passage," All exceptions or privileges granted to our venerable brother, Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, or to his church, or any other notwithstanding, grant unto you the office of legate." A like passage occurs also in a letter from Celestine to the Archbishop of York, and all bishops, &c., on the same occasion, and which, also, is given by Hoveden. William of Newburgh, it would appear, could hardly have been aware of this exception when he wrote the above.

1217-8. A mandate from Pope Honorius iii. to Archbishop Gray, &c. forbidding him to carry his cross erect within the province of Canterbury.

1277. Edw. I. Feb. 27. The Archbishop of Canterbury orders the Archbishop of York to excommunicate Lewellyn Prince of Wales.

1280, March. A mandate from the rural Dean of Brading to the clergy of his deanery, with the authority of the official of the court of Canterbury, contains the following:--" If the Archbishop of York passes through your parishes bearing his cross erect, no one is to sell him anything or communicate with him in any way, or beg his blessing." Boycotting is evidently not a modern invention.

1280, April 1. Letter of Archbishop Wickwaine to Pope Nicholas iii. On our return from you we set up our cross in the midst of the English Channel, and bore it erect through the province of Canterbury. Mr. Adam Hales, official of that Archbishop and his adherents-officialis domini Cantuariensis, cum Sathanæ suisque satellitebus, &c.— assaulted us and broke the cross, we got another-which also was carried erect. At our entry into London a more serious attack was made upon us, but we escaped from it, and went to the Court to receive our temporalities. In addition to this the Archbishop put the places through which we passed in his province under an interdict as if we were heretics, or excommunicated persons. Let justice be done or the Church of England-Ecclesia Angliæ-will be rent in pieces.

1286. Archbishop Romanus received the pall at Rome on Feb. 10. On March 26, N. the Commissary at Canterbury ordered the Rural Dean of Dover to prevent the Archbishop of York from carrying his cross erect. On April 6, Archbishop Peckham, of Canterbury wrote from Saltwood to the dean of the Arches and Mr. W. de Haverberg to inform

YORK versus CANTERBURY.

By F. R. FAIRBANK, M.D., F.S.A.

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

twelve bishops (as was S. Augustine himself in the south) and to enjoy the dignity of a Metropolitan; for to him also have we resolved to send a pall: yet we wish him to be subject to your authority. But after your decease, he shall so preside over the Bishops whom he shall ordain, as to be in no way subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London (Canterbury). Let there be hereafter this distinction between the Bishops of London and York—that he shall have the precedence who was first ordained. But let them unanimously dispose, by common advice and uniform conduct, whatsoever is to be done for the zeal of Christ let them arrange matters with unanimity, decree justly, and perform what they judge convenient in a uniform manner.

735. Egbert, brother of King Egbert, having been made Bishop of York, "by his own prudence and the power of the King, restored that see to its original state. For ... Paulinus, the first prelate of the Church of York, had been forcibly driven away, and dying at Rochester, had left there that honourable distinction of the pall, which he had received from Pope Honorius. After him many prelates of this august city, satisfied with the name of a simple bishopric aspired to nothing higher; but when Egbert was enthroned a man of loftier spirit, and one who thought that, as it is overreaching to require what is not overdue, so is it ignoble to neglect our right, he recovered the pall by frequent appeals to the Pope." Eight bishops had intervened between Paulinus and Egbert.

William, a canon of the Augustine Monastery of Newburgh, in Yorkshire, in his Chronicle, which is brought down to 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."