The King in Council with the Bishops of Norwich and Hereford, the Earl of Lancaster, and other nobles, charged John Langton, Bishop of Chichester, to consider whether it was not time 'to draw the sword of the Lord to pluck out and destroy such vice,' inasmuch as the earl, unlike a true Christian, or son of Holy Mother Church, had no ways blushed to lead such an odious and execrable life, disregarding all good counsel, and had broken into parks,' &c.

This action of the Earl of Lancaster probably was the cause of Warenne's subsequent escapade. On June 10 the earl wrote from Sandal Castle to the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows:

'To the honourable Father in God and our dear friend Walter, by the grace of God Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, his son John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, greeting and due honour. Sire, in respect to that which we have learnt by your order, be pleased to understand that we are and shall be ready to do everything that Holy Church can demand by law and in reason; and upon divers other points we will answer you in time, in such a manner that no man shall be able to blame us rightfully or with reason and, Sire, if you wish us to do anything that we can, be pleased confidently to command us, and we will do it to the utmost of our power. Adieu, Sire, and may God preserve you. Given at our castle of Sandale the 10th day of June.'

On June 18 the earl wrote to the archbishop.

The matter was

so serious that it behoved him to be well advised in his answer, and that he should require for that purpose a more distant day than the Quinzaine of S. John (June 24), which had been fixed.'

The earl commenced the legal campaign at York, appealing to the archbishop, the action being for divorce between the earl and Joan de Bar. John de Nassington, junior, Philip de Nassington, and William de Stanes, advocates in the York Consistory Court, were chosen to advise and represent Joan de Bar, and the archbishop (Greenfield) wrote from Helagh Park, ordering them to act, under pain of suspension, dating his mandate 4 August, 1314.2

Archbishop Greenfield wrote to the official of the Archdeacon of York on September 8 as follows:-John, Earl of Surrey, has told us that when under age, and in charge of Lord Edward, formerly King

Commissio facta in eodem negotio ibid aliæ commissiones in eadem causa. Fo. 73 Ducarel's Abstract of the Lambeth Registers, Add. MSS. 6065, Brit. Mus., fol. 385.

Citationes in eadem causa ibid; variæ litteræ d'ni Archiepi Johi Com. Warren in eodem negotio. Fo. 106a, 106b, 107a Ibid.

Littera Archiepi responsiva Cycestren Epo. super fact. Comit. Warrenne. Fo. 125a Ibid.

1 Sussex Archæological Collections, vi., p. 125.

ter.

2 From Archbishop Greenfield's Regis

of England, of illustrious memory, at the compulsion of certain nobles and magnates of the kingdom, he was compelled to marry the noble woman, the lady Johanna, daughter of the late Earl de Barro, though. within the grade of consanguinity, ie. in the third and in the fourth: he was entirely ignorant of this impediment when he contracted marriage, under force and fear; but when it was done, so soon as he was able and he dare, he opposed it: and afterwards having knowledge of the said impediment, for the relief of his conscience he made frequent and urgent applications to us to provide a remedy We therefore command you to cite peremptorily the said lady Johanna, in the castles of Conyngesburgh and Sandale, where she is known to have her domicile, if she can there be found, or her proctor, if she has left one there; if she has not, then on some Lord's Day or solemn day, whilst mass is sung in the parish churches of the said towns, and in other important and solemn places of the said archdeaconry, or where it appears to you expedient, by the publication of this citation, and by the proclaiming of it to her relations, acquaintances, and friends, she may not have any excuse of ignorance that she appear herself, or by a proctor sufficiently instructed, before us, or our commissaries in this matter, in our Cathedral of York, on Wednesday next after the coming Feast of S. Michael, with the said earl, to have the matter gone into and settled: announcing publicly that they will proceed whether she be there or not. Report to us by your letters patent that this has been done. Cawod, 6 id. Sep. and the 9th of our pontificate.' (Sept. 8, 1314.)1

The Church of Rome by its various Councils has condemned marriage between persons related to each other to the seventh degree; but this has very frequently been got over by dispensation, and when persons have been married and subsequently become aware that they were related to each other within the forbidden degrees, on appeal their marriage has usually been declared valid and any children to be legitimate, a certain penance being enjoined. There are plenty of instances of this in the Papal Registers. King Edward I. and Edward II. (then Prince Edward) in 1298 both received dispensations from Pope Boniface VIII. The entries in the calendar are as follows:

1298. 4 Boniface VIII. Register, vol. xlix., kal. July (1st) S. Peter's. Dispensation to Edward, son of Edward, King of England, and Isabella, daughter of Philip, King of France, to intermarry, notwithstanding that they are related in the third and fourth degree of

1 Letters and Papers from the Northern Registers. Raine, pp. 228-9.

VOL. XIX.

N

kindred.' Same place and date. The like to Edward I. and Margaret, daughter of Philip, late King of France, they being related in the third and fourth degrees of kindred and affinity, inasmuch as Eleanor (of Castile), Edward's deceased wife, was related to Margaret in the fourth degree of kindred.2 (Foedera.) And a little later::-1317. April 1. Pope John XXII., at Avignon, sent an indult to King Edward, granting a general marriage dispensation to his sons and daughters with persons related to them in the fourth degree of kindred. When the marriage of John de Warenne with Joan de Bar was arranged a dispensation was obtained from Pope Clement V. on account of their relationship to the common stock.

3

Meanwhile, Parliament was ordered to meet in York. And the King appears to have interested himself in Warenne sufficiently to request hospitality for him during its meeting from Ralph de Monte Hermerii at the town of Clifton, near York. On August 18 the King dated at York the following in reference to this:-The hospitality to be shown, at the King's request, during the meeting of the next Parliament summoned at York, to John de Warenna, Earl of Surrey, by Ralph de Monte Hermerii at the town of Clyfton, by York, is not to be to the latter's prejudice in future. Ralph de Monte Hermerii asserts that he holds that town for the term of his life of the grant of the late King for his livery. By the King, on the information of W. de Melton. The old question between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York was not lost sight of by the King, and he guarded against a collision. On September 3, at York, he wrote to John de Warenne forbidding him to impede the attendance of the Archbishop of Canterbury or his household at the Parliament summoned at York on the morrow of the Nativity of S. Mary, by reason of the disputes concerning the carrying of his cross in that province. (A special crucifix on a long staff, carried before an archbishop.) Similar mandate to the Archbishop of York and the Dean and Chapter. Archbishop Greenfield, on the other hand, guarded his rights when on September 15 he granted Warenne licence for an oratory at Clifton, near York, during the continuance of the present Parliament, provided that Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, does not go there with his cross erect.8

1 Cal. Papal Registers, Papal Letters, i., p. 576.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., ii., p. 139.

↑ Ibid., iii., p. 173.

5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1313-1317, p. 166. 6 Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 194. 7 Ibid.

8 Fasti Ebor., Raine, i., p. 384. See Yorkshire Archeological Journal, xiii., pp. 85-98.

Henry de Wylton, rector of
And on October 2 he wrote

On October 1 Archbishop Greenfield appointed William de Rothwell, rector of Normanton, and Corney, to hear the suit for divorce. to R., Bishop of Durham, to 'cite or cause to be cited, in manner and ways as you best are able, Matilda de Neyrford, that she appear personally before us, or our commissaries, in our church of Blessed Peter of York, on Wednesday next after the Feast of S. Luke, Evang. (Oct.), upon certain articles affecting the health of her soul, concerning which she before others has better known the truth, to be laid canonically before her from our office: that the truth may be stated and sworn to: and that justice may be done. Concerning the manner and the day when the citation was made, and in what manner this our mandate shall have been executed, ye shall certify us distinctly by your letters patent. York, Oct. 2, 1314.'

Maud de Neirford appears to have been introduced into this application for a divorce because the law of the Church did not allow husbands to bring actions on the ground of consanguinity. What Maud had to say in the matter at this stage is not apparent, as there was then no mention of a pre-contract. Maud de Neirford, although she afterwards herself pressed a suit for the divorce on other grounds, does not appear to have liked the idea of then appearing before the archbishop. The Bishop of Durham acted in the matter as his report which follows shows, and with what result:-October 3, 1314. To the venerable Father in Christ, Lord William, Dei Gratia Archbishop of York, Primate of England, Richard, &c., Bishop of Durham, &c. We have received the letters of your paternity (as above). We are not bound, as we believe, to attend to or to execute a mandate of this sort beyond our diocese. Nevertheless, at the urgency of your demand and the request of certain princes and magnates, who in the presence of our lord the King urgently requested us upon this matter to go to the manor of the Abbot of Byland, in Clyfton by York, where the said Matilda was entertained both then and previously, as was commonly said, and remained. Going personally on the same day, we sought from Sir Alex. de Monfort, knight, and Robert de Reppes, servant, attendants of the noble man, the Earl Warenne, then present in the hall of the same manor, that we might have access to the said Matilda. And when after waiting a long time we were not able to gain her presence, showing your citation to the said knight and servant, Mr. Andrew de Tange and Mr. Rich. de Ganio, notaries public, and many others standing by, we cited Matilda herself according to the

1 Letters and Papers from the Northern Registers, Raine, p. 230 note.

2 Ibid., pp. 230–1.

force and effect of the same as much as we were able, to the said day and place, in the presence of the same; offering a copy of the citation to the said knight and servant, which in the presence of many they expressly refused to attend to... York, 5 non. Oct. of the above year. Mem.: That on 19th day of October, at Munketon, near Rypon, the lord (archbishop) received this certificate.1

On October 15, at Cawood, the archbishop appointed Mr. Robert de Ripplingham, Chancellor of York, Mr. Henry de Wylton, his official and commissary general, and Sir John de Hemingboro, rector of S. Wilfrid's, York, to adjudicate in the matter of Maud de Neyrford." From what follows it is evident that the divorce was not granted; doubtless the dispensation (indult) of Clement V., permitting the marriage to take place, would settle the matter. The obstruction to the citation of Maud appears to indicate that the next plea put forward, i.e. that of pre-contract, was not then relied upon, though it may have been suggested.

In taking the case to York, Warenne appears to have thought that he would have a better chance than in the southern province, where the opposition to his views had already been very decided. Foiled, however, at York, he went to the bishop and archdeacon of Norwich, in whose diocese also, at Castle Acre, he had very extensive possessions. The archdeacon of Norwich did not act very discreetly in the matter, and got into trouble over it. On the eve of the Ascension, 1315, Thos. de Gerdeston, archdeacon of Norfolk, and one of his officers were impleaded before the King and his Council, then sitting in Parliament at Westminster, for that they on March 8 preceding the King being then in his palace and holding his Parliament-did cite Joan de Bar, Countess of Warenne, she being then in attendance upon the Queen Consort, in the chapel of the said palace, to appear in the church of S. Nicholas of Braksden, to answer to Maud de Neyrford, in a cause of divorce between her and John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey. The fact having been proved, the archdeacon and his officer were committed to the Tower. Some proceedings were taken before the archdeacon and his official, but to no purpose. The matter dragged on until February 20 in the following year, 1316, when the King was at Lincoln. He then consented to allow Maud's suit to be commenced afresh, on condition that all previous proceedings before the archdeacon of Norfolk should be annulled. The same day the King granted protection for Maud, her

3

case are not in existence at York, although some others are still preserved of as early a date."

3 Cal. Rot. Pat., edit. 1802, pp. 75-76.