βθ2 Contttiiiitional History. [chap.
Sicilian astical jurisdiction, which, under the name of the 1 Sicilian
πιoπ <trclι y.
monarchy,’ became, in the hands of his successors, a unique
feature of the constitution of the kingdom. It is not im-
probable that early in the Becket controversy such a solution
of the difficulties under which Alexander III was labouring
story of the might have been attempted in England : certainly the coιι-
Offeredto temporary chroniclers believed that Henry II, when he was
HenryIi. demanding ⅛e Iegatine office for Itoger of York, received from
the pope an offer of the legation for himself1. But there were
not wanting men who would try to persuade him that even
without any such commission he was supreme in spiritual as
well as in temporal matters. Beginald Fitz Urse, when he
was disputing with Becket just before the murder, asked him
Supremacy from whom he had the archbishopric ? Thomas replied, ‘ The
⅛imed'for spirituals I have from God and my lord the pope, the temporals
h'm' and possessions from my lord the king.’ ‘ Do you not,’ asked
Beginald, t acknowledge that you hold the whole from the
king?’ ‘ No,’ was the prelate’s answer; ‘ we have to render to
the king the things that are the king’s, and to God the things
that are God’s2.’ The words of the archbishop embody the
commonly received idea ; the words of Reginald, although they
do not represent the theory of Henry II, contain the germ of
the doctrine which was formulated under Henry VIII3.
industriaɪn Iegati vice exhiberi volumus, quando ad vos ex latere nostro
ɪniserimus ; ’ Muratori, Scriptores, v. 602.
1 Hovcden, i. 2 23 : ‘ ad petitionem elerieoruɪn régis concessit dominas papa
ut rex ipse Iegatus esset totius Angliae? Cf. Gervase, i. 181 ; W. Cant. ed.
Ilobertson, i. p. 25. As a matter of fact it was the legation of the arch-
bishop of York that was in question; see Robertson, Becket, pp. 105, 106.
2 W. Fitz Stephen, S. T. C. i. 296; ed. Robertson, iii. 134.
3 On the meaning of the word spiritual, especially in connexion with the
oath taken by the bishops to the crown, see an essay by Mr. J. W. Lea,
^published in 1875 > tThe Bishops’ Oath of Homage.’ Under Spiritualia
are Teallyincluded three distinct things, which may be described as (ɪ)
Spiritualia characteris vel ordinis—the powers bestowed at consecration ;
(2) Spiritualia ministerii vel jurisdictionis, the powers which a bishop
receives at his confirmation and in virtue of which he is supposed to act
as the servant or representative of his church, which guards these spiritual-
ities during the vacancy ; (3) Spiritua-Iiabeneficii; theecclesiastical revenue
arising from other sources than land ; which ‘ Spiritualia, he acquires to-
gether with the temporalities on doing homage. These last are the only
spiritualɪa which he holds of the crown, the first and second never being
in the royal hands to bestow. And these are often both in legal and
common language included under the term temporalities.
XiX.] Appointment of JiiAiops.
303
378. Whatever was the precise nature of the papal Supre-Dignityof
macy, the Iiighest dignity in the hierarchy of the national and S<ψ.
church was understood to belong to the church of Canterbury,
of which the archbishop was the head and minister; he was
i alterius orbis papa ; ’ he was likewise, and in consequence, the
first constitutional adviser of the crown. The archbishop of
York and the bishops shared, in a somewhat lower degree, both
lɪis spiritual and his temporal authority; like him they had
large estates which they held of the king, seats in the national
council, preeminence in the national synod, and places in the
general councils of the church. The right of appointing the Right of
bishops and of Segulating their powers was thus one of the first to∞e⅛ment
points upon which the national church, the crown, and the
papacy were likely to come into collision.
The co-operation of clergy and laity in the election of bishops
before the Conquesthas been already illustrated1. The struggle Stmggieana
, τ-r TiAi ∏ , . t, . ,. compromise
between Henry 1 and Anselm on the question of investiture of Anselm.
terminated in a compromise : the king gave up his claim to
invest with staff and ring ; the archbishop undertook that
no bishop elect should be disqualified for consecration by the
fact that he had done homage to the king2. Although Henry
retained the power of nominating to the vacant sees3, the compact
resulted in a shadowy recognition of the right of canonical
election claimed by the chapters of the cathedrals, and exercised
occasionally under the royal dictation : to the metropolitan of
course belonged consecration and the bestowal of the spiritual-
ities ; temporal property and authority were received from the
royal hands. Stephen at his accession more distinctly recognised Canonical
the rule of canonical substitution4, and in his reign the clergy flrmed°by
contended with some success for their right. Henry II and .ïndjohn.
Richard observed the form of election under strict supervision,
and John, shortly before he granted the great charter, issued as
1 Vol. i. pp. 149, 150.
2 Flor. Wig. A.D. I ɪo/ ; Eadmer5 lib. iv. p. 91 ; see above, vol. i. pp. 342,
343.
3 4 Retento electionis privilegio W. Malmesb. CL R. § 417 ∙ cf. Lieber-
inaɪm, Hugo von Lyon, p. 46 ∙, and see above vol. i. § 125, pp. 342, 343.
4 Select Charters (e<t. 3), pp. 115, 121 ; Statutes, i. 3 ; of. vol, i. p. 347.