536 ANNALS OF ROGER BE ΗΟΤΕΒΕΝ. A.D..1201. on the contrary, with the object of obtaining the benefit of restitution, enjoyed the same privileges as before, although the said archbishop, in manifold ways, aggrieved him and his clerks in relation thereto and to other matters, after appeal had been lawfully interposed. That, the grant of the before-mentioned liberties was not as it were that of one person to another person, but the same94 were rather granted as it were by the actual dignitary himself, and were delivered, not by special favour to any individual, but as a matter of right, together with the archdeaconry, of the entirety of which, they doubtless, from the original gift made by way of compensation, formed a part. That, although any archbishop might perhaps enjoy the same while he held the archdeaconry in his own hands, still, no prejudice could be produced thereby to the archdeaconry, as it is understood as a matter of course that they are afterwards granted therewith.95 Moreover, inasmuch as, by the council of Tours, all withholdings of prebends, dignities, and benefices, are prohibited, and the council of Lateran, where it forbids new taxes to be imposed, or old ones to be increased, adds thereto, 1 Let no one presume to appropriate to his own use any part of the revenues,' it is evident that the archbishop ought not to, and cannot, deprive the archdeaconry of any of its dignities and privileges. That besides, it cannot be believed that before the grant [of the office], or on the occasion of the grant, it was agreed that the archbishop should retain possession of the aforesaid privileges, because, if he had chanced to attempt thus to usurp possession of what did not belong to himself, he would have seemed to be incurring the guilt of simony. That his renunciation could not injure the archdeacon, as he had renounced the same when despoiled thereof, and that pope Alexander, of blessed memory, our predecessor, asserted that a renunciation of that nature is not valid. Besides, although the collation to the archdeaconry belongs to the said archbishop, the entirety thereof belongs to the dignities of the church of York, and neither the archbishop nor the archdeacon could, without the consent and knowledge of the chapter of York, inflict so great an injury upon the dignities and privBeges of the said archdeaconry. With reference to these points, the other side repBed, that although renunciation or abjuration might not injure the archdeaconry, stiB, in consequence thereof, the 9 4 This passage is evidently imperfect. 8 5 " In ipsa" seems to stand for " in ipso."