320 Constitutional LLlstonj. [chap.
Grow½of vision1 and reservation which had been exercised long before
ofprovh in the case of lower preferments. The first direct attack on
patronage had been made in 1226, when the papal envoy Otho
was sent to England to demand two prebends in each cathedral
church for the use of the pope2. Some few Italians were
already beneficed in England, but these, probably in all cases,
owed their promotion either to the king or to the bishops, who
thus repaid the services of their agents at Rome, or gratified
the popes by liberality to their relations. Otho’s request was
refused by the church, but in 1231 Gregory IX issued orders to
the English bishops to abstain from presenting to livings until
provision had been made for five Romans unnamed3. The
barons forbade the bishops to comply, and prohibited the
farmers of livings in the hands of foreigners from sending the
revenue out of the country. Notwithstanding their attitude of
defiance, Gregory in 1239 attempted to extend the usurpation
to livings in private patronage4, and, when this was defeated,
he directed in 1240 the bishops of Lincoln and Salisbury to
provide for not less than three hundred foreign ecclesiastics5.
This claim was one of the burdens that broke down the spirit
of archbishop Edmund and drove him into exile. Innocent IV
continued the practice which Gregory had begun, notwithstand-
ing annual remonstrances from the bishops and an appeal to a
general council. From time to time he promised to abstain, or
by some illusory undertaking appeased the jealousy of the
j ‘ Providere ecclesiae de episcopo,’ ‘ Providere ad ecclesiam de persona,’
ito provide for the church by appointing such and such a person, simply
implies the act of promotion, but most frequently involves the superseding
'of the rights of all other patrons except the pope. The papal right of
collation or provision is exercised, according to the canonists, in three
ways : (ɪ) ‘Jure praeventionis,’ which includes reservations and expecta-
tives ; (2) ‘ Jure Concursus ; ’ and (3) ‘Jure devolutions,’ where the chapter
has neglected to choose, or has chosen an unfit person, or has chosen un-
Canonically, in which case the appointment lapsed to the pope : Sext. Decr.
lib. i. tit. 6. c. 18.
2 Above, vol. ii. p. 38.
3 M. Paris, iii. 208. On the growth of this form of usurpation in the
Western Church generally see Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. (ed. Hull;, vol. iii.
p. 173 ; vol. iv. p. 79. England seems to have been the great harvest-field
of imposition.
4 M. Paris, iii. 610.
5 M. Paris, iv. 32.
XIX.]
Papal Provisions.
321
king’ ; but, by the use of the infamous non obstante clause,
managed to evade the performance of his word. In 1253, how- interference
ever, he recognised in the fullest way the rights of patrons, and tiens ɪe-
undertook to abstain from all usurped provisions2. The same in 1253 ; but
year Henry III made a similar promise on his part to abstain notwith-
from interference in elections3; a promise which in 1256 was 3tandmg∙
enforced by the parliament which rehearsed and confirmed the
Charter of John4. In 12 58 freedom of election was one of the
articles demanded by the barons in the Mad Parliament. Not-
withstanding this legislation, however, the claim of the pope
was enforced during the whole reign of Edward 15 ; and it was
not until his last year, 1307, that the laity, in the parliament
of Carlisle, forced the question upon the king’s attention.
Edward had perhaps connived at some amount of usurpation in τbθ power
this particular point, in order to secure objects which were for bycom-ened
the time of more importance ; the appointment to benefices was promιse-
but one of many ways of papal exaction ; the king was in 1307
on friendly terms with the pope, and wished to avoid another
rupture such as had happened in 1297. Nothing more was Provision
done at the time6. The weakness of Edward II7 and the bishoprics!**
1 See especially in 1246 and 1247 ; M. Paris, ed. Luard, iv. 550, 598.
2 M. Paris, ed. Wats, Additam. pp. 184-186; Feed. i. 175 ; Ann.
Burton, pp. 284, 314-317.
3 M. Paris, ed. Luard, v. 373, 374. 4 lb. v. 541, 542.
s The countless instances given by Prynne, in the third volume of his
Records, defy even an attempt at classification here.
6 Rot. Parl. i. 222; Prynne, Records, iii. 1168 sq. ; above, vol. ii.
ρ. 162.
7 In 1307 ɑɪ0 PθPθ committed the temporalities as well as the spirituali-
ties of Armagh to Walter Jorz; Feed. ii. 3. Edward compelled him to
renounce the obnoxious words ; ib. p. 7. Several similar attempts to repel
aggression were made in the following years; ib. 77, 96 : John de Leek,
archbishop of Dublin in 1311, has to renounce the words ; ib. p. 140 : the
pope repeats them the same year in the provision to Armagh; p. 149:
similar cases are found, ib. pp. 185, 197. In 1307, when Worcester was
vacant and archbishop Winchelsey was abroad, Edward, who had obtained
the election of Reynolds to that see, wrote to the pope to pray him to con-
firm it, because he did not wish the matter to come before the papal
administrator of the spiritualities of Canterbury; Foed. ii. 15: and the
same year he asked the same favour for bishop Stapleton of Exeter against
whose election an appeal was made ; ib. p. 19. Early in 1308 he heard
that the pope had reserved the provision to Worcester, and protested
against it; p. 29. The pope appointed Reynolds, using the words preju-
dicial to royal authority; Thomas, Worcester, App. p. 99.
VOL. III. Y