Legation of
the arch-
bishops of
York.
Interference
of the popes
in episcopal
appoint-
ments.
Origin in
disputed
cases.
310 Constitvtional History. [chλp.
threatening to involve the whole English church in the penalties
of praemunire, resulted in the great act of recognition which
declared the king to be, ‘ so far as is allowed by the law of Christ,’
supreme head on earth of the Church of England. The com-
bination of the ordinary metropolitan authority with the
extraordinary Iegatine authority, having thus for ages answered
its purpose of giving supreme power to the pope, and substituting
an adventitious source of strength for the spontaneous action of
the national church, brought about a crisis which overthrew the
papal power in England, and altered for all time to come the rela-
tions of Church and State.
The dignity of the pall and the ordinary commission of legate
were of course given only to the primates ; tire archbishops of
York, from the time of Thoresby, who was made legate in the
year 1352, down to the reformation, received the Iegatine com-
mission as well as the pall1.
381. The attempts of the pope, parallel with the attempts of
the king, to obtain a decisive voice in the appointment of suf-
fragan bishops, have a history which brings out other points of
interest, some of which are common to the archiépiscopal sees
also. The papal interference in these appointments might be
justified either by supposing the confirmation of an undisputed
election to be needed, or by the judicial character of the apostolic
see in cases of dispute or appeal. If we set aside the instances
of papal interference which belong to the missionary stage of
Anglo-Saxon church history, the first cases in which direct re-
course to Rome was adopted for the appointment of bishops were
those of Giso of ΛVells and Walter of Hereford. These two
prelates, having doubts about the canonical competency of arch-
bishop Stigand, went to Nicolas II in 1061, and received
consecration at his hands2. In this case the actual nomination
had been made at home, and the question at issue was one which
might fairly be referred to the arbitration of the apostolic see.
ɪ The Iegatine commission of the archbishop of York was perhaps a
result of the settlement of the great dispute between the two primates as
to the right to bear their crosses erect in each other’s province ; see Raine,
Lives of the Archbishops of York, i. 456, 457.
2 Chron, Sax. Λ.D. 1061.
XiX.] I)isp>nte(1 elections of Bishops. 311
In 1119 Calixtus II, taking advantage of the dispute between
archbishop Ralph and the king on one side, and Thurstan the
archbishop elect of York on the other, relative to the obedience
due by York to Canterbury, consecrated Thurstan in opposition
to both king and primate1 ; but here the pope believed himself
to be asserting the cause of justice, and, after some delay, the
opposing parties acquiesced in the decision : there was no question
as to the appointment, only as to the conditions of consecration.
As soon however as the clergy under Stephen had obtained a Muitipii-
γ , cationof
recognised, voice in the election of the bishops, questions were disputes,
raised which had the effect of referring numberless cases to the
determination of the pope as supreme judge. The king’s right
oflicencing, and of assenting or withholding assent to, the election,
was backed up by his power of influencing the opinion of the
electors. In every chapter he had a party who would vote for Causesof
his nominee, if he cared to press one upon them ; the shadowy
freedom of election left room for other competition besides ; the
overt exercise of such royal influence, the frequent suspicion of
simony, and the various methods of election by inspiration, by
compromise, or by scrutiny2, were fruitful in occasions for
appeal. The metropolitan could quash a disputed election, but
his power of confirming such a one was limited by this right of
appeal3. Under Stephen, who was seldom strong enough to
force his candidate on the chapters4, the royal influence was
sometimes set aside in favour of the papal, and was more than
once a matter of barter. The election of archbishop Theobald Disputed
was transacted under the eye of the legate Alberic, who con- to Rome,
secrated him5; the election of Anselm, abbot of S. Edmund’s,
to the see of London, was opposed by the dean of S. Paul’s and
his kinsmen, and, after being discussed at Rome, was quashed
by the same legate®; archbishop William of York, the king’s
1 Ord. Vit. lib. xii. c. 21.
2 See vol. i. p. 679.
3 This was ruled by Alexander IV in 1256 ; Ang. Sac. i. 637.
4 In 1136 Stephen restored the possessions of the see of Bath to the
bishop elect, i canonica prius electione pmecedente ; ’ Food. i. 16.
“ Γv. Diceto, i. 5252.
Jb. 1. 250, 25i.