In regard to the non-exempt monasteries and convents--that is ordinarily--the relation between the bishops and the religious houses was constant; and, apparently, with exceptions of course, cordial. The episcopal registers show that the bishops did not shirk the duty of visiting, and correcting what they found amiss in the houses under their control; and whilst there is evidence of a natural desire on their part to bring the regular life up to a high standard, there is little or none of any narrow spirit in the exercise of this part of the episcopal office, or of any determination to worry the religious, to misunderstand the purpose of their high vocation, or to make regular life unworkable in practice by any over-strict interpretation of the letter of the law. It is, of course, after all, only natural that these good relations should exist between the bishop and the regulars of his diocese. The unexempt houses were not extra-diocesan so far as episcopal authority went, like those of the exempt Orders; but they were for the most part the most important and the most useful centres of spiritual life in each diocese. It was therefore to the bishop's interest as head of the diocese to see that in these establishments the lamp of fervour should not be allowed to grow dim, and that the good work should not be permitted to suffer through any lessening of the cordial relations which had traditionally existed between the bishops and the religious houses within the pale of his jurisdiction.
The bishop's duties to the religious houses in his diocese were various. In the first place, in regard to the election of the superior: here much depended upon the actual position of the monastery in regard to the king, to the patron, or even to the Order. If the king was the founder of the house or had come to be regarded as such, which may roughly be said to have been the case in most of the greater monastic establishments, and especially in those which held lands immediately from the Crown, then the bishop had nothing to say to the matter till the royal assent had been given. The process has been already briefly explained; but the main features may again be set out. On the death of the superior, the religious would have to make choice of some of their number to proceed to the court to inform the king of the demise and to obtain the _congé d'élire_, or permission to elect. The first action of the king would be the appointment of officials to administer the property in his name during the vacancy, having due regard to the needs of the community. He would then issue his licence for the religious to choose a new superior. All this, especially if the king were abroad or in some far-off part of the country, would take time, sometimes measured by weeks. On the reception of the _congé d'élire_, the convent proceeded to the formal election, the result of which had to be reported to the king; and if he assented to the choice made, this was signified to the bishop, whose office it was to inquire concerning the validity of the election and the fitness of the person chosen--that is, he was bound to see whether the canonical forms had all been adhered to in the process and the election legal, and whether the elect had the qualities necessary to make a fitting superior and a ruler in temporals and in spirituals. If after inquiry all proved to be satisfactory, the bishop formally confirmed the choice of the monks and signified the confirmation to the king, asking for the restitution of temporalities to the new superior. If the election was that of an abbot, the bishop then bestowed the solemn blessing upon the elect thus confirmed, generally in some place other than his own monastic church, and wrote a formal letter to the community, charging them to receive their new superior and show him all obedience. Finally, the bishop appointed a commission to proceed to the house and install the abbot or prior in his office.