No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Elections to the Bishopric of Winchester, 1280–2
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
On the death of Nicholas of Ely on 12 February 1280 attempts were made to secure the rich see of Winchester for the royal chancellor, Robert Burnell. Nicholas Hamme, sub-prior of the convent, and two other monks were assigned to seek licence to elect on 17 February and received it on the following day. Four days later prior Adam of Winchester wrote to Burnell about the election. He had originally intended to seek the king’s advice on the matter immediately after the death of the former bishop, but on the chancellor’s advice he had postponed his visit until the licence elect had been granted. Now he was prevented by the pressure of other business from coming in person to consult the king or Burnell, and he therefore requested the latter to send a reply in writing giving his views on how ‘status noster . . . melius valeat reformari.’
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1966
References
Page 169 of note 1 P.R.O. Chancery Petitions C 84 - 6/33, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, 363.
Page 169 of note 2 P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence SC 1 - 24/195.
Page 169 of note 3 Registrum epistolarum Fratris Johannts Pecham ed. C. T. Martin, RS, 1882-5, 98-9.
Page 170 of note 1 Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, H. R., RS, 1864-9, II, 394 Google Scholar.
Page 170 of note 2 ‘Credimus quod vos ad negocium illud in curia Romana prosequendum estis inter ceteros confratres magis apti.’
Page 170 of note 3 P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence SC 1 - 14/90.
Page 170 of note 4 Les registres de Nicolas III, ed. Gay, J., Paris 1898-1932, no. 666, p. 296 Google Scholar.
Page 170 of note 5 Reg. Pechom, 714-5.
Page 170 of note 6 Ann. Monast., II, 394.
Page 171 of note 1 A probable reference to the decree ‘Cupientes,’ C. 16 in V1o. 1. 6.
Page 171 of note 2 Reg. Nicolas III, no. 666, p. 296.
Page 171 of note 3 ‘Provisionem eandem hac vice dispositioni et ordinationi nostre de apostolice potestatis plentitudine duximus reservandam.’
Page 171 of note 4 C. 12 in X. 1. 6.
Page 171 of note 5 Reg. Nicolas III, no. 666, p. 296.
Page 171 of note 6 Ann. Monast., II, 394.
Page 171 of note 7 Though not definitively laid down until Boniface VIII’s decretal ‘Quamquam in Casu’ in 1298 (C. 18. in V1o. 1. 6.), the principle had been accepted by the close of Innocent IV’s pontificate. See Barraclough, G., ‘The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages,’ Catholic Historical Review, XIX (1933-4), 290-2Google Scholar.
Page 172 of note 1 Reg. Nicolas III, no. 667, p. 297. Cf. Ann. Monast., II, 394.
Page 172 of note 2 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, 398.
Page 172 of note 3 Reg. Pecham, 138-40.
Page 172 of note 4 Ann. Monast., II, 394-5.
Page 172 of note 5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, 423.
Page 172 of note 6 Ann. Monast., II, 395; Reg. Pecham, 166-7, 173-4.
Page 172 of note 7 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, 423.
Page 172 of note 8 Ann. Monast., II, 395.
Page 172 of note 9 Reg. Pecham, 219-20.
Page 173 of note 1 Ibid., 282.
Page 173 of note 2 Ullmann, W., ‘The Disputed Election of Hugh Balsham, Bishop of Ely.’ Camb. Hist. Journal, IX (1949), 259-68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
Page 173 of note 3 Ullmann, art. cit., 267. A concise and correct account of the decision and its consequences is given by the Ely historian, who, however, mis takenly attributes it to the election dispute of 1302:—
Page 173 of note 4 ‘Unde Cantuariensis ecclesia in excellenti sua potestate et praeminenti dignitate propter nimium Pontificis rigorem est maxime vulnerata. Nam ante istius causæ devolutionem ad Curiam Romanam per interpositam appellationem, Dominus Cantuariensis cassare poterat et conferre dignitatem. Nunc autem cassare potest, conferre nequaquam: quoniam curiæ iam reservatur et inter causas majores reputatur’. H. Wharton, Anglia Sacra, 1691,I, 640.
Page 174 of note 1 Ullmann, art. cit., 267.
Page 174 of note 2 Ann. Monast., II, 399.
Page 174 of note 3 Rymer, T., Foedera, London 1816, I pt. ii, 610 Google Scholar.
Page 174 of note 4 Prynne, W., An Exact Chronological Vindication of Our Kings’ Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction on All Religious Affairs, III, 1668, 1261 Google Scholar.
Page 175 of note 1 ‘quia causæ in appellatione positæ non erant frivolæ, licet falsæ:’ (Reg. Pecham, p. 377). The actual words of the decree are:— ‘si extra judicium in praedictis electionibus expressa causa manifeste frivola contigerit appellari, per appellationem hujusmodi nequaquam ad sedem eandem negotium devolvatur.’ See Friedberg, E., Carpus iuris canonici, Lipsiæ 1881, II, cols. 951-2Google Scholar.
Page 175 of note 2 ‘Dicitur enim frivola appellatio; quæ est vana et inanis. Talis enim injuriam facit judici, qui frustatone ab eo appellat’ ( Lyndwood, W., Provinciale, Oxford 1679, 115, v. frivolæ)Google Scholar.
Page 175 of note 3 ‘Vel potest dici appellatio frivola, quando nulla causa est expressa, vel non legitima, dato quod sit vera; vel licet sit legitima, est tarnen manifeste falsa’ (Lyndwood, loc. cit.).
Page 175 of note 4 ‘Gregoriani statuti vim quam verba potius ponderantibus.’
Page 176 of note 1 Reg. Pecham, 377-8.
Page 176 of note 2 John Lovel was reported by Winchelsey ‘ab appellacionibus... a dicta electione ad sedem apostolicam interjectis sine omni pravitate, dolo et fraude pure ac simpliciter renunciasse et ab eisdem canonice recessisse.’ The Register of Robert Winchelsey, ed. Graham, R., Canterbury and York Society, 1917-51, 702 Google Scholar.
Page 177 of note 1 Claus. 1. Ed. I m. 11d., calendared Cal. Close Rolls, 1272-79, 39 and printed by Prynne, op. cit., III, 122. The protest is also found in a cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury, at British Museum, MS Galba E. IV, f. 110.
Page 177 of note 2 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, 404.
Page 177 of note 3 Prynne, , op. cit., III, 1255-7Google Scholar.
Page 177 of note 4 Reg. Pecbam, 393 m.
Page 177 of note 5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1281-92, 33.