could not under any circumstances, if he were an obedient son, refuse." Seeing that he could not prevail with de Raleigh, Henry next tried the monks. He intruded a foreign prior, who first created divisions among them, and then pronounced them excommunicated for their attitude towards the king. The unfortunate religious, however, remained firm, although he went to the length of sending amongst them creatures of his own to tempt or brow-beat them into submission. Their steadfastness called forth the anger of those who could not succeed in the task set them by the king. "Monkish obstinacy, unworthy pride disguised in a cowl," are samples given by the chronicler of the expressions which were used by the royal agents. Finally recourse was had to force, and, respecting neither age nor position, the king's officials carried off many of the monks to prison.2

Before the final settlement was arrived at in the Curia, as in the case of Canterbury, Pope Gregory IX died. For two years more nothing was done; but when Innocent IV became pope he, without any delay, at once settled the matter in favour of the monks. On 17th September, 1243, the new pope addressed a letter to William de Raleigh, bishop of Norwich, translating him to the See of Winchester. This document furnishes some particulars of the state in which the action of the legate Otho, prior to his departure from England, had left the matter. It seems that on the ground that the monks, by not electing within the canonical time, had lost their right, which had consequently lapsed to the pope, Gregory IX had proposed to appoint to the vacant See. The pontiff was, however, induced by the legate Otho to permit another election to 1 Matthew Paris, iv. 159.

2 Ibid., 108.

be held under his presidency, giving Otho, moreover, special powers to confirm the elect in his place. On the day of the election, acting upon the advice of the legate, the monks chose six of their numbers and the archdeacon of Winchester to elect in their names and in their behalf. Upon a scrutiny it was found that four had voted for the bishop of Norwich, and that the minority of three had chosen the bishop-elect of Belley. Upon this the cardinallegate was unwilling to confirm the choice made by so narrow a majority, and recourse was again had to the Holy See. When the matter came before Pope Innocent IV, shortly after his election to the papacy, one of the two original candidates, Boniface of Belley, had, as already noted, been elected to Canterbury in succession to St. Edmund. The proctors of the monks consequently begged the pope to confirm the election of William de Raleigh; this he did in the letter which recites the above particulars.1

As the time approached for the assembling of the Council, to which the aged Pope Gregory had summoned the bishops and prelates, many of them were gathered together at Genoa for the last stage of their journey. The emperor Frederick endeavoured to persuade them to travel thence to Rome under his protection, hoping that he might in this way gain the ear of some of them and get them to voice his grievances against the pope at the meeting. They elected, however, to entrust their safety to some Genoese merchants, who undertook to convey them to their destination.

Amongst these prelates were three cardinals, Otho, who had been legate in England, the legate of France, and the then legate to Genoa; with them were a great number of archbishops, bishops, and others. The emperor con

Les Registres d'Innocent IV, ed. Elie Berger, tome 1er, No. 116.

ceived the bold plan of capturing them, and he forthwith dispatched his son Enzio, with some Pisan galleys, to intercept the vessels upon which they had taken passage. This was done successfully, and having defeated the Genoese ships, Enzio took all the prelates who had not already perished in the sunken ships, to Naples, where he held them in custody. In all, the emperor claimed to have in this way captured more than a hundred prelates with their attendants.

Meanwhile the two collectors, Peter Rosso and de Supino, who had been left behind in England by the legate Otho, were busy at their profession. The former was accounted the chief, and in his citations to the people to bring in money due to the Roman Curia, he signed himself "familiaris et consanguineus" of the lord pope. Pietro de Supino, with the king's authority and by his help, went over to Ireland, taking with him the pope's commission to collect: there," aided by the secular power," he gathered in large sums from the Irish Church. On his return to London in the autumn of 1241, he was dispatched to Rome carrying in his saddle bags fifteen hundred marks.1

Whilst Supino was occupied in Ireland, Rosso was engaged in gathering his harvest of dues in the northern parts of England and in Scotland. In the midst of his labours, messengers from Rome brought tidings of the hopeless condition of the pope and of his expected death. Without delay he hastened to join Supino, and together they crossed over the sea, fearing lest the king might hear of Gregory's illness or death, and try to seize the money they had been so diligently gathering for the Holy See. They had hardly reached France, however, before the emperor sent Henry news as to the pope's condition, and

1 Matthew Paris, iv. 137.

added as his advice that the English king should seize the persons of the collectors. On finding they had already escaped, Frederick himself dispatched people to track them down and follow them, and ultimately they were captured in Italy, and their money was confiscated by the emperor.' At this time Bishop Grosseteste had a serious quarrel with the king, which he pursued to the end with his characteristic vigour and fearlessness. It appears that the king had applied to the pope to "provide" one of his clerks, John Mansel, with the prebend of Thame, in the cathedral of Lincoln. This request was acceded to, and letters were issued, granting, by the pope's supreme authority, this benefice to Henry's nominee, who was indeed the royal chancellor, and one of the most wealthy ecclesiastics of the time. It is not unimportant to remark that a very large proportion of papal "provisions "-or the appointments to benefices in England made by the pope at this period, and indeed at all times—were granted at the direct request of kings, bishops, and nobles. It was an easy way to reward services done, or to enrich favourites. The same may be said of the licences to hold more than one benefice with the cure of souls attached, which were unfortunately only too common at this period. To put a stop to what was obviously a grave abuse, the General Council of the Lateran had legislated with great strictness on this matter, and had prohibited any clerk from holding a plurality of benefices, requiring a special leave of the Apostolic See for any individual case in which circumstances might seem to make it desirable that the law should be relaxed. It was in practice found, as has already been pointed out in the case of the legate Otho's attempt in England, that when the decrees of the Lateran came to be enforced,

1 Matthew Paris, iv. 161.

strong protests were uttered by or in behalf of the bishops and of others interested, to prevent what they considered unwise curtailment of their accustomed privileges. It was only with the greatest difficulty and very gradually that the prohibition of the Council was insisted upon. That the popes did reward services to themselves, and to what they considered the interests of the universal Church, by the bestowal of benefices in other countries upon Italians and other foreigners, is as certain as that the practice was a grave and obvious abuse, which no one could do otherwise than condemn. But it has been the custom to write of "papal provisions" as if every act of the pope, in bestowing a benefice upon some individual cleric, was done upon his own initiative, and was an encroachment upon the rights of individuals and nations. It requires, however, only a very slight acquaintance with the papal registers to see that in the majority of cases the request came from this country, and that the pope was only endeavouring to carry out the wishes of those who for some reason or other had a right to urge their petitions upon him. Moreover, just at this period, there may be seen numerous letters from the popes to bishops who had complained of these "provisions" as hurtful to the best interests of their dioceses, allowing them to refuse to institute to any benefice thus bestowed by papal power, unless there was a mention in the letters granting it, that in the appointment this had been specially considered and set aside. In other cases, if the bishop thought proper to refuse to institute, the whole matter had to be raised and the bishop's objections heard upon an appeal of the aggrieved party.

This subject is illustrated in the present case of the Thame prebend. King Henry, wishing to reward John Mansel for services done to him as chancellor, applied to