Page images

his presence should entail no annoyance upon his host. When, in the spring of 1312, Greenfield was on his way to the Council at Vienna he met with such rough usage at the hands of the servants of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the king again stepped in to protect him as he returned. When he arrived on Dec. 1, Greenfield empowered Adam de Osgodby, Robert de Bardelby, John de Markenfeld, William de Melton, and Mr. John de Franceys, canons of York, to state his position in the controversy to one of the Cardinals. In the autumn of 1314 when the Court was at York, there was great risk of a collision. The Archbishop of Canterbury was on his way to that city. On 31st of August, Greenfield ordered his official and the Dean and Chapter of York to resist him if he asserted the offensive privilege, and directed the services to be suspended at every place and church at which he halted, unless it were the royal chapel. Instructions were also given to the Archdeacon of Nottingham to check the southern primate on his entrance into the diocese. The king, however, put an end to the danger by ordering Greenfield to allow his brother Archbishop to carry his cross erect during his stay at York. On Sept. 15, Greenfield in granting an oratory to John, Earl of Surrey, at his residence at Clifton near York during the continuance of the present parliament in that city, specially provided that Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury should not go there with his cross erect. During the next year on June 12 when there was a chance of Greenfield going into the diocese of Worcester, strict injunction was given to the bishop by the southern primate that he should not permit the sacred emblem to be used.

1304-15. Constitutions of Archbishop Greenfield. Since the Archbishop of York, primate of England, hath no superior in spirituals except the Pope, none of our subjects shall appeal from his decision to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1317, Aug. 6. The king asked Pope John to settle the disputes between Archbishop Melton of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the same subject.

1322, Nov. 4. The king ordered that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be permitted to carry his cross within the province of York.

1324, Feb. 23. The king permits the Archbishop of York to carry his cross in the province of Canterbury when coming to Parliament at Westminster.

Oct. 8. The king required the Archbishop of Canterbury to refrain from molesting the Archbishop of York in carrying his cross in the province of Canterbury whilst coming to the king at London.

1325. The Archbishop of York was appointed to the office of Treasurer, which Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury resisted as much as he could, on the plea that two crosses ought not to be borne in one province; and he excommunicated the Archbishop of York for carrying his cross through the city of London; but the latter, notwithstanding, publicly celebrated mass at Westminster for the soul of King Edward, though without his pall. On the following day the Archbishop of Canterbury, during the sitting of parliament in the "Green chamber," conversed openly with the Archbishop of York, although he knew that he was excommunicated by his order; for which he was gently reproved by the Bishop of Rochester, and admonished to desist.

1325, Aug. 8. The king orders the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London, and others not to molest the Archbishop of York in carrying his cross.

1327, Sept. 10. The king forbids W. Archbishop of Canterbury to object to the cross being carried before the Archbishop of York on his way to meet the king at Lincoln. The king wrote also to the Mayor and Sheriff of Lincoln to assist the Archbishop of York.

1328, April 25. The Sheriff of Northampton ordered to provide safe conduct for the Archbishop of York during his journey to Parliament at Northampton.

1329, June 14. The king ordered the Archbishop of York to be present at Windsor, July 23, with other prelates and magnates, notwithstanding his dispute with the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the same subject the king wrote also to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1333, Aug. 18. The king desired S. Archbishop of Canterbury to allow the cross to be carried before the Archbishop of York in the province of Canterbury while he is on his way to the approaching parliament at Westminster.

1334, June 12. The king desired W. Archbishop of York to allow the cross to be carried before the Archbishop

of Canterbury while passing through the province of York on his way to the king.

1334, June. Archbishop W. de Melton, of York, to Mr. Thos. Sampson, Official of our Court at York, sufficient money for our cause against the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1335, April 9. A letter from the king to the Archbishop of York, when the southern primate went to the parliament at York. The king also ordered the Sheriffs of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire to protect him.

1342, Sept. 8. The Sheriffs of London are ordered to forbid all persons to molest, while on his way to the king, William la Zouche, who is said to be consecrated Archbishop of York. Similar letters to Sheriff of Kent, &c.

Archbishop Thoresby's first efforts seem to have been directed to bringing to a final close the controversy which had for centuries embittered the mutual relations between York and Canterbury. Through the king's intervention the two Archbishops met at Westminster in 1352, and it was arranged that each Archbishop should bear his cross erect in the province of the other. At parliaments and councils the Archbishop of Canterbury was to sit on the king's right hand with his cross erect, the Archbishop of York on the left. In the open street their cross bearers were to walk abreast; in a narrow alley or gateway, he of Canterbury was to take the precedence. The Pope confirmed the arrangement, and assigned a distinction which still survives; the successor of Augustine being thenceforth to be designated "primate of all England," and his brother Archbishop "primate of England."

1353, April 1. The king orders the Sheriff of London and Middlesex to prevent any molestation in the city or suburbs to the Archbishop of York, the king's chancellor, for carrying his cross while engaged in the duties of the office of chancellor.

1354. Compromise between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York confirmed by Pope Innocent VI. The Archbishop of York might have his cross borne before him throughout the entire province of Canterbury, on condition of his sending, within the space of two months from the time of his consecration, to the shrine of S. Thomas A Becket a golden image to the value of forty pounds representing an Archbishop bearing a cross. It might be sent by



his chancellor, a doctor of laws, or a knight. The Archbishop of Canterbury was to enjoy the same privilege in the province of York unconditionally.*

In this curious manner this dispute which had caused such grievous trouble, was finally settled officially; but who will say that friction between the two primacies ceased at the same time?

The following works have been consulted and quoted in writing the above:

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Bede's Ecclesiastical History; Wm. of Newburgh's Chronicle; ditto of Wm. of Malmesbury; Roger de Hoveden's Annals; Rymer's. Fœdera; Caprave's Liber de Illustribus Henricis; Register of Archbishop Walter Gray, Surtees Society; Fasti Ebor., Raine; Wharton's Anglia Sacra; History of the Archbishops of Canterbury, by Gervase, a monk of Canterbury; Historical Letters and Papers from the Northern Registers, Raine, Rolls Series, &c.

NOTE. The engraving which illustrates this paper is from block supplied to me for the purpose by Messrs. Harper and Co., New York. It is from an old print in the British Museum. It shows the respective seats of the two Archbishops in the councils of state. The cross on the top of the staff of the Archbishop of Canterbury is accidentally omitted.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]





THIS, the final instalment of the Osgoldcross Notes will be found by no means the least interesting of the series, dealing as it does among other subjects with what has hitherto been the vexed question of the supposed connection of the Stapletons of Darrington with the larger and more widespread family which hailed from Stapleton-on-Tees and the North Riding, and which had their West Riding head and centre at Carleton near Snaith, a short ten miles away.

The two families are now proved to be clearly distinct, and it is demonstrated in the clearest possible manner that the Darrington family did not bring their name to Stapleton, but that altogether and entirely independently of those who already possessed a similar patronymic, they adopted that which they found at the most important of their manors. And moreover that they did not follow the fashion of appropriating a local name till the time of their third recorded generation, till the time of Hugh son of Gilbert, son of Dama.

Another interesting point connected with the Darrington Stapletons, is the fact as now brought forward, that they themselves were the root from which the de Swillingtons, the de Hortons, the de Maras and other families sprang, and that while the two Stapleton families of the North Riding and of Darrington frequently crossed the same path, they not only never intermarried, but that they were so distinct that they had different coat-armour, the North Riding Stapletons bearing a lion rampant, and those of Darrington a chief indented.

A third hitherto unsettled point dealt with in this instal

« PreviousContinue »