ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



the two parties, as the long continued pause in disputing now made evident. *° 

 Poor was no doubt anxious to effect a working settlement, since at Salisbury- 

 he had been on particularly friendly relations with the secular canons of the 

 new church. The friars, who were beginning to get a foothold in England 

 at this time, found no welcome or encouragement in the bishopric, and the 

 dominating influence of the great Benedictine order succeeded in keeping 

 them out of the city at all events. After four years' interval, during which 

 the crozier was for a short time forced into the hand of Prior Melsamby, 

 Nicolas Farnham (1241— 9) became bishop. His oath of obedience to the 

 archbishop of York survives to show that the direction of 1191 was now 

 observed. *° In his time the Scots began after long quiet to disturb the peace 

 of the borders, and Nicolas was directed by the king to see to the protection 

 of the Marches. Thirty years later the same danger and the same duty 

 became more frequent, and these directions to the bishop mark that idea of 

 the defensive aspect of the bishopric which in the fourteenth century was 

 regarded as the raison d'etre of the Palatinate. Nicolas resigned the bishopric 

 in 1249, and held (notwithstanding efforts to oust him) the manors of 

 Howden, Stockton, and Easington. 



One or two echoes of the great ecclesiastical and political questions 

 which agitated the Church of England in the thirteenth century come from 

 Durham in the next quarter of a century. Thus in 1257 the prior and 

 convent made a determined stand against the papal exactions in common 

 with the canons of Gisburn, for which bold action they were put under a 

 temporary interdict." Apparently they were ready to contribute a few years 

 later to the tenth granted to the king by the pope in 1274."* There is no 

 special evidence to show the attitude of the bishop or monastery to the barons 

 in the Barons' War, but a document survives which gives the names of the 

 bishopric knights at Lewes in 1264.*^ In 1268 Cardinal Ottobon, who was 

 active in promoting peace between the king and his subjects, urged the bishop 

 of Durham and others of the northern province to restore the lands of the 

 nobles recently dispossessed, despite the pressure of burdens already existing. 

 Greatham Hospital is connected with the troubles of this crisis. Its land 

 endowments formed part of the confiscated estates of Peter de Montfort, and 

 were devoted by Bishop Stichill to their new purpose in the exercise of his 

 Palatinate powers in regard to forfeits.'^ Apart from these few matters, the 

 episcopates of Kirkham (1249-60), Stichill (1261-74), and Robert of Holy 

 Island (1274-83) left little record, and in general (with small exception) 



" The chief points in dispute were certain advowsons of churches, estates, and the delimitation of 

 the bishop's and the prior's courts, 'de curia, Tol, Them, et Infangethef et de placitis latrocinii,' &c. Lapsley, 

 County Pal. Dur. 169. 



** Melsamby was prior, and reluctantly submitted to his election, but being an ex-prior of Coldingham 

 was regarded by the king as more than half a vassal of Scotland (Graystanes in Tres Scriplorcs, 38), and eventu- 

 ally he resigned. For the oath of Nicolas Farnham, see Raine's Historians Ch. of York, iii, I 22 ; cf. Hoveden, 

 Chron. iii, 74. The origin of this theory is discussed by Lapsley, op. cit. 303. 



" Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. y, 634-5 (Rolls Ser.), in recording this says: ' O si habuissent in tribulatione 

 sua consortes et in eorum constantia coadjutores ! Quam feliclter ecclesia Anglicana de tortoribus suis et 

 oppressoribus triumphasset ! ' 



'^ Cal. Close, 1272-9, p. 128. 



" The original is in Add. MSS. 27423, fol. 66, 71. It is printed by Hutchinson, Hist. Dur. i, 267. 



"' Northern Reg. (Rolls Ser.), 15, 18. 



'^ Hutchinson, Hist, and Antiq. of Dur. i, 263-5, gives the particulars of this important constitutional 

 matter. The bishop successfully asserted his right over that of the king ; cf. Lapsley, op. cit. 42. 



15 



90 



