his "almoner, Brother John, continue to feed out of the king's alms" the greater part of that number, namely, three hundred and fifty "daily from the ninth of May, when" he embarked at Portsmouth, "to the day he should return prosperously to England."1 1 The war did not last very long. At first Louis IX seemed to have all the fortune on his side, and the English allies were found to be uncertain and treacherous; but by September, 1242, a distressing sickness broke out in the ranks of the French, and the king himself became seriously ill. This induced him, by the advice of his nobles, to ask for a truce for five years, to which, under the circumstances, the English were only too well pleased to agree. Meanwhile, whilst Henry was in foreign parts, an attempt was made to obtain contributions from the Cistercians towards the expenses of the war. In the time of the legate Otho, by an appeal to Rome, they had successfully resisted his claim to make them liable to taxation, like the rest of the religious and clergy. Now, at the suggestion of the king, the archbishop called a meeting of all the English abbots of the Order, and asked them to help the king. They asked in what they could do so, and the archbishop rejoined, "in a small way." In reply to a further question as to what was meant by "in a small way," he answered, "by giving him as much money as you get for your wool for one year." The request, says the chronicler, was "much like that of one who would say, 'give me your life and take the rest with you,'" as this was their chief support. The request urged by the archbishop in the name of the king was difficult to meet; but the Cistercians fell back upon the fact that they were members of a cosmopolitan Order, and could make no promise without the leave of Rymer i. 246. 1 their general Chapter, which could never they feared, sanction money being contributed for the purpose of making war. They, however, promised to help their king in what they considered a better way, by their prayers, and by giving him a share in their good works; and in this attitude they remained firm, although the archbishop showed that he was not best pleased, and told them that the king would hardly hear of their refusal to him in his needs with pleasure. This year, it may be noted, none of the Cistercian abbots were permited to attend the Chapter at Citeaux. Apparently, however, Henry sent his agents to the Chapter, and, unlike the king of France, who required their prayers, he demanded that the authority of general Chapter should be given for the payment by the English houses of the tax he had demanded. This they refused. The next year, 1243, saw Henry still abroad. The abbot of Evesham, who on the death of Hugh de Patteshull, bishop of Coventry, in 1241, had been elected to succeed him by the canons of Lichfield, died at La Reole in Gascony. He had been for many years the keeper of the king's seal, and had surrendered it only to accompany his royal master abroad. He had not, however, been consecrated bishop owing to the unfortunate dispute between the canons of Lichfield and the monks of Coventry, who had elected some other candidate, a difficulty which had not been settled, owing to the continued vacancy of the papal throne. Neither did the death of one of the candidates bring the quarrel to a conclusion. On learning for certain that the abbot of Evesham was dead, the Coventry monks induced many of the canons of Lichfield to agree upon the election of William de Montpelier, the precentor. The king, however, refused to accept him, being urged to 1 Matthew Paris, iv. 234. this course by some of the canons, and so the deadlock continued. As the year 1243 progressed, the emperor Frederick became impatient at the dissensions of the cardinals, which had so far prevented the election of a successor to Gregory IX. To facilitate matters he released the cardinals, whom he had now for so long held captive; but even this measure did not seem to enable them to come to an agreement on a candidate. Frederick, becoming impatient, ordered his army to lay waste the possessions of the cardinals, attacked Rome, and allowed the Saracens to pillage Albano. At length, upon St. John the Baptist's day, 24th June, 1243, the choice of the electors fell upon Cardinal Sinebald, who was enthroned upon the feast of SS. Peter and Paul as Pope Innocent IV, after the pontifical throne had been vacant for a year and nine months. In the time of this vacancy a serious difficulty arose between Bishop Grosseteste and the convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, on a matter of jurisdiction. The bishop had had a dispute with the abbey of Bardney, and, after excommunicating the abbot for refusing to appear before the court of his archdeacon, he sent visitors in his name to hold a visitation of the abbey. On the ground that these were seculars, and consequently could not be acquainted with the monastic life, the monks of Bardney refused to admit them. Bishop Grosseteste upon this placed the house under an interdict, and the abbot appealed from this sentence to the prior and convent of Canterbury, which was supposed to possess the power of the metropolitan when the See of Canterbury was vacant, as it then was, and consequently, amongst other powers, that of receiving appeals. Thereupon the bishop declared the abbot deposed from his office, and the convent of Canterbury responded by solemnly excommunicating the bishop, and serving him with a notice to that effect. Grosseteste was astonished, and not a little angry, and he paid no attention to the sentence, continuing publicly to exercise his episcopal functions.1 Here the matter rested for a time, awaiting the election of the new pope, except for a strong protest made by the bishop to the king on the abbot of Bardney being allowed the use of the abbey revenues after he had declared him deposed. Grosseteste's agents were instructed to press the question on the consideration of the pontiff immediately he should be chosen. This they did so well, that within a month of Innocent IV's coronation, he issued his letters directing the prior of Canterbury to remove the sentence of excommunication from the bishop within eight days of the reception of the letters, but without prejudice to any rights they might claim. This was not sufficient for the bishop; he wrote immediately to Cardinal Otho, the former legate in England, to point out how the papal letters, although obliging the monks to remove the sentence uttered against him, were not unnaturally interpreted as a confirmation of their right to act as they had done and of their possession of metropolitical powers when the See of Canterbury was vacant. Against this position Grosseteste energetically protested. He declared that the bishops of the province had never admitted this power in fact, and as a proof against the right of the monks to possess such powers, he pointed to the fact that "when the Chair of Canterbury was vacant, elected suffragans had always been confirmed by the pope." To admit that these bishops ought to have received confirmation from the 2 Grosseteste, Ep. 308. 1 Matthew Paris, iv. 245-248. 3 Ibid., 258. |