pursuance of possessing the comitial power, we may safely say that there is no evidence whatever of any Saxon bishop having exercised it[890]. As assessor to the ealdorman, the bishop was especially charged to attend to the due levy of tithe and other church imposts; but this was clearly because he had a direct interest in the law that decreed their punctual payment, and was certain not to connive at any neglect in its execution, which the ealdorman out of favour or carelessness might possibly have been disposed to do. ----- Footnote 886: The Normans adopted a different custom. Many of the cathedrals were transferred from obscure sites to the cities which they now adorn, by the first Norman bishops. Footnote 887: After the Conquest it did take place: Walcher bishop of Durham was made also count of the same in 1075, upon the capture of Earl Wælþeóf. Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. lviii. (lib. iii. cap. xxiii. p. 208). As late as the time of Richard the First, we find a successor of Walcher, Hugo de Pusac, purchasing the same county of the king, _anno_ 1189. Ric. Divisiens. p. 8. One year later, Baldwin archbishop of Canterbury suspended Hugo, bishop of Coventry, because “contra dignitatem episcopalis ordinis, officium sibi vicecomitatus usurpaverat.” Rog. Wend. an. 1190. Coxe, iii. 18. Footnote 888: “Hic fecit suspendi latrones volentes infregisse aecclesiam Sancti Eadmundi, qui tamen erant miraculose impediti.” Chron. de Passione S. Edmundi, cited by Wharton. Ep. et Dec. Lond. p. 29. See also Will. Malm. Gest. Pont. lib. ii. Footnote 889: William of Malmesbury seems to allude to this point, when he says of St. Eádmund: “Latrunculos, noctu sacram aedem expilare aggressos, invisis loris in ipsis conatibus irretivit; formoso admodum spectaculo, quod praeda praedones tenuit, ut nec coepto desistere, nec inchoata valerent perficere.” Gest. Reg. i. 366, § 213. Footnote 890: By the law of Eádweard the Confessor, “cyricbryce” belonged to the bishop. “Si quis sanctae aecclesiae pacem fregerit, episcoporum tum est iusticia.” Leg. Eád. Conf. § vi. But this seems a different thing altogether, and to be a violation of the “grið” only. ----- But a still higher authority was placed in the hands of the bishop, derived in fact from the assumed pre-eminence of the ecclesiastical over the secular power. If the geréfa would not do justice, and maintain the peace in the land, then the bishop was especially commanded to enforce the fines which the king and his witan had apportioned to that officer’s offence[891]. It was no doubt argued that no geréfa would be found bold enough to incur the danger of offering violent resistance to the sacred person of the prelate; and even the ealdorman, who might have set the king at defiance, would tremble to encounter the substantial terrors of excommunication and a laborious penance. ----- Footnote 891: