The English Historical Review/Volume 37/A Petition to Boniface VIII from the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Petition to Boniface VIII from the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in 1297

AT the assembly of the clergy of the province of Canterbury which met in London at the New Temple on 10 August 1297, to discuss the question of making a grant to the king,[1] it was decided to present a petition 'touching the common good of the clergy and of the kingdom' to Pope Boniface VIII,[2] which was mainly a plea for relief from heavy and increasing financial burdens.

The first article of the petition dealt with the excessive amount of the procurations which were demanded by the cardinals of Albano and Palestrina. On 13 February 1295 Boniface VIII had given these French cardinals a commission to make peace between England and France, and, as was usual when the pope sent a legate, they had the power of levying procurations.[3] Nominally the levy was to pay the cost of the mission, but in reality it was a source of revenue for the papal exchequer; before the cardinals left Rome Boniface VIII appointed a firm of papal bankers, the Clarenti of Pistoia, which had partners residing in France and England, to receive procurations levied by the cardinals, and to make payments to them for their necessary expenses.[4]

The cardinals landed at Dover on 24 June, where they were met by the prior of the cathedral church of Canterbury and the abbot of St. Augustine's, who escorted them to Canterbury.[5] The cardinal of Albano spent the night at St. Augustine's, and the cardinal of Palestrina in the archbishop's palace, and on the morrow both visited the shrine of St. Thomas before they set out on their journey to London. The archbishop met them at Harbledown and rode with them to Ospringe, and on the next day he left them near Gillingham. On their arrival in London they probably lodged with the papal collector, Geoffrey of Vezano, who had a permanent office for the collection of Peter's pence and other dues.[6]

On 8 July they issued a mandate for the collection of procurations in which it was stated that they had examined trustworthy witnesses, and had learnt from them that when Cardinal Ottoboni was in England from 1265 to 1268 he levied a procuration of six marks each year from archbishops and bishops, abbots, priors, deans, provosts and archdeacons, rural deans and other prelates and ecclesiastical persons, the religious and others, their chapters and convents both of orders which were exempt from episcopal visitation and of those which were subject to it.[7] They appointed collectors in every diocese, e.g. in that of London the bishop's official and the dean of St. Paul's,[8] in those of Norwich and Ely the bishop's official and the sacrist of the cathedral monastery,[9] and commanded them under pain of excommunication to collect the procuration of six marks and pay it over within a month. They published the papal bulls about their procurations at an assembly of the bishops of the province of Canterbury in London on 15 July.[10] Some of the collectors protested that they could find no precedent for the collection of Cardinal Ottoboni's procuration and therefore they did not know how to act. In reply the cardinals issued a general mandate, dated 25 July, to archbishops, bishops, and their collectors in every diocese, notifying them that they intended to have the procuration of six marks from all dignitaries and religious houses as they had previously stated.[11] If, however, any of the religious houses were so burdened by poverty that they could not pay, the collectors must require the archbishops and bishops to nominate certain rectors of parishes who could find the money without difficulty, so that the full amount might be got in.

There is some evidence of opposition to the collectors. On 25 August the king forbade the bishop of London's official and the dean of St. Paul's to exact any procuration from the dean and chapter of his free chapel of St. Martin-le-Grand,[12] and it is probable that he protected his free chapels in other dioceses, e.g. Hastings. The collectors demanded payment of the procuration of six marks from the monks of Westminster as well as from the abbot, and the monks sent their proctors, Reginald of Hadham and Ralph of Morden, to the bishop of London's house on 10 August. There a notarial instrument was executed in the presence of the collectors and other witnesses in which the monks asserted that they gave the sum of six marks out of courtesy as a mark of reverence to the cardinals, and not because a procuration was due from them; in accordance with the terms of a composition made between the chapter and the abbot, the abbot was bound to pay the procurations and expenses of all papal legates who travelled with ten horses.[13] However, the protest was of no avail, for in the roll of the treasurer of the convent in 1297 the sum of £22 0s. l0d. is entered as paid for the procuration of the cardinals.[14] The payment of a double procuration in 1295, i.e. from the chapter as well as from the head of the house, is recorded at Canterbury and Worcester as well as at Westminster.[15]

When the cardinals put their proposals before the king and the great council at Westminster on 5 August, he replied that he could not make either a truce or a peace with the king of France without the consent of the king of the Germans.[16] The chroniclers recorded that as the cardinals could not accomplish their business they left London for Dover on 14 August; however, they actually carried with them letters from the king of that date, authorizing them to conclude a truce until All Saints' Day.[17]

The chronicler of Barnwell entered the receipt for the procuration paid by his house and observed that the cardinals went away 'wealthy with much money and with palfreys which they had got from all the bishops'.[18] The cardinals had a papal privilege enabling them to travel with as many horses as they judged necessary for their mission, and to demand them from those persons on whom they also levied procurations.[19] The prior of Norwich had duly paid his six marks when he received a further demand from the cardinals, dated 13 August, for ten marks for the purchase of a baggage horse, to be paid within a fortnight to merchants of the firm of the Ammanati of Pistoia on pain of excommunication and other penalties which would be enforced by Master John de Luco, canon of St. Paul's.[20] The cardinals returned to France and made Paris their headquarters, but as the truce which preceded the peace between England and France was not signed until 1297, they levied procurations not at the flat rate of six marks as in 1295, but at fourpence in the mark for the second year, and at threepence in the mark for the third year, on the new assessment of the spiritualities and temporalities of the church which was known as the Taxation of Pope Nicholas.[21] In the second and third year they ordered procurations to be collected, for the first time, from rectors and vicars of parish churches.

The effect of this change was that all who were assessed at under £240 would pay less than six marks at the rate of fourpence, but the bishops and the larger monasteries would be liable for a much higher amount, and in fact a heavy supertax was imposed upon them. The amount due from the archbishop of Canterbury for the second year was over £47,[22] and the bishop of Salisbury actually paid £25 for the second year and £18 15s. 0d. in the third year as against £4 in the first year.[23] Moreover, at a rough estimate the yield of the procurations for the second and third year for the two provinces of Canterbury and York would be £9,000,[24] an enormous burden to be borne wholly by the church for the peace mission of the two cardinals.

The mandate for the levy for the second year was dated at Paris on 9 October 1296, and was addressed to archbishops and bishops in England and Wales; they were ordered to arrange for the demand to reach all who were liable within a month of receiving the mandate, and the procuration was due to be paid within a month of the demand and delivered in London to the firm of merchants who were acting as the cardinals' agents, the Clarenti of Pistoia.[25] These merchants had a safe-conduct which was renewed from time to time by Edward I, who also issued a mandate that all persons who refused to pay procurations should, after excommunication, be compelled thereto in due manner.[26] Nevertheless the procurations were in arrear, and on 30 April 1297 the cardinals wrote from Paris to give the resident papal collector, Geoffrey of Vezano, the power to absolve the many persons who had incurred the penalty of excommunication for non-payment.[27] On 22 August 1297 Geoffrey sent a letter to the archbishops and bishops urging them to collect the procurations and notifying them of his power to absolve offenders; he was ready to treat them with gentleness, but he warned them not to despise the keys of the church.[28] On 5 February 1298 Archbishop Winchelsey notified Geoffrey that he would collect the procurations due from his own diocese for the second and third year, and told Geoffrey to address himself to the collectors originally appointed by the cardinals.[29] The archbishop was then engaged in collecting the tenth granted by his province to repel the Scottish invasion,[30] and it was not until 7 July 1298 that he issued instructions for the collection of these procurations which were long overdue.[31] It is possible that he had delayed in the hope that the petition to Boniface VIII from the clergy might meet with some success.

The first article of the petition was that the procurations for the second and third year should for several reasons be reduced.[32] The clergy urged that this new imposition was most burdensome and would become a precedent; the cardinals had exacted a full procuration both from England and from France; the church in England was oppressed by many wrongs and was unable to find so much money, and the sentences of excommunication were so stringently enforced by the cardinals that many of the clergy were suffering under them solely for their poverty. Lastly, the excessive procuration was recognized to be illegal; Cardinal Ottoboni and other legates were content with the moderate procuration of six marks, often they received less, and they never attempted to exact it from parish churches.

The second article of the petition was that the assessment of church lands and benefices in 1291, known as the Taxation of Pope Nicholas, should be carefully revised; they were then assessed above their value, the value was falling continually, and procurations such as those of the cardinals and other contributions would be levied on this assessment. The clergy had some justification for detesting this new assessment. In the bull of Nicholas IV there was a reservation that the taxation should be borne by churches and their rulers without grave inconvenience.[33] Even the bishop of Winchester, who together with the bishop of Lincoln was responsible to Nicholas IV for the making of the assessment, complained to the dean of St. Paul's and the archdeacon of Wells that their valuation of £3,107 0s. 0¼d. for the property of his see was much too high, and he got a reduction of £129 16s. 2¼d.[34] The rise in the assessment was in many cases a real grievance, and it can be most easily understood by studying the printed texts of the Norwich Taxation of Spiritualities in 1254 in the dioceses of Norwich[35] and Ely.[36] In the diocese of Ely the assessment of only a small number of benefices remained the same, and on the higher assessments there was a very considerable increase, Haddenham rising from 60 marks to 120, Leverington with the vicarage from 80 marks to 127½ without it, Cottenham from 33 marks to 60, Over from 25 marks to 53. The evidence is even more striking in other dioceses. In the diocese of Canterbury the parish church of Fordwich rose from 1 mark to 10, Sturry from 4½ to 20, Reculver from 50 to 200; in that of Rochester, Shoreham with its chapels was raised from 40 to 80 marks, Northfleet from 40 to 100, Cliffe from 40 to 110, Sevenoaks, Penshurst, and Chiddingstone all from 20 to 50.[37] In the diocese of Winchester, Wimbledon rose from 20 to 60, Merstham from 12 to 35; in that of Chichester, Tarring rose from 56¼ to 80, Stanmer from 7½ to 20, Ifield from 6 to 15.[38] But though the Taxation of Pope Nicholas resulted in the payment of much heavier taxes by the bishops, the larger monasteries, and the richer clergy, the burden was most severely felt by the poorer parish priests, many of whom now became subject to taxation for the first time, e.g. in the diocese of Canterbury the vicarages of Rolvenden, Sittingbourne, and Newington were raised from 1½ marks to 10, of Chilham, Northbourne, and Wye from 3 to 10, of Reculver from 3 to 25, Ospringe and Tenterden from 3 to 15, Eastchurch from 3 to 20, Elham and Lydd from 6 to 25.[39] The sympathy of the province of Canterbury with their poorer brethren was shown when they met in November 1297 to grant a tenth for defence against the Scottish invasion; the archbishop, bishops, deans and chapters, and the heads of monasteries agreed to pay their tenth on the Taxation of Pope Nicholas, but the contribution from rectors and vicars was levied on the Norwich Taxation of 1254, by which most of the poorer clergy were entirely exempted.[40] Moreover, vicarages which had been created between 1254 and 1291 were not in the Norwich Taxation, therefore these vicars escaped altogether.

In the third article of the petition the clergy requested the pope to appoint some one living in England to absolve the clergy who had incurred the sentence of excommunication by disregarding the bull Clericis laicos, and thus relieve them from the costly procedure of sending a proctor to the papal penitentiary for absolution. When Edward I outlawed the clergy on 30 January 1297 most of them compounded, and so escaped the seizure of their property.[41] It was represented to the pope that many were afraid that they were under excommunication, and so they absented themselves from divine service.

The last two articles of the petition were directed against the proceedings of Geoffrey of Vezano, who was resident papal collector in England from 1276 until 1302. The yearly amount paid in Peter's pence to the pope was 299 marks, and the contributions from the different dioceses were fixed before 1133.[42] A penny was levied from each household. From the twelfth to the fourteenth century the popes made attempts to secure the full amount collected from the people.[43] Innocent III complained that the bishops acquired a thousand marks in collecting Peter's pence.[44] In 1282 Geoffrey of Vezano received a mandate from Pope Martin IV to inquire into the way in which Peter's pence had been collected by archbishops, bishops, and other prelates who were said to keep back part of it, and to apply such remedy as might be had without scandal. The clergy now petitioned that Geoffrey should demand no more from the bishops for Peter's pence than the customary amount; they alleged that Gregory V (996–9), or Gregory VI (1045–6), had specified it in a bull and suggested that it could be found by searching the register.[45] The following papal letter which is entered in the register of Simon of Ghent is probably the document which is mentioned in the petition.[46]

Gregorius servus servorum dei venerabilibus fratribus Cantuariensi et Eboracensi archiepiscopis et eorum suffraganeis et dilectis filiis abbatibus prioribus archidiaconis eorumque officialibus per regnum Anglie constitutis ad quos iste littere pervenerint salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Qualiter denarius beati Petri qui debetur camere nostre colligatur in Anglia, scilicet in quibus dyocesibus debeatur ne super hoc dubitari contingat presentibus fecimus annotari, sicut in registro sedis apostolice continetur.

The statement of the customary amounts, in which there are two trifling clerical errors, follows, and the letter is dated at Orvieto on 22 April in the second year of the pope. Prom internal evidence it appears to have been written by Gregory X. The diocese of Ely was not created until 1109. Gregory VIII was pope from 20 October to 17 December 1187, Gregory IX was at Perugia on the date of the letter, while Gregory X was actually at Orvieto.[47] It is clear that the archbishops and bishops regarded the difference between the sum due to the pope and the total collection as a part of their income. In the Sede Vacante Register of the diocese of Worcester in 1302 there is an entry that the sum total of Peter's pence yearly was £34 12s. 7½d., of which £10 5s. 0d. was paid to the pope, so the bishop had £24 7s. 7½d.[48] In the later years of the thirteenth century in the diocese of Ely, Peter's pence reached a total of £15 or over, and £5 was paid to the pope.[49] There are entries in the Pipe Rolls showing the amount collected for Peter's pence during the vacancy of bishoprics and the profit to the exchequer after the fixed sum was paid over for the pope; the most striking was in the case of the diocese of York in 1185, when the exchequer profited to the amount of £105 18s. 5d. after £11 10s. 0d. had been paid to the archbishop of Canterbury for the pope.[50]

In the fifth article the clergy asked that the bishops should dispose of the goods of the bishops and clergy who died intestate, and that they should not be obliged to answer to Geoffrey of Vezano or to pay over anything to him. They pointed out that Cardinal Ottoboni had recognized the law of the kingdom under which the bishops disposed of the goods of intestates 'to pious uses'.[51]

It was decided to send Master Robert of Gloucester and Master Anselm of Eastry to present the petition to the Pope.[52] Master Robert of Gloucester was probably the doctor of canon law who had held a prebend of the cathedral church of Hereford since 1283; he was the bishop's official, and had been at the papal curia as his proctor.[53] He now begged to be excused on the ground of ill health and other reasons, of which one perhaps was his appointment on 25 October 1297 as official of the old and infirm bishop of Worcester.[54] In a letter to the bishop of Norwich, dated 27 October, Archbishop Winchelsey wrote that after much discussion with those whom he usually consulted and other persons, it was agreed that Master Hamo of Gateley, rector of East Tuddenham, should be appointed in the place of Master Robert.[55] He begged the bishop to put the common good before his own advantage and to persuade Master Hamo, who was then in his service, to undertake the mission with Master Anselm of Eastry, the rector of Eastry. To avoid further delay he asked that the bearer of his letter might bring back an answer from the bishop and from Master Hamo.

On 12 December an order was sent from the king to the warden of the Cinque Ports to permit Master Anselm of Eastry and Master Hamo of Gatton [sic] to pass from the port of Dover to ports beyond the seas with their servants and things.[56] They took with them letters to ten cardinals, asking them for help and advice so that their business concerning the petition might have a quick and happy ending.[57] For over six months there is no record of the messengers except that on 1 April Hamo of Gateley was at Rome and secured a dispensation from the pope to hold a second benefice with cure of souls.[58] On 24 July 1298 the archbishop wrote to the two envoys to tell them that as they were in need of more money he had placed £100 to their credit with the Florentine merchants of the firm of the Pulci and Rembertini, which would be paid to them for their expenses.[59] The money for the mission was raised by the levy of a halfpenny in the mark on the Taxation of Pope Nicholas, and as the archbishop had not received it, he was obliged to borrow. He told them that he was amazed at their extravagant expenditure, and remonstrated seriously with them for quarrelling with each other. So long as their expenses were moderate he would see that they were not short of money. Before the end of 1298 Hamo of Gateley was back in England, and on 10 January 1299 the archbishop wrote to the bishop of Norwich asking him to persuade Hamo to return to the curia.[60] After taking counsel with the bishops and clergy of the province it had been decided to send presents to the pope, cardinals, officials, and servants of the curia to expedite the business, and it was urgent that Hamo, who had promoted it before the pope and cardinals, should now bring it to a successful conclusion. Moreover there was a rumour that Anselm of Eastry was in despair at the curia and he might return, because he was ignorant of the remedy which was near at hand. In a letter of the same date from his palace at Mayfield, the archbishop urged Hamo to visit him as soon as possible to receive further instructions.[61] On 24 January he wrote to Anselm of Eastry to tell him that he had appointed Master Reginald of St. Albans as his proctor at the curia, and telling him not to withdraw until he had received the archbishop's commands.[62] Apparently Hamo refused to return to the curia, and there was a further delay. On 1 April the archbishop wrote from Gillingham to Boniface VIII to offer him a 'small and insignificant' present of two thousand marks from the bishops and clergy of the province of Canterbury,[63] and to Neapolio, cardinal deacon of St. Adrian, telling him that Master William of Pickering and Master Reginald of St. Albans would bring him a trifling gift of thirty marks.[64] He besought him to help them in bringing the business of their church to a favourable conclusion. From an entry in the margin of the register it appears that nine other cardinals were offered the same amount, all that the church could afford in its time of tribulation. But Boniface VIII was in desperate financial straits, and no petition which would reduce the revenues of the papal exchequer had any prospect of success. There is no record of any answer, but it is certain that William of Pickering and Reginald of St. Albans effected no more than Hamo of Gateley and Anselm of Eastry. The evidence is clear that the clergy continued to suffer under the burdens from which they had sought for some relief. The Taxation of Pope Nicholas remained the assessment for future tenths and other levies. The papal collectors pressed for payment of the procurations, and as late as 1309 William de Testa was still demanding the arrears due to the cardinals of Albano and Palestrina. His mandate to the bishop of Salisbury is entered in the register of Simon of Ghent, who gave instructions to his archdeacons and the dean of Salisbury to find out the names of the collectors and summon them to bring all their documents to Sherborne on 13 October.[65]

Those portions of the accounts of the collectors in the diocese of Salisbury which are entered in the register of Bishop Simon of Ghent show that the procurations had eventually been paid almost in full.[66] The abbot of Abingdon, collector for the first and second years in the archdeaconries of Berkshire and Wiltshire, got in all but £2 13s. 0d. The abbot of Milton, collector for the first year in the archdeaconries of Dorset and Sarum, got in the full amount of £56 and paid £52 to Geoffrey of Vezano, being allowed £4 for the cost of collection. When an inquiry into the amount of arrears was held in 1309 by order of William de Testa, the abbot of Sherborne stated that he was collector for the third year in the archdeaconries of Dorset and Sarum. The total amount due at 3d. in the mark was £151 4s. 3d. From this total allowances of £28 11s. 8½d. had been deducted on certain names, probably those of hospitals and poor nunneries, and he had been granted the further sum of £6 10s. 4½d. for his expenses. He held receipts from Geoffrey of Vezano for £104 13s. 4d, and from William de Testa for £1 15s. 10d., and he had a small sum in hand, so the amount outstanding was £8 12s. 1¾d. The debtors had been excommunicated, and he gave a list of them.

Within the next twenty years the clergy were three times required to pay procurations to cardinals. In 1307, when Clement V sent Peter of Spain, cardinal bishop of Sabina, to arrange a general pacification and to assist in settling the marriage between Edward, prince of Wales, and Isabella of France, Peter demanded a procuration of twelve marks from all ecclesiastical persons, with the reservation that those who were too poor to find this sum should pay at the rate of fourpence in the mark, and in a later letter these were defined as monasteries and others whose revenues were less than £100 a year and over £4 a year according to the Taxation of Pope Nicholas.[67] In 1312, when two other cardinals, Arnold, bishop of Albano, and Arnold of St. Prisca, were sent on a mission to foster peace in the realm, they levied a procuration of twelve marks on all ecclesiastical persons whose revenues were assessed at over £200 a year, and at threepence in the mark for others.[68] Archbishop Winchelsey was instructed to collect this procuration from his province within twenty-one days. He had been in exile when Cardinal Peter of Spain was in England in 1307. He now sent a letter by his clerk, Henry of Derby, which was delivered to the cardinals in London on 11 May, in which he raised several doubtful points, and protested that in the papal bull authorizing the levy of procurations there was no mention of rectors, asserting that on the occasion of previous levies it was never seen, heard, or accustomed that 'simple rectors' should pay.[69] His vigorous attempt to protect the parish clergy of his province from this imposition was one of his last acts, for he died on 11 May. In a subsequent letter to the bishop of Salisbury, commanding him to collect the procurations in his diocese, the cardinals explained that rectors were included under ecclesiastical persons, and that the archbishop's statement concerning them was contrary to the truth as they had ascertained from the registers of other cardinal legates.[70]

In 1317, when Gaucelin, cardinal of SS. Marcellinus and Peter, and Luke, cardinal of St. Mary's in Via Lata, were sent to negotiate between Edward II and Robert Bruce, they demanded a procuration at the highest possible rate, fourpence in the mark from all.[71] Apparently they failed to get more than twelve marks on the higher incomes, for the prior of Canterbury reported to the archbishop in 1338 that after searching the records he had ascertained that twelve marks had been paid.[72]

There is no record that the pope appointed any one in England to absolve the clergy who had incurred excommunication by contributing to the subsidy in fear and thus disregarded the bull Clericis laicos. Moreover, in 1299 the archbishop's registrar noted several instances of absolutions which the papal penitentiary at Rome had empowered him to grant after taking a caution that the offenders, who had erred not through contempt of the keys but in ignorance, would obey the mandates of the church and after imposing a salutary penance.[73] The prior and chapter of Worcester were suspended from orders for fifteen days and were bound individually to say five psalters and five masses for the reformation of the universal church. The abbot of Hayles was suspended for several days and ordered to feed forty poor persons. It is probable that in addition to the abbots of Walden, Barlings, and Basingwerk, and the rector of Batheley in the diocese of Norwich, there were numerous other instances which were not entered. Another instance was noted in the register of John de Pontissara, bishop of Winchester; others occur in 1303 and 1306 in the register of William Gainsborough, bishop of Worcester.[74]

In spite of the efforts of successive papal collectors, the popes did not receive more than the fixed amount for Peter's pence.[75] In 1306 the papal collector, William de Testa, appointed commissaries to secure the collection of firstfruits and all other dues of the papacy,[76] whose inquisitorial demands stirred the resentment of the laity as well as of the clergy, and at the parliament of Carlisle in 1307 a petition from lords and commons was presented against papal oppression; it was urged that a fixed sum had been paid for Peter's pence from time immemorial, and that the present unreasonable exactions would be to the grave loss of the churches and of the whole nation.[77]

It has been observed that if the several articles of this petition presented at Carlisle had been drafted into a statute, part of it would have anticipated the Statute of Premunire, but on the arrival of Peter of Spain, cardinal bishop of Sabina, Edward I judged it impolitic to provoke a contest with the papacy.[78]

Rose Graham.

  1. See Church Quarterly Review, October 1915, p. 109.
  2. Archiepiscopal Registers of Canterbury, Winchelsey, fos. 309v, 310.
  3. Calendar of Papal Letters, i. 562; Bartholomaei de Cotton Historia Anglicana, ed H. R. Luard (Rolls Ser.), pp. 282, 287–9; Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. Digard (Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome), i. 247.
  4. Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 563; Registres de Boniface VIII, i. 247.
  5. Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Ser.), ii. 311.
  6. Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xix. 230, Rev. O. Jensen, 'The "Denarius Sancti Petri" in England'.
  7. Cotton, pp. 283–5.
  8. Cal. of Letters Close, 1288–96, p. 423.
  9. Cotton, p. 283, Ecclesie de Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, ed. J. Willis Clark, p. 236.
  10. Gervase of Canterbury, ii. 312.
  11. Cotton, pp. 289–92.
  12. Cal. of Letters Close, 1288–96, p. 423.
  13. Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 9499 A.
  14. Ibid. no. 19838. I am indebted to the Rev. H. F. Westlake for this reference, and for kindly giving me access to the Westminster Abbey Muniments.
  15. Literae Cantuarienses, ed. J. B. Sheppard (Rolls Ser.), ii. 174, 175; Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 521; Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard, iii. 280; cf. Cotton, p. 299. When the head of the house had separate property, a double procuration was charged.
  16. Gervase of Canterbury, ii. 311; Flores Hist., iii. 279, 280.
  17. Rymer, Foedera, i. 825.
  18. Ecclesie de Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, pp. 235, 236.
  19. Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. Digard, i. 243.
  20. Cotton, pp. 292, 293.
  21. Episcopal Registers of Carlisle, Halton (Canterbury and York Society), i. 90–4.
  22. Archiepiscopal Registers of Canterbury, Reynolds, fo. 80.
  23. Episcopal Registers of Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 113.
  24. Stubbs, Const. Hist. (ed. of 1887), ii. 580.
  25. Reg. Carlisle, Halton, i. 90, 91.
  26. Cal. of Letters Patent, 1292–1301, pp. 150, 210, &c.
  27. Episc. Reg. of Hereford, Swinfield (Canterbury and York Society), p. 344.
  28. Ibid. p. 344.
  29. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 235.
  30. Ante, xxxiv. 201–5, R. Graham, 'An Ecclesiastical Tenth for National Defence in 1298'.
  31. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 245v.
  32. Ibid. fos. 309v, 310.
  33. Cotton, op. cit., pp. 189, 190.
  34. Episc. Reg. of Winchester, Pontissara (Canterbury and York Society), pp. 197, 198.
  35. Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society, xvii. 46–157.
  36. Ecclesie de Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, pp. 191–9.
  37. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 6159, fos. 73v–77v.
  38. Ibid.
  39. Ibid.
  40. Ante, xxiii. 454, R. Graham, 'The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV'.
  41. Stubbs, Const. Hist., ii. 135, 136.
  42. Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xv. 183–8, 206, Rev. O. Jensen, 'The "Denarius Sancti Petri" in England'.
  43. Ibid. xix. 229, 230.
  44. Ibid. p. 229.
  45. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fos. 309v, 310.
  46. Reg. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 184.
  47. Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 119, 446.
  48. Registrum Sede Vacante, ed. J. Willis Bund (Worcestershire Hist. Soc.), pp. 33, 34.
  49. Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis, ed. C. T. Feltoe and E. H. Minns, p. 28.
  50. Madox, Hist. of the Exchequer (ed. of 1769), i. 309, n. r.
  51. Lyndwood, Provinciale, Constitutiones Legatinae, p. 121. This was a grievance of many years' standing; cf. Archbishop Kilwardby's letter, dated 1277, entered in Episc. Reg. of Winchester, Pontissara, pp. 356, 357.
  52. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 226.
  53. Reg. Heref., Swinfield, pp. 5, 41, 66.
  54. Reg. Worc., Giffard (Worcestershire Hist. Soc.), p. 489.
  55. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 226.
  56. Cal. of Letters Close, 1296–1302, p. 142.
  57. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 309v.
  58. Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 575.
  59. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 311.
  60. Ibid. fos. 256v, 257.
  61. Ibid., fo. 257.
  62. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 314v.
  63. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fog. 314v, 315.
  64. Ibid. fo. 315.
  65. Reg. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 111.
  66. Ibid. fos. 112v, 113.
  67. Reg. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fos. 73–81.
  68. Ibid. fos. 153–5.
  69. Ibid. fo. 155.
  70. Ibid. fo. 155.
  71. Reg. Carlisle, Halton, ii. 146–51; cf. Reg. Cant., Reynolds, fo. 240.
  72. Literae Cantuarienses, ed. Sheppard, ii. 174, 175.
  73. Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fos. 274, 275, 278v, 279, 280v.
  74. Reg. Winchester, Pontissara, p. 106; Reg. Worc., Gainsborough (Worcestershire Hist. Soc.), pp. 31, 145, 146.
  75. Royal Hist Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xv. 185.
  76. Ibid. p. 185, J. M. Wilson, The Worcester Liber Albus, pp. 70–3.
  77. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 163; Rot. Parl. i. 207, 217–23.
  78. Tout in The Political History of England, iii. 230, 231.