Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/198

 190 THE GREAT STATUTE OF PRAEMUN1RE April your parliament ' was very detrimental to the estate of the apostolic see and the liberty of the church, and had advocated its repeal. 1 Evidently the council thought that only one statute was in question. If that was so, it is probable that Bartholomew of Novara was merely renewing the attempt of the abbot of Nonantola to obtain the repeal of the statute of provisors and the abolition of the obnoxious writs. This hypothesis is strengthened by the terms of the commission to Peter bishop of Dax, who in 1398 was sent to England with power to grant absolution to the English people from the penalties incurred under the pope's annulment of all the statutes and ordinances made by Richard II in parliament at Westminster against ecclesiastical liberty and the Roman church, after such annulment should have taken place in England. 2 The parliament of 1393 was of course held not at Westminster but at Winchester ; and while it would be rash to make much of this point, it is strange, if the pope had ever formally denounced the statute of 1393, that care was not taken to have it precisely described in the bishop's commission. 3 At all events, the St. Albans chronicles say that the bishop came to urge the withdrawal of the statute against provisors, the writ of Quare impedit, and many such things whereby the curia was vexed. 4 And the outcome of the bishop's visit, as far as the objectionable statutes were concerned, was merely a temporary concordat regarding the statute of provisors, whereby the pope was to be allowed to fill a limited number of English benefices. 5 It may at least be said that the transactions just noticed might all have taken place if the statute of 1393 had never been passed. It was not until after the council of Constance that the anti-papal laws were again the subject of serious remonstrance from Rome. Then, however, Martin V addressed himself to the problem with vigour. It has commonly been assumed that his angry protests were directed against the statutes of provisors and praemunire alike ; but I have found no evidence that either Martin V or Eugenius IV, who continued his efforts, was con- cerned about any of the so-called statutes of praemunire. As a rule, the popes' letters on the subject are not very specific. The target of their wrath is usually alluded to as that ' abominable ' or ' detestable ' or ' execrable statute against ecclesiastical 1 Ord. Priv. Council, i. 53 seq. The word ' lately ' (nadgaires in the council's report) proves nothing. In 1415 a council of Edward III was spoken of as nadgairs tenuz (supra, p. 177, n. 2). 2 Cal. of Papal Letters, v. 111. 3 In the formal act recording the pope's denunciation of the statutes of provisors in 1391, they are cited with meticulous accuracy (ibid. iv. 277). 4 Walsingham, ii. 228 ; Ann. Ric. II, p. 228. 4 Wilkins, iii. 236 seq.