Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

had burdened the country. In Langton's opinion, Nevile would even go to the length of risking his life to repudiate this, relying upon the protests made by Archbishop Langton at St. Paul's to the act of John in resigning his crown to the papal legate, and setting his hand to the document "hateful to the whole world." Upon hearing this, the pope quashed the election, telling the monks to go and choose someone who would be a good pastor of souls, of utility to the English Church, and a faithful and devoted son of the Roman Church.2

After this further disappointment the monks applied to the king, saying they were ordered to hold another election. On 11th March, 1232, Henry wrote to the prior on the subject. He forbade the monks to act upon the Apostolic mandate they had brought from Rome, as it seemed to trench upon the royal prerogatives. The monks must obtain his leave before they ventured to engage in any election even in the Curia.3

The king's difficulties having been met, and his royal licence obtained, the monks were finally allowed to proceed to an election. This time they made choice of their prior, John de Sittingbourne who, having been accepted by Henry, forthwith proceeded to Rome for examination and confirmation. The pope handed the elect over to Cardinal John de Colonna and others, who for three days examined him under nineteen heads, and finally expressed themselves well satisfied. Pope Gregory, who was himself ninety-four years old at this time, came to the conclusion, however, that Prior John, "though a holy man, was too aged and simple, and unfit for such a dignity; a good man but not made for that position." He was not rejected, but was 1 Matthew Paris, iii. 207. 2 Ibid., 208.

3 Royal Letters, i. 406.

strongly recommended to resign. This he at once did, and requested leave to return home.1

Once more the monks were sent back to England to hold another election at Canterbury. By this time Peter de Rupibus had attained to the post of supreme adviser of the king; and at his suggestion, John le Blund, a teacher of theology at Oxford, was chosen. Having received the royal assent, he too set out, accompanied by some of the monks, to obtain confirmation at Rome. Again the election was quashed. Matthew Paris says that Peter de Rupibus even wrote to the emperor to interest himself in behalf of the elect. But, in view of the relations between Frederick and the Holy See, it is difficult to suppose that this could have been the case. There is also a story about John le Blund having received a large sum of money towards the expenses of his confirmation, from the bishop of Winchester. But apparently the elect confessed to holding two benefices with the care of souls attached, against the provisions of the Lateran Council, and on this ground the election was set aside."

The pope, meanwhile, had caused inquiries to be made as to the most fit man for the position of archbishop, and the monks were directed to turn their thoughts towards Edmund Rich, then treasurer of Salisbury. On the return of the envoys from Rome for the fourth time, the Christ Church monks applied for the royal licence to hold the election, which took place on 20th September, 1233. They acted upon the pope's suggestion and chose Edmund Rich as their archbishop, being actuated also by the fear that, through the influence of de Rupibus, they might perhaps have a foreigner thrust on them. The pope's confirmation 1 Roger de Wendover, iii. 29. 2 Matthew Paris, iii. 243. Cotton MS. Jul. D. vi. f. 130 (Life of St. Edmund, by Dom. W. Wallace, 554).

3 Ibid.

was, of course, a foregone conclusion, and this was accorded on 22nd December, 1233, on which date Gregory IX wrote to the suffragans announcing his ratification of the election, and to the king and the monks of Canterbury urging them to accept the new archbishop.'

Even before his consecration, the new archbishop-elect was called upon to act in a gravely difficult matter. A parliament was held at Westminster on 2nd February, 1234, at which he was present, and in which, at the head of the bishops, he presented a remonstrance to the king on the course he was pursuing, in putting himself so completely into the hands of foreign advisers. The bishop of Lichfield, "vested in full pontificals," had indignantly denied that friendship for the fallen earl marshal in any way implied enmity to the king, and he had obtained from the bishops generally a promise to utter an anathema against all who made such accusations. This was followed by a solemn warning, given by the bishops to the king in person, against trusting to the bishop of Winchester or Peter de Rievaulx, and their accomplices, and letting them. persuade him that his English subjects, whom they hated and despised, were disloyal to him. It was, they declared, by just such a policy that King John had been alienated from the affection of his people, and further, that it was by following the advice of the same bishop, that he had lost Normandy, dissipated all his treasures uselessly, nearly sacrificed his rule over England and never knew peace again, except by making his country pass through the horrors of an interdict, and by leaving it in the end as a tributary kingdom. They felt constrained to tell him the truth, they said, and they warned him that unless he changed all this, they would not hesitate to place him and 1 1 Registres de Grég. IX., i. col. 907. 2 Matthew Paris, iii. 268.

all his advisers under ecclesiastical censure, only waiting till after the consecration of the new archbishop of Canterbury to do so, should it be necessary.1

Meanwhile the king's agents in Rome had evidently not been idle, and the pope was induced to write a letter to the bishops of Durham and Rochester, which was intended to check the action of the archbishop. He had learnt with sorrow, he says, that the bishops had not acted as vigorously against the disturbers of the peace as he had urged them to do. He hopes that the archbishop will now prove that the choice made of himself was right, and that he will take every means to restore the tranquillity of the country, imperilled by the negligent attitude of the episcopate in the past. If he and his suffragans neglect their duty, then Gregory IX enjoins the two bishops to act promptly with full papal power.

This letter was followed by another papal admonition directed to Archbishop Edmund himself, dated 3rd April, 1234.3 His mission, as pope, is to unite and bring to harmony where there was division. "It is, therefore, necessary," writes the pope, "that you sedulously exhort and warn those born in England not to take it amiss if strangers living amongst them obtain honours and benefices in the country, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and he who lives according to justice in any nation, finds favour in His sight." It is proper that you "show spiritual love and kind feeling to such as the English king has honoured, and “earnestly exhort others to show their trust and devotion to him. In this way, and in this way only, the new archbishop will be able to prove that the good reports upon which the pope had appointed him to his high office were well founded."4

'Matthew Paris, iii. 270-271.

3

4

2 Royal Letters, i. 554- Ibid., 556. Ibid.

The archbishop was consecrated in his metropolitan church on 2nd April, and within a week he was called upon again to come into official opposition to the king on the all-disturbing question of foreigners. At a meeting on 9th April, a long list of grievances was read, and St. Edmund declared that he and his fellow-bishops were fully prepared to excommunicate the king if he refused to listen to reason. Henry surrendered, and the following day sent an order to de Rupibus to confine himself henceforth to the episcopal duties of his diocese, and no longer to take any part in the government of the kingdom. Peter de Rievaulx, the bishop's ally and friend, was ordered to furnish an account of his receipts as treasurer, from which office he was to consider himself dismissed. At the same time all the Poitevins were deprived of their posts in the public service and ordered to quit the country. The archbishop, with the bishops of Rochester and Chester, went from the king to the earl marshal, to take him the royal assurance of peace and friendship.'

Before the close of the year 1234 the pope was again bestirring himself to obtain the money necessary to prosecute the crusade in the Holy Land. He addressed an earnest appeal to the English bishops and people to help him. Those taking the cross were to be protected by the spiritual arm of the Church, and if they were in debt, their creditors were to be compelled to act reasonably towards them; if these creditors were Jews and had already exacted usurious interest, the secular power was to compel them to forego that interest, and until they did so no Christian was to be allowed, under pain of excommunication, to deal with them. The crusade was preached everywhere by the friars, Dominican and Franciscan, who were 2 Ibid., 280-287.

1 Matthew Paris, iii. 272, 273.

« PredošláPokračovať »