No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Procurations and the English Church
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The procuratio was originally the hospitality necessarily provided for an ecclesiastical ordinary and his retinue when engaged in a visitation of the churches and spiritual places of his jurisdiction: ‘per procurationes … intelligitur necessariorum sumptuum exhibitio, que ratione visitationis debetur. …’ By this means the provision of food, drink, and accommodation for the visitor as he perambulated his territory was placed on a formal footing, so that most of the expenses of visitation might be met, and the visitor with his attendants assured of somewhere to spend each night in reasonable comfort.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1996
References
1 i.e. one who possesses an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in his own right by virtue of office and is not dependent on the grant of another: Hostiensis, , Henrici a Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis Aurea Summa (ed. Coloniae, , 1612), lib. i, de Offic. Ord., para. 1. col. 281Google Scholar; Coke, , Institutes of the Laws of England, 1 (Commentary upon Littleton), ed. Hargrave, (19th ed., London, 1832). p, 96aGoogle Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium Canonicum: or an Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm (3rd ed., London, 1687), p. 23Google Scholar; Burn, Richard, Ecclesiastical Law (9th ed., London, 1842), III, 39.Google Scholar
2 The visitation has always been an episcopal function, but in England by the second half of the twelfth century the archdeacon had begun to share in the ordinary visitatorial jurisdiction, and other inferior prelates also came to enjoy a right of visitation, e.g. cathedral deans and chapters of their own peculiar churches. For a fuller account of the law and origins of ecclesiastical visitations, see by the author, ‘Points of Law and Practice concerning Ecclesiastical Visitations’ (1991) 2 Ecc.L.J., 189–212.Google Scholar
3 Extra, 3, 39, 6; ibid., 3, 39, 23; Lyndwood, William, Provinciale, seu Constitutiones Angliae (ed. Oxford 1679), lib. i, tit. 12, c. 2, Quoniam autem, gl. ad v. procurari. p. 67Google Scholar; Duarenus, , De Sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis ac Beneficiis (ed. Paris, 1564), lib. vii. c. 5, para. 2. f. 142v.Google Scholar; Le Case de Proxies (1604) Davis 1, at 3; Stephens, John, An Historical Discourse. Briefly setting forth the nature of Procurations … (London, 1661), p. 24Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, pp. 67–8Google Scholar; Gibson, Edmund, Of Visitations Parochial and General (London, 1717), p. 13Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 35Google Scholar. (The citation of the Corpus Juris Canonici is in accordance with Bryson, , ed., Dictionary of Sigla and Abbreviations to and in Law Books before 1607 (Univ. of Virginia, 1975), pp. 19–20Google Scholar. See Kuttner, S., ‘Notes on the Roman Meeting, on Planning and Method’. Traditio, 11 (1955), p. 431 at p. 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar, i.e. in the order, book, title, chapter.)
4 Vallensis, , Paratitla (Louvain, 1667), lib. iii. tit. 39, c. 3, para. 1. p. 416.Google Scholar
5 Brühl, C., ‘Zur Geschichte der Procuratio canonica vornehmlich in 11. und 12 Jahrhundert’. Le Istituzioni ecclesiastiche delta «Societas Christiana» del secoli XI–XII: Papato, cardinalato ed episcopato (Atti della quinta Settimana internazionale di studio, Mendola, 1971, Milan, 1974), pp. 419–31, at p. 420.Google Scholar
6 For the right to ‘le gîte’ in France, see Luchaire, Achille, Manuel des institutions françaises: période des Capétiens directs (Paris, 1892), pp. 207–8.Google Scholar
7 Extra, 2, 26, 16 (to the bishop of Paris, 1202: Potthast, A., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (1198–1304) (Berlin, 1874–5), 1, 156, no. 1778)Google Scholar; Extra, 3, 39. 17 (to the primate and clergy of Milan, 1199: Potthast, 1, 58, no. 603), drawing on I Corinthians, ix. 11: ‘Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, magnum est si nos carnalia vestra metamus?’ See also Hostiensis, Aurea Summa, lib. iii, de Censib., para. 14, col. 1037.
8 Extra, 3, 39, 21.
9 Innocent IV. In Quinque Libros Decretalium, necnon in Decretales per Eundem Innocentium editas, quae modo in Sexto earundem volumine Sunt inserte, et in huius operis Elencho, ut cunctas pateant adnotatae, Commentaria Doctissima (Venice, 1578). f. 185v. But in practice they were sometimes remitted: see Cheney, C. R., Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries in the Thirteenth Century (2nd. ed., Manchester, 1983), pp. 106, 117Google Scholar, for examples, including Archbishop Peckham relieving religious houses of the diocese of Chichester: Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. Martin, Charles Trice (Rolls Series, 77), 11, 572.Google Scholar
10 Extra, 2, 26, 16; Supplememum ad Regesta Innocentii III, ed. Baluze, Migne J.-P., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, series Latina (Paris, 1844–1895), CCXVII (Supplement), 100, no. 65 (1203)Google Scholar; Registorum sive Epistolarum Innocentii III, ed. Baluze, Migne, Parolog. Lat., CCXVI, 605–6, no. 87 (1212)Google Scholar; Potthast, I, 441, no. 5022; Les Registres de Grégoire IX (1227–41), ed. Auvray, Lucien (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d'Athèns et de Rome, Paris, 1896–1908), I, 566, no. 951Google Scholar; Hostiensis, Aurea Summa, lib. iii, de Censib.. para. 13. col. 1037; Saunderson v. Clagget (1721) 1 P. Wms. 657 at 663.
11 See Extra, 3, 39, 17.
12 Extra, 3, 39, 17 and 24.
13 Stephens, , Hist. of Procurations, p. 22.Google Scholar
14 Hostiensis, Aurea Summa, lib. iii. de Censib., para. 14, col. 1037; Stephens, , Hist. of Procurations, p. 22Google Scholar. But cf. Reg. Grégoire IX, 1, 1251–2, no. 2393. Cheney, , Episc. Visitn. of Mons., pp. 106–7Google Scholar, gives e.gs. of a local visitor taking reduced procurations.
15 Council of Oxford, 1222; c. 16, Wilkins, David, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London, 1737), I, 587–8Google Scholar; c. 21, Powicke, F. M. & Cheney, C. R., Councils and Synods, with other Documents relating to the English Church (Oxford, 1964). II, 112–13)Google Scholar; Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. i, tit. 12. c. 2, Quoniam autem, gl. ad v. una tantum, p. 67; Godolphin, , Repertorium, p. 70.Google Scholar
16 Degge, Simon, Parson's Counsellor (6th ed., London, 1703), pt. ii(Lawof Tythes), ch. 15, p. 283Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 38.Google Scholar
17 Usually on the disposition of a rectory appropriated to a former religious house.
18 Suppression of Religious Houses Act, 1539 (31 Hen. VIII, c. 13), ss. 15, 17; Payment of Pensions and Portions Act, 1543 (34 & 35 Hen. VIII, c. 19), s. 4; Le Case de Proxies, supra; Saunderson v. Clagget (1721) 1 P. Wms. 657, sub nom. Sanderson v. Clagget, 1 Stra. 421.
19 Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 5, Quamvis lex naturae, gl. ad v. una ecclesia, p. 224; Ayliffe, John, Parergon Juris Canonici Anglicani (London, 1734), p. 165Google Scholar. This did not apply to private chapels (Extra, 3, 39, 27) or to dependent chapels which did not have a curate of their own but had to rely on the curate of the superior church or a vicar appointed by him who was removable at pleasure and not perpetual: Lyndwood, Provinciale, supra; Ayliffe, , Parergon, pp. 165, 432.Google Scholar
20 Degge, , Parson's Counsellor, pt. ii, 283Google Scholar; Gibson, Edmund, Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani (2nd ed.Oxford, 1761), II, 976Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 38Google Scholar. See the Synodal Statutes of Bishop William Raleigh of Winchester, 1247?, no. 69 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 413Google Scholar).
21 Le Case de Proxies (1604) Davis, 1. at 4; Fitz-Herbert, Anthony, The New Natura Brevium (9th ed., London, 1794), I. 42AGoogle Scholar; Rolle, Henry, Un Abridgment des plusieurs Cases et Resolutions del Common Ley (London, 1668). II, 230, 1, 17Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, p. 145.Google Scholar
22 Richard Swinfield, bishop of Hereford, when conducting a visitation of his diocese in 1289–90. on one occasion when procurations were not received, recorded the actual cost of buying food for the attendants, irrespective of the costs of forage for his thirty-five horses, as amounting to 32s. 3d: Roll of the Household Expenses of Richard de Swinfield. Bishop of Hereford, ed. Webb, John (Camden Society Publications, vol. 59, 1853), p. 76Google Scholar. If typical, then this must be measured against the total annual value of a rectory which might be little more than thirteen pounds, e.g. Lindridge, from which procurations had been received by the bishop some four days earlier (ibid., p. 74). which had an assessed annual income of £13. 6s. 8d.: Taxatio Ecclesiastica Anglicanae et Walliae auctoritate Papae Nicholai IV circa A.D. 1291, eds. Ayscough, S. and Caley, J. (Record Commission, London, 1802). p. 165Google Scholar. Even given the inaccuracies of the Taxatio (see Graham, R., English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929). pp. 271–301Google Scholar), this does give some indication of the high costs of procurations when compared to the income of an average rectory. When in 1321, Archbishop Melton visited Bolton Priory, the expenses incurred amounted to circa £25 10s. 0d., roughly one twentieth of the house's annual income: Snape, R. H., English Monastic Finances in the later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1926). pp. 97–8.Google Scholar
23 Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 1. cc. 4, 9. 10, II, 12; Gibson, , Visitations (London, 1717). pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
24 Attributed to the Council of Tribur. c. 26: Burchard of Worms. Burchardi Wormaciensis Ecclesiae Episcopi Decretorum Libri Viginti, lib. i, c. 229 (ed. Paris. 1549, Migne. Patrolog. Lat., CXL, 537, at 615): Reginon of Prüm, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, lib. i. c. 12 (Migne. Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII. 185, at 194); Ivo, Decreti, pt. v, c. 341 (Migne, Patrolog. Lat., CLXI. 47. at 426); Monumenta Germania Historica: Legum. Sectio II. Capitularia Regum Francorum. II. ed. Boretius, A. and Krause, V. (Hanover, 1897), pt. ii. pp. 247–8Google Scholar; Corpus Juris Canonici. ed. Friedberg, Aemilius (Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1879–1881). I. 613–4. n. 82Google Scholar. It does not appear, however, among the canons of this council in Joannes Dominicus Mansi (continued by Martin, J.B. and Petit, L.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Venice, Florence, Paris & Leipzig, 1759–1927). XVIII, 130et seq.Google Scholar
25 Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 1.c. 9.
26 c. 4, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Tanner, Norman P. (Georgetown U.P., 1990). I. 213.Google Scholar
27 c. 5. Cum inter ea (Whitelock, D., Brett, M. & Brooke, C.N. L., Councils and Synods (Oxford, 1981), I. pt. ii, 1062–3Google Scholar) The archbishop refers to the Council of Toledo (A.D. 646. c. 4. Mansi. Sacr. Cone. X. 768–9; Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 3. c. 8) as authority for this rule.
28 c. 33: A. Garcia y Garcia, ed., Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum. Monumenta iuris canonici. Ser. A: Corpus Glossatorum II (Città del Vaticano, 1981). p. 77; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I. 250 {Extra. 3. 39. 23). See: Winchelsey, Memoriale sive registrum Henrici Prioris Monasterii Cantuariensis. ‘Articuli super quibus inquirendum est in visitacionibus prelatorum’. BL Cotton MS. Galba E IV. f. 61. Querend. a person, episc. (11), at f. 61v.; Hostiensis. Aurea Summa, lib. iii. de Censib., paras. 13 & 14. col. 1037; Stephens, , Hist, of Procurations, pp. 16–22Google Scholar; Lyndwood. Provinciale. lib. i. tit. 12. c. 2. Quoniam autem. gl. ad v. una tantum. p. 67. See also Extra. 3. 39. 27.
29 Council of Oxford. 1222. c. 27 [22]. Ut singula (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 114Google Scholar).
30 e.g. see: Regesta Honorii Papae III. ed. Pressutti, Petrus (Rome, 1888–1895). II. no. 5155. p. 278 (1224)Google Scholar; ibid. no. 5858. p. 409 (1226); Reg. Grégoire IX. 1. 115. no. 196 (1228); ibid., 710. no. 1258 (1233); ibid., 797. no. 1424 (1233); ibid., 975. no. 1770 (1234): ibid., II. 1239. no. 4754 (1239).
31 Constits. Othonis. c. 20. De archid. (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254Google Scholar).
32 Constits. Othoboni. c. 18. Naturalis dispositionis (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 767–8Google Scholar).
33 See: Synodal Statutes of Bishop Poore of Salisbury. 1217 × 1219.C. 104 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils. p. 93Google Scholar); Synodal Statutes of Bishop Robert Bingham of Salisbury, 1238 X 1244. c. 32 (ibid., p. 379); instructions of the Bishop of Norwich to the dean of Hengham, 1253 (Paris, Matthew, Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora. ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series. 57). VI. no. 116. 231–2)Google Scholar; Synodal Statutes of Bishop Giles de Bridport of Salisbury. 1257. c. 4 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils. p. 553Google Scholar); Synodal Statutes of Bishop William de Bitton of Bath & Wells. 1258?., c. 53 (ibid., p. 613): mandate of Bishop Bronescombe, 1277, re his archdeacons (The Registers of Walter Bronescomhe and Peter Quiril. ed. Hingeston-Randolph, K. C. (London, 1889). p. 42)Google Scholar; Synodal Statutes of Bishop Peter Quivel of Exeter. 1287. c. 40 (Powicke, & Cheney, Councils, p. 1034Google Scholar).
34 Third Lateran Council (1179), c. 4 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 1.213: Extra. 3. 39. 6).
35 Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 3. c. 8 (Eighth Council of Toledo. a.d. 646. c. 4); Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. iii. tit. 22. c. 1. Ut singula. gl. ad v. die visitatione. p. 220. Thus when Bishop Giffard visited Worcester Priory in 1290 and stayed for three days, he took procurations for the first day only; Annales Monastici. ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series. 36) (Worcester). IV, 504.Google Scholar
36 Extra. 3. 39. 21 & 23. Le Case de Proxies {1604) Davis 1. at 3: ‘ove measure et temperance’.
37 ‘Ne jejuniorum doctrinam rubentibus buccis praedicent’: Le Case de Proxies, supra. drawing on Decretum Grat., D. 35. c. 4.
38 c. 4 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I. 213: Extra. 3. 39. 6): Council of London. 1200. c. 5. Cum inter ea (Councils & Synods. I. pt. ii. 1062–3): repeated in the Fourth Council of Lateran, c. 33. Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis. p. 77 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I, 250) (Extra. 3. 39. 23) and in the judgment Romana ecclesia. Sext. 3. 20. 1. § 5. Possibly referring to Philippians ii. 21.
39 Mansi, Sacr. Conc. IX. 839.
40 Monumento Germaniae Historica: Legum. Section III. Concilia (Hanover & Leipzig, 1906). II. pt. i. p. 276; Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 3. c. 7.Google Scholar
41 See also the Capitular Ecclesiasticum of Louis, a.d. 818. c. 19; Monumento Germaniae Historica: Legum. Section II. Capitularia Regum Francorum. ed. Boretius, A. (Hanover, 1881–1883, 1890). I. 278.Google Scholar
42 Mansi, Sacr. Conc. X. 768–9; Decretum Grat., C. 10. q. 3. c. 8. The number of attendants was not to exceed fifty.
43 c. 3; Haddan, A. W. & Stubbs, W.. Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 1871). III. 449Google Scholar. See also simile. Archbishop Oda's Constitutions, a.d. 943. c. 3 (Whitelock, , Brett, & Brooke, . Councils and Synods. I. pt. i. 71).Google Scholar
44 Mon. Ger. Hist.: Legum. Sec. III. Capit. Regum Franc. II. pt. ii. 256. c. 4.
45 Ibid., c. 6.
46 Mon. Ger. Hist.: Concilia. III (Hanover, 1984). 214.Google Scholar
47 e.g. he limited the numbers that were to accompany the bishop of Noyon on his visitation of the canons of St. Quentin to thirty-five men and thirty horses (30th May. 1160–76); Jaffé, P.. ed., Regesta pontificum Romanorum ad 1189. revsd. S. Loewenfeld. F. Kaltenbrunner and P. Ewald (Leipzig, 1885–80. II. 289. no. 12576 (8390).Google Scholar
48 Jaffé, II. 376. no. 13857 (8922)(1159 × 1181). It was given universal application as Extra. 1.23.6. The date is probably earlier than 1179 as there is no reference to the Third Lateran Council.
49 Rymer, Thomas, Foedera. Conventiones. Litterae, et cujuscunque generis Acta Publica (ed. London, 1816). I. 43Google Scholar; Jaffé. II. 330. no. 13170. Issued in Rome on 22nd or 23rd February, but without any year given, this document almost certainly pre-dates Lateran III. since Alexander III was in Rome during February only in 1167 or 1168 or in the month immediately preceding the Lateran Council in 1179; see Jaffé. II. 145–418.
50 Cantuariensis, Gervasii. Opera Historica. ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series. 73). I. 219.Google Scholar
51 c. 4 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 1. 213: Extra. 3. 39. 6).
52 See Lyndwood. Provinciale. lib. iii. tit. 22. c. 1. Ut singula, gl. ad v. evectionis numerum. p. 220.
53 Ibid.
54 For examples of inclusion in contemporary English chronicles, see: Benedict, Abbot of Peterborough. Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedict abbatis … ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series 49, London, 1867). I. 222–38. at p. 224Google Scholar; Gervase, of Canterbury, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series 73. London, 1879). I. 278–92. at p. 291Google Scholar; William, of Newburgh, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. ed. Howlett, R. (Rolls Series 82, London, 1884). I. 206–23. at p. 216Google Scholar; Roger, of Hoveden, Chronica mogistri Rogeri de Hovedene. ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series 51, London, 1869). II. 173–89. at pp. 173–4Google Scholar. Also in the Cartulary of Rievaulx, Cartularium abbathiae de Rievalle ordinis Cisterciensis (Surtees Society, 83, Durham, 1889). pp. 362–76. at p. 371Google Scholar. See also Duggan, C., ‘English Canonists and the “Appendix Concilii Lateranensis” with an analysis of the St. John's College, Cambridge. MS, 148’. Traditio. XVIII (1962). pp. 459–68. at p. 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For English MS collections of the canons of the Council, see Kutner, Stephan, Repertorium der Kanonistick (1140–1234). Prodromus Corpus Glossarum (Studi e Testi. LXXI. Città del Vaticano, 1937). I. 281. 282. 298.Google Scholar
55 c. 5. Cum inter ea (Whitelock, , Brett, & Brooke, , Councils & Synods. I. pt. ii. 1062 3).Google Scholar
56 Extra. 5. 31. 7: Reg. Innocent III. Migne. Patrolog, Lat., CCXIV. 124. no. 140 (Potthast, I. 19. no. 185); Reg. Innocent III. Migne, Patrolog. Lat., CCXV. 1184, no. 88 (Potthast, I. 267. no. 3136). There appears to have been a standard form of order: see Jaffé. II. 642. no. 17654.
57 e.g. Innocent III. Regestorum sive Epistolarum, XIII (1210). ep. 42 to the archbishop of Larissa. Migne, Patrolog. Lat., CCXVI. 230. See Berliére, U., ‘Le droit de procuration ou de gîte. Papes et légats’. Acadèmie Royale de Belgique. Bulletins de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques (Brussels, 1919). pp. 509–38, at p. 513.Google Scholar
58 Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum. ed. Caley, J. etc. (London, 1817–1830), VI. pt. i. no. xiii. 288.Google Scholar
59 c. 33. Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateramensis. p. 77 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I. 250) (Extra, 3. 39, 23).
60 The canon refers to the limits set out in the previous Lateran Council concerning ‘evectionum et personarum’, but c. 4 of that Council makes no specific mention of persons: see above.
61 c. 27 [22], Ut singula (Powicke & Cheney. Councils, p. 114). The reference here is to Lateran III, c. 4. Notwithstanding c. 33 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the constitution still speaks in terms of the ‘evectionis numerum’ derived from the earlier council.
62 See also Constits. Othonis, 1237. c. 20. De archid. (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254Google Scholar).
63 e.g. the abbot and convent of Easby obtained a papal indult in 1225 which relieved the house from the payment of any procurations to the archdeacon of York if he exceeded the numbers laid down by the Lateran Council: Easby Register. BL Egerton MS 2827.
64 Potthast, I. 779, no. 9089. See also ibid., I. 898. no. 10601 and for a later date (1300). II. 1996. no. 24964.
65 Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254.Google Scholar
66 Ibid. See John of Athon. Constitutiones Legatinae d. Othonis et d. Othoboni, (bound with Lyndwood, , Provinciale, Oxford, 1679Google Scholar). Constits, Othoboni. c. 19. Deus omnipotens. gl. ad v. in duplum. p. 116. The gloss is on words of c. 20 of Otho's Constitutions taken from c. 19 of Othobon's Constitutions of 1268 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 768–9Google Scholar), though the latter is more specifically directed at the abuse of taking money in lieu of punishment.
67 Sext. 3. 20. 1, § 5.
68 For example, Les Registres d'Innocent IV (1243–54). ed. Berger, Elie (Bibliothèques des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome. Paris, 1884–1921). I. 121. no. 709. 124–5. no. 733. III. 435. no. 7634Google Scholar; Potthast, 1.649. no. 7536. II. 1371. no. 16750. 1739. no. 21516.
69 Synodal Statutes of Bishop Robert Bingham of Salisbury, 1238 × 1244. c. 32 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 379)Google Scholar; Synodal Statutes of Bishop Walter de Cantilupe of Worcester, 1240. c. 45 (ibid., p. 308); Synodal Statutes of Bishop William de Bitton of Bath & Wells. 1258?. c. 53 (ibid., p. 613).
70 Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 767–8Google Scholar. Even by the end of the century, it would still seem to have been necessary to inquire whether the bishops were burdening the church in this manner: Winchelsey. Articles. f. 61. de visit. (2). at f 62v.
71 This appears not to have been uncommon in the twelfth century: see Brühl, , ‘Zur Geschichte der Procuratio canonica vornehmlich in 11. und 12 Jh.’. p. 429.Google Scholar
72 c. 27 [22] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 114)Google Scholar. See also Constits. Othonis. c. 20. De archid. (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254Google Scholar).
73 Sext. 3.20. 1.§5.
74 Matthew Paris alleged that Rochester cathedral priory paid more than 30 marks, and that he took a total of 6000 marks in the course of the visitation: Chronica Maj., V. 120–3. 348.
75 Ann. Mon. (Burton). I. 300. {Dunstable). III. 181: Matthew Paris. Chronica Maj., V. 186–7, 225–6; Chronicle of the Monastery of Abingdon, 1219–1304. ed. & trans. Halliwell, J. O. (Berkshire Ashmolean Soc., Reading, 1844). pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
76 Paris, Matthew, Chronica Maj., V, 302; confirmed by Boniface VIII in Sext. 3, 20, 5.Google Scholar
77 Ann. Man. (Burton). I. 300–1: Potthast. II. 1205–6. nos. 14626–14628.
78 Ibid.
79 Matthew Paris. Chronica Maj., VI. 231–2. The archdeacons were not to receive procurations in excess of 7s. 6d. and less from minor churches with little property. He valued his own procurations at 31s. 10d.
80 i.e. Sext. 3. 20. I. §5.
81 ‘vel pro visitatione habeat quatuor marcas …’
82 Ann. Mon. (Dunstable). III. 186.
83 Reg. Innocent IV. III. 377. no. 7314: Potthast. II. 1255. no. 15259. See also Reg. Innocent IV. III. 420. no. 7556.
84 e.g. Archbishop Boniface in his visitation of 1253 (Ann. Mon. (Dunstable. III. 190) and at Worcester in 1260 (Ann. Mon. (Worcester). IV. 446). Archbishop Peckham took four marks at Peterborough in 1284; Chronicon Petroburgense. ed. Stapleton, Thomas (Camden Soc., O.S., XLVII. London, 1849). p. 100.Google Scholar
85 Ann. Man. (Osney). IV. 270–1.
86 Episc. Vistin. of Mons., p. 108. n. 7.
87 c. 24. Decrees of lite Ecumenical Councils. I, 327 (Sext. 3. 20. 2).
88 Constit. I. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I, 310.
89 Instructions issued by Gregory X for assessing clerical income for the levy of the tenth imposed by the Council of Lyons. 1274; Lunt, W. E., Papal Revenues in ihe Middle Ages (Columbia University Press, 1934, repr. New York, 1965), II, 163.Google Scholar
90 Ann. Mon. (Osney). IV. 270–1.
91 Ann. Mon. (Osney). IV. 297.
92 The Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard (1268–1301). ed. Bund, J. W. Willis (Worcestershire Hist. Soc., Oxford, 1899–1902). II, 379, 426, 434Google Scholar; Cheney, . Episc. Vistn. of Mons., p. 109.Google Scholar
93 Ann. Mon. (Worcester). IV, 504.
94 Sext. 3. 20. 3.
95 Winchelsey. Articles, f. 61. Querend. a person, episc. (10), at 1, 61v., asks whether the bishop had received money or entertainment before this recent constitution of Pope Boniface.
96 e.g. Bishop Giffard taking money from the prior of Stanley Monachorum without visiting the house: Reg. Giffatd (Worcester). II. 434: Cheney. Episc Vistn. of Mons.. 109.
97 Sext., 3, 20, 3. Archbishop Winchelsey, c. 1300. Articles, f. 61. de visit. (1). at f. 62v., inquires whether the bishop receives his procurations ratione visitationis in money and whether he receives procurations from a place that he does not personally visit. See Lyndwood. Proxinciale. lib. i. tit. 12. c. 2. Quoniam autem. gl. ad v. una tantum. p. 67.
98 Sext., 1, 16. 6; Lyndwood. Provinciale, lib. i. tit. 10. c. 1. Ut archidiaconi. gl. ad v. videant. p. 50; Godolphin, , Repertorium., p. 69Google Scholar. This appears to have been observed by Archbishop Arundel when visiting the diocese of St. David's by commissary in 1397: Register of Thomas Arundel. Lambeth Palace Library, f. 456v.
99 Sext.. 3. 20. 3.
100 Brühl. ‘Zur Geschichte der Procuratio canonica vornehmlich in 11. und 12 Jh.’. p. 422. suggests that the abuse was at its worst in the fourteenth century.
101 c. 20. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, 377 (Clem., 3, 13, 2).
102 Extravag. Comm., 3, 10, 1.
103 Twelve silver Tours were to be reckoned as being worth one gold Florentine florin: Extravag. Comm. 3, 10, 1. At this date, a Florentine florin was valued in sterling at between about 3s. and 4s.; Spufford, P., Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London, 1986), pp. 198–201.Google Scholar
104 Sext., 3, 20, 3; Extravag. Comm., 3, 10, 1; Constits. Provinc. Stratford, c. 7. Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, Concilia, II, 698–9): Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. i, tit. 12. c. 2, Quoniam autem, gl. ad v. procurari, p. 67; ibid., lib. iii. tit. 22, c. Quamvis lex naturae, gl. ad vv. vel pecunia & visitans. p. 223.
105 Constits. Provinc. Stratford, c. 7, Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, Concilia, II, 698–9).
106 Thompson, Hamilton, English Clergy and their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947). pp. 61–2Google Scholar, suggests that this was happening sometime in the course of the fourteenth century. The preamble in Archbishop Stratford's constitution of 1342 (supra) suggests that by this date archdeacons frequently were not going personally to the churches to be visited.
107 See e.g. Register of Warham. Lambeth Palace Library, 1, ff. 88–91v., 213v., 239. 247–48, 271v., 278v.–280v., 285v.–286, 289v.–291, 310 (references throughout are to the original foliation (Roman numerals), not the archival renumbering).
108 Lyndwood. Provinciale, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 5, Quamvis lex naturae, gl. ad v. solet soivi, p. 224.
109 The Noble, which was the principle English coin after its introduction in 1344, and until 1464 was worth 6s 8d (one-third of a pound or half a mark): Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange, p. 198.
110 e.g. see the visitation of the churches of St. Paul's in 1458 (by the dean and a named canon residentiary): Simpson, W. Sparrow, Visitations of Churches belonging to St. Paul's Cathedral (Camden Soc., 2nd series, 55, 1895), pp. 75, 80, 88, 97, 108.Google Scholar
111 In Archbishop Warham's visitation of the diocese of Canterbury in 1512, wide variations in the procurations payable by parish churches and vicarages are apparent: Reg. Warham, I, ff. 88–91v. The smallest appears to have been 20d for both churches and vicarages, rising to 66s. 8d., e.g. Minster-in-Thanet, Deanery of Westbere: ibid., f. 89. For the visitation of the diocese of Exeter sede vacante in 1503–4, procurations are recorded for the religious houses and the totals for each rural deanery: Reg. Warham, I, f. 213v. So too for the visitation of the diocese of Ely (1505–6): Reg. Warham, II, ff. 247–48. The sum of 66s. 8d. again figures in the visitation of the diocese of Lincoln sede vacante in 1513–14 where it was taken from virtually everyone, whether rural deanery, monastic house, priory, or college (Reg. Warham, II, ff. 285v.–286), except the college at Eton which paid only 40s. (Ibid., f. 286). Likewise the sum of 66s. 8d. was consistently taken in Warham's visitation of the diocese of Lincoln sede vacante in 1520–1 (Reg. Warham, II, ff. 289v.–291) and of Salisbury sede vacante (Reg. Warham, II, f. 310). The sum of 53s. 4d. was received from each of eighty named churches except two in the course of the visitation of Hereford sede vacante in 1516: Reg. Warham, II, f. 271 v. The enduring nature of the sums taken by way of procuration is apparent from the eighteenth century account books of the bishop of Exeter's visitations, e.g. that of 1724, Devon Record Office MS Chanter 221. Most common is the sum of 6s. 8d., but with numerous exceptions, e.g. East Budleigh rated at 10s. (penultimate fo., v.). For this parish, see also: Valor Ecclesiaslicus (see n. 113, infra), II, 310; Archdeacon of Exeter v. Green [1913] P 21.Google Scholar
112 First Fruits and Tenths Act, 1534, s. 10.
113 This is evident throughout the Valor Ecclesiasticus Temp. Henr. VIII. Auctoritate Regia (Record Commission, London, ed. 1810–34). which was a survey of ecclesiastical revenues compiled to put the provisions of the above act into effect.
114 Payment of Pensions and Portions Act, 1543.
115 (R. v. Sir Ambrose Forth)(1604) Davis 1.
116 Suppression of Religious Houses Act. 1539.
117 ss. 15. 17.
118 Sub nom. Capell v. Aprice (1511) Moo. K.B. 1.
119 [1913] P. 21.
120 Godolphin, Repertorium, p. 69; Gibson. Codex, II, 976.
121 Gibson, Codex, II, 1546.
122 (1680) Raym. Sir T.
123 (1721) 1 P. Wms. 657.
124 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s. 83(3).
You have
Access