"the wyne" in a manner which can only mean that it was taken, unconsecrated, as an ablution. "And than knelyng with humylite and gret deuocion, receyuing the thyrde parte of the holy sacrament vpon the patent of the archebisshoppes handes. Then come the bisshoppe of London with the grete solempne chales of seynt Edward, and serued hym with wyne." In the same manner, the "Devyse" for Henry VIII. "After the cardynall hath commoned his self, he hauing betweene his handes the same chalice wheruppon the holy sacrament shall be leyed, shall turne hymselfe vnto the king and the quene. And theye lying prostrate before hym shall sey their Confiteor, all the prelates answering, Misereatur. And the cardynall, seying, Absolve. That done, the king and the quene shall sumwhat aryse knelyng, and with grete humylitee and deuocion receyue the sacrament by the handes of the seid cardynall. This so done, the kinge and the quene shall stande vp, and take wine of the aboue reherced chalice, by the hands of the abbot of Westminster." 15

I may observe that the fatigue of the sovereign, as not unfrequently noticed in the old histories and records, is to be referred to the obligation under which he was, to receive the holy communion, fasting. And "the Devyse" has an especial reference to this; succeeding the conclusion of the mass.

15 So, this direction previously in the same MS. "The kyng shall offre an obbley of brede layed vppon the patent of Seint Edwardes chalice, with the whiche obleye after consecrate, the king shall be howseld. Also he shall offre in a cruet of golde, wyne,

"And also it is to

whiche he shall use in the chalice after he is howselde. And as well the seid patent with the obleye, as the cruce with wyne, shall be delyuered unto him by the Gospeller, at the tyme of his ofrynge."

wite, that a certein place nere the seid shryne must be prepared with trauers and curteyns, by the usshers of the king's chambre. Wherunto immediately the king shall goo, and there breke his faste, yf hym lyste." We learn also from Rymer, that Richard II. had already heard matins and mass, before he left his chamber: "surrexit rex, et auditis servitiis Dei, et missa, descendebat." 16 He had not of course communicated; though, according to the theology of the day, reception of the consecrated Eucharist would not have broken his fast.

There are but one or two subjects remaining, before I would close my remarks upon the Coronation Service.17 And first; as to the place where it should be performed. This has been, since the reign of Edward the confessor, fixed at Westminster, a rule which was

63.

16 Fœdera, tom. 3. pars. iij. p.

17 In the turbulent period immediately preceding the Conquest, the "Peace of the Church" was extended to the eight days which the coronation solemnities were to оссиру. "Die quo primum coronatus est, quæ dies tenet octo." Leges ecc. S. Edw. regis. Wilkins. concilia. tom. 1. p. 312. The law itself speaks of this as the "Pax regis," but it is clear from the 3rd law, that this was the same with its more usual title, "Pax Dei et sanctæ ecclesiæ." In the same and the succeeding century, the publication of this Peace, to be strictly observed under pain of excommunication, at

certain periods of the year, became frequent. See Knyghton, de event. Angliæ. Script. x. tom. 2. p. 2356. Hoveden, Ann. p. 343. Wilkins, tom. 1. p. 585. Lyndwood. lib. v. tit. xvij. Auctoritate Dei. verb. Pacem. The usual periods specified, were from Advent to the octave of the Epiphany; from Septuagesima to the octave of Easter; from Ascension-day to the octave of Pentecost; the Ember-weeks; from vespers on all Saturdays, until the Monday; on the greater Saints-days, and their Vigils; in parishes, on the feasts of their patron-saints; and upon all occasions of going to dedications of churches, to synods, or chapters.

only broken upon extraordinary occasions, or when the ceremony, as we have seen above, was repeated. But in more ancient times, other places received that distinction: Kingston-on-Thames, and Winchester; concerning which last-named city I would quote a passage from the Winchester annals, as it testifies to a very early coronation which I did not mention before, namely of K. Egbert. "Revertens inde Wintoniam,mandavit omnibus majoribus regnorum quæ conquisierat, ut convenirent ad illum die certo Wintoniam : veniunt Wintoniam clerus et populus, et assensu omnium partium coronatus est Egbertus in regem totius Britanniæ." 18

Next, as to the right of consecrating the new sovereign. This has always been claimed by the archbishops of Canterbury. In proof of this, and of the allowance of it, the evidence of an historian, who was probably born before the Conquest, has been appealed to by almost every writer on the subject. He is relating the coronation of William I. and that it was not, as according to ancient usage, performed by Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury. His words are: "In nativitate Domini unctus est in regem apud Westmonasterium a beatæ memoriæ Ealredo archiepiscopo Eboracensi, et nonnullis episcopis Angliæ. Quam consecrationem licet ipse rex et omnes alii optime nos:

18 Cotton MS. Domitian. A. 13. Dugdale. Monasticon. vol. 1. p. 205. The annals go on to say. "Edixit, illa die, Egbertus ut insula in posterum vocaretur Anglia, et qui Tuti vel Saxones dicebantur, omnes communi nomine Angli vocarentur." This asser

tion has been credited by some writers, but rejected by others: whether true or false, it does not affect the fact of the coronation of K. Egbert at Winchester. A charter in the Textus Roffensis gives Egbert the title, rex Anglorum." p. 97.

66

sent debere specialiter fieri, et proprie a pontifice Cantuariensi, tamen quia multa mala et horrenda crimina prædicabantur de Stigando qui eo tempore ibi pontifex erat, noluit eam ab ipso suscipere, ne maledictionem videretur induere pro benedictione." 19 In the succeeding century, on occasion of the coronation of K. John, the right of the archbishop of Canterbury was no less recognized: which is clear from the fact that a protest was made on the part of the archbishop of York, that the solemnity should not be, unless he also was present. Which protest was disregarded. "Hubertus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus coronavit, et consecravit in regem Angliæ præfatum Johannem, Philippo Dunelmensi episc. appellante, ne coronatio illa fieret in absentia Gaufridi Eboracensis archiepiscopi, totius Angliæ primatis." 20

I must extract a document of the reign of Richard II. which does not plainly acknowledge the right of the archbishop. This is the royal mandate to the primate to attend at the coronation. "Richardus, Dei gratia, etc., venerabili in Christo patri Simoni, eadem gratia archiepiscopo Cantuar. totius Angliæ primati salutem.

19 Hist. Nov. p. 6. I am not concerned with the true reason, why Stigand was not permitted to consecrate the king: the "horrenda crimina" of Eadmer, might probably without much difficulty, be made to shrink down into less serious political offences. Brompton, in his chronicle, declares that Stigand himself refused to perform the ceremony: and Malmsbury, who follows Eadmer in representing the interference of the

archbishop of York to have been caused by the king, yet speaks of Stigand's disability as having been produced only by censures from the court of Rome: which had favoured the Conqueror's invasion. The reader may consult Collier. Ecc. Hist. vol. 1. p. 237. And, I am bound to add, for an unfavourable character of Stigand, Malmsbury, de gestis. p. 46.

20 Hoveden. Annal. p. 451. edit. Savile.

21

Quia firmiter credimus et speramus, quod, accepto coronationis et consecrationis munere, summi regis potentia virtuosa in regimine populi regni nostri de bono semper in melius diriget actus nostros, ac nos die Jovis in crastino translationis sancti Swythini prox. futur. apud Westm. proponimus, auctore Domino, coronari; vobis mandamus, firmiter injungentes, quod hujusmodi coronationis nostræ solenniis, dictis die et loco celebrandis, personaliter intersitis. Et hoc, sicut nos, et honorem nostrum diligitis, nullatenus omittatis. Teste meipso, etc." This "breve regium" is interesting and important in several respects; but the reader will hesitate, I think, before he attributes much weight to the omission of which I have spoken. For there was no likelihood at that time that the archbishop would not be able to attend, and personally exercise his right; nor is it the kind of document in which, necessarily, this privilege would be specially noticed and acknowledged. Again, there is an earlier summons, A. D. 1308, Edward II., in a case where the archbishop was abroad, and the right is not only clearly enough acknowledged, but, if he could not return, he was required to nominate his deputy. "Et, si forte, aliquo casu contingente, vos, quod absit, contigerit impediri, ita quod die et loco prædictis, non poteritis vestram præsentiam exhibere, tunc vices vestras alicui de vestris suffraganeis committatis, qui officium, quod in coronatione nostra prædicta vobis incumbit, exequatur, et

exerceat vice vestra.'

9922

21 Wilkins: Concilia. tom. 3. p. 119.

2 Rymer: Fœdera. tom. 1. pars. iv. p. 111. I cannot omit

the following from a royal letter to the pope, upon this same case of archbishop Winchelsey: "Et quia regum Angliæ coronatio ad