THE president's addeess. 45 



But this did not take place in Devon and Cornwall. If I 

 am not mistaken, this is what took place : — 



The chief priest of the household of the chieftain was 

 called Arch-priest, and exercised jurisdiction over the serfs and 

 retainers of the chief, and appointed to chapels on his domain. 



In Devon and Cornwall the crushing of the independence 

 of the Princes prevented their Household Bishops ever becoming 

 Bishops of Sees. Ecclesiastically all Cornwall and Devon was 

 placed under the pastoral sta:ffi of a Saxon or a Norman in 

 Crediton or Exeter. 



Nevertheless, in some places the priest of the household 

 maintained his independence, sheltering himself under the arm 

 of his territorial lord. In Devon there were arch-priesthoods, 

 at Haccombe, Beerferris, Whitchurch ; in Cornwall at S. 

 Michael Penkivel ; but of these now only that of Haccombe 

 remains. At an episcopal visitation when his name is called, the 

 arch-priest makes no response, as not recognising his submission 

 to the bishop.* 



It is possible enough that first Saxon and then Norman 

 great nobles may have been glad to have their chaplains inde- 

 pendent of the jurisdiction of the bishop, and finding such an 

 institution already in existence, to have maintained it. 



The Arch-priest of the Grreek, and of the Latin church, 

 where he is but a dean under another name, would have a 

 different origin, if my idea be correct. 



In Wales, as in Ireland and Brittany, the Arch-priest of the 

 royal household became the diocesan bishop. In Cornwall this, 

 however, never took place. 



I hope on a future occasion to enter into details as to the 

 Monastic Structures, and the rules of Monastic Life among the 

 Celts. 



*Haccombe was regulated by Bishop Grandisson, 19 Nov., 1337; Bere- 

 Ferrers by tbe same, 17 Jan., 1333-4 ; Whitcliurch by Bishop Stapledon, 14 Jan., 

 1321-2; S. Michael Penkevil by Stapeldon, 7 Feb. 1319-20 ; but in all these cases 

 what was done was probably a recognition of and giving episcopal assent to 

 a condition of affairs already existing. I do not say that it certainly was so, 

 but that it is not unlikely to have been so, 



