Roman Pontiff after the decease of pope Celestinus, he declined the election, although ten cardinals would have agreed to his election; and he, with the other cardinals, elected Lothaire, cardinal deacon, Pontiff of Rome, under the name of pope Innocent the Third.

The said John never ate flesh, nor did he drink wine or cider, or any thing with which he might become intoxicated; but for gold and silver he had a considerable thirst. In presence of this cardinal, Geoffrey, archbishop of York, made offer to Simon, the dean, and to the chapter, of York, to abide by his judgment as to all the matters in dispute between them; saving always the dignities and privileges of either party, and saving their rights. But this single expression-"saving their rights"-was burdensome and insupportable to them, whom the knowledge of their own doings accused; and they used every endeavour that the clause-saving their rights"— might be expunged.

In the same year, in order that the peace might be more lasting between Philip, king of France, and John, king of England, it was enacted, and by writing confirmed, that if the king of France should in any way break the peace which he had made with the king of England, the barons of France, whom he had given as sureties for the observance of the treaty of peace, being released, with all their men, from fealty to the king of France, should go over to the king of England, in order to aid him against the king of France; and that it should be the same as to the barons of the king of England, whom he had given as sureties for the preservation of the peace, and that they should become subject to the king of France, together with their men, being released from their fealty to the king of England, if that king should commit a breach of the peace.

In the same year, Walter de Lacy, a powerful man in Ireland, had an interview with John de Courcy, lord of Ulster, and, attempting by treachery to seize him, slew many of his people. Upon this, when the said John had taken to flight, Hugh de Lacy, the brother of the before-named Walter, said to him: "My lord, come with me, and I will receive you in my castle, for which I am your liegeman, until such time as your troops shall have assembled, in order that you may take vengeance on those who have always held you in hatred." Accordingly, the said John believed him, and entered his castle in safety from the before-named Walter.90 But when he wished to de90 It is stated "Hugh," probably by mistake.

part therefrom, Hugh would not let him depart; indeed, he had taken him for the purpose of delivering him up to the king of England, who had long wished to take him. However, the men of the said John did not cease night and day to ravage with fire, sword, and famine the lands of the said Walter and Hugh de Lacy, until they had delivered their lord, John de Courcy, from the custody of the said Hugh de Lacy.

In the same year, John, king of England, wishing to challenge the barons of Poitou with treachery to himself and to his brother, hired many men, and took with him persons well skilled in the art of fighting in single combat, and chosen from his territories on both sides of the sea. But the barons of Poitou, being warned thereof, would not come to his court; saying that they were answerable to no one but to their father." And thus, the king of England, being baulked of his hopes, returned to Normandy, and the men of Poitou from this time became still more hostile to him. For the purpose of quelling their violence, the king of England appointed Robert de Turnham his deputy.

In the same year, Master Honorius claimed the archdeaconry of Richmond against Roger of Saint Edmund's, and obtained a letter from our lord the pope Innocent upon the subject, to the following effect :—

The Letter of pope Innocent to the dean and chapter of York, in favour of Master Honorius.

"Innocent, the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearly beloved sons, the dean and chapter of York, health and the Apostolic benediction. Our dearly beloved son, Master Honorius, the archdeacon of Richmond, has signified unto us, that whereas he has on many occasions shown obedience and ready duteousness to our venerable brother the archbishop of York, the archbishop, returning him bad for good, and repaying love with hatred, has in many ways molested him, contrary to the dignities and liberties of his archidiaconal office; and that, at length, in order to injure him still further, and to aggravate him still more, he has raised his adversary, Roger of Saint Edmund's, a clerk, with whom the said Master Honorius had made a compromise, to the said office; who, on the pretext of letters obtained to our dearly beloved sons, the abbats of Saint Edmund's and Sibbeton, and the prior of Norwich, by a concealment of truth, is in many ways molesting him. Wherefore,

91 Perhaps this means the pope.

inasmuch as we have made it our care to revoke the said letters, as being surreptitiously obtained, and directed to judges who lie under our suspicion, we do, by these Apostolic writings, command and enjoin your discreetness, to make it your care to defend and maintain the said Master Honorius in his rights; and so to assist him as your fellow-brother and companion, that for so doing, you may merit our commendation, and he himself may, as a matter of duty, be rendered still more attached to you.'

The Letter of pope Innocent to the bishop of Ely and the archdeacon of Northampton.

66

Innocent, the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, the bishop of Ely, and to his dearly-beloved son, the archdeacon of Northampton, health and the Apostolical benediction. When our dearly beloved sons, Master Honorius, archdeacon of Richmond, and Master Columbus, our subdean, and the delegates of our venerable brother, the archbishop of York, came to the Apostolic See, we thought proper considerately to give them audience in our consistory. On part of the said archbishop it was alleged, that the institution of ecclesiastical personages and the care of vacant churches in his diocese belongs to him both by common law, as also by general custom; but that, some of his predecessors had entrusted to some of the archdeacons personally, both the institution as well as the care [of churches], though they still retained the same for some time in their own hands, and freely enjoyed the same, as was their right; just as the archbishop, who is now set over the church of York, by special favour formerly granted the same to the archdeacon of Richmond, at the prayer of Richard, king of the English, of famous memory, who having been afterwards elected bishop, the archbishop then retained possession of them as his own; and that, when it was his intention to confer the said archdeaconry on the before-named master, both before he conferred the same, as also on the conferring thereof, he expressly stated that he reserved in his own hands the right of institution as also the care [of vacant churches]; on which, the archdeacon made answer, that he should be acting against God, and in derogation of canonical rights, if he should presume to usurp the right of institution to churches, which belonged to the archbishop alone. And that, then renouncing those rights, he reduced his renunciation thereof to writ

ing, and, for the sake of greater precaution, by his own seal corroborated the same, and finally gave his corporeal oath that he would in nowise intermeddle therewith. In answer to this, the archdeacon himself stated, that, when Henry the First, of glorious memory, king of England, wished to create a new episcopal see at Carlisle, because by that step the archdeaconry of Richmond received injury, that king requested one of the archbishops of York, of blessed memory, by way of recompense for some portion of what was withdrawn from the said archdeaconry, to grant the before-mentioned dignities thereto; on which, the archbishop acceded to his requests, and presented the rights of institution, as also the care [of vacant churches], not personally to the then archdeacon, but by a real and free grant, with the consent of the chapter of York, to the archdeaconry for ever; and that, whereas the said archdeaconry had been in continuous possession thereof, as also of other privileges, in the times of many archbishops, kings, and archdeacons, and the archbishop so often named, without any condition being made, granted him the same, after having so conferred it, the said archbishop asserted that he had given the same with all its liberties, the right of institution and the care of vacant churches excepted. That he, however, knowing full well the habit of the said archbishop, easily to give, and speedily to repent, and fearing lest if he should expressly contradict him, inasmuch as he had not yet gained possession of the archdeaconry, either his obtaining the same might be altogether hindered, or might for a long time be put off, made answer that 93 not only about that matter, but as to all his revenues as well, he would act in such manner as should be agreable to the archbishop. That, after he had entered into possession of the archdeaconry, he freely enjoyed the liberties thereof, as his predecessors had been in the habit of doing. That afterwards, when, contrary to all justice, the archbishop had deprived him of the said archdeaconry, and he could in no way obtain restitution thereof, without by deed renouncing the said privileges, he, knowing that his right would still hold good, being thus despoiled, gave to the archbishop himself, a letter of renunciation thereof, sealed with his own seal; but that he never did, as alleged by the other side, abjure the same, but.

93 A rather unbecoming defence to be made by a minister of religion before the pope, notwithstanding the opinion of pope Alexander, mentioned in the next page.

94

on the contrary, with the object of obtaining the benefit of restitution, enjoyed the same privileges as before, although the said archbishop, in manifold ways, aggrieved him and his clerks in relation thereto and to other matters, after appeal had been lawfully interposed. That, the grant of the before-mentioned liberties was not as it were that of one person to another person, but the same were rather granted as it were by the actual dignitary himself, and were delivered, not by special favour to any individual, but as a matter of right, together with the archdeaconry, of the entirety of which, they doubtless, from the original gift made by way of compensation, formed a part. That, although any archbishop might perhaps enjoy the same while he held the archdeaconry in his own hands, still, no prejudice could be produced thereby to the archdeaconry, as it is understood as a matter of course that they are afterwards granted therewith.95 Moreover, inasmuch as, by the council of Tours, all withholdings of prebends, dignities, and benefices, are prohibited, and the council of Lateran, where it forbids new taxes to be imposed, or old ones to be increased, adds thereto, 'Let no one presume to appropriate to his own use any part of the revenues,' it is evident that the archbishop ought not to, and cannot, deprive the archdeaconry of any of its dignities and privileges. That besides, it cannot be believed that before the grant [of the office], or on the occasion of the grant, it was agreed that the archbishop should retain possession of the aforesaid privileges, because, if he had chanced to attempt thus to usurp possession of what did not belong to himself, he would have seemed to be incurring the guilt of simony. That his renunciation could not injure the archdeacon, as he had renounced the same when despoiled thereof, and that pope Alexander, of blessed memory, our predecessor, asserted that a renunciation of that nature is not valid. Besides, although the collation to the archdeaconry belongs to the said archbishop, the entirety thereof belongs to the dignities of the church of York, and neither the archbishop nor the archdeacon could, without the consent and knowledge of the chapter of York, inflict so great an injury upon the dignities and privileges of the said archdeaconry. With reference to these points, the other side replied, that although renunciation or abjuration might not injure the archdeaconry, still, in consequence thereof, the 94 This passage is evidently imperfect. 95 "In ipsâ" seems to stand for "in ipso."