time he tells the abbot that the rights and privileges of all in the province of Canterbury are in jeopardy, if the action of the archbishop should be upheld by the Roman authorities. He forwards a copy of the decretal, upon which the archbishop had relied for his authority, and requests the abbot's opinion upon the matter.' The document in question emanated from the then pope, Innocent IV, and certainly gave ample powers of visitation: nor was the right confined to an examination of the greater churches and monasteries; but at the will of the archbishop he could extend his visitation to parochial churches, and examine not merely clerics but the laity also. Some of the provisions of this papal grant are curious: the archbishop was not to begin any visitation of the diocese of a suffragan until he had visited his own Chapter and diocese, and he was not to make a second visitation until he had visited every other diocese of the province. Though allowed by this decree to receive support for his attendants, no fees were to be exacted; and all presents, even if voluntarily offered, were to be refused.2

The bishop of London, acting it may be supposed upon the advice he received from St. Alban's, since the answers are entered in the register of that monastery, asked for an authenticated copy of the papal decree, which was refused. He then applied for an appointment of a joint commission to adjudicate on the matters at issue between the archbishop and himself, pledging himself to abide by their decision; and, in case of disagreement, to lay the whole matter before the pope and "await his settlement." As an alternative course, it was suggested that the bishop should ask the archbishop to withdraw his sentences and suspensions, in view of the appeal made to the Roman Curia, 2 Additamenta, 188.

Matthew Paris, v. 125-126.

and pending any authoritative declaration to desist from any attempt to visit churches and religious houses in other dioceses but his own. Meanwhile the archbishop was urged to summon all his suffragans, including the bishop of London himself, in order to discuss the whole question with them. If this were done, the bishop pledged himself to abide by the view of the majority. Finally, as a third course, the bishop might reasonably ask that all sentences be removed until the pope had finally determined the cause, and that in the meantime the archbishop might, if he chose, proceed to visit the other bishops and dioceses within his province.1

Archbishop Boniface left England for the Roman court in May, 1250, to support his cause against Henry of Cornhill, dean of St. Paul's, and others. About Michaelmas Bishop Grosseteste returned to England from the Curia, having failed to secure his own wishes in regard to the matters which had taken him thither. He warned his brother bishops of the efforts being made by the archbishop of Canterbury to secure powers over them, which would seriously militate against their privileges and interfere with their proper jurisdiction. This report being confirmed by their own proctors at the Roman court, the suffragans of Canterbury agreed to collect money to fight their common cause. As the archbishop claimed to visit the whole province, and required “a procuration from all the clergy of every diocese," it was the business of all to resist such a pretension, and so every benefice was taxed to furnish the funds necessary to support efficaciously their objections before the Curial judges.' Meanwhile, the case was being considered. The archbishop was, fortunately for himself, able to eliminate the very unpleasant incident of 1 Additamenta, 190. 2 Matthew Paris, v. 138. 3 Ibid., 186.

his attempted visitation at St. Bartholomew's. He persuaded the canons, who were poor, to withdraw their complaints, promising them his favour and protection if they would leave their cause "to God and St. Bartholomew." The general case dragged on until Advent, when, on 27th November, the pope decided against the archbishop. On that date Innocent IV issued a Bull, addressed to the dean of London and others, in which, after reciting the circumstances of their refusal to admit the right of the archbishop to visit the cathedral church and Chapter of London, and their consequent excommunication by him, the pope declared the sentence null and void; adding, that he could not accept the version given before the Curia by Boniface, that he had not excommunicated the Chapter for refusing to admit his right of visitation. In proof of this, the Bull quotes the words of the original letter of excommunication. This document was accompanied by papal letters addressed to the abbots of St. Alban's and Waltham and others to promulgate this decision in England.3

A few days later, on 11th October, a similar decision was given in the case of the Augustinian canons of Holy Trinity priory, and the same commission of abbots was charged with the duty of making known the fact that the archbishop had no power to excommunicate them, and that from the first the sentence had been null. A few weeks later again, the case of the bishop of London was settled in the same manner, and on 8th November the prior of the Dominicans was ordered to declare all the censures pronounced publicly against him null and void."

1 Matthew Paris, v. 188.

2 Registres d'Innocent IV, ii. No. 4,864; cf. Additamenta, 197, seqq. 3 Ibid., No. 4,865.

4 Ibid., No. 4,887-4,888; cf. Rymer, i. 275. Ibid., No. 4,910. Matthew Paris (v. 206), seems to write as if the bishop

In these cases, however, the pope expressly dealt only with the question of the archbishop's rights to excommunicate and censure. No decision was arrived at in regard to his powers of visitation: in fact this point was specially reserved for future argument.1 So Archbishop Boniface remained on at Lyons, hoping at least to secure this right, as Bishop Grosseteste had obtained from the same pope a similar victory over his canons at Lincoln, who had refused to admit his powers of visiting them. He brought every influence to bear upon the Curial authorities and induced King Henry to write to the pope on his behalf, expressing his royal wishes that Innocent would favour the archbishop in his great struggle with the bishops of England generally, and with the bishop of London and his canons in particular.2

The dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, in virtue of the papal decision, had been formally declared free of all excommunication and censure by the appointed commissaries. In a short time, however, on different grounds, they were again excommunicated by the archbishop's official and cited to appear once more before the Roman courts. The scandal of such a proceeding was so apparent, that the canons appealed at once to the bishops generally to protect them, and to make common cause with them, as their own privileges might at any moment be attacked in a similar way. The king, however, continued to support the archbishop, whose election he had of course secured, and who was his queen's uncle;' but still, in

was absolved only on his submission to the archbishop; but the papal register shows that he was absolved by the pope in the same way as the

canons, etc.

1 Matthew Paris, v. 275.

3 Ibid., 207.

2 Ibid., iv. 205.

spite of this, the bishops determined to embrace the quarrel of the London Chapter. On 24th February, 1251, in the absence of the archbishop, who was still working in the Curia for his cause "with all his might and more," as the chronicler puts it, the bishops, with Grosseteste amongst them, met at Dunstable to consider the acute situation and to devise some immediate remedy. After careful deliberation they chose a proctor to go at once to the Curia to oppose the archbishop, and gave him power to draw upon them to the amount of four thousand marks for his expenses. The advent of this agent soon changed the situation in the papal court. It was hinted to the pope that the archbishop really wanted money, and that he had already taken from the English church revenues more than the eleven thousand marks which had been granted to him by papal authority. Pope Innocent thereupon put a stop to all proceedings, until such time as further inquiries had been made, and he promised to do justice to both parties. Moreover, as he was now at Perugia, far away from Lyons and all the Savoy influences, he made no secret of his having in the past been compelled by the archbishop of Canterbury and his brother Philip, the archbishop-elect of Lyons, to grant many things of which he had not really approved.'

Nothing more, apparently, was done in this matter for more than a year, and the principle remained undecided. Although Boniface did not continue at once to press his right of visitation in any suffragan diocese, he still worked in the Curia to gain his cause. The debts of the archiepiscopal see were still a heavy burden upon him, and in 1251 the pope appointed Cardinal Hugo to investigate the claims of his creditors and to consider what could now be

1 Matthew Paris, v. 225-226.