Baring-Gould’s sources: Roman and Gallican Martyrologies. Sarum, York, and Hereford Kalendars, “The Deposition of S. Edmund.” Authorities A Life by Robert Rich, his brother, in Surius.1 Another, by Bertrand of Pontigny, a contemporary, in Martene et Durand., Thes. anecd, iii. p. 1753-1876. Epistolse varise ad historiam S. Edmimdi, ap. Martene, L c. p. 1897-1928. A MS. Life from the archives of Pontigny, by an anonymous writer, published at Auxerre, 1793. A Life by Robert Bacon, priest at Oxford, Professor of Theology (d. 1248). Mention in Matthew of Westminster, Matthew Paris, Florence of Worcester, Roger of Wendover, &c.] Edmund Rich was the son of Edward and Mabel Rich, of Abingdon, pious persons; so pious, indeed, was the father, that he deserted his wife and children to enter the abbey of Evesham, leaving Mabel Rich the responsibility and care of bringing up his two sons, Edmund and Robert, and two or three young daughters. She was also a most pious woman; she wore a horsehair shirt and petticoat, and in addition an iron tunic of chain mail reaching to the calf of her leg, the inconvenience of which in the exercise of her domestic duties left nothing to be desired. When S. Edmund was born, tokens of his future sanctity were accorded;2 the midwife confidently affirmed she had never seen such a paragon of a baby before. When Edmund was one day walking in the meadows near Oxford, where he was sent to school, he suddenly saw a beautiful little boy in front of him, who said, “ Edmund, my dear, how do you do ?” Edmund looked at the child with 1 “Mutato stylo, interdum paraphrasticos descripta." Unfortunately Surius thus treated nearly all the Lives he printed. dissimus pannus cui involutus fuit, nullam prorsus maculam ab eo contraxissc videbatur.” — Vit. ap. Sur.
…astonishment. “Do you not know me? I sit by you at school, and am at your side when you play.” Edmund then suspected he saw the child Jesus, and was satisfied it was so when told by the boy to write his name on his brow with his finger every night, and promised that by doing this he would infallibly be preserved from sudden death.1 Edmund and a companion saw a field, lately dug up, covered with rooks picking up worms. Edmund went towards them, made the sign of the cross, and they flew cawing away. “ They are devils,” he said, “ waiting to carry off the soul of a sinner. Let us ask in the adjoining village if any one be dead or dying there.” They asked, and found there had been a death there recently.
Edmund was sent with his brother to finish his studies in Paris. When they departed, their mother gave them each a horsehair shirt, and made them promise to wear the garment at least two or three times a week next to the skin, and to recite the whole psalter every Sunday and festival before breakfast.
Whilst at Paris Edmund’s virtue was put to a rude test The daughter of his host fell in love with him, and made advances with sufficient want of delicacy to show that she was a girl with no modesty of mind. She even went so far as to steal into his room one evening in exceedingly light costume. Edmund grasped his birch-rod with one hand, her shoulders with the other, and thrashed her bare back unmercifully. The girl danced and wriggled under the lashes, afraid to scream out, lest her father and mother should find her there. Edmund did not let her go till her back was covered with purple wheals.
Whilst Edmund was at Paris his mother fell ill. He was obliged to return to England to receive her last breath, and 1 Did this happen on April z ? And was some mischievous fellow-pupil "«^»£ a fool of him?
Nov. x6.j 5*. Edmund. to dispose of his sisters. He took them to a convent. They were very beautiful, and might get into mischief if not locked up out of reach of harm; he did not feel disposed to make a home for them himself, consequently there was no alternative but to immure them in a nunnery. The superior to whom he first applied refused to take them in without a dowry. It does not appear what means had been left by the parents for the support of their children, but Edmund had enough from them to maintain himself and his brother at the university if the girls could be supported on charity. The demand of the superior was not unreasonable; Edmund, however, wanted the money himself, so he took his sisters to Catesby Priory, in Northamptonshire, where they were received without payment. He thus was enabled to wash his hands of them, and to return to his studies.1 Thoiifeh he had no money to waste on his sisters, he had sufficient for the erection of a chapel near his abode in Paris, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin.
He now increased his mortifications. The hair-shirt his mother had given him proved inadequate to his wants. He had one made of twisted horsehair with knots in it, and he bound a cart-rope round his waist so that he could scarcely bend his body. In Advent and Lent [the forty days of fasting before Easter] he wore a shirt made of sheet-lead. He vowed perpetual celibacy, and to make this renunciation of carnal marriage more solemn, he contracted a spiritual marriage with the Virgin Mary, putting his ring on the finger of her image, and appropriating to his finger one from hers.
He took his degree of Master of Arts, and then of Doctor of Divinity, at Paris. He was ordained priest, and became a notable preacher. In his study he had a little ivory image 1 “Mirifice exhilaratus Edmundus "—at not having to pay for their support— “ totum curarum pondus, quod a sororibus ei incuberat, in Priorissae manus depo[Not. id.
of the Virgin, with the mysteries of redemption carved round it — probably one of those ivory triptychs with groups cut on the doors and on either side of the central figure, such as still remain in considerable numbers. He used to pray to this image with great devotion. He seldom ate more than once a day, and then very sparingly, slept on the bare floor, or on a footstool, with his head leaning against the bed. For thirty years he never undressed himself to go to bed. The friction of the horsehair probably exerted a beneficial effect on the skin, which otherwise might have suffered for want of frequent ablutions.
He returned to England in 1219, taught Aristotle at Oxford till 1226. He was offered several ecclesiastical preferments, but refused them till the more congenial office of canon and treasurer of Salisbury was offered him, when he readily accepted it. The income he did not spend on himself, still less on his brother or sisters, but bestowed it in abundant alms on beggars, the needy, and the sick. Gregory IX. was eager to enroll Christendom in another crusade, under Frederick II., for the recovery of the holy places. He commissioned Edmund to preach it in England, and empowered him to draw payment from each parish in which he preached. Edmund executed his commission with great zeal, but performed his ministry free of charge. A hawker of fish and his son at Uxbridge saw a fiery cross in the sky, whilst jogging along in their fish-cart, and though some laughed at the story, it helped to kindle enthusiasm in many for the new crusade.1 Peter Des Roches, bishop of Winchester, and William Brewer, bishop of Exeter,^ were induced to take the cross and leave their dioceses for an excursion to the East.
William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, who had not approached the sacraments for a long time, was greatly moved 1 Roger of Wend over, sub ann. 1227.
ift > by a sermon of S. Edmund, and converted. He did not, however, live long to show the results of his conversion, for he was poisoned at a banquet given him by Hubert the Justiciary, whom he had pardoned for having attempted the violation of the Countess of Salisbury during the absence of her husband from England.1 S. Edmund trained many in the way of prayer. In his little treatise, “ Speculum Ecclesiae,” he says, very wisely: “ A hundred thousand persons are deceived by multiplying the number of their prayers. I would rather say five words devoutly with my heart, than five thousand which my soul does not relish with love and intelligence. Sing to the Lord with the understanding, says the Psalmist What a man re peats with his mouth, let that be the expression of the emotions of his soul.”
There had been difficulties and contests about the archbishopric of Canterbury. On the death of Stephen Langton the monks of Canterbury had elected Walter of Hevesham to the primacy. The king refused his assent, as the father of Walter had been hanged for robbery, and the archbishop elect had espoused the party opposed to King John during the interdict The suffragan [a bishop under the authority of an archbishop] bishops brought graver charges against him. He had debauched a nun, and was father of several children by her. Appeal was made to Rome; the Pope delayed his sentence for further inquiry. The ambassadors of the king, the bishops of Chester and Rochester, and John of Newton in vain laboured to obtain the Papal decision. One argument alone would weigh with the Pope and the cardinals. At length they engaged to pay for this tardy justice the tenth of all movable property in the realm of England and Ireland in order to aid the Pope in his war against the emperor. Even then the alleged immoralities were not inquired into as disqualifications; the elected primate [the leading bishop of a country] of Eng’ Roger of Wendorer.
VOL. XIII. 23 land was examined by three cardinals on certain minute points of theology, and as he gave unsatisfactory answers to the questions, how it was that Rachel, being already dead, could weep for her children, whether Christ descended into hell in the flesh or in the spirit, and such like, he was pronounced unworthy of so august a see, and Richard Wethershead, chancellor of Lincoln, nominated by the king and the suffragan bishops, was appointed to the archbishopric by Papal bull.
Richard speedily quarrelled with the king about Tonbridge town and castle, which he claimed as belonging to the see of Canterbury [a bishop’s “see” is his diocese, named from his seat (Latin sedes)]. He made a journey to Rome to support his claims, and died on his way home, 1231. On this, the monks of Canterbury elected unanimously Radulph de Neville, bishop of Chichester, and chancellor to the king, “ because he was very faithful to both king and kingdom, and an unshaken pillar of the truth But the Pope, fearing the zeal of that faithful man, lest he should endeavour to deliver the kingdom of England, which he loved with a sincere heart, from the yoke of tribute to the Pope, under which it was bowed, made them answer that he was a man hasty in word, and presumptuous, and not deserving of such pre-eminence. And that the monks might be the more willing to abandon this candidate, he hardly granted them permission to elect or demand any other archbishop.” 1 The monks of ChristChurch then elected John, their prior, and the king ratified the appointment (1232); and the bishop elect started for Rome to obtain the Papal confirmation. Gregory IX., however, refused him, because “he saw that John was very old and simple, and not at all calculated for such a dignity; and he persuaded him to yield in the spirit of meekness.” The monks of Canterbury, again frustrated, chose John Blund, an Oxford theologian. The king approved, and he 1 Matthew of Westminster, sub ann. 1231. •S'. Edmund.
also departed for Rome with some monks to procure the confirmation of his election from the Apostolic See. The bishop of Winchester wrote in his behalf to the emperor, Frederick II., to enlist his sympathies for John Blund. This came to the ears of Pope Gregory, who hated Frederick. The Pope made the excuse that John Blund enjoyed two benefices without having sought a dispensation for so doing, and annulled his election, as he had done those of Radulph de Neville and Prior John. Then S. Edmund was elected. He had served Pope Gregory in preaching the crusade, and Gregory did not anticipate that he would obstruct his attempts to exact tribute from the English Church and people, and to supply his Italian favourites with rich benefices in England.
Hubert de Burgh, chief justiciary, was a faithful, energetic, and sagacious minister of the king. He held in check the turbulent nobility, and by vigorous measures cleared the land of the banditti who infested it On the other hand, he disregarded every right, liberty, and law which impeded his course. In 1231 Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, a Poitevin, returned from the East, where he had spent five years, and he speedily succeeded in undermining the influence of De Burgh with the king. Henry dismissed his justiciary, and the bishop of Winchester became his counsellor. The administration of Des Roches lasted only two years. His appointment of Poitevins to the chief places of the household, and his introduction of foreign garrisons into the kingdom, gave the greatest offence. The indignant barons refused to attend the great council; and, finally, a small section, under Richard, Earl of Pembroke, took up arms against the ministers. This party allied themselves with the Scots and Welsh; ravaged the lands of their enemies, obtained several successes over the royal troops, and set Hubert de Burgh at liberty. Peter des Roches took sanctuary in his cathedral of Winchester with Peter of Riveaux, the treasurer. S. Edmund, “ a man of marvellous sanctity and mildness, eagerly desiring the peace and honour of the king and kingdom, exerted himself as much as possible, going to and fro between the two parties repeatedly, in order to establish peace between the king and his natural subjects. And the king, knowing that he was a holy and just man, greatly inclined his mind to his prayers. At last, by the agency of money, added to entreaties, the Pontiff obtained the king’s clemency for them.” 1 At the commencement of the year 1236 Henry married Eleanor, daughter of Raymund, count of Provence. Her uncle, William, bishop of Valence, at once became his most trusted counsellor, to the great displeasure of the English nobility. Henry was an easy, affectionate, and generally religious man; fond of the arts, averse to cruelty and manifest wrong. But he was weak, extravagant, careless of his word, and easily governed by his relations and flatterers. Thus he proved an incompetent and unpopular ruler. He had commenced his reign with a strong distrust of the nobility; he had subsequently alienated the majority of them by his disregard of the charters, his frequent rejection of their advice, and, above all, by his constant employment of foreigners in his councils and service. As a protection against them, Henry invited the Pope to send him a legate [an official representative sent by the pope] to reside at his court He could hardly have adopted a course more likely to give offence. The legate Gualo, cardinal of S. Marcellus, who had been sent to England by Honorius III., had occasioned great bitterness against Rome in the minds of clergy and laity. The nobles and clergy who had opposed John when he refused to be bound by the Great Charter which he had signed, and which had been annulled by the Pope on the coronation of Henry III., were dealt with by the legate Gualo. The Matthew of Westminster, sub ann. 1237.
clergy were made to pay the penalty of forfeiture, or the redemption of forfeiture by enormous fines to the Pope and to his legate. The lower ecclesiastics, even canons, under the slightest suspicion of rebellion, were dispossessed of their benefices, and these benefices given to Italian ecclesiastics, who in most cases enjoyed the revenues without ever coming near their cures. The only way to elude degradation was by purchasing the favour of the legate at a vast price. The bishop of Lincoln, for his restoration to his see, paid 1,000 marks to the Pope, 100 to the legate. In the British Museum is a transcript of documents in the Papal archives relating to Great Britain and the See of Rome. It contains curious revelations of the manner in which English benefices were appropriated for foreign ecclesiastics. The convent of Viterbo drew thirty marks annually, a moiety of the living of Holkham, in Norfolk; fifty marks were paid from the church of Wingham to the convent of Monte Aureo at Anagni. Another convent in Anagni appropriated the revenues of a benefice in the diocese of Winchester.
Pandulf, the Papal legate, took the bishopric of Norwich Pope Honorius wrote to him to authorize him to provide a benefice or benefices in Norwich for his own brother, the archdeacon of Thessalonica. A “ consanguineus * of the Pope was given a church worth having. A secretary of the Pope was enriched with a canonry of Lincoln. These foreigners became odious to the whole realm: to the laity as draining away their wealth without discharging any duties; still more to the clergy as usurping their benefices. Though ignorant of the language, they affected superiority of attainments, and made themselves hated on account of their uncongenial manners, and, if they are not belied, unchecked vices. They were blood-suckers, drawing out the life, or drones fattening on the spoil of the land. At length, just at the close of his pontificate, Pope Honorius made the bold and open demand that two prebends in every cathedral and conventual church should be assigned in perpetuity to the Church of Rome. On this the nobles interfered in the king’s name, inhibiting such an alienation. When the subject was brought before a synod at Westminster by the archbishop, the proposal was received with derisive shouts of laughter. King Henry, finding himself unsupported by his nobles, privately invited the legate Otho, cardinal deacon of S. Nicolas, to come to England. When S. Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, heard of this, he went to the king and “ reproached him for acting in the way he did, and especially for summoning the legate, knowing that it would ere long be the cause of great loss to the kingdom, and to the prejudice of his dignity; but the king rejected the advice. The legate therefore came in grand pomp and great power, and the bishops and clerks of distinction went as far as the coast to meet him; and some went off to him in boats, receiving him with acclamations, and offering him costly presents. Even at Paris, the messengers of several bishops met him, and offered him cloth of scarlet and valuable cups. For doing this they deserved general censure, both for the gift and the manner of giving it; for by the cloth and its colour it was made to appear that the office of the legateship and his arrival were accepted.” 1 No sooner was Otho in England than he looked around and ascertained what benefices were vacant, seized, and gave them to his Italian relatives and followers, “whether deserving or undeserving,” adds Matthew Paris. He found himself opposed by Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent, and many others; whilst Edmund of Canterbury viewed his arrival with distrust and fear. The legate endeavoured to appease the anger of the nobles by his courteous speeches, and summoned all the 1 Matthew Paris, sub ann. 1237.
S. Edmund. prelates of England to assemble at S. Paul’s, in London, on the octave of S. Martin [St. Martin of Tours (d. 397), soldier turned bishop]'s day, to hear the Papal bull authorizing him to promulgate decrees for the reformation of the English Church. “ In the meantime, costly presents were offered to the legate, palfreys, handsome vessels, soft and double-wove garments, various skins of wild beasts, money, meats, and liquors.” The bishop of Winchester even sent him fifty head of cattle, a hundred measures of com, and eight casks of wine.
At first the legate acted with caution; seeing the extreme unpopularity of the king and the dislike against himself, he was moderate in his demands, and did not accept all the presents made him.
opened with a contest between the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop of York as to which should sit on the right side of the legate. The cardinal-deacon then read the canons he promulgated for the reformation of the English Church. He was guarded by two hundred soldiers, lest the angry people should fall on him. On the second day of the council, William de Raele (Raleigh), canon of S. Paul's, appeared on behalf of the king and kingdom to prohibit the legate from ruling anything derogatory to the king's crown and dignity; and throughout the council he stood in the midst, robed in his canonical hood and surplice, watching the liberties and rights of the kingdom against the pretensions of the legate. The legate having read the Papal bull, declared that the holding of a “cumulus beneficiorum” was forbidden — of course without Papal dispensation. There were plenty of Roman ecclesiastics who held benefices in England which they never visited, but they held dispense tions from the Pope. Some English clergy had more than one living, but without paying the heavy fee demanded for a dispensation. The decree of the legate was hurled against these. Some of the non-resident Italian beneficed clergy suffered through the patrons appointing Englishmen to their cures of souls, and the tithe was paid to them, and not to the absentees. This was also condemned by the legate, and the intruder was ordered to refund to the absentee all he had received from the cure. “ With regard to the rectors taking up their residence in churches, it seems to us that we must consult fact rather than statute law.*’ But those who presumed, without special dispensations of the Apostolic See, to hold several dignities, parsonages, and other benefices connected with the cure of souls, were said to oppose the statute of a General Council, and to imperil their own salvation. It seems that there were at that time “ many of the clergy ” who were married, not openly, but privately, yet legally before witnesses, and with notarial deeds. Such priests were to be deposed and ejected from their livings, and any property acquired after a marriage of this kind, in whatsoever way obtained, whether by themselves or others, from their own property, “ was on no account to be applied for the use of the wives and children of such a marriage,” but to be confiscated for the good of the Church. This marriage of the clergy was " a disease gaining great ground;” other priests formed connections without legal marriage; such were to be dealt with more lightly, they were only to be suspended should they refuse to dismiss their concubines within a month after the publication of the decree.
In 1239 the excitement of the English nobles and prelates against the king became intense. Richard, duke of Cornwall, the king’s brother, placed himself at the head of the malcontents. “ It was then most confidently hoped that Earl Richard would release the country from the wretched slavery with which it was oppressed by the Romans and the other foreigners; and all parties, from the old man to *S\ Edmund.
the boy, heaped blessings on him. No one adhered to the king, except only Hubert, earl of Kent”1 The legate seeing how matters stood, and frightened for himself, sought Earl Richard and offered him heavy bribes if he would desert to the side of the king. Richard replied that the interests of the realm were at stake and that he would not allow his country to be degraded and ruined. “ Our English king,” he said, “ has fattened all the kindred and relatives of his wife with lands, possessions, and money. Moreover, he has allowed the revenues and ecclesiastical benefices bestowed by our pious ancestors to be seized on as spoil, and to be distributed among foreigners, although this country itself abounds in fitting men to receive them; and England becomes, as it were, a vineyard without a wall, in which all who pass along the road pluck off the grapes.” But Richard was won by promises of lands and money. He failed in his adhesion to the national party, and the discontent brooded without breaking out into revolt. In the same year Edmund had a quarrel with the monks of Rochester relative to the election of Richard de Wendover to the vacant see of Rochester. The monks claimed the right of electing; this the archbishop disputed. The monks were obliged to send a deputation, with all the money they could scrape together, to Rome, to obtain sentence in their favour. The Pope, who had learned through the legate that S. Edmund had constantly opposed the exactions and encroachments of the cardinal-deacon of S. Nicolas, lent a ready ear to their appeal, and confirmed the election of Richard of Wendover. Edmund had gone to Rome on this matter, as well as on a dispute he had with the earl of ArundeL In both cases he was condemned in the costs, about a thousand marks. The monks of Rochester returned triumphant, but “ drained of money f the archbishop also [Not. x& went home, likewise “ drained of money,” and disgusted by his defeat.
In the meantime his great opponent and enemy, the legate Otho, had been getting into danger at Oxford. The story is amusingly told by Matthew Paris. “ The legate, having come to Oxford, was entertained in the house of the canons at Osney, when the scholar-clerks, before breakfast, sent him an honourable present, in the way of meat and drink, and after breakfast proceeded to his place of abode to visit him and salute him. On their approach, however, a transalpine porter, with unbecoming raillery, raising his voice after the manner of the Romans, and holding the door ajar, said, ‘ What do you want ?' To which the clerks replied, * We want his lordship the legate, that we may pay our respects to him/ For they confidently expected to be received with courtesy for the honour they had shown him. The door-keeper, however, with taunting speeches, saucily refused them admittance, and began haughtily to abuse them. At this, the clerks rushed forward with impetuosity, and forced their way in, whilst the Roman attendants, in their endeavours to keep them back, struck thena with fists and' sticks. Whilst thus contending, it happened that a poor Irish chaplain was standing at the door of the kitchen, earnestly begging, in God's name, that some food might be given him, as he was a poor and hungry man. Then the master of the cooks, who was the legate's brother — put in that office by the legate Otho that no poison might be given him, as he, the legate, feared — angry at the importunity of the poor man, dashed in his face the boiling broth from the caldron, in which fat meat had been boiled. Seeing this insult to the poor man, one of the clerks, a native of the Welsh Borders, cried out, ‘ Shame on us to endure anything like this 1* and drawing his bow, shot an arrow which pierced the body of the cook (whom the clerks nickNov. id.] S. Edmund.
named Nabuzaradan, which means chief of the cooks).1 On the fall of the dead man a cry was raised, and the legate, struck with fear, fled to the tower of the church, clad in his canonical hood, and fastened the doors behind him. When the darkness of the night had put an end to the tumult, he put off his canonical dress, quickly mounted his best horse, and fled under the protection of the king’s wings. For the clerks, carried away by rage, continued to seek for the legate in the most secret hiding-places, crying out, ‘ Where is that demoniacal usurer, that plunderer of revenues, the thirster for money, who perverts the king, subverts the realm, and enriches foreigners with the spoil taken from us?’” The city of Oxford was placed under an interdict. Over thirty clerks were thrown into prison, and it was only with difficulty that the wrath of the legate was appeased by the public degrading humiliation of the University. But Oxford was not the only scene of disturbance. Terrible letters were distributed by unseen means, and by unknown persons, addressed to the bishops and chapters, to the abbots and friars, denouncing the avarice and insolence of the Romans; positively inhibiting the payment to them of the revenues of their churches; threatening to bum their palaces and bams over the heads of those who paid. Gregory heard from the archbishop of this discontent and these threats. He wrote to S. Edmund, “ God is no respecter of persons; why, then, should the English object to foreigners enjoying benefices among them?” The bams of the Italian cleigy were attacked, the com sold and distributed to the poor. Cenci, the Pope’s collector of Peter’s Pence, an Italian enjoying a canonry of S. Paul’s, was carried off by armed men with their faces hid under vizors: he returned after five weeks' imprisonment with his bags rifled. Robert Twenge, a York1 So the mediaeval commentators, generally. But Nebuzaradan is “Captain of Nebo,” the Assyrian Mercury.
shire knight, claimed the patronage of a church. In defiance of his rights an Italian had been given it by the archbishop of York to favour the legate. He appealed to the barons of England. They, headed by the bishops of Chester and Winchester, wrote a strong remonstrance to the Pope, and sent it to Rome by the hands of Robert de Twenge. It began: “ As the ship of our liberty is sinking, which was won by the blood of our ancestors, through the storms of hostility breaking over us, we are compelled to awake our lord, who is sleeping in the ship of Peter, crying unceasingly and unanimously, Lord save us, or we perish !” The Pope was obliged to yield before the general discontent, at least in the matter of the presentation to Lutton, claimed by Robert de Twenge.
On the 31st July, 1239, the archbishop, S. Edmund, and the other bishops, assembled in London, “ to make some arrangements with the legate about the oppression of the English Church. But he, not being at all anxious about this matter, only exacted new procurations from them. The bishops, after holding council, told him in reply, that the ever-grasping importunity of the Romans had so often exhausted the property of the Church, that almost all their wealth was swallowed up, that they had scarce breathing time, and could no more endure these exactions, adding plainly, ‘What advantage has as yet been conferred on the kingdom or the Church by the superstitious domination of him who is only a partisan of the king, and who oppresses the Churches with various exactions, from which we now at last were expecting relief ?,wl The legate, unable to wring any more money out of the bishops, addressed himself to the Religious Orders, “ and extorted no small sum of money from them under the name of procurations; and the council broke up amidst the murmurs and complaints of the bishops.” The Emperor, Frederick II., also wrote to King Henry, ' Matthew Paris, sub aim. 1939.
S. Edmund. urging him to expel the legate from the kingdom, “ in which he had impudently scraped together all the money he could, and from whencesoever he could, to satisfy the Pope’s avarice and to disturb the imperial dignity." The king answered that he was the vassal of the Pope, and must therefore obey him; “ thereby,” says Matthew Paris, " bringing an accusation against himself when seeking to excuse himself.” He, however, wrote to Gregory IX. to entreat him not to act with such violence towards the emperor. On receiving this letter, Gregory was furious, “ Of a truth," he said, bitterly, “ there is not a faithful man to be found in England.”
The sources in England from which money had poured into the Papal coffers were running dry, and Gregory wanted more money to prosecute his contest with Frederick. So low was he reduced, that he was obliged to instruct his legate Otho to sell dispensations from their vow to those who had taken the cross to fight for the recovery of the Lord’s Sepulchre. " But,” says Matthew Paris, “ it seemed absurd, even to simple-minded men, the divers traps by which the Roman Court endeavoured to deprive the simple people of God of their substance, seeking for nothing but gold and silver. The Pope next proposed to extort the fifth part of property and revenues of the foreign beneficed clerks in England, in order to annoy the emperor, who was surrounded with dangers from his enemies, whom the Pope supported by the money collected by extortion in England.” The counsellors of King Henry, S. Edmund among them, went to the king and urged him to resist this intolerable exhaustion of the land to satisfy the vengeance of the Pope against the emperor. But Henry answered, “ I neither wish nor dare oppose the Pope in anything." Then, says Matthew Paris, a most lamentable despair took possession of the people.1 At length, at a council held at Reading, 1 Matthew Paris, sub ann. 124a [Not. x& the legate demanded a fifth of all the revenues of the English clergy, in the name of the Pope, to assist him in his holy war against the emperor. The bishops were aghast; they replied that they could not answer without a consultation. Just then Earl Richard arrived at Reading to bid farewell to the bishops before leaving for the East. The prelates, with the archbishop, burst into tears, and said to him, “Why, earl, our only hope, do you desert us, and leave England to be invaded by these rapacious foreigners ?” “ Alas 1” said Richard to S. Edmund, “ my dear lord and father, if I had not taken the cross, I should nevertheless fly the land to avoid seeing the ruin of the land, which it is thought I might prevent, but which I have not the power to arrest” After some time S. Edmund consented, most unwillingly, to allow a fifth of all incomes to be paid to the agents of the Pope, “ and making a virtue of necessity, he paid the sum of eight hundred marks before they were exacted from him by force.” A crafty agent of the Pope, Pietro Rosso, travelled about all the monasteries, extorting money; he falsely declared that all the bishops, and many of the higher abbots, had eagerly paid their contributions. But he exacted from them, as if from the Pope himself, a promise to keep his assessment secret for a year. The abbots appealed to the king, who treated them with utter disdain. He offered one of his castles to the legate and Pietro Rosso, and to imprison two of the appellants, the abbots of Bury S. Edmunds and of Beaulieu. At Northampton the legate and Peter again assembled the bishops, and demanded the fifth of all the possessions of the Church. The bishops declared that they must consult their archdeacons. The clergy refused altogether this new levy; they would not contribute to a fund raised to shed Christian blood. The rectors of Berkshire were more bold; “they would not submit to contribute to funds raised against an emperor as if he were S. Edmund.
a heretic; though excommunicated by the Pope, he had not been condemned by the judgment of the Church; the Church of Rome has its own patrimony, it has no right to tax the Churches of other nations.”
One reason why S. Edmund yielded was that he was then most anxious to obtain a bull from the Pope to put an end to a miserable abuse which had wrought much evil in the Church of England. Henry had not allowed several of the bishoprics to be filled up at once when they fell vacant, but had taken to himself the revenues during the voidance of the sees. S. Edmund desired a decree from the Pope that, on a vacancy in a cathedral or conventual church, if it were not filled within six months, the archbishop of the province should appoint to it. He knew that this was opposed to the interests of the king, and he had a feeble aspiration to become a second Thomas k Becket for this cause. After “ the expenditure of a great sum of money,”1 S. Edmund obtained what he desired from the Pope. But King Henry complained that it was disadvantageous to him, and by means of an outlay of a still larger sum of money obtained from Pope Gregory the cancelling of his brief to the archbishop. On obtaining this, “ the king became more tyrannical than before, and presumptuously brought about the election of Boniface in opposition to the liberties of the church of Winchester, and obstructed other elections which had been duly made and piously solemnized.”2 Matthew Paris goes on: “A most iniquitous agreement was made between the Pope and the Romans, as was reported, namely, that whatever benefices could be given away in England by the Pope should be distributed amongst the sons and relatives of the Romans at their pleasure, on condition that they should all rise with one accord against the emperor, and use all their endeavours to hurl him from the 1 Matthew of Westminster, sub ann. 1340. * Matthew Paris, sub ann. 1240. imperial throne. Therefore, a few days afterwards, the Pope sent his sacred warrants to Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, and to the bishops of Lincoln and Salisbury, ordering them to provide for three hundred Romans in the first benefices that should fall vacant; giving them to understand, that they were suspended from giving away benefices till that number were suitably provided for. At this order the hearts of all were seized with astonishment, and it was feared that he who dared to do such things would sink into the depths of despair. Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, who had already submitted to the above-mentioned hateful exactions, and paid eight hundred marks to the Pope, now seeing that the English Church was daily trampled on more and more, despoiled of its possessions, and deprived of its liberties, became weary of living to see such evils upon earth. He therefore, after having asked the king’s permission, and gained only evasive answers, left the country, provoked by these various injuries, and sailed to France, where, with a small retinue, he took up his abode at Pontigny, at which place his predecessor, S. Thomas, had dwelt in exile, and employed himself in prayer and fasting.” Thence the state of his health obliged him to move to Soissy near Provins, in Champagne, and there he died, on November r6th, 1242, after having been archbishop eight years. He was a holy and peace-loving man, but not one of firm, decided character. He was bald, and had a thin beard — caused, his biographer thinks, by the want of nourishing diet to which he condemned himself.
He is buried at Pontigny, where his relics [the bodily remains of a saint, or objects they used, kept with honor] attract numerous pilgrims. B. Paul of the Cross.