^{page 50 note 2} Parliamentary Papers, 1831–2, xxiv. Further details are given in Parl. Papers, 1828, xx.

^{page 50 note 3} Parl. Papers, 1831–2, xxiv. 552.

^{page 50 note 4} The remaining diocese in which the bishop appears as having two courts is Exeter, where the Principal Registry was a court of probate.

^{page 50 note 5} The commissary court in the diocese of Chester, for example, was established with the creation of the see under Henry VIII. Victoria County History for Lancaster, ii. 41.

^{page 50 note 6} Appendix A 78 f.

^{page 51 note 1} Fournier, P., Les officialités au Moyen-Age, 1880, 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Phillimore, R., The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England, 2nd ed. 1895, ii. 933.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} At London, however, the commissary received power to hear instance causes as early as the fourteenth century. E. Gibson, Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, 2nd ed. 1761, ii. 1560.

^{page 51 note 4} ‘tanquam Vicarius fungitur vice Episcopi universaliter’. (Athon, in Lyndwood, Provinciale, Oxford 1679, supplement, 53 note c.)

^{page 51 note 5} Phillimore, op. cit., i. 194–202.

^{page 51 note 6} Provinciale, 96: ‘Inferior vero Judex Ordinarius, utputa Decanus, Archidiaconus, et alii hujusmodi’. See Thompson, A. Hamilton, The English Clergy, 1947, 57 note 4.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 7} This appears to be a late twelfth-century development. See Cheney, C. R., English Bishops’ Chanceries, 1950, 143–146.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} Little is known about the jurisdiction of the pre-Conquest archdeacons in England, and the description of the earlier archdeacon can only be compiled from continental sources. Henry of Huntingdon assigned the foundation of the Lincoln archdeaconries (except Stow) to Remigius, the first bishop after the Conquest, who moved the see from Dorchester (Rolls Series, 1879, 302–3).

^{page 52 note 2} John de Athon remarks upon this: ‘Competit ergo hujusmodi approbatio nedum Episcopo, immo et inferiori Ordinario.’ (Provinciale suppl., 107 note n.)

^{page 52 note 3} This issue was raised in two cases in the diocese of Lincoln, discussed later, and in the dispute between the bishop of Bath and Wells and the archdeacon of Taunton. See Reg. Shrewsbury (Somerset Record Society, ix) 372, and Reg. Bubwith (S.R.S., xxix), 254. For Winchester, see Reg. Pontissara (Canterbury & York Society, xix) 1 ff. The position on the continent is discussed in two works of Fournier, Édouard, Les origines du vicaire général, Paris 1922Google Scholar, and L'origine du vicaire général, Paris 1940.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} In other dioceses, a different officer played the same part: in Bath and Wells the commissary-general (Reg. Bubwith (S.R.S., xxix) 26), at Ely the Official (Reg. Arundell ff. i, 10v, 30V). Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration, 1933, i. 60–2Google Scholar gives examples of the occurrence of the office of sequestrator in various dioceses. See also Wykeham, Reg. (Hampshire Record Society, 1899), ii. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Much of the best evidence for the development of the office from 1300 to 1500 comes from the Memoranda Registers of the bishops, which survive throughout the whole period. Those for the fourteenth century are especially valuable, for they often record in full the commissions issued by the bishop. References to unpublished sources throughout this article are, unless otherwise stated, to manuscripts at Lincoln. The episcopal archives are listed in Major, K., A Handlist of the Records of the Bishop of Lincoln, Oxford 1953.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 3} Churchill, ii. 45–6. For the legality of this arrangement see Provinciale, 139 note d and suppl. 110 note t.

^{page 53 note 4} The claim caused much dispute, and the bishop was not able systematically to enforce it. See Reg. 3 ff. 133v, 175v, 429. These references make it clear that the archdeacon's share was one-third. In the fifteenth century, we find the archdeacon of Lincoln ordering his official to sequester his third (Form. 2 f. 43v).

^{page 53 note 5} D. Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, 1737, i. 671 and ii. 158.

^{page 53 note 6} Deanery of Louthesk 1270 (Lincoln Record Society, xx. 44); Horncastle 1295 (Reg. 1 f. 121); Oxford 1301 (Reg. 3 f. 31); Woodstock 1304 (Reg. 3 f. 71v). When Mr. Robert of Buckingham was absent from his office as sequestrator for five archdeaconries in 1313, a substitute was appointed ‘ad ‘inquirendum ac explorandum sollicite de hiis que racione officii sequestracionis ad manus subsequestratorum in eisdem Archidiaconatibus deputatorum … pervenisse dicuntur’. (Reg. 3 f. 282.)

^{page 53 note 7} This survives in an eighteenth-century transcript made by Thomas Baker (Bodleian MS. Willis 39 f. 285). Baker dated the summary to the late fourteenth century.

^{page 54 note 1} Cf. the commission issued to Mr. Robert Bernard on 20 April 1295: ‘COMMISSIO SEQUESTRACIONIS MAGISTRI ROBERTI BERNARDI. Oliverus etc magistro Roberto Bernardo clerico salutem etc. Ad omnia et singula que ad sequestracionis officium iure episcopali iuxta preteriti temporis morem quomodolibet pertinere noscuntur, in Linc', Leyc’ et Stowe Archidiaconatibus plenius exequendum, tibi liberam facultatem cum cohercionis canonice potestate committimus per presentes: universis Abbatibus, Prioribus, Decanis, Rectoribus, vicariis, presbyteris ac aliis subditis nostris tam laicis quam clericis et precipue subsequestratoribus Archidiaconatuum predictorum tenore presencium districcius iniungentes, quod in premissis et aliis que dictum contingunt officium tibi obediant et intendant sicut canonicam effugere voluerint ulcionem; volentes ut subsequestratoribus per Robertum de Burton’ aut alios sequestratores nostros deputatis seu factis amotis quociens videris cxpedire, alios idoneos loco ipsorum non differas subrogare. Datum apud Stongrund’ xij kalendas Maii Anno domini M°CC° Nonagesimo Quinto et Pontificatus nostri Quintodecimo.’ (Reg. 1 f. 120v). A fragment of one of the sequestrator's accounts, for the year 1314, shows that the administration of the revenues of vacant churches was already very well organised. The length of each vacancy was calculated to the number of days, and the revenue and expenditure recorded in detail. (D & C/Bj/5/17(2)).

^{page 54 note 2} Magna Carta c. 27 and Provinciale, suppl. 122.

^{page 54 note 3} ‘Cum disposicio et administracio bonorum decedencium ab intestato in nostra diocesi nedum iuxta consuctudinem racionabiliter introductam, necnon secundum libertatem ecclesie Anglicane ab antiquissimis temporibus retroactis optentam et eciam approbatam ad nos notorie pertinere noscantur …’ (Regg. 3 f. 188, 325v and 12 f. 77).

^{page 54 note 4} Ely summary: ‘Item dispositio bonorum ab intestato decedentium infra Diocesim predictam pertinet Episcopo Lincohl’ et non Archidiaconis predictis.'

^{page 54 note 5} Under bishop Dalderby (1300–20), the sequestrator very frequently appears in connexion with the property of intestates. He is ordered to take command of documents necessary in a case concerning intestacy (Reg. 3 f. 80), and to proceed against those responsible for misappropriating the goods of an intestate (f. 95). See also ff. 79v, 172v.

^{page 54 note 6} Except, as has already been said, for instance jurisdiction, which had been committed to the Official.

^{page 54 note 7} In this year Warsford received four, although the three supplementary ones were given some time after his original commission as sequestrator (Reg. 5 ff. 374, 391). In the thirteen-forties all four commissions were usually given on the same day (Reg. 7 f. 6v).

^{page 55 note 1} There was only one instance of a single commission before 1347; that to Ashley in 1342 (Reg. 7 f. 8).

^{page 55 note 2} Commission to Dennis of Elsham (Reg. 8 f. 13): ‘tibi tamquam sequestratori et commissario nostro.’ In 1331, however, the Chapter Acts refer to the bishop's two sequestrators as ‘commissaries general of the bishop’ (D & C/A/2/23 f. 19v).

^{page 55 note 3} From 1431, the marginal notes in the registers, which had previously used the title ‘sequestrator‘Commissio pro commissario’ (Reg. 17 f. 88). The change of nomenclature is not without inconvenience to the student, since any recipient of any special commission might be described as a ‘commissary’, and on the great majority of occasions on which the word is met, it is referring to one of these special delegates, and not to the sequestrator-commissary. Moreover, the title ‘commissary- general’ was also used for the President of the bishop's Court of Audience. The commissions refer to the office of commissary proper as ‘officium sequestratoris sive commissarii generalis’ or some equivalent phrase (Regg. 16 f. 210v, 17 f. 88, 18 f. 28, 24 f. 98, Form 2 f. 10v).

^{page 55 note 4} Reg. 7 f. 90.

^{page 55 note 5} The small archdeaconries of Huntingdon and Bedford were held by the same commissary from 1353 to about 1437, when they were separated (Reg. 18 ff. 28, 52). Buckingham was held with Oxford after 1385, until it acquired its own commissary about the middle of the fifteenth century (Regg. 18 f. 76, 19 f. 39, 20 ff. 9v, 110). It is interesting to notice that the archdeaconry of Buckingham had no sequestrator at all until about 1310 (Reg. 3 ff. 200v, 282). Presumably this was because of the archdeacon's monopoly of vacant benefices there; the appointment of a sequestrator only became necessary when the powers of the office were extended. (The appointment of Mr. Richard of Purton in 1292 (Line. Rec. Soc. xlviii. 3) was made during a vacancy in the archdeaconry.)

^{page 55 note 6} Provinciale, 254 note r and suppl. 112–13. The bishop maintained his sole right to sequestrations for negligence (Reg. 3 f. 133v).

^{page 56 note 1} Reg. 3 f. 52. As early as 1290, Robert the sequestrator is found asking the dean of Grantham to impose a sequestration for the non-residence of the rector of Harlaxton (Linc. Rec. Soc, xlviii. 53).

^{page 56 note 2} The power to proceed against negligent rectors is not always expressed in later commissions, as it was considered to be included within the more general right of correction. As we shall see, the investigation of cases of dilapidation was listed by bishop William Smith as one of the duties of a commissary in the early sixteenth century.

^{page 56 note 3} Ely summary: ‘Episcopus Lincoln’ qui pro tempore fuerit habet prevenciones in minoribus delictis seu criminibus, set in maioribus habet Episcopus solus et insolidum Iurisdictionem in Archidiaconatibus memoratis, ut puta in criminibus usurarum et symonie et Heresei, et sic in aliis maioribus.’

^{page 56 note 4} Reg. 5 f. 281: commission to Mr. Hugh de Camera from bishop Burghersh.

^{page 56 note 5} Reg. 5 f. 391.

^{page 56 note 6} Regg. 5 f. 492v, 7 ff. 6v, 8.

^{page 56 note 7} The following form became established, and was used throughout the later Middle Ages with only minor variations: ‘ad inquirendum super criminibus et excessibus quorumcumque subditorum nostrorum infra Archidiaconatus Lincoln’ et Stowe existencium eaque corrigendum et canonice puniendum.' (Reg. 8 f. 4v.)

^{page 56 note 8} Regg. 3 f. 297 and 5 f. 492.

^{page 56 note 9} Reg. 3 ff. 297, 325v.

^{page 57 note 1} A few of the surviving medieval wills from the diocese carry notification of probate before one of the rural deans: 1332, probate ‘coram me Decano Christianitatis Line” (Anc 5/Misc/1): 1317, probate before the dean of Beltislaw (H/88/1): 1448, also before the dean of Beltislaw (H/102/28). I owe these references to Miss D. M. Williamson.

^{page 57 note 2} Many of these commissions were issued to sequestrators. Robert of Burton, under bishop Sutton, received them very frequently. See, for instance, Reg. 1 ff. 55, 55v, 56, 58, 66, 71, 71v, 73 (twice), 73v (twice), 78v, 87.

^{page 57 note 3} Reg. 3 ff. 354v, 368v.

^{page 57 note 4} ‘Ad admittendum et recipiendum per loca nostre diocesis in quibus pro execucione vestri officii transitum facere vos continget probaciones et insinuaciones testamentorum decedencium quorumcumque in eadem nostra diocesi ab hiis qui ea probare et insinuare voluerunt …” (Reg. 5 f. 274v).

^{page 57 note 5} Reg. 5 f. 391.

^{page 57 note 6} Reg. 7 f. 6v.

^{page 57 note 7} Reg. 7 f. 8. The authority enjoyed by the commissaries over all the legal processes connected with probate is illustrated by bishop Gray's commission, printed as an appendix to this article.

^{page 57 note 8} Certain classes of wills, especially wills of persons with goods of serious value (bona notabilia) in other dioceses, posed a special problem. The archbishop of Canterbury claimed jurisdiction over such wills, and the bishop had to fight a continuous battle, on the whole successfully, against both the archbishop and his own archdeacons, in order to maintain his control over wills of this type. The claim of Canterbury is discussed in Churchill, i. 380 ff. There were several disputes and compositions between the bishop and particular archdeacons over the wills of persons with bona notabilia outside the diocese. The registers record such disputes with the archdeacon of Bedford in 1366 (Reg. 12 f. 34), the archdeacon of Northampton about the same time (Reg. 12 ff. 47v, 81) and the archdeacon of Leicester in 1417 (Reg. 15 ff. 129, 140v, 176).

^{page 58 note 1} Reg. 12 ff. i, 140v.

^{page 58 note 2} Reg. 12 ff. 104v, 323v.

^{page 58 note 3} With the exception, already noticed, of Lincoln and Stow, which were held together in the later fifteenth century.

^{page 58 note 4} The coincidence between the Reformation and the grant of instance jurisdiction to the commissary was a precise one. In 1535, we find the first commission to a commissary issued by the bishop as a royal delegate; and the commission is the first one to include authority to hear instance causes (Reg. 26 f. 262v). By this time, however, the theoretical distinction between the commissary and official, described in the text, had broken down in practice. The same man was often appointed bishop's commissary and archdeacon's official and would, as official, already be hearing instance causes in his joint court.

^{page 59 note 1} Reg. 24 f. 213.

^{page 59 note 2} With the exception of the fragment from 1314 mentioned in note 1 on p. 177.

^{page 59 note 3} Calendar of Papal Registers, x. 40.

^{page 59 note 4} Reg. 8 f. 22.

^{page 59 note 5} These duties are listed in the instructions to commissaries issued early in the sixteenth century by bishop William Smith (Reg. 24 f. 213). The commissary is to enquire into non-residents, and to certify their names before the bishop or his chancellor before Easter each year; to oblige the proprietors to restore rectories, vicarages or chancels; not to allow any curate or monk to serve another cure or to receive a stipend without licence of the bishop or his vicar-general; to correct fornicators and adulterers; to put to pious uses, and especially to the maintenance of the cathedral fabric, the proceeds of monetary penances imposed upon the criminous, and to account annually for such moneys; to cause a register of corrections to be kept by the Registrar, and shown to the bishop or his vicar-general between All Saints’ Day and Christmas; to account for all receipts, especially mortuaries and the proceeds of vacant benefices; to account for the proceeds of benefices vacant by resignation (of which the bishop or his chancellor will notify the commissary); to cause all wills to be enrolled; to surrender to the bishop every three years the registers of corrections and wills ‘ad effectum ut in Archivis nostris inter cetera spiritualitatis nostre munimenta … remanere valeant’; to enquire into all parish churches, chapels, etc., whether they are served by duly inducted clerks; to allow no collectors within the archdeaconry without the bishop's sealed letters; to admit no papal dispensation until the bull has been shown to the bishop; not to dispense with any who wish to solemnise matrimony without publication of banns; not to release executors until they have produced an inventory of all goods lying within the bishop's jurisdiction.

^{page 60 note 1} There is a brief reference to other disputes in note 8 on p. 180. Mr. Richard Andrew, archdeacon of Buckingham in the mid-fifteenth century, twice found himself engaged in litigation with the bishop's commissary there. Little is known about the actions, although the fact that one of them is described as involving primary jurisdiction (Reg. 18 f. 76) suggests that the issue may have been much the same as at Lincoln.

^{page 60 note 2} Reg. Langham (Cant. & York Soc), 206.

^{page 60 note 3} ‘ad dictum, dominum archidiaconum ipsiusque precessores (sic) qui pro tempore fuerint solum et insolidum et nullatenus ad episcopum Lincolniensem eiusve officiarios seu ministros notorie pertinuerunt, pertinent, et pertinere consueuerunt’. The surviving portion of the archdeacon's letter of complaint is printed by Thompson, A. Hamilton, Archaeological Journal, LXXII (1915), 242Google Scholar note 2. A copy of the complaint, as rehearsed in a letter from the Official of Canterbury, is contained in a formulary book at Lincoln, under the heading, ‘Suggestio facta contra episcopum et eius commissarium in causa perturbacionis Jurisdiccionalis’. (Form 23 f. 203.)

^{page 60 note 4} Reg. Whittlesey (Canterbury) f. 3. The compromisers were Whittlesey, then archbishop-elect, and Wickham, who had by then become bishop of Winchester.

^{page 61 note 1} ‘In primis dominus Episcopus predictus habebit unum sequestratorem dumtaxat in Archidiaconatu predicto qui solummodo intromittet se de fructibus beneficiorum vacancium et de bonis intestatorum Archidiaconatus predicti sic turn quod ministri Archidiaconi predicti intersint si voluerint in distraccione et vendicione fructuum beneficiorum huiusmodi vacancium pro tercia parte huiusmodi fructuum dictum Archidiaconum contingente, et revocentur omnino et exnunc commissiones omnium aliorum commissariorum huiusmodi nunc existencium ibidem, nec ponantur consimilcs ibidem de cetero pro tempore dominorum Episcopi et Archidiaconi predictorum.’

^{page 61 note 2} ‘ita turn quod dictus dominus Episcopus non habeat ministros suos ad inquirendum de eisdem criminibus excessibus et testamentis.’

^{page 61 note 3} ‘non est realis set personalis, non perpetua set temporalis.’

^{page 61 note 4} Commissions issued to the sequestrators for Lincoln and Stow in 1372 and 1374 were in the usual form, but qualified by a reference to the composition, ‘quam non obstante presenti commissione in suo robore volumus permanere’ (Reg. 12 ff. 112, 124).

^{page 61 note 5} Cal Papal Regs., iv. 387. The commission of 26 October 1392 restricted the sequestrator's commission accordingly (Reg. 12 f. 395v).

^{page 61 note 6} The commissions of 1396 (Reg. 12 f. 435v) and 1398 (Reg. 12 f. 455) made no restriction in the sequestrator's powers.

^{page 62 note 1} Page 182 above. After 1420, the only serious litigation between an archdeacon and the officers of the bishop was that in which archdeacon Andrew was involved (note 1, p. 183). There is not enough information surviving about his appeals to know what bearing they have on the general relations between the bishop and archdeacons.

^{page 62 note 2} Reg. 15 f. 72.

^{page 62 note 3} Regg. 16 f. 238, 17 ff. 88, 111.

^{page 62 note 4} Reg. Chichele (Cant. & York Soc., xlv), 272, 336.

^{page 62 note 5} ‘quod cum occasione exercicii iurisdiccionis episcopalis et eciam Archidiaconalis in Archidiaconatu Northampton’ in ecclesia Lincoln' per Reverendorum Patrum dominorum Episcoporum Linc' pro tempore existencium commissarios ac Archidiaconorum loci illius eciam pro tempore existencium Officiales aliosque eorundem Reverendorum Patrum et Archidiacononim ministros ad huiusmodi jurisdiccionum exercicium deputatos gravia in clero ac populo dicti Archidiaconatus scandala sint exorta per quod nonnunquam iurisdiccio ecclesiastica confundebatur, auctoritas ecclesie vilescebat et tam clerus quam populus Archidiaconatus illius graviter opprimebantur.’ (Reg. 17 f. 179.) The agreement was personal to the two signatories.

^{page 63 note 1} In 1475 Mr. John Fisher was commissary and official (Asw.2/3/3), and in 1480 Mr. Henry Ruding (H/101/37, Reg. 22 f. 60, Form 3 ff. 78, 115). From this time, the two offices were held by the same man (see notes of probate attached to wills published by Linc. Rec. Soc., especially volume 5).

^{page 63 note 2} Hartopp, H., Transactions of the Leics. Architectural and Archaeological Society, VIII (1894), 81Google Scholar, and Moore, A. P., Associated Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers, XXVIII (1905–6), 117–220 and 593–662.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 3} Excerpts taken from act books, now mostly lost, by Browne Willis (Bodleian MS. Browne Willis 14) contain the names of officials from 1483.

^{page 63 note 4} See, for example, Gibson, Codex, ii. 1548.