Irene J. Churchill explores the relationship between the Dioceses of Rochester and Canterbury in the Middle Ages. Extract from The Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report for 1938.

The earliest surviving register of the archbishopric of Canterbury is that of the Franciscan, John Pecham, in the late thirteenth century, of which the contents have in part been printed in the series of Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland, published under the authority of the Master of the Rolls. If we consult the register for information about the procedure followed in the Province of Canterbury when Suffragan sees fell vacant, we shall note that normally the Archbishop claimed to be responsible for administering the spiritualities, and the Crown took custody of the temporal possessions, issuing the licence to the Chapter to elect its new head. Thereupon, the Archbishop, by metropolitical authority, examined the process of election and, if in order, confirmed it and received a profession of obedience from the new bishop. In the case of the See of Rochester, however, it will be found that the Archbishop claimed the administration both of spiritualities and temporalities, and himself issued his licence to the Chapter of Rochester to elect a new pastor. Such is the procedure recorded in Pecham's register in 1283 on the death of John Bradfield. The Chapter proceeded to elect John de Kirkby, but the election was disallowed, and the Chapter of Rochester again petitioned the Arch-bishop, as their "lord and patron," for leave to elect. His consent was given, but the Archbishop added that from a time beyond which memory did not run up to the days of his most glorious predecessor, Edmund (St. Edmund, 1233-1240), his Church of Canterbury was wont to provide a suitable pastor to the widowed Church of Rochester.

This same procedure is recorded in successive archiepiscopal registers, and we may note in particular the entry in Archbishop Islep's register (1349-1366) of a memorandum, as it were, on the early history and episcopal succession in the See of Rochester, drawn up possibly for information at the time when there was a vacancy caused by the death of Bishop Hamo Hethe in 1352.

Against an entry relating to the restoration of the temporalities after the election of John de Sheppey (below) is a marginal remark: "Note the Archbishop's right in the Rochester Diocese."

This special relationship between the two sees thus indicated is of particular interest, for it furnishes the only example in England of what Continental writers term a mediate bishopric. The fact that the Bishops of Rochester claimed to act as chaplains to the Archbishops and to perform pastoral acts for them, if they were for any reason prevented from acting themselves, may also be linked with this position as a mediate see.

The question as to how early this relationship arose is one to which it is difficult to return a precise answer. The Archbishop's claim that his right was of immem-orial custom would suggest an origin dating back to the early days of the See's foundation; and it will be

remembered that the See was the second one to be founded after Canterbury, when West Kent formed a sub-kingdom. On the other hand, the fact that, in records and chronicles of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we find the archiepiscopal claims being vigorously challenged from various quarters, might be taken in support of the belief that the right was not of such long standing and general acceptance as the Archbishops, or their scribes, would like us to think.

It will, indeed, be found not inconsistent with the evidence of extant records to hold that the relationship, as depicted in the registers, dates more particularly from the days of Lanfranc and the Norman Conquest.

We find Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), in a bull, forbade any secular person from laying hands on the possessions of the See when vacant, against the ancient custom, and decreed that to the Archbishop and himself should be preserved the disposition of all things, as well in the appointment of bishops as in other matters, according to the practice observed from the days of the blessed Lanfranc. Again, in another bull, he stated that the Rochester bishopric was of the Archbishop's "table," and the bishops to be instituted as if they were his chaplains, according to ancient custom hitherto observed.

Registrum Temporalium, folio 1.

If we turn to the opening rubric of the Registrum Temporalium (reproduced p. 36), a compilation, probably, of the mid-fourteenth century, preserved in the Rochester Diocesan Registry, we learn that the record was put together from ancient registers of the Church and of the Bishop to show for all time to those who dream that the Church of Rochester sprang from, and was endowed by, the Church of Canterbury, that it was a Church contemporary with Canterbury, founded and endowed at the same time, by the same king, and confirmed in its liberties by the same kings as confirmed those of Canterbury. There follows a brief narrative (of which a part only is to be found in the pages of Thorpe's Registrum Roffense) of the events connected with the endowment of the See and of the succession of its bishops from its foundation in 604 to the days when Offa (died 796) devastated the Church and impoverished the See. It was afterwards restored, but was once again suffering from depredations when Lanfranc, leader and councillor of King Willam, obtained his consent to the filing of the bishopric, and so promoted Gundulf monk and sacristan of the Monastery of Bec in Normandy. It is also related that Lanfranc agreed that Gundulf and his successors should, in the absence of the archbishops, fulfil their office as their deputies, for which certain procurations or fees fell due to them.

On the death of Bishop Ascelinus in I147, Walter, Archdeacon of Canterbury, was duly elected, according to ancient custom. Archdeacon of Canterbury, was duly elected, according to ancient custom, in the Chapter of Canterbury by the Monks of Rochester, as we learn from the pages of the History written by Gervase, the monk of Canter-bury; and no dispute appears to have arisen. But, on Bishop Walter's death in 1182, Gervase complains that the rights of the Church of Canterbury in the election were ignored because Gualeran, Archdeacon of Bayeux, was elected, not at Canterbury but in the Chapter at Rochester. Then he was consecrated by the Archbishop abroad instead of at Canterbury, thus violating yet another claim of the Monks. As, how-ever, Prior Alan was able to arrange that the profession of obedience, owed by each bishop on his succession to the metropolitical see, was taken by Gualeran at Canterbury, at which time the pastoral staff was handed to him from the altar, the wrath of Gervase was somewhat appeased.

It is clear that on this occasion the Archbishop's claim to have custody of the temporalities was duly honoured; whether we follow the account of Gervase, who states that the King upheld the Archbishop's claim against his Justiciar and declared the Archbishop to be within his rights in appointing the new man; or that of Ralph de Diceto, who maintained that the King's Justices claimed nothing, since the Rochester Bishop was not bound, as other bishops and abbots, to the King, but only to the Archbishop.

Within two years Gualeran was dead, at a time (August 1184) when the See of Canterbury itself was lacking a head. It would seem, if we follow the account by Gervase, that the King's Justiciars did not seize the temporalities of Rochester for the King, because these were of the demesne of the Archbishop and so were handed over to the custody of those who held the estates of the archbishopric. The ultimate result, of course, in this case was the same, since the temporalities of the archbishopric, during a vacancy, would be accounted for at the royal exchequer. But the appointment of the new Bishop was not so easily settled. The memorandum in Archbishop Islep's register (already referred to, and possibly the source of the account printed by Henry Wharton in his Anglia Sacra) states that the Monks obtained the royal licence to elect, and proceeded in their Chapter to the election of Gilbert de Glanville. They then applied to the new Archbishop, Baldwin, for confirmation. Gervase, however, writing from the point of view of the Monks of Canterbury, furnishes many more details. On the death of their Bishop, the Monks of Rochester buried the pastoral staff, instead of bringing it to Canterbury to lay upon the altar there. Then, when Baldwin became Archbishop, he appointed his own clerk, Gilbert, ignoring the claims of the Monks of Canterbury in the election. So Prior Alan came to visit him at Teynham, remonstrating at the procedure, especially in the matter of the staff. The Monks of Rochester, having been summoned before the Archbishop, said they were young and knew nothing of the custom claimed, but many others present had seen, in other days, the handing over of the staff. At last the Archbishop was able to compose the strife, the staff was handed to him, and he then gave it to Prior Alan, who laid it upon the altar. Gilbert's appointment was accepted and he was consecrated Bishop the following Sunday, being Michaelmas Day.

For nearly twenty-nine years Gilbert ruled his See, by the end of which time possibly official memory had become a little blurred and, on his death in June 1214, it will be found that the Archbishop's right to administer the temporalities was challenged. It was a difficult moment in the relations between Church and State. Pope Innocent III instructed Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, the Papal Legate, since contention had arisen between King and Archbishop, to enquire into the rights of each, and to exhort the Chapter to proceed with the election of its new pastor. The Monks hesitated, whereupon they received a letter from the King enjoining them to be obedient to the Archbishop as hitherto they had been to him. But still they hesitated and, when the Archbishop appeared, were fearful for the changed state of their Church. He endeavoured to reassure them. At last they thought of someone who would be pleasing alike to King and Archbishop; so it was arranged for the election to take place at Halling. Thither came the Archbishop, but he was not present at the election. Afterwards he returned and confirmed the choice of Benedict de Sansetun, Precentor of St. Paul's. So runs the record entered in Islep's register, and it is noteworthy for its omission of any. reference to the previous claims of the Archbishop in the matter of the Bishop's appointment, or to the Charter issued by King John in November 1214. This confirmed to the Archbishop the custody of the temporalities and the patronage of the See, and so put the matter beyond dispute for the future.

The claim of the Archbishop to interfere in the election was, however, again to be called in question on the death of Benedict's successor in 1235. The Monks duly applied for leave to elect within the precincts of their monastery, and chose one, Richard de Wendene, or Wendover, rector of Bromley. His election was disallowed by the Archbishop (St. Edmund) on the plea of his lack of learning, whereupon the Monks appealed to Pope Gregory IX. The Pope confirmed the election in March 1236-37 and pro-nounced, despite the privileges of Alexander III alleged on the Archbishop's behalf, that the election should be in the hands of the Monks, and the Archbishop's part confined to that which fell within his sphere by metropolitical right only. This decision is recorded both in the Canterbury and Rochester archives and, as far as evidence is available, accepted henceforth by both parties, so that we see in the form of the entry in Pecham's register, cited at the beginning of this article, only the echo of a bygone struggle.

We may trace through succeeding registers the continuance of the practice whereby the Archbishop's licence to elect continued to be sought and elections to be held, though we may wonder how much the fourteenth century) became the normal procedure, even though the Pope, having disallowed an election, might proceed to provide the man elected. The custody of the temporalities by the Archbishop continued also without dispute.

Irene J. Churchill
Extract from The Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report for 1938

FoRC Annual Reports

The See of Rochester in relation to the See of Canterbury in the Middle Ages

Rochester Cathedral

JOIN THE FRIENDS →