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) "Romanam adivit curiam."

says,

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.

lous adventurers, who were ready to forge papal documents when they were unable to carry out the business committed to them as they desired, or as the easiest and most certain way of satisfying their clients and obtaining their reward. This manufacture of spurious documents was rendered all the more easy by the distance which separated England from Rome; the fact that such privileges would seldom be questioned, and from the absence of any systematic registration in the Roman Curia. The mass of business transacted by the papal chancery at this time is so enormous, even as regards England alone, that it is not really very surprising to find that a large proportion of the Roman letters, bulls, and briefs, etc., were never entered in the papal Regesta. It is obvious that this fact would facilitate the work of the would-be forger, and there can be no reasonable doubt that many spurious documents were accepted, and the bearers paid for their trouble in procuring them, in all good faith. On 9th May, 1225, Pope Honorius III directed the attention of the English bishops to the serious evil being wrought by means of these falsarii-these manufacturers of false documents-and subsequently, by the command of the nuncio Otho, the bishops ordered all who claimed to possess any papal dispensation, whether of nonresidence in their cures or for plurality of benefices, etc., to present their letters for inspection and verification. On many of the original papal letters of this period may still be seen the certificate of their having passed this examination.

During these years of reorganisation, which the English ecclesiastics undertook at the first peaceful moment that had been known, whether in Church or State, since the troubled days of King John, the pope's direct and directing action is everywhere manifest. Nothing was apparently too small to escape his attention, nothing too trivial not to

have a claim on his fatherly consideration. The number and variety of subjects, upon which his personal judgement was sought and his authority invoked, cannot but amaze anyone who will take the trouble to consult the pages of his Registers and the English records of the period. Thus, within the limits of the brief period of the three years, between the departure of Pandulph and the coming of Otho, when Langton was acknowledged almost for the first time in his archiepiscopate, as the ecclesiastical chief of the Church of England, there is ample evidence of the pope's direct action in guiding the policy and framing the legislation of the reviving ecclesiastical life.

From the very nature of the case and the multiplicity of subjects treated of in the papal letters, it is almost impossible to give the reader any idea of the matters submitted at this time to the Curia, or the vast interests dealt with by the pope. For the benefit of those who cannot examine the collections of documents for themselves, almost at haphazard the following may be noted as samples of the ordinary business of the Roman courts during this period. First, marriage cases, entailing complicated questions of law and fact, as well as the application of principles of justice, are offered for decision. To take one such. The all-powerful de Burgh, the justiciar, is in a difficulty for which he prays the pope's consideration. He states that he had been forced by the legate Pandulph to marry the king's sister. The marriage was not by his free act, what is he to do? What may he do in the matter? Then all the questions about impropriations of livings to religious houses, and they were numerous enough in those days, came up for the consideration of the supreme authority. Generally they were not settled so readily as we might suppose, and frequently commissions had to be appointed to get at the