Legation of
William
Iτongchamρ,
1x90.
Legation of
Langton.
Regular
legation of
the arch-
bishops.
Occasional
legates.
308 Constitutional Ilistor//. [chap.
it. In 1150 Eugenius III ventured to bestow the office on
Theobald, who retained it as long as he lived. Thomas Becket,
who succeeded him, had not obtained the commission before he
quarreled with the king; and Henry, in consequence of that
quarrel, exerted himself to such purpose that the pope nominated
as legate archbishop Boger of York ɪ. But two years later, when
the pope was stronger and Henry had put himself in the wrong,
Thomas received the commission2, under which he proceeded to
anathematise his opponents. The next two archbishops, Bichard
and Baldwin, were made legates as matter of course. When
Baldwin went to the Crusade, AVilliam Longchamp obtained the
office, which he retained until the death of the pontiff who
appointed him3. Hubert Walter, two years after his appoint-
ment as archbishop, was made legate4, and had to drop the title
on the death of Celestine III. Langton was formally appointed
by Innocent III, but was hampered in the exercise of his duty
by Gualo and Pandulf, until in 12 21 he obtained a promise from
Honorius III that as long as he lived no other legate should be
sent. From that date the archbishops seem to have received
the ordinary Iegatine commission as soon as their election was
recognised at Bome ; they were t Iegati nati5 ; ’ and the title of
legate of the apostolic see was regularly given to them in all
formal documents. But this was not understood as precluding
the mission of special legates, or legates a latere, who repre-
sented the pope himself and superseded the authority of the
resident legates. Such were, in the thirteenth century, Otho
and Othobon and that cardinal Guy Foulquois who assisted
Henry III against Simon de Montfort6. Their visits were
either prompted by the king when he wanted support against
the nation, or forced on king and nation alike by the necessities
of foreign politics.
ɪ Feb. 27, 1164. 2 Apr. 24, 1166. 3 Vol. i. p. 536.
4 March 18, n95 ; Hoveden, iii. 290. See Gervase, ɪ. 551.
5 See Wilk. Cone. iii. 484.
6 The full list of papal legations sent to England during the middle
ages would be a very long one. It is necessary to distinguish carefully
between the mission of mere occasional envoys such as troubled England
in the reign of Henry HI and the regular plenipotentiary legates such as
Otho and Othobon.
Xix.] The Legatine Commission.
3o9
The history of the fifteenth century gave a renewed promin-
ence to the office, Martin V had revived the policy of Gregory
VII, and, relying on the doctrine that all bishops are but
servants of the see of Rome, had insisted that Chichele should
procure the repeal of the Statutes of Provisors1. Chichele had Chicheie
ɪ zv, 1 . it ■ 1 .. threatened
not the power to effect this, and the pope, notwithstanding his with enspeɪɪ-
• ∏ _ τ∙ ττ τ τ τ 1 1 j Ji ∙-∣1 ττ Sionfrom
professions of obedience, believed that he had not the will. He iɪɪs legation,
issued letters therefore in which he suspended the archbishop
from his Iegatine office ; but Chichele protested, appealing to the
decision of a general council, and the bulls were seized by royal
order2. Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, was made legate Theiegatine
. 11∙ . -τ-, , office in the
for the Bohemian war, and his presence in England during the fifteenth
continuance of the commission was resented by Chichele as an
assumption of dangerous power, whilst Gloucester protested in
the king’s name against his reception as legate3. But his legation
did not supersede the ordinary jurisdiction. After the death of
Chichele the old rule was observed, and the archbishop of
Canterbury, being generally a cardinal, fulfilled in some measure
the functions of a legate a latere as well. Stafford, Dene, and
Warham were not cardinals, but ordinary legates. It was the Itsimport-
. 1 , . ance in. the
Iegatine commission of "Wolsey, unexampled in its fulness and ιm- ca^θ of
portance, which, under the disingenuous dealing of Henry VIII,
who had applied for the commission and granted licence to accept
it, was made the pretext of his downfall, and which, after
1 The long correspondence on this point and other questions in dispute
is printed by Wilkins in the Concilia, iii. 471-486. There was some under-
hand work going on at the time, probably connected with the Beaufort and
Gloucester quarrel.
2 Wilk. Cone. iii. 484, 485. The archbishop appealed against the papal
suspension to. the decision of a general council, hl arch 22,1427 ; and royal
orders for seizing the bulls were issued March ι ; ib. p. 486. The sus-
pension does not seem to have taken effect.
the protest of Bichard Caudrayj the king’s proctor, against BeaufoiVs
visit to Englandas legate in 1428 is pιintcd in Eoxe, Acts and Monu-
ments, 11i. 717 ; Brown, Ease. Ber. Expetend., ii. 618 sq. He asserts that
the kings of England4tain spécial! privilégie quam Consuetudine Iaudabili
Iegitimeque praescnpta, necnon a tempore et per tempus cuius Contrarii
memorιa Iiommum non exιstιt paci∩ce et inconcusse observata Sufficienter
dotati Iegitimeque muniti, quod nullus apostolicae sedis Iegatus venire
debeat in regnum suuɪn Angliae aut alias suas terras et dominia nisi ad
régis Angliae pro tempore existentis vocationem, rcquisitionem invita-
tio∏em, sen rogatuni.’ See above, p. τι2, ’