Page images


Receipt by John Hypprom of Pontefract, from Nicholas Colne 1 May. the king's receiver at Pontefract of 43s., for his wages of 3d. a day from Michaelmas, 13 Hen. iv. to Monday 20 March next, 172 days.

Pontefract, 1 May, 1 Hen, v,

Seal, a dog. Legend:-Prenc su nom.

1424. 6 Nov.

[B. 128.]

Receipt by Wm. Elmesale from Ric. Popelay, the king's receiver at Pontefract of 20s. for Mich. term of a rent of 40s. granted to him by the king for life. 6 Nov. 3 Hen. vj.

Seal, a beetle (?).



[A. 269.]

Grant by Robt. Scotte, son of Wm. Scotte of Heton to John 7 Oct. de Heton, lord of Heton, and Elizabeth his wife, of all the messuages, &c., held by Wm. Scot his father, by feoffment of Sir Ric. Brand and Sir John Calvyrlay, chaplains for life, with reversion to the right heirs of the said John. Witnesses :-John son of Henry, Henry Wygot, Hen. Danser, John Grenefeld, Robt. Stokkys. Hyngandheton, 7 Oct. 6 Hen. iv.

Seal, a shield divided into three compartments, containing a sword, R, and H. above the shield, a banner and a star. Endd. Carta Roberti Scot filii Willelmi Scot de Estheton. [A. 247.]

name, possibly descended from him, but in one case different arms are given, and in the other none (Harl. Soc. ii., 20, 107). 25 Hen. vi., n. 41, Prob. æt. John Chesilden, son of John, son of

Anne C. A family named Sporley, of Suffolk, bore the only coat resembling this, to be found in Papworth; it may indicate some connection.

NOTE. The Society is indebted to Mr. A. S. Ellis for making the drawings of the seals, which form a very useful feature in these papers.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors]




THE quarrel which existed for many hundreds of years between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, as to precedence and their relative and respective authority and positions, is a very curious, but not unique, chapter in the history of the Church. It arose through the letter written by Pope Gregory to St. Augustine, making an arrangement for the primary subjection of York to Canterbury, with subsequent precedence to the Archbishop "who was first ordained." This arrangement appears simple and natural, but it was found not to work well, for the Archbishops of Canterbury were not satisfied to take and allow precedence so arranged, but claimed not only perpetual precedence over York, but supremacy also. The following history of the quarrel I have collected from the sources indicated at the end of the article. They are most of them contemporary and impress the reader with the reality of the struggle.

601. In the letter written this year by Pope Gregory to Augustine, granting him the pall, the following occurs :"We desire you also to send a bishop to the city of York, with this proviso-that, if that city, with the neighbouring territories, shall receive the word of God, he also is to ordain

1 In Ireland there was trouble of a similar character between the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin. Thus:

"1349, Nov. 20. The King revokes his licence to the Archbishop of Armagh to have his cross borne before him in any part of Ireland.

1350, Feb. 18. The King writes to Andomar, Cardinal of S. Anastasia, against the pretensions of the Archbishop of Armagh to carry the cross. Also to the Cardinal of Palestrina, the Papal ViceChancellor. The Archbishop of Armagh is ordered to repair to his See and provide for its defense.

"1350, Dec. 8. The King orders the justiciary chancellor and treasurer of

[blocks in formation]

is was 8. A umstine himself in the south) Manolan; for to him also

wi i mal: yet we wish him to be

But after your decease, he shall Burs vhom he shall criain, as to be

the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London Let there be hereafter this distinction sits of London and York-that he shall ANALIS vho was first ordained. But let them esense, by common advice and uniform con• uscite is to be done for the zeal of Christ : let actors with unanimity, decree justly, and rey judge convenient in a uniform manner.' brother of King Egbert, having been made Yok by his own prudence and the power of restored that see to its original state. For ... She first prelate of the Church of York, had been y even away, and dying at Rochester, had left there pa, eucarible distinction of the pall, which he had received 1 Voce Honorius. After him many prelates of this sory, satisfied with the name of a simple bishopric

d to nothing higher; but when Egbert was enthroned awan of lottier spirit, and one who thought that, as it is verreaching to require what is not overdue, so is it ignoble neglect our right, he recovered the pall by frequent appeals to the Pope." Eight bishops had intervened between Narus and Egbert.

William, a canon of the Augustine Monastery of NewDagh, in Yorkshire, in his Chronicle, which is brought down 4 1197, says (Book v., chap. xii.):-"Here, I think, I should mention the reason or occasion about which the two metropolitans of England have now contended during a long period of time. The Archbishop of York is upheld by the distinct authority of S. Gregory; who, in writing to Augustine, the Bishop of the Angles, says: We wish the Bishop of York to be subject to thee, my brother; but after thy death let him preside over the bishops that he may have ordained, so that he may, in no respect, be subject to the Bishop of London.' And, he added, between the Bishops of London and York let there be hereafter this distinction in honour let him be esteemed the first who was first ordained." The Bishop of Canterbury, however (whom S. Gregory calls

the Bishop of London), asserts that this authority was abrogated at a subsequent period; that is to say, when the Roman Pontiff (as the venerable Beda relates), ordained that most learned man, Theodore, as Bishop over the Church of Canterbury, whom he also appointed as primate over all the bishops of England. His successors for many ages are known to have been distinguished by the same prerogative; whence it is clear that the prerogative was granted not to the person but to the Church. On the part of the Archbishop of York, it is answered that S. Gregory established a manifest and solid right, which at no time has been abrogated; although for a certain time, by reason of the time itself, it was not in use, as if the right were dormant and might be revived at the proper time. Forasmuch as the Angles had lately been converted to the faith of Christ, according to the history of the truthful Beda, rude and unlearned bishops of that nation had begun to preside over them; and in order to instruct such men, the Roman Pontiff, of necessity, with pious foresight, appointed the learned Theodore, not, indeed, making void the decree of the most blessed Father Gregory, but only consulting the times; but the successors of Theodore either considered that they ought in like manner to yield to the times, or when the times were better they were guilty of presumption; since the Bishops of the Angles, who presided over the see of York, with a kind of rustic simplicity, took but little care of the prerogative of their own see, and from the days of Paulinus, the bishop, neglected the use of the pall for many years. To this the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, That, although the use of the pall was restored to the Church of York, many pontiffs of that Church were notoriously subject to the jurisdiction of the Church of Canterbury, or to the Archbishop, as their own primate.' The Archbishop of York rejoins, Although as the respect of temporal necessity could not generate any prejudice to the right of the Church of York, so neither could the simplicity or the negligence of the bishops of that Church do so, for S. Gregory willed that its right should not be annulled, but be firm and perpetual.' This vain contention concerning the primacy thus involved the Metropolitans of England in a long and expensive labour. Each of them, however, most vainly writes himself Primate of all England;' yet neither possesses the power signified by this title."

« PreviousContinue »