BISHOPS IN BATTLE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3013, 26 February 1917, Page 9

BISHOPS IN BATTLE

, —As a casual studont of history without . interest 'in religious controversy I would like to draw attention to ft few historical facts regarding tho ex•jtont to which English and Norman (Roman Catholic bishops observed canon law in the olden days, if , such law then existed. It ; has been recently stated !ln your columns, that for 1500 years . ith© Roman Catholic clergy of Great (Britain and Ireland havo been by canon jlaw forbidden to shed blood 1 in battle. On reference to Freeman's "Norman '.Conquest"- and the Bayeux tapestry it tinay be learned that Bishop Odo of (■Bayeux, brother of William the ConIqjieror, rode in mail at the battle of (Hastings (1066), armed with a studded toiace. He was a very formidable fellow this Odo, and towards the ; critical .period of that battle he led a cavalry charge. The mace was the weapon : adopted in battle by the clergy (all .'Roman Oatholio) of thoso days, braining adversaries being more in accord- • ance to the canon law than the letting *>f blood. ... From Green's "History of the Bng- | 3ish People," I take the following ex-, "tract regarding tho' Battle of. the 'Standard (1138): —"Baron and freeman gathered at York round Archbishop Thurston, and marched to the 'field of -Northallerton to ftwa.it It-he foe. The sacred "banners of St. Cuthjibert of Durham, St. Peter of York. ( St. John of Beverley, and St. Wilfred of Ripon hung from a pole fixSl in a (four-wheeled car, which stood in the 'cent-re of the host." Hence the name jjof the_ Battle of the Standard.' For cemnrics after the Norman conquest ythe Bishops of Durham were probably jinore renowned' as soldiers than as preJlates.. Their fortress at Durham, built iagamst tho Scots, was tho greatest (military stronghold in Northumbria, - j-the Bishops raised armies with almost (.sovereign power, and rode to battle Sn mail, armed with the mace, a studded ball at the end of a short handle, possibly tho precursor of the more modem shillelagh. One or more of .these bishops was killed'in battle. „ The following i 6 an extract: from iFreeman's "Norman Conquest" ■ '.'The IJishop of .Durham, in his hill fortress, (possessed powers which no other' English ecclesiastic was allowed to share." iWalcher, the first Bishop of Durham after the Conquest, was created Earl of Northumberland, and he and his successors for tho next four centuries jexercised an almost independent sway .over the Palatinate of Durham. In their fortress of Durham tile bishops held as prisoners both the Scottish leaders, David' (Bruce), the second 'King of Scotland, taken at the Battle ?/• ii 6V^"e ' 3 ' Cross, also Sir .William •Wallace on his iv»y to London. • the Roman Catholic bishops thus engaged, is it possible that other ecclesiastics took a less sanguinary j>art? Tho writer has no wish to disparage tho warlike propensities of these r freat men of the past; tlley appear to avo won all tho great battles in which thoy engaged against tho Scots, and ■there occurs now a grand opportunity for their successors to follow their example by practically helping in battle the soldiers of the British Empire, who are to-day giving their lives in -tho defence of Roman Catholic Belgium and France.—l am, etc., F.R.