These sweeping reforms were not long allowed to stand intact. Edward was probably under too great obligation to the pope to allow the prohibition of annates. At the request of the papal legate the writs of March 22 were held back, and on April 4 new writs were issued which modified the decrees of the parliament of Carlisle.54 The collectors were allowed to proceed with their business, provided they acted in the same manner as their predecessors and attempted nothing prejudicial to the crown. If Edward's concessions had stopped here, the further collection of annates would have been prevented, since this had not been among the functions of any previous collector, but another writ especially authorized the continuance of this exaction, provided void abbacies and priories were not troubled. This settlement, however, failed to end the difficulty. The provisions of the writs offered fertile soil for a crop of conflicting interpretations concerning their intent, and the collectors, who were naturally broad constructionists, soon experienced hindrances from the narrow construction placed upon the grants by the royal officials. Finally Testa and his colleague brought their case before the king's council. There it was decided, in accordance with the views of the narrow constructionists, that the writ of April 4 gave no power to proceed with the collection of any of the exactions complained of at the parliament of Carlisle, with the exception of annates, since all those exactions were prejudicial to crown and realm; and, furthermore, that it was prejudicial to the crown to demand annates from benefices in the royal patronage. A royal writ, issued June 27, ordered the collectors to observe this decision pending further deliberation.55

The definitive settlement, presaged in the writ of June 27, was ary accounts see Stubbs, Historical Introductions, pp. 495-496; Haller, pp. 386387; Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, pp. 516–517.

54 Rot. Parl., I. 222; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 514. Rot. Parl., I. 222–223. Stubbs on the basis of this same evidence makes the sweeping statement: "These saving words [i. e., the provisos] explained away all that the writs [those of April 4] seemed to have granted, and a peremptory prohibition against their [the collectors'] further proceedings was issued on the 27th of June" (Historical Introductions, p. 496). The words, however, did not explain away annates, nor did the prohibition stop their collection. Furthermore, Edward obviously had not intended by the writs of April 4 to release the collectors from the major portion of the restrictions placed upon them at the parliament of Carlisle, since he allowed them to proceed only so far as they acted in the same manner as their predecessors. No collector had succeeded in securing indistinct legacies and goods of intestates, though it had been previously tried, and the collection of Peter's pence directly from the payers had not before been attempted. Thus two of the most important prohibitions of the parliament of Carlisle were maintained. Because the parliament of Carlisle did not permanently stop annates and provisions, the importance of its work seems to have been generally underestimated.

59

prevented by the death of Edward I., and his son allowed the matter to drift. In answer to inquiries from the pope Edward II. professed himself ready to abide by the decision of his father as expressed in the writs of April 4.5 The ambiguity of the provisos, however, was not entirely removed. In 1308 Clement V. complained of hindrances placed in the way of the papal collectors by royal servants, but Edward denied any infringement of the grant of privileges. A year later the pope protested vigorously against the action of the sheriff of York, who imprisoned William de Prat, collector of annates in the province of York, and released him only on the payment of a fine of ten pounds imposed for failure to observe a prohibition placed upon him by the royal officials.60 Despite these misunderstandings, however, the collection of annates appears to have progressed during the reign of Edward II. without serious impediment. Annates were still a subject of complaint at the parliament of Stamford held in the summer of 1309,1 and the reports of Testa display the work going on with no great irregularity. So far as annates were concerned popular opposition accomplished little.

The administration of this first levy of annates was carried on by a staff of nuncios larger than that usually employed to collect papal taxes in the British Isles.62 The two principal collectors were the papal chaplains, William Testa, archdeacon of Aran in the diocese of Comminges,63 and William Géraud de Sore, canon of Rouen.64 The latter, however, seems to have left the direction of Rymer, Foedera, II. 10.

56

Pope to bishop of Worcester, October 28, 1309. Ibid., pp. 97-98. This case Edward promised to investigate as soon as the unsettled state of the realm would allow. King to pope, April 1, 1310. Ibid., p. 105.

1 Annales Londonienses, pp. 162-165.

The barons complained at Carlisle that the pope was keeping four nuncios in England at the expense of the clergy, when customarily he kept but one. Parl., I. 220.

Rot.

Testa remained in England eight years, leaving in 1313 (Rymer, Foedera, II. 216) to assume the cardinalate to which he had been promoted in 1312. In 1323 he became camerarius of the cardinal-college. He died in 1326. Kirsch, Finanzverwaltung, p. 45. He appears to have made many acquaintances during his stay in England. After he became cardinal he had a pension from the king and held several English benefices, and many others were provided at his request. Both king and clergy went to him frequently, when they had business at the Roman court. Bliss, Calendar, II. 59, 123, 155, 169; Stapleton, "Summary of Wardrobe Accounts ", Archaeologia, XXVI. 324; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317-1321, p. 68; Hist. MSS. Comm., Cal. MSS. Dean and Chapter of Wells, p. 211.

Géraud was known to Edward I., having acted as proctor for the king at the royal court of France in 1289. Rôles Gascons, vol. II., nos. 998, 1066.

65

68

the work almost entirely to Testa, who was also in charge of the collection of the other papal revenues in the British Isles." Other nuncios who assisted were Garsie Arnaud de Garlens, canon of Auch, and Peter Amauvin, canon of Bordeaux.67 Testa himself took direct charge of the province of Canterbury, while William de Prat, canon of Comminges, John de Delsoler, and John de Lescapon, canon of Nantes, all ranking as nuncios, acted as his commissioners for the province of York, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively. In England there was a small corps of deputy-collectors which the bull of instructions empowered the principal collectors to appoint. The collectors were armed with full powers to enforce payment and to compel delinquents and opponents with ecclesiastical censures.72

70

71

74

Although the bull imposing annates was issued February 1, 1306, the work of collection was not begun until the early summer. Testa was in England as nuncio in the autumn of 1305,73 but his letters of credence as collector are dated March 23, 1306, and the formal announcement of the levy of annates was not made public till June 6.7 The papal bulls then published informed the English clergy that during a period of three years, dating from February 1, 1306, benefices and ecclesiastical offices in monasteries, priories, and es Reports of Testa.

f. 59.

75

Appointed by letters dated March 23, 1306. Register of Simon of Ghent,

"Peter Amauvin seems to have superseded William Géraud. Rymer, Foedera, II. 1014; Regestum Clementis Papae V., 2372. Garsie Arnaud was apparently concerned chiefly with the transportation of money from England to the papal camera. Bliss, Calendar, II. 48, 58, 77; Third Report of Testa.

es" De Solerio ", under John XXII. a collector of annates in Portugal. Schäfer, Die Ausgaben der Apostolischen Kammer unter Johann XXII. (Paderborn, 1911), pp. 410, 420.

A cameral clerk under John XXII. Schäfer, Ausgaben, p. 884; Göller, Einnahmen, pp. 322, 327, 330, 337; Vatican Archives, Introitus et Exitus, 58, f. 136.

TO Reports of Testa.

The only deputy-collector of whom I have found mention was Robert de Patrica, rector of Farndon in the diocese of Winchester. His collectorate included the dioceses of Winchester and Salisbury. Register of Simon of Ghent, f. 68v.; Hist. MSS. Comm., Report IV., App., pp. 382-383. Since four or more deputy-collectors were customarily appointed in the same district for the purpose of collecting a papal tenth, the staff of sub-collectors for annates was evidently small.

12 Below, p. 64.

"He was one of the nuncios sent by Clement V. to invite Edward or his son to be present at the consecration. The invitation was dated August 25 and Edward's answer October 4, 1305. Prynne, Exact Chronological Vindication, III. 1069-1072.

74 P. R. O., Papal Bulls, 44-18.

75 Above, p. 53.

To Below, pp. 62-64.

77

churches falling vacant, were to pay the first-fruits to the papal collectors or their representatives. The rights of others to annates acquired by prescription or by papal privilege were suspended during this period, although the subsequent restoration of such rights to the possessors was guaranteed. It was not intended, furthermore, to demand so much for annates as to interfere with the proper celebration of divine offices or the cure of souls attached to any benefice. The only exemption from payment of the tax stated in the bull was the mensal income of an archbishop, bishop, or regular abbot. In actual practice, however, further exceptions were made. The action of the king after the parliament of Carlisle caused priories and abbacies to be held immune.78 The canons of Beverley expected that the income of an office regularly used for daily distributions to the canons would be free from payment, and, although it does not appear what view the collectors took, it is significant that in future levies such was the case.s 80

79

The first step taken by the collectors was to establish the location and value of the vacant benefices. This work was done largely by the bishops, who were ordered to certify to the collectors the value of all benefices in their dioceses vacant between the date of the bulls and the receipt of copies of the same, and thereafter to make regular monthly reports. The value assigned to benefices by the

81

"This provision is often found in the earlier use of annates by prelates and foundations. Constitution Suscepti regiminis, Friedberg, Corpus (ed. Richter), col. 1205; Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, p. 47; Wilkins, Concilia, I. 597.

Ts Above, p. 55; Hemingburgh, II. 242. According to the chronicler of St. Albans the abbot confirmed in 1309 paid first-fruits (Gesta Abbatum, II. 114), but the payment actually was servitia (Vatican Archives, Oblig., 1, f. 42v.). Abbacies and priories, and bishoprics and archbishoprics as well, had been exempt in the levy granted to Henry III. Gottlob, Die Servitientaxe im 13. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1903), p. 90. What was done with regard to bishoprics and archbishoprics in the present levy is not entirely clear. Some chroniclers assert that they paid annates. Rishanger, p. 228; Flores Historiarum, III. 130. Haller (p. 382, n. 1) considers these statements incorrect. At least one bishop appointed during this period paid servitia (Vatican Archives, Oblig., 1, f. 41), and it is not probable that both payments were demanded. In later levies episcopal incomes were excluded. Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, I. 447. Neither is it clear whether the decision of the council, that benefices in royal patronage should be exempt, was observed. It is perhaps significant that Edward II. in his correspondence with the pope on the subject insisted on the exemption of abbacies and priories, but said nothing about benefices in the royal patronage.

19 Memorials of Beverley, I. 142-143.

So Samaran and Mollat, p. 29.

S1 Register of Simon of Ghent, f. 62v.; Register of Woodlock, f. 42v.;
Memorials of Beverley, I. 142.
imposed by John XXII. in 1316.
II. f. 78.

The same practice was followed in the levy
Salisbury Diocesan MSS., Register of Mortival,

bishops was the same as that given in the valuation made for the assessment of the crusading tenth imposed by Nicholas IV. in 1291. The directions of the collectors concerning these items are not always as definite as might be desired. Once they demanded the communem valorem. At another time they wanted certification de valore seu erstimatione and again de vero valore.82 But in the returns to all three demands the value attached to a benefice was always that fixed in the valuation of 1291.83 If a benefice was not there assessed, it was reported "value unknown" or "not taxed". Since the collectors allowed this practice to continue unchanged, it is without doubt the valuation they desired and the basis on which annates were paid.84 Clement V., therefore, did not take the whole first year's income of a vacant benefice, as is commonly asserted, since the valuation for the tenth was below the real value, and the difference between the assessed and actual value was commonly reputed

83 Register of Simon of Ghent, ff. 62v., 68v., 69.

86

sa In his first report the Bishop of Winchester states that he is returning the valuation found in the taxation rolls. Register of Woodlock, f. 48v. A comparison of the returns made by the bishops of Salisbury and Winchester (Register of Simon of Ghent, ff. 64v., 68v.-70v.; Register of Woodlock, ff. 42v., 48v., 56v., 60, 66, 69, 74v., 82v., 94, 97V., 101V.-102V.) with the valuation of 1291 (published by the Record Commission) shows that this was true of all the returns.

This is still further substantiated by the statement of Testa in his second report: "De beneficiis vero non arrendatis certificare non possum ad quantum ascenderit, quia pro maiori parte sunt ita exilia quod etiam ad decimam non taxantur, sed de illis et de aliis, quicquid bono modo poterimus, faciemus." A comparison of the value of the benefices reported by the Bishop of Winchester with the sum actually demanded from those benefices by the collector leads to the same conclusion. In June, 1308, Testa reported the sum of annates due from the diocese of Winchester at 642 marks (First Report). In September, 1308, the value of the benefices returned by the Bishop of Winchester up to that time was 681 marks (compiled from the Register of Woodlock, ff. 101v.-102v.). The two sums are not identical because the reports cover slightly different periods, and because the value of four benefices returned by the bishop is not stated. But, if the whole of the first year's income had been taken, the sum reported by Testa would have been far in excess of the valuation given by the Bishop of Winchester.

This conclusion directly controverts the assertion made in the petition of Carlisle that the pope takes the whole income of a benefice during the first year after vacancy, and leaves nothing for the sustenance of the incumbent. Rot. Parl., I. 220. As a statement of grievances prepared before the first hot anger of the opposition had cooled, the petition might be expected to contain some exaggeration, and, balanced against the declaration of intention in the bull of instructions to the papal collectors not to levy annates in such a way as to deprive benefices of their accustomed services, and against the above evidence of the actual practice of assessment, it has little weight.

"L'usage de lever l'annate d'après le montant de la taxe de la décime remonte au concile de Vienne." Samaran and Mollat, p. 29. Göller (Einnahmen, pp. 81*-82*) asserts that Clement V. took the full income of the first year.

Concerning the valuation of 1291 see Graham, "The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV.", Eng. Hist. Rev., XXIII. 443-446 (1908).