Henry IV (75 page)

⁸
Above, pp. 262–3.

⁹
Arundel also helped to discourage the development of a martyr-cult at Scrope's tomb in York Minster (D. Piroyanska, ‘Martyrio Pulchro Finitus’, in
Richard Scrope: Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr
, ed. P. J. Goldberg (Donnington, 2007), 100–13, and C. Norton, ‘Richard Scrope and York Minster’, in
Richard Scrope Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr
, ed. P. J. Goldberg, (Donnington, 2007), 138–213, at pp. 109–12 and 171–8.

¹⁰
CE
, 392.
Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico
, ed. W. Shirley (RS, London, 1858), 256;
SAC II
, 591; M. Wilks,
Wyclif: Political Ideas and Practice
(Oxford, 2000), 29–31.

¹¹
Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 343–4, 351–2;
PROME
, viii.179.

¹²
Wylie,
Henry the Fourth
, iii.153–8;
SAC II
, 530–5;
Foedera
, viii.520, 545;
CPR 1405–8
, 464, 471, 488;
Usk
, xxxv.

¹³
W. Lunt,
Financial Relations of the Papacy with England II, 1327–1534
(Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 381–408 (quote at p. 399); P. Heath,
Church and Realm 1272–1461
(London, 1988), 125–33, 213–18, 261–3; Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 346–52, 368–80, 408 (appendix of cases under the Statute of Provisors); N. Foulser, ‘The Influence of Lollardy and Reformist Ideas on English Legislation
c
.1376–
c
.1422’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 2004), 67–139.

¹⁴
Henry may have tried to convince the commons to repeal the provisors legislation (perhaps hoping, like Richard, to make a concordat with Pope Boniface), but he was reminded in the parliament of March 1401 that this was not what had been agreed:
PROME
, vii.190, 195; viii.61, 108, 119–20;
POPC
, i.111. In November 1398, Richard II had attempted to strengthen the royal hand, the pope agreeing that he would not appoint bishops contrary to the king's wishes, although that did not mean that he would always provide the king's nominee: R. Davies, ‘Richard II and the Church in the Years of Tyranny’,
Journal of Medieval History
I (1975), 329–62, at pp. 355–7; this concordat lapsed with his deposition.

¹⁵
The figure of 20,000 marks or £20,000 was frequently mentioned: Foulser, ‘The Influence of Lollardy’, 87–8; see also A. Barrell, ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’,
HR
64 (1991), 264–77.

¹⁶
See below, pp. 368–71.

¹⁷
Concilia
, iii.241–2, 245; Lunt,
Financial Relations
, ii.402;
CPR 1401–5
, 324.

¹⁸
Usk
, 126–7, 176–7.

¹⁹
Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 350–2.

²⁰
Lunt,
Financial Relations
, ii.402–3, supplemented by Z. El-Gazar, ‘Politics and Legislation in England in the Early Fifteenth Century: The Parliament of 1406’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 2001), 240.

²¹
PROME
, viii.386–91, 398–9.

²²
PROME
, viii.433–4, 446–7; Lunt,
Financial Relations
, ii.404.

²³
J. E. Tyler,
Henry of Monmouth
(2 vols, London, 1838), ii.41–5 (judgment went for the crown); Heath,
Church and Realm
, 132, 217.

²⁴
R. Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope: Henry IV, the Papacy and the English Episcopate, 1405–8’,
BJRL
56 (1977), 40–74.

²⁵
Ineffective provisions excluded.

²⁶
As did his admonition to the pope over the latter's over-hasty provision of William Strickland to replace Thomas Merks at Carlisle: R. L. Storey, ‘Episcopal Kingmakers in the Fifteenth Century’, in
Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century
, ed. R. B. Dobson (Gloucester, 1984), 82–98, at pp. 83–6. For Strickland, see
POPC
, i.115–17, but Henry's rebuke was mainly on procedural grounds, for he did not object to Strickland.

²⁷
This was the only occasion when parliament spoke up for an episcopal candidate, Clifford, though unsuccessfully (
PROME
, viii.108–12; R. Davies, ‘Richard Clifford’,
ODNB
, 12.105–7). See also the letter in
ANLP
, no. 289, concerning a debt of 2,000 marks due from Clifford to the Albertini, which states inter alia that he had never had possession of Bath and Wells. The king told Arundel not to write to the pope on Clifford's behalf.

²⁸
C. Allmand, ‘A Bishop of Bangor during the Glyn Dŵr Revolt: Richard Young’,
Journal of the Historical Society of the Church in Wales
(1968), 47–56. Young was a member of the Privy Council, crown lawyer and diplomat, and the failure to admit him to Rochester cannot have been on personal grounds (R. Davies, ‘Richard Young’,
ODNB
online (added May 2007)).

²⁹
RHL
, i.415–16 (Arundel's face-saving excuse was that he was unaware that Henry was supporting Langley).

³⁰
SC 1/43/98 is Henry's letter mandating Chichele and Cheyne to go to Rome, but he mentioned that they also had further instructions which should remain secret (and see BL Cotton Cleopatra E. ii, fos. 262–3).

³¹
ANLP
, nos. 316, 344; Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope’, 65–7.

³²
These letters ‘intimately concerning the estate of the king’ bore the seals of Arundel as chancellor, Bubwith himself as treasurer, and Langley as bishop of Durham (E 403/591, 1 June 1407). Bubwith was replaced at London by Richard Clifford, who in turn was replaced at Worcester by Thomas Peverel, both apparently without difficulty.

³³
The professions resulting from most of these promotions and translations in 1407 are to be found in Lambeth Palace Library, Arundel Register, i, fos. 37–42. Richard Young was finally admitted to Rochester on 2 March 1407.

³⁴
CPR 1405–8
, 426;
CPL
e face, the pope stated that Henry had Scrope executed in order to avoid further violence, and that the archbishop had been judged according to the law. There were no further episcopal casualties in England between 1407 and 1413.

³⁵
Usk
, xxvii.

³⁶
Nicholls succeeded Byford at Bangor; Chichele replaced Guy Mone, who died in 1407; and Zouche replaced Thomas Peverel, who was translated to Worcester. Trevaur continued to support Glyn Dŵr, and not until after his death in 1410 was the situation at St Asaph, in the heart of rebel territory, resolved with the provision of Robert Lancaster.

³⁷
However, Henry never secured a see for John Prophet, despite trying (Heath,
Church and Realm
, 267).

³⁸
In 1406 (probably the most lucrative year), 2,000 marks was paid into the king's chamber from the temporalities of York; 1,000 marks to the exchequer from Skirlaw's executors for Durham; and almost £600 in two tranches from London, again to the exchequer (E 401/638, 26 June, 28 July; E 401/639, 24 Oct.; E 403/589, 4 Dec.). The king also exercised his right of appointment while sees were vacant: for example, he made John Prophet dean of York in November 1406 (
CPR 1405–8
, 285).

³⁹
Gascoigne,
Loci e Libro
, 21–2; cf. Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope’, 69.

⁴⁰
Above, p. 120. M. Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism 1378–1409
(St Ottilien, 1983), 93–105.

⁴¹
Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 106–8, 117–23;
PROME
, viii.159.

⁴²
For Innocent's troubles in Rome, see
Usk
, 204–6; Wylie,
Reign of Henry IV
, iii.1–37, 337–71, describes Gregory's and Benedict's dealings with their cardinals 1406–9;
Monstrelet
, i.255–8, for the Paris council.

⁴³
E 403/587, 18 May 1406; E. Jacob,
Archbishop Henry Chichele
(London, 1967), 7–8; for Henry's letters, dated 18 January 1407, see
RHL
, i.141–3 and BL Cotton Cleopatra E ii, fos. 262–3.

⁴⁴
Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 8, 145, 193–4.

⁴⁵
Lunt,
Financial Relations
, ii.412–13; Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 133–46; the lords and knights were to communicate with convocation
pro unione ecclesie sancte celebrandum
(E 403/595, 11 July 1408).

⁴⁶
Records of Convocation
, iv.323–5. The upsurge of English interest is reflected in the chronicles, notably
SAC II
and
CE
, which until 1408 had said very little about the Schism, but in 1408–9 said a great deal about it.

⁴⁷
BL Harleian Ms 431, fos. 14r–v;
CE
, iii.412.

⁴⁸
Ugguccione made a great impression in England (
SAC II
, 538–57;
CE
, 412–13). At his arrival, Henry summoned his retainers to ride in the cardinal's
comitiva
, ‘for the king's honour’ (E 403/596, 8 Nov.). Ugguccione's retinue included 46 horses (E 404/24, no. 480).

⁴⁹
Foedera
, viii.551–60.

⁵⁰
SAC II
, 557–65.

⁵¹
The English sent some thirty-five delegates in all to Pisa, prelates, canonists and civil lawyers, chosen by the convocations and the king. Not all of them were reformist at heart, but most of the leaders were. It is not clear whether Ullerston's tract was actually taken to Pisa, but it was certainly written for
praesens concilium
and was commissioned by Hallum for that purpose (Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 151–65).

⁵²
After hearing of Alexander's election he wrote to him begging him to continue the council in order to address ‘certain detestable abuses’: E. Jacob,
Essays in the Conciliar Epoch
(Manchester, 1963), 74–84.

⁵³
Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 184–5.

⁵⁴
Jacob,
Chichele
, 10–13; Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 165–73; J. Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism’, in
The History of the University of Oxford II: Late Medieval Oxford
, ed. J. Catto and R. Evans (Oxford, 1992), 238–45.

⁵⁵
Below, pp. 368–72; for King's Bench overruling a papal privilege, see Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 390.

⁵⁶
Harvey,
Solutions to the Schism
, 2–3.

Chapter 24

HERESY, PIETY AND REFORM

Before 1399, Henry and Archbishop Arundel had shared much: high aristocratic birth, exceptional wealth, the empathy of rebellion, exile and restoration. After 1399, it was inevitable that differences would arise between them. As king, Henry wanted the Church not only to serve the spiritual needs of his subjects but also to use its power, wealth and privilege to uphold rather than subvert secular government. This meant principally making loans and granting taxation, acknowledging the king's interests in ecclesiastical appointments and clerical delinquency, and marshalling the Church's influence behind the government. In return, Arundel wanted the king to respect the Church's privileges and property and to help it suppress challenges to doctrinal orthodoxy. Both men also had constituencies to placate: the anticlerical and reformist elements at Henry's court, the doctrinally cautious and the champions of privilege within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Disagreements between king and Church were common enough in the Middle Ages, and if allowed to escalate could lead to a falling out between king and primate such as had occurred between Henry I and Anselm, Henry II and Becket, John and Langton, or Edward I and Winchelsey. Arundel had already fallen out with one king, Richard II, and there were probably many who expected him to fall out with a second, but personal affection and mutual respect as well as political necessity bound him and Henry together. The fact that they did not fall out played no small part in ensuring that both king and archbishop died in their beds and in office, although the compromises this involved did not come easily.

Issues such as episcopal appointments, the provisors legislation and clerical immunity from secular justice were symptomatic of the widespread belief by the late fourteenth century that the English Church was in need of reform, but how much and by whom were questions which threatened to destabilize the political community from the very start of the reign. To Arundel, the election of John Cheyne as speaker of the commons on 6 October 1399 was anathema, for, as he informed convocation the next day, Cheyne was one of several parliamentary knights known to be inimical to
the Church and would not hesitate to publicize its shortcomings. The articles drawn up in convocation a few days later went further: the laity, they claimed, was incorrigibly hostile towards the clergy and planned, under Lollard influence, to bring into parliament new constitutions against the Church, ‘which are not in truth constitutions but distractions, or rather they should rightly be called destructions’.
¹
A week later Cheyne resigned, ostensibly on grounds of ill health, but in reality because of Arundel's insistence that he was unacceptable; a noteworthy, if minor, early victory for the archbishop.
²

Convenient as it was to stigmatize them as such, most of those who advocated ecclesiastical reform were not Lollards. Radical beliefs such as the denial of papal authority, wholesale disendowment of clerical temporalities, the rejection of images, cults, pilgrimage, purgatory, clerical celibacy, baptism or even the Eucharistic miracle were the preserve of a Wyclifite rump which twenty years of inquisition and denunciation had effectively marginalized as a lunatic fringe.
³
Far more of a threat to the clerical establishment, because both more numerous and better connected, was the much larger body of faithful who advocated reform but stopped well short of outright Wyclifism. This included many within the Church: the sixty-three articles of the 1399 convocation expressed concern about the standard of the priesthood, the quality of preaching, the taking of excessive fees for wills and notarial instruments, the provision of parochial hospitality (especially when churches had been appropriated) and the misuse of revenues granted to hospitals and chantries.
⁴
Yet while internal reform was ever a work in progress, there were many laymen who believed that the half-popes of a divided Europe had lost the appetite for meaningful self-examination. This was one reason why Wyclif had insisted that responsibility for reform lay with the secular power, and although it was risky to make this point too openly it was, in practice, what king and parliament had already begun to do. As lay literacy spread and new, more individualistic, modes of religious observance fostered a more critical attitude towards the shortcomings of the clergy, laymen became increasingly involved in ecclesiastical affairs. The Lollard knights of Richard II's court
were products of this independent-minded class of literate and influential laymen, but for every knight or esquire prepared to risk the tag of Lollardy there were many more who shared some of their views but had no desire to be branded as heretics. Among these were the ‘parliamentary knights’ or ‘knights that never loved the church’ who so alarmed both bishops and chroniclers.