Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 257

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 257

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] are wont to be rendered to the bishop if he were alive, since the same archbishop
[002] claims that they be rendered to him by reason of his custody of the same bishopric
[003] during vacancy. And since, if you were to succeed in that cause, it is clear that we
[004] would sustain damage therefrom if at any time the archbishopric of Canterbury and
[005] the bishopric of Rochester were both vacant and both in our hand, we forbid you to
[006] sue that plea in court christian, because that would be contrary to our crown and
[007] dignity and to our damage and to the prejudice of the liberty which we have with
[008] respect to vacant bishoprics in our realm. Witness etc.’ And let another writ in the
[009] same form issue to the judges, forbidding them to proceed.¹ There is also² another
[010] kind of prohibition, where a clerk presented to a church by the lord king is refused
[011] because of insufficiency and another suitable clerk instituted; if [the first] attempts
[012] to disturb the clerk instituted, let a prohibition be drawn in this form.

Writ formed by the justices to meet a complaint where an unsuitable clerk has been rejected and a suitable instituted.

[014] ‘The king to such judges, greeting. We well remember that we lately presented A. of
[015] N. to the venerable father Edmund,³ Archbishop of Canterbury, whom, since the
[016] same archbishop found him unsuitable, he refused to admit to such a church, then
[017] vacant. And when the same archbishop had obtained our license to provide a suitable
[018] parson for the same church, he conferred it on B. of N., a provident and honest
[019] man of praiseworthy life, to whose collation and ordination to the same church we
[020] gave our royal assent and favour. Since the same A., clinging to the earlier presentation
[021] made by us of his person to the said church, of which nothing could come because
[022] of his insufficiency, now draws the same B. into plea with respect to that same
[023] church before you by authority of letters of the lord pope, and since it is wrongful
[024] and contrary to our dignity that the same A., to whom institution was denied because
[025] of his insufficiency, should implead and disturb the said B., who, as a suitable
[026] person, was admitted to the said church by the archbishop and canonically instituted,
[027] our assent and favour having been secured, we forbid you henceforth to hold
[028] that plea. Witness etc.’ And let a writ in the same form be made for the clerk, forbidding
[029] him to proceed. There is also another kind of prohibition, when the king
[030] himself or one of his ancestors, by reason of the vacancy of a bishopric, abbey or
[031] priory, it

Notes

1. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1232-47, 200: 14 Nov. 1236, drafted by Ralegh. The abbot of St. Albans was one of the judges. Flahiff in Mediaeval Studies, vi, 269, n. 42

2. ‘etiam’

3. Before 16 Nov. 1240, when Edmund died: Cheney in E.H.R., lxv, 217