consent was still necessary for translation from one see to another, and he was still able to claim the appointment of the successor to any dignitary, bishop or other, who died in Curia, as it was called, i.e. while in attendance on the papal court.[1] The one great fact to be alleged on the other side is to be found in the series of antipapal statutes from the reign of Edward III. to Henry V. inclusive; but while the existence of these statutes is strong evidence of the existence of the state of things which they affected to remedy, yet their constant repetition is equally good proof that they failed to remedy it. Had they been efficient they would not have needed repetition, and when at last they ceased to be repeated, it was, as we have seen, not because the papal power had languished, but because it had revived; not because they had effected their purpose, but because their failure to do so had become manifest. The true account of these statutes I take to be something of this kind. In the mutual jealousies which subsisted between the various parties in the State, the power and influence of the Papacy became from time to time an important makeweight, and to the King especially it was oftentimes of great moment to be able to employ it for his own purposes. At the same time papal exactions, oppressions, and interferences were not popular in the nation at large, and were often not relished by one or other party among the Churchmen themselves, who had to pay dearly for the support and influence which the Papacy afforded them. Thus these statutes came to be passed partly to gratify the popular demand for protection against papal oppression, partly to enhance the power of the Crown, which was always exalted in proportion as that of the Pope was depressed.
- ↑ Hook's Archbishops, vol. v. p. 279.
