When the nomination or election by the king and his witan had taken place, it is probable that a royal mandate was sent to the metropolitan, to perform the ceremony of consecration. We have yet the instrument by which Wulfstán of York certifies to Cnut the performance of this duty in the case of archbishop Æðelnóð[874]: the archbishop says:—“Wulfstán the archbishop greets Cnut his lord, and Ælfgyfu the lady, humbly: and I notify to you both, dear ones, that we have done as notice came from you to us respecting bishop Æðelwold, namely that we have now consecrated him.” He then prays that the new prelate may have all the rights and dues granted to him, which have been usual, and enjoyed by his predecessors: which perhaps is to be understood as a formal demand that the temporalities may be properly conferred upon him. There can be no manner of doubt as to the meaning of the word _swutelung_, which I have rendered by _notice_, and Lingard by _order_[875]: it is a legal notification, and the technical word in a writ is _swutelian_. But I do not believe that Cnut was any more imperative in this matter than his predecessors had been. An Anglosaxon archbishop would never have found it a very safe thing to neglect a royal command by ancient right[876]. ----- Footnote 874: Cod. Dipl. No. 1314. “✠ Wulfstán arcebisceop grét Cnut cyning his hlaford, and Ælfgyfe ða hlǽfdian eádmódlíce; and ic cýðe inc leóf ðæt we habbað gedón swá swá ús swutelung fram eów com æt ðám biscop Æðelnóðe, ðæt we habbað hine nú gebletsod. Nú bidde ic for Godes lufon and for eallan Godes hálgan ðæt gewitan on Gode ðam æðe and on ðám hálgan háde, ðæt he mote beón ðǽre þinga wyrðe ðe óðre beforan wǽron, Dúnstán ðe gód wæs, and mænig óðer; ðæt ðes mote beón eall swá rihta and gerysna wyrðe ðæt inc byð bám þearflíc for Gode, and eác gerysenlíc for worolde.” Footnote 875: Hist. and Antiq. i. 94. His whole account is well worth attention. Footnote 876: We have but one instrument:—granted. But what proportion have we of instruments respecting matters which are entirely beyond doubt? Supposing a royal mandate of consecration had issued on the election of every bishop, between 802, when Ecgberht came to the throne, and 1066, there would have been once in existence 36 archiepiscopal and 224 episcopal writs, or a total of 260. But during the same period, in the 32 counties south of the Humber there would have been held 25,344 shiremoots or county-courts. I will deduct one half of this number to meet all conceivable accidents. Of the 12,672, of which beyond a doubt records once existed, we still possess _three_ or at the utmost _four_ instruments: but do we on that account doubt that shiremoots were held? When we look at these ratios of 1 : 260 and 4 : 12,672, we find the authority for the writ of consecration more than ten times as great as that for the existence of shiremoots. -----