to obtain the office because the pope “7° Ely, Reg. Alcock, pp. 210-13. *7° Gesta Abbatum, Ul, 388-89. 477 Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, Ill, 133-35.

“78 Fg., Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 274; W.A.M. 9463. *7° Above, pp. 279-80; below, p. 301.

*°° Bishops as well as abbots sometimes asked for an aid from their tenants: Rot. Parl.,

. "Ra, Hearne in Hemingford, Historia, Il, 391.

The Service Taxes Continued 293 provided Richard of Bury to the see, may well have been somewhat prejudiced on the subject of the services. He relates that Adam Orlton was first an auditor in the papal court and was thereafter appointed in succession to Hereford, Worcester and Winchester not by ordinary means, but by reservations in the court, ‘Lady Money procuring all these things.’ The pope,

‘fishing for money more than for souls,’ then gave Worcester to Simon Montacute.*®? Adam Murimuth says that John Trilleck, after he had been elected to Hereford and confirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury, was given the bishopric by the pope,*** who wanted the common service as he was having it from many other bishops elect, ‘wishing by the usual custom to extort gold from the English.’ *** The writer of the Eulogiwm Historiarum carried a step further the hint of the anonymous and the implication of Graystanes that payment of the services constituted srmony. Under the year 1363 he records that there were many changes made in the bishoprics of England. ‘For,’ he explains, ‘hardly any one is pleased with his benefice, and so they obtain dignities as if they were merchandise. And so they are made tributary to the pope, saying they grant it to the pope in alms,**° when actually they commit simony, since an ecclesiastical benefice ought to be

obtained neither for prayer nor for price, but only by grace of the Holy Spirit.’ 48°

John Wyclif decried the payment of first fruits both because it was simony and because it took money out of the realm which never returned.*®” He reasoned that English ecclesiastics who obliged themselves for first fruits or some other render of money before the procurement of a benefice made a simoniac exchange equivalent to purchase.*** He also pointed out the fictional character of the claim that the pope, after he promoted a person, received a free gift, since the debtors were forced to pay by ecclesiastical censures.**°

Thomas Brinton, bishop of Rochester, who sat in the council of Blackfriars which condemned some of the opinions of Wyclif in 1382, nevertheless agreed with the reformer about the Roman court to a certain extent. *82 In Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, p. 119.

488 This part of the chronicler’s statement is confirmed by a royal letter to the bishop: C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 475. *°* Cont., p. 158.

485 An allusion to the formula in the obligation to pay services: above, p. 177. 186

487 English Works of Wyclif, p. 66. These themes recur in both his Latin and his English writings. He usually has in mind the annates from lower benefices as well as

the services.

*88 A reference to the terms of the obligation for services: Tractatus de Simonia, pp.

ee De Civili Dominio, 1, 202-02.

294 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 In a sermon preached in 1375 he said: ‘Bishoprics are bought and souls are lost by gold... . Hardly anything which can be sought in the court can be expedited without gold.’ His dictum has weight because he had been a papal penitentiar for many years before he became a bishop.*®° He did not specifically call the purchase simony, but in preceding remarks he had mentioned that subject and his statements with regard to the Roman court seem

to be related to it. The commons in the good parliament of 1376 put forward another aspect of services which caused a deal of criticism during the late years of the fourteenth century. In one petition they assert that the pope makes two or three vacancies by translations in order to get taxes; and in another, they put at four or five the number of translations following the voidance by death of one bishopric. They also make it clear that the services are of concern to many others beside the prelate who has to pay them. When a bishop gets his bulls, they explain, he will be so indebted to the court of Rome that he will have to sell the woods of his bishopric and to have an aid from his poor tenants and a subsidy from his clergy.***

The commons were doubtless moved by the increasing frequency of translations. Between 1327 and 1350 there were only four. In 1352 there were two. From 1361 to 1364 there was one in each year, and these constituted the immediate background of the outburst of the author of the Eulogium. In 1366 and again in 1368 there were two. In 1375 there were three, which probably caused the protest of the commons. In 1376 there was one.

The majority of these translations, however, came from the initiative of the king rather than from that of the pope. Adam Orlton was translated from Worcester to Winchester in 1333 by John XXII in disregard of the opposition of Edward III.*°? I have not discovered who was primarily responsible for the translation of Roger Cradock from Lismore to Llandaff in 1361, of William of Lynn from Chichester to Worcester in 1368,*** and of John Swaffham from Cloyne to Bangor in 1376. There is reason to think that the other translations were made at the request of the king, or at the request of other influential Englishmen with the approval of the king. Several of them were royal officials whom it was customary to reward with a bishopric. John Stratford, translated from Winchester to Canterbury in “1 Rot. Parl., IL, 337, 339. *°2 Stubbs, Constitutional History, Il, 403.

*°5 In 1364 Urban V translated him to London, but he refused the translation: C.P.L.

IV, 41. Actually London was not vacant. In 1366 Urban appointed him a nuncio to make peace between the kings of Castile and Aragon: C.P.L. IV, 21, 53.

The Service Taxes Continued 295 1333, was chancellor; John Thoresby, translated from St Davids to Worcester in 1349 and thence to York in 1352, was keeper of the privy seal; Simon Langham, translated from Westminster to Ely in 1362, was then treasurer and when translated thence to Canterbury in 1366 was chancellor; John Barnet, translated from Worcester to Bath and Wells in 1363 and thence to Ely in 1366, was treasurer; and Simon Sudbury, translated from London to Canterbury in 1375, had been chancellor of Aquitaine and, at the time, was a supporter of the Black Prince.*°* Simon Montacute, translated from Worcester to Ely in 1337, was the brother of the earl of Salisbury, who was one of the closest of the young king’s friends,*°* and Simon was himself dear to the king in his own right.**® Reginald Brian, translated from

St Davids to Worcester in 1352, was the son of Guy Brian, a knight who held many offices in the royal household and was an influential adviser of Edward III. #°? William Whittlesey, translated from Rochester to Worcester in 1364 and from Worcester to Canterbury in 1368, probably obtained his first episcopal position at Rochester and his translation to Worcester through the influence of Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, who was his uncle. Simon, who had been keeper of the privy seal before he became archbishop,*** presumably had the support of the king for the promotion of William to Worcester, but the promotion to Canterbury must have come from the royal initiative alone.**® John Gilbert, advanced from Bangor to Hereford in 1375, had previously been an auditor of causes in the papal court,°°° but in 1372 he had served Edward III as a member of an embassy to Gregory XI.°°? William Courtenay was the son of the earl of Devon, and when he was translated from Hereford to London in 1375 he was a supporter of the party of the Black Prince.°” During the reign of Richard II the appointments of English bishops continued generally to be controlled by the government, though there were

some exceptions. During the minority the first translation was that of Courtenay from London to Canterbury in 1381. He was postulated by the chapter and the king’s approval was expressed before he was translated by the pope.°°? After several papal provisions to bishoprics made at the request of the government, in 1385 Richard II asked Urban VI to translate ‘4 Tout, Chapters, III, 41, 205, 219, 232, 246, 285.

45 Ibid., IIL, 36-37, D.N.B. XXXVIII, 212-13. , °° C.P.R. 1334-38, p. 120.

7 C.P.L. Ill, 36, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50, 246, 426; Tout, Chapters, III, 225; IV, 139, 255; VI, 46. *°8 Tout, Chapters, Ill, 220. 4° D.N.B., LXI, 159. 599 CLP.L., TV, 479.

51 CPL. IV, 127, 129. 502 1). N.B., XII, 342-43. 508 1). N.B., XII, 344.

296 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Thomas Rushook, who was his confessor, from Llandaff to Chichester. Though the chapter of Chichester had elected Richard le Scrope, the pope annulled the election and translated Rushook. The translation was made conditional, however, on the pope’s being allowed to translate William Bottlesham from Bethlehem to Llandaff. In the next year the king secured the election of his secretary, Richard Medford, to Bath and Wells. ‘The pope, without waiting to learn the desires of the English government, translated

Walter Skirlaw from Lichfield to Bath and Wells and provided Richard le Scrope to Lichfield. In the same year, however, Urban VI agreed to _ ratify Richard’s nominations to the headships of cathedral churches, if the candidates were suitable.°°* In 1388 he made the wholesale translations demanded by the supporters of the lords appellant, who then controlled the government. Their purpose was to provide episcopal adherents of the ariscratic regime with richer bishoprics and to demote bishops who supported Richard to poorer bishoprics. Alexander Neville was translated from York to St Andrews, which was equivalent to depriving him of any episcopal income, since St Andrews was under the jurisdiction of Clement VII. Rushook was sent from Chichester to Kilmore, and John Fordham from Durham to Ely. Those who received wealthier bishoprics were Thomas Arun-

del, moved from Ely to York, Walter Skirlaw, from Bath and Wells to Durham, and Ralph Ergham, from Salisbury to Bath and Wells.°°? _ When these translations became known in London, the popular agitation against translations was renewed. The commons, assuming that the translations had for their purpose an increase of the papal income from England, demanded that the services owed for them should be confiscated and used against the Scottish schismatics. This petition was not granted, but a petition presented by the commons in a parliament which met at Cambridge in the autumn of 1388 resulted in a statute which forbade anyone to leave the realm to seek favors at the papal court under penalty of confiscation.°°® Urban VI protested this legislation and proceeded to appoint English bishops without regard for the suggestions of the English government. In 1389, ignoring Richard’s wish to have Richard Medford provided

to St Davids, he translated John Gilbert from Hereford to St Davids and provided John T’refnant, an auditor of causes at the papal court, to Hereford. He also disregarded Richard’s candidate for Rochester, translated William Bottlesham from Llandaff to Rochester, and appointed Edmund Bromfield to Llandaff. These promotions were followed in 1390 by a new and more stringent statute against papal provisions, which aroused the anger 50d Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 281-82, 299-301. °°° Tbid., pp. 303-04; Tout, Chapters, III, 436. 5°6 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 305-07; above, pp. 115-16; below, pp. 389-90.

, The Service Taxes Continued 297 of the new pope, Boniface IX. The king tried without success to negotiate a compromise on the subjects at issue.°°” In 1392 it was rumored in England that the pope intended to translate English prelates out of the kingdom and from one English see to another without the consent of the king. ‘The consequence was a new statute of praemunire in 1393 containing clauses which imposed heavy penalties on any who obtained translations in the Roman court and attempted to execute them within the realm.°°* This same parliament granted to the king power to make a compromise with the pope concerning provisions. Richard was prepared to make concessions, and, though Boniface long clung to his demand for the repeal of the legislation, relations became less strained. In 1395, at the request of Richard, Boniface translated Tidemann of Winchcombe, Richard’s physician, from Llandaff to Worcester, Richard Medford from Chichester to

Salisbury, and Robert Waldby from Dublin to Chichester. In the next year the royal wishes were met by translations of Robert Waldby from Chichester to York and Robert Reade from Lismore to Carlisle and thence to Chichester. The king permitted the translation of Thomas Arundel from York to Canterbury, but in 1397 he rid himself of this opponent by having him translated to St Andrews and having his own ofhcial and supporter,

Roger Walden, provided to Canterbury. The translations continued in 1398. The translation of Thomas Peverel from Leighlin to Llandaff probably was satisfactory to Richard, since the bishop was appointed Isabella’s chancellor early in 1399.°°° Apparently he assented to the translation of Richard le Scrope from Lichfield to York. His attitude toward the translation of John Buckingham from Lincoln to Lichfield is more doubtful. Since it was done to make room for the provision to Lincoln of Henry Beaufort, Richard’s cousin, the son of John of Gaunt, who was at the time a nominal supporter of Richard, it may be deemed probable that he gave his consent.°!°

Nevertheless, Richard took the occasion of the translations of le Scrope and Buckingham to protest against the practice of papal translations.°** On 27 May 1398 he asked the council, acting in conjunction with the yustices, to advise him how he could legally have remedy against the translations, particularly that of the bishop of Lincoln. He also put the question before the convocations of the two provinces. The convocation of Canterbury suggested mildly that the king should write to the pope, asking him to p07 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 307-08, 312-14, 317-25, 331; below, pp. 389-92.

6°8 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 331-34, Cont. Eulogii Historiarum, Ul, 368, Statutes of the Realm, Il, 84-86, below, pp. 393-4. 50° "Tout, Chapters, V, 263-64.

1° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 335-48. 511 Peverel’s translation probably was not known to the king before 27 May.

298 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 be more moderate in the number of translations.*'? Richard’s sincerity in proposing opposition to the practice of papal translations, after so many of them had recently been made at his request, may well be doubted. Moreover, he profited from the translation of Buckingham. The bishop refused to accept it, and Richard consequently procured the translation of John Burghill from Llandaff to Lichfield.°** After the reign of Richard II translations continued to be as frequent as before, though not again did as many take place in one year as in 1388. If any which displeased the king were made, by threat of the penalties of the acts of 1390 and 1393, which Richard II could have invoked had he really desired to prevent the translation of Buckingham, the government persuaded the recipients of the translations to give them up. This was done, for example in the case of Richard Fleming, who was translated from Lincoln to York in 1424 and of Thomas Bourchier, who was translated from

Worcester to Ely in 1436. The former was translated back to Lincoln and the latter was left at Worcester by the withdrawal of his translation.°™

This aspect of the services seems to have caused no further popular complaint after 1400. In articles drawn up by the university of Oxford in 1414 with the forthcoming general council in mind they are mentioned, but in such a way that translations themselves are not the primary cause of dis-

satisfaction. The attack was upon the excessive amount of the services, whether they became due by translation or provision. Remedy was sought ‘so that finally avarice may sleep and the church, the bride of Christ, may be free from simony.’°’® They caused criticism elsewhere, since in one program of reform put before the council of Constance it was proposed that the pope should not translate unwilling prelates before the next general council,®*® but they seem to have awakened no further echo in England.

Another aspect of the services evoked a storm in parliament soon after Richard’s reign ended. The commons in the parliament which met on 10 October 1404 attacked the ‘horrible, evil and damnable custom’ introduced by Boniface IX that no archbishop or bishop could have provision until he had paid excessive sums to the apostolic camera and petty services to the court.°*’ The resulting statute missed the mark by prohibiting the increased 812 Proceedings of the Privy Council, 1, 80-81; Ann. Ricardi Secundi, pp. 226-28; Walsingham, Historia, II, 228. 8 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 346-48. Perroy suggests that the threat against translations was made in order to secure the translation of Burghill. 514 App. IL.

25 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 361. °*° Finke, Acta, II, 621. Bonnechose states that at the 39th session of the council translations were forbidden except for legitimate causes and without the consent of the majority of the cardinals: Réformateurs, II, 209. 517 Rot. Parl, Ill, 557.

The Service Taxes Continued 299 sums, which did not exist, and by ignoring the new principle of cash on delivery.®*®

Aside from a criticism by Gascoigne in the middle of the fifteenth century,°*® little adverse comment against the services, other than that of individuals who had to pay them, appears to have taken written form until the

reign of Henry VIII, when all the old grievances were revived and new ones were added. These were set forth in a petition °*° which may have been drawn up by the commons or by convocation.*?t They obviously constitute the basis of the act in conditional restraint of annates passed in 1532. Some of the statements in this document were repeated in the preamble of the statute.®”?

The first complaint was the same as one in the statute of 1404. The petition says merely that services (annates) have to be paid by archbishops

and bishops before they can obtain their bulls out of the Roman court. The act puts it that promoted archbishops and bishops have to pay great sums of money before they can attain their promotions.®”* The petition mentions the decay of the land caused by the conveyance

of the treasure of the realm to Rome. The act elaborates this grievance. It speaks of the great and inestimable sums of money daily conveyed out of the realm, especially the sums of money taken by the pope and his predecessors from archbishops and bishops for annates or first fruits, by which

the treasure of the realm has been greatly depleted. Since 2 Henry VII (22 August 1486 to 21 August 1487) 800000 ducats, which equals at least £160000, have been paid for annates. This figure is probably an exaggeration. It is impossible to determine the exact sum paid by English prelates for common and petty services between 22 August 1486 and 1533. The records of payments made by some prelates are incomplete. In a few instances during the reign of Henry VII and in many during the reign of Henry VIII records of the payments are entirely lacking. Record of the amounts paid for the petty services is generally lacking during both reigns, but since a petty service in this period was always one-fourteenth of half of the common service,°** the amount 8 Above, p. 188. Pickthorn seems to deduce from the statute the false conclusion that annates in England had always been restricted to bishoprics: Early Tudor Government: Henry VII, p. 170. °1° Gairdner, Lollardy, I, 255-56.

°° Cotton MS. Cleop. E VI, fo. 274-75; Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, V, 479-82. °*From whichever source the petition came, it was probably inspired by Thomas Cromwell or by the king: Merriman, Thomas Cromwell, I, 133-34. For different points of view with regard to the origin of the document see Dixon, History, I, 144 n: Constant, La Réforme, I, 397, n. 33. °®? Mild criticism of services occurs in Starkey’s England, pp. 126-29. 28 "The act is in Statutes of the Realm, III, 385-88. °° Above, p. 176.

300 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 can be determined accurately. Nearly always the amount is a certain number of florins and a fraction of a florin. In the calculation the fraction has been dropped, if it is less than a half, and has been considered a digit, if it is one-half or more. Since the bulls could not be obtained in this period, unless the services had been paid, it has been assumed that they were paid in every instance, unless the recipient of the bulls was exempt from payment of services. In a few instances the customary amount of the services was reduced. These reductions have been taken into acount. During this period the half of the common service paid to the papal camera was less than onehalf by the five percent paid to the college of solicitors.°*° In the computation this diversion has been ignored, and the common service has been reckoned at its full assessed value.

On these bases the total of the common and petty services was 413819 ducats.°?* If twenty-five percent be allowed for the additional expenses at the papal court, which is perhaps a liberal estimate,°*” the total attains 517274 ducats. If the allowance of twenty-five percent is not sufficient, it is certain that the expenses in addition to the services were not 386181 ducats, which is the difference between 413819 and 800000 ducats, since that would make them nearly as much as the services. If the comparison is made in pounds instead of ducats, the amount of the exaggeration is somewhat less, because the statute gives a value for the pound in relation to the ducat which was more than was generally allowed in the reckoning of the equivalents by the papal camera during the period. The value of the pound in gold ducats or florins of the camera decreased during the period. By the calculation of the statute the pound sterling was worth five gold ducats of the camera. In 1471 the pound was evaluated at 44%, florins by the camera °** and in 1474 the prior and chapter of Durham made exchange at that rate.°*® From 1484 to 1506, which includes a little less than one-half of the period under consideration, the camera almost uniformly gave the pound a value of 414 ducats.°*° There were two years during the period in which the value was substantially more than 444 ducats. °° Above, p. 257. °° For an itemized list see App. III. °*7 Above, pp. 276-79; below, App. IV. °°8 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1680, fo. 94. In subsequent notes to this paragraph this series of registers is cited ‘Fondo’. °° D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum III, fo. 157. 2° Fondo 1693, (1484), fo. 82; 1700 (1493), fo. 92; 1701 (1493), fo. 80%; 1117 (1497), fo. 115; 1704 (1499), fo. 157, 169% (twice); exchange rate. Wells, Reg. King (1499), fo. 57; Fondo 1706 (1502), fo. 134; 1708 (1505), fo. 90%; exchange rate, Lincoln, Reg. Smith (1505), fo. 295; 1709 (1506), fo. 233%; 1711 (1506), fo. 9. There were two variants which

were only slightly above or below 4% ducats: 4 53/85, I. & E. 518 (1489), fo. 59; 4 4/9, Fondo 1117 (1497), fo.99v.

The Service Taxes Continued 301 In 1492 it was 4-8/11 ducats *34 and in 1498, 6-24 ducats.°3? After 1506 there is comparatively little information on the rate of exchange for several years, but in 1519 it was 4 4/9 ducats to the pound °** and on 13 January 1523 that rate was still allowed.°** The assignment by the camera of a value of 6 ducats to the pound in 1521 °° must have been exceptional. From 24 July 1523 to 1533 the rate was 4 ducats.°?® The significance of this situation is displayed in the following table.

Rate Value in £ of Value in £ of Plus 25% 800000 ducats 413819 ducats

5 ducats to £ £160000 £82764 £103455

4% ducats to 1522

4 ducats thereafter °°°* 182222 93766 117208 In both documents it is noted that prelates are so impoverished by their

payments, that many times, if one died within two or three years of his promotion, his friends and creditors who had helped him to make his payment had been undone and pauperized. Though none died within so short a time after his provision during the reign of Henry VIII, several did during

the reign of Henry VII. The petition states further consequences of the impoverishment of the prelates. For a great part of their lives they have been unable to keep in repair their churches, houses and manors. They also

have not been able to bestow the goods of the church in hospitality and alms which by law and the intention of the donors they were bound to do. The petition claims that it is false to say that the money is taken for the period of the vacancy of the bishopric, since the temporals in that period belong to the king and the spirituals to the archbishop of Canterbury. The act says more simply that the payment of first fruits has to be made before a prelate can receive any part of the fruits of the archbishopric or bishopric. The petition repeats the old charge common in the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth to the time of the council of Constance, that services constituted simony by the pope’s own law, which defined it as taking or giving money for collation to a benefice. The act has no word to say about simony, but it asserts that annates have risen, grown and increased by a custom grounded on no just title. Annates, it continues, were 531 Fondo 1700, fo. 319. 532 Fondo 1703, fo. 163¥.

5337 g P., II, pt. 1, 399. 647 @& P., IIL, pt. 2, 2771. 585 Fondo 1722, fo. 27.

586 Fondo 1723 (1523), fo. 47% (twice); 1730 (1533) fo. 83%. In 1529 the declared rate of exchange in Rome was 60 d. to the ducat or 4 ducats to the pound, though some merchants charged 63 d. for a ducat: L. @ P., IV, pt. 3, 5225. 686. Four-fifths of the number of ducats valued at 4% ducats to the pound and one-fifth at 4 ducats.

302 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 first taken for the defense of Christians against infidels, but they are now taken only for lucre against all right and custom. This was the basis of the legislation of the council of Basle which abolished annates in 1435. At Basle nothing was said about simony, but the reason put forward for the act was that annates had been instituted to aid the crusades to the Holy Land, and since such crusades had ceased they should be abolished.°*” ‘This reasoning was as false historically as the reasoning that services constituted

simony was false logically, but petitions and preambles on affairs of the church in this period were frequently restrained neither by historical accuracy nor by logic. The act does not mention the council of Basle specifically, but the petition does. It points out that the exaction of common and petty services had been forbidden at the twenty-first session, but that the act allowed a reasonable payment to supply a competent salary for the labor of the scribes, abbreviators and registrars of the necessary letters, minutes and bulls. Their salary, according to the petition, cannot reasonably be extended to a twentieth part of the annates. If the court exacts the services for parchment, lead and writing the bulls, they are in some cases worth 100 times their weight in fine gold. The act significantly allows a person designated as archbishop or bishop to pay for the writing, obtaining and sealing of the necessary bulls £5 for every £100 of the clear yearly value of the archbishopric or bishopric, but forbids payment of anything for annates. The petition contains other arguments against the services which find no counterpart in the act. There is no reason why first fruits of the temporal lands of a bishop, which the king’s progenitors and other nobles have given to the church of England, should go to Rome, because the bishops are

subject for those lands only to the king and not to the court of Rome. If there were just cause, as there is none, why any sums of money beyond the charges for writing and sealing the bulls should be paid, the Roman court should be contented with the annates of the spiritualities alone.*?® A bishop swears not to alienate the immovable or movable goods of his bishopric. Payment of first fruits is an alienation of movables and a bishop thus falls into perjury. 6. THE ABOLITION OF SERVICES IN ENGLAND, 1532-1534

For all these reasons the petitioners asked the king to cause the services to cease by action of the court of parliament. This he graciously did by the : act in conditional restraint of annates, even though he had some difficulty in securing its passage by the commons. After the threat of making the act °°? Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 228-33. °88 See Wolsey’s argument above, pp. 229-30.

The Service Taxes Continued 303 unconditional failed to secure from Clement VII the divorce upon which he had set his heart and Cranmer had received his bulls, he carried out his threat on 9 July 1533.°8° In the next year a new act of annates ratified the preceding act with the addition that no person should thereafter be presented to the pope, or send or procure any bulls, palliums or other things requisite for an archbishop or bishop to have, or pay any sums for the expedition of bulls. An archbishop or a bishop was to be elected by the dean and chapter, acting on a royal license which named the person to be chosen.

A bishop was to be invested and consecrated by the archbishop and an archbishop by two bishops.**°

Despite the royal decree of 9 July 1533, John Salcot, who was elected bishop of Bangor after 13 August 1533,°*? either sought, or contemplated

seeking, from the pope a grant to hold the bishopric of Bangor with an abbey in commendam. When he learned from Thomas Wriothesley that the pope would not grant the desired bull, he wrote on 4 November to Cromwell explaining the circumstances and expressing the hope that the king would grant him the temporalities.°*? Apparently he had not known previously that the statute of annates had been made effective. His hope must have been fulfilled, for on 19 April, after the legislation providing for the election and confirmation of bishops in England, he was consecrated bishop of Bangor by the archbishop of Canterbury.*** According to Eubel he was provided to Bangor by the pope on that date,°** but the volume of the Fondo Concistoriale given as authority for the statement seems to contain no reference to such a provision.°*° 7. COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES PAID TO THE PAPACY BEFORE 1533 WITH THE ANNATES PAID TO THE KING BEGINNING IN 1535

The relief of the archbishops and bishops from the payment of services did not long endure. Beginning on 1 January 1535 they were required, like all other members of the clergy, to pay annates to the king on accession to office. The amount to be paid was the clear yearly value of the see as stated in a new valuation of clerical incomes ordered by parliament to be made in

1535.54 In the following table the values given to the archbishopric of Canterbury and eighteen bishoprics in the new Valor Ecclesiasticus is com68° Above, pp. 230-32. Cranmer’s bulls of provision arrived in London on 26 March 1533: C.S.P. Spanish, IV, pt. 2, 1057. 540 Statutes of the Realm, III, 462-64; L. & P., VII, 171.

°2 Date of his predecessor’s death. 5427. @ P., VI, 1396. 548 Stubbs, Reg. Sacrum, p. 99.

54 Hierarchia, I, 129. 545 Acta Vicecancell, IV. 546 Statutes of the Realm, ITT, 493-99.

304 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

pared with the amount of the services and the estimated amount of the additional expenses which had to be paid at the papal court from 1486 to 1532.

Diocese Amount of common Annual value in Estimated amount of and petty services Valor Ecclesias- services and addiim £°*" ticus of 1535 °*° tional expenses

Bangor £ 123 £131 £175 Bath and Wells 1126 1843 1327 Canterbury 2619 4° 3093 3016 Chichester 375 677 459 Ely 1964 2134 2256 Exeter 1571 1616 1819 Hereford 471 768 571 Lichfield Total not found in the Valor. Lincoln 1310 1962—1536 Llandaff 183 154 247 London 786 1119 929 Norwich Rochester1310 340978 4111518 419

St Davids Asaph 123 187 (176 St 393 457 485 Salisbury 1179 1367 1371

Winchester 3143 3880 3639 Worcester 524 1049 632 York The sum given was established in 1560 or 1561 Carlisle 2622821 541 2739 333 Durham 2357

How the many items of additional expenditure are estimated is explained in Appendix IV. The estimates are necessarily inexact. The few comparisons which can be made between them and the actual expenditures by prelates of other countries whose common services were the same as those of

one or another of English prelates indicate that they are probably either a little lower or a little higher than the actual expenditures of English prelates, but not widely remote from them. The comparison of the amount of the new annates with the combined amount of the former services and additional expenses demonstrates more clearly what the change meant in the way of the fiscal burdens of English prelates. Doubtless the prelates had to pay fees at the royal exchequer for the documents concerned with their payments of annates. In 1534 Archbishop Cranmer established fees amounting to £21 3 s. 4d. which had to be paid by a bishop of his province for the confirmation of his election.5®® Al] these fees were negligible when com547 The florin or ducat in this and the third column has been converted at the rate of 4% to the pound. Grossi, carleni and julii have been counted at 10 to the ducat. In the division of ducats into pounds fractions of less than one-half have been dropped. °° The shillings and pence in each item have been ignored. The references to the Valor in the above order of dioceses are IV, 416; I, 123; I, 7; I, 294; Ill, 499, Il, 291, Ill, 4; IV, 7; [V, 345; I, 357; III, 282; I, 100; IV, 434; IV, 380; II, 72; Ul, 2; Ill, 220; V, 1; V, 274; V, 300.

4° In the early years of the fifteenth century the services were £2580: above, p. 275. °° Lamb. Reg. Cranmer, fo. 80. He also stated his fees for consecration, but these

The Service Taxes Continued 305

court. |

pared with the many fees and gratuities which had to be paid at the Roman

The comparison of the amount of annates which each prelate had to pay to the king with the combined services and attendant expenditures which his predecessors in the same see had to pay at the papal court indicates that the annates due the king were substantially higher in eight instances and substantially lower in four instances. In the remaining seven they were nearly enough alike to make doubtful any extensive change one way or the other, when one set of figures is based in part on estimate. The abolition of the services did not turn out to be for the English episcopate an unmixed blessing. 8. EsTimMATED ToTAL RECEIPTS BY THE PoPE AND THE CARDINALS FROM THE SERVICES

The total amount of the services received by the pope and the cardinals, as far as it can be established from the extant records, is displayed in the

following table. When the record of payments by any prelate is incomplete, it is possible in many instances to make a reasonably safe assumption that the full amount was paid. In other instances such an assumption is not warranted. In such instances the sum used in the computation is that of the payments recorded in the extant registers.°°* “There were a few of these

instances in the third quarter of the fourteenth century, more in the last quarter and still more in the first quarter of the fifteenth. In these three quarters the receipts were probably more than those displayed in the table. Receipts from common and petty services

florins pounds average per average per

year, florins year, pounds

1328-1350 °°? 190749 31792 558 8293 1382

1351-1375 172571 28762 ”” 6903 1150 1376-1400 176560 29427 7062 1177 1401-1425 156137 26023 ” 6245 1041 1426-1450 181102 30184 ” 7644 1451-1475 140464 26337 4 5619 1207 1053 1476-1500 9461 2212 2102 1501-1533 236520 271612 52560 73000 555 55° 8231

Totals 1525715 298085 7406 1447

do not enter into the present consideration. Only three of the prelates who paid services between 1486 and 1532 were consecrated in the papal court. 5 The reasons for assuming payment in full in some instances and not im others are explained below in App. III, in which the payment made by each prelate is estimated. °°?"The promotions were made in these years, but some of the payments were not made until after the end of the period. The same is true of some of the other periods. 558 Calculated at 6 florins to the £. 554 One-half of 140464 florins is converted at 6 to the £ and one-half at 4 4/5 to the £. 55° Calculated at 4% florins to the &£. 55° Calculated at 4% florins to 1522 and at 4 beginning in 1523.

BLANK PAGE

Cuapter VII , ANNATES 1327-1378 1. DEFINITION

Anon is a word which might have any one of three meanings

when it was used to designate a papal revenue in the later middle ages. In its earliest usage it meant a portion of the first year’s income paid to the papacy by the new incumbent of a benefice from which services were not due. Annates, in other words, might be due from the newly collated holder of any benefice which was not filled by the pope in consistory. This usage

of the word continued throughout the period. Early in the fifteenth century, and possibly late in the fourteenth, annates was sometimes used in a more general sense to include not only annates as thus defined, but also

services. Late in the fifteenth century the term began to be employed occasionally as the equivalent of services alone.’ Since the services have been treated above, annates is used in this chapter and the next in the original sense of the word. 2. ANNATES FROM BENEFICES FILLED BY PaPAL COLLATION, 1326-1334

In 1327 the use of annates as a source of papal revenue was still comparatively new. The first imposition of papal annates in England was made

by Clement V on 1 February 1306. It was a general levy requiring their payment, with certain exceptions, by all who were collated to benefices within the next three years. A second general levy of the same type for another period of three years was ordered by John XXII on 8 December 1316.2 Ten years later the same pope again demanded annates. This time a much more limited group became liable for payment of the due. The change was of fundamental importance, because from 1342 to 1534 the principle of liability for annates established in 1326, with alterations of details, remained in effect. The decree, which was issued on 20 February 1326, required payment to the papacy of the fruits and revenues of all exempt and nonexempt ecclesiastical benefices with or without cure, dignities, benefices carrying seats in chapters or churches, and offices vacant at the apostolic see within the next year during the period of their vacancy and for the first year of their subsequent occupation. Excepted were cathedral churches, regular abbeys *Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 93-94. *Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 485-501.

308 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

and benefices vacant by reason of exchange.* This decree was renewed year by year during the remainder of the pontificate of John XXII.* An important interpretation of the decree was made in a bull of 13 August 1327. ‘Ecclesiastical benefices,’ it said, ‘of which the disposal belongs immediately to us by our general or special reservations or otherwise are to be understood for this purpose as vacant’ at the apostolic see.” The fruits owed during the period of vacancy were known as the intercalary fruits. The fruits of one year were the annates due from the new incumbent of the benefice, though they were not in practice the whole of the revenues of the benefice for the year. On 10 January 1332 it was ruled that, in accordance with what had long been the practice,*® the value at which the benefice was assessed for the tenth should be taken for annates, and if a benefice was not assessed, one-half the income of the first year should be taken.”

The application of this decree to England was not made by Hugh of Angouléme, who was papal collector at the time. His successor, Itier de Concoreto, who was appointed in 1328, on 11 August 1329, asked the arch-

bishop of York to certify the benefices of his province which had been filled by papal collation since 20 February 1326, the date of the original decree.®

In the same year that Itier made this request, the papal camera began to keep registers containing summary statements of the provisions which were made. Then from time to time extracts were made of those for each collectorate and forwarded to the respective collectors. The first lists were despatched on 1 April 1330 and a second series was sent on 17 August 1330.° ‘The provisions recorded for England were incomplete. Many more provisions were entered in the registers of the chancery than found their way into the cameral register.’° It was, however, a more efficient administrative method than to learn of papal provisions by inquiries addressed to the several bishops. Later the lists sent to the collectors became full, but not in time to help the collector greatly during the rest of the pontificate of John XXII. The surviving portion of Itier’s accounts to the camera contains no statement of the receipts from this source. They were not large, since the arch*Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 374. The Latin text is given by Géller, Die Einnabmen unter Johann XXII, p. 113*. *Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, p. 25. ° Multarum necessitatum oneribus: Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 375; Inst. Misc. 1008. *Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 491-93, 496-97. *Olim pro magnis: Inst. Misc. 1208. * York, Reg. Melton, fo. 529v.

* Col. 280, fo. 7, 22. There may have been an earlier register, but this is the first I

have found. ** There may have been other registers which have not been preserved.

Annates 1327-1378 309 bishop of York named only eighteen benefices which had been filled by papal provision in the course of the whole period from 1326 to 1329." Twenty days after Itier requested information concerning the papal collations, John XXII imposed a third general levy of annates to run for three years, and on 13 December 1329 he extended the period of the levy to four years. It included benefices to which collation was made by the pope as well as those to which collation was made by others.’? After the quadrennial period expired on 30 August 1333 until the death of John XXII on 4 December 1334 the renewals of the decree of 20 February 1326 made those who were collated to benefices by the pope responsible for annates. Whether Itier collected annates from any of those who held benefices as the result of papal provision in this period is rendered problematical by the lack of any account from him for these years. His successor, Bernard de Sistre, who was appointed on 13 September 1335 by Benedict XII, included in his final account, which was rendered by

his executors in 1343, receipts from the fruits of benefices vacant at the apostolic see in the eighteenth and nineteenth years of the pontificate of John XXII.1* There were four parochial churches, ten prebends ** and one deanery. The total sum received was £424 18 s. 8 d.,*° but since only one

sum is given for each item and both intercalary and first fruits were due, it is impossible to determine the amount of the annates. 3. A GENERAL Levy or ANNATES, 1329-1333

The third and last general levy of annates in England was established by two bulls dated 31 August 1329. One, of which copies were addressed to the two archbishops, their suffragans and the various grades of secular and regular clergy, explained the nature of the tax and ordered them to pay it.*° ‘he other made the same explanation and ordered Itier de Concoreto to collect the annates.*” The fruits of the first year were to be paid to the papal camera from all ecclesiastical benefices which were vacant on the date of the bull or should become vacant within three years thereafter in the provinces of Canterbury and York. The benefices included those with cure and those without, dignities, prebends, churches, monasteries, ** Below on this page. *8 5 September 1333 to 4 December 1334.

**The year of the pontificate when the prebend of East Harptree in Wells was provided is not given: Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 501, n. 8. 15 Col. 227, fo. 116¥-17.

*® Reg, Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 16; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 530. The summaries in C.P.L. are misleading: II, 490. *" Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), 1, 543-45; Salisbury, Reg. Mortival, II, fo. 276, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 44%; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 425¥-26,; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 530¥.

310 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 priories and other secular or regular ecclesiastical places exempt and nonexempt. Exceptions were made of archiepiscopal and episcopal churches, regular abbacies, benefices whose annual value did not exceed six marks, benefices vacant by exchange, vicarages or chaplaincies instituted for saying masses for the dead,** revenues received by those present at daily or nightly canonical hours, daily distributions,’® and income from gifts providing for the celebration of anniversaries. A benefice vacant twice in the same year was to pay annates only once. Local holders of a right to annates had their right postponed from the first year after a vacancy was filled to the second year.

The collector or one of his deputies was to take for the annates the amount at which the benefice was assessed for the tenth, leaving the remainder of the year’s income to the holder of the benefice. He could, however, at his option take the remainder of the income and leave the assessed value to the holder. The remainder might be less than the assessed value,

but should not be more.”° The collector or deputy in making the choice ought to leave to the holder enough income to meet fully the charges on the benefice. Though it was not stated in the bull, the benefices not found in the assessment paid for annates one-half of the estimated true value, since

this principle had been established in 1318.7" If the holder preferred, he could transfer the whole annual income of his benefice to the collector or his deputy, who would then be responsible for providing suitable persons to administer the divine offices, the sacraments and the cure of souls and for

paying the charges on the benefice. If the annates were to be paid by the holder of the benefice, the collector or his deputy was to arrange for payment in two instalments at convenient times. If the remainder of the fruits was chosen for annates, the collector or his deputy was to collect all the fruits and pay the assessed value to the incumbent in two similar instalments. Chalices, crosses, sacred vases, books, vestments and any movable goods

dedicated to divine use were not to be accepted in payment of annates. The collector was given power to appoint deputies and to compel opponents by ecclesiastical censures. in a decision dated 11 October 1317, which became part of the canon law, to chantries with an annual value of 20 li. of Tours or less: Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 338. In England the dividing line was set at 6 marks: Financial Relations to 1327, p. 497. *° This clause in the bull of 8 December 1316 was subject to interpretation in a bull of 11 October 1317 and in another of 5 January 1320, which was also incorporated in the canon law. It applied only to those canons who were present at the daily distributions and only to food and drink. If grain or money was distributed, it was subject to annates: Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 337-38, 347.

°° This provision is not in the bull of 31 August 1329 but in the papal interpretation of the bull of 8 December 1316 made on 11 October 1317: Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 337. ** Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 497.

Annates 1327-1378 311 On 13 December 1329 the pope prolonged the period during which annates were to be paid from three years to four.2? On 5 January 1330 he granted one-half the proceeds for the four years to Edward III,?* and on 12 April the king acknowledged the grant.?* On 30 June the pope instructed Itier to pay to Edward III one-half of the receipts from annates during the whole four years. This bull was enrolled in the records of the exchequer.”°

Although this grant was obtained by the envoys, William Montague and Bartholomew Burghersh, whom Edward III sent in 1329 to John XXII to seek financial help,?* they had nothing to do with the imposition of annates, as they did with that of the quadrennial tenth decreed on 3 January 1330.7” England was only one of several countries in which John XXII, during 1329, ordered the payment of annates.?* In the bull of 31 August, which was probably issued before the royal envoys arrived at Avignon, the only reason given for the levy was the attack on the Roman church by schismatics and heretics in Italy. The envoys may have had some influence in producing the extension of the levy of annates for an additional year, since they came to the papal court before it took place, but there is no trace of it in the bull. The reason given for the prolongation of the period was the continuance and the increase of the attacks of schismatics and heretics. Itier de Concoreto began to organize the collection of the annates on 26 October 1329. He wrote to the bishops of the province of Canterbury quoting his commission and ordering each of them to report to him at his house in London, within a certain length of time after receipt of his letter, the benefices vacant since the date of the bull, and thereafter to report at regular intervals the vacancies occurring since the date of the last report.”

The length of the intervals varied. The bishop of Exeter was to report within two months of the receipt of Itier’s letter and thereafter within two months of a subsequent vacancy. The bishops of Salisbury and Winchester

were to report within twenty days of receipt of Itier’s letter and subsequently within a month of notice of a vacancy. The bishop of Lincoln was not required to make his first report for sixty days, though later he was to report vacancies within a month. The bishops were also to cite the new incumbents of the vacant benefices to appear before the collector in 22 C.P.L., Il, 495; K. R. Memo Roll 109, m. 123. 28 Vat. Lib., MS. Fondo Barberiano Lat. 2166, fo. 132’. *4Rymer, Foedera, Il, 786. 25K. R. Memo Roll 109, m. 122. *° Ibid.; above, pp. 88-89. *" Above, pp. 75-76. 7° Goller, Die Einnahbmen unter Johann XXII, pp. 90*-91*. 2° Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 545; Salisbury, Reg. Mortival, II, fo. 276-77, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 44v-45, Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 425¥-27.

312 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 London within a specified number of days after the citation to answer for the annates or to make a composition for them.

The collector appointed the bishops as his deputies in most of the dioceses in the province of Canterbury.®° He named others than the bishops in the dioceses of Salisbury,?! Norwich *” and probably in some other dio-

ceses.28 Adam Orlton, bishop of Worcester, arranged with the collector that the abbot of Tewkesbury and Master William de Bosco, rector of

Twyning, should act for him and report and account directly to Iter, leaving the bishop free of any responsibility for the collection of annates.** Other bishops who became deputy collectors appointed members of their clergy to do most of the work of collection, but retained responsibility for the collection of the funds and their delivery to the papal collector. ‘The bishop of Bath and Wells, for example, appointed Master Walter de Hull, rector of Shepton Beauchamp, and Thomas de Retford, canon of Wells.*° In the province of York Itier designated the abbot and convent of St Mary

York deputy collectors for the whole province. He instructed the archbishop of York to send his lists of vacant benefices to the abbot and convent, and the archbishop directed the bishops of Carlisle and Durham to do likewise.?¢

When the triennial period had expired, Itier notified the archbishops and bishops of the additional year during which annates were to be paid. On 1 September 1332 he wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans and to the archbishop of York,®" quoting the papal letter of 13 December 1329 in which John XXII had ordered the levy to continue for a fourth year and had appointed Itier the collector. He ordered the bishops of the province of Canterbury to report vacancies within a month of their occurrence and to cite the new incumbents to appear before him to compound for annates within a month of citation. The archbishop sent copies of Itier’s letter to his suffragans on 13 September and ordered them to com-

ply with the collector’s mandate. In the province of York the abbot and °° Bangor, Bath and Wells, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Llandaff, St Asaph, St Davids, Winchester and Worcester: Reg. Grandisson (Exeter), I, 545; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 16, Winchester, Reg. Stratford, fo. 44%, Col. 227, fo. 125, 125¥. ** Chancery Misc., Bdle. 20, file 4, no. 9. One of them was Raymund de Mota: K. R. Eccl. Doc. 10/22, fo. 2. 8° K. R. Eccl. Doc. 10/22, fo. 29. 33 In his letter of 26 October 1329 Itier appointed some of the bishops deputy collectors.

In the letters to the bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln he asked them to report but did not appoint them deputy collectors. I have not found who the deputies were in Lichfield, Lincoln, Canterbury, Chichester, Ely and London. °* Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 17. °° Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 23, 116, 126. *° York, Reg. Melton, fo. 530-31. °7 [bid., fo. 533-34; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, fo. 8-9; Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 107-08.

Annates 1327-1378 313 convent of St Mary York were retained as deputy collectors and the archbishop and bishops were to send their lists of vacancies to them. In the province of Canterbury also the same deputy collectors were kept in office. The lists of vacant benefices supplied by the bishops varied with regard to the information supplied. The archbishop of York *° and the bishop of Lichfield *° gave only the names of the benefices which had become vacant with the exception that in three instances out of a large number the archbishop supplied the names of the new holders. Bishop Mortival of Salisbury also reported only the names of the benefices,*® but his successor, Robert Wyville, added the names of the new incumbents and explained that in one instance the vacancy was filled by papal provision and in another by exchange.** The bishop of Bath and Wells provided the assessment of the vacant benefices for the tenth and also the value of the remainder of the income of a benefice over and above the assessed value.‘ The bishop of Exeter in his first return listed the date of and the reason for each vacancy. He explained that he was unable to give the value of the benefices, because the assessment of the diocese possessed by his predecessor had been seized and was in London. He requested the papal collector to send him a transcript of his copy of the assessment as far as it related to the diocese. ‘Thereafter he included the assessed values.*® Itier did not find the lists forwarded by the bishops entirely satisfactory.

After the collection had proceeded for two years, on 4 November 1331, he wrote to the bishops of Rochester, London, Chichester, Winchester, Salisbury, Lincoln, Norwich, Worcester and Ely that some of those who had received benefices during the period had not yet come to him to make composition for the annates and asked each of them to send a list of all vacancies since 31 August 1329 by the bearer of his letter.** At the close of the quadrennial period he required the bishops to provide him with lists of the benefices which had become vacant during the whole four years.*° Three complete lists are preserved in episcopal registers. “The number of vacant benefices in the diocese of Exeter was 37,*® in Lichfield 51 *7 and in York 115.*® In the diocese of Salisbury the number of vacancies on ** Reg. Melton, fo. 531, 533, 533%, 536.

°° Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 44. *® Reg. Mortival, I, fo. 276-78. ** Reg. Wyville, fo. 3-4. *” Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 40, 57. *° Reg. Grandisson, 1, 546-49.

** Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 3¥-4. *° Reg. Grandisson, I, 548-49, Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 156, York, Reg. Melton, fo. 536. *° Reg. Grandisson, I, 547-49. *“ Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 44. “’ Reg. Melton, fo. 547%. This list was not drawn up until 1338: below, p. 317.

314 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 26 November 1331 had been 21 during the first year, 30 during the second and 23 from 29 August 1331 to the date of the return.*® In the lists available by far the larger part of the benefices were rectories and vicarages of parochial churches. There were several prebends, a few archdeaconries, deaneries and dignities in cathedral or collegiate churches and two chapels. The only priory in the lists was Tutbury, but the priory of Spalding paid annates to a later collector for a vacancy which took place during the time of the quadrennial levy.®° This ran counter to a royal prohibition on the levy of annates from priories made by Edward I in 1307 and maintained by Edward II,°* but Edward III permitted the priory of Spalding to make this payment.

The further administrative methods employed, as far as they are described in the evidence available, were the same as those which had been used in the preceding general levies of papal annates.°? The recipient of a vacant benefice was summoned to appear before the principal collector or a deputy and required to contract under oath to pay a specified amount for annates in two instalments which were usually equal. If he failed to appear when cited, the income of his benefice was placed under sequestration.” The amount of annates demanded was nearly always the assessed value

of the benefice. The amounts delivered to the collector by the bishop of Exeter were in every instance the same as the value given to the benefice in the valuation for the tenth.** In the diocese of Bath and Wells the fruits of benefices which owed annates were sometimes sold by the collectors. The price received in every case save one was the same as the assessment for the tenth, and presumably the price was the amount taken for annates. The bishop or his agents in that diocese estimated the income received in excess of the assessed value, but whether it was above or below the assessed value, it does not appear to have been taken for annates.°* The deputies of

the bishop were unable to sell the fruits of two prebends, because their possessors were so powerful that none dared to buy the fruits, but they were sold by Itier. They did not try to dispose of the fruits of Stoke Gif°° Col. 14, fo. 49.

*t Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 489-490, 494. °2 Ibid., pp. 491-94, 496-500.

53 Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 45, 57-58, 60-62.

54 Reg. Grandisson, I, 547-49; II, 736. The assessed value and the amount of annates is listed for each benefice. In two instances they do not correspond. Reference to the Taxatio (pp. 147, 150) demonstrates that the assessed value of the two was entered erroneously

- TA vossible exception was the provostship of Wells. It was assessed at 60° marks (Taxatio, p. 199), but its fruits sold for 140 marks. The estimated value of its income above 60 marks is not given.

Annates 1327-1378 315 ford, because the rector was an associate of the papal collector.®* The sale of the fruits of benefices for the payment of annates was probably not uncommon. The bishop of Exeter forbade his clergy to sell the fruits of tithes before they were harvested, except in the case of a serious emergency approved by him. He gave as one of the reasons that their sale while still in the soil might frustrate the reservation of annates by the pope.*?

The king, who had promised not to intervene in the collection of annates unless called upon to do so by the collector,®* kept his promise until John XXII died on 4 December 1334. Itier was then on the continent and the business of the collector's office was being conducted by a locumtenens. The king ordered the proceeds of annates, as he did those of the tenth, in the possession of the collector’s office, of the Bardi and of the Peruzzi to be impounded and the further collection of annates to cease until the new pope should appoint a collector.®® During the interval, on 18 June 1335, he ordered the bishops to inform him how much of the annates had been levied by the collectors in his diocese, how much was in arrears and who the debtors were. Neither of the two bishops whose replies have come to

light supplied the desired information. While the collection had been taking place, the king had given several orders for the disposal of his share of the proceeds, as was his right. As a consequence Itier delivered some of them to Queen Philippa’s wardrobe, some to the king’s treasurer and some to the Bardi.** On 21 February 1333

the exchequer held a view of his account for the yield of the first three years.°” ‘The receipts, as far as they had been reported to Itier by the deputy collectors, were £4718 8 s. 10% d. for the first year, £2978 14s. 534 d. for the second and £2615 9 s. 4% d. for the third. The total was £10312 12 s. 4% d.

From the deputies in the dioceses of Llandaff and St Davids he had received no report for the first year, though the first had delivered to him 30 marks and the second 100 marks which were included in the above total.

For the second year reports from the deputies in the dioceses of Bath and 56 Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 40, 57, 61. The rector of Meare, whose assessment was 6% marks (Taxatio, p. 198) and estimated excess income 10 marks, refused to pay more than 6% marks. *7 Reg. Grandisson, U, 694. °* Made on 12 April 1330: Rymer, Foedera, II, 786. °° Above, pp. 82-83. °° Reg. T. Charlton (Hereford), p. 56; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 240; Chancery Misc. Bdle. 20, file 4, no. 9. *1 C.C.R. 1330-33, pp. 69, 86; C.P.R. 1330-34, pp. 16-17, 27, 32, 34, 37, 49, 256, 269, 273; L. T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Wardrobe 2, m. 10; Pells Receipt Roll 302, m. 21. °K. R. Memo Roll 109, m. 125. A copy is in C.P.R. 1330-34, pp. 453-54. It has some

slight variations in the sums. Another copy is Chancery Misc. Bdle. 87, File 3, general no. 4. It is the same except that it shows a remainder of £950 due.

316 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Wells, Worcester, Bangor, Llandaff, St. Davids and Carlisle were lacking, but three of them had paid a combined total of 163 marks which were in-

cluded in his total. For the third year he had had no reports from the deputies in Bath and Wells, Exeter, Hereford, Worcester, the four Welsh dioceses, York, Durham and Carlisle, but three of them had paid to him a total of 4814 marks which were included in his statement. Thus the totals for which he accounted did not represent the whole yield of annates in any one of the three years. That of the first year was not much short of the full amount, that of the second was considerably short of it, and that of the third included the yield of only ten out of twenty-one dioceses. Itier, moreover, had received of the total of £10312 12 so. 4% d. only £8135 16 s. 134 d. ‘The remainder, amounting to £2176 16s. 3 d., was in the hands of divers clerks, presumably the deputy collectors. The half of the sum which the collector had received was due the king, namely £4067 18s. %4 d. In discharge of the debt he produced acquittances for a total of £3874 3 s. ¥, d. and claimed the balance of £193 15 s. for expenses. In the spring of 1334 Itier de Concoreto had an accounting with his deputies or their proctors for the annates of the whole four years. It took place in London in the presence of witnesses and a notary who drew up a certified statement of each account. The bishop of Exeter, whose account is the only one which I have discovered, paid £293 18 s. which was all that he owed.** Many deputies, however, could not balance their accounts and left arrears which Bernard de Sistre, Itier’s successor, tried to collect. In the summer of 1334 Itier left England without having rendered any

further account to the king. The exchequer finally took a view of his account during Hilary term of 1339.°* It was based on a roll supplied by him. ‘The amount with which he charged himself for annates due the king from England for the whole period of four years was £6428 8 s. 10% d. This sum included the £4067 18 s. 34 d which he had paid for annates at the time of the view of his account in 1333. He had, therefore, received since then £2360 10 s. 9%, d. How much of this additional sum he had delivered to the exchequer at the time of the view of 1339 cannot be determined, because his credits for the annates are not itemized in the view, but are lumped together with his credits for the tenth of England and for £500 of the annates and tenth of Ireland. Since the total of his deficit was only £1137 8% d., the larger part of his debt for annates had probably been paid. Most of the deficit was never recovered.®®

The arrears of annates which Itier had left in the hands of the taxpayers °° 17 March: Reg. Grandisson, Il, 736-37. 64 Exch. K. R. Accounts 311/37. °° Above, pp. 85-86.

Annates 1327-1378 317 and the deputy collectors were not included in this view of account. Bernard de Sistre had been collecting them for three years. On 3 February 1336 he ordered the bishop of Winchester to warn six rectors and one vicar to pay specified amounts of annates at his residence in London within one month of receiving the notice or to suffer excommunication.®°* He probably sent many other mandates of this type.®’ He also sent orders to some deputy collectors to appear before him to render account and to pay the arrears shown in the accounts they had made with Itier de Concoreto. One to the bishop of Worcester, dated 3 February, ordered him to appear before 10 March.®* On 11 June 1336 he expressed wonder that the bishop of Bath and Wells still owed money for the arrears of the annates and asked him to answer for his debt on 8 July.®® Later he discovered that annates had not yet been paid from some of the benefices contained in the bishop’s certificates of vacancies and he ordered the bishop to inquire concerning all the benefices which had been vacant in his diocese and to forward the information.” From the archbishop of York, who, he said, had omitted some vacant benefices from his lists, he required a complete list of the vacancies, show-

ing when they were vacant, in what manner they became vacant and by whom and to whom they were collated.“* Against delinquent payers he issued sentences of excommunication and instituted processes which presumably were usually sequestrations.” His persistence met with much success. He recovered from many of the payers whom Itier or his deputies had left charged with unpaid debts. He found the astonishing number of 38 benefices wrongly charged with arrears in Itier’s account. The mistake was generally proved by the holder of the benefice producing an acquittance issued by Itier for the sum. In one or two instances an acquittance of his locumtenens established the error, in four credit for the item was found in Itier’s account, and in two no ex-

planation was given of the manner in which the mistake was detected. The whole sum for which his predecessor was thus left responsible was £290 8 d.*3

The exchequer took a view of his account during Hilary term 1339. °6 Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 32-32%; Winchester Cathedral Chartulary, p. 53. 7 One to the bishop of Bath and Wells is also dated 3 February: Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 262.

°° The bishop replied on 6 March that he had ordered the deputies, the abbot of

Tewkesbury and William de Bosco, to appear: Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18-18. °° Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 290. 7°10 March 1337: ibid., I, 303-04. He sent a similar letter to the bishop of Carlisle: Reg. Kirkby, p. 357. 7113 December 1337: York, Reg. Melton, fo. 547bis.-48. The archbishop’s reply was dated 21 January 1338. 7 K. R. Eccl. Doc. 10/22, fo. 29-39. "3 Tbhid., passim.

318 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 He was charged with £1373 12 s.4%4 d. of the arrears of annates, of which one-half, that is £686 16s. 2% d., was due the king. By 1 June he was credited with payment of that amount."

Bernard continued thereafter to collect outstanding debts for the annates until his death in 1342. A comparison of his account of 1339,”° on which the view of his account in the exchequer was probably based,’ with the final account rendered by his executors to the papal camera displays 17 benefices from which by 1342 he had recovered a larger sum than he had obtained in 1339. In several instances the receipt in 1339 represented the first of two equal instalments the second of which was paid later. Fifteen benefices which were not named in the account of 1339 were credited with

the payment of annates in the final report. In this report the total of his receipts from the payers of annates was £904 10s. 7 d. From eight deputy collectors, to whom he allowed £109 64 d. for their expenses, he received

£747 4s. 9 d. His total net receipt was thus £1651 15 s. 4 d. Of this the share of the pope was £847 9 s. 414 d. and that of the king £804 6s. 11% d. The royal portion was smaller because a few debtors paid only the papal half and because the king pardoned some debtors what they owed to him.”

The amount delivered to the king does not correspond exactly with the record of an incomplete account which Bernard’s executors made with the king. There they were charged with £815 2 s. 734 d."® The charge was based on two rolls of particulars supplied to the exchequer by Bernard.” In their absence it is impossible to explain how the difference arose. As early as 1338 the debts of some members of the clergy were transferred to the Pipe Roll and were being collected by the sheriffs.*° Upon the goods of debtors who had no temporalities the exchequer ordered bishops to impose sequestration.*’ As late as 1365 writs of sicut pluries were sent to the bishop of Durham to distrain the ecclesiastical goods of the prebendary

of Rivers in the church of Auckland for 50 s. owed for the half of the annates granted to Edward III by John XXII.** Similar writs were sent to the bishop of Chichester for 34 s. 8 d. owed by the vicar of Dallington and “* Above, pp. 83-84.

7K. R. Eccl. Doc. 10/22. 7° Above, p. 84, n. 67. ™ Col. 227, fo. 122-257.

787... T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies 3, m. 17%. 7° One roll amounted to £775 19 s. 3% d. It may be of significance that the 775 1s over

765 erased by a line drawn underneath it. The erased sum would make the difference between this account and the account with the camera only 15 s. 8 d. The other roll amounted to £39 3 s. 4 d. *° Pipe Roll 183 (12 Edward III), m. 3, 44. 81 Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 568, 601, 638. ®? Bernard had been abie to collect nothing from this prebend: Col. 227, fo. 122.

Annates 1327-1378 319 34s, 8 d. owed by the vicar of Ninfield.** In the next year the writ to the bishop of Durham was repeated and finally the bishop was ordered to have

the body of the prebendary before the exchequer prepared to pay at the next term of Hilary.** As late as 1425 a writ of Venire facias was issued to cause Paul de Monte Florum, chaplain of Tickhill in the diocese of York, to come before the exchegeur to pay 12 marks which he owed to the king for the same levy of annates.** Just how a dead man could be made to come before the exchequer the writ did not explain.®** So little did the clerk who entered the copy of the writ in the Memoranda Roll know about the levy that he ascribed it to John XX.*7 It may be doubted if the long memory of the exchequer produced much cash. Some of its processes put into execution against delinquent taxpayers within a reasonable time after the levy were doubtless effective. Subsequent papal collectors may have secured small sums. Raymond Pelegrini, Bernard’s immediate successor, delivered to the king £57 5¥% d. for annates and the tenth, but the account does not indicate how much came from one and how much from the other.** Raymond’s brother Hugh, between 1349 and 1358, raised for the pope from this levy of annates £106 6 s. 8 d.8® and he may have recovered something for the king. Nevertheless, the amount which the exchequer received after Bernard’s death was probably small.

It is impossible to determine the total sum produced by this levy of annates, since there is no complete account of the receipts of either the royal exchequer or the papal camera. On the basis of the views of Itier’s and Bernard’s accounts, the incomplete account of Bernard’s executors at

the exchequer, Bernard’s account with the camera and the evidence of arrears still left in 1342, it is safe to say that the gross yield was over £14500, but not how much over. 4. CESSATION OF Papa ANNATES 1334-1342

With the death of John XXII papal annates ceased to be imposed in England. His successor Benedict XII, on the day of his consecration, ordered the levy of intercalary fruits from the benfices vacant at the apostolic see. He meant thereby, as appears in another papal letter, vacant bene-

fices of which the collation belonged by general or special reservations 53K, R. Memo. Roll 142, Brevia Retornabilia, Michaelmas term, mems. not numbered. 84 Tbid., 143, Brevia Retorn., Michaelmas term, mems. not numbered. *° Bernard had collected the pope’s 12 marks: Col. 227, fo. 122V. °° He died before 20 May 1360: C.C.R. 1360-64, p. 114. 87K. R. Memo Roll 202, Brevia Retorn. et Irretorn., Michaelmas term, verso of mem. not numbered. 887... T. R. Enrolled Accounts, Subsidies 3, m. 17V. 8° Col. 14, fo. 49.

320 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to the pope.°® Exempted from the levy were cathedral and conventual churches and benefices resigned for the purpose of exchange.®* He made no reservation of annates and during his pontificate the only annates collected were the arrears of those which had been imposed by John XXII. 5. ANNATES IMPOSED BY CLEMENT VI IN 1342 ano THEIR CONTINUANCE "THEREAFTER

Clement VI reversed the practice of his predecessor. On 21 May 1342, the day after his consecration, he put an end to the reservation made by Benedict XII of the intercalary fruits of benefices filled by papal provision. He reserved for his camera the fruits, rents and revenues of one year of each and all ecclesiastical benefices with and without cure, also of dignities, stalls (personatuum), administrations and offices, priories, and any other ecclesiastical places, secular and regular, exempt and nonexempt, which, belonging to his disposal by general or special reservation of himself or his predecessors, were then vacant or should become vacant within the next two years at the apostolic see or anywhere else.°” ‘The reservation of annates was renewed every two years during the remainder of his pontificate.®* Similar reservations were made at the beginning of their pontificates by each of his successors during the period under consideration. Annates thus remained a permanent source of papal income after 1342. 6. Tue Ciasses oF BENEFICES RESERVED TO PapaL CoLLATION UP TO 1378

The number of benefices which became liable for annates by the bull of 20 May 1342 depended principally on the general reservations of benefices to papal provision made by previous popes. They begin with a decree of the third council of the Lateran in 1179. It required the bishop to fill a benefice which remained vacant for six months and gave the duty to the archbishop if the bishop failed to exercise it.°* Though the pope was not mentioned in the constitution, by the time of John XXII he conferred the °° Benoit XII: Lettres closes et patentes intéressant les Pays autres que France, 1450. ** [bid.. 1: Lunt, Papal Revenues, Ul, 375-76; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 28.

°* This bull is inadequately summarized in Clément VI: Lettres closes, patentes et

curiales se rapportant a la France, 1. On the same date Clement VI ordered the camerarius to see that the collectors and deputy collectors carried it out: ibid., 2. On 22 July 1342 he had a copy of the bull sent to the treasurers of the camera who were to appoint the col-

lectors. They sent a copy to Raymond Pelegrini, the collector in England, who, on 13 May 1344, had made notarial copies, of which one is in a Chapter Act Book of the D. & Ch. of York, pt. 3, fo. 100%-pt. 4, fo. 1-1¥. The essential contents of the bull are also in the commission of a collector of annates in Hungary, dated 13 September 1343: Lunt, Papal Revenues, Ul, 358-61.

°° Clément VI: Lettres closes etc., 826; C.P.L., Ill, 9, 40. °*Lunt, Papal Revenues, UW, 217-18.

Annates 1327--1378 321 benefice, if the local prelates allowed it to remain vacant too long.®® This

was known as the law of devolution. Nearly a century later, in 1265, Clement IV issued a decree, which was said to be based on ancient custom, reserving to the papacy the collation to a benefice rendered vacant by the death of the incumbent at the apostolic see. Boniface VIII extended this decree to the benefices of those who died within two days’ journey of the

papal court.*® He also decreed that the benefices of curiales who were taken ill at the papal court, were left behind when the court travelled, and later died at whatever distance from the court should be at the disposal of the pope. The court was the place of residence of the pope or of the papal chancery. Curiales included not only the officials and servants of the pope, the cardinals and of the higher officials of the court, but also those in residence to transact business of their own or of others.°* Clement V maintained the reservations of his predecessors and added benefices vacated by the death anywhere of cardinals, papal chaplains, other papal officials and nuncios.°* He further reserved benefices vacant by resignation, transfer or exchange at the apostolic see and the benefices of bishops consecrated there.°®

John XXII, in his constitution Ex debito,'°° retained all the reservations of his predecessors, defining some of them more explicitly, and made some new reservations. He enumerated in greater detail the types of benefices

included in the reservations. They were episcopal, archiepiscopal, and patriarchal sees,*°' monasteries and regular churches of which the heads were ordinarily elected, priories, the offices and administrations in monasteries and priories, dignities—such for example as the chancellorship or precentorship in a cathedral or collegiate church—benefices giving stalls in churches (personatuum ), prebends and other ecclesiastical benefices with

or without cure by whatever name they might be called. Obviously no kind of an ecclesiastical benefice escaped subjection to papal provision, if it fell vacant at the apostolic see. Such vacancies were not only more fully defined, but they were also increased in number. They included vacancies caused by death at the see, by the papal deposition or deprivation of the °5 Ibid., I, 84; II, 350. In the fifteenth century it came to the pope if eighteen months had elapsed without collation by the bishop, the cathedral chapter or the archbishop: Schmitz-Kallenberg, Practica Cancellariae, pp. 9-10. °° Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 220-21. °" Mollat, La Collation des Bénéfices ecclésiastiques a4 PEpoque des Papes d’Avignon, Introd. to vol. Il of Lettres communes de Jean XXII, p. 11. °° [bid., pp. 11-12 and the references there cited; Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 221-22. °° Mollat, op. cit., p. 12; Lux, Constitutionum Collectio, p. 20. *°° Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 222-25. *** ‘episcopal sees and their superiors’ in the decree. Defined as above in the bull ‘Ad regimen’ of Benedict XII.

322 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 incumbent of a benefice, the papal quashing of an election or of a postulation, renunciation of a benefice at the see, the papal provision or translation of the occupant of a benefice to another benefice, or by the consecration of a bishop or the benediction of an abbot at the see or at any other place, if the prelate was promoted by the pope. Since many English bishops held more than one benefice previous to their consecrations, this was a fruitful source of papal provisions. Another was that any benefice vacated by the promotion of an ecclesiastic by means of a papal provision or expectancy was held to be vacant at the apostolic see.*°” The list of papal officials whose

benefices were regarded as vacant at the apostolic see by their deaths anywhere included specifically cardinals, the vicechancellor, the camerarius, the notaries, the auditor of contradicted causes, the correctors, abbreviators and writers of apostolic letters, the penitentiars, the commensal chaplains and legates and nuncios. Excepted from the decree were pensions and benefices held in commendam. Ex debito increased largely the number of benefices reserved to papal collation. The constitution Exsecrabilis, issued by John XXII on 19 November 1317, created a new source of papal provisions.'°? It required pluralists, that is those holding more than one benefice, to resign most of their benefices and to reserve to papal disposition the resigned benefices.1* As it applied to the future, any one who obtained two benefices which the law did not permit one person to hold was required to resign the first benefice which he had obtained, and the resigned benefice could be filled only by papal collation. In the course of time it became the practice that the constitution applied only to incompatible benefices held without papal dispensation.’ Benedict XII, on 11 January 1335, issued the decree Ad regimen with regard to the benefices reserved to papal provision. He kept the reservations made by his predecessors and added benefices vacated by the death any-

where of papal chaplains other than the commensal and of rectors and treasurers of the Roman church.*°* ‘This constitution did not increase greatly the number of benefices subject to papal provision, but it did define more clearly some of the reservations made by the predecessors of Benedict XII. It was important, because subsequent popes usually claimed the reservations made by it and added such further reservations as they chose.*®’ Benedict *°? Mollat, La Collation, p. 12. *°8 Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 225-28. *°“Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 495. *°** Schmitz-Kallenberg, Practica Cancellariae, p. 8, Churchill, Canterbury Administration, Il, 31-34, Col. 11, fo. 191¥, 194; 12, fo. 43%, 46-47%, 125¥-26. Dispensations to hold incompatible benefices were not uncommon. °° Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 228-30, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 27-277. *°7 E.g. Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 230-33.

Annates 1327-1378 323 also revoked the unfulfilled expectancies and commendams granted before

his time. The vacancies caused by the latter he reserved to papal collation.?°8

The successors of Benedict XII at Avignon made only slight permanent additions to the classes of benefices reserved to papal provision. Clement VI reserved the benefices of his servitors and of the members of his house-

hold who might die.*°® Urban V extended the reservation of benefices vacated by the death anywhere of certain classes of papal officials to include those of deceased papal collectors and deputy collectors **° and of scribes and correctors of the papal penitentiary.’** Gregory XI applied a reservation to benefices vacated by entrance into a religious order.’ 7. BENEFICES OTHER THAN [HOSE RESERVED TO PapaL COLLATION REQUIRED

TO Pay ANNATES BY CLEMENT VI

Clement VI added extensively to the number of benefices which had to pay annates by means other than the reservation of benefices to papal collation. On 7 November 1344 he required that an ecclesiastical benefice which was appropriated, united or annexed to a monastery, priory, church, prebend, dignity, office administration or other place should pay annates after the union had been completed, if the pope made the union or confirmed a union made by the ordinary.’** A more fruitful addition was the exaction of annates for a papal confirmation of an acceptance, a collation or a provision to a benefice. This was established before 8 August 1342. On

that date Clement VI confirmed the collation by the bishop of Salisbury

of Richard de Thornton to the canonry and prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury.*’* ‘The transaction was entered as a provision in the cameral register of benefices from which annates were due.'?® In two other instances a benefice was said to have been provided anew,*** and numerous later examples make it evident that confirmation and provision anew were practically synonymous.’*” There were many papal confirmations during *°° Mollat, Les Papes, pp. 77-78, La Collation, p. 13. *°° 15 July 1342: C.P.L., Ill, introd. p. ix. **° Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, p. 15, no. 5, 5a. There was to be no more than one deputy collector in a diocese. ** [bid., p. 18, no. 19. 1? Thid., p. 26, no. 3a. In practice Clement VI used this reservation as early as 1345: ‘De

ecclesia parrochiali beate Marie in Milkstrete Londoniensis, vacante per ingressum religionis Willelmi Russel, fuit provisum Roberto Attechurch nones Julii’: Col. 282, fo. 138. 8 Clément VI: Lettres closes etc. 1232; Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, p. 25.

4CPL. Il, 77-78.

45 Col. 8, fo. 24. 726 Col. 8, fo. 10, 14. 17 Fig. Col. 11, 155¥-56¥, 158, 185-96.

324 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the pontificate of Clement VI for which the recipients were charged with annates.’** A confirmation might apply to a previous papal provision,'® but more frequently they were obtained to fortify a presentation made by a local lay or ecclesiastical patron. One, for example, confirmed a collation made by the ordinary,**° another, the election of a dean,*** another, presentation by a lay patron and institution by the bishop,’*? and still another, of a rare type, provided anew a prebend held by royal collation.*** The principal reason for papal confirmation was the fear that the benefice to which the holder had been presented by a local patron might have been reserved to papal collation.*** Clement VI, furthermore, utilized many more of the opportunities given to him by the reservations of vacant benefices to grant provisions and ex-

pectancies than any of his predecessors had done. He outdistanced John XXII, who had been the most liberal of his predecessors in the distribution of such graces. His extensive use of the right of provision made the stronger

impression on contemporaries by contrast with the sparing use of it by Benedict XII.?7° 8. Papat PRovIsions TO ENGLIsH BENEFICES DURING THE REIGN OF EDWARD

Ill: tHE GENERAL TREND To 1343

The general trend of papal provisions to English benefices may be illustrated by the following table. The figures do not represent all the provis-

ions and expectancies issued in any one year. Large numbers of expectancies issued in forma pauperum to poor clerks were not recorded in the registers of papal letters kept by the chancery.’”* Between 1328 and 1332 inclusive there were twelve such graces, recorded in the register of bishops who were made executors of them, which do not appear in the Calender of Papal Letters,’** and doubtless there were others which were not entered in any extant bishops’ registers. In 1335 the bishop of Lincoln committed to others the execution of 144 letters of expectancy to poor clerks in which he had been named an executor. In 1336 there were 54 and in 1337 16,128 118 Col. 281, fo. 30V, 33V, 37V, 40V, 51; Col. 14, fo. 40-41, 55, 597-62. Samaran and Mollat

state that this innovation was made by Innocent VI: La Fiscalité pontificale, p. 26. 1° Col. 14, fo. 647, 155. 120 Col. 14, fo. 45%. 121 Co]. 14, fo. 155.

122 Col. 14, fo. 156v. 128 Co], 281, fo. 51. 424 C.P.P., I, passim.

2° Haller, Papsttum, pp. 107, 122-24, 142. 126 T have used the Calendars of Papal Letters.

*°7 Reg. T. Charlton (Hereford), pp. 3-4, 6, 15: Drokensford (Wells), p. 294, Worcester, Reg. Orlton, fo. 35¥-36. 128 Reg. Burghersh, fo. 500-09, 514-20%, 522-29¥, 531¥-35¥, 537-38¥, 541-43, 5457-49.

Annates 1327-1378 325 None of them 1s found in the Calendar of Papal Letters. During the remainder of 1342, after Clement VI was consecrated on 19 May, three poor clerks who received expectancies were listed in the register of papal letters and also in the register of papal petitions, of which the first extant volume began in that year.’ There were noted, however, in the register of Bishop Hethe of Rochester '*° 6 and in the register of Bishop Beck of Lincoln *** 61 expectative graces to poor clerks which are not duplicated in either of

the papal registers. In a roll of ‘poor, wretched and afflicted clerks and priests’ incorporated in the Calendar of Petitions for 1343 there are 23 petitioners for expectancies.’®? Six of them are mentioned in the Calendar of Papal Letters and 17 are not. In Beck’s register there were entered 189 expectative graces *** which are lacking in both series of papal registers. These expectancies granted to poor clerks, which rarely found a place in papal extant registers, and also provisions issued im forma pauperum are of no importance in relation to annates, because those who acquired benefices by means of them were not required to pay annates during most of the period of the papal residence at Avignon.*** It was not until 16 February 1376 that the exemption of poor clerks from annates was brought to an end.*®*> But to understand the effect which the increase in the number of papal provisions begun in 1342 had on English public opinion, it is well

to keep in mind these indications of the existence of a large number of expectancies to poor clerks of which we have no comprehensive information.

Some of the figures in the table may be inexact. One problem is caused by duplicate entries of the same item. During the pontificates of John XXII and Benedict XII some of the entries in the Calendar of Papal Letters, which is the chief source of information, are duplicated or supplemented in some

years by entries in cameral registers and occasionally by an entry in the register of an English bishop. Beginning in 1342 the Calendar of Papal Petitions provides another source of duplicate and supplementary entries. Not infrequently the spelling of names and places varies in two sources which are being compared. Such variations generally are not sufficient to prevent identification, but some of them may be. There are some other difficulties. In one instance the surname of an expectant is omitted, and in another the date of the grant of an expectancy is 1343 in one Calendar and 9 C.\P.L., III, 62, 85. They are not designated as poor clerks there, but they are so described in C.P.P., I, 2, 7. *8° TI, 700, 703-04, 708, 712 and in the MS. in the Diocesan Registry fo. 219-219v. 181 Fo, 5-6V, 8-13, 15-19. 1827, 54-55,

188 Fo, 18¥-20¥, 22-28, 30-347, 36-47%, 49-50, 75.

84 Col. 13, fo. 101%; Kirsch, Die papstlichen Annaten, I, 186. *8° Mollat, La Collation, p. 49, n. 145.

326 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

1344 in the other. All told, I think the probabilities of error from these difficulties are not sufficient to vitiate the figures for the purpose of representing the general course of the increase and decrease of papal provisions and expectancies.

In order to avoid confusing provisions and expectancies, which on account of the form of some of the expectative graces it is easy to do, I have tried to follow the practice of the papal collector, Arnald Garnerii, in the account which he rendered to the camera for the period from 1371 to 1374,*°° A provision provided to a specified benefice which was stated to

be vacant. Expectative graces were of three types. One provided to an unspecified benefice in the collation of a named patron, such as the abbot and convent of Ramsey, when a benefice in the gift of that patron should

become vacant. Another provided to a canonry with the reservation or expectation of an unnamed prebend when one should become vacant in a specified church such as Lincoln. The third provided to an unnamed dignity or to a canonry and unnamed prebend when there should be such a vacancy in a named church such as Salisbury. The confirmations and surrogations were so few that they have been counted as provisions. Neither provisions nor expectancies to poor clerks are included.

Provisions Expectancies

1328 23 40 187 1329 15 65 188 1330 14 72 180 1331 36 145 140 1332 11 4g 141 1333 108 242 1334 to 415 Dec. 15 22 **8 1335 40 145 *44 1336 11 3 12 John XXIl

Benedict XIl

1337 0 g 146 786 Col. 13, fo. 54-979. 187 C.P.L., IL, 268-78, 281-86, 297.

188 C.P.L., Il, 287, 289-95, 297-301, 306-10, 312, 314, 322-23; Col. 280, fo. 5¥, 7. 189 C.P.L., Il, 305-08, 313, 315-19, 321-24, 328, 333-35, 337-39, 342, 343, 346; Col. 280, fo. 25%, 32%, 34v¥; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Chapter Act Bk. 1305-10 (A. 2. 21), fo. 179. 140 CPL... Il, 325-36, 339-44, 346-47, 350-56, 359-66; D. & Ch. Lincoln, ibid., fo. 179. 141 C\P.L., Il, 354-63, 366, 370-74, 384-86, 388-90; D. & Ch. Lincoln, ibid., fo. 177. 42 C.P.L. Il, 371-79, 383-91, 395-400, 404-08, 511; D. & Ch. Lincoln, ibid., fo. 177; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 408-409.

“4° C.P.L., Il, 397-99, 401-04, 406, 408, 412; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 472, Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 169. 44 C\P.L., TH, 515-25.

745 C.P.L., Ul, 529-32, 534-35; Inst. Misc. 5195, fo. 6. M6 C\P.L., IL, 540, 542.

Annates 1327-1378 327

1338 10 y2 347 1339 148 , 1340 2 1 149 1341 5 7 150 1342 to 25 Apr. 1 Q *5 Benedict XII

Clement V1

1343 54 231 158

1342 from 19 May 36 122 15

9. ENGLIsH OpposITION AROUSED BY THE INCREASE IN PAPAL PROVISIONS

AND EXPECTANCIES, 1342-1350

_ The increase in the number of provisions and expectancies at the beginning of the pontificat of Clement VI brought from England prompt and vigorous protest.*** On 24 November 1342 John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter, wrote to the pope a personal letter. He said that at a convocation of the province of Canterbury on 15 October wonder was expressed at the burdensome and immoderate number of apostolic provisions. It was feared that neither major nor minor prelates could any longer provide their deserving servitors with benefices. He pointed out that Benedict XII had never burdened prelates or churches so heavily and asked Clement VI to give thought to the subject.'* The expectancies did not at this time result in the payment of annates. When one obtained a benefice by means of an expectative grace, he was collated to it by the local patron. But the encroachment on the rights of English ecclesiastical patrons by expectancies was even worse than that by provisions. What the bishop of Exeter and other ecclesiastical patrons of benefices feared may be illustrated. In 1342 nine persons received provision to a canonry with expectation of a prebend in the church of Lincoln. Each

was to be collated to a canonry and prebend then vacant or to the next to become vacant which was in the presentation of the bishop or the chap“7 CPL. IL, 543-44.

Ms C PL. Il, 544, 546. “°C PL. IL, 547-48.

180 OP.L., I, 551-55.

81 CPL. I, 557. 152 C.P.L., III, 52-64, 74-85, 92-94; C.P.P., I, 2, 6, 7-9, 12; Col. 8, fo. 5¥, 9¥-10, 14%, 24¥-25y, 28, 32, 37% 39-41, 43%, 45%, Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 116, 119V.

58 C\P.L., III, 2, 54-60, 62-64, 75-79, 84-85, 95-108, 117-37; C.P.P., I, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22-24, 26-27, 29, 31-32, 57, 60-62, 66, 68, 71-72; Col. 281, fo. 28, 31%, 37, 40%, 46, 48%, 52, 57, 597; 288, fo. 4¥.

* Brief treatments of the effects of provisions on the relations between England and the papacy during the reign of Edward III are given by Mollat, Les Papes, pp. 417-24; Haller, Papsttum, pp. 404-65. *8° Reg., I, 111.

328 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ter.*° In 1343 there were four provisions and one surrogation to specific prebends '*? and fourteen provisions to canonries with expectations of prebends.'® In the next two years the provisions and expectancies to Lincoln were not as frequent, but in 1342 and 1343 enough of them piled up to deprive the bishop and the chapter of their right of patronage for some time to come. In the church of York thirteen persons received provisions or expectative graces to prebends during 1342 and 1343.*** Perhaps an extreme case is presented in a complaint which the prior of the Hospitallers in England addressed to the pope early in 1344. He asserted that 47 poor clerks were awaiting presentation to churches of which he had the patronage.*®* An incident in the time of John XXII might appear to indicate that he had sometimes been almost as generous as was Clement VI. On 24 July 1335 the prebend of Combe Second in the church of Wells became vacant.

The bishop found that nine persons held expectancies granted by John XXII and summoned each of them to appear at Wells and show their right to the prebend.*®* Their graces, however, had been issued during a period of at least five years.1® The mild protest of the bishop of Exeter was soon followed by stronger action on the part of parliament. In a session which began on 28 April 1343

the commons complained that aliens held too many benefices, thereby reducing the treasure of the country, discovering secrets to the enemy and making it difficult for English clerks to find benefices. They prayed the king for remedy. The king replied that he wished the lords and commons to ordain a remedy and that letters should be sent to the pope by the nobles and the commons and by himself.*® The nobles and the commons thereupon asked to have a copy of the petition concerning provisions and of the judgment which followed against William Testa, the papal collector, in the parliament of Carlisle in 1307.1% *®° C.P.L., Til, 54, 58, 75, 80, 94; C.P.P., I, 8; Col. 8, fo. 25; Lincoln Reg. Beck, fo. 115-16.

“8 C.P.L., Ill, 97, 128-129: Reg. Beck, fo. 122. There was also a confirmation of an earlier provision: Col. 281, fo. 28. 102 CPL, Ill, 55-58, 60, 98-100, 102, 130, 132-33.

***D. & Ch. York, Chapter Act Bk. 1345-50, fo. 27. *** The answer to the petition was dated 20 April: C.P.P., I, 48-49. *8° Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 245-46.

*°° 16 September 1329 to 22 August 1333: C.P.L., I, 312, 329, 332-333, 338, 395. I did not find the dates when three of them were issued. *87 Rot. Parl., Ul, 141.

*°® Rot. Parl., 1, 207, 219-21. Testa was tried before parliament and a judicial award was

pronounced against him. EF. H. R., XLI, 332-51. In that award it was provided, agreed, ordained and considered that the wrongs charged against Testa, of which papal provisions was one, should not be permitted to be done in the kingdom. It was a judicial act which made law. Edward III referred to it as the ordinance made at Carlisle, and later designated it as the statute of Carlisle: C.P.R., 1343-45, pp. 277, 279. Subsequently it was commonly called the statute of Carlisle, and it has to be distinguished from the statute enacted as such by the parliament of Carlisle in 1307.

Annates 1327-1378 329 They then formulated a petition to the king which incorporated the lengthy explanation of the evils of provisions contained in the petition of 1307. The purpose of the petition of 1343 was to relieve the damages and grievances of the people and the church caused by provisions, by reservations of benefices, by annates, by the imposition of tenths and by other charges. They suggested that the remedies were to order the keepers of the ports to search aliens, denizens and others who entered the kingdom, to seize papal bulls or letters of any kind prejudicial to the king or to his people, to send the documents to the king’s council and to arrest the bearers. None, by virtue of papal provisions or reservations, should receive any benefices or make appeals to any court, and none should execute such provisions or reservations.'®® ‘Though the act of the nobles and the commons took the form of a

petition, it was in fact the ordinance which the king had asked them to ordain. In later royal documents it was called an ordinance **° and on February 1344 it was designated as a statute.*”

The letter sent to the pope in the name of ‘the princes, dukes, earls, barons, knights, citizens, burgesses and the whole community of the kingdom of England assembled in parliament’ was dated 18 May 1343. On 6 July the king ordered earls, barons and the commons of cities and towns to put their seals to it.'’? It presented a heart-rending picture of the evils caused by the grants of provisions and the reservations of English benefices to foreigners made by his predecessors, and by him in his time more than they were wont to be. It begged him to recall such grants and to make no more.173

The number of chronicles and cartularies in which copies of this letter found a place indicates that it expressed a strong popular sentiment of the time. It seemed intolerable to have English money going to Frenchmen who were at war with England. Each of several French cardinals held a plurality of benefices in England. The two flagrant examples of Gerald Domar, priest of S Sabina, who was granted benefices in the province of Canterbury up to an assessed value of 1000 marks, and Robert Aymar, priest of S Anastasia, who received a like grant in the province of York,’"* were discussed in the parliament of 1343. A variant of Murimuth’s Continuatio Chronica-

rum *® relates that an envoy of Edward III said to Clement VI in the

1° Ror, Parl, W, 144-45.—O 7° C.P.R. 1343-45, pp. 215, 277: Wilkins, Concilia, I, 726. 111 CPLR, 1343-45, p. 279. "2 Ibid, p. 95.

178 Murimuth, Cont., pp. 138-42; Hemingburgh, Chron., II, 401-03, Robert of Avesbury, De Gestis, pp. 353-55; Cotton MS. Titus A XIX, fo. 95; Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Dd. IX, 38, fo. 112¥-13; Duchy of Lancaster, Misc. Bk. 8, fo. 29. 74 C\P.L., Ul, 74. 75D, 230,

330 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

presence of the cardinals: ‘Holy Father, you provided with the deanery of York Lord Petragoricensis,‘7* whom the king and all the great of the kingdom of England regard as a capital enemy of king and kingdom.’ The envoy may never have made the remark, for the pope 1s claimed to have said in the same interview that he had provided only two foreigners with benefices, a statement which could have been so easily refuted that it seems unlikely to have been made. The remark attributed to the envoy, however, reflected a good bit of English sentiment. The feeling was, nevertheless, stronger than the situation warranted. It has been estimated that from the beginning of the pontificate of Clement VI in 1342 to the end of February 1351 only eight percent of the papal provisions to English benefices were granted to aliens '*” and some of them were Italians. Edward III, sometime in September, wrote to Clement VI to much the same effect. In his enumeration of the evils he stressed the infringement of the rights of the crown and the drain of the treasure of the kingdom. What he requested was not the abolition but the alleviation of impositions, provisions and burdens. He also asked that the elections in cathedral churches should be free.1*®

Meanwhile the king had been issuing orders to put the ordinance of parliament into effect. On 8 July 1343 he directed the bishops to certify the names of the aliens beneficed in their dioceses and whether they resided

in their benefices.*** This was nothing new. As early as 1334 a similar writ had been issued.?®° In 1337 with the outbreak of war with France most of the alien priories dependent on mother houses in France had been seized

by the crown *** and thereafter frequent reports on benefices had been required from the bishops.**? Some of the benefices occupied by aliens were

taken into the hands of the king.**? On 20 July 1342 two mandates were registered in the chancery. One forbade executors of papal graces to English benefices granted to aliens, or the aliens themselves, to execute such graces under pain of forfeiting all they could forfeit.*** This was implemented by writs to sheriffs and to officials of many ports ordering them to 7° 'Tailairand de Périgord, bishop of Albano.

*77 Candace Carstens, The Enforcement of the Statute of Provisors, pp. 75-76. A doctoral dissertation deposited in the Harvard Library. *78 Copy in Rymer, Foedera, II, 1233-34 dated 10 September, other copies dated 16 September: Murimuth, Cont., pp. 143-46, Hemingburgh, Chron., II, 403-07. 7° C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 224. 78° Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 174. *81 New, History of the Alien Priories in England, pp. 65-67.

| **? Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 387, 403-04, Reg. Palat. Durham, III, 314-17, Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 399. *8* Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 260-61; Murimuth, Cont., p. 245; C.P.R. 1348-50, p. 132; C.C.R. 1346-49, p. 553. 184 C.P.R. 1343-45, pp. 164-65.

Annates 1327-1378 331 proclaim the prohibition and to arrest those doing to the contrary.1®° The other commanded bishops not to admit aliens or their agents to English benefices by virtue of papal provisions or to promulgate censures against those resisting such aliens. The punishment for disobedience would be that meted out to a violator of the crown and a rebel.18¢ These regulations would seem to have taken care of papal provisions to aliens. The elimination of other papal provisions and expectancies was sought by a writ of 20 October 1343 addressed to the sheriffs and the keepers of some ports. They were to proclaim that none, on the pain of forfeiture, should bring into England bulls or other papal documents prejudicial to the king and his people and that none should receive such documents. They were to make a scrutiny for such documents, to take any they found, to send them to the chancery and to imprison the bearers.'** This was followed on 12 December by an order to the bishops not to receive such documents except by special royal mandate.’** The exception proved to be of

importance. |

Despite these orders, the king found that several provisions had been brought into the realm and that bishops or others had inducted several pro-

visors to benefices. On 20 January 1344 he directed to all ecclesiastics holding a dignity or office in the church a proclamation again forbidding them to execute any papal provisions to his prejudice, to the disinheritance of earls, barons, magnates and the community or to the breach of the ordinance of the last parliament.**® Probably at about the same time,’®° the king sent a writ to the sheriff of Kent, saying that, despite his proclamation to the sheriffs of the coastal counties ordering them not to admit bulls of

provision or expectative graces, he had learned that several foreign and native provisors had brought such documents into the kingdom. He had learned specifically that clerk A, by virtue of a papal provision on the abbot

of S, had intruded himself into church W in the patronage of the abbot. The sheriff was to arrest him and his proctors and bring them before the council. Any abbot or prior could have such a writ gratis, if any provisor had intruded in a benefice in their patronage since the date of the proclamation.?9?

On 30 January Edward III renewed his order of 20 October to the **° 23 and 30 July: C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 220. *8° C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 215; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 405; York, Reg. 1a, Zouche, fo. 225¥. 187 C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 247.

*88 Wilkins, Concilia, Il, 726, Worcester, Reg. Bransford, I, fo. 164. *®° Murimuth, Cont., pp. 153-54, dated 30 January C.P.R. 1343-45, p. 277.

*°°'The document is undated, but it follows closely the terms of the proclamation of 20 or 30 January. *? Cartulary of Bury, Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Ff. II, 29, fo. 68-69. The last sentence may have been added by the compiler of the cartulary.

332 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sheriffs and commanded them further to arrest those inducted into benefices by reason of papal provisions and to bring them before the council.*°? This

was supplemented by writs ordering a sheriff to bring before the royal justices a specified person who was alleged to have occupied a benefice claimed by papal provision.’®* For a time the sheriffs and officials of the ports became so zealous that the king had to countermand some of their arrests. After two bishops were arrested on entry into the realm with bulls prejudicial to the king, he explained that it was not his intention to have the

order applied to bishops.’** In several instances persons were arrested whose provisions had been received before the parliament of 1343 and the king had to point out that the parliamentary ordinance was not retroactive.'®°

Another limitation on provisions was to prohibit provisors who attempted to enter benefices which had been filled by royal right of presentation. If the writ of prohibition was not obeyed, it was followed by a summons to come before the king’s council and often by imprisonment of the offender. This method of enforcing the royal right of patronage had been in use for a long time.1°* It was employed frequently from 1320 to the time of the parliament of 1343.1°7 After the ordinance of that parliament such processes became more numerous *°* and more rigorous.*??

Despite these stringent restrictions on papal provisions, the commons were not yet satisfied. In the parliament which met on 7 June 1344 they wanted the penalty of perpetual imprisonment or outlawry to be imposed on those who had accepted provisions or occupied benefices by means of them since the ordinance of the preceding parliament and also on those who sued in the court of Rome or in court Christian to annul judgments of the king’s court on presentation to benefices. They suggested that if a benefice to which there had been a papal provision was voided by the proposed penal action, and the ecclesiastical patron did not use his right of advowson within four months, the king should make the presentation for that time. If a bishopric was acquired by papal provision, they asked that he should 1°2 C.C.R. 1343-46, pp. 356-57.

+98 Specimen dated 15 March 1344: Murimuth, Cont., pp. 241-42. See also C.P.R. 134345, p. 279; C.C.R. 1343-46, pp. 312, 370, 475, 490.

‘45 April 1344: C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 445. 1°5 CPLR, 1343-45, pp. 289, 293, 320; C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 479. 1°6 Baldwin, Select Cases before the King’s Council, pp. lix-lxiv, 18-27; Deeley, ‘Papal Provisions, E. H. R., XLII, 497-527; Graves, ‘Statute of Praemunire’, Anniversary Essays by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, pp. 58-60. 1°7 C\P.R, 1340-43, pp. 235-36, 320, 359, 439, 446, 544, 561-62, 571, 580, 584-85, 593; 1343-45, pp. 10, 78. 198 Fg. in 1343-44: C.P.R. 1343-45, pp. 50, 86-87, 95, 178, 183-85, 191, 288, 290, 399, 406-

407, 409, 419, 547, 589; C.C.R. 1343-46, pp. 118-19. They continued to be equally numerous for the next three years. *°° Baldwin, op. cit., p. lxiv.

Annates 1327-1378 333 not have the temporalities except by the grace of the king. They also requested to have the ordinance of 1343 made a statute. Finally, they desired the king to take the revenues of all benefices held by enemy aliens.”°° Although the king granted the petition, when it should have been put into suitable form by the barons, justices and others learned in the law, the last request appears to have been the only portion of the petition put into operation and that was not made universal immediately. Subsequent parliaments continued the attempt to stop up the loopholes which seemed to exist in the enforcement of the ordinance of 1343. In the parliament which began on 11 September 1346 the commons requested that alien provisors should leave the land and their benefices should be given to English clerics. After the next Michelmas alien provisors should be put outside the law. To this it was replied that an ordinance had been made

otherwise in parliament and the king had written to the pope accordingly.*°* A second petition received a more favorable response. The com-

mons asked that the provisions by which two cardinals were to receive benefices worth 2000 marks should not be carried out. The council agreed with the commons and promised that the king would write to the pope that the grants were void and would forbid English prelates to receive such provisions.*°? In the parliament which assembled on 14 January 1348 the commons complained that the pope had begun anew to make provisions

to abbeys and priories, sometimes to cardinals and other aliens. On this the king refused to commit himself.?°* In the same parliament the community of the realm, having reviewed what had been done in the parliaments of 1343 and 1344 to prevent papal provisions, asserted that since then

cardinals and other aliens had accepted benefices by such provisions and had sued in the court of Rome. They asked that they should be punished as requested in their petitions of 1343 and 1344 and that this should be made a statute in perpetuity. The king asked the commons to show him in a bill how it could be done, and the commons replied by asking him to write to the pope a letter explaining the evils of such provisions.?°* Meanwhile the government continued to issue documents which indicate that the administrative orders against papal provisions were being en-

forced in some instances. On 4 November 1344 the chancellor delivered to the treasury nine bulls and other letters brought into the realm at Sandwich and there arrested.?°° In 1345 and 1346 the bishops were again asked 209 Rot. Parl., Ul, 153-54.

7°: For the letter see below, pp. 335-36. 202 Rot, Parl., I, 162. 208 Thid., II, 171. 204 Thid., II, 172-73.

205 C,C.R. 1343-46, p. 475.

334 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to certify the aliens beneficed in their dioceses.?°* The sheriffs and keepers were ordered from time to time to proclaim the requirement that bulls and other papal documents ought to be delivered to the guardians of the ports, to search those coming into England and to arrest those who failed to make delivery.2°* Mandates to arrest specified individuals who had brought bulls into the kingdom despite the prohibition were also issued.”°® Perhaps it is equally typical of the royal policy that on 16 February 1347 the king, at the request of two cardinals, pardoned four men who were indicted for having brought into the realm bulls prejudicial to king or people without displaying them to the officials of the port.?°° Edward III sought at least once to secure limitation of the exercise of the power of papal provision by means of negotiations with the pope.**® In 1348 71 his envoys put before Clement VI three royal requests. The petition to allow free elections to bishoprics the pope answered negatively. He thought that the existing system was better for the king. He explained

what he meant by saying that when the king was in Brittany after the truce”? he had asked to have three bishoprics reserved for his clerks. ‘To the request that he would not promote aliens he replied that he did not

intend to promote them to benefices with cure in England. The third question was probably put after the second had been answered practically in the negative. It was that the pope would not provide aliens to benefices vacant in the papal court. Since the English regarded benefices vacant in the papal court only when the incumbents died there,?** this would have been a more limited restriction on the provision of aliens than was sought in the second request. It would have covered the benefices held by cardinals, and they were generally rich benefices. The pope answered that it was his intention, when the benefices of aliens became vacant, to provide suitable persons, if they were named to him by the king.*** ‘The king could have derived no satisfaction from the outcome of these negotiations. 10. Tue Protests or CLEMENT VI AGAINST THE ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT His Ricut oF Provision To ENGLIsH BENEFICES 1343-1352

Clement VI did not receive kindly the restrictions placed upon his right 296 Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 356; Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 260, 286-89. 797 C.C.R. 1346-49, pp. 149, 163, C.P.R. 1348-50, p. 174. 208 C.P.R. 1348-50, pp. 154, 519.

| 209 C.\P.R. 1345-48, p. 249.

719’ There were doubtless other occasions when the envoys of Edward III discussed provisions with the pope: above, pp. 329-30. I have found no reliable accounts of such negotiations.

724 On the date see below, pp. 336-37. "12 'The truce of Calais signed on 28 September 1347. 8 Below, pp. 388, 396, 523. "** Cotton MS. Cleop, E. I, fo. 46-47.

Annates 1327-1378 335 of provision to English benefices by the ordinances of parliament and the writs of the king. On 4 August 1343 he asked the bishop of Winchester ‘tO Oppose certain novelties attempted by evil men against the honour of the Roman church.’ Three days later he exhorted the king not to yield to those who urged him to act against the church of God.”#® On 16 October he wrote to Edward III that Andrew Ufford, a royal envoy to the papal court, would explain his views on the innovations made against those provided by the apostolic see, and took the occasion to urge the king to revoke them.”*° On 11 July 1344 he used stronger language. He gathered that parliament had made reservations and provisions dependent on the will of the king. The royal councillors by making ordinances against the liberties of the church incurred divine and canonical penalties. He had heard that ecclesiastics had been seized and imprisoned and papal letters had been stopped to such an extent that hardly anyone dared to present them in England. He entreated the king to end the attack on the Roman church and ecclesiastical liberty, which he was prepared to defend in a manner for which he could account at the last judgment.?”" Having accomplished little by letters, on 21 November 1344, Clement

VI notified Edward III that he had appointed Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna, and Peter, bishop of Astorga, as nuncios to treat with him. On 30 January 1345 he wrote to the king that he had heard with displeasure a suggestion made to the king that the nuncios were going to publish processes and fulminate sentences in England. They were commissioned, he said, to persuade the king by peaceful means to revoke the novelties against the church.?"* The king gave audience to the envoys in the first week of Lent before this letter could have reached him. They asked him, as his ancestors had done, to permit papal reservations and collations to benefices and to revoke what had been attempted to the contrary to the prejudice of the apostolic see. After the king took counsel about an answer, the envoys were informed that he did not know of anything attempted against the apostolic see, and that if anything should be, he would reform it. When they pressed for a response from the king in person, he told them that he would take fuller counsel and send his reply to the pope by his envoys. He then dismissed the nuncios, asking them to tell the pope that he ought to attempt nothing to the prejudice of the crown.?"° On 23 February 1345 he wrote to the pope with regard to what his nuncios had said. He stated that there was no law in England that, if by the 25 CPL, Il, 2. 2° Papal Bulls, 45/3. “7 Raynaldus, 1344, §§ 55-58; C.P.L., Ill, 9, 182. 48CP.L, Il, 12, 15. **° Murimuth, Cont., pp. 161-62.

336 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 canon law of devolution an English benefice came to the collation of the pope, the king would fill it, nor was it law that the king would collate to benefices held by Frenchmen or other of his enemies.**° Clement VI apparently had heard a somewhat distorted account of the attempt of the parliament of 1344 to interfere with the normal course of collations to benefices, but the king’s reply on the second point appears to have been somewhat evasive, unless the revision of the parliamentary petition of 1344 went further than a mere change of form. Thus far neither king nor pope had made any threats or any concessions. On 5 April 1345 the pope made a conciliatory move. He wrote to Edward that he would not limit his power with regard to provisions, but he would exercise it less freely than he had done at the time of his accession.221, On 31 October 1345 he moved in the other direction. He commissioned the cardinals Anibaldus, bishop of Tusculum, and Stephen, priest

of Sts John and Paul, as nuncios to treat with the kings of England and France concerning peace.?”? Among their duties was that of remonstrating with Edward III, his ministers, officials, familiars and nobles concerning the attack on the liberties of the church. They were authorized, if necessary, to use ecclesiastical censures against the ministers, officials, familiars, nobles, subjects and people.??? Whether by accident or design, the king made it impossible for the censures to be pronounced in England. He refused the nuncios safe conduct to England on the ground that he was soon coming to France.?*4

A new cause of controversy arose in 1346. Edward III, before he finally went to France in that year, notified the pope that he had ordered the fruits of all ecclesiastical benefices held by foreigners, including those held by cardinals, to be taken for his exhausted treasury.?”> On 24 April 1346 Clement VI exhorted him to revoke the mandate.?”* This letter was sent to cardinals Anibaldus and Stephen for delivery. They delayed it, fearing that the letter might have an adverse effect on the negotiations for peace which they were conducting. On 28 April the pope directed them to present it to the king.” On the same date he sent to them another letter on the subject to be given to the king. This one advanced beyond exhortation with regard to benefices held by cardinals and others of his court. He °° Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 31. 221 CPL, Ill, 17.

222 CPL. IIL, 195-98. 2° Raynaldus, 1345, §12. 224 CPL. IIL, 25, 27, 28.

— 88 CPL,, Il, 25, 28. 228C.P.L. Ill, 25. 227 CP... TL, 31.

Annates 1327-1378 337 informed the king that he would not tolerate the royal seizure of those benefices and would proceed to defend the liberty of the church, unless the order for seizure of the fruits should be revoked.?”8 The king did not give way, and on 1 August 1349 the pope exhorted him to allow the cardinals to enjoy the fruits of their benefices in England. This time he sent one of his chaplains, Bernard de Caulasone, archdeacon of Perpignan, as a nun-

cio to represent his views to the king.”?® According to Knighton, nuncios 72° who came to England in 1349 asked for a much broader grant than the termination of the seizure of the revenues of the cardinals’ benefices. They asked the king not to hinder the acceptance of benefices by those promoted to them by bulls from the papal court. To this the king replied that he would accept clerical provisors who were worthy of promotion and others he would not accept.78? Whatever truth there may in this account, the seizure of the revenues of the cardinals was not lifted. On 5 October 1351 Clement VI made a more moderate appeal. He wrote to Guy de Brian, one of the king’s favorite councillors, requesting him to persuade the king to permit a cardinal who was the pope’s nephew and three others who were his relatives to have the revenues of their benefices.?*? This request likewise seems to have had no effect, for the pope thereafter carried out his threat and began a process against the king. On 22 June 1352 he ordered the king within four months to restore to the cardinals the fruits of their English benefices which had been seized and to allow them or their proctors to have peaceful possession of the benefices. Failure to comply would result in his excommunication. The bull also promulgated that sentence against the king’s agents who collected the fruits of the benefices.??* A few days before the excommunication of the king was to go into effect, the pope postponed the date of the sentence to 2 May 1353.78 Before that date he died. His last word on the subject was to ask the king to amend and correct what had been done by his ministers against cardinals and certain members of the papal household who held benefices in England.**° 228 Baluze, Vitae, IV, 84-85.

220 CPL. Il, 41. 72°On 22 August 1349 the king issued a safe conduct to Guyard Layreblee coming to the king with papal letters. He is not designated as a nuncio: C.P.R. 1348-50, p. 361. Bernard was received by the king: Issues of the Exchequer, Devon, p. 153. 232 Chron., II, 65-66.

22CPL. Il, 50.

*83 Jesus College Cambridge, MS. Q. B. 1, fo. 112-13; Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 18-19.

He had already taken several actions against those who occupied benefices conferred upon cardinals or who prevented the proctors of cardinals from collecting the fruits of such benefices: C.P.L., III, 147, 235, 253, 255, 276, 302, 337-338; C.P.P., I, 145.

26 CPL. Il, 51, 468. 78° 2 November 1352: C.P.L., II, 51

338 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 11. THe Errects oF THE ORDINANCE OF 1343

In order to estimate the effects of the ordinance of 1343, the following list of the numbers of papal provisions and expectative graces to English benefices is supplied.?*° Provisions, surrogations Expectancies Total

1344 54 60 114 287 1345 44 54 98 288 1346 35 33 24 go 59 240 28° 1347 47 1348179 51 56 107 241 1349 142 321 242 1350 91 31 122 248 and confirmations

Compared with the figures for 1342 and 1343 there is a reduction in , the number during the several years to 1349. In 1344 the reduction in part may have been normal. The number of provisions and expectancies granted in the first year of a pontificate was commonly larger than the number in the following years. Fear of the consequences of bringing bulls into Eng-

land may have deterred some who would otherwise have petitioned for graces, Clement VI noted the existence of such a fear on 11 July 1344,?*4 and it probably continued until 1349. Beginning in 1345 the pope may have exercised the restraint which he promised.?*° In 1349 the great increase was due to the mortality among the clergy caused by the black death, and this cause carried over to some extent into 1350.

Though the ordinance of 1343 may have had the indirect effect of reducing the number of bulls of provision and expectancy expedited for several years, it should be remembered that king and parliament had no 786 Subject to the possibilities of error noted above: pp. 326-27. Miss Carstens compiled similar data for the years from 1344 to 1350. The variations in the totals of provisions and expectancies are insignificant except for the years 1347, 1348 and 1349 for which her figures are 59, 77 and 267: Enforcement, pp. 30, 37-38, 46, 52, 56, 58. 287 CPL. III, 95-98, 101-04, 106-08, 116-18, 120-24, 126-29, 133, 135-36, 140, 148-52, 154-56, 174, 182-83; C.P.P., I, 33-35, 78-81, 83; Col. 281, fo. 68, 74, 79%, 80%, 82, 83, 92%, 105, 110%, 112-13¥, 125, 131.

238 CPI. III, 148-51, 153-54, 156, 165, 183-86, 199-208; C.P.P., I, 84, 87-96, 98, 99, 103, 105; Col. 281, fo. 160, 177-78; 282, fo. 172.

280° CPL, II, 186, 199-201, 205, 208, 217-21, 227-29, 236-39; C.P.P., I, 110-15, 117-23; Col. 282, fo. 110%, 178V.

240 C.PD., II, 218-21, 228-29, 231, 236-45, 256-58, 260-61, 264; C.P.P., I, 105-09, 124-30; Col. 282, fo. 27, 31, 33, 56.

241C. PI. Tl, 243-45, 255-61, 272-74, 276-82, 291-94, 296-99; C.P.P., I, 130-45; Col. 282, fo. 120¥.

242 .PL., Ill, 273-74, 278, 280-82, 285, 290-300, 312-24; 333, 335, 340-52; 355; C.P.P., I, 145-91; Col. 286, fo. 4, 7%, 17%, 35-37%, 47, 54¥, 73, 87¥.

248 CPL, Ill, 316-19, 321-22, 324, 334-36, 341-44, 346-47, 354, 356-57, 360-67, 381-82, 384-85, 389-90, 413-20; C.P.P., I, 192-208; Col. 286, fo. 119, 127%, 129, 144%, 149, 156-156, 172¥. *“4 Above, p. 335. 245 Above, p. 336.

Annates 1327-1378 339 thought of attempting to limit the power of the pope to issue such documents. The purpose of the legislation, and of the royal orders for its execution, was to prevent recipients of such graces from making them effective by obtaining the benefices which they sought. Consideration of the number of papal provisions, confirmations and surrogations which were actually

executed provides a better guide to the effectiveness of the ordinance. It is also more important from the point of view of annates, since they were not due unless the provisor obtained possession of the benefice to which he was provided.

Whatever the purpose of parliament may have been, it was never the intention of Edward III to prevent all papal provisions from taking effect. When he finally ordered the bishops to accept no papal provisions, he made an exception of those which he might order to be executed.”*° ‘There was not a year from 1344 to 1350 when he did not petition the pope to grant provisions or expectancies to persons whom he named, they being mainly members of his household or administrative staff.?*7 Queen Philippa was equally generous with her recommendations.”*® It seems improbable that the clerks whom they sponsored were not allowed to execute the bulls which they obtained. In 1344 Clement VI reached the conclusion that the effectiveness of papal provisions depended upon the will of the king.?*° The story told by Knighton indicates a similar belief on the part of the chronicler.?°° Such seems to have been the fact. The process employed by the English government to determine which bulls might be submitted to bishops or other prelates for execution is not clear. The bulls were taken by the keepers of the ports and sent to the king in chancery or in council. The original order of 20 October 1343 proclaimed the search, seizure and imprisonment of the bearer, but if the

bearer of a bull produced it, apparently only the bull was taken. This procedure was still maintained in 1346.7°* Theoretically all bulls of provision should have come to the notice of the royal government. Actually some

bulls escaped the attention of the keepers. This is demonstrated by the orders to arrest persons whose bulls had not been shown to the keepers. Such orders were still being issued in 1350.?°? If the established administrative system worked, however, the executors of such bulls could not execute 74° Above, pp. 330-31.

247 C.P.L., Ill, 127, 183, 188, 203-04, 206, 218-19, 241, 274, 278, 282, 291, 346-47; C.P.P., I, 47, 93, 99, 115, 123, 127, 141, 158-59, 193.

248 CPL. III, 151, 201-02, 219, 227, 240, 244-45, 260, 295, 341, 361; C.P.P., I, 36-37, 44, 108, 110, 120, 122, 156, 165. 24° Above, p. 335. 75° Above, p. 337. 751 C.C.R., 1346-49, pp. 149, 163. 252 C.P.R, 1348-50, pp. 154, 174, 519.

340 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 them and bishops could not induct provisors whose bulls did not have the royal sanction. Theoretically it would seem to have been necessary for a provisor to have the approval of the government before he could secure the execution of his bull with safety. It is not certain, however, that the practice corresponded entirely with the theory. Royal approval was expressed sometimes. Later in the reign of Edward III, royal licenses to execute papal provisions were issued occasionally.**° In 1348 the king granted ten Irish clerks permission to prosecute provisions without hindrance.?>* There may have been similar grants to English provisors before 1351, though I have not noted any. There was, however,

a writ which served somewhat the same purpose. The king ratified the estate of John Doe as parson of Downton by papal provision.?°* The king might also pardon a provisor who had failed to give notice of his provision.”°° ‘The extant copies of documents of these types in the rolls of the chancery are many fewer than the number of effective provisions. Possibly the royal approval was often expressed in a less formal manner, which did not result in entries in the rolls. ‘Though it does not seem probable, the many provisions which were executed without surviving evidence of royal approval leaves open the possibility that provisors were free to proceed with the execution of their bulls unless royal opposition was expressed. There can be no doubt that the king often refused to permit a provisor to carry out his provision.?°?

, How many of the provisions, confirmations and surrogations granted between the enactment of the ordinance of 1343 and the enactment of the statute of provisors in 1351 were effective cannot be established by evidence available to me.?°* A good test of the acquisition of the benefice by the

provisor is the payment of annates by him. If he paid them, he was in uncontested possession of the benefice. Exceptions to this rule were rare. Unfortunately the accounts of Raymond Pelegrini, who was papal collector from 1343 to 1349, are lacking. When his brother Hugh succeeded him, some provisors were left in arrears. Their payments, recorded by Hugh, give some light on the period from 20 October 1343 to 1348, though naturally few debts were still outstanding from the earlier years. Hugh’s lists, *8° B.g., C.P.R. 1367-70, pp. 342, 456. 254 C\P.R. 1348-50, pp. 116, 136.

755 Eg., C.P.R. 1345-48, p. 134, 1348-50, pp. 103, 148, 291, 330, 536. This type of writ was used from the beginning of the reign: C.P.R. 1330-34, pp. 13, 14, 17; 1334-38, pp. 80, 89, 178; 1340-43, pp. 32, 292. 256 C\P.R. 1345-48, p. 249.

257 F.g.. C. P.R. 1343-45, pp. 399, 406, 419, 499; 1345-48, pp. 229, 322, 384, 485, 1348-50, pp. 103, 153, 183.

°5 It would require a search of the institutions recorded in all the extant contemporary episcopal registers and the results would be incomplete.

Annates 1327-1378 341 supplied by the camera, appear to have begun with provisions made in the second half of 1348,?°° and thereafter the provisions which were effective can be more fully established. Some of the provisions granted during the period, which are not recorded in Hugh’s accounts as paying annates, can be proved to have been executed by later documents in the Calendar of Papal Letters, which indicate that the provisor was in occupation of the benefice to which he had been provided. It should also be taken into ac-

count that a considerable variety of causes other than royal opposition could render a provision ineffective. Even with these limitations, the following list displays a goodly number of provisions which resulted in the provisors obtaining the designated benefices. Benefices for which Benefices of which Total annates were paid ”®° occupation by the provisor is otherwise proved

1345 5 208 6 204 ll 1346 6 299 11 2° 17 1347 13 267 g2 208 21 1348 29 268 270 31 1349 78°71 1 27? 79 1350 50°73 2 274 52

20 Oct. 1343-31 Dec. 1344 7 204 13 26? 20

*°°"Two were made on 8 July and 30 October: Col. 14, fo. 27, 71, 73%; C.P.L., Ul, 277. 76° There were during the period 47 appropriations of churches to monasteries, bishops,

colleges, chapels and chantries made or confirmed by the pope. When the union was completed, annates had to be paid on the church. They have not been included in the table because the ordinance of 1343 was not directed against them and they aroused no Opposition.

61 In the notes on this column references to Col. 14 give evidence of the payment of annates; references to C.P.L. and C.P.P. to the dates of provisions which are not given in Col. 14. Col. 14, fo. 25¥-27, 617, 64°, 79; C.P.L., III, 96, 124, 129, 152, 182; C.P.P., I, 47, 80.

*°? In the notes on this column the references under A are to the provisions and those under B to the evidence of occupation. A C.P.L., III, 96, 98, 101, 117, 122, 127, 166, 182, 183: B C.P.L., Ill, 172, 175, 179, 228, 234, 244, 316. 355, 418, 475; C.P.P., I, 194. "65 Col. 14, fo. 25, 25%, 43%. 61%; C.P.L., TI, 184, 185, 202, 214, C.P.P., I, 90.

*°* A C.P.L.. Ul, 184, 200, 203-05; B C.P.L., Ill, 240, 316, 342, 425, 460; C.P.P., I, 373. 265 Col. 14, fo. 25-277, 61°; C.P.L., Il, 200, 217-18, 237, 239.

66 A C.P.L., Il, 199-201, 205. 218 728, 237, 239; B C.P.L., III, 240, 242, 255-57, 265, 274, 290, 416, 625; C.P.P., I, 157. 267 Col. 14, fo. 25-277, 48, 86; C.P.L., III, 228, 238, 240-43, 257, 263, C.P.P., I, 107, 108. 68 A C.P.L., Ul, 218, 236, 241-42, 257; B C.P.L., Tl, 294, 297, 317, 342, 350, 363, 457, 573. *8° Col. 14, fo. 25-277, 43, 46, 53-54%, 60, 63%, 73%, 81; C.P.L., TI, 257, 259, 272-73, 276-78, 283, 291, 294, 296; C.P.P., I, 132, 142. “T° A C.P.L., Til, 243, 293; B C.P.L., Il, 320, York, Reg. la Zouche, fo. 230V. 271 Col. 14, fo. 25-27%, 36, 38, 40-48, 53-55, 60-64, 72-73¥, 75%, 77%-78¥, 81-827; C.P.L.,

II, 273-74, 278, 290, 292-93, 296-97, 299, 313-18, 332, 335, 340-43, 346, 347, 350, 355, 357; C.P.P., I, 145, 152-53, 156, 159, 163, 167, 174, 177-79, 184.

7? C.P.L., Tl, 295; Reg. la Zouche, fo. 2339. 73 Col. 14, fo. 25-25%, 40¥-44, 45-48, 52%, 54-55, 62, 64, 74¥-75, 79Y; C.P.L., Ill, 316, 318, 334-35, 343, 347, 356-57, 361, 363, 384, 389, 413, 415, 419; C.P.P., I, 194-96, 199, 202, 205. ™* A. & B. York, Reg. la Zouche, fo. 224-25v.

342 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

There is other evidence which is even more decisive. Though we do not have the accounts of Raymond Pelegrini, the record of the sums which he paid to the papal camera appears to be complete.?”* He was credited with £4902 6s. Since his collectorate lasted for approximately six years, his average annual receipt, omitting shillings and pence, was £817. By comparing these figures with the itemized accounts of Hugh Pelegrini, it be-

comes apparent that Raymond must have received by far the larger part of that income from annates.?** Hugh received between 1 August 1349 and 1 June 1358 a total of £6873 7 s. 7 d.,?"" giving an annual average of £763, and between 1 June 1358 and 1 September 1363 £5140 2s. 5 d.,2778 giving an annual average of £1028. Of the total for the first period, £5120 2s.4d., or 74 percent, was derived from annates.?”* Of the total for the second period £4073 9 d., or 79 percent, came from annates.?*° Since so large a part of Raymond’s receipts must have come from English annates, the number of effective provisions from 20 October 1343 to the close of 1348 must have been much larger than the above table indicates. 12. THE STATUTE OF Provisors oF 1351 AND Irs ADMINISTRATION

The first parliament which met after the notable increase of papal provisions and expectative graces in 1349 and 1350 came together on 9 February 1351. The commons again voiced their grievances in a petition which emphasized the disastrous financial consequences of provisions in highly exaggerated terms. Not only did the foreign recipients of English benefices

take from England a large amount of money which provided aid for the enemy of the country, but also the payment of annates brought annually to the coffers of the pope a larger income than was received by the royal exchequer.*** ‘The answer was the statute of provisors which was held to be effective from 9 February 1351.7? The preamble of the statute repeated a large part of the so-called statute of Carlisle of 1307, and went on to explain that ‘the grievances and mischiefs 76 Preserved in the Introitus et Exitus Registers except for one item of 250 florins in an acquittance issued through the chancery: Mohler, Die Einnabmen unter Klemens VI, pp. 475, 488, 503-04, 519, 542, 557, 571; C.P.L., II, 17. Acquittances for some of the payments are in C.P.L., Ill, 6, 14, 31, 38.

7° The following figures for total receipts and for receipts from annates include

small sums received from Ireland in order to keep the comparative standard with Raymond’s totals from which the receipts from Ireland cannot be eliminated. 277 Col. 14, fo. 49¥. 278 Col. 14, fo. 119.

7° Col. 14, fo. 277, 48¥-49. It includes receipts of £162 from Irish annates. 289 Col. 14, fo. 108%-19. It includes £27 received from Irish annates. *8t Rot. Parl., Il, 228; Carstens, Enforcement, pp. 80-81.

, *82 Statutes of the Realm, I, 316-18.

Annates 1327-1378 343 aforesaid do daily abound to the greater damage and destruction of all the realm more than ever was before.’ Two principal grievances were then set forth. First, by general and special reservations to papal collation benefices from archbishoprics down to the humblest were being given to aliens and denizens with the result that the pope, by means of annates and the purchasers of provisions by means of the revenues received from their benefices, carried away ‘a great part of the treasure of the said realm.’ Second, by these reservations many clerks who had received benefices from local patrons and had held them peaceably for a long time, were suddenly put out. The remedies provided by the statute were based on the theory that the members of the clergy who had either the right of election to dignities, such as bishoprics or deaneries, or the right of advowson to other benefices, such as prebends or parish churches, had received that right from the progenitors of the king or other lords. It was therefore the duty of the king to preserve those rights. The statute ordained that thenceforth elections to elective dignities, including houses of the religious, were to be free, and that clerical possessors of advowsons were to be allowed to exercise the right of presentment freely. If any reservation, collation or provision of the court of Rome should disturb such a right at the time of a vacancy, the king, for that time, would fill the elective office or appointive benefice without prejudice to the right of the clerical electors or patrons on occasions of later vacancies when no collation or provision was made by the papal court. If a clerical patron made a presentation to a benefice, despite a papal provision to it, his candidate was to have the benefice and the king would not make an appointment to it. A lay lord who had the right of advowson to a house of religious and to the churches belonging to it was to retain that right. If he failed to make presentation within six months, and the bishop did not fill the vacancy by lapse within another month, the king was to make the presentation. If one who was presented to a benefice by the king or by an ecclesiastical patron was prevented from obtaining his benefice, or having obtained it, was disturbed in his possession by a papal provisor, the provisor and his

agents were to be arrested. If they were convicted, they were to be imprisoned until they gave satisfaction to the aggrieved party, renounced the provision, gave surety that they would not sue process in the court of Rome and paid to the king such fine as he chose to demand. If a provisor or his executors could not be found to be prosecuted by the king, process of outlawry was to be instituted against him.?** Meanwhile the king was to take 8° Qn the legal processes and the supplement to them in the statute of praemunire in 1353 see Graves, ‘Statute of Praemunire’, Anniversary Essays by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, pp. 68-80.

344 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the revenues of the benefice as long as it was in the hands of the provisor, except conventual churches, which were to have the revenues under such circumstances. The act, strangely enough, was less comprehensive than the ordinance of 1343 had been. The ordinance forbade the receipt of any benefices by the authority of a papal provision and prohibited the execution of all papal provisions. The statute of provisors in itself gave no protection against papal provisions to lay patrons other than the king and lay possessors of advowsons to religious houses and the churches dependent upon them. It was supplementary to the ordinance and not a substitute for it. It provided new remedies rather than new prohibitions. It was concerned chiefly with the clerical patrons of benefices. The implication of the new stipulations with regard to them is that they had been loath to invoke the ordinance and the administrative orders for its enforcement in order to protect their rights of patronage against the authority of the pope. Hence the arrangement for the king to intervene with an appointment to fill a vacancy in an elective dignity or an appointive benefice threatened by a papal provision, if clerical electors or patrons would not exercise their rights of election or presentation. The principle was not new. The parliament of 1344 had asked for it, but the king had not used it. The statute of provisors tried to make it more workable by defining the method of royal intervention. It also made the processes and penalties imposed on a provisor who disturbed the right of a clerical patron more severe, and it extended the same protection to the patronage of the king. The king put the new legislation to the test promptly. On 27 March 1351 a letter under the secret seal was written to the chancellor. It explained that the statute of provisors had rendered invalid unexecuted papal provisions issued before 9 February 1351. John Gough, a clerk of the chancery, the king had heard, had attempted to make a process on the basis of such a provision against William Salman, a prebendary of Lincoln. John’s provision to the prebend of Louth, which had been rendered vacant by the death

of Matthew de Briselee, who had been provided to it on 30 October 1349,784 was dated 8 December 1350.28 William Salman, after Matthew’s

death, before the statute of provisors was enacted, had been collated to Louth on the basis of a provision to a canonry with expectation of a prebend granted to him on 27 September 1343.78° The king, previous to the attempt

of John Gough to oust William and obtain the prebend, had refused John permission to put provisions which he had received into effect. He directed 784 C.P.L., Ul, 291.

5 CPI. Il, 361.

280 CPL. Il, 102.

Annates 1327-1378 345 the chancellor, if the charge was true, to send John, though he was the king’s own man, to the Tower and to make an exemplary punishment. John was forthwith lodged in the Tower until he provided sureties. The case was brought before the council on 11 February 1352. John acknowledged that he had obtained possession of the benefice, but said that he had been provided before the statute was enacted. Since William did not appear and did not complain of the injury, the king pardoned John and gave William permission to sue in court Christian, if he saw fit.2°7 Thus ended the attempt to provide an exemplary punishment under the new statute. After this failure, it is difficult to discover any action of the king, other than the use of the new judicial processes and penalties, which was not authorized by the ordinance of 1343 and the administrative regulations which put it into effect. As far as elections to bishoprics were concerned,

he paid no attention to the statute of 1351. Neither did he present to a benefice to prevent a papal provision from being executed, unless a provisor sought or obtained a benefice to which he claimed the right of presentation,”** or disturbed the possession of one whom he had presented. In such a case he took action against the provisor, often using the more strin-

gent procedures and penalties provided by the statutes of provisors and praemunire.**? Kings, however, had been defending their rights against papal provisors for well nigh half a century before the statute of provisors.?°° Edward III also intervened, on rare occasions when it was necessary, to protect lay patrons against papal provisors,?*! but he did not confine his attention to the small group of lay patrons mentioned in the statute of provisors. The right of all lay patrons to protection against papal provisors had been English law since 1310.?% Excepting the test case, the king, indeed, does not appear to have put the statute of provisors into effect during 1351.?°* Parliament thought this 87 C.C.R. 1349-54, p. 469.

*8° These included not only benefices of which he was the patron but also those in the patronage of laymen or ecclesiastics whose temporalities were in his hands at the time of the vacancies. 289 C.P.R. 1350-54, pp. 162, 189, 198, 418, 521; C.C.R. 1349-54, 402; C.P.R. 1354-58, pp. 30, 151, 157, 167, 251, 329, 335, 345, 614; 1358-61, pp. 72, 421; C.C.R. 1360-64, pp. 384-85, 392;

C.P.R. 1361-64, pp. 361, 455, 527-28; 1364-67, pp. 78, 204-05, 245-46, 280; 1367-70, pp. 49, 63, 87-88, 190-91, 196, 208, 352, 419, 474; C.C.R. 1364-68, pp. 125-26, 490; 1369-74, pp. 266-67;

C.P.R. 1370-74, pp. 152, 480-81, Reg. of Black Prince, Ill, 280, 282, 289-90, H. M. C., Various Collections, 1V, 79; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 185. See the long record of Nicholas Heth, who was an expert in getting into trouble with the king: Graves, ‘Statute of Praemunire’, Anniversary Essays by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, pp. 71-73. *°° Above, pp. 331-33. 291 C\P.R. 1354-58, pp. 369-70; 1364-67, p. 363; C.C.R. 1374-77, pp. 103-04.

“** Year Books, 3 and 4 Edward II (Selden Soc.), p. 171; C.P.R. 1340-43, p. 185.

*°° Some proctors of an alien provisor were put under bond to stand trial and the bishops were asked to certify the aliens holding benefices in their dioceses: C.C.R. 1349-54,

346 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to be the state of affairs, for when it met early in 1352, the commons asked the king to publish the statute and to put it into execution against those who

ran counter to it. The answer that it would be amended and better stated by the council seemed to acknowledge that it had not been put into operation and gave no definite promise that it would be in the future.?** So little did the act of 1351, as it was administered, place new checks

on papal provisors that Clement VI, who had endeavored to secure the revocation of the ordinance of 1343, appears to have made no official protest against the act of 1351. Innocent VI, his successor, also seems to have ig-

nored the act officially. Edward III, Queen Philippa, Edward the Black Prince as well as various nobles continued from time to time to petition the

pope for provisions or expectative graces in behalf of clerks whom they favored.*** The king occasionally ratified the estate in their benefices of possessors who had obtained them by papal provision,?** and gave licenses

to individuals to seek papal provisions.**” In one instance he pardoned a provisor who had been committed to the Marshalsea prison for obtaining a provision,”*® and in another he took under his protection one of his clerks for executing a papal provision against opponents who were excluding him from the benefice by force of arms.?%° These royal approvals of specific papal provisions imply that the king could also prevent the execution of a particular papal provision, if he were so minded, but excepting those which conflicted with his right of advow-

son or with the right of a lay patron, he must have exercised the power sparingly.*°° ‘Throughout the remainder of his reign the popes at Avignon continued to be generous with their grants of provisions and expectative graces and a goodly portion of the provisions were effective. There were, moreover, many causes other than the royal opposition which might render a provision ineffective.*°* Clement VI in 1351 granted at least 89 provisions, confirmations and surrogations and 82 expectative graces. In 1352 the numbers were 67 and 40.°? The successors of Clement VI were even p. 376, Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 672-73, Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 334-35. Such acts had

been common before 1351. 204 Rot, Parl., Il, 241. “°° C.P.L., UL and C.P.P., 1, passim under years 1351 to 1366. 206 C\P.R. 1350-54, p. 427; 1354-58, p. 30; 1358-61, p. 188; 1364-67, pp. 233, 416; 1374-77, pp. 23-24, Reg. of Black Prince, Ill, 326. ?°7 C.P.R. 1367-70, pp. 342, 456, 1370-74, p. 25; C.C.R. 1369-74, pp. 159, 552. 208 C.P.R. 1367-70, p. 170.

29° C\P.R. 1364-67, pp. 7-8.

*°° Carstens, Enforcement, pp. 100-06. *°* Below, pp. 364-68. 302 C.P.L., Ill, 362-447, 458, 460; C.P.P., I, 206-24; Col. 288, fo. 36, 41, 60%, 106.

803 C\P.L., Il, 421-29, 445-46, 457, 460, 462-63, 469-70; C.P.P., I, 223-37; Col 287, fo 160-160"; 288, fo. 123.

Annates 1327-1378 347 more liberal with their provisions. Miss Carstens attributed to Innocent VI

933 provisions and confirmations of which 127 were ineffective and 6 doubtful, to Urban V 1122 of which 187 were ineffective and 9 doubtful,

and to Gregory XI before the close of the reign of Edward III, 990 of which 77 were ineffective and 2 doubtful.? 13. Tue LEGISLATION oF 1352 AcGatnst PRovIsIONS

After 1351 the English government continued from time to time to take actions with regard to the general policy of papal provisions as distinguished from actions with regard to individual provisions. In the parliament of 1352 the commons petitioned that a person who obtained at the court of Rome a provision to an abbey or a priory and his attorneys should be put outside the law.*°° The resulting statute explained that none could

be sued for any offense against the body or the goods of the outlaw.* Earlier in the fourteenth century the government had forbidden the payment of annates by abbeys and priories, but Edward III had failed to maintain this prohibition during the pontificate of John XXII.°°7 Clement VI had made provision to several priories before 1352,°% and they had been effective with one exception.*°® Edward III seems to have disregarded the statute of 1352 completely. Innocent VI and Urban V made provisions or confirmed elections to well over a dozen priories.**° The king intervened only when his own right of patronage was infringed.**? In two instances the payment of annates was delayed by the occupation of the goods of the priories by the king, in order to secure the payment of debts owed to the crown, but after the royal distraint was ended, the payment of annates was

resumed.*** The two provisors were not disturbed in the possession of their offices. Some of the other provisions and confirmations to priories were ineffective. Iwo provisors declined to accept their provisions,®** two were excluded by a duke and two earls who needed no help from the 604 Enforcement, pp. 111, 131, 150. I think that the totals include some expectancies, but that the figures for those which were ineffective relate only to provisions, confirmations and surrogations. °° Rot. Parl., Ul, 243. $06 Statutes of the Realm, I, 323-24. °°” Above, p. 314. 308 CPL. Il, 124, 186, 362, 429. ®°° Col. 11, fo. 7, 7%; 12, fo. 9, 10, 70, 101; 14, fo. 43v. The exception was Castleacre which was in lay patronage: Col. 12, fo. 100%; 13, fo. 7. 310 Col. 14, fo. 54%, 59%, 128, 137, 142%, 157%; 11, fo. 6, 38%; 12, fo. 5-5¥, 12-12¥, 44, SOV, 78V, 82V, 103%, 109, 114%, 137, 171%-72; 13, fo. 30V.

511 C\P.R. 1350-54, p. 521; 1354-58, p. 335; 1364-67, pp. 205, 280; 1370-74, pp. 480-81; Col. 13, fo. 7. 512 Col. 12, fo. 98; 13, fo. 5%, 9.

518 Col. 12, fo. 50.

348 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

king to maintain their rights as patrons,°** and one confirmation was re- , voked by the pope.®*® The others paid annates **® with the exception of one

whose priory was too poor.**” The legislation of 1352 was futile, because the king did not enforce it. 14. FurrHeR ACTIONS OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS, 1360-1366

After the conclusion of peace with France, the English government began to manifest more concern over papal provisions and other financial policies. A series of events may have aroused this greater interest. Soon after the preliminary treaty of Brétigni was negotiated, Innocent VI asked the English clergy for a subsidy with the implied threat that, if it was not ranted, he would impose a mandatory tenth on clerical income. The subsidy was granted, and in 1362 and 1363 the clergy, for the first time in a quarter of a century, paid a tax on their incomes to the pope. Many of them did it with reluctance and dissatisfaction.*** While this was taking place, Urban V, in the first year of his pontificate which began on 6 November 1362, granted an exceptionally large number of provisions and expectancies to English benefices. ‘There were 124 provisions, confirmations and surrogations *** and 410 expectancies.*”° The increase was explained in part by the great lack of priests caused by a recurrence of the plague.*?- The number of provisions was not quite as large as it had been in 1349, but the num-

8 P y nes

ber of expectancies was far in excess of any previous annual total.#??

On 1 February 1363 Urban V issued the constitution Horribilis et detestabilis restricting pluralities. It permitted some clerks, such as those with degrees from universities, to hold as many as three or four benefices under certain conditions, but required a clerk who held more benefices than were allowed to the category to which he belonged to resign those in excess of

the number within two months under penalty of excommunication. The resigned benefices were reserved to the collation of the pope.*?* This de**4 Col. 12, fo. 44, 50%, 118. In 1363 Urban V appointed two bishops to overcome the

opposition of the lay patrons and to collect the annates of one of these priories and of Castleacre by means of ecclesiastical censures and sequestration: C.P.L., IV, 6, 7. The effort was without avail. $18 Col. 12, fo. 529.

#16 Col. 11, fo. 5¥-6; 12, fo. 5¥, 12-12V, 78%, 827, 103; 13, fo. 30V. 817 Col. 12, fo. 114.

8 Above, pp. 100-01. $19 C.P.P., I, 385-465; C.P.L., IV, 30; Regs. d’ Urbain V, 333, 349, 466, 505, 566; Col. 291, fo. 32, 85, 89, 143, 160%; 11, fo. 151% 156, 158, 174, 176¥, 185-879. 92° C.P.P., I, 385-465. 821 C.P.P., I, 425, 437, 445, 464.

°° It mcluded 104 poor clerks and priests whose petitions in previous years had been registered in much smaller numbers. $28 Ann. Dunst., pp. 413-14.

Annates 1327-1378 349 cree appears never to have been put into force in England. The first step toward reducing the number of pluralities in England was taken on 24 September 1364, when Urban V ordered each bishop to summon within a month a diocesan synod at which every pluralist was to present a list of benefices 1n his possession and those to which he had a papal expectative grace. [The return was to state the nature of the benefice and its assessed value, or, if not assessed for the tenth, its value by common estimation.?*4 Since the stated purpose of the mandate was to put an end to pluralities, it served to give notice that the pope would eventually have a large number of benefices at his disposal, though no resignations were required at the time. The bull which finally produced results was issued on 3 May 1366.3?° The clergy of every diocese were ordered to send their lists of benefices to their respective bishops within six months. Within that time every pluralist was to resign all his benefices except one with cure and one compatible with it.

The bishops were to send registers of the lists to the archbishop within a month and the archbishop was to forward them to the pope within four months. The returns which came to the archbishop of Canterbury in November were entered in his register.**° “They include all the dioceses except

Bangor, Chichester and St Asaph. They demonstrate that the resigned benefices which were reserved for papal provision were numerous. Apparently a crisis was reached in the financial relations between England and the papacy in 1365 and 1366. Urban’s demand for the resumption of payment of the royal tribute was made on 6 June 1365 and the refusal of parliament on 5 May 1366.°°7 During approximately the same period the papal funds in the hands of the English collector were impounded by the English government.*”® As far as provisions were concerned, the government began to take pro-

tective action in 1364. On 12 December the bailiffs of the ports were ordered to search all those coming into England from beyond seas for bulls, letters or other documents prejudicial to the king or his subjects. Both the documents and the bearers were to be arrested.®?® “Thereafter similar orders

were issued frequently during the rest of the reign. In most of the writs the keepers were also commanded not to permit persons to leave England 84 CPL. IV, 12.

25 Lambeth, Reg. Langham, fo. 3-3¥,; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 62-63, C.P.L., IV, 25. 2°They were despatched to the pope on 12 January 1367: Reg. Langham, fo. 4-41¥.

Those for the dioceses of Exeter and London have been printed: Reg. Grandisson, II, 1248-62; Reg. Sudbiria, II, 148-82. Those for Lincoln, Rochester and Lichfield are also in the registers of the respective bishops: Buckingham, fo. 43-47; Trillek, fo. 324¥-25;, Stretton, II, 216-23. The bishop of Carlisle sent his report to the archbishop of York on 6 November 1366: Reg. Appelby, pp. 150-51. °27 Above, pp. 69-70. %28 Above, pp. 10-11. 829 C.C.R. 1364-68, p- 90.

350 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 by sea without the king’s license, and some of them ordered the search of outgoing passengers for gold and silver.**° The purpose was to prevent bulls coming from the pope and persons or money going to him without the royal license.

The attack on alien provisors was also renewed. The chief offenders were the cardinals, who held many deaneries, dignities and prebends in cathedral churches. They had the fruits of their benefices collected and remitted to them by farmers, who were sometimes laymen. The consequence was that divine worship suffered and buildings fell into disrepair. The king and council decided, therefore, that as these benefices fell vacant, the king and other lords whose progenitors had endowed the benefices with temporalities should take them in hand and apply their incomes to repairs and improvements until provision should be made of fit persons knowing the tongue of the king’s subjects. On 15 December 1364 two persons were appointed by the king so to administer the revenues of the deanery of York and the prebend of Strensall.*** In a parliament which met on 20 January 1365 certain types of provisions were forbidden by statute. It imposed penalties on one who (1) obtained personal citations from the court of Rome against the king or his subjects; (2) obtained in the Roman court a benefice pertaining to the collation of the king or other lay patron; (3) or to a benefice appropriated to a bishop’s mensal income, to a monastery or to any other ecclesiastical foundation,;**” (4) or toa benefice occupied at the time of the provision by a person of the

realm with a reasonable title who would be disturbed and (5) aided and abetted one who did any of the four preceding things. A person accused of any breach of these five prohibitions was to stand to right before the king and the council. If he was convicted, the penalties were those of the statute of provisors of 1351. If the accused was not attached by his person to stand trial within two months, he was to be outlawed as provided by the statute of praemunire of 1353.33?

This second statute of provisors was more precise and workable than the statute of 1351. Moreover, it corresponded more nearly with what the $80 C.C.R. 1364-68, pp. 133-38, 1369-74, pp. 200-01; C.P.R. 1364-67, pp. 76-78, 279, 362; 1367-70, pp. 267, 346, 426; 1374-77, pp. 149-50, 312-13; Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 907. 881 C\P.R. 1364-67, pp. 61-62.

82 It was the papal practice that provision should not be made to an appropriated church: Col. 12, fo. 35¥. Mistakes were made, presumably because the petitioner did not

supply information that the church was appropriated. Possibly the petitioner did not know that it was appropriated. A recent instance (C.P.P., I, 433-34) had led to the sequestration of the fruits of such a church by the papal collector before the error was discovered: Chron. de Melsa, Ill, 124-26. 888 Statutes of the Realm, 1, 385-87. Instructions given to the justices of the court of king’s bench with regard to the first clause are in C.C.R. 1364-68, pp. 106-07.

Annates 1327-1378 351 practice of the king had been with regard to the enforcement of the act of 1351. It was more liberal concerning papal provisions than was the earlier statute, since those to benefices in clerical patronage which were legally vacant were not forbidden except those specified in the fourth clause. In the enforcement of this statute the king attempted not only to stop papal bulls at the port of entry, but he also tried to apprehend those who succeeded in bringing bulls or processes prejudicial to his crown through that barrier. Most of the orders to arrest specified individuals or unnamed persons reputed to have bulls or processes concerning designated benefices related to benefices in royal or other lay patronage.*** One dealt with provisions to appropriated churches.*** Others were directed against alien or denizen provisors *** who were not mentioned in the act of 1365. In 1374 the king called upon the bishops once more to certify the benefices in the hands of aliens.?*7 Eventually, in 1376, the king revived the practice established after the ordinance of 1343. He ordered the archbishops and bishops to send to him and his council any bulls or other writings prejudicial to king or kingdom which they received, and to suspend their publication and execution until they heard from king and council.?#8 The statute of 1365 and the efforts of the government to enforce it were

supplemented by attempts to obtain from the pope the remedy of some English grievances. In 1366 Edward III addressed a petition to Urban V. He explained that parliament had complained of the burden put upon Englishmen who were cited to appear in person before the papal court. Englishmen who sought such citations could, in the absence of the parties, obtain them by making false depositions and using unreliable witnesses. He asked, therefore, that before such a citation was issued, it should be referred

to the cardinals of Boulogne, Pampeluna, Limoges and Carcassonne for inquiry of approved and competent Englishmen whose testimony could be trusted. The pope granted the petition on 4 August.**° 15. NEGOTIATIONS wirH GREGORY XI WuicH RESULTED IN THE SO-CALLED TREATY ON PROVISIONS

In 1373 the king was in a position to seek from the pope the elimination of abuses on a much wider scale. In the parliament which met on 3 Novem384 References above p. 345, n. 289 and 291; C.P.R. 1364-67, pp. 205, 208 (see C.P.P., I, 447), 280; 1367-70, pp. 49, 63, 474; C.C.R. 1364-68, p. 490; C.C.R. 1374-77, pp. 103-04. 85 C.P.R, 1374-71, pp. 55-56. 886 C.P.R. 1370-74, pp. 178-79; Rymer, Foedera, III, 1001. 87 CCR. 1374-71, p. 65. $8821 August: Wilkins, Concilia, III, 107-08; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 263.

839 CPP. I, 534-35. |

352 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ber 1372, complaints about papal provisions were renewed.**° The new pope, Gregory XI, in the same year, sought a subsidy from the English clergy. Edward III, by seizing the papal bulls on the subject, prevented the compliance of the clergy. He was thus so situated that he could try to bargain, when, in July 1373, he sent to Avignon envoys to negotiate with the pope concerning the subsidy and the abuses of papal provisions and expectancies.*#? At the outset the delegation made extreme demands in the name of the king.*** They asked the pope (1) to respect the royal right to the patronage of churches, including those which fell vacant when the temporalities of bishoprics and religious houses were in his hands; (2) to cease trial in the papal court of cases involving the royal right of patronage of which the royal courts had jurisdiction; (3) to stop citations of Englishmen to appear in person before the papal court, on account of the dangers of

travel caused by the war with France; (4) to revoke reservations of benefices to which he had not yet made provision and to abstain in the future from reservations and provisions; and (5) to postpone the subsidy until the end of the war. Prolonged discussions followed, in the course of which the pope gave oral answers to several questions raised by the envoys. In them he promised

some reforms and denied others. After the conclusion of negotiations, probably in December 1373, Gregory XI sent a copy of them to the king.**° ‘The answers were the following: (1) He did not intend to restrain his power to make reservations. He could not honestly revoke collations which he had made, but in the future he would moderate them in such a way that they could not reasonably give grievance to king or kingdom. (2) He would provide the bishops elected by the cathedral chapters,

if they were suitable. He would also comply with what the king might write with regard to bishops as far as possible. (3) He would require absent provisors to elective dignities to maintain the repair of buildings and the other burdens of the benefices. When opportunity offered, he would ap-

point those who could reside. He would not extend this reform, as the envoys had requested, to abbeys, priories and hospitals. (4) The complaint of the envoys with regard to provisions to foreigners had caused much debate. The pope could recall only one foreigner, other than cardinals, *49 Rot. Parl., Il, 312. “42 Above, pp. 103-06.

*42 An undated copy of a papal letter of 21 December 1373: Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 171171%; summaries of it: C.P.L., IV, 127; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 32-33. *48 In Rymer’s Foedera, III, 1072 the undated document is placed under 1377. Perroy

has established that the document was sent by the pope to the king at the termination of the embassy of 1373: L’Angleterre, p. 45.

Annates 1327-1378 353 whom he had collated to an English benefice. The foreigner was a Roman and resided in England. (5) The assertion that fruits of benefices in the hands of cardinals were an intolerable burden and that some of them went to the enemies of England he countered with the statement that fruits from the benefices held by cardinals in France amounted to three times as much as those from benefices in England. (6) The novelty of annates from expectancies *4* he promised to end on 1 March 1374.°4° He could not forego annates from other sources on account of the war in Italy. He hoped before too long to make the burden of annates on churches less than it had been under his predecessors. (7) He likewise hoped in the future to reduce the multitude of provisions and expectancies, but the requests of English lords and of the universities made such a change difficult.**¢

On the royal right of patronage, litigation concerning it in the papal court and personal citations to the papal court, the pope made no concessions. He suggested that there should be further negotiations with regard to them between papal and royal envoys. While they were taking place, he was willing to suspend or modify the papal actions which were causing friction, if the king would do likewise. He also included the subsidy as a subject for further discussion.***7 The king accepted this proposal and the negotiations took place at Bruges during 1374 and 1375.9#8 The settlement with regard to the subsidy has already been considered. The other results were stated in a series of six bulls issued on 15 September

1375.°*° (1) The pope confirmed the existing possession of benefices to which the king had made collation, even if the benefices had been reserved to papal collation. If the possessors so desired, he would grant them con““* This novelty had been established by a decree of Gregory XI issued on 17 April 1371. It required payment of annates to the pope from a benefice acquired as the result of a papal expectative grace whoever the local collator has been: Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, p. 26. The papal collector in England was notified of this new policy by a bull dated 15 February 1371: Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 167-69. *“° Annates continued to be collected from benefices obtained by expectancies issued before that date, even if the expectancies were not fulfilled until after it. Expectants who received their graces in 1371 and 1372 were being required to pay annates in 1376: Col. 13, fo. 60, 68%; 12, fo. 174-75, 186-1867, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-14. John Wyclif provides a good example. He was provided to a canonry in Lincoln with expectation of a prebend before 26 December 1373: C.P.L., IV, 193. He did not receive the prebend of Caistor until 1375. After he had been warned twice to pay annates, Robert Wyclif paid on his behalf, on 4 May 1377, part of the annates due. Afterward payment of the remainder was postponed to 13 January 1378, because he had been despoiled of the prebend by Philip Thornbury: Col. 12, fo. 182. Philip was a papal provisor to the prebend of Caistor: C.P.L., IV, 227. Cf. Workman, Wyclif, I, 204-06.

**° The petitions recorded in the Calendar during the pontificate of Urban V uphold this statement. Those for the pontificate of Gregory XI are lacking. “7 CPL. IV, 201-02. *4®Above, pp. 105-07.

“49 Rymer, Foedera, III, 1037-39.

354 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 firmations or new provisions. (2) In ten suits pending in the Roman court between papal provisors and English clerks over English benefices he confirmed the rights of the Englishmen to the benefices and offered to give them individual confirmations on request. (3) He revoked the general reservation to papal provision made by Urban V of the benefices resigned by pluralists in 1366 and the special reservations made by Urban V and his predecessors, as far as they applied to benefices to which provision had not yet been made. The rights of those who had been provided previously to benefices under these reservations he confirmed and he would issue individual confirmations to those who sought them.?*** (4) Those who took ad-

vantage of the offer in the three preceding bulls to obtain individual confirmations would be required neither to pay annates for them nor to pay any fruits which had been collected illegally.*°° (5) In suits then pending in the Roman court personal citations would not be used, and, on account of the war, for the next three years a papal court would be held at Bruges where Englishmen who should be cited personally could appear with safe-

ty. (6) The archbishops of Canterbury and York were given power to compel the proctors of cardinals to maintain the repair of buildings on prebends held by the cardinals. The papal concessions which resulted from the negotiations extending from 1373 to 1375 placed no definite limits on the grant of papal provisions and expectancies in the future. The bulls of 1375 remedied existing grievances, but, with the exception of the revocation of certain reservations, they

gave no permanent assurance that the same or similar abuses would not recur. The oral promises of 1373 took account of the future, but, with the exception of the definite promise to stop the exaction of annates from expectancies, they were so vague or so hedged about with restrictions that they had little meaning. Edward IIII, on 15 February 1377, made certain concessions with regard to the use of the royal right of presentation to benefices. The grants were stated to be in celebration of the completion of fifty years of his reign, but they were regarded also as part of the agreement or treaty between king and pope concerning provisions.*°* He promised, in behalf of himself and his heirs, that presentations to vacant benefices which had come into his hands by vacancies of bishoprics or monasteries previous to 15 Feb-

ruary 1376 and had not yet been exercised would not be used at all. He also revoked presentations to benefices which had been made by the same $49a Cf. Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 39. 85° tbid.

**1 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 393, 398; C.C.R. 1377-81, p. 35.

Annates 1327-1378 355 right before the same date, but had not yet been executed, and he cancelled any suits in the royal courts concerning them. The right of presentation in these instances was to revert to the customary patrons.°°? 16. THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS AT THE CLOSE OF THE

REIGN oF Epwarp III

Before the close of the reign of Edward III the English began to think that the promises of the pope, which they called collectively the treaty, were not being kept. In the good parliament of 1376 the commons claimed that the pope was breaking the treaty by giving too many benefices to foreigners.®°** The commons also drew up a long and stinging indictment of the many evils inflicted upon England by the papacy not only by provisions and expectancies but also by several other policies.®* Its spirit is reflected in

the attribution to the court of Rome of ‘covetousness, smony and other sins.’ ‘The complaint of the commons emphasized particularly the financial exactions of the papacy. They expressed on this phase of the subject highly

exaggerated ideas which, nevertheless, probably reflected a segment of popular thought. ‘The revenues derived by the pope from service taxes and

annates they placed at five times the annual revenues of the king, those received from English benefices held by members of the papal court at 20000 marks annually, and those collected annually for the pope by his collector in England at 20000 marks more or less. The desired reforms were

too radical for the government, and the royal answer to the request for remedies was that the king had ordained remedies by previous statutes and was then in correspondence with the pope. By the time the next parliament assembled on 27 January 1377 the government had become dissatisfied with the failure of the treaty to make any

significant change in the use of papal provisions. In the initial session a | spokesman for the king declared that the apostolic see had for a long time made usurpations within the realm and was now making new ones. The king wished the advice of the lords and commons with regard to a remedy. Later the commons asked that papal provisors who were using the papal court at Bruges to cause trouble for those who had been presented by local patrons to benefices which were in dispute between them should be outlawed. ‘The answer was very different from that given to the petition of 1376: the king and the pope had made a treaty on this item and the pope had made the king a good promise; if he does not keep it, the statutes which *52 Rymer, Foedera, III, 1072. 852a Rot. Parl., Il, 336.

68 Rot. Parl. Il, 337-39. .

356 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

the king will enforce will suffice.*®* In another petition the commons prayed to have the statutes of Edward I and Edward III enforced for the purpose of resisting particularly the cardinals who had purchased graces of the reservation of all English benefices to the value of 20000 to 30000 marks. To this extravagant statement and to other complaints the answer was to let the statutes and ordinances already made be kept.*** Thus, at the close of the reign of Edward III, both king and parliament practically acknowledged, on the one hand, that the ordinance and statutes against provisors never had been adequately enforced and, on the other, that they were sufficient to stop the abuses of provisions and expectancies, if they should be fully enforced. 17. Tue ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES, 1342-1378

Concerning the collection of annates in England during the period from 1342 to 1378, when papal provisions and confirmations were so profuse, information is abundant.*°* Most important are the accounts rendered to

, the camera by three papal collectors. Hugh Pelegrini rendered two accounts extending from 1 August 1349 to 1 September 1363,” John de Cabrespino rendered four covering the years from 1 September 1363 to 1 November 1370,3°* and Arnald Garnerii submitted two setting forth his transactions and those of John de Caroloco, the locumtenens left by his predecessor, from 1 November 1370 to 6 March 1378.°® Copies of a number of executory letters concerned with annates which were issued by the col-

lectors have been preserved.*®° Among the cameral registers are some which record the notices of papal provisions, confirmations and surrogations forwarded from the chancery.*®t They include few expectancies until the time of Gregory XI.°° From these registers lists of the provisions to benefices in each collectorate were extracted at irregular intervals and 85 Rot. Parl., Il, 363, 367; Perroy, L’ Angleterre, pp. 48-49. *°° Rot. Parl., Il, 372-73.

*°°For supplementary information on the administration of annates see the accounts of papal collectors of annates in Germany from 1323 to 1361, Kirsch, Die pdpstlichen Annaten in Deutschland. 357 Col, 14, fo. 23-1577. 358 Col, 11, fo. 1-71¥, 138-967; 12, fo. 1-139.

859 Col. 13, fo. 1-198; 12, fo. 143-256v. 86° Cited below.

861 Col. 8 (1342); 288 (1343, 1351-52); 281 (1343-45); 282 (1345-48); 289 (1346); 280 (1347); 286 (1349-50); 290 (1357-60); 291 (1362-63). The dates are those of the English provisions. On the nature of the contents see Kirsch, Die pdpstlichen Annaten, introd. pp. XXX-XLVI. 962 By 1374 Arnald Garnerii had received from the camera lists containing a few more than 723 expectatives to English benefices issued by Gregory XI: Col. 13, fo. 36-37, 54-977, 104-217.

Annates 1327-1378 357 sent to the collectors.#®* Copies of several of the lists sent to English collectors are still extant.?* The collectors often found defects in the lists. They were rarely complete. ‘The collectors discovered by inquiry benefices from which annates

were due that were not included in the lists.?°° Hugh Pelegrini made an inquiry by means of commissioners. It was so extensive that the expenses were £50.°** John de Cabrespino found benefices which had been omitted from his lists by examining the cameral registers.*®” Arnald Garner asked the bishops from time to time to notify him of any benefices in their dioceses filled by provision of Gregory XI not included in the lists sent to them by him.3°* Occasionally a provisor omitted from the lists notified the collector of his provision.*®* Much difficulty was caused by the assignment in the lists of benefices to wrong dioceses,*”° or by the omission of the name of the diocese.*"* Misspellings of the names of benefices caused trouble.°™ Mistakes were made also in the names of provisors.*“* When a prebend was identified only by the name of the previous possessor, bishops frequently reported that no prebendary of that name was known.?"* Sometimes further investigation corrected the errors. Wentebug’, for example, was found

to be Ferrybridge and the annates were collected.*”° In 1378, after the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester had denied the existence of any church

called I’refford in their dioceses, the church of Greatford in the diocese of Lincoln was found to have escaped the payment of annates since 1364.°7° A precentorship of Lincoln was located in Lichfield,?”" and the chapel of

Bockingfold, which could not be found in the diocese of York, yielded results when it was discovered in the diocese of Canterbury.*”* Some of the puzzles, on the other hand, remained unsolved. The church of Basche, said 63 Col. 286, fo. 187-1887; Kirsch, ‘Der Verwaltung der Annaten’, R.Q., XVI, 145-51, Col. 288, fo. 165; 354, fo. 69%; 358, fo. 179%, 186%; 14, fo. 57%, 71; 11, fo. 161%, 185; 12, fo. 80%, 85, 236; 13, fo. 54, 121%, 132. 864 Col. 287, fo. 1, 1%, 160-64"; C.P.P., I, 305-26; Col. 13, fo. 36-37, 54-97%, 104-21¥.

265 Col. 14, fo. 49-49%, 57%; 13, fo. 99-103; 12, 236¥-41¥.

566 Col. 14, fo. 51. 367 Col. 11, fo. 53%, 55; 12, fo. 34. 368 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 191, 243-44; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 296-97. 369 Col. 12, fo. 30, 80°. 379 Col. 14, fo. 78, 87-877; 11, fo. 51¥-54"; 12, fo. 42, 52%, 198; 13, fo. 6, 113. 571 Col. 14, 153%-154; 13, fo. 35.

872 Col. 11, fo. 42%, 43 (Haghton for Houghton Regis); 12, fo. 30%; 13, fo. 28% (Caros for Caron); 12, 167% (Bitton or Bicton for Burrington), 177% (Sywelbi for Shoby), 194V. 873 Col. 14, fo. 78%, 84, 106%; 11, fo. 529. 574 Col. 14, fo. 76, 78%, 87-877; 11, fo. 35, 51%; 13, fo. 10, 12, fo. 168, 189, 194-95.

875 Col. 11, fo. 53; 12, fo. 30%; 13, fo. 10. 876 Col. 11, fo. 42%; 12, fo. 153%. 877 Col. 14, fo. 83.

878 Col. 11, fo. 52; 12, fo. 23%.

358 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to be in the diocese of Exeter, was not identified.?”® Basshe was the name of

| the rector and his church was Bicton.®*®° The collector’s first step, after he received a list of provisions, was to arrange with the recipients the amount of the annates and the terms of the payment. He usually summoned the provisors through the agency of the bishops. On 13 January 1361, for example, Hugh Pelegrini issued a mandate to the bishop of Lincoln. It stated that annates were due for eight provisions, two confirmations and one appropriation made by the pope and eleven provisions made anew by cardinals Tailairand de Périgord, bishop of

Albano, and Nicholas Capocci, priest of S Vitale.*** The names of the benefices and their holders were given and in the case of a provision the name of the previous incumbent with an explanation of the manner in which the vacancy had occurred. The bishop was ordered to sequestrate the fruits

of all the benefices by means of agents and to send the proceeds to the collector. If there were any opponents, he was to constrain them by ecclesi-

astical censures. He was further to cite the holders of the benefices to

appear before Hugh at his residence in London within a month of the cita-

tion prepared to make an agreement for payment of the annates. ‘The bishop was to notify the collector of what he had done in the matter before 24 June.?*?

After Gregory XI decreed that annates must be paid for benefices obtained as the result of expectancies, the collector was supplied with lists of the expenctancies, but he had no means of knowing when benefices were accepted by the expectants. Arnald Garneri, therefore, devised a new form of a letter to be sent to the bishops. Concerning it he remarked that because the thing was new not all the bishops had replied, but he thought that they

would eventually. The letter ordered the bishop to report to him any institutions to benefices by virtue of a papal expectancy, excepting those in forma pauperum, since 15 February 1371 and to proceed with regard to them according to the form of his customary mandate.*** ‘This meant that he was to cite the holders of such benefices to appear before the collector and to sequestrate the revenues of the benefices. In practice this new 879 Col. 11, fo. 357; 13, fo. 6. 889 Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 33, 283.

‘81 They were papal nuncios appointed in 1356 to seek peace in the war between England and France: C.P.L., Ill, 619. On 8 April 1356 they were empowered to fill vacant benefices in England which fell to the apostolic see by general or special reservations: D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus X, 48. In the next few years they made a large number of provisions anew: Col. 14, fo. 109-17, 147-48. *82 Tincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 133. Hugh employed his own sequestrator of the fruits of benefices which owed annates in the diocese of Bath and Wells: Reg. Shrewsbury, II, 691. His successors relied on the bishops for sequestration, as he did in Lincoln. 888 February 1373: Col. 13, fo. 128.

Annates 1327-1378 359 form was soon added to the mandate dealing with benefices obtained by papal provision.***

When the debtor appeared, the amount of annates would be determined

and he would be required under oath to oblige himself to pay the sum, usually in instalments at specified times. The amount was established by the methods explained by Clement VI in the bull of 22 July 1342 by which he reserved annates for the next two years.**> Subsequent renewals by him and by his successors to 1378 retained the same methods. Benefices which were assessed for the tenth owed the amount of the assessment, unless the collector chose to leave the assessed value of the income to the incumbent and to take for annates the remainder of the income. The latter method was not used by Hugh Pelegrini or John de Cabrespino, but Arnald Garnerii investigated the remainders on a few occasions. When he found them much in excess of the assessed values, he reported them to the camera, but he does not appear to have tried to collect them. The prebend of Tyringham in Lincoln was assessed at £13 6 s. 8 d. He learned that it had been leased for £100, and suggested to the camera that the cardinal who held it ought to pay £50 for annates.®°* When he discovered that the church of Boston had been farmed for £100 in olden times, he planned to find out whether the remainder was worth more than the assessed value of £51 6s. 8 d., but he accepted the assessed value.**” His investigation of remainders aroused opposition on the ground that the assessed value had always been taken previously. He commented to the camera: ‘great complaint 1s made when anything new is attempted by any one in these parts on account of the long silence which is brought forward as an excuse.’ *°* The amount of the assessed value of a benefice could be determined by

a copy of the valuation kept in the collector’s office.**? If a doubt arose for any reason, the collector might order the bishop to certify the valuation.*°° Hugh Pelegrini found one church which was not included in his copy of the valuation. He learned from the chancellor of the bishop of St Davids that it was assessed at £7.°° John de Cabrespino referred to the bishop of Lincoln the case of a provisor who had been charged for annates at the full assessed value of the church of East Keal. He received the in84 Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 296-99, 324-25; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 243-44, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-147, 177, 83%-84.

85 T), & Ch. York, Chapter Act Bk. 1344-50, pt. 3, fo. 100%-pt. 4, fo. 1-2; Lunt, Papal Revenues, Ul, 358-60.

886 Col. 12, fo. 182. 887 Col. 12, fo. 183%. Similar entries occur on fo. 191-191% and in Col. 13, fo. 1017, 103%. 888 Col. 13, fo. 1267. 28° Col. 14, fo. 103%, 115; 11, fo. 12%; 12, fo. 10, 85. 880 Col. 12, fo. 154%. 391 Col. 14, fo. 115.

360 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

formation that the church was divided between two portioners, each of whom had one-half of the income of the church. The amount for annates was thus reduced from £18 13 s. 4d. to £9 6 s. 8 d.3®? In another instance a collector did not find a vicarage assessed in the book supplied by the camera, and he accepted the statement of the provisor that it was assessed at 5 marks in the book of the bishop.3**

A factor which caused some taxpayers trouble during the collectorate of Arnald Garnerii was the use of the new valuation in parts of the province

of York.*°* Raymond *® and Hugh Pelegrini *°* and John de Cabrespino**” accepted the new assessment for the annates. One payer brought to John a letter, under the seal of the king, stating that the new assessment of his vicarage was £4 in the register of the exchequer.*°® Arnald Garnerii,

who seems to have desired to obtain as much as possible for the camera, explained to that body in his first account that one of the reasons for the small amount of annates which he had collected was the claim of the English

that it had never been customary to pay on the old valuation where the new valuation, made on account of sterility or wars, existed.3°? He seems to have accepted the new valuation in some instances,*°® but to have obtained the old valuation in others.*® If the benefice was not assessed to the tenth, one-half of the annual income was taken for annates. For this purpose what was most commonly called the true value of the benefice,*°? but what was sometimes called its value in common years,** its value by common estimation,*™ or its value at farm,*°° had to be ascertained. In making the estimate no expenses were to be deducted.*°* The most common way to establish the true value was by oath of the taxpayer.*®’ The result might be checked by an inquest,*®* $92 Col. 11, fo. 176. $98 Col. 13, fo. 1029. *°* Above, p. 81.

*°° Compare Col. 14, fo. 27” with Taxatio, p. 314. 99° Fg. Col. 14, fo. 106, 116-17, 140-43.

97 E’.g. Col. 11, fo. 10, 10%, 52%; 12, fo. 72%, 73, 79%, 82%. For all three collectors see also Rymer, Foedera, III, 781. 888 Col. 11, fo. 10Y. 89° Col. 13, fo. 126V.

409Col. 13, fo. 10¥, 31, 34”. #91 Col. 13, fo. 102; 12, fo. 2279. 422Col. 14, fo. 27, 44¥-45¥, 46¥; Col. 11, fo. 6%; 13, fo. 4%, 10%, 24, 38%, 100%, 102¥-03; 12, fo. 80", 151%, 236¥-37.

*°? Col. 12, fo. 174%, 179%; equated with the true value: fo. 151¥. 404 Col. 12, fo. 36V.

*°§ Col. 12, fo. 156%, 160%, 162, 197, 201¥. The value at farm equated with the true value: fo. 56¥, 160%, 197; with the value in common years: 1797, 180V. 496 Col. 11, fo. 4-47; 13, fo. 24. “7 Col. 11, fo. 4-47, 10, 1547-55, 156%; 12, fo. 5, 8, 10%, 13%, 35, 80V. *°8 Col. 11, fo. 87, 10Y.

Annates 1327-1378 361 but this method was used only rarely.*°® More commonly a bishop would be ordered to certify the value.*?° Sometimes the collector merely reserved the right to more, if the benefice should be found to be worth more.*** In estimating the value of archdeaconries the English had one custom which disturbed Raymond Pelegrini and thoroughly outraged the tidy mind of Arnald Garnerii. They claimed that the archidiaconal procurations and

profits of jurisdiction should not be included in the estimate of their incomes. Raymond Pelegrini included them in computing the true value of the archdeaconry of Northampton and charged the archdeacon with half that amount for annates. Hugh Pelegrini deducted them and thus reduced the charge from £133 6 s. 8 d. to £53 6s. 8 d.*!” Hugh claimed that the camera authorized the deduction, and he made it for all archdeaconries which were not assessed to the tenth.*4? John de Cabrespino did likewise,*!* and he mentioned in his account a decision of the camera that annates were not due from archidiaconal procurations.*t®> Arnald Garner accepted the payment of £4 for half the true value of the archdeaconry of Lewes which had been set by his predecessor. He noted that it was not the custom in England to pay annates from procurations and jurisdiction, but he reserved the right to them.*!® In the case of other archdeaconries, with the exception of that of Chichester which was very poor,**’ he left it to the camera to determine whether annates should be paid on procurations and jurisdiction.*1® He informed the camera that these items constituted the larger part, and sometimes nearly the whole, of the emoluments of the archdeacons, and that the archdeacons would not pay annates on them, asserting that to be the custom. The lords of the camera replied: ‘Concerning those the custom is not void here, when their emoluments consist of jurisdiction and procurations; when they consist of fruits and other things, let the collector exact the rights belonging to the camera.’ #*® Undeterred by this decision, the collec-

tor tried for the next three years to do nearly the opposite. Of two archdeaconries he reported in his next and final account that they were in ar409 Col. 14, fo. 27. 410 Col. 11, fo. 6%; 13, fo. 24, 80%; 12, fo. 154V. 411 Col. 11, fo. 53.

#12 Col. 14, fo. 27, 81. #18 Col. 14, fo. 45-64". 414Col. 12, fo. 5. 415 Col. 11, fo. 53.

“6 Col. 13, fo. 47. “17 Col. 13, fo. 5. #18 Col. 13, fo. 87, 107, 20.

419 "Te istis non est consuetum vacantem hic cum eorum emolumenta consistant in iuris-

dictione et procurationibus; quando in fructibus et in aliis consistunt, exigat collector iura pertinentia camere: Col. 13, fo. 196.

362 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 rears for the fruits of procurations and jurisdiction.*#° He made no mention of these items in the other entries of archdeaconries, but he gave the value

of each archdeaconry either at farm or in common years at such a high figure that it must have included procurations and jurisdiction.*** He demanded in each case one-half of the estimated value for annates. He found the custom too strong to be broken. In no instance did he succeed in collecting any annates from these archdeacons, even when he placed them under ecclesiastical censures.*??

In the normal procedure, the taxpayer, after the amount of his annates had been established and he had obliged himself to pay them, was warned that failure to keep his obligation would result in his excommunication. The common usage was payment in two instalments at intervals of several

months each, or even of a year. There were many variations. John de Cabrespino and Arnald Garnerii often allowed three instalments and some-

times four. The taxpayer, on the other hand, might pay the whole sum immediately or pay part of it and promise the remainder in one instalment. Such payments were, however, exceptional. In making these arrangements

the taxpayer might be represented by a proctor.*”? The collectors kept copies of the obligations in registers. John de Cabrespino referred to such a register kept by Hugh Pelegrini as ‘the hairy book.’ ***

If a provisor did not have possession of the benefice at the time of his interview with the collector, his obligation was generally postponed. If his possession was being contested by litigation with another claimant, the collector might require the provisor to promise payment of annates, if he should obtain possession,**® though this seems to have been exceptional rather than customary. In one instance when such an allegation was offered without proof to John de Cabrespino, he demanded evidence of the suit before a certain date and required the provisor to deposit with the factor in London of the Alberti Antiqui the assessed value of the benefice, which would be delivered to the camera, if the evidence was not produced before the date set.*7® 20Col. 12, fo. 171, 186. 21 Col. 12, fo. 147% (Canterbury £300), 160% (Cornwall £300), 162 (Oxford 80 marks), 165% (Taunton £113 6 s. 4 d.), 174% (Ely £200), 179%, 181 (Leicester £150), 180%, 185

(Northampton £300), 182 (Dorchester £200; 158 at farm for £140 14 s. 4 d.). With regard to the archdeaconry of Cornwall the bishop of Exeter had reported to John de Cabrespino that it did not take care of itself and was of little value: Col. 11, fo. 35”. #22°There is no information concerning two of them who were cardinals and were paying their annates at the camera. 428 Accounts of the three collectors, passim. 24Col. 11, fo. 35-36, 42, 48, 48%-497.

425 Col, 11, fo. 37; 13, fo. 103-04, 114; 12, fo. 157%, 161%, 162¥, 183-84¥, 205¥.

426 Col. 11, fo. 52.

Annates 1327-1378 363 Some English provisors undertook their obligations in the papal camera

instead of arranging them with the papal collector. The practice was so uncommon that the camera kept only two registers of such obligations, ***

unless there were other registers which are no longer extant among the - cameral records. Sometimes mention of an obligation is found in a register not concerned primarily with annates.*?® Still other obligations taken at the camera are known only by mention of them in the reports of the English collectors.*?® In some of the obligations the provisor promised to pay the annates to the camera at specified times.**° Richard de Means, in 1352, promised to pay the whole of his annates to the camera on 25 March 1353*%*

and Richard Derbi, on 12 March 1356, undertook to pay £18 for the archdeaconry of Nottingham, one-half on the next Christmas and one-half on the following 24 June.*#* Others were given three terms. **° Some promised to pay annates to the camera or to the collector in England,*** some agreed to pay them to the collector,*** and one undertook to pay them to the papal banker, Guy Malabayla, who guaranteed the payment to the camera.*#° When the engagement was to render the annates to the collector, he was notified of it by the camera.

The bull of 1342 authorized the debtor for annates, if he preferred, to let the collector have the whole income of the benefice for the first year. The collector paid for the maintenance of divine service and the sacraments and for other burdens on the benefice, and kept what was left for annates.

This method did not find favor with the English, though the few who adopted it appear to have profited thereby. Thomas de Brembre, who was provided to the prebend of Sutton le Marsh in Lincoln on 29 April 1348, tried it to his advantage. The prebend was assessed at £140, but all that the camera received from it was £66 13 s. 4d. on account of the mortality.**7 What may have been another instance of it was the prebend of East Stoke in Lincoln which was provided to Hugh Pelegrini on 4 May 1349. In his own report he recorded payment of £33 6 s. 8 d. for annates without com#27 Col. 385 and 497. They cover the late years of Clement VI and most of the pontificate of Innocent VI. They are largely duplicates.

“267 & E. 237, fo. 29; 270, fo. 19%; 271, fo. 112; Col. 8, fo. 135; 290, fo. 40%; Ob. 23A,

fo. 47, 113, 118-118"; 42, fo. 97. 2° Col. 14, fo. 437, 45, 1037-04, 118%; 11, fo. 39%, 176%; 13, fo. 8%; 12, fo. 147%, 156-58, 165-66, 182, 197, 199. 480 Ob. 23A, fo. 118%; Col. 385, fo. 173. #81 Col. 385, fo. 179V.

427 & E. 271, fo. 112. 4887 & E. 270, fo. 19%; Col. 385, fo. 150¥. 484 Col. 8, fo. 135; 385, fo. 179V. #85 Col. 290, fo. 40V; 385, fo. 150%; 497, fo. 529.

43° Col. 385, fo. 68°. 87 Col. 14, fo. 102.

364 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ment.*?® His successor discovered that the assessed value of the benefice was £86 13 s. 4d. and assumed that £53 6 s. 8 d. were still due. Hugh explained that it was in the year of the mortality and more could not be levied. _ Since a temporary decrease of income did not affect the liability for the full amount of annates, Hugh appears as collector to have farmed his own benefice. The liability for the balance of the assessed value was left to the camera to decide, and Rayner Domenici became surety for its payment, if it should be demanded.**®

There were some exemptions from the payment of annates. If two vacancies of the same benefice were filled by papal provision within one year, annates were due only once.**° No annates were due from daily distributions in churches,**! or from chantries of which the income was 20 pounds of small Tours or less. Benefices vacant by exchange were exempted, unless the exchange was accomplished by means of papal confirmation or provision. The number of exchanges made with the help of the papacy increased during the period. Benefices with an annual income not in excess of 10 pounds of small Tours were not required to pay annates. Since a pound sterling was worth five pounds of small Tours,**” this decreased the exemption of £4 granted in previous levies to £2. Even this lower limit was not always observed by the collectors. Hugh Pelegrini, for example, found that a prebend in Hereford, known as the Meadow, consisted of a truss of hay. His successor established the true value of the truss at 2 s and exacted 12 d for annates.*** Some other benefices valued at £2 or less were compelled to pay annates.*** The collectors, however, discovered a small number of benefices from which they could not collect annates, because no permanent income was attached to them, or because the small endowments possessed by them were yielding no fruits.**°

Many of the provisions, confirmations and surrogations issued during

the period yielded no annates, because they were ineffective. Often a bishop who had been ordered by the collector to warn a provisor to appear before the collector would report only that the provisor did not have possession of the benefice or that the provision had had no effect, without explanation of the reasons. ‘The causes were stated in enough instances, how#88 Col. 14, fo. 44%. There were two other instances in 1348 and 1349: ibid., fo. 26-27. 48° Col. 11, fo. 45.

*#°’The English collectors observed this rule: Col. 14, fo. 64, 75-76, 11, fo. 53%;, 12, fo. 6%, 147.

*** There was only one example of this exemption: Col. 12, fo. 146v. #42 C.C.R. 1339-41, p. 300.

#48 Col. 14, fo. 131; 11, fo. 7. **4 Col. 13, fo. 8V, 18, 34; 12, fo. 192, 236%, 237. 445 Col. 11, fo. 6, 36, 176; 12, fo. 26, 40¥-41, 177%, 203; 13, fo. 6v, 8, 13%, 17-17%; 14, 80%.

Annates 1327-1378 365 ever, to provide a general idea of the circumstances which made papal provisions inoperative. The cause which prevented the execution of more papal provisions than

any other was the maintenance of the rule by the king that no papal provision was valid for a benefice to which he had made presentation or to which he had the right to make presentation. When necessary, the king maintained this royal right by a writ prohibiting a papal provisor from attempting to disturb the possession of one whom he had presented.**® Frequently he also issued another writ which prohibited the collector from _ exacting annates from the possessor of a benefice whom he had presented.***

On 20 January he covered by a general order to Hugh Pelegrini one aspect of such conflicts, not only between papal provisors and possessors by royal right, but also between papal provisors and those who held benefices by the collation of other English patrons. It prohibited the collector from attempting to collect annates for papal provisions which had not been effectively executed from persons who held benefices from collations by local patrons. He was, moreover, to restore any sums received from such persons.**® Apparently he had been trying to apply a ruling of the camera that if a papal provisor appeared to have right to a benefice by apostolic authority and could not obtain it, the possessor should be forced to become responsible for the annates. **°

Hugh Pelegrini, in his account covering the years from 1349 to 1358, noted nearly sixty provisions which were rendered ineffective by the exercise of the royal patronage *°° and they continued to be equally numerous thereafter. In some instances the same person obtained both royal presentation and papal provision or confirmation to a benefice. Under those conditions the holder usually renounced the papal provision or confirmation by a notarial act, or simply claimed that he held the benefice by the royal and not by the papal act. He could count on a royal prohibition of the levy of annates, if he needed it.*°* Payment of annates by the holder of a benefice so situated was rare.*°?

Arnald Garner, though he accepted it as law in England that annates could not be collected from a benefice held by royal right, as long as the *“7 C.C.R. 1349-54, pp. 186, 407-08, 560; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter) I, 179-80, 182-83;

Chancery Misc. Bdle. 16, File 7 no. 8. Writs of this type are mentioned frequently in all the collector’s accounts. *“8 Rymer, Foedera, UI, 250. **° Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 355.

‘59 Col. 14, fo. 72-83, 857-89. *°? Col. 14, fo. 72¥-73, 87; 13, fo. 7%, 20. *5? Col. 12, fo. 50%; 14, fo. 79.

366 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 holder by royal presentation lived,*®* was nevertheless irked by the situation. He complained to the camera with regard to two aspects of the system. Holders by royal title would not pay annates due from a predecessor who had possessed the benefice by papal provision. A person who had title to a benefice from both king and pope ought to pay annates because he had

petitioned for the papal grace.*®* The lords of the camera suggested in reply that he might find more tactful methods of approaching such provisors.*°> Either the advice was without value, or as one might surmise from Arnald’s comments in his accounts, tact was a quality which he lacked. He persuaded one possessor of a prebend by royal right to agree to pay at a certain date the arrears of annates left by his predecessor, if meanwhile the collector could not obtain them from the predecessor who was still alive.*®* In all other instances he met with a refusal.*°"

Several other causes frequently prevented the execution of provisions

, and confirmations. Often two or more provisions, or a provision and a confirmation or two confirmations were granted for the same vacancy of one benefice. In each instance only one of them could be effective. There were forty-three cases of this sort recorded by Hugh Pelegrini in his first report.*°® Sometimes two or three provisions or confirmations were issued to one person for the same benefice of which only one was valid,*°® though a person who obtained a benefice by papal provision and later had the provision confirmed had to pay annates on each occasion.*°° In a large number

of instances the alleged vacancy of the benefice did not exist at the time of the provision.*** An incumbent said to be dead was found to be alive,** or a possessor who was to have been promoted to another benefice was not promoted,*®* or an expected exchange of benefices was not carried out,*™ or an alleged resignation proved to be false,*®* or an anticipated deprivation or removal of an incumbent did not take place,*®* or some other mistake had been made.*®* During the pontificates of Urban V and Gregory XI *53 Col. 12, fo. 146. *54 Col. 13, fo. 21, 25%, 126-126V. *°5 Col. 13, fo. 196V.

66 Col. 12, fo. 1767. | 457 Col. 12, fo. 146, 149-51", 161-62, 165, 167%, 177, 202¥. 458 Col. 14, fo. 71-719, 737-86", 88-887.

459 Eg. Col. 13, fo. 17%, 19%, 24, 61%; 12, fo. 53¥-55¥. *9° F.g., Col. 14, fo. 46, 64°. 461 Fg. Col. 14, fo. 71, 73¥-77, 797-81, 83%, 85%, 86-86%, 887-89. #62 Col. 12, fo. 52¥-53¥, 56-567; 13, fo. 31Y. #68 Col. 12, fo. 55-56; 13, fo. 13, 20; 14, fo. 71. *64 Col. 14, fo. 71. 465 Col. 13, fo. 27.

*68 Col. 13, fo. 18, 21V-229. £7 Col. 13, fo. 16%, 23%, 84.

Annates 1327-1378 367 many provisions were made to appropriated churches and such provisions were invalid.*®

Other causes which rendered provisions or confirmations ineffective worked somewhat less frequently than those which have been mentioned, but they accounted collectively for a large number of unexecuted papal provisions. It was not only a custom enforced by the English government but it was also the intention of the papal chancery that provisions should not be made to benefices in lay patronage. Nevertheless, such provisions were issued from time to time throughout the period. The collectors had no choice other than to record them as ineffective.*®® Provisors did not always execute their provisions. The reasons for the failure are not always

stated,*”° but three of them are mentioned. One of them has been explained.*”* Another was that the provisor found the benefice to be too poor

and did not want it.472. The third was that the provisor did not dare to attempt execution of the provision because he found in occupation of the benefice some one who was influential, such as a son of other relative of a knight or a nobleman.**? In some instances it was discovered that the person whose decease or resignation was alleged to have created the vacancy had never held the benefice.*** There were cases in which the claim to a benefice obtained by other means was upheld against the claim of a papal provisor.*7° ‘They included, among others, incumbents who had been collated by a bishop 476 and incumbents who had been collated as the result of a papal expectancy *”” from which the pope received no annates before 1371. Many such claims were established only by litigation.*7® Occasionally a provisor died before he had secured possession of his benefice.*7® There were a few other causes which made it impossible to execute a provision in one or two instances each.*8® When the provisions which remained ineftec#68 Col. 12, fo. 51¥-55¥, 2047; 13, fo. 9, 11¥, 14-18%, 24-247, 26, 65%, 81, 108%, 110, 113.

Such mistakes might cause the possessor of the appropriated church much trouble and expense: Chron. de Melsa, Ul, 179, 186-91, C.P.R. 1374-77, pp. 55-56; C.P.L., IV, 217-18. 6° Col. 14, fo. 71, 80%, 83, 114, 135%; 12, fo. 50%, 170, 183; 13, fo. 7, 12-13%, 17, 237; 11, fo. 47.

“7 Col. 14, fo. 73, 75%, 80%, 82%, 86-87V, 136, 143¥; 12, fo. 50-517, 56, 192%; 13, fo. 6; C.P.R. 1348-50, p. 468; C.C.R. 1349-54, p. 152. *™ Above, pp. 365-66. “72 Col. 14, fo. 737, 84. *78 Col. 14, fo. 87°; 12, fo. 56. ‘74Col. 14, fo. 73-74%, 79-817, 84-85, 877-88, 1287; 13, fo. 22V. “75 Col. 14, fo. 76-767, 79, 83-847. “78 Col. 14, fo. 79, 89, 95%-96;, 13, fo. 25%; 12, fo. 148, 1577. . *77 Col. 14, fo. 71¥-72, 74¥-75¥, 79¥, 84. 478 Col. 14, fo. 83, 95%; 11, fo. 37; 12, fo. 51, 56¥-57. 479 Col. 11, fo. 50; 12, fo. 51%, 13, fo. 14, 19, 337.

*8°Col. 14, fo. 71V, 73, 75%, 77%, 78-797, 847, 87%; 11, fo. 37; 12, fo. 51%, 53¥-56, 147; 13, fo. 20-217, 26%, 104-1147.

368 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

tive without explanation of the reasons are added to those of which the causes are known, it is apparent that a great many provisions produced no annates for the camera. Many of those whose provisions were effective failed to keep the terms

of the contracts which they had made with the collector and fell into arrears.*81 The collector dealt with them through the bishops. His mandate to the bishop stated the names of the benefices and of the possessors of holders of them. It ordered the bishop to sequestrate the fruits of the benefices,

but in such a way as not to interrupt divine services. The amount to be obtained was sometimes stated to be what was owed the camera as indicated in each instance. When the amount was specified only as ‘fructus,’ *** the denotation was vague, unless the bishop understood that it meant the whole — sum due for annates, which was the assessed value, or, if not assessed, one-

half the true value. This implication was stated explicitly in some mandates.*8® Sometimes specific sums were stated,*** and sometimes it was indicated that the sum was only a remainder which was due.**® With regard to the debtors the mandate might simply require the bishop to cite the pos-

sessors or occupiers of the benefices to appear before the collector at his habitation in London on a stated day prepared to answer for the annates, or to present a reasonable cause why they should not do so, under penalty of the sentence of major excommunication to go into effect immediately after failure to obey the summons.*** One such mandate demanded that they should be cited in their churches and benefices before their famuliars and friends.**” If a debtor was cited once and failed to appear on the appointed day, the collector might order the bishop to publish in the cathedral church and other churches every Sunday the sentence of greater excommunication which the collector had pronounced against him and to cite him again to come before the collector on a stated day. It was common to name in the same mandate some debtors for citation only and others for excommunication and citation.*%®

The mandates not only supplement the information contained in the

collectors’ reports with regard to administrative methods but they also ** Above, pp. 357, 361-62. 48? Eg. Reg. Brantyngham, I, 281, 296. ‘8° E.g., Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, p. 159; Durham, Reg. Hatfield, pp. 103-04, Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29¥-30. 484 Fg., Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, pp. 229-30, Durham, Reg. Hatfield, pp. 103-04. “85 F.g., Reg. Hatfield, pp. 103-04; Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 30. *8° Reg. Appelby, pp. 159, 229-30, 248-51. Reg. Hatfield, pp. 103-04, Reg. Brantyngham, I, 281-84, 324-25, Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 243-44, Reg. Sudbiria (London), I, 197-98, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-147, 179. **7 Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29¥-30. *88 Reg. Brantyngham, I, 296-99; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 274-75; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae S. 445; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 83¥-84.

Annates 1327-1378 369 illustrate some of the difficulties experienced both by the collectors and by the bishops. On 20 July 1372 Arnald Garnerii issued his first mandate to the bishop of Exeter.**® It was of the type which required only sequestra-

tion of the fruits and citation of the delinquent debtors. They were to appear before the collector on 11 October. The bishop replied on 18 September. The fate of the several items may be considered. On a prebend in Glasnay, to which Thomas Woderove had been provided when Stephen Pempel left it vacant,**° the bishop reported that it was then held by Richard Bokelly, a king’s clerk. He had not been cited because he was not present in the diocese and had no proctor there. Arnald again ordered him cited in his second mandate which was issued on 1 February 1373.49? The bishop replied on 2 May that he had been cited to appear at the prescribed date which was 5 May. On 21 June he paid for half of the true value 20s., but Arnald reserved the right to more, if the prebend should prove to be worth more than 40 s.*°? Arnald failed to find out whether any balance was due. The bishop, in answer to the collector’s last mandate in 1377, certified only that Richard had died. Arnald, therefore, in his second and last account with the camera, which closed on 8 March 1378, noted that it ought to be ascertained how much remained due.***

Another provision to the prebend in Glasnay previously held by Stephen Pempel was made to Peter Crugow. The bishop’s only response was that the fruits had been sequestrated. He said nothing about a citation. The collector, in his second mandate, supplied the date of the provision, 7 March 1365, and once more asked to have him cited. The bishop ignored the question of citation again. Before Arnald closed his first account to the camera on 27 July 1374, he had discovered without help from the bishop that the provision to Peter was ineffective because it was to the same prebend which Thomas Woderove had obtained.*®* He must have realized that the two provisions were for the same vacancy of the prebend, but he had no way of knowing which provision had been effective until the successor of ‘Thomas appeared and paid annates. The bishop probably could secure no information about Peter at Glasnay, because the canons there had no occasion to remember him. It would seem as if John de Cabrespino ought to have discovered which of the two provisions was ineffective before he finished his last account on 1 November 1370.*%°

The third item was a provision to a prebend in St Crantock made to *8° Reg. Brantyngham, I, 281-84.

#92 Col. 13, fo. 18. | *°°’The date of the provision, 8 February 1365, was not given by the collector.

*91 Reg. Brantyngham, I, 296-99. #98 Col. 12, fo. 160. *94 Col. 13, fo. 18¥. #95 Col. 12, fo. 116¥-17.

370 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 William alias Thomas.**® With this vague statement the bishop naturally

had trouble. He reported that after diligent inquiry at St Crantock he could not make a certification. It was said there that the provision had never been effective, and the existing occupier could not be identified because it was not known to which prebend the provision related. The collector gave no indication in the mandate of the date of the provision or of the name of the previous possessor. He accepted the information that the provision had not been effective, and learned that William or Thomas had died and that another had been provided to the same vacancy, which had been caused by the promotion of William Thynghulle to a prebend and dignity in Wells.4°” Another provisor to a prebend in St Crantock was Edward Flyer. Arnald, in his second mandate, ordered the bishop to announce the excommunication of Edward for failure to appear in answer to a citation, to sequestrate the fruits of his prebend and to summon him to appear on 5 May. The bishop published the sentence. He also informed the collector that the annates for the prebend with which Edward had been provided were paid, as shown by an acquittance under Arnald’s seal. What the collector may have done to rectify this error, which imposed such a serious penalty on the taxpayer, does not appear in his account.*** An order to cite Richard Tischo, who had been provided to the treasurer and a prebend in the church of Exeter,*® resulted in the citation by the bishop of John Carbonel, the proctor of the possessor. Whether Richard or another was in possession the bishop did not say. Apparently the proctor appeared, for Arnald noted in his account that collection of the annates was prohibited by a royal writ,°°° indicating a probability that the ofice and prebend were then held by someone whom the king had presented. The collector accepted the inevitable and omitted mention of this item 1n his second mandate.

Concerning a prebend in St Crantock provided to Philip Homeie, the collector did not give the date or the name of the previous holder. Without these facts the bishop could not find out by inquiry who was occupying the fruits of the prebend or what they were. The provision, he reported, was said never to have been executed. This dictum the collector accepted without further proof.°°* He said nothing, therefore, about this prebend in his second mandate. 4°6 Tr was made to William Cride on 13 December 1365: C.P.P., I, 510. The confusion

arose from the entry of the name in the account of John de Cabrespino as Thomas Cride: Col. 12, fo. 44V. 47 Col. 13, fo. 197.

*°8T have found no entry in the account with regard to Edward Elyer. 499 19 December 1365: C.P.P., I, 510. 509 Col. 13, fo. 19%.

51 Col. 13, fo. 227.

Annates 1327-1378 371 With regard to the church of Blakyntone provided to Nicholas Thobre the bishop said that there was no such church in his diocese. Arnald meanwhile had found that in the petition for the provision Nicholas was said to

be of the diocese of Exeter. Thinking that the name of the church might be wrong,°”* in his second mandate he ordered the bishop to sequestrate the fruits of any benefice obtained by Nicholas in the city or diocese of Exeter. ‘To this the bishop answered that there was no Nicholas Thobro in the diocese and that he could not certify any benefits obtained by him. The trouble seems to have been with the name of the church. In the collector’s first account it is called Blakautton (Blackawton) and in his second,

Bukington (Bickington). When the latter account was drawn up in 1378, the church had finally been discovered. Although the collector was still not quite sure of the name of it,°°* the church was assessed at £6 4 s., Nicholas had been warned and finally excommunicated and the fruits were under sequestration, though the collector had not yet received any of them.

The provostship of Glasnay, to which had been provided Robert de Hoo, the bishop found occupied by Reginald Calle, whom he cited. He produced a royal writ of prohibition. The provision had had no effect because the office had been filled by presentation of the king.°°* The item was omitted from the collector’s second mandate.

Though Arnald learned from the account of John de Caroloco, who had acted as locumtenens of John de Cabrespino from 1370 until the arrival of Arnald, that no church of Basch’ was located in the diocese of Exeter,°” he included it in his first mandate. He received the customary reply.°”* The bishop found John Cheyne to be in possession of the prebend in the church of Exeter to which he had been provided. He cited John’s proc-

tor, William Congham. The proctor did not obey the summons, and the collector, in his second mandate, ordered him to be excommunicated. The bishop reported this time that he had been shown an acquittance for payment in full. The payment was made on 21 March 1373 between the date of the second mandate and the date of the bishop’s answer to it. In the entry of the payment in his account, however, the collector designated the forty shillings received as payment of part of the assessed value and reserved the right to more.°*’ He obtained no further payment. John Cheyne, after his payment, claimed to hold the prebend by royal presentation and refused to pay the balance claimed. Arnald postponed payment until Easter 1377. 59% Col. 13, fo. 27.

°°’ He said: ‘De ecclesia de Bukmgton seu beneficio quem optinet Nicholaus Tobro’: Col. 12, fo. 161. 504 Col. 13, fo. 30¥. 505 Col. 13, fo. 6.

°° Above, p. 358. *°7 Col. 13, fo. 34.

372 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

When he left England in 1378 the fruits had been ordered to be placed under sequestration and John had been cited to make the payment.°”®

The prebend in the church of St Crantock to which David Maynard had been surrogated on 5 March 1359 the bishop found to be in the hands of William Mugge. He placed sequestration on the fruits and cited William’s proctor, John Raulyn. The proctor did not answer and his excommunication was ordered in the second mandate. The bishop notified the collector that the proctor had died. William Mugge then obtained from the bishop a certificate, supported by William’s oath and the oaths of two rectors, stating that the surrogation made by Innocent VI on 7 May 1359 of the rights of David Maynard in the prebend to John Trusseley had never had effect and that neither David nor John had had possession of the benefice. In the light of this proof Arnald, on 22 June 1373, lifted the sequestration.°°?

The archdeaconry of Totnes, which had been provided to Richard Desbunton, was in the possession of Hugh Briddeham, whom the bishop cited to appear. If he appeared, he apparently claimed that the provision of Richard Desbunton had not been effective, since Arnald, in his second mandate, ordered the bishop to cite Richard Kirkeby, who, he said, had been provided to the archdeaconry on 28 October 1357. The bishop cited Hugh who was still in possession. What seems to have happened was a confusion of names. In Arnald’s account the date of Richard Desbunton’s provision is given as 28 October 1357.59 The only provision to the archdeaconry on that date recorded in the registers of the chancery was made to Richard Swynnerton.**! Hugh Pelegrini entered this name in his account as Sbumton,°’* and it went through John de Cabrespino’s four accounts as Sunirton,®*? Slunton,®!* Sbunton,®*® and Desbuntton.®!* In the

last form it came to John de Caroloco and Arnald Garnerii. Richard de Kirkeby appears to have been associated with the archdeaconry solely by error. When William Steel, who was confirmed in the archdeaconry by Urban V on 25 April 1363, later paid his annates, he explained that Richard Sbunton’s provision had been ineffective, John de Cabrespino recorded this

in his third account °'7 and repeated it under Richard Desbuntton in his 5°8 Col. 12, fo. 161.

°°? Reg. Brantyngham, I, 296, 305; Col. 13, fo. 6. 51° Col. 13, fo. 6.

511 CPP, I, 302. °1 Col. 14, fo. 1559. 518 Col. 11, fo. 36. 514 Col. 11, fo. 1719. *2° Col. 12, fo. 26. 54°Col. 12, fo. 99¥. 517 Col. 12, fo. 26.

Annates 1327-1378 373 last account,°*® when John de Caroloco took it over.*?® Not contented with

this evidence, Arnald tried to exact annates for the provision. Before 27 July 1374, perhaps as the result of the second citation of Hugh Briddeham, he received what he regarded as satisfactory proof that the provision had not been effected.®?°

The last item in the first mandate was the chantry of St Anne in All Saints Exeter which Alexander Sporeman obtained by the collation of the cardinal of Périgord.°?* John de Cabrespino noted in the list of arrears in his last account a certification of the bishop of Exeter that the chantry was not in his diocese.5?? Arnald thought the chantry might have some other name and for that reason asked the bishop to search again. When the bishop

replied to the same effect as before, Arnald accepted the statement. The chantry was not included in his second mandate. Here again was a confusion of names. The chantry in the chapel of St Anne provided anew to Alexandar Sporeman was in the church of All Saints Oxon. instead of Exon.®?8

This system of administration was necessarily slow. It took time for letters to go back and forth between the collector and the bishops. A bishop needed time to make inquiries in various parts of his diocese, even though he had the work done by his archdeacons or other officials. But the collectors seem to have performed their tasks sometimes more leisurely than the slowness of communications made necessary. The arrears in Arnald’s first mandate had been left by his predecessor. Some of them went back to the time of Hugh Pelegrini and all except three went back at least to 1365. It would seem as if John de Cabrespino had had time before 1 November 1370 to ascertain that some of the nine provisions and confirmations made before 1366, other than the archdeaconry and the chantry, had been ineffective and to have recorded them as such in his last account. Instead he entered them without comment as owing arrears, even including Basch.°** ‘The result was that the lists of arrears continued to be cluttered with provisions which should have been put in the lists which the collectors labeled ‘inutiles provisiones.’ The bishops kept receiving repeated inquiries about the same ineffective provisions,°”° and much time was wasted by them and the collectors. The failure of Arnald Garnerii to supply in his first mandate sufh518 Col. 12, fo. 99V. 519 Col, 13, fo. 6. 520 hid.

1 Actually the cardinal of Urgel made the provision: Col. 12, fo. 107%, Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 133. 522 Col. 12, fo. 1077.

°° Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 133. 524 Col, 12, fo. 99-99%, 1167-187,

525 Fg. Col. 13, fo. 22%, 27, 30%, 777.

374 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ciently full details to enable the bishop to identify some of the benefices, provisors and provisions may have been in part his fault and certainly was in part the fault of his predecessor. This was a failure common to some other similar mandates for which one collector or another was responsible. The large number of instances in which bishops reported that the benefice or the provisor was not in their respective dioceses is indicative of some inefficiency in the administration of the collectors.°?® Sometimes, too, the bishops were not as careful or as thorough as they might have been. They evidently felt it was their duty to answer the mandates of the collectors, though the collectors did not attempt to enforce their execution with ecclesiastical censures. They must have been annoyed by some of the mandates. Not only did they have to sequestrate the fruits of benefices, warn the debtors to appear before the collector, and announce sentences of excommunication, but they also had to perform other tasks such as to establish the ineffectiveness of a provision or the value of a benefice by means of witnesses,”*’ and to declare sequestrations relaxed and sentences

of excommunication withdrawn after a debtor had paid his annates.°”® Sometimes a bishop failed to give any answer with regard to an item in a mandate °° and sometimes an answer did not give the information which the collector wanted. John de Cabrespino once remarked: ‘I have never been able to get any good certification concerning that benefice.’ °°° Now and then a bishop reported that a benefice was not in his diocese when it was. For some of these mistakes bad misspellings account,°** but there seems to have been no excuse for the report of a bishop of Lincoln that ‘Cosyngton’

(Cossington) was not in his diocese and little for the failure to recognize ‘parva Kynewell’ as Little Kimble.°*? Occasionally a bishop refused to impose sequestration for a justifiable

reason. When John de Cabrespino ordered the bishop of Norwich to sequestrate the fruits of East Dereham to obtain the annates owed by Simon Sudbury, who by then had become bishop of London, he wrote that the incumbent rector was a secretary of the king and none dared to enter the rectory for the purpose of sequestration.°** Contemporaneously the bishop

| of Lichfield would not execute sequestration of the fruits of the priory 520 Eg. Wrykebam’s Reg., Il, 243-44; Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, pp. 229-30, Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 17%; accounts of collectors, passim. 527 F.g., Reg. Appelby, pp. 158-59, 161, 250-51.

628 Fig. Reg. Brantyngham, I, 296; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae S. 419. 528 Col. II, fo. 47%.

589 Col. 12, fo. 23. See also fo. 191. °°? Above, p. 357.

8? Col. 13, fo. 7-8. The bishop of Norwich failed to identify the rural deanery of

Waxtonesham as Waxham: Col. 12, fo. 1719. 583 Col. 11, fo. 40.

Annates 1327-1378 375 of Monks Kirby ‘on account of the fear of death and the torture of the body.’ °** Between 1372 and 1378 the bishop refused to impose sequestra-

tion in one instance because a royal writ had prohibited him °° and in another because the lay patron, Lord Audley, was too powerful.°*® All that a collector could do under these circumstances was to wait for better times. Arnald Garnerii, however, could repair the damage done to part of one of his mandates by a French attack on the coast of England. In 1377 the bishop

of Winchester gave to the official of the archdeacon of Winchester for execution the portion of the mandate relating to the archdeaconry. ‘The official left it in his church, whence it disappeared when the French invaded the Isle of Wight.°?7 Despite the compulsory system of sequestration and excommunication,

a large part of the payments of annates were not made at the contracted times and the collectors had to struggle with many arrears. John de Cabrespino and Arnald Garnerii often arranged with those provisors who were still in occupation of the benefices from which the arrears were owed a new series of two to four instalments for what was still owed.®*® Occasionally a taxpayer secured from the camera postponement of the dates when payments were due,°*® and in rare instances the camera remitted payments of annates.°*® Many taxpayers seem to have found annates a difficult obligation to meet. If a provisor died owing annates, they might be collected from his goods if they sufficed; if they did not, from his benefice.**t In England the executors paid what the deceased owed for annates in a few instances, but the circumstances were usually exceptional. Reginald Brian, when he became

bishop of Worcester, owed the whole of the annates for the prebend of Netherbury, in which, after his promotion, Raymond Pelegrini succeeded him. After the bishop died in 1361, Hugh Pelegrini thought that his executors ought to pay the annates rather than his successor in the prebend. In another instance he sought the balance of annates due from a deceased provisor from the executors of a clerk who had had the fruits of the benefice under sequestration.°** In other instances he obtained the annates from the successors in the benefices.**3 *84 Col. 11, fo. 48. 585 Col. 13, fo. 9. 586 Col. 12, fo. 191.

87 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 275. °°8 Col. 11-13, passim. 589 Col. 353, fo. 41; 358, fo. 31, 50V-51.

°40 C.P.P., I, 131; Col. 358, fo. 639.

° Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 356-57. *42 Col. 14, fo. 137, 1429. 543 Col. 14, fo. 137, 146.

376 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 John de Cabrespino and Arnald Garnerii emphasized the view that annates were a real obligation on the benefice rather than a personal obligation

on the provisor. If a provisor against whom annates had been charged originally no longer held the benefice, they generally attempted to collect any balance due from the successor who was in possession of the benefice. This seems to have been their normal procedure,** but there were still some exceptions. Arnald Garnerii obtained annates from the executors of two provisors. In one instance the reason for recourse to the executors was not stated.°*° In the other the successor was Henry Penhal, chancellor of the exchequer, who was influential enough to persuade the executors of his predecessor to pay the annates,°*® thus removing the charge against the benefice for which he might have been held responsible. In many benefices the collectors met a situation which made it impossible to exact arrears of annates from the successors. If the successor held the benefice by royal presentation, he could obtain a royal writ prohibiting the collector from attempting to collect the arrears left by a predecessor. Arnald Garnerii sometimes tried to proceed against such successors despite the writs,°** and he protested to the king against the use of such writs,°** but his efforts were in vain. Against many such entries in his accounts he noted that the item slumbered until the present successor should have a successor.°*?

When it proved impossible to collect from a successor the debt owed for annates by a predecessor, if, as sometimes happened, the predecessor was

still alive, the collector might turn to him in disregard of the theory that the debt was real and not personal. This was done several times when archbishops or bishops were the predecessors. Lewis Charlton, bishop of Hereford, provides an illustration. Before he became bishop in 1361 he held by

papal confirmation the prebend of Nassington in the church of Lincoln. When the prebend became vacant by his consecration, he still owed the whole sum of £100 due for annates. John de Cabrespino, after he was forbidden by the king to levy the sum from the bishop’s successor in the prebend, asked the bishop to pay it. His request went unheeded,®*° and Arnald Garnerii seems to have been no more successful when he applied to the exec-

utors of Bishop Charlton.°°* Arnald had similar experiences with both ®44Col. 11, fo. 6%, 8, 11, 44, 52, 55%; 13, fo. 85%; 12, fo. 157%, 160%-63¥, 171¥-72¥, 1747-175, 196, 202%, 204. °45 Col. 12, fo. 186-186V. 548 Col. 13, fo. 159. °47 Col. 12, fo. 161, 176%; above, pp. 365-66. °48 Below, pp. 377-78. 549 Fg Col. 13, fo. 5, 8, 11%-12, fo. 146, 152, 167%, 170%, 202V.

550 Col. 11, fo. 43%, 1757; 12, fo. 28, 101%. 551 Col. 13, fo. 7V.

Annates 1327-1378 377 archbishops and with some bishops. He reported that they were unwilling to pay annates, though he had made repeated requests.°°* “That was one difficulty. A collector apparently could do no more than request a bishop to pay. He could not use against him mandatory processes and ecclesiastical censures. To this episcopal opposition there was one exception. William _ Reade, bishop of Chichester, after a ‘multiplicity’ of requests, paid £40 which he had owed for annates of the provostship of Wingham. He asked that the money should be returned to him, if the camera should rule that he was not held to pay it.°°* This doubt about his responsibility for the debt seems to rest on the belief that the debt was real and not personal. If such a belief was common among the bishops, it created a second and more serious difficulty for a collector who tried to recover such debts.

Arnald Garnerii protested so much about royal writs of prohibition that he probably influenced the government to fortify them. On 3 June 1372 a writ informed him that royal clerks collated or presented to benefices

by the king were not accustomed to pay annates to the pope and ordered him to desist from demanding them from Thomas de Orgrave who held the

archdeaconry of Cornwall by royal collation. If he ought not to desist, he was to explain the reasons to the chancellor under his seal. He replied three days later that according to the apostolic registers the archdeaconry of Cornwall, when vacated by the death of Thomas David, was provided to Alexander Neville by Innocent VI on 23 August 1361, making the archdeaconry liable for the assessed value or one-half the fruits. He petitioned the king therefore to be allowed to collect what was owed the camera despite the royal writ, since nothing prejudicial to the king could be inferred, if the debt to the camera should be exacted from that benefice.®** Entries in Arnald’s accounts make it evident that his petition was not granted.°”® Sometime thereafter before 27 July 1374 Arnald twice presented in the royal council, when the Black Prince was presiding, a much more extensive petition in behalf of the rights of the papal camera that were being prejudiced by royal writs. He requested remedy in the king’s parliamentary council or in his chancery. The petition set forth four specific instances in which writs of prohibition prevented the collection of arrears of annates due from successors who had been presented by the king, three in which such writs prevented their collection because the benefices were in lay patronage, and several in which such writs had been issued because the benefices were occupied by the king for the recovery of debts owed to him. 552 Col, 13, fo. 6-6%, 22; 12, fo. 160%, 165, 167%, 170, 179V.

| 53 Col. 13, fo. 187.

°°* Chancery Misc. Bdle. 16, File 7, no. 8. 555 Col. 13, fo. 6; 12, fo. 160V.

378 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 He also asked that one clause in such writs should be changed, because, according to the canons, the temporal power could not coerce the spiritual without peril to souls. The clause read: ‘we command you, enjoining strictly, that you relax the sequestration imposed by you and your other censures.’ The final request did not relate to the writs of prohibition. It asked that he might be free to send money to the camera by exchange when he so desired without regard for the royal hindrances and prohibitions on the export of money.°°* These requests likewise did not receive a favorable response.°°?

His last petition was no more successful, though the use of the particular

writ of prohibition concerning which he complained, as he explained its issue, appears to have been more arbitrary than those which had caused his previous protests. On 14 April 1377 he asked the chancery not to hinder his collection of annates from William de Salisbury for the papal confirmation to him of the prebend of Blewberry in Salisbury. The prebendary, on 2 July 1376, in the collector’s house in London, had sworn on the gospels to pay the annates in three instalments and Arnald thought he ought not to go against his oath.°°§ William was the brother of Lady Alice [Perrers] and they had obtained the writ of prohibition on 23 April 1377.°°° Before 18 November 1380, however, William had been presented to Blewberry by the king,°®° and it seems probable that the presentation had been made before the writ was issued. The result of these petitions against writs of prohibition and of other activities of Arnald seems to have been the addition of certain clauses to the oath of loyalty to the king required of papal collectors. Aside from some collectors who had been appointed to the king’s council and had consequently taken the councillor’s oath, Arnald Garnerii appears to have been the first collector who had taken such an oath. On 13 February 1372 he swore to be loyal to the king, to do nothing prejudicial to the king, his realm, his laws, his rights or his subjects, not to execute papal letters or mandates displeasing or prejudicial to the king or his subjects, to deliver any papal letters received by him to the king’s council before publication and to send no money out of the realm without the consent of the king or his council.°*t After Arnald left England on 6 March 1378, Laurence de Nigris acted as his locumtenens until Arnald’s successor was appointed in 1379. Sometime in 1378 he took the oath of fealty to the king which included two new clauses. He promised not to exact annates from benefices 558 Col. 13, fo. 127-127.

°°7 His last account, 27 July 1374 to 6 March 1378: Col. 12, fo. 143-266", passzm. *58 Ancient Corres. 38, no. 53. 559 Co], 12, fo. 158Y.

56° C\P.R. 1377-81, p. 579.

°°: Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 933-34, C.C.R. 1369-74, p. 424.

Annates 1327-1378 379 to which the king had made presentation or from benefices obtained by papal expectancies.°® 18. THe YiELp or ANNATES, 1349-1378

The amounts which the collectors received from annates in England may be compared with their total receipts from England.*** Throughout Total Receipts Average

receipts from annual

annates receipt from annates about

Hugh Pelegrini, 1 August 1349 to 1 June 1358 °° £6711 £4958 £551

Hugh 1 June 1358 to 1 September 1363 °° 5113 4046 809 John 28 February 1364 to 20 May 1366 °* 2391 1322 661 John 20 May 1366 to 18 February 1368 °° 2326 1309 655

John de Cabrespino, 28 August 1363 to 7 March 1364 °** 1764 1352 °67

John 18 February 1368 to 1 November 1370 °° 2053 1422 534 1 November 1370 to 28 February 1372 °” 721 446 °7 335 Arnald Garnerii, 28 February 1372 to 27 July 1374 °° 3286 2614 1080 Arnald 27 July 1374 to 6 March 1378 574 2689 °° = 2102 816

John de Caroloco, locumtenens of John de Cabrespino,

the period from 1349 to 1378 the income from annates was more than onehalf of the total income received by the collectors and in some portions of the period it was three-quarters or more of their total receipts. Not quite all the annates received by the camera from English benefices were delivered by the papal collectors in England. Occasionally a provisor

who owed annates paid them directly to the camera. There were eleven payments of this sort, which I have noted, between 1345 and 1377. They amounted to £1130 3 s. 8 d.°7® Seven of the payers were cardinals. Some 582 C.C.R. 1377-81, p. 224.

588 Any receipts from Ireland have been deducted. In all three columns the shillings and pence have been omitted if less than 10 s. and counted as a pound if 10 s. or more. 564 Col. 14, fo. 277, 48V-49V.

°8 Col. 14, fo. 108-1087, 118-19. 586 Col. 11, fo. 10%, 117, 70.

°°? The rate would be £2704 for a year. 568 Co]. 11, fo. 154, 158-59. 589 Col. 12, fo. 14, 177-18. 579 Col. 12, fo. 73, 797, 82¥-84. 571 Col. 13, fo. 38-41. 572 My addition. 678 Col. 13, fo. 122, 1877, 190. 574 Col. 12, fo. 2287, 230%, 236, 241%, 243-243¥, 2617-2639.

75 This omits £8026 11 s. received from the subsidy. Arnald did not collect it and the comparative standard would be lost by its inclusion. The subsidy of 1362 did not go through the collector’s hands. "6 They were as follows: 3 April 1345 Wm. de Vayraco, prebend Salisbury, 160 fl.: I. & E. 237, fo. 29. 15 June 1353 Wm. de Navesby, church Owston, 167 fl.: I. & E. 270, fo. 19¥. 13 Feb., 26 Sept. 1355, 4 Jan., 22 June 1356, Roger Holm prebends London and Lincoln, church Oundle £50 6 s. 8 d.: I. & E. 277, fo. 37; 271, fo. 112.

380 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

cardinals paid annates through their proctors in England to the collector and others found it more convenient to pay them to the camera. These eleven payments of English annates were not the only ones made directly to the camera. On 29 June 1376, for example, the camerarius issued an acquittance to Simon Langham, bishop of Palestrina, for 4560 florins in payment of all the benefices which he held by papal provision.®** Several of his benefices were in England.°’® I have found no record of the receipt of this sum in the cameral registers. Doubtless there were other payments of

which there is no record, or the record of which has escaped my attention,’’® but the total amount of the payments made directly to the camera was small compared with the amount of those which were made to the papal collectors. If the known payments of annates rendered by the payers directly to the camera be added to those made to the collectors, the annual average yield during the twenty-eight and one-half years from 1 August 1349 to 6 March 1378 was about £726. Of the other revenues which the papacy received from England in this period only two had a larger annual average yield. ‘The services from 1351 to 1375 produced an annual average of about £1150. From the two subsidies of 1362-63 and 1375-76 the papacy received £24000. ‘This represents an annual average receipt, if spread over twentyfive years, of £960. The highest annual return from census in this period was £9 11s. Peter’s pence was stable at £199 6s 8d. Annates were therefore among those English revenues which were of the highest importance to the papacy 1n this period. 12 Feb., 8 & 29 Nov. 1356, Richard Derbi, archdeaconry of Nottingham, £17: I. & E. 278, fo. 36¥.

1362, Audoin Aubert, bishop of Ostia, archdeaconry of Lincoln and a prebend, 250 fl, prebend Masham York 120 fl.: Inst. Misc. 2242, rotulus 16, m. 1. 20 Aug. 1366, executor of Bertrand, cardinal de Turre, church Brompton, 43 fl. 4 s.: I. & E. 318, fo. 31. 12 Nov. 1372, executor of Mark de Viterbo, priest of St Prassede, prebend Strensall York, 300 fl.: Col. 465, fo. 76. 27 Nov. 1372 Wm., bishop of Ostia and Velletri, prebend Thame Lincoln, 871 fl. 2 s. 8d.: Col. 465, fo. 79V-80.

28 March 1375, Anglicus, bishop of Albano, deanery of York, archdeaconry Buckingham & prebend Sutton Lincoln, 2447 fl. 17 s.4 d.: L & E. 343, fo. 42. 17 June 1376, Wm. d’Aigrefeuille, priest of St Stefano al Monte Celio, archdeaconry Berkshire, archdeaconry and prebend Wells, prebend Corringham Lincoln and prebend Highworth Salisbury, £259: I. & E. 344, fo. 27. 13 Feb. 1377, Hugh de Sancto Martiale, deacon of S Maria in Portico, prebends Thame Lincoln and Driffield York, 1000 fl.: Ob. 42, fo. 97.

The florins have been converted to pounds at the rate of 3 s. for a florin. 77 WAM. 9226*.

*78 Col. 12, fo. 156, 165, 178%-179, 1819.

°7° The camerarius between 1374 and 1377 ordered Arnald Garnerii to supersede his demands for annates from four cardinals who had paid at the camera: Col. 12, fo. 158, 181-82, 199, 204. I have not found the records of their payments.

Cuapter VIII ANNATES 1378-1534 1. THe GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROVISIONS AND ANNATES 1378-1417

T HE development of papal annates in England during the schism from 1378 to 1417 cannot be traced with any fullness of detail. Even its general course is not always clear. No accounts of papal collectors in Eng-

land who held office after Arnald Garnerii are known to be extant. The Introitus and Exitus Registers of the camera of the popes of the Roman line are lost except a few fragments. Though no definite figures can be adduced 1n proof of it, one change of fundamental significance can be rea-

sonably well established: the amount of annates received by the papal camera from England had declined by the close of the schism. ‘This conclusion follows from the evidence that the number of effective papal provisions, confirmations and surrogations to English benefices was ultimately restricted as a result of the policies followed by the English government with regard to them.

During the pontificate of Urban VI (1378-89) papal provisions and expectancies continued to be large enough in number to cause dissatisfaction both to parliament and to the administration. Even the approximate number cannot be established by existing evidence. The registers of petitions for the pontificate are lacking and only a few registers of the letters issued by the chancery exist. Provisions and expectancies were granted throughout the pontificate,’ but the inference that the number was large rests upon the actions taken by the English government.

These actions in the early years of the reign of Richard II centered around the claim that the pope was not keeping his part of the agreement made between Gregory XI and Edward III during the years from 1373 to 1377, the agreement contemporaneously called the treaty or concord. The last two parliaments of the reign of Edward III had asserted that Gregory XI was breaking his promises.” The first parliament of the reign of Richard II, which began on 13 October 1377, renewed this complaint. The petition of the commons dealt with three aspects of papal provisions which they wished to have remedied.* What they meant by the first *A formulary of petitions to the papacy: Cotton MS., Vitel. F. II, fo. 40%, 46¥-47¥, 73, 867-88", 92%-100; royal licenses to accept provisions: Rymer, Foedera, IV, 86, 89-90, 95-96, 101, 108, 134, 161, C.P.R. 1377-81, pp. 548, 615; 1381-85, pp. 29, 48, 230, 243, 299, 300, 326, 365, 401, 404, 407, 408, 447; 1385-89, pp. 279, 280, 417, 531; 1388-92, pp. 33, 91, 107. * Above, pp. 355-56. ° Rot. Parl., Tl, 18-19.

382 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 is not clear. The papal collector was demanding annates from all English receivers of papal provisions. This was new and counter to the treaty made by Edward III with the pope. Since the payment of annates by English papal provisors was not new, the objection was probably to a demand for annates from benefices which previously had not been compelled to pay them. The only benefices of this sort were those obtained by means of expectancies. If this was the significance of the request, it was not necessarily a breach of the papal agreement. Gregory XI had promised to stop the exaction of annates from benefices gained by expectancies issued after 1 March 1374. Arnald Garnerii in 1377 was collecting annates from benefices acquired by expectancies granted before 1 March 1374.4 The commons apparently thought that the collection of annates from benefices obtained by expectancies was to have stopped on 1 March 1374 whatever the date of the expectancies. The desired remedy was a royal command to the collector to cease such novelties and a command to the king’s subjects not to pay annates for such benefices under penalty of a heavy forfeit to the king.

The second grievance was that the pope was providing by reservations to vacant benefices against the law and against the purport of the treaty.

This appears to be more than Gregory XI had promised with regard to reservations, although it was an interpretation put upon his promise by the administration as well as by the commons.*® He had refused to limit his right to reservations, though later he did revoke a general reservation made by Urban V and special reservations made by him and his predecessors. Possibly the commons believed that he was not keeping his promise to use the reservations in such a way that they would not give reasonable grievance to king or kingdom.® If that was their view, the two parties could argue for a long time about what constituted a reasonable grievance. The remedy which the commons suggested, however, seems to indicate a belief that Gregory XI had promised to give up the use of provisions to English

benefices entirely. They wanted a parliamentary ordinance forbidding any subject to pursue or to receive an English benefice from the apostle under pain of losing his allegiance and being put outside the protection of the king. The third topic of complaint was the number of benefices held by aliens.

They were alleged to be mostly French who sent the revenues of their benefices to their relatives and friends who used them to support the war against the king. The revenues, according to the assertion of the commons, * Above, p. 353, n. 345. © C.C.R. 1377-81, p. 35.

° Above, pp. 352-54.

Annates 1378-1534 383 amounted to £10000. ‘The remedy sought for this evil was to prohibit the king’s subjects from acting as farmers or proctors of the alien provisors under penalty in person and goods. The answer was that the lords of the great council would ordain due remedy for the matters contained in the three bills. The further request that the petitions of the two previous parliaments on the subject should be read and suitable remedy provided was ignored. The council does not appear to have enacted any ordinance immediate-

ly, but in the course of the reign remedies along these three lines were attempted. The first one followed in 1378, when a clause was inserted in the oath required from the locumtenens of the papal collector forcing him to agree to collect no annates from benefices obtained by papal expectancies.° ‘The two collectors who followed during Richard’s reign, Cosmatus

Gentilis and James Dardani, had to take the same oath.® The latter, in 1389, received a severe reprimand from the king for attempting to collect annates from the holder of a prebend received as the result of an expectancy and an order to revoke his demand.?®

After the accession of Urban VI in 1378, the grievances with regard to provisions and annates were temporarily pushed into the background. The new pope, on 11 May, soon after his coronation, granted to Richard II the privilege of nominating persons for provision to two canonries and prebends in every cathedral and secular collegiate church in England, Wales and Ireland and ordered the archbishop and the bishop of Lincoln to make the provisions.’° The king accepted the gift and made his nominations during the next few years.'! This gesture of good will resulted in annates being demanded from those who obtained the canonries and prebends, because the provisions were made by apostolic authority.’?

| During the summer of 1378 news of the schism reached England." The problems arising therefrom had to be considered by the parliament which assembled at Gloucester on 20 October 1378. It acknowledged Urban VI as the true pope and enacted legislation to uphold the decision. It ordained that if any of the king’s subjects should purchase provision, benefice or other grace of the pope other than Urban VI, he should be outlawed and his goods and chattels forfeited."* Some Englishmen had * Above, p. 378. > C.C.R. 1377-81, p. 257; 1385-89, p. 610. °C.C.R. 1385-89, p. 654.

Wilkins, Concilia, UI, 130-31, C.C.R. 1377-81, p. 183, Cotton MS. Vitel. F. Ul, fo. 151; Lambeth, Reg. Sudbury, fo. 52¥-53, York, Reg. Neville, I, fo. 107. C.P.R. 1378-81, pp. 328-30, 333, 367, 538, 601; Exch. K. R. Eccl. Documents, 25/11.

” Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), p. 88. | ** Reg. Sudbury, fo. 50¥-51, 53%-54v. 4 Statutes of the Realm, I, 11.

384 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 already petitioned the rival pope, Clement VII, for expectancies. During November 1378 ten such petitions were granted,’® but thereafter the prohibition was effective.t® The same law ordered the benefices of the cardinals who adhered to Clement VII to be seized into the king’s hands. The king at first ordered the revenues to be delivered to the royal treasury.” On 8 November 1378, however, Urban VI informed the king that he had reserved the fruits of the rebellious cardinals of which two-thirds were

to be paid to the papal camera and one-third was to be applied to the repair of the benefices from which they were derived.’® The king accepted the arrangement. He authorized Cosmatus Gentilis to collect the revenues of these benefices for successive periods which extended to 1 November 1384.*® By that time the benefices, the collation to which the pope had reserved to himself,*° had probably been filled with new incumbents.7?

The commons in the parliament of Gloucester contented themselves with one mild protest concerning provisions. More of the rich benefices of the realm than previously, they said, were in the hands of foreigners to the ruin of the houses and the hospitality of the benefices. This complaint was met adequately by the reply that the benefices of cardinals in rebellion against Urban VI were going to be confiscated by the king,”? since the French cardinals held most of the benefices in the hands of aliens.

Before this parliament met the government had already sent Walter Skirlaw to the papal court to obtain from Urban VI a confirmation of the agreement between Edward III and Gregory XI.?* On 8 November 1378 the pope wrote to the king that he could not answer fully with regard to the treaty because the registers of Gregory XI were not yet in his possession. ‘The most he would promise was not to make any innovations in the practice of English provisions, to nullify any changes that he might make by inadvertence and to grant as far as possible graces sought for royal clerks.** Further negotiations followed this unsatisfactory answer ?° with 16 CPP. I, 539-40, 544, 549.

*°'The only probable exceptions were petitions granted on 9 March 1379 and 18 January 1389: C.P.P., I, 547, 572. *"Rymer, Foedera, IV, 66.

8 Ibid. The reservation of the revenues of the benefices of the supporters of Clement VII for the papal camera was a general policy of Urban VI: Graf., Papst Urban VI, p. 82. *° C.P.R. 1377-81, pp. 373, 546, 1381-85, p. 16, Rymer, Foedera, 1V, 66, 98, 117, 140-41.

20 CPL. IV, 262. 21 They appear to have been given largely to cardinals who were supporters of Urban VI: Rymer, Foedera, IV, 86, 89-90, 95-96, 101, 108, 109, 129, 134, 161. *? Rot. Parl., Ill, 46. ** Late in June 1378: Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 270.

**Rymer, Foedera, IV, 115. *° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 273, 277.

Annates 1378-1534 383 a result that was negative. On 18 March 1380 Urban VI told the king that it was his intention to observe the concord, if it was reasonable. Since he still did not know its terms, he asked the king to send him a copy of it.”°

Meanwhile, in the parliament which met on January 1380 the orators of the clergy asked the king with the advice of the lords and others of parliament to ordain that the accord be firmly held. The king replied that he and the magnates approved, provided the pope kept his part of the agree-

ment.??

The attempt to bind the successor of Gregory XI to the agreement was renewed in 1381. On 5 May John Hawkwood, Nicholas Dagworth and

Walter Skirlaw were appointed to negotiate further on the issue. They were supplied with copies of the documents which constituted the concord.?® In their first demand for a confirmation they claimed that Richard II had observed the undertaking of Edward III with regard to the royal right of patronage, but that Urban VI, perhaps by inadvertence, had not kept the promises of Gregory XI.?° When the pope replied that he had not seen the concord and was not fully informed of its contents, the envoys

explained its terms. It consisted, they said, of two parts. The first was contained in six papal bulls and two royal letters. They dealt with the past,

but they implied that nothing contrary to them should take place in the future. The second consisted of the replies made by Gregory XI in 1373 to the envoys of Edward II which were set forth in another bull. They promised remedies of English grievances in the future. The envoys asked therefore that Urban VI would keep his promise made to the king and confirm the bulls of which they had with them copies authenticated by the great seal of the king. If the confirmation was not given, the king would

either force the observance of the agreement or use the royal right of patronage as it had existed before Edward III limited it in 1377. In their last interview with the pope in 1382, they stated that his reply was not yet satisfactory. The English government wanted a definite confirmation of the agreement or to have a copy of it, to which reference could be made, deposited in the papal archives. Otherwise each time there was a grievance it would have to be put before the pope in consistory for a new decision. The loss of the registers of Gregory XI ought not to deprive the English of the

right to have the treaty on record. Unless the concord was confirmed or registered in the papal archives and the breaches of it were revoked, the °° Rymer, Foedera, IV, 116. 27 Rot. Parl., Ill, 86. *° Rymer, Foedera, IV, 115-16.

** Notes on the negotiations kept by the English envoys: Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 392-404, Perroy’s account of the negotiations, ibid., pp. 278-81.

386 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 council and magnates of England would regard the papal answer as a denial of the concord. Urban VI, unmoved by this threat, withheld his confirma-

tion. The news of the final failure of negotiations came to the English government in the summer of 1382.

While the negotiations were taking place, the royal government was enforcing the statute of provisors of 1351 and at the same time, according to the inference that the six bulls applied to the future, the treaty. It was having arrested or outlawed individuals who attempted to obtain by papal provision benefices which were in the advowson of the king or of other lay patrons. °° Concerning benefices in the patronage of the latter the pope also took action. He was informed that the right of lay patronage was sometimes used deceitfully by English ecclesiastical patrons to escape the demands of those having papal expectancies. The ecclesiastical patron would lease, give or convey by a sham contract or sale his right of advowson to

a layman who could invoke the protection of a royal writ of prohibition against the expectant. On 10 December 1378 he ordered any such arrange-

ments to be revoked.*" The royal government also tried to maintain the treaty in other ways. A writ of prohibition was issued against a clerk whom Gregory XI had provided to a prebend on the basis of a reservation made

by Urban V.** In 1375 Gregory XI had revoked such reservations. The government petitioned Urban VI in the name of the king to annul provisions which were regarded as violations of the treaty or to silence a provisor whose provision was classed in the same category.* During the period of the negotiations parliament was also active, serving as the watchdog of provisions. At the Michaelmas session of parliament in 1380 the commons asserted that according to the treaty no English benefices were to be given to England’s enemies, a statement which seems to

be contrary to the fact. They had learned from Englishmen at the papal court that Urban VI had violated this agreement by providing two French cardinals to benefices. They prayed remedy for these and other provisions to aliens. ‘Iwo remedies were provided. The king with the advice of the temporal lords would write to the pope asking him to give no English benefice to an alien. A statute was enacted with the advice of the temporal lords forbidding any subject of the king or other person to act as proctor, farmer or attorney for an alien holder of a benefice without a royal license °° C.P.R. 1377-81, pp. 803, 363, 464, 579, 632; 1381-85, p. 87; C.C.R. 1381-85, pp. 341-42.

** Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, pp. 47-48. An example of a papal provision, made on 5 November 1343, which was rendered ineffective because the benefice had been filed by a lay patron who leased the advowson for a period of years from the ecclesiastical patron appears in the account of Hugh Pelegrini: Col. 14, fo. 82. °2 C.P.R. 1377-81, p. 577.

°° Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 10-11, 25-26.

Annates 1378-1534 387 given with the consent of the council. Any person who had previously accepted such an office was to leave within forty days. None licensed to act in such a capacity could send money or other commodity out of the realm by bill of exchange or otherwise without a royal license. No bishop or other person was to sequestrate the fruits of benefices given to aliens. ‘The penalty for breach of the statute was that of the statute of provisors.** The practice of requiring alien provisors to obtain licenses had begun in 1380 several months before the enactment of the statute, as far as cardinals were concerned. A license authorized a cardinal to execute his provision and to collect the fruits of the benefice by farmers or proctors. Eight cardinals had received such licenses before parliament met.*® Among them was one of the French cardinals of whom the commons complained.** Several more licenses were issued during each of the next four years,*’ while Urban VI was collating to the benefices left vacant by the deprivation of the cardinals who had supported Clement VII. Thereafter they were infre-

quent for the remainder of the pontificate of Urban VI.** The licenses appear to have been granted more or less as a matter of course, but after the statute of 1380 they were given only to Italians except to the cardinal of Alencgon for another benefice. In two instances licenses were withheld because the benefices were occupied by clerks who had been collated by local

patrons. These provisions, the king claimed, ran counter to the treaty which had been confirmed by Urban VI.*** In another instance the king revoked a license granted to a cardinal, because the prebend in question had

fallen into a ruinous state through the neglect of aliens who had held it before.®®

The commons felt that the system of licenses for foreign provisors was not accomplishing what they had hoped from it. In the parliament which met on 4 November 1381 they said nothing specifically against it, but they pointed out that dignities and elective benefices were being filled by aliens. The chief offenders in this respect were cardinals who had been licensed to hold archdeaconries, chancellorships and similar dignities in cathedral churches. They also objected to the number of provisions to abbacies and °* Rot. Parl., Ill, 82-83; Statutes of the Realm, Il, 14-15. *° Rymer, Foedera, IV, 89-90, 95-96, 101: C.P.R. 1377-81, p. 548.

“Ralph de Monteruc, priest of St Pudenziana, known as Sisteron. The name of the other French cardinal was not given by the commons. It may have been Philip d’Alengon, bishop of Ostia and a relative of Richard II. He also received a license. *" Rymer, Foedera, IV, 108-109, 128, 134, 161, C.P.R. 1377-81, p. 615; 1381-85, pp. 29, 48, 230, 300, 401, 404, 407-408, 447.

tT fo 1385-89, pp. 279, 280, 417, 531; 1389-92, pp. 33, 91, 107; Cotton MS. Cleop. E. 880 Rymer, Foedera, IV, 163; CP.R., 1381-85, pp. 237, 240. °° C.P.R. 1381-85, pp. 243, 339.

388 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 priories. Their request for a new statute against provisions of this type was denied with the statement that previous statutes were sufficient.*®

After the negotiations for confirmation of the treaty failed, a similar complaint of the commons in the autumnal parliament of 1382 was met with a similar reply,*? but when the question was brought up again in the parliament which assembled on 26 October 1383, the request for new legislation

was finally granted. The statute provided that the statute of 1380 should be kept and added that if an alien purchaser of a benefice should take possession of it without the special permission of the king, he would incur the penalty established by the statute of provisors of 1351 for those who purchased abbeys or priories. The commons on this occasion asked further that the king would refrain from giving licenses to foreigners during the wars. The extraordinary answer was incorporated in the statute. The king ordered his subjects to abstain from requesting such licenses and he would stop granting them during the wars excepting the cardinal of Naples and others to whom he might be indebted.*” This statute appears to have made no significant change in the legal status of alien provisors, but possibly the complaints of the commons had some effect on the administration. In 1384 the government ordered the bishops to certify the benefices held by aliens,** and after 1384 the number of licenses issued to foreigners declined. Annates were the cause of grievances put forward by the commons in

the parliament which began on 6 October 1382. Formerly, they said, annates were paid only for benefices vacant in the Roman court and for confirmations had in the Roman court. The collector at present was demanding annates from benefices granted by common grace and by special expectancies. Though the meaning of “common grace’ is not obvious, this grievance was probably based on a popular misconception current in England that benefices were vacant at the papal court only when the incumbents died there,** whereas the papacy had held since the days of John XXII that any benefice included in a reservation of benefices to papal collation which became vacant was vacant at the papal court.*® A second petition claimed that

fruits of benefices vacant twelve to fourteen years before were being demanded of present incumbents *® who could not produce acquittances. *° Rot. Parl., HI, 117.

“1 Rot. Parl., Il, 138. “2 Rot. Parl., Ul, 162-63; Statutes. of the Realm, IU, 34-35.

*SC.C.R. 1381-85, p. 481; Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), p. 69, Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp.

CPR. 1391-96, p. 33; 1396-99, p. 46, Malverne in Higden, Polychron. IX, 243, Higden, Polychron., VIII, 496; Historia Vitae Ricardi II a Monacho de Evesham, Hearne,

P «= Above, p. 308. | “* F.g., above, p. 373; below, pp. 409-10.

Annates 1378-1534 389 The result was that annates were being paid two or three times for the same provision. The remedy suggested was to require that annates must be levied within three years of the vacancy. The answer to both petitions was that such prohibitions would be made as would suffice in the case, unless some-

thing new is attempted.*” It may be doubted, however, whether such prohibitions were promulgated. After 1383 the commons were silent about provisions until they returned to the charge against alien provisors in the parliament that came together on 1 October 1386. This time they asked that no cardinal or other foreigner should be allowed to hold a benefice in England and that those who took the benfices of aliens at farm should be outlawed. This extreme stand which ignored royal licenses did not appeal to the government. The

king in reply willed that the statutes already made with regard to alien provisors should be held and kept firmly.*®

Two years later, at the parliament which opened at Cambridge on 9 September 1388, the commons turned their attention from alien to English provisors. [he statute which resulted forbade a subject of the king to go or send out of England to provide or purchase for himself a benefice with or without a license, unless he had special leave of the king himself. A person

who accepted a benefice without such leave was to be outlawed and the benefice would become void and subject to the spiritual or temporal patron.*? The new aspect of this legislation seems to have been the strict requirement of a license which the king had approved personally in order to sue legally for a papal provision. Previous to 1388 few licenses to seek papal provisions or pardons for papal provisions previously obtained issued to Englishmen were entered on the patent rolls °° compared with the number issued to foreigners.’ Indeed, the situation with regard to papal provisions granted to Englishmen during the reign of Richard II previous to 1388 seems to have remained much the same as it had been during the reign of Edward III. Richard II continued to protect those whom he presented to benefices from papal provisors by prohibitions and arrests.°? Since 1381 commissions had been issued from time to time for the seizure of papal bulls at the ports or elsewhere,®* which should have enabled the council to prevent such provisions as it opposed. After the treaty became a dead letter “" Rot, Parl., Ul, 141. *° Rot. Parl., Il, 222.

*° Statutes of the Realm, Il, 60, Knighton, Chron., Il, 308, Higden, Polychron, VIII, 488; Malverne in Higden, IX, 197; Walsingham, Hist., II, 177. °° CPLR. 1381-85, pp. 299, 326. ** Above, p. 387.

52 Above, p. 385; C.P.R. 1385-89, pp. 128, 164, 172, 321. "8 C.P.R. 1377-81, p. 627; 1381-85, pp. 80, 197-98, 350, 494; 1385-89, pp. 83, 172, 386-87.

390 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 in 1382, however, provisions of Englishmen to benefices in clerical patronage do not appear to have been prohibited ordinarily. After the enactment of the law of 1388, the number of licenses issued to Englishmen grew rapidly. The license authorized the recipient to go to the Roman court to obtain from the pope provision to an ecclesiastical benefice notwithstanding any statute or ordinance to the contrary. Beginning

on 19 July 1389 several were issued during each month.** During the month of December and the month of January 1390 previous to the twentythird more than 150 were granted.®* This sudden and enormous increase was probably due to advance knowledge of the probable enactment of a new statute of provisors which finally took place on 29 January 1390. The third statute of provisors, as it is usually called, was enacted at the request of the commons in the parliament which met on 17 January. They wanted the statute of 1351 renewed with certain additions.°* The statute followed the suggestions offered by the commons in the main except for the imposition of more moderate penalties.*” Even so, it was more severe

than the statutes of 1351 and 1365. The statute, after reference to the statute of 1307, recited verbatim the statute of 1351 and declared it to hold good for all archbishoprics, bishoprics, dignities and benefices vacant on or after 29 January 1390. In addition to the penalties contained therein, anyone who accepted a benefice contrary to the statute was to be exiled and

his lands and chattels were to be forfeited to the king. Their proctors, notaries or other representatives were to suffer the same penalty. Those provided before 29 January who were in possession were allowed to keep possession without penalty. If the king should send by letter or otherwise to the court of Rome at the entreaty of any person, or if any person should send or sue there, whereby anything should be done contrary to the statute,°* the person, if he was a prelate, was to pay to the king the annual value of his temporalities, if a temporal lord, the annual value of his lands, and if of lesser estate, the value of the benefice sought and imprisonment for one year. Provisions made before 29 January could be executed without penalty. One who should bring or send into the kingdom a summons, sentence or excommunication against any person on account of his assent to or execution of the statute would be imprisoned, forfeit all his lands and chattels and incur pain of life and members. If execution of such summons or sentence °4C\P.R. 1388-92, pp. 44, 84, 87, 100, 104, 109, 111, 113, 115, 120, 121, 127-28, 146, 150, 165, 175. 55 Ibid., pp. 95-96, 163, 165-67, 169-81, 183, 202.

5° Rot. Parl., Ul, 266-67. 57 Statutes of the Realm, Il, 69-74.

°° In the petition penalty was to be imposed on one who incited the king to repeal or nullify the law.

Annates 1378-1534 391 should be made by a prelate, he would forfeit his temporalities to the king until redress should have been made; if by a person of lesser rank, he would be imprisoned and fined. The statute was said to have been enacted with the consent of the magnates, but it did not have the approval of the bishops. On 28 February the archbishops of Canterbury and York, in behalf of themselves, their suffragans and their clergy, protested in parliament that they did not consent to this statute but opposed it. They said it restricted the power of the pope and the liberty of the church.* The king brought the act of parliament formally to the attention of the new pope, Boniface IX, in a petition dated 26 May 1390.% Expressing the hope that the apostle would remove all scandals and errors in the government of the church, the petition proceeded to set forth what needed reform in the English church. The ideal conditions which existed in that church in the good old days are now undone by impositions,* provisions and general and special reservations of the apostolic see, which does not select suitable pastors, but appoints them from the view of increasing the income from annates. These usurpations cause intolerable cataclysms and result in the alms of the faithful being used contrary to the intentions of those who gave them. Freedom of elections to cathedral churches and to major and minor elec-

toral dignities is now of little or no effect. When there is one vacancy in an episcopal see, five or six translations follow,® not for virtue but for payment. Ecclesiastical dignities and other benefices are conferred on foreigners who do not reside and of whom some are our enemies. Those who do reside are not familiar with the language. Benefices are granted to some of our subjects who are not suitable, while men of letters fitted for the care of souls have no hope of promotion. The rights of patronage of us and of the faithful are encroached upon. Former kings made statutes that elections should be held freely, that aliens who would not reside should not be admitted to benefices and that ecclesiastical patrons should use their rights of patronage. At the last parliament the magnates and the commons agreed that these statutes should be observed and asked us to enforce them. We ask you therefore to cease these intolerable burdens and to leave the English church quiet and free. The opposition of Boniface [X to the statute of 1390 was far stronger °° Wilkins, Concilia, III, 208, Records of Northern Convocation, p. 345. °° C.C.R. 1389-92, pp. 140-41, Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 119¥-20; D. & Ch. Durham, 2, IV. 5 Regalium;, Diplomatic Corres. of Richard II, p. 80. °** Above, pp. 114-18.

*? Above, pp. 293-96.

392 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

than that of his predecessors to the ordinance of 1343 or to the statutes of 1351 and 1365. He received the petition in September 1390.°* He made no reply to the king immediately, but instead dealt with the statute itself. On 4 February 1391, in a decree which displayed a much more exact knowledge of its terms than could have been derived from the petition, he declared the

statutes of 1307, 1351 and 1390 against provisors null and void. He absolved both ecclesiastical and lay persons from their observance and prohibited any judgments based on them or similar laws under the penalties provided by canon law. They were to be cancelled in all books and registers. ‘hose who had occupied benefices under these statutes were to re-

sign them within two months or suffer the loss of their benefices. The decree was published in Rome.**

When this decree became known in England, the king, believing that some of his subjects at the Roman court were responsible for the attempt to annul the statute, on 31 May 1391 ordered all of them to return to England before 11 November under pain of forfeiture of life and limb. The same penalty was to be applied to any one who brought into the realm bulls or letters to annul statutes, laws or customs of the kingdom and to any one who obeyed or executed such bulls or letters.® Meanwhile, Boniface [X sent as a nuncio Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola, to persuade the king to withdraw the legislation. He was received by Richard II on 24 June.®® The king replied formally on 30 July that he could not change the legislation without the consent of parliament which had enacted it. He was prepared to seek from parliament modifications of the statute which would satisfy the pope and protect the rights of the crown. What he hoped to obtain was a compromise.®”

The parliament met on 3 November 1391. Somewhat reluctantly the commons in full parliament gave a qualified assent to the king’s request. He could make such modification in the statute of 1390 as seemed reasonable

and profitable to him, but the commons reserved the right to disagree with them at the next meeting of parliament. They also stipulated that those presented to benefices by the king or other patrons should not be disturbed in their possession by any modification.®* On the basis of this limited appro-

val, the king referred to the council consideration of the terms of an appropriate concord. The council discussed the question with Damian ** Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 318. °* Raynaldus, 1391 §§ 15-19, C.P.L., IV, 277. 5 C.C.R. 1389-92, p. 341.

°° Malverne, in Higden, Polychron., IX, 247: Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 320. The nuncio also sought permission to seek a subsidy: above, pp. 119-20. ** Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 321, Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 89-90. *8 Rot. Parl., II. 285.

Annates 1378-1534 393 de Cataneis, a knight of Genoa and a member of the papal court, who had been the colleague of the abbot of Nonantola. The latter had set out for Rome after the parliament ended, leaving Damian behind. In February 1392 an agreement was reached that out of three vacancies of each benefice the pope should fill the first and the local ecclesiastical or lay patron the next two. Damian did not have the power to commit the pope to this arrangement, and in May 1392 a messenger was dispatched to put it before Boniface LX ®

When the messenger reached the papal court, Boniface [X refused to accept the compromise and recalled Damian. Rumors circulated at the court that the pope planned processes against the clerks whom the king had presented to benefices and against the prelates who had instituted them and even entertained the thought of translating to foreign dioceses the bishops who had taken any part in the execution of the act of 1390.7° When the news of the rejection of the compromise and of the rumors reached England, Richard II wrote to the pope asking him to refrain from any action against the prelates and against the clerks whom he had presented, and undertaking to have a new compromise approved in the next parliament to be held after Christmas.”? In the parliament which met at Winchester on 20 January 1393 the commons, under pressure from the king, magnates and prelates,"* agreed to allow the king and council to make modifications in the act of 1390. They were, however, to be subject to the approval of the next parliament.” This parliament also enacted a new statute of praemunire in which the principal additions were designed to give protection against the actions which it was rumored Boniface [X intended to take against English prelates.

The commons pledged their support of the king against papal excommunications and other ecclesiastical censures of prelates for the execution of royal commands to institute to benefices clerks presented by patrons whose rights of advowson had been upheld by judgments of the king’s courts. They pledged him support also against papal translations of prelates to foreign benefices without their own consent or the assent of the king. At their instance the temporal and spiritual lords also pledged their support. It was therefore ordained that any who obtained such translations, processes or excommunications, any who brought them within the realm or any who attempted to execute them and their notaries, proctors and abettors should °° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 323-25; Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 95-96, Baldwin, King’s Council, p. 496.

Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 331. ™ 6 October: Diplomatic Corres. of Richard II, pp. 108-09.

Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 335. 78 Rot. Parl., Ul, 301.

394 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

be put out of the king’s protection and forfeit their lands and chattels.” On 6 February 1393 orders went to the keepers of the ports to seize such documents and deliver them to the king and council.”®

Richard II, in the early summer of 1393, sent envoys to the pope to negotiate for a compromise, and in the spring of 1394 he sent another envoy.

They met with no success because Boniface IX still hoped to secure the complete revocation of the statute of 1390.7° To accomplish this purpose he, in turn, sent nuncios to Richard II in 1394 and again in 1396. They likewise failed.*7 The nuncio who came in 1396, however, remained to discuss the possibility of a concord on the basis of authority given to the king by the parliament which met on 17 January 1397 to modify the statute against provisions until the next parliament.”* When he returned to Rome early in 1398, the pope was still unwilling to compromise. On 18 May 1398 he sent as nuncio Peter Dubosc, bishop of Dax, whose ostensible instructions were approximately the same as those of his predecessors.”® He was also authorized, after the statute had been annuled by the English government, to grant absolution to the king, laymen and ecclesiastics of England from sentences incurred under the papal annulment of 1391.8° Nevertheless, he either had instructions, or received them later, to settle for a compromise. This he did on 25 November 1398.°? The terms were as follows. ‘The pope would provide to episcopal dignities those elected by the cathedral chapters who were approved by the

king. If the king recommended one of his subjects other than the one elected, the pope would provide him. In cathedral and collegiate churches the pope was to provide cardinals or Englishmen with three benefices in each church. ‘The pope would fill the first vacancy which occurred and the ordinary would fill the second. This rotation would continue until the pope had made provision to each of the three benefices three times. Collation to benefices in these churches other than the three would remain with the ordinary.** Cardinals were not to be provided to an elective dignity, to the headship of a collegiate church, to a benefice with cure of souls or to a benefice which by law or custom required residence or personal exercise "* Statutes of the Realm, Il, 84-86, Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 331-35. 5 C.C.R. 1392-96, p. 43. *°Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 335-37; Diplomatic Corres., p. 139. 7 C.P.L., TV, 288-299; Proceedings of the Privy Council, 1, 53-54, Higden, Polychron., VIII, 497; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 337-39, 343-44. *® Rot. Parl., Ill, 341, Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 343-44. C.P.L., IV, 303; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 346-47. 8° C.P.L., V, 111.

** Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 419-20: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 19, File 4, no. 12. When the agreement was published by the King, he ordered it to become effective on 8 December. *? Compare Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 349.

Annates 1378-1534 395 of administration. No foreigners other than cardinals were to be provided. Benefices outside of metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, which were in the patronage of the ordinaries or other spiritual patrons were to be filled alternately by the pope and by the ecclesiastical patron unitl a year from the next Easter. This terminus ad quem conflicts with a statement at the beginning of the document that the whole arrangement was to hold good until the next parliament. No papal provision made after the date of the

agreement was to disturb the holder of a benefice who had obtained possession before that date. A royal mandate to observe the provisions of the compromise, which was called the moderation, and to make them known to their bishops was

directed to the archbishops on 16 December 1398.°* The archbishop of York forwarded copies to his suffragans on 10 January 1399.84 On 14 Feb-

ruary 1399 the archbishop of Canterbury ordered the bishop of London to send copies to his suffragans and they were sent on 24 February.** Since Richard II was deposed on 30 September 1399 and there was civil war in

the kingdom for the three preceding months, it may be doubted if the moderation resulted in many papal provisions. No machinery existed for informing the pope of the vacancies which he was entitled to fill other than the petitions of those seeking provisions to benefices. Few petitioners were in a position to learn of more than a limited number of vacancies. ‘The situation 1s illustrated by an action of the bishop of St Davids. On 11 April 1399 he collated Thomas Bretton to the vicarage of the prebend of Brawdy, reserving his right to the next collation. The vicarage had been vacant since 4 March, no claimant had appeared with a papal provision, and he protested that he could leave it vacant no longer.*®

For the purpose of this study it is more important to attempt to form some estimate of how the statute of 1390 was enforced previous to the moderation. It was the statute and not the moderation which the English government recognized after the reign of Richard II. Richard II seems never to have had the slightest intention of observing the statute with regard to the free election of bishops. On 20 August 1390 he recommended his kinsman, Edmund Stafford, for provision to a bishop5° This is the date in C.C.R. 1396-99, pp. 366-67 and in the letters sent by the archbishop of York. In the letters sent by the archbishop of Canterbury the date is given as 16 January 1399. In the text of the mandate the two different dates of the terminus ad quem are given as well as in the moderation which it quotes verbatim. ** Reg. le Scrope, fo. 1499.

85 Wilkins, Concilia, I, 236-37; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 484-87; Episcopal Regs. of St

Davids, 1, 96-100; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 138-39", Lmcoln, Reg. Beaufort, fo. 12Y-13, London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 2519-52. 8° Episcopal Regs. of St Davids, 1, 108-10.

396 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ric,*” and in due course he was provided to Exeter. All the bishops created during the reign of Richard II after 1390 were appointed by papal provision or translation.*® ‘They were mainly candidates designated to the pope by the king.*® This practice had already established under Edward III, and it was destined to continue until 1533. Concerning provisions to benefices from which annates and not service taxes were due, it is more difficult to establish hard and fast conclusions. Papal provisions to English benefices did not cease after 29 January 1390. In the registers of letters of the chancery from 5 to 30 provisions and 2 to 21 expectancies were recorded each year from 1390 to 1399 inclusive.*° These were not all the provisions granted in these years. A formulary of papal petitions in this period provides several examples of provisions and expectancies which were not among those recorded in the registers of the letters of the chancery.®’ Nevertheless, unless the proportion of provisions recorded only in the registers of petitions was much larger than it had been

under Clement VI, Innocent VI or Urban V, the number of provisions issued during these ten years of the pontificate of Boniface LX was smaller than it had been during any decade from 1342 to 1370.

The reduction was probably due in part to the penalties imposed on those who should go or send to the papal court for provisions or should persuade the king to intervene in their behalf. From 29 January 1390 until 1397 licenses to seek or execute a papal provision and pardons for papal provisions already obtained became rare. All of them were issued with the consent of the council, or of the lords and commons or of the magnates in parliament. Four of them, which authorized the execution of provisions obtained before the passage of the statute,°* were in accordance with the term of the act that such provisions should be valid. Another four were for provisions to benefices which had become vacant by the death of their previous possessors in the Roman court.°* These were exceptions to the statute of a type which, according to some chroniclers, was authorized by the parliament which met on 3 November 1391.°* In 1394 and 1395 five *" Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 80-81. °° Below, App. II. °° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 339-41, 346-48, above, pp. 295-98. °° C.P.L., IV, 324-35, 338, 343, 355, 363, 365, 367, 368, 380-81, 383-85, 388, 400-03, 413-21, 423-28, 431, 457-60, 467-70, 472-73, 475, 479, 502, 504-05, 509, 513-14, 529-32, 536, 540-42; V, 13, 67, 69, 73, 78-85, 99-102, 104, 107, 110, 112-13, 153, 165, 170, 178-79, 181-85, 188-89, 203, 206, 238-39, 242, 247, 250-51, 283, 293, 297, 334, 338-39, 341.

° Cotton MS. Vitel. F Il, fo. 73-76, 103¥-04. °? C\P.R. 1389-92, pp. 335-38, 424; 1396-99, pp. 56-57. °° C.P.R. 1391-96, pp. 3, 33; 1396-99, pp. 46, 262.

°* Malverne in Higden, Polychron., IX, 243; Higden, Polychron., VIII, 496; Hist. Vitae Ricardi Il, ed. Hearne, p. 123. The first license of this kind was issued on 1 December 1391.

Annates 1378-1534 397 licenses were granted for other reasons.®® Beginning on 1 February 1397 the policy of the government with regard to licenses changed and thereafter until 22 May 1399 they were issued much more freely, being granted largely to king’s clerks.°* Richard II was then negotiating for a compromise with the pope, and he was also beginning to exercise more absolute power. Mention of the consent of parliament 1s significantly omitted from most of these licenses.

The king petitioned the pope for several provisions after 29 January 1390 and before 1398.°" Provisions for his relative, Thomas Montagu, and for his secretary were to benefices resigned by cardinals,°* which might

otherwise have been provided to cardinals. His much favored secretary received also provisions to two prebends, an expectancy to another *” and the preceptory of St Anthony London to hold in commendam.*°° He also sought a papal confirmation of John Prophet’s possession of a benefice which, it was feared, has been reserved to papal collation and was thus subject to papal provision.*°* The number of provisions permitted to be sought or executed by the king and the administration after 29 January 1390 until 1397 does not appear to have been large and many of them were sanctioned by parliament. The number of recorded provisions during these years, small as it 1s, indicates that some provisions were acquired by the king’s clerical subjects despite the statute and without royal license. It was essential for many of them to go to the papal court for the transaction of business other than that

of seeking papal provisions. Even when the king, in 1391, ordered his subjects at the papal court to return to England, it was necessary to make exceptions of the proctors of the king and of several prelates and of those who were employed in the papal court. During the period within which the clerks at Rome were to return, other clerks were being given permission ** C.P.R. 1391-96, pp. 382, 391, 566, 571. °° C.P.R. 1396-99, pp. 59, 63, 104, 142, 193, 196, 253, 255, 262, 291-92, 322, 379, 381, 403, 420, 493, 513, 517-18, 527, 536, 547, 556-57, 560-61, 563.

** Perroy cites three royal petitions for papal graces, of which some, he says, are for provisions. He dates them tentatively in 1390 and 1391: L’Angleterre, p. 330, Diplomatic Corres. pp. 76, 81-82, 86. One is undoubtedly for a provision, but there is no certainty that any of them asked for a provision to an English benefice. The first does not state what grace was desired. It may have been a dispensation. The second is a request for provision to benefices, but it is not clear whether they were in England or Gascony. The third is a fragment which does not specify what favor was wanted for Arnald Brocas.

On 9 October 1390 he received a dispensation and an expectancy to a prebend in

Bordeaux: C.P.L., IV, 340-41. *® CPL. IV, 401, 473. °° CPL. IV, 428. 0 CPL. IV, 419, 430. '" Diplomatic Corres., p. 105.

398 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to leave England for the papal court. The parliament which met in the autumn of 1391 gave its consent to journeys to Rome undertaken for the safety of one’s soul or for the fulfilment of a vow."°? The government sometimes required from a clerk to whom it gave permission to leave England a pledge to attempt nothing injurious to the king, but the precaution was not sufficient to prevent some of those who went to Rome from seeking provisions for themselves or for others.*” How many of the provisions made by Boniface [X were effective it 1s impossible to determine in the absence of collectors’ accounts. Orders for

the usual search for papal bulls and letters at the ports were renewed in October 1390 and on 3 May 1391.*°* Prohibitions, arrests, outlawry and imprisonment were meted out to provisors who attempted to disturb

possessors of benefices presented not only by the king or other lay patrons but also by ecclesiastical patrons.’°® These disturbed Boniface IX sufficiently to cause him to order the archbishop of York and several bishops to see that certain specified individual papal provisors obtained possession under penalty of 10000 florins for failure.*°® It was in answer to

such a papal mandate, dated 4 March 1391, that the king, on 2 December 1391, forbade the archbishops or others to expel the possessor of a benfice to make room for a provisor contrary to the statute of 29 January 1390."°7 Cardinals who received provisions to benefices from Boniface [X found it extremely difficult or impossible to execute them.*°® Although the evidence concerning the effectiveness of the provisions to English benefices made by Boniface [X during the reign of Richard II is incomplete, what there is of

it seems to indicate that the government after the act of 1390 until 1397 did more to prevent the execution of papal provisions than it had done previously.

A higher degree of probability can be established that the number of provisions to English benefices issued by Boniface IX during the reign of Richard II was less than had been customary previously. The statements of two foreign prelates who were in a position to know what had taken place in England give strong support to this probability. One was Francis, archbishop of Bordeaux. On 12 May 1400 he wrote to Boniface [X to recommend a candidate for provision to his suffragan see of Dax which had been *°? Malverne in Higden, Polychron., IX, 262. *°3 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 325-28. 104 C\P.R, 1388-92, pp. 142, 348; C.C.R. 1389-92, p. 341.

5 C\P.R. 1388-92, p. 133; 1391-96, pp. 77, 82, 323, 446, 1396-99, pp. 83, 492;C.C.R. 1389-92, p. 404. 106 CPL. IV, 368-69, 402-03. 107 C\P.R. 1391-96, p. 82.

°° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 328-30.

Annates 1378-1534 399 left vacant by the recent death of Peter Dubosc, who had negotiated the moderation with Richard II in 1398. The archbishop told the pope that he had made promotions of unworthy candidates to the dignities and benefices of Gascony as a result of the advice of the late bishop of Dax. If the bishop had lived and such promotions had continued, an outcry would have

gone to the King of England to interpose with the pope. If he, the archbishop, had consented to such action, the Roman church would long since have had no greater obedience in these parts than it had in England, and the English custom and observance would have passed over to this region. As it stands, the pope has as full and free obedience here as in any other part

of the world.?” The other was Dietrich of Niem. He was a notary at the papal court during the pontificate of Gregory XI. During the pontificate of Urban VI and that of Boniface [IX to 1395 he was a writer and referendary in the chancery. After an interval he returned to the papal court in 1403 and remained a member of it until 1413.1° In articles of reform which he drew up in 1414 for consideration by the council of Constance he said that Boniface and his satraps had been too greedy in exacting money from archbishops, bishops, abbots and holders of inferior benefices. ‘The consequence

was that first in England and then in Hungary he lost the greater part of these emoluments. From then to this day clerks in those kingdoms do not seek their ecclesiastical titles in the Roman court and hence are disobedient. This, he concludes, ought to be remedied.*** As far as England was con-

cerned, the emoluments which fell away so greatly must have been the annates paid by the provisors to lower benefices, since all the archbishops and bishops acquired their offices by papal provision or translation. Since the bulls of provision went through the chancery, Dietrich had opportunity to know what happened with regard to them. His statement, therefore, provides strong confirmatory evidence that the number of provisions to English benefices declined notably. The balance of the evidence seems to indicate that the act of 1390 as it was administered in the time of Richard II was more effective in the prevention of papal provisions than the act of 1351 had been before.*?” The violence of the reaction of Boniface IX against the statute of 1390 and his prolonged maintenance of it, compared with the lack of any strong oppo09 CPL. IV, 310-11. 1° Jacob, Essays, pp. 26-28.

1 Finke, Acta, IV, 598. Adam of Usk, who was an official at the papal court, noted under 1404 that in England many parliaments were held wherein more stringent statutes were passed against papal provisions, but he did not say what effect they had: Chron., p. 83. “2 Compare Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 328.

400 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sition by previous popes to the act of 1351, give rise to the supposition that he regarded the new act as a more serious threat to his power of provision than the old one had been. The statistical evidence, though of limited value on account of its incompleteness, points in the same direction. The impressions of two foreign observers that the papal right of provision had been seriously limited in England, in view of their qualifications to judge the situation, weigh heavily in favor of the conclusion that the statute of 1390 did reduce the number of papal provisions. This conclusion, if it is true, would predicate a decline of papal income from English annates during the pontificate of Boniface [IX such as Dietrich of Niem said did take place.

Henry IV, at the begining of his reign, apparently thought of negotiating with Boniface [X concerning the statute of provisors. His first parlia-

ment, which began on 6 October 1399, authorized him to make such moderation of the statute as he chose, or, at his discretion, even to annul it.7® The action implied that the moderation negotiated with Boniface [X by Richard II was regarded as no longer valid, and, indeed, the failure of this parliament to ratify it would seem to have rendered it null, since this was the first parliament which had met since the moderation had been estab-

lished. In February 1400 the council had on its agenda the instructions to

be given to the bishop of Hereford and other envoys to be sent to the Roman court touching the moderation or repeal of the statute of provisors.*** What was done about instructions was not noted in the proceedings. Evidence that the embassy was sent has not been found. It is reasonably certain that Henry IV made no agreement with the pope at that time and it is doubtful if he made the attempt. When the next parliament met on 2 March 1401, the commons displayed a lively apprehension concerning the action taken by the preceding parlia-

ment with regard to the modification of the statute of 1390. Well they might. Unlike the similar grants to Richard II, the modification did not have to be reviewed by the next parliament and no parliament had previously granted a king power to annul the statute. The commons, immediately,

asked the king to allow the temporal and spiritual lords to examine the article with regard to the modification of the statute enacted in the last parliament. The king protested, but the examination was made, nevertheless. The lords reported that the modification had been correctly entered in the roll as it had been enacted. The commons, thereupon, came before

8 Rot. Parl., Ill, 428-29. 4 Proceedings of the Privy Council, I, 111.

Annates 1378-1534 401 the king and the lords and agreed to the modification made in the preceding parliament."®

After the commons acknowledged the power of the king to modify the statute they tried to secure some limitations of that power. They prayed the king to make no modifications for cardinals or other aliens to receive benefices. No answer to this prayer was recorded in the roll,**® but 1t may have been the cause of an order of the council forbidding royal officials in charge of the ports to permit any alien to bring into the kingdom bulls or letters prejudicial to king or kingdom until they had been reported to the king or the council.**? The commons also asked the king to abstain from granting licenses or pardons for the execution of provisions. He answered that the last parliament had granted him the power to modify the statute. He was willing to abstain from granting such licenses in the future, but he reserved to himself the right to grant them.’** He gave unqualified assent

to the more moderate request that if anyone accepted a provision to a benefice with the pardon of the king, the provision should be void, if the benefice was in possession of a person presented by a bishop, abbot or other ecclesiastical person.**®

These requests of the commons indicate clearly their view that the moderation made by Richard II in 1398 was no longer in effect. If it had been, licenses would have been unnecessary. Under its terms the pope could make liberal use of provisions which could be executed without licenses or pardons. ‘The statute of 1390 was in force, unless Henry IV should modify or annul it. He never annuled it, but, as his qualified answer to the commons implied that he might do, he did modify it by the issue of licenses and pardons for its breach. In 1399 he licensed the execution of one expectancy which Richard II had authorized the recipient to seek,’*° and in 1400 he pardoned a provisor

for a provision obtained under the same circumstances.’** In 1401 six licenses or pardons were issued **? and in 1402 up to 23 April ten.*?* Their

118 Rot. Parl., Ill, 465-66. 118 Rot, Parl., Ul, 458-59.

117 Proceedings of the Privy Council, II, 60. ™8 Rot. Parl., Ul, 470. 119 Rot. Parl., Ill, 465.

*° Rymer, Foedera, Ill, pt. 4, 170. 121 C\P.R. 1399-1401, p. 43.

+? Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 1, 18; C.P.R. 1399-1401, pp. 450, 533-44, 1401-05, pp. 6, 30. One of them was for John Trevor to accept in commendam a provision to three benefices

for which the king had petitioned the pope: Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 1, 14. This is the only instance of a petition for a provision by Henry IV which I have noted. 128 C\P.R, 1401-05, pp. 34, 46, 51-52, 54, 58, 83, 84, 88-89.

402 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

issue then came to a sudden halt. On 18 April the king announced that none of the licenses or pardons which he had issued was to extend to benefices in his presentation.1** On 17 June he explained that the licenses which

he had granted recently had been issued without his mature thought and declared those which had not yet resulted in the possession of benefices to be revoked. It was his intention, he said, to ordain remedy in the next parliament and thereafter to abstain from granting such licenses.!75 The parliament met on 30 September, but all that it did about the letter of 17 June was to have it entered on the roll.12* The abstention lasted until 4 March 1403. Between then and the death of Boniface [IX on 1 October 1404 seven licenses and pardons were issued. !27 Among them were licenses issued in 1403 for the universities to submit

rolls containing lists of their graduates with requests for expectancies to benefices in the collation of specified English ecclesiastical patrons.’** It had been customary for the universities to send such rolls to the pope from

time to time during the reigns of Edward III and of Richard II before 1390.*7° After the statute of 1390 Richard II granted licenses for the dispatch of such rolls in 1393 with the consent of parliament *°° and in 1399 without such consent.1*? It is symbolical of the current policy of the English government to restrict papal provisions and expectancies that the rolls of 1403 were the last which the universities were authorized to send, since it was essential for the universities to arrange for many of their graduates to obtain benefices and there was no other way to do it. An attempt to find another way, however, was being made. In 1402 the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge complained to the king that the statute against provisors prevented them from accepting benefices by papal provision as they were accustomed to.**? ‘The king referred the complaint to the convocation of Canterbury which devised a plan whereby the graduates of the universities should be recommended by a committee of bishops to spiritual patrons for preferment.** The project does not appear to have been put into opera-

°4 Tbid., p. 94; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 1, 26. 125 C.P.R. 1401-05, p. 105. 728 Rot. Parl., Ill, 490-91. 127 CPR. 1401-05, pp. 212, 325, 327, 332, 374, 397, 415.

7°25 November: C.P.R. 1401-05, p. 325. 2° C\P.P., I, 146-50, 402-08. Urban VI dealt with a petition from Oxford in 1378 and Boniface IX granted the requests in a petition from Cambridge on 15 May 1390: Cotton MS. Vitel. F. II, fo. 74¥-75. It was probably sent in 1389 or early 1390: Jacob, Essays, p. 229. *8° Rot. Parl., Ill, 301. *92 C\P.R. 1396-99, pp. 547, 561.

78? Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 311. 183 Regs. Gifford and Bowett (Wells), pp. 32-33.

Annates 1378-1534 403 tion, but later the convocations of Canterbury and York made more successful arrangements for the local provision of benefices to graduates of the universities, 734

Papal provisions which were recorded in the registers of letters kept by the chancery during the remainder of the pontificate of Boniface IX after the accession of Henry IV averaged fourteen a year and expectancies ten.*°° Boniface IX was followed by Cosmatus Gentilis, who had been papal collector in England during the early years of the reign of Richard II. He was made archbishop of Ravenna in 1387, later translated to Bologna and raised to the cardinalate by Boniface [X.*** During the three years of his pontificate, from 11 November 1404 to 6 November 1406, 31 provisions and 22 expectancies were noted in the registers of letters,’*” a reduction in

the annual rate. Royal licenses and pardons, to the contrary, increased greatly. In 1404 after 1 October there were 4,1** in 1405 27,'%® and in 1406 before 6 November 54.'*°

This increase aroused the apprehension of the parliament which met on 1 March 1406, was prorogued on 19 June and assembled again on 1 October. ‘The king was requested to ordain that royal licenses or pardons would be of no effect when issued to a provisor who disturbed by an appeal to the court of Rome an incumbent holding a benefice by collation of the rightful patron. In such a case parliament wanted the statute of 1390 en-

forced. The king practically denied the petition. He was willing to have the statute enforced ordinarily, but he refused to give up his prerogative of modification reserved to him by parliament.*** In the next parliament, which met on 20 October 1407, an attempt was made to secure the same object by an ordinance applying the penalties of the statutes of 1351 and 1390 to bishops who ousted an incumbent of a benefice by a process not instituted by a summons obtained within the realm. The answer was hardly more satisfactory. The council, it was stated, had power from parliament +84 Jacob, Introd. to Reg. Chichele, I, pp. cliii-clviii. 185 C\P.L., V, 183, 185, 250, 284, 287-90, 294, 296-97, 337-41, 343, 366-67, 373, 388, 421, 441,

447, 455-58, 462-64, 467-69, 491-92, 502, 520-21, 523, 538, 558, 576, 578-84, 595-96, 613, 615-16, 618.

‘8° Graf., Papst Urban VI, p. 58a, Diplomatic Corres. of Richard Il, pp. 59-60, Malverne

in Higden, Polychron., IX, 212, 221; Royal and Historical Letters during the Reign of Henry IV, I, 45-46. 187 CPL, VI, 25, 38-41, 43-44, 49-50, 52, 54, 56-63, 72, 80, 84-86, 88-91.

188 C.P.R. 1401-05, pp. 455, 465, 467, 480.

189 C.P.R. 1401-05, pp. 453, 489, 496-97; 1405-08, pp. 2-5, 10-13, 22, 26, 42, 44, 46, 49, 82,

94, 104-07, 138, 143; Proceedings of the Privy Council, I, 282. 40 CPLR. 1405-08, pp. 108-11, 114-16, 125, 161-62, 164, 167, 169-72, 187-90, 195, 209-10, 216, 218-19, 223-25, 242, 260, 278, 281, 288.

141 Rot, Parl., Ill, 595.

404 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to hear the case of one who was so aggrieved and it would do right to the parties until the next parliament, reserving the prerogative of the king.** A second request of the parliament of 1406 was that a license should apply only to benefices becoming vacant after the date of the license. It was explained that a provision or expectative grace was sometimes obtained without license and a license obtained a year or more later.*** If the benefice had been filled by the patron during the interval, the provisor would disturb the possessor.‘** This was granted and made a statute in more inclusive terms than those of the petition. It ordained that no license or par-

don granted for a papal provision before or after the date of the statute should be valid for any benefice full of an incumbent at the date of the grant of the license or pardon.**° After Gregory XII became pope on 19 December 1406 until the council of Constance met in 1415 the number of provisions and expectancies entered among the letters registered by the chancery dropped sharply. The largest number of provisions noted in any one year was seven and in several years

there were only two or three. Of expectancies the largest number was six and in several years there was none.*** The royal licenses and pardons did not fall off quite as sharply in the remainder of 1406 and in 1407,"** but thereafter they were fewer even than the provisions and expectancies.**° The parliament which was convened in the autumn of 1407 felt, as most of the preceding parliaments of Henry IV had done, that the system of licenses and pardons resulted in an enforcement of the statutes of provisors which was less strict than was desirable. In addition to the attack on a specific abuse of the system,**® an attempt was made to put an end to licenses

and pardons. In a petition which reviewed the evils of provisions in a manner reminiscent of earlier times it was prayed that all statutes made against provisions, the executors of provisions and the translations of bishops by Edward III, Richard II and Henry IV and the additions to them should 142 Rot. Parl., Ul 614-15.

+48 For an example see Jacob, “To and From the Court of Rome’ in Studies presented to M. K. Pope, pp. 160, 170. 144 Rot. Parl., II, 596. Another petition for the same thing stated differently and com-

plicated by reference to the revocation of licenses on 17 June 1402 was vetoed: Kot. Parl., Il, 599. 145 Statutes of the Realm, II, 193-94. 146 CPL. VI, 113, 116, 121, 123-25, 127, 129, 154, 162, 165-66, 192, 195-97, 217, 232, 239, 244, 248 251, 276, 298, 309, 320-21, 365, 369, 395, 415, 420, 433, 454, 471-74, 492. 147 C.P.R. 1405-08, pp. 261, 263-64, 266, 268, 272-73, 277-79, 281-83, 285, 294, 296, 310, 325, 330, 343, 346, 348, 373-74. 148 C.P.R. 1405-08, pp. 410, 429; 1408-13, pp. 187, 216, 290, 370; 1413-16, p. 90; Rymer,

Foedera, IV, pt. 2, 32; Proceedings of the Privy Council, II, 113. 1449 Above, p. 403. The king also notified the estate of 47 clerks in their benefices, but only one of the benefices was said to be held by papal provision: C.P.R. 1408-13, pp. 236-38.

Annates 1378-1534 405 be held and kept, notwithstanding the modification of these statutes previously made to the king. The petition also sought free elections to archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, priories, deaneries and other dignities undisturbed by the pope or by royal commands. The king approved the petition saving his liberty and prerogative.**** This saving clause, which was retained in the statute,’®° rendered the legislation of little practical value. The royal liberty and prerogative left the king free to manage elections and translations of bishops by means of papal promotions, and Henry IV and his successors continued to do so except for the brief period during

the sessions of the council of Constance when no pope was acknowledged.**! He also continued to issue licenses and pardons for other provisions, but possibly the notable decline in their number may have been due to the action of parliament. For the remainder of the reign of Henry IV parliament was silent on the subject of papal provisions, but the king had something to say about them. When he wrote to Alexander V a congratulatory letter acknowledging him as pope, he took occasion to express his views on certain aspects of ecclesi-

astical affairs. He asked particularly that nothing should be attempted against statutes and ordinances of his kingdom which had been observed to date with the consent of all, and that no novelties should be introduced derogatory to his crown or realm. If anything should come to the ears of the pope about the statutes and ordinances, he hoped that judgment would be postponed until the next general council.’°? He hoped in vain, for Alexander V sent to him envoys who asked for the repeal of the statutes of provisors. The king wrote in reply that he would send ambassadors to answer the papal request after taking counsel with the estates of the realm, since ordinances or statutes previously enacted could not be revoked without the assent of the estates.1°? The statutes and ordinances were not defined in either of the king’s letters, but they were obviously those against papal provisions. Whether or not parliament was consulted, the legislation remained in effect. The extent of the limitations placed on papal provisions in the time of Henry IV received a tribute from a strange source. In a diatribe against Henry IV ascribed to Richard le Scrope, archbishop of York, before he was executed for participation in a rebellion in 1405, the king was accused 1498 Roz, Parl., Ul, 621.

45° Enacted about 1 December, since it authorized those who had purchased translations or provisions before that date to execute their graces: Statutes of the Realm, Il, 161. 53 Above, p. 170; below, App. II. 152 A ddit. MS. 24062, fo. 155¥.

*88 Jacob, ‘Some English Documents’, Bulletin of Jobn Rylands Library, XV, 379; Essays, pp. 74-75.

406 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of having ratified a statute which had been renewed at the parliament of Winchester. He thus attacked the fulness of the papal power to collate to all benefices. The result of the statute had been that bishops, abbots, priors and other prelates had conferred benefices on young, illiterate and unworthy persons. The statute also had a ruinous effect on the universities, since local prelates gave insufficient attention to the learning of those whom they collated.*°* The ascription of this document to Archbishop Scrope 1s

doubtful, but it certainly came from the enemies of Henry IV.1 The exercise of their right of advowson by ecclesiastical patrons was attributed

wrongly by the writer to a confirmation of the statute of praemunire enacted at Winchester in 1393; it was due to the enforcement of the statute of provisors of 1390. Perhaps the evil results need to be taken with a grain of salt, but the implication that an extensive check had been placed upon the papal right of provision deserves credence. The long line of English legislation against papal provisions was brought to a close in the early years of the reign of Henry V. In his first parliament, which began on 14 May 1413, the commons asked that all statutes against provisors enacted by Edward III, Richard II and Henry IV should be kept

in force with no protection or other grant to the contrary by the king to be permissible, saving the prerogative of the king. To that the new king could answer happily ‘let the statutes made with regard to them be held and kept,’ *°° since by then it was well established in practice that papal provisions to bishoprics or other benefices and papal translations could be licensed at the will of the king. In the same parliament it was pointed out that alien Frenchmen still held benefices in the realm, though the statute of 1390 had forbidden it. The king responded with an order to put the statute into execution except against the priors of alien conventual priories

and of some other priories.**” ,

The final act was passed by the parliament which assembled on 19 Octo-

ber 1416. Complaint was made that the statute enacted by the parliament of 1406 making a royal license or pardon for a papal provision invalid, if the benefice was not vacant at the date of the license or pardon did not always protect incumbents appointed by ecclesiastical patrons. The result was a new statute which repeated the statute of 1406 and added that incumbents of benefices in the gift of spiritual patrons might enjoy their benefices without molestation by provisions and licenses. All licenses and pardons for provisions to benefices so filled were to be void.1"®

*°4 Historians of the Church of York, Ul, 301-02. , *°° Wylie, History of England under Henry IV, Il, 214-16. 156 Ror. Parl. IV, 8. 187 Statutes of the Realm, Il, 172-73. 158 Tbid., Il, 193-94.

Annates 1378-1534 407 There were a few prosecutions of those who had obtained bulls of provision in violation of the statute of 1390 in the early years of the reign of Henry IV *°° and one at the beginning of the reign of Henry V.*® That there were so few and that there were none against those whose provisions conflicted with royal presentations to benefices, which had been the cause of so many prosecutions during the reigns of Edward III and Richard I, may perhaps be due to the omission from the patent and close rolls of the records of other similar cases. It seems more probable that it was due to a reduction in the number of such cases by the better executive enforcement of the statute of provisors. Perhaps the attitude of the government toward papal provisions during the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V is reflected in

an opinion of the chief justice in one case. When Henry Chichele was provided to St Davids in 1408, Gregory XII authorized him to retain in commendam the benefices which he had held before his consecration as bishop. The king claimed that a prebend which he had held in Salisbury became vacant by his consecration. When the case was tried in 1409 the chief justice said: “The grant of the apostle cannot change the law of the land.’ 16

In the English opposition to papal provisions the principal landmarks are the ordinance of 1343 and the statutes of 1351 and 1390, but the extensive supplementary legislation did much to plug the gaps which were found to exist in these acts. The administrative orders and the judicial processes were also of vital significance. But the factor of fundamental importance

was the manner in which the executive side of the government chose to exercise the royal prerogative to permit papal provisions to be used in violation of the legislation which the king had sanctioned. During the reign of Edward III, as is demonstrated by the accounts of the papal collectors, despite many provisions which were rendered ineffective by the action of the government, a large number of provisions was allowed to become effec-

tive. The king sometimes issued licenses or pardons in the form of letters patent for the execution of provisions, but most of the provisions made effective were either authorized by the government in some other manner or were permitted to take effect by failure to enforce the existing legislation against them. The attempt to make a compromise with Gregory XI in the closing years of the reign of Edward III led to no significant permanent result. In the early years of the reign of Richard II the practice with regard to the use of the prerogative seems to have remained without notable change

until the parliament of Cambridge in 1388 placed a heavy penalty on one 159 CPR, 1399-1401, p. 82; C.C.R. 1399-1402, pp. 127-28, 501.

99 C.C.R. 1413-19, pp. 112-14. : **1 Hook, Lives, V, 23.

408 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 who went or sent to the papal court for a provision without a royal license. This placed a new emphasis on licenses. The immediate result was a large increase in the number of such licenses, but after the statute of 1390 incorporated the terms of the act of 1388, the executive granted licenses sparingly. It isin this particular that the act of 1390 became a turning-point in the reduction of the number of papal provisions. During the years of Richard’s arbitrary rule from 1397 to 1399 licenses were issued more freely. During the reign of Henry IV parliament tried to put an end to the system of royal licenses, but Henry IV would not give up his prerogative to use them. In practice he granted them in moderation except in 1405 and 1406. Thereafter he issued few, and during the reign of Henry V only one is recorded in the patent rolls before the beginning of the council of Constance. The legislation against provisions was adequate, but its enforcement by the executive was weak until the system of royal licenses was comprehensively established and kings began to grant so few of them—except for archbishoprics, bishoprics and abbacies which owed the services—that the number of papal provisions was severely limited and the papal income from annates was greatly reduced. 2. THe ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES 1378-1417

The popes made some changes in the administration of annates during this period. Urban decreed, on 7 September 1379, that letters concerning

vacant benefices should not be expedited through the chancery or the camera until the persons whom the benefices concerned had been obligated to pay annates.*®? Previously the ordinary practice had been to have the

collector obtain the obligation from the provisor. If the new rule was applied to English benefices, the camera must have sent notices of the obligations to the collector, since he still continued to collect the annates. This rule of the chancery was not repeated in the rules of Urban’s successors previous to the council of Constance. Boniface IX, on 9 November 1389, declared benefices with incomes of 24 florins or less exempt from annates.*°* ‘This remained in effect for the rest of the middle ages. T'wenty-

four florins, at the time, were the equivalent of £4.°°* John XXIII demanded payment of annates at the camera before the bull of provision was delivered to the provisor. This was similar to the practice with regard to the services. In the general council of Rome held in 1412, at the request of the university of Paris, the pope promised to ordain that annates should *°? Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, pp. 48-49, no. 12. *88 Graf, Papst Urban VI, p. 77. *°4 Kirsch, ‘Annaten,’ Historisches Jabrbuch, IX, 312; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 31.

Annates 1378-1534 409 be paid one-half at the end of six months and the other half at the end of a year in the locality of the benefice.1*° Apparently this arrangement was local to France and did not extend to England.’® The administrative methods employed for the collection of annates by the first four collectors who held office during this period were the same as those of preceding collectors, as far as the methods are displayed in their mandates to the bishops.*®" ‘The collectors were Cosmatus Gentilis from 1379 to 1388,7®° James Dardani from 1388 to 1397, Lewis, bishop of Volterra, from 1399 to 1407,'7° and Laurence, bishop of Ancona, from 1407 to 1409.27

The attempts of parliament to regulate some of the practices of the col-

lectors met with little success. The demand made in 1382 that annates must be collected within three years of a vacancy made no change in the

practice, probably because the government did not issue the promised prohibition of the existing practice.’"? The collectors in their mandates imposed sequestrations and excommunications in attempts to collect debts for provisions made many years before.’"* The priory of Swavesey provides an example of exceptional persistence on the part of the collectors. On 17 May 1363 the appointment by the bishop of John Walkelyn as prior was confirmed by Urban V.*%* John de Cabrespino, who was then collector, in his last report rendered in 1370, recorded the item in the list of arrears without comment.?7*> His successor, Arnald Garnerii, soon discovered that the annates could not be collected because the priory was in lay patronage. He noted this fact in his account.’** Undeterred by the experience of his predecessor, Cosmatus Gentilis, on 20 November 1386, ordered the bishop of Ely to sequestrate the fruits of the priory and to summon Laurence Rus* Finke, Acta, I, 157-58. “°° Below, p. 549.

*** "They do not indicate whether the obligations during the pontificate of Urban VI were taken by the camera or by the collector. *®° Mandates to the bishops: Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 343-44, 366-67; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), Il, 578; Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 86-88, Nash, History of Worcestershire, I, 353-55; Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, pp. 339, 362; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, XVIII, 93; Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 220%; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113-1139. *° Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 437-38, Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111-13, 119-119¥, 122; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 114¥-15. 7° W ykeham’s Reg., Il, 494-95, 537, 541, 550; Reg. Rede (Chichester), I, 81, 84; Rochester,

Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139-139; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 129-129¥, 142-142; Lamb. Reg. Arundel, fo. 396-396v. 71 Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 164-65. *™ Above, p. 388.

78 E.g., Reg. Gilbert (Hereford). pp. 86-88; Wykehbam’s Reg., Il, 344, 366, 437-38.

4 CP P1422, |

78 Col. 12, fo. 109. 76 Col. 13, fo. 137.

410 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sell, the possessor of the priory, to appear before him to pay the annates due for the confirmation made to John Walkelyn.* The three successors of Cosmatus ordered similar action against the possessors of the priory for the annates owed by John, the last mandate being dated 8 August 1407.***

The memory of the camera may not have been as long as that of the exchequer, but it extended to an eminently respectable length of years.

In one instance parliament took action which was successful. On 17 January 1344 Clement VI provided William de Warrenne to the priory of Castleacre,'”® and he and the convent bound themselves to the camera to pay £480 19s 7 d for annates. Hugh Pelegrini in his last account in 1363 noted only that the whole sum was still in arrear.1®° John de Cabrespino explained in his account of 1370 that the priory was in lay patronage and that William had been immediately excluded because he was a bastard and

a dissipator of the property of the priory.’®* Arnald Garner accepted at first the conclusion that nothing could be had on account of lay patronage,'®* but later tried to collect the annates. At the request of the patron, the earl of Arundel, he postponed the payment to March 1377, but thereafter ordered the bishop to sequestrate the fruits of the priory.*** The earl of Arundel finally brought the case by petition before the parliament which

met on 20 October 1385. The petition stated that William Warenne had never been in possession of the priory by virtue of the papal provision and that, in any case, annates ought not to be levied from a priory in lay patron-

age. The fruits of the priory, nevertheless, had been sequestrated many times and the prior and the monks had been excommunicated and suspended many times. Parliament prohibited the collector from making any demand on or process against the priory for the annates.*** The autumnal parliament of 1407 asked the king to restrain the collectors in three particulars and the king consented. The first was the demand of annates by a collector from a successor of a provisor who had never obtained possession of the benefice to which he had been provided. ‘The second was to establish by statute that those who had not obtained peaceable possession of the benefices to which they had been provided could not be constrained to pay annates. The third was to establish by statute that those

holding benefices by royal title could not be held to pay annates.*** The 7 Kly, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113-1139. 78 Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 119%, 122, 129-1297, 164.

m9C PL. WL, 124. 189 Col. 14, fo. 1319. 181 Col. 12, fo. 100¥. 182 Col. 13, fo. 7. 183 Col. 12, fo. 170.

18427 October 1385: C.C.R. 1385-89, p. 87. 185 Rot. Parl., III, 616.

Annates 1378-1534 411 first had been forbidden by Edward III in 1353.18* The second was not the common practice of the collectors.1®? When by exception such a demand

was made by a collector, Edward III had forbidden it by writ.*8* The third had always been enforced stringently by the king. The need for these restrictions does not seem to have been pressing, and, despite the king’s assent, no new statute appears to have been enrolled. The two last collectors who held office before the council of Constance may not have collected annates from provisors. Marcellus de Strozis, who was collector from 1409 to 1414, sent many mandates to bishops of which

copies have survived. With three exceptions none of them mentioned annates. They were concerned with his procurations, Peter’s pence, and spoils due from the goods of two English clerks who had been papal chaplains.18® His successor, Paul de Caputgrassis, was suspended from office by the council of Constance on 24 May 1415 **° in less than a year from his appointment.*®! The only mandate of his which has come to light dealt solely with his procurations.**? The three mandates which mentioned annates were issued by Marcellus on 20 February and 1 and 30 December 1413.1°* They ordered the recipients to certify him of any churches in their dioceses which had been appropriated to abbeys, priories or other places by Alexander V or John XXIII,

or the appropriation of which had been confirmed by those popes, and whether the appropriations had been completed. If they had been effected, the bishops were to sequestrate the fruits of the churches and to summon the occupants of them to appear before him in London before specified dates prepared to pay the annates due, under penalty of excommunication for failure. The absence of summonses of holders of benefices by papal provision in these or in any of the other mandates is an argument from silence that the collectors from 1408 to 1415 no longer collected annates from persons who received benefices by papal provision. ‘The similar mandates of a long line of papal collectors had included annates due from papal provisors, Peter’s pence, the census, the collector’s procurations and whatever else +86 Above, p. 365. *®7Above, p. 362. 188 Col, 12, 161.

*8° Reg. Stafford (Exeter), pp. 14, 26, 42, 49, 52, 72-73, 75, 105, 114, 124, 238, 258, 262, 283, 293, 295, 314, 320, 342, 346, 350-351; Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 12, 17-18, Reg. Rede (Chichester), II, 413-14; Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25*-40*; Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 14v-15; Worcester, Reg. Peverell, fo. 34. Three of these are so summarized that they do not specify what the bishops were to certify. 190 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 371. 11 CPL. VI, 185.

192 Reg, Bubwith (Wells), 1, 187. The summary of another does not say what he asked the bishop to certify: Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 51. *°8 Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 57, 58¥-59; York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 312¥.

412 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 might be due at the time in one mandate. Another piece of evidence upholds this conclusion. On 1 March 1415, after Marcellus had rendered his account for the whole period of his tenure of office from 1409 to 1414,*°* the pope gave him an acquittance for £1333 3s 10% d collected by him in England in the time of Alexander V and of John XXIII to the date when he was relieved of office.1** If this figure is compared with those above,**® it becomes clear that Marcellus received little from annates. The initiative in bringing about this complete cessation of the levy by the collector of annates from papal provisors was taken by the English government. On 24 June 1408 the king ordered the papal collector, Laurence, bishop of Ancona, under the pain of forfeiture, not to levy upon the benefices of any persons any sums of money by reason of annates until further

order.'*? The mandate gave no explanation of the reason for its issue. It may have been one of the preliminary preparations for the projected general council which was soon summoned to meet at Pisa, but this does not seem probable. Between 12 and 14 May 1408 a group of cardinals who had left the court of Gregory XII notified some princes of the Roman obedience that they had seceded for the purpose of attempting to end the schism. To

this letter they appended a postscript asking the ruler addressed to warn papal collectors in his domains to withhold from the papal camera the papal dues which they collected in order that the money might be used for the

union of the church and not go to Gregory XII who was a destroyer of unity.’°* Henry IV had received a copy of the letter before 25 June,**® but if his order was in response to the postscript, it would have ordered the collector to conserve the funds received from all papal revenues. ‘The prohibition of the collection of one revenue did nothing to promote the unity

of the church. ,

When Henry IV finally did act to prevent the papal revenues in England from being delivered to Gregory XII, the prohibition on the collection of annates still remained in effect. Before he took the action desired by the cardinals, he waited until he learned that some of the cardinals of the rival pope, Benedict XIII, had united with the cardinals who had rebelled against Gregory XII. The union took place at Livorno on 23 June. On the next day they agreed on the course to pursue and the means to take in order to *°* He appears to have been remiss in not rendering his account earlier: C.P.L., VI, 185. 15 CPL. VI, 186. 196 Above, p. 379.

87 C.C.R. 1405-09, p. 324; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 1, 136. *°8 Von der Hardt, Concilium, Il, 62-68; Mansi, Azuzplisstma Collectio, XX VII, 29-33.

*°° The archbishop of Canterbury knew of it on or before 25 June: Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 32-34; Reg. Mascal (Hereford), 60-64.

Annates 1378-1534 413 end the schism.?°° They also wrote to Henry IV advising him of their intentions,”°* although the formal notice of their decision to summon a council was not issued until 29 June.?°? On 1 July the cardinals of Gregory XII called upon all the faithful who acknowledged that pope to withdraw from his obedience and repeated their request that the papal revenues should not be paid to the papal camera.?°* On 8 July Richard Dereham, chancellor of Cambridge, arrived in England, acting as an envoy of the united cardinals. Three days later he delivered letters of the cardinals to the king.*°* While it may not be impossible, it is improbable that he brought letters dated as late as 1 July, but he certainly brought news of the union of the two sets of cardinals at Livorno on 23 June and probably the letter of 24 June.?” After receipt of the news brought by him, Henry IV, on 19 July, appointed John Welbourn to collect all money, revenues and emoluments owed to the pope and to answer for them to the king.*°* This was the first step toward the supersession of the papal collector. On 29 July the convocation of Canterbury ordered all dues owed to the pope to be kept in England until the church should have a single head.?°’ On the next day the king forbade the papal collector to receive any sums belonging to the pope until further order, to revoke sentences of sequestration and excommunication which he had issued and to surrender his registers and documents in order

that the person deputed by the king could levy the money and keep it safe.?°8

After the election of Alexander V, the suspension of the collector was ended on 18 August 1409 as far as Peter’s pence and census were concerned. Laurence was authorized to collect them up to the sum of 1000 marks after

he taken the oath of loyalty to the king. He was to act under the supervision of two merchants appointed by the king.”°? He was not authorized to collect annates, the levy of which had been forbidden by a separate royal *°° Valois, La France et le grand Schisme, IV, 13-15. 7°) Wilkins, Concilia, Il, 290-91.

* Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, VI, pt. 2, 1361-63. °8 Mansi, Amzplissima Collectio, XXVII, 46-49. *°* C.S.P. Venice, I, 174. Dated 1409 erroneously in the Calendar; Wylie, History of the Reign of Henry IV, Wl, 351-52. *°° His report of the reception of the news by the king was addressed to two cardinals, one from each group: C.S.P. Venice, I, 174. *°° Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 1, 137. John Welbourn, rector of Leverington, had been appointed on 29 January 1407 deputy collector by Lewis, bishop of Volterra, to act as his substitute while he was absent from England. John never exercised the office, (C.P.L., VI, 296-97) but his appointment implies that he had acted as an assistant to the collector and was familiar with the business of the office. 207 Cont. Eulogi Historiarum, Ill, 412. 28 C.C.R. 1405-09, p. 342.

°° C.P.R. 1408-13, p. 101; C.C.R. 1405-09, p. 516. He was also permitted to collect his procurations to the amount of £200 annually.

414 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 command issued before the temporary suspension of the collector. Presumably Marcellus de Strozis and Paul de Caputgrassis were also allowed to collect Peter’s pence and census, but the only annates they tried to collect were those owed for appropriated churches to which the royal prohibition did not apply. It was confined to the annates owed by the provisors. Not only did the king lighten the labors of papal collectors with regard

to annates, but Alexander V and John XXIII also contributed to the decrease of their responsibilities for the collection of that due. Alexander V, on 24 July 1409, pardoned all arrears then due for annates.**° John XXIII

began to have annates exacted by the camera when the bulls of provision were issued for a short time thereafter. Apparently his experience with English annates was somewhat similar to that of Boniface [X with the services. He obtained cash on delivery of the bulls when he could, but postponed payment in some instances. The deferred payments appear to have been left to be rendered to the collector in England. Other circumstances might cause the collection to be assigned to the collector. John X XIII sometimes ordered the commissioners or nuncios, whom he authorized to oversee exchanges of benefices and nuncios whom he empowered

to exercise the papal power of provision locally, to notify either the camera or the collector of the provisions which they made and of the names of the provisors.?** After the council of Constance, collectors in England were charged with the collection of the arrears of annates still due for provisions made by him.???

Indeed, both popes intended to have the collectors in England levy the annates which were payable locally. Alexander V, on 30 December 1409, commissioned Marcellus de Strozis to collect them.?12 At that time the only annates due were for provisions and appropriations made by Alexander V himself. Marcellus remained collector after John XXIII became pope on 25 May 1410. His commission, if he received one from the new pope, as was customary, and the commission of John de Caputgrassis, who succeeded Marcellus in 1414, have not come to light. Whether they mentioned annates specifically or defined the revenues to be collected in general terms, the mandates directed to the bishops by Marcellus after John XXIII

became pope leave no doubt that they included annates.?* Since the royal prohibition prevented the collectors from exacting annates for provisions made to persons, they confined their activities to annates due for appropriations. ‘The customary practice followed with regard 72° Above, p. 227.

2 C.P.L., VI, 168, 180-81, 195, 209, 296. On 28 February 1415 he remitted the annates due for an exchange of benefices authorized by him: ibid., p. 488. 72 Below, pp. 429-31. 13C.PL. VI, 148. *** Above, pp. 411-12.

Annates 1378-1534 415 to such annates made it necessary for them to be levied locally. They did not become due until the appropriation had become effective, and a long interval might elapse between the authorization of the appropriation and its completion. The common rule was that the appropriation would not be executed until the incumbent of the appropriated benefice died or reresigned.?*° Only by local inquiries could it be established when that event took place and annates became due. Appropriations were causing some adverse comment in England at the time,?*® but there was no complaint about the payment of annates for them. Moreover, the annates from appropriations represented only a small part of the annates which became due. Perhaps for these reasons they were not included in the royal prohibition of the levy of annates. The amount of the annates paid directly to the camera by English provisors during the pontificate of John XXIII cannot be established. ‘The cameral records are too incomplete. They do record receipts from provisions to English benefices in the following instances.

Date Provisor Benefice Amount florins 3 July 1410 Not given Minsterworth 7” d. Hereford 307° 1411 William de Pilton prebend in Exeter **° 400°?° 27 Jan. 1411 John Burdet *”* archdeaconry Carlisle 200 °°?

27 Jan. 1411 Prior St John of Jerusalem Office of prior 300 223

27 Jan. 1411 John Sunayat (?) Not given 350 74 18 July 1413 John Bremor *** archdeaconry Northampton 300 ***

Before 24

Sept. 1414 William Pilton ?*” archdeaconry York 220 °?8 Same date Thomas Polton ?*° prebend Strensall York 280 7°° 3. THe GENERAL MoveMENT TO REFORM PROVISIONS AND ANNATES

1378-1418

During the schism a strong movement for the reform of the church 215 Fg, C.P.L., IV, 205-06.

28 Rot. Parl., Ill, 468, 499-500; Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 363. 217 “Minsterton’, text.

718 Biblioteca Nazionale Firenze, MS. XIX, 80, fo. 119V.

7° His estate in the prebend was ratified by the king in 12 March 1411: C.P.R. 1408-13, p. 237.

72° Paid by Aldegherius de Albertis: MS. XIX, 79, fo. 2. 21 Provided 13 December 1410: C.P.L., VI, 192. 22 Paid by the same: MS. XIX, 80, fo. 139¥. 28 Ibid; C.P.L., V1, 169-70. 224 MS. XIX, 80, fo. 1399. 22> Provided 28 June 1413:C.P.L., VI, 454.

2° For part of annates: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1831, fo. 1219. 227 Surrogated 27 July 1414: C.P.L., VI, 474. 228 Biblioteca Nazionale Firenze, MS. XIX, 81, fo. 93. °° Provided 22 September 1414: C.P.L., VI, 474. 280 MS. XIX, 81, fo. 93.

416 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 developed. Though the end of the schism was desired above all else, many

felt also the need of the elimination of abuses. The advocates of reform who voiced the need by writing pamphlets were not heretics like Wyclif,?4? but they wished to create a better church and remain within it. They found many faults in both head and members. Among the evils in the papal court

emphasized by nearly all of them was the extent of papal reservations of benefices to papal collation, papal provisions, expectancies and annates.?3"*

Some wished merely to have rectified the abuses in their administration, which they regarded as having been particularly bad in the time of Boniface [X,?*? some wanted to have reservations, provisions and expectancies reduced to more reasonable numbers, and some to have them and annates abolished entirely.

The English contributed little to this type of literature as far as it was directed against reservations, provisions, expectancies and annates.?** Richard Ulleston, who was a professor of theology at Oxford, drew up in 1408 a series of petitions for the bishop of Salisbury to present at the council of

Pisa, to which he was a delegate. Ulleston demanded that provision to a benefice should never be given for money and referred to annates as an extortion.”** On the other hand, the articles of reform formulated by the university of Oxford and presented to Henry V for the use of the delegates to the council of Constance did not mention provisions and expectancies and spoke of reservations only incidentally. It did ask remedy of excessive fees for creations or translations of bishops as well as for reservations of first *1 "The criticisms of Wyclif and his followers were much the same as those made by the commons in parliament except references to simony and Antichrist: Wyclif, De Officio Regis, pp. 74-75; English Works, pp. 22-23, 144, 245-246, Select English Works, UI, 356-57; Tractatus de Simonia, pp. 31-32, 44; Purvey, Remonstrances, pp. 86-87, 154. *818 The following were written between 1404 and 1415: Squalores Curiae Romanae, in Edward Brown’s Fasciculus Rerum, Ul, 584-607; Aureum Speculum Papae ejus Curiae, ibid., II, 63-101; John Gerson, De Simonia, in von der Hardt, Concilium, I, pt. 4, Nicholas de Clemangiis, De Ruina Ecclesiae, ibid., 1, pt. 3, Theodoricus de Niem, Monita de Necessitate Reformationis Ecclestasticae, tbid., 1, pt. 7. *82 At the council of Constance, for example, one of the articles of inquiry against John XXIII was to find out if, when he was a chamberlain of Boniface IX, he obtained money by mediating between the pope and those seeking benefices. Several witnesses believed that he acquired as much as 50000 to 60000 florins by what they called the sale of benefices and simony: Finke Acta, III, 158; IV, 766, 770, 779, 829, 833-34, 865, 866, 868. Other irregularities are mentioned by Haller, Papsttum, pp. 159-60.

*°° Gower’s plaint represents popular opinion, though it is not the literature of a

reformer:

‘To think upon the days of old The life of clerks to behold. The Lumbard made non eschange The bishoprics for to change, Nor set a letter for to send For dignity nor prebend’: English Works, I, 10. 784 Von der Hardt, Concilium, I, pt. XX VII, pp. 1136, 1165.

Annates 1378-1534 417 fruits unsupported by any written law io the great scandal of the apostolic

see and the whole Christian church. It labeled them avaritia but not

stmomia.??*

At the councils of Pisa and Constance the attempt to reform papal reservations, provisions, expectancies and annates came to naught. At Pisa, after Alexander had been elected pope, it was agreed to postpone consideration of the program of reform to another council which was to meet in April 1412.°8° Henry IV expressed his approval of this arrangement.”87 The council of 1412 was summoned by John XXIII to meet in Rome. Attendance was so scant that it lacked the character and authority of a general council and no reforms were enacted.?**

At Constance a more determined effort was made. On 14 July 1415 a commission was appointed to report on reforms. In this commission the French tried to have annates abolished, but the cardinals put forward the

uncomfortable fact that if the papacy should be deprived of annates, it would be necessary to provide revenue from some other source in order to maintain the central administration of the church.?®° The report of the commission rendered to the council on 8 October 1416 contained no reforms of provisions or annates.”*° Since it was unsatisfactory in other respects, a new commission of reform was appointed in the summer of 1417. It was the understanding that reforms were to be enacted before a new

pope was elected, the way for an election having been cleared by the deposition of Benedict XIII. Henry V upset this arrangement. The priority of reform depended upon its support by representatives of the German and English nations in the council. On 18 July 1417 Henry V ordered all his subjects at the council to obey his authorized representatives, whom he ordered to support the election of a pope before reform.*** The consequence of this reversal of the policy of the English representatives was to reduce the extent of the reforms. The second commission reported to the council on 9 October 1417 before a pope was elected.?*? The council adopted a few of the proposed reforms, but left eighteen of them to be considered by the council with the new pope after he had been 285 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 360-65.

86 Robertson, History of the Christian Church, VII, 330-31, Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, III, 108. 287 A ddit. MS. 24062, fo. 155¥.

*°® Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Ill, 117-18. The French obtained a promise from the pope that annates could be paid locally in instalments: above, p. 409. °° Creighton, Papacy, I, 369-71. 240 Von der Hardt, Concilium, I, pt. 10, 581-644. *4 Kingsford, Henry V, pp. 262-73. *42'Von der Hardt, Concilium, I, pt. 11, 650-62.

418 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

elected. Among them was a limitation on papal reservations and slight changes in services and annates relating chiefly to their administration.*** After Martin V was elected, he treated with a committee of twelve on the eighteen suggested reforms. He finally secured their reduction to six. The council ratified them on 21 March 1418 and left any further reforms to be

arranged by concordats between the pope and each nation. The six reforms included none with regard to papal reservations, provisions, expectancies or annates.?*4

The content of the concordats varied. The one arranged with the Germans, which was ratified for only five years, granted the small reforms with regard to the administration of services and annates which had been recommended by the second commission of the council.?4° ‘The concordat made between the pope and and the English representatives at the council was ratified on 12 July 1418. It was permanent.”*® It did not mention papal reservations, provisions, expectancies or annates.”** The reason for their omission has generally been assumed by modern historians to have been the opinion of the English government that the legislation of parliament as it had been recently enforced gave sufficient protection against papal provisions.?*® If the government held that opinion, its correctness was established

by the test to which Martin V soon put the statute of provisors. 4. THe Atrempt or Martin V to Recover AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO Make Provisions To ENcuisH BENEFICES

Martin V wished to restore the papacy to the position which it had held before the schism. He soon found that the English government had sufhcient control of papal provisions to limit seriously the exercise of papal power in England and also the papal income therefrom. In the summer of 1419 he commissioned Henry Grenefelde, whom he was sending to France about peace, to ask Henry V to interpret, modify or withdraw an English statute which was prejudicial to the Roman church and the papacy. This proved to be the first step in a prolonged series of negotiations concerning the statute of provisors.?*° Henry Morgan answered the nuncio for the **° Tbid., 1, pt. 23, 1022-27; IV, 1449; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, III, 167-70.

***Von der Hardt, Concilium, IV, 1533-41; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, III, 170-75, Creighton, Papacy, I, 395-406. **5'Von der Hardt, Concilium, I, pt. 24, 1062-65. **° Creighton, Papacy, I, 406-07. *“7 Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 108.

““8 Creighton, Papacy, I, 407; Kingsford, Henry V, p. 274. 49 Haller, whose article in Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, VIII, 249-304 is the best and fullest account of these negotiations, attributes the initiative to Henry V. The king, he says, early in his reign asked Martin V not to itervene in the collation to English benefices, which by an earlier agreement between

Annates 1378-1534 419 king at Mantes in the presence of the king and several councilors. The statute, he said, had ben made by the predecessors of Henry V and his father. The king was bound by his coronation oath not to change it without the consent of the three estates in parliament.?°° In 1421, when nothing had been done by the king, Martin V renewed his request. His agent was Simon of Teramo, whom he appointed papal collector

on 6 September 1420.7°* Simon began his work as collector on 13 April 1421°°? On 15 May he appeared before the convocation of Canterbury and recommended that the pope should have the right of provision in the kingdom.?°* He also had an interview with the king about removing the statute which prevented papal provisions to English benefices. On this he reported to the pope that the king did not promise much except good intentions, though he agreed to refer the question to parliament to be treated by the three estates of the realm.?°* Henry V transmitted his answer by Simon,”°° who returned to Rome before 19 October 1421.75* The nature of it 1s known only by the reply of the pope dated 19 October. From the statement of Simon and a letter of the king he concluded that Henry V was well disposed to conserve the rights and liberties of the apostolic see and to keep them in their pristine state in the future. But all that Henry promised, as stated by the pope, was, after his return to England, to have parliament treat the revocation of the statute, and, unless the statute could be sustained honestly and reasonably—as the pope, of course, was sure that it could not be— to satisfy the papal request for justice.?°"

Henry V did not live to carry out his promise. Although parliament met on 1 December 1421, Henry V was then conducting the war in France. After his death Martin V wrote to the members of the council of the infant king, Henry VI. After expressing condolences for the death of Henry V

and good wishes for the reign of the new king, he reminded them that kings and popes pertained to the royal prerogative and belonged to the king. His sole authority for this statement is Duck, Life of Henry Chichele, p. 92. Duck, after dealing with the negotiation of the concordat of 1418, says ‘About the same time’ the king sent another embassy to the pope. His account of the demands made by the embassy is a

slightly garbled version of the negotiations of the ambassadors of Richard I with Urban , VI in 1381 and 1382 as set forth in the document published by Perroy, L’Angleterre,

pp. 392-404.

°° Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 136-37.

1C'PL., VII, 2.

252 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1866, fo. 154. *58 Reg. Chichele, Ill, 66; above, pp. 125-26.

*°* Cotton MS. Cleop. E. H, fo. 353%; Arm. XXXIX, 7a, fo. 80-81. *°5 Issue Rolls of the Exchequer, ed. Devon, p. 381. 756 Arm. XX XIX, 5, fo. 140V.

757 Raynaldus, 1421, §19; Arm. XXXIX, 4, fo. 42-44; 5, fo. 140Y; 6, fo. 67-677; 7a, fo. 80-81. Simon brought also some royal petitions which, on 28 November, Martin V said he was considering favorably: Arm. XXXIX, 4, fo. 109-10; 5, fo. 145-46.

420 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Henry V had given him the highest hopes that, as soon as he returned to England, he would celebrate parliament and provide effectively for the restitution of the rights and liberties of the Roman church. He was confident that these things which Henry V had promised would have been fulfilled had he lived.?°* In this letter the hopes of Martin V and the promise of Henry V, which are kept distinct in the papal letter of 19 October

| 1421, are run together in such a way as to make Henry V appear to have promised more than he did. Martin V followed his appeal to the council by sending to England in March 1423 two nuncios, Simon of ‘Teramo and James, bishop of ‘Trieste.?°°

Information concerning their activities in behalf of repeal of the statute is scant, but one of them seems to have been to persuade English prelates to give active support to its repeal. One of their commissions was to investigate the indulgence of the jubilee which was said to have been offered at Canterbury in 1420 without the sanction of a papal grant.?®° Part of the

purpose of this inquiry may well have been to put pressure on Henry Chichele, archbishop of Canterbury, to use his influence to secure repeal of the statute.?®* On 24 July Simon spent the night at St Albans. He delivered to the abbot a papal bull dated 1 March 1423. A new practice, it explained, introduced on account of the schism, made it impossible for the Roman church to exercise many of its former liberties and rights in England. It was the duty of a prelate bound by oath to the Roman church—as the abbot of St Albans was—to support with all his strength the preservation of those rights and liberties.?° The nuncios also took up the question of repeal with the council.?® Toward the end of June 1424 the council sent to Rome as a royal orator Nicholas Bildeston.?** After the pope learned his business, he wrote to the king expressing his astonishment that the orator brought no tidings with regard to things which his orators had requested in his name. His orators had led him to expect that the king intended to send persons to conclude the affair. The request he had made was just and reasonable. He concluded

258 Not dated: Raynaldus, 1422, §29; Arm. XXXIX, 4, fo. 44-46; 5, fo. 146-48. 258 One of their commissions was dated 19 March: Arm. XXXIX, 5, fo. 150-52; 7a, fo. 85-857, C.P.L., VII, 12-13. 76° Below, indul., 103 g.k.; Raynaldus, 1423, §21; C.P.L., VII, 12. 61 Jacob, Reg. Chichele, I, xliv-xlv. 262 Amundesham, Azn., I, 5. 268 Flaller thinks that the question of repeal was put before the parliament which met

on 1 October 1423 without result, but he supplies no adequate evidence of it: QuF.,,

Me) His expenses were paid from 27 June 1424 to 7 January 1425: Exch. K. R. Nuncii, 322/10.

Annates 1378-1534 421 with an exhortation to the king to be more favorable to the apostolic see.?®° Simon’s activities in behalf of repeal during 1424 got him into trouble with Humphrey, duke of Gloucester. A rumor at the papal court attributed

to the collector a statement that if the pope would decide in favor of the duke a case concerning his marriage with Jacqueline, countess of Hainault and Brabant,?®° he would permit the pope to have complete freedom in the disposal of English benefices. The informer who brought this to the duke’s attention told him that the pope had not given credence to the story. ‘The duke, on 27 October 1424, wrote to thank the pope. Martin V, in his reply dated 13 December, confirmed the statement that he had not believed the

things said against Duke Humphrey and the archbishop of Canterbury. The duke, however, had Simon of Teramo brought before the council, where he defended himself ably. He claimed that the rumor was false and was spread at the papal court by those who were prejudiced against him. John Kemp, bishop of London, was convinced of his innocence and so

apparently was Duke Humphrey. During 1425 Martin V ceased to agitate for the revocation of the statute,”** but in 1426 he renewed the campaign and in 1427 he brought it to a crisis. On 5 April 1426 he sent to England as nuncio Julian Cesarini, auditor of the camera. He spoke in convocation and warned the prelates of ecclesiastical censures if the statutes against the authority of the pope continued to be maintained.?* He also obtained a promise, which the pope said was made by the king, but presumably was made in his name by the council or by the duke of Bedford, who was then in England acting as regent, that the repeal of the statute would be referred to the next parliament.?”° When he returned to Rome, apparently he informed the pope not only of what he had done but also of the attitude of various influential men on the question.?”*

°° The letter is not dated, and Haller puts it under 1422 (pp. 258, 291), but the refer-

ence to Bildeston establishes the date as 1424: C.P.L., VII, 28; Arm. XX XIX, 5, fo. 276-78. The pope’s orators mentioned in the pope’s letter were not sent until 1423.

*°°' When she married Humphrey, her previous marriage with John duke of Brabant had not been legally dissolved, but it was claimed to have been illegal in the beginning. Martin V had been asked to adjudicate this claim: Vickers, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, pp. 133-35, 139-40; Letters and Papers during the Reign of Henry VI, II, 388-89. See also CP.L., VIL, 27. 87 Corres. of Bekynton, 1, 279-85.

7° In a letter of 2 February to John Duke of Bedford he expressed the hope that God would mspire the duke to preserve the liberty and dignity of the Roman church and the apostolic see: Raynaldus, 1425, §7; Arm. XXXIX, 4, fo. 145-46. 6° Haller, QuF., VIII, 269-70. 270 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 480.

*"* Haller, QuF., VIII, 297-99.

422 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 On the basis of this information Martin V spoke his mind vigorously in several letters written during December 1426. On the ninth he addressed the archbishops of Canterbury and York. He had learned with displeasure that in England many bishops and other prelates, setting aside obedience and devotion to the apostolic see, confer many benefices reserved to the disposition of the apostolic see by common law or by the constitutions Exsecrabilis and Ad regimen?" to the scandal of many and in contempt of the apostolic see. Therefore he ordered bishops and other prelates, under penalty of excommunication and of deprivation of the collation to other benefices belonging to them by law or custom, not to intervene in the collation to benefices reserved to the apostolic see. He ordered clerks, under penalty of excommunication, of deprivation of any benefices they held and of obtaining any benefices in the future, not to intrude themselves in any benefices reserved to the apostolic see. He ordered the archbishops to publish the letter effectively. All this was to be done notwithstanding any papal indults or the statutes of Edward HI and Richard II which were against ecclesiastical liberty and which he declared to be reprobated and damned.*”°

On the same day he presented another aspect of the subject to Henry Chichele, archbishop of Canterbury. He opened by scolding the archbishop for his failure to have done anything about the execrable statute and suggested that it was caused by pusillanimity, disstmulation or prevarication. He next set forth the evils of the statute, with which he was evidently familiar. By it, he said, the king disposes of the English church with provisions and administrations as if he were the vicar of Christ. It gives laymen control of benefices and gives to them the keys instead of to Peter. ‘Those who accept benefices from the highest pontiff are ordered exiled or imprisoned and their goods are taken. The executors of apostolic censures or processes are placed outside the protection of the king. The vicar of Christ is not able to take care of his sheep. After this caustic summary of the situation, he ordered the archbishop in his capacity as legate, under penalty of excommunication, to attend the king’s council at its next meeting and to instruct them to repeal and annul the statute in the next parliament. He was also to remind them that officials who make or administer such statutes incur excommunication zpso facto. He was to do the same thing in parliament. Finally, he was to have rectors preach frequently concerning these matters.?"*

He wrote to the king on 1 December reminding him of the promise he 272 Above, p. 322,

278 Wilkins, Concilia, Il, 471-72.

°74 Thid., Ill, 482; C.P.L., VII, 24-25; Pocock, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, IV, 148-52; Raynaldus, 1426, §§19, 20; Arm. XXXIX, 5, fo. 243.

Annates 1378-1534 423 had made to Julian, explaining at length, in terms somewhat similar to those

in the archbishop’s letter, the wickedness and injustice of the statute, and asking if he did not fear to violate ecclesiastical liberty and apostolic author-

ity. In conclusion he said that it was time to cease giving excuses and to put the question before parliament.?” To Bedford he was more pleasant. Since Julian spoke well of the duke, he asked him merely to have the statute abolished. He did, however, postpone an answer to Bedford’s petition for the dispensation necessary for the

earl of Huntingdon to marry Anne, daughter of the earl of March. He said that he would be inclined to grant it, if the statute was annulled in the next parliament.?’° He asked Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester and great uncle of the king, of whose affection Julian assured him, to labor for the liberty of the church. He offered to assist the bishop as Alexander III had assisted Thomas Beket laboring for the same object.?"" If Beaufort was familiar with Becket’s relations with Alexander III, this offer may not have been as conducive to zeal for the cause as Martin V evidently thought it would be. One further letter was written to the archbishop of Canterbury at some time between early December 1426 and early March 1427.?78 In it the pope accused the archbishop of keeping papal provisors out of cathedral churches in order to have more revenue from the vacancies ?*° and of not defending the rights and honor of the Roman church. For these reasons he suspended the archbishop from his office as Jegatus natus and from his right to collect emoluments of other cathedral churches.?°° Before the archbishop received this letter, he had news that, since the

return of Julian to the papal court, rumors were circulating there to the effect that he and the duke of Gloucester were opposing the liberties of the

church and the apostolic see. On 10 March 1427 he wrote to Martin V protesting his innocence and asking that his representative John Morton should be heard.?°*

In this letter the archbishop stated that he was the only one in the kingdom who dared to promote foreigners to benefices. An elaboration of this statement in a letter which he wrote to the cardinals at the same time throws 275 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 480-82. 276 Haller, QuF., VIII, 297-99; Arm. XXXIX, 6, fo. 139¥-140V. 277 Haller, QuF., VIII, 299-300.

78 Tt is undated. Haller dates it 9 December: QuF., VIII, 275-76. Jacob says it was issued late in February or early in March 1427: Reg. Chichele, I, xlv. 7° A reference to the archbishop’s right to administer the spiritualities of episcopal sees during their vacancies. See Churchill, Canterbury Administration, 1, pt. 2, chs. I-IIL. 28° ‘Wilkins, Concilia, III, 484-85,

781 [bid., III, 472-73, Cotton MS. Cleop., C IV, fo. 144-45¥.

424 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 some light on an aspect of papal provisions. Saying that deeds spoke louder than words, he asked the cardinals to consider what others did concerning benefices vacant at the Roman court, even after many requests had been made of them, and how he was the only one who had admitted a foreigner to a benefice in England, though some of the others had more benefices in their patronage.?®* The archbishop referred to a benefice filled with an alien not by papal provision but by his collation at the request of someone at the papal court. Such requests were sufficiently common to cause parliament to take cognizance of them. In 1425 it petitioned the king to ordain that local patrons who collated benefices to foreigners with or without a royal license should suffer the penalties of the statutes against papal provisors. The king denied the petition.*** Apparently the council desired to have freedom to license such collations for foreigners whom it wished to favor. On 16 March 1426, for example, it gave permission to Prosper de Colonna, a nephew of the pope, to accept ecclesiastical benefices in England, which were at the disposal of English spiritual or ecclesiastical patrons, to the value of 500 marks. Although Prosper was provided by the pope to the archdeaconry of Canterbury on 17 April 1426,?** the practice of asking local patrons to confer benefices on foreigners seems to indicate that papal provisions to aliens were difficult, if not impossible, to execute.

Archbishop Chichele, fearing that the pope might be moved to take action against him, took a further step in his defense. On 22 March 1427 he made formal appeal to the next general council against the danger that the pope might attempt to deprive him of any of his rights and powers as archbishop.?*°

The bull depriving the archbishop of his status as legate roused strong opposition in England. It was presumably among some closed bulls which John de Obizzis, the papal collector, delivered to Chichele on 29 March.

| The next day the locumtenens of the constable of Dover, acting on the order of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, arrested the bulls and warned the archbishop to deliver them to the council. A few days later a royal writ,

dated 1 March, was brought to the archbishop. The government had learned that new bulls derogatory to the royal dignity, the king’s lieges and his statutes were addressed to him. He was ordered until the next Michaelmas to bring any bulls which came to him to the council before publication or execution.?°°

788 Rot. Parl., [V, 304-05.

84 Proceedings of the Privy Council, Ill, 190-91; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 119-20; Reg. Chichele, 1, 234; C.P.R. 1422-29, p. 346. 285 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 485. 280 Ibid, Ill, 486.

Annates 1378-1534 425 Soon after 20 April the collector was imprisoned for the delivery of these bulls against the statute.?8” On 16 May he was released under heavy bail until 25 June, when he was to appear before the council to answer for

his offense.?** What took place before the council on that date is not known, but after he took an oath not to violate the laws of the land, he was released.?®9

After Martin V heard of the arrest, on 1 June he wrote to the duke of Bedford ”°° and to the bishop of Winchester for help.?°* He said that although recently in the kingdom of England the jurisdiction and liberties of the Roman church had been oppressed by that execrable statute, previously there had not been such violence as to lay hands on the nuncios and legates of the apostolic see, as was recently done on the person of the papal collector, who was thrown into prison solely because he presented apostolic letters. ‘he pope was stunned and grieved. Even Saracens and ‘Turks, he said, respected his legates and nuncios. He asked for his honor to be upheld. Before Bedford received this appeal, he had intervened to secure the collector’s release on bail.?°?

At some time after 29 March 1427 the archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the pope that he had not read the bull on account of a royal command not to open it, but he had heard that there was a bull which attacked the church of Canterbury. He asked the pope to revoke it, or to appoint impartial judges in England, and to hear kindly John Fitton, whom he was sending to Rome.?®? This was followed by letters commendatory of the archbishop written by several bishops, by the university of Oxford and by some temporal lords between 10 and 25 July.?°* All of them said that it was malignant information which moved the pope against the archbishop. It was not true that he had not defended the Roman church; to the contrary he had moved both secretly and openly in the king’s council in behalf of the liberties of that church, as far as his oath of fealty to the king would permit. Likewise the charge that he delayed admitting bishops provided by the pope in order to have the fruits of the vacancies longer was untrue.

What they wanted was the restoration of the archbishop to the pope’s favor and the revocation of any decrees which had been issued against him.

Neither the protest of the archbishop nor those of his supporters had 287 Chron., Rerum gestarum in Monasterio S Albani, in vol. I of Amundesham, Azz., eae Proceedings of the Privy Council, Il, 268; C.C.R. 1422-29, p. 334. 289 Haller, QuF., VIII, 279. 200 Arm. XX XIX, 4, fo. 1977-99; Addit. MS. 14848, fo. 118-118V.

° Not dated but probably written at the same time: Haller, QuF., VIII, 301-02. 202 Arm. XXXIX, 4, fo. 208-2087, 286¥-288; 6, fo. 139%, 1557. 7938 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 474-75. 294 Tbid., UI, 476-78.

426 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

much influence with Martin V. On 6 May 1427 he anwered the archbishop’s letter of 10 March. It was a fact, he said, that the archbishop, who had taken an oath to defend the rights and privileges of the Roman church, was not doing it. If he wished to prove the contrary, it must be done with

deeds, not with letters of excuse. Again he ordered the archbishop to go before the council and give warning that the statute which contradicted divine and human laws should be abolished. The pope concluded by condemning as false the statement which he had heard was made by the archbishop to the effect that the apostolic see sought the repeal of the statute for the purpose of exacting money.”*> On 4 August he answered the second

letter of the archbishop. He was glad to hear from John Fitton and others that the archbishop was innocent and favored ecclesiastical liberties. He did not, however, revoke his decree against the archbishop, as the archbishop had requested. Indeed, he told the archbishop that he must prosecute the business of healing the wounds of the church and that his excuse of impotence would not be accepted.**° On 13 October 1427, the day when parliament met, Martin V sent re-

minders to the king and to several others. To the king he recalled the several nuncios whom he had sent to warn him that the statute ought to be abolished and his answer to Julian that when the next parliament was convened he would do what was possible to have the papal request carried

out. Relying on the royal promise, he had waited with great patience. Now that it was time for parliament, it remained for the king to keep his word and do his part. The pope said further that he was prepared to make provisions which would prevent the repeal of the statute from causing any prejudice to him and his kingdom. The collector would inform him more fully of the papal intentions. His letters to the archbishop of Canterbury and to the nobles of the parliament of England were of the same general tenor, but in the latter he said that he was ready to provide against the repeal harming the interests of either the kingdom or private individuals.2°7 His letter to the duke of Gloucester contained an additional statement. After speaking of his bitter feeling over the arrest of John de Obizzis, he said that, despite what he had heard to the contrary, he did not believe the duke to be responsible for it and would await his explanation.?°* 7° Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 473-74; Raynaldus, 1427, §16. 29° Wilkins, Concilia, Ul, 479.

2°7 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 479-80; Pocock, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, IV, 155-58; Raynaldus, 1427, §15. What provisions the pope was ready to make is not set forth in any of the letters, nor are they stated in a letter of 13 October to the collectors: C.P.L., VI, 37. 298 Haller, QuF., VIII, 303-04; C.P.L., VII, 36; Arm. XXXIX, 5, fo. 323¥-25. On 6 May he had already expressed his disbelief that Gloucester was opposing repeal of the

Annates 1378-1534 — 427 Archbishop Chichele executed the papal mandate with regard to Parliament on 30 January 1428. Accompanied by the archbishop of York, five bishops and two abbots he went from the room in the palace of Westminster where the lords were accustomed to transact business to the refectory of the abbey of Westminster where the men for the community of the realm sat. The archbishop of Canterbury spoke in English. He did not wish to detract from the king, the crown or the commons, but he wanted them to deliberate on the abolition of the statute of provisors. It was alleged that the scriptures gave to the pope the right of provision. The predecessors of Martin V had

had it in England and Martin V still enjoyed it elsewhere. He exhorted and requested the commons to repeal the statute for the good of their souls and for the peace and prosperity of the kingdom. If their answer was displeasing to the pope, England was likely to be placed under an interdict.

The pope, on the other hand, had promised in divers bulls to provide a reasonable remedy for any evils caused by the repeal of the statute.” The only recorded action of the commons was a request that the king would send an embassy to the pope in behalf of Chichele.®°° The statute was not repealed. Martin V accepted failure. On 29 July 1428 he acknowledged that the testimony given by bishops, other prelates, nobles and the masters of the university of Oxford to the obedience, reverence and devotion of the archbishop of Canterbury to the apostolic see had convinced him that he had been misinformed by perverse men. He therefore restored his rights as Jegatus natus and his emoluments as custodian of the spiritualities of vacant sees.2°?

The surrender of Martin V proved to be permanent. His successor, Eugenius IV, on 23 March 1435, raised the question once more. He wrote

to Henry VI that his father had decided to give to Martin V full liberty of conferring benefices in England, but death had cut short his purpose. He exhorted the king and enjoined him, in remission of his sins, to carry out his father’s purpose and to remove that statute, ‘if statute it deserves to be called,’ by which papal collations to English benefices were being hindered.*°? ‘This protest, with its exaggerated statement of what Henry V had promised, appears to have been the last made by the papacy. During the period from 1417 to 1534 the English government, by its enforcement of the legislation against papal provisors and by its sparing use of licenses statute on account of the status of Jacqueline’s case for a separation from John of Brabant. Haller, QuF., VIII, 300. *°° Notarial copy of the speech: Wilkins, Concilia, III, 483-84, Pocock, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, IV, 159-61. °° Rot. Parl., IV, 322. $91 C.P.L., VII, 64; Bodleian Lib., MS. Tanner, 165, fo. 69. 992 O.P.L., VII, 216; Raynaldus, 1435, §16.

428 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 to accept papal provisions and of pardons for having accepted them, kept the number of effective papal provisions to lower benefices few as compared with the number during the period from 1342 to 1378. 5. ‘THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANNATES DURING THE PoNTIFICATE OF MarTIN

V 1417-1431

The administration of annates was changed significantly in the time of Martin V. The recipient of a papal provision was required, before delivery of the bull, to oblige himself at the camera to pay the annates due. Sometimes payment within six to ten months was promised,*°* but more often no date for payment was stated.*°* One obligation in which no date was specified was met a week later,*°> and in another instance payment was rendered within a month of the date of the provision.*°® One proctor paid for his principal at the time of the obligation 200 florins of a total of 450 florins and the banker, Bartholomew Bardis, pledged payment of the remainder.*°’ These examples seem to indicate that when a definite term for payment in the future was not given, the annates were paid at the camera when the obligation was taken, or within a short time thereafter, as had been the practice under John XXIII. °°° Comparison of the obligations and payments for Scottish benefices provide additional instances,*°? but the instances in which record of both the obligation and the payment is extant are too few to establish certainty with regard to this aspect of the procedure. The obligation could be taken either by the principal or by a qualified

proctor. If the proctor was not adequately empowered to commit the principal, he promised to obtain a ratification from the principal within a period of six months.*”° Failure to meet the obligation on time, unless post-

ponement had been arranged with the camera, subjected the debtor to excommunication,*** although no statement to that effect was contained in the pledge. This system of pledges was obviously modeled on the obligations for the services, though they differed much in detail. Another parallel was the

beginning in 1421 of a new series of cameral registers called the ‘Libri °° E.g. Fondo Arch. di Stato 1662, fo. 273%; 1663, fo. 114%, 123%, 1896, fo. 47¥. *°* E.g. Fondo Arch. di Stato 1663, fo. 64V, 122%, 149%, 175; 1664, fo. 3%, 26%, 72-73%, 83; 1665, fo. 88¥.

°°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1665, fo. 887; I. & E. 389, fo. 12¥. °° C.P.L., VIll, 85; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1664, fo. 727; I. & E. 385, fo. 65¥. °°7 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1663, fo. 175. °° Above, pp. 414-15. “°° Cameron, The Apostolic Camera and Scottish Benefices, cf. pp. 91, 97 and pp. 225-26. °1° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1664, fo. 26%, 72V-73V¥.

“** Cameron, Apostolic Camera, pp. 225-26.

Annates 1378-1534 429 Annatarum.’*"? ‘They correspond to the Obligationes and Solutiones Registers. Some volumes contain copies of the obligations and others copies of acquittances issued for payments of annates. The ultimate result of these innovations was to centralize the collection

of annates in the papal camera and to eliminate their local levy by the collectors, except in an occasional case referred to a collector by the camera.*** In England, however, the collectors continued to have some duties in the collection of annates during the pontificate of Martin V. The pope or the camera made a few rulings with regard to the payment of annates in the time of Martin V. The officials of the camera ordained on 10 February 1421 that if the pope granted to any one a perpetual pension on a benefice, the recipient should be held to pledge the payment of annates thereon.*** On 21 January 1422 Martin V, in order to make clear what debts to the apostolic see had been pardoned by Alexander V in 1409, sent to Simon of Teramo a copy of the instructions given to the camerarius by Alexander V at the time. The pope’s interest was to demonstrate that Peter’s pence and some other dues were not included. Debts for annates

were pardoned,*** and the papal collectors appointed by Martin V refrained from any attempt to recover them. John de Obizzis referred a problem to the camera. He found in many parts of his collectorate that those who owed annates offered to pay them in wool, fowls, animals and other goods, alleging them to be the currency of those parts. The camerarius, in reply, authorized him to accept such goods at a value appraised by local assessors, to sell the goods where it seemed best and to send the money to the camera.®?®

The three collectors during the pontificate were Walter Medford, 141720, Simon of Teramo 1420-25 and John de Obizzis, 1425-31. In the mandates which the first sent to the bishops concerning annates, all the provisors

to be cited had been granted their provisions by Alexander V or John XXIII.°** His mandates ordered the bishops also to inform him of any churches appropriated or confirmed to monasteries, priories or ecclesiastical 512 Miltenberger “Versuch einer Neuordnung’, RQ., VIII, 397-98. $18 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 11V-12%,; Cameron, Apostolic Camera, pp. lxxvi, lxxvil. 14 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1862, fo. before the index begins; Cameron, Apostolic Camera, p. Ixxi, n. 3. 315 CPL. VIL, 10.

$16 Arm. XXIX, 9, fo. 211.

17 So stated in the mandates: Reg. Bubwith (Wells), Il, 321-24; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 65. An order to sequestrate the fruit of the prebend of Charminster (Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, D, fo. 18%) related to a provision made by John XXIII: C.P.L., VI, 244. Two mandates list neither the persons to be summoned nor their benefices: Harl. MS. 862, fo. 60, 71-71. Medford collected annates for a union made by John XXIII: MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 50; Reg. Stafford (Exeter), pp. 243, 254.

7 oe . 430 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

» persons by those two popes. The same was true of the mandates of Simon of Teramo and his locumtenens, except the addition of appropriations by Martin V.*1® Why it was necessary to inquire about the appropriations of Martin V is not obvious. It may have been because the unions made or confirmed by him did not begin to be entered in the ‘Libri Annatarum’ until 12 January 1424. After that date all the unions appear to have been recorded,** with the possible exception of three,**° but several before that date were not included.®*? The only mandate concerning annates issued by John de Obizzis, which has come to my attention, had to do with an appropriation made before the time of Martin V.°?? The three collectors appear to have collected only arrears due for provisions and appropriations made by Alexander V and John XXIII and the annates due for appropriations made during the early years of Martin V. Though the available records of provisions to English benefices made by Martin V are probably incomplete, the number can be said with confidence to have been small. In the calendars of the letters issued by the chancery 20 provisions are listed,*** and two more are noted in an English manuscript.°** Obligations for two of the twenty-two were entered in the

extant ‘Libri Annatarum,’*”> and payments were credited to another three.*?® Six further provisions are known by obligations for annates,**? and of those one was credited with the payment of annates.*#® One other provision is known only by a payment of annates for it.°*? Some of the twenty-four provisions for which no payments of annates are found re318 Reg, Bubwith, Ul, 402, 445; Reg. Lacy (Exeter), H, 439-41, 456-58, 480, 492; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), 13-14, 61, 86-87; Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 28, York, Reg. Sede Vacante, fo. 382-382¥. The provisions of three of the provisors summoned I have not been able to date. They were the treasury of Exeter, prebend of Langtoft, Yorks and church of Beadlam (?) Yorks. 219 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1663, fo. 64, 114%; 1664, fo. 3%, 72¥-73%, 202, 266; 1665, fo. 139;

Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1863, fo. 44, 155. 2° Cotton MS. Augustus II, no. 119; York, Reg. Wolsey, fo. 126%, Arm. XXXIII, 2, fo. 140; C.P.L., VII, 411. 921 Chertsey Cart., pt. 1, 23; Lincoln, Reg. Fleming, fo. 217%, C.P.L., VII, 79, 83, 122-123, 195-96, 279; Arm. XXXII], 2, fo. 70.

°° Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 14, 90. Some portion of the receipts which John delivered to the camera between 1425 and 1430 came from annates, but the amount of the portion is not stated: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1866, fo. 91V. 23 C PL. VII, 16, 80, 119, 121, 132, 211-212, 255, 286, 401-03; VIII, 85, 95-96. Expectancies are omitted. 24 Claudius C. XI, fo. 363. 825Fondo Arch. di Stato 1663, fo. 1227-1237. 8261. & E. 379, fo. 32%; 382, fo. 16%; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale, 1864, fo. 95.

27 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1662, fo. 273%; 1663, fo. 149%, 175; 1664, fo. 26%, 83; 1665, fo. 88¥. 8281, & E. 389, fo. 129. 8297 & E. 382, fo. 167.

Annates 1378-1534 43] corded may have been ineffective, but the surviving record of payments & probably incomplete. If the whole twenty-nine provisions were effective, the number still is small. The same volumes of the ‘Libri Annatarum’ which contain pledges for annates to be paid for provisions to eight English benefices contain pledges for annates on 102 Scottish benefices.**° How much the papal camera received for English annates during the pontificate of Martin V cannot be determined. The recorded sums of annates delivered directly to the camera by the payers or their agents were 332 florins for provisions **1 and 262 florins for unions.*** The total 1s £106 8 s. 6 d.333 The total sum from all revenues delivered to the camera by Walter Medford during his collectorship of three years was £1139 3 s. 5 d., 84 by Simon of Teramo for four years £1840 2 s. 8 d.,°8° and by John de Obizzis for five years from 1425 to 1430, £1278 18 s. 7 d.#8° The annual

average receipt of Walter was about £379, of Simon £460 and of John £255. The annual amount due at that time for Peter’s pence, census and the annual sums paid by some monasteries in lieu of services was £243 11d.

It cannot be assumed, however, that the difference between this sum and the annual average sum of receipts was made up of annates. It is unknown how much each collector received from arrears and how much he left in arrears. For nearly three years before Martin V appointed Walter Medford collector, John Escout served in that capacity. He was acting for the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Lichfield and Winchester, who had been appointed by the council of Constance to collect and preserve the papal revenues.*’ The arrears may have been larger than usual, since

ggy

no pope was then recognized in England. It is also possible that John Escout may have delivered the funds which he had on hand to Walter Medford.*** Both Walter and Simon collected some of the proceeds of the papal indul-

ence offered in England in 1414,3%° and all of the collectors may have received some items from sources other than those mentioned. All that can be said with certainty is that some portion of the difference between £243 889 Cameron, Apostolic Camera, pp. 85-103. 8817, & EF. 379, fo. 32%; 382, fo. 16%; 389, fo. 12%; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1864,

fo. 95v. This included one payment for a provision made by John XXIII. 8327, & E. 385, fo. 657; 389, fo. 45; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1863, fo. 44, 155; 1866, fo. 88. This included payments for two unions authorized before the time of Martin V. 883 Reckoned at the rate of 43 d. to a florin. This was the rate in 1424: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1863, fo. 48. In 1430 the rate was 45 d.: ibid., 1466, fo. 75. 884 MIS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 67-679. 385 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1866, fo. 154. 238 Ibid., 1866, fo. 92. 887 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 371.

*88 Apparently Walter had John’s accounts: Harl. MS. 862, fo. 73¥-74. *8° Below, pp. 561-62.

432 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 11 d. and the annual average sums secured by the collectors represented income from annates. 6. ANNATES FROM 1431 To 1471

During the pontificates from Eugenius IV to Paul II inclusive, the general status of annates remained for the most part as it had been in the time of Martin V. The number of provisions recorded in the registers of letters

kept by the chancery continued to be small. The same was true of the licenses or pardons for provisions issued by English kings. The statute of provisors was so well enforced that a local patron who wished to exercise his right of advowson could do so. In 1434 Eugenius IV wrote to William

Gray, bishop of Lincoln, explaining that because the archdeaconry of Northampton was vacant by the death of a cardinal, the pope had the right

to fill it. He had provided Andrew Holes, who was being kept out by one whom the bishop had collated. He said that this intrusion of the benefice was unjust and illegal and he exhorted and moved the bishop to admit

Andrew Holes. He did not command the bishop or threaten him with censures. His plea had no effect, since the bishop’s candidate continued to hold the office.*4#° Even the king’s license to execute a papal provision did

not always make it effective. John de la Bere, the king’s almoner, was granted the deanery of Wells in 1446 by papal provision **1 and received a royal license to execute it.*4* “The chapter of Wells petitioned the council to have the right of election and was given it, notwithstanding any provision made by the pope.**** English patrons were so well protected against papal provisions that, when a constitution to abolish both papal and local annates was debated at the council of Basle in 1435, the English representatives opposed it. The English no longer feared papal provisions and they wished to protect the right which some English prelates had to annates.** The following table displays the number of pledges to pay annates and the totals of the recorded sums paid directly to the camera for each pontificate. Those for the pontificates of Nicholas V and Calixtus III are fragmentary, because the ‘Libri Annatarum’ for these pontificates are lacking. Most of the Introitus and Exitus Registers are extant, however, and more payments of annates ought to have been recorded in them, had there been any. 84° Corres. of Bekynton, 1, xcviii; Il, 251-52. 241 C\P.L., VIIL, 257, 308; LX, 333. #42 C\P.R. 1441-46, p. 442.

“422 HM. C., Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 675-77. #48 Zellfelder, England und das Basler Konzil, 100-02. The constitution was enacted.

Annates 1378-1534 433 Pope Receipts provisions from Number Number of florins payers of pledges

1431-47 277 *44 5 6 *4° 1447-55 none none none 1455-58 100 *4° 1 none 1458-64 410 347 2 2 848 1464-71 344 840 5 6 350

Eugenius [IV

Nicholas V Calixtus III

Pius II

Paul II

Pope Receipts Number Number Total from of of receipts unions payers pledges Eugenius IV 1431-47 759 45.2 d.** 6 7 $52 1046 45.2 d. Nicholas V

1447-55 146 *58 3 none 146

1455-58 88 354 2 1 °° 88

Calixtus III

Pius II

1458-64 916 25 s,%5° 3 4 857 1326 25 s. 1464-71 436 36 bol.**° 5 4 35° 774 36 bol.

Paul II

Annates delivered to the camera by the payers and their agents constituted an item of receipt of little importance throughout the period. Those received for provisions were considerably less than those received for unions. Platina, who was a referendary in the chancery of Pius II, seems to 844 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1868, fo. 28; 1869, fo. 119, 130%; 1871, fo. 1.; I. & E. 397, fo. 15%; 407, fo. 2V, 11; 411, fo. 177; 413, fo. 26v. *45 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1667, fo. 38%, 1669, fo. 88, 1277, 153%, 247%; Ob. 67, fo. 7. 84° T. & E. 438, fo. 4; Fondo 1897, fo. 15.

547 Arch. Camerale 1872, fo. 29; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1676, fo. 24; I. & E. 456, fo. 67%. *48 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1676, fo. 24; 1893, fo. 2.

°4° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1678, fo. 56’, 987; I. & E. 459, fo. 80; 479, fo. 6, 12; Arch. Camerale 1875, fo. 177. #59 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1678, fo. 56%, 98%, 102, 177%; 1680, fo. 1137; 1681, fo. 69; 1894, fo. 43, 54.

*°2 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1866, fo. 210%; 1869, fo. 149; 1871, fo. 60; I. & E. 407, fo. 24; 408, fo. 38, 417; 411, fo. 16%; 413, fo. 70. *°2 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1667, fo. 37; 1669, fo. 116¥, 152%, 194%; 1670, fo. 129; 1671, fo. 38; Ob. 67, fo. 20. 537. & E. 417, fo. 46¥; 419, fo. 5; 421, fo. 43.

3541, & E. 433, fo. 457; 438, fo. 7. , $55 Arm. XX XIII, 2, fo. 271.

°° Arch. Camerale 1874, fo. 1147; I. & E. 456, fo. 807-81. 557 Arm. XXXIII, 2, fo. 288%; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1893, fo. 37, 39. "°° Arch. Camerale 1875, fo. 238-2387; 1877, fo. 1517; I. & E., 465, fo. 927, 104; 467, fo. 9Y, 267; 485, fo. 95.

*°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1678, fo. 94, 123-124; 1894, fo. 24.

434 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 have been correct when he said that the English would admit the payment of annates only from bishoprics, unions, pensions and a few other graces.*® Toward the end of the period some innovations in the central administration of annates began to appear. They were in the main patterned on

practices which had developed previously in the administration of the services. The obligations were taken and the payments were made general-

ly by proctors. They came mainly from the ranks of the English clergy, but a few were officials of other nationalities at the papal court and a few were Italian bankers. Sometimes the bull was given to a banker on his promise to pay the annates or to return the bull sealed within a period varying from five to eight months.**" In two instances the bulls were given out

and returned three times, after which the camera gave up the attempt to exact these annates. One of the two was for the provision of the general prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in England whose annates amounted to 8000 florins. ‘The merchant agreed to pay also 100 florins to the secretary and writers and 48 florins for the acquittance. One merchant paid the annates on receipt of the bull with the guarantee that the sum would be returned to him, if he brought back the bull.°** Often the principal or his proctor paid the annates on the same day that the obligation was

taken, but some were granted six, eight or ten months in which to pay. There were still a few obligations in which no date of payment was stated. In the time of Paul II three persons promised to pay within a certain number of months from the day when possession of the benefice was obtained. This form of obligation remained the rule, if an intruder was in the benefice at the time of the obligation.® Although it was not new for the camera to charge fees for the acquittances which it issued for payments of annates, the first information concerning their amounts comes from this period. A table of them appears on the flyleaf of a volume of the ‘Libri Annatarum’ containing summaries of acquittances issued from 1476 to 1478. The table was written originally, however, by Antonio de Forlino who was a writer of the treasurer during the pontificate of Pius II.*** Like the similar fees charged for the acquittances given for the services,*®* the size of the fee was governed by the

amount of the payment for which the acquittance was given. The rates were not the same, however, as those for the services. The fees were for a sum up to 100 ducats 1 ducat 3 grossi, from 101 to 500 ducats 2 ducats 860 MIS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 119.

861 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1893, fo. 2, 24, 37; 1894, fo. 24, 43; Ob. 67. fo. 20. 362 Rondo Arch. di Stato 1676, fo. 24. 63 Schmitz-Kallenberg, Practica Cancellariae, p. 35. 864 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1882. 385 Above, pp. 251-52.

Annates 1378-1534 435 5 grossi, for 500 ducats 3 ducats 8 grossi, for 501 ducats 4 ducats 10 grossi ‘ac sic de singulis.’ The fee of 48 florins for an acquittance for 8000 florins represents 3 florins for each 500 florins. It corresponds with the fee in the table only if the grossi are omitted. At some time during this period the collectors in England ceased to levy

annates other than in a few individual instances referred to them by the camera. In the commission of Walter Medford annates were specifically mentioned as one of the revenues to be collected,*®* as they usually had been in the commissions of his predecessors. In the commission of his successor, Simon of Teramo, issued on 6 September 1420,3°7 and in the commissions of subsequent collectors appointed before 1471 mention of them was omit-

ted.°°* ‘The omission is probably of little significance, since more often than not Peter’s pence was not named in the same commissions. The commissions gave such broad powers to collect any revenues or debts owed to the camera that it was not necessary to designate the revenues by name. When Vincent Clement accounted with the camera in 1469, Paul II ordered him to recover some debts which had been owed to the camera for several years. Among them were some annates.*® In a final view of his accounts made at the camera in 1479 in order to settle with his heirs, annates were among several revenues listed as the sources of his receipts.°”° It may be doubted, however, if the sum received from annates amounted to much. In all probability his collection of annates was limited to individual

cases assigned to him by the camera. A union of the vicarages of Beston and Spalding with the priory of Spalding provides a typical illustration. The union, which had been made originally by Boniface VIII, was confirmed by Pius II in 1463. The camera delivered the bull to a member of the firm of Spanochiis on 29 August. He promised to pay the annates accord-

ing to the true value within six months.*"* The next day a bull was addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury and Vincent Clement, ordering them to appraise the value of the vicarages and collect the annates. After they had been paid, the bull of confirmation would be delivered to the priory by James de Salviatis and his partners of London.?7? On 28 May 1464 the camera recorded the receipt from Vincent of 66 florins 25 s for the annates.?7*

“°7 Reg. Vat. 349, fo. 84V-85¥. $68 Reg. Vat. 350, fo. 122¥-23¥; 377, fo. 177¥-79; 382, fo. 142-43v, 151-52¥; 383, fo. 20v-23; 433, fo. 63-64V; 465, fo. 71-72%; 515, fo. 130¥-32.

20° CPL. XII, 381. °79 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale, 1879, fo. 67¥. 871 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1893, fo. 37. 872 Arm. X XIX, 30, fo. 84.

“°T, & E. 456, fo. 81. In 1468 the collector again had to certify to the camera the value

436 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The lack of any mandates concerning annates addressed by the collectors to the bishops preserved in episcopal registers, where they were entered frequently before 1435, is another argument from silence which lacks eloquence. From 1435 to 1471 no collectors’ letters about Peter’s pence are found in the same registers, but the collectors were certainly levying that due.

More convincing evidence that the collectors no longer levied annates, unless they received directions from the camera to do so in specific cases, is provided by the amounts of money which they delivered to the camera. In the cameral summary of the accounts of Peter de Monte, made on 30 April 1441, his receipts are said to come from Peter’s pence, annual pensions,*"* triennial census and indulgences. Annates are not mentioned. The whole income for the five years of his collectorship was £3689 1 s. 8 d.?7° It included at least £2459 10 s. from indulgences,*"* leaving £1229 11s. 8d., or £246 a year, from Peter’s pence, census and pensions.**7 On 23 December 1446 the account of John de Castiglione was audited. He had been collector in England and Ireland for three years. His total receipt was £887 14s. 4d.978 His annual average of £296 did not leave much room for English annates, if he received any income from Ireland. The total receipts

of Vincent Clement, who was collector only in England, were for four years: 1453, £241 19 s; 1454, £244 8d; 1455, £235 8 d; 1456, £250 1458.2” Later he received in 1464, £222 12 s. 8 d; in 1465, £200 19 s; in 1466, £194 2 s. 4d.°°° In each of these years there had been arrears which Vincent had not been able to collect. They were for 1464, £22 3 s., for 1465,£40, 1s. 8 d. and for 1466, £50 13 s. 4 d. Thus the total amounts due for the three years were for 1464, £244 15 s. 8 d., for 1465, £241 8 d., and for 1466, £244 15 s. 8 d.*8* Comparison of these annual amounts and annual average amounts with the annual average amounts received by Hugo Pelegrini**? indicate that the collectors of this late period derived little money from annates. 7. ANNATES FROM 1471 To 1534

Papal receipts of annates from English benefices, as far as they can be of an appropriated church before the annates could be paid: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1894,

‘e 8 This included annual census and the annual payments made by three monasteries in place of services. 875 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1869, fo. 170. *7° Below, p. indul. 423. °"7 Compare with above, p. 570. 878 The revenues are not named: Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1876, fo. 93¥. 879 Tbid., 1872, fo. 207¥-08. 889 C.P.L., XII, 381-82.

°81 Arm. XXIX, 34, fo. 205-06. 582 Above, p. 379.

Annates 1378-1534 437 reconstructed from the “Libri Annatarum’ and the Introitus et Exitus Registers, are set forth in the following table.

Pope Receipts from Number of Number provisions payers pledgesof florins

1471-84 4310 61 bol.** 23 22 *84

Sixtus TV

Innocent VIII

1484-92 1233 1 bol. 3 carl.2® 22 15 °°

Alexander VI

1492-1503 2757 2 bol." 74 49 #88

Pope Receipts from Number of Number of Total receipts permanent unions payers pledges florins

Sixtus IV 530 76 bol.?*? 9 5 39° 4841 57 bol.

Innocent VIII 655 10 bol.?” 7 4 802 1888 11 bol. 3 carl. Alexander VI 42 ~ 60 bol.*®* 1 1 °°4 2799 62 bol. 888 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1680, fo. 113%; 1684, fo. 120; 1686, fo. 7’, 174; 1688, fo. 35%, 63, 166%; 1692, fo. 146, 154%; 1693, fo. 68, 82, 137%; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1882, fo. 43, 142%, 149; 1883, fo. 206%, 223, 234; 2554, fo. 95; I. & E. 492, fo. 137; 493, fo. 52%, 87, 110; 495, fo. 1277; 506, fo. 15, 36, 42%, 59V; 508, fo. 76%, 79, 99, 139; 510, fo. 159. *°4Fondo Arch. di Stato 1682, fo. 46%; 1683, fo. 84°, 88%; 1684, fo. 67, 120; 1685, fo. 667; 1686, fo. 3%, 173%, 174, 201%; 1687, fo. 5%, 35%-36; 1688, fo. 35%, 63¥, 116%; 1692, fo. 4, 146%, 154°; 1693, fo. 68, 82, 1379.

“85 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1694, fo. 148%; 1695, fo. 59V, 947, 166; 1696, fo. 109-110", 156; 1697, fo. 1, 51%; 1698, fo. 22¥, 57%, 152”; Arch. Camerale 1885, fo. 5, 9, 74, 128%, 145-146v, 169%, 173%, 190%, 194, 294; 1886, fo. 32-33v, 136%, 174; I. & E. 504, fo. 113%; 514, fo. 57, 99V, 112; 517, fo. 59%, 78, 106; 518, fo. 2, 16%, 23; 520, fo. 83, 85%, 87%; 522, fo. 11%, 27. “°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1694, fo. 148%; 1695, fo. 59V, 94%, 166%; 1696, fo. 109, 110%, 156; 1697, fo. 1, 44%, 51%; 1698, fo. 22%, 44, 57%, 152¥, 339.

87 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1700, fo. 14, 29, 31%, 92, 119; 1701, fo. 2, 41%, 51, 80%, 129%, 151; 1702, fo. 25¥, 119%, 124, 134, 155%; 1703, fo. 16%, 35, 163%; 1704, fo. 157, 169%; 1705, fo. 30, 68’, 86%; 1706, fo. 26%, 29, 41%, 65%, 66, 83, 172%; 1707, fo. 11, 51, 65%, 114%; Arch. Camerale 1887, fo. 6, 10%, 15%, 37,.46, 69%, 95, 108¥, 112, 117, 129%, 145%, 147, 148, 158%, 224, 231%; 1888,

fo. 23%, 28, 54, 62%, 84, 208Y, 217; 1889, fo. 48%, 52%, 59, 66-66%, 110, 112, 115%, 125, 152%, 165, 173, 176Y, 181%, 213%, 217, 219-2197, 1890, fo. 2%, 13, 26%; I. & E. 524, fo. 15V, 36%, 44V, 68; 525, fo. 18, 26%, 36, 517, 69, 78, 100, 102%, 105%; 527, fo. 3, 14; 529, fo. 48V, 56’; 530, fo. 17V, 53V, 73%; 532, fo. 7V, 39V, 44V, 51V; 533, fo. 47, 53, 55-66", 70%, 747, 82.

*88§ Fondo Arch. di Stato 1700, fo. 14, 29, 31%, 92, 119; 1701, fo. 2, 41%, 51, 80%, 129¥, 151; 1702, fo. 25v, 115¥, 119%, 124, 134, 155%; 1703, fo. 16%, 22%, 35, 163; 1704, fo. 157, 169%; 1705, fo. 30, 68%, 86%; 1706, fo. 26%, 29, 33%, 41%, 65%-66, 72, 83, 172%, 177%, 254%; 1707, fo. 3V, 11, 38, 51, 63, 65%, 77%, 114%, 127; 1117, fo. 99%, 114-115, 187-188.

8° Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1878, fo. 99¥, 130; 1881, fo. 30%; 1882, fo. 130; 2554, fo. 41; I. & E. 487, fo. 92; 490, fo. 34; 495, fo. 100; 502, fo. 13%; 508, fo. 23; Fondo Arch. di Stato, 1680, fo. 173%; 1683, fo. 6%; 1692, fo. 457. *°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1683, fo. 6%, 2057; 1685, fo. 66%; 1688, fo. 16%; 1692, fo. 45%, 94: 1695, fo. 22.

°°? Fondo Arch. di Stato 1694, fo. 198; 1695, fo. 154, 154%; Arch. Camerale 1884, fo. 107, 209V, 212; 1885, fo. 65-65%; 1890, fo. 94; I. & E. 512, fo. 9, 108; 514, fo. 99-99%, 535, fo. 76. °°? Fondo Arch. di Stato 1694, fo. 198; 1695, fo. 154-154v. °° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1706, 134. 994 Ibid.

438 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Pope Receipts from Number of Number provisions payers pledgesof florins

1503-13 4907 27 bol.®* 115 62 *°°

Julius U

1513-21 1061 4VI bol.*° 98 60 °°8 Adrian 1522-23 67 8 bol.3 10 11 4°° 1$23-34 275 5 bol.‘ 45 28 4°?

Leo X

Clement VII

Pope Receipts from Number of Number of Total receipts permanent unions payers pledges

florins Julius 36 66 bol.t% 211*°° 4041061 4944 13 bol. Leo X none none 4 bol. Adrian VI 67 85 bol. Clement VIInone nonenone none none none 275 bol.

This table, like the preceding one for the period from 1431 to 1471, °°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1708, fo. 31, 687, 84, 90%, 1097, 118V, 122, 125, 131, 144%, 151, 1709, fo. 11, 21%, 31, 176; 1710, fo. 15%, 115; 1711, fo. 4-4, 9, 104, 117%, 120, 123%; 1712, fo. 2¥, 12%, 51, 54¥-55, 90¥, 93, 99%, 110; 1713, fo. 66%, 85; 1714, fo. 7, 20, 147%, 256; 1715, fo. 7575¥, 78, 95%, 99; 1716, fo. 18%; Arch. Camerale 1890, fo. 49, 59, 79%, 102, 111’, 119, 139%; 1891, fo. 5%, 15-16%, 28, 30-31%, 44-457, 48, 93¥; I. & E. 535, fo. 3, 8¥, 38, 50, 53, 60, 77, 99%; 536, fo. 15, 25, 36, 39%, 50, 68, 68%, 80%; 538, fo. 10, 25%, 75%, 86%, 107%, 113, 116; 539, fo. 27-28, 36%, 58, 69%; 540, fo. 217, 34%, 41, 74¥, 83¥, 84v; 541, fo. 51, 53-53.; 543, fo. 4%, 13¥, 38; 544, fo. 70, 79, 85-857; 546, fo. 82; 547, fo. 22, 26%, 31%, 40, 43, 45, 60, 63, 67, 86, 89, 92;

548, fo. 12, 26%, 34, 37, 60%; 549, 31%, 36, 36°, 66-66"; 550, fo. 15¥, 25v, 43, 53. | °° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1708, fo. 31%, 68%, 84, 90%, 109%, 118%, 122¥, 125, 131, 144¥, 151, 174; 1709, fo. 11, 21%, 31, 176; 1710, fo. 15%, 115; 1711, fo. 4-4%, 9, 104, 117%, 120, 123¥; 1712,

fo. 2V, 12, 51, 54¥-55, 90¥, 93, 99%, 110; 1713, fo. 21¥, 66%, 85; 1714, fo. 7, 20, 99, 147, 256; 1715, fo. 75-75%, 78, 95%; 1716, fo. 15%, 18%, 817-83, 100, 110%, 120. 8°7 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1717, fo. 1417; 1718, fo. 23¥, 54, 54%; 1719, fo. 27%, 44%, 51Y, 53°, 64, 138, 171%; 1720, fo. 5¥, 95%, 100%, 105%, 107, 130¥-131, 141%, 146%, 179%, 180, 182%; 1721, fo. 8, 11-11v, 18%, 347-35, 59%, 66%, 68, 135, 152, 176%, 216; 1722, fo. 13, 79, 104%, 118, 190;

I. & E. 551, fo. 39, 52%, 66, 78-79; 552, fo. 23; 554, fo. 27; 555, fo. 40; 556, fo. 23%, 26, 37, 72, 83, 95%, 101; 557, fo. 2%, 36, 66%, 69-69%, 99%, 103, 113, 119; 558, fo. 9¥, 13-13¥, 23¥, 34%, 47¥, 64, 114; 559, fo. 3, 22, 42¥, 45%, 66Y, 74, 91V, 111%; 560, fo. 4%, 14, 22, 29, 49, 60%, 68-69, 73, 80-81, 84, 917, 99, 105Y.

*°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1716, fo. 123-124; 1717, fo. 32¥, 37¥, 57%, 66, 111, 141°; 1718, fo. 23%, 347, 54-54’; 1719, fo. 27%, 447, 51%, 53%, 64, 138%, 171%; 1720, fo. 5¥, 95%, 100VY, 103%, 107, 130%-131, 141%, 146%, 179¥-180, 182%; 1721, fo. 8, 11-11%, 18%, 34¥-35, 59, 66¥, 68, 135, 152, 176%, 216; 1722, fo. 8, 13, 27, 79, 104”, 118, 190. °°? Fondo Arch. di Stato 1723, fo. 2-2¥, 21-22¥, 25, 47%, 69, 74.

*°° [bid., plus fo. 51. *° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1724, fo. 60-60%, 118; 1725, fo. 171%; 1727, fo. 23%, 167%; 1728, fo. 61, 204; 1729, fo. 48, 89%, 129; 1730, fo. 837; I. & E. 561, fo. 3-4, 6%, 15¥, 25, 34%, 36%, 39, 43-447, 46, 66’, 67, 80, 85, 88%, 927, 96, 1187-119. *°? Fondo Arch. di Stato 1724, fo. 60-60%, 118; 1725, fo. 1, 17%, 60%, 171%; 1727, fo. 23V, 167V; 1728, fo. 61, 204, 1729, fo. 48, 89%, 129; 1730, fo. 83%.

*°8 Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1890, fo. 94; I. & E. 535, fo. 76; Fondo Arch. di Stato 1714, fo. 266V. *°* Fondo Arch. di Stato 1714, fo. 266v. £99 Ibid. 1722, fo. 132V.

Annates 1378-1534 439 does not give a complete view of the number of provisions or of the amount

of annates. There are obligations for which no payments are found and still more frequently there are payments for which no obligations are found. Some volumes of the series of the ‘Libri Annatarum’ which contained the obligations are missing.*°® The same is true of the series which contained the acquittances,*®’ but these are supplemented by the record of payments in the Introitus et Exitus Registers. The record of payments is more nearly complete than that of the obligations, but it is incomplete. Although some payments entered in the Introitus et Exitus Registers are not noted in the extant ‘Libri Annatarum,’ some of those entered in the ‘Libri Annatarum’ are not duplicated in the Introitus et Exitus Registers. The table is probably full enough to display the general trend. Beginning with the pontificate of

Sixtus IV the sums received from annates increased and the number of payers of annates increased. The increase does not appear to have been due to an expansion of the number of ordinary provisions. During these pontificates the annates were

generally paid for provision to a benefice to be held in addition to one which the petitioner already possessed. During the pontificate of Sixtus [V they were for the most part not so specified, but thereafter the greater part of them were said to be for unions. The union, however, was not perpetual, as it was when a church was appropriated to a monastery. They were often stated to be only for the life of the holder, or sometimes for only as long as he continued to hold the benefice to which the additional benefice was united. ‘They were commonly unions of two churches or of a prebend and a church. In the large majority of instances the united benefice on which annates were paid was of small or moderate value. During the pontificate of Clement VII, for example, the largest single payment was 14 florins 20 bolendini, or £3 11 s 3 d. Many provisions which were not said to be for a benefice to be held in plurality actually were of that type.*°® A papal dispensation was usually necessary to hold two or more benefices. A peti-

tioner needed not only a provision to the additional benefice but also a dispensation to hold it. Provisions of this type were probably the ‘other graces’ of Platina.*°° An assumption that the English government in this period either allowed

provisions of this sort or ignored them seems to be in order, though no *" They are in Archivio Camerale in the Archivio di Stato in Rome. *°* A benefice specified in the obligation as one to be held in addition to another was often entered in the Introitus at Exitus Registers as annates for provision to a benefice without mention of the benefice to which it was united. *°° Above, pp. 433-34.

440 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 proof of it is forthcoming. In 1529 this situation was changed by an act of parliament which prohibited pluralities for the future, with some exceptions, and imposed penalties upon any who sought dispensations from the pope for the purpose of evading the prohibition.*?® In the next year Henry VIII issued a proclamation stating that any one who purchased anything at Rome which ran counter to the act would be imprisoned.**? The exceptions to the act were so liberal that some could still seek temporary unions of benefices at the papal court and a few continued to do so. The number of payments for such provisions had been declining since 1524.*1? In that year there were 26 pledges and payments for temporary unions, in 1525

four, in 1526 five, in 1529 one, in 1530 two, in 1531 one, in 1532 four and in 1533 two. The last recorded payments of annates by an English provisor was made on 6 September 1533.

Some of the temporary unions were commendams. A bishop whose income was small might receive dispensation to hold benefices in addition to his bishopric. Several coadjutors who were appointed to bishoprics ‘in

partibus infidelium’ acted as assistants to English bishops and had to be provided with an income. This might be done by giving the coadjutor a pension from the income of the bishop whom he assisted or by allowing him to hold benefices in commendam. Annates were due for either arrangement. On 11 March 1517, for example, John, the elect of Lydda in Palestine, promised to pay annates on a pension granted to him by the pope from the income of the bishop of Lincoln whose coadjutor he was to become.*?® Abbots also were sometimes allowed to hold benefices in commendam. For provisions to either commendams or pensions the permission of the king seems to have been necessary.*™

Beginning with the pontificate of Alexander VI annates were rarely received for appropriations of benefices to monasteries or other foundations in perpetuity. The apparent reason is that Alexander VI and his successors granted or confirmed few such appropriations other than those for which they did not charge annates. Alexander VI united two priories to the chapel which Henry VII planned to build at Windsor and finally did build at Westminster. Julius II confirmed these unions and added two *19 Statutes of the Realm, II, 292-96.

112 September: Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 755, Pocock, Records, II, 49-50, Harl MS. 442, fo. 80-80¥.

**2 The years 1527 and 1528 may be exceptions, since the records for those years appear to be lacking. 13 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1719, fo. 519. **4 C.P.R. 1476-95, pp. 259, 348; Rymer, Foedera, V1, pt. 2, 168-69, 173-75, L. @ P., V, 657, 1207, no. 25, 1370, no. 13.

Annates 1378-1534 441 more.*!® The bulls for these unions were expedited free of charge and probably the unions were exempt from annates. The appropriation of the church of Hoo to the prior and convent of Rochester by Alexander VI **° should have resulted in the payment of annates, but record thereof seems to be lacking. The other appropriations by Julius If for which no payments were recorded were for a college in Cambridge and were probably free.*17 Leo X annexed two parochial churches and two vicarages to Osney

which do not appear in the extant ‘Libri Annatarum,’ but it is noted after the copy of the grant that they were entered in a ‘Liber.’ *** He also confirmed appropriations of churches to three different monasteries which do not appear in the cameral records of annates.*’® Clement VII, who dissolved a large number of monasteries, of which the lands were granted to colleges at Oxford, Cambridge and Ipswich at the request of Wolsey or Henry VIII, annexed to the colleges the impropriated churches of the dissolved monasteries.*?° No annates appear to have been demanded. One tax associated with benefices impropriated in perpetuity in this period England appears to have escaped entirely. A decree issued by Paul II on 6 January 1469 required that such benefices should pay annates once every fifteen years,*** since otherwise the benefice would pay annates only at the time of the union and never again. The tax was known as the quindennia. When a representative of Magdalen College was negotiating at the

papal court in 1485 for the annexation of Selborne priory and some other benefices to the college, he was told by his curial adviser that in the

future annates would be due every fifteen years. He replied that such census was unheard of in England.*®? He was right and his adviser was wrong. In 1487, when the obligations for the annexations to Magdalen College were taken, it was noted that the obligation for fifteen years to fifteen years was not made by order of the lords of the camera ‘quia in Anglia.’ #8 England was free from the quindennia then and it remained so. The situation with regard to ordinary papal provisions to English bene“5 Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 76-77, 143, 146, 210, W.A.M. 6635, 6638, Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 48-49"; 984, fo. 45-487, 56-597.

**°26 April 1493: Rochester, Reg. Fisher, fo. 85. “712 March 1508: Reg. Vat. 935, fo. 93-110%, 955, fo. 200%-04". The bulls were expedited gratis. 18 Arm. XXXIII, 2, fo. 602%; Cart. Oseney, Ill, 356-58. 1° Reg, Vat. 1102, fo. 206-07; 1162, fo. 62-63%; 1163, fo. 352, 352%; 1181, fo. 435-36. “20 Reg, Vat. 1431, fo. 12-19%, 103-08; 1437, fo. 262-63%, 268¥-69¥, 271¥-72¥; 1438, fo. 20V21%, 89, 89%, 198-200%, 204-11, 214-17, 280-817, L. & P. IV, pt. 1, 649-650, 686, 1137-38; pt. 2, 4229, 4259, 4307; Rymer, Foedera, V1, pt. 2, 8, 11-12, 96-103, 107-09.

*** Kirsch, ‘Annaten’, Historisches Jahrbuch, IX, 302, n. 2; Clergeac, La Curie, pp. 52-53. *2 Cal. relating to Selborne and its Priory, I, 137. “°° Fondo Arch. di Stato 1695, fo. 154-154¥.

442 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

fices remained the same during this period as it had been before. On 4 March 1486 Innocent VIII granted a request of Henry VII that without his afhrmative approval none of his subjects should be promoted,*** but it probably related only to bishoprics. In 1493 the bishop of St Davids not only prevented a papal provisor from taking possession of the deanery of St Davids, but he also had the provisor imprisoned.*”° Evidently the statute of provisors was still being enforced. The Italian observer who wrote an account of conditions in England during the reign of Henry VII said: ‘there are few of the monasteries of England that send to Rome for their

bulls, nor are the deaneries, or canonries or even the parochial livings sought in the [Roman] court.’ *?® Saint Germain in his Doctor and Student, written in 1518, expressed the belief that the statute of provisors was being enforced.**’ As late as 1531 Henry VIII pardoned several

provisors who had been convicted of a breach of the statute in the court of king’s bench.*?® Though the charges against Wolsey drawn up after his downfall in 1529 cannot be taken literally, the statement that before Wolsey’s time the pope had no gift nor use of any spiritual promotion in England contrary to the king’s prerogative indicates the belief of the writer.**° Nor did the situation change in Wolsey’s time. Julius II, Leo X and Cle-

ment VII at one time or another asked the king to confer benefices on members of their courts.**° It was only the thin trickle of special graces to Englishmen who required dispensations for unions of benefices of small value that escaped the obstacle of the legislation against provisors.

In the central administration of annates the principal change was the requirement that annates should be paid on the issue of the bulls. Few exceptions were made. This had the result that bankers usually acted as proctors for the petitioners both for taking the obligation and making the payment. Sometimes the petitioner used some other proctor who more often than not was an official of the papal court. Only occasionally did a petitioner appear in person. The limit of the value of a benefice below which annates were not charged remained fixed at twenty-four florins, but

in this period the value of the florin appreciated in relation to sterling. In 1506 a mark was worth only three florins *** and in 1523 the pound was worth only four.**? Thus the value of an English benefice subject to 424 Arm, XXXIX, 19, fo. 221, 221¥.

5 Episcopal Regs. of St Davids, Il, 678. *°° A Relation of England, p. 41. | 427 Dp. 188-89, 213, 217-19.

“8T. & P., V, 559, no. 22, 33-37, 1139, no. 10. “°T. & P. IV, pt. 3, 5749, p. 2550. 480 Arm. XXXIX, 24, fo. 194; 29, fo. 151%; 44, fo. 898"-900; XL, 3, fo. 280, 289; 10, fo. 249.

*81 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1711, fo. 9. | $82 Ibid. 1723, fo. 479.

— Annates 1378-1534 443 annates became higher. In 1506 the camera exempted a vicarage because it was worth only £7.4%°

The papal collector in England, wrote Peter Griphus between 1508 and 1511, now has little or no business with annates, though the receipt from that source was formerly of great moment.*** The collectors’ commissions after 1471 continued to omit mention of the specific revenues which were to be collected, but stated in comprehensive terms the fruits, rents, revenues, rights, things, annual censuses and other goods owed to the apostolic camera.*?* They covered what annates there were to collect, but Jerome Bonvisius, Peter’s successor, in addition to such a general commission,**° received a special commission to collect annates, quindennia and intercalary fruits.**7 The purpose of this commission is an enigma. The quindennia were not levied in England, no general reservation of inter-

calary fruits applied to that country and Peter Griphus was undoubtedly right with regard to the small amount of business that annates gave to the collector. The extant ‘Libri Annatarum’ record only six occasions after 1472 when annates were referred to the collector in England. Every time the purpose was to have the collector establish the value of the benefice.*?® Whether he subsequently collected the annates is not always certain.*®® The collectors still took the oath of loyalty to the king and it included the promise first inserted in the oath taken by the collector in 1378 not to collect

annates from benefices filled by royal presentation or by papal expectancies.**° But by the sixteenth century these were empty formulae. In addition to an occasional individual case in which the camera might authorize the collector to levy annates, there had come to be three monas-

teries which paid annates to the collector after each election of a new prior.*** They were Cluniac priories which had been rendered independent of their mother houses and placed under the immediate jurisdiction of the

pope by Alexander VI. He gave that position to Montacute and St Andrew Northampton in 1493, They could elect priors who could exercise 88 Ibid. 1710, fo. 1519. 484 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2848, fo. 11.

*8° Tbid., fo. 65-67; above, pp. 574-75; Reg. Vat. 656, fo. 231-33, 693, fo. 147-49, 1197, fo. 1-3; 1354, fo. 7-9%; A.A. I-X VIII, 2581. **° 19 May 1511: Reg. Vat. 965, fo. 256-57. **7 Same date: Reg. Vat. 965, fo. 213¥-14¥.

*88 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1683, fo. 205%; 1684, fo. 67; 1685, fo. 66%; 1692, fo. 94; 1695, fo. 22; 1697, fo. 44¥.

**° In one of the six instances a firm of bankers promised to pay the annates at the camera within eight months. In a seventh instance the collector was not consulted. The official of the bishop of Worcester was to make the valuation and the Medici guaranteed payment of the annates: Fondo Arch. di Stato 1702, fo. 115’. **° MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 37%; Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 133. “41 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 12.

444 Financial .Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the functions of their offices without confirmation. Within six months of a new election annates of an amount to be fixed by the papal collector, Hadrian de Castello, were to be paid to the papal collector.**? He set the amount for Montacute at £30 and for Northampton at £10.**° In 1494 Wenlock was freed not only from Cluny but also from La Charité-surLoire on which it was directly dependent. Its privileges were the same as

those of the other two houses. The amount of the annates was set at 50 florins in the bull, and they had to be paid within three months of an election.*** ‘The fifty florins were estimated at the current rate of exchange. In the time of Peter Griphus they amounted to about £11.**° In 1515 Leo X estimated the annual receipts of the camera from England at 1275 ducats,**® which was about £283. Since the time when the annual amount due the collector from Peter’s pence, census and the annual pension paid by three monasteries in place of services had been £243 11 s,**”

several new items of revenue had been added to the collector’s receipts. They included not only the annates due occasionally from the three Clumiac priories but also census due from several payers **% and the annual pensions due from Westminster and St Augustine Canterbury.**® If these be taken into consideration, the estimate of Leo X did not include annates other than those of the three priories as a normal part of the collector’s receipts. The act in conditional restraint of annates, even after Henry VIII made

it unconditional, strangely enough, did not put an end to annates. It applied only to the services which brought to the papal court an income which was worth notice. Papal annates were not abolished until 1534.*°° Before that year ended, royal annates were ordered by statute to begin in 1535.*°? The annates collected by the king, however, were in one important respect notably different from the annates received by the papacy during the previous century. With few exceptions they had to be paid by all new incumbents of benefices instead of by a few. The largest recorded sum received

by the papal camera from English annates in the sixteenth century was *42 3 June: Reg. Vat. 969, fo. 81-82¥. #43 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 49-49Vv.

**“*7 October: known from a confirmation of Adrian VI dated 13 March 1522: Reg. Vat. 1222, fo. 111-12. #45 MIS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 487-49. **6 Reg. Vat. 1196, fo. 86. *“7 Above, p. 470. **8 Above, pp. 6-9.

**° Above, pp. 236-37. | *°° Statutes of the Realm, Ill, 464-71. 451 [bid., III, 493-99: L. & P., VII, 1355, 1377, 1380.

Annates 1378-1534 445 950 florins 30 bolendini, or about £211, in 1505.*°? The king received from

annates in 1535, £14034. In some following years the annual receipt was even larger, but by 1540 it had settled down to a figure between £9000 and £10000.*°* This comparison is misleading in one particular. Henry VIII received annates from the prelates who had previously paid services at the papal court,*** but the rank and file of the clergy may well have looked back upon the era of papal annates as a golden age.*”° *°? My addition based on Fondo Arch. di Stato 1708, fo. 68%, 84, 90%, 109%, 118Y, 122%, 125, 131, 144¥, 151; 1709, fo. 11, 21v, 31; L & E. 536, fo. 15, 25, 36, 39%, 50, 68-68%, 80%; 538,

fo. 10. The record may be incomplete, but any items which may be missing would not be likely to increase the total sufficiently to destroy the comparative effect. *°° Dietz, English Government Finance, p. 271. *°* Above, pp. 402-04.

‘55 Savine, having in mind the tenths as well as the annates, expressed the idea in these words: “The financial emancipation from Rome became for the English Church a worse enthralment to the State’: English Monasteries, p. 2.

BLANK PAGE

CHAPTER IX

INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY THE PAPACY 1. Tue DirFERENCE BETWEEN PLENARY AND ParTIAL [INDULGENCES

Papal indulgences were of two principal types. A plenary indulgence gave remission of all sins committed before the indulgence was administered, provided the recipient had done whatever was required by the letter establishing the indulgence. It might include those sins for which absolution was ordinarily reserved to the pope, or it might exclude them. Some grants included or excluded certain reserved sins which were specified by name. A partial indulgence relieved a person who fulfilled certain prescribed conditions of a part of his enjoined penance. It might be a fraction of it, such as one-seventh, or a specified amount of it, such as one year and forty days. In every papal indulgence which I have seen the sinner was required to be confessed and contrite in order to make the grant effective. 2. ORDINARY PLENARY INDULGENCES GRANTED TO INDIVIDUALS BY THE

Papacy During the whole of the period the papacy granted to individuals plenary remission of all sins by the issue of confessional letters. Such a letter authorized the person to whom it was addressed to choose a confessor who could convey full remission once in life, once at the point of death, or once in life and once at death. In the confessional letter for remission at the time of death it was required that the confessor prescribe a penance to be fulfilled by the recipient, if he should live, and by his heirs, if he died. It was stated further that if the possessor of the letter committed a sin with the thought that the remission would cover it, the remission would not help him. _ Beginning with Gregory XI, it was customary also to require the recipient to fast on Fridays for a year." Before the pontificate of John XXII confessional letters were rare, but after 1319 they became numerous. Most of those granted by John XXII were for once at the hour of death, and they continued thereafter to be the most common type. John XXII issued a few plenaries for once in life and once at death. They remained uncommon during the rest of the fourteenth century and became frequent only in the fifteenth century. Plenaries for once in life dwindled in popularity after the time of John XXII, probably on account of a preference for remission at the hour of death. ‘Toward the *Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 307-08.

448 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 close of the period some of the confessional letters became elaborate, permitting the chosen confessor to grant various dispensations in addition to absolution.’ In 1370 a plenary remission at the point of death was allowed to be

administered as often as death threatened.* Twenty years later, on the petition of Adam, cardinal Anglicus, Boniface IX decreed that bulls of plenary indulgence granted ‘in extremis’ should be effective only after that confession which preceded death immediately.* Despite this decree, later

popes sometimes granted plenary remission to hold good each time the danger of death occurred, though such indulgences never became numerous.°

Laymen often thought of plenary indulgences as granting absolution ‘a pena et a culpa.’ A petition of Henry, earl of Lancaster, for example, asked for such absolution at the time of death and it was approved on 26 January 1334.° The bull, however, specified only plenary remission.’ ‘The popes and the officials of the chancery understood that the phrase was common parlance for plenary remission.® The chief penitentiar of the pope could issue confessional letters.° ‘The prior of Canterbury sought one from Cardinal Gaucelme, the penitentiar, in 1333.*° On 18 January. 1393 the penitentiar, Francis, priest of S Susanna, authorized the confessor whom Simon Gunnstede, a clerk, might choose

to absolve him for all sins not reserved to the pope as often as might be opportune.** ‘Two years later he granted to Isabella de Blayton for five years the privilege of choosing a confessor who could give plenary absolution of all sins including those reserved to the pope.*” The pope could also delegate the power to grant confessional letters to his envoys. Pileus, priest of S Prassede, who came to England in 1381 to arrange a marriage between Richard II and the emperor’s sister, had such authority to the dissatisfaction of a chronicler.** In the fifteenth century a new type of confessional letter authorized the * Goller, Der Ausbruch, pp. 76-77; Idem, Die papstliche Pénitentiarie, I, pt. 1, 220, 231-32, 238-42; Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 125-27; III, 303; Remy, Les grandes Indulgences, p. 22. * Paulus, Geschichte, III, 306-07. * Walsingham, Y podigma, p. 361; Idem, Historia, II, 197. * Eg. below, pp. 490, 495. ° Vat. Lib., Fondo Barberiniano Lat. 2166, fo. 162¥.

7CP.L., Il, 404. ° Géller, Der Ausbruch, pp. 88-94, 119; Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 15, 56. ° Goller, Die papstliche Ponitentiarie, I, pt. 1, 230. *° Literae Cantuarienses, II, 16-17.

*1 Exch. K. R. Eccl. Documents, 6/42. 7D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter 6741.

*® Chron. Angliae, p. 283. ,

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 449 addressee to receive full remission of sins once a year and once at the hour of death. One indulgence of this kind was granted to a community of religious,'* but in the main they were conceded only to kings and to nobles of high rank. John XXIII granted the earl of Suffolk and his countess plenary remission of all sins once a year. He also gave to the two archbishops, eight bishops, and the dean of York the same privilege including the sins reserved to the pope. None of these grants included plenary remission at death.*® Martin V favored Henry V with an indulgence of plenary remission once a year and at death.*® He granted to the duke of Exeter full remission every two years and at death, and to the duchess of Clarence every three years and

at death.” Julius II gave to Henry VII and his mother the exceptional privilege of plenary absolution once every six months and at death,** but

Leo X restricted Henry VIII to plenary remission once a year and at death.*® This bull makes it clear that annual plenary remission was reserved to those of high rank. It was addressed to King Henry, Queen Catherine, Charles duke of Suffolk and his wife Mary. They were each entitled to plenary remission once a year, but forty persons whom they could elect to share the other privileges contained in the indulgence *° could have plenary remission only once in life and once at death. Individual confessional letters were popular in England. Between 1327 and 1334 John XXII issued in the neighborhood of a hundred of them for plenary remission at the time of death.2* The recipients were the king,” members of the clergy, lords, knights, burgesses, other laymen, their wives and their widows. Confessional letters continued to be granted to individual Englishmen in large numbers throughout the period.** ‘They ceased only with the separation. On 8 October 1530 Clement VII gave to Thomas Wriothesley and his wife of Swanscombe the privilege of being absolved from all sins including those reserved to the pope and from all ecclesiastical

censures once in life and once at the time of death. They could also be released from vows other than those to visit Rome or Compostella and they ** Below, p. 453. *®C.P.L., VI, 336, 353.

*°Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 63. 17 C'P.L., VI, 320-21. *® Below, p. 450.

*° Reg. Vat. 1206, fo. 552-54; 1196, fo. 27-28”. The latter copy is dated Ides December, year 3, 1525, Bologna. The date was added by a later hand and it is probably a mistake. The bull begins ‘Leo,’ it is in a register of Leo’s time, and it makes the same grant. The former copy is dated 13 December 1515. *°For the other privileges see below, pp. 451-52. 21 C.P.L., Il, 259-418, passim.

"2 Undated copy of a bull of Pope John to King E.: Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 172’. 2 C.\P.L., II-XII, passim; Lamb., sheaf of Bourchier’s Reg. bound in Morton, II, fo. 176;

Reg. Vat. 1200, fo. 404-07; L. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 675-76. |

450 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 could eat meat at the times when it was prohibited.7* On 5 January 1533 Edward Gage, of noble birth, resident in the diocese of Chichester, was granted a similar indulgence. On 20 and 21 August 1533, when William

Benet, who had been the king’s orator at the papal court, and Edward Karne, the chancellor of Salisbury, were leaving Rome, they received several indulgences. Full remission of sins once in life and once at death was granted to each of several persons named in the bulls and to be named subsequently by Benet and Karne.”® Henry VII and Henry VIII prized personal indulgences highly, though the enthusiasm of the latter presumably waned before 1533. The confessional letter which Henry VII obtained from Julius II on 20 May 1504 for himself and his mother was most elaborate. In addition to having plenary remission every six months they could be released from vows except those of religion or a pilgrimage to Rome or Jerusalem, have a portable altar at which mass could be celebrated in places under interdict, eat meat, cheese, butter and milk during Lent and on other days when they were forbidden and communicate with one under the sentence of excommunication without being excommunicated as a consequence. On the forbidden days when Henry ate meat six others chosen by him and the servants who tasted his food for his safety could share the viands. His mother, Margaret, was permitted with six attendants to enter houses of religion, to talk with the inmates and to have meals there, even if they were Carthusian or enclosed

monasteries.*° For his mother Henry VII secured on 10 March 1508 an additional indulgence containing several exceptional privileges.”’

Henry VIII sought and received three personal indulgences. The first issued by Leo X on 13 December 1515 contained, in addition to annual plenary remissions, dispensations and indults similar to those granted to his father by Julius IL.28 The second expedited in 1520 added further indults.?® The third granted by Clement VII in 1524 sometime before 12 September enabled the king and queen and twenty persons named by them to obtain the indulgence of the jubilee which was to be offered in Rome in 1525 by visiting three named churches in England.®° The king’s attitude toward this 24 Arm. XL, 30, fo. 339. 2° Arm. XXXIX, 53, fo. 921-22, 959¥-960; 59, fo. 1006"; XL, 45, fo. 243-47.

*° Bull in Archives of St John’s College, Cambridge; copy in Reg. Vat. 984, fo. 59¥-62¥. 27 Arm. XXXIX, 26, fo. 200-200¥. *® Above on this page.

*? Reg. Vat. 1200, fo. 404-07; L. & P., Ill, Pt. 1, 675-76. “°T have not found the brevium. These terms, except that it was an indulgence of the jubilee, are in a covering letter addressed by John Clerk, a royal agent at the papal court, to Wolsey on 12 September 1524, when he dispatched the indulgence: L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 652. That it was a jubilee indulgence is stated in Wolsey’s letter quoted above. The king’s letter of thanks to Clement VII is dated 10 October 1524: A. A. Arm. I- XVIII, 2376; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 543; L. @ P., IV, pt. 1, 722.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 451 indulgence was thus described by Wolsey writing to Sir Thomas More: ‘Right joyously and glad I am to understand how most consolingly and with what reverence, humility and devotion the king’s highness received the holy jubilee, to the great merit, as I trust in God, of his grace, and to the most holy, religious and honorable example, comfort and rejoice as well of all those that were present of the beholding and doing thereof, as to all other his subjects.’ ** Such was the regard to be found in high places in England for plenary indulgences issued by the papacy during the first quarter of the sixteenth century. 3. Orpinary PLENARY INDULGENCES GRANTED TO GROUPS OF PERSONS wHo RECEIVED THEREFROM NO FINANCIAL PROFIT

The papacy sometimes issued to a group of persons an indulgence which

awarded to each member of the group plenary remission, usually at the point of death, from which the group received no financial profit. The earliest type of such groups consisted generally of five to ten persons of whom each was named. Some consisted of relatives,?? some perhaps of friends and acquaintances ** and some of several monks or canons of the same monastery.* One of an exceptional type gave this indulgence to the abbess of Lacock and five nuns to be chosen by her.?°

In the sixteenth century the groups were sometimes larger and the indulgences, in accordance with the general trend, became more elaborate. One is described in a notarial copy, dated 11 September 1508, of the schedule of a license called confessionale, obtained from Pope John IT (Julius IT) by Cardinal Goliot (Caliotus). It included three priests, seven laymen, two women, their wives or husbands and their children. Each could choose a confessor who could convey absolution once in life and once at death for all sins including the reserved cases, and for sins not reserved as often as need be. He could also commute vows. Each could have a portable altar and burial in time of interdict. The women could visit nunneries. All, by

medical advice, could eat eggs, milk, the products of milk, and meat at prohibited times.*® Another group of twenty persons secured in 1521 an indulgence which gave most of the same privileges. The power of the confessor whom each might choose was different. He could give absolution for their sins including the cases about which the pope normally had to be *t Corres. of Sir Thomas More, no. 141; L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 1696.

CPL. Ill, 160 (1345); XI, 19 (1455).

8° C.PL., Ill, 161, 210, 328, (1345-1346, 1350).

**C.P.L., Ill, 210, 380 (1345, 1350); VI, 330 (1411). 55 C.P.L., VII, 327 (1422). 8° H.M.C., Report on MSS. in Various Collections, Il, 20.

452 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 consulted except those in the bull In cena domini once a year, instead of once in life. The exception probably explains why annual absolution was permitted. In this bull, which was issued annually, the pope excommunicated those who committed any of the sins named in the bull. Only the pope could give absolution for them, unless he delegated his authority to others. The list varied somewhat from time to time, but it included most

of the sins reserved to the pope.*” The indulgence of 1521 gave two privileges not contained in the indulgence of Julius II. The confessor chosen by each person could absolve him from ecclesiastical censures except those

incurred for a few stated crimes. Each person by visiting One or two churches or two or three altars in the neighborhood on the days when the stations of Rome should be visited for the purpose could obtain the same remissions as if he had visited those stations.*® By the sixteenth century it was the tradition that by visits of these churches on the appropriate days one could obtain partial remissions amounting to 150000 years and plenary remissions as well.?®

Another kind of group which received such confessional letters consisted of an abbot or prior and the members of the convent of a monastery. Boniface [X seems to have begun the issue of such indulgences as far as

England was concerned. On 12 November 1396 he granted to the prior and to each member of the convent of Durham the privilege of receiving full remission of all sins once at the time of death.*° This indulgence was revoked by his decree of 22 December 1402,* but it was renewed by him.*? A later memorandum records that it expired in 1445, because all the monks to whom it applied were dead with two or three exceptions.** Meanwhile the monks, at the intercession of Bishop Thomas Langley made at the coun-

cil of Pisa, had obtained from Alexander V on 18 July 1409 a new indulgence to the same effect.** If the monk to whom remission was given did not die, the indulgence remained effective the next time that death threatened. Eugenius IV renewed the grant on 21 March 1438.*° °7 Lea, History of Auricular Confession, 1, 325-26. °° H.M.C., Report on MSS. of Lord Middleton, pp. 137-40. °° Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 276-81; Lea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 447-49; Political, Religious and Love Poems, Furnival, E.E.T.S. (1866), pp. 113-44; The Stacions of Rome,

Furnival, E.E.T.S. (1867), pp. 1-24, 30-34; Capgrave, Ye Solace of Pilgrimes: Arnold, Customs of London, pp. 145-56; Adam of Usk, Chron., p. 81. 9D. & Ch. Durham, Cartuarium Primum, fo. 20. “For the decree see below, p. 488. “D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, I, 29; C.P.L., V, 30.

*°D. & Ch. Durham, Registrum Quartum, fo. 19. ,

“* Ibid., fo. 19-19%, Locellus, I, 29, Cartuarium Tertium, fo. 1717-172; Durham, Reg.

Tertium, fo. 196. |

Langley, fo. 45. *°D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, I, 29; Reg. Quartum, fo. 19%; Cartuarium Primum, fo. 419;

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 453 Boniface IX made the same concession to the existing prioress and nuns of Campsey in 1398.*° He was more generous to the abbot and convent of

Peterborough in 1402. They could receive once a year and at death full remission of sins including those which were reserved to the pope. They could have, in addition, commutation of vows and dispensation for irregularities except voluntary homicide and mutilation. This grant applied also to future abbots and monks.*”? It was among those revoked later in 1402, but in 1417 or 1418 Martin V renewed the grant as far as plenary remission was concerned.*® Innocent VII, in 1405, gave plenary remission at death to the present abbot and brothers of Hilton, to the present abbot, monks, lay brothers and secular servants of Louth Park and to the present abbot,

monks and secular servants of St Augustine Canterbury.*® John XXIII made similar grants in 1412 and 1414 to the existing abbots and convents of

Sherborne, Kirkstall and Litchfield. The last included also the other persons dwelling in the monastery.°° Martin V conceded to the present members of several communities of

religious plenary remission at the hour of death. The indulgences were issued to the abbot and persons in the convent of Bury in 1417 or 1418,°" to the abbot, monks and lay brothers of St Mary Graces by the Tower of London in 1422,°° to the prioress and sisters of the order of St John of Jerusalem in Buckland in 1423,5* to the prior and members of the convent of Christchurch Canterbury in 1423 and to the abbess and nuns of Polesworth in 1426.°* Stone records in his Chronicle ** that John Aleyn, who died on 4 August 1425, was the first of the monks of Christchurch to receive

the plenary remission in the hour of death granted by Martin V. With Eugenius IV the issue to monastic communities of plenary remission of the members once in life and once at death was revived. In 1432 he gave such an indulgence to the abbot and convent of St Mary de Pratis Leicester.°®

In 1435, however, he conceded plenary remission only at death to the present and future abbot, monks and lay brothers of St Peter Gloucester and to the same members of the monastery of Abington.’ The latter soon “CPL. V, 120. “"C.P.L., V, 510. *® Copy of the bull dated only year 1 Martin V to William abbot: D. & Ch. Ely, Reg. of Prior Edmund Walsingham. “°C.P.L., VI, 10, 12. [°C PL, VI, 331, 352, 410. 5.CP.L., VII, 330. 52 C.P.L., VIl, 319. 5. C.P.L., VU, 311.

“CPL. VIL, 428. °° Ed. Searle, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., Octavo Series, no. 34, p. 12.

CPL. VII, 432.

CPL, VIU, 528.

454 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 obtained an expansion of their indulgence. In 1450 Nicholas V granted them plenary remission once in life as well as at death and added that the confessor could dispense for irregularities and give rehabilitation.”* In the next year he conferred the same plenary indulgence on the existing prioress and nuns of the order of Friars Preachers in Dartford.®® Thereafter the grant of such indulgences to monastic communities seems to have become less common. In 1469 Paul II authorized the abbess Elizabeth and the then nuns of St Clare near London to receive plenary remission

once at death.®° Sixtus IV issued a more liberal indult to the prior and convent of Ely, but he gave them much less than they sought. They petitioned him, in the neighborhood of 1473,°* to have the privilege of appointing a confessor who could absolve them from ecclesiastical censures and for transgression of vows and of ecclesiastical mandates, simony, perjury, omissions of various named duties and any other sins including those reserved

to apostolic see once in life and once at the time of death and for sins not so reserved as often as the occasion might demand. They asked further that the confessor might have power to dispense their irregularities, to commute their vows to other good works and once in life and once at the time of death to give full remission ‘etiam a pena et a culpa.’ The petition 1s marked ‘fiat,’ but only with regard to articles which are specified. Each and all of them were to have full remission of all sins including those reserved to the pope once in life and once at death, remission of sins which were not reserved as often as should be opportune, and commutation of vows. ®?

Henry VI obtained indulgences for his colleges which were analogous to those for the inmates of monasteries. When he was negotiating for indulgences for visitors to Eton,** he obtained one for the provosts, priests, choir boys, scholars and paupers of the college. On 23 July 1442 Eugenius IV authorized the provost to appoint confessors who could absolve him and the others attached to the college once in life from all sins including those reserved to the pope and give them remission of all sins in the hour of death.

They could also give absolution from excommunication, suspension and interdict and dispense those who were ecclesiastics for irregularities, except those in contempt of the keys, and rehabilitate them.*° On 29 November °° CPL, X, 486.

CPL. X, 526. CPL, XIl, 617. * The item is headed ‘Bull of Calixtus IV’ (sic for Sixtus [V) granted to the prior and convent of Ely in 1473. Only the petition and the answer are given. ® ‘totiens quotiens opus erit.’ ®§ Bodleian Lib., MS. Ashmol., 801, fo. 92V. ** Below, pp. 511-12.

°° Bekynton, Corres., I, 303-05; C.P.L., VIII, 241.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 455 1445 the same pope conceded a similar indulgence to the provost, seventy scholars, their servitors and ministers of the new college of St Mary and St Nicholas which Henry VI had founded at Cambridge.®* Sixtus [V granted to the college of the Garter that Edward IV, the president, the knights and all the clergy and ministers associated with the chapel of Windsor might elect confessors. A confessor of the king or of any of the knights related to him within the fourth degree could absolve them without any exception of cases once in life. A confessor of a knight not so related or of any of the clergy or ministers could absolve them once in life of all sins except rebellion against the pope or his State, personal offenses against a bishop or prelate, the murder of a priest and simony. All could have plenary remission of all sins once at death, absolution in cases not reserved as often as need arose, and commutation of vows except of pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Rome or Compostella.* Sometimes a whole order of religious obtained a collective plenary indulgence. On 25 July 1383 Urban VI authorized each of the abbots and other members of the Cistercian order to choose a confessor who could grant plenary remission of sins once at the time of death.® A guild or confraternity was another kind of group which sometimes obtained for each of its members a plenary remission which was of no finan-

cial benefit to it. When the grant was confined to existing members, it could not be used to attract new members who would pay an initiation fee and annual dues. Boniface IX granted to all ecclesiastical and secular members of a guild in Ludlow that a confessor could give to each plenary remission only once in the hour of death.®® The indulgence was confined to members and did not extend either to future members or to visitors. Like

indults were issued by Innocent VII, John XXIII and Martin V to the confraternity of the hospital of Holy Trinity and St Thomas the Martyr at Rome,*° which had many English members. In 1470 Paul II gave a simi-

lar indulgence to the confraternity of Jesus in the parish church of St Michael Coventry.” A different but analogous group which obtained from Martin V the privilege for each member and his wife to receive from a chosen confessor plenary remission once in the hour of death was the society of the wool staple. In 1440, when many members had died, Eugenius IV granted the °° C.P.L., IX, 482-83.

not dated; Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Hunter, Camden Soc., pp. 81-82. ** University College Oxford, MS. 167, fo. 42¥. I am indebted to the late Alfred H. Sweet for this information. °° 3 April 1400: C.P.L., V, 316. *° Below, pp. 489-90.

CPL. XI, 772.

456 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

same indulgence to those who had become members since the grant of Martin V and to those who should be admitted to membership within the next five years." Since membership in the staple was controlled by considerations entirely different from those governing membership in confraternities, this grant could not have been of any financial advantage to the organization.

Another type of group secured an indulgence during the pontificate of Julius I. John Mortymer, acting as principal for the chamberlains and servitors of the royal chamber, obtained the approval of a petition which conceded to them extensive indults. Each of them and the members of their families could receive full remission of sins once in life and once at death and remission of sins not reserved to the pope as often as needful, have certain vows commuted and oaths relaxed, have a portable altar, eat eggs, butter and cheese when they were prohibited and be buried in time of an interdict. Women could enter nunneries to pray.” Under the emergency of the black death, which raged in England late in 1348 and during 1349, exceptionally large groups received the privilege of plenary remission of all sins at the time of death. Moved perhaps by the knowledge that Clement VI had granted indults of this kind to communities on the continent which had been stricken by the plague before it reached England,” the clergy and people of several dioceses in the province of Canterbury * and of the whole province of York 7° petitioned him for a similar indulgence. The bulls which were issued in reponse authorized a confessor chosen by any one where the epidemic or mortality of men existed to grant plenary remission of all sins at the approach of death. Each grant was valid for only a few months, but where the plague continued beyond the date set, it was sometimes extended.”” According to the Brut

similar indulgences were granted by the pope at the time of the great pestilence in 1375.78 7 CPL. IX, 111-12. ** A copy of the petition which was signed by Caliotus, cardinal priest of S. Pietro in Vincolo, certified on 25 June 1506 by James Denton, official of the archdeacon of London: Papal Bulls 64/6. “* A continuator of William de Nangis called them indulgences ‘a poena et culpa’: II, 213. “* Possibly the peoples of all the dioceses received the indulgence, but I have discovered only the following: 14 December 1348: Lichfield and London: C.P.L., III, 309; 17 December

1348, Norwich: Reg. Bateman, fo. 74, 23 December 1348, Rochester, Bodleian Lib., MS. Kent Roll 8, article 1; 19 January 1349, Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 19¥-21; 2 March 1349, Lincoln: Reg. Gynwell, fo. 36, C.P.L., III, 289, 26 March 1349, Ely: Reg. de Insula, fo. 19%; previous to 28 April 1349, Bath and Wells: Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 611-12. “° No date: Reg. of Selby, Duchy of Lancaster Misc. Bk. 8, fo. 46¥. “" In the diocese of Winchester, for example, it terminated on 27 March and was extended to the next Michaelmas. 78D, 328,

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 457 4, Tue FINANCIAL VALUE To THE Papacy OF INDULGENCES OF THESE

Two Types The only financial return which the papacy received from confessional letters of these types appears to have been the fees charged by the chancery

for the expedition of the bulls. A letter granting plenary remission to an individual or to a group of named individuals was not subject to a composition. The same was probably true of a confessional letter granting plenary remission to a group of unnamed persons, such as the inmates of a monas-

tery, which derived from it no financial profit. No composition for such an indulgence is mentioned in two lists of compositions which have been published.”°

There are few examples of the total cost of the expedition through the chancery of confessional letters, but the writer’s fee and the fee for registration, which were often the same, provide an approximate notion of the probable cost. In the time of John XXII the writer’s fee for an ordinary bull of plenary remission at the time of death issued to an individual was 14 grossi. For a husband and wife it was 16 grossi and for each additional

person 2 grossi. The last applied to a group in which the persons were named. The fee for a bull which granted the remission to the unnamed members of a group, such as gild, college or convent, was 50 grossi.°° Unlike many fees of the chancery, those for the most common type of con-

fessional letter which granted remission of all sins once at death to an individual or to a man and his wife appear to have remained the same throughout the period. The charges for registration, as recorded in the registers, were respectively 14 and 16 grossi to the close of the pontificate of Paul II,** and the writer’s fees were the same in a list of the fore part of the sixteenth century.®? This evidence, based mainly on the actual charges

for registration, is incompatible with other evidence of a period in the second half of the fifteenth century. In the time of Calixtus III (1455-58) the total cost of the expedition of such a letter through the chancery was put at only 2 florins or 20 grossi, the writer’s fee at 4 grossi and the fee for registration at less than 4 grossi. Paul II, on 28 March 1466, ordered the expedition of such letters for two florins and set the writer’s fee at 3 grossi

and the fee for registration at 2 grossi.°* Yet the charge for registration *® Celier, Les Datatres, pp. 154, 161.

°° ‘Tangl, ‘Liber Taxarum,’ M.O.G., XIII, 91-92; Tangl, Kanzlet-Ordnungen, p. 104; Lea, History of Auricular Confession, 1, 293. $1 C.P.L., V, 47, n; VI, 144, n; 352, n; IX, 235, 583; X, 304, 385; XI, 296; XII, 421-24, 739-41.

8? Woker, Das kirchliche Finanzwesen, p. 170.

8Tangl, ‘Liber Taxarum, M.O.G., XIII, note on pp. 69-70.

458 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 stated in the registers of both popes continued to be 14 and 16 grossi.** In a list of the fees in the time of Innocent VIII (1489-92) the total cost of expedition was raised to 3 florins,*° but subsequently it was again reduced to 2 florins.®®

In a few instances the fee for registration was higher than 14 or 16 grossi, but generally the grant included more than the plenary remission. In 1455, for example, plenary remission for two and a portable altar were granted in the same letter. The fee for registration was 28 grossi. The fee for the grant of a portable altar alone was 12 grossi.°” The fees for a grant of plenary absolution once in life and once at death were variable. In the pontificate of John XXIII the fee for the registration for either one or two persons was 20 grossi.°* In the time of Martin V and Eugenius IV the standard seems to have been 30 grossi for one person and

40 grossi for two.®® Beginning in the pontificate of Nicholas V the fees for registration decreased. During his and the next two pontificates the most common fee for registration was 24, 25 or 26 grossi for either one or two persons.°® ‘There were variants on both sides. ‘There were five for which the fee was for each 14, 15, 16 or 20 grossi.°* Four cost 30 grossi each, but at least two of them contained an additional grant, such as a portable altar.°* For one the fee was 36 grossi and for another 40.°? In 1520 the writer’s fee for one person was listed at 25 grossi.°# Only one example of the fee charged for plenary remission at death to a group of named persons has come to my attention. In 1455 the registration of a bull for a group consisting of three brothers, their mother and the wife of one of them cost 50 grossi.°° According to the method of calculating the fee used in the time of John XXII, it would appear to have been 22 grossi. Apparently the fee by 1455 had become the same as the fee charged in the time of John XXII for a similar indulgence to the existing members

of a convent or gild who were not named. 84 Fg. C.P.L., XI, 227, 296; XII, 700-02, 739. °° Tangl, ‘Liber ‘Taxarum,’ M.O.G., XIII, 70, n. °° Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 452-53; Lea, History of Auricular Confession, II, 191-92.

°7 C\P.L., XI, 225-26. There seem to have been some exceptions. The fee for such a bull for one monk was 30 grossi: pp. 226-27. No additional privilege is mentioned in the summary.

CPL. VI, 353-54.

8° C.P.L., VII, 554; VIII, 360. In one instance it was 26 for one, in one 44 for two and in another 48: C.P.L., IX, 366, 371, 516. The last two, however, included additional indults. °° C\P.L., X, 67, 70, 75, 142, 175, 628; XI, 371, 520, 627. °1C.P.L., X, 26, 75; XI, 170-71, 227, 551-52. 2 CPL. X, 70, 484; XI, 112, 372. °° C.P.L., X, 385; XI, 514. °* Woker, Das kirchliche Finanzawesen, p. 170.

CPL. XI, 19.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 459 After the pontificate of John XXII the fee for registration of an indulgence of plenary remission at the hour of death issued to the unnamed exist-

ing members of a convent or gild became variable. Of two indulgences issued on the same day of 1411 to the Trinitarians of Knaresborough and. of Thelsford one cost 24 grossi and one 20.°* The latter fee was charged again in 1423 for an indulgence to the sisters of Buckland.®* ‘The monks of Sherborne, however, had to pay 40 grossi in 1412,°* and the nuns of Polesworth 50 in 1426.°° Each of two gilds which received a grant of the same type in the same period was required to pay 60 grossi.*°° In 1470 the fee for another gild was 50 grossi.*°' This corresponds with the writer’s fee as it was in the list of John XXII and as it was also in 1520.1°? The fee appears generally to have been in the neighborhood of 50 gross. If the grant included future as well as present members of a monastery, the fee was higher. Each of two monastic communities in 1435 paid to the

registrars for this type of indulgence 80 grossi.*” If the indulgence extended to plenary remission once in life as well as once at death, the fee was

100 grossi.*° The wool staple which received an indulgence of plenary remission for the members and their wives once in life and once at death also paid 100 grossi.1°** The fees for grants to present and future members of

a gild or confraternity were on a different basis, because the organization could derive a profit from future members.*°° Confessional letters issued to individuals and to groups which derived no financial benefit therefrom brought to the papacy only a modest income from England. The number issued to individuals was large, but the fees were small. The number issued to groups which paid the larger fees was comparatively small. 5. INDULGENCES OF THE JUBILEE IN ROME

In several years during the period 1327-1534, yubilees were celebrated at Rome. Pilgrims who went to Rome in any of those years could obtain what the popes proclaimed was the fullest pardon (plenissimam veniam). From %° CPL. VI, 328.

CPL. VII, 311. *CPL., VI, 331.

CPL. VIL, 428. 100 C.P.L., VI, 332 (1412); VII, 413 (1425).

101 CPL. XI, 772. * Woker, Das kirchliche Finanzwesen, p. 170. 08 CPL. VIII, 528. *°¢ 1432, present members only: C.P.L., VIII, 432; 1450, present and future members: C.P.L., X, 486. 1040 OPT X, 111-12.

*°* Below, pp. 489-90.

460 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 these jubilees the papacy derived some financial advantage by sharing the

voluntary contributions left by the faithful at the altars of the Roman churches which they were required to visit in order to obtain the idulgence of the jubilee. Though it is impossible to form any idea of the amount of the offerings which Englishmen may have given on these occasions, it seems well to indicate what opportunities they had to make such gifts. Boniface VIII in his announcement of the first year of jubilee in 1300 decreed that there should be one thereafter once every hundred years.*°° Clement VI, on 27 January 1343, proclaimed that, in view of the length of the life of man, the period between jubilees was reduced from one hundred

to fifty years and the next one would be in 1350. Those who visited for a certain number of days the churches of Peter and Paul and of the Lateran

would receive ‘not only full and abundant but fullest pardon of all their sins.’ Those who prepared to make the journey and were legally hindered and those who died in Rome with their visits uncompleted would gain the indulgence.’°* On 18 August 1349 the pope sent copies of this bull to the archbishops of Canterbury and York with an order to publish it.*°* The archbishop of Canterbury, on 9 February 1350, directed the bishop of London to dispatch copies of the mandate to his other suffragans.*” Many went to Rome to secure the indulgence. One English chronicler said that ‘all the people flowed thither.’ **° Another was content to place it

at ‘an innumerable number.’’"* Englishmen, however, were not free to go without let or hindrance. According to Knighton, the king forbade his subjects to go to Rome on account of the war with France. The pope tried to get the prohibition withdrawn, but the king replied that he did not want money to go outside the kingdom in time of war.*!? The royal prohibition, however, was not as strict as the chronicler implied. On 1 December 1349 the king ordered the keepers of the port not to permit men at arms, pilgrims or others, except a known merchant or envoy, to cross the sea without the king’s special order.*** This prohibition was repeated on 28 January 1350 and on 23 June it was renewed until the next Michaelmas.’** Royal per196 Tunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 452.

107 Unigenitus dei filius: Reg. Grandisson, I, 154; Cotton MS. Vitel. F II, fo. 155v-56. +9 Raynaldus, 1349, § 11; C.P.L., II, 311; Reg. of Selby, Duchy of Lancaster, Misc. Bk. 8, fo. 51-52V. +09 Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 13¥.

2° Chron. Anonymi Cantuariensis, Tait, p. 194. 442 Chron. Abbatiae de Parco Ludo, p. 39. 112 Chron., Il, 65-66.

4° C.C.R. 1349-54, p. 149. The only protest of the pope which I have noted was made on 21 November before the prohibition was issued. It was to the effect that failure to make peace with France would hinder many from gaining the indulgence: C.P.L., III, 42. 44 C.C.R. 1349-54, pp. 206-07, 233.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 461 mission to make the pilgrimage was, however, granted rather freely. It took the form of a safe conduct, a license to take money out of the kingdom

or permission to appoint attorneys for the period of absence. Often the documents state merely that the recipients were going on pilgrimage beyond the seas. In one instance a knight was bound for St James Compostella."*° In many instances Rome was designated as the bourn of the bearer and it may be taken for granted that it was the destination of most of the others.17® In the license of Adam Brabazoun, a citizen of London, it was said that he was going on a pilgrimage to Rome ‘to obtain absolution of his soul there.’ **” Many received permission to take with them several servants and attendants. Still others went whose licenses do not appear among those entered upon the close and patent rolls, unless they went as attendants upon

others.17* Some went without the royal sanction. The king pardoned Richard Spicer of Bristol for doing so.*’® Perhaps several hundred Englishmen helped to swell the innumerable throng at Rome. The oblations left in St Peter’s during this jubilee caused a quarrel over their division between the canons of the church and the official who repre-

sented the pope. Innocent VI ruled in 1356 that in the future the canons should keep the vessels and ornaments suitable for use in the divine service

and the papal camera should have the bullion. The money was to be divided. One quarter of it was left to the canons and three quarters were to be transferred to the papal camera.**°

Urban VI decided to reduce the number of years between Roman jubilees to thirty-three. Since many did not reach the age of fifty on account of the brevity of the life of man, this would give a better chance for all men to obtain the indulgence of the jubilee. It was also the length of time Christ lived on earth.’”* He set the next jubilee for 1390, and the new interval was to begin to run from that date. The requirements for obtaining the indulgence were the same as they had been in 1350, except that a fourth church, S Maria Maggiore, had to be visited." 18 C.P.R, 1348-50, p. 571.

44625 June to 25 November 1350: C.P.R. 1348-50, pp. 540, 543, 558, 560, 561, 563, 566, 568-73, 578, 581; 1350-54, pp. 4-7, 10, 12-14, 16; C.C.R. 1349-54, pp. 267-68, 271-72; Rymer, Foedera, III, 203-04. 17 CPLR, 1348-50, p. 543.

18 C.P.L., I, 331, 361-362, 382-86, 395-96, 413, 415; D. & Ch. Salisbury, Chapter Act Bk., II, p. 57 (leave of absence to go); Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 45¥ (certificate of the receipt of the indulgence issued by a papal penitentiar). 11° CPR. 1350-54, p. 19. *°° Lea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 206.

*** An English chronicler interpreted the reason to be that Urban VI believed that the length of man’s life expectancy was decreasing: Higden, Polychron, VIII, 491. +2 Decreed by Gregory XI on 29 April 1373: Raynaldus, 1373, § 15.

462 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 This decree was issued on 8 April 1389.17? On 16 April it was followed by an order to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans to have the bull published in their dioceses. The archbishop notified his suffragans of the mandate on 15 September.’** Before the year of jubilee began, Urban

VI died and Boniface IX succeeded him. Englishmen were free to go, if they could obtain a royal license to take out of the kingdom enough money to pay their expenses. At least several hundred of them set out for Rome. The fragment of a roll of licenses to cross the sea covering the period from 31 August to 14 November 1390 lists some 300 persons who received them.

In the exchange rolls which record the royal licenses for Lombard mer-

| chants to issue letters of exchange about 300 are listed previous to 31 August.’*? More licenses for exchange were entered in the whole year 1390 than in any other year from 1382 to 1394. As before, many of those whose destination was designated only as ‘over sea’ were doubtless going to Rome.?”°

The bull of Urban VI, which established a jubilee every thirty-third year after 1390, brought many pilgrims to Rome in 1423. Though Martin V does not appear to have proclaimed a jubilee for that year, he may have permitted the pilgrims to have the indulgence of the jubilee.*’” No official announcement of a jubilee seems to have been made in England. Even a casual mention of it in contemporary English sources appears to be lacking.

The next jubilee which interested the English, therefore, was in 1450. Nicholas V disregarded the decree of Urban VI and reverted to the period of fifty years. On 19 January 1449 he announced that the next year would be a year of jubilee at Rome when one could gain ‘omnium peccatorum plenissimam indulgentiam’ by visiting the four churches under the modes and forms contained in the apostolic letters of Clement VI and Gregory XI,

which he quoted.*** The letter was published in England.**® | ‘2° Salvator noster unigenitus: John Malverne in Higden, Polychron, IX, 206-10; London, Reg. Braybrook, fo. 239-40. *** Reg. Braybrook, fo. 239-40. 425 C.C.R. 1389-92, pp. 569-73; 1392-96, pp. 518-48.

**° Some persons in the obedience of Avignon went to Rome in 1400 for the jubilee on the theory that the interval of fifty years decreed by Clement VI still obtained: Lea, History of Auricular Confession, UI, 207; Creighton, Papacy, I, 146-47; Paulus, Geschichte, III, 184-85; Remy, Les grandes Indulgences, p. 38. Whether they obtained indulgences of the jubilee is subject to a difference of opinion among these secondary historians. It is of no significance in relation to England, which was of the Roman obedience. %27 Paulus, Geschichte, Ul, 185-87; Lea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 208-09; Pastor, History, I, 232, 393-94. 8 The letters noted above: pp. 646, 608. **° Published in the province of York in May and October 1449: York, Reg. Kemp, fo. 133-357; D. & Ch. Durham. Reg. Quartum, fo. 75-757; Raynaldus, 1449, § 15.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 463 This jubilee attracted a large number of pilgrims.4*° Two contemporary Italians speak, in terms which are probably exaggerated, of the large amount received by the pope from the oblations.*# What share Englishmen had in swelling the papal income from this source is problematical. The mention of the jubilee by a contemporary English chronicler indicates that it became known to the public,’®? but aside from one layman and one monk of Glastonbury,*** evidence of English pilgrims is missing.*** | Paul II decided that the interval of fifty years, or even of thirty-three, was too long to wait. On 19 April 1470 he decreed that a jubilee should take place in Rome in 1475 and every 25 years thereafter.*** Sixtus IV, who succeeded him, renewed the decree on 26 March 1472.%° On 29 August 1473 he announced that all other indulgences would be suspended during the year of jubilee,**” a practice which was followed by his successors. Though there is no reason to believe that this jubilee was not proclaimed in England, no evidence of it has come to my attention. Nor have I found evidence that English pilgrims went to Rome in 1475. Alexander VI first called public attention to the jubilee of 1500 on 12 April 1498, when he had read aloud at the papal court a bull suspending all plenary indulgences to the close of the year of jubilee.*** On 28 March 1499 a bull announced the year of jubilee to begin on the eve of the next Christmas and repeated the suspension of other plenary indulgences.**? On 22 December 1499 the jubilee was again announced with some additions. Those who began the journey to Rome to obtain the indulgence and those who made preparations to come, if they were legitimately hindered, would receive the indulgence. Those who came to Rome and had to depart before completing the required visits to the four churches in Rome were granted the same favor. The bull also gave the aid of the indulgence to souls of the

180 Pastor, History, Il, 74-89; Creighton, Papacy, II, 290-91; Lea, History of Auricular Confession, II, 209.

181 Manetti, Vita Nicholai V, in Muratori, Scriptores, III, pt. 2, 924-25, Vespasiano da Bisticci, Memoirs, pp. 48-49. What the latter says about the receipts from Peter’s pence

(p. 49) makes it reasonably certain that his ideas of the papal income were greatly

exaggerated.

182 4 English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard Il, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry

V1, Camden Soc., p. 68.

138 CPI. X, 66, 530-31. 184 The record of licenses to exchange money no longer appears in C.P.R. or C.C.R. 1857 ea, History of Auricular Confession, Ill, 210; Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 190; Pastor, History, IV, 117; Bullarum Taurinensis Editio, V, 200. *8° Raynaldus, 1472, § 60.

187 Pastor, History, IV, 273; Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 190. *88 Burchard, Diarium, II, 354. 18° Tbid., Il, 518; Pastor, History, VI, 147, n.

464 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 deceased, provided a friend or relative contributed to the repair of St Peter’s a sum ordained by a penitentiar.**°

Another bull of the same date appointed the penitentiars who were to be in attendance at the churches of the apostles and gave them power to give absolution and prescribe penance for sins reserved to the apostolic see except conspiracy against the person or the states of the pope, falsification of papal letters, selling arms or other prohibited goods to infidels and laying violent hands on a bishop or his superior in the hierarchy.*** The powers of the penitentiars were further increased by a bull of 4 March 1500. They were given discretion to reduce the number of days of visitation of the four churches required of foreigners from fifteen to five. For this boon it was necessary to put in the chest for the repair of St Peter’s one quarter of the cost of their living for the ten days saved. If a penitentiar judged a pilgrim to be too poor to pay that much, he could reduce the amount or eliminate the payment entirely. The penitentiars were given the same discretion with regard to contributions for souls of the deceased, which they were supposed to regulate in amount by the quality and condition of the giver. The penitentiars were further empowered to give dispensations for which they were

to take compositions. They included any irregularity in orders except voluntary homicide and a bigamous contract, marriages contracted or to be contracted in degrees of relationship below the second, vows except con-

tinence, religion or a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, goods evilly acquired of which the owner was unknown, simony and the receipt by the writers of apostolic letters of more than the prescribed fees. The general rule for assessing the composition was to take account of the quality and condition of the person, but in the case of wrongfully acquired goods they were also to consider the value of the goods. They were to take at least one-third of the fruits of benefices wrongfully acquired by simony and a portion of the

excess received by apostolic writers above the fees they should have charged. If doubt arose about the amount of a composition, it was to be referred to the datary, who was at the head of the office where the amount of such compositions was normally settled. The compositions were to be put in the chest.*#

The attempt to obtain funds for the repair of St Peter’s by reducing the length of the period of visits, by offering aid to souls in purgatory and by compositions for dispensations caused an association with this jubilee indulgence of a financial element which had not previously existed. One

141 Thid., Il, 317-19.

+42 Goller, Ponitentiarie, II, pt. 2, 87-90.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 465 could still obtain the indulgence without payment of any money other than such voluntary gifts as he might leave on the altars of the churches which he visited. But many chose to pay a quarter of their estimated living

expenses for ten days in order to avoid the fatigue of so many days of visits.'*° The benefit for souls in purgatory by the gift of alms had been granted to the church of Saintes by Sixtus IV in 1476,"** but it had never before been included in an indulgence of the jubilee in Rome. The penitentiary was the papal office which customarily handled the dispensations for which compositions had to be paid. The payment of compositions for these dispensations, with the exception of that required from dishonest writers in the papal chancery, had been customary for a long time. Perhaps those

who had obtained the fullest pardons of previous jubilees, if they also needed dispensations from the law, had gone to the pentitentiary to secure them while they were in Rome,**® but the payment of compositions had not been connected with earlier Roman jubilees so closely. In England this jubilee attracted the attention of a chronicler of London, who was interested chiefly in the consequent suspension of all the pardons available locally in England.**® A vicar choral of Wells **” and the chancellor of Lincoln *** were granted leaves of absence to go to Rome for the jubilee, but how many others may have gone is unknown. It is of interest that Erasmus, in 1498, gave up a plan to study at Bologna and afterward to visit Rome in the year of jubilee.**”

Clement VII proclaimed 1525 to be a year of jubilee on 18 April 1524.1°° He reverted to custom which prevailed before 1500. The indulgence was not applicable to the dead, the period of visitation of Roman churches could not be shortened by payment of money, compositions were not mentioned and the faithful were left free to make such contributions at the altars as they chose. On 10 June 1524 he issued a second bull urging all to take advantage of the indulgence. During this jubilee local indulgences were again suspended.*** When the year arrived, fewer pilgrims came to Rome than during any previous jubilee.*°* Many were probably 48 Conti, Le Storie, II, 219. *#4 Below, pp. 594-95.

14° F.g., Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 45¥. *4° Chrons. of London, ed. Kingsford, pp. 228-29; Great Chrons. of London, ed. Thomas and Thornley, p. 292. 147 FT M.C., Cal. MSS. D. &© Ch. Wells, II, 157.

48D. & Ch. Lincoln, Chapter Act Bks. A. 3. 1 fo. 1617; A. 2. 37 fo. 58¥. 149 Nichols, Epistles of Erasmus, 1, 160. 150 Si pastores ovum: Vat. Lib., MS. Vat. Latino 10253, fo. 3-7%; Lea, History of Auricular

Confession, III, 226, Pastor, History, X, 368-69. 22 'W.A.M., 6639; below, p. 498. 152 Pastor, History, X, 368; Lea, History, Ill, 214.

466 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 discouraged by the war in Italy. Concerning the attendance of Englishmen no evidence has been discovered. 6. INDULGENCES OF THE JUBILEE GRANTED BY Papat LETTERs To INDIVvIDUALS AND TO Groups WuicH RECEIVED THEREFROM No FINANCIAL BENEFIT

Clement VI began the practice of granting to individuals and to groups of persons who could not go to Rome in the year of jubilee an indulgence of the jubilee. In 1350 the king and queen of England, the prince of Wales, the princess Isabella, the earl of Huntington and his wife, John de Bellocampo and John de Insula, knights, and Peter de Gildesborough, archdeacon of Totnes, petitioned the pope for indulgences such as were being granted to those who visited shrines in Rome during the year of jubilee. They were prepared to contribute to the aid of the Holy Land what it would have cost to make the journey to Rome. The petition was granted provided they had been hindered from making the journey by a reasonable cause.*** Bulls to that effect were expedited to several of the petitioners on 11 January 1351. Edward III was notified that his petition had been granted on 14 May.***

In addition to a contribution to the Holy Land equal to the cost of the journey to Rome, a writer’s fee, which was much higher than that required for an ordinary plenary indulgence, was charged by the chancery for the indult to the king and queen. Instead of a fee of 16 grossi,’*® it is recorded in the list of fees of the chancery: ‘Plenary indulgence is granted to the king and queen of England as if they had gone to Rome, 50 grossi.’ *°* Whether the higher fee was due to the plenary indulgence being of the jubilee or to

the high rank of the recipients of the indulgence cannot be determined with certainty. Either the nature of the favor or the grant of it to a monarch might increase a fee above that calculated solely on the amount of labor expended in the production of the bull.*°”

One type of indult granted in connection with this jubilee was unique as far as I have discovered. On 9 February 1353 Innocent VI confirmed a grant made by Clement VI who died before the papal letter had been ex-

pedited. The bishop of Exeter was empowered to commute the vows 158 C\P.P., I, 207. The cost of the journey was the standard requirement for such grants: Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 455. 184 C.P.L., Il, 49, 383. *°5 Above, p. 457.

5° Tunt, Papal Revenues, II, 504. The item is in the list compiled during the pontificate of John XXII. It contains some later items and this is obviously one of them. +57 Ibid., I, 126. Bulls granting the same favor to later kings and queens of England were generally expedited gratis: C.P.L., X, 72; above, p. 451; below, p. 471. The grant to Richard II and his queen may have been an exception.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 467 twelve persons had made to visit the churches of St Peter, St Paul and St John of the Lateran in order to obtain plenary remission. These were the churches which had to be visited in 1350 to gain the indulgence of the jubilee.*°® The summary of the bull in the Calendar of Papal Letters does not state to what good works the vows were to be commuted. It was apparently in connection with this jubilee that a curious incident occurred in England. Nicholas Heth, a pluralist,*°® was arrested by king’s clerks in 1352. When he returned to the papal court, where he was employed, he claimed that his arrest had been made to compel him to resign his benefices to the royal clerks. This was a misrepresentation which caused the king to make a public announcement of the real cause of his arrest. He

had come to England from the papal court, asserted that he was a papal secretary and promised to seek for the citizens of London a general indulgence called in the vernacular ‘a poena et a culpa.’ For this grace and divers others he received large sums of money. He failed to keep his promise, and his arrest had for its purpose to recover the money. After he had supplied a surety that he would pay these debts, he was released from prison on 20 November 1352.1®° Boniface IX distributed indulgences of the jubilee to those who did not

go to Rome much more generously than Clement VI had done. On 30 January 1390 he granted to the king and queen the same indulgence they would have received if they had come to Rome, provided they visited the churches of Canterbury, St Paul’s, Westminster and Walsingham and converted to other pious works what it would have cost them to go to, remain in and return from Rome.*** During that year and the next three several other persons received similar indulgences. Many of them—if not all—had not only to convert to good works what the journey to Rome would have cost them but also to send to the basilicas in Rome the oblations which they would have made there if they had gone to Rome. In some instances, at least, they were further required to visit churches named by their confessors.1 8?

Boniface [X also conceded the indulgence of the jubilee to local groups of four different kinds. On 8 May 1390 he granted to the bishop of Salis-

bury that twelve persons selected by him might receive the indulgence without going to Rome.*** The bishop of Winchester petitioned that the 68 CPL. Il, 488. 8? Above, p. 345, n. 289. *6°Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 255; C.P.R., 1350-54, p. 418. 161 Cotton MS. Vitel. F II, fo. 687. 162 C\P.L., IV, 379, 380; Thorne, Chronicle, p. 672. *®8 Cotton MS. Cleop. D III, fo. 194.

468 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 indulgence should be given to himself and to sixty persons of his choice, but the indult which he received was limited to himself and twenty persons.‘** The bishop of Dunkeld obtained a similar favor for twenty-four persons of the realm of England.*® Other concessions of this type were made to John Wallere of Bawdsey for twelve persons and to Henry Thirlow, a friar minor, for twelve English persons in 1392 and for six more in 1393.18° Each member of every group had to fulfil the same conditions that were demanded of one who received an individual grant. In two instances the indulgence was given to rectors and their parishioners with the same requirements. They were the rectors and parishioners of Hadley in Suffolk and of East ‘Town in Yarmouth.*%

On 7 November 1390 the pope granted the indulgence of the jubilee to Richard de Segbrok, a monk of the priory of Durham, Gilbert Elwet and John Ayre, laymen, Matilda, wife of Gilbert, Emma de Chester and Matilda, wife of Robert Couper. They, for various reasons, were not able to come to Rome. In this letter the indulgence was defined as ‘plenissimam

veniam.’ Each was to pay to his confessor what he would have spent if he had come to Rome in person and what he would have given in oblations.

He must also visit for fifteen days four churches assigned by the confessor.‘°8 Some monasteries receive the indulgence for their abbots and all the members of their convents. Among them were St Augustine Canterbury *® and Westminster. A list of the oblations which the abbot and each of the monks of the latter sent to Rome in 1390 has been preserved. In the list each monk is named and the amount of his contribution 1s stated. Wailliam Colchester, the abbot, sent ten shillings, the prior and thirty-six other monks sent five shillings each, two sent six shillings eight pence each, one sent four shillings, two sent three shillings four pence each, three sent two shillings six pence each, one sent twenty pence and two sent fifteen pence each. These items amounted to £11 11 s.17°

In other countries where Boniface [X extended the indulgence of the jubilee to those who did not go to Rome, he demanded that all or part, both of the money which the journey would have cost and of the money which would have been left on the altars of the churches visited, be sent to Rome. *64 Chitty and Jacob, ‘Some Winchester College Muniments, £.H.R., XLIX, 7. 165 CPI’. IV, 379. 166 CPL. IV, 323-24. 167 CPL. IV, 324, 326, 380. +68 B. M., Arundel MS. 507, fo. 93-94v. The entry gives the formula of the absolution to be conveyed by the confessor. *8° ‘Thorne, Chronicle, p. 672.

*7°'W.A.M., Misc. Bk. 1 (Liber Niger) fo. 92. Mentioned by Bentley, Abstract, p. 54, no. 429. The addition is mine.

, Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 469 If the indulgence was granted to an individual by the pope, the whole sum

was required. If it was obtained locally from a church which had been authorized to administer it, half went to the local church and half to the churches in Rome.*"* England appears to have been an exception. The money equivalent to the cost of the journey was apparently used in local good works. Nothing indicates that it had to be sent to Rome. Only the oblations were dispatched to Rome and they went to the churches which the recipients would have visited, if they had gone to Rome. Of these oblations the pope received a share.1” Concerning the extension of the indulgence of the jubilee of 1450 to individuals and to groups of persons in England who did not make the pilgrimage to Rome the evidence is scant. Queen Margaret, who received the indulgence, was required to pay the estimated cost of the journey to Rome, of which half was to go to local churches and half to the fabrics of Roman churches.*’* This appears to have been the general financial require-

ment from those who were reasonably well endowed with the goods of this world,*** but exceptions were made for those who were not so fortunate. Robert Rodes, who started for Rome but failed to reach the city on account of illness, was required to pay four florins to the poor *”* and Richard Cunstall was told to give thirty pence to them.**® Apparently the number of individuals who remained in England and obtained the indulgence by direct petition to the pope was small. One large group received the indulgence without leaving England. In response to a petition of William, abbot of Bury St Edmund, Nicholas V decreed that the statute of Clement VI, which allowed members of religious orders to go to Rome for a jubilee without the license of their superiors, should not apply to monks and novices of the Benedictine order in England and Wales on this occasion. They had to have licenses from their superiors before they could go.**” The statute of Clement VI, during previous jubilees, had caused lack of discipline and disorders among the monks who took

advantage of it to go to Rome. In order that the black monks might not be deprived of the opportunity to obtain the jubilee of 1450, the pope empowered the abbot of Bury to appoint in any church and monastery of the order in England and Wales confessors for abbots, priors, monks, novices, 71 Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 455, 458. *7? Above, p. 461.

785 October 1450: C.P.L., X, 72. 74 Paulus, Geschichte, III, 455-56. *7° 13 April 1450: C.P.L., X, 66. 176 28 September 1451: C.P.L., X, 102-03. "7 CPL. X, 57.

470 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

servants, farmers and tenants with authority to grant within the year to any of them an indulgence of the jubilee. Those of them who could were to say certain numbers of masses, prayers and penitential psalms, to visit for

thirty days an altar in their monastery and to do other works of piety prescribed by their confessors. An abbot or a prior was required in addition to pay for himself and for each of his monks and novices, as part of what

he would have spent on the journey to Rome, at least a gold noble (six shillings eight pence) to persons assigned as receivers by the abbot of Bury. The money was to be used for the fabric of churches in Rome.*7®

Indulgences of the jubilee issued to English individuals or groups of persons who did not go to Rome in association with the years of jubilee in 1475, 1500 and 1525 have left few traces which I have found.!”® In 1500

the Cistercian order sought the grant of an indulgence of the jubilee for the whole order. ‘The abbots of Fountains and St Mary Graces in London, who were the orators of the abbot of Citeaux, wrote to him from Leicester on 20 August 1500 that they had sent him 300 crowns’*® for seeking the grace of a jubilee indulgence in the Roman court. This sum they had had to advance themselves and they had not yet been able to recover a penny of it. Since they could collect nothing until they had copies of the indulgence, they urged the abbot to send three or four copies to England as soon as possible. ‘They could then dispatch to each place by messengers copies which would enable the collectors of the subsidy imposed to meet the ex-

penses to levy it. The matter was the more urgent because some of the younger members of the order had applied for leave to go to the Roman court for their indulgence. They were actuated by curiosity and levity rather than devotion, and rarely did English monks or laymen derive either health or devotion from a visit to the Roman court.*** Soon after the jubilees of 1475 and 1500 ended at Rome, they were extended to the whole of England.**? Possibly some Englishmen who wanted the indulgence, but could not leave England to seek it, did not petition for individual grants, the same favor for fifty members of her household and fifty persons selected because they expected that an opportunity to obtain it in England would be given later. There were a few who secured individual grants of the indulgence of

the jubilee of 1525. Henry VIII and members of his family, as has been 78 O.P.L., X, 57, 61. *7° "There may be some in Reg. Vat. or Reg. Brevia which escaped my attention. If there

are many, I doubt if all were overlooked. , *®° In the neighborhood of £65. In 1512 a crown was worth 4 s. 4 d.: L. @ P., Il, pt. 2, P 8 Gautier, ‘De l’Etat, Mélanges Bémont, pp. 424, 428-30. 182 Below, pp. 586-90, 601-04.

Indulgences Administered Directly by the Papacy 471 noted, anticipated the jubilees by obtaining one in 1524 in return for visiting churches in England.**? On 28 June 1525 Queen Katherine was given the same favor for fifty members of her household and fifty persons selected

by her from outside her household.*** On 18 March 1525 each of the bishops of Winchester, Lincoln and London was authorized to choose a confessor who could confer upon him ‘plenissimam omnium peccatorum vestrorum absolutionem et indulgentiam anni jubilei’ as if he had visited the churches in Rome personally. Each was to visit some churches of his choice in his diocese and to contribute to pious works what it would have cost him to travel to Rome. The like was granted at the same time to William Compton, knight and chamberlain of Henry VIII.*°° On 28 June 1525 Wolsey was notified that one hundred members of his household might each visit four churches of his neighborhood and receive from his chosen confessor the same indulgence.'** The letters to the three bishops were the only ones which mentioned a contribution to good works and none of them required any money to be sent to the papal camera or to churches in Rome. 7. THe RECEIPTS OF THE PAPACY FROM SUCH LETTERS

The receipts of the papacy from grants of indulgences of the jubilee by letters to individuals who did not go to Rome to obtain the indulgence cannot be estimated. The fees of the chancery for such indulgences may have been higher than those for letters of ordinary plenary indulgence, but that is doubtful.**’ There is no indication that a composition had to be paid for a grant of such an indulgence either to an individual or to a group which did not administer the indulgence to others than those already in the group. Judging by the amount which the English Cistercians contributed to the expenses which the whole order expected to incur for a grant of an indulgence of the jubilee, the cost was far in excess of the fees of the chancery. The excess may have included payment of a composition, but it may have been used only for the traveling and living expenses of a proctor, the services of curial proctors and gratuities.

The contributions to aid the Holy Land which Clement VI required from some of the recipients of individual grants of the indulgence of 1350 would normally have been paid to the papal collector for delivery to the papal camera. Hugh Pelegrini in his account of receipts for the crusade 18 Above, p. 450. 18 Arm, XL, 10, fo. 222.

185 Otherwise dated 19 and 24 March: Arm. XXXIX, 45, fo. 2077-08; XL, 9, fo. 108; Lincoln, Reg. Longland, fo. 97%. 186 Arm. XXXIX, 45, fo. 598%; XL, 9, fo. 385. **7 Above, pp. 466.

472 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 recorded only one payment made by those receiving such grants.*** He received from John de Bellocampo, a knight, 145 florins, worth £23 7 s. 6 d.

for an expedition against the Turks on account of an indulgence granted to him “as if he had gone to Rome.’ The others may have made their renders

directly to the camera. If they did, the sum must have been substantial, although there were few of them. The requirements of Boniface IX for the grant of such letters to individuals was the cost of the journey to Rome given for good works and the oblations which would have been left in the churches visited there. Only the oblations were sent to Rome and the pope received only a portion of them. For some of the similar letters associated

with the indulgence of 1450 Nicholas V demanded half the cost of the journey, but not many of them seem to have been issued. For payments to the papacy in addition to the fees of the chancery for letters granting the indulgence of the jubilee to individuals in 1475, 1500 and 1525 no evidence is forthcoming. The payments of the cost of the journey required of three bishops in 1525 seem to have been devoted to local pious works. In return for the concession of indulgences of the jubilee made by Boniface IX to the inmates of a monastery a gift was required from each monk who received the remission, but the sum which resulted was not large. The

indult granted to the whole Benedictine order on similar terms in 1450, however, must have produced a considerable sum. Taken as a whole, it seems improbable that the papal income from grants of the indulgence of the jubilee by letters to individuals or to the existing members of groups was of any great importance. 188 Col. 14, fo. 38-39, 95-95%.

CHAPTER X

INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES 1. ParTIAL INDULGENCES

Partial indulgences were designed to be of financial benefit to local institutions such as a church, chapel or hospital. Their purpose was to help meet the cost of building, of repairs, of furnishings or of other necessary expenditures. Such an indulgence was administered locally by officials of the institution to which it was granted. The most common type of partial indulgence relaxed a specified amount of enjoined penance of one who

visited with helping hands the institution to which the indulgence was granted on one of certain named days in the year. The number of days in the year when the indulgence could be obtained varied generally from one to five until the pontificate of Urban V. Clement VI, on one occasion named the principal feasts of the year, several others and the octaves of those which had octaves.’ Innocent VI issued several indulgences of this type * and under Urban V they became common. He made a rule of the chancery that partial indulgences issued in ordinary course should provide for visits _ on the following feasts: the seven of our Lord, four of St Mary, St John the Baptist, Sts Peter and Paul, All Saints, the feast of the saint to whom the church was dedicated and the octaves of these feasts which had octaves.? Under this rule there might be as many as twenty-five days in a year on any one of which a visit with a gift of alms would secure relaxation of as many days of penance as the indulgence specified. If a sinner was so inclined, he could make such a visit on each of the twenty-five days and thus accumulate twenty-five times the amount of relaxation given for one visit. The visits could moreover be repeated each year as long as the grant remained

in effect. The successors of Urban V continued to make partial indulgences available on similar long lists of saints’ days,* although the propor-

tion of their grants of this type in relation to all their grants was much smaller.° With the pontificate of Nicholas V (1447-55) these long lists ceased to be used,® and apparently they were not revived thereafter.’ *C.P.L., Ill, 470. Unless otherwise stated, only partial indulgences granted to places in England and Wales are considered. 2 C.P.L., Ill, 523-24, 560, 573, 585.

* Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, p. 17. “Occasionally a list contained a few days more than twenty-five: e.g., C.P.L., IV, 374. 5 C\P.L., [V-IX, passim. °C.P.L., X, 58, 79, 113, 175, 612-613, 711; XI, 606, 626, 637, 642-43, 657-58; XII, 45-761,

rer Except one for ten days the following are from one to four days in each year: (1473)

474 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The rule of the chancery established by Urban V stated that if a petitioner asked for fewer days in the year when the indulgence would be effective, the request should be granted. Few bulls of this type appear to have been issued by him.* One example is a grant of relaxation of one year and forty days to those who visited with helping hands the chapel of St Mary in the village of Thearne near Beverley on the Purification (2 Febru-

ary), the Annunciation (25 March), the Nativity (8 September) or the Assumption (15 August) of St Mary.® The number of visiting days established by this type of bull varied from one to five, excepting several issued by Boniface IX which allowed visits on more than five days and less than twenty.

There were also differences in the amount of relaxation granted by partial indulgences. During the period of the residence at Avignon from 1327 to 1376 a few of the concessions were for 40, 60 or 100 days, but nearly all were for one year and forty days. A few were for two years and two quarantines or three years and three quarantines and one was for seven years and seven quarantines. During the pontificate of Boniface [X one year and one quarantine became exceptional and from two years and two quarantines to seven years and seven quarantines became the norm. Thereafter one year and forty days became exceptional. Until the pontificate of Eugenius IV seven years and seven quarantines also remained uncommon, except during the pontificate of John XXIII. More of his bulls were for seven years and seven quarantines than for any other number and three were for ten years and ten quarantines. With Eugenius IV relaxation from two years and two quarantines to seven years and seven quarantines became normal and remained so. In the late years of the fifteenth century and early years of the sixteenth, however, greater relaxations were sometimes offered. Sixtus IV, in 1473, enabled visitors who left alms in the cathedral church of Norwich to obtain twelve years and twelve quarantines.*® In 1481 he conceded to visitors to the chapel of S Giles who held out helping hands for the nuns of Cheshunt

twenty years and twenty quarantines.** Innocent VIII, in 1487, granted Norwich, Reg. Goldwell, fo. 206; (1476) Salisbury, Reg. Beauchamp, IJ, pt. 2, fo. 8%; (1481) Reg. Vat. 676, fo. 353¥-547; (1482) 721, fo. 198-99; (1487) 769, fo. 343¥-44, (1487) D. & Ch. Durham, Cartuarium Tertium, fo. 2027-03; (1495) Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 45-457; (1504) 984,

fo. 165-67; (1528) Wolsey’s indulgence, below, p. 475. An exception in 1482 is a grant of relaxation of one year and forty days on any Sunday in the year: Reg. Vat. 674, fo. - Vv

Ee, CP.L., IV, 31, 39.

°Cotton MS. Vitel. F II, fo. 88. *° Norwich, Reg. Goldwell, fo. 206. Reg. Vat. 676, fo. 353¥-54¥.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 475

to the chapel of Hungerford Farley ten years and ten quarantines '* and to the cathedral of Durham twenty years and twenty quarantines.7? Alexander VI gave twenty years and twenty quarantines to those who visited the projected chapel in the church of St George Windsor on certain days, seven years and seven quarantines on some other days and full remission on

one day.** Julius II transferred these indulgences to the chapel built at Westminster.*® An indulgence established by Wolsey in 1528 is typical of the partial indulgence of the period and of his exercise of papal powers which caused him sometimes to be dubbed ‘the English pope.’ He gave to those visiting the altar of St Nicholas, a chantry in the parish of Kneesal, on the festival of the Resurrection, of Pentecost, of the Assumption of St Mary, of St Nicholas or of the anniversary of the foundation of the chantry,

praying for John Chapman, a citizen of York who was the founder, his father, mother and daughters, and giving alms relaxation of ten years and ten quarantines of enjoined penance by authority of a privilege granted to him

by Clement VII and one hundred days by his authority as cardinal." There was also variation in the length of time for which a grant of a partial indulgence held good. Until the time of Urban V a limit for the duration of a grant was rarely stated. Clement VI and Innocent VI restricted a few to a period of three, five or ten years.’7 Urban V made the

Pp y y ery Bory “«

eriod ten years by a rule of the chancery 1* and Gregory XI made it twenty.” Thereafter one of these remained the general practice except

in the time of Boniface [X. He set ten years as the rule,?° but it was rarely

observed in practice. ‘Two exceptions to the rule of the duration of a grant for a definite number of years lasted throughout the period. From time to time a grant was still made without any indication of the length of time for which it was to endure. Here, as elsewhere, Boniface [X was an exception. Most of his bulls placed no limit on the period during which they remained effective. The other exception was a grant in perpetuity. ** Reg. Vat. 769, fo. 3437-44. #8D—D. & Ch. Durham, Cartuarium Tertium, fo. 2027-03.

*“Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 77, 87-88, 109, 120. ** Below, p. 500.

*° York, Reg. Wolsey, fo. 133-133¥. The claim of the prior of Ingham, made in 1506, that Innocent III granted to the order of Trinitarians power to give to benefactors 70 years and 70 quarantines (Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 19) is false. Such large relaxations were not granted at that time. He also attributed to Innocent III a grant making deceased relatives sharers in aids given to the dead. Such grants were not made before 1457 and probably not before 1476: Lea, History of Auricular Confession, VII, 344-49; Paulus, Geschichte, III, 374-86, Goller, Ausbruch, pp. 151-57. 1C\P.L., Ill, 67, 68, 331, 456-57, 514, 536, 573-74. ** Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, p. 17. *° [bid., p. 28. 20 Ibid., p. 66.

+76 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

This practice was begun by Urban VI. He ordained that an indulgence granted in perpetuity should be confined to the principal feasts of the saint in whose honor the church or chapel was founded.?* Ordinarily this rule would provide only one day ina year when visitors could secure the pardon, but there might be more. The indulgence given to the cathedral church of Durham in 1487 allowed visiting days on the feasts of the burial or translation of St Cuthbert or on other festal days of that saint.?** As Boniface IX stated the rule a perpetual partial indulgence was to be granted only when the indulgence was good for a single day in each year. ‘This, he said, was customary.”? The rule in this form was repeated by Martin V, Eugenius [V and Nicholas V.?? The pope could, of course, make an exception to the rule. Eugenius IV gave in perpetuity to the chantry in Tattershall an indulgence of five years and five quarantines which was available to visitors either on the Annunciation or on the Exaltation of the Cross.?* His successors often allowed two days or even three. These partial indulgences appear to have been popular. ‘The demand for them by English ecclesiastics continued throughout the period. Beginning with Clement VI every pope, with one exception,”® issued a considerable number of them. The issue of them was fairly steady excepting the pontificate of Boniface IX when the number of them was far in excess of that issued by any other pope. With Nicholas V the demand began to slacken somewhat, perhaps because locally administered plenary indulgences had begun to be available. They continued to be issued, however, to the end of the period. Clement VII granted one to the chapel of St Mary in the church of Harrington on 27 March 1526.?° Another type of locally administered partial indulgences authorized the officials of the institution which received the grant to send agents to parish

churches throughout a given area, to announce the indulgences to the parishioners and to give the indulgence to those parishioners who contributed alms.?” These agents were known as questors and in England they 2 Ibid., p. 47. 218 T). & Ch. Durham, Cartuarium Tertium, fo. 2029. 2Ortenthal, Kanzleiregeln, p. 66. *8 [bid., pp. 195, 246, 263. Example: C.P.L., VIII, 326.

CPL. VII, 528. ** Gregory XII.

76 Arm. XL, 11, fo. 218. The grant to the hospital of St Bartholomew in Gloucester on 20 August 1533 was probably a partial indulgence: L. & P., IV, app. no. 5. *7 E.g., Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 301-02; C.P.L., XI, 6-8. Apparently recipients of a partial indulgence which could be obtained by a gift of alms without a visit sometimes solicited the alms by traveling agents without papal permission to do so. Popes sometimes stated in such a grant that traveling agents could not be used: C.P.L., IV, 179, 189; VI, 54; IX, 248, 486-87.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 477 were commonly called pardoners. Not only did several English hospitals and monasteries have indulgences of this sort,?* but also a few foreign institutions enjoyed the privilege of sending their questors to England.”® Among the latter were the hospitals of St Anthony in Vienne *° and St James Altopassio in the diocese of Lucca.** Many pardoners abused their powers and sometimes alleged pardoners whose bulls were forged succeeded in collecting sums of money. Chaucer’s satire at the expense of the pardoner is mild compared with the statements found in the decrees enacted to eliminate the evils of the system. As early

as 1198 Innocent III began to regulate the activities of questors and the fourth council of the Lateran enacted a constitution on the subject in 1215.3? Thereafter general, provincial and diocesan councils legislated against the abuses practiced by legitimate questors and against false questors.* In England popes,** kings,®° archbishops *° and bishops ** intervened from time to time. Nevertheless abuses continued as long as the papal jurisdiction lasted in England. On 9 June 1528 a diocesan synod at Ely decreed

that no person should be allowed to ask alms for brotherhoods, hospitals or similar communities without the license of the bishop.** On 12 June 1533 two pardoners were arrested on the suspicion that they were using papal letters and a royal license which were false.*? Without doubt the continuance throughout the period of abuses by some questors brought papal indulgences into some disrepute.

The nature of the abuses is illustrated by a warning sent by Bishop Brantingham of Exeter in 1377 to his archdeacons against questors who were using false letters purporting to be from the pope or from him. These 28 E.g., C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 380, 1330-34, pp. 414, 541; 1345-48, pp. 201, 217, 357, 418; C.P.L., XI, 6-8. 2° C\P.R. 1327-30, p. 16; 1330-34, pp. 146, 369. *° For its indulgences see Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 247-51; Regs. de Boniface VIII, 2174, 2274, 2276-77, 2286.

*1 Its indulgence was partial, because on 12 April 1369 the king ordered the arrest of its preceptor, if he was promising plenary absolution of all sins: C.P.R. 1367-70, pp. 265-66. 82 Paulus, Geschichte, Ul, 268-69.

88 Ibid., Il, 269-91; Kellogg and Haselmayer, ‘Chaucer’s Satire,’ P.M.L.A.. LX VI, 251-57. For some of the legislation of the convocations of Canterbury and York see Reg. Chichele,

)PPpP

Il, 93; Wilkins, Concilia, ILL, 557, 602.

$4 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 84, Reg. Avin. 193, fo. 354-55; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 108; Salisbury, Reg. Ergham, fo. 87%, C.S.P. Venice, I, 535. 85 Fo. CP.R. 1327-30, p. 16; 1345-48, p. 206; 1370-74, p. 482; 1377-81, p. 475; 1385-89, pp. 179, 257, 383. 6T ondon, Reg. Clifford, fo. 67; Lincoln, Reg. Repingdon, fo. 123-123¥. 87 F.g., Reg. Grandisson, 1, 344, Reg. Brantyngham, I, 380; II, 607-08; Reg. Repingdon, fo. 3; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 478-79.

0. & P., IV, pt. 2, 4351. This was the standard device for preventing the operations of false and dishonest questors.

oT. & P., VI, 636.

478 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 questors, he said, claimed to relax one-third or one-quarter of enjoined penance, to release from purgatory the souls of three or more relatives or friends of those who gave them money and to indulge with full remission of sins ‘a pena et a culpa’ benefactors of the places whence they came.’ Other types of abuses arose in connection with a partial mdulgence which the order of the Hospitallers administered locally in England. The methods used by its questors caused much dissatisfaction among the clergy of the province of Canterbury. In 1369 some rectors and vicars complained

to Urban V that the questors refused to show to the parish priest either papal or episcopal letters authorizing them to offer their indulgence in the church, but they entered the church and preached nevertheless. Sometimes on a feast day they preached so long that mass could not be celebrated and the parson lost his offerings. ‘The pope replied by suspending their privileges until they came before him and displayed them.*® ‘The remedy was ineffective and on 1 March 1374 Gregory XI, in response to a similar petition, decreed that the questors should not be admitted to a church until they displayed letters from the prior or preceptors of the order authorizing them to collect alms and that, on days when the people customarily gave oblations, they should wait until the greater masses had been said and the offerings had been made.*? Both good and bad aspects of the indulgences administered by questors are illustrated by some of the experiences of the master and brothers of the

hospital of St Mary by Charing Cross. They were allowed to use in Eng-

| land a papal indulgence granted to their mother house, the hospital of Roncesvalles in Aragon, for seeking alms by means of questors. They received royal protection for the purpose in 1346.** Between then and 1366 a scandal arose with regard to their indulgence. John of Reading recorded in his chronicle that parliament, in 1366, granted to the brothers their possessions with the ancient liberties shown in their charters. Soon afterward, he continued, they rebuilt their hospital at Charing. It was necessary because their income from oblations had declined on account of the infamy of the brothers caused by the discovery among them of a false bull of excessive indulgence.** Possibly it was this event which moved Chaucer to use a pardoner of this hospital for the purpose of portraying the abuses practiced by pardoners generally.

°° Reg. Brantyngham, I, 380. £919 November 1369: Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 84-85. “ Reg. Avin, 193, fo. 354-55. “2 C\P.R. 1345-48, p. 196. “8 P, 170.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 479 After 1366 the brothers had many years of successful administration of

their indulgence. In 1372 and again in 1374 John of Gaunt gave them a letter signifying his grace and favor.** In 1382 they again had the support of the king. A royal writ ordered the arrest of persons who had collected alms in the name of the hospital and converted the same to their own use.*° Between 1388 and 1405 their questors received episcopal licenses to operate in several dioceses,*® indicating that they were using a ligitimate papal indulgence. For a time during the schism they ceased to send the customary

annual render to Roncesvalles, because the house was in the territory of schismatics. The mother house protested to the Roman pope that it was loyal to him despite its location, and in 1402 Boniface IX ordered the payment of arrears and the resumption of annual payments.** The brothers at Charing suffered a setback in 1424. The convocation of the province of Canterbury then ruled that the only questors who could seek alms in the province were those of St John of Jerusalem, commonly called le Friary, St Anthony of London, a hospital dependent on St Anthony of Vienne, and the hospital of the Holy Trinity and St Thomas the Martyr in Rome.*® Later St Thomas of Acon in London was added to the list.4° ‘This legislation would seem to have excluded the questors of the hospital at Charing Cross, but in 1432 the master of the hospital, who was a king’s chaplain, was given a royal license to receive all bulls and letters of indulgence from the prior and convent of Roncesvalles and once a year to send victuals and goods to the mother house to the value of 10 marks.°° In 1485, when the legislation of 1424 may well have been forgotten, the bishop of Hereford licensed a proctor of the hospital to use his indulgences for the purpose of obtaining alms in the diocese.**

In the late years of the period two trends become observable in the development of partial indulgences. In some instances institutions which had enjoyed a partial indulgence for a long time were able to obtain a plenary indulgence. The hospital of St Anthony of Vienne provides an example. Its master and brothers collected alms in England by means of ** John of Gaunt’s Reg., ed. Armitage-Smith, I, 45-46, 51. “CPLR. 1381-85, p. 195. *6 Reg. Brantyngham, Il, 657; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 490, 524; Reg. Rede (Chichester), II, 280; Gibbons, Ely Episcopal Records, pp. 397-98. For the last reference I am indebted to a note made by Louis A. Haselmayer, Jr., which Professor Roger S. Loomis brought to my attention.

“CPL, V, 469-70. *8 Reg. Chichele, Ill, 93. *° Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 557. °° CPR. 1429-36, p. 247.

Reg. Myliyng, p. 96.

480 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 questors on the basis of partial indulgences which began with Alexander IV (1254-61). °? Its questors received royal and episcopal licenses repeatedly during the fourteenth century.°* After 1387 the dependent hospital of St

Anthony in London took over the administration of the indulgence in England ** and it received similar favors.°° In 1425 Martin V gave to the existing members of the confraternity of the house of St Anthony in Lon-

don the indulgence of receiving plenary remission at death from their chosen confessors.°® This grant was of no financial help to them, since it did not apply to new members. The hospital subsequently experienced hard times. On 21 June 1441 Henry VI wrote to Eugenius IV, stating that the hospital in London needed assistance and asking a favorable hearing for his ambassadors, Andrew Holes and Richard Caunton. The papal reply on 6 December 1441 authorized confessors appointed by the master and

brothers of the hospital to absolve members of the confraternity of the hospital and those who should become members during the next five years from all crimes and sins except those reserved to papal absolution, to release them from ecclesiastical censures such as excommunication,®” to commute several vows to other good works and to dispense members of the clergy for irregularities in divine services.°® ‘This grant was so abused by them

that on 3 June 1443 Eugenius ordered the confraternity to admit as new members only persons residing in the city and diocese of London.”® Though this was a liberal indulgence, it did not give plenary remission of all sins. Finally on 5 March 1523 Clement VII granted to those visiting with helping hands the hospital, which had been annexed to the royal chapel of St George in the castle of Windsor, plenary remission of all sins including those reserved to the pope.*” Another practice which became common in the fifteenth century was to add all the grants of relaxation of penance made to one institution by

popes, cardinals, archbishops and bishops and to claim that the paying visitor received them all. A cardinal could remove one hundred days of ? Reg. Stafford (Exeter), pp. 311-12. 53 1329-68: C.P.R. 1327-30, p. 16; 1334-38, p. 330; 1345-48, pp. 194, 263, 269; 1354-58, pp. 457, 541; 1367-70, p. 76, Reg. Grandisson, I, 538.

°* Reg. Chichele, Introd. I, p. cxlvii. ®5 1389-1448: C.P.R. 1388-92, p. 214; Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), p. 7; Reg. Rede (Chiches-

ter), II, 242; Reg. Stafford, pp. 311-12; Reg. Lacy (Exeter), II, 470; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 25-26; York, Reg. Kemp, fo. 125.

CPL. VI, 413.

**For a conflict with episcopal authority which this privilege caused see Gairdner, Lollardy, I, 249. °§ Corres. of Bekynton, I, Ixxv; II, 357; C.P.L., IX, 214-15.

5° CPL, VIII, 296-97. 6° Arm. XXXIX, 45, fo. 597¥-987; XL, 9, fo. 198, 385-385’. For other examples see below pp. 485-86, 490-92.

Indulgences Administered in Evigland by Local Authorities 481 enjoined penance and a bishop forty. An English bishop, when publishing a papal bull granting a partial indulgence, would often add forty days.* As early as 1349 the prior and convent of Tonbridge issued a notice to the

effect that a gift for rebuilding their church would bring to the giver indulgences granted by popes, archbishops and bishops which would amount to eight years and 230 days.®* This was modest compared with some of the claims put forward late in the fifteenth century and early in the sixteenth.

On 7 September 1467 or 1468 the visitors of the hospital of St Mary Magdalen in Allington announced publicly that they had seen indulgences conferred on the hospital by popes, cardinals, archbishops and bishops which they listed individually. The total sum would appear to have been only a few years, but they claimed that it was 11006 years.® In a cartulary of Missenden, compiled in the reign of Henry VII, the statement is made that the indulgences granted to the monks by Roman pontiffs, cardinals, archbishops and bishops amounted to 24000 years and as many quarantines ‘In remission of the pains of purgatory.’ ** A more extraordinary instance of this kind is found in a notice printed on 6 December 1514 in which twelve cardinals, who are named, state that they have granted to those who make a gift to the gild of St George of Southwark on any one of six festivals

one hundred days of true pardon from each cardinal. The sum of the pardon which could be obtained in one year was said to be 12340 days, and the letters were said to have been examined by three learned clergymen of London, of whom one was John Colet, dean of St Paul’s.® 2. Papa INcoME THEREFROM

Partial indulgences which were intended to be of financial benefit to local institutions were of little financial value to the papacy. Nothing indicates that the papacy received any share of the proceeds which such an indulgence brought to any English church, hospital or other institution. Nor was the recipient of such a bull of indulgence required to pay any composition such as was exacted from those who received some types of plenary indulgences for local administration.** The freedom from compositions of bulls granting partial indulgences is emphasized by a writer of

the chancery who compiled a list of fees and compositions in 1519. An *' £.g., Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 308; Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), p. 7; Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 25-26; Muniments of Bishop of Lincoln, Class XIV, no. 9; Wykeham’s Reg., II, 490; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 92%, 95-957; Lamb. Reg. Morton, I, fo. 11-12. * Bodleian Lib., MS. Kent Roll 8, art. k. °° H.M.C., Report, V1, 488. Several of the alleged grants are false. 6 Addit. MS. 747, fo. 66. °° Two copies: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, file 6, nos. 22-23. °° Below, pp. 508-10.

482 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 indulgence of two years and two quarantines, he says, “does not compound even though it 1s for perpetuity.’ *”

The only revenue derived from grants of partial indulgences to local communities consisted of the fees of the chancery for the preparation and issue of the bulls of grant. These fees were not exorbitant. In the time of John XXII the writer’s fee for a bull granting a partial indulgence to those visiting a specified church and giving alms to it was 16 grossi. For a bull giving partial indulgence to those visiting a church without any requirement of alms the fee was 12 grossi. For one giving indulgence to those who gave alms without the need of a visit the fee was 10 grossi or 1 florin.®® Three other fees had to be paid. One to the bureau which formulated the

rough draft, one to the bureau of the sealers and one to the registrars.® The fee for registration could be no more than the writer’s fee,”° and it was likely to be the same. The fees of the other bureaus do not appear in the list of fees, but they may be illustrated.

In 1353 and 1354 John de Wellewyk, a nuncio of Edward III at the papal court, acting with the advice of the king’s confessor, John de Woderove, obtained three bulls granting partial indulgences.** One conceded a partial indulgence of two years and two quarantines to those visiting the king’s chapel at Windsor on stated festival days. The nuncio paid the following fees: for the minute or draft 2 florins, for the writer’s fee 12 grossi, in the bureau of seals 2 florins and for registration and parchment 13 grossi. The writer’s fee of 12 grossi indicates that the indulgence was for visitation without any gift required. Since the parchment cost 1 grossus, the fee for registration was the same as that for writing the fair copy of the bull. Since

it is stated in the account that there were 10 grossi to a florin, the total cost was 6 florins 5 grossi. The rate of exchange 1s also stated. It was 38 d.

for a florin and 3% d. for a grossus. The cost in sterlings was therefore £16% d.™

The accounts for the other two bulls bring out another aspect of the fees. By 1353, if not before, the amount of the fees increased in proportion to the number of years and quarantines of penance of which the visitor was relieved. Later the indulgence of two years and two quarantines was aug-

mented to three. For this bull 3 florins were paid for the draft, 24 grossi for writing it and a duplicate copy, 2 florins in the sealing department, 14 ** Celier, Les Dataires, p. 160. * Tangl, Kanzlet-Ordnungen, p. 105. °° Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 452. Tangl, Kanzlei-Ordnungen, p. 110. “1 'The bulls were issued on 12 and 14 December 1354: C.P.L., III, 523-24. 72 £1 5% d. in the text.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 483 grossi in the registry and 2 grossi for the parchments. The sum was 9 florins

or £1 8s. 4d. Part of the additional expense was for the extra copy. Its writing probably cost 10 grossi, since the fee for registration was 14 grossi.

The extra parchment cost 1 grossus. Deducting 11 grossi from the total, the cost of one copy was 7 florins 9 grossi or £1 4s. 1134 d. A bull granting

three years and three quarantines of relaxation cost therefore 1 florin 4 grossi or 4s. 5 d. more than one granting two years and two quarantines. The nuncio also secured an indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines for the royal chapel of St Stephen at Westminster.”* For this bull the

amounts paid for each of the four fees are not given. ‘The total was 23 florins 3 grossi or £3 13 s. 914 d. Three copies of this bull were made.” Whatever the two extra copies may have cost, the price of an indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines was considerably in excess of a bull for

two or three. Lists of the writer’s fees in use in the chancery from 1479 to 1520 display the differences in the charges for bulls granting relaxation of enjoined penance for varying periods in return for a visit with alms. For relaxation of one year and one quarantine the writer’s fee was still 16 grossi, of two it was 20 grossi, of three 24, of four 30, of five 40 and of seven 50.7° These

fees apparently were not established until the fifteenth century. In 1394 the writer’s tax for a bull granting an indulgence of five years and five quar-

antines to visitors who gave alms to the priory of Plympton on any of several specified days was only 20 grossi.7° Between 1430 and 1471 the fees for registration were in many instances the same as the writer’s fees in the above list.” There were, however, variations from the norm. Those for one year and one quarantine paid 16 grossi each, except one which cost 30 grossi.“* Most of those for two years and two quarantines were assessed at 20 grossi, but one was assessed at 16, one at 18 and three at 22. More of those for three years and three quarantines were priced at 25 or 26 grossi than at 24. The fee for each of three indulgences of four years and four quarantines was 30 grossi, but another three were 25, 40 and 50 grossi each.

Only five indulgences for five years and five quarantines were registered for 40 grossi, one cost 45 grossi and another 50. The larger number was registered for fees varying from 20 to 38 grossi, the most of them being for 25 or 30 grossi. Six of those for seven years and seven quarantines were 7826 October 1354: C.P.L., II, 538. 74K. R. Nuncii 313/22. 7° Woker, Das kirchliche Finanzwesen, p. 178; Paulus, Geschichte, Wl, 452; Lea, His-

tory of Auricular Confession, I, 183. 78 30 March: Lamb. MS. 643, no. 27.

7 C.P.L., VII-XIl passim. 8 In 1482 the registration of a similar grant cost 50 grossi: Reg. Vat. 674, fo. 221V.

484 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 registered for 50 grossi, four for 40, three for 30, two for 60, two for 80 and three for other fees less than 50. The standard fees for registration during the period from 1430 to 1471 appear to have been the same as they remained thereafter. When the fees were higher than the standard, the bull probably contained either an extra grant not usually placed in a bull of the type or more material than was customary. A grant of seven years and seven quarantines which cost 80 gTossi in 1465 made an additional provision for the appointment of confessors’® and one which cost 60 in 1467 gave a longer explanation of the need for alms than was common.®® When the price was less than the standard, the bull may have been registered in a more summarized form than others

of the same type which cost more. The fee of the writers or the registrars for a partial indulgence requiring a visit with alms gives only an approximate idea of the total cost of the expedi-

tion of the bull through the chancery. It is fairly safe to assume that it was four times as much as the fee, but not how much more. Two illustrations of the whole cost of expedition through the chancery come from lists of fees of the early part of the sixteenth century. One for seven years and seven quarantines, for which the writer’s fee was 50 carleni ** or 5 ducats, could be expedited for a total sum of 27 ducats, or approximately £6. If an indulgence for more than seven years and seven quarantines was desired, the price of the expedition was 1 additional ducat for each additional year and quarantine.** In another list the writer’s fee for an indulgence of two years and two quarantines is put at 30 grossi and the total cost at about 20 ducats §* or £4 10s. In most instances the cost of a bull of partial indulgence must have been small compared with the financial advantages to the recipient of the grant. 3. ORDINARY PLENARY INDULGENCES OF WHICH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS BELONGED TO THE LocaL ADMINISTRATORS

In the later middle ages it became common for a pope to authorize a 7™ CPL. XIl, 425. 8° C\P.L., XII, 623. ** A carlenus was equivalent to a grossus.

°° Compared with what Edward III paid in 1354 this represents an increase in florins. If his bull had required alms from the visitor, it would have cost more then. On the other hand, he paid for two extra copies. The increase in pounds is still more on account of the depreciation in the value of the pound. 88 Bacha, ‘Note sur la Taxe,’ Compte Rendu des Séances de la Commission royale a’ Histoire, 5th ser. IV, 110. In 1481 an indulgence of 20 years and 20 quarantines granted to the nuns of Cheshunt by Sixtus IV was registered for 90 grossi or 9 florins: Reg. Vat. 676,

fo. 354”. This seems to correspond with the above rule which would make the total cost

40 florins. °¢ Celier, Les Dataires, p. 160.

Indulgences Administered in England by Loca] Authorities 485 local community in England to grant to individuals who gave to it financial aid under certain conditions a plenary indulgence. It might be awarded to visitors who held out helping hands, or, in the case of churches, hospitals or houses of religious orders which had confraternities or gilds, to those who

became a brother or sister of the confraternity. Sometimes a gild could give plenary indulgence to members, but could grant only partial indulgence to visitors who made gifts. Visitors had to appear on one of certain days in the year specified in the papal letter granting the indulgence. Those who became members of a confraternity usually had to pay a fee on initiation and annual dues. One gild required them also to leave a bequest to the gild or house. The plenary remission might be given once in life, once at the time of death, or once in life and once at the point of death. When the remission was to be given at the hour of death, the usual formula was remission of all sins. Since such a remission would ordinarily take place at a future time, the local authority administering the indulgence gave to the person entitled to it a certificate known as a confessional letter. It stated that the person named had visited with alms or had joined the confraternity, explained the terms of the indulgence, usually gave the name of the pope or popes who had granted or confirmed it, authorized the person to choose a confessor who could convey the absolution as defined in the letter and commonly supplied on the verso the exact form of absolution which the confessor was to use.®°

When the papacy began to grant to English communities the power to dispense plenary indulgences is somewhat doubtful. Celestine V, in 1294, gave to the church of Collemaggio in Italy a plenary indulgence ‘a culpa et a pena’, which was cancelled by Boniface VIII.°* Innocent VI, nevertheless, conceded to another Italian church a plenary indulgence ad instar Collemaggio.*” By this phrase was meant ‘after the example of’ or ‘the same

as.’ Gregory XI and Urban VI each granted, mainly to Italian churches, a few ad instar indulgences which were plenary.** These grants supply no precedents for any plenary indulgences which purport to have been given to English communities previous to the pontificate of Boniface [X.8° The heads of some English houses of the order of Holy Trinity and the Redemption of Captives, commonly called T'rin1tarians, asserted that the order had received from Clement VI (1342-52) a plenary remission at death for the members of its confraternity. In a cer*° Tllustrations of these statements appear on the following pages. 86 Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 113-14. 87 Paulus, Geschichte, III, 150. °° Thid., Wl, 151-52. _

*° Innocent VI, in 1358, gave power to John Lindlay, abbot of Whalley, to grant to twelve benefactors of the monastery plenary remission at the hour of death: Chartulary of Sallay, Il, 183. This was not, however, a general grant extended to all benefactors.

486 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 tificate of membership issued in 1412 by the minsiter of the house of Knares-

borough to Henry Fitzhugh and his wife it is stated that the confirmation by John XXIII of its previous indulgences entitled them to plenary remission at the time of death.®° In a similar certificate issued by the head of the house of Hounslow in 1479 to William Chadworth and his wife the indulgence of Clement VI is said to have been plenary absolution for any benefactor who should die within a year of his gift.°* Another issued in 1485 to Henry Langle and his wife Katerine by the minister of the house of Mottenden assures them that by earlier privileges confirmed by Boniface LX they may receive full absolution of all their sins from a confessor of their

choice.°? After Julius II confirmed the indults of his predecessors, the order in England sent out fliers proclaiming their indulgences. In one the claim is repeated that Clement VI granted to brothers and sisters of the confraternity the privilege of full absolution of their sins.°* In another circulated by the house of Mottenden the claim is different. All the indulgences of previous popes are partial except one which reads: ‘Innocentius octavus hath graunted in ye artycle of deth playne remyssyon of all theire synnes.’**

The differences in the descriptions of the grant made by Clement VI raise suspicions of its authenticity. The flier of the house of Mottenden probably comes the nearest to the truth. The only evidence which gives some color to the claim that Clement VI gave to the order a plenary indulgence is contained in a confirmation of Innocent VIII dated 14 April 1485.

The bull of Clement VI, as he confirmed it, granted relaxation of three years and three quarantines to those who gave alms to the order and full remission of sins once in life and once at death to members of the confra-

ternity. Innocent VIII added that a member must pay thirty pence on entrance to the confraternity and annual dues of five pence of Tours.* The confirmation may have made the grant of Clement VI good thereafter,°° but his confirmation was no guarantee that his predecessor actually °° ' Wordsworth, ‘Yorkshire Pardons, Yorkshire Arch. Journal, XVI, 399-401, 415-16. What John XXIII issued on 3 June 1411 was not the confirmation or renewal of any previous grants, but a new grant of plenary remission at death to the minister and each of the brothers and sisters who were already associated with the house of Knaresborough: C.P.L., VI, 328. °* Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 14. °? [bid., no. 16. Boniface IX, on 3 April 1402, gave visitors to the house of Knaresborough

plenary remission except for sins reserved to the pope: C.P.L., V, 509. This was not the confirmation of an older grant. °° Worcester, Reg. S. de Giglis, fo. 1997-200. °* Wells, Reg. Castello, fo. 97. °° York, Reg. Rotherham, I, fo. 2319-32; I, fo. 70¥-719.

°° According to Paulus Innocent VIII granted the order plenary remission at the hour of death in 1486: Geschichte, Ill, 257. According to the flier of Mottenden remission at death was all that Innocent VIII granted. On the other hand a confessional letter issued by the house of Ingham in 1506 says that the indulgence of Innocent VIII was issued in 1485 and granted absolution and remission once in life and once at death.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 487 made such a grant. The officials at the papal court concerned with the issue of the bull of 1485 may have taken a petition of the order at its face value without having seen any copy of the alleged indult of Clement VI. What Clement VI probably granted was a partial indulgence of three years and three quarantines.°?

There is a bull purporting to have been issued by Pope Urban, but whether V or VI is not stated. It is dated 15 May in the seventh year of the pontificate which would be 1369 or 1384. The copy appears in a formulary of ecclesiastical documents compiled in the fifteenth century.*® It grants to those who visit the chapel of Cockthorpe annexed to the parochial church of Ducklington, say certain specified prayers and offer on the high altar five pence or their equivalent in gold or silver absolution from all their sins, if they die within a year of their pilgrimage, and relaxation of one-half of their sojourn and pain in purgatory. It grants further to those who visit the chapel and pray at the altar on certain named festivals of St Mary the same indulgence as we and our predecessors have granted to pilgrims to the Roman court. This document was fabricated. The salutation is unlike any found in other bulls of indulgence, the formulae appear to be garbled and the pardon of one-half the pains of purgatory is almost certainly false. The available evidence provides no example of a plenary indulgence to be administered locally before the close of the pontificate of Urban VI in 1389.

Boniface IX granted a plethora of plenary indulgences to churches in England. Between 23 March 1388 and 22 December 1402 he conceded to

those who visited with helping hands one of more than fifty monastic, cathedral, or parochial churches, hospitals or chapels on one of certain days

specified in each bull a plenary indulgence. One of them gave simply ‘plenary remission,’ °® but most of them granted the same indulgence and remission that was received by those who visited the church of St Mary of Portiuncula, otherwise of the Angels, outside the walls of Assissi, on the

first or second of August. By the time of Boniface [X the indulgence of the Portiuncula was by accepted tradition a remission of all sins.*°° In twenty grants of this indulgence, however, the confessors could convey absolution only for those sins not reserved to the apostolic see.*°* In a larger number no such limitation is stated.*°? A few churches received °7 Paulus, Geschichte, Ul, 256-57. °8 Harl. MS. 670, fo. 113-113¥.

CPL. V. 590.

10° Tea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 236-45; Cotton MS. Titus C. IX, fo. 31-32. 101 C.P.L., IV, 349-50; V, 202, 207, 388-89, 401, 403, 405-06, 414-15, 442-43, 478, 486, 507,

CPL, V, 168, 208, 243-44, 255-56, 262-63, 270, 277, 284, 286, 300-01, 304, 309, 338, 371, 375-76, 384, 405, 443; W.A.M., 6669, 6670.

488 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 indulgences which gave to the visitors the same indulgence and remission of sins as those who visited St Mark’s of the Venetians on the day of the Ascension of the Lord obtained.'°* One of these was granted on 16 September 1400 to those who visited with helping hands on the Annunciation of St Mary or Michaelmas a chapel containing a perpetual chantry recently built by John Colvyle, a knight, in the village of Newton in the diocese of Ely.1°* The knight wrote to the doge of Venice to find out what the indulgence was. He received the reply that those visiting St Mark’s on the day of the Ascension were absolved ‘a pena que a culpa’ and those visiting within the octave received remission of a seventh part of their sins.*°* The popular belief was that an indulgence ‘a pena que a culpa’ gave remission of all sins, but in this indulgence and two others of like kind Boniface IX restricted the confessors to absolution only of those sins about which the pope did not have to be consulted. The large number of these plenary indulgences was due in part to the process known in modern parlance as ‘keeping up with the Joneses.’ Walsingham says: “The Elyenses at this time, desiring to be equal with the Norwicenses who are seeking indulgences from the apostolic see on the feast of Trinity and the Burienses on the feast of St Edmund, obtained for benefactors coming with helping hands between the first vespers on Trinity and the last on Thursday of the week of Trinity,’®* truly contrite and confessed, full remission.’ 1°7 On 22 December 1402 Boniface IX revoked all indulgences giving power

to those in charge of churches, monasteries or other pious places to appoint confessors who could absolve those confessed to them in cases reserved to a bishop or the pope, all indulgences containing the phrase ‘a pena et a culpa’ or ‘plena indulgentia omnium peccatorum suorum’ and all ad instar indulgences, including among others the indulgences of the Portiuncula and of St Mark of the Venetians.1°® Some chroniclers asserted that the only pur-

pose of revocation was to obtain more money by issuing new indul°* C.P.L., V, 384, 489, 590; Lincoln, Reg. Beaufort, fo. 36%, D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum, fo. 360V.

*°* York, Reg. Bowet, II, fo. 22-22. *°° 22 March 1401: Reg. Bowet, II, fo. 23¥. +08 ‘The periods stated in the bull were from the second vespers of Pentecost to the second vespers of Thursday of that week and from the first to the second vespers of Michaelmas: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum, fo. 3607. *°T Flistoria, I, 253. The grant to Norwich was made on 23 March 1398 and that to Bury on 23 May 1398. Both were Portiuncula indulgences: W.A.M., 6669, 6670. The grant to

Ely was dated 5 November 1400. It was an indulgence of St Mark’s of the Venetians: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum, fo. 3607. *°° Ottenthal, Kanzleiregeln, p. 76, nos. 72-73; Ann. Henrici Quarti in J. de Trokelowe, pp. 351-60.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 489 gences.*°° Capgrave was caustic in his criticism: ‘In this time came out a bull from the Court which revoked all the graces that had been granted many years before; of which rose much slander and obloquy against the church. For they said plainly that it was no more trust to the pope writing than to a dog tail; for as often as he would gather money, so often would he annul old graces and grant new.""° Boniface IX, however, did not issue new plenary indulgences to English churches on the scale which these criticisms imply. On 12 November 1403 he granted to those who visited with alms the parochial church of St Mary Magdalen in Newark on any one of certain days in any year within the next five years plenary remission of all sins.‘*t Sometime before he died in 1404 he conceded to the abbot and convent of Kirkstead an indulgence the same as that of the Portiuncula. On 16 June 1405 Philip Repington, bishop of Lincoln, ordered his clergy to announce from their pulpits in the vulgar tongue the decree of revocation of 22 December 1402. Four days later he notified them that the indulgence of Kirkstead was valid because Boniface IX had issued it after that date.‘?? On 27 August 1403 Boniface IX gave to the then members of the confraternity of the chapel of St Mary in the Marsh in Newton the privilege of choosing a confessor who could convey to them plenary remission at the time of death.*** He did not, however, renew the plenary remission granted in 1400 to visitors to the chapel.*** There may be other plenary indulgences granted by Boniface IX to English churches after the revocation which have not come to my attention, but it can be said safely that their number was small. A few of the grants made by Boniface IX before 22 December 1402 were confirmed or renewed by later popes despite the revocation. On 8 July 1409 Alexander V confirmed a grant made on 16 September 1400 to paying visitors of the chapel built by John Colvyle in the village of Newton of the indulgence possessed by St Mark of Venice.'® Both the grants of Boniface [X to this chapel were confirmed also by later popes. In 1503, in a printed form by which the master of the confraternity of the chapel of St Mary in the Marsh in Newton conferred membership on John Warley and his wife, it was stated that Boniface IX granted to those visiting the *°° Adam of Usk, who was at the papal court at the time, takes this view: Chron., p. 74. 4° Chronicle of England, p. 281. 11CPL., V, 590.

“* Reg. Repingdon, fo. 3-3¥. Paulus asserts that while Boniface IX issued plenary indulgences and renewed old ones after 22 December 1402, he issued no more ad instar indulgences: Geschichte, III, 154. 1ECPL.. V, 565. “4 Above, p. 488.

75 York, Reg. Bowet, Il, fo. 23. |

490 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 chapel and giving alms to it on the days specified absolution ‘tam a pena quam a culpa’ and to members of the confraternity ‘plenariam remissionem atque plenariam absolutionem a pena et a culpa’ at the time of death. These grants, he said, had been confirmed by Nicholas V and Innocent VIII.*** In a letter of 1504, which certified the membership of Katherine Langley, and in another of 1512, a confirmation by Alexander VI 1s also mentioned.??”

John XXIII, on 3 September 1411, renewed the indulgence of the Portiuncula granted to the priory of Haltemprice on 9 November 1400. It did not include the cases reserved to the pope.**® The prior of Kirby Bellars, in an advertisement issued about 1510, claimed to have a renewal from Julius II in 1507 of an indulgence which Boniface IX conceded to his

priory. The indulgence was issued on 1 January 1402. Penitents who visited the priory and gave alms on the feast of St George or of Sts Peter and Paul or on one of the two days following each feast could receive the same remission as if they had visited St Mark Venice on the day of the Ascension. Penitents who were infirm or otherwise lawfully hindered could have the indulgence from their curates, if they gave alms to the priory. The confessors could commute vows, but they could give absolution only for sins not reserved to the pope.**® As the prior described the indulgence in his advertisement, it was ‘plenam omnium suorum peccatorum tam a pena quam a culpa’ except those about which the apostolic see had to be consulted, but the form of absolution to be given by the confessor conveys the impression that it was remission of all sins. It reads in part: “Ego absolvo te ab omnibus peccatis tuls et penis purgatorii et que tibi in purga-

torio debentur propter culpas et offensas quas contra deum commisisti.’ The claim of a renewal by Julius II is probably authentic. The bishop of Lincoln ratified it in 1510,*?° and the prior received in 1511 royal permission to declare the indulgence and to collect alms.***

One claim to the renewal of a plenary indulgence granted by Boniface IX is probably false. On 5 October 1427 the keeper of the chamber of the

Hospital of Holy Trinity and St Thomas the Martyr at Rome issued a certificate of membership in its confraternity to John Cheyney who had made a charitable gift. Among the benefits which he received was an indulgence said to have been granted by Boniface IX, Innocent VII, John

XXIII and Martin V. It was absolution as often as opportune from all sins not reserved to the pope and at the hour of death full remision of all 16K. R. Eccl. Documents 6/65. 417 Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 20-21.

48 CPL. V, 376; VI, 295. 19 CLP.L., V, 489-90.

#20 Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 24. 1217, & P., I, 1885.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 491 sins by a chosen confessor.'*? Bishop Stafford of Exeter, in a license which he issued on 30 November 1398 to the questors of the hospital, explained that Gregory XI authorized the building of the hospital for receiving the English poor and sick in Rome and that the building was not yet finished. The indulgence of Boniface IX for the hospital was, he said, relaxation of seven years and seven quarantines.’** Fifty years later, on 16 July 1448,

Archbishop Kemp of York described the indulgence in the same terms in a license which he issued to the questors.’** The license, however, was for a gift of alms of unspecified amount, whereas John Cheyney had paid enough to be initiated into the confraternity. It may be possible that Boniface IX gave a plenary remission to those who joined the confraternity, but the failure of either bishop to mention such an indulgence in his license renders the possibility remote. The claim of similar indulgences from later popes seems equally doubt-

ful. Innocent VII on 11 May 1405, John XXIII on 17 May 1412, and Martin V on 31 March 1421, issued indulgences which gave the existing brothers and sisters of the confraternity the right to select a confessor who could convey to him or her plenary remission of all sins in the hour of death, but the right did not extend to future members of the confraternity’?® Martin V did grant a plenary remission once at the time of death to present members and to those who should be received into the confraternity within the next three years,’** but it was not done until 17 March 1429, which was more than a year after the confessional letter was issued to John Cheyney. The grant of remission to future members was a financial advantage to the hospital, because it could be used as an inducement to join the gild and pay the customary fee and dues. The indult of Martin V was renewed in the same form three times by Eugenius IV,*?" once by Nicholas V,*** once

by Pius II,’*° and once by Sixtus IV. The last pope extended the period when new members would receive the privilege of full remission at death from three years to five.*°° Innocent VIII renewed the grant of Sixtus [TV .122

2K. R. Eccl. Documents 19/59. 128 Reg., p. 308.

** Reg. fo. 125. 75 C.P.L., VI, 13, 332; VII, 329.

2°CP.L. VII, 130.

27 C\P.L., IX, 518; Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 7. #28 C.P.L., X, 302; Chancery Misc., ibid., no. 7.

9° C.P.L., XI, 524-25; Chancery Misc. ibid., no. 9; K. R. Eccl. Documents 19/62. 18027 June 1474: Chancery Misc., ibid., no. 9; K. R. Eccl. Documents, 19/62. According to the latter confessional letter the period was 15 years.

220 August 1486: Lamb. Cartae Antiquae 59; K. R. Eccl. Documents 19/64. The former confessional letter puts the period of application to new members at 5 years and the latter puts it at 15 years.

492 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Under the immediate successors of Boniface IX the number of grants to English churches and confraternities of the right to reward its financial benefactors with plenary absolution was curtailed notably. Alexander V offered to those who visited with alms the priory of St Bartholomew in Smithfield on any one of four specified holy days the same indulgence and remission of sins as could be gained by one who visited St Mark of Venice on Ascension day.'*? What one acquired by such a visit was supposed to be absolution ‘a pena que a culpa.’ '** Several English chroniclers designated the indulgence as a plenary remission of all sins,*** leaving no doubt that contemporaries so interpreted the grant. Yet the bull authorized the confessors whom the prior chose to give absolution only in cases not reserved to the pope. Sometime after 1415, when the abbey of Syon was founded, a plenary indulgence granted originally in 1378 became available to Englishmen. Its use in England is attested by the inclusion of a copy of it in a register of Evesham compiled approximately between 1418 and 1433.'®* It is headed: ‘De indulgenciis monasterii Syon.’ It granted to one who visited with alms an abbey of the Bridgettine order the same indulgences as the predecessors

of Urban VI had granted to the church of St Peter ad Vincula in Rome. After the original grant was made by Urban VI to Vadstena, the mother house of the order, a proctor of the house found by inquiry what the indulgences of St Peter ad Vincula were and had them attested by a notary. They were absolution of all sins for a visit on 1 August granted by one predecessor, relaxation of one-half of enjoined penance for a visit on 1 August or within the octave granted by another predecessor, relaxation of fifty years for a visit on any day of the week and relaxation of one hundred years

on Sundays, festal days and Lent. Boniface IX extended the indulgence to all the houses of the order.'*® Syon was the first and only house of the order in England. The issue of so many indulgences was regarded as an abuse by many

churchmen. At the council of Constance some of them expressed their desire to have the number of indulgences limited.**" Among the complainants was the University of Oxford.*#® Nicholas Bubwith, bishop of Bath 182 CPL. VI, 151.

*°° Above, p. 488.

*** St Albans Chron. ed. Galbraith, p. 51; Walsingham, Historia, Il, 282; Ypodigma, p. 428; Otterbourne, Chronica Regum Angliae, ed. Hearne, p. 267. Capgrave says only ‘plener remission’; Chron., p. 297. *85 Cotton MS. Titus C IX, fo. 30. *°° Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 152, 270. *87 Rocquain, La Cour de Rome, Ill, 169; Finke, Acta, Ill, 662. 788 Wilkins, Concilia, II, 361; Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 156-57.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 493 and Wells, proposed in the commission of reform that ‘de pena et culpa,’ ad instar, and perpetual indulgences should be revoked.**® Martin V gave heed to this opinion. On 20 January 1418 he revoked many indulgences issued since the beginning of the schism in 1378. They included perpetual partial indulgences, plenary indulgences ‘ called of pena et culpa or of full remission’ and ad instar indulgences which had been granted to certain places to be administered locally.**° If the claims made by some who possessed such plenary indulgences by grant of Boniface IX are true, this decree did not prevent the confirmation by later popes of indulgences which Martin V revoked.!*? In the concordat which Martin V made with the English on 17 April 1419 the diocesans were given power to suspend indulgences which were being administered scandalously by the local authorities to whom they had been granted and to denounce them to the pope for revocation. It applied both to those which required visitation of a place with alms and to those which permitted the alms to be sought by questors.**? No limitation was

placed upon the power of the pope to grant indulgences and Martin V issued many new partial indulgences to places in England and Wales,*** but the only known local plenary indulgence which affected England was the one granted to the hospital of Holy Trinity and St Thomas the Martyr in Rome.**4 Eugenius IV, in addition to his three renewals of this plenary indulgence of Martin V, granted a new one. He indulged the warden of Tattershall, which had recently been made a collegiate church, that he might appoint confessors who could grant to visitors on the Annunciation of St Mary in each year full remission of sins, including those reserved to the pope, once in life and once at death.1*5 Nicholas V, on 7 June 1448, renewed a plenary indulgence previously possessed by the Hospitallers. It authorized the grant by them to one who visited a preceptory of the order between the first vespers of Palm Sunday and the second vespers of Easter absolution from enjoined penance for all sins not reserved to the pope and for certain stated crimes which were so reserved.?*6 *8° Finke, Acta, III, 661. *4° Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 157-58, 337. +47 Above, pp. 489-91.

: _ Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 108. "348 CP.L., VIL, 84, 153, 155, 172, 251, 252, 361-62, 394, 444, 446, 505, $22, 524, 529, 565; VIIT, 17, 18, 22-23, 26-27, 55-65, 69, 79, 84-87, 90, 93, 117, 141, 167, 169, 171-72. *44 Above, p. 490. 149 Addit. MS. 7096, fo. 156.

*** Reg. Mayew (Hereford), pp. 11-14.

494 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 In the reign of Henry VIII the friary of St John, a house of that order in London, was still sending out questors seeking alms in return for ‘forgiveness and remission of sins,’ which, their advertisement says speciously, ‘is as much to say as full indulgence and plenary remission!’ On the other hand

their claim that members of the confraternity of St John were entitled to plenary remission of all sins at death and to worship and to burial in a place under interdict may be true. They also claimed that Henry VIII, by authority of his high court of parliament, had affirmed all their remissions, pardons, indulgences and interpretations.**’ A new indulgence, which Nicholas V addressed to all Christ’s faithful on 6 November 1445, offered to those who visited on 27 February and 16 June the parish church of Newport in Wales and gave alms for repair of the chancel and bridge relaxation of seven years and seven quarantines of enjoined penance and to those who visited with alms on any day of the year 100 days of relaxation for each time. In addition he offered to those who visited on one of the two stated days and gave a certain sum of money or its equivalent in goods or labor plenary remission at the hour of death. For the rich the amount was £1, for those of moderate means 10 s and for others 5 s.14® This association of plenary remissions with contributions of specified amounts graded according to the resources of the giver was new as far as indulgences administered by local authorities in England and Wales were concerned.'*° Nicholas V also issued to two religious gilds plenary indulgences which were destined to have a long history. One was the gild of Sts Christopher and Gregory in the city of York. Previously the existing members had been granted a plenary remission at death by Gregory XII in 1408.°°° In 1450, when probably few who were members in 1408 were still alive, Nicholas V gave to the present and future members of the gild an indulgence to choose a confessor who once in life and once at the time of death could give plenary remission of all sins including those usually reserved to the pope.’*? This indulgence was renewed by Sixtus IV, who added to it an indult which gave each member the right to have a portable altar. Julius II confirmed the bull of Sixtus [V and in addition made it possible for the

- MIKR. Eccl. Documents 6/7. 148 CPL. IX, 486-87.

*#°?For a long time those who contributed to a crusade what it would have cost to go on the expedition had been able to obtain plenary mdulgence. The cost of the journey was determined on the basis of the resources and the social position of the giver, but it was assessed by local confessors. Amounts were not stated in the bulls. 150 CPL. VI, 144.

*51 C\P.L., X, 485. The statement that plenary remission could be received once in life and once at death rests upon a summary of the bull contained in a bull issued by Leo X on 24 December 1520: Reg. Vat. 1167, fo. 309¥-10V.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 495 members, by visiting a certain number of churches in York, to obtain the indulgences which were attached to the churches in Rome. Leo X renewed the grants of all three popes.*®?

Another gild which received a plenary indulgence from Nicholas V was that of St Mary in the church of St Botulph in Boston. Its previous privileges from the papacy had been modest. On 6 May 1401 Boniface IX

had granted to those who were present whenever the mass of St Mary Virgin was celebrated aloud with music and visited the chapel of the fraternity founded by Richard Frere in the church of St. Botulph, relaxation of one hundred days of enjoined penance.’** The relaxation was small as such things went in the days of Boniface IX, and no alms were required. After the receipt of a plenary indulgence from Nicholas V, the ambitions of the gild grew. It secured amplifications of this indulgence until it probably had the most elaborate set of indulgences, indults and dispensations which was administered locally in England. Its confessional letters became so famous that they were known as the ‘Boston pardons.’ 1° The bull of Nicholas V, on 10 April 1451, authorized each of the existing members of the gild and of those who became members of the gild in the next five years to choose a confessor. He could grant absolution even in reserved cases only once in the five years, in nonreserved cases as often as desired in perpetuity, and plenary remission of all sins at the hour of death.’” Pius IT, on 23 May 1463, repeated the grant to hold good for another five years.*°® Sixtus [V, on 6 December 1475 renewed the grant without stating any limit of time for its duration.*®’ Innocent VIII on 1 October 1486, conceded the same indulgence in perpetuity. He added that each member might have a portable altar.1** The process of extensive expansion of the gild’s indults began with Julius I[.1°* He approved the grant of Innocent VIII. Concerning the remission to which members were entitled at the hour of death he added that if death did not occur, the remission would still hold good. The members could also obtain absolution from excommunication.”® They could use *°2 "The grants of Sixtus [TV and Julius II are known by Leo’s bull of 24 December 1520.

SCPL.. V, 391.

*°4 Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries, 1, 382. 55 CPL. X, 86, 235. 188 C.P.L., XI, 649-50.

187 Tamb. MS. 644, no. 47. 788 Confessional letter of 3 November 1492. Stowe Charter 614. *°82 Fle apparently issued more than one bull. One was dated 16 May 1506: printed confessional letter of 1507: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 18. My information comes

rom. the summaries of them in the renewal of Leo X: Reg. Vat. 1194, fo. 14¥-15¥; 1197, ass Stated in the confessional letter of 1507, but not in the bull of Leo X.

496 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 their portable altars for the celebration of mass before daylight. The alderman and other officials of the confraternity were authorized to collect from initiates an entrance fee of 6s. 8 d. and thereafter dues of 8 d. a year. ‘The purpose of the revenue was to maintain six priests and others for the conduct of divine services, to pay for the lights and other things necessary for the divine cult and to take care of thirteen paupers.

He established a new indulgence for those who visited with helping hands the chapel of St Mary in the church of St Botulph on any one of the feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, Pentecost and the Nativity and Assumption of St Mary or during their octaves.*®° Later he changed the two feasts of St Mary to Michaelmas and the first Sunday of Lent and

the next eight days. The indulgence was the remission which could be obtained by personal visits to the churches which were stations inside and

outside the walls of Rome during Lent and the other days which were appropriate for the respective churches. He extended this indulgence to those in the city and diocese of Lincoln who were hindered by infirmity or old age from making the visit, if they gave alms. He also made members

of the gild sharers of this indulgence. .

After Leo X became pope the gild put forth a great effort to obtain an amplification of their indulgences and other privileges. They secured the support of the king, consulted prelates, of whom some were skilled lawyers and some were familiar with the practices of the papal court, and sent their own agents to Rome to seek the grant of their petition.*®* The result of their effort was a bull issued on 24 February 1518.*° It repeated

and renewed the grants of Innocent VIII and Julius Il. The plenary remission of sins granted to any of Christ’s faithful who visited with alms the chapel of St Mary was confined to the two feasts of the Assumption and

the Nativity of St Mary. Those who gave alms without a visit and had themselves entered [in the list of benefactors] were granted fifty years of indulgence as often as it was done. This grant seems to imply that the confraternity could use questors to seek alms. I'wo further indulgences were granted to any who made visits and gave alms to the gild. Those who visited the chapel of St Mary, or another church or chapel if they happened to be elsewhere, on six weekdays in each quarter and on Saturdays through-

out the year, said specified prayers, or had masses said to St Mary at the altar, obtained that fullest indulgence by the mode of aid for plenary remission of sins and relaxation of penalties for souls in purgatory granted to those who celebrated or caused to be celebrated masses for the dead in the 160 ‘Der earum octavas.’

161 See the account of their expenses below, pp. 509-10. 182 Two copies: Reg. Wat. 1194, fo. 14-22%; 1197, fo. 18-24¥.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 497 stations of Scala Celi without the walls and St John Lateran.’** To those who visited the chapel of St Mary on the Assumption, Nativity or other feasts of St Mary he granted remission ‘ab omni prorsus pena et culpa sicut in anno jubilei,’’** as it was known to be granted in the basilica of the prince

of apostles in Rome and at St James Compostella.

The members of the gild could share all the indulgences granted to visitors with helping hands. A member could obtain the plenary remission given to visitors to the chapel of St Mary on the Assumption or Nativity of St Mary without a visit to that chapel, if he was hindered from making such a visit by distance, the difficulty of travel, debility or other causes, by going to his parish church on Sunday and saying a specified prayer. A member who visited a church or chapel where he resided on feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, Pentecost, Michaelmas and the first Sunday of Lent and their octaves and said certain prayers, if he lived in the city or diocese of Lincoln, would have his plenary remission of all sins amplified and extended. If he was absent from the city and diocese, he could obtain the amplification by paying alms and saying the prayers as often as it should be done. All the members and their deceased relatives were indulged that they should share in perpetuity all the prayers, aids, alms, fasts, sermons, masses, canonical hours, disciplines, pilgrimages and all other good things that would be done or could be done in the whole, universal, sacrosanct, militant church. Each member of the fraternity was allowed to select a confessor who

could commute to other pious works any oaths which for a number of stated reasons could not be fulfilled. Vows of chastity, religion and pilgrimages to Rome or Compostella were excepted. The confessor could dispense only in the forum of conscience from clerical irregularities and from canonical sentences, even if they required access to the pope, excepting bigamy and voluntary homicide. He could also grant plenary remission once in life and once at death. Confessors appointed by the officers of the

confraternity could hear confessions and grant to members absolution which enabled them to eat cheese, butter, milk and meat in Lent and at other prohibited times without a scruple of conscience. ‘The portable altar could be used in time of interdict and a member could also have a funeral and be buried when an interdict was in force. The alderman and other officials of the gild could charge 13 s. 4 d, for entrance into the gild, arranging for payment in instalments if desirable. *°3 Stated somewhat differently by Foxe, Acts, V, 365. +4 ‘sicut in anno jubilei’ is omitted from the copy in Reg. Vat. 1194, fo. 19v. It was probably an oversight. The scribe omitted several other phrases which he had to put in the margin.

498 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The one payment superseded the former initiation fee and the annual dues as well. The officials and their deputies could go outside Boston to admit members. If these indulgences should be suspended by Leo X or by the apostolic see, they would be restored in their pristine state.*°° With this liberal grant the gild of St Mary in Boston might well have rested content, had not the year of jubilee in Rome in 1525 caused Clement VII in 1524 to suspend all plenary indulgences administered locally. The gild, with the approval of the king, petitioned to have the suspension ended.

In response the pope, on 2 July 1526, issued a bull which revoked the suspension, repeated all the grants of Innocent VIII, Julius II and Leo X and declared them again to be in effect.1®* He made only a few additions. They consisted of comparatively minor changes of grants already possessed

by the gild. The power of a confessor chosen by a member to give dispensations was explained more fully. The burial permitted in a place under

interdict was said definitely to be in a church. The indulgences of the jubilee, which visitors with helping hands could obtain, was extended and amplified, but it was defined with omission of the phrase ‘ab omni prorsus

pena et culpa.’ The indulgences of the gild were to be excepted from future revocations and suspensions of similar indulgences. Pius II confirmed some of the indulgences claimed by the Trinitarians,

but by no means all of them. Those which he confirmed were grants of partial indulgences by Alexander IV and Clement VI to benefactors of the order. He added one new indulgence. Members of the confraternity could have from their confessors once in life remission of all sins including those reserved to the pope.’®’ How such grants were sometimes misrepresented by those who received them 1s illustrated again *®* by documents issued by

houses of the order in England. Two confessional letters given to new members of the confraternity in 1479 and 1480 state the grant of Pius II correctly.’®* A confessional letter of 1485 described it as plenary remission once in life and once at death,’”° and a flier of the time of Julius II says of

it that brothers and sisters could be assoiled of all except sins reserved to Rome.?™ *®5T have omitted description of the protection given the gild against encroachment on

its goods and property by anyone, against the intervention of the rector or vicar of St Botulph in the alms given the gild and against the intervention of prelates, even including cardinals, in the affairs of the gild. I have omitted also the content of a long ‘non obstante’ oa see Reg. Vat. 1439, fo. 197-207; L. & P., IV pt. 2, 2760. 187 1459: Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 257. “88 Above, pp. 486-87.

*6? Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6 no. 14; Wordsworth, ‘Yorkshire Pardons,’ Yorkshire Arch. Journal, XVI, 403-04, 417-18. *7° Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6 no. 16. ** Worcester, Reg. S. de Giglis, fo. 200.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 499 Paul II confirmed in 1466 the grant of Pius II to the Trinitarians.*"* To

the gild of Holy Trinity in Lynn he issued a new indulgence in 1467. It entitled the then members and those who became members within the next six years to plenary remission at the hour of death.*’* He also issued a type of plenary indulgence which may have been new in England. He authorized Dimitus Rosata to grant to one who gave to him alms for the redemption of Christian captives in the hands of the Turks the privilege of choosing a confessor who could convey to him remission of all sins once at the point of death and remission of sins not reserved to the pope as often as was

opportune. In 1471 Dimitus provided John Boty Junior, who had contributed to the cause, a confessional letter entitling him to the indulgence.'"* ‘The letter does not explain why the indulgence was granted by the pope, but similar indulgences issued by Julius II and Leo X were for

the redemption of captives who were relatives or friends of the person seeking alms.*”°

Sixtus IV, in addition to the previously mentioned confirmations of plenary indulgences issued by his predecessors,’"* made two others. One was a confirmation of the indulgence possessed by the Trinitarians.‘7" The other was a confirmation requested by the prioress and convent of Clerkenwell. Previous popes, whose names are not specified, had granted to those who visited the chapel of St Mary Muswell and left alms on any day from

the Assumption of St Mary to its octave plenary remission. Since the chapel was annexed to the priory, the alms belonged to the prioress and convent. he confirmation was dated 4 May 1476.18 Two years later he renewed his own grant with additions. It stated specifically that sins reserved to the pope were included in the remission. It gave the additional indulgence of relaxation of twenty years and twenty quarantines of enjoined penance for each visit with helping hands on Holy Friday or Corpus Christi. The confessor was also empowered to commute some vows.'7** A new indulgence was granted by Sixtus IV to the Franciscan friars. During a year from the date of publication, which was 4 April 1479, members of the confraternity could have plenary remission once and obtain a confessional letter good for plenary remission at the time of death. The remission included sins reserved to the pope.*”® *™ Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 257.

3 C.P.L., XII, 618. *™ Stowe Charter 610. The document is torn in places. * Arm, XXXIX, 22, fo. 317-3177; L. & P., I, 1295, 1627: Rymer, Foedera VI, pt. I, 59. *7° Above, pp. 491, 494-95. *™ Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 14.

“Reg. Vat. 666, fo. 81-817; Inst. Misc. 3922. *788 6 March 1478. Reg. Vat. 669, fo. 481-82v.

*7? Confessional letters, Friars of Doncaster: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6 no. 13; of Stafford: K. R. Eccl. Documents 6/61.

500 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Innocent VIII was probably the first pope to grant to the ‘Trinitarian order the local administration for their own financial benefit of a plenary remission at the time of death.1®° He appears to have issued to English institutions no others which were wholly new, although he added indults to some of those which he renewed.1?! Alexander VI renewed the plenary indulgence given to the Trinitarians by Innocent VIII, adding to it the privilege of ecclesiastical burial in time

of interdict.**? At the request of Henry VII he granted an indulgence to the chapel of St Mary which the king intended to build in the chapel of St George in the castle of Windsor. On 28 October 1496 he gave to those who visited the chapel on the Saturday after Pentecost in any year plenary remission.*** ‘The grant was to become valid in perpetuity after the year of jubilee in 1500.*** A new bull, issued on 23 January 1498, required the visitors to give alms in order to obtain the remission.*®® On 5 December 1502 another letter added the day before the Ascension as a second day on which visitors who gave financial aid to the chapel could obtain the plenary indulgence.**®

Julius II renewed the plenary indulgence given to the Trinitarians by Innocent VIII and confirmed by Alexander VI*%" and that granted by Boniface [IX to Kirby Bellars.t8’* He enlarged the grants to the gilds of Sts Christopher and Gregory in York and St Mary in Boston. *8> At the outset of his pontificate, he was met by a petition from Henry VII with regard to the indulgences which Alexander VI had granted to the chapel

of St Mary. Henry had originally intended to build the chapel in the castle of Windsor, but he had changed his mind and in 1503 he had begun construction of the chapel in the abbey of Westminster. In a letter which Cardinal Hadrian Castello recetved on 30 December 1503 he asked the cardinal to obtain from the new pope the transfer of the indulgences from the chapel which had been projected for Windsor to the chapel which was being built in Westminster. He also wanted included in the bull of plenary remission the additional statement that the remission included the sins for *®° Above, p. 486. *8? Above, p. 495.

*®? Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 19.

85 “plenariam omnium peccatorum suorum . . . indulgentiam et remissionem.’ *®* Papal Bulls 5/2; Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 52¥-53,; Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 109. *®° Papal bulls 4/18; Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 17¥-18.

“°° Notarial copy issued by the bishop of London, who was Master of the Rolls, on 16 May 1503: Papal Bulls, 64/78. Rymer does not give the bull in full: Foedera, V, pt. 4, 195. **7 Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 19; Wells, Reg. Castello, fo. 97; Lichfield, Reg. Blyth, fo. 697. +878 Above, p. 490.

+87 Above, p. 495.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 501 which only the pope could give absolution.*** The pope was of the opinion

that such a grant was unknown, though actually they were not uncommon.*** Hadrian then suggested, in accordance with the king’s instructions, that of the reserved cases only those specified by name should be reserved.*°° ‘This request Julius II regarded as modest and he promised to consult Cardinal Alexandrino. On 4 January 1504 Hadrian reported to Henry VII that, after consulting Cardinal Alexandrino, who was friendly to him, he thought it would go well.**? The outcome, stated in two bulls issued on 20 May 1504, was all that Henry VII had requested. One bull transferred to the chapel of St Mary in Westminster partial indulgences which Alexander VI had granted to the chapel of St Mary in Windsor.*°* Priests who conducted services there for Henry VII alive or after death would receive the same indulgence as those conducting services for the deceased in the chapel of Scala Celi in the church of the monastery of Three Fountains outside the walls of Rome. Those visiting the chapel and praying

for Henry VII on any Sunday in Lent would receive relaxation of seven years and seven quarantines of enjoined penance and on Good Friday twenty years and twenty quarantines.’°* The other bull gave to visitors who held out helping hands on the day before the feast of the Ascension in any year full remission of all sins including those reserved to the pope.*®*

Clement VII suspended this along with other indulgences during the Roman jubilee of 1525. He renewed it on 26 September 1525.**° A new plenary indulgence was granted by Julius II at the request of Henry VII. It was given to those who visited with helping hands on one of specified days the hospital of Savoy built by Henry VII for the poor.**® Leo X, at the request of the executors of Henry VII, renewed the grant and amplified it apparently before 4 July 1516.*°’ He included the cases *8° Alexander’s grant was for remission of all sins. This would seem to include those reserved to the pope, but it did not always do so: above, pp. 487-88, 489-90; below, p. 512. *S°F.Z. above, pp. 493, 652-53.

°° E.g., above, p. 494-95; below, p. 517. 101 T. & P., illustrative of the Reigns of Richard Ill and Henry VII, Wl, 117-18. 4 October 1494, 26 February 1495 and 21 January 1498: Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 16¥-17%, 45-457; Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 77, 87-88, 120. °° Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 4, 212; Papal Bulls, 26/29, Reg. Vat. 984, fo. 55-56v. ** Reg. Vat. 984, fo. 50-52; Raynaldus, 1504, § 32. In MS. 170 of Corpus Christi College Cambridge (pp. 56-57) there is a bull dated 6 Ocotber 1502 in which Alexander VI authorizes a similar transfer. I doubt the authenticity of the document, because Alexander VI in

a bull of 5 December 1502 made another grant to St Mary of Windsor: above, p. 659. Henry VII, on 17 February 1505, gave to the abbot and convent of Westminster the bull of Alexander issued on 5 December 1502 and the two bulls issued by Julius II in 1504:

W.A.M. 6638. *° Reg. Vat. 1439, fo. 567-58. °° Tbid., fo. 54°.

7 T. & P., IL, pt. 1, 2130.

502 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 reserved to the apostolic see and authorized the confessors appointed by the master, priests and other brothers of the hospital to commute certain vows to other good works.**? Clement VII, on 25 September 1525, renewed the grants made by his two predecessors.'*°

Sometime before 1507 some popes had granted to the master and brothers of the hospital of Burton Lazars an indulgence which could be had by those who visited the hospital on Good Friday and left alms. The visitor could elect a confessor who could convey absolution for all his sins

except in cases reserved to the pope and once at the time of death full remission of their sins. The confessor could also commute some vows to other pious works.?° During the reign of Henry VII the hospital of St James in Compostella was allowed to issue indulgences in England by means of proctors. The hospital had been privileged for a long time to confer plenary indulgences on those who visited it with helping hands, and it was a popular resort for English pilgrims.”°* In 1498 Wynkyn de Worde at Westminster printed for the agents of the hospital in England a testimonial letter. It granted to the recipient, by virtue of a letter of Innocent VIII which was renewed by Alexander VI, that, in return for payment of a twentieth of a ducat to be used for rebuilding the hospital of St James and two chapels in it, the soul of a deceased relative or friend would share in all aids, prayers, alms, sermons, disciplines, pious works and other spiritual benefits in the hospital

and chapels. Blanks were left for the names of the giver and the deceased.?°* A twentieth of a ducat was between 214 and 2% d.?% In 1507 proctors of St James were distributing its plenary indulgence

in England. On 21 August Master Pascal Iurant, a proctor of the house, and | Dr William Rokeby acknowledged receipt from the prior of Durham of £26 15s. 8% d. paid within the diocese of Durham for the indulgence of St James. The prior paid for sending the money and letters to London 10 s.

4¥, d. in addition to 20 d. which he had paid for the carriage of money during the past year.” In 1508, on the petition of Henry VII, Julius II *°? Reg. Vat. 1439, fo. 54¥-55,. 19° Thid., fo. 55¥-56.

*°° Known by two confessional letters issued by the master and brothers in 1507 and 1514. Both are stained and difficult to read: K. R. Eccl. Documents 21/72, 73. *** Between 1392 and 1396 26 masters of ships were licensed each to take from 60 to 160 pilgrims to St James: C.P.R. 1391-96, pp. 45, 246, 249, 251, 362, 393, 405, 537, 565-66, 568, 572, 601-02, 604, 708, 715. Between 1429 and 1450 the earl of Oxford petitioned Henry VI

for a license to use his ship, Jesus of Orwelle, to transport pilgrims to St James: Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser., I, 110. *°* John Rylands Library, Catalogue of English Incunabala, pp. 71-72.

p 7 At the rate of exchange of 3 ducats for a mark current in 1499: Wells, Reg. King,

" 208 1), & Ch. Durham, Locellus, XIX, 126. ,

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 503 suspended the plenary indulgence of St James in England while a general plenary indulgence in behalf of St Peter’s Rome was being offered there.”°° Leo X renewed the plenary indulgence of the Trinitarians °°’ and expanded greatly that of the gild of St Mary in Boston.”°* Early in his pontificate he granted to the priory of the Friars of the Cross in London an indulgence which was equivalent to a plenary remission, because the priory did not have half enough to support itself. ‘Those who visited the priory with alms on one of several named feasts would receive the same indulgence which could be obtained by visiting basilicas and churches inside and outside the walls of Rome at those times when the indulgences of those churches were in force. The confessors appointed by the prior could also release the visitors from certain oaths and prescribe in their places other good works.*°°

At the request of Wolsey Leo X granted an indulgence to the chapel of St Mary in the parochial church of St Matthew the Apostle in Ipswich in 1521. The ‘bull of pardon’ was dispatched to the cardinal on or before 7 October.?*° The nature of the pardon has not come to light, perhaps because it was superseded by a bull of Clement VII dated 10 October 1525. Wolsey was interested because Ipswich was the place of his birth and be-

cause the statute of the Virgin in the chapel was greatly venerated on account of miracles associated with it. Clement VII, therefore, indulged those who visited the chapel with helping hands and prayed for Wolsey, his father and his mother on any of three specified days of the year a plenary remission of all sins. The confessors, who were to be appointed by the rector of St Matthew, could absolve for crimes reserved to the apostolic see except those enumerated in the bull In cena domini. The indulgence could not be superseded in a year of jubilee.*** On 16 April 1526 Wolsey thanked the pope for the indulgence and asked for a new one with certain

changes incorporated in it. The most important was the addition of a fourth day when the indulgence would be effective.*1* Clement VII gave his consent to this request on or before 6 May,”** and on 3 June Wolsey expressed his gratitude for the new bull.?** Leo X authorized one indulgence which would seem to have strained somewhat the definition of good works for which contributions to local *°* Below, pp. 606-07.

°°" Lichfield, Reg. Blyth, fo. 69%; Wordsworth, ‘Yorkshire Pardons, Yorkshire Arch. Journal, XVI, 420-23. 208 Above, pp. 496-97.

20° 22 December 1514: Reg. Vat. 1193, fo. 175-78. 2107 & P., IIL, pt. 2, 1642. =" Reg. Vat. 1439, fo. 137-39. *12 Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 554; L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 2108; Principi 4, fo. 73-739.

*** Ghinucci to Wolsey: L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 2158. ** Principi 3, fo. 156-156v.

5()4 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 institutions were to be made by those who desired indulgences. Aside from aid for building bridges,?*® locally administered indulgences were used almost exclusively for the financial benefit of ecclesiastical institutions such

as a church or a hospital. After the Scottish invasion of England which ended on the field of Flodden, Henry VIII conceived the idea of obtaining an indulgence which would provide funds to help repair the damage done to the castle of Norham and to some houses in towns of northern England.

Leo X met his ‘great desire’ *!* by a bull dated 1 February 1514.7?" It granted to those in England who visited within a year of the next Pentecost any of the churches appointed by the bishop of Durham on one of several

stated days plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins including those reserved to the pope. Confessors were to be appointed in each diocese

by the bishop. On 3 April 1514 a slightly revised edition of the bull was issued.**° ‘The churches to be visited were designated as any cathedral church in England. The bishop of Durham and others deputed by him were to administer the indulgence and the bishop was to see that the money obtained was used for the restoration. Apparently this bull was not satis-

factory to Henry VIII. He asked to have some additional clauses included.?*° ‘Though it was ‘a matter of considerable difficulty and not usual,’ the pope granted the request. On or before 3 February 1515 he ordered a new bull to be expedited.?”° Clement VII, in addition to his renewals of earlier indulgences, granted a plenary indulgence to the hospital of St Anthony in London.?** He also issued a plenary indulgence for contributions under circumstances which were new. On 6 June 1528 he announced that in churches where Cardinal Campeggio, whom he was sending to England as legate, celebrated mass in full pontificals those who attended the first mass which he celebrated in

the church or visited the church with helping hands on the day of that mass could obtain full remission and indulgence of their sins as of jubilee.???

A plenary indulgence for those who attended a solemn mass celebrated by a papal legate under certain circumstances was not new. On 27 July 1518 Leo X had authorized Campeggio and Wolsey to grant by apostolic **° Ping, ‘How Funds for “Good Causes” were raised in the Middle Ages, Hibbert Journal, XXXIV, 408-10, 412. The bridges were usually maintained wholly or in part by a church, chapel or hospital: e.g. Reg. Grandisson, I, 351. *** Leo X to Henry VIII, 7 February 1514: L. @ P., I, 4724. See also 4735. 7 Reg Vat. 1195, fo. 34-35”. **8 Reg. Vat. 1198, fo. 457-47. See also Lea, History of Auricular Confession, Ul, 283-84, Schulte, Die Fugger, I, 90-91; Leonis X Reg., 7745. °T. @& P., Il, pt. 1, 109. 220 & P., II, pt. 1, 108. / 281 Above, p. 480. °° Reg. Vat. 1445, fo. 435-36.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 505 authority plenary remission to those present at such a mass celebrated by them in the presence of the king and queen or of either of them.*** In 1520

he granted the same power to Wolsey for two years,”** in 1521, at the request of Henry VIII,??> extended it for two years, and finally, on 27 June 1521, authorized Wolsey to exercise the power for the duration of his legation.??® The use of this power by Wolsey on the Field of the Cloth of Gold on 23 June 1520 apparently created somewhat of a sensation.**’ The original feature of the grant of Clement VII was the remission for a visitor who gave alms on the day of the mass. At the requests of prominent Englishmen Clement VII granted plenary indulgences to those who visited one of several churches on certain days

and said specified prayers. No financial contribution was required. The churches which received such indulgences were St Peter of Haynes in which the earls of Ormond and Norfolk were interested,?** the colleges founded by Wolsey at Oxford *?® and Ipswich,”*° the chapel in Westminster where the father of Henry VIII was buried,?** and a chapel dedicated to the Holy Trinity which William Sanders, a knight, had built at Basingstoke.?*?

Before England broke with Rome, Clement VII began to feel some uneasiness about the effect upon public opinion of the issue of too many indulgences. Late in 1528, when Henry VIII asked for an indulgence apparently for the royal chapel at Windsor,?** he said he would consent to an indulgence limited to a few days in the year. As reported by James Salviati to Campeggio his holiness said: ‘In order to remedy the discredit into which indulgences have fallen, owing to their too liberal concessions in the past, it is necessary not to grant too many of them.’ *** An envoy of the king reported the pope’s thought to be that an indulgence on each of five days ‘would bring both indulgences and the place where they were granted into contempt.’ **° Nevertheless the envoy succeeded in obtaining 8 Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 1, 141; L. & P., Il, pt. 2, 4343; Reg. Vat. 1196, fo. 30. 72422 January: Reg. Vat. 1200, fo. 344"; L. @& P., Ill, pt. 1, 557.

°° 6 January: Reg. Vat. 1177, fo. 50-51%; L. & P., Ill, pt. 1, 1124. Repeated in a bull of 1 April 1521: Reg. Vat. 1202, fo. 39-41. °° Reg. Vat. 1202, fo. 109,129. #27 C.S.P. Venice, Il, 29, 55, 60, 75.

28 Not dated: Reg. Vat. 1356, fo. 247-247". 2° 9 June 1528: Rymer, Foedera, VI, pt. 2, 101-02; Papal Bulls 63/19, 20; Reg. Vat. 1439, fo. 22-23: (dated 11 July) Reg. Vat. 1437, fo. 267-68. “8° 1 September 1529: Reg. Vat. 1438, fo. 278¥-79V. 31 1 June 1529: Reg. Vat. 1438, fo. 90-91”. 7821 September 1529: Reg. Vat. 1356, fo. 36-36%; 1438, fo. 277¥-78. 297. & P., IV, pt. 2, 5050, p. 2201.

24 1 & P., IV, pt. 2, 4920. 57 & P., IV, pt. 2, 4900.

506 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the papal promise of an indulgence,?** although the cardinal of SS Quattro

Coronati warned him that the king and Wolsey ought not to exhibit the indulgence too much.?** 4, PapaL REVENUE FROM GRANTS OF SUCH INDULGENCES

The papacy received a larger financial return from grants of plenary indulgences which local churches, hospitals or other institutions could dis-

burse solely for their own profit than it did from grants of partial indulgences. The fees of the chancery were generally higher for plenary indulgences, though there were some exceptions. In a tax-list of the chancery written about 1500 the writer’s fee for a plenary remission at the hour of death to be administered locally for two years was 50 grossi. Each addi-

tional year was 5 grossi. If the grant was in perpetuity, the fee was 75 grossi.7°8

The fees actually charged for the registration of bulls granting plenary remission to local authorities in England display considerable variations. The fee for registration of the bull by which Martin V, in 1429, conceded

to the confraternity of the hospital of Holy Trinity and St Thomas the Martyr in Rome plenary remission at death of its existing members and of

its new members who joined within three years was 200 grossi, or 20 florins.**? A renewal of the same grant by Eugenius [V in 1445 cost 50 grossi,”*° and renewals by Nicholas V in 1447 41 and by Pius II in 1459 ?4 each cost 40 grossi. In 1450 the same fee for a plenary indulgence once in

life and once at death to present and future members of the gild of Sts Christopher and Gregory of York was 120 grossi.?** In 1520, after another indulgence and the privilege of a portable altar had been added to the grant, its renewal was registered for 100 grossi.?4* The fees paid by the gild of St Mary in Boston varied even more. Its first plenary indulgence in 1451 gave to existing members and to those who entered the gild within the next five years absolution including the reserved cases once within the five years

and plenary remission at death. The fee for this bull in one register was 60 grossi and in another 80 grossi.**° In 1463 a renewal cost 130 grossi for 78° T have found no copy of the bull.

*2"T & P., IV, pt. 2, 4905. *°° Lea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 183. 239 CPL. VILL, 130.

00 C PL. IX, 518.

41 CPI. X, 302.

42 CP.L., XI, 524-25. **3 C.P.L., X, 485. *** Reg. Vat. 1167, fo. 310V. "45 C.P.L., X, 86-87, 235-36.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 507 registration.**° In 1475, when the grant was reissued without the limitation of five years, the writer’s fee was 70 grossi.**" The fee for registration of the bull of 1467 giving to present members of the gild of Holy Trinity of

Lynn and to those who joined the gild during the next six years plenary remission only at death was 100 grossi.**°

There are few examples of the fee charged for plenary indulgences issued to recipients other than gilds. The registrar’s fee for the bull of 1445 granting partial indulgences to some contributors to a church and a bridge and plenary remission at the hour of death to others was 70 grossi.**° The registration in 1476 of the confirmation of a plenary indulgence available to those who visited with alms the chapel of Muswell cost 50 grossi.*°° A renewal in 1478 with the addition of a partial indulgence and commuta-

tion of vows was registered for 100 grossi.?°* The plenary indulgences granted to visitors of the chapel of Holy Trinity near Basingstoke and of Wolsey’s college in Ipswich required prayers but no alms. Each was registered for 80 grossi and a duplicate of the first bull for 30 grossi.?°° The variations in these fees seem to provide no basis for the deduction of a general principle which controlled their amount. Possibly the principle was that stated in a list of fees and compositions compiled in 1519. ‘The writer's fee for a plenary indulgence is said to be assessed arbitrarily according to the importance of the thing.”*? According to Paulus this meant the amount of the proceeds which would accrue to the recipient.”** Even the highest fees for registration noted above give no indication

of any such total price for the expedition though the chancery of a bull of plenary indulgence as was sometimes charged in the late years of the

fifteenth century and the early years of the sixteenth. In the list of 1519 , it is suggested that a bull of indulgence ‘a pena et culpa’ in the larger form will cost about 260 ducats, depending on the form of the matter. For the

expedition of one of the indulgences for the chapel of St Mary in the church of St Matthew Ipswich, Wolsey was charged 150 ducats.?°° Some examples of higher costs of the expedition of plenary indulgences granted 240 CPI. XT, 649-50. 47 Lamb. MS. 644, no. 47. 48 CP.L., XII, 618. °#° C.P.L., TX, 486-87.

5° Reg. Vat. 666, fo. 81¥. 757 Reg. Vat. 669, fo. 482. ©? Reg. Vat. 1356, fo. 36%; 1438, fo. 278-279V.

*5° ‘Ta bulla di tal indulgentia si taxa arbitrariamente secondo la importanza della chosa’: Celier, Les Dataires, p. 160. The ‘tal indulgentia’ refers back to ‘indulgentia plenaria’ in a preceding section. That the reference is to the writer’s tax is made clear in a following section which reads: ‘Indulgentia di duo anni... si taxa XXX.’ 254 Geschichte, Ill, 453.

51. & P., IV, pt. 3, 5921.

508 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to places on the continent by Sixtus IV, Julius II and Leo X range from 100 to 245 ducats.?°°

In the later middle ages the papacy charged for the grant of a plenary indulgence from which a local institution received the whole financial benefit a further payment known as a composition. The amount of this charge was established on each occasion according to circumstances at the

discretion of the papal official who was responsible for it. When the requirement of a composition for indulgences was first established is a matter of some doubt. Boniface IX may have received compositions for some of the bulls which permitted churches to administer indulgences of the jubilee locally. The church of Milan paid 1000 florins for such an indult in 1391

and 600 florins for another in 1396.7°? The city of Koln also paid 1000 florins for a similar concession in 1394.258 Each sum included more than the probable cost of expediting the bulls through the chancery, and the excess may have been for a composition. No proof that any composition was demanded for the bulls of ordinary plenary remission which he distributed so freely in England has come to my attention. Adam of Usk’s charge that he rescinded existing plenary indulgences in 1402, but that a new market developed in the renewals of pardons which had been revoked *°° seems excessive, if only the fees of the chancery were involved. It is, however, too vague to predicate the beginning of compositions for ordinary plenary indulgences upon it. ‘The first payment definitely called a composition for an indulgence that I have found was made on 28 August 1418. Ina list of sums received by the camera from the registrars and the sealers of bulls occurs the entry: ‘from the cititzens of Freiburg by reason of a composition for several indulgences, 200 florins.’ °° The nature of the indulgences 1s not indicated, but since no composition was charged for a partial indulgence, it seems reasonable to assume that they were plenary indulgences administered locally. In the fourteenth century and first half of the fifteenth the amount of a composition to be paid in each case seems generally to have been decided by the officials of the camera,?** though the chancery seems to have ar°6 Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 453. For a bull authorizing administration by local authorities of an indulgence of the jubilee the charge was 100 florins in 1393: Lea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 182. 257 Paulus, Geschichte, Ul, 453. *58 Tea, History of Auricular Confession, III, 182. °° Chron, p. 74, above, pp. 488-89. 76° Miltenberger, “Versuch, R.Q., VIII, 436. 61 Goller, Der Ausbruch, p. 132; Die papstliche Pénitentiarie, Il, pt. 1, 78; Jacob, “To

and From the Court of Rome,’ Studies presented to M. K. Pope, pp. 169-70. For some kinds of compositions the papal collectors set the amount: Arm. XXIX, 1, fo. 31, 210”, 219”, 224, 251, 260°, 281¥, 314%; Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 92.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 509 ranged the composition paid by the citizens of Freiburg. In the second half of the fifteenth century, at least as early as 1462, the determination of the

amount of a composition became the responsibility of the datary.** In due course the amounts of the compositions for some dispensations, absolutions and indults became more or less fixed by custom. In a list of the prices of various compositions which was in use from 1492 to 1513 it was stated that when a confessional with a portable altar was granted to a fraternity, provided the number of members did not exceed 200, for the first person two ducats were charged and for the remainder one ducat for each person. Often the grace was made that a man and his wife counted as one person. ‘This was the type granted to the gilds in Boston and York. For a plenary indulgence for visitors with alms to a local place, from which the pope did not receive a third of the proceeds, the composition was fixed according to the judgment of the datary, who took into consideration the place to which it was granted and the nature of the indulgence.?* In a list of 1519 these statements were repeated, but some further information was provided. The composition for a plenary indulgence for one year, such presumably as the Franciscans had in 1479, was sometimes 400 ducats and sometimes 500. ‘The composition for the indulgence of Scala del Cielo, such as was given to the confraternity of Boston in 1518, was 100 ducats, and the indulgence of the stations in Rome, which was possessed by the gilds of Boston and York and the Friars of the Cross in London, was the same price.*°*

Unfortunately only one composition paid by an English community for a plenary indulgence has been discovered. On 28 April 1506 the confraternity of St Mary in Boston paid to the datary a composition of 30 ducats.*°° The payment was related to the indulgence granted to the gild by Julius If on 16 May 1506, but it covered only a small part of the indulgences contained in that concession. It was for the permission to convey the plenary indulgence granted to visitors giving alms to the chapel of St Mary to the residents of the city and diocese of Lincoln who gave alms but were hindered from making a visit. “he same confraternity paid for the bull of indulgence which it obtained from Leo X in 1518 £448 2 s. 11 d. but this included the cost of expedition and the counsel of divers doc-

tors as well as the composition. The bull did not satisfy the gild and it obtained a second which cost £315 4s. 2 d.*°° The gild of Sts Christopher 7°? Celier, Les Dataires, p. 89. 768 [bid., p. 154; Lunt, Papal Revenues, II, 527. *°* Celier, Les Dataires, pp. 160-61. 285 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1900, fo. 51¥. °° Egerton MS. 2886, fo. 181¥. In ducats the two sums are 2016 and 1418.

510 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 and Gregory in York also sought from Leo X a confirmation of its indul-

gence. Henry VII and Wolsey wrote in behalf of its petition in 1516. The king’s ambassador at the papal court wrote to the king’s secretary that

the indulgence which was sought could not be had for 2000 ducats,?° Since the fee for registration of the bull which was finally secured in 1520 was only 100 grossi, the total cost must have included a large composition.

The fees of the chancery and the composition with the datary represented what the papacy received from a bull of plenary indulgence granting to a local church or gild the right to retain all the funds arising therefrom.

The total cost to the community which sued for such a bull might be far greater. [he expenditures of the gild of St Mary of Boston to obtain the indulgence of 1518 were probably excessive. Before it sent agents to Rome, it made elaborate preparations in England. The officials of the gild sought

advice from many English prelates and from the papal collector. The English prelates included among others the bishop of Norwich, the chan-

cellor of the archbishop of Canterbury, the secretary of the cardinal archbishop of York, and William Potkyn, the registrar of the archbishop of

Canterbury. What advice they desired is not stated, but apparently they wanted to know what indulgences were legally and theologically possible and the practice and procedure at the papal court with regard to the grant of such bulls. In addition to payments for this advice some of the other preliminary expenditures were £1 6 s. 8 d. to the clerk of the privy seal for inditing letters to be sent under that seal asking for the counsel of two prelates, £16 2 s. 5 d. for trips between Boston and London and £66 s. for conger eels and their transport from Devon to London, where they were presented to Cardinal Wolsey. The total of these expenditures was £390

ls. 7 d.

In 1517 they sent to Rome with the petition Nicholas Bradebridge, doctor of theology and chancellor of Lincoln, and Thomas Cromwell. Part of their expenses for travel and residence in Rome came to £1156 6s.

8 d.*°* ‘They made two journeys to Rome. Between the first and second there were further expenditures in England including trips to Boston and royal letters for the return to Rome. For the second journey there were further traveling and living expenses and the payments for the two bulls. After the return from the second trip, further expenditures were made in England. They included £40 9 s. 9 d for having copies of the bull made and registered in London and £33 6 s. 8 d. for having the bull acknowledged in the royal treasury. The sum expended after £1156 6s. 8 d.

TES PW pide 268 ‘The addition in the account. My addition of the items makes the total £1256 6 s. 8 d.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 511 had been paid, amounted to £1425 13 s. 74% d.?6 After these three sums had been paid out, an unpaid balance of £269 7 s. 1114 d. remained.?”° Assuming that this debt was ultimately paid, the total cost of the bull to the gild was £3241 9 s. 10 d.?7 The fees of the chancery and the datary had to be paid before the bull would be issued. If a proctor paid the fees and could not recover from

the principal, the papacy would come to his aid. In the time of Leo X Jerome Vergil, a merchant of London, on the order of the bishop of Winchester and other executors of Henry VII, authorized Lewis di Gibraleon, a papal chamberlain, to obtain a renewal of the plenary indulgence for the

hospital of Savoy which Henry VII had founded. The proctor paid the fees for the expedition of the bull, but had difficulty in obtaining recompense from the executors. Leo X requested Henry VIII to intervene in behalf of his chamberlain.?7? 5. PLENARY INDULGENCES OF WHICH THE PROCEEDS WERE SHARED BETWEEN LocaL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE PAPACY

In some instances the papacy demanded a share of the proceeds of a plen-

ary indulgence committed to the administration of an English church. The first requirement of this sort was associated with an indulgence granted to the college of Eton. Henry VI, who founded the college, requested Eugenius IV to give it an indulgence. His answer, made on 28 May 1441, conceded in perpetuity to those who visited the church with helping hands on the feast of the Assumption of St Mary the same indulgence, remission of sins or relaxation of enjoined penance as could be obtained by a similar visit to the church of St Peter ad Vincula in Rome on 1 August.*’° Such a visit would give a plenary remission of all sins,?"* and it was so explained by both archbishops in the letters by which they ordered their suffragans to publish the indulgence.?”* The archbishop of Canterbury said in his letter 6° The addition in the account. I make the items come to £1325 13 s. 6% d. 7° Accounts of Geoffrey Chaumbers, secretary of the gild, from 1514 to 1520: Egerton MS. 2886, fo. 22, 267-27, 42, 487-49, 79, 181-181V.

727 & P., Il, pt. 1, 2130. |

°71 The total is not given in the account. It is my addition of the four several sums given in the account. It differs from my addition of all the items by only 1 d. °78 Bekynton, Corres., II, 297-99. °7* Above, p. 492; Arnold, Customs of London, p. 150.

75 The letter of the archbishop of Canterbury was dated 7 July 1442. It was directed to the bishop of London who sent copies of it to the other bishops of the province: London, Reg. Gilbert, f. 94; Salisbury, Reg. Aiscoff, II, fo. 34; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 536-37, Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 246. The letter of the archbishop of York ordering publication was dated 1 August 1442; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, I, 54. The letters refer to this bull,

because they speak of it as granted in perpetuity. The bull of 9 May 1442 granted the indulgence only for the lifetime of Henry V.

512 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

that he did not remember a plenary remission annually in perpetuity to have been granted by any Roman pontiff before. In this bull the pope claimed no share of the proceeds, leaving them all for the upkeep of the college.

The king was apparently fearful that the plenary nature of the indulgence would not be recognized. The archbishop of York in letters by which he ordered the publication of a second bull said that the pope had issued it in order that the reference to St Peter ad Vincula might not be misunderstood.?** The new bull, dated 9 May 1442, granted to visitors

| with alms on the Assumption of St Mary a full remission of all sins, but the confessors could not give absolution in cases reserved to the apostolic see.?77

This bull provided that the oblations paid by the visitors who received the indulgence were to be divided into four parts of which one was to be

used for the fabric and ministers of Eton and three were to be used for the repulse of the Turks. A separate bull of the same date ordered the bishop of Bath and Wells to give effect to this arrangement. He was to see that a trunk with two locks was set up in the church to receive the contributions. He was to have one key and the papal collector the other. It was his duty to see in each year that one-quarter was assigned to the provost and ministers of Eton and three-quarters to the papal collector.?**

The new grant was also unsatisfactory to Henry VI, because it was limited to his lifetime. It was explained to Vincent Clement, who was commissioned to obtain still a third bull, that the king would rather have a moderate permanent indulgence than a great and ample temporary one.?” He desired also to have the phrase ‘manus porrigentibus adjutrices’ omitted.**° ‘This would cause alms to cease to be compulsory as a requirement for obtaining the remission and leave them on a voluntary basis. In order to secure this alteration he went so far as to offer the service of himself and his realm in place of the oblations.*** ‘The answer to his petitions was a new bull issued on 11 may 1444. It summarized the bull of 9 May 1442, including the requirement of alms and the purposes for which they were

to be used. It continued ‘now’ we grant that all Christ’s faithful who in the future for perpetuity visit the church on the Assumption of St Mary 76 Not dated: York, Reg. Kemp, fo. 171-171¥,; Muniments of the bishop of Ely, Formulary of the Church of York, fo. 36-37. "7 Bekynton, Corres., II, 299-302, Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 465-67, C.P.L., VIII, 239. "7° Bekynton, Corres., Il, 302-03; C.P.L., VIII, 240. 7° Bekynton, Corres., I, 160, 175-79, 185-86, 231-32. 280 Ibid. I, 179.

*81 This statement is said in a confirmation of the bull of 1444 by Pius II to have been in one of his petitions to have the bull of 1442 changed: C.P.L., XI, 386-87.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 513 may have plenary remission of all their sins except in the reserved cases.**” No requirement of alms in the future is made nor is there any provision for the disposition of oblations.?®*

On 25 January 1446 Eugenius IV issued another indulgence which apparently did not supersede the indulgence of 1444, but was in addition to it. This time he granted in perpetuity to those who visited Eton on the

Assumption or on any other feast of St Mary, or on the feast of St Nicholas or on the translation of Edward the Confessor relaxation of seven years and seven quarantines of enjoined penance. The confessors appointed by the provost on all these days could absolve visitors from all their sins, crimes and excesses except the reserved cases and on the Assumption they could commute vows of pilgrimage except to Jerusalem, Rome and Compostella.?**

Nicholas V probably confirmed either the bull of 1444 or of 1446 on 20 April 1447,?*° and on 1 June 1450 he revised the arrangements for the administration of the bull of 1446 by the confessors.”** Pius II, when he confirmed the bull of 1444, ordered the alms to be divided as had been ordained in the bull of 1442 and appointed his collector in England to receive the three-quarters for the war against the Turks.?*’ This seems to imply that the requirement of alms to gain the plenary remission on the feast of the Assumption was restored. In a confirmation issued by Sixtus IV on 15 May 1479 this requirement is stated definitely.28° No information of the amounts received by the papacy from this source has come to light. The prior and chapter of Christchurch Canterbury received from Paul II in 1470 the grant of a local plenary indulgence of which the proceeds were to be shared. ‘This indulgence had behind it a long local tradition. The story began with the translation of the body of St Thomas the Martyr on 7 July 1220. In anticipation of that event the prior and convent, on 26 January 1219, obtained from Honortus III an indulgence of the relaxation of forty days of penance for those who attended the ceremony.?*® The archbishops and bishops who were present petitioned the pope for a more liberal indulgence, and on 18 December 1220 he gave it. The indul8? Bekynton, Corres., Il, 306-09: Addit. Charter 15569: C.P.L., VIII, 271. The archbishop of York ordered this bull published in his diocese: Muniments of the bishop of Ely, Formulary of the Church of York, fo. 36-36v. *8° This interpretation of the bull seems to be upheld in the confirmation of it by Pius II: C.P.L., XI, 386-87. *°* Bekynton, Corres., II, 309-11.

“°° HM.C., Report IX, app. I 351, no. 16. 8° CPL. X, 60-61. 287 C\P.L., XI, 387.

“°° Reg. Vat. 670, fo. 4837-85. *8° Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 2.

514 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 gence was increased to a year and forty days and it could be obtained every year in perpetuity by those who visited the church within fifteen days of the festival of the translation.?%° The new indulgence, which required no extension of helping hands to obtain it, seems to have had no effect on the oblations given by visitors to

Canterbury. Pilgrimages to the church of St Thomas had been popular for a long time before the translation in 1220. The average annual amount of the offerings in the early years of the thirteenth century was more than it was in any period of the same length during the thirteenth century after 1220.

In the year of the translation, before the indulgence of 18 December | 1220 was issued, the alms amounted to £1142 5 s., as compared with an annual average for the ten years from 1213 to 1222 of £383 5 s.2°! After the

translation, which took place in the fiftieth year after the martyrdom of the saint, there appears to have been a special celebration of the translation

in every following fiftieth year. In 1270 and again in 1320 the receipts from gifts at the shrine and altars rose above the annual average of the period.?*? In 1370 the fourth celebration of the translation was designated by a contemporary historian of the abbey of St Augustine as ‘the jubilee year of the blessed Thomas.’ He stated further that on the day of the translation (7 July) people were assembled ‘in almost countless numbers for the indulgence.’ 7°? ‘This remark, taken in conjunction with a story told about Simon Sudbury, who was then bishop of London, indicates that the indulgence offered at Canterbury in 1370 was more than a relaxation of penance for a year and a quarantine. The bishop, who was traveling to Canterbury, told a group of pilgrims who were bound for the same place that the plenary indulgence of Canterbury was of no use or value. He aroused the consternation of the pilgrims and the anger of some who refused to believe him.?°* If the monks of Canterbury were granting plenary remissions, as the story implies, the statement attributed to Sudbury was correct. Only the pope could authorize the grant of plenary indulgences, and the prior and convent had received no such power from the papacy in 1370. Apparently a tradition had grown up that the indulgence to be obtained

at Canterbury at each interval of fifty years was a plenary indulgence. How such a tradition developed has to be left in the realm of hypothesis. It may have been associated with the use of the word ‘jubilee’ to designate 7°° Raynaldus, 1220, § 45; Potthast, Reg., 6449.

°t Woodruff, “The Financial Aspects of the Cult of St Thomas,’ Arch. Cantiana, XLIV, mane Ibid., XLIV, 18-19. 7°8 ‘Thorne, Chron., p. 597. 294 ‘Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I, 49.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 515 the celebrations of the translation at each period of fifty years. When this usage began is not clear, but 1370 was called the year of the fourth jubilee of the saint. At some time, probably after 1350, the year of jubilee at Canterbury may have become connected in thought with the year of jubilee at Rome where plenary indulgences held in high popular esteem were available. The first year of jubilee at Rome was 1300, the second was in 1350 and they were decreed to come thereafter at intervals of fifty years. The association of an indulgence of the jubilee to be obtained at the jubilee of St Thomas at Canterbury is brought out in a forged bull of Honortus III

which was entered in a register of Christchurch in 1393.7 It states that the fiftieth year is a year of jubilee, a jubilee of remission, since, as legally in a year of jubilee the burdens and servitudes have been accustomed to be remitted to the people, so also in a year of jubilee during a period within fifteen days of the anniversary of the translation of the Martyr the burdens of penance are remitted. This association of an indulgence of the jubilee with the jubilee of St Thomas was made at Canterbury probably after 1350

and before 1370. The forgery of a bull to support the claim may have taken place before or after 1370. When the time for the fifth jubilee approached, an announcement was circulated. It stated that an indulgence of the jubilee could be secured at Canterbury in 1420 and referred to the forged bull of Honorius II to support the claim.”*® During the fifteen days of the jubilee a large crowd of pilgrims came to Canterbury, though the estimate of 100000 made by the bailiffs of the town ?°? may have been exaggerated. The oblations in that year amounted to £644. In 1370 they had been £643 and in 1320, £670 13 s. 4 d. Each of these sums was larger than the annual average for the comparatively few years of the fourteenth century for which figures are available. In the fourteenth century the annual average was higher than it had been in the thirteenth. In the fifteenth it fell far below that of either of the two preceding centuries.”?*

The indulgence of 1420 was brought to the attention of Martin V, who ordered an investigation of the circumstances. On 19 March 1423 he appointed James, bishop of Trieste, and Simon de Teramo, both of whom were his nuncios in England, to inquire the truth of the story that the archyear when the indulgence of 18 December 1220 was issued. The borrowing from a bull announcing a jubilee at Rome is obvious. It is a forgery, because the earliest indulgence of a year of jubilee was in 1300. °° Coton MS. Titus C. IX, fo. 8. In documents issued by the prior and chapter, which are unrelated to the jubilee, the date is sometimes given as 1420, ‘ano scilicet jubileo’: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. D fo. 430; Reg. H, fo. 102. 87 Somner, Antiquities of Canterbury, App. p. 51. 2°8 Woodruff, “The Cult of St Thomas’, Arch. Cantiana, XLIV, 18-24.

516 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 bishop, prior and chapter of Canterbury had caused to be preached a jubilee for the plenary remission of the sins of those visiting Canterbury in 1420 such as could be obtained at Rome in a year of jubilee and had instituted

penitentiars who absolved from sins and extorted ‘a wicked price.’ He wanted the inquiry held because this power was conceded by God only to the pope.?*?

The outcome of this inquiry is unknown, but without much doubt one result was to cause the prior and chapter to seek a papal grant of a plenary indulgence before the jubilee of 1470 came around. They seem to have asked John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, while he was in Italy, to obtain the grant for them. He notified them through his chaplain that he was negotiating for a plenary indulgence with no cases reserved which could be granted to those who visited Canterbury on the day of the passion of St Thomas (29 December) or the day of his translation (7 July) in every year in perpetuity and another which in every fiftieth year called a jubilee of

the Martyr could be granted throughout the year from the day of the Crucifixion. ‘The last was an indulgence such as had been given to the church of St James of Compostella. The earl asked for 200 marks to further his suit. On 20 November in a year not stated the prior Thomas wrote to him in Padua, where he was perfecting his eloquence, that the money would be transmitted to him or to the apostolic see.?°° The letter was written in the fourth year of the earl’s sacred pilgrimage, which was probably 1461.°°* ‘This attempt failed.

In 1469, when the jubilee of St Thomas was coming near, another attempt was made. John the prior and the chapter formulated a petition to the pope which told of the passion of St Thomas, of the translation of his body fifty years later and of the grant made by Honorius III at that time of the remission of the burdens of penance in the year of jubilee such as no

pope had ever granted before.*” It is followed by drafts of supporting letters for the king and queen to send to the pope and to some of the cardinals.°°* ‘The petition was carried to Rome by William Selling and Reginald Goldstone.?*4 °° C\P.L., VII, 12; Raynaldus, 1423, § 21; above, p. 555. #°°D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. N, fo. 186¥-87, Literae Cantuarienses, III, 215-17. °° On 16 October 1460 the earl was returning from Jerusalem: C.P.L., XI, 480. On 5 August 1457 he was appointed one of the king’s orators to offer the obedience of Henry VI to Calixtus III, and on 16 May 1459 to offer the royal obedience to Pius II: C.P.R. 1452-61, pp. 362, 487. This is also given as the probable date of his sojourn in Italy in D.N.B., LVI, 411. The editor of Lit. Cant. dates the letter 1454. Einstein thinks he was in Rome about 1465: Italian Renaissance in England, pp. 23-25. *°? D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. S, fo. 238, 238%; Lit. Cant., III, 245-48. The petition is unfinished and undated. It is in a register which was begun in 1468 and it is among documents dated 1469.

°° Reg. S, fo. 238¥-39v, } *°* H.M.C., Report IX, App. I, 116.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 517

The bull which Paul II issued on 4 June 1470 was in answer to this petition. It did not grant the indulgence of a jubilee which was sought, but it authorized the award of an ordinary plenary indulgence to those who visited the church of Canterbury on 15 August, 8 September or 29 September during the next two years. The prior and chapter could appoint confessors who could give absolution even in cases reserved to the apostolic see, except offenses against ecclesiastical liberty, violation of an interdict imposed by the apostolic see, heresy and disobedience or rebellion against the pope or the apostolic see. They could also commute vows other than those of religion and of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Rome or Compostella.*” This bull was publicized,?°* and it evidently attracted attention. On 28 September 1471, the day before the bull expired, Edward [IV and Queen Elizabeth came to obtain the indulgence.*°* They were accompanied by so many companions and followers that Sir John Paston said: ‘Never so much people seen in pilgrimage heretofore at once, as men say.’ °°*

The financial side of this indulgence was kept inconspicuous. The bull did not make a contribution necessary to obtain the indulgence, and the commissary general of the archbishop forbade the confessors, under penalty of excommunication, to seek, exact or extort from any one confessing during the time of the indulgence by reason of the confession or of enjoining penance gold, silver or anything else.*°® Nevertheless, the indulgence was expected to yield money, since the pope demanded a share of the proceeds. On 8 February 1472, Sixtus IV, who had succeeded Paul I, wrote

to the bishop of Lincoln to pay the money from the indulgence of Holy Thomas of Canterbury to Thomas Portunario, a merchant of Florence.**® Two years later, on 29 July 1474, the papal camera recorded receipt by the hand of Thomas Portunario from the bishop of Lincoln, commissioner concerning certain indulgences granted to the church of Canterbury, of 830 florins,?** which was equivalent to about £175.°"” The prior and chapter

probably retained about twice that amount, since one-third of the proceeds was customarily reserved for the pope in such agreements at that time.?"* Presumably the money came from voluntary gifts which the penitents left upon the altars. °° TD). & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. S, fo. 240; Lit. Cant. III, 253-55. °° Salisbury, Reg. Beauchamp, II, fo. 122¥. °°" Stone, Chron., pp. 112, 117. ®°8 Paston Letters, III, 17. $9 Lit. Cant., Ill, 252-53. **° Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS. 170, p. 244. $117, & E. 489, fo. 997.

tI ‘to the rate of exchange in 1374 was 50 d. to the ducat: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum, ‘a18 Tf this was true, and the above sum was all which the pope received, the whole receipt was £575.

518 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Innocent VIII, the successor of Sixtus IV, also granted an indulgence

to the church of Canterbury. On 6 August 1487 he offered those who visited the church with helping hands on one of two specified days in the year a plenary remission of sins as of the jubilee. The sins included those reserved to the pope. The confessors were also authorized to commute vows with the usual exceptions. He offered further to those who visited the altar of St Thomas with gifts on certain other named days in the year

relaxation of one-fourth of their penances. The confessors were to be appointed by the archbishop.*?**

Any evidence that this indulgence was administered at Canterbury has eluded my search for it. If it was put into force, it probably did not remain in operation long. At the time it was issued, Innocent VIII was seeking permission from Henry VII to establish in England a general plenary indulgence for the warfare against the Turks. Royal consent was not given immediately, but on 18 September 1488 the pope decreed such a general indulgence and early in 1489 it was put into effect. The bull of 18 September suspended all local plenary indulgences such as that granted to Canter-

bury on 6 August 1487.3 In 1520, the next year of the jubilee of St Thomas, a determined effort was made to obtain a papal confirmation of the indulgence of the jubilee which was claimed on the grounds both of custom and of previous papal grant. The archbishop of Canterbury sent Dr Grig as a special proctor for the purpose, and Henry VIII and Wolsey, who supported the petition, instructed Silvester de Giglis, bishop of Worcester, the king’s orator at the papal court, and Cardinal Campeggio, who represented the interests of the king at the court, to help obtain the confirmation.**® The reports of these agents to their principals provide information not only of the status of the indulgence of the jubilee for St Thomas but also of the process of obtaining papal grants of plenary indulgences to be administered locally. Wolsey’s letter ordering Worcester in cooperation with Campeggio to solicit the pope for the indulgence, dated 24 March 1520, indicated how the pope was to be approached. He was to be asked to confirm certain plenary indulgences granted by his predecessors to the cathedral of Canterbury every fifty years since the martyrdom of St ‘Thomas. The celebration would begin on 7 July. It was held in great esteem in England and would be attended by a large confluence of people.*** The negotiators al4 Reg. Vat. 724, fo. 146-479. °° Below, pp. 595-96.

16 The support of Henry VIII is attested by a letter of Campeggio to Wolsey on 15 April and a letter of Worcester to Wolsey on 4 May: Cotton MS. Vitel. B IV, fo. 44, 47-479.

27T & P., Ill, pt. 1, 695.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 519

most immediately ran into difficulty. On 25 April Dr Grig wrote to the archbishop that he had delivered the king’s letter to the pope in the presence of Worcester and Campeggio. Two days later he delivered Wolsey’s letter, and on that occasion Leo X asked him for proof that his predecessors had granted the indulgence. Grig asked the archbishop to have examined

old men in Canterbury who remembered the last jubilee and to send the resulting evidence under the prior’s seal.*** On 4 May Worcester wrote to

Wolsey that he could easily obtain the confirmation, if he could show proof of a grant by the predecessors of Leo X.°1° In his letter of 25 April Grig said that the pope was sending the auditor of the camera to be present at the meeting of the kings of France and England on the Field of the Cloth of Gold and suggested that Henry VIII and Wolsey and some noblemen who had been present at the last jubilee should tell him that it had been in use. On 5 May Grig repeated his advice to convince the auditor that the jubilee was customary.*?° Actually satisfactory proof of a predecessor’s grant

could not be produced, because at the jubilee of 1470, the last one within the memory of living men, if an indulgence of the jubilee had been used, it must have been based on custom and the alleged grant of Honortus III. The grant of Paul II, made on 4 June 1470 was an ordinary plenary indulgence not of the jubilee, and it did not become effective until 15 August. Perhaps Archbishop Warham recognized the lack of the desired evidence better than his proctor did, since he wrote to the pope that Honorious III had granted the indulgence of the jubilee. Leo X, in answer, explained to Grig that the first indulgence of the jubilee was granted in Rome by Boniface VIII and that such a thing was not likely to have been granted in the time of Honorwus III.3?7

The use of gratuities to obtain influence with the pope and the cost of the bull occupied much of the attention of Dr Grig. Leo X referred the letters of the king and Wolsey, whence he first received information of the petition for the indulgence, to the cardinal of SS Quattro Coronati, appar-

ently for the preparation and presentation of the petition. When Grig first got in touch with the cardinal, he was told that the pope would not grant the petition for money or for favor.3?? He asked the cardinal for his favor, and let him know that the archbishop had authorized him to give a

large reward. He wrote to the archbishop that the six goblets which he had previously asked to be sent would do more than money with the car*"8 Literae Cantuarienses, III, 340-41; Christ Church Letters, pp. 71-74; Somner, Antiquities of Canterbury, ed. N. Battely, App. to supplement, p. 46. 818 Cotton MS. Vitel. B IV, fo. 47-477.

**° Lit. Cant., Ill, 342-43; Christ Church Letters, p. 74; Somner, Antiquities, App. p. 47. *** Lit. Cant., II, 345-46, Christ Church Letters, p. 77; Somner, Antiquities, App. p. 48. %*? Lit. Cant., Ill, 340, Christ Church Letters, p. 72; Somner, Antiquities, App. p. 46.

520 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 dinal. While awaiting the archbishop’s answer with regard to the goblets, he inquired about some good article to the value of 100 ducats which he could present to the cardinal. The proctor was learning about the custom of paying a propina to the cardinal reporter.*?* Despite the advice of the cardinal, he thought that a cup of gold presented to the pope by the archbishop would have done great good in the matter. He was worried about the large sum of money it would cost to have the bull expedited by the chancery.?*4

The final outcome of the negotiations was that the pope announced in public consistory that he would confirm the indulgence of the jubilee, if it could be proved that it was in use. Otherwise he would grant a jubilee with clean remission at the feast of St Thomas and the three following days,

but one-half of the oblations were to be applied to the building of St Peter’s. On 6 June the archbishop informed the prior of Canterbury that he agreed to the latter arrangement, if the grant should be made in perpetuity with the church of Canterbury receiving all of the alms after the present year, if the expense of the expedition of the bull should be taken out of the pope’s half, and if the bull should be issued in the amplest form. Unless it was in this form—that it with commutations of vows, dispensations and the other privileges included in plenary indulgences of this period—the archbishop thought that little advantage would arise to the pope in view of the manifold great pardons which had been and were in England.**° ‘The attempt to bargain failed. No bull of indulgence was issued and the tercentenary of the translation of St Thomas must have been commemorated without the disbursement of plenary indulgences. Alexander VI reserved a share of the proceeds of a plenary indulgence which he granted, on 4 August 1496, to the houses of the Augustinian order in London, Oxford and Cambridge, because their houses were run down. A visitor who gave alms to the church of any one of them on any of certain stated days in each of four years after the year of the next jubilee, would receive plenary remission of all sins. The offerings were to be deposited in chests in the churches, and the prior and the papal collector each were to have one of the two keys to each chest. One-third of the receipts was to go to the apostolic camera.**° Before the Augustinian Friars received this grant, the brothers of the house at Cambridge had been accused of giving plenary remissions daily to all who came to them. They claimed the right by a bull of privileges *28 Above, p. 250.

$24 Tit, Cant., Il, 341-42; Christ Church Letters, pp. 72-73, Somner, Antiquities, App. P Ee Lit. Cant., Ul, 344-47; Christ Church Letters, pp. 76-78, Somner, Antiquities, App. PP Reg. Vat. 869, fo. 1387-397.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 521

recently obtained. The archbishop of Canterbury believed that they had no proper authorization from the pope and that they were receiving money under false pretenses. On 27 March 1494 he ordered the bishop of Ely to prohibit them until they had exhibited to him the document on which they based their claim. He said that the Franciscans of Paris and the Benedictines of St Omer, who had disbursed indulgences without papal authority, had been imprisoned by Innocent VIII until they made full restitution of

the money received.*?” The prior of the house in Cambridge appeared before the bishop and exhibited a bull of Alexander VI confirming the privileges of the order and another bull ordering the archdeacons of Wells and Carlisle to examine certain other documents. The bishop learned from the prior that the archbishop had summoned the provincial prior and all the priors of the order to appear before him and exhibit their instruments. The bishop, therefore, contented himself by enjoining the prior to obey the summons.*”$ The outcome of the archbishop’s investigation has not been discovered, but if the Friars were found to have been acting without adequate authority, it may explain why they sought the bull which they obtained in 1496. What proceeds the indulgence may have yielded are unknown to me. In the time of Leo X the whole Augustinian order appears to have enjoyed the administration of a plenary indulgence. Since confessional letters were issued by the administrators, the indulgence must have given remission of all sins at death, whatever other indults the bull may have contained. The proceeds were divided between them and the pope, but the papal share was in the neighborhood of a sixth instead of a third. In an account rendered before a notary, Master Bellond, prior of the House in London, put his receipts from confessional letters while he was provincial of the order at

£397 15 s. 10 d., of which £59 14 s. were paid to the pope, and, after he ceased to be provincial, at £41 17 s., of which the pope’s share was £6 18 s.*”°

Few English churches received grants of indulgences of the jubilee which they could offer to the general public. The abbey of Westminster was the first to profit financially from such an indulgence. In 1395 or 1396 Boniface [X made an indulgence of the jubilee available to many persons in the whole province of Canterbury for one year.*®° His bull was in answer to a petition of the clergy, people and inhabitants of the province who °°" Innocent VIII also attempted to apprehend the Augustinian Friars of Paris who had collected alms in England under false pretenses: C.S.P. Venice, I, 535. #8 Ely, Reg. Alcock, pp. 217-18. 20 T & P., IIL, pt. 2, 2163. 8° “Piis et humilibus’: Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 120”. The bull is undated. Bishop Wakefield died 11 March 1395. Bentley notes in his Abstracts a document in a cartulary at

Westminster concerning the year of jubilee and grace granted to the monks of Westminster on 13 August 1396: p. 50, no. 394.

522 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

desired to have the indulgence, but had been prevented from going to Rome in 1390 by illness and other causes. He, therefore, indulged those sixty years of age, pregnant women, persons who were ill or suffering from bodily infirmities and those hindered by other reasonable causes to have the same full indulgence as if they had made the visits to the Roman basilicas which were necessary in order to obtain the indulgence of the jubilee at Rome. They had to visit continuously or at intervals for fifteen days the churches in London of St Paul, Westminster, St Mary Overe and St John Clerkenwell, in other cities four churches or in rural districts four principal

churches other than their parish churches. They were to give to pious works through the confessors whom they elected what they would have spent in going to, staying in and returning from Rome, the amount being calculated according to the social rank of each person. This money was to be paid in full to the repair of the church of Westminster. They were also to send to the Roman basilicas the offerings which they would have left there, had they made the pilgrimage to Rome. The bull was addressed to the bishop of Salisbury and the abbot of Westminster who were to publish it and see that it was carried out.*?! In this bull it is clear that the cost of the journey was used for local good works and that only the estimated amount of the oblations which would have been offered went to Rome. Fven of these oblations the pope received only a part.*°? Westminster received much more from this indulgence than did the pope. The jubilee indulgence of 1475 appears to have been granted to an English monastery for local administration. On 2 November 1480 the papal camera acknowledged receipt from John de Giglis, who was then papal collector, of 290 florins 3 s. for the third part belonging to the pope and the camera ‘ex jubileo de Wualles.’ 3°? Since the indulgence of the jubilee was extended to all England and Wales in 1476 and again in 1478 and was administered by papal commissioners, of whom John de Giglis was

one on both occasions,*** this item of receipt might seem to have been derived from one of those indulgences in Wales. It was not customary, however, to make any distinction between money raised in Wales and in England. The net proceeds of the indulgences of 1476 and 1478, moreover, were to go in their entirety to the papal camera for the expenses of the war against the Turks, excepting a quarter of any sum above 10000 florins produced by the indulgence of 1476, which was to go to the king. *31 The copy of the bull in the register of the bishop of Worcester indicates that the indulgence was proclaimed publicly in England. Beyond that I have found no evidence concerning the local administration of it. $82 Above, p. 461. $337. & E. 502, fo. 20. *8* Below, pp. 586-90.

Indulgences Administered in England by Local Authorities 523

Since it was customary at this time for the papacy to take a third of the yield of a plenary indulgence which a monastery or other church was allowed to administer, leaving two-thirds for the local institution, ‘Wualles’ is probably as near as some cameral scribe could come to the name of some

church in England or Wales which had received such a grant. What church was meant is open to speculation. Sixtus [V, on 14 February 1484, granted to the prior and convent of Ixworth a plenary indulgence ‘ad instar anni jubile’ to hold good for ten years. On 24 February 1484 the bull was delivered to the banker, Zenobius de Geddis. He promised within a year to deliver it to John de Giglis, the papal collector in England, or to return it sealed to the papal camera under penalty of 1000 ducats for failure.**° On 19 February the pope wrote to

the collector instructing him what to do with the bull when he received it.°°° He was to deliver it to the prior, but not until a suitable guarantee had been given that one-third of the oblations received would be delivered to the papal camera. He was also to see that the chest in which the alms were to be placed should have three locks instead of two, as stated in the bull. ‘The prior, the convent and the collector each were to have a key. ‘The collector was to take the papal third. The bull was delivered to him by the banker on 12 July 1484. Records of the administration of the indulgence by the priory have not been found. 885 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1895, fo. 25¥. The date of the bull, which is summarized, 1s given as 15 kalends March ‘anno duodecimo.’ In view of the other dates, it probably should be ‘anno tredecimo.’ 836 Arm. XX XIX, 16A, fo. 397; 16C, fo. 1079.

BLANK PAGE

CHAPTER XI

INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL AGENTS 1. CrusADING INDULGENCES 1327-1377

The indulgences which were of most financial value to the papacy were those administered in England by papal agents. In 1327 such indulgences for the crusades had already had a long development and the principles of their grant and the methods of their administration were well established.

If a man went on a crusade and remained with the expedition for a specified length of time, which was usually a year, he received a plenary indulgence. One who took the cross and did not go could obtain a plenary indulgence by supplying a substitute and paying his wages and expenses, or by paying the amount which a substitute would cost. Men often took the crusader’s vow with the intention of redeeming it by such a payment in order to secure a plenary indulgence. If a substitute went on the crusade, he also was granted a plenary indulgence. If a pledged crusader died without going on the crusade and without having redeemed his vow, but left a sufficient bequest for the cause in his will, he was entitled to a plenary

indulgence. If he failed to make a bequest, his executors, if he left a will, or his administrators, if he died intestate, became responsible for the redemption of his vow by a payment from his goods. If it was made, he received a plenary indulgence. Contributors to the cost of a crusade, who did not take the cross, also obtained an indulgence. The amount of the relaxation of penance or remission of sins received was proportioned to ‘the quality of the person and the quantity of the subvention.’ The judgment concerning quality and quantity might be left to the discretion of the confessor, or the quantity might be fixed by the papal bull which authorized the indulgences. In 1250 plenary pardon of sins was awarded to one who gave one-fourth or more of his income to the crusade, and a partial indulgence proportioned to the amount of the contribution and the devotion of the giver to one who gave a tenth or other part of his goods less than a quarter. The last bull on the subject previous to 1327 was issued by Clement V on 11 August 1308. It offered to ecclesiastics and to persons unable to fight, including women, full pardon of their sins if they gave what it would have cost to go in person to the Holy Land, pardon of half their sins, if they gave half the cost, and pardon in proportion, if they contributed more or less than one-half. Those who paid 24 d. of small Tours on a Friday of holy week

526 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

received relaxation of twenty-four years, and a gift of 6 d. of the same money on another day yielded relaxation of six years.’ The administration of crusading indulgences and the collection of the obventions arising therefrom were assigned sometimes to agents appointed specially for the purpose, who might be either English prelates or nuncios

of other nationalities, and sometimes to the general papal collectors. If there was a special administration while the particular crusade was being preached, it became the custom to make the general collector responsible

for the arrears which were always left. While the crusade was being preached, chests were kept in each church where the alms were deposited.

The local keepers of the chests delivered the proceeds to the principal collectors or to their deputies, of whom there was usually one in each diocese. During the pontificate of John XXII previous to 1327 the general papal collectors were commissioned to collect the arrears of the obventions

for crusades.” They might consist of unpaid sums owed by those who had promised them or by keepers of the chests, unfulfilled pledges to redeem oaths to go to the Holy Land, which often had to be exacted from

executors or administrators of the estates of those who had made the pledges, bequests for the Holy Land, and gifts or bequests for the crusade which had been deposited with others than the collector or his agents.’

In 1327 only old debts were left to collect, since the opportunity to obtain the indulgences offered for gifts to the crusade by Clement V expired in 1313 and the preaching in England of a new crusade had not since been authorized by the papacy. Itier de Concoreto, who was commissioned in 1328 to collect them, appointed deputies from among the local clergy to do the work. The deputy might have jurisdiction in one or more dioceses.* Itier’s commission to a deputy ordered him to collect any debts owed to the Holy Land and specified particularly distinct and indistinct legacies and pecuniary penalties incurred by breach of contracts. The indistinct legacies were those left to charities which were not definitely specified. For a long time the papacy had claimed that such bequests should *Lunt, Papal Revenues, Il, 423, 440, 452-61. * Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 622-23.

*For a detailed account of the development of the indulgences and their administration see ibid., Ch. VIII. * Among them were the following: Master Hugh Prani, rector of Itchen, in the dioceses of Winchester, Salisbury and Chichester; Master William Esquinard, dean of St. Carantoc,

Exeter and Bath and Wells; Col. 227, fo. 417-45; and William de Corbrigg, parson of Burton Stoveray, Lichfield: C.P.R. 1330-34, p. 37. William Esquinard used as an assistant in the diocese of Exeter in 1331 Richard de Venodix and in 1332 John de Overton: Col 227, fo. 45%. On 8 February 1333 William Esquinard was superseded as deputy in the diocese

of Bath and Wells by John de Norton, a clerk of Hereford and Exeter diocese: Reg.

Shrewsbury, fo. 90". Robert Baac, a clerk of Exeter diocese, was also a deputy in the diocese of Bath and Wells: Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 267.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 527 be used for the Holy Land.’ The penalties which might be incurred by breach of contracts may be illustrated from a document which was nearly

contemporary. On 5 November 1334 the abbot and convent of Westminster granted to Elizabeth Montacute, a relative of Simon Montacute, bishop of Worcester, a yearly pension of 100 s. to be received by her on the feast of St Andrew. If the pension should ever be unpaid one month from that date, the abbot and convent would pay £20 to the papal camera in aid of the Holy Land.® Such contracts were not uncommon, but how often they were broken is another matter. The deputy was given power to compel payments by ecclesiastical censures * and he was required to take an oath to exercise his office faithfully.®

In the report which Itier rendered to the papal camera in 1333 he accounted for receipts from this source of £53 3 s.° The account is incomplete. It is arranged by dioceses and includes only Canterbury, London, Winchester, Salisbury, Chichester, Bath and Wells and Exeter. A heading is given to Ely and Norwich, but no items are entered under it. ‘The income came solely from bequests which had been left to the Holy Land by the testators, who presumably had been actuated in part by the desire for an indulgence. Among those who made bequests were several rectors, a canon, an archdeacon, a knight and a druggist. The largest bequest was

£20 and the smallest 20 d. A few of them were paid by the executors directly to the collector, but most of them were assembled by the deputies. The work of Itier and his deputies in the collection of these bequests

caused complaints. Some of them reached Benedict XII, for on 26 September 1335 he ordered his collector, Bernard de Sistre, to inquire if his two predecessors, Hugh and Itier, and their deputies had, as alleged, burdened the English clergy by extortions and the acceptance of bribes, or cheated the papal camera by malversation.*® Bernard, on 20 April 1336, put this commission into effect by asking the bishops to inform him of any such misdeeds.*? The bishop of Bath and Wells, in the only reply which has been preserved, stated that three of the deputies of Itier '” had burdened many of his subjects, had received extortions and rewards, had ordered executors of testaments to be cited to exhibit wills and inventories and had

° CPR. 1334-38, p. 92. , “Commission of John de Norton: Wells, Reg. Shrewsbury, fo. 90V.

® Col. 227, fo. 44v-45.

* Ibid., fo. 44-45%. My addition.

** Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, pp. 267-68; C.P.L., Il, 559; Reg. Shrewsbury

(Wells), I, 262. 4 Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 267, 289. *? William Esquinard, John de Norton and Robert Baac.

528 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 dragged many of them to divers places until they made fine.** The exercise

by the collectors of jurisdiction over testamentary cases which belonged normally to English ordinaries and the summoning of executors and others concerned to places remote from their homes had roused opposition long before the time of Itier de Concoreto.14 John XXII, on 26 July 1333, proclaimed a crusade to be commanded by Philip VI of France and to begin on 1 August 1336. He issued four bulls of this date relating to various aspects of the expedition.”* The bull Non absque grandi imposed an annual tenth universally on the incomes of the clergy for a period of six years.*® A second bull ordered masses to be celebrated and specified prayers to be said for the delivery of the Holy Land in every cathedral, collegiate and parochial church once a week. A third Ad comemorandum recentius ordered the crusade to be preached and explained indulgences and remissions, which were offered because it was thought the tenth might not provide sufficient funds for the expedition. A fourth Pridie ad supplicem directed diocesans to collect all legacies, gifts from the living, pecuniary penalties for broken contracts, pecuniary penalties for the crusade imposed as penances, redemptions of vows and promises of aid according to the regulations set forth in the bull. Copies of these letters were directed to the two archbishops, but either they were not sent immediately or the English prelates delayed their execution. ‘They were not put into effect while John XXII was still pope.*’ On 31 January 1335 Benedict XII renewed these mandates of his predecessor, sent copies of them to the archbishops and suffragans and ordered them to be carried out.*® The archbishop of Canterbury sent copies of the five bulls to his suffragans with an order to execute them on various dates in May.*® They were received by the suffragans at different dates from late in June to early in September.”° The archbishop of York did not order chests to be provided in the churches of his own diocese until 23 May 1336, *® Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 267. “* Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 444, 509.

*’ Copies of them are to be found as follows: Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 9-13; Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 11-14, Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 509¥-13; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 23-26%. Summaries of some of the bulls: Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 263; Winchester Cathedral Chartulary, pp. 51-52. *° Treated above, pp. 88-94. *7'The tenth had to be delayed in England (above, pp. 89-90), and presumably it was desired to put them all into effect at the same time. *8 Ad eripiendum terram: C.P.L., Ul, 523; K. R. Memo. Roll 113, m. 1617 7°97, 8, 22 May.

*° Worcester before 30 June: Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 147; Lincoln 19 August: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 509%; Bath and Wells 23 August: Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 246; Salisbury and Winchester 25 August: Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 26%; Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 14; Exeter 2 September: Reg. Grandisson, II, 802.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 529 and it was on 10 December 1336 that he sent copies of the five bulls to his official and to the dean and chapter of York with an order for their execution.??

In the bull Ad comemorandum recentius relaxation of forty days of penance was offered to those who listened to the preaching of the crusade, full pardon (plenam veniam) of sins to those who took part in the expedi-

tion and indulgence proportioned to the value of their contribution to those who aided the crusade by work or counsel. The other indulgences required financial aid, and the faithful were to be encouraged to make offerings in order to secure them. Those who provided warriors at their own expense could obtain a plenary indulgence, if the cost represented a sufficiently large portion of their resources. Those who made gifts or left money for the crusade in their wills would receive an indulgence proportioned to the quality of their persons and the extent of their resources. This had meant on previous occasions that the indulgence might be plenary or partial, and, if partial, might vary in the amount of penance relaxed. Those who assumed the cross and did not fulfil the oath could obtain a plenary indulgence by redeeming it for the estimated cost of the journey to the Holy Land and back and the expenses of a year’s residence there. If one died with the oath unfilled and unredeemed, his heirs would be responsible for its redemption, if he did not make provision for it in his will.

The receipts from these sources were to be kept in chests placed in all churches. Each chest was to have three different locks and the bishop, the ecclesiastic in charge of the church and a trustworthy layman were each to have a key to one lock. The campaign for funds was to last for six years. The bull which commanded the bishops to collect the sums arising from these indulgences instructed them to compel those who had in their keeping legacies or any money designated for the Holy Land to deliver it to them, under penalty of excommunication, within a term set by them. They were also to compel notaries making wills which contained bequests to the Holy Land within the next six years to provide them with copies of the testaments. They were to warn notaries to persuade those making wills to include bequests for the Holy Land. They were to exact nothing from legacies, promised gifts, pecuniary penances or penalties for breaches of contracts which were over thirty-six years old. “They were to deposit what they collected from all these sources in cathedral churches and to assign the funds to agents whom the pope would appoint. ‘They were to excommunicate any who usurped the money while it was in deposit. There was much delay in establishing the administrative machinery ** York, Reg. Melton, fo. 543¥-544¥,

530 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

necessary for the collection of the gifts and legacies. The archbishop of York did not arrange for the collection of funds in his own diocese until well along in 1336. The executory letter of the archbishop of Canterbury reached several bishops only after an interval of several months. Some of the bishops were slow in appointing their deputies. The bishop of Worcester was prompt and the bishop of Salisbury did not delay long. ‘The former appointed preachers of the crusade and a collector of the proceeds of the indulgences on 20 June 1335.2? The latter appointed his archdeacons or their officials and the locumtenens or the official of the cathedral to execute the two bulls and to collect the funds. They were to report to him once a year the names of the payers and the amounts paid. He named the preachers of the cross on 27 October.?*? The bishop of Winchester did not ap-

point a collector until 11 January 1336. On the next day he ordered the chests to be made and installed in the churches. The collector whom he appointed was Hugh Prani who had served Itier de Concoreto in a similar capacity.** He was to assign what he collected to the bishop once each year."> The bishop of Bath and Wells likewise did not order the chests until sometime in 1336.7°

Before the administration of the indulgences was well under way, on 13 March 1336 Benedict XII released Philip VI from his oath to begin the expedition before the first of the next August. Thereafter the move-

ment for the crusade soon collapsed. On 18 December 1336 the pope ordered the cessation of the collection of the sexennial tenth and the restoration to the payers of the sums which had been collected.?” No formal mandate to end the administration of indulgences for the crusade appears in the papal registers, but about 16 May 1337 Benedict XII told Bernard de Sistre that he was not any longer to seek obventions for the crusade, because it had been postponed.?* The bishops had probably discontinued the collection of obventions as soon as they learned that the crusade had been given up and the collection of the tenth discontinued. The letter of the archbishop of Canterbury which gave them this information officially was dated 21 March 1337.”°

It may be doubted whether the indulgences yielded any money for 7? Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 15-15v. 2 Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 26¥-27. 24 Above, p. 526, n. 4.

5 Reg. Onion, II, fo. 14-14%; Winchester Cathedral Chartulary, pp. 51-52.

*° Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 263. "7 Above, p. 93.

*8 The conversation took place on the last visit of the collector to the papal court before his death in 1342. The visit was made in 1337: Col. 227, fo. 116. *° Above, p. 93.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 531 the crusade during the short period between the establishment of the administrative system and the revocation of the indulgences. On 20 August 1336 the bishop of Bath and Wells reported to Bernard that the people of his diocese did not wish to make gifts for the cause on account of the extortion of previous deputy collectors of obventions for the Holy Land.*° It is reasonably certain that the pope received no money from this source. Before Benedict XII told Bernard that he was not to collect these obventions, he had concerned himself only with the arrears owed for the crusade

before the current campaign had begun. On 29 May 1336 he issued a mandate to the bishop of Bath and Wells.** He said he had heard from crusaders and nuncios for the subsidy for the Holy Land in times gone by

that divers sums of money had been collected for which it had not yet been answered. The bishop was to summon all collectors to render payment of such sums on 8 September. In reply the bishop, on 13 August, named five collectors who had received divers sums bequeathed to the Holy Land, but said he did not know whether they had satisfied the apostolic see for what they had collected. One was Hugh of Angouléme, who had preceded Itier de Concoreto as papal collector, two who were deceased had been his deputies and the other two were Itier’s deputies. In Bernard’s final report all the receipts pertaining to the Holy Land came from legacies except two payments for commutations of vows and one which the payer was said to owe to the Holy Land. No gifts are recorded. Many of the bequests—and possibly all—had been made before 1335. The total of the receipts was £59 7 s. 8 d. and two rings.*°

During the remainder of the reign of Edward III the popes continued to proclaim crusades from time to time. Clement VI, in 1343, ordered a crusade to the Near East to be preached ** and he granted the customary indulgences. He did not, however, extend them to England.** A second expedition in 1345 was preached in England and indulgences were announced there. On 29 July 1345 Clement VI ordered the prior general and the brothers of the Carmelite order to preach the crusade. He also offered indulgences in the provinces where they were located. They were instructed that any one who took part in the venture for at least a year, any one who sent a substitute at a cost which corresponded with his station

and means, and the substitute were entitled to the same pardon of their °° Reg. Shrewsbury, 1, 267.

*1 Ibid., I, 267-68. Presumably similar mandates were sent to other bishops, as was customary. ®2 Col. 227, fo. 115¥-16.

8 Above, pp. 94-95. ** Gay, Clément V1 et les Affaires d’Orient, p. 38.

532 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sins as previously had been granted to those who had crossed the seas in aid

of the Holy Land. Any one who gave of his goods to help finance the expedition could share the remission of sins according to the amount of the subsidy and the depth of his devotion. On 3 August the prior general wrote to the prior provincial in England, quoting the papal mandate and ordering him to assign six brothers to the task in England. On 16 January 1346 John, provincial prior at Aylesford, named Brother William de Hokynton to preach against the Turks in the dioceses of London, Canterbury,

Rochester, Chichester and Winchester. On 8 March Hamo, bishop of Rochester, ordered the clergy of his diocese to allow the brothers to preach.*® Though the indulgences were thus announced in England, the customary administration with special collectors and deputies and with chests for receipt of the gifts, such as was established in 1335 and 1336, does not appear to have been organized on this occasion. In view of the campaign of Edward III against France in 1346, it may be doubted if the appeal of the preachers of the crusade had much effect. The next attempt to organize a general crusade was made by Urban V.

After one expedition failed, he besought several rulers to provide troops for another.?® On 6 October 1366 he asked Edward III to send men at arms

to help the Hospitallers defend Cyprus and Rhodes against the Turks. To those who took part and to those who contributed money he offered the amounts of remission of sins customarily given to those who aided the Holy Land.*7 On the same day he ordered the archbishops of Canterbury and York to exhort the faithful to take part or to make gifts and to announce the remissions which could be obtained therefor.** Since the king did not accept the invitation and no expedition was organized in England, probably no campaign for funds took place. Throughout this period the papal collectors continued to collect legacies and other payments for the crusades. On 8 June 1345 Raymond Pelegrini was specially commissioned to exact and receive legacies for the Holy

Land and to render an account of them to the papal camera.*® Whether or not the preaching of the Carmelites in 1346 stimulated any increase of legacies and gifts cannot be determined in the absence of his accounts. On 19 November 1347 John de Bron, a tanner of Beverley, made a will leaving the residue of his goods to two executors to pay for a man to make the journey to the Holy Land in his place at the time of the next general

~ * Rochester, Reg. Hethe,fo.220-21. © °° Above, pp. 94-95. °7 Rymer, Foedera, III, 807-08, C.P.L., IV, 25; Addit. MS. 24062, fo. 165¥-66.

388 C P.L., IV, 26.

2° CPL. Il, 18.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 533 passage.*° From this single instance the general trend cannot be deduced. For a bequest such as this presumably a plenary indulgence could be obtained at any time, if it represented a sufficient part of the testator’s prop-

erty. It seems probable that bequests for the Holy Land made when no crusade was being preached and no special drive for funds were being made were good works which were rewarded with indulgences.

The first account rendered by Hugh, Raymond’s brother, for the period from 1349 to 1358 itemized receipts from legacies for the Holy Land and the redemption of vows amounting to £94 19 s.7 d.*? This represented nearly the same annual average rate as Bernard de Sistre had received from the same source. Four of the items were for the redemption of vows. Three were vows of pilgrimage to St James of Compostella. One was for

twenty shillings, one for thirty and one for twenty shillings in part payment of five pounds. The fourth was a vow to visit a shrine in the diocese of Lincoln. Though the payer was said to be a pauper and any place in the diocese of Lincoln was much nearer than St James, he paid as much as it cost another person to redeem a vow to visit St James. Confessors seem to have had variant ideas of the cost of a journey. Another item was a payment of the estimated cost of a journey to Rome in return for an individual grant of the indulgence of the jubilee of 1350.47 A sixth item was 12 d. in payment of an enjoined penance. A seventh apparently was a gift. It reads: ‘From Thomas Abetot, rector of the church of Oddington, for war-

fare against the Turks £7 6 s. 8 d.’ Payments for war against the Turks were made after 1342. The remaining twenty-five items were for legacies.

They varied in amount from 7 d to £22 13 s. 4d. Those for which the purpose is designated were all for the Holy Land. The entry of legacies. from the testaments of divers of the diocese of Chichester, whose names are contained in the certificate of Lord John Denton, to whom it was committed to levy them, indicates that Hugh, like his predecessors appointed deputies in the dioceses to collect the legacies for the Holy Land. During this period there was no organized attempt to obtain funds for a crusade. Hugh’s second account for the period from 1358 to 1363 ** marked a distinct decline in the average number of legacies and in the average amount of the bequests. The total was £41 3 s. 8 d. This represents an annual average not far below that of the preceding period, but one item for a composition made with the papal camera for fruits illegally collected by John Welbourne, prebendary of Husthwaite in York, accounted for *° Chapter Act Book of Beverley, Il, 136. “1 Col. 14, fo. 38-40. *? Above, pp. 471-72. *° Col. 14, fo. 95-957.

534 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 £30 of the total and two commutations of vows produced £5 15s. 8 d. of it. One of the latter was a commutation of a vow to visit St James for £3 6s. 8 d. Nine bequests yielded only £5 7 s.

From the accounts of John de Cabrespino, who was collector from 1363 to 1370 and Arnald Garnerii, whose term of office was from 1370 to

1378, receipts for the Holy Land nearly disappeared. In John’s second report made in 1366 the only entry under the heading ‘Legacies’ was ‘Item £10 were received for legacies in aid of the Holy Land.’ ** Between 1368 and 1370 he collected £20 from a testament and 27 s for the commutation of a vow to visit the tombs of the apostles.*° These constituted all the sums he reported as received for the aid of the Holy Land, though this

was the time when Urban V was trying to obtain English support for a crusade. One further legacy was paid directly to the papal camera. On 20 November 1364 the camera noted the receipt of 12 florins paid by Elizabeth Daneys,*® widow of Henry Daneys, for a legacy which he left to the Holy Land. It was delivered by Richard Daneys, rector of Holcot near Walgrave in Northants.”

This sharp decline may have been the cause of a bull addressed to Arnald in 1371 *5 giving him the power to recover, with the aid of the secular arm if necessary, money and property in England bequeathed by seculars and regulars for the deliverance of the Holy Land.*® Whatever the reason for this grant of authority may have been, it did not change the situation. He reported the receipt of only one item for the Holy Land in his two accounts. It was for the commutation of a vow to visit Rome, which the cardinal penitentiar assessed on the basis of the cost of the journey at four marks. It was paid to the collector on 4 May 1372.°° Thus the more or less continuous flow of legacies for the Holy Land stimulated by indulgences was running nearly dry. After 1378 legacies and gifts for crusades with objectives other than the Holy Land were made on a large scale from time to time, when the papacy offered indulgences for a new crusade and established a local organization for their administra-

tion. Gifts or legacies between one such campaign and another seem, however, to have become rare, though the lack of the accounts of papal collectors in England after 1378 renders this conclusion tentative. 4 Col. 11, fo. 159. *8 Col. 12, fo. 84. *6 Yrreys, MS.

‘TT & E. 303, fo. 25; 311, fo. 247.

*° It was delivered to him in the camera on October, though it was dated 29 October: Col. 358, fo. 187.

“CPL. IV, 100. 5° Col. 13, fo. 100.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 535

2. Tue Crusape oF Norwicu The next crusade for which the help of the English people was sought systematically on a national scale by the offer of indulgences was the result of the schism. It had scarcely begun, when, on 6 November 1378, Urban VI issued the bull Nuper cum vinea, of which a copy was addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans. It explained the evil deeds of Robert of Geneva, the antipope, and of his leading supporters, who were named. Severe sentences were pronounced against them, and all Christ’s

faithful were ordered to take and detain them. Against the schismatic supporters of Clement VII in general a crusade was proclaimed. Those who assumed the cross for that purpose were promised the indulgences which were granted to participants in a general expedition in aid of the Holy Land. Not only those addressed in the bull but also the Dominican, Franciscan, Augustinian and Carmelite friars were ordered to publish the

bull. On May 1379 the archbishop of Canterbury directed the bishop of London to send copies of the bull to the bishops of the province along with an archiepiscopal mandate to carry out the requirements of the bull with regard to publication.®*

No specific mention of financial contributions was made in the bull nor was any arrangement made for the collection of funds, but the pope apparently thought that the offer of crusading indulgences by implication included those indulgences which were customarily given in return for gifts. On 15 May 1380 he commanded Cosmatus Gentilis, whom he had appointed general papal collector in England, to inquire of the preachers and publishers of the processes lately made against the antipope in the British Isles what sums of money they had received and to compel them to deliver their receipts to the Guinisui, a banking firm of Lucca. He was then to notify the camera of the amounts so assigned.°? At the same time a general letter to the preachers in the British Isles directed them to pay their receipts to Cosmatus Gentilis.°* There is no indication that this movement got under way sufficiently to produce any profits for the pope ** before it was superseded by the project of a crusade which was local to England. The project grew out of papal bulls issued on 25 March 1381. They were addressed to Henry Spen52 Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 138-40. 52 C.P.L., IV, 258; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 365. °° Theiner, ibid., p. 366.

The Introitus and Exitus Registers are lacking for this period. In 1379 Cosmatus delivered to the Guinisii for the pope £1100 (6769 fl. 9 bol.) and in 1380, 3692 fl. 14 s. from his collectorate. The revenues producing these sums are not specified: C.P.L., IV, 261-62.

536 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ser bishop of Norwich. After relating at even greater length the wrongful acts of Robert of Geneva, who called himself Clement VII, and of his chief supporters, Urban VI gave the bishop of Norwich authority to proceed against them and to put them in prison with the aid of the secular arm. In order to obtain help against all the adherents of the antipope and to end the schism he offered to one who took part in an expedition against them at his own or another’s expense for a year from a day set by the bishop of Norwich, to one who supplied stipends for soldiers and to one who contributed to the expenses of the crusade according to his means the same indulgences that the apostolic see had been accustomed to grant to those giving aid to the Holy Land. He ordered the bishop to have this grant published by others in all cities, lands and churches in the dominions of Richard II and to appoint preachers to induce men to take the cross.°° A second bull of the same date empowered the bishop to permit members of the secular and regular clergy to take part in the crusade without the consent of their superiors. While they were engaged on the crusade, they could have the revenues of their benefices, excepting daily distributions, provided they supplied vicars to maintain the services and the cure of souls.*°®

These bulls removed much of the obscurity of the bull of 1378. They designated an English prelate to enlist Englishmen and to obtain English

money by means of indulgences for a crusade. They were still vague concerning the place where the fighting was to be done, and the English government consequently was not satisfied. It seems either to have withheld the publication of the bulls or to have prohibited the preaching of the crusade and the administration of the indulgences, while it sent envoys to

treat with the pope about the object of the crusade and the method of financing it.

The envoys asked that the kingdoms of France, Spain and Scotland should be declared heretical specifically. The king of England, they said, could not maintain a war against all three without help. They asked the pope, therefore, to ordain a remedy which would render it unnecessary for the king to make peaces or truces with France and Scotland, which he was in a favorable position to do.°” At a later interview what the envoys had in mind with regard to a papal remedy became clearer and a more specific statement of the object of a crusade was made. Speaking in behalf of the king, the nobles and the royal councillors, they expressed the hope that the pope would help with money, and particularly with the proceeds °° Dudum cum vinea: Wykeham’s Reg., II, 198-206. 6Nudum cum filiu: ibid., Ul, 206-09. °" Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 392-95.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 537 of the revenues received by his camera from the kingdoms and dominions of Richard II. They put the request on the ground that indulgences would

not pay for wars and the stipends of soldiers. If the pope would not do this, the king wished to be certified of the kind of crusade which the pope had in mind. If it was against the antipope and his supporters in general, he did not intend to permit the bull to be used. If it was against the antipope and the schismatic kingdoms, it might satisfy the king, but the envoys could not promise that with certainty.** In a still later interview, probably in the spring of 1382, the envoys petitioned the pope to notify the king,

under the bull or his secret signet, that he intended to make a process against the French, since that would remove from the minds of the king and his councillors a peace or truce with France. ‘They informed the pope that their instructions did not permit them to consent to any crusade unless the kingdoms of France, Spain and Scotland were definitely mentioned, but they were prepared as private persons to carry to England the pope’s bulls or letters.°°®

What bulls or letters they may have brought back is unknown, but a bull of 15 May 1382, addressed to the bishop of Norwich, was probably among them. It ordered him to seek schismatics in the provinces of Canterbury, York and Cashel and try them. Unless they recanted, he was to deprive them of offices and benefices. He was to notify the camera or the papal collector of benefices which thus became vacant and of the names of those upon whom he had conferred them.®°

With regard to the crusade they had enough information in written or oral form to enable the chancellor to say in his speech at the opening of parliament which met on 6 October 1382 that the pope had granted and sent two crusades.®* One was specific to the king of Spain against his ad-

versary and one was general to the bishop of Norwich against the antipope and his adherents. On both of them a man would have as much remission and pardon as on an expedition to the Holy Land. ‘The crusade to Spain was for the purpose of helping John of Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster, to obtain the throne of Castile which he claimed in right of his wife.

He already had some troops in friendly Portugal under the command of his younger brother, the earl of Cambridge. ‘The chancellor told parlia°8 Ibid. p. 399. °° Ibid., pp. 177-78, 401-03. 8° Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 209-11.

®t croiseryes, which seems to be the equivalent of cruciate. If so, it may mean bulls of crusade. Perroy predicates the existence of a bull for the Spanish crusade on this statement of the chancellor: L’ Angleterre, p. 223, n. 3. Such a bull is not known to have existed: below, p. 544. °° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 211-24.

538 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ment that he would need a further army of 4000 which would cost £43,000. He called this projected crusade the way to Portugal. The other he desig-

nated as the way to Flanders. The purpose was to act with the Urbanist Flemings who had revolted against their Clementine count who was seeking the support of the Clementine French. The chancellor asked parliament to consider the two ways.®? The decision to begin the general crusade by an attack on the Clementine Flemings seems to have been made in

England. The chancellor did not say that the pope had approved this objective.

Parliament found it difficult to decide. Many of the lords favored an expedition against Castile led by the duke of Lancaster. The commons dis-

trusted the duke. They thought an expedition to nearby Flanders would be less costly and they hoped it would protect the trade in wool which would be threatened if the French came to the aid of the count. Parliament reached no conclusion and left the decision to the king and the council.°? On 27 November 1382 the French, fighting in behalf of the count, won an overwhelming victory over the Flemish townsmen. ‘This event apparently caused the king and the council to reach a speedy decision. On 6 December 1382 Richard II authorized his lay and clerical subjects to join the crusade which Urban VI had ordered the bishop of Norwich to lead.®

It seems to have been only after this decision had been made that the bishop began to organize the administration of the indulgences and the collection of the funds arising therefrom. It is possible that on 17 September 1382 he had ordered the bishops to publish the three bulls of 25 March 1381 and 15 May 1382,°%° but it seems improbable that the English govern-

ment would have allowed their publication before its decision to permit the crusade to be preached had been reached. However that may have been, the first evidence of putting the bulls into effect occurs in a letter which Bishop Buckingham of Lincoln addressed to the archdeacon of Lincoln on 15 December 1382. He ordered the archdeacon to publish the bulls and to arrange for their administration and for the collection of the gifts.°* °8 Rot. Parl., Wl, 132-34.

°* Tout, Chapters, Ill, 388; Wrong, Crusade, pp. 18-25; Rot. Parl., III, 140. °° Rymer, Foedera, IV, 157. °° Perroy (p. 178) states that the order to publish the bulls was issued on that date. He bases the statement on Wykeham’s Reg., II, 192-211, where the date of the bishop’s mandate is not given, and on B. M. King’s MS. 7 E. X, fo. 71¥-74, which I have not seen. *? Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 253v. Neither the bulls nor the covering mandate of the bishop of Norwich are recorded in the register, but it seems improbable that the bishop of Lincoln would have delayed so long to put into effect a mandate issued on 17 September.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 539 If it was the intention of Bishop Spenser to have the indulgences ad-

ministered by the hierarchy of bishops, archdeacons, rural deans and parish priests, which had often been employed for that purpose previously, he soon changed his mind. Acting as nuncio, he appointed in each diocese commissioners who were responsible directly to him.®* They had charge

of the preachers and confessors. The former were to be drawn from the mendicant orders and they were to receive 6 d. in the pound from the money obtained as a result of their work. Each preacher and confessor was to be accompanied by a clerk who received the money. The confessor had to supply him with a written statement of the names of the confessed and the amounts of their respective contributions. The clerk kept a record of all payments which he received. When the commissioners, preachers and receivers entered a parish, they could demand of the curate that he urge

his parishioners to make gifts. They could also call upon two to four parishioners to help persuade the other parishioners.*® The amount of money which had to be given to obtain the plenary indulgence by supplying a soldier was in each case left to the discretion of the bishop of Norwich

and his commissioners. The amount of the remission obtained by any other gift for the expenses of the crusade was also left to their judgment.” The bishop of Norwich supplemented these instructions on 9 February 1383 by a letter addressed to the rectors, vicars and chaplains of each diocese.”* Fearful that the campaign for funds was having little or no effect, he ordered the curate of each parish to induce in confessions not only the

rich but also the poor, the physically sound and particularly the old to hold out helping hands in order that they might be sharers in the indulgence. They were to certify him or his commissioners of the names and amounts and to cite opponents to appear before him or his commissioners.” This local administrative system proved to be loosely knit for taking care of the funds, but it was highly efficient for bringing the indulgences to the attention of parishioners everywhere. It was the first time in many years that crusading indulgences had been advertised so universally. ‘Their offer roused a widespread popular response during the winter and spring of 1383. While it was taking place, the convocation of Canterbury, on 21 January 1383, voted a tenth for the expedition, and parliament, which was in session from 23 February to 10 March, authorized an army to be raised

88 Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), II, 600-01. °° Ordinance of the bishop of Norwich: Knighton, Chron., Il, 201-03. 7° Walsingham, Historia, II, 77. ™ The extant example was addressed to those of York: ibid. 7? Walsingham, Historia, Il, 78-79, 84-85.

540 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

and joined with the crusading army under Spenser.? This made the crusade practically a national affair and ‘political feeling against France in some cases reinforced religious zeal.’ ™*

The plenary indulgence as it was administered enabled the confessors to give absolution even in cases reserved to the pope.”* One chronicler spoke of this power as previously unheard of.7° The confessor could also commute vows of pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Rome, if the cost of the journey and of the oblations was paid.”” The nature of the indulgence was misrepresented by some of the preachers and confessors. Some chroniclers

spoke of the indulgences as ‘a pena et a culpa,’ * and Wyclif asserted that the friars spoke grandly of absolution ‘a pena et a culpa.’*® The chroniclers also mentioned indulgences for the dead.*° The Continuator of Eulogium Historiarum alleged that the preachers stood over the graves of the dead and absolved them, ordering the angel Gabriel to lead their souls

to heaven.** Neither of these assertions was justified by the bulls. A plenary indulgence in popular speech was quite commonly called ‘a pena et a culpa.’ ** The phrase was incorrect, but local administrators of plenary indulgences in England sometimes used it throughout the remainder of the

middle ages. The offer of indulgences for the dead is more difficult to explain. The concept of angels leading souls from purgatory as the result of an indulgence is found in a false bull proclaiming the jubilee of 1350 ascribed to Clement VI.** The bull appears to have been regarded in England about this time as authentic,** but that gave no excuse for saying that the bulls of 1381 granted indulgences to the souls of the deceased. These misrepresentations give weight to a remark of a chronicler of Durham who said that much money was collected fraudulently, because the confessors gave absolution in cases in which the bulls did not authorize it.*° Whatever the reasons, the indulgences were attractive. An exceptional number of chroniclers mentioned them and some gave to them much space. *® [bid., Il, 84, Perroy, L’ Angleterre, pp. 182-86.

“* Wrong, Crusade, p. 42. See also the statement of the archbishop of Canterbury: Ullman, Origins of the Great Schism, p. 119. * Walsingham, Ypodigma, pp. 336-37. 76 Reg. Brantyngham, II, 600.

* Reg. Brantyngham, II, 601. Ordinarily when power to commute vows was granted, these two were excepted. *® Knighton, Chron., II, 198; Chron. of Dieulacres Abbey, p. 166. ” Opera Minora, pp. 358, 368; Polemical Works, Il, 458. °° Knighton, Chron, II, 198-99.

*? TIT, 356-57. Wyclif also referred to this: Select English Works, Il, 417. *? Above, p. 448. 88 Baluze, Vitae, I, 299-302; II, 431-33. 8¢ Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 114-17.

°° D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. secundum, fo. 204.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 541 Many men became crusaders, including a large number of ecclesiastics.*° The historian of St Albans named several monks of his house and its cells who went to Flanders with the bishop of Norwich.*” The abbot of Abing-

don tried to keep his monks at home by arranging with the bishop of Norwich that they could obtain the indulgence by making satisfactory gifts.°° Chroniclers agreed that the indulgences were sought by many persons whose gifts constituted a large sum.*? Knighton noted that many women sought the indulgences, often giving jewelry. Among them was one who was said to have given £100. Some gave more than they could well afford.°® Froissart was the historian who waxed most eloquent about the indulgences. None, he said, thought he would end the year honorably or

ever enter paradise, if he did not give alms to the expedition. All who should die at this time, if they had given money to these pardons, were absolved from penalty and guilt. He related that in the diocese of London a large Gascon tun was filled with the collected money. He put the total receipt from the indulgences at 25000 francs.°? He was, however, skeptical of the indulgences as a means of recruiting troops. It is well known, he said,

that English nobles would not undertake military expeditions for all the absolutions in the world unless they were preceded by offers of money. ‘Men at arms,’ he said ‘cannot live on pardons, nor do they pay much attention to them except at the point of death.’ * After the crusade had become a national venture, the king began to intervene in the administration of the indulgences. On 15 March 1383 he appointed three commissioners to imprison those representing themselves falsely as proctors of the bishop of Norwich and to recover any money which they had collected.°? Two days later he ordered the sheriffs to give aid to the bishop’s proctors who were collecting for the crusade.** On 8 April he commanded the collectors in every county in England to levy the proceeds from their deputies and to deliver them within ten days at Sandwich to the bishop of Norwich, who was soon to sail. The collectors were to return the names of those withholding delivery to the chancellor in order that proceedings could be taken against them in chancery.®® The

archbishop of Canterbury supplemented the royal orders by asking his °° Ibid.; Chron. of Dieulacres Abbey, p. 166, Cont. Eulogium Historiarum, Ul, 357. 87 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 416.

*° Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 188, n. 3. |

8° Cont., Eulogium Historiarum, Yl, 357; John Malverne in Higden, Polychron., IX, 17. °° Chron., Il, 198-99. °* Oeuvres, Kervyn de Lettenhove, X, 207. °? Trans. by Johnes, I, 756-57. °°? Rymer, Foedera, IV, 163; C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 261. °*Rymer, Foedera, IV, 164. 6 Ibid., IV, 168; C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 265.

542 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 suffragans to warn and induce the collectors in their respective dioceses, who were detaining money, jewels and other goods given for the expedition, to pay their receipts quickly to the receivers, Master Walter Donell and Philip Mascall, donzel.°° This assemblage of the funds which had been collected to date did not

end the further distribution of indulgences in return for alms. At some time in 1383, probably on 10 April, the archbishop addressed a letter to the rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains in his diocese, ordering them to admit to their churches Thomas Rauf, prior of St Gregory Canterbury, John Pecham, official of the archdeacon of Canterbury, and Simon Heltham, canon of Walsingham, proctors of the bishop of Norwich, for receiving gifts of the faithful. In this letter he granted a relaxation of forty days of enjoined penance to one who prayed for the success of the expedition or gave money for it.°* The king also took part in the effort. On 23 April he appointed a commission of three, two of whom had served on the commission of 15 March, to publish in all parts of the realm the privileges, remissions and indulgences granted by the apostolic see to those

who contributed to the subsidy for the bishop of Norwich in aid of the crusade. They were also to collect and receive the charitable subsidy which should be contributed and to inquire by means of juries what sums collectors had already received and to exact any sums which had not yet been delivered. Sheriffs and royal bailiffs were instructed to aid the commission.°® On 25 June a royal writ of aid was issued for John Kuton of Sandhurst and John Chewe of Wokingham, who were collectors of the

subsidy in the dioceses of Winchester and Chichester and in the archdeaconries of Salisbury and Wilts.°? On 19 July another royal commission was appointed to arrest those representing themselves falsely to be proctors

of the bishop of Norwich for the crusade until they paid to the bishop what they had received.*°° Although the crusaders came home late in September after a complete

° Ibid. Both this and the preceding letter are undated, but both are probably associated with another letter, issued on 10 April, of which a copy appears on fo. 36 of Courtenay’s register. In that letter he asked his suffragans to have in all churches prayers and other services for the welfare of the expedition. He also granted an indulgence of forty days to those who took part in the services and requested each bishop to enlarge this indulgence. Other copies of the letter dated 10 April: Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 176-77, Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 493-94; Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 27-30; Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 259¥-60, D. & Ch. Worcester, Liber Albus, fo. 284-85. °° Rymer, Foedera, IV, 169; C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 283. °° C.P.R. 1381-85, p. 290. 7 100 CPLR. 1381-85, p. 350. ~

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 543 failure, the collectors whom the bishop of Norwich had appointed continued to seek and receive contributions. The bishop informed the convocation of Canterbury that he had revoked their appointments at Easter of 1385, but the bishop of Exeter found that some of them were still collecting money in his diocese thereafter. On 25 January 1386 he ordered his arch-

deacons to have curates forbid his subjects, under penalty of the greater excommunication, to confess their sins to any of the religious or seculars who were thus acting without authority.*°* By that time the papal collector, Cosmatus Gentilis, had taken over the task of obtaining from the collectors money which they had received from indulgences but had not yet delivered to the bishop of Norwich. On 8 March 1385 he ordered the bishop of Winchester to deal with the collectors in his diocese.?°? Later he began to use the procedure by which the papal collectors customarily attempted to recover debts which were owed to the papal camera. On 20 November 1386 he ordered the bishop of Ely to cite to appear before him at his house in London before 20 February 1387 the

following collectors deputed by the bishop who had not yet rendered accounts: William Foulmere, vicar of Exning, John de Hylton, rector of Haverhill, William, a chaplain, John Howden, rector of Burrough Green and John Carter, donzel. They were to render accounts and pay what they owed, or, unless they had adequate excuses, be excommunicated. The bishop replied on 12 February that the first two were in the diocese of Norwich and that William, the chaplain, and John Carter could not be found in his diocese.1°? The record of the appointments of collectors evidently had not been kept well, and quite possibly the four collectors not found in the diocese of Ely had already accounted in other dioceses. Though the crusade was nominally a papal cause, there can be little doubt that the bishop of Norwich received the bulk of the funds derived

from the indulgences. They may or may not have amounted to many thousands of pounds, as Wyclif asserted,*°* but they probably constituted

a substantial sum. They were not enough to pay the expenses of the bishop’s 5000 men used in Flanders and France for the crusade and for the war of the king, since the exchequer advanced to him for that purpose in several payments £37475 7 s. 6 d.°° Whether the papal collector de*0* Reg. Brantyngham, Il, 600-02. 102 Wykehbam’s Reg. Il, 367.

+8 Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 113-113¥. 104 Select English Works, III, 386. *°° Norwich, Reg. Despenser, schedule attached to fo. 159. The sum was charged against

pardoned the debt. ,

him in the pipe rolls until 1391, when the process against him was quashed and he was

544 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

livered to the bishop or to the pope what proceeds he obtained from the arrears still owed by the local collectors is unknown,’ but in view of the pressure which the exchequer was placing on the bishop, he doubtless made every effort to obtain whatever the papal collector received. The amount which the collector recovered was probably small. 3. THe CrusabeE To CASTILE

The crusade against the schismatics of Castile was announced by Urban VI on 21 March 1383.1°7 This crusade, like that to Flanders, had

also a political side. John, duke of Lancaster, who was appointed its leader, hoped to secure the throne of Castile.1°* It remained quiescent as long as indulgences were being issued for the expenses of the crusade to Flanders. For a long time John of Gaunt tried to obtain the consent of the council and parliament for the expedition, but it was not until late in 1385 that parliament finally voted supplies for it.*°® The crusade was formally proclaimed and the papal bulls issued in 1383 were published at St Paul’s on 18 February 1386."*° One named the duke the leader and the other

granted the same indulgences for the crusade that Innocent III had declared at the fourth council of the Lateran in the decree Ad liberandum."'*

They were the same as those which had been offered for the crusade to Flanders. Urban VI, at the request of the duke of Lancaster, appointed, probably in 1385,1?* William Bottlesham, then his referendary and in 1386 made bishop of Llandaff, John Gilbert, bishop of Hereford, John bishop of Dax and Walter Dysse, a Carmelite and the confessor of the duke, to preach the crusade and to administer the indulgences. He designated them as nuncios

in England, Castile, Leon, Navarre, Portugal, Aragon and Gascony.** The nature of the indulgences and the powers of the nuncios were ex196 The Introitus and Exitus Registers are missing. On 10 April 1387 Cosmatus paid to John Thornebury knight £2772 10 s. and on 22 May he obtained a royal license to send 2000 marks to the papal camera: Arm. XXIX, 1, fo. 96%; C.C.R. 1392-96, p. 523. The revenues from which these sums were derived are not stated. 107 Raynaldus, 1383, § 7. The pope’s intention to proclaim such a crusade was known to the English government in 1382: above, p. 708. 198 Adam of Usk, Chron., pp. 6-7; Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, pp. 92-93. °° Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, pp. 260-99; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 233-34. 4° Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, p. 305; Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 235; John Malverne, in Higden, Polychron., IX, 81. 48 April 1383: Raynaldus, 1383, § 8, C.P.L., IV, 265, P.R.O., Llanthony Records, A. VII, fo. 106-07. 42T have not found the commission, but one of their powers was granted to them on 6 November 1385: Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 442. Their commission was one of the bulls published on 18 January 1386: Malverne in Higden, Polychron., IX, 82.

"9°C.P.L, IV, 270-71.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 545 plained by the bishop of Hereford in the commission of a deputy whom he appointed. Those who went with the duke to wage war in Castile and those who contributed from their goods for the stipends of the soldiers according to their ability, as judged by the nuncio or his deputy, were entitled to plenary remission of sins and to that indulgence customarily granted by the apostolic see to those going to the aid of the Holy Land. The nuncio or his deputies could give absolution even in cases reserved to the apostolic see. They could also commute vows except those of pilgrimage to Rome and Compostella in return for a contribution of the estimated cost of the journey and of the oblations which they would have given. They could give dispensations for marriages made in ignorance of relationship in the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity and for holding bene-

fices despite a defect of birth.1** For the dispensations presumably compositions were paid. The nuncios may have received other papal powers which they could use to promote the crusade financially. In the copy of a sermon purporting to have been delivered by a preacher of the crusade, it is asserted that by additional papal bulls they had been authorized to reconcile polluted churches in England and Spain, and to create fifty papal chaplains and fifty notaries.1?° A chronicler of St Albans also noted their power to create papal chaplains,*® and Walsingham stated that Walter Dysse made a papal chaplain an Augustinian brother who later became a Lollard.12"

The administration of the indulgences began in April 1386. On the eleventh the royal government ordered the sheriffs, the mayors of boroughs

and others to publish the bull which granted the indulgences to those serving in the expedition of the king’s uncle against John Henry, a pretender to the throne of Castile, and his supporter the Antipope.*?® On the nineteenth the bishop of Hereford appointed David Hay his deputy to administer the indulgences and other indults in the dioceses of Hereford, Worcester and Llandaff. Before 1 June he was to certify the names of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions and to deliver the whole sum collected to John Sergeaunt of Monmouth, the receiver of the duke of Lancaster.**® Presumably other preachers and collectors were appointed at about the same time. The financial success of the campaign is problematical. It met with *“ Reg. Gilbert, pp. 99-101. “’ Fasc, Zizaniorum, pp. 506-07.

6 Gesta Abbatum, Il, 417. ““T Ypodigma, p. 348. 18 CPLR. 1385-89, p. 134. *™’ Reg. Gilbert, pp. 99-101.

546 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

some opposition. ‘There were objections to the use of indulgences for raising funds to fight Christians and to giving indulgences for money. Indulgences, the argument ran, ought to be granted gratis. It was simony to take money for them, since the spiritual power was sold to accomplish temporal purposes.'*® ‘These arguments and many others were put forward

by John Wyclif, who did not believe that the pope had power to grant any indulgences.’*t He denounced particularly those for the crusade to Flanders.'*? Wyclif’s views were maintained by some of his followers.’”* They do not appear to have had any notable effect on public opinion when the indulgences for the crusade to Flanders were being offered. While the crusade to Castile was being preached, however, they had enough influence to cause the government to order the arrest and appearance before king and council of John Elys of Stowemarket, a chaplain, who was alleged to be hindering the progress of the crusade by preaching in divers parts of England that the crusade was suspect and not true.’*” The suspicion that the administrators of the indulgences were using false bulls was strong enough to find expression at the papal court. On 18 March 1388 Urban VI informed the archbishop of Canterbury that a statement to that effect had been made before him in consistory. It was claimed that formerly many Englishmen had such bulls purporting to be his which authorized them to grant dispensations with regard to marriages

and defect of birth and to exercise other powers. He ordered the archbishop to inquire concerning false bulls, to examine any brought before him and to notify the pope of his findings. ‘The archbishop sent copies of this

letter to the bishops.’?? We are left in ignorance of the outcome of this inquiry, but there can be no doubt about the papal grant of those powers mentioned in the letter of the bishop of Hereford, who was one of the nuncios. One of the bulls is extant. On 12 May 1387 Walter Dysse gave a dispensation for defect of birth. He notified the bishop of Lincoln of the dispensation and sent a copy of the bull, dated 6 November 1385, *°°'The preacher who mentioned these arguments in order to combat them, said that the indulgences were not given for money, though obtained by money. The reduction in Spain in order to bring unity to the church was a good work for Christians which could not be accomplished without money: Fasc Zizaniorum, p. 510. “*" E. g., Select English Works, I, 58, 60; Il, 417-18; III, 354-56; English Works, pp. 66, 80-83, 339, 464, 482; Dialogus, pp. 25, 49-50; Tractatus de Potestate Pape, pp. 391-92; Polemical Works, I, 349-50. 2° E. g., Opera Minora, p. 368; Select English Works, I, 136; II, 166; III, 295, 308-09, 362-63, 385; English Works, pp. 8, 73, 152. **° Knighton, Chron., II, 260-61, Wyclif, Select English Works, Ill, 459-60; Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe, pp. 324, 326, Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), pp. 231, 247-48, 268-70, 279-83, 335-36, Purvey, Remonstrances, pp. 57-58, 61, 65-66. *°7 12 February 1387: C.P.R. 1385-89, p. 319.

*°8 Salisbury, Reg. Ergham, II, fo. 877.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 547 authorizing the four nuncios to exercise the power of dispensation in such cases.‘*° ‘There is no reason to doubt its authenticity. How these suspicions affected the campaign for funds is not certain. The chroniclers said much less about it than they did about the preceding

drive, and none related such tales about the receipts as were told by Knighton and Froissart concerning the yield produced by the indulgences

for the crusade of Norwich. The continuator of Eulogium Historiarum stated vaguely that the duke of Lancaster collected much money from the papal indulgences before he embarked for Spain.'*° The pope heard that his nuncios had gathered much money after the duke returned.*** ‘Much’ is a description which hardly justifies any definite conclusion with regard

to the amount of the proceeds. Walsingham thought that the frequent grant of pardon and relaxation caused people to hold them of so little account that few contributed to his crusade.?2? In view of this remark, of the scant attention which contemporary historians gave to these indulgences and of the suspicions with regard to their authenticity, it may be a reasonable conclusion that the financial return was less than that of the indulgences for the crusade to Flanders.1*? The collection of funds for the duke’s crusade, like that for the crusade of Norwich, continued long after the crusade itself had ceased. John of Gaunt departed on his crusade on 7 July 1386 and gave it up in October 1387.*84 On 16 January 1389 Urban VI wrote to the four nuncios whom he had appointed to preach the cross, grant the indulgences and collect the proceeds therefrom. Their power, he said, was to last during the prosecution of the crusade and the recovery of the kingdom of Castile by the duke of Lancaster. When he desisted from the undertaking, their faculty lapsed, but they still continued to exercise it and had thereby gathered much money. He ordered them, or those of them who had been principals in making the collection, to present themselves in person at the papal camera. On the same day he commanded the archbishop of Bordeaux to ™ Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 442. The forms for dispensations for marriages and defect of birth are given in Reg. Gilbert, pp. 102-03. 780 TIT, 358.

*81 C\P.L., TV, 270-71.

*82 Historia, Il, 143.

*8° Secondary historians differ in their opinions. Armitage-Smith says the contributions of the faithful were considerable: John of Gaunt, p. 307. Ramsay thinks that the demand for indulgences had been pretty well exhausted by the bishop of Norwich, causing the campaign of the duke of Lancaster to meet with only moderate success: Genesis, II, 230. Perroy holds that the failure of the crusade to Flanders had cooled popular enthusiasm for holy wars, but that the preachers in 1386 had no difficulty in obtaining revenues: L’ Angleterre, p. 235. **¢ Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, pp. 310-11, 323-28.

548 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 cite them to appear on 15 June to render an account.’*> This requirement would seem to indicate that the pope denied the right of the duke to money received after he ended his expedition. The lack of the Introitus and Exitus Registers makes it impossible to determine whether the nuncios rendered an account or delivered any money to the papal camera. 4. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TuRKs 1394-1396

During the pontificate of Boniface [IX the Turks made such advances in their conquest of southeastern Europe that Sigismund, the king of Hungary, appealed for help from the rest of Europe.’®* Boniface IX, on 3 June and again on 15 October 1394, proclaimed a crusade against the invaders. These bulls were addressed to countries east of the Adriatic and regions of northern Italy. In the next year a similar bull was published in France by Benedict XIII.**” No evidence that the crusade was preached in England or that the customary indulgences were offered there has come to light,1** although some Englishmen took part in it. On 18 January 1394 Richard II

appointed his half-brother, John Holland earl of Huntingdon, to go to Sigismund for a purpose which was not stated.1*° The earl planned to take some part in the war against the Turks. For that reason, on 5 June 1394, the pope granted to him and to his companions plenary remission at the hour of death.**° ‘This special remission seems to indicate that indulgences for participation in the crusade were not being offered generally in England at that time. During the summer of 1394, while Richard II was moving westward preparatory to an expedition to Ireland, John Holland was travelling toward the east.*** He returned to England by the early part of 1395, since arrangements were made at that time for him to join the king in Ireland.**? This crusading movement culminated in the defeat of the crusaders by the Turks at the battle of Nicopolis on 25-26 September 1396. Some Englishmen took part in the battle, but the chroniclers who mention their presence give no reliable statements of their number.’** Presumably they received 135 CPL. IV, 270-71. *8° Brehier, L’Eglise et ’Orient, p. 318. 87 Atiya, The Crusade, pp. 435-36.

*°° Brehier says that it was preached there, but he cites no evidence: L’Eglise et Orient, p- 318.

*8° Atiya, Crusade of Nicopolis, p. 45. *4° CVP.L., TV, 489.

*41 Froissart, Oeuvres, XV, 138.

“2 C.P.R. 1391-96, pp. 535, 587. After Richard II returned from Ireland he stayed at Eltham from 20 to 26 July 1395: C.P.R. 1391-96, pp. 606-13, 615-16, 642, 663; C.C.R. 1392-96,

pp. 435, 474, 476. While he was there, Richard Hermite came from France to talk with him about peace with France and John Holland was present: Froissart, Oeuvres, XV, 196, 202; Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 364.

“4° Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi Il, ed. Hearne, p. 130; Froissart, Oeuvres, XV, 22829, 476. Atiya lists several other chroniclers who mention the participation of the English:

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 549 the papal indulgences customarily granted to crusaders, but nothing indicates that indulgences were offered in England for contributions to the expenses of the crusade. 5. PROJECTED CRUSADE AGAINST THE ANTIPOPE 1397

Shortly after the failure of this crusade, Boniface IX attempted to organize a crusade against the supporters of the antipope and other enemies of the church. It was to be led by John Holland, the earl of Huntingdon, and its objective was to be Italy. On 1 March 1397 the pope granted the

indulgences customary for a crusade to those who took part in the projected expedition or contributed to its expenses. He ordered the archbishops of Canterbury and York and James Dardani, the papal collector, to

publish the crusade and to administer the indulgences in England. The money received was to be placed at the disposal of the king and assigned as he might order.*** The indulgences were announced, since an annalist of

the reign of Richard II noted that the earl had been granted privileges among which was the grant that all laboring bodily with him should have the indulgence of the jubilee.1*® The earl organized no expedition,’** and it is improbable that any administration of indulgences was established. 6. CRUSADE TO AID THE EMPEROR OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1398-1401

After the failure of the crusade at Nicopolis in 1396, Constantinople was soon seriously threatened by Bajazet, the leader of the Turks. The eastern emperor, Manuel II, appealed to the west for help, and on 6 March 1398 Boniface IX launched a movement for a crusade to aid the emperor. In a bull addressed to Paul John de Prato, bishop of Chalcedon, nuncio of the apostolic see, he explained the danger from the Turks and ordered a crusade to be preached throughout the Roman orbit except in the lands of Hungary. He announced that those holding out helping hands for the emperor would receive the indulgences customarily granted for aid to the Holy Land. The amount of the indulgence to be obtained by any giver was to be determined by the judgment of the confessor concerning the relation of the gift to the resources of the giver. The receipts were to be deposited in each place in a chest with three locks. The keepers of the keys were to account for the money and to deliver it to the bishop of Chalcedon English contingent, but it seems highly improbable. On 24 October he was with Richard II at Calais: Ann. Ricardi Secundi, in J. de Trokelowe, pp. 189-93, Froissart, Oeuvres, XV,

A OPL. IV, 295. 45 Ann. Ricardi Secundi, p. 201. **° Above, pp. 120-21.

550 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 or to his commissioners. Ultimately the proceeds were to be delivered to a commission with the archbishop of Genoa at its head for transmission to the emperor. The bishop of Chalcedon was made the executor of the bull.1*7 Some chroniclers called it a comminatory bull, because it pronounced sentence of excommunication against those who opposed its execution. They also designated the indulgence as full remission, which seems to indicate that the amount required for plenary absolution was not excessive.'** The bishop of Chalcedon arrived to organize the administration of the bull in England early in 1399.1*° The way seems to have been prepared by a relative of the emperor who visited Richard II while he spent Christmas

of 1398 at Lichfield. The bishop named his commissioners late in February 1399. On 20 February he appointed Thomas Boteler, bishop of Chrysopolis, his delegate in the diocese of Lincoln with power to exercise all the functions conferred upon himself by the bull of 6 March 1398. **1 He also wrote to the archbishops and bishops of the several dioceses instructing them to order their clergy to cooperate with his deputies. On 2 March the bishop of Winchester addressed the abbots, priors, archdeacons, rectors, vicars and parochial chaplains of his diocese announcing the bull and ordering them to give help to John de Argentina of the order of preachers, whom the bishop of Chalcedon had deputed as his commis-

sioner. They were to admit him to their churches for the purpose of explaining the indulgence and they were to preserve faithfully the money

received. The collection was to last until the octave of the next Easter

(6 April).*°? In the diocese of St Davids the bishop appears to have been the commissioner. On 26 March he sent orders to his vicar general and his four archdeacons to publish and carry out the apostolic letter. They were not to appoint special confessors to administer the indulgence, as had been done in some dioceses, but to let the contributors confess to their curates.15*

The archbishop of York did not instruct his suffragans and all grades of clergy in his province to execute the bull until 12 May.’ The returns began to reach the deputy commissioners in a short time. **7 Vinee domini Sabaoth: Addit. MS. 25288, fo. 47¥-49; K. R. Eccl. Documents, 10/19 (badly rubbed). ameham, Historia, I, 229-30; Ypodigma, p. 381; Ann. Ricardi Secundi, p. 230. 180 The continuator of Higden’s Polychron. says it was the emperor’s brother: VIII, 506. It may have been Hilary de Auria, a knight and donzel of Genoa, a relative and ambassador of Manuel II, who later superseded the bishop of Chalcedon as chief executor of the bull: K. R. Memo Roll. 179, Communia Easter, m. 6; below, p. 551. 181 Addit. MS. 25288, fo. 49-49v. 152 Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 483-84. *°8 E’piscopal Regs. of St Davids, I, 106-08.

154K. R. Eccl. Documents 10/19.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 551 The chest at Sutton in Lincolnshire was opened in the presence of the bishop of Chrysopolis, who was the commissioner in the diocese of Lincoln, on 22 April 1399. He gave an acquittance for the proceeds, took the keys and removed the chest. At various times between that date and 20 August

he received in the same manner the contents of the chests from several places in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire.* In two instances the money was delivered to the bishop in London on 3 and 9 July. At two places the money was delivered part at one time and part at another, but after the sec-

ond delivery no more was received. Payments by the recipients of the indulgences apparently ceased by August. At the same time gifts for the work of the emperor of Constantinople

were being paid into the royal exchequer by lay nobles and the higher clergy.’°® Five earls contributed £66 13 s. 4 d. each,**’ as did also Thomas

Percy, son of the earl of Northumberland, and John, lord of Lovell. ‘he two archbishops and the bishop of Winchester each gave the same amount. Four bishops paid £40 each,*** the bishop of Chichester £20 and the bishop of St Davids £10. On 11 December 1400 a further sum of £615 was delivered to the exchequer for the same purpose.*°® Sometime before 22 June 1399 there was a change in the central administration of the indulgences. The bishop of Chalcedon left for his home in Greece.'®° The pope appointed Hilary de Auria as nuncio to act as chief

executor in his place.*®* On 22 June Edmund, duke of York, acting as keeper of the kingdom while Richard II was absent in Ireland, assigned to Hilary all sums of money received and to be received by the local commissioners and deputies. They were to be placed in a chest kept in St Paul’s London. At the same time he gave orders to sheriffs, mayors, bailiffs, min-

isters and lieges to aid Hilary up to the first of next September." On 1 July Hilary authorized the bishop of Chrysopolis to act for him in collecting the money and giving acquittances for it. In another letter of the same date he named not only the bishop of Chrysopolis but also Roger Walden, archbishop of Canterbury, Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland, and Prince Edmund of York as his agents to collect and receive the °° Below, pp. 556-57.

66 Hxchequer Receipt Roll 614; Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, pp. 80-81. The dates were 13 May, 20 June, 30 June and 4 July. 187 Karls of Northumberland, Worcester, Gloucester, Salisbury and Westmorland. **° Bishops of London, Salisbury, Exeter and Ely. *5° Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, p. 84. The author does not say whether the money came from similar gifts or from the collectors of the proceeds of the indulgences. 180 C.C.R. 1399-1402, p. 255.

*6? Not dated. Papal Bulls, 64/54.

6 Issued in the name of the king and attested by Edmund: Rymer, Foedera, Ill, pt. 4,

552 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

alms and oblations for the cause of the emperor. They were to render accounts of the receipts to Hilary and to deliver the money to Reginald

Grille, a merchant of Genoa, and the other keepers of the chest in

St Paul’s.1 Richard Grille was one of the keepers on account of an arrangement

made with him by Richard II on 13 May, before his departure for Ireland. Richard Grille and three other merchants of Genoa agreed to pay to the emperor Manuel £2000.'** To reimburse them Richard Grille was assigned the customs of Southampton,’® and for the same reason made one of the keepers of the chest in St Paul’s.1®* This attempt to anticipate the receipts from the indulgences by a loan from Genoese merchants failed. On 3 Feb-

ruary 1401 the emperor stated that he had not received that sum from Richard Grille.1® When Boniface [X heard of the civil war in England, he began to fear

for the safety of the funds raised by the indulgences. On 31 August 1399 he wrote to Lewis, bishop of Volterra, his collector in England. He had learned that the bishop of Chalcedon and Hilary de Auria had ceased to carry out their mission on account of the discord which had arisen. As a consequence the money which they had collected and deposited with various persons was not being put to its intended use. He ordered the collector, therefore, to exact and recover from all persons the offerings made to the bishop and the knight, and to keep the proceeds until a special mandate should be received from the pope.*** On 29 January 1400 he addressed a bull to all the faithful threatening with the greater excommunication those of them who had received any of the funds raised by the indulgences, if they did not restore them.*® In 1400 Manuel II, who had left Constantinople the year before to visit the courts of Europe in search of aid,*”° came to England. On 21 June he wrote to Peter Holt, prior in England of the Hospital of St John, concern-

ing his proposed visit to Henry IV. The prior advised him to wait until the king returned from an expedition to Scotland, when his pleasure could be ascertained.'** The emperor finally came in December 1400 and was entertained by the king at the palace of Eltham during the Christmas *°? Papal Bulls 64/54.

*84 Antient Kalendars, Il, 58; Issues of the Exchequer, ed. Devon, p. 272. *8° Issues of the Exchequer, p. 272; Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, p. 80. *°° The emperor later stated that he was made receiver at the will of Richard II: Royal Letters during the Reign of Henry IV, I, 56-57. 187 Ibid. 1, 56-57.

168 CPL. IV, 308. *°° Notarial copy: Papal Bulls, 64/54. *79 Atiya, The Crusade, pp. 15-16, 465. 171 Royal Letters during the Reign of Henry IV, I, 39.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 553

season.*’* The outcome of the interviews between the two was that Henry IV paid from the royal treasury to the emperor the £2000 which Reginald Grille and his colleagues had failed to pay. According to the emperor’s acknowledgment of the receipt of this sum, it had been collected

from the clergy and people of England in the time of Richard II.*7 Upon the receipt of this amount the emperor granted to the king all sums of money collected from the subsidy and not yet paid to him in whosesoever hands they might be.*"* As a result of this agreement, Henry

IV, on 11 January 1401, wrote to the archbishops and bishops ordering them in their respective dioceses by inquiry to ascertain the names of the commissioners and deputies, the names of those who were keepers of the chests where the money was deposited, and the names of the places where

the chests were established. They were to report to the chancery before

the quindene of the next Easter (18 April) and to order the deputies and the keepers to appear before king and council on that date.*”° The returns of the bishops give an insight into the local administration of the indulgences.’*® Bishop Rede of Chichester made his return on 26 March.**" John de Argentina, an alien of the Dominican order, had been

one of the deputies. He took away with him a little money and left a further sum with Henry Hulle, a Dominican of Chichester. Later he claimed this sum and carried it away. The keepers of the keys of the chest, Henry Hulle and William Hurlebat, citizens of Chichester, had been cited to appear as demanded in the writ. The bishop of Winchester reported on 12 April.17* John de Argentina had been appointed commissioner by the bishop of Chrysopolis. He placed a chest in the house of the Dominican friars of Winchester, but it was afterward placed in the house of the Fran-

ciscan friars, where William Newe, the warden, was the custodian. The other keys were held by Mark le Vayre, the mayor, and the bishop of Chrysopolis. At Kingston-on-Thames, Robert, chaplain in Lovekyn’s chapel, was a commissioner and receiver. John Chaldwelle and John Ry72 Wylie, History of England under Henry IV, I, 161; Ramsay, Lancaster and York, I, 27.

*78'The emperor’s receipt for the money, London 3 February 1401: Royal Letters during the Reign of Henry IV, 1, 56-57. See also Antient Kalendars, Il, 63. 174K. R. Memo. Roll 178, Communia Michaelmas, m. 34. The continuator of Eulogium Historiarum exaggerated considerably when he said that the emperor collected £4000 by means of the indulgence and received another £4000 added by the king: III, 388. *7° Rymer, Foedera, Ill, pt. 4, 195; C.C.R. 1399-1401, p. 255; K. R. Eccl. Document 25/17; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 611; Lincoln, Reg. Beaufort, fo. 73¥-74, Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 1287-29. 76° The bishops generally ordered their archdeacons to collect the information: 16 February, Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 129; 28 February, Chichester, Reg. Rede, I, 73; 10 February, Winchester, Wykeham’s Reg. II, 612. 77K. R. Eccl. Document 25/17. Dated 31 March in his Reg. I, 73-74. 78 Wykeham’s Reg., ll, 612-13.

554 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 ver, both of Kingston, had the keys to the chest in the church of Kingston. Alexander, a chaplain of Kingston, was also a receiver and kept one chest there. In Guildford, John, rector of St Mary’s, David, rector of Holy Trinity and John Cherteseye of the Friars Preachers, all of Guildford, were commissioners and receivers. All had been cited except John de Argentina and the bishop of Chrysopolis who had gone abroad, Alexander who had left

the diocese, and John Ryver who was dead. Bishop Stafford of Exeter also answered the writ on 12 April.17® There was one chest in the cathedral

of Exeter of which William Overby had the key. He, with Robert Northale of the diocese of Norwich, and John Knyght of Bridgeport had gone around the diocese collecting money which they still had. They had left the diocese and he could not answer for their readiness to obey the summons to appear before the king. Bishop Tidemann of Worcester failed to report and the exchequer ordered the sheriff to distrain him to do so. The sheriff replied that Tidemann was deceased, whereupon a writ was

directed to his successor Richard. This writ was reissued time after

time,*®° until finally, in answer to a writ dated 12 November 1406, order-

ing him to make a return at the term of Hilary 1407, he replied that he could not ascertain the names of the commissioners and keepers.**"

Other difficulties were experienced in dealing with the keepers of the keys reported by the bishops. Some of those reported as keepers in four

places in the diocese of Lincoln informed the exchequer that they had never been keepers. The keepers of the keys in Sutton replied to their summons that they were not prepared to certify and asked for a postponement. It was granted. When they failed to appear, new writs of summons were issued for several successive terms. Finally the sheriff was ordered to distrain them. He replied that he had distrained one of the five keepers, another was dead, and the others had nothing in his bailiwick by

which they could be distrained. It was not until 1408 or 1409 that the keepers appeared at the exchequer, produced an acquittance dated 26 April 1399 for the whole content of the chest, and received adjournment of the case against them sime die.*®? “The wars and disturbances caused by the change of dynasties, the departure of the chief executors and of some of their commissioners and the death of some of the keepers of the keys made

it dificult to discover what had become of some of the money paid for the indulgences. The exchequer recovered some of the money that the king had not yet

received. On 10 May 1401 Richard Grille delivered to it £59 13 s. 4 d. *™ Reg. Stafford, p. 358. *6° K. R. Memo. Roll 178, Communia, Hilary term, m. 37. *81 K, R. Eccl. Document 25/18.

182K. R. Memo. Roll 179, Communia, Michaelmas term, m. 40, Hilary term, m. 14, Easter term, m. 6; 180, Communia, Easter term, m. 4.

, Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 555 of the money of the emperor which he had received in the time of Richard IL.**° For the most part, however, those with whom any money had been deposited and the keepers of the chests, when they were summoned before the exchequer, were able to produce acquittances demonstrating that they had previously delivered the money in their keeping to one of the commissioners. A process against the society of Albertini illustrates a common

course of events. During the Trinity term of 1401 the bishop of Chrysopolis appeared in person before the exchequer and stated that the society

had received the following moneys in aid of the emperor of Constantinople. After the departure of Hilary de Auria they received from Richard

Wenne of the order of Preachers 40 marks and from brothers Robert Homolton and William Helmsby at different times £20 and £10 sent by them to the society by Richard Burton, a grocer of London. Hilary, be-

fore he left, wrote in his own hand a document charging the society with the following further sums: paid by William Body of the order of Preachers £14 10 s., by John Cawode of the same order £19 2 s., by William Feversham, a Carmelite, £16 9 s. 4d., by Nicholas, bishop of Dunkeld, from the dioceses of Llandaff and Worcester 30 s., by Thomas Legat, a Carmelite, from the village '** of Sandwich £23 13 s., by John Basset, vicar of Sunay (?) in the diocese of London £7, and from Bernard Tituby of the diocese of Lichfield £34 7 s. At the Michaelmas term Nicholas Luke, a member of the firm, appeared on summons to represent it. He acknowledged receipt by the firm in the name of the bishop of Chalcedon of £84 11s. 5 d. paid by Stephen, the bishop’s clerk, of 13 s. 4 d. paid by John de Prato, the bishop’s servant and of £73 6 s. 8 d. from John, bishop of

Derry,'®® amounting to £158 11 s. 5 d. He produced a writ from the chancery, dated 20 August 1401, stating that this sum, received by the firm about two years before from the bishop of Chalcedon, had subsequently been repaid to the bishop by the firm, as appeared in an acquittance given to the firm by the bishop. The writ, therefore, ordered the treasurer

and the barons of the exchequer to supersede any process against the firm.18* Nicholas also acknowledged receipt by the firm of £19 6s. 8 d. from Richard Burton 187 and of £26 13 s. 4 d. from Richard Wenne. Of this £46 Nicholas, on the order of the bishop of Chalcedon, on 21 June 1399, paid to Stephen, the bishop’s clerk, £1 to enable him to buy some pewter mugs for the use of the bishop. The remainder he delivered on the same day to Lewis, bishop of Volterra, for the use of the king. The 184 aglla, text.

*8° Acting as suffragan of London. *8° There is a copy of this writ also in C.C.R. 1399-1402, p. 417. *87 Said by the bishop of Chrysopolis to have been £30.

556 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 papal collector delivered the money to Reginald Grille, who delivered it in turn to John Norbury, the king’s treasurer.'*® Nicholas denied receipt

by the firm of the items listed by Hilary. The exchequer accepted the accounting of Nicholas as correct.'*® At the sessions of the exchequer from Michaelmas 1402 to Michaelmas 1403 the keepers of the keys of fifteen chests located in Lincolnshire and

Leicestershire appeared on summons to account for the money in their respective chests. All of them produced acquittances from the bishop of Chalcedon or of Chrysopolis.1°° In 1425 and 1426 the exchequer was still

attempting to recover money contributed to the subsidy which had not yet been received. The keepers of the chests in four villages of Lincolnshire were ordered to report how much money had been in their chests and who had received it. Three men were summoned to deliver to the exchequer specific sums which they had taken from certain chests. ‘They were, John vicar of Risby, £2 from the chest at Risby, Thomas Boteler, bishop of Chrysopolis, £2 5 s. from the chest at Wycombe and William Yewdale, rector of Tewin, £5 9 d. from the chest at Baldock.’®* For several terms no returns were made on the writs. The debts were probably either hopeless or erroneously charged.

No complete account of the yield of the indulgences exists, as far as I know, but a list of the amounts received at various places in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire gives rise to a surmise that the response was generous.

In each town the money was delivered by the local keepers of the keys, who were nearly always the rector or vicar of the place and one to three parishioners, to the bishop of Chalcedon or of Chrysopolis. Each amount

Date Place Amount | Lincolnshire £. 5. d.

26 April Sutton 1 10 10% 27 April & 9 July Gosberton 9 7 9%

29 April Kirton 5 16 6 May Grantham 75 0 12% and10 one vessel of the 6 &June 11 June Quadring 22506% 11 Donington 0 whole gold 3 July Boston 68 17 1 and one weight of 10 d.

ring, one broken gold ring, 29 pieces of bad money

7 188 He was treasurer from 3 September 1399 to 31 May 1401. *8° KK. R. Memo. Roll 178, Communia, Michaelmas term, m. 34.

*° K. R. Memo. Roll 179, Communia, Michaelmas term, m. 33, 40; Hilary term, m. 1314’; Easter term, m. 6, 11-117, 16-16V.

791 K. R. Memo. Roll 202, Brevia retorn. et irretorn., Michaelmas; 203, Brevia retorn. et irretorn., Michaelmas term.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 557

Date Place Amount Lincolnshire £. 5. d.

3 July July Gedney Louth 207 10 80 9 30 July Grimsby 14 0 2 and one vessel of 3 July & 19 August Stamford 42 5 8

gold and one of silver

Horncastle 88 0«616 0 and 4 3 silver cups 43 August August Rasen Leicestershire 7 May Melton Mowbray 31 2 2 23 July & 20 August St Martin Leicester 29 6 10°”

Total 325 «1110

delivered was the total sum received in that place. All the deliveries were made in 1399,

All the money raised by the indulgence seems to have been delivered to the king. If fifteen towns and villages in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire produced £325, it seems probable that the English government received enough not only to recompense the exchequer for £2000, paid to the emperor but also to provide a surplus. If the gifts made directly to the exchequer by the nobles and prelates are included, a surplus seems certain. The pope received nothing. He appointed the successive chief collectors of the alms, but his original order that they should turn the proceeds over

to a commission for delivery to the emperor was never carried out. The money was kept in England under the control of the royal government. Eventually the general papal collector was ordered to intervene in order to prevent the money from being diverted from its original purpose during the disorder in the kingdom. Money which he received, however, was held by him for the use of the king.*” 7. INDULGENCE FoR FuNDs to END THE ScHIsmM 1407

The purpose of the next general grant of papal indulgences in England was to obtain financial help to end the schism. On 1 June 1407 Gregory XI, who was negotiating with Benedict XIII for a conference to consider

ways and means to accomplish that result, wrote to the archbishops of Canterbury and York. He asked them to obtain a clerical subsidy in the form of gifts from English prelates *°* and appointed them collectors also *°? K. R. Memo. Roll 179, Communia, Michaelmas term, m. 33, 40; Hilary term, m. 1314’; Easter term, m. 6, 11-11V, 16-16%. The last two items are also in K. R. Eccl. Document 25/13. Another similar entry in 25/14 is largely illegible. *°S Above, pp. 555-56. *°* Above, pp. 122-23.

558 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 of the alms produced by an indulgence which he offered. The indulgence was the same as that which could be obtained by a visit to the Lord’s sepulchre in Jerusalem or the shrine of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome, namely a

plenary indulgence. In order to obtain it a layman had to pay what it would have cost him to make the pilgrimage and a clergyman had to pay the same amount in addition to contributing to the subsidy. The archbishops were also authorized to give absolution in cases reserved to the pope to those who paid what it would have cost them to go to and return from the papal court. The archbishops were directed to deliver the proceeds to the Alberti.*®®

This bull of indulgence seems to have remained ineffective. Of its administration there is no trace in archiepiscopal or episcopal registers, where copies of executory letters would have been likely to appear, had there been any. 8. INDULGENCE To AID THE HosprraLLers 1409-1414

Alexander V, during his short pontificate, found time to invoke once

more the aid of Christendom against the Turks. On 30 July 1409 he addressed a letter to all Christ’s faithful.’°® He explained that the Hospitallers, who had spent 70000 florins within the past two years on warfare

against the Turks, were in urgent need of funds. For that reason he granted to those who held out helping hands, according to their resources,

to those appointed by the officials of the order of St John as collectors the privilege of selecting confessors who could convey to them full remission of all sins at the hour of death. The sentence of excommuni-

cation was placed on collectors who extorted any money or used any of the money which they received for any purpose other than the defense of the faith. The grant was to last for five years. Copies of this letter were sent to the two archbishops, who dispatched copies to their suffragans with orders to have the bull published, to admit to their dioceses the collectors appointed by the Hospitallers, and to instruct their clergy to cooperate with the collectors and to allow them to explain their mission to the people in churches between masses on Sundays and holidays. “he mandate of the archbishop of Canterbury was issued on 8 June 1410,"°” though the bishop of Exeter did not give the necessary instructions to his clergy until 10 March 1411.*°* The only copy of the 15 CPL. VI, 97.

*°° Quia ut ait: Lamb. Reg. Arundel, II, fo. 120-120%; Wilkins, Concilia, TI, 331-32; Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 40¥. *°T Wilkins, Concilia, III, 331-32; Lamb. Reg. Arundel, II, fo. 119¥-20v. *°8 Reg. Stafford, p. 317.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 559 mandate of the archbishop of York which I have seen is not dated, but the bishop of Durham did not put it into operation until 28 December 1413.*°° Each of the archbishops added relaxation of forty days of enjoined penance to contributors, as did also the bishop of Durham. As the order of the archbishop of Canterbury indicates, the indulgences were offered in each parish church in the manner customarily employed by the questors of partial indulgences. The agents who came to the churches

acted in a high-handed manner, as the questors of the order had done in 1369 and 1374.?°° John Purvey, who believed that the pope had no power to grant indulgences,?°’ had caustic words to say about the administration.

He thought it an abomination to see the greatest lord of the world, the prior of Rhodes, with his subpriors asking alms with great indulgences of

the pope. They pretended, he said, to have power granted by the pope or other bishops to forbid masses and the preaching of God’s word till their privileges had been pronounced in every church it pleased them to assign. “What a shame is this to all Christian men.’ 7°?

The survival of three confessional letters demonstrates that this indul-

gence produced some funds for the cause. Iwo of them were issued by John Seyvill, a knight of the order, who described himself as a proctor of the indulgence of the castle of St Peter. Both were dated at Temple Bruern, one in 1413 and one in 1414. The former certified that John Goby, his wife Agnes, and their three children had made a satisfactory gift and were entitled to choose a confessor and receive from him plenary remission of sins at the time of death.2°* The other certified the same for two other persons.?°* Presumably other Englishmen obtained confessional

letters, but how many there may have been and how much they gave have to be left in the realm of speculation. The money went directly to the order of St John of Jerusalem. The papacy received none of it. 9. CRUSADE AGAINST LADISLAUS OF NapLes 1411-1415

Before the period of this indulgence was terminated, a new papal in-

dulgence, which must have conflicted with it, was proclaimed. John °°? Reg, Langley, fo. 40¥-41, 64¥. 2° Above, pp. 477-78. *** Below, pp. 614-15.

02 Remomnstrances against Romish Corruptions in the Church, addressed to the People and Parliament of England in 1395, p. 59. The date in this title seems to be incorrect. This was the only time during his lifetime when a general plenary indulgence—that being the significance of his ‘great’ indulgences—was levied by the Hospitallers in England. He died about 1427.

°° Chancery Misc., Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 5. *°* H.M.C., Second Report, App. p. 93. The third is mentioned by King, Knights of St John, p. 66.

560 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 XXIII, who succeeded Alexander V in 1410, soon engaged in hostilities with King Ladislaus of Naples, who supported Gregory XII of the Roman line. Late in 1411 he preached a crusade against Ladislaus and offered to one who joined it for one month or sent a paid substitute for the same length of time or gave financial help the same indulgences that were com-

monly granted in connection with a crusade to the Holy Land.?°° On 23 October 1411 he commissioned Anthony de Pireto, minister general of the Franciscan order, and Paul de Caputgrassis, a clerk of the papal camera, to preach the crusade and to administer the indulgences in EngJand.?°* Anthony de Pireto arrived on 25 March 1412 and remained until August. He sought from the king not only permission to preach the cross and to offer indulgences, but asked also that the king’s son Thomas might

go to Rome and lead the crusade. Henry IV denied both requests.?% Thus the indulgences which evoked the wrath of John Hus in Bohemia were not made available to the English public. For a time John XXIII more than held his own against Ladislaus without any help from England, but in 1413 the king captured Rome and part

of the States of the Church, sending the pope into exile. Under these circumstances John XXIII again appealed for English aid, this time for a crusade to recover possession of Rome and the States of the Church and for furtherance of the project of a general council. On 1 April 1414 he appointed Bartholomew, bishop of Pesaro, to preach in England, himself or through others, another crusade against Ladislaus, offering the same indulgences as in 1411.?°° On 3 April he addressed English clergymen and laymen, announcing the indulgences and asking them to give liberal aid. The new king appears to have given his consent to the distribution of

papal indulgences. On 1 September 1414 the archbishop of Canterbury brought the crusading bull to the attention of his suffragans and requested them to admit Bartholomew or his deputies to their dioceses and to direct their clergy to allow the agents to explain their indulgences in churches between masses without hindrance. The bishops were to deliver any gifts or bequests received by them to the agents promptly. For good measure the archbishop granted relaxation of forty days of enjoined penance.’” After the council of Constance assembled, the administration of the ~ 5 Chronique du Religicux de Saint-Denys, IV, 609; Wylie, England under Henry IV, Ill, 396, 471-72.

206 C.P.L., VI, 170. Same date a letter of credence for them to Robert Hallam, cardinal priest elect: Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 50%. On the same date Anthony was empowered to dispense persons related in the third and fourth degrees to contract marriage. He issued such a dispensation on 1 May 1412: Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 50. 207 Continuator Ewlogii Historiarum, Ill, 419-20. 208 C'.P.L., VI, 184.

20° Wilkins, Concilia, III, 367-68.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 561 indulgences developed irregularities. On 12 April 1415 the archbishop of Canterbury warned the bishops of his province that several of the deputies of the bishop of Pesaro were acting without the authority of papal

or episcopal leters which they were required to have. He ordered the bishops to prohibit them from so doing, to confiscate any money which they had obtained and to consign it to the chests.?'° The bishop of Hereford ordered his commissary not to admit questors of alms to the diocese unless they displayed letters of the pope or the archbishop. The questors of the bishop of Pesaro, he said, had exceeded their powers and had extorted from simple minds money which they used for themselves and for profane purposes without the authority of the apostolic see.?** After John XXIII was suspended on 24 May 1415, the council of Constance appointed the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Lichfield and Winchester to collect any money belonging to the papal camera which was in the hands of collectors or deputy collectors previously appointed by the apostolic see or by others. The power of the collectors was revoked and the three English prelates were made responsible for the collection thereafter of dues and debts owed to the papal camera.”**? In accordance with this commission the archbishop of Canterbury, on 19 August 1415, received an account of the proceeds of the indulgences. ‘The accountant was Paul de Caputgrassis, who had been left in charge of the administration of the indulgences by the bishop of Pesaro.?** His total receipts were £101 10s. 7144 d. Of this he was allowed for his expenses £2 5s.7 d., leaving a net sum of £99 5s. 4% d.?"* Some of the money which was deposited at St Paul’s had been seized,”**but since the purpose of the

seizure was presumably to keep the money safe until it should be known who would be the next pope, it was probably included in the sum with which Paul was credited. Martin V probably received this sum, but some of the money yielded by the indulgence was still in the hands of local collectors and receivers. Apparently he ordered the papal collector in England to assemble those funds. Walter Medford, who held that office, compiled a formulary of the letters which he used commonly in his work. In one of them he says that he had heard that A B, rector of the church of B in the diocese of Lichfield, collected from papal indulgences while he lived sums of money 10 Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 209-10; Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 3. 1226 April 1415: Reg. Mascall, p. 86. 212 Reg, Chichele, IV, 142-43.

18 Paul was also the general papal collector at the time: C.P.L., VI, 185. 214 Reg. Chichele, IV, 131. *15 St Albans Chron., 1406-20, p. 85. The chronicler does not say who made the seizure. The money was seized, he says, to be applied to a better purpose.

562 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to the amount of £500 which he still owed to the apostolic see when he died. The collector, therefore, declared his goods and chattels, which had been dilapidated and alienated, to be sequestrated wherever they might be and ordered B to put the sequestration into effect. B was also to cite those who caused the alienation and dilapidation to appear before the collector at his house in London on the next 20 February and give satisfaction for the goods.**® One may reasonably doubt the rumor with regard to the amount received from indulgences by one deputy, but the inclusion of this letter in the formulary indicates that the collector had some of that

, kind of work to do.

Apparently Walter Medford did not succeed in finishing the task. On 6 June 1422 the camerarius wrote to his successor, Simon de Teramo, with regard to the sums of money derived from the indulgences still in the hands of the deputies and receivers appointed by the bishop of Pesaro. They were keeping and usurping these sums, which were large, without accounting to the apostolic camera, to which they were responsible. He, therefore, ordered the collector to exact the money from those who owed and detained it, citing them to pay on a certain date and excommunicating those who did not.??"

Although the disruption of the administration of these indulgences may have caused some loss of the funds collected, the papacy, for which the proceeds were originally intended, may be assumed to have received all the money which it was possible to recover. In view of the small sum which the principal collector had in hand after the indulgences had been available well over six months, it may be doubted if the arrears amounted

to any such large sum as the officials of the camera seem to have had in mind. 10. CRUSADE AGAINST THE HussiTes 1427-1431

The next indulgence dispensed in England by papal agents was also

for the purpose of promoting a crusade. This one was to be directed against the Hussite heretics of Bohemia, a cause which Martin V practic-

ally inherited from the council of Constance. John Hus, having been granted a safe conduct by the emperor Sigismund, obeyed a summons to appear before the council. There he was tried, convicted of heresy and burned at the stake. This aroused among the Czech followers of Hus in Bohemia a fury which was national as well as religious. ‘They were so bitter against Sigismund, who had allowed his safe conduct to be violated, that when the death of his brother Wenceslaus in 1419 made him undis226 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 619. 217 Arm. XXIX, 7, fo. 62.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 563 putedly king of Bohemia, they refused to acknowledge him. Sigismund appealed to Martin V, who, on 1 March 1420, declared a crusade against the heretics. The army, composed mainly of Germans and led by Sigismund, was defeated. Thereafter further expeditions were defeated by the Hussites and Germany was invaded by them. England first became significantly connected with these crusades on 16 February 1427. On that date Martin V appointed Henry Beaufort, who was a great uncle of the king, bishop of Winchester and cardinal priest of S Eusebio, to serve as legate a latere to Germany, Hungary and Bohemia for converting the heretics or waging war against them.?*® Later in the year the cardinal took a leader’s part

in another German crusade against the Hussites, which like the previous expeditions was badly defeated.?"®

This experience determined Martin V to make an extra effort to secure

the organization of an efficient crusade. On 25 October 1427 he announced another expedition and ordered the clergy of all parts of Christendom to contribute a tenth of their incomes toward its expenses.””° On 18 March 1428 he again appointed Henry Beaufort legate a latere to Germany,

Hungary and Bohemia for the purpose of leading the new crusade.**? He was also to preach the crusade, enlist soldiers and administer indulgences in England. The indulgences were those which were customary for those taking part in or contributing to the cost of a crusade. The English clergy of all grades were ordered to help the cardinal with the work.?*?

There was a long delay before Beaufort published this bull. He did not return from the continent to England until shortly before 1 September.??? Thereafter a question was raised about his right to act as legate in England without having a royal invitation to do so. It was not until 11 November that the king’s council decided to let him act as cardinal but not as legate.??* Finally on 9 December 1428, acting as cardinal of England, the title by which he was commonly known, he sent copies of the bull to the archbishops and bishops, ordering each of them to have it published and to act as coadjutor in its administration in his diocese. Each was to appoint the necessary local preachers and confessors.??° 728 Raynaldus, 1427, §§ 1-3, 6.

4° Creighton, Papacy II, 53-54; Robertson, History, VIII, 35. *°° Above, pp. 126-28.

**' He was also made supreme captain of the army of the faithful with the approval of the pope: Raynaldus, 1428, § 6. 222 Salvatoris omnium domini: Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 511-13; Bodl. Lib. MS. Tanner 165, fo. 86v-89; Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 153¥-54¥; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, III, 33: Salisbury, Reg. Neville, II, fo. 35. 228 Stubbs, Constitutional History, Ill, 112. *** Reg. Chichele, I, p. xlviii, Cambridge Corpus Christi College, MS. 101, pp. 87-88. **° Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 153-55; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, III, 33.

564 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The letter was accompanied by a set of instructions to be given to the preachers.**° They were drawn up by the cardinal and had been approved by the king’s council in the name of the king. ‘The preachers were to impress upon those who took the cross that it was to be received with due reverence. [hey were given specific forms of prayers, blessings and other services to be used in the ceremony of afhxing the cross, which was to be made of red silk or other cloth. The indulgences were explained at length. Those who came to hear the preaching were to receive each time they were present relaxation of 100 days of their enjoined minor penances. Those who went on the expedition at their own expense, those who died on the journey, those who did not go but gave money according to the extent of their faculties to pay the expenses of a warrior and those who went at another’s expense were entitled to a plenary pardon. Those who gave less money than their estimated resources permitted received such amount of pardon as had been granted customarily by the holy see for such contributions to a crusade. This meant a partial indulgence of an amount determined by the confessor’s judgment of the extent of the giver’s devotion as displayed by the amount of his gift in relation to his financial position. Those who gave advice or help other than financial, including those engaged in the administration of the business of the crusade, could have relaxation of 60 days of enjoined penance as often as they gave such service. Those who undertook to go in person and were unable to fulfill their pledges, if they were too poor to provide substitutes, could earn 60 days relaxation of enjoined penance on each day that they said prescribed prayers for the expedition. The religious and the secular clergy were given the same reward for prayers. The preachers were to hear confessions and to give absolutions, of which the forms were stated. Excepted were the sins reserved to the pope, for which only the cardinal himself could give absolution.”*? The confessors could also commute vows of pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Compostella to the estimated amount of money that would have been spent on the pilgrimage. They could also commute vows to take part in the crusade, provided the applicant sent a soldier or soldiers in his place, or, at the discretion of the confessor, shared with another person desiring redemption the cost of a soldier. In all churches there were to be solemn processions and masses. The crusaders were to have the protection of St Peter for their families and goods and all the liberties *°° Durham, Reg. Langley, fo. 155-57; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, III, 36; Salisbury, Reg. Neville, II, fo. 36¥-377; Bodl. Lib. MS. Tanner 165, fo. 93-96¥.

**" The cardinal was given power to dispense couples related in the third and fourth degrees to marry. He issued such a dispensation on 28 March 1429: York, Reg. Bowet, fo. 340¥. This grant of power seems to have been made customarily to the chief commissioners of a papal indulgence.

Indulgences Admunistered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 565 granted by general councils to participants in crusades to the Holy Land. Any doubts which arose were to be referred to the cardinal. The several bishops, during January 1429, appointed deputies in their respective dioceses to act as preachers and confessors. The bishop of Durham, on the sixteenth, named the prior and subprior of Durham, his own official, Robert, bishop of Elphin, who was acting as his suffragan, the archdeacons of Durham and Northumberland and their officials, William Eb-

chestre, a doctor of theology and a monk of Durham, and seven other clergymen, most of whom were doctors of theology. He ordered them to carry out the papal bull, the covering letter and the instructions of the cardinal, of which he supplied copies. They were also to have a chest placed in the church of Durham for the deposit of the money.?”® The archbishop of Canterbury, on 1 January, committed the execution

of the bull in his diocese to William Molessh, prior of Canterbury, and Master James Burbache, the official of the archdeacon of Canterbury. They were to publish everywhere in the diocese in the vulgar tongue the bull and his mandate which contained a summary of the bull. The ‘plenam veniam’ of the bull was said to be ‘playn remission of all their synns.’ The

instructions of the cardinal, however, were left in Latin. They were to notify the archbishop of what they had done on 20 February and those who took the cross were to be prepared to be ready to join the cardinal by 1 March. In the same letter Chichele appointed as preachers and confessors James Drove and Thomas Asshe, monks of Christchurch, in the city of Canterbury, John Wotton, prior of Dover, in Dover, Matthew Asshton, doctor of laws, in Wingham, Thomas Moone, licentiate in decrees, in Deal and Sandwich and the neighborhood, John Gorsith, bachelor of theology and vicar of Wrotham, John Botle, bachelor of laws, in Maid-

stone, John Warreve, doctor of laws and rector of St Mary in the Marsh Romney, and Master Walter Adam, bachelor of laws and rector of Aldington, and William Love, vicar of Lydd, in other parts of the diocese. They were to take oath to act faithfully.?”° On 3 January the archbishop supplemented his mandate of 1 January by a letter which he had his clerk, William Bolde, draw up and send to the prior of Canterbury and to his commissary Thomas Moone.”*? ‘The prior was to have the mandate published in Canterbury on the next Sunday by

Thomas Asshe, and the people of the city were to be warned by John Lovelich and James Burbache to come and hear the publication. ‘The prior was also to send in haste for specified preachers and confessors named in 8° Reg. Langley, fo. 157-1577, D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, HI, 33, 35-36. °° Bodl. Lib. MS. Tanner 165, fo. 86-96"; given in part; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 511-14. 780 Not named in the letter. See Churchill, Canterbury Administration, Il, 230.

566 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the mandate to take their oath of office in the presence of a notary. James Burbache was to do the like for the other preachers and confessors. He was also to ride about the diocese having the mandate of 1 January pub-

lished, especially in Maidstone, Tenterden, Faversham and in all other notable places in the diocese, making it and the names of the confessors well known. The commissary was to publish it with the names of the confessors and of the places where they could be found in Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Wingham and other places. The bull and the indulgences contained therein were to be so well published that no man could pretend ignorance thereof. To promote this result every curate was to have a copy of the indulgence ‘to declare unto his parishioners.’ Copies of the cardinal’s instructions were to be made in English and affixed to the doors of the churches in Canterbury, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Maid-

stone, Sittingbourne, Tenterden, Lydd and other notable places. Copies made word for word were to be given to every person and confessor named in the mandate. Chests for the receipt of the money were to be established

in the churches of Canterbury, Maidstone and Sandwich. On each was to be a red cross and the inscription in large letters: “Thys is ye cheste ordeyned for ye croyserye.’ The prior was to have the key of the chest at Canterbury, Sir Roger Heron of that at Maidstone and the commissary of that at Sandwich. A confessor appointed to a place where there was no chest was to send without delay any money received to one of the chests

with a written statement of the name of the giver and of the amount given.”*! If these arrangements were typical, the indulgence was well advertised. While the proceeds were coming in, Cardinal Beaufort presented to the

king’s council a petition which was answered on 18 June 1429. Among his requests was permission to publish the “‘cruciat’ committed to him by the pope. Why the request should have been made at this late date is not obvious. The cardinal had ordered the publication of the ‘cruciat’ on 9 December 1428 and had accompanied it with instructions which were said to have the consent of the king through the deliberation of his councillors.*#? If consent had been given to the publication of the instructions, presumably it had been given also to the publication of the bull. The reply

of the council to the petition implies that the question at issue then was the disposal of the proceeds arising from the ‘cruciat’. The king, the councillors said, permits the publication with notice of the license of the king, but since it would cause the king’s subjects to give of their goods, reliable 7°? Bodl. Lib. MS. Tanner 165, fo. 84-86. “8° Above, pp. 563-65.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 567 persons were to be appointed to receive the goods. They were to give pledge that they would certify the king and council of their receipts. Any gold or silver received could not be exported until it was converted into merchandise bought in England. The king’s subjects would give of their devotion, but the pope was to forbear any common charge on any of the estates of the realm.?** Voluntary gifts in return for indulgences constituted the only financial support for the crusade which might be collected. If the crusade did not take place, the money was not to be used for other purposes without the consent of king and council. The petition that Conzo Zwola, the papal nuncio, might be permitted to raise 500 spears and 5000 archers to take out of the country under the command of the cardinal was reduced to 250 spears and 2000 (sic) bows. The council agreed that the cardinal might proclaim the wages which he would pay soldiers, that those who went should be in the king’s protection, that the constable and marshal appointed by the cardinal could make laws for the discipline of the troops, that those who went only to gain the indulgence and received no wages should be subject to this discipline and that an admiral should control the ships. It required, however, that the king must be shown reasonable means of passage, that the cardinal should see that the king of Scotland would keep the peace while the crusade was taking place and that the king’s subjects then in France should not be allowed to take part in the expedition. To all these stipulations the cardinal agreed. Thereupon he received the king’s commission as captain of the expedition.”*4

On the same day that the cardinal and the council reached this agreement the English army in France suffered a disastrous defeat at Patay. This created a need for speedy reenforcements from home, and the army of 259 spears and 2500 (sic) bows which Beaufort had enlisted was at hand.

On 1 July the council and the cardinal agreed to send this army under the cardinal’s command to the help of the duke of Bedford, the English commander in France, for six months to be reckoned from 23 June to 21 December. The expedition to Bohemia was postponed to 1 May 1430. The cardinal was to use the money derived from the indulgences to pay

the wages of his troops. The king agreed to give surety that the sum expended for wages would be paid to the pope and his camera one-half on 28 February 1430 and one-half on 1 May 1430. This promise was underwritten by the lords of the council, each of whom obliged himself personally to the pope and his camera for a certain part of the sum. These *8° Above, p. 129.

*** Proceedings of the Privy Council, Ill, 330-39; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 145-46.

568 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

letters obligatory were given to the cardinal, but later he was to return them and the lords were to deliver duplicate letters to the person who might be designated by the pope or by the cardinal. A week later the obligations were made common as well as several in order to meet the possible death of any of their number.?*®

| This diversion of the crusaders to France 22 marked the end of the crusade as far as England was concerned, despite the promise of the king that the pope should have from England on 1 May 1430 troops equal in number to those which were sent to France. The proceeds yielded by the indulgences, however, had still a long history. Apparently they went into

the royal exchequer. On 5 July a warrant directed the treasurer and chamberlains to pay to the cardinal the sum of 2432 marks for the second instalment of wages for his soldiers.?*” The cardinal was to demand payment of the wages from the duke of Bedford, who was not to be informed

of the surety for repayment to the pope given by the king and council. If he succeeded, the lords of the council were to be discharged of their obligations to the pope to the amount paid by the duke of Bedford.??§ The demand was unsuccessful, for on 28 January 1430 the council agreed to issue a warrant authorizing the treasurer and chamberlains to pay to the cardinal £2400 contained in eight letters of obligation and £4833 6s. 8 d. contained in twenty-four similar letters. In these letters certain lords of the council were obliged severally to the pope and the cardinal for money received on loan from the pope and the cardinal in order to pay for the troops sent to France under command of the cardinal. The treasurer and the chamberlains were to receive in return the letters of obligation which were to be cancelled or restored to the signers of the obligations.”*°

From this statement it appears that the total amount of the receipts from the proceeds of the indulgence borrowed by the English government

was £7233 6s. 8 d. The guarantee of the lords of the council covered repayment of that sum to the pope or to the cardinal. The warrant authorized by the council on 28 January 1430 directed repayment of the whole sum to the cardinal. That warrant was not carried out in full. On 1 May 1430 the exchequer paid to the cardinal £3616 13 s. 4 d. in discharge of

the sum of £7233 6s. 8 d., for which certain lords of the council were bound to the pope and the cardinal by letters obligatory.7*° On 18 January *°° Proceedings of the Privy Council, III, 339-46; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 147-48. *°° It was done against the will and intention of Martin V: Raynaldus, 1429, §§ 16-17.

°°? Another warrant directed the payment to the cardinal of 1000 marks as a reward for his service: Proceedings, III, 345; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 148. 288 Proceedings, III, 343-44. *8° Proceedings, IV, 16-17.

**° Issue Rolls of the Exchequer, p. 409.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 569 1431, however, the king ordered his officials at Dover to let Leonard de Pescia pass with 2000 marks of gold, the sum being in payment of a loan made by the pope for which the council was pledged.**!

Despite this payment of part of the debt directly to the pope, the papal camera, in the time of Pius II, put forward a claim that the whole of the loan remained unpaid. It asserted that the money levied by Cardinal

Henry Beaufort, priest of S Eusebio, by virtue of a papal indulgence granted by Martin V for war against the Hussites had been used for war

against the French with a guarantee of repayment by Henry VI. The cardinal, who recovered the money from Henry VI,?*? died before he had satisfied the papal camera.?4* His goods came into the hands of John Kemp, cardinal priest of S Balbina, then archbishop of York, later archbishop of Canterbury. On his death (1454) they passed to Thomas Kemp, bishop of London, thereafter the executor of Cardinal Beaufort. Pius II appointed the auditor of the camera to warn the bishop of London to pay the sum in London to the heirs of the late James de Salviatis and his fellows for delivery to the depository of the papal camera within a specified term under penalty of excommunication and a fine of 50000 ducats. The audi-

tor, finding access to England unsafe, affixed a notice to the doors of churches in Ghent, Bruges and Rome ordering payment within two weeks.

At the end of the fortnight he declared the penalties to be in effect. The pope then, on 24 February 1463, sent a letter of execution against the bishop and told his collector, Vincent Clement, to explain the matter to Edward IV in order to obtain the royal favor. When the bishop of London learned of the process, he explained that he had known nothing of the auditor’s monition, and that the money had never come into his hands. The pope thereupon revoked the sentence, though at the same time he ordered the bishop of Exeter to find out if the bishop of London owed the camera anything.*** The debt was not cancelled until a letter, issued by Sixtus IV on 8 May 1477, declared the heirs of Henry,”** cardinal of S Eusebio, called ‘de Anglia’, free of the obligation by mandate of the lords of the camera.”4* The process of Pius II leaves no doubt that the English

government repaid the loan in full by payments either to the cardinal or to the camera. In view of the reluctance with which the camera aban““ Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 4, 172. **2 Put at £7023 6 s. 8d. in one letter and at £7233 7 s. 8 d. in another: C.P.L., XI, 669, 676. **° He died in 1447. 244CPI. XI, 669-71, 676-77.

4° 'The text reads ‘Carolus,’ but it is an obvious mistake. Beaufort was known as the cardinal of England, and the letter defines the money as derived from the indulgences

granted in England for use against the Bohemians. . 746 Fondo Arch. di Stato 1686, fo. 2477.

570 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

doned a claim to a debt, little doubt is left that the papacy received the whole sum of £7233 6s. 8 d. 11. INDULGENCE FOR EXPENSES OF UNION WITH

THE GREEK CuHuRCH 1439-1440

A plenary indulgence of another type which was offered in England by a papal agent was associated with the union of the Roman and Greek

churches. The council of Basle invited representatives of the Greek church to join with the council in consideration of the project. The Greeks asked for 70,000 florins to pay the expenses of their representatives

at the council. The council proposed, with the concurrence of the pope, to raise the money by giving plenary indulgences to contributors. Eugenius

IV insisted on their grant by the pope with the sacred council approving.”4” The council, on 14 April 1436, took affairs into its own hands and issued a decree granting the plenary indulgences of the crusade and of the jubilee to those who gave money for the expenses of the conference.*® Peter de Monte, who was then papal collector in England and who had been at the council of Basle, presented to Henry VI a memorandum on the council. He called this decree a scandal, since only the Roman pontiff had the keys and could grant plenary indulgences. ‘This, he said, all doctors of theology and of canon law maintained.?*? The collector’s opinion may have had some influence. The English government was becoming cool toward the council,?°° and it did not give permission for the distribution of the conciliar indulgences in England.

Eugenius IV finally split with the council on the Greek issue. He transferred the council to Ferrara,?°' where those who obeyed the papal decree accomplished the union of the two churches in 1438 and 1439. In order to secure the attendance of Greek delegates at that council, the pope had to pay their expenses. After the union, he felt some responsibility for

helping the Greeks defend themselves against the Turks. It was to meet the heavy expenses for these two purposes that on 1 September 1439 he granted an indulgence of universal application. One who contributed to the support of these burdens according to his resources could choose a suitable confessor who could absolve him once in life in cases which ordi-

narily required consultation with the apostolic see.*°* The contributor 77 Pius I, ‘Commentaries,’ S7zith College Studies in History, XXII, 21. #8 Creighton, Papacy, Il, 125. ** Tellfelder, England und das Basler Konzil, p. 334. *°° Zellfelder, zbid., p. 163; Valois, Le Pape et le Concile, I, 129-31. 751 It moved to Florence in 1439. 252 Tn some of the confessional letters this was called full remission once in life.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 571 could also elect a confessor who could grant him at the time of death full remission and indulgence.”** The confessor could also commute vows of abstinence or of pilgrimage, including those to the Holy Land, Rome and Compostella, to other good works, provided the estimated cost of the journey and of the oblations were paid to the subsidy. They could further absolve usurers, if they delivered to the cause the profits which for one reason or another could not be restored to the individuals from whom they had been taken. They could likewise absolve those who had sold arms to infidels or to heretics contrary to the prohibitions of canon law, if they surrendered the gains which they had made. He ordered prelates, convents, chapters and other ecclesiastics to make the indulgences known to

the people through suitable preachers. To those who listened to the preachers he granted relaxation of two years and two quarantines of en-

joined penance. The money was to be kept by two good men of each place selected by the ordinary or by the executive agent appointed by the

pope. It was to be consigned by them to those designated as receivers by the pope.?°* Peter de Monte was appointed the chief executive of the indulgence.

He obtained the consent of the king to publish the indulgence,?°° and late in November he presented the bull to the clergy of the province of Canterbury assembled in convocation, requesting them to provide for its execution. They discussed the modes and forms to be followed, but what conclusion they reached is not stated in the memorandum preserved in the archbishop’s register.?°° The machinery for the administration of the indulgence was in operation by 14 December 1439, for on that date Peter de Monte issued a confessional letter to William Curteys, the abbot of Bury St Edmund.?*? Concerning the local administration of this indulgence little information is available. In the diocese of Durham two monks of Rome, Bartholomew and Urban, were the deputy collectors. They received payments in the cathedral church, presumably from a chest, on 6 and 13 June and on the last day of December 1440. The total amount was £38 12 s, 11 d. in cash and two necklaces worth 3 s. 4 d.788 An annual number of confes*°° Though not stated in the bull, in the formula of absolution in a confessional letter the absolution was reserved until the event of death, if the penitent did not happen to die when it was first given: Stowe Charter 606. °°“ Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 227-30; Reg. Stafford (Wells), II, 241-45; D. & Ch. Durham, Locellus, I, 21; Addit. MS. 7096, fo. 200¥-01¥. “°° Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 1, 76. *°° Reg. Chichele, Il, 282-83; Wilkins, Concilia, ITI, 533-36. °7 Addit. MS. 7096, fo. 1677-68. 758T), & Ch. Durham, Locellus, XTX, 75.

572 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 sional letters issued by Peter de Monte have survived. They are all dated 1439 or 1440.7°° In some of them the contribution is said to be for the expenses of the conversion of the Greeks to the obedience of the Roman

church and in others it is said to be because the Turks threatened the Greeks. The latter seems to have caught the popular fancy. Two chroniclers speak of the indulgence as being for the support of the pope’s wars,

though one had the grace to add that the purpose of the wars was to strengthen the Christian faith.?®°

The collector sought from the king permission to send to Rome the money produced by the indulgences. On 13 April 1440 he was given license to do so by letters of exchange.?* Several items of receipt from the indulgences are recorded in the Introitus et Exitus Registers of the camera.*°? ‘They were as follows:

28 March 1441 3397 fl. 37 s.6 d.?% , 15 July 1441 delivered by Andrew de Pazzis and Anthony de 17 November 1440 delivered by Cosmo dei Medici and his partners 10250 f1.°°

Rabbatis 1110fl.f1.2* Total 7° 14757 37 s.6 d.

The amount in English money was £2459 10 s.?° Later the pope heard rumors that Peter de Monte, as collector in Eng-

land of the alms of the faithful for the maintenance of the union with Greece and the defense of Constantinople, had received for the papal indulgences thousands of sums of money. Since comparatively little money had reached the camera, as the pope estimated it, on 31 October 1444, he appointed the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Wells and Adam Moleyns, who had been papal collector in England from the time Peter de Monte left in 1441 to some time in 1443, to inform themselves of the truth of these statements and to report. To facilitate their inquiry those who gave evidence were granted the same indulgence which

the givers of alms had received and those who were unwilling to testify *°° Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 6; K. R. Eccl. documents 6/49-50; Stowe Charters 606-607; Bodl. Lib. MS. Ch. Misc a 7, no. 215. *°° Chronicle of London, 1089-1483, p. 127; William of Worcester, Ann. II, 762. *** Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 1, 76. 792 1, & E. 407, fo. 25, 35, 48; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1869, fo. 170, 186V. 768 T. & E. 407, fo. 25.

*°* [bid., fo. 35. This payment is entered as three separate items received on the same day. They are the collector 1698 fl. 43 s. 9d.; the collector by the hands of Andrew de Pazzis and Anthony de Rabbatis 810 fl.; the collector by the hands of the same 888 fl. 43 s. 9 d.

Since the last two items add up to the amount of the first item, the whole payment may have been only 1698 fl. 43 s. 9 d., but as recorded there seem to be three separate payments.

*°° [bid., fo. 48. On that date an acquittance was issued to the collector for 1000 fl; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1869, fo. 186’. °° My addition. 7°67 Converted at 6 fl. to the £, which was the rate allowed in the collector’s final account on 30 April 144: ibid., fo. 170.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 573 could be compelled by ecclesiastical censures.?** The result of the inquiry is unknown. Since no further receipts from the indulgence appear in the Introitus et Exitus Registers, it seems probable that the rumors were with-

out foundation. The probability is strengthened by the falsity of the rumor which Nicholas V heard in 1448 that Peter de Monte had imposed and collected a tenth in England without accounting fully for the proceeds.7° Apparently someone at the papal court was unfriendly to Peter. 12. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurKs 1444-1445

Eugenius [V already had in mind the need for defense against the Turks when he issued the indulgence of 1439. In the following years the necessity became more pressing.?"° On 1 January 1443 he commanded the clergy universally to pay a tenth of their incomes to support a crusade

against the Turks which was being organized in Hungary. This decree was not made operative in England until 13 July 1444, when the pope commissioned John de Castiglione, the papal collector in England, and Baptista de Padua, bishop elect of Concordia, a nuncio concerned with the affairs of the crusade in the British Isles, Holland and Germany, to collect the tenth from the English clergy.?"* On the preceding 25 May he had already commissioned the latter nuncio to administer the indulgences in England. The nuncio was empowered to grant relaxation of seven years and seven quarantines of enjoined penance to those who contributed according to the extent of their means to the army and fleet which were then being prepared against the Turks and plenary pardon of sins

including those reserved to the pope to one who joined the crusade or sent a warrior and maintained him for six months. He could also grant the same remission of sins as was received by those who took part in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy Land. In addition he could absolve one guilty of extortion in return for any money so gained of which the owner could not be located.?”? Before the arrival of the bishop elect in England late in 1444 or early in 1445,?"* the pope, on 5 October 1444, issued an encyclical which gave a more liberal indulgence for gifts. Those who gave according to their devotion and to ‘the counsel of the confessor’ whom they had chosen might receive from him full remission including the sins for which it would be necessary ordinarily to consult the apostolic 268 CRI. VIII, 272. *6° Above, p. 131

27° Pastor, History, I, 324-25. *™ Above, p. 132. 72C PL. VIII, 298. “7° Above, pp. 132-33.

574 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 see. The confessor could also commute vows of pilgrimage for what the pilgrimage would have cost.?“* A committee, consisting of the bishop of

Bath, the abbot of Gloucester and Vincent Clement, which had been appointed informally on 12 March 1445 to notify the nuncio of the proposal of the king and prelates to give a voluntary subsidy in place of the tenth,?”° informed him also that the prelates would attend diligently to the

administration of the indulgences in order that some fruits might arise therefrom to the holy subsidy.?’® What happened after this expression of good intentions is to me terra incognita. I have found no trace of the administration of this indulgence in England or of the receipt of any proceeds from it by the papacy. 13. INDULGENCE To Alp THE KING or Cyprus

After Nicholas V succeeded Eugenius [V in 1447, the threat from the Turks did not abate. On 8 April 1448 the new pope issued an encyclical offering the customary indulgences to those who participated in a crusade or contributed to its expenses.?"" No evidence that an attempt was made to extend this indulgence to England has come to light. Three years later, when the island of Cyprus was hard pressed by the Turks,?** Nicholas V appealed again for help. In an encyclical dated 12 August 1451 he explained the need of King John of Cyprus and asked Christian rulers to impose a charitable subsidy on their subjects for three years from 1 May 1452 to be paid to the nuncios and proctors of King John. Those who

contributed could have from their confessors once in life and once at death absolution from excesses, offenses and censures which were re-

served to the apostolic see. He requested archbishops to publish the bull

and rules to induce their subjects to make gifts. A copy of this letter was addressed to the kings of England and Scotland, all archbishops, bishops, abbots, dukes, princes and all the other faithful of either sex.?” In the portion of a chonicle of London which it has been assumed was

written by William Gregory,?*° who was mayor of London in 1452,?* occurs an entry which might seem to indicate that this indulgence was offered in England. It is placed under the thirtieth year of the reign of Henry VI, which extended from 1 September 1451 to 31 August 1452. It “74 Raynaldus, 1444, § 7. *75 Above, p. 133.

°7° Lamb. Reg. Stafford, fo. 45. 277 Raynaldus, 1448, § 6.

278 Pastor, History, II, 247. 279 C’.P.L., X, 94-95; Pastor, History, II, 503-05.

*°° The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, ed. Gairdner, p. xvi. 281 C\P.R. 1446-52, p. 565; 1452-61, p. 16.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1327-1452 575

reads: ‘An that yere come a legat from the Pope of Rome with grete pardon, for that pardon was the grettyste pardon that evyr come to Inglonde from the Conqueste unto this tyme of my yere, beyng Mayre of London, for hyt was plenar indulgens’.’*’ It is, however, doubtful if this description could have been applied by William Gregory to the indulgence of Nicholas V which went into effect in 1452. It is of the same type as the indulgence of Eugenius [V administered in England in 1439 and 1440.

The contributor received a confessional letter which entitled him to

plenary remission once in life and once at the time of death. Since William Gregory was sufhciently mature to have been sheriff of London in 1436,°*° it seems improbable that he did not realize that the indulgence of 1452 was no greater than the one of 1439. The further description of the indulgence in the section placed under 1452 makes it certain that the writer did not have in mind the indulgence of that year. He says that stations were assigned unto the penitents to go on pilgrimage to offer their prayers unto God. The indulgence of 1452 required no pilgrimages to

obtain plenary remission, but an indulgence of 1455 did. The latter, moreover, was an indulgence as of the jubilee, which was regarded as the highest type of indulgence. Finally the writer states that in that year the pope ‘put that hethyn hound and fals tyrant to a grete rebuke.’ There was no Christian victory over the Turks in 1452. This must be a reference to Hunyadi’s victory at Belgrade in 1456. The item, which is the only one under 30 Henry VI, was apparently written by Stephen Forster, who was mayor of London in 1455,?** and misplaced chronologically by the com-

piler of this portion of the chronicle. No allusion to the administration in England of the indulgence granted by Nicholas V on 12 August 1451 in contemporary chronicles or other documents has come to my attention.?®° 83 Historical Collections, p. 197. **8 Historical Collections, p. xvii. 24 C.P.R. 1452-61, pp. 205, 230-231, 256.

8 'Waurin puts under 1453 a statement that great indulgences were published by preachers in several parts of Christendom, but he attributes them to Calixtus III: Recueil,

V, 365. He has them under either the wrong year or the wrong pope. If he refers to those of 1453, they were not offered in England.

BLANK PAGE

CuHaptTer XII

INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED IN ENGLAND BY PAPAL AGENTS 1453-1534 1. Tue INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE 1455

The indulgence administered in England in 1455 arose out of the excitement caused by the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The initiative in its production was taken in England. Though Nicholas V, on 30 September 1453, announced a crusade to take place early in the next year and granted the fullest remission and pardon, such as his predecessors had been accustomed to offer in aid of the Holy Land and in a year of jubilee, to those taking part or paying to send a soldier for six months and to monasteries of monks or nuns which supplied for half a year a soldier for each ten members of the community,’ these indulgences were not made available in England. In 1454 the order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes petitioned Henry VI to send letters to the pope and the cardinals asking for the grant of an indulgence of the jubilee during the next Lent in such place or places in England as the order in England should designate. On 15 July the king and council decided to send the desired letters and on 24 July they were drawn up. The king in his letter to the pope explained that he and many others of the faithful in England, Wales and Ireland who did not gain the indulgence of the jubilee in 1450 wished to have it. The proceeds, he suggested, should be used to aid the Hospitallers, who were heavily in debt and had to meet the growing strength of the Turks.” For this request there were precedents. The jubilee had already been established locally in several countries of Europe and in some of them part of the financial yield was devoted to the order of St John.?

Nicholas V replied favorably on 1 December 1454. In his bull he explained the nature of the indulgence of the jubilee administered in Rome in 1450, summarized the petition of Henry VI, and granted that the papal commissioners, Robert Botyll, prior of the priory of St John in England, and John Langstrothyr, castellan of the city of Rhodes, could, with the counsel of the archbishops and bishops, appoint confessors, who, between 3 March and 28 April 1455 could absolve the king and any others of the * Raynaldus, 1453, §§ 9-11. In this bull he also ordered payment of a tenth by all the clergy: above, p. 141. *Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 2, 57-58; C.P.L., X, 265. * Pastor, History, II, 103-04; Paulus, Geschichte, UI, 189.

578 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

faithful from the sins which they confessed, including those reserved to the pope, and enjoin penance. If one thus penitent and confessed visited certain local churches named by the confessor and put an offering in the chest provided for its receipt by the commissioners or their deputies, he would gain plenary remission of all his sins and the entire indulgence of the jubilee,* as if he had gone to Rome in person and visited the designated basilicas. ‘The visits of churches were to be made once a day for five days, if the church was within three miles of the penitent’s home, for three days if more than three miles and less than ten away, and for one day if more

than ten miles distant. The amount of the oblation which the king, the queen, other members of the royal family, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, abbesses, and prioresses were to place in the chest was left to their consciences. All others were to pay one-quarter of the amount they would have spent on a journey to and from Rome and a sojourn in the city, had

they gone in the year of jubilee. The fourth was to be assessed by the commissioners or their deputies in consultation with their confessors. Supplementary bulls were issued from 3 to 11 December. The period during which the indulgences could be obtained was prolonged from 28 April to 20 June. This was done, it was explained, in view of the possibility that the amplitude of England, the greatness of its population, the dangers of travelling, storms at sea, tempests of winter or floods might deprive some of the faithful of the indulgence. The commissioners were appointed

and their powers defined. A chest was to be installed in each of the churches to be visited. The three keys to each chest were to be kept one by the commissioners or their deputy, one by the archbishop or bishop and one by a sacrist or rector. ‘The commissioners or their deputies were to have the chests opened in the presence of the keepers of the keys, to count the money before them, to retain what was needed for salaries and expenses, to take charge of the remainder for the Hospitallers and to deliver it to Peter, son of Cosmas de Medicis, or to their partners in England.° The local administration was organized in January and February 1455. On 20 January the indulgence was proclaimed from Paul’s cross in London by Goditre, a friar.© On 22 February the commissioners appointed deputies in the church of Ripon, because it was too far away for them to attend

to their duties there in person. A blank space is left in the document for the names of the deputies, who probably were the provost of Ripon and *'The archbishop of York, in an official letter, called the indulgences ‘veras atque integras et plenissimas indulgentias et peccatorum remissiones anni jubilei’; Reg. W. Booth, 6 CPL. X, 261-66; Memorials of Ripon, I, 300-01. ° Six Town Chronicles, ed. Flenley, p. 141.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 579 two others. The commissioners quoted their own commission and told the deputies to put it into effect.7 No doubt they appointed other deputies for churches at a distance from London at about the same time.® Two days earlier the archbishop of Canterbury named the churches in his province where the indulgences could be obtained,® and on 26 February the archbishop of York did the same for his province. The places were, in the diocese of York, the cathedral of York, Pontefract, Beverley, Ripon, Lancaster and Southwell; in the diocese of Durham the Cathedral of Durham and Newcastle; in the diocese of Carlisle the cathedral of Carlisle. He added that the commissioners might designate additional places. On the same day he appointed Master ‘Thomas Toyne, bachelor of both laws and rector of Bedford near Beverley, to perform the executive work required of him by the bull of 1 December, because he could not be present in the province of York.*° On 28 February the bishops of Ely,‘* Winchester,’* Bath and Wells** and Lichfield’* delegated their executive func-

tions which they did not have time to carry out themselves. The bishop of Ely named his suffragan, the bishop of Dunkeld, and the bishop of Winchester his official, Master Thomas Forest. The bishops of Bath and Wells and Lichfield appointed deputies for each church where the indulgences were to be offered. In the diocese of Bath and Wells John Bernard, treasurer, and John Trevennaunt, provost, of the church of Wells were to have charge in Wells, the prior of the cathedral church of Bath in Bath, the prior of Taunton in Taunton and the vicar of Redcliffe in Bristol. In Lichfield the deputies were Master Richard Pede and Thomas Heywode in Lichfield, the prior of the cathedral church of Coventry and Master John Twys at Coventry, the abbots of St Peter Shrewsbury and Haughmond in Shrewsbury, the abbot of St Werburgh and Master William Orell in Chester, and John Huntington, keeper of the college of Manchester, and William Orell in Manchester. Presumably these deputies had charge of the bishops’ keys to the chests in the respective churches. Attached to every church where the indulgences could be granted were several confessors. At Durham there were four monks and four secular clerks in permanent residence and three secular clerks who served

- ™ Memorials of Ripon,1,300-03. ° At Durham the deputies were the prior and Masters John Norton and Robert Mason: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Quartum, fo. 95. ° Lamb. Cartae Antiquae, vol. XI, no. 64. *’ Reg. W. Booth, fo. 168-1687. ™ Reg. Gray, fo. 57.

“Reg. Waynflete, I, fo. 357. ** Reg. Beckington, fo. 192.

“Reg. Boulers, fo. 67.

580 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 for one day only.** Apparently confessors were chosen in different ways. The bull says they were to be selected by the papal commissioners with the advice of the ordinaries. A memorandum kept at the priory of Durham concerning the indulgences says they were chosen with the advice of the ordinaries and deputed by the archbishop.*® Another memorandum says

the ordinary was to name the confessors.17 The confessors were to sit in a place convenient for the people ‘and assoyle of all synnes confessed noon excepte.’ ‘The deputies appointed by the pope’s commissioners had general charge of the places where the indulgences were granted, but they worked with the ordinaries or their deputies. They acted with the advice of the confessors as judges for deciding any doubts which arose, and they decided in each instance what would be sufficient for the gift of the fourth part. They could dispense with a personal visitation from those who were infirm or hindered by any reasonable cause, and they could also shorten the number of the days of visitation required.*®

The disposition of the money in the chests is illustrated by another document at Durham.?® On 8 June Alan Chaumbre, rector of Withcall in Lincolnshire, who had been appointed for the purpose, received from William prior of Durham, in the presence of a notary and witnesses, all the money in the chest in the church of Durham. The sum was £69 1 s. 8 d. From this was deducted for expenses £4 4 s. 2 d. Three of the permanent confessors received £1 each, one received 1 mark, and the three confessors for a day received 8 d. each. A bar and a key were purchased for 6 d., the writing of schedules and the composition and signature of two documents

cost 5 s., and 3 s, 4 d. were given to the guardians and doorkeepers of

the church. Concerning the disposal of the proceeds there is room for slight doubt.

The implication of the bull of 1 December 1454 which established the indulgences is that the money derived from them was to be used by the order of St John for the defense of the Christian religion.”° In the bull of 3 December which appointed the commissioners it is stated clearly that the

financial purpose of the indulgences was to provide help for the master and convent of the order in Rhodes and that the money received by them was to be converted to this religious object.** In a letter of 9 December **D. & Ch. Durham, Reg, Quartum, fo. 95; Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, p. CCCXXXII. *®T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter 1448. 7 [bid., Misc. Charter 1440. 18 Thid., 1440, 1448.

**D. & Ch. Durham, Reg, Quartum, fo. 947-95; Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, pp. CCCXXXI-CCCXX XI.

20 C.P.L., X,of265-66. *1 Memorials Ripon, 1,| 300.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 581 the commissioners were told to deposit the money raised in aid of the master and convent, expenses having been deducted, with Peter, son of Cosmas de Medicis, banker of the said master and convent, or with his partners in England, ‘to be devoted solely to the said purpose.’ ?? Two days later another mandate ordered them to pay the net proceeds to the same bankers, whom the pope had appointed receivers and banks to insure that the proceeds were devoted to the due purpose and ‘to none other.’ ** The intention to use the whole net yield to aid the Hospitallers of Rhodes seems abundantly clear.

Though the proceeds may have gone ultimately to the Hospitallers, some or all of them went immediately to the papal camera. A large part

of them was anticipated by loans. Nicholas V, before he died on 25 March 1455, borrowed 3000 florins from the Medici which they were to recover from the money yielded by the indulgences in England. Calixtus III borrowed on the same surety from the same firm 7000 florins on 29 August 1455 and 6000 florins on 1 September. If the yield was insufficient to reimburse them for the two loans, they were to obtain the balance from the tenth being levied in France.” On 18 September Vincent Clement, then papal collector in England, lent the papal camera 1000 florins and was authorized to recover the sum from the moneys of the holy jubilee as well as from his ordinary receipts as papal collector.”

On 24 November 1455 the papal camera entered on its books the receipt from the partners in London of Peter and John de Medicis of £2962 8s. 9 d., which was the equivalent of 14812 florins.** They had received the money from the indulgences in England granted by Nicholas V to the order of St John. The expenses had been deducted and also £600 of the said money, to the value of 3000 ducats, which Pope Nicholas ?* had received from John, castellan of Rhodes, one of the commissioners. Among the expenses deducted was £400, making 2000 florins, which the firm paid to the king of England for the privilege of taking £2962 8 s. 9 d.

_ outside the kingdom. The camera held them indemnified for that sum and also for an amount of English merchandise valued at £2962 8 s. 9 d. which the firm had promised to export from England within a year.”® Presumably the indemnity on the goods was for any loss sustained by the 2 CPL. X, 263.

CPL. X, 262.

“ C.P.L., XI, 17, 19. The loan of 7000 florins was made to meet the expenses of Alan, cardinal priest of S Prassede, who was acting as legate in France on the business of the crusade: Pastor, History, II, 349. 75 Arm. XXIX, 28, fo. 87.

*°'The pound was valued at 5 florins. ** “Dominus Nicholaus’ in the entry. 81, & E. 432, fo. 197, 45¥.

582 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

firm, if it failed to sell them outside of England at a price which would cover the cost of purchase and transportation. Finally on 28 January 1456 the bank of the Medici paid to the camera 66 florins 33 s. 4 d. for its total receipts from London of the moneys of the indulgences granted in England.*® If these items represent the whole yield of the indulgences above the total of such expenses as were paid by the deputies at Durham, the total receipt was 20478 florins 33s. 4 d., or £4097 and between 13 and 14s.

Though all of this sum except 200 florins went to the papal camera or the pope, it may ultimately have gone to the knights of St John at Rhodes. Calixtus [II gave much finanicial assistance to the warfare against

the Turks and some of the money came from the papal camera.*? The only doubt is raised by a statement in the item crediting the Medici with the payment of 14812 florins to the papal camera. The payment 1s said to be money received by the firm from the indulgences granted in England

by Nicholas V to the order of St John for the part of the said money touching (tangente) the pope.** In other similar entries ‘tangente’ may be translated ‘belonging to.’ In other countries the income from similar indulgences of the jubilee went in part to the order and in part to the papacy. Paulus states that these revenues from England were similarly divided.*” If that was the case, the Medici may have paid some of the proceeds directly to the order and the financial returns from the indulgences in England may have been much larger than the amounts paid to the pope, the papal camera and the king of England. This seems to run directly counter

to the orders given by Nicholas V for the disposal of the funds. Since the phraseology of this entry in the register of the camera 1s the only evidence of a division at hand, its existence seems somewhat doubtful. Possibly this part touched the pope, because the money went actually to the

Medici to reimburse them for loans previously advanced on the surety of the income from the indulgences. If that is true, the equivalent of the borrowed money may have been transferred by the papacy to the knights of Rhodes. 2. CRUSADE AGAINST THE Turks 1455

While Englishmen still had the opportunity to get the indulgences of the jubilee, Calixtus III, on 15 May 1455, renewed the bull which Nicholas

V_ had issued on 30 September 1455,°* offering the indulgences of the 291. & E. 432, fo. 48%; Goller, Review of A. Schulte, Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523, in Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, CLXVII, 653, n. 3. *° Gottlob, Aus der Camera, pp. 45-47; Pastor, History, II, 335, 365 n, 369, 387, 435. 817, & E. 432, fo. 19. *? Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 189. He provides no evidence for the statement. °° Above, p. 577.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 583 crusade and of the jubilee.** All other indulgences issued since the council

of Constance were annulled.** He sent envoys to various countries of Europe to solicit help against the Turks. In September 1455 he appointed Nicholas of Cusa, cardinal priest of S Pietro in Vincolo, legate to England and Germany. Part of his mission was to grant the indulgences.** He was also to negotiate peace or truces in the countries through which he passed

on the way to England and Germany. He spent the rest of 1455 in his diocese of Brixen negotiating with the duke of Tirol and never reached England.?* No other envoy appears to have been sent to England for the purpose of preaching the crusade and administering the indulgences. Mention of the local machinery of preachers, confessors and collectors of the proceeds of indulgences are lacking in contemporary sources. On 29 February 1456 Antonio Ferarii was commissioned to receive all money

collected by nuncios of the pope and collectors of the camera in England.?8 Vincent Clement, who was then the only nuncio and the only collector in England,** had received no commission to administer the in-

dulgences. Nor was he likely to have had on hand much money in his capacity as general collector. On 20 December 1455, in return for a loan of 5000 florins to be used for the fleet against the Turks, he was assigned the fruits of his collectorship to that amount and guaranteed possession of the office until he had obtained reimbursement.*° Though the indulgences do not appear to have been offered in Eng-

land, sentiment for the crusade was not entirely lacking there. On 22 August 1457, when Laurence Booth paid his common service for Durham to the papal camera, he gave 1500 florins in aid of the armament against the Turks.*1 3. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurRKs 1460-1461

Pius II, in the bull of the crusade which he issued on 14 January 1460 after the conference at Mantua, granted the same indulgences that Nicholas V and Calixtus III had offered, except that a soldier had to serve in the army for eight months instead of six. He also abrogated other indulgences,

making an exception, however, of those possessed by the churches of ** Raynaldus, 1455, § 19; Arm. XXXII, 12, fo. 75-80v.

*5'The news of the cancellation probably did not reach England until shortly before or after the indulgence of the jubilee of Nicholas V expired. 6 Letters dated 6 to 20, September 1455: C.P.L., XI, 19-21; Raynaldus, 1455, § 27. For some of his other functions see above, p. 141. *7 Pastor, History, II, 350.

8 CPL. XI, 31-32. °° C.P.L., XI, 192; Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 2, 67.

“CPL. XI, 26.

“1. & E. 433, fo. 53.

584 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Rome.** On 18 February 1460 he authorized Francis Coppini, bishop of Terni, whom he had appointed collector in England and Ireland on 4 December 1459,** to grant to persons of both sexes dwelling in the British Isles who gave in aid of the crusade as much money as they would spend for the maintenance of their whole households for a week indulgence of all their sins and other spiritual graces stated in the letter of crusade. He was supplied with a copy of the bull of 14 January 1460.** On 1 April Pius IT appointed Francis collector of all moneys, goods and oblations for the crusade from whatever source they might come. He also gave him power to appoint preachers to induce the faithful to contribute.** In the disturbed state of the realm *® a thorough and comprehensive organization of local administration of the indulgences was probably impossible. Nevertheless, he succeeded in raising a small amount from them. On 30 May 1461 the papal camera credited him with 325 florins collected from indulgences in England,*? and on 31 March 1462 with 477 florins for the value of £108 6s. 8d. of the money of Bruges derived from the same source.** ‘This sum, representing about £160 8 s. sterling, was probably all that he obtained. He was outside of England during most of 1461 and 1462, and by 30 August 1462 Pius II had confined him in prison in Italy.*° 4. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurRKS 1463-1466

On 22 October 1463 Pius II issued a new and elaborate bull of the crusade. He anounced that he and Philip, duke of Burgundy, would lead the expedition and exhorted the faithful to support it. As a reward for such help he offered the same indulgences that he had granted in his previous bull of the crusade, reducing the term of service required of a soldier from eight months to six. He added a new method of obtaining the fullest indulgence and pardon such as his predecessors had given for a crusade to the Holy Land and a year of jubilee. Those who were unable to pay all the expenses of a warrior might join together in groups of two to ten and each member of the unit would receive it. Metropolitans and their suffragans were ordered to publish the bull and to hold solemn ceremonies in their churches and public processions. *” Above, p. 143; Raynaldus 1460, §§ 1-7. 48 C.P.L., XI, 397, 402-03. 44 C.P.L., XI, 403.

“CPL, XI, 402. *° Above, p. 144.

“71, & E. 447, fo. 59°.

48T. & E. 449, fo. 57; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1873, fo. 211-2119. *° Above, p. 145.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 585 This bull was brought to England by Thomas Hope and Peter Courtenay, who were appointed for the purpose about 7 November 1463.°° The archbishop of Canterbury, on 12 March 1464, sent a copy of the bull with orders to publish it to the bishop of London, who relayed it to the other suffragans of the archbishop on 5 April. The number of episcopal registers in which a copy of the bull is preserved seems to indicate that it made a strong impression,”* but the archbishop’s mandate called only for its publication and for the prayers and processions. It did not require the bishops to administer the indulgences and the English people apparently had no oportunity to acquire them. Two years later, on 6 February 1466, Paul II wrote to the archbishop

of Canterbury. He announced his intention to continue the project of a crusade and asked the archbishop to publish the letters of the crusade 1is-

sued by Nicholas V, Calixtus III and Pius II and to induce the faithful of his province to contribute aid. He gave the archbishop power to commute vows of the crusade. On the same day he commissioned Stephen, bishop of Lucca, whom he was sending to England as his orator, to do the same things. In addition he was to set up chests in churches and to receive past and future collections.** Apparently Paul II thought that the indulgences granted by the bulls of crusade of his three immediate predecessors had produced funds which the papacy had not yet received. This may have been true of the bull which Pius II issued on 14 January 1460, but none of the others which granted indulgences appears to have been made effective in England ** before or after the appointment of the bishop

of Lucca. No record of any money received from England in payment of proceeds from the indulgences granted by these bulls appears in the registers of the papal camera or in those of the commission of cardinals established by Paul II to manage the finances of the crusade.**

°° Above, p. 145. | ** Salisbury, Reg. Beauchamp, I, pt. 2, fo. 92-987; Lincoln, Reg. Chadworth, fo. 96v99v; ly, Reg. Gray, fo. 175-79", Exeter, Reg. Neville, fo. 62-67; printed from this copy by Wilkins, Concilia, III, 587-94; Reg. Stanbury (Hereford), p. 93 (Letters of archbishop and bishop of London without the bull). There are other copies in A. A. Arm. I-XVIII, 6518; Library of Ampleforth Abbey, MS. M 17s 5. The copy given by Raynaldus (1463, §§ 2940) omits the indulgences. 2 C.P.L., XI, 229-31. °° The bull of the jubilee which was administered in England in 1455 was not a bull of the crusade. °* A possible but improbable exception should be noted. In 1479 a view of the accounts of Vincent Clement, who had been papal collector in England from 1450 to 1473, excepting

a few months in 1460 and 1461, was taken in the camera. It showed a balance due the camera for which the heirs of Vincent, who was deceased, were required to pay a composition of 1000 florins. Among the revenues from which arrears were due was an item designated as oblations arising from indulgences in one document and as the jubilee and other indulgences in another: I. & E. 499, fo. 24; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1879,

586 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 5. CRUSADE AGAINST THE TurKs 1472

In 1472 Sixtus IV launched a drive for a crusade. As part of it he granted indulgences throughout the world to those who contributed to the expenses.*® No bull providing for the administration of the indulgences in England has come to light. If there was one, the probability is strong that it was not allowed to enter the kingdom.’® There seems to be no trace of the offer of these indulgences in England. 6. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE FOR War AGAINST THE TURKS

1476-1478

Beginning in 1476, Sixtus kept agents collecting the proceeds of indulgences in England for several successive years. On or before 4 February he extended to England the indulgence of the jubilee which had been offered in Rome during the preceding year.°” Plenary remission of all sins, includ-

ing those reserved to the pope, and the grace of the jubilee could be obtained once in life and once in death by those who contributed a competent

sum for the provision of arms and a fleet against the Turks. When the indulgence was extended to Scotland, a competent sum was defined as follows. One who possessed goods to the value of 300 florins or 300 marks of the kingdom of Scotland gave 5 florins or marks, 200 florins 3 florins, 100 florins 2 florins, 50 florins 1 florin and less than 50 florins 14 florin. One who could not pay any of these sums was to place in the chest a sum determined by his resources and the judgment of his conscience.°® If this yardstick was applied to England the payments were £1 10 d., 12 s. 6 d.,

8s.4d.,45s. 2 d. and 2 s. 1 d.6? Those who wished could also have from the confessor of their choice absolution from any ecclesiastical censures and relaxation of vows except those of pilgrimage to the Holy Land or Compostella, of religion and of continence.*® Chests were to be placed in fo. 677; Reg. Vat. 599, fo. 41-44. If he received money from the jubilee of 1455, to which

he was entitled in return for his loan (above, p. 581), it would appear in his accounts. If he received money from other indulgences, they may have been those authorized by Pius II on 14 January 1460. These records create no presumption that the indulgences from which arrears were due were other than the two known to have been offered during the period of Vincent’s collectorship. °° Arm. XXIX, 38, fo. 26; Raynaldus, 1472, §§ 17-18. 5° Above, pp. 151-54.

°7T have not found the bull. The above date depends upon a statement of Theiner prefatory to a bull of that date which granted the indulgence of the jubilee to Scotland: Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 474. My knowledge of the nature of the indulgence is derived from confessional letters and other documents. °° Theiner, ibid., p. 475.

°° Based on the rate of 4s. 2 d. for a florin which prevailed in 1474: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum, III, fo. 157. °° Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 12; K. R. Eccl. Documents 6/56, 19/63.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 587 several churches to receive the alms given by the faithful,*! and confessors and deputy collectors were associated with the chests.® John, abbot of Abingdon, was appointed the special commissioner and nuncio of the pope to announce and preach the indulgence and to collect the funds which it produced.®* In a confessional letter of 10 September 1477 he was said to have also the power of a legate 4 latere.** On 24 May

1476 the pope conferred upon him additional powers of absolution and dispensation. He could absolve and release from enjoined penance those held to restore goods obtained by usury, theft or extortion which could not be returned for lack of knowledge to whom they belonged, those who had occupied, stolen, extorted or retained without full payment tithes, administrators of churches who had appropriated spiritual or temporal goods to their own use and religious who had kept goods for their own use. Each was to put a sum of money in one of the chests. Thereafter they could not be held in any form to restore the remainder and they were not to be disturbed about it by any ecclesiastical persons. He could also absolve perjurers and those who had omitted divine offices or canonical hours and relax their penances. They were also to contribute money to the fund and to be free of further responsibility to ecclesiastical persons for their sins. He could absolve heretics and schismatics, women who had as heirs sons conceived in adultery, those related in the third and fourth degrees who had married unwittingly, those who had had illicit sexual intercourse with their relatives by blood or affinity,® even if it was adultery, and those who had committed other offenses short of murder.

He could dispense those promoted to sacred orders despite a defect of birth, even if they had taken two benefices of which one was incompatible,

those promoted to orders before they were of age and members of the secular or regular clergy who had studied law or medicine despite a prohibition. Finally he could give to those sixty years of age or otherwise enfeebled and to pregnant women permission to eat milk products and eggs at times when they were prohibited. Whether payments to the fund were to be made for absolutions and dispensations other than the first six was not stated in the bull.® “24 May 1476: Stowe Charter 580. *” Reg. Vat. 652, fo. 134-35.

** His original commission is lacking. The above is contained in a bull of 24 May 1476: Stowe Charter 580. ®*K. R. Eccl. Document 6/58. °5 A dispensation of this type was issued by the abbot on 10 September 1477: Lichfield, Reg. Hales, fo. 163.

®6 Stowe Charter 580. On the same date the pope empowered the abbot to visit the secular and regular clergy and to correct any lack of discipline. The pope had heard that there were lapses of discipline among English prelates: Reg. Vat. 574, fo. 57-59V.

588 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 On 1 April 1476 Sixtus IV appointed John de Giglis nuncio and general

collector of the fruits of the camera in England. He was authorized by his commission to collect not only the revenues customarily assembled by the general collectors but also oblations in aid of war against the Turks, the proceeds of the indulgence of the jubilee and of any other indulgences

established by Sixtus IV in England.** What the relations between him and the abbot of Abingdon were to be was not defined in his commission, but the two appear to have cooperated in the administration of the indulgence. Five of the surviving confessional letters were issued in their joint names,®* and three in the name of the abbot of Abingdon alone.*® On 10 April 1477 John de Giglis gave directions to the prior of Canterbury concerning the chest at Canterbury, because the abbot of Abingdon was absent. He wanted the jubilee discontinued at Canterbury until the return of the abbot, when he and the abbot would consider what should be done. The money which the prior had taken from the chest he was to transmit to the collector without delay, since the pope needed the money.” In 1476 Abbot John was credited with two paymens of money from the indulences “! and in 1477 Collector John was credited with one.“? On 3 February 1477 John de Giglis was given faculty to grant a limited number of dispensations such as previous general collectors had often received. He could, for example, dispense twelve men and twelve women related in the third and fourth degrees to marry or who had married in ignorance of the relationship and he could dispense with defect of birth.7* On 28 February 1477 the pope cancelled all similar faculties given previously to his commissioners, nuncios, collectors and deputy collectors in England, because they detracted from the faculties granted to John de Giglis, who is styled nuncio a latere.** This decree, however, may have left Abbot John in possession of many of his powers of dispensation, since they were not duplicated by those of Collector John. The confessional letters were issued ordinarily to an individual, to a man and his wife, or to a man and wife and their children. On 17 February

5eeee° °*7 Reg. Vat. 656, fo. 2319-33.

°° Dated 3 November and 13 December 1476, 18 August and 10 September 1477 and 11 January 1478: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 12; K. R. Eccl. Documents 6/56, 19/63, 6/58, 59.

°° Dated 1476 and 17 February and 6 September 1477: H.M.C., Report I, 96; IV, 183, 378; Report on MSS. in Various Collections, II, 19-20. °° Christ Church Letters, pp. 35-36. 11, & E. 493, fo. 6, 21. 721, & E. 495, fo. 92. ** Lichfield, Reg. Hales, fo. 6, 153¥-155. ** Reg. Vat. 679, fo. 107-08¥.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 589 1477,"° however, the abbot of Abingdon issued one to the members of the monastery of Westminster who contributed to the fleet against the ‘Turks.

It is worthy of note that the letter issued by the two nuncios to Henry Lan[g]ley and his wife Katherine of London on 13 December 1476 *¢ has been claimed to be the earliest known example of printing from an English press.

V7

This indulgence seems to have been the only one of the period mentioned by a contemporary historian. A chronicler of London noted it under the year 1477 in the laconic statement: “This yere the abbot of Abyndon a pardon of pleyne remission.’ 7°

The indulgence remained in effect until 15 December 1478, when Sixtus IV revoked the commission of John, abbot of Abingdon, who had, as the pope had learned, collected many unaccounted for sums of money.

He appointed John de Giglis to collect the money left in the hands of the abbot and his deputies and to inspect their accounts. He authorized the collector to proceed summarily against the deputies, using ecclesiastical censures and other penalties.’®

The disposal of the proceeds of the indulgence was arranged by a contract made between the camerarius and the abbot of Abingdon on 4 June 1476.°° The first 10000 florins were to be delivered to the pope or his camera for the use of the crusade. The remainder was to be divided into four parts. Of these the abbot was to receive one for his salary and expenses and no more, the king of England was to receive one, and the

remaining two were to be assigned to the camera or to its collector in England for the use of the crusade. The receipts entered in the Introitus and Exitus Registers of the camera from Abbot John were on 14 June 1476, 2000 florins §* and on 2 October 1476, 2000 florins ®° from John

“The date given in the summary is 1476: H.M.C., Report I, 96; IV, 183. I have assumed

that this is the date in the document which should be therefore 1477. There could not have been time for the administration of the indulgence to have been established before 17 February 1476.

“°K. R. Eccl. Document 6/56. It is on display in the Museum of the Public Record

Office.

“ London Times, 7 February 1928. "® Chronicle of London, 1089-1483, p. 146.

” Reg. Vat. 652, fo. 134-35. On 13 March 1477 a bull was registered which states that the abbot had fulfilled his commission as nuncio and commissioner with powers of a legate a latere and revokes his commission: Reg. Vat. 546, fo. 218-19". Apparently the bull was not dispatched. The abbot’s name continued to be used in confessional letters until early in 1478. 8° Arm. XXXIV, 12, fo. 159V-61. ®11, & E. 493, fo. 6.

21. & E. 493, fo. 21.

590 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 de Giglis on 15 October 1477 3740 florins.** These items may not represent all that the indulgence yielded. Perseus de Malvicus, the commissioner of an indulgence established in England in 1489, wrote to Innocent VIII

that he had been told in England that the year of jubilee produced only 18000 ducats. Against this rumor may be set another statement in the same letter to the effect that Sixtus [V thought he had been robbed of some of the proceeds.** 7. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE FOR WAR AGAINST THE TURKS

1478-1480

On 15 December 1478, the same day that the indulgence of the jubilee granted in 1476 came to an end, Sixtus IV announced the establishment

of another indulgence of the jubilee in England. This one offered the same full remission including the sins reserved to the pope, removal of ecclesiastical censures and relaxation of vows as the previous indulgence had granted. It could be obtained only once and, in addition to a financial contribution for the defense of the faith against the Turks, certain churches had to be visited. He appointed John de Giglis commissioner and authorized him to designate the churches and to appoint the confessors and deputy

collectors. He declared all other indulgences issued by himself or his predecessors to be suspended.*°

In two other bulls of the same date the pope conferred upon John de Giglis in his capacity as administrator of the indulgence faculties of absolution similar to those granted in 1476 to the abbot of Abingdon with regard to those who had acquired money wrongfully or held back tithes. He could absolve and release from ecclesiastical censures those who had alienated goods of the church, if they returned the goods. He could absolve those guilty of srmony. He could confer benefices which had devolved to the collation of the pope, but those who received collation had to pay any fruits wrongfully collected or any annates owed to the camera. He could also dispense marriages of persons related in the third and fourth degrees.** By two further bulls of the same date his power of dispensation in his capacity as general collector was extended to many other things.**

Concerning the administration of this bull of indulgence I have no 81. & E. 495, fo. 52; Arch. di Stato, Arch. Camerale 1879, fo. 48%. Some of the money may have been included in the collector’s accounts. The entries of such receipts do not specify the revenues which produced the money. On 3 March 1478 John de Giglis was credited with 900 florins on his account: I. & E. 495, fo. 133; Arch. Camerale 1879, fo. 49. 84 C.S.P. Venice, I, 551. °° Divinus amor: Reg. Vat. 652, fo. 135-38. 8° Thid., fo. 138-42. °7 Ibid., fo. 142-45.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 591 information. The king may have permitted its publication, since he was interested in the defense of the Christian faith against the Turks.** Since English bishops were not concerned with its administration and presumably

confessional letters were not required, the lack of evidence in English sources seems to establish no balance of probability one way or the other. An item of 68 florins paid by John de Giglis to the camera on 8 November 1483 ‘pro uno jubileo exacto’ °° may have been an arrear from this indulgence or from that of 1476. The indulgence of 1478, along with others, was suspended by the pope on 1 July 1480.°" 8. INDULGENCE TO AID THE KNIGHTS OF ST JOHN 1479-1482

To the suspension of 1 July 1480 one exception was made. It was for an indulgence, established by a bull of 12 December 1479, which offered plenary indulgences for a sufficient amount of alms given to aid the knights of St John in Rhodes, who were withstanding a heavy onslaught of the

Turks. The bull was to remain in effect until Easter 1481. On 4 May 1480 the period during which the indulgences could be granted was extended to 8 September 1481. On 1 September 1480 all other indulgences were again suspended °° and the bull of 12 December 1479 was confirmed. Some time not long before 8 September 1481, Sixtus IV cancelled the bull of 12 December 1479, but on 27 September 1481 and again on 4 May 1482 he declared the bull to be effective as if it had never been revoked. In the latter declaration, however, he ordered the proceeds which the knights of St John had not yet assembled to be sent to the papal camera to be used for the general war against the Turks.®* John Kendale, Turcopolier of Rhodes, was appointed commissioner. He came to England before 31 March 1480,°? and was received favorably by Edward IV.*? The indulgences granted to individuals were attested by confessional letters issued in the name of the commissioner. As described in these letters, the indulgence gave plenary remission of all sins including °° On 17 April 1478 Edward IV appointed four envoys, of whom John de Giglis was One, to treat with Sixtus IV, the consistory, the kings of Sicily and Hungary and many princes, dukes and nobles of Italy concerning the state of the orthodox faith: Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 3, 102. 5° 1. & E. 508, fo. 84¥.

*°8 Paulus, Geschichte, III, 208.

°° On 22 November 1482 Sixtus IV indulged Edward IV that the indulgences previously granted certain royal chapels should remain in force despite the suspension: Arm. XXXIX, 15, 108.

° Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 207-09. °2 Wordsworth, ‘Yorkshire Pardons,’ Yorkshire Arch. Journal, XVI, 391; Ricci, Census of Caxtons, no. 56.

°° On 29 April 1480 the king recommended him to the clergy and all the faithful in Ireland: Rymer, Foedera, V, pt. 3, 103; C.P.R. 1476-85, p. 194. ,

592 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 those reserved to the pope with the exception of an attack upon a bishop or one of superior rank in the hierarchy, infraction of ecclesiastical liberties, conspiracy or rebellion against the apostolic see or the person of the pope and killing a priest. On one aspect of the indulgence offered confessional letters differ. In a letter issued on 21 April 1480 ® and in another dated only 10 Sixtus IV (9 August 1480-8 August 1481) *° the plenary absolution could be given only once at the time of death. In a third letter, issued on 3 April 1481, Henry Langley and his wife were permitted to have a plenary absolution once in life and once at the hour of death.°®

Edward IV stimulated the demand for this indulgence among the clergy. On 17 August 1480 he wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury that, since Rhodes might be lost to Christianity, if it were not speedily relieved, he was contributing the ship Margaret Howard of 800 tons equipped with victuals and wares and lending another ship. He asked the archbishop to provide other ships similarly supplied to accompany the royal

ships. The archbishop, on 1 September, ordered each of his suffragans to convoke the prelates and clergy in each of his archdeaconries, to show them by means of preaching and of reading the letters of the Rhodians, the pope and the king the need of the defenders of Rhodes, and to exhort each to extend helping hands according to his resources. ‘To the clergy who were exempt he was to write individual requests for contributions. All who made gifts would become sharers in the general papal indulgences to those giving aid against the Turks. The bishop was to appoint some of the faithful in each rural deanery to act as collectors of the promised gifts.

They were to certify the quality of the persons and the quantity of their contributions and to deliver the resulting funds to the archbishop’s commissioners at St Paul’s London before the next Christmas.

The bishop of London sent out copies of this letter to the several bishops of the province on 8 September. The bishop of Worcester, on 10 October, ordered the archdeacon of Worcester to summon the prelates

and clergy to appear before him in the cathedral of Worcester on 24 October, and the archdeacon of Gloucester to summon his clergy to the same place for 14 November. The Dean of Bristol he told to have his clergy meet at the church of St Trinity Bristol. The clergy at these assemblies made grants according to their will as specified in schedules not °*H.M.C., Report V1, 330. The summary says ‘only once,’ but ‘at the hour of death’ has

probably been omitted. I have not seen four other copies listed in Einblattdrucke, nos. 820-23. Ricci gives additional details on one of these and notes another issued on 16 April 1480, which was seen by Joseph Hunter early in the nineteenth century: Census of Caxtons,

PP TMC, Report Il, 274.

°° Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 15. ,

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 593 recorded in the bishop’s register.°’ Each individual member of the clergy

was left free to make a gift as he chose. If he made a gift of a suitable amount, he received an indulgence. The total amount raised in the diocese of Worcester was £60 10 s. The proceeds presumably were used for the purchase and outfitting of a ship. They were not given to John Kendale in the form of cash, as, until 4 May 1482, were the proceeds of the indulgences other than these paid by the clergy at the request of the king. No record of the total amount received by the order of St John is available. 9. INDULGENCE FOR THE GENERAL WAR AGAINST THE TURKS

1480-1482

On 4 December 1480 a new bull of indulgence was issued to obtain financial help for the general war being organized against the Turks.*® The new bull did not supersede the one of 12 December 1479 in behalf of the knights of Rhodes, and the two seem to have been administered in England concurrently. John de Giglis was appointed the chief commissioner of the new bull in England. According to the confessional letters which he issued the penitent who contributed a sufficient amount as defined in the bull was allowed to choose a confessor who could convey full remission of sins, including those reserved to the pope without exceptions, once in life and once in the article of death and could commute vows other than one to take part in the expedition against the Turks.°® The amount

prescribed in the bull was as much as the recipient was accustomed to spend in one week for the living of his household.*°? On 25 July 1482 this bull had been neither suspended nor revoked." The money from this indulgence was to be paid to the papal camera, but some of it went to the order of St John. On 2 November 1481 John de Giglis was credited by the camera with 666%% florins for £150 which he had paid to John Kendale for the aid of the island of Rhodes.*°*? No

trace of further payments by him to the camera appears in the extant Introitus and Exitus Registers, unless some were included in the renders which he made as general papal collector, which does not seem probable.*% "Worcester, Reg. Alcock, fo. 75%-77; Chichester, Reg. Story, fo. 52-55; Norwich, Reg. Goldwell, fo. 235-37. °° Paulus, Geschichte, III, 205. °° Clark, ‘A New Copy,’ Speculum, IX, 301-03; Wordsworth, ‘Yorkshire Pardons, Yorkshire Arch. Journal, XVI, 392; Einblattdrucke, nos. 796-97; Catalogue of English Incunabula in the John Rylands Library, pp. 69-71, Plate 2; Census of Caxtons, pp. 69-70. *°° Einblattdrucke, nos. 1417-19. *°* Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 207. *** I. & E. 502 unnumbered folio between fo. 123 and 124; I. & E. 503, fo. 124, 204.

They were during the remainder of the pontificate of Sixtus IV. 15 April 1482, 95 fl.

594 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 10. INDULGENCE OF SAINTES 1487

How long the indulgence granted on 4 December 1480 continued to be offered in England is not clear. After it ceased to be operative, England probably was free from indulgences administered by papal agents until 1489. There is, however, a possible exception. On 26 April 1487 Henry Langley and his wife, who were eager seekers of plenary indulgences, obtained a confessional letter which granted to them the plenary pardon offered by the cathedral church of Saints in France.'% This indulgence had originally been granted to Saintes on 3 August 1476. It offered a plenary indulgence ‘ad instar jubilei,’ a confessional letter permitting a chosen confessor to give plenary remission at the time of death and the aid of the church for the souls of the deceased relatives of the benefactor. It could be obtained, as was customary in such concessions, by visiting the church of Saintes during the octave of Pentecost and holding out helping hands for the reconstruction of the church. The pope, however, claimed one-half of the income for the warfare against the Turks. For that reason he appointed Raymond Peraudi, then dean of the cathedral of Saintes, the executor of the bull, instead of leaving the administration to the recipients of the indulgence. On account of the use of half the proceeds for the Turkish wars, the indulgence soon assumed something of a universal character. On 4 August 1483 Sixtus [V authorized the preaching of the indulgence outside of France. The collectors

| were to designate local churches to be visited where chests were placed to receive the contributions which still went in equal portions to Saintes and to the papal camera. Thereafter the indulgence was offered in the Low Countries and Germany. Innocent VIII confirmed the bull in 1485 and 1486. When the original term of ten years for which the indulgence was to run was about to expire, he prolonged it to April 1487, then to the next August and finally to April 1488.7 The confessional letter received by the Langleys was issued in the name of Raymond Peraudi, but it appears to have been obtained from one of his nuncios. It granted them not only the privileges of choosing a confessor who could convey to them full remission of their sins at the point of death but also participation of the souls of their relatives and of their own souls after death in all the benefits of the whole church and its members in the way of masses, prayers, alms and all good spiritual things. and 500 fl., 13 May 1483, 1275 fl.,; 6 July 1484, 800 fl.: I. & E. 499, fo. 125; 505, fo. 102; 508, fo. 24; 510, fo. 43, 158.

*°* Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, no. 17. *°° Paulus, Geschichte, III, 212-14; Remy, Les grandes Indulgences, pp. 131-49.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 595 Unfortunately the place where the document was issued was not stated. It is possible that the Langleys obtained it in England, but it is probable that they obtained it abroad. The indulgence of Saintes is not known to have been offered in England.’°* It seems improbable that Henry VII allowed what practically was a general plenary indulgence to be administered in England, when shortly afterward John de Giglis, the papal col-

lector, tried unsuccessfully to obtain his consent for the admission to England of a general papal indulgence for contributions to the war against the Turks.’°" 11. INDULGENCE FoR WARFARE AGAINST THE Turks 1487-1493

The request which John de Giglis put before Henry VII in 1487 was made by Innocent VIII,*°* who had followed Sixtus [V in 1484. On 17 August the collector reported to the pope that nothing had yet been done for or against the indulgences and subsidies 1° against the Turks. The business was difficult, he said, on account of the war with Scotland, and the difficulty was increased by the letter which Innocent VIII, at the request of Henry VII, had written to James IV of Scotland. Henry did not wish to have it said in the letter that it was written at his desire, but to have the letter appear to have been written at the initiative of the pope. The collector enclosed a draft of a letter which would suit the king and stated that unless the letter should be so written, there was not the slightest hope of a subsidy. If the letter should facilitate peace, the king, the clergy and the people of England could be more ready to bear a subsidy. John also reminded the pope again that the king, on account of ill health, desired a dispensation to eat meat on days of fast.*’®

Despite this failure to obtain the permission of the king, Innocent VIII, on 18 September 1488, decreed an indulgence to be offered in England. He granted within a period to be announced later, in return for aid against the Turks of four, three or two florins, or one florin, or such an amount as the commissioners might designate, the privilege of choosing

Was sent as papal nuncio to the court of the emperor Frederick: Pastor, History, V, 291. 77 C.S.P. Venice, I, 520. *°* Bernard Andrea, Vita Henrici VII, p. 54.

“°°? This phrase appears to refer to two different sources of revenue but it is merely re-

dundant phraseology. Later in the letter it appears that the subsidy was to be borne by people as well as clergy, which would not be true of a clerical subsidy. The use of ‘subsidy’ to designate the proceeds of indulgences occurs in later correspondence concerning this indulgence and also in papal letters concerning other indulgences: Reg. Vat. 869, fo. 79-797; 873, fo. 13¥-14¥, 130-32, 140.

2° CPS. Venice, I, 520.

596 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

a confessor who could absolve the penitent and confessed person from any crimes and excesses including those reserved to the pope and from ecclesiastical censures and penalties once in life. Excluded from the sins for which absolution could be given were conspiracies against the pope or the Roman see and laying violent hands on bishops or their superiors. The confessor could give once in life and once at the hour of death full remission of sins such as could be obtained in a year of jubilee at Rome and by fighting for the recovery of the Holy Land. The confessor could also commute vows except those of religion and chastity. The commissioners could grant several dispensations in return for compositions. They were retention of goods gained by usury or other wrongful methods, if the owner was unknown or in doubt, simony, clerical irregularities other than voluntary homicide or bigamy, fruits of benefices illegally received, various uncanonical aspects of marriages in the third and fourth degrees and promotion to orders before the legal age. All other plenary indulgences possessed by churches or local communities except those for the defense of the faith were suspended. The commissioners could inflict ecclesiastical censures on opponents. Competent moderate salaries were to be paid to those who performed the work of admuinistration.***

By another bull of the same date Innocent VIII appointed John de Giglis and Perseus de Malviciis, dean of the church of St Michael Leproseto in Bologna and papal cubicularius, to administer the bull and to have

charge of the money placed in the chests.!? By other bulls of the same date he appointed the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Winchester and Exeter, the archbishop of York, and the bishop of Durham associate commissioners to work with the two principal commissioners.''® Henry VII, on 2 January 1489, after Perseus had acquainted him with

the terms of the bull, wrote to the pope a letter which indicated that he was doubtful about giving consent to its publication. He expressed his desire to cooperate, but his subjects were so burdened with a subsidy for urgent public concerns that a papal subsidy could not be effected except at great inconvenience and much murmuring from the people. If opportunity offered, he would grant the papal request. Meanwhile he thought the pope ought to exhort the king of France and others of his neighboring princes to grant a similar subsidy to the Roman church in order that the burden might not be borne by England alone.*** On 28 January the commissioners had not yet received from the king a positive reply.**® Before *** Lamb. Reg. Morton, I, fo. 19-20%; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 626-29. 112 Reg, Vat. 692, fo. 222-222".

118 Ibid, I, 550. | 118 Thid., fo. 223.

14CP.S. Venice, I, 548.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 597 19 March, however, the king not only gave his approval but also promised

that he would not take a single ducat derived from the indulgence.**® Archbishop Morton was also favorably disposed. On 9 March he published copies of the bull.‘?7 He decided, however, not to accept the collectorship and left the execution of the bull to the two principal commissioners. 118

Perseus, in a letter of 19 March to the pope, related what was being done about the administration of the indulgence and speculated with regard to the amount of the financial return from it. He and John de Giglis had commissioned the bishops as administrators in their respective dioceses.

They were well affected toward Innocent VIII, and Perseus thought the business would go better than the pope had expected with regard to his being defrauded. Perseus, however, planned to give little opportunity for malversation. He intended to remain in London with the collector during Lent and thereafter to ride all over England on a tour of inspection. The allusion to fraud was due to the belief of Sixtus [V that he had not received all the money produced by his indulgences of the jubilee. This belief, Perseus implied, was based in part on an exaggerated view at the papal court of the wealth of England. He said: ‘In this kingdom, which in Italy is supposed to be full of gold and silver, I have seen nothing of the sort as yet.” When he was told that the bull would not yield 20000 ducats, he, nevertheless, found it incredible, though he was also told that the year of jubilee in the time of Sixtus IV had produced only 18,000 ducats. If he had had this information before the publication of the bull, he would not have published it without consulting the pope, believing that he would

not have placed himself under obligation to the king in return for that amount. Still the commissioner felt nearly certain that the pope would obtain his objective, since there were in England 5000 parishes and he expected to obtain not less than a ducat from each parish and hoped for more.''® The production of a sum in excess of 20,000 ducats seems to have rested more on his hope than on his expectation.

Four confessional letters issued by the two commissioners have survived. One of them is dated 6 June 1489.'7° One item of receipt was much smaller than the commissioners had hoped it would be. Before 9 May

they opened a chest which the king had placed in his court. Though the royal family, dukes, earls and other nobles were present, they found only 116 Thid., T, 551.

17 Reg. Morton, I. fo. 18%; Wilkins, Concilia, II, 626-29. 118 C.S.P. Venice, I, 551. 1° C.S.P. Venice, I, 551.

120 British Museum, printed books nos. 1 A 55127, 1 A 55128, Henry Cotton, A Typographical Gazeteer, second series, pp. 167-68; Duff, Early English Printing, Plate VII. See also Ricci, Census of Caxtons, pp. 70-71.

598 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 £11 11s. The return of £49 from dispensations up to 9 May they seemed to find more satisfactory, though they hoped to do still better with them because they were well known everywhere.’?? _ When the bull of 18 September 1488 was revoked, stopping the flow of money from indulgences is doubtful. It seems to have continued for the remainder of the pontificate of Innocent VIII,’”? and it may have remained effective until 1493 in the pontificate of Alexander VI. On 5 June 1493 Alexander VI wrote to Hadrian Castello, who had become collector in England in 1491, that, when it had been necessary for him to take action against the perfidious Turks, he had asked for a subsidy from kings and princes. Henry VII, following in the footsteps of his predecessors was, at the time of writing, causing such a subsidy to be paid in his kingdom and dominions.!73

Our knowledge of the total yield of the indulgence is probably fragmentary. On 11 August 1489 the papal camera received from the Medici a loan of 95000 florins. Among several revenues the income from the indulgences in England were assigned for its repayment.’** On 10 November 1489 the camera received from John and Perseus of the moneys of their collectorship 650 florins which it paid to the Medici.’*® Since Perseus was concerned with the collection only of the proceeds of the indulgences and the sum was paid to the Medici, it was derived from the 1ndulgences. On 1 December 1490 the camera credited John de Giglis with 2000 florins, of which 188 came from the fruits of his collectorate and 1812 florins from the indulgences.’*® On 8 June it credited Perseus and John with 2000 ducats.*?* Thus a total of 4462 florins was certainly received by the papal camera. Possibly some of the payments rendered by the two general collectors, John de Giglis and Hadrian Castello, may have contained some receipts from the indulgences, but the amount could not have been large.’?8 The receipts in 1492 are missing, and it is possible that

some of the proceeds of the indulgence were not noted in the Introitus and Exitus Registers of the camera. 1 C.S.P. Venice, 1, 553. A dispensation for a couple related by affinity to marry was issued by them on 21 December 1489; Lichfield, Reg. Hales, fo. 174. 1227 & E. 504, fo. 94; Arm. XXIX, 47, fo. 3087-09.

2° Reg. Vat. 869, fo. 79-80%. The remainder of the letter makes it clear that he was speaking of a subsidy derived from indulgences. 1241 & E. 518, fo. 94. 257, & E. 520, fo. 20. 126 Arm. XXIX, 47, fo. 309. 277 & E. 504, fo. 94.

8 Those of John de Giglis were on 22 December 1490, 700 fl., 27 January 1491, 1300 f1., 1 February 1491, 500 fl., 1491 month and day not given, 1000 fl., 31 August 1491, 200 fl. paid

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 599 12. INDULGENCE FOR THE BURDENS AND NECESSITIES OF THE

Roman CatHoitic CHurcH 1498-1499

When Alexander VI, on 22 July 1496, appointed the archbishop of Canterbury to collect from the English clergy a subsidy of 50000 ducats,**°

he also envisaged the publication of a new indulgence in England. In another letter of the same date addressed to the archbishop he announced his intention and explained the nature of the indulgence.’*° Apparently he did not send this letter, perhaps because he decided that one fiscal demand at a time was enough. On 30 May 1497 another copy of the letter was drawn up *** and this one was dispatched along with a letter of 5 June ordering the archbishop to urge the king to permit its publication in England. Archbishop Morton replied on 18 July,’*? suggesting that the levy would be more profitable to the apostolic see, if it should be postponed

until the next Lent. Heavy taxes for the war with Scotland were current,'*** but by the next lenten season the king’s subjects would have more money and be more prone to acts of devotion. He also requested that the execution of the bull should be committed to some person other than himself. Henry VII, whom the pope notified of his intention, answered to much the same effect.***

The nature of the indulgence was explained in another bull of 30 May 1497 by which Alexander VI appointed Robert Castello, a clerk of Volterra and a papal notary, commissioner for its administration. The pope granted that each rector, perpetual vicar or other having cure of souls in the parochial churches of England and Wales who paid to the commissioner or his deputies one noble—or at the discretion of the commissioner more—would entitle his lay and ecclesiastical parishioners to be absolved

for crimes, excesses and delicts ordinarily reserved to the pope and to receive plenary remission once in life and once at the time of death. The indulgence did not apply to certain of the king’s subjects, namely rebels whom the pope had excommunicated and those who should incite new to the Medici, and 11 March 1493, 125 fl: I. & E. 504, fo. 137; 524, fo. 49¥; Arm. XXIX, 47, fo. 307-08". A payment of 393 fl. is omitted because it was for Peter’s pence only. Hadrian Castello delivered on 20 September 1491, 2000 fl., on 24 October 1491 he was ordered to pay 2000 ducats to the Martelli for a loan made by them to Innocent VIII, and on 27 May 1493 he was authorized to reimburse himself from his receipts for a loan of 1000 ducats made by him to the camera: I. & E. 522, fo. 47; 524, fo. 71; Arm. XXIX, 48, fo. 21; 50, fo. 125-125¥.

**° Above, pp. 155-56. |

89 Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 130¥-32. 181 Ibid., fo. 140-41. 182 C.S.P. Venice, I, 745. +828 Above, pp. 155-56. 183 C.S.P. Venice, I, 744.

600 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 tumults. It was to hold good for eight months after its publication in England, and during that period all other papal indulgences were suspended in England. ‘The proceeds were to be used to meet the burdens and necessities of the Roman church."** By another bull of the same date Hadrian Castello, the papal collector, was associated with Robert Castello.**° ‘The indulgences began to be offered in England by 26 February 1498, since Robert Castello issued a confessional letter at London on that date.’*® On 24 June 1498 "87 the period of eight months was extended to 27 March 1499,."°® Copies of this letter were made in the house of the commissioner

near St Paul’s on 21 October 1498. They were sent to the bishops with orders to publish it. In January 1499 the bishops directed their archdeacons or other officials to see that it was announced in every church.**°

Presumably the original bull of 30 May 1497 had been published in the same manner before Lent of 1498. The individual who became entitled to the privilege of the indulgence received a confessional letter. It authorized him to choose a confessor and gave the confessor power to convey the absolutions and remissions specified in the bull. The letter of 26 February 1498 contained no other privileges, but a letter of 2 February 1499 added that the absolution at death could be repeated as often as death threatened and gave the confessor power to commute vows other than those of pilgrimage to Rome or Jerusalem, of continence and of chastity.'*° The only item of receipt from this source registered in the books of the camera, which has come to my attention, was 3000 florins delivered to the pope by Antonio Altoniti, a merchant of Florence, on 5 December

1498. They were derived, according to the entry, from indulgences granted to the rectors of churches having cure of souls in the kingdom of England.*** The record is probably incomplete, since it takes no account

of the indulgences which may have been issued in 1499. This one item, however, indicates that, unless the commissioner demanded more than a noble from some parishes, the parishioners in approximately 2000 parishes were entitled to the indulgence.** **4 Reg, Vat. 873, fo. 13-14.

**° [bid., fo. 25%. Most of this bull is lacking through the loss of the next folio in the

eae Ieoued to Robert Parke and his wife Alice of the diocese of Exeter: Catalogue of English Incunabula in the John Rylands Library, p. 72. *87 1 July in the copy sent to England. *°® Reg. Vat. 873, fo. 23¥-24.

*8°4 January, archbishop of York: D. & Ch. York P. 1 (1) VI; 30 January, bishop of Salisbury: Reg. Blyth, fo. 60¥-61. **° Issued to Edith Husse, Martin Staringes and William Bett: K. R. Eccl. Document 6/64. 1417, & E. 531, fo. 29.

*#2 The rate of exchange in 1499 was 3 ducats to the mark: Wells, Reg. King, fo. 57.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 601 13. INDULGENCE OF THE JUBILEE 1501-1502

After the year of jubilee had taken place in Rome in 1500, Alexander VI extended it to many countries. As early as 5 October 1500 he appointed

as legate to England a cardinal, who, among other duties, was to act as administrator of the indulgence. In 1501 he revoked the cardinal’s commission and appointed Jasper Ponce (Pon, Pons, Pow, Powe) commissioner for the administration of the indulgence.***? He was a Spaniard, excellent in learning and good behavior, master in theology, archdeacon of Majorca,

prothonotary of the pope and penitentiar in the basilica of St Peter in Rome."** The change of envoys met with the approval of Henry VII as a measure of economy, since the expenses of a cardinal to be deducted from the yield of the indulgence would be much larger than those of an orator of Jasper Ponce’s rank.’*° Jasper arrived in England late in 1501 or early in 1502.'*° On 24 January 1502 the archbishop of Canterbury, in accordance with the order of the commissioner, directed his suffragans to publish the bull of the year of jubilee.**”

Since I have not found a copy of the bull, it is necessary to establish the nature of the indulgence from other documents. Two copies of an announcement in English of the remissions and other privileges granted by the bull exist. Apparently it was intended for public circulation. It was written by William Butts, a student at Cambridge and presumably

a deputy of Jasper Ponce. One is a modern copy in the excerpts of Baker,**® which may be derived from the other which is earlier but probably not contemporary.**® A copy of the bull extending the indulgence to the rest of Italy *°° and the bulls of 22 December 1499 and of 4 March 1500, which defined the indulgence of the jubilee given at Rome and the powers of the penitentiars to grant absolutions and dispensations,’*? are useful supplementary sources. Any resident in England could obtain the same pardon and remission of all his sins as if he had gone to Rome in 1500 to obtain the jubilee, provided he visited the English churches prescribed by the commissioner or **8 Above, p. 157. I have not seen a copy of his commission. *“* His titles are found in official documents. The tribute was given by Grafton, Chron.,

" ite Cotton MS. Cleop. E III, fo. 156-156%; Ellis, Original Letters, first ser., I, 58. **° Probably before 4 December: above, p. 157. *“" Copies of the archbishop’s letter were dispatched by the official of the bishop of London on 13 February 1502: Wells, Reg. King, fo. 81-82. *“® Cambridge University Lib., MS. Mm. I, 45, pp. 15-20. **° Cotton MS. Cleop. E. III, fo. 150-56". This copy has been printed: Letters and Papers

Te ative of the Reigns of Richard Ill and Henry VII, I, 93-100; Lunt, Papal Revenues, "180 Amort, De Origine, pp. 96-101. *1 Above, pp. 463-64.

602 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 his deputies and put into the chest established for the purpose such a sum of money as was required by the commissioner or his deputy. Confessors were assigned by the commissioner or his deputies to the churches where the chests were located. They could give absolution for all sins, including those reserved to the pope except those denied to the penitentiars at Rome in 1500. The excepted sins were conspiracies against the pope or the apostolic see, falsifiers of papal bulls or letters, sellers to infidels of prohibited arms and wares and laying violent hands on a bishop or higher prelate. They could also absolve from ecclesiastical sentences and penalties and commute vows, excepting only the vow of religion,**? into alms for defense against the Turks, which was the designated purpose of the financial returns of the indulgence. The remission which the confessor could grant was described as ‘clean and full.’ 7° One who could not easily visit the churches on account of illness or debility was allowed to have the indulgence for himself and his household, if he made a composition with the commissioner or one of his deputies. The indulgence for souls of relatives and friends in purgatory, which was offered in the bull establishing the jubilee in Rome in 1500 and in the bull extending the jubilee to the remainder of Italy, probably was not included in the bull extending the jubilee to England. Butts says naught of such an indulgence in his summary. The commissioner could settle all doubts which might arise concerning

the interpretation of the bull. The clergy were required to publish the bull in their churches under penalty of excommunication which only the pope could remove. Opponents, including, according to Butts, those who ‘persuade, directly or indirectly, any person to withdraw their good mind or purpose’ to obtain the indulgence, were subject to the same sentence. The chests were to be opened by the keepers of the keys only in the presence of witnesses who would attest a written statement of the contents.

The money was to be transmitted to the papal camera. The indulgence was to remain in effect from its publication to the end of the octave of Easter. During that period all other indulgences were suspended. The amount of the payment required for the indulgence was stated in the bull extending the jubilee to Italy to be one-quarter of what it would have cost to go to and from Rome and to remain there for the time required +52 This exception is not noted in the summary of Butts, but it appears in the bull for Italy. *53 Butts adds: ‘it is called a poena et culpa.’ The bull for Italy does not use that phrase. Neither the summary nor the bull for Italy mentions remission at death, but on 2 April 1502, the day before the indulgence expired, Jasper Ponce issued confessional letters granting the choice of a confessor who could give plenary remission once in life and once at death: Chancery Misc. Bdle. 15, File 6, nos. 25-26.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 603 to obtain the indulgence of 1500. If any were too poor to pay this amount the commissioner or the deputy could free them from the payment wholly

or in part. Those who received the indulgence without visiting the pre- | scribed local churches were to put in the chest as much as the victuals of their households for a week would have cost. Since the households of archbishops, bishops, kings, dukes, marquises, earls, barons, nobles and some other secular and religious ecclesiastics would be large, the commissioner or his deputy could reduce the amount after taking into account the resources

of the payer. In all of these arrangements the amount charged any individual was at the discretion of the commissioner or his deputy. To determine what one-fourth the cost of the trip to Rome or what the living expenses of a household would have been the social status and the income of the applicant would have to be considered. Jasper Ponce solved the problem by assessing the amount of the payment necessary for the plenary remission in proportion to the value of the annual income of the giver. The assessment applied to every person, lay or clerical, of whatever social status. Butts’ summary gives the assessment, in detail. Since the cost of a plenary indulgence was often established by the administrator in relation to the estimated wealth of the payer, and this is the only complete list which has come to light, its tabulation seems worth while.

Laymen and secular clergy having lands, tenements or rents

of the yearly value of amount of payment £ s, d.

£2000 or more 3 6 8 £1000 to £2000 exclusive 2 0 0 £400 to £1000 Ss” 1 6 8 £200 to £400 ” 13. 4 £100 to £200 ” 6 8 £40 to £100 ” 2 6

£20 to £40 ” 1 4 Payment by a layman included his wife and unmarried children. The religious with lands, tenements or rents

of the yearly value of amount of payment £ s. d.

£2000 or more 10 0 0 £1000 to £2000 exclusive 6 13 £400 to £1000 Ss ” 3 6 84

£200 to £400 ” 2 0 O £100 to £200 ” 1 0 £40 to £100 ” 0 10 00

The indulgence applied to the head of the house and to the members of the convent.

604 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

£1000 2 0 O £400 to £1000 exclusive 668 £200 to £400 ” 2 £20 to £200 ” 1 0

Laymen whose lands and rents were worth £40 or less a year who possessed movable goods

of the value of amount of payment

The indulgence applied to a man, his wife and his children. Those whose movable goods were worth less than £20 paid for husband, wife, and children as it pleased them of their devotion. The powers of dispensation and absolution which could be exercised solely by the commissioner, as explained by Butts, were not as extensive as those granted to the peniteniars in 1500 or the commissioner of the indulgence for Italy. He could dispense for simony so that a person guilty of it could continue to keep the orders, benefices or fruits obtained thereby and

for any irregularities in divine services resulting therefrom, unless the simoniac had committed voluntary homicide or bigamy. He could also dispense those who obtained goods dishonestly, usurers, occupiers or withholders of the goods of other men and finders of hidden goods and allow them to retain the goods, provided the goods could not be restored to the owners. For these dispensations compositions had to be paid to the fund. The administration of the indulgence and the disposal of the proceeds left little trace in official records. The indulgence made sufficient stir to attract the attention of Polydore Virgil, who arrived in England in 1502. It was his belief that Alexander VI received from it a large amount of money.**® Ferdinand and Isabella, of whom the former was not of a trusting disposition, thought that if the money was sent to the pope, he would

use it for purposes other than an army and fleet to be sent against the Turks,15° 14. INDULGENCE FoR St PETER’s Rome 1507-1509

Julius II displayed originality in the grant of plenary indulgences administered by papal agents by providing a new purpose for which the funds were to be used. He undertook the gigantic task of rebuilding the church of St Peter’s in Rome. Since this project was of interest to the whole Roman catholic obedience and the papal income was too slender to finance it without help, on 6 January 1506 he notified Henry VII and several English prelates and nobles of his intention and sought from them *8° Anglica Historia, pp. 120, 132. Grafton follows Virgil: Chron., II, 221-22. 15° C.S.P, Spanish, I, 315.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 605 |

} p onan BC y

ifts to help finance the work.!®7 No indulgence was offered for any contri-

bution which might be made. On 18 April 1506 he notified Henry VII that on that day he had laid the first stone of the new basilica and expressed

the appropriate hope that he might be able to end what had thus been begun.*°*

By that time he had conceived the idea of offering indulgences to those who contributed to the expenses of the project. One of the earliest papal

indulgences known to be authentic was granted to contributors to the repairs of a monastery in France,’®® and throughout the centuries that had remained one of the most common purposes for which papal indulgences

had been granted to local communities. There could be no better object of good works of this type than the reconstruction of the church which was the head of the Roman catholic world. In a letter addressed to the abbot and convent of St Augustine Canterbury on 18 April 1506 Julius II said that he had granted full remission and indulgence of all sins to promote the rebuilding of St Peter’s.’®

Despite this statement, the first known bull of Julius II which offered such indulgences was issued on 12 February 1507.'* It granted to those who put into chests set up in Rome for the purpose an amount of money left to their generosity the choice of a confessor who could give them at the point of death a partial indulgence, if the amount was less than 10 grossi,'° and a plenary remission, if the amount was 10 grossi or more. The indulgence could be obtained during a year and a day from the date

pets y Cepury an ;

of the publication of the bull.*° The visit to Rome could be made in erson or by deputy.?®* Soon after this bull was issued, others were expedited at various dates establishing the indulgences in several countries

of Europe.’ The bull which extended the indulgence to England was dated 31 October 1507.1% It mentioned the indulgence which could be obtained 187 Arm. XX XIX, 22, fo. 434-434"; Pastor, History, VI, 637-38. 58 Arm, XXXIX, 22, fo. 480: Raynaldus, 1506, § 45. 6° Tunt, Papal Revenues, I, 112. 160 Arm. XXXIX, 22, fo. 480%. It may refer to an indulgence which the pope had announced orally at the ceremony of laying the foundation stone: Pastor, History, VI, 474. 161 Remy says definitely that it was the first: Les grandes Indulgences, p. 152. Neither

Paulus (Geschichte, Ill, 170-73) nor Pastor (History, VI, 482) mentions any earlier bull. +62 Probably worth a little less than a cameral florin: Hoffmann, Forschungen, Il, 199-200. 168 Remy, Les grandes Indulgences, p. 152. On 12 May 1507 the period was prolonged: Reg. Vat. 938, fo. 4-97. *64 Reg. Vat. 939, fo. 19.

165 Remy, Les grandes Indulgences, p. 152; Paulus, Geschichte, Ill, 171-73, Reg. Vat. 939, fo. 14V-18V.

186 Schulte gives the date as 4 November 1507: Die Fugger, I, 59. So also does Paulus, Geschichte, Il, 172.

606 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 at Rome, and stated that the pope wished the subjects of the king of England to share the privilege without coming or sending to Rome. The indulgence granted to those who visited required churches in England and put money for the fabric of St Peter’s in the chests established to receive it to choose a confessor who could convey absolution for sins. They included those reserved to the pope, except plots against the pope, killing bishops or their superiors in the hierarchy, falsification of papal letters or bulls, the sale of arms and other prohibited goods to infidels and the sale to Christians of alum obtained from infidels. The plenary remission of sins could be given once in life and once at the point of death. The confessor could also relax ecclesiastical censures and commute vows excepting those

of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, of chastity and of religion. The churches to be visited and to hold the chests were to be selected by the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of St Davids, whom the pope appointed commissioners to execute the bull. he commissioners could give dispensations for goods acquired dishonestly by usury or other methods, provided the goods were returned to their owners and a composition was paid, or, if they could not be returned, if they were given to the fund. They could also give dispensations and arrange compositions for some types of violations of the laws concerning the marriage of relatives, for simony and for some other breaches of the canon law. The souls of relatives in purgatory

could have the fullest indulgence by way of aid of the church, if the fabric was aided with liberal hands. , The indulgence could be gained during a year from the date of the publication of the bull in England. The amount of the gift necessary to secure the indulgence was to be established by the assessment of the commissioners, a provision which meant that the amount was to be propor-

tioned to the wealth of the giver. Plenary indulgences granted by the predecessors of Julius IJ to communities, against the Turks or for any other purpose were to be suspended. The commissioners were to excommunicate those who refused to publish the bull or opposed its execution in any other manner.*°? When the bull was brought to the attention of the king, he raised objections to some of the provisions, which were made known to the pope +87 Etsi ex addressed to all Christ’s faithful: Reg. Vat. 939, fo. 20-217. In this copy of the bull for England the reader is referred for a portion of the bull to the copy of the same bull for Spain. That is on fo. 16-18%. A copy of the most of this bull appears in Cotton MS. Vitel. B. Ill, fo. 148-51. The address, the date and the introduction are lacking. The commissioners are said to be William, archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert, bishop St Davids. Since Robert Sherborn was translated to Chichester on 18 September 1508, this cannot be a copy of a bull of 1517, the date ascribed to it in L. & P., Il, pt. 2, 3768.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 607 by the commissioners.'*® On 18 March 1508 Julius notified Henry VII that he had made the desired changes in the bull by another letter issued under the leaden bull. All other indulgences including that granted to St James Compostella **? were suspended, but the king and his mother would be permitted to obtain the indulgence granted to the chapel built by the king in Westminster.17° Only those who brought alum bought from the infidels into England would be excluded from the opportunity to have the indulgence; it would not be denied to those who had bought and sold such alum in England.*”* Finally, the pope assured the king that the portion of the proceeds of the indulgence which he desired to have would be assigned to him.*”?

Apparently the first bull was announced in England, then withdrawn

and superseded by the second bull. According to Bernard Andrea the indulgence, which he described as ‘most ample,’ was proclaimed at Paul’s

cross on 5 April. Later, for a reason unknown to the chronicler, it was suppressed and brought to light again in May limited by many cases.'7 This accords with the fact that the archbishop of Canterbury did not order his suffragans to take the necessary steps to establish the administration of the indulgence until 15 May 1508,'"* although confessional letters were issued at Lambeth by the two commissioners on 3 May."

The bishop of Winchester acted on the mandate of the archbishop, of which a copy was sent to him by the bishop of London on 30 May, by an order addressed to his archdeacons on 15 June. It placed upon them the duty of carrying out the archbishop’s instructions.**® They required the bishop to have announced in all the churches of his diocese in the *°° By mistake the papal reply calls William Warham archbishop of York. *°° Above, pp. 502-06. *7° Above, pp. 500-01.

*** On the papal attempt to monopolize the Christian trade in alum see below, pp. 000-000.

* Arm. XXXIX, 28, fo. 1527-53. On 18 October 1508, long after the bull had been published, the pope ordered the commissioner to publish it in such a way that the hospital of St Thomas in Rome would not be deprived of the alms which it was accustomed to receive in England: Arm. XXXIX, 28, fo. 560%. On the indulgence of the hospital see above, pp. 490-91.

*° Vita Henrici VII, pp. 114, 116. The five cases were the offenses for which absolution could not be given by the confessors. He also states that the four exactors (sic) of alum were excepted from the indulgence and that the royal pardon was excepted from the suspension of other indulgences. Since these two provisions were in the second bull only, it was this bull which was published in May and not the first, as his statement might seem to imply. *74'Winchester, Reg. Fox, II, fo. 142. 7° K. R. Eccl. Document 5/66; British Museum, leaf at the beginning of a printed book numbered C, 11 b. 11 (1). One letter was issued to Katherine Langley, who, presumably

then a widow, added this to the several confessional letters which she had previously received jointly with her husband. 76 Reg. Fox, II, fo. 142-43.

608 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 vulgar tongue the bull of indulgence and the assessments of the cost established by the commissioners. He was to appoint in each church or in other places where crowds gathered a secular priest for explaining and delivering confessional letters to those who wished to receive them. For each letter

he could charge one grossus.’"” In each of these places the bishop was to have a chest set up with the customary three locks, to which he was to have one key, a secular priest another and a layman the third. He was to announce that other apostolic indulgences were suspended, except that of the king and his mother visiting the royal chapel in Westminster, and to post notices to that effect in the places where these indulgences could usually be obtained. The confessional letters add the information that the dispensations and compositions could be arranged only by the commissioners or delegates appointed by them especially for the purpose. The papal camera received from this indulgence, on 7 August 1509, 1700 ducats for 560 marks delivered in London by the archbishop to a member of the bank of the Sauli,?”® and, on 27 February 1510, 1309 ducats for £300 paid in London by the archbishop to Raphael Marufo, a merchant

of Genoa.’*® The total yield of the levy, even if £673 6 s 8 d represent all that the pope received, was considerably more than that sum, because the king received a share and the expenses of collection had to be met. 15. REPUTED INDULGENCE FOR THE WAR AGAINST FRANCE 1512

It is possible that Julius II, toward the end of his pontificate, may have

granted an indulgence to those who took part in or contributed to the expenses of the war which Henry VIII began against France in 1512. The possibility rests upon what appears to be a contemporary extract from a papal bull or brevium. According to the extract the pope (os) granted to those who went with Henry VIII or his captains to fight against Louis XII for six months, if they should be killed, the fullest pardon and remission of sins for which they were contrite and confessed. The same was

granted to those who were concerned with supply in the camps. An indulgence was also offered for gifts toward the expense of the expedition of an amount prescribed by the administrators of the indulgence. Henry VIII was to name ecclesiastics who could select the churches where chests should be placed and confessors should be established. The confessors were empowered to give absolution for all sins, including those reserved to the pope except attacks on the liberty of the church, heresy, conspiracy *"* Worth probably about 4 d. 78 T, & E. 546, fo. 72; 547, fo. 76; Schulte, Die Fugger, I, 59, n. 4. 79 T, & E. 548, fo. 28V¥.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 609 or rebellion against the pope, falsification of papal letters, laying violent hands on a bishop or superior prelate, prohibition of the devolution of causes to the Roman court and the carrying of arms or other forbidden products to the infidels. They could also commute vows except those of pilgrimage to Rome or Compostella, of chastity or of religion.**° The extract is not notarized. It omits the salutation, the preamble and the date. A modern hand supplied ‘Rome, March 1513.’ This would make

Leo X the grantor, but no such bull or brevium was registered among those which he issued in March 1513.'8' The editors of Rymer’s Foedera conjecture 1512 '8* and the editor of Letters and Papers 20 December 1512.183 The document must have been written after November 1511, when Henry VIII signed a treaty with Ferdinand of Aragon committing himself to go to war against France in April 1512.*** This placed Henry on the side of the Holy League, in which the pope was one of the principal parties, and gave him an advantageous position for asking favors of Julius

II. On 20 March 1512 the pope conferred upon Henry the title of king of France, if he should win the war.'** If the indulgence is authentic, its issue about that time would seem probable, since 1t would then have been of most service to the king in obtaining recruits and money for the projected invasion of France. Leo X, at the beginning of his pontificate, revoked all the indulgences issued by Julius II except those for St Peter’s.18* On 21 June 1513, however, he confirmed all the graces, indulgences and prerogatives which his predecessor had granted to Henry VIII, and, if necessary, granted them

| anew.'®? If the indulgence for the war against France was authentic, it was included among the indulgences confirmed. If there is a copy of this letter in the registers of Julius II, it escaped my search of them. If there is evidence of the administration of such an indulgence, it has not come to my attention. 16. INDULGENCE FOR ST PETER’s Rome 1517-1521

Early in 1517 Leo X contemplated the establishment once more in England of an indulgence for the building of St Peter’s. Before issuing 180 Cotton MS. Vitel. B. II, fo. 36-37. +8? Leonis X Reg. pp. 2-113. 182 VI, pt. 1, 37.

1837 3602.

184 Fisher, History of England from the Accession of Henry VII, p. 171. *8> Ferrajoli, ‘Breve inedito, Arch. della R. Societa Romana, XIX, 426-29. 18° Pastor, History, VII, 329. 187 Arm. XX XIX, 30, fo. 46-46%; XL, 2, fo. 27; Leonis X Reg. 3271-72; Raynaldus, 1513, § 57.

610 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

a bull for the purpose, he told Silvester de Giglis, bishop of Worcester and ambassador of Henry VIII, of his intention. The bishop replied that it had never been usual to do this without having the consent of the king and giving him a share of the proceeds. The pope thereupon ordered the bishop to write to Wolsey and offer one-quarter. In reporting this conversation to Peter Vannes to be relayed to Wolsey, the ambassador suggested that if Wolsey thought it right, he would try to obtain a third for the king.18® On 20 February 1517 Worcester wrote to Ammonius that he had informed the pope that the king did not object to the administration in England of an indulgence for the building of St Peter’s.**? He did not say what share the king was to receive. The bull was issued before 1 November 1517. On that date Leo X, by a brief, appointed a depositary for the funds owed to the fabric of St Peter from a plenary indulgence recently granted to the beloved sons, (the Augustinian friars, subjects '°°) of ‘the illustrious king’ for the repair of their churches and houses and for the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles.'°* The indulgence was available to all persons of the kingdom of England. The brief states also that the pope had written to the (archbishop of Canterbury,***) exhorting him to see that the bull was executed by his suffragans and other

subjects." I have not found a copy of the bull which explained the nature of the indulgence and the methods of its administration,*** but for once we are blessed with a full account of the net receipts. It was rendered by Edmund Bellond, prior of the house of the Augustinian friars in London,**® and by Rafael Maruffo, treasurer in behalf of the pope of the indulgence of St Peter on 5 April 1522. The receipts were divided equally between the order of Augustinian friars in England and the papal camera. The receipts of the order from the chests throughout England and subject places during the five years the indulgence was offered were, as reported by Edmund Bellond: *° LL. @ P., Il, pt. 2, App. no. 35. The editor dates this letter April, but presumably it was written before 20 February 1517. 189 T & P., Il, pt. 2, 2890. *°°’The document is badly damaged and parts of it are illegible. The words in brackets are conjectural. *®" The name of the person who was appointed is lost, but it was Rafael Maruffo: L. & P., Ill, pt. 2, 2163. *°? Conjectural.

*°? P.R.O., State Papers, I, vol. XVI, p. 44; L. & P., II, pt. 2, 3767.

*°*It obviously is not the bull of indulgence which the editor of L. & P. dates 1517: above, 605, n. 157. *°° bThe house was located near the church of St Peter le Poor in Broad St.: V.C.H.

London, I, 510.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 611

£ S. d.

1517, 494 12 5

1518 215 3 4%

1519 173 2 6 921 1299 4 7 1520 132 11 11

Total 1144 14 91,196 Rafael Maruffo acknowledged receipt from divers chests during the whole

period of £1144 13 s 11 d, which he had sent to Rome as he had been commissioned to do.*®? 17. No FurtHer INDULGENCES ADMINISTERED BY Papa AGENTS IN ENGLAND

This was the last papal indulgence administered by papal agents in England, but the possibility that another might be offered did not cease immediately. The warfare against the Turks, which had been the avowed financial purpose of so many indulgences, continued to receive some atten-

tion from the papacy. After the pontificate of Julius II, whose principal interest was in the political affairs of Italy, Leo X revived the project of a crusade.’®”* He offered crusading indulgences to promote that purpose in several countries,’’® but England was not among them. During the short pontificate of Adrian VI Rhodes was captured by the Turks. The pope imposed taxes in his own domains for the war against the Turks, but he did not establish indulgences in other countries.'?®

Clement VII renewed the agitation for a crusade. From time to time he sent envoys to secure the support of Henry VIII for a common undertaking.?°° In 1528 Henry VIII wrote to the pope that he had ordered 20000 crowns to be paid to the order of St John of Jerusalem for the papal expedition against the Turks,?°* but the money was not derived from indulgences. In the next year, when the emperor sent ambassadors to 196 The addition is mine. “tT & P., Il, pt. 2, 2163. 72 Above, pp. 166-67. *°8 Paulus, Geschichte, Ul, 223-25. *°° Pastor, History, TX, 170-83.

200 1523, L. & P., Il, pt. 2, 3587-88; 1524, Arm. XL, 8, fo. 100, 124; L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 284, 507; Allen, Opus Epistolarum, V, 1466; 1526, Arm. XX XIX, 46, fo. 102-1027; VL, 10, fo. 85; 11, fo. 103, 105, 109, 111, 230; 13, fo. 54, 137; Principi 4, fo. 84; Addit. Charter 12800; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. VIII, fo. 23; L. & P., IV, pt. 1, 1992, 1995, 2327-28; 1529, Raynaldus, 1529 § 44; Cotton MS. Vitel. B. XI, fo. 231; L. © P., IV, pt. 3, 5981, 6056; 1530, Arm. XL, 31, fo. 146; 1532, Arm. XL, 41, fo. 7-87, 14-15. He sent nuncios in 1527 and 1528, but their business 1s not explained in the references to their appointments: L. @ P., IV, pt. 2, 3671, 3756, 5032; Pocock, Records, I, 34, 59; Arm. XL, 17, fo. 265; 21, fo. 34-347, 192-193. *** 25 February: Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 561.

612 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

England, they were instructed what to answer if the king or a member of his council should ask for suggestions concerning the best way of help-

ing the king of Hungary against the Turks. Among other things they were to suggest a papal crusading indulgence throughout the Christian world and the levy of a tenth from the clergy. Henry VIII replied that so much money had gone out of the kingdom that none was then left for financial help against the Turks.?°? On 4 January 1532 Clement VII again appealed to Henry VIII to join with other princes in combating the Turks. He answered on 7 February that his orators would let the pope know his mind with regard to the Turks,?°* leaving us to surmise what his thought may have been. It may not be too hazardous to guess that Henry VIII was not then in a mood to help a project promoted by Clement VII. On 9 June 1532 a jubilee indulgence against the Turks was announced in Rome, which was later to be proclaimed to the Christian world.”°* Since parliament had already passed the act in conditional restraint of annates, it seems improbable that the king would have permitted the indulgence to be administered in England to provide money for the papal camera. Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador in England, whose opinion of Henry’s relations with the pope

was naturally prejudiced, held a different view. On 1 October 1532 he wrote: ‘As to the indulgences, there is no question that the king would have wished them to be published so as to continue his threats against the Pope.’ ?°° The implication seems to be that Henry VIII desired to have the indulgence established in England in order that he could hold back the proceeds as an added threat to induce Clement VII to grant the divorce.

Whether it was due to the king or to the pope the indulgence was not offered in England. 18. Encetish Pustic OPINION CONCERNING PAPAL INDULGENCES

What a majority of Englishmen thought about papal indulgences at any given time during the period cannot be determined with any certainty. Late in the fourteenth century there was an outburst of criticism of some

aspects of indulgences such as had not before taken written form. The criticisms in the Canterbury Tales and Piers Plowman are the best known.

Chaucer did not express disbelief in papal indulgences. He held up to derision the abuses practiced by questors in distributing papal indulgences; abuses which had disturbed popes, prelates and clergy for a long time.?°°

Whether the author of Piers Plowman denied the efficiency of papal in202 C.S.P. Spanish, IV, pt. 1, no. 195, p. 344. 298 Pocock, Records, Il, 178-83. 24 C.S.P. Spanish, IV, pt. 2, 960.

57. & P., V, p. 592. *°S Above, pp. 477-78.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 613 dulgences has been the subject of controversy among scholars,”°" but he believed that an indulgence would not be worth much at doomsday unless Do-Well helped.?°* He also gave brief but stinging criticisms of the questors.2°® Both authors decried the emphasis which questors placed on obtaining money for their pardons. How much influence these poems may have had on contemporary or later popular thought cannot be estimated. John Wyclif also criticized harshly the financial aspect of indulgences. Again and again he spoke of men chaffering with indulgences and he called indulgences merchandise. The pope, he claimed, granted pardons to spoil men of their money and not for ‘soulehele.’ To take money for pardons was to sell God’s grace and was therefore simony.”*? What he designated as the sale of indulgences had several evil consequences. The money paid

for them went to rich prelates and thereby deprived the poor of alms which thy should have had.?*? A rich man could buy an indulgence which would enable him to attain heaven, but a poor man could not afford one.” If the pope had such a power, he ought to assoil all his subjects so that all

would go to heaven and none to hell.?** He also begrudged the money which indulgences took out of England.?’* His followers perpetuated many of these ideas,?1* and the evil of ‘selling’ indulgences was maintained by some of them who were tried for heresy down to 1533.7*° A sermon, written probably in the neighborhood of 1450,?*" expressed no disbelief in papal plenary indulgences, but it belittled their importance.

The preacher reminded his hearers that the pope granted full remission of all sins each fifty years to one who came to Rome in that year. Since all men could not go there, the pope of heaven, Jesus Christ, granted to all men and women pardon of their sins on their death-day provided they did three things: (1) full contrition with shrift, (2) full charity without feigning, (3) stable faith without faltering.”'® Without these three no man could have a pardon at Rome or elsewhere.**® 207 Frank, ‘The Pardon Scene in Piers Plowman,’ Speculum, XXVI, 318-24. 208 Piers Plowman, 1, 100-02; II, 120-21. See also III, 358. 20° Tbid., I, 27; IL, 4, 30.

*1° English Works, pp. 66, 82-83, 238; Select English Works, I, 58; Il, 417; Ill, 356, 444. °*™ English Works, p. 81.

12 English Works, pp. 82, 464; Polemical Works, I, 424. 718 English Works, 81-82.

14 Ibid., p. 82; Select English Works, II, 166, 314; Ill, 246, 385. 1° Select English Works, Ill, 459-60; Purvey, Remonstrances, pp. 57-58, 65-66, Apology for Lollard Doctrines, p. 10; Lanterne of Light, p. 17. 1° Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), p. 335; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. S., fo. 358%; Foxe, Acts

and Monuments, IV, 177, V, 23; Muller, Stephen Gardiner, p. 14; Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, V, 365.

717 After 19 January 1449 when the interval between jubilees was changed from 33 years to 50: above, pp. 462-63. "18 flateryng, text. 729 Mirk, Festial, Erbe, I, 74.

614 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Disbelief in the power of the pope to grant indulgences was sometimes

expressed. After 1378 Wyclif repudiated the whole doctrine of indulgences. His most elaborate argument against the validity of indulgences was made in his De Ecclesia,?*° but he asserted the principle in many of his other works. Some of his assertions and explanations may be noted. ‘He that trusts to pope’s bulls or assoiling for penalty and sin . . . is foolishly

deceived in his belief and hope.’ 7? God, he claimed, did not constitute the pope his vicar for remitting part of the period of penance here or in purgatory.*** A reason why one should not believe in an indulgence was that neither the pope nor his curia knew whether the person to whom an indulgence was granted would be damned, or whether what was in the bulls was the will of God.?** The pope in granting an indulgence went beyond what Christ and his apostles did.?** Christ in all his gospel never used such a power nor did any of his apostles.?*? The substance of his principal argument is summed up in a tract which may have been written by him or by one of his followers in these words: ‘But of the pardon that men use today from the Court of Rome, they have no certainty by holy writ, nor reason nor examples of Christ or his apostles.’ ??° This view Wyclif impressed strongly upon his disciples who followed

him into heresy. Knighton included among the typical doctrines of the Lollards that neither pope nor archbishops could grant an indulgence, and

that all trusting in such indulgences were maledicti.**" In an answer of the Lollards to charges against them made in 1388 or 1389 it was said that Christ and his apostles never used indulgences, and yet they taught all that was needful for salvation. ‘And more than a man deserves by good life ending in Christ shall he never have for all the bulls in earth.’ ??* John Purvey argued at length against the validity of papal indulgences.?*? The Apology for Lollard Doctrines ?*° not only denied the power of the pope to grant indulgences but denied also the power of pardoners to dispense vows, assoil of swearing, manslaying or other sins, forgive those uncertain of the owners of money evilly gained, forgive a fourth part of enjoined 220 Dp, 549-87.

721 English Works, p. 339. 222 Polemical Works, II, 510. 228 Dialogus, p. 25.

24 Tractatus de Potestate Pape, p. 391. 2° English Works, p. 81. *26 Select English Works, Ill, 385. 227 Chron., Il, 260-61.

28 Select English Works, Ill, 459-60. 22° Remonstrances, pp. 57-66.

*8° Pp. 7-12, 77-78. The Apology is attributed to Wyclif, but it mentions an abbey which

received an indulgence as of the Portiuncula. Since the first indulgences of this type in England were granted by Boniface IX, the tract must have been written in 1390 or later.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 615 penance, draw a soul from purgatory, grant full remission of sins or assoil a pena eta culpa. The Lanterne of Light, a Lollard tract of the early part of the fifteenth century, voices the same thought by saying that the pope used false laws in indulgences.?*? In 1412 the University of Oxford made

a statement to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans of the heresies of John Wyclif. One of them was that indulgences, privileges and the regulation of the church were new in law and were fantasies without foundation in reason or scripture.”*” Denial of the power of the pope to grant indulgences soon became one of the standard tests for heresy. In 1390 and 1391 William Swynderby and Walter Brut were accused of it and the statements were declared to be heretical or erroneous.?°? Similar cases occurred in 1428,72* 1433,?%° 1469,°°° and 1489.?37 Numerous accounts of trials for heresy in episcopal registers of the fifteenth century which have not yet been published would probably multiply the number of instances. Between 1510 and 1521 four of the several heretics tried before Bishop Fitz James of London held this belief.22® Between 1527 and 1533 the number of such cases increased

rapidly. There were upward of twenty.?*? Some of them were the heirs of Wyclif’s heresy **° and some were influenced by Luther.?** These were persons who talked to others about their beliefs sufficiently

to attract some attention, or they would not have been tried for heresy. As early as 1502 the administration of a papal indulgence believed that there might be enough popular opposition to endanger its financial success, since

he gave warning that one who persuaded another not to seek the indulgence would be excommunicated. Whether the opponents whom he feared were heretics or not, the subsequent increase of heretics who disbelieved in papal indulgences is probably symptomatic of their continued decline in popular favor.

During the reign of Henry VIII two heretics published their views with regard to indulgences. Simon Fish, about 1529, had printed a pamphlet called ‘A Supplicacyon for the Beggars.’ It was a savage attack on 731 P, 17,

282 Wilkins, Concilia, IT], 339, 345.

*89 Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), pp. 231, 236, 247-48, 268-70, 279, 282-83, 335-36, 361, 363, 367, 388-89.

*84 Gairdner, Lollardy, I, 154.

8° Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 154. *8° Reg. Stanbury (Hereford), pp. 118-21. *87T), & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. S., fo. 358; Janelle, L’Angleterre catholique, p. 54. 288 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 1V, 175-77, 243. 89 Ibid., IV, 583-84, 617, 625-26; V, 23-24, 26, 29, 33, 39; L. & P., IV, pt. 2, pp. 1790, 1859, 1875-77, 1945, Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, V, 364-65, 373, 375. 49 Strype, Eclesiastical Memorials, V, 365. *T. & P., IV, pt. 2, p. 1945; Foxe, Acts and Monuments, IV, 617; V, 26.

616 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

| the clergy. He argued that if there was a purgatory, and the pope could deliver one soul thence for money, he was a tyrant unless he delivered all souls there and destroyed purgatory. Remission of sins, he asserted, was

not given by the pope’s pardon, but by Christ for the faith we have in him.?*? This pamphlet interested Henry VIII, because Fish claimed that the clergy took so much money that the subjects could not help the king, and he called upon the king to limit the power of the clergy.”*°

William Tyndale, a Lutheran, writing between 1527 and 1530, attacked the doctrine of papal indulgences vigorously in pamphlets which led to a controversy with Sir Thomas More,”** His tone was serious and his criticism bitter, but once his sarcasm had a light touch. Writing soon after the confirmation by Clement VII of the indulgence of the gild of St Mary of Boston, which included an indulgence for the souls of deceased relatives and friends of members such as could be obtained by a visit to the chapel of Scala Coeli in Rome,?** he said: ‘the pope for money can empty

purgatory when he will... . His fatherhood sendeth them to heaven with Scala Coeli; that is with a ladder to scale the walls; for by the door, Christ, will they not let them come in.’ **® Since the ‘Boston pardons’ were well known, this may have been effective propaganda. Another criticism of a specific indulgence is related by the author of

a life of Bishop John Fisher of Rochester. When Leo X established in England the indulgence for St Peter’s, Bishop Fisher, who was chancellor of Cambridge, had printed notices of the indulgences posted in the university. Someone wrote on one of them that they were ‘vanities and madnesses.’ The chancellor declared the writer excommunicated, but failed to find out who he was.?4*

There were also orthodox writers who, during the reign of Henry VIII, found much to criticize in papal indulgences. One of them was Erasmus. He lived for several years in England and after he went to reside on the continent he kept in touch with his English friends and acquaintances by correspondence. He certainly had much influence on English thought, though the case of Thomas Topley, an Augustinian friar, who, when he was being tried for heresy in 1532, confessed that the Fables of 248 Passim.

244 “Parable of the Wicked Mammon’ in Doctrinal Treatises, pp. 74, 86-87; “Obedience of a Christian Man,’ ibid., pp. 269, 271; An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, pp. 47,

103, 141. In the last he speaks of buying pardons from the pope and of the papal merchandise in pardons.

| "45 Above, pp. 496-98. 74° Obedience of a Christian Man, p. 244. *47 Life of Fisher, ed. Bayne, pp. 21-25.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 617 Erasmus had caused him to shrink in his faith,?*® may have been exceptional.

Erasmus, in his Enchiridion first published in 1503, gave the advice: “Thou believest perchance all thy sins and offenses will be washed away at once with a little paper or parchment sealed with wax, with a little money or images of wax offered, with a little pilgrimage going. Thou art utterly deceived and clean out of the way. The wound is received inwardly, the medicine therefore must needs be laid to within.’ **° ‘This might be interpreted as a repudiation of indulgences, but when a new edition was printed in 1518 Erasmus corrected that impression with the statement: ‘As if a man did admonish and give us warning that it is more sure to trust unto goods deeds than to trust to the pope’s pardon, yet he doth not forsooth condemn the pope’s pardons, but preferreth that which by Christ’s learning and doctrine is of more certainty.’ *°°

On 5 March 1518 he wrote to John Colet: ‘Hypocrites reign in the courts of princes; the court of Rome is shameless; what can be more gross than these continued indulgences?’ He thought that the war against the Turks was only a pretext when the real purpose was to drive the Spanish

from Naples.?°! Later in 1518 he expressed the opinion that Luther’s Theses, except a few about purgatory, would please all.?°? In his Colloquies, published in 1522, he had one of his characters say:

‘I don’t speak slightingly of Indulgences themselves, but I laugh at the Folly of my fuddling Companion who .. . chose rather to venture the whole Stress of his Salvation upon a skin of parchment than upon the Amendment of his Life.’ Later he defended this statement as being far from heretical. He thought it a duty to warn people not to put their trust in bulls, unless they changed their life and corrected their evil desires. Papal bulls, he said, demand contrition.”*? In the next year he said in his Spongia: ‘Nor have I ever totally condemned indulgences, though I have always hated this shameless trade in them.’ *°* Another writer, who professed to be orthodox, was Saint-Germain, an

English lawyer who wrote a Treatise concernynge the Division between the Spiritualitie and the Temporalitie published in 1532. His theme was that the clergy had too much wealth and power and should be regulated 248 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, V, 40. 249 D180. 259 P, 26.

10. & P., Il, pt. 2, 3992. He wrote in a similar strain to More: Nichols, Epistles of Erasmus, KI, 282. *52 Smith, Erasmus, p. 217.

7°31, pp. xxii, 55; Allen, Opus Epistolarum, V, nos. 1299-1301. 54 Emerton, Erasmus, p. 373.

618 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 by the state, which was pleasing to Henry VIII. Saint-Germain believed in indulgences, but he mentioned the prevalent currents of opinion about them. Some said that granting of pardons comes of covetousness of the church and profits not the people. Others spoke only of abuses and not against indulgences themselves. Another thing that has caused people ‘to grudge’ against the pope has been the granting of pardons for money. It had been noised abroad that money which was to be bestowed to charitable use, such as the building of St Peter’s, had been used for other purposes. ‘This rumor had caused many to think that the pardons were granted out of covetousness rather than out of charity or for the health of the souls

of the people. The lawyer held that the pardon was good, even if the grantor offended in making the grant. What was needed was that rulers should take care to have pardons granted in such charitable manner that people would have no occasion to regard them as granted out of covetousness. Then the grantors and the takers would profit themselves; otherwise

both might be hurt. He thought it a great pity that any muisliking of pardons should grow in the hearts of people, ‘for they be right necesary.’ °° Perhaps there is a connection between the pamphlet and the inclusion in the petition, which was the basis for the act in conditional restraint of annates in 1532, of ‘taking for indulgences’ among the things which the petitioners wished to stop and restrain.7°° This clause of the petition had no legislative result at the time, but in 1534 this was the aspect of the separation which most interested Hall, the chronicler. Under date of 3 November he related that parliament authorized the king to be supreme head of the church of England, by which ‘the pope with all his college of cardinals with all their pardons and indulgences was utterly abolished out of this realm, God be everlastingly praised therefore. ?°7 Among Cromwell’s notes of things necessary to be remembered

before the breaking up of this parliament was: ‘God only forgiveth sin, and has never given power to man to do so.’ *°° How far the rising tide of criticism of indulgences during the reign of

Henry VIII °° represented a general trend of popular thought it seems impossible to decide. The heretics who denied the papal power to grant indulgences were probably still in a minority in 1534. The criticism of the mercenary aspect was common to both heretical and orthodox writers. 755 Ed. by Taft in Apologye of Syr Thomas More, pp. 206-08, 231-32. *58 Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, V, 482. 257 Henry VIII, il, 263. 7587T, & P., VII, 1383.

259 Tt was more or less common in other countries as well: Pastor, History, VII, 340-60. It was sufficient to disturb Clement VII: above, pp. 505-06.

Indulgences Administered by Papal Agents 1453-1534 619 Sir Thomas More appears to have been the only English writer on the subject to deny this charge. In his Apology, which was a reply to ‘Tyndale and in some measure to Saint-Germain, he says that he had never seen the people make so great offerings at a pardon that we should pity their cost or envy the priests who profit.°°° Though most of those who wrote about indulgences were critical of them, it does not necessarily follow that Englishmen generally held this opinion. Remy, who made a study of the great indulgences in the Low Countries from 1300 to 1531, regards the multiplicity of indulgences and ‘the exces-

sive influence of financial considerations’ in their grant and publication as the chief criticisms of contemporary writers in the Low Countries. He concludes, however, that these criticisms did not affect the popularity of indulgences and one basis for the conclusion is their financial success.?°*

The figures of the receipts which he supplies, however, seem to indicate that the yield of indulgences in the sixteenth century was less than it had been in the period from 1443 to 1488.7°? This deduction is tentative because the several indulgences were offered in different sections of the Low Countries and the totals are given in several different currencies. An attempt to compare the yields of the several indulgences administered by papal agents in England is not handicapped by the same factors. All were available to the people of the whole of England, and the financial returns are expressed in pounds or in florins of the camera which are convertible one to the other. Nevertheless, there are serious difficulties. For the total yield of some of them, such as those of 1383, 1478-80 and 1502, no figures are available. For others, such as that of 1476-78, the recorded returns may be incomplete. Though the known yields of the remaining indulgences may not be exact, except in one instance, they may be near enough to the totals to display an approximate trend. The total yield of the indulgence for the eastern emperor in 1399 was probably more than £2000, of the indulgence for a crusade against the Bohemian heretics in 1429, £7233 7 s. 8 d., of the indulgence for union with the Greek catholics in 1439 and 1440 somewhat more than £2459, and of

the jubilee indulgence in 1455 about £3679. The recorded receipts from the jubilee indulgence offered from 1476 to 1478 were 7740 florins or £1612 5 s.2°° The rumor heard in England twelve years later that they amounted to 18000 ducats or £3750 can hardly be accepted as reliable 200 Fd. Taft, p. 82.

261 Pp, 209-10. 292 Pp, 54-56, 63-64, 95, 128, 145, 163, 204.

I to 1 rate of exchange in 1474 was 50 d. for a florin: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum,

620 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

evidence. The revenue from the indulgence of 1489 which is known to have been delivered to the camera was 4462 florins or about £991.?®* The

only receipt noted in the cameral registers from the indulgence offered

in 1498 and 1499 was 3000 florins or £666 13 s. 4 d., but this indulgence was on a financial basis different from that of the others. The

indulgence for St Peter’s levied in 1508 and 1509 gave a profit of at least £673 6 s. 8 d. For the one offered by Leo X for the same purpose we have the exact totals for each of the five years. The net income for the five years was £2289 9 s. 7 d. None of the preceding indulgences had been available for so long a period. The three before 1476 could be obtained either for less than a year or at most a little more than a year. The highest yield of the indulgence for St Peter’s in any one year was £939 4 s. 10 d. Looking at the period as a whole, the financial returns of the indulgences administered in England by papal agents appear to have been more in the period from 1399 to 1455 than they were thereafter. Judged by this test papal indulgences seem to have been less popular after 1455 than they had been before. Against this may be set the sum of £3241 9 s. 10 d which the gild of St Mary of Boston spent in the process of obtaining the indulgences and dispensations granted to it in 1518. Whether the motives of the members of the gild were primarily financial or religious, they set a high value on papal indulgences. Perhaps the only safe conclusion 1s that English popular opinion on the worth of papal indulgences was well divided by 1534. *°* Reckoned at 3 florins to the mark, the rate in 1499: Wells, Reg. King, fo. 57.

Cuapter XIII PROCURATIONS OF PAPAL ENVOYS OTHER THAN THE COLLECTORS By 1327 the customs and laws regulating the monetary procurations which papal envoys might impose upon the English clergy had become well established. With the exception of the nuncios who were papal collectors, the envoys levied them as income taxes. The amount which might be exacted was determined in each instance by a papal letter authorizing

the levy of procurations. It varied with the rank of the envoy in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. A cardinal was customarily granted the right to receive the larger amount (7aiorem summam) of procurations. In practice this had come to be for one year four pence in the mark of clerical incomes as assessed for the tenth, with the exception that each of several payers with an annual income of £200 was required to pay only £8. Envoys of lower rank generally had their procurations set by the pope at

so much a day. Normally those of an archbishop would be more than those of a bishop, and so on down the scale of ecclesiastical rank. Nuncios and couriers who came merely as messengers or for affairs of minor impor-

tance were not entitled to pecuniary procurations, but only to entertainment from the ecclesiastical places where they had stopped. They sometimes received in addition small presents from communities who entertained them and from those to whom they were accredited.’ The last nuncios entitled to procurations, who were sent to England by John XXII, were commissioned in 1326 and completed their mission early in 1327.2 For two nuncios whom he intended to send to England in 1333 about peace between England and Scotland, he made the extraordinary arrangement that their expenses should be met from papal funds. They were the Franciscans, Gerald Othonis and Arnold de Sancto M1chaele. They were to be provided with enough to meet their expenses _ for two months, and if their mission kept them in the British Isles beyond that period, Itier de Concoreto, papal collector in England, was instructed to pay them seven florins a day from the papal funds in his keeping. ‘This exceptional procedure was not carried out, because their embassy was cancelled on 31 October.* This projected innovation did not become a precedent. *Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, ch. XI. * Ibid., pp. 568-69. In 1328 the monks of Christchurch Canterbury gave 5 s. for procura-

tion and mount to a cursor of the pope and 5 s. to a nuncio, Bernard de Toluse: Lamb. MS. 243, fo. 9¥-10¥.

°CP.L., I, 511-12.

622 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The first known nuncios of Benedict XII who were authorized to collect procurations in cash * were Hugh, bishop of St Paul de ‘Trois Chateaux,

and Roland de Aste, canon of Laon, chaplain of the pope and auditor of causes of the sacred palace. They were sent to make peace between the kings of England and Scotland.’ On 31 July 1335 Benedict XII addressed a letter to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, deans, provosts, archdeacons, archpriests, rural deans and other ecclesiastical prelates, to religious and

secular ecclesiastical persons, to exempt and nonexempt chapters, convents and colleges, to the Cistercian, Carthusian, Cluniac, Premonstratensian, Benedictine, Augustinian and other orders, and to the masters and preceptors of the houses of St John of Jerusalem, St Mary of the Teutons and Calatrava to whom the letter should come. This nomenclature 1in-

cluded all the clergy. They were ordered to provide the nuncios and their followers with necessaries to the amount of 6 pounds of small Tours daily for the bishop and 50 shillings of the same currency for the canon during the period of their journey to and from the papal court and of their

residence in England. When they remained for a time in one place the clergy of neighboring districts were to contribute in order to lighten the burden. For practical purposes this phraseology had come to mean that all

the clergy of the provinces in which they sojourned for a period while executing their mission should pay procurations on the assessed value of their incomes at a rate sufficient to supply the total sum required.’ Failure to pay would bring upon the delinquent the customary sentence against rebels.®

Following the accepted practice, the nuncios ordered the two archbishops to collect their procurations by letters which quoted the papal authorization of 31 July 1335. Their letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, dated 21 March 1336, did not state the number of days for which procurations were due or the total amount owed by the province of Canterbury. The archbishop had referred the question to convocation which met on 11 March 1336, and it had there been decided to levy a half-penny *On 18 January 1335 Helyothum de Busenon, a papal servant-at-arms, and on 31 Janu-

ary, John de Floto, a cursor, were dispatched to Edward III. The English clergy were ordered to provide them with necessities which would be entertainment and_ possibly mounts: York, Reg. Melton, fo. 541%. On 22 April a royal safe-conduct, good until 29 September, was issued to the latter and Thomas de Bologna of the papal household: C.P.R. 1334-38, p. 95.

°CP.L., U, 558; Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hibernorum, p. 264, Benoit XII: Lettres Closes et Patentes intéressants les Pays autres que la France, 467, 469. Their royal safe-conduct was issued 28 September: C.P.R. 1334-38, p. 167. Te Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 554-55, 558, 560-65. 8 Benoit XII: Lettres Closes etc., 470.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 623 in the pound. The archbishop on 2 and 3 April ordered each bishop to collect that sum from the clergy of his diocese and to deliver the proceeds

to the receivers, Nicholas Hosebounde and John de Pateneye, minor canons of London. ‘The bishops in their turn appointed deputies to perform the actual work of collection.® The money was levied generally in June.*° The bishop of Worcester sent to the receivers the full amount due from his diocese on 21 June. The valuation for the tenth was £7362 18 s 644 d, and the sum of one-half penny in the pound £15 6 s. 9% d.** Some arrears were left in the diocese of Winchester, and on 8 January 1337 the archbishop ordered them to be collected.’ The nuncios addressed a mandate to the archbishop of York on 10 February 1336. They explained that they had been occupied with their business in the province of York for 76 days. These did not include 20 days while they were in the diocese of Durham, because their procurations for this period had already been paid by the clergy of the diocese. The clergy of the province likewise were not liable for 212 days which they had spent in Scotland. The whole amount owed from the province was to Hugh £114 sterling ** and to Roland £47 10s. The nuncios forbade the levy of more than those amounts and ordered the use of compulsory processes if necessary to compel payment.** Three days later the archbishop of York directed the bishops to make the levy,*® and the bishops forthwith appointed deputies to do the work. The rate was put at three half-pence in the mark.** The collection was made in the spring of 1336.77 The record of the payment made by the dean and chapter of Lincoln on revenues derived from their holdings in the diocese of York indicates that the incidental expenses might be heavy.

They paid 11 s. 3 d for the procurations, 22 d. for the carriage of the money to York and 2 d. for an acquittance. This charge by the deputy collectors for an acquittance was an established custom, and it is frequently ° Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 281-282; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 36, Worcester, Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 18-19. *°'W.A.M. 29544; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 195; D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Roll 7; Chamberlain’s Roll, 10 Edward III; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2.5, Compotus Clerici Commune, 14 September 1335 to 13 September 1336.

Reg. Montacute, II, fo. 19. *? Reg. Orlton, I, fo. 49-497. There were arrears also in the dioceses of Ely and Lincoln:

Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, Il, 82; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Compotus Clerici Commune, 14 September 1337 to 13 September 1338.

** Evidently 4 1. of Tours was reckoned at £1 sterling. ** York, Reg. Melton, fo. 544; Carlisle, Reg. Kirby, pp. 320-21, 326. 18 Thid.

6 Reg. Kirkby, p. 326, D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll for 1336, verso; D. & Ch. Lincoln, By 25, Compotus Clerici Commune. *7T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4299, 4631.

624 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 recorded in the expense accounts of payers of procurations levied subsequently. In 1336 Benedict XII attempted to prevent war between England and

France. On 29 November he announced to King Edward and Queen Philippa that he was sending to them as a nuncio Philip de Cambarlhaco, canon of St Peter’s in Rome.’® On the same day he ordered the clergy, whom he addressed in the same comprehensive terms as in the letter in behalf of Hugh and Roland, to pay to Philip 50 s. of small Tours a day for procurations and to provide him with mounts.’® Evidence either that Philip came to England or that he received procurations 1s lacking. The growing threat of war between England and France caused the pope in 1337 to send envoys to the kings of the two countries in an effort to keep the peace. On 23 June he commissioned the cardinals, Peter of Spain, priest of S Prassede, and Bertrand of Monte Faventio, deacon of S Maria in Aquiro, and on the next day Peter Burgundionis de Romanis, treasurer of Laon, papal chaplain and auditor of causes, as nuncios to negotiate with the two kings.*° Their missions were separate, and Peter Burgundionis seems to have arrived in England first. His royal safe conduct was dated 28 August, while that of the cardinals was not issued until 15

October.** The cardinals did not arrive in England until 18 or 20 December.??

Peter Burgundionis, on 26 June 1337, was given power to collect from the English clergy procurations of four florins a day.?**) As some nuncios whose procurations were small had done previously,”*”) Peter asked the bishops to pay him the amounts due from their respective dioceses and to recover the sum by a subsequent levy from their clergy. On 6 November 1337 he requested the bishop of Rochester thus to advance 48 florins for the 12 days he had been in the bishop’s diocese.”**) This demand was probably superseded shortly by an arrangement which the nuncio made with the archbishop of Canterbury. On 22 November at Dover, when presumably he was leaving England, he addressed a letter to the prior of Canter18 Benoit XII: Lettres Closes etc. 1155; C.P.L., Il, 561 (dated 23 November). *° Benoit XII: Lettres Closes etc. 1158. 7° Raynaldus, 1337, §§ 15-16, C.P.L., II, 537, 563. 1 C.\P.R. 1334-38, pp. 516, 540. 2 Ann. Paulini, p. 367; Knighton, Chron., Il, 2. Birchington gives the date as 2 Decem-

ber: Hist., in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I, 20. The Anonymous author of Hist. Edwardi Terti says they came to London about 30 November: ed. Hearne, p. 413. *2a ‘Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 167-17; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 447; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, p. 61a. **? Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 552, 562-63, 568. *2e Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 16¥-17.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 625 bury. It quoted the papal authorization of 26 June to collect procurations, stated that John, archbishop of Canterbury, had paid to him 52 marks for the procurations of himself and his companions up to 22 November, covering the whole of his sojourn in the province of Canterbury, and ordered the prior to distribute the sum among the clergy of the province according to the valuation for the tenth. He conferred upon the prior the power to absolve from ecclesiastical censures those who might be late in rendering their payments.”*

Robert, the prior, did not act upon the mandate until 22 July 1338. Meanwhile he received an order from the cardinals, dated 27 June 1338, to collect a sum over and above their annual procurations to repay them for expenses incurred for sending messengers and cursors in the prosecution of their business.** The prior estimated that both sums could be met by the levy of a farthing in the pound of the assessment of the tenth. He therefore ordered the several bishops to collect that amount and to send it to Canterbury at dates varying from 1 November to 21 December. They were to impose censures on tardy payers.”® The bishops, as was customary,

appointed deputies. They had to make itemized lists of the amounts received from each payer and lists of debtors who had not paid. These were forwarded to Canterbury by the bishops before the prescribed dates.*® Whether Peter Burgundionis levied procurations in the province of York is not certain. The prior and convent of Durham, in 1338, paid a farthing in the pound for the procurations (sic) of the cardinals.** ‘The payment may or may not have included procurations for Peter Burgundionis, as it did in the province of Canterbury. There were some arrears. On 30 October 1339, for example, the prior acknowledged receipt from the bishop of Ely of £5 15 s 7% d in part payment of £7 11144 d. which was due.?* On 23 March 1341 the archbishop of Canterbury asked for information concerning the procurations of a farthing in the pound which the prior had levied for him. The prior replied on 30 March, stating the receipts and their disposal, but omitting the amounts in arrears for lack of information.”® * A notarial document. One of the witnesses was Bernard de Sistre, the papal collector: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, p. 61a. ** See below, p. 630. **—D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, p. 61a, C. 257f; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. nes ; Panchester, Reg. Orlton, II fo. 22¥-24, 267, Reg. Grandisson, II, 885-86, Reg. Shrews'D & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, p. 6la, p. 84, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 24, 267. 27 1). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1338-39.

*° Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 49. See also Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, Il, 95. *° The year is supplied by the editor: Literae Cantuarienses, II, 238-39. The editor omits the list of receipts which is given in Reg. L, fo. 757-76.

626 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Diocese 39 Receipts

£sa Canterbury 5 4% Norwich 20 33 0%

Lincoln 182 10 0 Rochester 6 8% Hereford 5 5107 O Worcester St Davids 3 4 54

Bangor 1 07% 0% Ely 5 15 Bath and Wells 6 15 5 London 61 26 46 St Asaph Lichfield 82120 2% Llandaff O Salisbury 12 18 6%

Exeter 524 Chichester 5 18 5§

Total 115 16 3%

The payments, as recorded, were more than the receipts. £86 7 s. 8 d. had

been delivered to the archbishop, £30 had been paid to the convent of Christchurch for a debt owed by the prior, the expenses of the prior had been £13 6s. 8 d, and £8 had been allowed for the transportation of the money to Canterbury. The arrears were doubtless enough to meet the balance.

This levy illustrates well the extent of the burden placed upon the English clergy by envoys whose procurations were small in amount. The

administrative processes and the bookkeeping required of the deputy collectors of this levy of a farthing in the pound as much time and effort as the levy of a tenth would have done. A list of the taxpayers and the

amounts which they had or had not paid often filled a roll of several parchments. An acquittance for a payment of 144 d. required as much parchment and writing as an acquittance for several pounds. It cost the payer 2 d., but without it he had no protection against having to make the same payments over again, if the payment was not properly credited in the account of the collector. Perhaps the worst feature was that a payer who failed to pay his debt of 144 d. on time found himself just as soundly

excommunicated as if his debt had been much larger. The pettiness of such a levy must have been irksome. The two cardinals, on 9 January 1338, soon after their arrival in England, issued orders to each bishop to collect the procurations due for the

first year of their embassy. ‘The year had begun, they said, on 23 July 1337, which presumably was the date of their departure from Avignon. ° Winchester is missing from the list.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 627 They quoted two papal letters of 24 June 1337 authorizing the two of them to receive, whether they were present or absent, the procuration which one cardinal who was a legate or a nuncio to England was accustomed to receive, namely the greater sum. The classes of the clergy who were required to pay the procurations were enumerated in the customary comprehensive fashion. Ample powers to compel payment by ecclesiastical censures were granted. The nuncios commanded the bishop first to have made a copy of books or other writings which recorded the distribution and assessment of old and recent levies of cardinals’ procurations ‘ad maiorem summam.’ The bishop was to notify those who owed the procurations of the mandate for their levy within fifteen days of its receipt. Within a month of his notice

he was to collect in person or by deputies the procurations at the rate found in the records. Within two months of the date of the mandate he was to deliver the proceeds to Gerard Bonnisegne, a member of the firm of Bardi, in London. The money was to be accompanied by records of the sum due from each payer and of those who had paid and those who had not. Ecclesiastical censures were to be pronounced against those who failed to pay on time. The bishop, if he was late or at fault in the execution

of the cardinals’ mandate, was forbidden to enter a church for six days, if he did not make correction within that time, he was to be suspended from the conduct of divine services for another six days, and if his failure continued for still another six days, he would be excommunicated. Benefices which cardinals held in England were to be exempt. The deputy collectors were to be allowed moderate sums for the expenses of collection.** ‘These provisions with variations of detail became the standard form of the mandates by which cardinals and some prelates of lesser rank subsequently ordered the bishops or the archbishops to levy their procurations.

The bishops appointed deputy collectors late in January or early in February.** Payments were being made in January, February and March, ** Reg. Grandisson, I, 863-68, D. & Ch. Exeter, 2225; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 197v-99; Ely, Reg, Monte Acuto, fo. 39-40%; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, Il, fo. 17¥-19; Cambridge Univ. Lib., MS. Dd. IX, fo. 105-06"; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 553-557; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 43-45%; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 478-79.

** Ibid. 1 have noted the following: Ely, official of the archdeacon; Exeter, the four archdeadcons; Lincoln, abbot of Eynsham and prior of St. Katherine without Lincoln; London, prior and convent of St. Bartholomew: Salisbury, the four archdeacons; Winchester, abbots and convent of Hyde and Waverly; Canterbury, abbot of Faversham; Rochester, prior and convent of Rochester; Worcester, abbot of Cirencester; York, William de Wykesworth, receiver of the archbishop: references in preceding and following notes and Worcester, Reg. Bradford, I, fo. 143, C.C.R. 1341-43, 29557, p. 390; W.A.M.

628 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

and several bishops were able to send the money collected and to make their returns before the end of March,** though some were later.** The bishop of Carlisle was late because he had been ordered to collect 4 d in the mark on the old valuation and he sought to have the new valuation used. On 12 March 1338 the cardinals denied his request, but they absolved from excommunication, suspension and interdict those who had not paid in full on the old valuation by the date which they had set and those responsible for failure to remit the proceeds on time.*® Gerard Bon-

misegne did not acknowledge the receipt of the procurations from the bishop of Carlisle until 22 May.*¢

The research of the bishops established that the rate of one cardinal’s procurations at the larger sum had been previously four pence in the mark on the assessment for the tenth, with the exception of some abbots and

convents with incomes of more than £200. They had been allowed to pay only £8.87 Four pence in the mark was in practice nearly the universal rate for rich and poor alike,?® but there were a few exceptions. In

the diocese of Ely, for example, the prior of Barnwell paid £8 for his spirituals and temporals within the diocese on the ground that this was the customary sum for him to pay for such procurations. For the same reason

the prior and convent of Ely paid £8 for all their income everywhere. They promised, however, to pay more, if it was proved to be due.*® The abbot and convent of Bury each paid £8 with a guarantee to pay any further sum for which apostolic authority could be found.*° The bishop of Ely allowed more exemptions from payment of procurations than were authorized in the cardinals’ mandate. He excused the houses of St John of Jerusalem at Cambridge, Ely and Shengay because they had not previously paid procurations. He excused the houses of the

nuns at Ickleton, Swaffham and St Radegund Cambridge for the same reason and also because they were so poor that they did not have enough to sustain life. He likewise did not ask payment of procurations from *°D. Ch. Ely, Roll of Camerarius, I] Edward II; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4584; W.A.M. 29554, 29556-57; Reg. Grandisson, II, 869-70; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto fo. 43, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 21, 26%; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 44-45. ** Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 78-79.

** Reg. Kirkby, pp. 370-71. The same problem appears to have arisen in the diocese of Durham. Among the records of the dean and chapter are lists of those who paid the procurations of the first year on the true value of their benefices and those who paid on

the old valuation: Locellus, XVIII, 98. °° Reg. Kirkby, p. 374.

7 Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 565-67. ,

°° FE. g. Reg. Grandisson, Il, 868; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 79. Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 21, 26%; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 41.

*° Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 43. / *° Duchy of Lancaster, Misc. Bk. 5, document inserted between fo. 120% and 121.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 629 vicars whose benefices had never been assessed to the tenth, who had hardly

enough for bare existence and who never had paid cardinals’ procurations.‘ These had been customary exemptions, and in later levies poor hospitals and the houses of poor nuns were usually specifically exempted. Practically all the bishops reported some payers who were in arrears. During May 1338 the cardinals wrote to the bishops, ordering each within a certain number of days to obtain the arrears by means of ecclesiastical censures. The bishop of Lincoln was given 25 days,*? the bishop of Ely

40,* and the bishop of Exeter 50.** In these letters the cardinals took the occasion to explain that hospitals, houses and ecclesiastical places owed

the procurations, as did vicarages and other benefices which were not assessed to the tenth. So also did the revenues of deans and archdeacons which were uncertain in amount. The only exception was a benefice which was worth less than £4 annually. If, however, in any instance payment would work a hardship, they had appointed Bernard de Sistre, the papal collector, their commissioner to consider such cases.*° On 7 July 1338 the bishop of Exeter reported that the whole amount due from his diocese, £124 2 s. 6% d. had been paid.*® The bishop of Ely

was not as fortunate. On 24 July his collector informed him that some arrears had been recovered, but that there were some debtors who had not paid whose fruits he could not sequestrate because he had not found any of their goods in the diocese of Ely. They were presumably monastic communities in other dioceses which had pensions in the diocese of Ely. Despite the statement of the cardinals with regard to hospitals and vicarages, the bishop still had made no demand on the poor houses and vicar-

ages which he had previously left exempt. The priors of Barnwell and Ely, moreover, had not been asked to pay more than £8 each.** The petty debts for which delinquent payers might be placed under ecclesiastical censures and the recklessness with which sentences of excommunication might be hurled about and sequestration of fruits imposed are illustrated by two incidents. On 4 December 1338 the bishop of Exeter

ordered the rector of Torrington to be absolved from the sentence of excommunication which had been imposed upon him and the sequestration of his fruits to be lifted. The amount of the procuration with which the rector was charged was 24%4 d. The sum was due for a pension in “Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 42-43. **3 May: Reg. Burghersh, fo. 559¥-60¥. *°27 May: Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 419-43. **26 May: Reg. Grandisson, Il, 876-77; D. & Ch. Exeter, 2224. *° Reg. Grandisson, WU, 877; Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 41°. *° Reg. Grandisson, II, 881. *" Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 419-43.

630 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

the church of Huntsham which was less than £4. The excommunication and sequestration, therefore, had been a mistake. The blame rested upon the cardinals, who had not declared the exemption of incomes less than £4 until their letter of 26 May.*® In the other instance the prior of Repton had been placed under ecclesiastical censures for failure to pay 24 d for the procurations which he possessed in the diocese of Carlisle. “he bishop of the diocese requested the archbishop of York and his deputy to remove the sentence, because the prior had produced an acquittance for payment of the sum.*®

In the letters of May 1338, by which the cardinals demanded the col-

lection of the arrears of their procurations for the first year, they empowered the bishops to levy from those who owed procurations a moderate sum for the expenses of collection and transportation of the funds.°° On 1 July the bishop of Ely ordered his collector of the procurations to exact for this purpose an obol in the pound and to deliver the proceeds

on 25 July.®’ This rate must have been set by the bishops in advance, since the half-penny was collected in several other dioceses.” The harassment of the English clergy by the cardinals during the first

year of their embassy did not cease with the half-penny in the pound. On 27 June 1338 they appointed the prior of Canterbury to levy enough to pay for the expenses of the messengers and cursors whom they had employed in the pursuit of the business committed to them. In the mandate they quoted a papal letter of 23 June 1337 authorizing them to exact from the clergy a sum for this purpose in addition to their procurations. They also listed the expenses of each of the messengers whom they had used. They were Master Byndo de Bandinellis and Peter Vaurelli sent to France £31 8 s; John Bandinelli and Bertrand, a clerk, sent from France to England £10 5 s. 5 d; Peter Trentbure and Peter Meruli sent to France 4s. 8 d; the same sent to France a second time 77 s. 4 d; they and Bertrand Peter and John de London sent to the Roman court 32 s; Giles de Bonavento, dean of Leon, and Bernard de Novodepno, canon of Beauvais, chaplains of the pope and auditors of the palace, sent from Avignon to France £10 2 s. 2 d; for a ship £10; Master Peter de Corduba de Pedroche and Bernard de Sistre, their chaplains, sent from Canterbury to the king at Ipswich £18 14 s; messengers later bearing letters to the king and the chaplains 3 s. and cursors recently sent to the Russian court with Lord *8 Reg. Grandisson, II, 895-96. *° Reg. Kirkby, p. 378.

°° This was granted to the bishop of Carlisle in the letter of 12 March: Reg. Kirkby,

e Reg Monte Acuto, fo. 419. 52 W_.A.M. 29561; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4237; Bursar’s Roll, 1338-39; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 25, Compotus Cleri Commune, 14 September 1337 to 13 September 1338.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 631 Gaufredus de Scrop 30 s.°* The total amounted to £87 6 s. 7d. How the prior of Canterbury combined this demand with the procurations of Peter Burgundionis and levied a farthing in the pound for both has been related above.*4

The cardinals Peter and Bertrand sailed from Dover on 11 July 1338,°°

carrying with them, one chronicler assures us, many gifts and gratuities as well as procurations.®* The absence of the cardinals, however, did not relieve the English clergy of the financial burden of procurations. On 20 November 1338 they wrote from Arras to the bishops, ordering them to collect procurations of four pence in the mark for the second year of their embassy, which had begun on the preceding 23 July. The form was the same as that of the mandate for the collection of the procurations of the first year with slight changes. The procurations were to be paid within one month of notice being given and the proceeds were to be delivered within three months to the bishop of London, Bernard de Sistre or the Bardi. ‘To the exemptions were added the houses of nuns who did not customarily pay procurations and the houses of God and of lepers, but hospitals, houses and churches were not exempt merely because they were

not included in the assessment for the tenth. Any arrears still left from the first year were also to be collected. Again the bishops were allowed to levy from the clergy a moderate sum to pay for the cost of collection and transmission of the money.*”

The mandate of the cardinals was received by most of the bishops toward the end of January or early in February 1339. They notified their collectors promptly,°* the procurations were levied in February and March, and the bishops delivered their receipts together with the rolls of payers and nonpayers in April. ‘The arrears of the first year recovered were small in amount.°® ‘The levy for the expenses of collection appears to have been a farthing in the mark.®° °° Reg. Grandisson, Il, 885-86; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 44; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 22v-23. °“ Above, pp. 624-25.

** Anonymous, Hist. Edwardi Tertii, p. 414; Birchington, Hist. in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I, 20.

°° Ann. Paulini, p. 367. The king presented them with several silver dishes on 21 July at a cost of £39 19 s. 3 d: Wardrobe Account 388/5, m. 18. *? Reg. Grandisson, II, 900-09; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 467-487; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 46-48, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 24-26, 337; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 567¥-687; York, Reg. Melton, fo. 480, 550-51.

°° The bishop of Exeter did not give the order to his deputies until 22 April and he did not deliver the money until 31 May. °° References in note 57 above and D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4199, 4213, 4505.

*°D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4199; Bursar’s Roll, 11 November 1338 to 10 November 1339; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj. 2. 5, Compotus Clerici Commune, 1338-39: W.A.M. 29570, 29573.

632 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

On 29 January 1340 the cardinals, who still continued their efforts to make peace, sent from Tournai to the English bishops a mandate to collect procurations for the third year of their embassy, which began on 23 July 1339.8! The terms were the same as those of the mandate of the second year except that the arrears of the second year were included and the procurations of Peter were to be paid to the Acciaivoli of Florence and those of Bertrand to the archbishop of Canterbury. The mandate was received by the bishops and their deputies were appointed in March or April.°? The collection took place generally in April and May. The extra sum exacted for expenses was again levied at the rate of a farthing in the mark in the diocese of Lincoln.** In the dioceses of Durham and York this rate was applied to benefices assessed only at the old valuation. From those assessed at the new valuation the rate was a half-penny in the

pound. The cardinals did not receive the proceeds immediately after they were assembled, because the king intervened. On account of French invasions on the English coast, Edward III seized the procurations which were in the hands of collectors or depositaries for his own use. The proceeds of the diocese of Ely, for example, were taken partly from the master

and brothers of the Hospital of St John in Cambridge, where they had been deposited by the collector, and partly from the bishop’s house in Holborn.*® The king assured the cardinals that he was taking the money as a loan, and promised that they would be reimbursed from the yield of

a biennial tenth which had been granted by the English clergy.°’ The seizures were made during May and June of 1340.°° On 18 June the king wrote to the bishops, ordering them to see that the collectors of the tenth paid to the collectors of the procurations in their respective dioceses the amounts which had been seized.® Early in July a royal mandate went to the bishops for each to certify * Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 487-49, 51v-52¥; D. & Ch. Exeter, 2226; Lincoln, Reg. Burghersh, fo. 577-78, Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 50-51%, Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II,

fo. 31¥-33; Reg. Palat. Dunelmense, III, 243-48. | °? [bid.; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, fo. 81.

*° Reg. Montacute, fo. 51-52; W.A.M. 29584-87, 29589-92, 29594; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters 3380, 4808.

** W.A.M. 29584-85, 29591-92; D. & Ch. Lincoln, By. 2. 5, Compotus Clerici Commune, 18 September 1339 to 17 September 1340. 65D. & Ch. Durham Misc. Charter, 4192; Bursar’s Roll, 11 November 1339 to 10 November 1340, verso. °° Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 52.

°7 KK. R. Memo. Roll 117, Brevia directa baronibus, Trinity term, m. 16; 118, same, Michaelmas term, m. 31%, Hilary term, m. 17¥.

** Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 52; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 33. °° C.P.R. 1338-40, p. 547, Reg. Grandisson, II, 930-31; Rymer, Foedera, II, 1126; Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 395.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 633 the barons of the exchequer the sum which he had received for procurations and the procurations which were still unpaid. These arrears he was to have at the Tower of London on 21 July.”° The purpose was to obtain any of the proceeds of the procurations which had escaped the original seizure. The bishop of Worcester, after consultation with his collector, the abbot of Cirencester, replied that the sum of the procurations was £184, of which £176 had been received. His deputy had paid a half to the proctor of Bertrand and the other half still remained in his hands."! The bishop of Ely sought a report from his deputy. It put the total at £169 2 s. 5% d. Of this the sheriff and a royal serjeant at arms had taken £116 18s. 2% d. on 27 May and 50s. on 29 May. Of the sum seized they returned 11 s

6% d. They charged the deputy 6 s. 8 d for their expenses. There remained to be paid to the king 55 s. 9 %4 d. He accompanied the report with lists of those who had paid their procurations and of those who still owed them. On 20 September a royal writ ordered the bishops to summon their deputies to come in person before his council on the quindene of Michaelmas prepared to give information and to do what should be there ordained.’* Presumably this was a final accounting to establish how much

the king had received on the one hand and the existence of any sums which he might still borrow on the other. On 29 November 1340 the archbishop of Canterbury ordered the bishops to collect the biennial tenth, of which the first instalment would become due on 2 February 1341, and to pay the procurations from it.”®

After the issue of the archbishop’s mandate, the receivers of the procurations whom the cardinals had appointed began to busy themselves with the recovery of the procurations. On 18 December Bernard de Sistre ordered the bishops of the province of Canterbury to assign to the receivers in London on 2 February 1341 all the money of the procurations which they had on hand, and, if any of it had been applied to the use of the king, to take that amount from the biennial tenth, as the king had ordered.’* The execution of this order was prevented by a writ issued by the exchequer on 1 January 1341. It ordered the collectors of the tenth to send the proceeds to the king at the Tower of London as soon as possible. “This writ had the effect of revoking the archbishop’s writ and of *° 5 July: Worcester, Reg. Bransford, I fo. 143; 10 July: Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 52. ™ Reg. Bransford, I, fo. 143. Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 52-527; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 394; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 413; C.C.R. 1339-41, p. 637.

** Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 52¥-53; Reg. Grandisson, I, 931-32. “Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 53-53v; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 424-25; Winchester, Reg. Orlton,

II, fo. 33%-34. The two proctors of the cardinals received the procurations due from the bishop of Durham on 17 and 30 December: Reg. Palat. Dunelmense, II, 498-93.

634 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

delaying execution of the royal writ of 18 June, as is explained in the correspondence of the bishop of Ely on the subject. On 11 January 1341 he ordered his deputy collector of procurations to carry out Bernard’s order of 18 December, and ordered the prior and convent of Barnwell, collectors of the tenth, to pay to him £168 20% d. for the loan which had been received by the king. The collector of procurations said that he had none of the money, having paid the above

sum to the king and the arrears of the first two years to the bishop. On 30 January the bishop reported to Bernard and the archbishop of Canterbury that he had paid the arrears of the first two years, amounting to 14s. 614 d. to Michael Peter de Cuellar, canon of Seville, the other commissioner

of the cardinals for receiving the funds."° He was awaiting the money for the procurations from the prior and convent of Barnwell, except arrears of 20s. 9144 d. which he could not levy because the debtors had no goods in his diocese. On 13 February he reported that he could not pay the sum

due from the tenth, because the pior and convent, in view of the exchequer’s writ of 1 January, did not dare to send the money to him.” This difficulty was finally removed by a royal writ of 20 March 1341 ordering the bishop to take the money necessary to pay the procurations from the proceeds of the tenth. On 7 April he wrote the receiver that he

had ordered the prior and convent to pay the £168 20% d. The acquittance issued by Michael Peter on 10 April acknowledged receipt of only £84 10 d for the half due Cardinal Peter. The prior and convent did not have enough funds on hand to pay the whole sum, and payment of the half due Cardinal Bertrand had to be delayed until the second instalment of the tenth was due on 24 June. The factors of the Acciaivoli finally acknowledged receipt of that sum from Bernard de Sistre on 30 June.” Although the bishop of Salisbury recerved money for the procurations from the collectors of the tenth in his diocese during February 1341,"* the writ of 1 January 1341 seems to have caused the collectors of the tenth in most dioceses to withhold payment, as the prior and convent of Barn-

well did. The royal writ of 20 March 1341 renewing the order to pay the procurations from the proceeds of the tenth was sent to many of the bishops and collectors of the tenth.”? The order resulted in further pay"© His acquittance is dated 1 January 1341.

"6 The prior gave formal notice of this situation to the bishop on 25 February. "7 Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 49¥, 54-579. 7? Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 57-579.

7°Rymer, Foedera, Il, 1152, 1154; C.C.R. 1341-43, p. 46, Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 420. Some of the writs were dated 22 March. A writ to the royal receiver of the tenth in the diocese of York was dated 11 March.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 635 ments to the receivers of the cardinals,*° but in many dioceses, as in Ely, arrears were left. The cardinals seem finally to have become irked by the way in which the king was playing fast and loose with their procurations. They turned to the pope for help. On 23 February 1341 Benedict XII gave them power to aggravate the sentences against delinquent payers until they were satisfied for the whole sum of their procurations. ‘Those who still failed to pay would have their names published in public audience at the papal court, as well as in England and in France. Despite the papal and conciliar con-

stitutions forbidding one to be drawn outside his diocese, he could be summoned to the papal court, where, according to the bishop of Ely, sentences of rebellion and heresy might be pronounced against him. On 19

April the cardinals wrote to their two commissioners. They quoted the papal letter and ordered them to execute it. On 8 June the commissioners sent copies of the cardinals’ letter to all the bishops. They reminded each bishop that they could publish sentences of excommunication, interdict

and suspension against him, but instead warned him to satisfy them at London for the arrears within the fortnight of 24 June. The bishops who owed arrears because they had not yet been paid all which the king had borrowed received the aid of a royal writ ordering payments of the balance

due from the second instalment of the tenth.8t They were able consequently to pay that portion of their arrears within the fortnight, as the bishop of Ely did. They warned payers who still owed procurations of the serious consequences of failure to pay them within the prescribed limit.

The bishop of Ely ordered his deputy to apply sequestration in order to avoid application of the sentences. On 1 July the deputy reported that he had recovered no money from the payers. They did not live in the diocese, and because they had only pensions and portions he had been unable to apply sequestration in so short a time. Other bishops had similar experiences. What happened to the delinquents 1s not related in their registers.°?

The procurations of the two cardinals with the additional levies for BE. g. C.C.R. 1341-43, p. 128; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, pp. 420, 441. * BE. g. C.C.R. 1341-43, p. 177; K. R. Memo. Roll 117, Brevia directa baronibus, Trinity

term, m. 16 (25 June). As late as 16 April 1342 the king directed the barons of the exchequer to order the bishop of Salisbury to take from the collectors of the tenth as much as the king had borrowed and to pay it to the cardinals when they wished: K. R. Memo. Roll 118, Brevia directa baronibus, Easter term, m. 10. Possibly this merely ratified what the bishop had already drawn from the tenth in February 1341. ** Reg. Montacute, fo. 57¥-59; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 66-68%; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 35v-37%; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 81; Carlisle, Reg. Kirkby, p. 141; Reg. Shrewsbury, Ul, 434-35; Winchester Cathedral Chartulary, p. 221.

636 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 a nuncio of lesser rank, for the messengers and cursors of the cardinals and for the expenses of collection placed upon the English clergy a vexatious burden. The cardinals remained in England for only seven months, but collected procurations for three years,®* directing the levy from France

after July 1338. The procurations of four pence in the mark alone amounted to a quarter of a tenth, and during the three years the clergy were paying annually to the king ten percent of their income. The additional levies, though each was small, had a high nuisance value, and must have caused a deal of dissatisfaction. The anonymous author of Historia

Edwardi Terti reflects mildly the irritation felt by the clergy. He recorded that the cardinals at first wished to have eight pence for their procurations ** ‘in accordance with the customary Roman cupidity,’ but finally received four pence because the (English) prelates created by the Roman see did not wish, or rather did not dare, to offer opposition.*° While the cardinals were still striving for peace, Benedict XII, on 26 August 1340, appointed William Bateman of Norwich, dean of Lincoln, papal chaplain and auditor of causes, a special envoy to plead with Edward III to make peace or a truce.*® He ordered all ranks of the clergy to pay him procurations of four florins a day.8’7 No payment of procurations to him by the English clergy has come to my notice.’* Probably the dean did not come to England on his mission, since Edward III, on 10 November 1340, answered at Ghent the papal letter brought by the nuncio.*® His procurations, unlike those of the cardinals, could not be levied in his absence.

Clement VI, on 30 June 1342, soon after his consecration, appointed as nuncios to make peace between France and England the cardinals, Peter de Pres, bishop of Palestrina, vice chancellor, and Anibaldus de Ceccano, bishop of Tusculum.°®® He gave them the same power to exact procurations which Bertrand and Peter had had. Whether present or absent, they could demand from the classes of the clergy inclusively named the procurations which a nuncio or legate who was a cardinal customarily received, namely the greater sum. The nuncios ordered the English archbishops and bishops °° Ann. Paulini, p. 367.

** Murimuth makes the same statement: Cont., pp. 81-82. °° Ed. Hearne, p. 414. 8° Benoit XII: Lettres Closes etc., 2870. °" [bid., 2876; C.P.L., I, 583. °° The sacrist of Ely paid a farthing in the pound to a nuncio of the cardinals: Chap-

man, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, lI, 95. William Bateman, however, was not a nuncio of the cardinals. The term probably designates an agent of the cardinals for collecting procurations. The payment was probably for the expenses of collection of the procurations of the third year. The rate in Ely may have been different from that in Lincoln, which was a farthing in the mark. 8° Benoit XII: Lettres Closes etc., 2926.

° CPL. Il, 71-73.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 637 to collect such procurations by letters dated at Tournai on 31 October 1342. They quoted the papal letter authorizing the levy,*! stated that their first year began on the previous 1 July, and instructed the bishops to distribute the procurations among the clergy on the basis of the valuation of the tenth as shown in the records, to exempt the benefices of cardinals, poor hospitals, lazar houses and the houses of poor nuns, and to collect

the procurations within a month of the time when notice of them was given to the taxpayers.®? They followed this mandate with a letter dated at Paris on 24 November 1342, ordering the bishops to pay the procura-

letter.°? |

tions to their receiver in London within a month from the date of the For some reason the bishops did not receive the mandate of 31 October

until late in March 1343.°* At dates ranging from 21 March to 8 April they ordered the mandate to be published and appointed deputy collectors to execute it. They were to collect four pence in the mark and to supply the bishop with the usual list of payers and nonpayers.°® Some communities of religious claimed the privilege which they had previously enjoyed of paying £8 for all their spiritualities and temporalities wherever they were located. The prior of Christchurch Canterbury protested the attempt of the prior of Norwich, the collector in the diocese of Norwich, to levy procurations from the income of the prior and convent at Deepham, since they had paid £8 to the abbot of St Augustine Canterbury for the whole of their income. He said he would consult the seniors of the convent and, if they found it consonant with reason, he would pay the prior of Norwich.*®

The procurations were being paid during April and the early part of May.®” Androin de la Roche, prior of Saint-Seine, whom the cardinals had appointed their receiver in England, acknowledged receipt of the proceeds from several dioceses in May and June. The acquittances seem to have been for payments in full. No mention was made of arrears.°® The cardinals demanded procurations for themselves for only one year, HT ** Dated 31 May in their mandate; 30 June in the registers of the chancery: C\P.L., "ot Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 139-40V,; Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 59¥-62; Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 28-30; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 40-41%; Reg. Grandisson, Il, 973-78; Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 461, York, Reg. la Zouche, fo. 242; D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Secundum,

fo. 1147-1157.

°° Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 479.

* The bishop of Winchester received his copy on 28 March. °° Same references as p. 836, n. 6. °° Literae Cantuarienses, Il, 270-71; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. L, fo. 78¥. °7'W.A.M. 29637, 29639-42, 29645-48, 29674; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4515, 4891, 4945, 5385.

** Ely, Reg. Monte Acuto, fo. 62; Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 42; Reg. Hethe

(Rochester), II, 706-07.

638 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

but they ordered the bishops to collect supplementary procurations for two of their agents. On 20 October 1343 the archbishop of Canterbury wrote to his suffragans that he had received from Androin, the commissioner of the cardinals, a mandate to collect his procurations. By letters of the pope and the cardinals he was authorized to receive two florins a day for a period of 250 days in the province of Canterbury. He was, however, making the demand as an agent of the cardinals and not as an envoy of the pope. In the last convocation of the province held at St. Paul’s it had

been agreed to pay the same and a further item of £10 ordered by the cardinals for the expenses of Geoffrey de Craunford of the Augustinian order of Hermits, whom they had sent to England. Convocation decided to levy for these two sums a farthing in the pound of the assessment for the tenth. The levy was expected to yield more than was required. The remainder was to be kept for any levy of procurations by future envoys. The archbishop commanded the bishops to collect the tax before 13 January 1344 and to deliver the yield to the dean of St Paul’s before 25 January.

The customary censures were to be used to enforce payment and the usual rolls listing payers and nonpayers were to be sent to the archbishop. The bishops generally appointed their deputies late in November or early

in December and delivered the money together with their accounts on time.??

In the northern province the procurations of Androin were being collected in October 1343. The rate there was a penny in the pound on the

new valuation.’

The archbishop of Canterbury found use for the surplus produced by the farthing in the pound soon after it had been collected. On 13 January 1344 Clement VI sent as nuncio to Edward III William Bateman, dean of Lincoln.*®* The clergy of all grades were ordered to pay him four florins a day for his expenses.’°” On 23 January 1344 the pope provided William

to the bishopric of Norwich. After his promotion, on 7 February the pope ordered the clergy to pay him eight florins a day.*°? The incident illustrates the principle that the rate of the procurations of a papal envoy depended upon his rank in the hierarchy. °° Winchester, Reg. Orlton, II, fo. 42-42%, Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 141-141v; Worcester, Reg. Branford, I, fo. 66%-687%,; Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 49-49v, 51v-52;, Reg.

Shrewsbury, Il, 480. The sum from the diocese of Worcester was £7 6 s. 8% d., from Winchester £10 14 s. 10% d. From the latter 17 s. 5% d. of arrears were received on 13 August 1344. The date of a payment made by the abbot and convent of Westminster is illegible: W.A.M. 29578. 10° T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4215, 4325.

CPL. IL, 5. 102 CPL. Tt, 8. 13 CPI. Il, 8, 125.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 639 On 7 March 1344 the elect of Norwich, quoting the papal letter of 7 February, ordered the archbishop of Canterbury to levy his procurations

in the province of Canterbury. He claimed 320 florins for a period of forty days. Of this sum the share of the province of Canterbury was 267 florins. The archbishop, on 13 June, commanded the bishops of the province to collect the arrears of the farthing in the pound levied primarily for the procurations of Androin and Geoffrey and to levy another farthing in the pound before 15 August. The bishops carried out the mandate in the customary manner.’°* Concerning the levy in the province of York no evidence is forthcoming, but since William asked from the clergy of the southern province only part of what was due him, it seems safe to

assume that the remainder came from the northern province. |

The next nuncios whom Clement VI sent to Edward III had for their mission to seek the repeal of the acts of 1344 against papal provisions.*°° They were Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna, and Peter, bishop of Astorga.'°® On 21 November 1344 the pope ordered all classes of the English

clergy to provide the archbishop with 15 florins and the bishop with 12 florins daily.°7 On 4 March 1345 they ordered the archbishop of Canterbury to collect their procurations for twenty days.*°? They amounted to 540 florins or £81.'°? On 8 March 1345 the archbishop directed the bish-

ops to collect from their clergy a farthing in each two pounds of the valuation for the tenth in order to meet the demand.'t® The bishops in the province of Canterbury appointed deputies in May and the collection took place in May and June." In the province of York the levy was made in June 1346.**¥

The archbishop of Ravenna, on 7 September 1345, was again commissioned as nuncio to go to Edward III. This time he was to treat of peace between England and France."'* On the same date all the English clergy were ordered to give him 15 florins a day during his sojourn in 104 Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 142-43; Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 58-597, 61-619. *°° Above, p. 335. we CPL. TL, 12.

107 These are the terms of the papal letter quoted in the mandate of the nuncios. According to the summary of it in C.P.L. prelates and masters and preceptors of the knightly orders were to pay them 10 fl. and 8 fl. a day, but the Hospitallers were to pay them 15 fl. and 12 fl.: III, 12. 198 Their safe conduct was dated 8 February 1345 and their permit to depart from Dover 24 February: Rymer, Foedera, III, 29; C.C.R. 1343-46, p. 530.

10° According to Adam Murimuth the archbishop paid the nuncios and then ordered the collection: Cont., p. 162. 1° Reg. Grandisson, Il, 992-95; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 111, 143¥-44, Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 70-71¥. 111 W.A.M. 29696, 29697, 29699, 29707. 1118 T), & Ch. Durham, Misc. Ch., 4374. 122 C.P.L., Ill, 20.

640 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 England.*** On 6 January 1346 the archbishop of Ravenna notified the archbishop of Canterbury that he had been in England 55 days and in-

tended to remain longer, making the total amount of his procurations come to £138 2s. 6d. The archbishop of Canterbury paid him that sum and received the nuncio’s mandate to levy the amount from the English clergy and along with it a moderate sum for the expenses of collection. At various dates from 15 January to 17 February the archbishop of Canterbury commanded the bishops of his province to collect a farthing in the pound of the assessment for the tenth. They were to publish his writ of collection within fifteen days of its receipt, levy the procurations within a month thereafter and deliver the money within fifteen or twenty days after the end of the month to the dean of St Paul’s. They commissioned their deputies late in January or in February.** The collection took place in February, March or April,’?® and the bishops delivered the receipts with the customary rolls in March or April.1?® In the province of York the rate was a half-penny in the pound, and the collection was made in May and June.“** Lest it be forgotten that the levies of procurations were always enforced by ecclesiastical censures on tardy payers, it may be noted that the bishop of Hereford absolved a delinquent payer from the sentence of excommunication on 20 September 1346.18 The principal duty of the archbishop of Ravenna had been to prepare the way for a more solemn embassy of cardinals. Anibaldus, bishop of Tusculum, and Stephen, priest of SS Giovanni e Paoli, 1’? were commissioned for the purpose on 31 October 1345. Among their faculties was that of receiving the wonted procurations.’*° They did not leave Avignon until after 29 November,*** and thereafter they remained in France be-

cause Edward II, on the ground that he was coming to France, would not grant them safe conduct to England. He came in July 1346 to invade Normandy, where the cardinals hastened to meet him. They continued *°"The papal authorization as quoted in the mandate of the archbishop of Ravenna. The summary in C.P.L. gives two authorizations, one for 10 fl. and one for 15 fl., both addressed only to the English prelates: III, 26. “* Reg. Trillek (Hereford), pp. 63-66; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 184-85; Lincoln, Reg. Beck, fo. 78-807; Ely, Reg. de Insula, fo. 55-567; Winchester, Reg. Edington, I, fo. 5¥-6. **°'W A.M. 29725, 29728; Reg. de Insula, fo. 56V-57 (£6 5 s. 11% d.).

*** Winchester, Reg. Edington, I, fo. 11 (£8 2 s. 8% d.); Reg. Trillek, p. 66 (£5 6s. 3% d.). ™7T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4374, 4191.

8 Reg. Trillek, pp. 86-87. 1° Later Innocent VI. 120 CPL. Tl, 195-98. 2. C.P.L., UI, 22-23. They put the beginning of their embassy on 1 December: Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 124.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 641 to negotiate with him and Philip VI in France, receving papal permission on 28 September 1347 to return to Avignon.’”? Their attempt to collect procurations in England while they remained in France, as previous cardinals who were nuncios to both countries had done before them, met with vigorous resistance. In the parliament which assembled on 11 September 1346 the commons petitioned that no payment for expenses should be allowed to cardinals who remained in France to treat of a peace or a truce. They received the reply that it seemed to earls,

barons and other wise laymen of the council that the commons asked reason, and they agreed that the request should be granted.’°* ‘The act represented the irritation of the clergy caused by the nearly continuous demands made for procurations by papal nuncios since 1336. The new law was put to the test in the spring of 1347. The cardinals

then sent to England proctors with their mandate for the collection of procurations together with the papal authorization therefor. On 12 April the king directed writs to the archbishops and bishops forbidding the levy of the procurations. It was, he said, contrary to the ordinance of the last parliament, and the importation of papal letters without displaying them at the port of entry violated another ordinance. The proctors moreover, had no royal license or safe conduct. If any bishop had ordered the levy, he was to rescind the order.*** Disobedience would cause the prelate to be treated as an enemy and a rebel.**® The proctors of the cardinals were tried before a royal justice and thrown into prison for a period.’?** On

17 July 1347, after the pope had heard that the proctors had been deprived of their letters and maltreated in London, he gave license to the two

cardinals to proceed against the persons in England who refused to pay the customary procurations by publication in Avignon of a process against them.**® In September he complained to the king’s envoys that cardinals

collected procurations throughout provinces and kingdoms and found opposition nowhere except in England.’?” The king, however, did not

relent.

The revolt ended on 6 August 1348, when Edward III ordered the sheriffs to allow the proctors of the cardinals to come into England and 22 CPL, Il, 25-34.

28 Rot. Parl., Il, 162. *“* Apparently the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Winchester had done so, Since writs were directed to the collectors of the procurations in these dioceses. "° C.CLR. 1346-49, p. 270; Reg. Trillek, pp. 299-300; Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, 67¥-68; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I fo. 193; Worcester, Reg. Bransford, I, fo. 179¥-80.

52 Cotton MS Cleop. E II, fo. 46. 26 CPL. Il, 254. **7 Cleop. E. I, fo. 46¥.

642 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to levy the procurations granted to the cardinals by papal bulls.?* On 5 September he directed the bishops to permit the bulls to be executed. The reason assigned by the king for the change in policy was that the cardinals had labored long in France on his behalf.'° The proctors, who were Bindus de Pillis, canon of Arras, and brother Barnabas Maffei of Florence,*®° sent to each bishop a copy of the original letter by which the cardinals, on 13 February 1346, had ordered the payment of their procurations for the first year, which began on 1 December 1345. ‘The cardinals quoted the papal letter of 31 October 1345, requiring all classes of the English clergy to pay to them present or absent the larger sum which one nuncio or legate who was a cardinal was accustomed to receive. They ordered the bishops within fifteen days of their receipt of the letter to publish it and within a month thereafter to collect the larger sum according to the assessment of the tenth, compelling opponents by ecclesiastical censures. The cardinals exempted from payment the benefices of cardinals, lazar houses and monasteries of poor nuns. The bishops were to deliver the proceeds on demand along with the customary detailed accounts.’** Though this letter applied only to the procurations of one year, in 1348 those for two years were due. The bishops ordered the procurations for both years to be collected at one time, making the rate 8 d. in the mark.*** The deputy collectors were allowed to collect for their expenses a small additional sum, which in the province of Canterbury was a half-penny in the pound of taxable income ** and in the province of York a half-penny in the mark.**4

In the diocese of Winchester one payer rendered what he owed as early as 15 August 1348,**° the bishop of Exeter did not receive the cardinals’ mandate until 13 September,'*® and the bishop of Lichfield did not receive it until 26 September.**” Payments were most commonly made during September, October and November.*** The bishop of Winchester **° Worcester, Reg. Bransford, I, fo. 1857; C.P.R. 1348-50, pp. 137, 139. ™° C.C.R. 1346-49, pp. 483-84.

*8° 'W.A.M. 29829; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 124, Winchester, Reg. Edington,

Il, fo. 559. *81 Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1062-65.

*82 Ibid., II, 1065-66; W.A.M. 29820, 29824, 29829; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters 4178, 4791; Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 55%; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 1247; Knighton, Chron., I, 58. **° Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1066, D. & Ch. Ely, Chamberlain’s Roll, 21 Edward III. *84T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 11 November 1347 to 11 November 1348. 185 -WA.M. 29820.

186 Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1062. **7 Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 124. 8° 'W.A.M. 28822-25, 29828-29, D. & Ch. Salisbury, Chapter Act. Bk., II, pp. 6-7; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4178, 4791.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 643

delivered the bulk of the money due from his diocese on 20 October 1348.%°° The bishop of Lichfield made delivery on 20 February 1349,**° and the bishop of Exeter on 16 March. The arrears do not appear to have

been large in amount. The bishop of Exeter reported only twenty-eight tardy payers. They owed collectively £14 2 s. 1 d.1** Arrears continued to be paid in 1349, 14 and apparently some debts were still outstanding in 1350, since the king renewed the license of the proctors of the cardinals on 13 September of that year.*4* The bishop of Exeter in his report of 16 March 1349 gave an interesting sidelight on the difficulties which the collectors encountered in some dioceses. He said that he had increased the severity of the sentences against delinquent payers as far as he could, when frequent and many vacancies were occurring in the churches of his diocese ‘in this pestilential time.’ **4

Clement VI sent no more cardinals as nuncios with the faculty to levy monetary procurations, but beginning in 1349 he sent successive envoys of lesser rank with that faculty so often that the levy of procurations of one was not completed before the levy of procurations of another began.

All were concerned with a truce or with the attempt to convert a truce into a permanent peace.

The first of these was Bernard de Caulasone, archdeacon of Perpignan **° and papal chaplain. He was also to request Edward III to allow the cardinals who had benefices in England to enjoy their fruits.**® On 17 August 1349 the pope ordered payments to him going to France and England by all the English clergy of procurations of five florins a day.**" On 31 December 1349 Bernard wrote to the vicar of the archbishop of Canterbury. He quoted the papal authorization of 17 August, said that he had sojourned for forty days in the dioceses of Canterbury and London and had received therefrom fifty florins for procurations. ‘They were to be recovered by a levy on the income of the clergy of the two dioceses as it was assessed for the tenth. He ordered the archbishop to make the +89 £575 2s. 4 d.: Reg. Edington, II, fo. 55. *#° Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 124. *# Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1067-68. ** Wethered, St Mary’s Hurley, p. 192.

*“* C.P.R. 1348-50, p. 562. The chamberlain of the priory of Worcester made a payment between Michaelmas 1351 and Michaelmas 1352: D. & Ch. Worcester, C. 11, Chamberlain’s Roll. *** Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1067.

“SIn some English sources he is incorrectly styled archbishop of Perpignan: Reg. Trillek, p. 161; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 153. **° Above, p. 337.

*47 Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 6; Reg. Trillek, p. 161. The summary of the bull in C.P.L. has it addressed only to the prelates and has the amount four florins a day: III, 41.

644 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 levy in his diocese, using eclesiastical censures. The archbishop, on 5 January 1350, ordered his archdeacon to collect from the clergy of his diocese

a farthing in the pound to pay for the procurations and for the expenses of collection incurred by the nuncio and himself. On 28 January the archdeacon reported that he had collected 34s. 2 d.*** This left a large amount of arrears, since in 1338 the same rate had produced £5 3 s. 4% d. in the

diocese of Canterbury.’*® The nuncio made similar arrangements with the bishops of Winchester, Norwich, Rochester *°° and Lincoln.*** Ber-

nard committed the collection of the procurations due him in the other dioceses of the province of Canterbury to the archbishop of the province. On 26 July 1350 the archbishop instructed the bishop of London to order the bishops, except those of Winchester, Norwich and Rochester, to collect in their dioceses a farthing in the pound before 6 October and to deliver the proceeds to Alan Hothum, canon of London,**? before 18 October. They were to use canonical coercion and to send lists of payers and

nonpayers.*°? The bishop of London sent copies of the archiepiscopal mandate on 4 September 1350.** Some of the bishops were late in delivering the money. On 28 Novem-

ber the archbishop wrote to the bishop of London chiding him for his failure. Instead of imposing penalties, he ordered the bishop to collect the farthing before 6 January 1351 and to certify the amount before 13 January. He threatened him with censures for another failure.*°° On 1 December he wrote a similar letter to the bishop of Exeter.’°® The bishop of Lincoln finally explained that he had not made the levy because he had

paid Bernard £10 before he left. In reply, the archbishop, on 3 March 1351, ordered him to collect the farthing in the pound and to deduct the £10 from the sum to be sent to the receiver.*°’? On 14 February the archbishop ordered the imposition of ecclesiastical censures on the clergy who had not yet paid the procurations.*®* The bishop of Exeter sent £4 18 s., for which his acquittance was dated 23 February. ‘The bishop of Here148 T amb, Reg. Islep, fo. 6-7. *#9 Above, p. 626.

*5°T amb. Reg. Islep, fo. 21%; Wilkins, Conczilia, III, 9-10.

+51 Lamb. Reg. Islep, fo. 42. Bernard appears to have left England about 14 April 1350, when he received the gift of a cup, which cost £7 13 s. 4 d., from the king: Issues of the Exchequer, ed. Devon, p. 153. 182 The archbishop appointed Alan the receiver on 27 August: Reg. Islep, fo. 29. *° Reg. Islep, fo. 21%; Wilkins, Conczilia, Ill, 9. 154 Reg, Shrewsbury, Il, 643; Reg. Trillek, pp. 160-63, Reg. Grandisson, II, 1097-98; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 153-54. *55 Reg. Islep, fo. 35%; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 9-10. **° Reg. Islep, fo. 357-36. 187 Thid., fo. 42. 158 Thid., fo. 399.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 645 ford, who had received no reminder, sent the money from his diocese on 26 January 1351.7°° The bishops of Lichfield and London reported before 14 February.*®° There were, however, several dioceses in which the procurations were still being collected in 1351.1®' The result was that a large part of Bernard’s procurations was collected along with the procurations of a later nuncio. The later nuncio was Raymond Pelegrini, canon of London and papal

chaplain, who had formerly been papal collector in England. He was accredited to Edward III on 3 September 1350.'® On the same day he was empowered to receive procurations of six florins a day from all grades of the English clergy. On 8 November Raymond ordered the archbishop

of Canterbury to provide him with 258 florins for the forty-three days of his embassy. The archbishop, on 17 November, commanded his suffragans to collect for the purpose a farthing in each two pounds. The bishops of Salisbury and Exeter, on 10 and 11 December, directed their deputies

to levy the farthing by 2 February 1351.1® On 24 February the archbishop pronounced ecclesiastical censures on the clergy who had not yet _ paid the procurations.** On the same day the archbishop appointed Alan de Hothum to receive the procurations of Raymond as well as those of Bernard.’® Some of the bishops sent what they had collected for both nuncios to the receiver.1®°

What is more, some of the deputy collectors received the procurations of both nuncios at the same time in 1351 from the payers.’** On 9 May 1351 the archbishop gave the rector of St Gregory London power to absolve from ecclesiastical censures those who had failed to pay on time the procurations of either nuncio, when they finally did give satisfaction.1**

While some of the procurations of both nuncios were still being collected, the situation was further complicated by the demand of a third *°° Reg. Trillek, pp. 163-64. *°° Reg. Islep, fo. 39V.

* B. g., Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 659; W.A.M. 29847; Addit. MS. 33445, fo. 35; Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, ll, 145. *8? C.P.L., Ul, 47. The archbishops of Brindisi and Braga were sent on three different

missions connected with a breach of the truce and the making of a peace. They were granted procurations for the three on 6 December 1349 and 20 March and 15 May 1350. On two of them they were accredited to Edward III, but all their negotiations took place in France: C.P.L., III, 42-48, 335. They did not levy procurations in England. 78° Reg. Shrewsbury, I, 647, 654, Reg. Grandisson, Il, 1093-97; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 155-56. *°* Reg. Islep, fo. 419. 165 Ibid,

*6° 23 February 1351: Reg. Grandisson, II, 1098; 17 April: Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 659-60. *°T'W.A.M. 29847; Addit. MS. 33445, fo. 35; Chapman, Sacrist. Rolls of Ely, Il, 145. *°° Reg. Islep. fo. 46.

646 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 envoy for procurations. Bertrand of Aragon, papal serjeant-at-arms, had been given a papal safe conduct to the kings of France and England on 17 August 1350,1® a few days before Raymond Pelegrini had been accredited to Edward III. The pope originally asked and exhorted all the clergy to whom Bertrand displayed the letter to give him for each day two florins for expenses. Because many of the clergy, high and low, refused to pay on request, Clement VI, on 25 January 1351, ordered the archbishop of Canterbury to use compulsory process to obtain payment from those who had refused. The archbishop apparently did not receive this mandate immediately, since it was not until 13 April 1352 that he sent copies of it to the bishops of the province with orders to collect a farthing in each two pounds for the expenses of Bertrand. In the same letter he commanded them also to collect the outstanding farthings for the procurations of Bernard and Raymond. The proceeds of the three procurations were to be paid to Robert de Keteringham, the rector of St Gregory,*”

before 25 July. The lists were to be sent to the archbishop before 10 August. If the total receipt exceeded the expenses of the three nuncios,

the surplus would be kept in safe custody for similar burdens in the future.'"? Payments for the procurations of Bertrand were made in some dioceses in 1352 177 and 1353.1 The slowness with which the procurations of these three nuncios were paid seems to indicate a strong spirit of opposition to them on the part of many payers. In 1350 the collection of Bernard’s procurations was far short of the amount which should have been raised.*7* On 13 April 1352 the bishop of Lincoln had collected the procurations of neither Bernard nor Raymond.’”* In 1356, when the archbishop of Canterbury had occasion to order the collection of procurations for another envoy, Thomas de Ringstead, he demanded payment of arrears owed for procurations of the above three envoys. On 12 December 1356 the bishop of Worcester still owed £7 13s. 44 d. for those of Bernard, 26s. 3 d. for those of Raymond and 46 s. 6 d. for those of Bertrand. The bishop ordered a new levy in his diocese of a half-penny in the pound to meet these arrears. On 6 May 1357 the receiver, Robert, rector of St Gregory London, acknowledged 10° CPL, Tl, 47.

*7°'The archbishop appointed him to supersede Adam de Hothum as receiver on 29 June: Reg. Islep, fo. 55; Wilkins, Conczlia, II, 25.

171 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 20-21; Reg. Islep, fo. 53%, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 211, Reg. Shrewsbury, Il, 692. 172 A ddit. MS. 33445, fo. 17; W.A.M. 31774. 178 A ddit. MS. 33445, fo. 35. *“* Above, pp. 643-45.

7° Reg. Islep, fo. 53%.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 647 receipt from him of £4 of arrears and on 2 June of £3 17 s. 6% d.*7® On 17 November 1359 no more had been received from the bishop of Worcester.’"” Thus there was a substantial amount of hopeless debts in his diocese, and the same situation may well have existed in other dioceses.

No evidence of the levy of procurations in the province of York by any of the three nuncios has come to light, though the letters of authorization of the first two were addressed to the English clergy. The silence of the sources may indicate that the nuncios exacted no procurations in the northern province, or it may be due to the loss of records of such exactions

which once existed. The balance of probability does not seem to be weighted in favor of either hypothesis.

The first nuncios sent by Innocent VI to Edward III were Bertrand of Aragon and Peter de Sancto Marcello. They bore the news of the election and coronation of the new pope. Bertrand, on 8 January 1353, was

granted procurations of two florins a day while he was on the way, but not in England.*"® It was not customary for envoys on this errand to receive procurations in England, but they were usually given presents by the king.” On this occasion they were given £5 each,'*® and Peter de Sancto Marcello was taken into the royal household and given the annual right to a robe and to £20." The first nuncio who was empowered to collect procurations in England was Raymond Pelegrini, who was sent to treat of the perennial problem of peace.*®? On 7 July 1353 Innocent VI ordered the English clergy to pay him six florins a day.1*? When Raymond finished his mission and left England on 10 November 1353,'** instead of arranging for the archbishops to collect his procurations, he addressed each bishop. He wrote, for example, to the bishop of Salisbury, quoting his authorization to levy 7° Reg. Brian, fo. 73-73%,

*77 Qn that date the archbishop acknowledged receipt from Robert de Keteringham of £37 6s. 5% d. for the procurations of Bernard Caulasone, £48 7 s. 10% d. for those of Raymond, £41 7 s. 1 d. for those of Bertrand of Aragon, and £7 17 s. 6% d. from the bishop of Worcester without specification of the amount for each: Reg. Islep, fo. 154¥. If the amount for each nuncio be compared with the yield of a farthing in the pound for the whole province except the diocese of Winchester in 1338 (above, p. 822), the receipt for each is much less than should have been produced, but how much of each difference may represent instalments paid to the archbishop by the two receivers previously and how much may represent hopeless debts cannot be determined. **8 "The procurations were to be collected by three persons who were beneficed abroad: C.P.L., III, 609. *7° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 564. *®°Rymer, Foedera, I, 1199. 181 Thid., Tl, 1207.

82 C.P.L., Ill, 610-14. 8° C.P.L., Ill, 612; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 167%.

*®* He carried a royal letter of 8 November: Rymer, Foedera, III, 269.

648 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 six florins a day, stating that he had been in England 77 days and ordering the bishop to collect 48 florins for 8 days of the 77.18° Each bishop fixed the rate for his own diocese and the consequence was variation from one diocese to another. In Salisbury it was a half-penny 78° in the mark,*% in Exeter,'** Lincoln *®* and Ely 1°° a farthing in the pound, and in Nor-

wich *** a farthing in the mark. Robert Keteringham, who was the receiver, issued an acquittance to the bishop of Salisbury for 48 florins on 26 December 1353.*°? In some other dioceses the debtors were making their payments in 1354.1? The bishop of Exeter apparently advanced the sum due from the clergy of his diocese and did not levy it from them until 1355.*°* In the diocese of Durham the rate seems to have been a farthing in four marks. The only recorded payment was made late in 1354 or in 1355.49

The year 1354 may well have seemed to the English clergy to be a red-letter year, since no papal envoy who was entitled to procurations came to England. The vacation ended early in 1355. On 22 February John, bishop of Perpignan, and Androin de la Roche, then abbot of Cluny,

who were sent to the kings of England and France in connection with negotiations for peace, were granted faculty to receive procurations. The clergy of France were ordered to pay Androin ten florins a day and the clergy of England to pay John the same amount.’*® In England, however,

they collected procurations jointly on the basis of a papal letter which they sent to the archbishop of Canterbury, but which the archbishop did not quote in his mandate to the bishops of his province.’®* Consequently the daily amount which they claimed in England is not known. Nor did the archbishop say how many days the envoys had been in England.*®* He set the rate at a farthing in the pound. His mandate was dated 18 May 1355, and it gave the bishops until about 15 August to deliver the pro**° Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 1679.

*8¢ Changed in the text from a farthing. **7 Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 168¥. *88 Reg, Grandisson, II, 1160-62. 189 'W.A.M. 29872.

19° Addit MS. 33445, fo. 88. 191 Ibid., fo. 70.

*°? Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 171. 193 'W.A.M. 29872; Addit. MS. 33445, fo. 70, 88. +94 Reg, Grandisson, Il, 160-62.

*°5T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1354-55. The entry does not name the envoy for whom the procurations were paid. 196 C.P.L. Il, 616. *°7 Reg. Islep, fo. 85°.

*°° Their royal safe conduct, good until 24 May, was dated 2 April 1355: C.P.R. 135458, p. 203.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 649 ceeds to Robert Keteringham, rector of St Gregory London.’*? Again some payers and some bishops were late with their quotas. The abbot of Ramsey did not pay until 1356.°°° On 14 May 1356 some bishops had not yet delivered any money to the receiver.”°* On 12 December 1356 the bishop of Worcester owed only 124% d.,2°* but the bishop of Winchester was not credited with £5 14 s. 9% d. for the procurations of his diocese until 15 April 1357.7? On 17 November 1359 the archbishop received from his receiver £86 12 s. % d.?°* A record concerning the keeper of the chapel of St Mary in the cathedral of Hereford testifies to the weight of the burden placed on the clergy by the procurations of papal envoys. In 1355 he took for his yearly fee, which was £5, only 70s. The reason was that payment of a tenth to the king and the procurations of the cardinals did not leave enough for his full fee.?®

In the province of York the procurations of Androin and John were levied at the rate of a farthing in the mark. There the renders seem to have been more prompt. The priory of Durham paid its procurations in 1355.7°° On 13 September of that year William de Swafield, chaplain of St Mary and the Angels in York, whom the archbishop had appointed as his receiver, acknowledged receipt from the bishop of Carlisle of £4 15 s. 4 d. for the procurations owed by him and the clergy of his diocese.*°” The succession of papal envoys was continued by Simon Sudbury, chancellor of Salisbury, commensal chaplain of the pope and auditor of causes, who was sent to acquaint Edward III with the papal views concerning the peace.*°* On 23 February 1356 Innocent VI conceded him the right to collect from all grades of the English clergy four florins a day for procurations.”°? On 14 May 1356 the nuncio sent to the archbishop of Canterbury a copy of this letter, and in a covering letter ordered the archbishop, under penalty for failure of suspension to be followed in due course by excommunication, to pay him within 15 days 220 florins or

55 marks for the 55 days he had been in the province of Canterbury. Thereafter he was to levy that sum from the clergy of his province. To *°° Reg. Islep, fo. 85%.

20° Addit. MS. 33445, fo. 109V.

*** Rochester, Reg. Sheppey, fo. 288. °°? Reg. Brian, fo. 73.

°° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 37. 7° Reg. Islep, fo. 154%.

°°° Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, p. 229. 296 T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1354-55. 797 Carlisle, Reg. Welton, p. 124.

2°8 Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 328. °° Reg. Islep, fo. 1167.

650 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

the bishops and clergy of the province Simon gave orders to reimburse the archbishop within sixty days of notice from the archbishop. They would receive information from the archbishop of the method by which the sum should be raised. ‘The nuncio’s mandate was supported with the usual threat of penalties. ‘The archbishop, on 25 May, commanded the bishops to collect from their clergy a farthing in each two pounds and to

forward the yield, together with the arrears of the procurations of the bishop of Perpignan and the abbot of Cluny, to Robert Keteringham before 25 July. He sent his mandate to the bishop of London, who dispatched copies of it to the bishops on 1 June.?*° On 25 August the receiver acquitted the bishop of Worcester for £3 16 s. 8 d. of Simon’s procurations, but one of the bishop’s deputies had not

paid in full. On 28 September and again on 25 November the bishop demanded the arrears from his archdeacon.?* The bishop of Rochester delivered the whole amount due on an unspecified date.?’* On 17 November 1359 the receiver paid to the archbishop £40 14s. 714 d.,??° which was more than enough to recompense the archbishop for the 55 marks he had

paid. ‘The liability of the clergy of the province of York for Simon’s procurations is left in obscurity by the lack of pertinent records. The next levy of papal procurations was made for Thomas de Ring-

stead, a Dominican, a papal penitentiar and bishop elect of Bangor.’ Innocent VI accredited him to Edward III to explain false statements that the pope had favored France in the negotiations for peace,”’* and to notify the king of two cardinals to treat of peace.?*® On the same date the pope authorized the nuncio to collect procurations.”** Of the daily rate of his procurations we are left in ignorance, because the archbishop of Canterbury, who was ordered by Thomas to collect the procurations, in his mandate to the bishops mentioned the papal letter of 18 June, but did not quote it.2*8 Thomas’s directive to the archbishop was dated 21 October 1356. In it he demanded not only his procurations for forty days but also the expenses of his entourage. The total amount was not stated by the arch-

bishop, but the levy was to be a farthing in each three pounds. The *"° Reg. Islep, fo. 116-17; Rochester, Reg. Sheppey, fo. 2877-88; Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 69V; Reg. Grandisson, II, 1187-88. "21 Reg. Brian, fo. 70-70¥. ** Reg. Sheppey, fo. 2877-88.

22 Reg. Islep, fo. 154. 4CP IL. Til, 581. 22° C.P.L., UI, 620.

**°Rymer, Foedera, Il, 338. "17 Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 727.

tT fo tasewnere the rate is said erroneously to be %4 d. in £3: Winchester, Reg. Edington,

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 651 archbishop’s letter was dated 12 December 1356, and copies were for-

warded to the other bishops by the bishop of London on 23 January 1357.79

The collection seems to have been made promptly. On 15 April 1357 Robert Keteringham, who again was made receiver, acknowledged receipt from the bishop of Winchester of £ 10 s. 5 d.??° which was probably a partial payment, and on 25 April from the bishop of Worcester of £2 11 s. 1% d. for payment in full.??* On 17 November 1359 he delivered to the archbishop £24 13 s. 34 d. for the procurations of Brother Thomas.*”? The levy of procurations for Thomas de Ringstead in the province of York appears to have been postponed to 1360. On 24 October the collector of 144 d. in the mark for him, William of Lynn and other nuncios for making peace between the kings of England and France issued a receipt to

the prior of Durham.??? William of Lynn and the other nuncios were acting in 1360, but the only participation of Thomas in that business appears to have been in 1356. The two cardinals, with whose mission Thomas de Ringstead acquainted Edward III, were Talleyrand de Perigord, bishop of Albano, and Nicholas

Capocci, bishop of Urgel, priest of S Vitale. The letters giving them authority to demand procurations were dated 8 April 1356,?** but they were not accredited to the kings of England and France until 20 June,”*° and they dated the beginning of their embassy 21 June.?*° Their errand

was peace. They remained in France a long time before they came to England. When their royal safe conduct to England was issued on 1 June 1357, they were expected to arrive about 24 June.*?” They ordered the collection of their procurations for the first year in England by letters dated at the abbey of Sain-Jean-en-Vallée-les-Chartres on 21 July 1356.

Though the mandate was issued before that of Thomas de Ringstead, copies of it were not received by the English bishops until June 1357.°?° The reason for the delay in the delivery of the letters is not explained.

°° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 37. 72? Reg. Brian, I, fo. 73%.

2? Reg. Islep, fo. 154. 223 T), & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4813.

— 74 Reg. Islep, fo. 133.

25C PI. Tl, 620.

°° Reg. Islep, fo. 133¥. 221 CPR, 1354-58, p. 565.

72° Canterbury, 7 June: Reg. Islep, fo. 134; Lincoln, 7 June, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 79; Lichfield, 10 June, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 139”; Worcester, 26 June, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 797; Carlisle, before 23 June: Reg. Welton, p. 39; Salisbury, before 24 August: Reg. Wyville, I,

fo. 248¥.

652 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 It may have been that the king held up the collection of procurations until the cardinals came to England on account of a complaint of the clergy. In the convocation of the province of Canterbury which met on 16 May 1356 the lower clergy protested to the bishops against the king’s request for the grant of a sexennial tenth to be paid within three years. One of the reasons they gave for their inability to pay was that the two cardinals and Simon Sudbury would exact procurations.**? ‘The incident illustrates both

_ the burden of procurations on the clergy and their interference with the financial interest of the king in the income of the clergy. A copy of the mandate of the cardinals was addressed to each archbishop and bishop.?*° The enabling letters of the pope, which were quoted, conferred upon them the usual powers to levy procurations of the amount

which one cardinal who was entitled to the larger sum customarily received. Each prelate was ordered to determine what the customary sum was, to give notice of the levy within fifteen days of the receipt of the mandate, to collect the procurations by means of deputies within one month of the time when he gave the notice, and to make thereafter delivery

of the funds and of the customary reports. He was to compel payment when necessary by the use of censures. As cardinals had done before, they gave exemption to the benefices of cardinals and to houses of lepers, of God and of poor nuns. They allowed the exaction of a further sum for moderate expenses of the deputy collectors.

The bishops ordered four pence in the mark to be collected. They generally appointed their deputies in June or early July of 1357, though the bishop of Salisbury did not act until 24 August.78* ‘The payers commonly rendered what they owed in June and July.”*? A payment made by some of the obedientiars of Westminster on 21 August was too late, and they had to be absolved from the censures which had been pronounced

against them.?? The chamberlain of Westminster, who did not pay the sums due from possessions in the diocese of Lincoln until 28 and 30 NoWilkins, Concilia, Ill, 38; Knighton, Chron., II, 86. The clergy granted a tenth for one year. Its collection began in September and October: Avesbury, De Gestis, p. 459; Winchester Cathedral Chartulary, pp. 164-65; York, Reg. Thoresby, fo. 87’. *°° The archbishop of Canterbury, when he reported to the cardinals the appointment of a deputy collector for his diocese, said that he had sent copies of their mandate to several dioceses. *™* Reg. Islep, fo. 133¥-35, Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 77¥-79%,; Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell,

fo. 79-80; Salisbury, Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 247-487; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 139v40; Bodley, MS. Ashmol. 794, fo. 107%: Carlisle, Reg. Welton, pp. 37-40. " W.A.M. 29901, 29905, 29907; H.M.C., Third Report, p. 361; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc.

Charter, 7033. Payments of which only the year 1357 is recorded: D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1356-57; D. & Ch. Worcester, C. 63, Cellarer’s Roll, 1356-57; Charters of Priory of Finchale, p. XLIV. 233 'W.A.M. 29912.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 653 vember had to be released from interdict as well as excommunication.?°* Some debtors delivered their payments directly to the receivers appointed by the cardinals instead of to the deputy collectors.”®* Each of the cardi-

nals had a receiver. Pontius de Vereriis, rector of Walpole, acted for Talleyrand and Luke de Tholomeis of Sienna for Nicholas, but either could accept what was due both cardinals.?*° The bishops, for the most

part, delivered to the receivers the sums obtained by their deputies in August and September,?*? paying half to each receiver. The bishop of Carlisle, who had collected all the procurations due from his diocese by 12 September, reported to Talleyrand that he had done it with difficulty on account of the poverty of the diocese.?*° The order of the cardinals to collect their procurations for the second year, which began on 21 June 1357, went out from London to the bishops between 5 and 10 September 1357, before most of the proceeds of the first year had been received. The archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Worcester passed the order along to their deputies on 30 September, the bishop of Lincoln on 5 November, the bishop of Lichfield on 10 December, and the bishop of Carlisle, who did not receive the letter of the cardinals until 28 November, on 23 January 1358.°%° Receipts from the bishops began to reach the receivers, to whom Hugh Pelegrini, the papal collector, had been added in behalf of Talleyrand, as early as 20 October,**° the most of them arrived in November and December,?*! and a few were as late as 20 February 1358.74? All the acquittances to payers of the procurations which I found were issued in November.?**? Thus the English clergy during 1357 paid the bulk of two procurations, amounting approximately half a tenth, two additional small levies for the deputy collectors of the same,”** and, with the probable exception of the province of York, a farthing in three pounds for the procurations of Thomas de Ringstead.

The cardinals gave orders for the collection of their procurations for 284 WAM. 29925, 29927. 285 W A.M. 29912, 29925, 29927. 286 'W.A.M. 29912.

*“T Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 37%; Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 79. *°° Reg. Welton, pp. 39-40.

°° Reg. Islep, fo. 135¥-36%; Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 83-84, Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 89; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 143; Carlisle, Reg. Welton, pp. 40-41. **° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 37. **) Tbid., Il, fo. 38; Reg. Brian, I, fo. 83¥-84.

4? Reg. Welton, pp. 40-41. A receipt from cardinal Nicholas is so dated. One from Hugh Pelegrini for cardinal Talleyrand is dated 25 November incorrectly. It probably should be 25 February 1358. 243° W.A.M. 29919, 29921-24, 29926, 29929; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4942. *** Below, pp. 654-55.

654 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 the third year, which began on 21 June 1358, late in July.?*° The bishops appointed their deputies in August or September.?*® This time two months were allowed for the collection. The bishop of Lichfield directed his col-

lectors to certify him of the amount collected within five days after Michaelmas. Such acquittance of deputies to payers as have been found were issued in September.*** The bishops delivered those procurations of the third year which were paid on time to the receivers of the cardinals during September and October. For this levy John Dagworth, canon of Lincoln, superseded Pontius de Vereriis as the receiver of ‘Talleyrand.?** In the diocese of Durham a levy supplementary to the procurations of the first two years took place in 1358. The procurations of those years had been paid on the basis of the new valuation for the tenth. ‘The cardinals demanded their levy on the old valuation. Consequently the payers were required to pay the difference between the two valuations.?*° In each of the three years the deputy collectors exacted from the payers a small sum for the expenses of collection. ‘The levy was made on the basis of a small percentage of the assessed value, as was customary.?° Usually only the amount paid by individual payers is stated without mention of the rate. The two documents which supply the rate indicate that it varied either from diocese to diocese or from year to year. In the diocese of Worcester an obol in the pound was paid in the first year,”*’ and

in the diocese of Ely a farthing in the pound in the second and third years.?°*

Many payers who owed the procurations found it difficult or neglected or refused to pay them. When the cardinals ordered payment of the pro-

curations of the second year, they demanded payment of the arrears of the first year, and when they ordered payment for the third year, they demanded the arrears of the first two years. In February 1358 and again in October the cardinals empowered the bishops to absolve tardy payers from the censures which they had incurred whenever they finally rendered *45 24 July: Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 87-887; 28 July: Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 87. “4°18 August: Reg. Gynwell, fo. 857; 3 September: Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 148; 1 July (presumably a mistake): Rochester, Reg. Sheppey, fo. 292. 247 W A.M. 29939-44, D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4803, 5376, 7034. The abbot

of Glastonbury ordered payment of the procurations of the third year to be made on 16 August: B. M., MS. Arundel, 2, fo. 327. *4° Reg. Brian, I, fo. 87°; Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 38V. 249 T), & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 5839, Bursar’s Roll, 1357-58.

°° First year: D. & Ch. Worcester, C. 63, Cellarer’s Roll, 1356-57; Second year: D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4942, 5839, Chapman’s Sacrist Rolls of Ely, U, 180; third year; Chapman, zbid, 180; Ely, Chamberlain’s Roll, 31, Edward III; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4803, 5376, 7034. 751 T). & Ch. Worcester, C. 63. Cellarer’s Roll, 1356-57. *°? Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, I, 180.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 655 their late payments.”°? After the procurations of the third year became due, there were arrears for all three years. Some of the arrears were paid within a few months of the time when they had been due,”** but others came in more slowly. On 4 March 1358 the bishop of Worcester ordered his deputies to put into effect censures and sequestration against debtors for the first two years whom he named. They were also to be summoned to appear before him on the third juridical day after 21 March. On 1 June 1358 he ordered his deputies to raise the arrears owed for the first two years and to deliver them to him before 7 July.?°? Arrears of those years were being received in the diocese of Winchester in November 1358.°°° Among the delinquent debtors was the king, who owed procurations for the bishopric of Ely while the temporalities were in his hands. On 7 November 1357 he ordered payment of them for two years and on 7 November 1358 for the third year.?°* On the latter date the cardinals’ receivers acknowledged receipt of £50 from the royal treasurer.?** After 1358 arrears still remained. On 16 March and 11 May 1359 the bishop of Winchester received credit for several pounds owed from his diocese for the procurations of the third year.”°? On 16 August 1360 the bishop of Worcester delegated the power to absolve late payers conferred upon him by the cardinals to a monk of Worcester who had been his deputy collector, indicating that there still were some delinquents in his diocese.*°° Qn 26 February and on 9 March 1362 the cardinals sent orders to the archbishops and bishops of both England and France to secure the arrears of their procurations which still remained. The bishop of Salisbury did not issue executory letters until 1 December 1362.°°° The chamberlains of the priory of Durham appear to have responded to this demand.?®? Nevertheless desperate debts still remained. On 4 March 1364 Urban V granted to Nicholas, who meanwhile had become bishop of ‘Tusculum, faculty to compel the prelates of England and France to pay the procurations still owed to him and Talleyrand, who had recently died. These *°° Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 84, 101; Carlisle, Reg. Welton, p. 40; Lincoln, Reg. Gynwell, fo. 109. ** F.g., first year: W.A.M. 29912, 29925, 29927; Winchester, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 379; second year: Reg. Brian, I, fo. 83%, 84; Reg. Edington, II, fo. 38; third year, Reg. Edington, II, fo. 39; Reg. Brian, fo. 87¥.

°° Reg. Brian, I, fo. 84-84. °° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 39. *°7 Rymer, Foedera, III, 382, 410. 258 Exch. K. R. Misc. 508/28.

*°° Reg. Edington, II, fo. 39. *°° Reg. Brian, I, fo. 101. "61 Reg. Wyville, I, fo. 237-39.

7°? "They rendered a payment between Easter 1362 and Easter 1363: D. & Ch. Durham, Chamberlain’s Roll, verso.

656 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

arrears the prelates had refused to pay.?® If this grant stimulated any further effort on the part of English prelates to obtain payment of outstanding debts for procurations, it left no record in their registers. Only slight glimpses of what the clergy thought about these procurations are vouchsafed us, ?°* but there are indications that Cardinal Talleyrand was not popular in some quarters. The king paid two of his servantsat-arms to stay with the cardinal continuously for his protection during 573 days from 18 April 1357 to 22 December 1358, when they left him at Gravelines across the channel. Despite this protection, he was robbed of horses and goods before he left England.?°° Shortly before Talleyrand and Nicholas came to England, Innocent VI,

on 12 June 1357, appointed Peter, cardinal priest of the basilica of the Twelve Apostles, to go to England on the same business that occupied the

other two cardinals.?** His royal safe conduct was issued on 15 June 1357 °° and his permission to leave England on 19 September 1358.°°° No evidence has been discovered that the pope granted him the nght to have procurations or that he collected any. This 1s such an extraordinary circumstance that it is worthy of note. On 4 September 1358 the pope sent as nuncio to the kings of England and France his serjeant-at-arms William de Guillerma?® for a purpose which was not stated. He was granted procurations of two florins a day

from the clergy of France and of three florins a day from the clergy of England. On this occasion the pope took the unaccustomed step of appointing the collectors: the official of Avignon for France and the official of the bishop of London for England.?”°

William de Somerford, the official of the bishop of London, on 12 December 1358, ordered the bishops to collect the procurations and to deliver them within eighty days of the receipt of his mandate to Robert Fraunceys in the church of St Andrew Wardrobe or to John Broun, a citizen of London. He did not state the amount claimed by William, but he set the rate at a farthing in three pounds. The bishop of Worcester 203 CPL, IV, 42. 7°* Above, pp. 652-53.

7° The king paid the guards £45 10 s. To six men whom he and the council appointed to search for the stolen property he paid 25 s.: Exch. K. R. Misc. 508/27. See also above pp. 329-30. 206 CPL, Ill, 625.

*°7 Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 358, C.P.R. 1354-58, p. 567.

76° Rymer, Foedera, III, 405. See also pp. 372, 398. 76° Elsewhere Lagulberima and Laguilherma.

279 C\P.L., Til, 591. According to this summary of the authorization of procurations it was addressed only to prelates. In view of the number of times when this address is given erroneously in the Calendar, I have assumed that it was addressed in the customary manner to all classes of the clergy.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 657 did not receive the mandate until 28 March 1359. He appointed his deputies the next day and on 27 May he reported that the mandate had been

executed. He did not state the sum which he was forwarding, but said that the valuation of the diocese of Worcester was £7362 18 s. 6% d. exclusive of his own part.?"! This would make a farthing in three pounds for the clergy of the diocese about £2 11 s.?” In the diocese of Lincoln these procurations aroused opposition. On 31 August 1359 the bishop wrote to his deputy that, since many of the clergy had refused to pay them, he was to pronounce against the recalcitrants the censures which they had incurred. He was also to order them to pay to him what they owed within twelve days. Those who did not obey this mandate he was to cite to appear before the bishop on the next juridical day after 9 Octo-

ber to show cause why the censures against them should not be increased.?** With regard to the levy of William’s procurations in the province of York no documents have come to my attention. While arrears of the procurations of the two cardinals and of William de Guillerma were still being sought, Innocent VI sent to England four nuncios to take part in treating for peace between the kings of England and France. On 17 November 1359 he notified Edward III that he had appointed William of Lynn, dean of Chichester, and Simon de Langres, master of the order of Preachers, for that purpose. On 4 March 1360 he informed the king that Androin, abbot of Cluny, and Hugo of Geneva, lord of Anton, were coming on the same business.?"* The negotiations were finally concluded by the treaty of peace which was ratified at Calais on 24 October 1360. All four demanded procurations during 1360. The first to present his

clam was William of Lynn. On 8 July he wrote to the archbishop and

to the several bishops of the province of Canterbury. He quoted papal letters of 17 November 1359 which assigned to him procurations of four florins a day. He told each how much was owed from his diocese,**° and ordered the collection of that amount apportioned on the assessment of the tenth. Ihe money was to be delivered to certain rectors in London. The bishop of Lincoln appointed his deputies on 29 August and the bishop of Worcester on 1 September. In both dioceses the rate was fixed at a *™ Reg. Brian, I, fo. 90-90V.

*™ For the procurations of Thomas de Ringstead, which were levied at the same rate, | the bishop received an acquittance in full for himself and his clergy by payment of £2 11 s.1% d: ibid., I, fo. 739. 78 Reg. Gynwell, fo. 136. *7* Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 455, 472. The safe conduct of the latter two was dated 26 July 1360: ibid., II, 505.

*7° Lincoln £33 5 s. 3 d; Worcester £6 2 s. 9 d. Neither the number of days of his mission nor the total sum due from the province of Canterbury was given.

658 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

farthing in the mark.?"° In Ely it was a half-penny in the mark.?”” The clergy began to make their payments in September,”’* and several are recorded in rolls of expenditures made between 20 or 29 September 1360 and the same dates in 1361.?7° In the province of York the procurations of William of Lynn were collected at the same time as those of other nuncios who took part in the negotiations of the peace. On 24 October 1360 the prior of Durham paid a penny and a farthing in the mark for the procurations of William of Lynn, the abbot of Cluny and other nuncios who had been engaged in making peace between the kings of England and France. ‘The procurations of Thomas de Ringstead were also included 1n this payment.**° Simon de Langres, who was the colleague of William of Lynn, chose to seek his procurations in another way. He told the two archbishops how

much was due him from each province and ordered them to levy those amounts. His mandate to the archbishop of Canterbury, dated 5 July 1360, quoted his papal authorization of 20 November 1359 to collect four florins a day. He stated that he had been in England forty-six days and would remain at least ten more. He claimed a total of 149 florins from the province of Canterbury ?** and ordered the archbishop to levy that sum and to deliver it to Brother John de Bellocampo of the house of the Friars Preachers in London. Before the archbishop executed this mandate, he received another from Androin in behalf of himself and his colleague, Hugo of Geneva. This mandate, dated 5 August 1360, quoted a papal faculty of 27 June 1360 for the two nuncios to receive from 6 March 1360 30 florins a day, of which the French clergy was to pay one-half and the English clergy the other half. Before 5 August, however, the liability of the English clergy had been reduced to five florins a day. At this rate the share of the province of Canterbury amounted to 302 florins. The archbishop was to collect that sum and pay it to Androin, or the prior of Lewes, or Raymond Pelegrini or Adam de Hilton. On 1 September 1360 the archbishop ordered the levy of a penny in 7° Reg. Gynwell, fo. 126-277; Reg. Brian, I, fo. 101-101¥.

27D. & Ch. Ely, Precentor’s Roll, 34 Edward III. The chapter of Lincoln also paid ¥, d. in the mark on some of their income, of which the location is not stated: Bj. 2. 6 Compotus Clerici Commune,20 September 1360 to the same date in 1361. 278 WAM. 29959.

p Bo & Ch. Lincoln, Bj. 2. 6; Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, Tl, 192; Addit. MS. 33446, " 280 D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1360-61; Misc. Charter, 4813, on Thomas Ringstead see above, pp. 650-51. The priory of Wearmouth paid after 6 May: Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 155. °°? This presumably left 75 florins to be paid by the clergy of the province of York.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 659 the pound to provide enough to meet the demands of the three nuncios. The clergy were to render their payments to the diocesan collectors within eighteen days of notice, and the proceeds were to be paid by the bishops to the archbishop’s receiver, who was again Robert de Keteringham, rector

of St Gregory London, before 22 October. This letter the archbishop sent to the bishop of London, who forwarded copies of it to the other bishops of the province between 4 and 9 September.”*? Later the date of delivery to the archbishop’s receiver was postponed to 3 May 1361.7 The bishop of Worcester appointed his deputies on 26 September and the bishop of Lincoln did the same on 29 September. The prior and convent of Westminster, having paid the procurations of William of Lynn in September, paid the procurations of the three nuncios in October.?** Some other debtors in the province paid sometime in 1360 or 1361.7*° The bishop of Worcester, on 17 October 1360, sent to the archbishop £9 16 s. 4¥ d. which he had received from his clergy. Since a penny in the pound of the assessed value of clerical income in the diocese exclusive of the bishop’s income was some shillings above £30,7*° a large amount of arrears was left. It was not until 10 November 1365 that Archbishop Simon Islip

acknowledged delivery by his receiver of all these procurations which he had received.?*" The amount was not stated, but it was not enough to cover all the procurations claimed by the three nuncios. On 3 January 1367 Simon Langham, the successor of Simon Islip, directed Robert Keteringham to deliver to him £100 from the surplus of the papal subsidy paid by the clergy in 1362.?8° Archbishop Langham then delivered it to the executor of his predecessor for transmission to Androin, who was then a cardinal.?°°

The amount raised in the northern province by the levy of a penny and a farthing in the mark was insufficient to meet the demand of all five

nuncios. It had to be supplemented in 1361. On 28 August the bishop of Carlisle ordered the publication in his diocese of a letter of the archbishop of York commanding the levy of three farthings in the mark on the old valuation to meet the expenses of Androin and Hugo of Geneva. 8? Reg. Islep, fo. 163%; Reg. Gynwell, fo. 1277-30; Reg. Brian, I, fo. 1017-02.

, 82 Reg. Gynwell, fo. 1327.

284 WAM. 29961-62. 785 Addit. MS. 33446, fo. 43; D. & Ch. Ely, Chamberlain’s Roll, 34 Edward III; Precentor’s

Roll, 34 Edward III; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2. 6 Compotus Clerici Commune, 1360-61. *8° Above, p. 657. *87 Islep, fo. 211¥. 78° Above, p. 101.

HII ore Langham, fo. 50%. Androm was promoted before 2 June 1362: Rymer, Foedera,

660 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 The letter was published on 2 September and the procurations had to be paid within thirty days under penalty of censures for failure.?°° Payments were made in the diocese of Durham in 1361,” and arrears were being rendered in Durham and York in 1362.79? In 1361 Androin, abbot of Cluny, ordered another levy of procurations which aroused in the province of Canterbury concerted and determined opposition. The procurations were for a second mission. On 12 March he was sent to represent Innocent VI in negotiations for peace between Charles of Blois, who was acknowledged as duke of Brittany by King John of France, and John, count of Montfort, a rival claimant, who was supported by Edward III. The negotiations were being conducted by the two kings,”°? and Androin was, as a consequence, for a time in England.?°* He was granted by the pope for his expenses on this mission sixteen florins a day to be paid half by the French clergy and half by the English clergy.

He claimed from the English clergy for the period from before 1 May to 1 December 1361 2476 florins. The share of the province of Canterbury was 1536 florins. He also demanded a further sum of 540 florins for the months of November and December 1360, when he was still working on

the peace between the kings of England and France. This sum was in addition to that which had already been levied for that mission. These demands he presented to the archbishop of Canterbury with the requirement that the sums should be paid within sixty days of the receipt of his mandate by the archbishop. Simon Islip regarded these claims as unjust. On 4 September, presumably soon after he received them, he summoned the bishops of the province to meet on 6 October to consider making a protest. In the writ he stated his objections. The demand for 540 florins was unwarranted, because the treaty of peace between the kings of France and England had been concluded before November 1360. The other mission had occupied Androin no longer than from shortly before 1 June to 29 September. Furthermore, since it was concerned with two private persons who were French, having no lands or possessions in England, the English church ought to contribute nothing.?9°

What action the council of bishops took is unknown. There appears °° Reg. Welton, pp. 79-80. Neither the archbishop’s mandate nor that of Androin in behalf of himself and his colleague is quoted. 221 T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4921; Bursar’s Roll, 1360-61.

°°? Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, pp. 156-57; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2. 6, Compotus Clerici Commune, 1362-63. In the latter the rate is said to be a farthing in the mark. 98 Reg. Litterarum Innocentii Sexti, in Marténe et Durand, Thesaurus Novus, Il, 893-97. 294 Titerae Cantuarienses, II, 508.

9 Reg. Grandisson, Ill, 1228-29.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 661 to have been no new levy to supplement the procurations imposed in 1360, but the additional sum of 540 florins may have been paid. The levy of a penny in the pound in 1360 to provide 149 florins for Simon de Langres and 302 florins for Androin and Hugo of Geneva ?%* should have been more than sufficient for the purpose, since 451 florins represented in the

neighborhood of £68.7°7 Even if there had been extensive arrears, one hundred pounds could not have been due from them in 1367, when Simon Langham arranged to have that sum paid to Androin.?®* The payment may have included some arrears due from the levy of 1360. It probably covered also the supplement demanded in 1361. Five hundred and forty florins were equivalent to about £81. The procurations sought by Androin for his part in the negotiations concerning the rival claimants to Brittany were never paid. After Androin had become a cardinal and had died, his executor, in 1372, attempted to exact these procurations. When William Whittlesey, then archbishop of Canterbury, ordered their levy, the king intervened. On 6 January 1373 he wrote to the archbishop. The levy of a large sum of money for procurations by means of ecclesiastical censures, he said, would impoverish and prejudice his kingdom. The mediation of the abbot of Cluny, even if it had been successful, which it was not, did not concern the inhabitants of the kingdom of England. They, therefore, could not be obliged by ecclesiastical censures for the exaction of money. It would be in contempt of the king and would pauperize the kingdom. The king, taking into consideration the damage and inconvenience, which from subtle exactions and novel impositions of this kind affect the king, the crown and the kingdom, and the worse consequences which might arise in the future, if they

should continue, ordered the archbishop to desist forthwith from this exaction and from other similar ones. Disobedience, the king concluded,

would bring upon the archbishop punishment that would cause terror to others.?°® ‘The principle at issue was not that the negotiations had been conducted in France, which had been the cause of the abortive prohibition enacted by parliament in 1346,3°° but that the negotiations were of interest only to Frenchmen.

During the pontificate of Urban V papal envoys came to England much less frequently, doubtless because the war between England and France had ceased. For those who did come no procurations were levied.

The nuncio, Arnald Talavionis, whose business I have not discovered, “°° Above, pp. 658-59. *°7 Below, p. 679.

°° Above, p. 659. *°° Literae Cantuarienses, Il, 508-09, D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae C. 1273. “°° Above, p. 641.

662 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 received from the archbishop of Canterbury £10 for his expenses in going

to, delaying in, and returning from the province of Canterbury.°°* No levy on the clergy was made to obtain this sum. It may have been taken from funds on hand from previous levies. Peter, bishop of Lisbon, who was accredited to Edward III on 28 September 1365, was granted eight florins a day for procurations,*°? but I have found no indication that he received any in England. John de Cabrespino, on 26 July 1367, was sent to Edward III as a special envoy to inquire concerning a rumor that the duke of Lancaster intended to invade Provence.®°? He was at the time a permanent nuncio and collector in England. As such he was entitled to annual procurations. When he left the papal court at Viterbo for England, he received 100 florins from the papal camera for his travelling expenses.®°* He needed no additional procurations from the English clergy. This relief from procurations seems to have been due to the deliberate ©

policy of Urban V. On 17 March 1370 Simon Langham, then cardinal of Canterbury, wrote to the bishop of Exeter that the pope had ordained his journey to England to treat of peace between the kings of England and France and had given to John de Dormans, bishop of Beauvais and cardinal priest of SS Quattro Coronati, a like errand to the king of France. The pope, he said, did not wish to burden the English clergy unduly with the collection of procurations for cardinals.*°® Cardinal Simon did not demand them as long as Urban V lived. After the renewal of the war with France in 1369 envoys again began to be sent frequently to England. Gregory XI, who was elected pope on 30 December 1370, renewed the mission of the two cardinals and granted

them the right to have procurations. On 12 January 1371 he informed the archbishop of Canterbury that he was continuing their mission, which was to foster peace between the kings of England and France.°°* On 9

March, shortly before they left the papal court, he authorized them in England and France, whether present or absent, to have for their expenses from the usual comprehensive list of the classes of the clergy two parts ot the procuration which one cardinal acting as a legate was accustomed to have. The procuration of a legate amounted to the greater sum. On 2 May 1371 the cardinals wrote from Paris to each English arch-

bishop and bishop. They quoted the papal letters of authorization, and ordered each of them to collect the procurations of their first year, which *°* Reg. Islep, fo. 193%. 802 CPL. IV, 18-19.

°° Papal Bulls 34/16. *°* Kirsch, Die Rickkebr, p. 55.

85 Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 221. | x08 CPL. IV, 92.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 663 began on the preceding 27 March. They were to send to the cardinals copies of the records of payments made previously for similar procurations, lists of the names and assessments of the churches in their respective dioceses, lists of the payments made by each payer and lists of those who

did not pay what they owed. Cardinals who held benefices in England, houses of God, lazar houses and monasteries of poor nuns were to be exempt. The procurations were to be collected within one month of the receipt of the cardinals’ letter, and the proceeds were to be delivered to the priors of Lewes and Bermondsey within two months thereafter. The payers and the bishops were threatened with the usual penalties. An additional sum could be levied for moderate expenses of collection. The prelates of the province of Canterbury received the letters of the cardinals and appointed their deputies at various dates in October and early November 1371.3°7

The reason for the delay between the issue of the mandates of the cardinals and their receipt by the English prelates seems to have been the opposition of some of the prelates and councillors of the king to the entry

of the cardinals into England. On 28 July the pope wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury and to several bishops of the province ordering them

to use their influence with the king to overcome the opposition and to secure the issue of a safe conduct. It was not until 13 November that the pope sent his thanks to Edward III for receiving Simon Langham.*°® The amount of clerical work which the orders of the cardinals placed upon a bishop is illustrated by a memorandum entered in the register of Bishop Brantingham of Exeter. It is appended to the copy of the bishop’s letter of 14 December 1371 notifying the cardinals that he is sending the collected funds to their receivers. With the letter were sent six rolls. One for each of the four archdeaconries contained the names of the benefices, their assessments and the amount paid from each benefice, one did the like for the portions of the bishop and of the dean and chapter and one sup-

plied the names of those who had not rendered the payments due. In addition there were extracts from the register of John de Grandisson showing that other cardinals had received four pence in the mark for procurations.®°? Since the bishop had received the mandate of collection on 24 October, his return was within the prescribed two months. Because his return was unsatisfactory, however, he nearly incurred the serious penal$°7 Reg. Brantyngham, I, 248-52; Wykeham’s Reg. (Winchester), II, 145-48; Worcester, Reg. Brian, II, fo. 6v-8; Reg. Lynne, fo. 36-39, Lamb. Reg. Wytleseye, fo. 49-50%, Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 130-31; Carlisle, Reg. Appelby, pp. 232-34. 808 CPL. IV, 94-95, 97. 809 T 252-53.

664 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 tes imposed upon bishops who were late or otherwise at fault.*4° On 27 March 1372 he wrote to his deputies that the certification of the procurations owed by each payer had been inadequate. Unless they calculated the greater sum and answered for it in large part, he would incur great damage through their fault.*" In the papal authorization of the procurations a departure from the customary formula caused trouble. Ordinarily such letters defined the procurations as that which one cardinal acting as legate or nuncio was accustomed to have. ‘The letters of Gregory XI mentioned only the procuration which a cardinal who was a legate was accustomed to receive. Since Ottobon was the last cardinal who had collected the procurations of a legate in England,*"* the remark of Gregory XI that no such legate had been sent to England ‘within the memory of man’ *** was accurate.

The researches of the bishops of Exeter and Lincoln brought to them realization that the greater sum awarded to a cardinal was four pence in the mark whether he was a legate or a nuncio, as reference to the letters of authorization of any of the cardinals who had levied procurations previ-

ously during the reign of Edward III would have demonstrated. They, therefore ordered payment of four pence in the pound, which was twothirds of four pence in the mark.*** The prior of Durham, who apparently was asked to investigate his records, went back to Cardinals Gaucelme and

Luke. ‘They were nuncios who were authorized in 1317 to collect the procurations customarily levied by a legate or nuncio who was a cardinal.**® ‘They produced an acquittance for the whole sum paid by the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham **® and a document which displayed the rate of levy in the archdeaconry of Northumberland to have been four pence in the mark.**” The bishop of Carlisle found several documents concerning the levy of procurations from 1295 to 1297 by Cardinals

Simon and Berard, who professed to follow the method used by Ottobon.**® One document listed those who had paid six marks for procurations. He discovered also an acquittance issued in 1339 for the procurations of Cardinals Peter and Bertrand.*** The consequence of the uncer-

tainty with regard to the interpretation of the authorization of Gregory **° Above, p. 627.

1 Reg. Brantyngham, I, 260-61. **? Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 550-51. 18 C.P.L., TV, 102.

“"* Reg. Brantyngham, I, 253, 289; Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 176v. *° Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 564-65. 16 T). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 5994.

17 Tbid., Locellus, XVII, 11. | *"* Lunt, Op. cit., pp. 553-55. **° Reg. Appelby, pp. 236-39.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 665 XI was that the rate varied from one diocese to another. In Worcester,?”° Norwich **? and Ely *”? five pence and a half-penny in the mark were exacted. How this rate was established is not explained, but it is approxi-

mately two-thirds of eight pence in the mark. In 1348 that amount had | been levied for Cardinals Anibaldus and Stephen, but it was to pay procurations for two years.*?* When it came time for Simon and John to levy procurations for their second year, the pope cleared up the confusion

by setting the rate at two-thirds of that used by Talleyrand and Nicholas,°** the last cardinals who had received procurations before Simon and John. Their rate had been four pence in the mark, and the rate for Simon and John was thus fixed uniformly at four pence in the pound.

The procurations of the first year came in slowly. The bishop of Exeter, who owed £81 7 s. 4 d, rendered a partial payment on 14 December, but still had arrears outstanding on 27 March 1372. Apparently he

did not pay the balance amounting to £46 12 s. 11 d. until 15 October 1372.°°° Some of the bishops did not deliver their first payments until January or early February 1372.3? The clergy of the dioceses in which more than four pence in the pound were collected obtained redress when procurations were demanded for a second year. The surplus in the diocese of Worcester was enough to cover the whole of the procurations for the second year.°** In the diocese of Norwich the prior of Ramsey sought an allowance of the excess of his payment,**8 which was probably effected in the same manner.

The demand for procurations for the second year, which began on 27 March 1372, was made from Frethum in France on 2 April 1372. It required payment of only two pence in the pound.®”° The conditions of collection, payment and delivery were the same as in the mandate for the

first year except that new receivers were appointed in the province of Canterbury, namely Nicholas de Chaddesdene, canon of Lichfield and dean of Arches, and William Palmer, canon of Derby.**° 99 Reg. Lynne, fo. 38V-39. 321 Addit. MS. 34560, fo. 135-36.

22 Cotton MS. Julius, A. I, fo. 179. **° Above, p. 640. According to a chronicler, Cardinals Peter and Bertrand had claimed claimed eight pence in the mark in 1337, but accepted four pence: above, p. 636. 22418 April 1372: C.P.L., IV, 102.

5 Reg. Brantyngham, I, 252-53, 260-61, 288-89. °° Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 148; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 5389. “7 Reg. Lynne, fo. 39-40. 28 Addit. MS. 34560, fo. 1357-36.

**° In Ely it was 3 half pence in the mark, which is the same rate: D. & Ch. Ely, Custos Capelle Roll, 46 Edward _ III. “°° Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 291-94, Worcester, Reg. Lynne, fo. 39-40; D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 5378.

666 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 |

These letters were not received by the bishops until December 1372 and January 1373.%*! Again the proceeds reached the receivers slowly. The bishop of Exeter made delivery within two months from receipt of the cardinals’ mandate,*** but the bishop of Durham rendered one payment

on 17 April and another on 2 July.*®* The abbot, prior and convent of Westminster, who paid directly to the receivers, were acquitted on 27 July 1373.%34

The levy for the expenses of collecting the procurations seems to have been a farthing in the mark in the diocese of Lincoln,®** and a farthing in the pound in the dioceses of Norwich and Durham.°**®

The irritation caused the clergy by this levy of procurations is perhaps reflected in the sharp criticism of the procurations of cardinals in a passage of Piers Plowman. A vicar is quoted who bemoans what ‘we clerks’ pay cardinals who come from the pope. He concludes: ‘By very God I would that no cardinals come among the common people, but in their holiness hold them still at Avignon among Jews.’ °°"

On 23 January 1372 Gregory XI dispatched Bertrand de Veyraco, donsel, a member of the papal household, to assist Cardinals Simon and John in the negotiations for peace.*** Four days later he commissioned the

prior of St Martin de Campis of Paris and the officials of the bishops of Avignon and London to have the comprehensively enumerated classes of the clergy provide Bertrand with two florins a day for his expenses in

going, staying and returning. The prior, quoting this papal mandate, ordered all ecclesiastics to whom it should be presented to pay the procura-

tions.**° On 16 April the pope supplemented this mandate, which held good only until 1 June, by an order to continue the procurations until I July.**°

On 14 April 1372 the bishop of Winchester paid Bertrand 18 shillings for procurations during three days he had been in the diocese.*** Subsequently the nuncio gave up the attempt to collect procurations as he went “*" The executive mandate of the bishop of Winchester was dated 10 December (Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 183), that of the bishop of Worcester 24 December and that of the bishop of Exeter 1 January. The cardinals’ mandate to the bishop of Durham is endorsed received 4 January. *°222 February 1373: Reg. Brantyngham, I, 295. *88 TD). & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 5017, 5142. $84'W.A.M., 30089.

°8° Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 176¥.

*8° Addit. MS. 34560, fo. 136, D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter of which I neglected to note the number. *87 TH, 421; passus XXII.

s8CPL. IV, 113. *89 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 160-61. 840 C\P.L., IV, 102, 183.

°. Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 161.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 667 along. On his departure he presented the archbishop of Canterbury with a bill for 200 florins. The archbishop did not make a special levy to meet the sum. Instead, on 13 August 1372, when he had occasion to order a

levy for the procurations of another nuncio, he announced that if the yield produced a surplus, it would be used to meet the debt to Bertrand.**?

The other nuncio was William |’Fstrange, bishop of Carpentras. On 29 January 1372 he was appointed nuncio to France and England. Like the other nuncios, he was concerned with the negotiations between the two kings for peace.**® He was also to explain to Edward III the papal need for a subsidy from the English clergy.*4* On 8 March the pope ordered all grades of the clergy of France and England to provide him with procurations of 12 florins a day while going, staying and returning.**°

On 1 July the bishop ordered the archbishop of Canterbury to pay him the sum of 1333 florins within six days. Of this sum 1000 florins were to be raised from the clergy of the province of Canterbury and 333 florins

from the clergy of the provine of York.**® On 13 and 14 August the archbishop ordered the bishops of his province to levy for the purpose a farthing in the mark within thirty days of receipt of the mandate. He also ordered the archbishop of York to collect the portion due from his province. The proceeds were to be delivered to the rector of St Gregory London. The mandates contained the usual threats of penalties on delinquent bishops and payers.***

The archbishop appointed the deputy collector in his diocese on 21 August. The bishop of Exeter appointed his deputies on 22 September with orders to deliver the proceeds to his receiver before 1 November. One payer rendered what was due in the diocese of Worcester on 3 September.*** The bishop of Lincoln delivered to the rector of St Gregory £29 4s. 11 d. for part of what was due from his diocese by 11 November.**#° There were, however, the usual arrears. A payer in the diocese of London was acquitted on 28 February 1373.°°° In the northern province a half-penny in the pound was levied.*** On 7 May 1373 the archbishop °42 Lamb. Reg. Witleseye, fo. 54-55; Reg. Brantyngham, \, 277-81. “8C PI. IV, 102, 170-71. *** Above, pp. 103-04.

“*° Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 169-71, Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 277-78, Reg. Witleseye, fo. 54. **° Fis letter is dated at Canterbury. The royal permission for him to sail from Dover was issued on 27 June: C.C.R. 1369-74, p. 387. , ““7 Reg. Witleseye, fo. 54-56, Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 277-81 (The bishop’s letter is here dated 1 June). $48 'W.A.M., 30068.

*4° Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 110. 250 WA.M., 30077.

*51 Account Rolls of Durham, I, 180; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1373-74; Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 168.

668 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

of Canterbury acknowledged receipt from Robert, the rector, of St Gregory, who was the receiver for both provinces, of £226. *°? This left a considerable amount of arrears. Entered in Whittlesey’s register in 1376 is the valuation in marks of all the dioceses in the province of Canterbury.°°? On that basis a farthing in the mark should have produced some shillings more than £260 in the province of Canterbury alone. The conclusion that the sum of the arrears was large receives some confirmation from a payment made by the abbot of Westminster on 18 October 1373 3% and one made by the sacrist of Durham after 11 November 1373.°°° The sum received on 7 May 1373 was large enough, however, to pay the procurations of William and most of those of Bertrand.?*® The procurations of both these nuncios became due in the same year

that the procurations of the cardinals were being paid. The clergy were also paying in 1372 and 1373 a tenth to the king.*°’ How difficult the clergy found the burden 1s indicated by the large number of them who risked severe ecclesiastical censures by failure to pay one procuration or another on time. A striking instance of the troubles of the collectors and the payers of these procurations is provided by a letter which the prior and convent of St Gregory Canterbury wrote to Richard the prior and the chapter of Canterbury on 3 November 1374.°°° They had been appointed by the late William, archbishop of Canterbury,*®® collectors of various tenths, procurations and subsidies. In that capacity they had issued

sentence of major excommunication against Richard Drax, rector of Petham, placed an interdict on his church and ordered its fruits sequestrated for failure to pay tenths, procurations and subsidies owed to the king and to divers papal nuncios. Richard, they said, had disregarded the

sentences. Services continued to be conducted in the church and the

sequestration was violated. They, therefore, asked the prior and chapter, the see being vacant, to approve the sentences, to have them announced in the church of Petham and to proceed against the rebels as is just. Since there were rebels, the rector must have had the support of some of his parishioners or of others. During the course of 1373 and 1374 Gregory XI commanded all grades of the English clergy to pay procurations to five nuncios. Not only did 5? Reg. Witleseye, fo. 61. *°8 Fo. 172; below, p. 679. $54 W.A.M., 30093.

$55 T). & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1373-74.

$56 Calculated on the basis of 3 s. to the florin, the rate at which the bishop of Winchester paid Bernard: above, p. 666. $57 W.A.M., 5782; Cotton MS. Vesp. B. XV, fo. 25. 58D, & Ch. Canterbury, Sede Vacante Scrap Book, Ill, p. 175. 85° He died on 6 June 1374.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 669 the negotiations for peace continue, but parleys were undertaken also with regard to the papal subsidy, papal provisions and other questions of fundamental interest to the English clergy. During 1374 both sets of negotiations took place at Bruges.*®° On 24 September 1373 the pope ordered the English clergy to supply Pileus, archbishop of Ravenna, who was going to France and England, with 12 florins a day.?®* Edward III issued to him a safe conduct on 8 June 1374 and he was accredited to the king by the pope on 2 July.*°? On 1 May 1374 Gregory XI notified Edward III that he was sending Bernard, bishop of Pampeluna, Ralph, bishop of Sinigaglia, _ and Giles Sanctii Munionis, provost of Valentia, to be at Bruges on 24 June for a conference on the liberties of the English church and asked the king

to allow them to receive the customary procurations. On 15 May 1374 he commanded the English clergy to pay Bernard twelve florins a day and Ralph and Giles six florins each.?** On 17 August he directed the three to obtain their procurations from the two archbishops, who would recover them from the clergy.*** A royal safe conduct for England was issued

to Giles on 24 June 1374.98 The fifth nuncio was William, bishop of Carpentras, who was dispatched to France and England. A papal mandate for the payment to him of twelve florins a day by the English clergy was

dated 2 June 1374.3 The demands of these nuncios for their procurations were made at such times that the procurations of two or more of them were usually levied in one operation. The first mandate came from the three nuncios at Bruges. On 19 August 1374 they informed all classes of the English clergy that they had ordered the prior and chapter of Canterbury, the see being vacant, the archbishop of York and the bishops of both provinces to collect their procurations, amounting to twenty-four florins a day according to the papal authorization of 15 May 1374, which was quoted. They claimed 2400 florins for 100 days from their departure from the papal court to the next 9 September, 12 florins for the notary they had employed, 528 florins for the 22 days from 9 September to the next 1 October, and 6 florins for the fee of the notary. The total was 2946 florins. This

sum was to be delivered at Bruges within 30 days of receipt of the

notice,°°"

*°° Above, pp. 105-08, 351-53.

** D, & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, P 77; Lamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 13¥. °°? Rymer, Foedera, III, 1004, 1056. Another safe conduct for him was dated 20 October 1374: ibid., TIL, 1015.

°° Reg. Avin. 192, fo. 467-69; C.P.L., IV, 202-03. 306 CPL. IV, 109. 6° Rymer, Foedera, Ill, 1055. *°° C.P.L., IV, 109; Lamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 4. “7D, & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, P 51; Reg. G, fo. 179-80V.

670 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 Between 3 and 11 September 1374 the prior and chapter of Canterbury sent to some of the bishops of the province copies of the mandate of the nuncios. They added an order to collect from the clergy a half-penny in the mark, to deliver the proceeds within 24 days to Robert, rector of St Gregory, and Ralph, rector of St Botulph Aldersgate London and to report

to the prior and chapter what they had done before 6 October. Simon Sudbury, bishop of London, wrote similar letters to other bishops of the

province.°° | The demand for the delivery of the money at Bruges within thirty days of receipt of the mandate created a difficulty which was explained by the bishop of London in a letter written on 16 November 1374 to Ralph

Kesteven, rector of St Botulph Aldersgate, one of the receivers. It had been the custom, he said, for the archbishop of Canterbury to pay a nuncio

what he claimed for procurations and to collect them from the clergy afterward. The prior and chapter could not advance the required amount. He suggested that the receiver, if possible, should arrange with Peter Marco

and John Gretyn, agents respectively for the Alberti and the Strozzi, to pay the nuncios at Bruges on the surety of the prior and others, of whom the bishop was willing to be one. Otherwise severe ecclesiastical penalties could not be avoided.?®

Before several bishops of the province had delivered any of the proceeds of this levy to the receivers or reported to the prior and chapter,*”° a demand for procurations was presented to the prior and chapter by Pileus,

archbishop of Ravenna. His letter was dated London, 13 October 1374. Quoting the papal authorization of 24 September 1373, he ordered the collection by the prior and chapter and the archbishop of York of 1200 florins for the 100 days he had spent at Bruges and of 2 florins which he had paid to a notary for writing the mandate. Delivery was to be made to him at Bruges within thirty days. His instructions for the distribution and

collection of the procurations in the province of Canterbury and his threats of dire ecclesiastical penalties were similar to those in the mandate of the three nuncios. The prior and convent issued their executory letters on 27 November 1374. Each bishop was to collect a farthing in the pound *°8 Tbid., Reg. G, fo. 180%; Chartae Antiquae, P 68, 85; Reg. Worcester Sede Vacante, p- 322; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 219. *°° Christ Church Letters, pp. 4-5.

7° The bishops of Ely, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Rochester, St Davids, Salisbury, Winchester and Worcester had not done so: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. G, fo. 182¥-84, Chartae Antiquae, P 61d, 66, 68, 87, H 117a, S 397; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 4-4", Wykeham’s Reg., II, 225. There is no evidence that the other bishops had paid or reported. The delay

may be explained by a statement of the bishop of Worcester, when he reported on 10 January 1375. He said that the receivers had refused to accept partial payment, but wanted the whole sum in one payment: Chartae Antiquae, P 66.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 67 | before 14 February 1375 and to send the whole resulting sum to the rectors

of St Gregory and St Botulph Aldersgate London about the same date. A moderate amount could be raised for the expenses of collection. The prior and convent wrote to some of the bishops and requested. the bishop of London to write to the others.?7! Before there had been time to carry out this mandate, the prior and convent had to command still a third levy of procurations. On 4 September 1374 the bishops of Pampeluna and Sinigaglia and the provost of Valen-

cla, writing from Bruges, ordered the collection of their procurations for

61 days from the next 1 October to the next 1 December. They amounted , to 1464 florins. They demanded another 6 florins for a notary’s fee. Added to the 2946 florins of their first demand the total was 4416 florins. The prior and convent and the archbishop of York were to pay the 1470 florins at Bruges within 30 days of receipt of the mandate. They were to apportion the sum among the dioceses to be levied from the clergy. Just

expenses for collection were to be allowed. The prior and convent received this letter on 3 December 1374. On 6 December they ordered the bishops of the province of Canterbury to exact a farthing in the pound to meet this new demand. They were to collect it within 30 days of the receipt of the mandate. With another six days they were to deliver the receipts to the two rectors in London along with any proceeds of the halfpenny in the mark which they had not yet rendered.*” The demand of the nuncios for the delivery of the whole sum of 4416 florins at Bruges within 30 days of receipt of their second mandate caused the prior of Canterbury, on 10 December, to seek an extension of time. The prior said that he could not possibly make the payment within 30 days of 3 December, when their letter had been received. He had already rendered a large sum to the Alberti and the Strozzi, their proctors. If they would give him 40 additional days with suspension of the censures, he would pay to the merchants the balance due.*” Whatever reply the three nuncios may have made to this plea, on 23 December 1374 they ordered the prior and convent and the archbishop of York to levy additional procurations. They cited, but did not quote, the papal grant of procurations of 15 May 1374. They did quote the papal letter of 17 August 1374 giving them the faculty to obtain their procurations from the archbishops of Canterbury and York, because it was diff11D, & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. G, fo. 180-827; Chartae Antiquae, P 63, 71, 77, 82: Reg. Worcester Sede Vacante, p. 323. 72D). & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. G, fo. 182-847; Chartae Antiquae P 65-66, 73-74, S 397: Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 4-59. *78 Christ Church Letters, pp. 3-4.

672 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

cult for them to send from Flanders a demand for procurations to each bishop.*"* “They demanded this time 2136 florins for procurations for 89 days from 2 December 1374 to the last day of February 1375 inclusive and 12 florins for the fee of their notary. This sum of 2148 florins added to the 4416 florins previously demanded made a total of 6564 florins. They ordered the payment to them at Bruges of the 2148 florins and of the remainder of the 4416 florins which they had not yet received within 30 days of the receipt of this letter.?7* In order to cover this third instalment the prior and chapter, on 12 January 1375, ordered the collection by the bishops of an additional farthing in the mark.?*°

Many of the reports which the bishops were required to make to the prior and chapter of Canterbury on the collection of the first two instalments of the procurations of the three nuncios and on the procurations of the archbishop of Ravenna are preserved among the Chartae Antiquae of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Nearly all of them were rendered in January or February 1375. A report by the bishop of Exeter on the farthing in the pound for the three nuncios has been torn and the date is lost.2“7 A report by the bishop of Rochester on the farthing in the pound for Pileus is dated 25 March.?"* ‘These are the only exceptions. The

bishop of Exeter reported on the farthing for Pileus on 1 February.?” The bishop of Llandaff made reports on the half-penny in the mark °° and on the farthing for the three nuncios on 10 February.*** The bishop of Hereford dated his reports on the same two levies 7 February.**? The bishop of Salisbury rendered a report on the farthing for the three nuncios on. 25 January.*** The prior of Worcester, acting as guardian of the see during a vacancy, on 6 February,°** the bishop of Lincoln, on 11 February,°*° and the bishop of Ely, on 18 January,®** reported on all three levies.

The bishops accompanied their reports with the rolls delivered to them by their deputies. “hese named the benefices and other sources of income 8 Above, p. 669. This seems merely to ratify what had been the practice on the two previous occasions. *“° D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. G, fo. 1847-86. “"° Reg. Worcester Sede Vacante, p. 324. 877 P87, 878 PD. 67.

879 P62. 889 PD 85. $81 Pp 83, $82 FY, 117a.

293 P73.

***"The half-penny and the farthing for the three nuncios: P 66; the farthing for

Pileus: P 79. “°° One report on all three levies: P 69. “°° One report for all: Reg. Arundell, fo. 5¥.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 673 found in the valuation for the tenth and specified the amount received from each of them for each one of the levies. They also listed those who had not paid and how much each debtor owed.**" Some of these lists have

survived. The list rendered by the official of Ely to the bishop on 21 January °*°° includes the three levies,?*® as do those of the deputies of the prior and Chapter of Canterbury in the peculiars of Shoreham,**® Croydon and South Malling.*°* The deputies in the diocese of Salisbury com-

piled lists between 10 and 20 January for the farthing for the three nuncios 3°? and the farthing for Pileus °°? in each of the four archdeaconries. The reports for the first two levies were not made within the prescribed limits of time, but some of the deliveries to the receivers reported by the bishops may have been made before the dates of their reports. The bishop of Winchester was late with some of his payments, since his acquittances were dated 26 January 1375,°°* and the bishop of Chichester, on 30 January, had delivered the proceeds of all three levies recently.*°° “Iwo bishops who stated that they had paid certain levies in full may have meant no more than that they had delivered all the proceeds which had come to hand. All of the detailed list of the deputies which have survived display payers who were still in debt. The bishop of Winchester delivered some of the procurations owed to the archbishop of Ravenna as late as 24 November 1377.29 The reports for the third levy, though late, were more nearly on time. Concerning the fourth levy of a farthing in the mark for the third instalment of the three nuncios information is scarce. The bishop of Worcester reported on 6 February *** and the bishop of Exeter on 10 March.*?* There are also the detailed lists of the payers and nonpayers in the four archdeaconries of the diocese of Salisbury submitted by the deputies to the bishop.**?

Only one acquittance issued by a deputy to a payer for any of the four **7 A perusal of these, some of which run to several membranes, gives a conception of the amount of administrative and clerical labor involved in the collection of the comparatively

small sums. | °° Reg. Arundell, fo. 4-5. 289 PD 61d.

“°° 24 January: P 64.

“822 January: P 61. 892 P 65, 78.

898 P 70, 75, 76, M 293-94. %°4 Wykeham’s Reg., II, 228.

°°5 H.M.C., Reports on Various, I, 222. 8°° Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 279. 397 W 235. 898 Pp 72.

$°9S 349. Iam indebted to William Urry Esq., the Archivist of the Dean and Chapter, for bringing this document to my attention and supplying me with notes of its contents.

674 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 levies has come to my notice. On 6 February 175 the abbot and convent of Westminster paid for all four levies on their goods in the deanery of Southwark.*°° Their renders for the first three levies were obviously late. A payment was made for the church of Godalming on 12 July 1375.*°" Other payers were in arrears at a much later date. On 5 May 1376, Simon Sudbury, then archbishop of Canterbury, ordered the bishop of Hereford to collect such arrears,*°? and on 2 July and again on 19 July he directed a similar order to the bishop of Ely.* These levies made little impression on the extant records of the province of York. There appear to have been two levies in 1375, of which one was between 1 March and 9 May, and there may have been a third.** In the

account roll of the chamberlains of the priory of Durham for 1374-75 three levies are noted. One was at the rate of a penny and a farthing, one at a penny and one at a half-penny in the pound.*°* One of these, however, may have been for the procurations of the bishop of Carpentras and the archbishop of Ravenna levied later in 1375. On 15 April 1375 the archbishop of York acknowledged receipt from the bishop of Carlisle of £6 12s. 1% d. in full payment of the procurations owed to Bernard, Ralph and Giles by the clergy of the diocese.*°° One question with regard to the province of York raised by the bishop of London in his letter of 16 November 1374 to one of the receivers appointed by the prior of Canterbury *® is answered by an entry in Archbishop Neville’s register. The bishop wanted to know whether the archbishop would pay with the province of Canterbury or separately for his own

province. The entry in the register of the archbishop 1s an acquittance issued to the bishops of London and Winchester by Pileus archbishop of Ravenna, on 12 June 1375, in full payment of the stipend granted to him by the pope from the English clergy.*°® At the rate of three shillings

for a florin the sum was equivalent to 1200 florins, the amount which Pileus, on 13 October 1374, had demanded for his procurations.*°? The archbishop of York evidently did not pay separately. These four levies of procurations made between 11 September 1374

and approximately 28 February 1375 caused the English clergy many £00 'W.A.M., 30107.

401 Exch. K. R. Misc. Accounts, 511/32, fo. 25. £0? Wilkins, Concilia, II, 106. *°* Reg. Arundell, fo. 18-19.

*°*D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1 January 1375 to Easter 1376. £6 Account Rolls of Durham, I, 180. *°° Reg. Neville, I, fo. 112. *°" Christ Church Letters, p. 5; above, p. 879. *°® Reg. Neville, I, fo. 15%.

*°° The two florins for a notary were ignored.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 675

troubles and much dissatisfaction. The bishop of Hereford had great difficulty in collecting two of the levies, because the clergy of his diocese were poor as the result of tallages and various exactions.*1° The clergy who had paid tenths to the king in 1372 and 1373 continued to pay them

in 1374 and 1375.4" The bishop of Exeter said that his deputies were handicapped in the collection of the last levy by violence in the diocese.*™

In the diocese of Winchester some refused to pay two of the levies, but continued to officiate in their churches which had been put under interdict as a consequence of their delinquency. The bishop ordered excommunication to be pronounced against them.*™

The prior and chapter of Canterbury preserved one document concerning these levies of procurations which reflects a strong spirit of oppo-

sition to them.*!* It is not dated, but it was written after 6 December 1374, because the demand of the three nuncios in Flanders then stood at 4416 florins. It purports to be an appeal by the proctor of two lords, who

are not named, against the liability of the English clergy to pay these procurations. The prior and chapter of Canterbury, it was claimed, ought to keep the clergy of the province of Canterbury free from the payment of these procurations, since this freedom had existed since a time when there was no memory to the contrary. Because papal nuncios had collected

procurations many times within the memory of living men, the claim must have been that papal nuncios below the rank of cardinals who did not

come to England had no right to procurations from the English clergy. The claim had no validity for these particular procurations. The pope had given the bishops of Pampeluna and Sinigaglia and the provost of Valencia the right to levy procurations from the English clergy while they were in Flanders. He had also asked the king to permit it,*?® and the king

had done nothing to prevent it. Nevertheless, many of the clergy may have thought that the three nuncios who remained in Flanders and did not come to England ought not to receive procurations from them. No less an authority than Simon Sudbury, bishop of London, expressed a similar view with regard to the procurations of Pileus, the archbishop of Ravenna, with what appear to be sounder reasons. He maintained that

Pileus was not entitled to the procurations which he demanded for the *° Chartae Antiquae, H 117a. “ W.A.M., 5782, verso; Cotton MS. Vesp. B. XV, fo. 25. The latter in an extract from a cartulary of Westminster which lists the total sum paid by the monks for royal tenths and the procurations of papal nuncios in each year from 1372 to 1375 inclusive.

*““ Chartae Antiquae, P 72. :

** 1 March 1375: Wykeham’s Reg., II, 228. *“* Chartae Antiquae, P 86. “° Above, p. 669.

676 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 time he was in Flanders, because they were not specifically mentioned in the papal bull of authorization. He had a right only to 300 florins for the

twenty-five days he had been in England. The bishop, therefore, suggested that an appeal should be made against his claim of procurations for 100 days.*® Since he was familiar with the law, having been a papal auditor of causes,*!” his statement deserves credence. Though it did not prevent the collection of the full amount of the procurations which the archbishop claimed, it may have influenced Gregory XI, on 21 September 1375, when Pileus was on another mission conjointly with the bishop of

Carpentras, to command the English clergy to pay them procurations whether they were within or without the kingdom of England.*** These protests are probably manifestations of a general spirit of discontent among

the English clergy caused by the quick succession of demands for procurations.

Exactly five months after the last demand of the three nuncios for procurations, another demand was made by another nuncio. On 18 May 1375 William, bishop of Carpentras, writing from Bruges, quoted his papal authorization of 2 June 1374 to receive twelve florins a day and ordered the English clergy to pay him at Bruges 1200 florins for 100 days and 10 francs for the fee of his notary within 57 days. The sum was to be divided between the provinces of Canterbury and York. On 23 July Archbishop Simon Sudbury ordered the bishop of Winchester, because the see of London was vacant, to forward copies of his mandate to levy a half-penny in the mark to meet an amount which he said was 1920 florins and 20 francs. On the same day he ordered his commissioner general to collect the half-penny in the diocese of Canterbury before 21 September. By still another letter of the same date he directed the archbishop of York to collect within 30 days 480 florins for his share of 2400 florins for procurations and of 20 francs for the fees of notaries.*?®

The puzzling statement of the archbishop with regard to the amounts to be raised is explained by a memorandum in the register of the bishop of Ely. The bishop’s vicar general noted there the receipt on 23 August of a process of the archbishop dated 5 August **° for levying a half-penny in the mark for the procurations of Pileus, archbishop of Ravenna, and William, bishop of Carpentras, amounting to 2400 florins, for 100 days at “18 Christ Church Letters, p. 5. 417 C\P.L., Il, 496.

48 CPL. IV, 111. “°Tamb. Reg. Sudbury, fo. 4-5, Wilkins, Concilia, III, 98-100. *20The bishop of Winchester refused to take the place of the bishop of London as forwarding agent of the archbishop’s mandate: Wykeham’s Reg., II, 239. This may have caused the change in date.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 677 Bruges, and the fees of their notaries amounting to 20 francs. “The money was to be delivered to Robert, rector of St Gregory, and Ralph, rector of St Botulph Aldersgate in London *** before Michaelmas.**? Evidently Pileus had made a demand for the same amount of procurations as William had claimed. The archbishop of Canterbury made allowance for it in his letter of 23 July without mention of the demand.

The only dated payments of these procurations which have been found were late, though they were more prompt than those of the preceding procurations had often been. The abbot and convent of Westminster paid on their income in the deanery of Southwark on 5 October.*”* The bishop of Winchester delivered to the receivers in full what he owed on 22 October.*?* About the levy in the northern province little information is available. The rate in the diocese of York may have been a half-penny

in the pound.‘ On 27 March 1376 Pileus demanded from the archbishop of Canterbury for the second time procurations in behalf of himself and William, who meanwhile had become archbishop of Rouen. He quoted his own authorization of 23 September 1373 and William’s authorization of 2 June 1374 by which each was granted twelve florins a day. He quoted also a

papal letter of 21 September 1375 requiring payment by the English clergy of procurations to these nuncios whether they were prosecuting the business of making peace between the kings of England and France within or without England. He therefore ordered payment to them or to Gilbert Hamert, merchant of Lucca in London, of 4380 florins for 365 days and of 12 francs for their notaries within 80 days of the receipt of

their mandate. The clergy of the province of York were to pay a third part.*“° Since it had been less than a year since their former demand had been made, presumably the 365 days were to be counted up to 28 May 1376.

Before the archbishop acted upon this mandate, he received another from Giles Sanctus, provost of Valencia, which was dated 24 March 1376. He quoted papal letters of 6 September 1375 authorizing him to receive six florins a day and ordering the English clergy to pay them. He quoted another letter of 9 September in which the pope ordered the archbishops

of Canterbury and York to collect them. He also ordered the bishops to . Ror Arundel, me archbishop on 5 August: Reg. Sudbury, fo. 2’. *3'W.A.M., 30113.

4 Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 247-48. “° D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1 January 1375 to Easter 1376. *“° Reg. Sudbury, fo. 13¥-15.

678 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 levy no more for procurations than was customary under pain of excommunication which could be removed only at the time of death, and he required them and the archbishops to render to him an account of the procurations of Giles within four months of the termination of his mission. This order was given because he had received frequent complaints not only that the bishops failed to pay their own shares of procurations but also that they levied more than was due for procurations.*?" Giles sought procurations for the period from 6 September 1375 to 24 March 1376 and for the 69 following days up to 1 June, making a total of 270 days and of 1620 florins. He wanted also 12 florins for his notary. Payment had to be made within 50 days of the receipt of the mandate.*”® Archbishop Simon issued his executory letter for both mandates on 29 April 1376. The amounts to be collected were 4380 florins and 12 francs for the archbishops and 1296 florins for the provost, making the total 5676 florins and 12 francs. No explanation was given for the reduction of the amount claimed by Giles.**® ‘The procurations were to be collected before 7 July at the rate of a penny and a half-penny in the mark. ‘The money was to be delivered to Robert, rector of St Gregory London,**°

along with any arrears owed for other procurations imposed in the time of archbishop Simon. The letter was addressed to the bishop of London, who was to send copies to the other bishops of the province of Canterbury.**?

The archbishop appointed his deputy collector in the diocese of Can-

_ terbury on 29 April.**? The bishop of London sent out copies of the archbishop’s mandate on 7 May.**? The bishop of Winchester appointed his deputies on 12 May **4 and the bishop of Ely his deputy on 18 May.**°

The return of the bishop of Ely had not yet reached the archbishop on 18 July and several other bishops were in the same situation. Those bishops who made their reports before that date had delivered only a small part of the procurations due from their respective dioceses. For *"" Giles was given a new commission as nuncio to England and Flanders concerned with the peace on 6 September. This and the letters quoted by Giles are summarized in C.P.L., IV, 111-12; 219. Giles was also empowered to publish on the continent warnings and citations in order to enforce payment of his procurations in England. *5 Reg. Sudbury, fo. 15-16v.

*°°’The sum in the archbishop’s letter is not a clerical error, because it is the same in another copy of the letter: Salisbury, Reg. Ergham, II, fo. 11. The sum demanded by Giles is correct for the number of days which he claimed. *89 Commissioned on 5 June: Reg. Sudbury, fo. 20V. *** Reg. Sudbury, fo. 13¥-167. *°? Reg. Sudbury, fo. 17-17’. **3 Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 16.

#84 Wykebam’s Reg., U, 252. ,

*8° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 16.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 679 once we have a complete view of the deliveries of procurations which the bishops of the province of Canterbury had made at the time when they were due. It is displayed in the following table.**°

Diocese Assessment for the Owed for 1% d. Paid to 18 tenth in marks from each mark July 1376

£ s. a. £ s. ad.

Canterbury 17568 4 8%146 109879% 11% 40 07% O Rochester 2631 3 11% 10 10 London 15480 7 4% 97 5 0% 1 16 7% Norwich 34896 2 11% 218 2 0% ee eee Chichester 8942 12 4 55 16 10% 36 18 «1% Winchester 17959 3 11% 1122 4 1% beeeees Ely 1014721338 6 0 635 82% SY133 Leeeaee Salisbury 4%18100 OQ Bath and Wells 9749 1 4%760 8 11 145% 8

Exeter 7325 8 2% 45 15 9% 4 6 8 Worcester 11018 5 2 69 0 7% veeeeee Hereford 8297 1 9 51 17 1% 4 8 7% Lichfield 12974 3 2% 81 1 10% beeen Lincoln 61372 12 1% 383 11 8% eu eeees St Davids 4102 11 8 25 12 10% veceeee

Llandaff 3109 11 1% 19 8 9% 10 O QO Bangor 1291 12 5% 8 1 6% seceees St Asaph 1908 6 10 11 18 6% we eeee

Total 1563 18 7% 219 15 9%487 Obviously the collection dragged badly,*** as the incomplete evidence suggested that the earlier levies ordered by Gregory XI had done.

On 19 July the archbishop of Canterbury addressed a letter to the bishop of Ely, asserting that many persons in his diocese had not paid at the prescribed times the procurations due to Pileus, William and Giles or those of Bernard, bishop of Pampeluna, Ralph, bishop of Sinigaglia, and Giles. As a consequence they had incurred censures. The archbishop sent a schedule of the arrears and ordered the bishop to collect them within a month, using censures and sequestration of necessary. For the procurations of Pileus, William and Giles, at the rate of three half-pence in the mark, £63 8s. 54% d. were owed. This indicated merely that the bishop had not yet sent to the receiver the money which his official had collected by 8 July. For the procurations of Bernard, Ralph and Giles, at the rate of three farthings in the pound, £20 15 s. 1034 d. were due.**® Since this rate is the same as a half-penny in the mark, the arrears would seem to be for the first levy of procurations made for these three nuncios. On the ‘86 Lamb. Reg. Witleseye, fo. 172. The assessment is given both in pounds and in marks. I have omitted the pounds. *87 My addition.

**° A bit of confirmatory evidence is that the prior of Westminster did not pay these procurations until after 14 September 1376: W.A.M. 9498. **° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 18.

680 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 previous 2 July, however, the archbishop had said that this sum covered the arrears of both the first and second procurations, the latter being at the rate of a farthing in the mark.**° As the levies are listed above, this was the rate of the third levy and not of the second. The second levy of a farthing in the pound was regarded contemporaneously, however, as

supplementary to the first levy, and the third levy of a farthing in the mark was consequently designated as the second procuration of the three nuncios.*#1. The sum therefore probably represents all the arrears due for the first three levies for the three nuncios as they are enumerated above.

It may be assumed that the archbishop, on 19 July, sent similar letters to his other suffragans.

Many arrears of the procurations for Pileus, William and Giles still remained on 4 March 1377, when the archbishop of Canterbury again prodded his suffragans. His mandate stated that some of those who owed the procurations refused to pay them and that some of the collectors retained the money which they had received. Each bishop was to declare

both excommunicated and to order the collectors to pay Henry Willowes, rector of Saint Olave Southwark, and receive absolution. Collectors

who did not obey were to be cited to appear before Henry in the Court of Arches on the twentieth juridical day after the citation to show reasonable cause why they should not make delivery. Otherwise the archbishop ought to write to the pope about them.**? It was, however, 24 November 1377, when the bishop of Winchester delivered to Henry £27 18 s. 3% d. for arrears of the procurations due to Pileus, William and Giles.** The archbishop of York issued executory letters for the levy of the procurations of Pileus, William and Giles about the same time that the archbishop of Canterbury did. He ordered the bishop of Durham to raise £91 2s. 6 d. for them and to pay the sum to his receivers, Henry Godebarne,

rector of Hornsea and John Hanby, the archbishop’s registrar, within thirty days of receipt of the archbishop’s notice.***. The bishop of Durham, on 13 June, ordered William de Farnham, his vicar general, to levy that sum within the prescribed time. The prior and convent of Durham paid on their income in the diocese of York at the rate of two pence in the

pound some time between then and 11 November 1376. In the same £40 Thid.

*7D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, S 349. **2 The bishops of Ely and Winchester issued executory letters to that effect a few days later: Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 82-82%; Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 268. “8 Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 279. The procurations are described as a penny in the mark for William and Pileus. No such levy had been made at the rate of a penny in the mark. I have therefore assumed that the procurations were those of Pileus, William and Giles at 1% d. in the mark. **4 Records of the Northern Convocation, pp. 96-97.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 681

period they also paid to the pope and his nuncios £23 apparently for their income in the diocese of Durham.**® This was a joint payment for the second instalment of the papal subsidy **® and for the procurations of the nuncios. One instalment of the subsidy was six pence in the pound and the procurations were two pence in the pound.**? The unhappiness caused the clergy by the subsidy **8 was undoubtedly

enhanced by the procurations. The grievance produced by the latter found expression in the parliament which met on 28 April 1376. One of the articles of the commons against the pope was that when nuncios and legates were sent to make treaties between England and France, the English clergy had to pay procurations. Previously, they said, procurations were paid only when legates came at the request of the clergy or of the realm.**°

This complaint was not answered by the king. On 15 March 1377 Giles returned to the milk and honey which had previously flowed so freely for him. He thus became the last papal envoy

to demand procurations during the reign of Edward III. This time he said he had remained 274 days since June 1376, when his immediately preceding procurations had stopped. He planned to be 76 more days before he would reach the papal court on 17 May 1377, a day which the English clergy may well have regarded as blessed. There were thus 350 more days for which he needed 6 florins each day and his notary needed 5 florins for his services. This time he gave the archbishops of Canterbury and York 100 days after receipt of his mandate to produce 2105 florins. Simon Sudbury made the mandate effective on 23 May. He ordered his suffragans to collect a penny in the pound and to deliver the proceeds

to Henry Willowes by Michaelmas. He appointed the collector in his diocese on 1 June.*®° The bishop of Winchester named his deputies on

12 July. He paid to the receiver on 17 November 1377 £12 8% d.* which was less than a third of what was owed from his docese. This may have supplemented an earlier payment which had been made on time, or it may have been his first instalment.

Arrears were still left in many dioceses. Arrears were also outstanding for earlier levies going as far back as the first levy for the bishops of Pampeluna and Sinigaglia and the provost of Valencia. All these the arch*46T), & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, Easter to Michaelmas 1376. *#° Above, p. 110.

‘47 The treasurer of Abingdon also paid an instalment of the subsidy and the procurations in a lump sum: Account of Obedientiars of Abingdon, pp. 26-27. *48 Above, pp. 112-14.

**° Rot. Parl., Il, 339. *°° Reg. Sudbury, fo. 36-379. 451 Wrykeham’s Reg., Il, 271, 278-79.

682 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

bishop tried to recover in November 1378. For that purpose he ordered each bishop of a diocese from which arrears were due to collect them from the debtors before Christmas and to cite their deputies to appear before him in London on the next juridical day after 13 January to make payment, to render accounts and to give the names of those still in arrears.*°” The sums which he demanded had been certified to him by Henry Willowes, his general collector.*®? From the diocese of Exeter the sum was £48 15 s. 1134 d. and from the diocese of Winchester £75 4s. 74 d. If these amounts were typical, large numbers of payers were in arrears for one or more of the levies. With the coming of the schism in 1378 the frequent levies of procurations for papal envoys ceased. William Maramaur, a knight whom Urban VI sent to Richard II to bear the news of his elevation to the papacy, received only the customary gift from the king.*** Clement VII, the rival pope, on 18 December 1378, ordered the clergy of England, Ireland and Scotland to provide Guy, cardinal priest of S Croce in Gerusalemme, whom he was sending to those parts, procurations of 50 florins a day.*°® Since the government of England had already acknowledged Urban VI, the cardinal was not allowed to enter the country *°° In 1381 Urban VI sent Pileus, formerly archbishop of Ravenna, then cardinal priest of S Prassede, to take part in the arrangement of an alliance

between the king of England and the king of the Romans, of which the

marriage of Richard II and Anne of Bohemia was a part. Several chronic- , lers commented on the large amount of money which he took with him when he left England.*°* The author of Chronicon Angliae explains that he sold indulgences, confessional letters and portable altars, appointed papal chaplains and notaries for money, conferred upon the Cistercians the grace of eating meat for £40 and gave absolution from sentences of excommunica-

tion and vows of pilgrimage to Rome, the Holy Land and Santiago for a price.*°* In the view of the chronicler he granted anything for money and

thus accumulated a large sum. Other chroniclers mentioned only the wonderful things he did in England by reason of the powers he had from **3 November: Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 137; executory letter of the bishop of Winchester 19 November: Wykeham’s Reg., II, 295. ** Though Henry was not appointed until 1376 or 1377, he had the accounts of arrears of previous levies going as far back as 1374: above, pp. 679-80; Wykeham’s Reg., II, 279. **Rymer, Foedera, IV, 49; Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 52-54. 65 CPL. IV, 229. *°° Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 69.

“" Chron. Angliae, p. 283; Walsingham, Y podigma, p. 334; Otterbourne, Chron., Hearne, p. 154, Adam of Usk, Chron., pp. 2-3. See also Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 149-50. ** Nuncios who were cardinals were usually empowered to grant dispensations and graces. E.g., C.P.L., Il, 571-73, 580-81, 624, IV, 169-70.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 683 the pope. One of them reported that it was said he took with him a sum such as a tallage had never yielded in England, and another spoke of the ‘infinite’ sum which he carried away to his damnation. None of them alludes to any levy of procurations for him, and no evidence of such a levy is found in the customary places. There is, indeed, strong negative evidence to the contrary. In the accounts kept by the dean and chapter of Lincoln, in which the procurations paid to cardinals during the reign of Edward III are sometimes entered, beginning with the account from 14 September 1377 to the same date in 1378 it is noted annually until the account of 1396-97 that nothing was paid for procurations of cardinals in this year.*°°

How his expenses were met is not known, but there are three possibilities. The papal graces which he distributed with a lavish hand may have supplied sufficient funds. Since he was accredited to the king of the Romans and came to London with the German ambassadors,*®® he may have been collecting procurations in Germany. Urban VI may have begun to pay the expenses of cardinals who were envoys, as did Clement VII.*%* Urban VI appears to have sent no other envoys to England. No men-

tion of any demand for procurations by any papal envoy other than the papal collectors or of the payment of them to such an envoy occurs in the classes of documents which contain such abundant records of them during the pontificate of Gregory XI. The silence of one series of documents is particularly significant. The surviving bursar’s rolls of the priory of Durham, which are continuous with only occasional gaps throughout the period covered so far, contain frequent entries of expenditures for procurations of papal nuncios to 1378. Thereafter to 1391 inclusive no entries of such expenditures appear. It may be regarded as reasonably certain that no papal envoy except the papal collectors levied procurations during the pontificate of Urban VI from 1378 to 1389. During the pontificate of Boniface IX this situation changed to the disadvantage of the English clergy, but the change did not take place immediately. Boniface IX became pope on 9 November 1389. He soon sent to England Damian de Cateneis, a knight of Genoa.*® Richard Medford, bishop of Chichester, paid him 625 florins before 8 January 1390, but the sum was not for procurations, since the bishop was credited with it on the common service which he owed the college of cardinals.*** He received *6°T). & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2. 7-9, Compoti Clerici Commune. The roll for 1389-90 is missing and in the roll for 1394-95 the entry is omitted. *°° Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 133-34, 149-53.

** Baumgarten, Untersuchungen, pp. 257-60. **? Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 311. *°8 Above, p. 192.

684 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 gifts from the king, *** but no mention of a levy on the English clergy of procurations for him has been discovered. Damian returned to Rome before 14 April 1391. He was followed by another envoy, Nicholas, abbot

of Nonantola, a papal referendary. He arrived in England about the middle of June 1391.48 There can be little doubt that he was not entitled to procurations. When he left England, he owed to Englishmen 100 florins for his expenses. In 1396, when he returned on a second mission, the pope ordered James Dardani, the papal collector, to pay that sum to the abbot from the papal funds in his possession, unless the debt had already been paid in accordance with a previous papal mandate.*® While Nicholas was still in England,*® on 8 July 1391, Damian was sent back with a new commission. This time Boniface IX decided to try to obtain his expenses from the English clergy. On July 21 ordered all ranks of them, as enumerated in the customary detail, to pay Damian 8 florins a day for his expenses, under penalty of sentences which the bishops

of London, Winchester and St Davids would pronounce. The mandate was to hold good for three months after his entry into the kingdom and longer, if his business should require it.*** The pope evidently feared that his mandate might be ineffective, for on the same day he directed James

Dardani to provide Damian with 6 florins a day from the funds of the camera in his keeping, ‘in place of and in case any scandal or great difficulty’ should arise in obtaining the 8 daily florins from the English clergy.*® Whether he anticipated opposition from the king or from the clergy is not apparent, but evidently obedience to such mandates could no longer be taken for granted.

The three bishops who were appointed administrators issued their executory letters Jate in February or early in March 1392.**° They quoted

the papal mandate of 8 July, stated that Damian had arrived in England on 15 October 1391,47! was still there and would remain until 12 March 1392. They ordered each bishop to levy a farthing in the pound from the clerical revenues assessed for the tenth and from those not assessed for *°* Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 311.

*65 John Malverne, in Higden, Polychron., TX, 247-48, Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 320; above, pp. 119, 392. *66 13 March 1396: C.P.L., IV, 295. “67 Ff¥e left in November or December 1391: Malverne in Higden, Polychron., IX, 258, 262; Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 323.

*°8 C\P.L., IV, 281; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 113-14. 0° CPL. IV, 280-81. ‘79 The bishop of Winchester on 28 February: Wykehbam’s Reg., Il, 431. The date is given here erroneously as 1393. The bishop of London on 1 March: Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 113¥-14. The letter is given here in full. "4 Malverne gives the date as 17 October: Higden, Polychron., IX, 261.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 685

the tenth on the value on which the tenth was customarily paid. The money was to be collected before 7 April and delivered in London to John Wyke, their keeper, before 1 May. The customary penalties were to be applied to delinquent payers. Since Damian’s business detained him after the anticipated date of his departure, it became necessary to supplment his procurations. For that purpose the three bishops sent out letters in May and June 1392*” addressed to the archbishops, their suffragans and their clergy. They explained that Damian would remain in England probably until 1 March 1393,*** and ordered the levy of a half-penny in the pound in addition to the farthing previously demanded. The bishops

were to collect the additional levy and to deliver the proceeds to John Wyke, who is said here to be the nuncio’s agent, or to one of the three bishops, before Michaelmas.*7*

The bishop of Ely apparently had not yet ordered the collection of the farthing, for on 20 June 1392 he commanded his official to collect three farthings in the pound before 1 September. The bishop of Worcester, on

the other hand, noted in his register after the second mandate that the valuation for the diocese of Worcester was £7362 18 s. 6% d. and the obol in the pound £15 6s. 914 d. as if the farthing had been collected previously. Once again procurations and a royal tenth were due in the same year.*”®

It may be doubted if this levy had results which were satisfactory to the pope, since in 1394, when he sent Bartholomew de Novara, an ad-

vocate of consistory, in connection with the subsidy which he was seeking from the English clergy,*7® he tried a new approach to procurations. On 2 August he asked and commanded all classes of the English clergy to provide the nuncio and his household with necessities by means

of a subvention. He did not prescribe a certain number of florins a day, as had been customary. How much discretion this arrangement left to the

clergy is somewhat problematical. The provision of a subvention was mandatory. If the clergy had to accept the statement of the nuncio with regard to the cost of his necessities, they had no choice with regard to the amount. They could raise the money in whatever way they saw fit, but this option was not entirely new. The question was put before the convocation of Canterbury which met on 5 February 1395. The clergy there *7225 May and 16 and 24 June. ‘78 Fe was recalled in September and left in November or December: Perroy, L’Angle-

he Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 114-15, Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 287-309; Worcester, Reg. Wakefield, fo. 98-99. “7° Cotton MS. Vesp. B. XV, fo. 25. *7° Above, p. 120.

686 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

‘benevole concesserunt’ a subsidy of a half-penny in the pound on all assessed and nonassessed, exempt and nonexempt benefices *”’ in the province to be paid in full before 30 May.*7®

The archbishop of Canterbury, on 4 March 1395, sent his executory letters ordering the levy to the vicar general of the bishop of London for copies to be forwarded to the other bishops of the province. The copies to the bishop of Rochester and the prior and convent of Worcester were

dated 18 March.*7® The former was received on 26 March. The prior and convent of Worcester appointed deputies on 4 April. The bishop of

Winchester appointed one deputy on 16 March and the other on 27 April.48° The collection was not made on time. On 7 June the bishop of London sent to the other bishops of the province of Canterbury a mandate of the archbishop dated 6 June. It cited the order of the pope and the grant of convocation which was to be raised by Pentecost, but ‘non

est’. The archbishop, therefore, ordered his suffragans to collect the subsidy by 7 July, and to impose penalties on those who did not pay it.*°*

The only dated acquittance which has been discovered was issued on 2 August.**? The bishop of Winchester had to cite the collector in the archdeaconry of Surrey for failure to deliver the quota of £ 18 s. 1 due from the archdeaconry.*** The irregularity of payment and delivery was so great that the pope, on 25 February 1396, ordered Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola, whom he was sending to England again, to compel the payment of the half-penny in the pound which convocation had agreed to pay to Bartholomew. Some of the clergy, Bartholomew reported, had paid less than they owed and some had paid nothing at all.*** It may have been this failure which caused Boniface IX to arrange for the payment of the expenses of Nicholas, abbot of Nonantola, whom he

sent to England for a second time in 1396, from papal funds. On 13 March he ordered James Dardani to pay to Nicholas for the maintenance of him and his household while he was in England 3 florins a day, and 300 florins for the expenses of his return. The money was to be taken from the papal revenues in England which he had collected.**® The collector *"7 The official nomenclature. A deputy collector phrased it: “churches, pensions and portions’: W.A.M. 30295. ‘7? Lamb. Reg. Courtenay, bound in Reg. Morton, II, fo. 196%; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 223-24; Cotton MS. Vitel. F II, fo. 104%. *"° Reg. Worcester Sede Vacante, p. 358, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 66-66’. 48° Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 458. *** Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 70-71. *82'W.A.M. 30295. The chapter of Wells paid before Michaelmas 1395: H.M.C., Cal.

MSS. Wells, ll, 28. The chapter of Ely paid in 1395 or 1396: D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Roll, no. 10. “88 Not dated: Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 458. #84 C.P.L., [V, 296. £85 C1.P.L., IV, 295.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 687 disregarded this mandate, and on 1 September 1396 the pope ordered him

to pay to Nicholas 400 florins on sight. He was assured that for this expenditure he would receive credit in his account with the camera.**®

This policy, however, was not confined to England. Nicholas, on his way north, had to transact some papal business in Tuscany and the Romagna. The papal collector in the province of Lombardy was ordered to pay him from papal funds three florins a day for the period while he was occupied with these affairs. *8”

The abbot of Nonantola remained in England a long time. His leave to depart was not issued until 14 February 1398,*8® Before he left, the pope ordered the English clergy to provide for his necessities. Apparently the prolonged stay caused a greater strain on the papal funds in England than the pope had anticipated. On 8 March 1398 the archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the bishop of London a letter for distribution to his suffra-

gans. He said that he had seen a letter of Boniface IX ordering the clergy to provide for the necessities of Nicholas, but he did not quote it or date it. Apparently it was a letter of the type which had authorized the procurations of Bartholomew de Novara. It was put before the con-

vocation of Canterbury which met on 2 March 1398. The assembly voted for the purpose a subsidy of one penny in the pound on the valuation of ecclesiastical benefices.*®* The archbishop’s letter ordered the levy

of that amount before 24 June. It was to be paid to John Lynton and Richard Pedale, who was rector of St Mary Arches in London. The bishop had copies made on 18 March.*®® He appointed his deputies on 1 April,*** and the bishop of Lincoln named his on 6 April. The only record of payment which has been found was made by the

abbot and convent of Westminster for their appropriated churches assessed to the tenth in the archdeaconry of Surrey. The acquittance for it was dated 2 December 1398,**? long after the payment was due. The clergy were also paying royal tenths in 1398.*% The abbot of Nonantola was superseded by Peter du Bosc, bishop of Dax, a papal chamberlain. He was empowered on 13 and 18 May 1398 to treat concerning papal provisions and a clerical subsidy for the pope. The clergy were ordered to receive him kindly, to assist and to obey him,*** but no papal mandate to the clergy or to the papal collector to pro80 CPL. IV, 298. “7 C.P.L., IV, 295-96. “°° Perroy, L’ Angleterre, p. 344, n. 1. £89 'W.A.M. 30320; Wilkins, Concilia, Ill, 234. “°° Lincoln, Reg. Bokyngham, fo. 462.

*" Perroy, L’Angleterre, p. 344, n. 1. #2 WAM. 30320. *°8 Above, p. 121. *°* C\P.L., IV, 302-04; above, pp. 121, 394.

688 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

vide money for his expenses appears in the extant papal registers of the chancery. Evidence is likewise lacking of any levy on the English clergy for procurations. He was granted extensive powers to issue papal dispensations and indults and to make provision to benefices vacant so long that collation to them belonged to the apostolic see.*®® The exercise of these powers brought him an income,*®* but whether it was enough to meet his expenses is conjectural.

During the remainder of the pontificate of Boniface IX, which lasted

until 1 October 1404, only one envoy to England is recorded in the letters of the papal chancery.*®’ Any evidence that he was granted or received monetary procurations is lacking. Thus the late years of the fourteenth century saw the burden placed upon the English clergy for the procurations of papal envoys lightened greatly. After 1378 fewer envoys went to England than at any time since 1337, except the years from 1360 to 1369, when the war between England and France ceased. After the two countries acknowledged different popes in 1378, it became hopeless for either pope to act as a mediator. After 1394 truces maintained an uneasy suspension of the war for twenty-one years.

During their pontificates, which lasted from 1378 to 1404, only three of the envoys whom Urban VI and Boniface [X dispatched to England appear to have been authorized to receive procurations. The extent of the financial and administrative relief may be measured by comparison with the situation during the pontificate of Clement VI, Innocent VI and Gregory XI. During the remainder of the period of the schism the situation with regard to procurations remained approximately the same as it had been under Boniface IX. In 1405 Innocent VII sent to England as envoys James de Ugolinis, canon of Volterra, and Lewis, bishop of Volterra. They carried the papal excommunication of those who had been responsible for the death of Archbishop Scrope of York.*** They had, as far as is known, no papal authorization to exact procurations from the English clergy.**°

The archbishop of Canterbury, according to Annales Henrici Quarti,°°° provided them with a subsidy for their expenses. It was not a general levy, but consisted of gifts which he begged from friends and the exempt 495 C.P.L., IV, 305-06; Chron. de la Traison Richard Il, p. 161, n. 406 Fig., Wykebam’s Reg., ll, 482. *°7 16 September 1400, John Manzimini, a member of the papal household: C.P.L., IV, 312.

498 Wylie, History of England under Henry IV, Il, 346. #99 Tewis, bishop of Volterra, was entitled to procurations in his capacity as papal collector, but he was not granted additional procurations for this special mission. 599 In John de Trokelowe, Chron., p. 417.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 689 clergy. On the latter ground he asked for a contribution of ten marks from

the abbot of St Albans, who gave it freely in the next year. Innocent VII, on 23 March 1406, issued a safe conduct for Charles de Brancaciis, count of Campania, whom he was sending as a nuncio to England and to Portugal.°°' Concerning procurations for the count, he reverted to the system used before Boniface IX began to order a subvention to pay for the necessities of a nuncio. He ordered prelates and clergy to provide Charles with ten florins a day. I have found no evidence of the payment of procurations to him by the English clergy.°®” The pope may have lacked confidence that the English clergy would obey his mandate, since he ordered his collector in England to assign to the nuncio 1000 florins on receipt of the letter.°°° Gregory XII, on February 1407, dispatched to England and Denmark Anthony de Pireto, minister general of the Friars Minor. In England he was to seek from Henry IV and from the clergy subsidies for the expenses of ending the schism.°** Nothing indicates that the nuncio had papal authorization to collect procurations from the English clergy or that they paid him any. The case was different when, on 17 January 1409, Gregory XII commissioned Anthony, cardinal bishop of Porto, to go as legate to England

and Ireland in behalf of unity of the church. This time he commanded the English clergy to provide him the usual procurations of a legate 4 latere. He specified that they were 25 florins a day,°°° which represents

a change from what had been customary in the fourteenth century. By that time the English had abandoned Gregory XII in favor of the council of Pisa.°°* If the legate came to England, his papal authorization was not acknowledged. After the council of Pisa, John XXIII had occasion to send envoys to England in every year from 1411 to 1414 inclusive.°°’ None of them is known to have been empowered to demand procurations from the English clergy or to have received them. At least one of them, Herman Dwerg, received financial aid from the pope. He was granted 300 marks of Libeck

which belonged to the pope to recompense him for his expenses on a mission to England.°°* 5°? C.P.L., VI, 3.

5°? Jacob says that he drew his procurations with official support: ‘Some English Documents, Bull. of John Rylands Library, XV, 358.

SC PL. VI, 4.

594 C.P.L., VI, 94; above, p. 123.

°° Above, pp. 122, 412-13. 5°5 C.P.L., VI, 99.

507C.P.L., VI, 171-72, 175, 183-84, 186, 440; above, p. 123.

eC PI. VI, 440.

690 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Certain papal nuncios who were in England in the summer of 1414 shared with the proctors whom the clergy of the province of Canterbury selected to represent them at the council of Constance the proceeds of a tax imposed by convocation for the expenses of attending the council.°°” The tax was voted by convocation between 11 and 20 October, and the

executory letter of the archbishop was issued on 22 October. The tax was two pence in the pound from benefices assessed to the tenth and customarily paying it and a shilling in the mark from benefices not assessed to the tenth and not accustomed to pay it.°*° The money granted

to the nuncios did not constitute papal procurations. It was for the purpose of paying their expenses on the journey to the council; not for their expenses while remaining in England and coming from and returning

to the papal court. It was not levied as the consequence of a papal mandate.

If the clergy of England were free from procurations for papal envoys under John XXIII, there seems to have been no formal enactment by pope, king or English clergy which made them aware of it. Bishop Stafford of Exeter, on 16 October 1413, assigned the vicar’s portion of the church of Lodiswell which had been appropriated to the college of Slapton. Among the dues for which the vicar was to be liable were the procurations and subsidies payable to legates and nuncios of the apostolic see.°** After the council of Constance levies on the English clergy for the procurations of papal envoys appear to have ceased entirely. Though it may be possible that a single levy was made without leaving any impress on the classes of records which contained. so much information about the levies made in the fourteenth century, it is highly improbable that they would provide no evidence of any levy, if such levies had continued to be made commonly after 1417. Such evidence as is available points to other methods of providing for the expenses of papal envoys. Martin V (1417-1431) sent several envoys to Henry V and Henry VI. Among them were two cardinals, who were nuncios, and another, who was a legate, concerned with the negotiation of peace between England and France.°’? Only one illustration of the manner in which their expenses 5°° The record of the grant of the tax does not name the nuncios. The three known to have been in England then were Bartholomew, bishop of Pesaro, Marinus Minutolus, marshal of the papal court, and Augustine Dellante, advocate of consistory. Their royal safe conduct was dated 1 June: Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 2, 78. 510 Reg. Chichele, Ill, 312-14; Lincoln, Reg. Repingdon, fo. 114-157, 119, 121-23; London, Reg. Clifford, fo. 64; Reg. Mascall (Hereford), pp. 121-22; Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 342; Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 189-94. 12 Reg. Stafford, pp. 243-44. 512 C.P.L., VII, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 15-16, 18; Arm. XX XIX, 41, fo. 46-48; Rymer, Foedera, IV, pt. 3, 41.

Procurations of Papal Envoys Other Than the Collectors 691 were met has come to my attention. James, bishop of Trieste, who was sent to England as a nuncio on 13 March 1423,°'* was given an allowance from the papal funds assembled by the papal collector in England. On 24 March the camerarius ordered Simon de Teramo to pay him four florins a day during his sojourn in England, which would last at most from eight

to ten months. The expenditure would be allowed on his account with the camera.°'* The daily allotment was smaller when it came from papal funds than when it came from money levied from the English clergy.°”®

Scattered references indicate that subsequent popes generally paid

the expenses of their envoys to England through the camera. On 2 March 1433 the locumtenens of the camerarius of Eugenius IV ordered the collector in England, or his deputy, to pay to John Ely, papal servantat-arms, 40 florins for his expenses. The collector would receive credit for the sum in his account with the camera. John was being sent to England with bulls to princes and prelates concerning the celebration of a general council.°*® Apparently he was merely a messenger and not a nuncio. On 8 April 1435 the camerarius ordered the collector to assign to the same messenger 20 florins.*17 Innocent VIII, on 27 August 1485, sent James bishop of Imola as his nuncio and orator to England and Scotland. He directed his collector in England to supply him with 108 ducats each month from the papal money in his possession. He gave the customary

assurance that the acquittances of the nuncio would be credited in his accounts with the camera.*7® On 4 January 1522, when the Roman see was vacant, the camerarius wrote Cardinal Laurence Campeggio. While

you were a bishop, he said, you served several years as a nuncio, and after you became a cardinal, you acted as a legate de latere in England. Your account shows that you are owed by the camera for your salary during this period of 70 months 7300 ducats. The letter made that sum a charge upon the camera.°?* The service was rendered during the pontificate of Leo X.

Pastor notes that Leo X defrayed the expenses of legates who went on the business of a crusade to the Empire, France, Spain and England in 1518. He adds that previously nuncios had been authorized to pay their expenses by means of their lucrative faculties.°?° This statement is too 88 CPL. VIL, 12. 4 Arm. XXIX, 7, fo. 172¥-73. *** Compare with those received by envoys who were bishops in the fourteenth century:

above, passim.

6 Arm. XXIX, 17, fo. 121¥-22. "7 Arm. XXIX, 19, fo. 877. *** Arm, XXXIX, 18, fo. 240. See also above, p. 581, n. 24.

**® Arch. di Stato in Rome, Arch. di Campo Marzio, Paesi Stranieri, Bdle. 2, nos. 81-82. 52° History, VII, 231.

692 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

sweeping, since Campeggio’s expenses while he was nuncio before he became a legate were met by the camera, and there are enough earlier examples to demonstrate that the practice did not begin with Leo X. Some of the nuncios and legates who came to England after 1417 had power to grant specified dispensations and indults.*** If they were allowed

to keep the money received from their grants, it provided for some of their expenses.°?? The kings of England still gave presents to some of the papal messengers and nuncios accredited to them.°*? Messengers could still demand entertainment from the clergy in places where they stopped. On 21 September 1515 Leo X gave notice to all that he was sending Boniface de Collis, a squire, to the king of England and ordered them to entertain him and his following.®** Nevertheless, the normal method of providing for the expenses of papal envoys who went to England after 1417 appears to have been by payments from papal funds. No instance of payment of their expenses by a pro rata levy on the incomes of the English clergy is known to me. The development of the levy of pecuniary procurations from the English clergy for the expenses of papal envoys, other than those of the papal collectors, thus went through three stages. During the reign of Edward III, while the popes were at Avignon, these procurations were a burden, sometimes

heavy, and always vexatious out of proportion to their amount. The pontificate of Urban V, who tempered the wind to the shorn lamb, consti-

tuted an exception to the general course of the development. During the period of the schism such levies became rare. The main reason seems

to have been that the popes generally refrained from authorizing their envoys to demand procurations. Why they exercised such restraint 1s not obvious. Possibly they were fearful of arousing the opposition of the English clergy or of the English government. After the council of Constance the English clergy appear to have been relieved entirely of this financial burden. °21 E.g., above, pp. 563-65; C.P.L., VII, 12-13; VIII, 277-78, 297-99; XI, 687-91; Reg. Vat. 984, fo. 167-70.

°° Francis de Coppini, bishop of Terni, who had the powers of a legate de latere, accumulated so much treasure from this source that Pius II called him venal: Ellis, Original Letters, 3d ser. I, 83-84, n. °° E.g., Proceedings of the Privy Council, TV, 120-21; Issues of the Exchequer, Devon, p- 457; L. @ P., Il, pt. 2, pp. 1468-69; VI, no. 717; Allen, Opus Epistolarum, V, no. 1466. °** Arm. XL, 3, fo. 62. He ranked as a messenger: L. @ P., Il, pt. 2, p. 1469.

CuaPTter XIV

PROCURATIONS OF PAPAL COLLECTORS AND APPROPRIATION OF EPISCOPAL PROCURATIONS BY THE PAPACY 1. PROCURATIONS OF THE PapaL COLLECTORS

The procurations of papal collectors in England were by 1327 levied in a manner different from that employed for the levy of the procurations

of other papal nuncios. The difference goes back to the early days of the levy of pecuniary procurations by papal envoys. All of them at first received procurations only from certain prelates, chapters and religious houses, which gradually became fixed by custom. Late in the thirteenth century and early in the fourteenth the practice was established that papal

nuncios other than the collectors exacted their procurations from all members of the clergy whose incomes were assessed for the tenth. They were imposed at a rate of pence or farthings in the mark or pound which would produce the amount of procurations to which the given nuncio was

entitled by his papal letter of authorization. Papal nuncios who were collectors retained the older system. The amount of their procurations had become established at seven shillings a day. They obtained it by demanding each year seven shillings from a majority of several religious houses and chapters of cathedral or collegiate churches in each diocese and lesser sums* from each of a minority of them. These debtors who

owed payments of procurations to the collector annually had become fixed by custom. The payers on the list were subject to only slight changes.”

This difference had developed as a matter of practice without any known papal sanction. As early as 1272 the pope ordered archbishops, bishops, rural deans, other prelates of churches and rectors, as well as abbots, priors, convents, deans, provosts and chapters to contribute to the

procurations of two collectors who were then appointed. This general formula continued to be used in the papal letters of authorization, but it never resulted in any such general liability for collectors’ procurations on the part of the whole clergy as it seems to ordain. After 1327 the formula became even more inclusive. When Benedict XII commissioned Bernard de Sistre as collector on 13 September 1335, he -1The most common were 5 s. or 3 s. 6 d. Some paid 4s. 2s. 6d. or 2s. 4 d. One paid 1 s.6 d. The prior of the order of St John of Jerusalem in London owed £13 6 s. 8 d. presumably for all the English priories of the order: MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 50V-64¥. * Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, ch. XI.

694 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 addressed a letter to the same comprehensively named classes of the English clergy as those specified in the letter of 31 July 1335 concerning the procurations of Hugh, bishop of St Paul de Trois Chateaux, and Roland de Aste, auditor of causes.® In the letter of 13 September he ordered the clergy to provide Bernard with seven shillings a day for the expenses of him and his household. If Bernard delayed in one place for a length of

time, neighboring places were to contribute to lighten the burden.” The mandate of 31 July resulted in the levy on all the clergy in the province of Canterbury of a half-penny in the pound of their incomes as assessed for the tenth and on all the clergy of the province of York of three half-pennies in the mark for the procurations of the nuncios. The mandate of 13 September caused the payment to Bernard once a year during his term of office of seven shillings or of some smaller sum by each of certain religious houses and cathedral and collegiate chapters located in the several dioceses in England.® In 1342 the English clergy were ordered in similar terms by Clement VI to provide seven shillings a day to the new collector, Raymond Pelegrini.* Thereafter papal mandates for the payment of procurations to papal collectors do not appear to have

been directed to the English clergy when each new collector was appointed,’ but the successive collectors until 1534 continued to demand and receive procurations from those who had paid them to their predecessors. Thus the procurations of papal collectors survived long after other papal nuncios had ceased to enjoy them. The popes and the papal camera intervened in the administration of the procurations of the collectors only rarely. On April 1372 the camerarius

gave to the collector Arnald Garnerii an order with regard to the procurations of his predecessor John de Cabrespino. Since John’s last account

left a balance due the camera, Arnald was to collect the arrears owed to John and forward them to the camera to be applied to John’s debt. Apparently John met his obligation to the camera about the time that the letter was written, because another letter of the same date instructed Arnald to pay

the arrears which he collected to John or his agents.* Later in the same * Above, p. 622. * Benoit XII: Lettres Closes et Patentes intéressants les Pays autres que la France, 526.

°D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Roll, no. 7, 9 Edward III; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2.5, Compoti Clerici Commune, 1335-40; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1336, verso, 1339, verso; Misc. Charters 4143, 4407, 5022.

°C.P.L., Ill, 6. According to the summary, the mandate is addressed only to all secular and regular prelates, but probably all classes of the clergy were named: above, p. 643, n. 147,

P Tat least they do not appear in the registers of the chancery where the commissions of the collectors were entered, as they did up to 1342. 8 Col. 358, fo. 43-447.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 695 year the camerarius had to decide to which collector the procurations of a certain period belonged. When John de Cabrespino ended his services as collector in 1371, at the mandate of the camerarius he appointed John de Caroloco, prior of Lewes, who had been his deputy, to exercise the office

of collector until a new collector was appointed. Arnald Garneru was commissioned collector on 8 October 1371, but he did not arrive in England and take over the duties of his office until 22 February 1372. During that interval John de Caroloco conducted the business of the collector’s office. He claimed the procurations until 22 February and Arnald claimed

them after the date of his commission. John petitioned the camera and the camerarius ruled in his favor.?® The suspension of the collector’s office during the council of Constance

brought to the camerarius another problem. Paul de Caputgrassis, who was collector at the time of the suspension, had to leave behind him some unpaid procurations which constituted part of his stipend. On 2 December 1417, a few days after the council elected Martin V, Paul, who was a cameral clerk, appointed as his proctor to collect the procurations owed

to him Walter Medford, dean of Wells.1° The camerarius added the weight of his authority to the arrangement by an order to Walter, who was the new papal collector, to compel payment of the arrears of Paul’s procurations by those from whom they were due.*t Walter found that some of these procurations had already been collected. The council of Constance had authorized the archbishop of Canterbury and two bishops to collect and retain the papal revenues during the period of the council. They had appointed John Escout, the archbishop’s examiner in the court of Arches, and Nicholas Ash, his chaplain, to perform the work of collection. The deputies had levied the collectors’ procurations which continued to be paid by some debtors, though no papal collector was resident in England.’ Among them, Paul claimed, were some of the procurations owed to him. On 21 June 1419 the camerarius, therefore, ordered the

archbishop of Canterbury to compel his agents to render to Paul the procurations which belonged to him.’* Martin V, on 1 March 1423, handed down an important decision on the collectors’ procurations in answer to a petition of Simon de Teramo who was then the collector. Simon explained that English enthusiasm ®°30 November 1372: Col. 358, fo. 129. 1° Arm. XXIX, 3, fo. 42. 112 December 1417: Arm. XXIX, 4, fo. 9; Miltenberger, ‘Versuch einer Neuordnung,’ R.Q., VII, 416. 12 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74, 76; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1414-15, 1416-17; H.M.C., Report on MSS. of Lord de lIsle and Dudley, 1, 164, 166. 18 Arm. XXIX, 5, fo. 130-31.

696 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 for the Carthusian order resulted, particularly after the time of Gregory XI, in the appropriation to newly founded houses of that order of several priories, which had previously belonged to the Benedictine, Augustinian or other orders, along with their secular benefices. It was done by the

authority of ordinaries and of popes. These appropriated priories and benefices had been bound previously to pay annual censuses, vilgariter called procurations, to the apostolic camera or to the apostolic nuncios who were collectors for the salaries of the collectors. Though the united priories and benefices were transferred with the burdens previously incumbent upon them, many of the newly established priories and convents refused to pay the collectors’ procurations due from the united priories on the ground that the Carthusian order had from the apostolic see a privilege which exempted its houses from paying procurations or any other subsidies to apostolic nuncios and legates. Simon, being unable to collect these procurations, prayed for a remedy.

The pope in response set forth the reasons for his decision. The stipends of the nuncios who were collectors in England, he said, were assigned, ordained and distributed for payment by quotas or portions among churches, priories and other ecclesiastical benefices of the kingdom to the relief of other benefices. If these stipends should not be paid according to the old ordinations, either other benefices would have to pay them, or the deficiency would have to be made up from the revenues of the apostolic camera, which had long since been exhausted. Such unions

were always charged with their burdens. The apostolic see wished to exempt the newly founded monasteries from the procurations of papal nuncios and legates, but it did not intend to include the procurations assigned for the annual salaries of nuncios who were collectors. Martin V, therefore, declared that the privilege did not extend to the procurations of collectors and ordered Simon and his successors to collect them, using ecclesiastical censures and invoking the aid of the secular arm, if it should be necessary.** This seems to have been the first formal recognition by a pope that the procurations of the nuncios who were collectors in England were levied on a basis different from that used for nuncios who were not collectors.

The collectors made the bishops their assistants in the collection of their procurations more or less as they did in the collection of annates. The bishops did not collect the procurations, as they did Peter’s pence, but they were required to issue to those who owed the procurations such warnings, summonses and announcements of ecclesiastical censures as a -14MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 147-16; C.P.L., VI, 11-12.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 697

collector might direct, and also to impose sequestrations. A collector ordinarily did not call upon a bishop for help unless a debtor failed to make his annual payment on time. It was well understood that the annual payment was due at Michaelmas, ** which in England meant within a fortnight of that holiday.’® Itier de Concoreto, who was the first papal collector appointed after

1327, made an exception to this practice. In December 1328, when he and his household had been established in London only two months, he ordered the bishops to warn peremptorily all in their respective dioceses who were accustomed to pay procurations to nuncios of the apostolic see to deliver to him at his house in London without delay the procurations

for the first year of his collectorship. Each bishop was to publish the warning in churches of his diocese and to threaten with ecclesiastical penalties those who should fail to obey.” Since his authorization to collect procurations was dated 28 August 1328,'* he appears to have regarded the

procurations of his first year as due at Michaelmas of that year. If the debtors were ignorant of this, as they may well have been, it may have been necessary to give them a general warning. In his second year, however, on 14 November 1329, he ordered a similar general citation.*® Itier’s successors did not issue such general and vague mandates. Their

mandates were of two types. The first type ordered the bishop to cite listed payers who were late with their payments to appear at the collector’s house in London on a specified day in the future to pay their debts, or to explain why payment should not be made. The bishop was to inform them

that failure to appear would bring upon them the penalty of the greater excommunication.”° One collector pronounced in his mandate to a bishop *® Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74; Reichel, An Old Exeter Manuscript, p. 53; Bodleian Lib., MS. Bodley 242, fo. 3v; P. R. O., Chancery Master’s Exhibits, A III, fo. 17. *® Cotton MS. Galba E IV, fo. 1827; Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74, D. & Ch. Worcester, Liber Albus, fo. 223V.

** Addressed to the commissioner general of the archbishop of Canterbury, 20 December: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Reg. I, fo. 428-4287, H.M.C., Report, IX, app. 1, p. 74. To the bishop of Exeter, 9 December: Reg. Grandisson, 1, 456-57. Here payment in London was ordered by 1 February.

CPL. IL, 485.

1° Reg. Shrewsbury (Wells), I, 16.

*° John de Cabrespino, 11 October 1363: Reg. Sudbiria (London), I, 197-98; Arnald Garnerii, 20 July 1372: Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 281-83; 17 January 1376: Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-147; 12 June 1377: ibid., fo. 837-84; Cosmatus Gentilis, 20 November 1386: Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 1137; James Dardani, 4 December 1390: Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111; 31 January 1391; ibid., fo. 113; 1 February 1395: zbid., fo. 122; Lewis, bishop of Volterra, 4 March 1401: ibid., fo. 129, Laurence, bishop of Ancona, 8 August 1407: ibid., fo. 164-647; Marcellus de Strozis, 23, 24 and 28 July 1410: Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 12, 17-18, Reg. Rede (Chichester), II, 413-14; Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25%; 19 March 1411: Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 14¥-15; 22 March 1412: Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 39; 25 February 1414, ibid., fo. 40; Paul de Caputgrassis, 21 October 1414: Reg. Bubwith, I, 187; Walter Medford, 18 May 1418: ibid., II, 321-23: Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 18-187, 1418-20: Harl. MS. 862,

698 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

the sentence to take effect if the debtor did not appear on the prescribed day.** Ordinarily, however, after a payer had disobeyed the citation to appear, the collector would send to the bishop a second type of mandate. It ordered the bishop to pronounce the sentence on the named debtors and again to cite them to appear and render payment at a later date.?? Frequently both types of citations were included in one mandate. The payers of one group were to be cited to appear and make payment under threat of excommunication for failure to obey and those of another group were to be excommunicated for having disregarded one summons and to be cited to present themselves and render their payments at another date.** Often the mandates which dealt with procurations included also orders with regard to annates, Peter’s pence or census.* Before 1377 the collectors

rarely ordered sequestration in their mandates. In that year Arnald Garnerii commanded a bishop to apply sequestration at the same time that a citation of the first type was served on a payer. Thereafter this procedure became as automatic as it was in the recovery of the arrears of annates.”® The collectors seem to have been less severe in the use of ecclesiastical censures and processes to enforce payment of their procurations than they were to enforce the payment of some papal dues. Delay of payment by itself did not automatically bring excommunication, as it did in the payfo. 63-64; Simon de Teramo, 20 March 1421: Reg. Bubwith, II, 402; Reg. Lacy (Exeter), IT, 440; 1421: Reg. Spofford (Hereford), p. 114; Nicholas Bildeston, locumtenens of Simon de Teramo, 27 November 1422: Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 33; Simon de Teramo, 5 and 10 November 1423: Reg. Bubwith, II, 445-46; John de Obizis, 13 June 1431: Reg. Stafford (Exeter), p. 125. * Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29¥-30. *? Hugh Pelegrini, 20 January 1361: D. & Ch. Worcester, A 5, Liber Albus, fo. 223; Arnald Garnerii, 1 February 1373: Reg. Brantyngham, I, 296, 22 November 1375: Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 243-44; Thomas de Southam, commissioner general of Cosmatus Gentilis, 14 July 1382: ibid., II, 343-44; Cosmatus Gentilis, 23 December 1385: Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 86-88; James Dardani, 20 November 1396: Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 1147-15, Simon de Teramo, 18 July 1421: Reg. Lacy (Exeter), II, 456-57. *® Arnald Garnerii, 1 February 1373: Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 296-98; 20 February 1374, ibid., 1, 324-26; 14 February 1373: Wykebam’s Reg., Il, 191; Laurence de Nigris, locumtenens of Arnald, 1375: D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, S 445; Lewis, bishop of Volterra, 1399: Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 494-95; Marcellus de Strozis, 15 February 1413: Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 57; 1 December 1413: ibid., fo. 58%; Nicholas Bildeston, locumtenens of Simon de Teramo, 18 February 1422: Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 28-28%; 27 November 1422: Reg. Spofford, pp. 13-14; 28 February 1425: ibid., pp. 86-87: Simon de Teramo, late 1423: Reg. Lacy, p. 492; 6 December 1424: Reg. Spofford, pp. 61-62. ** Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29¥-30v; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-147, 83¥-84, 1131137; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, S 445; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111, 122, 129, 142-142¥; Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 114-15; Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139-1397, Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 57-59, Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 40+: Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 28-287, 33. *° E.g., Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 274-75, 437-38, 494-95; Exch. K. R. Ecclesiastical Document 21/80; Ely, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111-13, 122, 129, 142; Rochester, Reg. Bottlesham, fo. 139-397; Reg. Rede (Chichester), II, 413-14, Reg. Lacy (Exeter), II, 456-57, 492; Salisbury, Reg. Chandler, Il, fo. 28-287, Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 13-14.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 699 ment of the sums assessed on the valuation of the tenth for the procurations of other papal nuncios. It was only after the delinquent payer had been cited to pay at a certain date and had failed to obey that excommuni-

cations followed. Collectors might order citation with the threat of excommunication for disobedience when only one annual payment was past due,”* but sometimes they did not order such a citation until two annual payments were late.?” After the interruptions of the collectors’ functions at the time of the councils of Pisa and Constance, this lenient attitude was maintained when three or even more annual payments had

been withheld. Arnald Garnerii once cited four payers in the diocese of Ely on 17 January 1376 to appear before him on 20 April to pay seven shillings each. One owed the procurations due in 1374 and the other three those due in 1375. On 31 May he cited the same payers to appear on 15 November to pay the same debts and made no mention of excommunication.”® If, on the other hand, a payer was in arrears for several years, a collector might order the bishop to increase the sentence of excommunication against him.”° The relaxation of censures and sequestrations after delinquent payers had satisfied the collectors was done sometimes by the collectors,*° and sometimes at the orders of the collectors by the bishops who had imposed them originally at the orders of the collectors.** The bishop of Hereford

was employed by Cosmatus Gentilis on 20 November 1380 in an exceptional case. The bishop was to lift the sequestration of the fruits of the

priory of Monmouth because it had been done by mistake. The priory had been leased during the years for which the procurations were owed by John ap Jenn’, vicar of Monmouth, and Richard Balle, a chaplain. They were consequently responsible for the procurations. The bishop was to order them to pay the procurations to the prior of Monmouth within ten days of notice under penalty of the greater excommunication. If they failed to obey, they were to be cited to appear before the collector in London.*?

In several instances the collectors appointed special agents to make relaxations. On 4 January 1333 Itier de Concoreto, who was about to go °° F.g., Reg. Brantyngham, I, 281-83, 297-98; Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 191. *" Reg. Brantyngham, 1, 324-26; Ely, Reg. Fordham, 142-427; Reg. Bubwith (Wells), I, 17-18; II, 321-23, 402; Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25%}; Salisbury, Reg. Hallam, I, fo. 18-187; Reg. Lacy (Exeter), II, 440. 7° Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14-14%, 177. *° Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 115; Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 57. 80 F.g., Cal. of Charters and Documents relating to Selborne and its Priory, I, 93. *1 F.g., Bodleian Lib., MS. Kent Roll 6, article r, Worcester, Reg. Peverell, fo. 34. For the latter reference I am indebted to the late Professor Alfred H. Sweet. 32 Exch. K. R. Ecclesiastical Document 21/80.

700 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

to the papal court, delegated this authority to Roger, vicar of Bray and dean of Reading. He absolved the prior and convent of Hurley from excommunication incurred by failure to pay the procurations due Itier for the fourth year of his office.** Other collectors authorized a local agent

residing in the neighborhood of an excommunicated person to give ab-

solution, to dispense with irregularities if necessary, and to lift the sequestration of goods of one designated person. Lewis, bishop of Volterra,

on 24 April 1403, appointed William Pere, a priest of the diocese of Lincoln, to perform that service for the prioress of Catesby.** Marcellus de Strozis, on 2 April 1411, commissioned John Whyte and John Hyre, chaplains of the diocese of Lincoln, to absolve the prioress of the same house,*® who was again behindhand, and to impose a suitable penance.

| He had already ordered the bishop of Lincoln to relax the sequestration.*® A month later he named Richard, subprior of Llanthony Secunda, to act in a like capacity for his prior.?” The succesive collectors maintained at York throughout the period a

deputy who collected the procurations in the province of York.** He was given power by the collector to issue valid acquittances, of compelling with ecclesiastical censures those who did not pay on time and of seques-

trating fruits.*? He was paid a stipend by the collector and he received two pence for each acquittance which he issued,*° as did the collector for the acquittances which he himself issued.*? Some of these deputies held °° Wethered, St Mary’s Hurley, p. 167. ** Exch. K. R. Ecclesiastical Document 25/57. °° Elizabet Swynfort was the prioress on this occasion. 86 Exch. K. R. Ecclesiastical Document 2/16. 7 Pp. R. O., Chancery Master’s Exhibits, A III, fo. 17. °° —D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters 4143, 4168, 4176, 4193, 4216, 4239, 4251, 4252, 4336, 4338, 4348, 4356, 4358, 4360, 4367, 4407, 4476, 4656, 4765, 4772, 4854, 4946, 4989, 5020, 5022, 5023, 5086, 5849; Bursar’s Rolls 1336-37, 1339-40, 1363-64, 1374-75, 1383-84, 1388-89, 1389-90, 1397-98, 1399-1400, 1400-01, 1401-02, 1402-03, 1439-40, 1440-41, 1441-42, 1442-43, 1443-44,

1444-45; Memorials of Ripon, Ill, 234, MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948 fo. 50, 50%, 70. The Bursar’s Rolls of Durham continue to record payments of the procurations to 1516, but after 1445 the form of entry does not make clear to whom the payments were rendered. °° The commission by which Walter Medford, between 1418 and 1420, appointed John Carlynton receiver of the procurations: Harl. MS. 862, fo. 64. That earlier deputies had these powers other than that of sequestration is evidenced by Misc. Charters 4822 (2 July 1328) and 5849 (13 December 1349) of the Dean and Chapter of Durham. They demonstrate also that he had power of absolution from sentences which he had imposed. *°D. & Ch. Durham, Bursars Rolls, 1383-87, 1388-91, 1394-95, 1397-1403, 1406-07.

““D. & Ch. Lincoln, Compoti Clerici Commune, 1328-29, 1339-40, 1364-67, 1368-69, 1377-86, 1388-89, 1390-94, 1395-97, 1400-03, 1405-09, 1419-21, 1423-24, 1440-41, 1442-43, 1450-51, 1452-53, 1455-56, 1478-79, 1480-96, 1501-28, 1529-30, 1532-33 Press marks Bj 2.5-2.8,

2.10-16, 3.1-3.5); Accounts of obedientiars of Ramsay, Addit. MSS. 33484, fo. 11%; 33445, fo. 17, 35, 51, 88, 109%; 33446, fo. 20%, 60%; D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Rolls nos. 7-9, Cotton

MS., Galba E IV, fo. 182¥; H.M.C., Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 27; MSS. of Lord de Isle and Dudley, I, 164, 166-167, 169; Nichols, Leicestershire, 1, pt. 2, app. p. 85.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 701

office under successive collectors. For a long time the office was as-

sociated with the abbot and convent of St Mary York. Stephen de Oustwyk, the sacrist, served Hugh of Angouléme until he was superseded by Itier de Concoreto in 1328.4? Thereafter John de Tilington ** acted for Itier and his successor, Bernard de Sistre, to 1342. He described himself variously as appointed by the abbot of St Mary, as the substitute of the abbot, as the sacrist of St Mary and as deputy collector.** The abbot of St Mary himself issued the acquittance during part of the collectorship of Raymond Pelegrini and during the early years of the collectorship of his brother.*° Hugo de Fletham, clerk, held the office from 1355 to 1375, serving three collectors.*® John Carlynton (or Carleton), whom Walter Medford appointed, was still acting in 1433.47 Walter Medford also commissioned a deputy to levy and receive his procurations in Wales.*® Whether this was exceptional or customary is

not apparent. Elsewhere in the province of Canterbury the collectors appointed no deputy collectors of procurations with one exception. While the archbishop of Canterbury and two bishops were responsible for col-

lecting the papal dues from 1415 to 1418, Walter Bullok, a canon of Lichfield, acted as a deputy collector in the diocese of Lichfield. He issued

an acquittance for 28 shillings paid by the abbot of Haughmond for procurations for the four years from 1415 to 1418.49 Whether he collected

the collector’s procurations only or the papal dues as well is not made evident.

Perhaps the amount of procurations and the number of payers were too small to justify a system of local deputies. It was inconvenient for the payers, particularly to those in remote dioceses, since they had to arrange

for the delivery of the money to the collector in London. The chapter of Lincoln paid for the carriage of seven shillings to London 6 d. in 1327, 2 s.6 d. in 1328 and 10 d. in each of the years 1329, 1330, 1333 and 1334.°° The chapter of Wells paid in 1328 2 s. and in 1344 1s. 6 d. for the same service.”* Doubtless members of some of the communities which owed procura“D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4855, 4685, 4822. ** Otherwise Tyverington, Tyervigton. **D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters 4193, 4338, 5020, 4765, 4407, 5022, 4143; Bursar’s Rolls, 1336-37, 1339-40. ‘5 [bid., 4176, 4989, 5849, 4360, 4251, 4358, 4348. * Tbid., 4356, 4239, 5086, 4336, 4656, 4772, 4854, 5023, 4252, 4216, 4946, 4168; Bursar’s Roll,

tg ‘bid, Misc. Charter, 4367. *® Harl. MS. 862, fo. 64-647.

° Harl. MS. 862, fo. 76. °° D. & Ch. Lincoln, Bj 2.5, Compotus Clericit Commune, 1326-30, 1332-34.

* H.M.C., Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 3-4, 7. The dean and chapter of Ely apparently paid 10 d. for transportation in 1353: Chamberlain’s Roll, 27 Edward III.

702 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

tions sometimes went to London on other business. Perhaps the money could be sent sometimes without cost by neighbors who were making the journey. The liability of payment in London was, nevertheless, burdensome and sometimes expensive. John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter, in 1329, called the attention of Itier de Concoreto to a murmuring among his subjects about this burden, which he called ‘unaccustomed.’ He suggested that the collector ought to appoint in distant places someone with power to receive the money and give acquittances. His protest was without result.®”

At some time, probably in the second half of the fifteenth century, a change was made in the method of collecting the procurations. Peter Griphus, collector between 1508 and 1512, described the change. He said: “Anciently the collectors themselves, or by their ministers, received procurations from debtors each year.’ Later it became the prevalent custom

to commit the care of exacting them to two deputy collectors. To one of them was leased and committed whatever was to be received from this

source in the province of Canterbury, to the other the same in the province of York. They agreed with the collector to pay a certain prescribed sum warranted previously by a suitable bond. Thereafter they exacted the procurations from the debtors at their own convenience and risk in the name of the collector, to whom they were held to answer for the stipulated sum at a stated time.” Peter included a copy of the contract which he made with the deputy collectors in the province of Canterbury on 10 February 1511.°* Richard, prior of Leeds, and William, prior of Bilsington, priories of the county of Kent, and Thomas Laurence of Canterbury, gentleman, and Robert

Waren, citizen and skinner of the city of London, undertook by an ob- | ligation of the same date, all and each, to pay the collector £110. In return the collector deputed the four to levy his procurations in the whole province of Canterbury through the whole year beginning 1 January 1511. What they collected was to be theirs without render of any account to the collector. If Peter’s term of office should end within the year, they were to pay him the part of £110 representing the portion of the year during which he held office and the remainder to his successor. Peter undertook further to force by suspension from office or other means any person who neglected or refused to pay his debt for procurations or

to render his payment promptly. Peter agreed not to relax such penalties until payment had been rendered not only of the procurations but 52 Reg., I, 204.

53 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 14°. 54 Tbid., fo. 70-71.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 703 also of the costs of sending messengers and of other expenses incurred by the four in exacting the overdue payment.

Peter also provided a copy of the form of the sentence of excommunication which he would issue.®® The letter, addressed to all who should

see it, bound N. prior with the chain of excommunication and ordered the sentence to be proclaimed publicly, because, after a legitimate warning

to pay procurations in arrears owed by him, he scorned to do it, and at present still delayed. While the form of this sentence is different from that found in the mandates issued by earlier collectors to the bishops, the fundamental principle is the same: the delinquent payer was cited to pay before the sentence was imposed. The form implies, on the other hand, that the bishops were no longer required to act as agents of the collector in the administration of his procurations.

The deputy collectors, according to the contract, did not have the power to issue ecclesiastical censures and processes against the debtors,

as the deputy collectors in the province of York under the old system of administration had had. About their power to issue valid acquittances the contract made no statement. The power to levy would seem to imply

the power to acquit, but in 1512 the collector himself issued two acquittances.°®

The amount which the deputy collector in the province of York contracted to pay the collector each year was £18. This made the total annual receipt of the collector from procurations £128.57 How much the deputies received for their compensation may be established by the list of payers

and the amounts which they owed compiled by Peter Griphus.°* He based the list on one in a register kept by Walter Medford, who was collector from 1417 to 1420, but the list as Peter recorded it was applicable while he was collector.°® A summary of the list follows:

Diocese Number Total of payers5®a amount due 5%

Bangor 6 £2 Bath and Wells 11 3 2 112 6 Province of Canterbury

Canterbury 18 65 10 Chichester 21 12 00

5 Tbid., fo. 70.

©€ 26 March to prior of Hurley: W.A.M. 30480; 26 May to prior of Selborne and the bursars of Magdalen College: Cal. of Charters and Documents relating to Selborne, 1, 147. 57 MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 50-50¥. 5° Thid., fo. 50¥-64". 5° Ihid., fo. 50-50V.

5° The figures represent my additions. Peter gave only the name of the payer and the amount due from him.

704 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

Diocese Number Total

Ely 4 1 8 0 Exeter 27 8 12 Hereford 13 3 13 6 6

of payers amount due

Lichfield 4232 1444«0 6 Lincoln 100 Llandaff 1323 3 19 18 88 London 38 Norwich 545 17 7 00 Rochester 1 15 St Asaph 5121 4154 00 St. David Salisbury 24257 8138 40 Winchester Worcester 29 8 34 26 Total 447 155 Province of York

Carlisle none Durham 8182 16 16 00 York 54 Total 62 21 12 0

The deputy collector in the province of Canterbury made an annual profit of £45 3 s, 2 d. and the deputy collector in the northern province of £3 12s.

When this change in administrative practice took place in problematical. Since Peter Griphus does not claim to have been the innovator, it was probably made before his time. If the inference that it superseded the custom of making the bishops assistants of the collectors in the levy of procurations is correct, it may have taken place when Vincent Clement was collector. The last mandates to the bishops which I have discovered were issued by John de Obizzis in 1426 and 1431.®° The subsequent silence does not mean that such mandates ceased to be issued immediately thereafter, but 1t would be curious that none has been preserved in an episcopal

register, if they had continued to be issued regularly for the remainder of the fifteenth century. While Vincent Clement was collector, Richard Rudhale, who described himself as a deputy collector of the pope,®* issued acquittances to the prior of Lufheld for the payment of the collector’s

procurations in every year except three from 1450 to 1466 inclusive.” It is probable that he was a deputy of the type such as previous collectors

had employed. They assisted in the collection not only of procurations °° Reg. Spofford (Hereford), pp. 90, 125. *" He is also designated as a deputy collector in a papal document: C.P.L., XI, 367. 9? 'W.A.M. 3064-77. On 1446 John de Obizzis, who was then collector for a second time, issued an acquittance to the prior of Luffield: W.A.M. 9437. For these references I am indebted to the late Professor Alfred H. Sweet. Richard Rudhale issued acquittances for procurations also to the prior of Wallingford in 1456 or 1457 and to the abbot of Westminster in 1457: Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Berks, a 2 a, no. 139: W.A.M. 30396.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 705 but also of the revenues payable to the camera, and, in the absence of the

collector, acted in his place with or without the title of locumtenens.* The probable limits within which the change was made seem to be the closing years of the collectorship of Vincent after 1466 and the beginning of Peter’s collectorship in 1508.* A collector could, and sometimes did, reduce the amount of the pro-

curations owed by a payer. Such a reduction was binding only on the collector who made it,® but subsequent collectors were likely to observe it, unless the cause of the reduction was temporary. Itier de Concoreto, for example, on 16 January 1330, superseded for the present the exaction of his procurations from the prioress and sisters of Maiden Bradley. He took the action on account of a letter concerning the poverty of the house written by William Testa, his predecessor from 1306 to 1313.°° This exemption became permanent. In the list of Peter Griphus, Maiden Bradley is omitted. A concession made by Paul de Caputgrassis was temporary in character. He acknowledged receipt from the prioress of Wix of five marks in part payment of procurations due for past years to 1414 inclusive.

He absolved her and freed her from payment of the remainder due on account of the great poverty of her house.*’? Wix, however, still owed procurations in 1511. In the dioceses where the material is available for comparisons, few changes in the payers were made in the course of the period under consideration. The payers were the same in the list of Peter Griphus as they

had been in the late years of the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth °° in the dioceses of Bath and Wells, Ely, Exeter, Hereford, Rochester and Salisbury. In Winchester the abbot of Netley and the vicars choral of the cathedral of Winchester who paid procurations in the earlier period are not included in Peter’s list.6° In Worcester one payer who was in a list of 1282 is not in Peter’s list and one who was not in the list of 1282 is in Peter’s list.7° It has not been possible to establish complete lists for the earlier period in other dioceses. The procurations of the collectors appear to have been paid with much less delay than the procurations of other papal nuncios or the revenues °° Above, pp. 371, 378, 547, n. 7, 910, 915, n. 1.

*“ On 1 April 1478, while John de Giglis was collector, Reginald, prior of Monmouth, styling himself deputy collector, issued an acquittance for procurations: Cal. of Charters relating to Selborne, I, 118. It is not apparent whether he was a deputy of the new or the old type. °° MS. Ottob. Lat. 2948, fo. 13v. °° Ancient Correspondence, 50, no. 141. 87 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 76’. °° Established by the lists given in the mandates of the collectors. °° Winchester, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 257+.

© Lunt, Financial Relations to 1327, p. 548. ,

706 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

due the papal camera. Until the decade of the 1380’s the payers listed in arrears in great majority owed for one year only and at most for two. Those who owed for more than two were distinctly exceptional.”* In 1361

Hugh Pelegrini ordered the bishop of Worcester to cite those on an attached schedule who owed procurations to his predecessor. Unfortunately the schedule was not copied in the register, but the claim of the collector was that those upon it owed some procurations for more than ten years.” By 1367 the debts had been paid or shown to be erroneous. In a similar mandate issued by John de Cabrespino in that year one payer owed for four years, but no others owed for more than two.”* Arnald Garneru, in 1373, posted the abbot of Quarr as owing him procurations for two years, John de Cabrespino, his immediate predecessor, for four, and Hugh Pelegrini, who ended his service as collector in 1363, for two." The acquittances issued by collectors and the records of payments kept by obedientiars of religious houses and financial officials of chapters tell the same story as the collectors’ mandates. In 1342 the prior of Durham paid for the procurations of the past three years.”® In 1358 Hugh Pelegrini acknowledged receipt from the prior of Selborne of twenty-eight shillings

for procurations of the past four years.7® In 1348, 1349, 1357, and 1379 collectors gave acquittances to four payers for payment for two years at one time.”” Otherwise the extant acquittances issued between 1329 and 1400, representing the large majority of them, are for the procurations of one year only.’® In the accounts kept by the debtors of payments rendered all are for one year only ™ except six. Of the exceptions one is for three years and the others for two years each.®° ™ Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 297-30"; Reg. Brantyngham (Exeter), I, 281-83, 296-98, 324-26, Wykeham’s Reg., II, 191, 274-75, 343-44, 366-67; D. & Ch. Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae, S 445; Ely, Reg. Arundell, fo. 14, 14%, 17%, 83-84, 113-1137, Reg. Fordham, fo. 111-13.

20 January: D. & Ch. Worcester, A 5 Liber Albus, fo. 2239. *® Worcester, Reg. Whittelsey, fo. 29-30V. ™ Wykebam’s Reg., II, 191. 7° —D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter, 4143.

"§ Cal. of Charters relating to Selborne, I, 93. “7D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4989, 5849; H.M.C., Cal. MSS. Wells, II, 622;

W.A.M. 30157. 78D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charters, 4193, 4338, 5020, 4765, 4407, 5022, 4776, 4176, 4360, 4251, 4358, 4356, 4239, 5086, 4336, 4656, 4772, 4854, 5023, 4252, 4216, 4946, 4168; W.A.M. 29968, 29795, 29831, 30174; H.M.C., Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 623.

“D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurers Rolls no. 7, 9 Edward III, no. 8, 13 Richard II; D. & Ch. Lincoln, Compoti Clerici Commune, 4 rolls 1328-34; 5 rolls 1335-40, 6 rolls 1364-69, 9 rolls 1377-86, 1388-89, 4 rolls 1390-94, 1395-96, 1396-97; D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1339-40, 1344-45, 1350-51, 1353-62, 1363-65, 1370-72, 1373-77, 1383-85, 1386-87, 1388-92, 1394-95, 1399-

1400; Cal. MSS. Wells, II, 7, 23, 27; Addit. MS. 33444, fo. 11; 33445, fo. 17, 35, 51, 70, 88, 109V; 33446, fo. 207, 60%; Harl. MS. 1006, fo. 237; Accounts of Obedientiars of Abingdon, pp. 25, 44; Bodleian Lib., MS. Kent Roll, 11; Cart. Eynsham, II, p. Ixxvii. 8° PD. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Rolls, 1347-48, 1349-50, 1368-69, 1397-98; Harl. MS. 1006, fo. 230°; Bodleian Lib., MS. Ashmole 794, fo. 178v.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 707 In the collectors’ mandates of the last years of the fourteenth century

debtors were listed who were in arrears for several years. Cosmatus Gentilis, in 1385, noted that in the diocese of Hereford the abbot of Dore,

the priors of Monmouth and Clifford and the bailiff of Newent were four years behind, the prior of Chirbury and the proctor of Lire had not paid for five years, and the abbot of Gloucester or other occupier of the priory of Kilpeck for ten years. James Dardani, in 1393, said that the prior of West Sherborne had not paid since 1387.8? The same collector’s claim in 1395 that the prior and chapter of Ely and the prior of Barnwell

owed procurations for 1384 and the subsequent years to 1395 ** was wrong as far as Ely was concerned. In 1389 the treasurer of the chapter paid seven shillings for the procurations of that year and in 1392 fourteen shillings for those of that and the preceding year.** James, in 1396, demanded payment of procurations of three years from the dean and chapter of Salisbury, the abbots of Milton and Stanley and the abbess of Shaftesbury, of four years from the prior of Hurley, of six years from the abbess of Lacock and the prior of Poughley and of eight years from the prior of Frampton.*° Lewis, bishop of Volterra, in 1399, sought procurations owed

for the past five years by the abbot of Lesnes and for many years by the prior of Lewisham in the diocese of Rochester.8* The arrears of the latter he demanded also of the abbot of Bermondsey, who had been in possession

of the priory of Lewisham for a time. In the diocese of Winchester payers said to be in arrears for more than two years were the priors of Christchurch, St Mary Overy Southwark, Newark and Mottisfont and the abbess of St Mary Winchester for three years, the abbots of Titchfield, Hyde, Beaulieu and Bermondsey and the prior and chapter of Winchester for four years, and the abbots of Chertsey and Quarr and the priors of Selborne, Southwick, West Sherborne and Andover for six years. The abbots

of Waverley and Netley and the prior of Carisbrook still owed procurations for the year 1391. The bishop’s answer to the mandate indicates

that some of these claims were in error. The priors of St Mary Overy Southwark and Newark, the prior and chapter of Winchester and the abbots of Titchfield and Hyde had paid the procurations with which they were charged.*"

These examples have more significance if the total number of payers * Reg. Gilbert (Hereford), pp. 86-88. 82? Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 437-38.

8° Fly, Reg. Fordham, fo. 122. **D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Rolls, nos. 8, 9, 13 and 16 Richard II. °° Salisbury, Reg. Medford, fo. 1147-15. °° Rochester, Reg. W. Bottlesham, fo. 139-39V. 8° Wykeham’s Reg., Il, 494-95.

708 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 in debt for the procurations of three years or more in the dioceses of Here-

ford, Ely, Salisbury, Rochester and Winchester is compared with the total number of the payers who owed procurations in the five dioceses. If the known mistakes in the mandates are eliminated, the number of such

payers was 29. The total number of the payers was 73.88 Thus in the closing years of the fourteenth century a large minority of the payers fell into arrears at one time or another of several years. In the early years of the fifteenth century the position with regard to arrears of procurations, as reflected in the mandates of the collectors, appears to have remained about the same as it had been in the closing years of the fourteenth. Previous to 1410 the only mandates available are those

to the bishop of Ely. Of these there are several between 1401 and 1407.°° No payer was in debt for more than two years. Since there were only four payers in the diocese, this may not have been typical. Mandates issued in 1410 to other bishops,®® however, display comparatively few debtors who owed procurations for more than three years. In the diocese of Exeter there was only one, in Bath and Wells two and in Winchester five. The situation in the last diocese was an improvement over that in 1399, when eleven payers were in arrears for more than two years. It was during the period from 1410 to 1425 that the number of debtors

who owed procurations for more than two years increased. Within that period of fifteen years were two intervals of three years each during

which debts that were more or less beyond the control of either the collectors or the payers accumulated. ‘The royal suspension of the functions of the papal collector from 30 July 1408 to August 1409 resulted in many payers withholding the procurations due in 1408 and 1409. When Marcel-

lus de Strozis dispatched mandates in July 1410, he demanded payment

for that year as well. The second period occurred between 1415 and 1417, when the council of Constance was in session. Although John Fscout, representing the archbishop of Canterbury and two bishops whom

the council had appointed collectors, received some of the collectors’ procurations, many payers appear to have doubted their liability for procurations when no papal collector was present in England. The debts for the two intervals of three years each seem to have been paid within a reason8° Above, pp. 703-05. °° Reg. Fordham, fo. 129-297, 142-42¥, 164-64¥.

°° The mandates issued between 1410 and 1425 are as follows. BATH AND WELLS

1410, Reg. Bubwith, I, 12, 17-18, 97-98, 187; 1418, ibid., II, 321-23; 1421, ibid., II, 402; 1423, ibid., Il, 446; EXETER 1410, Reg. Stafford, pp. 14, 42, 49, 52, 72-73, 75, 89, 105, 114, 124,

238, 293, 314, 320; 1421, Reg. Lacy, Il, 440; 1424, Reg. Lacy, Il, 492; HEREFORD 1422, 1424, early 1425, late 1425, Reg. Spofford, pp. 13-14, 61-62, 86-87, 90; SALISBURY 1411, Reg. Hallam, II, fo. 147-15, 15 February 1413, ibid., II, fo. 57; 1 December 1413, ibid., fo. 58%; 1418, Reg. Chandler, II, fo. 18-187; 18 February 1422, ibid., II, fo. 28-28%; 27 November 1422, ibid., fo. 33; WINCHESTER 1410, Reg. Beaufort, I, fo. 25%}; 1414, zbid., 1, fo. 40t.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 709

able time. Because these debts were due to exceptional circumstances, they have been omitted from the following list of debtors who at one time or another between 1401 and 1425 appear in the collectors’ mandates as owing procurations of more than two years. Some of the debtors were alien priories which were in the hands of the king throughout the period. Frampton, Ogbourne and Wareham in the diocese of Salisbury are examples. The collectors were sometimes unable to find out during many years who were liable for procurations of such priories. The numbers

of the debtors are subject to a small margin of error, because in some mandates the procurations are said to be due for ‘several years’ instead of for a specified number of years. Those so designed have been excluded,

unless some other statement in the mandate seems to indicate that the several years were more than two. A mandate of 28 July 1410 to the

bishop of Winchester, for example, enumerates fifteen debtors who owed for three years, three who owed for two, two who owed for one and five who owed for several years. It 1s assumed that ‘several’ here means more than three. The available information may be summed up as follows.

Ely 0 4 Exeter 13 27 Hereford 4 13 Salisbury 10 Winchester 5 24 25

Diocese Number of payers in Number of payers who debt for procurations owed procurations

Bath and Wells 6 11 of more than two years

Total 38 104

The records of payments of the collectors’ procurations after 1400 kept by religious communities or stated in the acquittances issued by the collectors to the heads of such communities display less irregularity in payments. Such accumulations of arrears as appear in them were with one exception in the early years of the fifteenth century, when the collec-

tors’ mandates display the same situation. Durham, in 1407, paid for four years,°? Hurley, in 1416, owed for four years,®? Haughmond, in 1418 paid for four years,®* Robertsbridge, in 1435,°* paid for three years.

The one exception was the prior and convent of Ely who paid for three years sometimes during the reign of Henry VIII.°° The surviving acquittances issued by the collectors are few, but they 1D. & Ch. Durham, Bursar’s Roll, 1406-07. °?'W.A.M., Misc. Book 1 (Liber Niger), fo. 929. °8 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 76. °4 F.M.C., Report on MSS. of Lord de l’Isle and Dudley, I, 169. °° D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Roll, no. 14.

710 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

are spread chronologically with many gaps over the century from 1416 to 1517. They are valuable particularly as testimony to the continuity of the payments of the collectors’ procurations after the series of collectors’ mandates stops in 1431. There are two before that date,®°* two between 1433 and 1446,°" a continuous series from 1450 to 1466 with three years

missing,”* and twelve issued in ten different years between 1501 and 15 17."° All are for procurations of one year except one for two and one previously mentioned for four. The records of payments kept by the payers are more satisfactory evi-

dence of both regularity and continuity of payments. These payments, aside from three long series of them, are well distributed chronologically.

There are thirty-one of them scattered among the years from 1401 to 1530. Other than those noted above, all are for the procurations of the current year *°° except two for two years each.'** The three long series are much more convincing. The Bursar’s Rolls of the priory of Durham extend from 1400-01 to 1515-16. In that long period twenty-one rolls are missing. In four rolls the membranes which contained the section contributions’, under which payment of the collectors’ procurations were recorded, are lost. In three rolls no payment of procurations was noted, because payment of more than one year was entered on later rolls. In the remaining eighty-seven rolls are entered one payment for

——- , .

four years mentioned above, one for two years, one for a year and a half and eighty-four for one year each. In a roll for 1523-24 the membrane containing contributions is lacking, and the next roll is for 1536-37. The rolls of the chapter of Lincoln in which payment of procurations to the collector is recorded extend from 1400 to 1533 and beyond. They have larger gaps than the rolls of Durham. Forty-five of the rolls previous to 1501 are missing, but from 1501 to 1534 they are continuous. In every year for which the rolls are extant the entry is ‘paid for procurations of the

collector (or nuncio, or nuncio and collector) of the pope 7 s. and for °6 Harl. MS. 862, fo. 74, 76.

7D. & Ch. Durham, Misc. Charter 4367; W.A.M. 9437. °° W.A.M. 3064-77, 30396; Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Berks a 2 a, no. 139. °® Bodleian Lib., MS. Ch. Northants a 2 no. 163, 168-69; Cal. of Charters relating to Selborne, 1, 146-48; W.A.M. 30480. 100 FY M.C., Cal. MSS. Wells, Il, 35, 41, 49, 55, 58; Report on MSS. of Lord de V’Isle and Dudley, I, 164, 167, 170; Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p- 95; Accounts of Obedientiars of Abingdon, p. 120, Memorials of Fountains, III, 12, 47, 90; Addit. Rolls 1253, recto, 1254A, recto, 1255, m. 2, recto; D. & Ch. Ely, Treasurer’s Roll, nos. 16, 18; D. & Ch. Rochester, Roll C 68, m. 4, recto; D. & Ch. Worcester, A 12, fo. 32; Cart. of Oseney, V1, 278; P. R. O., Chancery Master’s Exhibits, Llanthony Records, A XIX, not foliated, two payments. 101 FT.M.C., Report on MSS. of Lord de l’Isle and Dudley, 1, 166; Memorials of Ripon, IIT, 234.

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 711 an acquittance 2 d’. The annual expense accounts of the priory of Thetford have a shorter run from 1520 to 1533 and beyond, but payments of 7 s.

are recorded in every year to 1533,1°

The accounts of the chapter of Lincoln and the priory of Thetford leave no doubt that the payment of collectors’ procurations ended in 1533.

The last payment entered in the former is in the roll for the year from 14 September 1532 to 13 September 1533. The three subsequent rolls to 1535-36 omit any mention of such a payment. In the accounts of the latter the last payment is recorded in the account for 24 June 1532 to 23 June 1533. In the later consecutive rolls the item is absent. The only exception is contained in the bursar’s roll of Durham for the year from Pentecost 1536 to Pentecost 1537. There an entry reads: ‘Contributiones, et in denarts solutis domino episcopo Romano pro denariis Sancti Petri

de terminis pentecostis et Martini infra tempus compoti vii s’. This is the form which, apparently through error, had been employed for many years in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries to denote the annual payment of the collector’s procurations, except that ‘domino pape’ was used

in place of ‘domino episcopo Romano’. The use of the latter phrase indicates that the writer was aware that papal jurisdiction had ended in England. ‘The entry seems to be inexplicable. If the assumption that it refers to the procurations of the collector is erroneous, the entry still is not understandable, since payment of Peter’s pence was forbidden in 1534. In view of the cessation of the collectors’ procurations, the announcement made by Henry VIII on 17 July 1533 to all his ecclesiastical and lay subjects is somewhat ironical. He said that he had granted to Peter Vannes, his Latin secretary, the right to hold the office of papal collector in England and to levy, among other things, procurations due in his kingdom ‘ab antiquo’.?°?

The procurations of the collectors seem to have caused little complaint. ‘They fell upon only a minority of the clergy. The annual sum due was not a heavy burden on most of the payers, though some poor houses

of nuns and monks found it difficult to meet the payments. Some of the larger religious communities paid the procurations so automatically that their members sometimes forgot the purpose of the payments. In a memo-

randum book of Christchurch Canterbury covering the period from 1286 to 1331, it is stated that the prior and chapter are held by ancient custom to 7 s. with 2 d. for acquittance to be paid annually at the Roman 102 Camb. Univ. Lib., Addit. MS. 6969, fo. 150%, 157%, 165, 171%, 177%, 194%, 202¥, 209, 215%, 222, 229, 236, 242%, 248¥, 255%, 261, 268¥, 276.

*°* Rymer, Foedera, VII, pt. 2, 189.

712 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534 court ‘nomine procurationis’ within the quindene of Michaelmas.*°* Pay-

ment at the Roman court represents confusion of thought. Elsewhere it is described as a subsidy for the Roman court *°* and a customary payment to the pope.’°* The most significant indication of forgetfulness of the nature of the annual payment of 7 s. is found in the successive bursars’ rolls of Durham. The payments were always entered under the heading ‘Contributiones’ which seems to have been somewhat of a misnomer. In

the rolls of the first half of the fourteenth century the payments werc said to have been made to the collector of the expenses of the papal nuncio in England, that is to the deputy collector at York, who was sometimes named, or to the papal nuncio, who was often named. Then for several years the payments were said to have been made to the proctor

of the pope in England, who was named occasionally, and once to the proctor of the nuncio of the pope, meaning the deputy collector. Late in the century they were often said to have been made to the collector of the pope in York, or simply to the collector of the pope. This continued in the early years of the fifteenth century with the deputy collector sometimes being named. In 1413 the payment began to be designated simply as an annual contribution to the lord pope. In 1428, for the first time, it was called ‘a contribution paid to the collector of the lord pope for Peter’s

pence’. Thereafter this was the standard form of entry. The priory of Durham owed Peter’s pence from its peculiars of Howdenshire and Allertonshire in Yorkshire, but it was paid to the archbishop of York, not to the papal collector or his deputy.'®” Since the amount of the payment was

7 s. every year and it was still entered under contributions, in which section no payment for Peter’s pence had been entered before 1428, it seems reasonably certain that the payment of procurations had become confused with that of Peter’s pence. The confusion may have arisen from the usage sometimes followed in this late period of designating the papal collector as the collector of Peter’s pence. In the communities where the reason for the annual payment had become so obscure in the thought of

its members there could have been no feeling of resentment over the payment.

The only adverse criticisms which have been noted came during the first half of the fourteenth century. Bishop Grandisson of Exeter, on 5 March 1338, made two accusations against Bernard de Sistre. He said 104 Cotton MS. Galba, E IV, fo. 182V.

1°5 Inventories and Account Rolls of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, p. 95. 106 Addit. Rolls 1253, 1254A, 1255.

fo we Financial Relations to 1327, pp. 20-21: D. & Ch. Durham, Reg. Parvum, III,

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 713 that the collector demanded procurations indiscriminately from rich and poor prelates and clergy, though he was granted them only from colleges and cells. This statement is certainly contrary to fact, since he was granted them from all classes of the clergy.*°* It may be doubted, moreover, if

he collected them from any payers not on the collector’s list of those accustomed to pay procurations. It is much more likely that the bishop was not familiar with the list. The second accusation was that he was collecting the arrears of procurations owed to his predecessor, Itier de Concoreto, and keeping them for himself.1°® This is inaccurate. Bernard

used these arrears to meet the debt which Itier still owed to the papal camera after he had rendered his final account.'’® The bishop’s accusations were probably actuated by his prejudice against Bernard." The other complaint came from parliament. In 1346 the commons

asked that the impost which Raymond Pelegrini was taking from the religious in England of 7 s. annually from each house be annuled perman-

ently. This was coupled with the request that he leave the land before Michaelmas or be held outside the common law. The petition won no favor from the king. He replied that Raymond was a liege of the king, born in Gascony and sworn of the council, and that he took procurations for his sustenance as others had long done.'!* The animus of the commons was directed more against the French collector than against the procurations attached to the collector’s office. The procurations of papal collec-

tors appear to have been one charge imposed on some of the English clergy by papal authority without arousing any significant opposition after 1327. 2. PapaL APPROPRIATION OF EpiscopAL PROCURATIONS

The procurations paid to papal envoys were of financial advantage to the papacy because they saved the payment of the expenses of the envoys by the papal camera. During the fourteenth century the papacy found a way to obtain an income from procurations by appropriating a portion

of the procurations received by archbishops and bishops when they visited their clerical subjects for the purpose of enforcing clerical discipline.*!* As far as is known, this financial resource was first developed *°8 Above, p. 693.

*°° Reg. Grandisson, I, 302-03. 120 Col. 227, fo. 1217, 155.

“47 Above, pp. 18-19, 24. ™? Rot. Parl., I, 163. **° The practice was extended sometimes to the procurations of visiting archdeacons, but no instance of it has been found in England.

714 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

by John XXII. The canon law required an archbishop or bishop to visit in person, if he received procurations in the form of money, but the pope could dispense with the law and allow an archbishop or bishop to receive pecuniary procurations when he visited by deputy. In some individual instances, when an archbishop or bishop who had received such a dispensation died before completion of his visitation, John XXII ordered the visitation to be finished and reserved the resulting procurations for the papal camera. In other individual instances prelates who were allowed to visit by deputies and collect monetary procurations gave a portion of their receipts to the pope. Presumably the grant by the prelate was arranged at the time of the papal dispensation and was somewhat in the nature of a composition, though it might be styled a voluntary gift. Clement VI made many such arrangements, and the practice was continued by his successors at Avignon with some variations. Innocent VI made an innovation by reserving episcopal procurations in several countries."‘* Among them was England. On 23 August 1355 he ordered the archbishops and bishops to visit immediately in person or by deputy the nonexempt secular and regular churches in which they were accustomed to exercise the office of visitation in their respective dioceses. The reason assigned was that they had been neglecting visitation. Nevertheless, if any had already made visits within the current year, they were to carry out during the next year the visitation prescribed by the bull. They were to collect the monetary procurations for personal visitations established by the constitution Vas electionis issued by Benedict XII in 1336 *** not only from places visited in person but also from those visited by deputy.1*® They were authorized to visit two, three or more places in one day, which was contrary to that constitution and to constitutions of Innocent IV and Gregory X. They were not to exact procurations from those who were too poor to pay. This letter was not made known to the archbishops and bishops until 1357, when the papal collector, Hugh Pelegrini, sent a copy to each of them. They received the letter in June or July. Thereafter they appointed deputies to make the visitation and sent notices to their subjects that the visitation was forthcoming. They enforced payment by ecclesiastical censures."!7 The abbot and convent of Osney paid £2 8 s. 9 d. for their 44¢QTLunt, Papal Revenues, I, 109-11, 425-27, 429-46; Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, pp. 34-47.

45 Corpus luris Canonici, Extrav. Commun., Lib. III, Tit. I, Cap. XIII. 46 Cf. Churchill, Canterbury Administration, I, 140. ™7 Wilkins, Concilia, III, 35-36, Worcester, Reg. Brian, I, fo. 77, 80-82%; D. & Ch. Worcester, Liber Albus, fo. 215-17; Lichfield, Reg. Northburgh, II, fo. 143, Lincoln, Reg. pynwe fo. 86, 107-08", 136%, 137; Carlisle, Reg. Welton, pp. 46-47; B.M., Arundel MS. 2,

Procurations, Papal Collectors, Appropriation by Papacy 715 procurations to a deputy of the bishop of Lincoln on 4 December 1357.**

The bull said nothing of the reservation of any portion of the procurations by the pope, but such an arrangement was made. An entry in an Introitus et Exitus Register of a sum received from these procurations specifies that the payer, the bishop of Llandaff, granted the pope onehalf of the procurations for the recovery and defense of the lands of the Roman church.*’® Apparently an agreement with regard to the portion to be rendered to the pope was made with each individual archbishop and bishop. The bishop of Lincoln paid two-thirds of his receipts.*”°

The papal collector was not responsible for the visitation or for the collection of the money due the pope. He distributed copies of the papal mandate and he acted as an agent for transmission to the camera of the papal share of the procurations of the bishop of Llandaff.1?* He entered no receipts from this source in his account with the papal camera, and other bishops transmitted the money in other ways. Some delivered the

money to the cardinals Talleyrand and Nicholas, who were acting as papal nuncios in England at the time.’?? The bishop of Lincoln sent to the papal camera what he owed by his own proctor, Henry Waure.’” The payment of these procurations appears to have been backward. On 31 August 1359 the bishop of Lincoln ordered the censures to be increased against named monasteries, priories and convents which did not pay within six days of notice the procurations due at the time when they had been visited.** The two payments, of which I have found record, made to the camera by bishops, were received on 17 September

1360 and on 29 March 1362. |

The total amount received by Innocent VI is not known. Judging by the two known payments, it probably was at most a few hundred pounds. The bishop of Llandaff delivered 15 florins, or about £2 5 s. and

the bishop of Lincoln £67 18 s. 9 d. valued at 465 florins and 20 s. of Avignon.*?°

This was the first and the last papal reservation of a share of the pro-

curations collected by English prelates on their visitations.’ At the 18 Cart. Oseney, III, 93. 119 293, fo. 70.

2° Reg. Avin. 149, fo. 68. 4217, & E. 293, fo. 70.

“2 Knighton, Chron., Il, 98. #28 Reg. Avin. 149, fo. 68.

24 Reg. Gynwell, fo. 136v. 297, & E. 293, fo. 70; Reg. Avin. 149, fo. 68. 26 A cursor was sent by the camera on 17 June 1369 with letters to several collectors. One of the letters dealt with recent reservations of half the procurations of prelates in several collectorates. He carried to the collector in England copies of the same letters that he bore to other collectors, excepting the one concerning procurations: Col. 354, fo. 69%. On 5 September 1369 Urban V addressed another letter concerning procurations to the collector in

716 Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534

council of Constance in 1417 the papacy was forbidden to reserve or exact procurations owed to ordinaries or inferior prelates by reason of visitation. Thereafter the appropriation of them by the papacy ceased entirely.1?7 Mende. A copy of this letter was sent to John de Cabrespino: ibid., fo. 80V-81. He was at that time, however, collector in the province of Reims as well as in England. It must have been in connection with his duties in Reims that a copy of the bull was sent to him, since the reservations were confined to French collectorates: Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, pp. 38-39.

*27'Von der Hardt, Rerum Concilii Constantiensis, IV, 1441; Creighton, History of the Papacy, I, 394, Samaran et Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale, p. 47.

APPENDIX | PETER’S PENCE 1. APPROXIMATE Prorits oF DiocesAN CoLLecrors Wuo Mape ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO PapaL COLLECTORS

Bishops

Receipts Payment to Profits collectors s. d.11£7 s. d.11£ 5ss. Bath and£Wells QO? O 2d. Chichester 10%?98 05001200010% Exeter 9205 OQO? 0

Hereford 7 13 «=4¢* 6 0 0 1 13 4

Lichfield 36 13 «