mission for the king's benefit. Tliis was the prelude to the Provisions of Oxford and the Barons' War. In November of this year, bishop Grosseteste, with his friend and habitual adviser, brotli^r Adam, proceeds to the papal court to look after the appeal of his chapter on the subject of visitation. He is thus present at the General Council of Lyons in 1245, which had been summoned for the condemnation, excommunication, and deposition of the emperor Frederick II. He does not appear prominent in the proceedings of the grand assemblage. His remote diocese, his resistance to pa- pal aggression, the connection of Frederick with Ilenr}' III of England and with the earl of Leicester, may have precluded any ardent sj'nipathy witli the furious arrogance of Innocent IV. But his own letters and his subsequent conduct show that he sustained the general action of the pontiff, whose cause was assured- ly that of national liberty and independence against tlie menace of universal imperialism. In the autumn of this ominous year Grosseteste returned to England, having obtained a satisfactory decision in regard to his authority. His right of visitation was acknowledged, but a comparison of his letters with the statements of Matthew Paris demonstrates that he did not obtain all that he demanded from the pope. It is equally erro- neous to suppose that he sacrificed any principle in ui"g- ing the collection of the ecclesiastical subsidy granted to Boniface, the new archbishop of Canterbury. There is no abatement of his principle or of his resolution. He resumes his visitations, and extends them to the rich monasteries. They provoke fresh opposition, and occasion fresh complications. At the king's request, he writes upon the reciprocal relations of the sacer- dotal and kingly powers. Despite of all obstacles, he sturdily maintains his course. He contends in Parlia- ment against the exactions of the king and the intru- sion of foreigners into English benefices. He contin- ues his anxious supervision of the Universitj' of 0.x- ford ; is sedulous in offices of prudence and charit}', es- pecially in ministering to the wants of poor scholars. He is indefatigable in his own pursuits. To this pe- riod must be referred the affectionate letter of Adam de Marisco dissuading him from excessive study : " Numquid non est lemperandus labor liUeralis studii quod indabitanter nostls quia vilales sjnrifus exhaiirit et atienuat corporis habitudinem, exaqjerat ajfeclionem et rationem obnubilate'"'' .... (£/>. xxxix.) The renewed resistance to his visitations, particularly by t'i3 monasteries, the dissensions thus engendered, and his diflferences with Boniface of Savoy, his arch- bisliop, and the uncle of the queen, compelled him to make another visit to Lyons in 1250. He was coolly received by Innocent, and, at the close of an excited conversation, exclaimed, " Oh, money, money, how powerful you are, especiall)' at the court of Rome!" He had anticipated the denunciations of Dante and Petr.Tcli. He gave larger development to his hon- est indignation in the celebrated sermon on papal abuses which he preached on the 13th of Jlaj' before the pope and three of the cardinals. This daring re- buke was not calculated to conciliate favor at court, and he turned his face homeward in December ^^tris- iis et vacuus." He came back wounded in spirit, and burdened with age, care, and anxiety for the future. He contemplated the resigjiation of his bishopric — no unusual procedure at that time — and seclusion with his books ; but he was induced to renounce this purpose bj"^ the representations of Adam de Marisco and other friends — perhaps bj' tlie authority of the archbishop — and the fear that the temporalities would be despoiled by the king during the vacancy. The determination to retain his high office was marked by increased vig- or in the repression of scandals. Matthew Paris cen- sures with great bitterness his severity in putting down monastic luxury, but admits the righteousness of liis purpose. His first open breach with the pope occurred at this time. He had refused the pontifical request to
induct an Italian, ignorant of English, into a rich cure. He was suspended for a short time in consequence. This did not arrest his reforming ardor. He excom- municated an unworthy nominee of the king's, and placed an interdict on the church to whicli he had been presented. In the great Parliament of London, Octo- ber 13, 1252, he opposed the king's demands, fortified by the pope's bull, and induced his brethren to join in a firm refusal of the application for a new subsidy. On this occasion he had a computation made of the in- comes of the Italians beneficed in England by Inno- cent, and found that they reached 70,000 marks, or thrice the clear revenue of the crown. He addressed a formal appeal to the lords and commonalty of Eng- land to suppress this disastrous spoliation {£//. cxxxi). It was the first direct claim of popular support in ec- clesiastical and political dissensions, and indicated the course to Simon de Jlontfort as a popular leader. His conduct was still more decided and menacing at the Parliament of May, 1253. In this year, the last of his long and useful life, Grosseteste gave the final affront to Innocent IV, and by one notable act, in strict ac- cordance with his whole previous career, secured the highest public favor, and won the renown by which he is chiefly remembered. He rejected the pope's de- mand of a canonry at Lincoln for his nephew, Fred- erick di Lavagna, convej'ing his refusal in a letter of strong argument and striking condemnation of the per- nicious '■'■ non-obstantes" and ^^provisions'' of the papal procedure. It was a note of preparation for Edward Ill's celebrated " Statute of Provisors" nearly a. hun- dred years afterwards (1344). This sharp letter con- cludes with the declaration ' ''jilialiter et obedienter non obedlo, contradico, et rebello" {Ep. cxxviii). The pope was thrown into uncontrollable rage by this letter, but his rage was exchanged for equally unseemly joy when he heard of the death of Grosseteste within the year. This event occurred at Buckden on the 9th of Oct., 1253. His remains were buried in Lincoln Cathedral, where they were joined about four years later by those of his friend, Adam de Marisco, "God so providing that, as they were lovely and amiable in their lives, so in death thev should not be divided" (^Lanercost Chroni- cle).