was away, according to the Worcester annals, the bishop continued to harass the monks in many ways; and his agents in Rome succeeded in establishing their objections against the genuineness of the letters. On 26th March, 1222, Pope Honorius directed the bishop to proceed against the prior and convent for pleading these forged documents,' and two days later gave him power to appoint the prior of his cathedral monastery "according to custom."

The acting prior was suspended by the pope, and at his order was promptly deposed by the bishop, who also appointed William the Norman in his place. The majority of the community then appealed to the archbishop; upon which the bishop retaliated by distributing suspensions, excommunications, and other ecclesiastical pains and penalties, until Cardinal Langton interposed his authority and sequestered the priory. At this point, apparently, the deposed prior, Simon, arrived back from Rome, absolved from his suspension. On 3rd June, 1222, Pope Honorius had written to bid the bishop deal favourably with him, in consideration of his former services to the house. And upon the ex-prior finding that he had been deposed in his absence, he again appealed to the Holy See. On this, the bishop promptly excommunicated him, and again the exprior Simon went to Rome to plead his cause personally at the Curia. The case dragged on into the next year, and even the death of the prior abroad did not terminate the proceedings, as the monks pressed for a decision of the case on its merits. On 23rd July, 1223, consequently, Pope Honorius addressed his letters to the abbot of Reading and others to inquire into the whole matter. Finally, however, through the good offices of Archbishop Langton and others,

1 Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 15,352, f. 138.
3 Ibid., f. 145.

2

Ibid., f. 141. ▲ Ibid., f. 196.

to whom the affair had been committed by the Holy See, this long and disedifying quarrel was made up by the retirement of the episcopal nominee and the appointment of an outsider a monk of Tynemouth-to the office.

About the same time a somewhat similar case arose in regard to Tewkesbury Abbey. On 1st July, 1222, the pope directed the bishop of Ely and others to inquire into the genuineness of privileges produced by the abbot, which were supposed to be spurious. They were to examine the abbot personally, and were to see and consider what evidence he could produce in favour of the alleged privileges. Apparently their preliminary inquiry was satisfactory, for, although their reply is not known, there were at the time, so far as appears, no further proceedings in the matter. Later on, however, other complaints were formulated against the abbot by two of the monks, who wrote to inform the pope that their superior was making use of pontificalia, mitre, gloves and ring, and that they did not believe that the letters upon which he claimed the privilege' were genuine. Pope Honorius thereupon appointed another commission, but to judge from a letter written by the pope on 9th June, 1226, the abbot appears to have been able to give, if not a satisfactory, at least a sufficient explanation.

During this period of ecclesiastical reorganisation, difficulties arose between religious houses and bishops, mainly on the question of jurisdiction. These cases were few in number and were mainly confined to those places where the monks formed the cathedral chapter of the diocese. As a whole, the system of monastic canons existing in so many dioceses of England, contrary to what might have been supposed, worked without much friction; but here and there differences and quarrels became accentuated and 1 Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 15,352, ff. 220, 223.

led to appeals and counter appeals. In 1221, for example, a serious disagreement broke out between the monks of Durham and their bishop, Richard Marsh, which lasted for many years and involved the convent and the bishop in heavy expenses. The story is told by Roger de Wendover at considerable length, and although, of course, the facts are regarded from a monk's point of view, so far as we have other means of judging, they seem to be put honestly and correctly. The differences first grew out of a desire on the part of the bishop to change or abrogate some of what, from long usage, the monks had come to regard as customs and liberties, over which he had no jurisdiction. The bishop demanded inspection of documents, which the prior refused; whereupon that is if the chronicles are to be believed-his lordship told them that they would live to regret their refusal, and that he would never leave them in peace as long as he lived. One thing led to another, till at length the religious appealed to the pope for protection, and formulated a series of accusations against the bishop. Honorius III wisely determined to appoint a commission in the country to inquire into the whole matter. The bishops of Salisbury and Ely were delegated for the purpose, and ordered the monks to furnish them with a statement of their grievances. The agents of the Durham community had set forth a list of accusations against Bishop Marsh, which were serious enough, if true, but which now impress the reader with a sense of exaggeration. This is perhaps hardly to be wondered at, for by this time the northern blood of both parties was up, and either side was ready to believe the worst about the other. The pope consequently, declaring that he could no longer shut his ears to reports and accusations, ordered the above-named bishops to inquire into the facts, and report.

On receipt of the papal commands, the commissioners

F

summoned witnesses to Durham, commanding all abbots, priors, archdeacons, and others, lay as well as ecclesiastics, who might have evidence to give, to come thither. The bishop was far from satisfied: when the pope's letter had been read, his proctors raised many difficulties, and in his name appealed directly to the Holy See, refusing to leave the issue to any commission. Without delay, Bishop Marsh, sending his agents before him, set out for Rome, personally to plead his case.' He was followed at once by the monks. Neither side gained by the bishop's move, for after "many arguments before the pope and a great expenditure of money both on the part of the bishop and of the monks," Honorius sent the case back for the facts to be determined by the commission he had previously appointed. Without any apparent reason, to judge from the letters which occur in the papal registers, the dispute was prolonged for two or three years. In 1225 the pope, after complaining of the obstacles which had constantly been placed in the way of a settlement, directs that a final decision be given. But, writes the chronicler," once begun, the strife lasted, as the bishop had foretold, until his death put an end to it." 2

One other appeal made to Rome at this period to settle a question of jurisdiction may be here recorded. In 1221, Eustace, the newly consecrated bishop of London, claimed complete jurisdiction over the Abbey of Westminster. The monks appealed to Rome, and Pope Honorius appointed Cardinal Langton and others to inquire into the merits of the case and to decide it once for all. This they did the following year, declaring that the Abbey was altogether

1 It would seem from "Papal Registers" (ed. Bliss), i. f. 78, somewha doubtful whether Bishop Marsh really went to Rome. R. de Wendover (ii. 259) says, "Romanam adivit curiam."

2 Roger de Wendover, ii. 257-259.

independent of the See of London and was consequently not under the jurisdiction of the bishop. The abbot, moreover, they declared, possessed the right of asking any bishop to bless him, to ordain his subjects, or to confirm within the limits of his jurisdiction. He might also obtain the holy oils from any bishop or place he pleased.' At the same time, however, to take a third example where the decision was given on other lines, the abbot and monks of St. Mary's, York, refused to acknowledge the right of the archbishop to make a canonical visitation of their house. In this case, also, upon appeal being made to the judgement of the Holy See, the archbishop had stated his conviction that the papal letters, upon the strength of which exemption was claimed, were not genuine. Pope Honorius consequently ordered an examination to be made of the incriminated documents, and, upon their being declared spurious and void in law, the archbishop was given the full right of visitation " even if the privilege of exemption had existed.”3 At the same time, it is clear that in this case the pope did not throw the blame upon the abbot of knowingly using forged documents to support his claims against the archbishop, for almost at the same date as the decision against the validity of the charters was given, Honorius issued a bull to the abbot and convent of St. Mary's, forbidding any archbishop or bishop to exact any fees for blessing the abbot.

The real history of these forgeries of papal documents seems obvious. The enormous amount of business of all kinds, which during this reign was transacted with the Curia, created not only a large body of agents always ready to transact affairs at Curia, and always expecting to be well paid for their work, but also a number of unscrupu1 Matthew Paris, iii. 71-75. 2 Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 15,352, f. 277. 3 Ibid., ff. 308, 310; cf. Wilkins, i. 598.