John Wycliff, last of the schoolmen and first of the English reformers/Chapter 7
CHAPTER VII.
THE CONFERENCE AT BRUGES.
LMOST everyone in England, except the alien priests and the independent monks and friars, was keenly opposed to the papal provisions, to the claim for first-fruits and annata—one year's revenue from the benefice conferred—and to other pretexts for the transference of English money to Avignon. The evil had been growing for many years, and it is easy to understand the satisfaction with which John Wyclif would receive his commission to go and argue the matter out with the delegates from Avignon, and to tell the representatives of the Pope that England was no longer to be his milch cow, or to pay him for the privilege of electing her own bishops and priests.
It was hardly Wyclifs fault that he could not deliver an effective message of this kind, or that, having delivered his message, he found it explained away by his colleagues, or allowed to fall to the ground for want of enforcement by the Government at home. Somewhere perhaps in the archives of the Vatican there is a record of the Conference at Bruges, in the shape of a report from the nuncios. If it could be published it would doubtless provide us with an interesting account of the arguments used on both sides, and the efforts made to arrive at an understanding. No such account has hitherto made its appearance, and we can only conclude from other indications that Wyclif spoke out freely, that Rome was more and more embittered against him from that time forward, that he greatly regretted the lame and impotent conclusion of the Conference, and that after he returned from Bruges his attitude towards Rome was more distinctly hostile.
The question of provisions was of course the most natural line of attack for anyone who wished to make an assault upon the papal assumptions. In the reign of Edward III. the English Church had in fact become a sort of Roman preserve. Not content with occasionally overriding local elections or royal nominations to bishoprics, abbacies, and benefices of every kind, the popes claimed and exercised a power to provide for vacancies before they occurred. Chapters, conventual bodies, or others in whom the right of presentation was generally vested, found themselves not unfrequently confronted with a new superior or beneficiary—very possibly an alien, who by 
POPE GREGORY XI.
1370-8.
influence or money had secured his nomination from the Pope, and now presented himself for election by virtue of a document signed months or years beforehand. The Pope's provisions, amounting as they often did to sheer confiscation, and liable to the very grossest abuse, were more than once denounced by Parliament as an intolerable scandal and usurpation. In the year 1343, and again in 1359, statutes were passed to restrain or debar this claim, and in 1353 the statute of Praemunire made it a serious crime, punishable by severe pains and penalties, to allow the Pope's writ to run in England, or to appeal from England to Avignon. But these statutes were constantly evaded, and the anti-clerical Council of 1371-1375 determined to make an effort to get rid of the abuse.
In 1373 the King sent a special mission to Avignon to discuss the matter with Pope Gregory XI., who had succeeded Urban V. in 1371. There were four members of this delegation—John Gilbert, Bishop of Bangor; William de Berton, a distinguished graduate of Oxford, resident at Merton, and subsequently Chancellor of the University; Uhtred Bolton, a monk of Dunholme, and John de Shepeye. They represented the difficulty which had been created in England by the existing irregularities of reservation, collation, and provision, especially when English clergymen were displaced by aliens. Gregory seems to have listened without replying; but it was arranged, now or subsequently, that a conference should be held in the following year at Bruges, between representatives of the Pope and of the English King, when the whole question was to be thoroughly discussed.
Probably in order to provide trustworthy materials for this Conference, a Commission was issued by the Crown early in 1374, charged to inquire into and secure an exact return of all benefices and dignities throughout the kingdom in the hands of Italians, Frenchmen, or other aliens, with their names, incumbents, and yearly value. The return was willingly furnished by the bishops, and it was sent in to the Chancellor's court. The figures are said to have caused a good deal of surprise to those who had not realised how far the alienation of English benefices had already proceeded.
Two Conferences at Bruges had been arranged for about the same time. England had asked the Pope, or at any rate had concurred in inviting him, to settle the terms of an armistice in Europe; and for this purpose Gregory sent his legate to preside over a meeting between John of Gaunt and the Earl of Salisbury, representing England, and the Dukes of Anjou and Burgundy. A year's cessation of arms was agreed upon in June, 1375; and the Duke of Lancaster was instantly twitted at home with having begged for peace after being beaten in the field.
The ecclesiastics had been waiting for the politicians to finish. They were originally appointed to meet on St. John Baptist's Day, 1374, and it was not until the beginning of August, 1375, that the Commissioners were able to set to work. The Commission included Gilbert of Bangor, who had been to Avignon in 1873; Dr. John Wyclif, professor of theology; John Guter, Dean of Sechow; Simon de Multon, doctor of laws; William de Berton, Robert Bealknap, and John de Henyngton. The Pope was represented by three nuncios—Bernard, Bishop of Pampeluna; Ladulph, Bishop of Senigaglia, and Sancho, Provincial of Valenza.
The position of Wyclif in connection with this special embassy may be denned with greater clearness than would otherwise be possible by means of an extract from the Exchequer accounts of the year 1375. The entry supplies "details of the settlement of Master John Wyclyff, professor of theology, in respect of his travelling and other expenses on a royal embassy in the parts of Flanders, for the transaction of the King's business therein, during the forty-eighth year of the reign."Wyclif" accounts for 60 l. received personally from the exchequer on 31 July"—possibly at the port of embarkation. "From 27 July, in the year 48, on which day he set out from London for Flanders, to 4 September, when he returned, namely 50 days at 20s. a day—50 l .; and for crossing and re-crossing the sea, 42s. 3d. Expended, 52 1. 2s. 3d. Credit, 7 1. 17s. 9d."
Other entries in the same accounts show that John of Gaunt, on an embassy to Flanders in 1364, received one hundred shillings a day; Sir Henry le Scrope, on another mission, had an allowance of forty shillings; and Reginald Newport, despatched on the King's business in the jubilee year, was paid at the rate of thirteen shillings and fourpence a day. Wyclif's treatment, therefore, seems to have been fairly liberal, but it can hardly be regarded as exceptionally handsome for a Royal Commissioner. In the first year of Edward's reign the Bishop of Worcester, who was sent to Avignon in order to secure a dispensation for the marriage of the young King to Philippa, received an allowance of five marks a day for 299 days. The value of money was higher in 1327 than in 1375, and the treatment of this bishop must have been at least three times and a half as good as that of Wyclif.
The negotiations ended in an unfortunate compromise. It was agreed that the Pope should desist from making reservations of benefices in England, but only on condition that the English King should no longer confer benefices by his writ of quare impedit. Evidently the whole question was left unsettled. Even if both parties had acted upon this agreement, which they did not, more harm than good would have been done. Englishmen had hoped to see the authority of the monarch in his own kingdom vindicated, and admitted by the Pope's delegates; but instead of this there was a formal limitation of his authority, and nothing had been effected to establish the rights of chapters and other ecclesiastical patrons. It is true that claims were made, then or subsequently, that the Pope had given way on other points, and that the nuncios had pledged him by word of mouth to abstain from certain acts to which the English Commissioners had taken exception. It is also possible that minor points were reserved at Bruges, and settled at leisure in the course of 1376; for in the Parliament of the following year (when the "King's friends" were in power again) mention was 
QUEEN PHILIPPA, CONSORT OF EDWARD III.
FROM A PORTRAIT IN THE HALL OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD.
made of other concessions on Gregory's part, though there was no formal document to show for them, and nothing which could be held to bind future popes. These alleged concessions were to the effect that the Pope would not take action with regard to vacant sees until a free election had been made; that he would abate his demands in the matter of first-fruits; and that he would use moderation in respect of provisions and the nomination of aliens. Granting the genuineness of these concessions, it is clear that matters were not much mended by them.
It may well occur to a man of plain ideas and common sense at the present time that the despatch of the mission to Bruges was something of a mistake. What was expected of it? Surely not the voluntary consent of Rome to forgo the advantages which she had usurped and enjoyed for many years. The journey to Bruges was a sign of weakness, or at any rate a mark of concession in a matter which, logically considered, left no room for concession.
There was one course which the English Government might have adopted—which, in fact, it had begun to adopt, and which only called for steady resolution and persistence. If the King, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Lancaster, with the Chancellor and Treasurer, supported by the barons, knights, and burgesses—if, that is to say, the Royal Council and the Parliament had been determined to put an end to papal provisions in England, they might have done so by enforcing the laws already on the statute book, leaving the "French popes" to say what they liked, and never going back upon their word. That is what the enemies of Rome and Avignon thought they were doing all along.
For what had already happened in respect of the papal assumptions? After Edward came of age, no further tribute was paid to the Pope. In 1340 the chancellorship had for the first time been given to a layman, as though to make the subsequent steps more easy of accomplishment. In 1343 a petition was presented by Parliament to the King, condemning the provisions and reservations of the popes. In 1351, effect was given to this petition by a statute declaring that the Pope had no authority to provide a benefice with an incumbent before the vacancy had occurred. Then followed the statute of Praemunire in 1353, forbidding appeals from the King's courts in courts beyond the seas, on pain of outlawry, forfeiture, and imprisonment. Ten years later it was forbidden under the same penalties to introduce bulls or other instruments of the Pope into England; and the statute of Provisors was more strictly interpreted, so as to forbid the patronage of the Pope altogether. In 1366, John's tribute having been formally demanded by Urban V., was formally and precisely refused. In 1370 ecclesiastics were removed from the principal offices of State.
Thus for nearly forty years the effort had been continuous, and the aim was to all appearance consistent. Strange that the sudden arrest of the movement, the partial and temporary reversal of progress already achieved, should follow directly upon the attainment of power by those who had only craved an opportunity of carrying the matter to a definite issue. For there was no question that a backward instead of a forward step had now been taken, and that Rome had rather gained a victory than suffered a defeat. The clerical Commissioners had gone to Bruges in order to clip the claws of papal usurpation in England. They came back after arranging a simple quid pro quo between the Pope and the King, and abandoning the principle of national independence, on which the whole strength of their case rested.
Of one thing we may be fairly certain; no one would be more disappointed with this result than Wyclif. The only ground on which the Commissioners could have persuaded themselves that they were making a good bargain would be that they had brought the Pope to renounce his claim to reserve benefices, whereas the English King had merely undertaken not to supply vacancies by an arbitrary exercise of his power, and without regard for the spiritual authority of Rome. No doubt the worst abuse of all was the papal traffic in English benefices, and the disposal of next presentations without reference to local rights and needs. The Commissioners may have flattered themselves that they had got rid of this abuse without paying too dear for it. But that was not what people thought at home; and it is difficult to believe that the shrewd mind of Wyclif could have been led away by such a contention, or that he acquiesced in any finding or conclusion of the Conference which would have the effect of strengthening instead of putting an end to the authority of the Pope in England.
The commissionership was an honourable appointment. The Pope had asked King Edward to send to Bruges "claros scientia ac laudandae virtutis, et cuncta prudentia praeditos, cultores justitiae, sedulosque pads et concordiae zelatores." It was no small thing to have been designated in response to such an invitation; but, so far as temporal advantage was concerned, Wyclif was not much the richer by his journey to Flanders. He had been presented by the Crown to the living of Lutterworth, in Leicestershire—of the annual value of £26—some months before the Commission was nominated. Of course he would have to make provision for the superintendence of the parish during his absence, and, as his expenses at Bruges must have been considerable, this would swallow up nearly as much as he could have saved out of his allowance. There was indeed no grudging of rewards amongst the Commissioners on their return. The Bishop of Bangor was promoted to the see of Hereford, vacated in 1375 by Courtenay's translation to London. Berton was placed on another Commission, and afterwards became Chancellor of Oxford. Wyclif was nominated on November 6th to the prebend of Aust, in the cathedral church of Westbury, in the diocese of Worcester. It would have been in keeping with the ordinary clerical morality of the day if he had enjoyed the fruits of this appointment, and of as many more sinecures as his patron Lancaster might have obtained for him. But his past utterances had made it impossible for him to become a pluralist, and so the prebend was refused. Less than a fortnight after his nomination we find that it was granted to another.
The discontent of Englishmen had meanwhile come to a head; and at last the group which had held office up to 1370, and which had been dismissed by royal ordinance following on a parliamentary petition, secured another chance of directing the affairs of the nation. John of Gaunt had neglected to have Parliament summoned since November, 1373; but his elder brother, always the most authoritative of his father's subjects, though never a politician, and now fast approaching his end, caused the writs to be issued at the beginning of 1376. There could be no question as to the temper of the men who would be returned to these writs. The new House of Commons represented by a great majority not merely the grievances due to over-taxation and the widespread misery of the country, but also the indignation caused by Lancaster's attempt to limit the privileges of Parliament, the disgust of Englishmen at the two inglorious compacts at Bruges, and a determination to put an end to the open scandals of the Court.
The old official group, with Bishop Wykeham at their head, and recruited by a still stronger man in Bishop Courtenay, now returned to power; and before the session came to an end a Committee of barons and bishops was appointed to share the responsibility of the leaders in the Commons—an arrangement manifestly contributing (so far as it goes) to the development of the Cabinet as distinguished from the holders of particular offices of State. The Committee of Lords in 1376 appears to have been intended in part to meet the difficulty which had been raised by the anti-clerical petition of 1370. It enabled the responsible leaders to associate with themselves any capable bishop to whom objection might be taken as a holder of office.
So long as the Prince of Wales continued to live, and for a month beyond—that is to say, for the ten weeks between April 28th and July 9th—the Good Parliament used its opportunities with courage and judgment. By the vigour of its action, by the independent spirit of its leading members and its dignified Speaker, and by the character of its discussions and resolutions, it will hardly fail to suggest to the reader a curious, though not a very close, parallel with the earlier Stuart Parliaments. Indeed the varying constitution of the Royal Council during the years 1370 to 1399, the dismissal and recall of ministers, the alternations of policy between the "King's friends" and the clerical party, seem almost out of place before the Wars of the Roses. The fact is that the organism of Parliament developed with marvellous rapidity in the latter part of the fourteenth century. The reigns of Edward III. and his two grandsons were favourable to the growth of parliamentary authority and privilege, and at the beginning of the fifteenth century the great Council of the realm had attained a position of considerable strength, which, however, it soon lost, and did not regain for something like two hundred years.
The first task of the Good Parliament was to apply a remedy to the accumulated abuses of the Court, The dishonest were brought to book; some were dismissed, others were made to disgorge, and others again sought to insure half the fruits of their embezzlements by returning the other half. Amongst the dismissed servants of the Crown was William Lyons, who had known how to provide large sums of money both for the King and for himself. When the new ministers attacked him, he had the insolence to send to the palace a bag of' gold by way of a bribe. "Keep it," Edward advised those who were present, "he owes us this and much more; he only offers us our own!" Another and a larger bribe was sent in a barrel from the city; but the men into whose hands it came would not have the course of justice interfered with, and they sent the barrel back. The doting King, seeing that his ministers and Parliament were in earnest, and knowing that Alice Perrers had incurred the hatred of his people, sent them a humbly worded petition on her—behalf a petition recalling the abject submissiveness of his unfortunate father, Edward II., when the toils were closing around him, and reminding one of the phenomenal humility of his elder grandson, Richard II. The bishops humoured their monarch so far as to let his mistress depart unharmed, after swearing that she would never come back to Court.
John of Gaunt began by showing fight. The nominated knights, whose uppermost thought may have been one of resentment for Lancaster's failure in the field, and for the tame treaty which he had negotiated at Bruges, united with the popularly elected burgesses in requiring an account of expenditure during the previous five or six years. They went to the House of Lords to prefer their demand, headed by Peter de la Mare, Speaker of the Commons. Lancaster greeted them in a rather uproarious mood. "What do these base and low-born knights attempt?" he cried. "Do they take themselves for kings and princes of the land?" But though he stormed and raged, threatening all who opposed him with the vengeance of the Crown, the protection of the Prince of Wales was sufficient to maintain the authority of the Commons. Lancaster was discreet enough to keep away from the meetings of the Council, and for a time the representatives of the people had their own way.
De la Mare seems to have had the courage of a Lenthall. When the customary request for a subsidy came before the Commons in the name of the monarch, the Speaker replied that "the King needed not the substance of his poor subjects, if he were well and faithfully governed; which he offered to prove effectually, and promised that if it were found that the King had need, his subjects should be ready most gladly to help him according to their power." This Peter de la Mare was a man of considerable personal influence. He was steward to the Earl of March, who had married the daughter of Lionel of Clarence. Probably also he was a near relative to Thomas de la Mare, the powerful Abbot of St. Alban's. Nothing could be more natural than his nomination as Speaker to a Parliament in which the Prince of Wales and the clericals had the upper hand.
Unhappily—for our sympathy with Wyclif cannot constrain us to sympathy with his arrogant patron, at any rate against the Parliament of 1376—the Prince of Wales died on the 8th of June, leaving a boy of eleven as heir-apparent to the Crown. The House of Commons did not allow itself to be demoralised by the sudden removal of its main supporter near the throne, nor did the "King's friends" venture to undo the work of the popular Prince whilst he was yet fresh in his grave. The session ran its average course, and Parliament was not dismissed for thirty-one days. The Commons requested that the young Prince should be brought in evidence before them—a constitutional act, yet doubtless intended as a hint for the Duke of Lancaster. They held on their way, and completed the petitions on which they had been engaged, to the number of one hundred and forty; and then, probably with much misgiving, the knights and burgesses went home.
Parliament had not long been dispersed when John of Gaunt resumed his old place in the Council, and dismissed under a royal warrant the Committee of Lords above mentioned. The banished courtiers were recalled, including Lord Latimer and Alice Perrers; Sir Peter de la Mare was thrown into prison; the Bishop of Winchester was deprived of his temporalities, and the acts of the Good Parliament were declared null and void. In due time a new Parliament was summoned, and Lancaster so worked upon the sheriffs, who had the nomination of the knights, as well as great influence over the freeholders, that scarcely a single member of the packed House of 1377 had a word to say against his arbitrary conduct.
During the session of this Parliament Edward III., who had celebrated the jubilee of his birth by formally recognising English as the national language, celebrated the jubilee of his accession to the throne by a general pardon; but John of Gaunt contrived that the Bishop of Winchester should be excluded by name from the benefits of the proclamation. A story which was current at the time, or not long afterwards, professed to give a personal (and perhaps it would have been an adequate) reason for the relentless animosity with which the Duke of Lancaster pursued the disgraced Bishop. William of Wykeham is said to have declared that Queen Philippa had told him on her death-bed how, when she was confined at Ghent in 1340, she had given birth to a daughter, and had overlain it in the night. Fearful of her husband's anger, he being absent at the time, she had substituted a boy for the dead child. This boy, according to the Bishop, or to the inventor of the fable, was the wrong-headed and obstreperous John of Gaunt, who had manifestly been born for a Flemish burgher, and not for an English prince.
Unquestionably if such a story reached the Duke of Lancaster's ears, it might account for his hatred of Wykeham. Of course it cannot be accepted, for various and sufficient reasons. Chaucer has been quoted as an authority for the light in which the overlying of children was regarded in those days; for he says in The Parsons Tale that "if a woman by negligence overlyeth her child in her sleeping, it is homicide and deadly sin." And a bishop who had confessed his queen, and shrived her of such a sin—especially a high-minded bishop like William of Wykeham—would be most unlikely to repeat the story in order to serve his private ends.
Though the Good Parliament had had so short an existence, and its work was overruled as soon as it had been dissolved, there can be no question of its importance as a landmark of constitutional history. It is important also from our immediate point of view; for one cannot but be startled to find a man like Wyclif, irreproachable in his moral character, whose every act reveals a roused and wakeful conscience, engaged in public affairs on the side of a man so incongruous, unsympathetic, and unpopular, as John of Gaunt. Nothing, indeed, could testify more eloquently to the high character and spotless reputation of Wyclif than the fact that his political association with Lancaster, and indirectly with Alice Perrers and the peculators of the royal household, did not cover his name with a cloud of suspicion and obloquy. The very worst that has been said of him, apart from his heretical opinions, is the accusation that he became a heretic from selfish and vindictive motives; and we shall see that there is no reasonable ground whatever on which a charge of this kind could be based.
It is true that he suffered severely by meddling with political affairs, as many a man of spiritual fervour and lofty enthusiasm, committing his bark to that treacherous sea, has suffered since his time. So long as Lancaster was really powerful, whilst the King was yet capable of personal intervention in public life, and the Prince of Wales held the enemies of his brother in check, Wyclif also was safe under the protection of the Court. But when the Prince was dead, when the King was dying amidst contempt and neglect, and when Lancaster's accumulated failures and overbearing conduct had made the populace actively and openly hostile to him, the animosity of the clerics against Wyclif could no longer be restrained. His persecution by the Church authorities began in 1377; but the machinery of persecution was set in motion early in 1376, at the very time when John of Gaunt had retired from the royal Council, and before it seemed probable that the Duke would speedily regain his power.
A new and striking figure now appears upon the stage. Courtenay was the prominent champion of the orthodoxy of his day; and, in order that we may have a clear perception of the events in which Wyclif and Courtenay enacted the leading parts, it may be well to glance backwards at the internal history of the English Church, and at the character of its principal rulers, since Wyclif began to attract the notice of his contemporaries.
