These extensive powers, however, would hardly seem (to use the words of the charter) to have been “for the good of the souls” of the bishop or his successors, since they rather had the effect of leading him to the abuse of his rights. Accordingly, in the reign of Edward III., a plea was entered at Westminster, before the King’s Justices, {19a} by which John, Bishop of Carlisle, was charged with resisting the authority of the king in the matter of the patronage of the benefice of Horncastle. That benefice was usually in the gift of the bishop, but the rector, Simon de Islip, had been appointed by the king Archbishop of Canterbury and, in such circumstances, the crown by custom presents to the vacancy. The bishop resisted and proceeded to appoint his own nominee, but the judgment of the court was against him. A somewhat similar case occurred a few years later. {19b} Thomas de Appleby, the Bishop of Carlisle, and John de Rouseby, clerk, were “summoned to answer to the Lord the King, that they permit him to appoint to the church of Horncastre, vacant, and belonging to the king’s gift, by reason of the bishopric of Carlisle being recently vacant.” It was argued that John de Kirkby, Bishop of Carlisle, had presented Simon de Islip to that benefice, afterwards created Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the temporalities (patronage, &c.) of the Bishopric of Carlisle therefore (for that turn) came to the king by the death of John de Kirkby, bishop. The said bishop, Thomas de Appleby, and John de Rouseby brought the case before the court, but they admitted the justice of the king’s plea and judgment was given for the king.