attacks the law of the land.1 Lewis and Vaughan, and all who follow the latter, have understood this allusion to mean that Edward III. had nominated Wiclif to the office of king's chaplain.20 But we do not find elsewhere a single trace of evidence by which this conjecture is confirmed. For this reason, it has been thought necessary to give the words another meaning-this, namely, that Wiclif meant by that expression to distinguish himself as a cleric of the National Church, in opposition to a cleric of the Papal Church.21 But this explanation does not quite satisfy us, on account of the "talis qualis" of the passage. For this expression of modesty is only in place if the three preceding words denote a certain function or social position, but not so if they indicate only a certain tendency and mode of thought. But what sort of distinguished position are we to think of under the title of a king's cleric, peculiaris regis clericus? I hold it to be not only possible but probable also, that under that title the summoning of Wiclif to Parliament by the act of the King is meant to be indicated; that is to say, that Wiclif had been called to the Parliament in question as a clerical expert, or in modern phrase, as a Government commissioner. This sense would answer very well to the peculiaris regis clericus. At least this view may be worth examination as a suggestion, as the meaning of the title used by Wiclif is still so far from being settled.

But the result itself, that Wiclif had a seat and vote in the Parliament of 1366, I venture to put forward as one for which I have produced sufficient grounds. The only adverse consideration which might be alleged against it rests upon the way in which Wiclif introduces his account of the speeches of those Lords. For his words sound in such a way as to convey, at first, the impression that the author's know

ledge of the matter is only by hearsay. To this circumstance, however, no decisive weight can be assigned, for this reason, that possibly Wiclif wished to avoid the appearance as if he was boastful of having been himself an ear-witness of the speeches, and that he preferred to make his appeal to matters which were well enough known and talked about (fertur). But if the real state of the case was that which we think we have made probable, we have then an easier explanation, not only of the detailed character of the report of several of the speeches, but also of two additional points, -first, of the agreement of several ideas in those addresses with certain favourite views of Wiclif, for if Wiclif was a member of that Parliament he would be able to find all the easier access to men in high position, with the convictions. which he cherished upon the great question of the day. And secondly, if Wiclif was then in Parliament, and had exercised some influence upon the decision arrived at, it will then be the more easy to understand why he in particular should have been singled out for challenge by the unnamed monk to whom the action of that Parliament was a thorn in the eyes. Under all circumstances, so much as this is clear, as the result of our investigation, that Wiclif took part, in a powerful and influential way, in the great Church and State questions of the day, and this in the direction of having much at heart the right and honour of the Crown, and the liberty and welfare of the kingdom.

If in this matter he was compelled to oppose himself to the claims of the Court of Rome, we are still without the slightest reason to regard as mere phraseology his solemn declaration that, as an obedient son of the Church, he had no wish to touch her honour too closely, or to injure

the interests of piety. We are unable, however, to agree with the observation, that Wiclif's dauntless courage and disinterestedness come out all the more conspicuously from his conduct in this business, that the process touching the headship of Canterbury Hall was at that time in dependence before the Roman Court. For if it be true, as we take it to be, along with other scholars before us, that the controversial tract before us was drawn up after the May Parliament of 1366, i.e., in the year 1366 itself, or at latest, in the first months of the following year, Wiclif was still at that date in undisturbed possession of that position. For though Islip had died on 26th April 1366, Simon Langham was not installed Archbishop of Canterbury till 25th March 1367, and it was on the 31st March that he transferred the Wardenship of that Hall to the Benedictine, John Redingate. It appears, therefore, more than doubtful whether Wiclif was, at the date of the composition of this tract, already deposed from his dignity in the Hall; the contrary, precisely this dignity may have been included among the "Church benefices," of which he was to be deprived, if things went agreeably to the wishes of his adversaries.

on

SECTION III.-Events after 1366.

WICLIF manifested the same spirit on another occasion, some years later. Unfortunately the sources of history do not flow here so richly as to enable us steadily to follow the course of his inner development and his external action. We are obliged, therefore, at this point to pass over an interval of six or seven years-the years next following which were sufficiently ill-fated for England in her foreign relations.

In May 1360, after the war with France had lasted for twenty-one years, the peace of Brétigny had been concluded. In this treaty the whole south-west of France, along with several cities on the north coast, was surrendered to the English Crown, without any reservation in favour of France of the feudal superiority of these possessions, but including full rights of sovereignty. On the other hand, England expressly renounced all claims to the French Crown, and to any further acquisitions of French territory. What was ceded to her, however, was a magnificent acquisition. as it stood. But the peace of Brétigny became only a new apple of discord. Soon enough there sprang from it first a tension of feeling between the two nations, then a misunderstanding, and at last an open breach. The brilliant, but in the end barren, expedition of Edward the Black Prince to Spain in 1367, with the view of restoring Pedro the Cruel to the throne of Castile, led to a renewed outbreak of hostility with France, which had given its support to the usurper of the Castilian Crown, the Bastard Henry of Trastamara. This expedition brought upon the heir-apparent of the English throne an attack of gout, as the effect of the Spanish climate, under which he continued to suffer till, in 1376, he died. And when the war with France broke out again in 1369, it was an irreparable misfortune for England that the great general (who had developed, indeed, more military than administrative talent in the government of his principalities of Aquitaine and Gascony) was incapacitated by bodily disease to resume the post of command. Insurrection burst forth into flames in the ceded provinces of France, and could never again be subdued. One place of strength after another fell into the hands of the enemy. In August 1372 the city of Rochelle was again French. The

English rule over a good part of France was broken into fragments. But this was not all. The English fleet, too, could no longer, as hitherto, maintain its superiority; on the contrary, the coasts of England were left a defenceless prey to every landing of the enemy's ships. Public opinion in England, as may readily be supposed, was much disconcerted and disturbed. So long as successes and martial glory had been the harvests of war, the nation had willingly borne the great sacrifices which had to be made in money and blood. But when the successes thus obtained vanished away like shadows, when disaster was heaped upon disaster, and when the country itself was menaced by the enemy, complaints became louder and louder, and grievances more and more bitter, till it was at last resolved to take action against the Government itself.

A Parliament met during Lent of 1371, and when Edward III. laid before it a demand for a subsidy in aid of the war of 50,000 silver marks, this proposal led, as it would appear, to very animated debates. On the one side a motion was made, and was also eventually carried, that the richly-endowed Church should be included, to a substantial amount, in the incidence of the new tax; and on the other, the representatives of the Church, as was to be expected, did not fail to offer opposition to such a proposal. They used every effort to accomplish the exemption of the clergy, the rich monasteries, foundations, etc., from the new burden of taxation. It was very probably in that Parliament that one of the lords replied to the representations of some members of the endowed Orders in the form which Wiclif has preserved in one of his unpublished works. 22 The farseeing peer, in the course of the discussion, told the following fable:"Once upon a time there was a meeting of many