"Restraint on
the admis-
sion of papal
bulls.
National
church
legislation
in council.
Diocesan
enactments.
Royal right
of restrain-
ing legisla-
tion.
334 Cnnsttitvtwnal History. [chap.
crown asserted and maintained the right to forbid the intro-
duction of papal bulls without royal licence, both in general
and in particular cases; and the English prelates had their
places, and the ambassadors accredited by the king and the
estates had their right to be heard, in the general councils of
the church. But except in the rare case of collision with
national law, the general legislation of Christendom, whether
by pope or council, was accepted as a matter of course.
In the acts of the national church, whether Iegatine, pro-
vincial, or diocesan, the legislative power was exercised by the
presiding prelate in his own name and in that of his brethren ;
the legate Otho made constitutions, ‘ supported by divine help
and by the suffrage and consent of the present council1 ; ’ and
Othobon legislated ‘ with the approbation of the present
council2/ The archbishops, who issued constitutions after the
organisation of the provincial convocations was perfected, acted
with the advice and consent of their brethren the bishops and
the clergy of their provinces. The province of York by its
convocation accepted the provincial code of the province of
Canterbury3. The diocesan regulations made by particular
bishops were either mere repetitions of general enactments, or
rules of the nature of local ordinances, and require no notice
here.
The calling of the assemblies in which such legislation could
be transacted was, as a matter of fact, subject to royal permis-
sion or approval, and the right of the king to forbid such a
council or to limit its legislative powers was during the
Norman reigns both claimed and admitted. William the
Conqueror did not allow the archbishop in a general council
of the bishops to ‘ ordain or forbid anything that was not
agreeable to his royal will, or had not been previously ordained
by him4.’ William Rufus prevented the holding of such an
Edward I recognises and extends the application of a constitution of the
general council of Lyons.
1 Johnson, Canons, ii. 157. 3 lb. ii. 213.
3 Blackstone, Comm. i. 83; Wilkins, Cone. Hi. 663; Johnson, Canons,
H. 513∙
4 Above, vol. ɪ. p. 310.
XIX.]
Cmirol of Councils.
335
assembly for thirteen yearst. Henry I acted on his father’s Royal eon-
J , . r J . . firmation.
principle, and added his royal confirmation to the ecclesiastical
legislation which he approved2. Stephen struggled in vain
against the claims of the clergy to independent power of legis-
lation, and retorted by measures of oppression; but Henry II
contented himself with aiding the conciliar legislation, which
he knew himself to be strong enough by fair means to control.
Hubert Walter held a ‘ general ’ council in spite of a prohibition ProWtton
of Geoffrey FitzPeters ; but he was himself chancellor at the ticiar.
time, and the protest of the justiciar may have been only formal.
As a rule the later sovereigns, instead of restricting the liberty
of meeting, contented themselves with warning the clergy not
to infringe the royal rights. In 1207 for instance John warned Warnings
σ t7 o ‘ addressed
the council of S. Alban’s not to do anything contrary to the Ъу the king
. . . to councils,
customs of the realm, and to defer their deliberations until they
had conferred with him4. In 1281 again Edward I in the
strongest language forbade the archbishops and bishops, as they
loved their baronies, to discuss any questions touching the
crown, the king’s person or council, or to make any constitution
against his crown and dignity5. But these and similar pro-
hibitions were simply cautionary ; so long as the councils con-
fined their deliberations to matters of spiritual or ecclesiastical
interest the kings either actively assisted or quietly acquiesced
in the freedom of deliberation and legislation ; nor in later
times were the parliaments more than duly jealous or watchful
in this respect, so long as the legislation was such as would
bind the clergy alone, or the laity only in foro Mnscientiae.
390. Any attempts made by the spiritualty in council and
1 Anselm, Epp. iii. 40.
2 SSciatis quod auctoritate regia et potestate concedo et Confirmo statuta
coiicilii, a WilleImo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sa∏ctae Romanae ec-
clesiae legato apud Westmonasterium celebrati, et interdicta interdico.
Si quis vero horuɪn decretorum violator vel contemptor exstiterit, si
ecclesiasticae disciplinae humiliter non Satisfecerit, noverit se regia potestate
graviter coercendum, quia divinae disposition! resistere praesumpsit ; ’
Foed. i. 8.
3 Hoveden, iv. 128 ; K. Diceto, ii. 169. This was an attempt made by
Hubert as pιimate to convene the whole of the English clergy.
1 Rot. Fat. i. 72 ; Foed. i. 94; a similar warning of ι8 Hen. Ill is cited
by Coke upon Littleton, s. 137 ; and other instances 4 Inst. pp. 322, 323.
5 Wilkins, Cone. ii. 50; see above, vol. ii. pp. 115, 116.