compact was ratified by the pope in 1354. By it, with certain restrictions, the bearing of the cross was allowed to each in both provinces, and precedence in point of honour was conceded to the archbishop of Canterbury.25 In spite of this arrangement difficulties again arose in 1514-5, when Wolsey, archbishop of York but not yet cardinal, caused his cross to be borne before him in presence of the cross of Canterbury.26 The effect of the settlement reached as to official position and relative rank was to place both archbishops in dependence on the pope. The conferment of the legation on the archbishops did not protect them from the intrusion of a special legate, during whose stay their own legatine rights were suspended.27 Moreover, the pope could at any time alter the official position of the archbishops to one another by a withdrawal 29 or special extension 29 of the legatine powers, or their relative ranks by bestowing on one the title of cardinal.30 Use was frequently made of all these openings. As a consequence of the reformation the appointment of ecclesiastics of the church of England to the legation ceased.31 This put 25 The agreement and the bull of confirmation are printed in Wilkins, Conc. III, 31 after reg. Islip. In the former both archbishops entitle themselves papal legates; moreover, the archbishop of Canterbury designates himself totius Angliae primas, the archbishop of York Angliae primas. Each archbishop allows the other to have the cross borne before him in his neighbour's province; in return for the privilege accorded him every consecrated archbishop of York, within two months after setting foot in the province of Canterbury, must make a gift worth forty pounds to the shrine of Becket; if the cross-bearers of Canterbury and York come together, in wide streets they are to walk side by side, in narrow ones the cross-bearer of Canterbury is to precede. In parliamentis autem, tractatibus, et consiliis regis, quando Cant. et Ebor. archiepiscopi simul praesentes fuerint, quicunque Cant. archiepiscopus, quia ecclesia Cant. antiquior, et praeeminentior fore dignoscitur, ad domini regis dextram assidebit, et praefatus Ebor, archiepiscopus existens pro tempore ad sinistram In conciliis vero, convocationibus, seu locis aliis quibuscunque, in quibus Cant. et Ebor. archiepiscopos convenire continget, dominus Cant. archiepiscopus pro tempore existens, primum locum seu sedem eminentiorem ; Ebor. vero alium locum secundum eminentiorem obtinere debebunt. 26 Cavendish (contemporary with Wolsey), Life of Wolsey, in Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Biography 4th Ed. London, 1853, I, 481. 27 Decretals of Gregory IX (Lib. Extra) I, tit. 30 c 8. 28 Pope Martin V, angry because archbishop Chichele had not in accordance with papal desire obtained the abolition of the acts against provisions, withdrew from him (1427) legatine powers and appointed bishop Beaufort of Winchester legate. (Bull of Martin V to Chichele in Wilkins, Conc. III, 484: . .. te a legatione dictae sedis duximus suspendendum. The papal bulls were seized on reaching England, and thus not published. Cf. § 25, note 8 and $ 34, note 13.)-On the withdrawal of the legation from archbishop Pole see § 6, note 51 and § 34, note 13. 29 So especially in the case of Wolsey, archbishop of York. 30 The precedence of all cardinals before other prelates was, from the council of Lyon, 1245, fixed; the cardinal bishops sometimes took precedence of the other bishops even in the eleventh century. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht I, 328.— Compare also the bull of Gregory IV, 27th March, 1371 (Wilkins, Conc. III, 90), forbidding archbishops to have their crosses borne before them in the presence of a papal legate of a cardinal. 31 Archbishop Cranmer renounced the further use of the legatine title. Ex an end to all possibility of changing from time to time the relative positions of the two prelates. As in the two centuries immediately before the reformation the legatine office had customarily been conferred on both archbishops, it had become the rule that both had equal rights of jurisdiction; nothing beyond honorary precedence had been left to the archbishop of Canterbury, Such were the relations after the reformation and such they are at the present time.32 The archbishop of Canterbury has in respect of jurisdiction only the more prominent position in so far as by 25 Hen. VIII (1533/4) c 21 ss 2 ff. the right is given him, in certain cases especially those in which at an earlier time the pope used to exercise dispensing powers, of granting dispensations, licences, faculties, etc. for both provinces. Further, it is claimed, that he has by long custom come to have the privilege of crowning the kings of England. But by an act of 1689 the archbishop of York or any other bishop of the realm may be appointed by the sovereign to administer the coronation oath.3 tract from proceedings of southern convocation, November, 1531 (Wilkins, Concilia III, 769): Archiepiscopus voluit et mandavit, quod in omnibus et singulis procuratoriis exhibitis coram eo in hac convocatione et in posterum in eadem convocatione exhibendis inseratur hoc verbum' metropolitanus' et deleatur ab iisdem apostolicae sedis legatus.' 32 In the state the archbishop of Canterbury takes precedence of all noblemen not of royal blood and of all secular officials, the archbishop of York of all dukes except those of royal blood and of all secular officials except the lord chancellor. The order in which the officers of the church are to sit in parliament is fixed by 31 Hen. VIII (1539) c 10 An Acte for the placing of the Lordes · of the Parliament, and is as follows: the king's vicegerent Thomas Crumwell and all who shall succeed to this office, the archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, the bishops of London, Durham, Winchester; and then all the other Bisshoppes of both provinces of Canterburie and Yorke shall sytt and be placed on the same side after their auncyentes as it hath bene accustomed. 33 Phillimore, Eccl. Law 37.-Coronations of English kings have, for various reasons, often been performed by other prelates than the archbishop of Canterbury. Compare from Henry II's time letter of Alexander III to Roger, archbishop of York, 13th July, 1162 (printed in Materials for the History of Becket, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 67, V, 21) in which the pope ratifies to the archbishop of York and his successors the right (not the exclusive right) to crown the king. By letter of 5th April, 1166 (Materials, lc. V, 323) Alexander subsequently forbade the archbishops of York and the rest of the bishops of England to perform a coronation without the consent of the archbishop of Canterbury. Afterwards Alexander III seems to have again recognized the archbishop of York's right to crown: quoniam .. hoc ad officium tuum pertinet. (Letter of Alexander III to archbishop of York in Materials, l.c. VI, 206. Genuineness and date of letter disputed.) By letter of 4th Nov. 1176 (this is the date in Hardy, Syllabus to Rymer; Jaffé, No. 13250, assigns it to 1175-79; printed in Rymer, Foedera 4th Ed. I, 26, under the year 1170) Alexander III confirmed to archbishop Richard of Canterbury the right of crowning the king in the southern province. 34 1 Gul, & Mar, sess. 1 c 6 An Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath, ss.2, 4. § 35. C. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS." Every archbishop is at the same time bishop of a special diocese, and in so far is like every other bishop in his district. As archbishop he has a general right of supervision within his province. This right was sometimes in the middle ages and more frequently during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries exercised by means of visitations. In later times it is not known that metropolitical visitations have taken place. The archbishop has the right of confirming those elected to bishoprics; he may by royal mandate in single cases receive the right of confirming the election of the other archbishop. But in either instance the confirmation cannot be withheld without incurring the penalties of praemunire.1 In most dioceses, sede vacante or when the bishop is permanently hindered, the archbishop in person or by some authorized representative acts as guardian of the spiritualities. The archbishop has the right of inflicting ecclesiastical punishments-including even suspension and deprivation-upon the bishops placed under him. It is, however, usual that in proceedings for that purpose he should call in the aid of several other bishops. Under given circumstances (e.g. should the bishop offend against certain rules for the ordination and admission of priests and deacons) the calling in of a bishop is expressly prescribed by the canons of 1604.3 The archbishops appoint, subject to royal confirmation, the judge of the united provincial court. Moreover, each archbishop appoints independently the other officials requisite for his central adminis tration. The archbishop has the right of summoning the convocation of his province, and presides over the assembly; attached to the presidency are extensive powers as to the conduct of the deliberations. But the summoning of convocation can only take place in virtue of a royal writ." 125 Hen. VIII (1533/4) c 20, in appendix X. 2 Compare $ 41, near note 10. Canons 33 and 35 of 1604 (appendix XII). For judgments and opinions in favour of the archbishop's right to deprive see Phillimore, Eccles. Law 84–93. Modern instances of deprivation by archbishops: bishop Watson of St. David's 1695; bishop of Clogher (Ireland), 1822; bishop Colenso of Natal, 1867. On the proceedings in the last mentioned case see Perry, Hist. of Engl. Ch. III, 376 ff. c 21 §§ 7 ff. Cf. § 63.-Until 1874 each archbishop appointed independently a judge for the archiepiscopal court of his province. Compare §§ 55, 56. Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law 21 ff. § 36. D. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE BISHOPS. The bishop has a general right of superintendence over the ecclesiastical affairs of his diocese. One of the methods by which he exercises it is by means of visitations. These visitations consisted originally in journeys in person through the several parishes, and were ordered to take place yearly. At a later time this kind of visitation passed, in England as generally in the church of the middle ages, as a rule, to the archdeacons. But the periodical summoning of the clergy and laity of several or of all the parishes in a bishop's district to give him an account of the condition of their parishes remained a fixed institution. These visitation-assemblies, as we may term them, were nearly related to diocesan synods. At the time of the reformation, visitation of the diocese by the bishop every three years had become customary. A triennial visitation is still in vogue.2 The bishop provides for there being a sufficient number of clergy by ordaining deacons and priests. The various livings are filled by the bishop independently, if they are in his own gift. This is what is strictly termed 'collation.' If there is a patron other than the bishop, then the patron 'presents,' the bishop institutes' and makes a mandate to 'induct' the clerk. In the appointing of perpetual curates, curates in chapels of ease, lecturers, lay readers of the modern kind and assistant curates, the proper person nominates the clerk to the bishop, the latter gives his approbation by conferring his licence to officiate. In like manner, other persons require the licence of the bishop to preach or catechize in his diocese. Of the officers of cathedral and collegiate churches. the bishop fills independently honorary canonries where such exist. The residentiary and non-residentiary canonries are, if in the patronage of the bishop, filled by collation, if in the gift of some other patron, by presentation and institution; in both cases installation follows; a few prebends are donative. Deans are now all appointed 1 Compare § 57. 24 & 5 Vict. (1841) c 39 s 28 enacted: that any bishop or archdeacon may hold visitations of the clergy within the limits of his diocese or archdeaconry, and at such visitations may admit churchwardens, receive presentments, and do all other acts, matters, and things by custom appertaining to the visitations of bishops and archdeacons in the places assigned to their respective jurisdiction and authority under or by virtue of the provisions of the said first or secondly recited act (6 & 7 Gul. IV c 77; 3 & 4 Vict. c 115); and any bishop may consecrate any new church or chapel or any new burial ground within his diocese. The provision has been repealed as obsolete by 37 & 38 Vict. (1874) c 96. 604 3 Canon 36 of 1984 (appendix XII). For further details see under the several offices. a Phillimore, Eccles. Law 21 ff. by the sovereign. In rare instances canonries and lower offices are donative, that is preferment to them is by some third person (frequently the king) without any presentation to the bishop. Archdeacons were commonly appointed independently by the bishop; but preferment could be in the gift of a layman. 6 & 7 Gul. ÎV (1836) c 77, in reciting the various recommendations for the carrying out of which commissioners are appointed, gives this: that all the archdeaconries of England and Wales be in the gift of the bishops of the respective dioceses in which they are situate.' 5 Rural deans are, as a rule, appointed by the bishops independently; but in some instances there are other methods of appointment." เ In those of the above cases in which some third person has a right to appoint and in which the bishop must co-operate with this third person in filling the office, the bishop may not refuse institution or licence arbitrarily; but must have definite reasons, such as misconduct of the clerk, insufficient knowledge or the utterance of opinions not consonant with the doctrine of the church. The grounds of refusal are not only subject, in their full extent, to review by higher ecclesiastical courts (provincial court and judicial committee of the privy council), but are also subject, to a great extent, to examination by the superior temporal courts.7 Besides his share in filling up the regular offices in his diocese, the bishop has to provide for the maintenance of divine service during the temporary or long-continued absence of the incumbent, or when the latter is otherwise prevented from holding it, or during vacancy. But even in cases of this latter kind, the nomination of a representative is left, as far as is feasible, to the regular occupant of the office, if available and capable of pronouncing an opinion; the bishop's action is confined to the granting of a licence to officiate. It is a disputable point how far, in respect of the diocesan (or consistory) courts, that process of development has been continued, whereby the archiepiscopal courts have become independent judicial bodies, pronouncing their decisions in the name of the archbishop who, however, does not personally take part in framing those decisions. The preponderating opinion is that, as a rule, the consistory courts have also become independent judicial bodies, which, the bishop himself excluded, are competent in all cases of contentious jurisdiction; in various bishoprics, however, in the patent given to the official a different provision is made. The judge (chancellor) is Cf. § 37, notes 23, 24, 32. 5 Cf. § 42, notes 16, 20. Cf. Phillimore, Eccles. Law p. 240. 6 Cf. § 43, near note 25. 7 How far the temporal courts may review episcopal decisions is in some respects disputed. The legal forms have been developed in connexion with medieval struggles as to the competence of the temporal courts in suits of advowson. Cf. § 60, near notes 152 ff. 8 Compare § 45. On this question see Phillimore, Eccl. Law 84, 1210, 1212 c; cf., however, Gibson, Codex, Introduction 22. The development of clear principles has been hindered by the fact that the bishop's chancellor unites in his own person the offices of the independent |