The formatting of the following text has been designed to match, as closely as a web browser will allow, that of the original. Thus, page headings are included with text and page numbers arranged differently for left and right facing pages as in the original. However, web browser references have been added to all page headings to support direct access to specific pages using the format #pnnn where nnn is the page number sought.
THE REGISTER OF
ADAM DE ORLETON
BISHOP OF HEREFORD
(A.D., 1317-1327).
TRANSCRIBED AND EDITED
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE
REV. A. T. BANNISTER, VICAR of EWYAS HAROLD.
Hereford:
1907.
WILSON AND PHILLIPS, PRINTERS, EIGN STREET.
PREFACE.
THE Editor wishes to acknowledge with grateful thanks the assistance which he has received from Miss K. S. Martin in transcribing the Register; from Miss F. L. MacLeod, who has compiled the Index; and from Canon Capes, General Editor of the Cantilupe Society's publications, whose kind help and advice have been constantly sought and freely given. To Canon Capes is mainly owing whatever degree of accuracy has been reached in the text of the Register. He has generously bestowed more time and thought upon another's work than most men devote to their own.
INTRODUCTION.
"The man's life in the letters of the man".
- A. Tennyson.
Of the earlier years of Adam de Orleton [1] practically nothing is known. Leland [2] giving a list of the Bishops of Hereford, names all the others, even St. Thomas Cantilupe, without note or comment: after the name of Orleton alone he adds the definite statement natus in Hereforde. Now Leland lived two centuries after Orleton, and is quite often wrong in his facts : but no assertion of Leland's can be entirely neglected, since he had access to sources of information now lost. When, therefore, he goes out of his way, as it were, to make the statement that Orleton was born in Hereford, we cannot lightly set it aside. As against this assertion of Leland's, however, it may be urged that, throughout a long life, Orleton was the devoted friend and adherent of Roger Mortimer, For Mortimer, when alive, he suffered much, both in material wealth and in reputation. And after Mortimer's death, when no one had a good word for the fallen favourite, Orleton seems to have cherished his memory, and long years afterwards was at least in full sympathy with the attack on one of those who had plotted the death of his friend, What more natural than to suppose that this devotion was, in part, at any rate, the ex- pression of territorial loyalty to the Lord on whose Manor of Orleton [3] he had been born, as he certainly took his name from
[1] Stubbs always writes Orlton; but Orleton is alike the ancient and the modern
spelling of the word. The future Bishop is first mentioned, as far as I know, in the
Worcester Diocesan Register, sede vacante, f. 17a, where he appears as Orletone. In the
Hereford Registers (the first mention is Swinfeld Reg., f. 171) he is always Orletone. And
the name of the village is still spelt Orleton. I have, therefore, retained this spelling
throughout.
[2] Itin. vili, 38. Fuller (Worthies, II, 74) and Godwin (Catalogue of Bishops) follow
Leland in this statement. In an anonymous MS. quoted by Leland (Col. I, 722) the Bishop
is called Adam de Hereford: - "Anno D. 1317, Joan. 22 pont. Ro. dedit episcopatum
Herefordie Magistro Ade de Hereford."
[3] Orleton - the Alreton of the Red Book of the Exchequer - has been shewn, by Mr.
J. Horace Round, to be the Auretone of Domesday, about two miles from the spot where
Richard, son of Scrob, some eighteen years before the Norman Conquest, had built one of
the earliest Castles in England. In the 13th century the Manor seems to have been held
from the Mortimers by a family bearing the name of Wake. It is valued, 34 Ed. III, at
sixty pounds.
ii Introduction.
it ? The presumptive evidence, however, of the name itself is not of much value, A hundred years earlier it would have been most unlikely that a man born in an important town should take his name from a comparatively insignificant hamlet, But surnames [1] in the modern sense of the word, were certainly coming into common use towards the end of the 13th century, And there would seem to be some evidence that a family, taking its name from the Mortimer Manor of Orleton, was already settled in Hereford in the middle of the 13th century. It is, however, not until the early years of the 14th century that the name begins commonly to occur in the records of Hereford. For friends and relatives began then to receive a helping hand from their successful kinsman, and we soon find Richard, Reginald, Thomas, Henry, John, and William de Orleton holding leading positions in the town. [2]
These considerations stated, we must leave open the question whether Adam de Orleton was born at Orleton, or in Hereford itself - whether Leland's statement is literally correct, or whether, perhaps, it is to be taken in a general sense, as implying that Adam de Orleton was Bishop in his native county or diocese. It is highly probable, in any case, from his close connection with the Mortimers, and his life-long devotion to their house, that one of the Mortimer family [3] was the boy's patron in early years, If born in Hereford, the young Adam would have obtained the rudiments of learning in the school attached to the Cathedral, Thence, with some assistance from his patron, he would pass to Oxford, and, later on, to Paris or Orleans. We may hope that the help of Mortimer, and his own shrewdness and ability, saved the young scholar from the necessity of joining those bands of needy students who used to go in procession through the streets of Paris, crying "Pain por Dien aus escoliers".
But all this, though highly probable, is based on mere conjecture. What we know for certain is that, in the year 1307, Orleton is officially styled utriusque juris peritus [4] - well versed in -
[1] The custom of using surnames seems to have begun about the middle of the 11th
century: but it made its way so gradually that, even at the close of the 12th century, it
had not spread beyond the ranks of the higher nobility. During the next hundred years
the people, as a whole, slowly adopted the use of family names.
[2] A certain Nicholas de Orleton, also, is pardoned, on Oct. 16th, 1301, for the death
of Robert Dale, of Kilpeck. But of him nothing more is heard.
[3] Presumably Edmund, the seventh Lord of Wigmore, father of Roger IV, Queen
Isabella's favourite, and our Bishop's life-long friend.
[4] Rymer, Foed, (ed. 1818) II, 20.
Early years. iii
Civil and in Canon Law, This, of necessity, implies a University education: but it probably also implies that he had not yet received the degree of Doctor - which, in Canon Law at any rate, he certainly had obtained three years later. For, in 1310, John Drokensford, Bishop of Bath and Wells, writes of him as professor juris canonici [1], and again, in 1312, in a letter of the King's, he is styled juris canonici professor. [2] "A cette epoque", says Verlagne, [3] "un docteur en theologie, en medicine, en droit, quittait rarement les bancs avant d'avoir atteint trente ans". We are justified, then, in concluding that in 1310, or even in 1307, Orleton was at least thirty years old. He would, therefore, have been born in or before 1277, probably some years earlier than that date, since he must have had some experience of official life and work before being sent, in 1307, on his first mission to the Pope. [4] Be that as it may, in 1301, when we first meet with his name, Master Adam de Orleton was one of the clerks of Robert of Gloucester, Chancellor of Hereford. [5] In May of this year, when only a sub-deacon, [6] he is instituted to the Rectory of Wotton-juxta-Wyngeswode, in the gift of the Abbot and Convent of St. Augustine, of Bristol. [7] In or before 1307 Orleton became one of the King's Clerks, In that day, the road to promotion lay through the service of the Crown. The clergy, being the educated class, were useful as lawyers, administrators, and diplomatists, and their wages could be paid, without expense to the king, by means of Church preferment, This, of necessity, produced a type of ecclesiastic such as we find, under the Plantagenet kings, holding many of the highest offices in the Church: able administrators, shrewd men of the world, secular-minded rather than saintly, and not always perhaps overscrupulous - indistinguishable, in short, in matters of morals and conscience, from the lay Barons with whom they lived and worked, And of this type Adam de Orleton was perhaps the most dis- tinguished example.
When King Edward I. died (July 7, 1307) Orleton was at once singled out by the new government as a capable man for
[1] Drokensford Reg. f. 33a.
[2] Rymer, Foed. II, 162. Cf. Robert of Oraystanes (Angl. Sac. 1) p. 261.
[3] Jean XX't. p. 27.
[4] Adam de Murimouth (Rolls ed.) p. 172. chronicling Orleton's death (July 18th, 1345)
says that he was then senex et plenus dierum.
[5] Worcester Reg., sede vacante, f. 17a.
[6] He obtained a licence next year (6 Kal. Ap. 1302) to be presented to deacon's orders
by any Bishop in the Province of Canterbury, since the See of Worcester was then vacant.
[7] Giffard, Reg., f. 464.
iv Introduction.
delicate diplomatic work, He must, then, already have proved himself as tactful, prudent, and business-like, as he was hereafter shown to be strong, resourceful, and indomitable of purpose. Even in these early days, Orleton was no favourite with Edward II. Brainless and pleasure-loving clerics such as his relative, Louis de Beaumont, or his tutor, Walter Reynolds, were more to the taste of the young King. But Edward had at least sense enough to recognise that the man who went to represent him at the Papal Curia must know a little Latin, and have some acquaintance with the subtleties of diplomacy. Hence he kept his favourites with himself at home, while Adam de Orleton, with his friend and colleague, Adam de Murimouth, and others of like stamp, were employed almost continuously at the Papal Court. Orleton's first commission is dated Dec. 12, 1307, [1] when he receives letters of commendation to the Pope, with the object of promoting the Canonization of Bishop Cantilupe. Clement V, [2] Pope "par la grace de Dien et de Philippe-le-bel", had not yet adopted Avignon as his place of residence, but was leading "cette vie errante, vagabonde, et inquiete, qui caracterise ce juif-errant couronne" [3]. Orleton found him, early in 1308, at Poictiers, practically a captive of Philippe- le-bel. The English King, on April 15, 1308, writes to thank the Pope for the kind reception [4] he had given to the young diplomat, ut intelleximus intervenientium affatibus nuntiorum. [5]
From this time onwards, until his appointment to the Bishopric of Hereford in 1317, Orleton spent much of his time at the Court of the Pope, travelling back to England once or twice each year. He seems to have been paid by the King - somewhat irregularly - at the rate of 200 marks a year, [6] besides the ecclesiastical
[1] Rymer, Foed. II, i, 20.
[2] Clement had been elected Pope in 1305, and was enthroned at Lyons, on Nov. 14
in the same year, the first Pope to be crowned out of Italy.
[3] Andre, "La papaute a Avignon", p. 38.
[4] Throughout his reign Clement V was friendly to Edward II, who - though he was
then only Prince of Wales, and deeply in debt - had sent him, on his election as Pope, the
most magnificent and costly presents. He steadily appointed the King's favourites to
Bishoprics, and completed his subservience in 1313, by promoting the worthless Reynolds
to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, annulling the election of Thomas Cobham by the
Chapter. It was asserted, however, that this business cost Edward 32,000 marks in bribery.
[5] Rymer, Foed. II, i, 49.
[6] On AprIl 24, 1312, we find the King granting the custody of the lands of John de
Grey, of Rotherfeld, in Duston, co. Northampton, a minor, to Adam de Orleton "until he
is satisfied in the sum of 100 marks which the King is indebted to him for his wages for
half-a-year". Orleton, on Dec. 10, makes this over to William de Ayremynne, King's clerk
(afterwards Bishop of Norwich) who, for 60 marks paid into the treasury, obtains an
extension of the custody for ten years.
Orleton in Avignon. v
preferment which he obtained. We can trace his journeyings to and fro in Rymer, and in the Patent and Close Rolls of these years. In March, 1309, Walter Reynolds, then Bishop of Worcester, goes with him on his return to the Papal Court, which Clement at length (on the Octave of Epiphany, 1309) had definitely located at Avignon.
When Reynolds and Orleton arrived, a few months after the Pope had taken up his residence there, Avignon was a small and unimportant town, which, hitherto, had only been inhabited by a few fishermen and sailors. But the stream of gold which now began to pour into it soon transformed it into a city of palaces and churches, rivalling in magnificence even the Rome of the Renaissance. The vast fortress-palace of the Popes - "la plus belle et la plus forte maison du monde", as Froissart calls it - on which, from 1336 onwards, Benedict XII and his successors spent the fortune amassed by John XXII, was not yet erected. But the Cathedral, Notre Dame des Doms, had already been re-built; and the convents and churches were even now springing up, which, by the incessant ringing of their bells, caused Rabelais, two centuries later, to give to Avignon the name of "isle sonnante".
Much of the year 1310 was spent by Orleton at Avignon, though in March, and again in September, he was in England. In this year he obtained preferment to a Canonry at Wells. He procured from the Pope, before returning to England in March, a letter of provision, collating him to the "next stall in Wells, not bursal". On receiving this letter, Bishop Drokensford, on March 29, admitted him in canonicum, quantum in se fuit, and on the same day writes enjoining the Dean and Chapter to install him quantum ad eos pertinet. No stall was vacant, however, before September; and Orleton, until that date, held the Canonry without a Prebend. On September 2nd, Drokensford, from his house at Greenwich, writes to the Dean of Wells [1] that he has admitted Adam de Orleton (here first styled professor juris canonici) to the Prebend of Wandestre, and instructs the Dean to induct him. This was done within the month.
In July, 1311, Orleton, at Avignon, is arranging with the Cardinals for suitable quarters to be assigned to the English envoys at the Council of Vienne, which was to meet on Oct. 1. [2] In the
[1] Reg. f. 33a.
[2] Rymer. Foed. II. a 132.
vi Introduction.
autumn, the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, attended by Otto de Grandison and another knight, came to Avignon, on business connected with the Scotch troubles; and Orleton, by this time Canon also of Hereford, [1] receives letters of credence with them, dated October 10, 1311. [2] During this mission Orleton is made Papal Chaplain, [3] and returns to England as the bearer of the Pope's letter, urging the King in the matter of Scotland. He reached Edward, at Westminster, on December 16, [4] and seems to have remained in England for the next four months, returning to Avignon in April, 1312 - taking with him, this time, letters of strong personal recommendation from the King to the Pope's Confessor, to his Chamberlain, and to five other Cardinals, as well as a special letter to the Pope himself. [5] At the close of the year, Orleton is once again in England, where he seems to have remained until early in 1314. On Friday, the morrow of Ascension Day, 1313, we find him, with Richard de Bello, Archdeacon of Bucks and Canon of Hereford (author also of the "Mappa Mundi"), attending as proxy for Bishop Swinfield, disabled by reason of illness [6] at a provincial Council [7] held in the chapter-house of St. Paul's. [8] In this same year the controversy between the Friars and the University of Oxford, which began in 1311 by the appeal of the Friars to the Pope, complaining of certain acts of oppression on the part of the University, was submitted to arbitration, and Gilbert de Middleton, one of the four arbitrators, appointed Orleton to be his proctor in the case. [9]
[1] The following heading occurs on f. 171 of the Swinfield Register: Prebenda collata
Magistro Ade de Orletone. But the entry has been carefully erased, the first word Memo
only being left. The entry preceding this is dated 8 Id. Feb., 1310. We may, therefore,
conclude that it was in 1310 that Orleton obtained the Hereford Prebend.
[2] Rymer, Foed. II, i. 145.
[3] This was a purely honorary office, which, however, conferred certain privileges, and
was much sought after. Walter Disse, towards the end of the century, was empowered to
sell for Pope Urban VI fifty appointments to this office.
[4] Rymer, Foed. II. i, 152.
[5] Rymer, Foed. II, 1, 162.
[6] Bishop Swinfield, vir jocundus in verbis et egregius predicator (Walsing, Hist.
Ans. I, 24), was a stay-at-home prelate, who made his weak health an excuse for non-
attendance at parliaments and councils. He was, however, an excellent Bishop,
administering both the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Diocese with zeal and success,
and tactfully settling the many disputes into which St. Thomas - hot-headed in spite of his
holiness - had plunged the See.
[7] Swinf. Reg. f. 186.
[8] It is perhaps worth noting that, in this year 1313, Francesco Petrarca - then a boy
nine years old - entered Avignon for the first time. Since the elder Petrarch was a lawyer
who did business for the Pope, it is just possible that the boy may have met Orleton, even
in these early days. They would almost certainly have known each other later on, though
having, of course, little in common.
[9] Collectanea, Oxf. Hist. Soc., II. 266.
Orleton's preferments. vii
On March 4, 1314, Orleton, "going to the Court of Rome on business enjoined him", appoints as his attorneys, until Michaelmas, Richard de Bykerton and Reginald de Orleton. [1] On April 20, soon after Orleton's arrival in Avignon, Clement V. died [2] and, within a month, twenty-three Cardinals came together at Carpentras to elect his successor. Two months were passed in disputes, intrigues, and violent recriminations: until, on July 23, the nephew of the dead Pope, with his men-at-arms, broke up the Conclave by force. It is highly probable that Orleton, who was "at the Court of Rome" all this summer, was present at this Conclave, where he may possibly have met Dante and other Italian exiles. Two years of trouble and discord followed. But even through these years of strife the business of state had, somehow, to be got through: and Orleton spent most of the year 1315 at Avignon, returning to England in the autumn, but setting out again to the Papal Court immediately after Christmas. [3]
During these years of absence at the Papal Court Orleton retained, of course, his English preferments. Rector of Wotton, Canon of Hereford and of Wells, he was now also Rector of Acle, in the Diocese of Norwich, to. which was soon added the Rectory of Hanwell, in Oxfordshire. It must be remembered that no discredit attached to him as a pluralist. Grosseteste, it is true, had, more especially in the last three years of his life (1250-1253), protested vigorously against the Papal Provisions - the root out of which the system grew - and had definitely given as the ground of his opposition the fact that non quaerebant nisi temporalia. But, though this bold protest from the foremost Bishop of his day had compelled the Pope (in the Bull issued Nov. 3, 1253, about a month after Grosseteste's death) to recognise the principle for which Grosseteste had contended, yet in practice the system remained unchanged. Even saintly men like Thomas Cobham - "the good parson", consecrated with Orleton at Avignon - could hold, as he did, four livings and three canonries, while he was at the same time Precentor, Sub-Dean, and Archdeacon in different dioceses
[1] This is probably the same Reginald de Orleton who. on Feb. 23. 1302, was
pardoned by the King for the death of Simon de Lastres. In Nov., 1314, Adam de Odeon is
again in England for a few weeks, and returns to Avignon in company with Adam de
Murimouth.
[2] Octo annis et amplius Papa Clemens quintus universalem rexit ecclesiam, sed
quicquid profuit homini evasit memoriam. Auct. Malmes. (Rolls series), 142.
[3] His safe-conduct, until Michaelmas of 1313, is dated Dec. 26. 1315.
viii Introduction.
It was usual to obtain from the Pope, on payment of a small fee, a dispensation permitting this irregularity. Orleton's dispensation (dated 16 Kal. Dec., 1316) allows him to retain all his preferments on payment "before next Easter" of the first- fruits of Acle.
At last, in August, 1316, the Cardinals, reassembled at Lyons, elected as Pope Jacques Dense, Cardinal Bishop of Porto, and, before that, of Avignon. In the latter capacity, as Bishop of Avignon, he had been practically Secretary of State to the previous Pope, his unique knowledge of civil and canon law rendering his decision final on all legal points. He made his solemn entry into Avignon, as Pope John XXII, on Oct. 2. This appointment made an immense difference in Orleton's position and prospects, for the new Pope had known and valued Orleton since 1310. Able and energetic himself, he had at once recognised the energy and ability of the young English diplomat. And now, on his accession to the Papacy, he appointed Orleton to the office of auditor in curia. [1] The rapacity, the unblushing simony, and the open immorality of the Avignon Popes, in their splendid vassalage to France, had not yet become a bye-word in Europe. It was later in the century that the English Parliament branded the Papal Court as "la peccherouse cite d'Avenon." John XXII, the active and tireless old man, who, elected Pope when 72 years old, aspired for 18 years to rule Europe from his throne in Avignon, was not, as Clement V. had been, the miserable slave of the French King, tortured by the ever-present reproaches of his conscience. He was austere and narrow-minded, it may be - rapacious also and grasping, though not for himself. He was profoundly convinced that the temporal power throughout the world belonged, by right divine, to the Roman Pontiff. With him the appropriation of benefices by reservation or provision [2] was not, as some have asserted, a sordid scheme for making money, but part of his well-organised plan for reversing the humiliation of the Papacy at Anagni, and winning for it the sovereignty of the world. If he had had to deal with Philippe-le-bel, a man as able and unscrupulous as himself, he might have failed. But Philippe had followed Clement to the grave within a few months, leaving
[1] I.e. one of the twelve Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice in the Roman system.
For the appointment see Robert of Graystanes, 761.
[2] John XXII carried this long-established practice of the Popes to an extreme which
led him, in Hallam's words, to "reserve to himself all the Bishoprics of Christendom".
Orleton in Avignon. ix
his three sons - cursed, as was universally believed, with barrenness and incapacity, by the curse of the dying Templars - to follow one another on the throne in miserable and inglorious sovereignty. John XXII, ruling them, and France through them, and alternately indulging and snubbing the feeble English King, was free to devote his best energies to the task of humbling the Emperor - a task, however, which he left still unaccomplished at his death.
It was soon recognised in England that Orleton was a special favourite with the new Pope, and the list of applicants to him to use his influence on their behalf is a long one. In the early part of the year 1317 he seems to have been continuously occupied in obtaining grants. The King writes to him on Dec. 25, 1316, [1] urging him to do everything possible to secure the success of a mission he is sending to the Pope in the spring - the Bishops of Norwich and Ely, with the Earl of Pembroke and Lord Badlesmere, were the envoys. Their business was threefold - to obtain a grant of the Holy Land Tenth for the King, to secure absolution for Edward from his oath to observe the Ordinances [2] and, in the matter of the cess, to satisfy the Pope, who, in a mandate issued on Nov. 18, 1316, had demanded the arrears for twenty-six years. They obtained the Tenth, but failed to secure for the King absolution from his oath. As to the cess, Pembroke and Badlesmere, on April 1, paid 1,000 marks for the year 1317, and "in the chamber of Cardinal de Pel, and in the presence of Adam de Orleton", swore, on behalf of the King, to pay the arrears, in four yearly instalments. Within a fortnight of this date, Orleton is instrumental in procuring no less than twelve Papal letters of provision to various preferments in England. Of these, we need only mention, as relating to our diocese, a Canonry of Hereford [3] assigned to John de Bruneshope, one of Pembroke's clerks; a Canonry of Chichester to James de Berkeley (another of Pembroke's clerks, who was already Canon of Exeter, Wells, Hereford, St.
[1] Rymer, Foed. II. i, 305.
[2] It will, of course, be remembered that, within three years of his coming to the
throne, Edward's utter incapacity for ruling had caused the Barons to draw up a set of
Ordinances for reforming the Government, and even the King's household. Edward, though
he complained that he was treated like an idiot (sicut providetur fatuo, Auct. Malmes. 174),
nevertheless accepted and swore to obey these Ordinances, on Oct. 5, 1311.
[3] Said to be worth "ten pounds of Tours". Another Hereford Prebend is returned at
£27. Orleton's Canonry in Wells is worth 8 marks, and Richard de Bello's Hereford
Prebend is valued at no more than six shillings.
x Introduction.
David's, and Bosham); and a Canonry of "Brobbiart" [1] for Baldwin de Wycteney. Mindful of his own relations also, Orleton secures a Canonry of St. Mary's, Darlington, for John de Orleton, already Rector of Aishoby, in the diocese of Carlisle, and of Tidrinton, in that of Worcester.
Meanwhile, at home in England, Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, had died, on March 15, 1317. The King at once wrote to the Pope, asking him to appoint Thomas de Charleton to the vacant See. But the Pope, wishing to have a strong and capable man, personally devoted to himself, among the English Bishops, gave Orleton the preferment, the deed of appointment being signed on May 15. Concurrent letters were sent, on the same day, to the Chapter of Hereford, to the clergy and people of the Diocese, to the vassals of the Bishopric, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the King. Fearing that this might happen - for Edward had already heard that Orleton was high in favour with the new Pope - the King writes, on May 6th, a more urgent letter, strongly pressing the claims of Charleton, and warning the Pope that if, quod absit, he promoted Orleton to the Bishopric, illud, quibusdam de causis quas ad presens subticemus, nobis grave videretur, nec illud possemus pro honore nostro quomodolibet tolerare. [2] This letter he sent to Avignon by the hand of John de Hildesle. On May 9 he writes also to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, asking them to proceed at once to the election of the new Bishop, with private letters to the Canons individually, urging them to procure Charleton's election. It would seem, however, that the Chapter, already aware of the new Pope's policy of reservation, did not proceed to an election.
As well as the letter to the Pope, John de Hildesle carried with him to Avignon a letter from the King to Orleton himself, forbidding him to accept the Bishopric. In this letter the King says: Ob aliquas certas causas, quas ad presens subticemus de vobis presertim isto tempore nullatenus confidimus: and further, of Orleton's promotion to the Bishopric, si ita fieret, juri corone nostre regie derogaretur. Finally he commands him, if by chance promotion to the said Bishopric should be offered him, not to give his consent "as he values his own peace and advancement, and that of his friends". [3]
[1] Bromyard.
[2] Rymer, Foed. II, 328.
[3] Rymer, Foed. II, I. 328.
Orleton made Bishop of Hereford. xi
Before this letter could reach Avignon, [1] Orleton, though scarcely yet convalescent from a severe illness which, in April, had interrupted his work, had been consecrated, on May 22, by Nicholas Albertini, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Thomas Cobham, the elect of Worcester, was consecrated with him. Since Avignon in summer, sine vento venenosa, was not considered good for one in his state of health, he was allowed to leave the Papal Court at once, without even taking the oath of fealty to the Pope. [2] Before leaving, however, he managed to secure, of the five preferments he was vacating, two for members of his family. Thomas de Orleton obtained the Rectory of Acle, [3] and John de Orleton, already Canon of Hereford, secured the Prebend of Wells. Wotton went to a foreign Cardinal, Bertrand, of St. Mary's in Aquiro.
Reaching England before the end of June, Orleton, on the 30th, made his profession of obedience to the Archbishop, coram magno altari in ecclesia Cantuariensi cum processione solemn in primo adventu suo, and on July 2, at Lambeth, he received the spiritualia of the See at the hands of the Archbishop. The King, who was already accustomed to have his requests ignored by the new Pope, soon forgave the infringement of the "rights of the crown". Moreover, since Orleton was now probably the ablest of English diplomatists, and was known to be a special favourite with John XXII, his services could scarcely be dispensed with. So Edward accepted the situation, and allowed him to receive the temporalities, at Nottingham, on July 24. [4] The enthronement at Hereford did not take place until Oct. 1, the Sunday after Michaelmas Day.
When Orleton returned to England as Bishop of Hereford, the condition of the country was lamentable in the extreme. Nine years before, soon after Edward's accession, Walter Stapledon, Bishop of Exeter, friend to the King though he was, and fated in the end to die for him, had written to a foreign Cardinal, Pessima sunt tempora in Anglia his diebus, et multi timent deteriora in
[1] From a comparison of the dates of the various letters which were continually
passing to and fro, it would seem that the journey from England to Avignon took from 17
to 20 days.
[2] The dispensation for this irregularity was not granted until 19 Kal. Feb., 1320.
[3] The Letter of Provision is dated 6 Id. June, after the new Bishop had left Avignon.
[4] On the same day a mandate is issued to Robert Broun, guardian of the Bishopric,
to hand over the temporalities of the See.
xii Introduction.
futuris. [1] His forebodings were only too true: things had indeed gone from bad to worse. For some years before 1317, the government - so far as there was any government - had been practically in the hands of Edward's jealous cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, [2] a cruel, treacherous, and violent man, only less incompetent than Edward himself. Lancaster's every action was determined by personal aims and personal grievances ; and his selfish, short-sighted policy was as great a misfortune to the country as the obstinate folly of the King. [3] In the summer of 1317, the long-standing differences between Edward and his powerful kinsman had brought about a state of almost open war. Each had gathered together a strong force, and for months they lay watching each other, ready to fight at any moment. On the King's side were only incompetent fools, such as the Archbishop, [4] or greedy and insolent favourites like the Despensers. Lancaster, had he been an abler and more patriotic man, could have formed a strong popular party - the party of freedom, inheriting the great traditions of Simon de Montfort. Being what he was, a parody rather than a follower of the great Earl, he had only the adventitious support of the Marcher Lords, Humphrey Bohun, John Giffard, and the Mortimers, who had their own reasons, at times, for going against the King. [5] Between the two factions stood a middle party - Pembroke, who was perhaps personally loyal to his kinsman the King, and still cherished resentment against Lancaster for the dishonour done to his word by the execution, in 1312, of Gaveston, though he had Pembroke's pledge of safe-conduct ; Badlesmere, a bitter personal enemy of Earl Thomas; and D'Amory, who sought only to secure, against Despenser's greed, his succession to the Gloucester honours. These three, in the November of this year, bound themselves by an indenture to an alliance for gaining supreme influence in the Royal Council, as against Lancaster and the Despensers alike.
Adam de Orleton favoured none of these parties. He had two loyalties, and to these he was true through life, in spite of
[1] Reg. Stap. (ed. Hingeston-Randolph), p. 12.
[2] He was the son of the great Lord Edmund of Lancaster, brother of Edward I, and
Lord of the Three Castles. To this day several of the roadside inns in the neighbourhood
of Grosmont are called "The Lancaster Arms".
[3] The Malmesbury writer (p. 245) charges Lancaster also with high treason; alleging
that, in 1919, he was bribed by the Scotch with £40,000, to allow their army to escape back
to Scotland.
[4] Homo quasi illiteratus, et, secundum judicium hominum, tam ration vite
quam scientie omni gradu dignitatis indignus. Chron. Lanercost, 222.
[5] In 1318, however, Roger Mortimer, of Wigmore, seems to have attached himself
loosely to Pembroke's party. It was the seizure of Gower by the younger Despenser which,
as we shall see, drove him to side with Lancaster, thus bringing about the war of 1322.
Orleton's attitude towards the King. xiii
much obloquy and suffering - to John XXII, his friend and patron on the Papal throne, and to Roger Mortimer, the son and successor of that Lord of Wigmore, who had been the patron of his youth. To Edward, from the first, he neither felt nor owed any gratitude. He had, it is true, been employed by the King, but only because he was quite one of the ablest men in a reign not rich in talent. But a friend to the King he had never been, and it is to his credit that this is so. For, of the clergy, the chosen friends of Edward - rex illiterates as he was - were such as Hugh of Eversden, the Abbot of St. Albans, who parum nactus de Latino nihil plus timuit quam Latinam linguam; or Louis de Beaumont, who, reading, in the Ordination Service, I Cor. 12, and stumbling over in enigmate, was heard to mutter "Par Saynt Louis il ne fu pas curtays qui cent parole icy escrit"; [1] or Walter Reynolds - not the unattractive Reynolds of later years, so pitifully weak and foolish, but the youthful Reynolds, who won the Prince's favour by his aptitude for private theatricals. [2] It speaks well for Orleton that his preferment came to him from the Pope, not from the King, who, says the Bridlington writer, [3] indignos et ineptos ad gradus ecclesiasticos promovit, qui postea angustiis non affuerunt. Orleton, therefore, had not to feel, like Stratford, that he had obtained his See by an act of gross treachery - had not even to feel, as Becket, 150 years earlier had felt, that, in accepting a Bishopric, he had changed masters. For his master from the first, as Edward's letters frankly recognise, had been the Pope.
Orleton had received the temporalities on July 24, and four days afterwards he is summoned to send his service to the muster at Newcastle-on-Tyne against the Scots. About the same time a royal brief is forwarded to him, demanding payment of the tenth, which, at Orleton's request, the Pope had granted to the King in the early part of the year. On Aug. 1, the Bishop is again called upon for this payment, "as the King greatly needs money". [4] The Papal envoys in England, Cardinals Gaucelin and Luke de Flisco,
[1] Louis de Beaumont's preferment to the Bishopric of Durham, in 1318, cost the royal
families of England and France, to both of which he was related, vast sums in bribery.
[2] In ludis theatralibus principatum tenuit, et kr hoc regis favorem obtinuit.
Auct. Malmes., 142.
[3] Brid. (Rolls series), 91.
[4] He owed, among other debts, £3035 12s, 01/2d. to certain "merchant vintners of the
Duchy of Aquitaine", for enormous quantities of wine, and they, pressing for payment,
received a grant from this tenth, which the Pope had trustfully given on the
understanding "that the said King wishes to follow in his father's footsteps and come to the
rescue of the Holy Land".
xiv Introduction.
also wrote asking for procurations. The Dean and Chapter wrote to the Bishop to protest against collecting these imposts. Orleton writes in reply that the claims are legal, and must be paid, adding that he will shortly come to the diocese, when he will help them in the matter. [1] In this, the Bishop's first important letter, as in all which follow, we can read the character of the man: clear, direct, and business-like, he knows what he means, and says it, without ambiguity, and without verbosity - in striking contrast to the involved and tortuous phraseology of some of his correspondents - notably the Archbishop - who, in sentences all but interminable, seem to lose what purpose they had, and reach at length an end, with next to nothing said.
It is not clear why the Bishop, after receiving the temporalities on July 24, delayed so long at Thame before proceeding to his diocese. About the middle of September, however, he set out, by way of Evesham, for his Herefordshire manor of Sugwas, which he reached on the 18th; the enthronization took place on Sunday, Oct. 1; and, after spending the rest of the month at Sugwas, on diocesan business of various interest and importance, the Bishop went to London, ob causam rationabilem - what the exact business was we are left to conjecture - leaving Richard Vernon, his "official", as Vicar-general. Returning to the Marches towards the end of January, 1318, Orleton set about a systematic visitation of the diocese, beginning with the Forest Deanery. Before the end of February, however, the visitation work was interrupted by another journey to London, this time to resist an act of spoliation. In the episcopal manor of Lydbury North were three little vills, Muleton, Chastroke, and Aston, which long ago, in 1263, had been claimed by the Constable of Montgomery as part of that Honour, [2] and for a time had been alienated from the Bishopric. They had been recovered and held by Bishop Swinfield; but, on his death, Hugh de Audeley had seized the three villa, and "does not permit the eschaetor or his sub-eschaetor in those parts to intermeddle with the said vills". An inquisition proved that they belonged to the Bishopric, and, on March 1, Orleton obtains from the King, at Westminster, an order to Hugh D'Audeley "not to intermeddle
[1] On Feb. 3 of next year £900 was sent to the King, and a further sum of £80 on
May 4.
[2] See Capes, Introduction to Cant. Reg., p. xxvii.
The Papal Constitution. xv
with" the vills. [1] For these and other needful expenses, the Bishop is compelled to borrow, on this visit to London, £18 13s. 9d. from John de Bureford, £20 from Galfrid Heieham, and £20 from his tenant of Montalt, Hamo de Chigwell.
Scarcely had the Bishop resumed the interrupted visitation, when he is again summoned to London - this time for a meeting of the Bishops, to consider the state of things brought about in the English Church by the Papal Constitution. By this the new Pope had ordered pluralists to vacate all their benefices save one: and each Diocesan was required to make a return of the names and value of these benefices. In consequence of the stringency of the Constitution, many parishes were left without curates, "the service of God is everywhere neglected, no hospitality of any kind is kept up, and the devotion of the lay-people to the Church is growing utterly lukewarm, or vanishing altogether". So the Bishops of the Southern Province complain in a joint letter which, on May 30, they address to the Pope, praying him to "make provision for these English churches thus widowed". Orleton signed the letter with the other Bishops [2] although, with his usual energy, he seems to have been quite prepared himself to arrange for filling the vacancies which had occurred in his diocese. [3]
On June 16, the Bishop (with Sir John Abel and Master Richard Burton, clerk) is commissioned by the King to proceed to the French Court, and perform on Edward's behalf the homage due to the new French King for the Duchy of Aquitaine. Owing to some informality in their commission Philip postponed receiving the homage; and the envoys, arranging to be back with new credentials before Sept. 8, returned [4] to the English King at Nottingham, just in time for Orleton to take his part in the agreement
[1] How the matter ended is uncertain. It would seem that D'Audeley did not obey
this mandate; for an undated memorandum in the Close Rolls - evidently later than this
order - states that Orleton appointed Roger de Walynton and William Body "to prosecute
and defend in chancery the matter of the detinue of certain lands of the Bishop by Hugh
D'Audeley the elder. Constable of Montgomery". But, in 1322, the Bishop and D'Audeley
are working harmoniously together in opposition to the Despensers.
[2] The letter is signed by all the Bishops of the Province except three - the See of
Rochester was vacant, and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Llandaff were abroad.
[3] Thus on Dec. 18, the Bishop removed the Rector of Kington, as a pluralist, notified
the Earl of Hereford, as patron, and called on him at once to appoint a new Rector.
[4] A document in the Register is dated on June 29 from Rue in Ponthieu, on this return journey.
xvi Introduction.
at Leek, on Aug. 9. [1] He was appointed one of the standing committee of twelve, de discretioribus totius regni, [2] six of whom were to be always in attendance on the King. Scarcely was this arrangement completed when Orleton receives instructions to return to the French Court, not on the business of the homage (which is postponed until after the meeting of Parliament in November), but to complain of the injuries done to the subjects of the English King in Aquitaine.
Before the end of October the Bishop is back in his diocese, pushing on with the interrupted visitation, which by the middle of November he had completed. He thereupon issued a Commission for the " reform, correction, and punishment of the excesses, wrong-doings, and shortcomings " which he had discovered. He found that in many parishes the Rectors were non- resident, without dispensation, and the glebe-houses out of repair. And on Oct. 27 he issued a stringent order that all his clergy should be back in their parishes, and the buildings of the benefices put into good repair, within two months from that date.
Meanwhile constant complaints were reaching the Bishop concerning the scandalous irregularities at Wigmore, which threatened to end in the dissolution of that monastery, unless speedy and drastic reforms were carried out. He writes a stern letter to the Abbot that " on Thursday, the morrow of St. Nicholas, if the Lord will, we propose to visit you in head and members." Owing to press of other diocesan work, however, he did not reach Wigmore until after Christmas. He found that the state of things in the abbey was even worse than report had said. The refectory, it appeared, was open at all hours, and to all comers, the members of the convent, together with their friends from outside, coming in to carouse at whatever hour they chose; and, after grumbling at the food, they either stayed on in the refectory, or went in little groups to other rooms, to drink. Some had their relatives and friends for indefinite periods as guests of the monastery. Others, again, pleading illness, but not going to the infirmary, had their
[1] This compromise at Leek marks the triumph of the "middle party" which, for the next three years, practically controlled the government; Lancaster ostentatiously holding himself aloof, and the King and the Despensers feeling their way towards the re-establishment in power of the Court party. Orleton's friends, the Mortimers and Humphrey Bohun, acted at this time with this "middle" group, and Orleton became the trusted agent of the party. Hence his two years' absence from his Diocese on diplomatic work.
[2] Auct. Malms., p. 236.
The Correction of Wigmore. xvii
meals served apart. Women frequented the abbey, and joined in these revels. On various feigned excuses, the Canons regularly absented themselves from the services of the Church, and omitted to celebrate their masses. Instead of the silence which should be kept in church, cell, refectory, and dormitory, shameful oaths could be heard everywhere. Beyond the abbey doors (which would seem to have stood continually open) the Canons trafficked like laymen in horses, pigs, sheep, and greyhounds. The Bishop acted with vigour and sternness. The Abbot, who had been the leader in all this lawlessness, was deposed; two of the worst offenders were exiled to other monasteries; and stringent regulations were drawn up for the future conduct of the house, to which the Bishop, setting aside the rights of the convent to elect, appointed on his own authority, as new Abbot, the Prior of Wormesley, a man as wise and strong and prudent as he was pious and saintly.
With the new year (1319) the Bishop is commissioned to proceed to the Papal Court, receiving on Jan. 1 letters of credit to the Pope and Cardinals on certain matters secretius exponenda. At the same time, mindful of the needs of his diocese, Orleton obtained a letter from the King to the Pope pressing for the canonization of Thomas Cantilupe, and letters to various Cardinals urging them to further the business. He left Dover on the last day of February, and was not back in England until February, 1320. During most of this time he resided in the Priory of St. Rufus, near Avignon, engaged in diplomatic work, of which the details may be found in Rymer. He did not, however, neglect the interests of his diocese, as the entries in the Register for this year sufficiently prove. [1]
On Jan. 12, 1320, John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, died; and Edward at once writes from York to Orleton, urging him with all speed to lay before the Pope the King's strong desire for the promotion of Burghersh, the nephew of Lord Badlesmere, who, with Pembroke, had now most influence over the policy of the King. About the middle of February, however, Orleton returned to London without securing the desired appointment. He brought with him a letter, in which the Pope writes that he has ordered
[1] As throwing light upon Orleton's true character, I would draw especial attention to an entry under date Nov. 4. 1319. The man who, in the press of work at the Papal court, could borrow, and presumably read, the books given in that list, could not have been wanting in moral and intellectual interests.
xviii Introduction.
Robert Bruce to appear before him at Avignon, before May 1, and asks for a safe-conduct for him that there may be no delay. This letter [1] Orleton forwarded, together with one from himself, to Archbishop Melton, who sent on both to the Bishop of Norwich; and he, in turn, laid them before the Council. The Council, on April 18, decided that as the scheme had proceeded from the Pope, not from the King, the certificate of safe conduct ought to be made out to the Bishop of Hereford, as the Pope's agent in the business; and a form of safe-conduct is enclosed, in which it is made clear that the matter is not done volente domino nostro rege, vel ejus concilio annuente. The Archbishop - one of the few entirely upright men of that day - replies, on April 24, that in Orleton's letter fit mentio quod ex deliberation concilii fieret executio dictarum literarum: he declines, therefore, to accept the form proposed by the Council. We may suppose the real point at issue to have been the implied claim of the Pope to the over-lordship of England, which the Holy See had never ceased to assert, since the grant by King John on the eve of Ascension-day, 1213. Whether Orleton had acted in the matter for the King or the Pope remained perforce uncertain, since he was not at hand to offer any explanation. For Badlesmere, meanwhile, had determined to go to the Pope himself, with Orleton, on his nephew's behalf; and, at the same time, the King could no longer defer his visit to France to perform the homage. So, on March 10, Orleton and Edmund, the King's brother, with Badlesmere and Hugh Despenser the elder, leave Dover with letters of credence, both to the French Court, where they are to arrange for the interview between the two Kings, and also to the Pope, with whom they are to press for the promotion of Burghersh. They are in Paris on April 1, and soon afterwards in Avignon, where, on May 27, they secure the issue of a Bull, setting aside the election of the Chapter, and appointing Burghersh to the See of Lincoln. The matter of the canonization, meanwhile, was not neglected; and on April 17 the name of Cantilupe was inscribed in the catalogue of Saints. [2] On June 19 the King crossed to France, and did homage at Amiens. On the return journey, at Boulogne, on Sunday, July 20, Burghersh was consecrated, in the King's presence, by John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, Walter Stapledon, of Exeter, and Orleton.
[1] See Reg. Melton, f. 507b, and Hist. Letters from Northern Registers, p
296 sq.
[2] Before Orleton's translation to Worcester, the Chapter of Hereford
granted to him the lease of the tithes of Shinfield for his life "in
consideration of his labours undertaken in the canonization of St. Thomas."
He paid £20 a year to the Chapter in return.
The Priory of Abergavenny. xix
By Aug. 16, the Bishop is once again in his diocese, preparing to celebrate with special honours the first festival of the new Saint on Oct. 2, and carrying through much diocesan work, for some portions of which, at Avignon, he had secured special authorization from the Pope. During the visitation of the diocese in 1318 the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral had claimed exemption, pleading a compromise made in " the time of the late Bishops." Such a dispute between a Bishop and the Dean and Chapter of his Cathedral was no new thing. Few indeed were the dioceses in which the Bishop was not looked upon as an intruder in his own Cathedral. The quarrels even of the saintly Edmund Rich with his monastic Chapter are well known; and still more notorious had been the long dispute between Grosseteste and the Chapter of Lincoln, which lasted six years. Orleton, agreeing with Grosseteste that it would be well if a Bishop visited his Cathedral every day, [1] had obtained from the Pope a faculty to " visit and correct " the Dean and Chapter " notwithstanding any custom to the contrary." St. Guthlac's had also resisted visitation; and St. Guthlac's needed visitation almost as urgently as Wigmore. Armed with a faculty " to exercise his authority as ordinary over the religious of St. Guthlac's and other Priories under St. Peter's, Gloucester, exempt and non-exempt," the Bishop determined to take in hand the reformation of the house.
First, however, Orleton was commissioned by the Pope to set in order the Priory of Abergavenny. John de Hastings, Lord of Abergavenny, whose ancestors had founded the Priory, had petitioned the Pope to enquire into the state of the house. On Sept. 27, therefore, the Bishop, by the Pope's order, held an inquiry. He found that the income of the Priory exceeded 200 marks a year, a sum on which 13 monks or more could easily be supported. Further, John de Hastings granted them £20 a year, with two caracutes of land. On this income the Prior, Falk Gastard by name and some five or six monks were living a life "enormously dissolute." The Prior was openly guilty of adultery and fornication, while the monks were constantly seen by the laity going about with loose women, gaming when they should have been engaged in divine service, and even carrying out a blasphemous parody of the crucifixion. On being cited to appear at the inquiry, Fulk had stolen the silver vessels, the muniments, and the books of the Priory,
[1] See Grosseteste. Letter 127 (Rolls series)
xx Introduction.
and had fled away by night. With the consent, therefore, of the Bishop of Llandaff, in whose diocese the Priory was, Orleton deposed the Prior and appointed in his place Richard de Bromwich, a learned and saintly monk of Worcester. The Abbot of St. Vincent's, Le Mans, to which monastery the Priory of Abergavenny was subject, protested to the Pope that the Bishop of Hereford and John de Hastings had removed the Prior without consulting the parent House. John XXII, therefore (under date 4 gal. Ap., 1321), summoned all the parties interested to appear before him by their Proctors. How the matter ended I have not been able to discover.
Hurrying to London for the meeting of Parliament on Oct. 6, Orleton is appointed one of the Auditors of Petitions for Gascony, Ireland, and the Norman Isles. In November he pays a short visit to Shinfield to arrange for the appropriation of the tithes of that benefice to the fabric fund of the Cathedral - a settlement which has persisted to the present day. Throughout the December of this year, and January, 1321, the Bishop was busy with the routine work of the diocese; and about the middle of February he is sent abroad once more pro quibusdam arduis negotiis, reaching England again before May 15. Thenceforward to the end of the year he devoted himself alternately to the work of the diocese and to the struggle against the Despensers. On Oct. 5, he was able to fulfil his promise of reforming the condition of St. Guthlac's. The Prior, William Irby, who had been cellarer of the parent House at Gloucester, had only been in office since some date later than Sept., 1316, when he was still at Gloucester. But already, by his dissolute life, he had brought the Priory into evil repute, while his mismanagement of the temporalities had caused serious financial embarrassment. The Bishop, with his usual vigour and decision, removed the offender, and appointed in his place Thomas de Burghill. [2]
During this year (1321) the long-smouldering discontent of the Barons with Edward's new favourites had flamed into open
[1] Even at Gloucester Irby would seem to have got into difficulties over
his accounts. See Cart. (Rolls series) I. 152.
[2] When the King invaded the Marches after Christmas, Irby appealed to him
against his deprivation; and from Worcester, Jan. 8, 1322. a writ is issued
to the Sheriff of Herefordshire to take the Priory into the King's hands.
Apparently Irby was restored to his office, though Orleton refused to
acknowledge him as Prior; and, passing through Gloucester, on Feb. 19.
1323, the Bishop offered to admit as Prior a new nominee of the Parent
House. It would seem, however, that no appointment was made, since in
following year, Irby still se gerit pro Priore Sancti Gudlaci.
The Dispute about Gower. xxi
war. The final outbreak was brought about by the dispute concerning Gower. The three heiresses of the great Gloucester Earldom had married Hugh Despenser the younger, Hugh D'Audeley the younger, and Roger D'Amory, each of these receiving, in Nov., 1317, a third of the inheritance. From the first Despenser coveted - and apparently got possession of - D'Audeley's lands round Newport, which lay to the east of the Despenser lands in Glamorgan. Not content with this, the foolish favourite attempted to extend his lands to the westward also. William de Braose, the spendthrift Lord of Gower, had, for two years before his death in 1320, negotiated for its sale with his son-in-law, John Mowbray, with the Earl of Hereford, and with the Mortimers. But Despenser, eager to obtain Gower for himself, thwarted all arrangements for the sale, and finally claimed that Gower should be seized into the King's hands, on the ground that Braose had no right to alienate his lands without the King's consent. This claim of Despenser's was a direct infringement of the " custom of the March," implying, as it did, that the Marcher Lords held their land under the same conditions as lands in England. The Marcher Lords at once rose in defence of their rights, and, in spite of the King's prohibition, which Edward was too weak to make effective, Hereford and the Mortimers began to gather a force to raid the Despenser lands. In March, 1321, the King came west to Gloucester, and summoned the Marcher Lords to a council there on April 5, which summons they simply disregarded. His feeble attempt to make peace having failed, Edward returned to London. Thereupon the Bohun and his confederates began, on May 4, the systematic ravaging of the Despenser lands, capturing Newport, [1] Cardiff, and other castles held by the younger Hugh. Edward, meanwhile, called a Parliament for July 15 (Orleton's writ of summons is dated May 15). But Lancaster, as if in open defiance, himself also summoned, at Sherburn, near Pontefract, on June 28, what may be called a Parliament, which pledged itself to maintain the quarrel against the Despensers. The Earl of Hereford and the Mortimers attended this meeting: I have not been able to discover whether Orleton was present with them. [2] But, very shortly afterwards, the discontented Barons re-assembled at St. Albans, where Orleton certainly took part in the proceedings, and, with four other Bishops, was sent as a deputation to the King, peremptorily
[1] Auct. Malmes., MS.
[2] Probably not, since he was at Whitbourne on June 25, and also on July
1.
iii Introduction.
demanding the exile of the Despensers. When the King refused, the Barons appeared in arms before the gates of London; but, prefatis episcopis laudabiliter mediantibus, [1] the King at length yields, and allows proceedings to be taken against his favourites, in the Parliament of July 15. They were, of course, condemned to forfeiture and exile.
The war, however, could not now be averted. Badlesmere, who had been driven into opposition by Edward's persistent favour to the Despensers, began at once to fortify his castles; and his wife, at Leeds Castle, on Oct. 13, refused hospitality to the Queen. Edward, thoroughly roused by this insult, issued, three days later, writs of summons to his barons, and, on the 23rd, was before Leeds Castle with a strong force, including Pembroke and five other Earls; the castle surrendered on the 31st. Finding himself at the head of a far stronger force than he had hoped to get together, Edward now determined to crash the Marcher Lords. First, however, he wished to get the proceedings against the Despensers declared illegal. For this purpose, Archbishop Reynolds called a Convocation of the Southern Province for Dec. 10. Bishop Orleton writes from Bosbury, on Nov. 29, that justis et urgentibus necessitatibus multipliciter impeditus, he sends Adam de Murimouth, Canon of Hereford, and Roger de Breinton, Rector of Aka, to offer his excuses. Murimouth, [2] describing the meeting, says Pauci venerunt proper horrorem et viarum discrimina et temporis brevitatem. Scantily attended though it was, the Convocation pronounced that the proceedings against the Despensers had been illegal.
The King passed the Christmas at Cirencester, intending, with the new year, to move to Gloucester; but Mortimer anticipated him, occupying the town, and holding it in force. Edward, therefore, advanced to Worcester, [3] hoping there to cross the Severn and raid the Mortimer and Bohun lands in the March. [4] Finding that the Barons held the opposite bank of the Severn with a strong force, he went on to Bridgnorth, where the Mortimers attacked a royal scouting party, and burned the town. [5] At
[1] Walsingham. PH.
[2] P. 95.
[3] From Worcester, on Jan. 4. he writes to Orleton (and to other Bishops
who were absent from the Convocation) asking whether he agrees with the
decision of Convocation that consideracionem predictam ... erronice
facto ... fuisse totaliter et initiate.
[4] Ibi enim fuit tutissimum refugium baronum, et regi sine mane ralida
difficile penetrandum. Auct. Malmes., 263.
[5] The Canon of Bridlington (p. 78) says that it was John Giffard who
burnt Bridgnorth.
The War in the March. xxiii
Shrewsbury, however, the King's men forced the passage of the river. Lancaster, with characteristic incompetence, lingered in the North, when he ought to have hastened to the Marches to help his allies. [1] The Mortimers, realizing their own weakness, and resenting Lancaster's apparent desertion of their cause, opened negociations with the King, while Hereford and Gilbert Talbot hastened off " to tell Lancaster, with tears, what had been done." The King, if the account given in the Flores Historiarum is to be trusted [2] promised pardon to the Mortimers; but when, on Jan. 22, they submitted, pristine promissionis federe miserabiliter violato, he sent them to the Tower.
Going south from Shrewsbury, and taking unopposed possession, on the march, of the castles of Hele, Hodonet, Red Castle, Chirk, Bishop's Castle, Ludlow, and Wigmore, Edward reached Hereford on Jan. 28, [3] and, summoning the Bishop before him, acriter increpavit [eum] says the Malmesbury writer, [4] eo quod contra naturalem dominum suum barons sustinuit; unde et plurima bona ipsius in ultionem confiscavit. [5] Exactly what part Orleton had taken in the rising it is difficult to determine. Quite naturally, all his sympathies were with Mortimer; and it would seem that he actually sent a contingent to help in defending the line of the Severn. The story is told in detail at the trial, two years later; though, since the Bishop declined to recognise a secular tribunal [6] we have only the statement of the case for the prosecution. According to this account, Mortimer began to raise a force of horse and foot, when first he heard of the siege of Leeds Castle. About Christmas he was at Bromyard, where his men " seized much property of the King's subjects." Then, marching towards
[1] One can easily understand why Lancaster, whose strongest point was
resentment against his personal enemies, failed to help Badlesmere in
October. But now, in January, his inaction (which cost him his life) can
only be attributed to sheer military incapacity.
[2] Flor. Hist. III. 202. The Flores Historiarum is a composite work, and
its parts differ very considerably in value. The account of the reign of
Edward II was almost certainly written by Robert of Reading, a contempory,
and, on the whole, a thoroughly trustworthy authority.
[3] After a stay of six days in Hereford (Jan. 28 - Feb. 4) the King
proceeded by way of Newent to Gloucester, which he reached on Feb. 6.
[4] P. 265
[5] There is a touch of grim irony in the comparison of this extract from
the Malmesbury chronicler with the letter (Parl. Writs IV. p. 998)
written by Edward from Shrewsbury, on Jan. 15, asking Orleton to cause a
declaration explaining the King's intentions to be read in the Churches of
his Diocese, and to put up prayers for his success.
[6] It is worth noting that when the proceedings against the Bishop were
annulled (Feb. 16, 3, Ed. III) the judgement is reversed on purely
technical grounds only. Orleton nowhere says that he did not help Mortimer.
xxiv Introduction.
Ledbury, they came to Bosbury, " where Adam, Bishop of Hereford, then was, and there a secret conference was held between the Bishop and Roger Mortimer "; after which Mortimer went with his army to Ledbury, and " carried off food and other property to the value of £100 or more." Next day the Bishop "sent Roger reinforcements for his army," the names of the leaders being given. [1] Then all, in one company, went towards Gloucester, perpetrating divers wrong-doings on the way.
Whatever be the extent to which the Bishop had supported Mortimer, he seems, for the moment at any rate, to have, in some sort, made his peace with the King. [2] For, on Feb. 6, the very day of his arrival in Gloucester, Edward signs a mandate to Thomas de Hastings to restore to the Bishop " the castle called Bisshopes-castel which the King lately took into his hands." And, two days later, he issues to the Bishop Letters of Protection for one year. Moreover, on Feb. 2, and again on Feb. 25, the King writes to the Pope bitterly complaining of Burghersh, qui dicta Bartolomeo, nostro rebelli, totis viribus adheret, and of John de Drokensford, both of whom, he says, have openly joined the rebel Lords. He even deprived Burghersh of his temporalities [3] and on April 13 writes to the Pope, asking him contra dictos episcopos (i.e. Lincoln and Bath and Wells only) procedere rigorose. [4] It is clear, therefore, that as yet the King does not think very seriously of Orleton's participation in the rising, as compared with the doings of Burghersh and Drokensford. As we shall see, Edward has other reasons, two years later, for reviving the charge. We may note, however, that from Gloucester, on Feb. 16,
[1] Howel le Galeys, William de Shepedon, Richard de Chabbenore, John de
Hachwy [Hatwy(?)], Tristram, the Bishop's Marshal, Richard, son of Gilbert
Talbot, and Gilbert, his brother, Gilbert atte Nashe, and Thomas, son of
Thomas de Fulford.
[2] It would seem that the King handed over the Bishop's parks to his
brother, the Earl of Kent, and others, to take beasts. Whereupon the Bishop
pronounced sentence of excommunication on all who entered his said parks.
"and those by whose command the thing was done," thus practically
excommunicating the King himself. Being called upon to revoke this
sentence, the Bishop did not obey. The King, therefore brought an action
for contempt, claiming £1000 damages. The case was called in Michaelmas
Term, 16 Edward II. but adjourned for default of jurors (eo quod plures
jurati prius in juratam predictam positi minus apti sunt pro domino rege).
The Sheriff is instructed to place on the next jury those qui predictum
Episcopum nulla affinitate, etc. From term to term the case was adjourned
for the same reasons, until Easter, 19 Ed. 11. when it was again adjourned
until Michaelmas, but does not appear on that roll (the last of Edward II).
Coram rege Rolls. 250 sq.
[3] The temporalities were not restored to Burghersh until the spring of
1324. See Wals. 1. 173.
[4] The Pope replies (Sept. 18) Excellentiam regions deprecamur ... nos
excusatos habeat.
The Triumph of the King. xxv
the King summons the Bishops and Abbots to send contingents of horse and foot to meet him at Coventry, on the first Sunday in Lent, for service against Lancaster and Hereford; and it is carefully noted on the Roll that this requisition is not sent to the Bishops of Hereford and Lincoln quibusdam de causis.
To follow in detail the King's campaign in the North would be outside the scope of this introduction. It is sufficient to remind the reader that, at Boroughbridge, on March 16, the Barons were defeated. The Earl of Hereford was slain in the fight; Lancaster, six days later, was beheaded outside the walls of his own castle at Pomfret; while Badlesmere, John Giffard, and many others, were executed in various places. The Mortimers, imprisoned in the Tower, were apparently overlooked for the immediate present. But, on June 13, a Commission is issued for their trial, and, on July 14, they were sentenced to death. On July 22, through the strenuous efforts of Orleton, supported by the Bishop of Durham, who had great influence with the King, the sentence was commuted to perpetual imprisonment. Edward had already, on Feb. 11, felt himself strong enough to recall the Despensers; and now, for four dreary years, the hated favourites were virtually rulers of England. Even De la Moore, friend to Edward though he is, writes of these years " Videbantur pro uno tres jam esse Anglie reges." [1]
On March 16, 1322 (the day on which the battle at Boroughbridge was being fought), the Bishop removed from his office Philip, the Prior of Chirbury. At his visitation of the Priory he had found much that needed correction, owing to the weakness rather than the wickedness of the Prior. The Bishop, therefore, after making, for the right conduct of the house, strict regulations, which the Prior promised to observe, had permitted him to retain his office. Finding, however, that the new regulations were not being carried out, he now compelled Brother Philip to resign, and acceded to the unanimous wish of the Canons that Hugh de Hereford, one of themselves, should be Prior.
At the great Parliament of York (May 2-19), so vitally important in the constitutional history of England, Orleton was present, though he probably took little part in the debates, which
[1] P. 305.
xxvi Introduction.
were directed mainly by the Despensers. They, all unwittingly and unintentionally (for their only object was to free Edward from the restrain of the Ordinances), made a great constitutional advance, laying down the principle of the three estates of the realm.
Whilst the Bishop was away in York, a band of malefactors, headed by John, Richard, and Thomas Irby - presumably relatives of the Prior of St. Guthlac's, who cherished a bitter hatred against Orleton - made a raid upon the episcopal manors of Ross and Upton, driving away two horses, 120 oxen, 240 sheep, and many other animals, carrying off quantities of wheat, oats, and other produce, and, for 15 days, charcoal-burning in the Bishop's woods, the total damage being assessed at over £240. The Bishop, on his return, had sentence of excommunication pronounced against the malefactors, and they were summoned before the Justices, at York, in July, with what result I have not been able to discover.
For the next sixteen months the Bishop was at one or other of his manors,
and for the last three months of 1323 at Shinfield, engaged in diocesan
work, and at the same time planning the escape of the Mortimers from the
Tower. The King had well-founded suspicions that Orleton was intriguing for
their release, and perhaps already suspected him of arousing the hatred of
the Queen against the Despensers, which De la Moore asserts that Orleton
deliberately set himself to do. Edward could, however, find no occasion
against him, though in private he often denounced and lampooned the Bishop.
[1] Seeing no other means of attack - for the Bishop was a far cleverer man
than the King - Edward was driven to revive the charge, which he had
virtually condoned in the previous year, of aiding Mortimer in rebellion.
In accordance with a royal brief (dated Skipton, Oct. 1, 1323) an
Inquisition was held at Hereford on Jan. 23, 1324, before " Sir Henry
Staunton and his companions," [2] Justices of the King. Orleton did not
appear, and they found him guilty in his absence. The Parliament was
summoned at Westminster for March 1, and there Edward, before the magnates
of the kingdom, placed Orleton on his trial for high treason. It would
almost seem, from Blaneforde's account, [3] that the King personally
brought forward the charge, in a bitter and
[1] ... Herefordie episcopum suer quo clans inter secleratos crebro
furiosos composuit applausus et ridiculosos. Flor. Hist. III, 218.
[2] Rot. Parl. II. 427.
[3] Blaneforde (Hearne's edition). p. 78.
Orleton's trial. xxvii
vindictive speech. For some time the Bishop bore the scurrilous accusation in silence; but at length, " committing his cause to the Judge on high, whose servant he was, he burst out as follows: 'My Lord the King, observing in everything the respect due to your royal majesty, I, the humble servant of the Holy Church of God - a member of it, and a Bishop consecrate, unworthy though I be - cannot answer, and indeed ought not to answer in any wise to this grave charge laid against me, unless authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose suffragan I am, and who alone, after the Pope, is my judge: nor can I answer without the consent of the other Bishops, my peers.' " Never before had a Bishop been arraigned before a civil tribunal. The privileges of the clergy were at stake, and Orleton's bold appeal met with a ready response. The Archbishops and Bishops, rising in their places, besought the King to withdraw the charge. Edward, however, refusing to make peace, the whole body of Bishops, claiming Orleton as a consecrate member of the Church, took him out of the hall. A few days later Edward once again placed Orleton on his trial, in full Parliament, as before. But, determined now to defend to the uttermost the rights of the Church, the Archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin, with ten Bishops in attendance, entered the hall, with their crosses held in front of them, and, advancing to their fellow-Bishop, stantem solum, et nimus (ut premittitur) desolatum, they took him under their protection, and, forbidding him to plead, led him away, threatening excommunication to any who should dare to interfere. The King graviter iratus de tanta cleri audacia sent for a Herefordshire jury, and cited the Archbishop to bring his suffragan before them on March 26. No appearance was made either by the Archbishop or by Orleton, and the juratores from Hereford, plus regis terens metuentes offensam quam sempiterni judicts ultionem, [1] once again condemned the Bishop. Thereupon the Sheriff of Hereford was instructed seisire in manum domini regis amnia bona et castella, terras et tenementa ipsius Episcopi Herefordie. [2] The King is to be informed, within fifteen days from Easter, that this is done. The person of the Bishop himself, however, the King did not dare to touch, fearing the wrath of the Church; and Orleton remained, for the present at least, with the Archbishop.
[1] Wals.. p 171.
[2] This claim to seize the temporalities of a Bishopric into the King's hand was formally renounced by Edward III in his first Parliament (Feb.- March, 1327). We can probably trace in this the hand of Orleton, who, as Treasurer, with the Bishop of Ely as Chancellor, undertook the work of administration for the boy-king.
xxviii Introduction.
If the Bishop had enemies at Court, he had, in his diocese, many friends, bold and resolute. Hence the " seizing into the King's hands " of the Bishop's temporalia became no light matter. The work was entrusted to John de Hampton, eschaetor for the Marches of Wales, and to Orleton's bitter enemy, William de Irby, the Prior of St. Guthlac's; and letters of protection are issued to them on March 20. [1] But the Bishop's friends were beforehand with them. John and Thomas de Orleton, clerics though they were, organised bands of willing helpers, who systematically visited the Bishop's manors, and drove off the horses, oxen, cows, sheep, and other animals. At Ross, the Prior of St. Guthlac's came upon the raiders, and was very roughly handled by them, in spite of his letters of protection, narrowly escaping with his life. For this assault, and also for the driving away of the stock, eleven of the ringleaders were put upon their trial. [2] It was not until the autumn, however, that the Prior secured possession of the various manors and what was left of the stock. [3] At length, on Oct. 12, 1324, John Inge is appointed to survey the lands of the Bishopric, and to appraise the corn, stock, and other goods therein. But the Bishop's friends would still seem to have been active; for, on Feb. 13 of the next year, John Inge is found anxiously enquiring after the unknown persons who had once again entered the Manor of Bishop's Castle and driven off forty brood mares with their issue. [4]
The violence of the King and Despenser - for the younger Hugh hated and feared Orleton more passionately than did the King, if that were possible - did not avail to divert the Bishop from his settled purpose of rescuing the Mortimers from the Tower. They had been more than two years in prison, being
[1] Alexander Lillisford is appointed, on April 9, 1324, to the custody of
"the Bishop of Hereford's chase by Malvern in the King's hand for certain
reasons" (Pat. Rolls). and John de Toucestre is instructed to take
possession of the Bishop's Manor of Shinfield, in the county of Oxon (orig.
Rolls).
[2] A commission of oyer and terminer is issued, on May 18, 1324, to John
le Botiler of Lanultit, Robert de Aston, and Adam Holnaked, the King's
justices, to try the following:- William de Masinton. John Revel, Thomas de
Wychyndon, Chaplain, Walter le Fevre of Ros, John le Fevre of Hereford,
Thomas le Kew of la Lee, Walter Karles, William de Braynton, Master Thomas
de Orleton, Master John de Orleton, and Thomas de Dynes.
[3] In the sentence on Hugh Despenser the younger (pronounced, by the irony
of fate, in Hereford) it is said that Despenser took for himself vasa aurea
et argentea et alia ornamenta pretiosa from the Bishop's various houses.
Brid.. p. 88.
[4] On Nov. 12. 1325. Roger de Chaundos and John Inge are commisioned to
enquire into the action of Thomas de Longford, who had "caused a gorce
(gurges, weir) to be made in the water of Lugge, within the liberty of the
Manor of Hampton Bishop." This, however, is probably a local dispute, which
would equally have arisen had the Bishop not been deprived.
Mortimer's escape. xxix
treated, says Blaneforde, [1] minus civiliter quam decuit, and the uncle was now too infirm to attempt the perils of an escape; [2] it was decided, therefore, that the younger Mortimer alone should risk the venture. The arrangements for the flight were made by Orleton with his accustomed diligence and thoroughness, and with absolute secrecy. On the night of Aug. 1, beneath the walls of the Tower, a boat was ready, in which Mortimer, drugging his guards, crossed the Thames: then two attendants, with horses, took him to the sea, where a vessel was in waiting, in which he crossed to France. As showing how completely our view, both of Mortimer and Orleton, is darkened by the sinister shadow of the King's death, and by the persistent malignity of De la Moore, it is interesting to study the account given of this escape by Henry de Blaneforde. [3] He wrote actually in this year 1324, when both the escape and Orleton's trial were on all men's tongues. Hence his opinion is of special value, as representing the way in which the occurrence struck at least one contemporary. So far from blaming Orleton for contriving the flight, Blaneforde, following out the suggestion of the date (Aug. 1 is the Festival of St. Peter ad vincula), compares Mortimer's escape to that of the Apostle himself, angelo ducente; and, twice again, he refers the success of the flight to God's special aid.
As may be imagined, the King's anger against - or, perhaps, more correctly, the King's fear of - the Bishop was not abated when he heard of the escape, which he well knew to be of Orleton's contriving, though, of course, he could not prove it. Already, on April 1, he had written to the Pope a full account of the trial, alleging the Bishop's refusal to plead as his justification for seizing the temporalities. The Pope replied that Orleton had served the King well at the Papal Court, and it is surprising that he should now have incurred the King's hatred. It must be due rather to the evil tongues of detractors than to the Bishop's fault, and he therefore prays the King to treat him with clemency. The Pope wrote also to Hugh Despenser the younger, urging him to intercede with the King on the Bishop's behalf. Further, writing to
[1] P. 145.
[2] The elder Mortimer died on August 3. 1326, still imprisoned in the
Tower. Orleton - braving once more the King's anger - personally conveyed
the body to Wigmore, and buried it there die dominica in festo exaltacionis
Sancte Crucis (Thus the Wigmore annalist in Dugdale's Monasticon VI. p.
351. But cf. Annales Paulin, p. 312, and Blaneforde, p. 147).
[3] Pp. 145-146.
xx introduction
Stratford, the Pope expresses his surprise that the King and Despenser do not open their eyes and see that, for the acts done gainst the Bishop of Hereford, God is offended. A long series of papal letters follows, through the years 1325-6, to the King to whom the Pope complains that he has written repeatedly without effect, to the Papal nuncio in England, to the Queen, to Hugh Despenser, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Orleton himself. In this last latter, dated June 7, 1325, the Pope counsels the Bishop to behave with such humility to the King as may best further his cause. The King writes, on May 28, 1325, urging the Pope to remove Orleton from our realm and jurisdiction, by way of translation, both for the public good, and for the particular advantage of the Church of Hereford, deprived of its temporalities ibsque suit culpa, sed non sine causa." He says that to retain the Bishop in England is as dangerous as to carry fire in one's bosom, or to nurse a serpent in one's lap, and urges the Pope to take action at once ne ignis tam metuendus invaleat, et in carpus undique te diffundat, et membra a capite flamine persuasonis inique iterato dissolvat. When the Pope, in reply declared his inability to do this, Edward, on July 1, 1326, writes even more urgently, imploring him to translate Orleton to some foreign bishopric pro tranquillitate ejusdem regni it quieta cordis nostri. This letter the Pope seems simply to have ignored, perhaps knowing that the inevitable end was now very near for Edward.
During the two and a half years of virtual outlawry which followed his deprivation the Bishop lived almost entirely at Shinfield, making short visits, on occasion, to the diocese, or to London, and keeping in constant communication with the Queen and with Mortimer. One little incident from the Register is worth narrating. In the summer of 1324 he started a new visitation of the diocese, beginning, as before, with the Forest Deanery. Coming thence to the parish church of Ross, he was celebrating mass, when William de Irby, holder of the temporalities for the King, burst into the church, and before the congregation " blasphemously reviled the Bishop, though clad in his pontifical robes, to the grave scandal of Christian people." For this outrage the Bishop at once pronounced against him the sentence of major excommunication. Irby appealed to the Court of Canterbury, alleging that Orleton had himself been excommunicated, and that he had only obeyed orders in denouncing him at Ross. The case was tried before
Orleton practically outlawed. xxxi
the Dean of Arches; and on July 31 a decision was given in the Bishop's favour. Thereupon he once again excommunicated Irby. The unfortunate Prior was driven at length humbly to sue for absolution, which - somewhat reluctantly it would seem - the Bishop was compelled to give.
It is scarcely to be wondered at that, during these years, the Register, which at first had been carefully kept, seems to have been written up hastily, and at odd times. One of the most curious features of the Orleton Register - due probably to this absence from the diocese - is that we have many references to ordinations, but no list of those ordained. This is the more noticeable since, during the six years of his episcopate at Worcester, Orleton ordained over a thousand persons. At one ordination at Tewkesbury he ordained 406, at one at Campden 419 persons. Probably he is the only Bishop who ever held an ordination for an English diocese in Paris. [1]
It has been said above that, in June 1325, the Pope had advised Orleton to humble himself to the King. The privations under which he was suffering had already given the same counsel to the Bishop. For he was now reduced to such poverty that, though accustomed, like all the Bishops of his day, to ride from place to place with a train of thirty or forty horses, he had now to go on foot. [2] Nor was this all; for such was the fear of the King's displeasure that men scarcely dared to sell him food, or to hire to him a roof, under which he might shelter himself. [3] Stratford and Burghersh had by this time been pardoned, and received back their temporalities, But Orleton, quia ceteris asperior, graciam invenire non potuit. [4] He applied, therefore, in the early part of the year 1325, to Henry of Lancaster, asking him to use his influence with the King on his behalf. Henry of Lancaster was a man far more attractive in character than his brother Thomas had been. Courteous, kind-hearted, and high-principled, he replies to the outcast Bishop in a letter full of encouragement and sympathy, though not holding out much hope of any immediate relief. He urges him to bear his present afflictions patiently, since all virtue is widowed unless patience sustains it. " May God, the Lord of lords," he concludes, " in Whose hand are
[1] Cf. WC. County Hist. Worc. II. p. 31.
[2] Brid., P. 88.
[3] Birchington (Ang. Sacra) 1. 19.
[4] Auct. Malmes.. p. 280.
xxxii Introduction.
the hearts of kings, Who turns the storm into a favourable breeze, soon restore to you your prosperity, and soften the anger of the King." [1] It presently reached Edward's ears that this letter had been sent to his enemy. And at Winchester, in the first week in May, [2] he openly charged Lancaster with treason, The Earl boldly replied that words of sympathy, in which was no device against the King, ought not to be set down to treason. He was commanded, however, to appear before the Parliament, on June 25th following, to answer for his action in the matter. On the appointed day he duly appeared, ready and anxious to defend himself, sed de sibi primae objectis nihil audivit. The King had, apparently, in the meantime, been brought to recognise the absurdity of the charge.
The estrangement between Edward and his Queen was now daily increasing. All the evidence seems to show that she had been true and loyal to her husband, in spite of neglect and even positive ill-treatment, until the King got completely into the power of the Despensers. Wrong, of course, she was in giving herself over to Mortimer, but it is certain she had well-founded grievances against her husband, who was, the Bridlington Canon says [3] corpora elegans, et viribus prestans, sed moribus, ut vulgo dicitur, multum discrepans. [4] There was no open breach until Sept. 18, 1324, when, at the instigation of Despenser, whose desperate recklessness was now fast rendering the King's dethronement inevitable, Edward took away the Queen's estate, putting her on an allowance of twenty shillings a day, [5] " and that ill-paid too." It is quite possible, as De la Moore asserts, that their common grievance now first drew together the Queen and the Bishop. Orleton [6] lamented, together with the Queen, the present distress, and at all times and
[1] Auct. Malmes.. p. 281.
[2] The Malmesbury author says it was at Winchester that the King charged
Lancaster with treason, and Edward was only at Winchester May 1-6 of this
year. The following significant note of the chronicler (p. 280) is worth
recording: Tantus quidem rigor hodie crevit in rege, ut minus quantumcumque
magnus et consultus voluntati regis audeat obviare.
[3] P. 91.
[4] Froissart (I. xv). describing the execution of the younger Despenser,
brings the vilest of charges against the King. "Tout premiers on li cope le
vit et les coullons, pour tant que il estoit et avoit este herites et
sodomites, ensi que renommee publique couroit par tonte Engleterre, et dou roi
meismes, et pour ce vilain et ort pechiet li rois avoit excaciet 1a roine sa
femme en sus de lui."
[5] Foed. II. p. 569. Baker, p. 17-18. Lanercost, p. 254.
[6] Tyrrell. III. p. 307. At the Coronation, the jewels and dresses alone,
which Isabella brought with her from France, were valued at £20.879 12s. 6d.
equal to more than a quarter of a million pounds in our day. Cf.
Engh. Hist. Rev., July. 1897.
Estrangement of the Queen. xxxiii
in all ways strove to rouse and sharpen her indignation not only against the Despensers, but also against her husband." [1] We dare not praise, but we cannot greatly blame the Bishop for this course of action. He was no ideal saint, but a shrewd man-of-the-world, with a well-founded grievance against the King, and, as against Despenser, the certain knowledge that if he could not bring about the downfall of the favourite, his own absolute ruin was inevitable. Moreover, Orleton was at least a statesman, if he made no pretensions to being a patriot. He saw clearly that the present condition of things was impossible for very much longer; that Edward and his minion - or, perhaps, more correctly, his master - had already brought the country to the verge of destruction. The humiliating truce with the Scots, and the ever-growing arrogance of the French, proved the country's weakness abroad; while, at home, the general disorder was such that military summonses were not obeyed, taxes could not be collected, and the whole country was overrun by lawless men, many of them in Despenser's pay, and ministering to his greed. Can we wonder that he who was, perhaps, the strongest and ablest man then in the land, determined to check the madness of the King while yet there was time ? That Orleton, outcast and beggared as he was, found the task an easy one is, in itself, his chiefest justification, since it proves that the worthless King had alienated from himself every good and loyal mind in the realm. [2] Actually and literally, Edward's only friends were the Despensers, Baldock, the chancellor, and Stapledon, the treasurer - the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester cannot be called friends to the King, though they shrank from acting against him. Meanwhile, between France and England, matters were getting into a most critical state. Philip V. had died early in 1322, and Charles IV, who succeeded, immediately summoned Edward to do homage for Aquitaine. The Despensers, who feared to be left in England without the King, and feared equally the journey to France, persuaded him not to go. The French King persisting in his demand, and taking measures to invade the English possessions in Gascony, relations rapidly grew worse between the two countries: commerce was forbidden, merchants had their effects seized in both kingdoms, and even the Queen's French servants in England
[1] De la Moore, p. 305.
[2] Walsingham (I. p. 186 says that the year 1327 was
quibusdam hilaris propter patriam a proditoribus liberatam.
xxxiv Introduction.
were dismissed. War seemed inevitable, entirely owing to the selfish recklessness of the favourites. Edward determined to raise a force for the defence of Gascony; and on Dec. 21, 1324, he issued writs summoning a muster at Portsmouth for March 17 of the following year; a further writ on Dec. 31 summoned a Parliament at Winchester for the second Sunday in Lent. The Bishop of Hereford received the writ for his service, [1] but special directions were given that the writ of summons to Parliament should not be sent to him, though both Burghersh and Drokensford received it. The forces from Brecon, Radnor, and other parts, were to assemble at Hereford on the Tuesday after mid-Lent, and march thence to Portsmouth, which they were to reach on the following Sunday. The muster, however, after being twice postponed by the unready King, came to nothing; and the levies, their wages unpaid, began to ravage the country. The Queen, meanwhile, proposed that she should cross to France and negociate with her brother. Her offer being accepted, she crossed, in March, 1325, gaudens quorundam quos non diligebat comitivam relinquere. [2] A Parliament, called at Westminster, on June 25 (again Orleton was excluded), decided that the King should go and perform the homage, with or without the Despensers, as they would. When he was on board, however, envoys from France arrived, proposing, as a compromise, that he should appoint to the Duchy of Aquitaine his son, who could then go in his stead and perform the homage. The King gladly accepted the proposal, and young Edward sailed, to join his mother at the French Court.
Exactly when the plan of invading England was formed, it is difficult to say. De la Moore, of course, asserts [3] that Orleton had devised the plot with the Queen long before, and had suggested that she should seize her opportunity of getting away to France to seek for aid. Froissart, in his picturesque, if not always accurate way, describes the Queen's journey as a mediaeval romancer might describe the flight of a distressed lady in the days of chivalry, seeking a knight to champion her cause, and finding him in John of Hainault. In any case, it is clear that before the end of the year 1325, the design of overthrowing the Despensers, if not the King also, was fully matured. The arrangements
[1] There is a letter, dated Nov. 17. 1324. to Piers de Graunsoin and
Wautier de Hugeford, asking what forces the County of Hereford can send
for the expedition.
[2] Auct. Malmes.. p. 279.
[3] P. 806.
The landing of the Queen. xxxv
were made, on both sides of the channel, with the same business-like thoroughness as Orleton had shown in the rescue of Mortimer. Both before and after the Queen's landing we can perceive in her course of action the boldness, the promptitude, and the adroitness which, always and everywhere, characterised the Bishop's handiwork. Thanks to his clever management, the Queen's party, even before she arrived, embraced all the leading men in the kingdom. For, with marvellous dexterity, he reconciled the various opposing interests which the weakness of Edward's government had allowed to grow up among the Barons, and united them in a common hatred of the Despensers, and a common loyalty to the Queen over the water.
There could now no longer be any doubt of an approaching invasion, and Edward spent the spring and summer of 1326 in purposeless proceedings which resembled rather the struggles of a drowning man than the preparations of a king to crush a rebel force. It must be remembered that through all this time the Queen again and again declared her perfect willingness to return to her husband if Hugh Despenser were removed from power. The Pope himself wrote to Despenser on March 30, 1326, urging him to retire. But Despenser, characteristically, preferred to ruin the King rather than promote the peaceful return of the Queen. At length, on Sept. 24, Isabella, with John of Hainault and his little force of only 2,700 men, landed near Harwich. She made a triumphal progress, rather than a warlike march, through the land. The great nobles, and even the King's brothers, joined her at once, as did, of course, Orleton and Burghersh; while the other bishops - including even Reynolds himself, after a characteristic piece of folly, in a pretended excommunication - sent large supplies of money by the hands of these two. [1] Marching by Bury St. Edmunds and Cambridge, they came to Oxford, where the Queen laid her case before the University in the famous sermon preached by Bishop Orleton on the text - as De la Moore alleges - Caput meum doleo. [2] Quam auctoritatem, proceeds the vindictive knight of Swinbrook, ad talem duxit questioners quod auferendum foret necessario caput languidum
[1] De la Moore (p. 308) says that, immediately after the landing, the
proposals of the invaders were laid before the assembled Lords by the
Bishop of Hereford (proditor facundus he calls him) who shewed that it was
expedient for the Realm that the King should be restrained, and the Queen
appeased by having her will performed on the Despensers.
[2] II Kings, iv, 19. This was the text on which Stratford addressed the
Parliament on Jan. 14. 1327. It is entirely in keeping with De la Moore's
slip-shod inaccuracy that he should have confused the two sermons.
Introduction.
de regna, nec allis Hippocratis vinculis aliquandum saintiferis. [1] It happens, however, that we can test De la More in this point. For we have is existence the Bishop's own account of this so-called "sermon." Writing only eight years afterwards when many were alive who had been present, and could contradict him if he mis-stated the case, he says: " By command of the present King, and the Queen his mother, in the month of October in the presence of the King, the Duke of Lancaster, and others, I proclaimed in Oxford the reason of their coming to England as set forth in the Letters Patent signed and sealed by them." He then quotes the Letters Patent, in which the various wrong-doings of the King, "par mavoys counsail" of his favourites, are set forth at length, including - and here we trace perhaps the Bishop's hand in drawing up the Letters Patent - "que les Prelas de saint Eglise sont de lour biens countre Dieu et dreiture despoiles." In introducing this document, I quoted Gen, iii. 15. 'I wilt put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall braise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel' And I applied the text to Hugh Despenser, whose head the 'woman,' namely the Queen-mother, was come to crush. And no sane person could believe that my words applied to my Lord the King. God is my witness, and all who were present, that I said nothing of the treason alleged against me." [2]
From Oxford the Queen and her supporters went by way of Gloucester and Berkeley to Bristol, which was reached on Oct. 26, the King, with Baldock and the younger Despenser, having fled before them to Cardiff. [3] At Bristol the young Edward was proclaimed custos of the kingdom. [4] Thence the Queen proceeded to Hereford, where, says Walsingham, [5] she stayed about a month. She lodged with Orleton at the Palace, [6] and there received the
[1] De la Moore, p. 310.
[2] Twysden. 2764, sq.
[3] It would almost seem as if the King had some idea of stopping the
triumphal march between Bristol and Hereford. For in the Patent Rolls,
under date Oct. 20. 1326, is an order to Hugh Despenser the younger to
seize into the King's hands the lands of the Three Castles. This may,
however, have been merely an outburst of vindictive feeling on the part of
Despenser and the King: for "if the Constables will not surrender them,
the lands and tenements of the said Castles are to be destroyed."
[4] The Prelates who took part in this appointment were the Archbishop of
Dublin, and the Bishops of Hereford, Winchester, Ely, Lincoln, and Norwich.
Rymer II. i. 646.
[5] P. 184.
[6] The following extract from the Close Rolls shews that the Queen was
lodged in the Palace:- 'Oct. 1. 1326 [this date should be Nov. 22].
Memorandum that on Saturday, the Feast of St. Cecilia, William la Zousche,
with John de St. John, and Edward de St. John, Knights, caused four bags,
under his seal, to be carried into the chamber of Isabella. Queen of
England, In the Palace of the Bishop of Hereford, which bags contained
Rolls, Inquisitions, and other memoranda taken in the Castle of Swaynseye
in Wales.
The Queen at Hereford. xxxvii
news that the King, with Despenser and Baldock, had been captured on Nov. 16. [1] On the proposal of Orleton himself, the King was conveyed to Kenilworth, to be kept under the care of his cousin, Henry of Lancaster. Despenser was brought to Hereford, tried, and, on the 24th, executed. Robert Baldock was also put upon his trial. But the Bishop of Hereford claimed him as a member of the Church, and put him in his own prison. William de Irby, too, the Prior of St. Guthlac's, who had taken over for Edward the Bishop's temporalities, was imprisoned at the same time.
On Nov. 20 the Council, meeting at Hereford, appointed Bishop Orleton to go to the King (who was at Monmouth, on his way to Kenilworth), demanding the great seal. In the presence of Henry of Lancaster, Thomas Chandos, Archdeacon of Hereford, and others, the Bishop told the King, in order, all that the Council had decided, and required the seal to be delivered up. The unhappy Edward, habita inde aliquali deliberacione penes se, replied that his consort and his son might have the seal and do with it what they would. The seal was then given up to William le Blount, [2] who, in company with the Bishop, brought it to the Queen at " Martleye" [3] on the 26th. On the 30th, St. Andrew's Day, the Queen and Prince Edward, " in the presence of the Bishop of Hereford," deliver the seal to the Bishop of Norwich, as Chancellor, in the Abbey of Cirencester. [4] Then, from Ledbury, Dec. 3, the writ is issued summoning a Parliament at Westminster for Jan. 7. The Queen, with the two Archbishops, Orleton, Stratford, Burghersh, and Ayerminne, passed the Christmas and New Year at Wallingford, cum summo gaudio et honore. Orleton himself tells us [5] that, at Wallingford, the Queen and her advisers debated the question of her return to her husband, and it was decided that the Bishop should publicly set forth her case when the Parliament met; " which I did, adding nothing of my own, nor lessening at all what was commanded me."
[1] In Monasterio de Niethe (De la Moore, p. 311). Juxta castrum de
Laturssan (Walsingham. 184).
[2] Sir Thomas Blount was Steward of the King's household. This William is
Blount, therefore, was probably the King's Messenger, not the Bishops.
Edward would not give up the seal to his triumphant enemy, the Bishop whom
he had hated and oppressed, but sent it to the Queen by his own servant.
[3] This should almost certainly be Markleye, i.e. Much Marcle.
[4] Parl. Writs, IV. p. 999.
[5] Twysden, p. 2766.
xxxviii Introduction.
When the Parliament assembled on Jan. 7, 1327, the proceedings were entirely directed by the Bishop of Hereford. He began by proposing that the King should be asked to attend, ad faciendum et ordinandum pro corona Anglie cum suis ligiis hominibus quod deceret et quod justicia suaderet. Orleton himself and Stratford were at once despatched to Kenilworth to make this proposal to the King. [1] Edward received them with contemptuous revilings, and refused to come amongst traitors. Returning, therefore, they announced, on Jan. 12, in the great hall of Westminster, before the clergy and people, that the King refused to come to the Parliament. Next day, the proceedings were somewhat tumultuous. The Barons and representative members came together cum magno strepitu; and a great crowd of London citizens (the men who had murdered Bishop Stapledon three months before) also pushed their way into the hall. There the Bishop of Hereford delivered a speech or sermon, taking for his text Rex insipiens perdet populism suum. [2] He went into great detail concerning the follies and imbecilities of the King, his childish actions- " if indeed they ought to be called childish " - and all the many evils which had befallen the land under his rule. He declared, further, that if the Queen returned to the King, she would be murdered by him. Orleton was admittedly an eloquent speaker, and on this occasion he had a case which spoke for itself. He seems so skilfully to have worked upon the feelings of his hearers that spontaneously, as with one voice, they burst out, " We will not have this man to rule over us." [3] Thereupon he bade them go home, and, returning next day at the third hour, give a definite reply to the question he would then put to them, whom they would prefer as king, the father or the son.
On the following day Stratford preached on the text Caput meum doleo, and showed how weak a head England had had these many years. After this, Orleton put his question, which they would prefer, the father or the son, for king. And " with one voice the son is chosen, and led into the great hall to the cry, Ecce rex nester: to which the crowd replied Ave rex." [4] On the
[1] Lanercost, p. 257.
[2] Eccles., X, 3.
[3] W. Dene (Angl. Sac., I, 367).
[4] The Bishop of Rochester, alone, says Dene (himself a Rochester man)
declined to join in the acclamation, and was threatened with death by the
London citizens who crowded round. He sang the litany, however, at the
Coronation of the young Edward a fortnight later.
The Deposing of the King. xxxix
third day the Archbishop of Canterbury followed, with an oration on the theme Vox populi, vox Dei; and at the close made the formal announcement that " by the common consent of all the Earls and Barons, the Archbishops, Bishops, and all the clergy and people, King Edward was deposed from his former dignity, and that the Lord Edward, his eldest son, should succeed his father on the throne."
The next business was to secure the King's consent. For this purpose a deputation was appointed to proceed to Kenilworth and treat with the King. This deputation consisted of the Bishops of Hereford, Winchester, and Lincoln, with two Earls, four Barons, two Abbots, and certain representatative knights, twenty-four persons in all. The party reached Kenilworth on Jan. 20, and Stratford and Burghersh went in to the King at once, to prepare him for the proposal they had to make. Everyone knows De la Moore's dramatic account of the interview, [1] with its pathetic touches, artfully introduced to excite pity for the hapless King, and indignation against Orleton - how the triumphant plotter marshalled his deputation in the King's camera, reserving to himself the office of spokesman - how the King, coming from the inner chamber, clad in a plain black robe, fell back fainting at the sight of his relentless foe - how Orleton, mira impudentia, beginning his address while the King, still half- unconscious, was supported in the arms of Henry of Lancaster and the Bishop of Winchester, bluntly put it to the wretched monarch that his choice lay between abdicating in favour of his son, and being dethroned to make room for a stranger - how the unhappy Edward, cum fletu et ejulatu, replied that he was sorry to have given such offence to his people, but was well pleased thht they should have chosen his son for king - how the homage was renounced, and the staff of the steward of the royal household broken - how, returning to London, Orleton announced in Parliament the answer of the King plena, immo plenius quam factum fuit. Six articles were drawn up - quoted in full by Orleton himself in his " Defence," where he says they were drafted by Stratford - giving the reasons for the change of sovereignty. The coronation of the young King, on Jan. 29, completed the revolution.
[1] P. 310. Cf, also Lanercost. 2311. De la Moore was himself present at
this meeting, serving as a squire in attendance on the Bishop of Winchester.
[2] Twysden, p. DOS.
xl Introduction.
The Parliament continued in session until March 9, settling the details of the administration. The young King being only fourteen years old, a standing council of advice was appointed, consisting of the two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Hereford and Winchester, together with Henry of Lancaster, and seven others. The Bishop of Ely was appointed Chancellor, and Orleton, for the immediate present, became Treasurer. [1] He only held the office, however, for two months, and of his official acts as Treasurer I can only find two notices. On March 6, " Adam, Bishop of Hereford, our Treasurer," with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mortimer, Lancaster, and others, witnesses the King's renewal of the charter of liberties to the city of London. [2] And an entry in the Originalia Rolls [3] records that the Bishop, as Treasurer, was made guardian of the Manor of Rosamound, late the property of John de Benstede, deceased.
It will be remembered that Baldock, the Chancellor of Edward II, when put upon his trial with Despenser at Hereford in the previous November, had been claimed by Orleton as a member of the Church, and put into the Bishop's prison. When he came up to London, early in the new year, the Bishop decided to have Baldock brought after him, with the intention of having him tried by an Ecclesiastical Court, At the end of January, therefore, the prisoner was brought to London, and placed under guard in the Bishop's house at Montalt. [4] The Bailiffs of London, however,
[1] The Archbishop of York, who had been Treasurer, handed over the Rolls,
keys, etc., on Jan. 28. Pat. Rolls, 1 Ed. III.
[2] Annales Paulini. 338
[3] II. 4.
[4] The official residence of the Bishops of Hereford in London, Montalt,
or Monthault, on what is now Old Fish Street Hill, had been purchased,
about the year 1234, by Bishop Ralph de Maidstone, who gave it to his
successors in the See of Hereford for ever. Its chapel, dedicated to St.
Mary, was, some years later, converted into the Parish Church of St. Mary,
Montalt, and its patronage was in the Bishop's hands; but it was valued
(31 Ed. I) at only half a mark. In Feb. 1307. Bishop Swinfield entertained,
at Montalt, Durandus. Bishop of Mende, the Pope's Commissioner to report
upon the miracles of Bishop Cantilupe. The house seems, from the first, to
have been let to a family of the name of Chigwell. At any rate, a certain
Richard de Chigwell has it in 1289, and in 1311 Bishop Swinfleld gave a
lease of the house to Hamo de Chigwell, the "pepperer" (according to Stowe)
or fishmonger (as he is called. Annal. Lond.. p. 232). who was six times
Lord Mayor of London, and very prudently discharged the duties of that
office during the dangerous period of the Despenser quarrel. The lease of
1311 (probably the renewal of an older one) provides that Hamo shall store
"his wine and other useful and necessary things" in the house, but that
the Bishop shall have the use of the house when he comes to London for
meetings of the Bishops or for Parliament (Reg. Swint.. 173b). It would
seem that Orleton continued this arrangement, and we find him, in 1318,
borrowing from Hamo. There remains, however, some uncertainty as to the
exact relation between the Bishop and the Chigwell family in the matter of
the Montalt house. For in the archives of the city of London is preserved
the will of Joanna Chigwell, proved on June 11, 1324, in which, for
charitable purposes, she disposes of certain rents quo percipere solebam
annuatim de curia domino episcopi Herefordie (Cal. I. p. 308).
The death of Baldock. xli
contending that the Bishop had no right to possess a prison of his own within the liberties of the city, claimed the prisoner, and carried him off to Newgate. [1] De la Moore, as a matter of course, suggests that this was done at the Bishop's own instigation, in order that the hardships of the common prison might kill his victim. For, as he plausibly argues, Orleton, seeing that he was now potentissimus prelatus provincie, salvia dignitate archiepiscopatus, could quite securely have resisted the Bailiffs' claim. But it is far more likely that the Bishop, always a man of sound common sense, did not care to involve himself in a struggle with the London citizens for the sake of a shadowy right, when substantial power, sufficient to content the most ambitious, was already within his grasp. That he should feel any special desire to save the pitiful creature who had sold himself as a willing tool to Edward II and the Despensers was not to be expected. The ex-chancellor died soon afterwards [2] (" in torments," adds De la Moore with his habitual exaggeration) and was buried at St. Paul's. Orleton did, indeed, gain some slight advantage from his death. For, on July 2, he secured from the Pope letters of provision, granting to his nephew, Thomas de Trilleck [3] the Canonry and Prebend of Wells, void by the death of Baldock.
Scarcely was the session of Parliament over than Orleton resumed his old employment of envoy to the Papal curia. We should almost have expected him to have remained at the English Court, where he now held a leading position. He was the intimate and trusted friend of Isabella and Mortimer, [4] who held in
[1] Annales Paul., D. 320
[2] De la Moore (p. 312) says he died cito post Pascha: Walsingham (p.
185), circa festum Ascensionis Domini: the Chronicler of St. Paul's (p. 52)
gives the date as 9 Kal. Jun.
[3] The authorities at Wells had given Baldock's Prebend (of Yatton) to
Alan de Conesburgh, and it was two years before Thomas de Trilleck secured
possession. Orleton himself wrote urgently to Bishop Drokensford in the
matter, and Stratford also wrote that he and Orleton, as executors of the
Papal Provision, would remove Alan de Conesburgh from the stall, without
cost to Drokensford. He begs him, therefore, not to hinder the Bishop of
Worcester's nephew (for Orleton, by this time, had been translated to
Worcester) from getting possession of the Prebend. Upon this, Bishop
Drokensford writes, on May 29. 1329, to the Dean and Chapter "Thomas de
Trilleck, having obtained, by Papal Provision, the prebend of Yatton, must
receive full possession." Thomas, and his brother John de Trilleck, though
both under the canonical age, were already Portionists of Bromyard; a few
years later both are Canons also of Hereford, obtaining in 1333
"reservation of one of the canonical houses." We cannot follow the further
fortunes of the brothers, but may remind the reader that, in 1344. when
Thomas Charleton died. John de Trilleck became Bishop of Hereford.
[4] It is, it must be confessed, somewhat difficult to understand how a
Bishop of the Church could connive at the adultery of Isabella and
Mortimer, as Orleton must have done, if the received story of the relations
between the Queen and Mortimer be true. The same difficulty meets us in the
attitude of Becket, a century and a half earlier, towards the connection of
Henry II with Rosamund Clifford.
xlii Introduction.
their hands all the real power for the next four years. He was a member also of the Council of Twelve, which guided the action of the young King. And, as Treasurer, he was occupied in the congenial work of administration. The new government, from the first, showed signs of disruption, since the young King and his friends - of whom Stratford and Montacute were the chief - were already proving restive under Mortimer's authority, and resented the rule of the " Queen's Bishops." [1] Orleton's shrewdness and ability would, therefore, have been most helpful at home. But the Queen and Mortimer probably realised how important it was that a trustworthy representative should go at once to the Papal Court, and justify the revolution to the Pope. [2] And so, on March 30, accompanied by Bartholomew de Burghersh, knight, and Thomas de Asteley, clerk, Orleton started for Avignon [3] the Bishop of Lincoln succeeding him at the Treasury. The envoys went first to Valenciennes (and possibly to the French Court also), reaching Avignon only on July 14. The Pope was eagerly expecting Orleton, anxious to have a trustworthy account of the state of affairs in England. [4] On the day after the Bishop's arrival, John XXII sent Bartholomew de Burghersh back with a letter professing inability to grant the dispensation for the King's marriage. [5] On the same day there is an entry in the Papal Register that the Pope granted to Adam, Bishop of Hereford, an indult that his confessor may give him, being penitent, plenary forgiveness of his sins at the hour of death; and granted him also faculties to fill up three vacant canonries of Hereford.
The Bishop remained at Avignon all the summer, obtaining many grants for many friends, and securing, on Aug. 30, the wished-for dispensation for the King's marriage. In England, meanwhile, Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, died on Aug. 26, at Hartlebury Castle. [6] On the last day of the month, the
[1] As early as Jan. 6. 1328. Edward III - or possibly Stratford or
Montacute in his name - laments, in a letter to the Pope de strage et
aliis diris et asperis, que ... ex indiscreto regimine prelatorum
creduntur verisimiliter contigisse. Foed. II. ii. 182.
[2] The ostensible reason of the journey was to obtain the Papal
dispensation for the marriage of the King and Philippa of Hainault, who
were related in the third degree.
[3] Annal. Paul. p. 333. The Letters of Credence are dated March 24.
[4] Two days before Orleton reached Avignon, John XXII writes to Hugh de
Engolisma, the Papal Nuncio in England, that he is detaining Hugh's envoy
"until the arrival of Adam, Bishop of Hereford, who will inform the Pope
of the state of those parts."
[5] This would seem to have been merely diplomatic "bluff", that he might
obtain from the new King some quid pro quo.
[6] Annal. Paul. p. 337. Le Neve gives the date as Aug. 20.
Orleton translated to Worcester. xliii
Chapter obtained the King's license to elect a Bishop in his place. Wulstan de Bransford, Prior of Worcester was chosen; and, the royal assent being obtained on Sept. 8, he received the temporalities on Oct. 8. The King - that is, Stratford, who, from the first, had been jealous of the " Queen's Bishops " - wrote letters to the Pope in favour of Bransford, ordered preparations to be made for his consecration, and commanded the Archbishop to confirm the appointment. The helpless Reynolds, fearing equally the King and the Pope, delayed, procrastinated, and, at last, opportunely died (Nov. 16) without performing the ceremony. The King then commanded the Chapter of Canterbury to confirm, but they declined to do so, for fear of the Pope's displeasure. John XXII, meanwhile, ignoring what was going on in England, translated Orleton to Worcester by Papal Bull dated Sept. 28. [1] On Orleton's return to England, the King addressed to him a threatening letter, prohibiting him from acceptimg the Bishopric of Worcester; and, on Dec. 26, he was summoned to appear before the Parliament at York, to answer for his action in obtaining Papal letters prejudicial to the King. In spite of all this, he obtained the restitution of the temporalities on March 5, 1328. The appointment to a bishopric then, as now, involved the expenditure of a large sum of money in dilapidations. The estates of the Hereford See, having been for so long " in the King's hands " - i.e, handed over as a prey to the Despensers and their greedy and rapacious hirelings, Baldock and Irby - had very considerably lessened in value, and the cost of the dilapidations would have ruined the Bishop's financial position, had not the Pope, on Nov. 4, issued a mandate to the Abbots of Dore and Evesham and the Prior of Llanthony " to do justice touching the manors and buildings belonging to the income of the Bishop of Hereford, lessened in value by neglect of the secular power and malice of ministers, who detained the temporalities of Hereford. Bishop Adam is not to be molested on account of such dilapidation."
Why Orleton braved the King's displeasure to obtain translation from Hereford to Worcester, it is somewhat difficult to see, unless it be that the various manors had indeed been so impoverished by the plunder and neglect of the past three years that the Bishop saw no reasonable likelihood of obtaining any income from them. The reason given for his translation to Winchester, in the
[1] Le Nets says Sept. 25; but the date in the Papal Register is 4 Kal, Oct.
xliv Introduction.
sarcastic lines quoted by Wharton, [1] does not apply in this case, as far as the Bishoprics in themselves are concerned. For, though Hereford was one of the poorest Sees in England, yet, according to the Taxatio ecclesiastica, Worcester was little more valuable: there is, indeed, reason to believe that it was actually of less total value. The Taxatio returns the temporalities of Hereford at £449 7s. 5d. (with mobilia to the value of £3 5s. 0d.), and the temporalities of Worcester at £485 12s. 8d. But it would almost seem, from an entry in the Swinfield Register [1] that various items were omitted in the Taxatio, which would raise the value of the Hereford Bishopric to 790 marks. [2]
With the appointment to Worcester must end our detailed account of Bishop Orleton. We can only give a hasty sketch of the last eighteen years of his long and busy life. In Oct., 1328, at the Parliament of Salisbury, there came an open breach with Stratford. He, acting for Henry of Lancaster, bitterly attacked Mortimer, who, as a matter of course, was supported by Orleton and Burghersh. Early next year (Feb. 16, 1329), Orleton's conviction in the memorable trial of 1324 was annulled - on technical grounds only, for nowhere does the Bishop deny that he helped Mortimer. On the same day the temporalities of the See were declared to have been wrongly taken from him, and the arrears of income were ordered to be made over to him. [3] The Bishop continued to go abroad on the King's business, once or twice a year, during all the time that he held the See of Worcester: nor did the fall of Mortimer, in 1330, cause him to lose the King's favour. He became very intimate also with Philip VI. of France, on several missions to his court; and on Dec. 1, 1333, John XXII (a few months only before his death), ad preces regis Fronde, [4] translated Orleton to Winchester, vacant by the appointment of Stratford to the Archbishopric. The English King, who had intended to give the preferment to a relative of William de Montacute, his confidential helper in the plot against Mortimer three years before, was annoyed. Taking advantage of the royal displeasure
[1] Anglia Sacra., I. p. 534 (cf, also Murimouth, p. 173. and Baker, p. 5 ):-
Trinus est Adam: talem suspendere vadem;
Thomam des exit. Wulstanum non bene relit;
Swithinum maluit. Cur? Qaia plus valuit.
[2] Pf. 77b-78a.
[3] For an account of the income of the Bishopric see Capes' Introd. to
Cant. Reg., p. ix.
[4] Rot. Parl. II. p. 427.
[5] Annal. Paul., p. 360. Cf. Murimouth, p. 72.
Orleton's defence of himself. xlv
some of Stratford's followers - it is not clear that the Archbishop himself was a party to the proceedings - lodged a formal appeal against Orleton's appointment to Winchester, on the ground of the leading part he had taken in the dethronement and death of Edward II. [1] The definite acts of treason alleged against the Bishop were-
(1) That he commanded or brought about the ill-treatment of Robert de Baldock.
(2) That in his sermon at Oxford he had called King Edward II a tyrant, and had so excited the hearts of his subjects against him that they laid hands on the King and thrust him into prison.
(3) That at Wallingford he so played upon the fears of Queen Isabella that she did not dare to go to her husband the King.
To these charges the Bishop replies at length in a document which has been printed by Twysden [2] To the first accusation he replies that Baldock was, in Nov., 1326, lawfully convicted in a secular court, and that he, as Bishop, had claimed him and kept him at Hereford until the meeting of the Provincial Council at London in January. Then by command of the King (i.e, the young Edward III), he, the Bishop, had brought Baldock to London et foci prefatum R. bona fide sine dolo malo in hospitio meo Episcopali recipi, et cum diligentia debita custodiri; until the citizens of London, fearing lest prece et pretio muneribus datis et promissis he might escape, took him away per quorundam armatorum potentiam invitis custodibus. [3] The answer to the second charge I have already quoted, in narrating the visit of the Queen and her party to Oxford. As to the proceedings at Wallingford, Orleton says: " The Queen, hearing that certain complaints had been made that she did not join her husband, called a Council, at which I
[1] De la Moore's stupid story (p. 317) that Orleton instigated the murder
of the King, writing to his gaolers, at the Queen's request, the ambiguous
sentence Edwardum occidere molite finery bonum est needs no further
refutation than to state, first, that the story of the ambiguous order was
already an old one when De la Moore wrote, having been told, long before,
of an Archbishop of Strimonium with reference to Gertrude. Queen of
Hungary (Cf. Chron. Alberici. (circ. 1242 sub anno 1213): and, secondly,
that Orleton went abroad on March 30, 1327 (Edward being then safe in
charge of his cousin, Henry of Lancaster, at Kenilworth) and was at
Avignon, occupied in the negotiations for his translation to Worcester,
when the King was murdered on Sept. 21.
[2] Twysden. Decem Scriptores, pp. 2763-2768.
[3] This explanation differs slightly from that given by the Annalist of
St. Paul's (p, 330), whose story I followed in my account of Baldock's
death.
xlvi Introduction.
was present, with Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, John, then of Winton, now of Canterbury, William of Norwich, the Earl of Lancaster, and others. By this Council I was instructed publicly to set forth her answer to these complaints, which I did, adding nothing of my own, nor lessening at all what was commanded me. Later on, when I was abroad, the Queen called a Council at Stamford, where the whole question was carefully debated, and it was decided that they could not allow her to join her husband, which she was quite ready to do. Moreover, long before, even in France, the Queen had well-grounded fears of her husband's cruelty, as is proved by the following letter to W. Archbishop of Canterbury, who had written requesting her to return." [Then follows the Queen's letter, dated " Paris, the Sunday after the Purification," stating that she was in fear of bodily harm to herself from Hugh Despenser, and, in consequence, she does not dare to return.] The deposition of the King, Orleton further states, was lawfully brought about by agreement drawn up by J[ohn Stratford], then Bishop of Winchester, now Archbishop-elect of Canterbury. [Here he quotes the agreement in full.] " As to what they call the capture of the King, the King went of his own free will to the castle of his kinsman, the Earl of Lancaster, and there he was in health and safety when I left England, on the business of the present King, for the Court of Rome."
For nine months the King withheld from Orleton the temporalities of Winchester; but, on Sept. 23, 1334, he yielded, at the joint request of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province. Orleton was now growing old, and was threatened also with blindness. His last journey abroad on the King's business was in 1336 to the Court of France. More and more he withdrew himself from public affairs, feeling unequal to the responsibilities of ministerial life - perhaps also increasingly unable to work with Stratford, who was Chancellor and President of the Council. Once only did the Bishop come out of his comparative retirement - to take part in the attack upon Stratford in 1341. The King, on Nov. 30, 1340, had unexpectedly returned from the French war, angry and mortified at his want of success, and at the failure of supplies. The strong anti-clerical party at Court fostered his resentment against Stratford, who, as Chancellor, was blamed for the failure of the war. He was removed from office, and the first lay Chancellor, Sir Robert Bourchier, appointed in his place.
Orleton's death. xlvii
Here the matter might have ended; but Stratford's enemies at Court did not mean it to end here; and Stratford - who was by no means brilliant or clever, but had risen to his high position because he was an eminently " safe " man for official purposes - forgetting his usual caution, played into their hands by delivering a course of sermons, in which he compared himself to St. Thomas of Canterbury, and reminded the King of the fate of his father. This provoked Edward, on Feb. 10, 1341, to issue a sort of pamphlet, called a libellus famosus, full of violent abuse of the Archbishop, who is made answerable for all the ill-success of the recent expedition. Stratford and his supporters alleged that this pamphlet had been written by Orleton. [1] It is more than likely that Orleton - already quite blind [2] - gladly welcomed the invitation to come out of his retirement in order to lead the attack upon the man who, more than any other, save perhaps William de Montacute, was responsible for the death of his dearest friend. He may even, with the same skill as of old, have suggested the general line of argument to the writer, whoever he was. But we have his own definite denial that he wrote the libellus famosus as it stands. [3] The unseemly interview in the Painted Chamber, on April 27, when Orleton and Bourchier, the angry spokesmen of the angry King, tried to force submission on the Archbishop, as he paraded his feebly theatrical imitation of the very words and gestures of the martyred Becket, reflects little credit on anyone concerned, and is best passed over in silence. When a reconciliation was patched up, on May 7, Orleton went back to his diocese, and lived in the quiet discharge of his routine duties until his death, at Farnham, July 18, 1345. [4]
What is the verdict on this life that we have thus briefly sketched ? Probably no one, not even Tiberius or Nero, has been
[1] Cf. Robert of Avesbury, p. 330. Litera quam dominos A. Wyntonensis
Episcopus, prefab Archiepiscopo temper infestus, ad quorundam ipsius
Archiepiscopi emulorum instanciam, grout dicebatur a pluribus, fabricavit,
et quam dictate dominus rex contra prefatum dominum Archiepiscopum ... direxit.
[2] Birchington (Angl. Sac., I. 40). He adds that Orleton was tunc dicti
regis consiliarius principalis.
[3] Birchington, p. 30.
[4] Eighteen years of absence had not caused the Bishop to forget his old
Hereford friends. John de Trilleck, now himself Bishop of Hereford, was
present, with Adam de Aylinton (once Rector of Mordiford), and Nicholas de
Caerwent (Rector of Kinnersley), at the death-bed in Farnham Castle
(Trilleck Reg, f. 66a). And four out of the six executors of Orleton's
will were John and Thomas de Trilleck, Roger de Breinton, and Walter
Caries (Ibid.. f. 66b).
xlviii introduction.
more harshly treated by historians - more especially in the matter of adjectives. " Vindictive prelate," " pestilent Achitophel," " infamous consipirator," "factious schemer," "bitter and unscrupulous traitor " - these and the like phrases have been handed on from writer to writer, [1] since first De la Moore composed his Vita et mors Edwardi secundi, in which, on every page, Orleton plays the part of Iago; though, in De la Moore's romance, it is Desdemona who is beguiled into murdering Othello. This work of De la Moore is a perfect exemplification of the old proverb that, if only a man throws mud enough, some will be sure to stick. Of all the contemporary writers, De la Moore alone paints Orleton's character in black. Now De la Moore is, as Stubbs confesses, the least valuable of these contemporary authorities; but he is, of them all, by far the most vivid and picturesque. Hence every succeeding writer has taken his adjectives from de la Moore's graphic story.
A knight of Gloucestershire [2] - or, as Stubbs thinks, of Oxfordshire - De la Moore had passed his youth as a squire in Stratford's household. In attendance upon Stratford, he had gone with the envoys of the Parliament to Kenilworth, to receive the King's resignation; and he seems to have been a friend and admirer of the Archbishop through life. He wrote the Vita et mors in or about 1347, i.e, five or six years after Orleton had written - as was alleged - the famosus libellus, in which the good knight's friend and patron was so bitterly attacked. It is clear, from the accounts, that party feeling in the matter ran very high: violent abuse - even cursing - was indulged in by both sides. It will easily be seen, then, why De la Moore, writing at a time when his friend - for Stratford received no secular office after the quarrel of 1341 - was spending what proved to be the last year of his life in compulsory retirement from ministerial work, hates Orleton as the cause of all this. We can quite readily understand how he comes to make Orleton the villain of the piece. As a matter of fact the Vita et mors scarcely even pretends to be a serious historical
[1] There is one brilliant exception to this chorus of parrot-like condemnation. The learned German historian of England. Dr. Pauli, says that Orleton was "ein Mann von Wissen and Character." [2] The argument which follows is not in any way affected, should Sir E. Maunde Thompson prove to be correct in holding that the Vita et more is not the work of De la Moore, but is the early part of the chronicle of Geoffrey le Baker. For the knight was Baker's patron, and the chronicle is written from De la Moore's point of view, even if not by his hand.
The malice of De la Moore. xlix
work. It is a political pamphlet, a counterblast to the famosus libellus.[1] But, while no one professes to accept as fact the violent exaggerations of the libellus, the bitter and venomous phrases of De la Moore against Orleton, artfully set off by pathetic - and equally untrustworthy - stories of the insults and tortures inflicted on the martyr King, have been accepted without examination, and have been handed on from writer to writer, from that day to this. Omnis hujus mali architector, Sacerdos Baal, Alumnus Jesabelle (note the play on the Queen's name), proditor facundus, disceptator sophisticus - one cannot look through De la Moore's pamphlet (scarcely twenty pages in all) without coming upon these and the like phrases again and yet again. And of no one else, save occasionally of Burghersh, does he ever speak with bitterness. Even he is compelled to admit that Orleton was vir ingenio callidissimus, et prudentia mundana summits. [2] But he persistently represents him as the sole cause of the troubles which befel the all-but-saintly King. It would not be difficult - though space does not allow it here - to go through De la Moore's narrative, point by point, and show how maliciously he has twisted every detail, attributed evil motives to the most innocent actions, and dragged Orleton's name into proceedings with which he has no connection whatever. Some of these spiteful inventions have been incidentally refuted in the preceding pages. But one typical example may usefully be examined here. In the last few lines of his work [3] telling of the death of Sir Thomas Gournay, one of the murderers of the King, De la Moore asserts that the fugitive was captured at Marseilles, and, while being brought back to England by sea, was put to death on shipboard ne forte magistros et magnos prelatos [4] ... accussasset. It happens that, in the 27th volume of "Archaeologia," are printed the official letters and exchequer claims dealing with the death of Gournay. These documents prove that Gournay was arrested at Naples; that he was brought by sea to Coloure, in Boussillon, and, very sick, travelled by land to Bayonne, where - though his guards paid twenty florins to two physicians, and spent thirty-two florins on medicine - he died, and his body was brought to England. Moreover, there is a letter printed in
[1] The magnanimous knight, however, (miles generosissimus he calls
himself, or is in the title of his work) prudently waited until Orleton
was dead before publishing the attack. For he everywhere admits the
Bishop's powers as a controversialist.
[2] P. 385.
[3] P. 319.
[4] Evidently meaning Orleton, since (p. 317) he represents him alone,
lese majestatis sibi conscius, as giving the order for the King's death.
l Introduction.
Rymer's " Foedera " which shows beyond all doubt that the Government was perfectly sincere in its desire for Gournay's return to England.
Very many of De la Moore's statements admit of detailed refutation in this way. But, after all, it is not his statements so much as his adjectives which have affected the reputation of Orleton. The other contemporary historians either, as Murimouth, give a bald and colourless record of events, or mention Orleton with respect. The so-called monk of Malmesbury, " the exactest, the wisest, the most important, and in all respects the best writer of his time," [1] unhesitatingly refers the origin of the trouble to the King and his favourites. [2] Robert of Reading, who, according to Luard, must " rank as of equal authority with the other chroniclers of the time," classes Orleton with Thomas Cobham, the most saintly man of that evil day, and says that the Bishop of Hereford was vir siquidem scientiarum scripturis pienius imbutus, et honoribus ecciesiasticis per omnia dignus. [3] He says, further, that the King's violent proceedings against the Bishop of Hereford were taken in contemptu Christi et Ecclesie atria sedie Apostolice. [4] We have already seen, moreover, how Henry de Blaneford, in narrating Mortimer's escape, likens Orleton to the angel who rescued St. Peter from prison.
The simple truth of the whole matter would seem to be that a regicide - and De la Moore's master-stroke was to brand Orleton as Edward's murderer - is usually regarded as the worst of men. Hence the careless haste with which one writer after another has repeated the malignant slanders elaborately fabricated against Orleton by his rancorous and virulent traducer. Just as Cromwell's character, for two hundred years, was blackened by persistent calumny, until Carlyle stated, once for all, the simple facts, so - si parva licet componere magnis - the facts of Orleton's life have only to be stated, to show the utter baselessness of Do la Moore's vile charges.
[1] Carte. II. p. 340.
[2] P. 171. Tota iniquitas originaliter exiit a curia.
[3] Flor. Hist., III. p. 177. To shew that this is not merely otiose
praise, we may quote the same author's words about William of Maidstone
(Cobham's predecessor at Worcester) cujus vita, maculosa reddidit hominem
infamia seculo respersum, et a bonorum consortio moribus alienum.
[4] Flor. Hist., III. p. 218.
The Character of Orleton. li
It may quite possibly be true, as Stubbs says, that there was in the reign of Edward II " a miserable level of political selfishness which marks, without exception, every public man " though, surely, even letting judgment against Orleton go by default, neither Pembroke, nor Henry of Lancaster, nor Archbishop Melton can, on any shelving, justly be called selfish. But, if we were to grant that Stubbs is correct in his sweeping statement, we might at any rate claim that Orleton was no worse than the rest. He was quite certainly not the malignant and merciless monster of De la Moore's highly-coloured picture. I venture to doubt whether he was even the " vindictive prelate," " malicious as ever," of Stubbs' sketch. One thing, in any case, is beyond dispute. If he was a good hater, he was also a firm friend. He suffered for the Mortimers when they were weak, when nothing seemed less likely than their triumph. Through years of all but abject poverty and disgrace, he worked and schemed for Mortimer. And ten years after the death of his friend, he rushed once again into the fiercest of the strife, old and blind though be was, in the hope of taking vengeance upon one of Mortimer's triumphant foes. But if a man resolutely chooses his side, works for it zealously, clings to it when it fails - above all, if he suffers for it, it is not unmingled blame that he deserves. And Orleton beyond doubt suffered for his choice, both before and after the King's death. Though vastly abler than Stratford - not to mention Meopham or Reynolds - he failed to reach the Archbishopric, which they obtained, because he had not Stratford's art of following, not guiding events - of facing both ways until the trend of things was unmistakeable. Orleton deliberately preferred to make history rather than be the best-dressed of its lay figures.
That Orleton was clever no one, of course, denies - by far the ablest man of an age not strong in statesmanship. That he was an ideal of saintly life no one would be so foolish as to assert. But we may fairly claim that, judged by the standards of his own day, he was, in point of character as well as of ability, high above most of his fellows, whether barons or bishops. Far nearer to the truth than De la Moore's studied abuse is the judgment of Henry de Blaneforde that Orleton was vir matures et literals scientia excellenter ornatus, or of Robert of Reading that he was honoribus ecclesiasticis per omnia dignus.
Return to top of page