Roger, 1107—1139. 177 
Most of the notices of Bishop Roger have reference to his duties 
in discharge of one or other of the high offices of state which he 
filled. But even in these he did not always use his influence for the 
advantage of the Church. Thus we are distinctly told that when 
Godfrey, Bishop of Bath, tried to get back some of the lands of his 
canons which had been misappropiated, “ King Henry and Roger 
Bishop of Sarum, who was a mighty man in those days, hindered 
him.”! On another occasion however he was rebuked for his arrogance. 
In consequence of the archbishop Ralph d’ Escures being unable 
through paralysis to conduct the ceremony of espousals between Henry 
I. and his second wife Adelais of Lorraine, Roger claimed the right, 
inasmuch as Windsor was in the diocese of Sarum. The archbishop 
however stoutly refused to allow him to officiate, even though he had 
vested himself for the purpose, but committed the duty to William 
de Giffard, Bishop of Winchester.’ 
Bishop Roger is recorded as having been present at the dedication 
of St. Alban’s Church in 1116, and also in 1130 when the Cathedral 
of Canterbury was “hallowed.” He was also present at various 
synods that were held for the better government of the Church, and 
for the exercise of discipline, which was most necessary in conse- 
quence of the admitted irregularities prevailing among the clergy. 
At more than one of these synods a decree was passed forbidding 
marriage to all churchmen of the rank of sub-deacon and upwards. 
William of Malmesbury says distinctly that Bishop Roger “‘ dwi/é 
anew” the Church of Salisbury. We know that he was a great 
builder. Salisbury, Malmesbury, Devizes, Sherborne, all bore wit- 
ness to this. And William of Malmesbury’s words seem plain enough, 
for he adds :—“ He beautified his Church thus newly duzlét in such 
a manner that it yields to none in England, but surpasses many, so that 
he had just cause to say, ‘ Lord, I have loved the glory of Thy House.” 
1 Freeman’s Cathedral of Wells, p. 43. 
28ee the whole account in Malmesb. Gest. Pontif. p. 133. The Archbishop 
went so far as to deny such privilege to appertain to the see of Sarum—‘‘ in 
posterum providens, ne quid tale Salesberiensis Episcopus pro privilegio parrochiz 
sibi assumeret.”’ 
3Gest, Reg., B. v. The words are ‘‘ Ecclesiam suam Sarisberiensem et novam 
__s Fecit, ct ornamentis excoluit, ut nulli in Anglia cesserit, sed multas precesserit, 
&e.” 
- VOL, XVII.—NO. L. N 
