RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



them, obliged them to undergo a severe penance, 

 they carried their point in the end. Prior 

 Laurence accompanied the bishop-elect to 

 Rome, and induced the pope to consecrate him 

 there.*^ 



Soon after the consecration of Philip of 

 Poitou as bishop of Durham in iigy, quarrels 

 arose and long continued between that prelate 

 and the convent, fomented by Archdeacon 

 Aimeric, nephew to the bishop, who insinuated 

 that the monks were usurping an authority to 

 which they had no right, and were daily in- 

 fringing upon the episcopal prerogative. The 

 question arose, whose was the right of presen- 

 tation to Coldingham ? The bishop claimed it 

 for himself as abbot of the monastery ; the prior 

 declared that it belonged by royal grant to the 

 convent. The bishop, enraged by contradic- 

 tion, proceeded to acts of great violence. By his 

 orders Aimeric besieged the monks in St. Os- 

 wald's church, and when in spite of hunger 

 and thirst they remained obdurate, he set fire to 

 the church doors and smoked them out. But 

 in the end the bishop was obliged to yield, and 

 the monks gained their point. *^ 



Again, when the bishop claimed to be admitted 

 to the chapter-house at the time of the monks' 

 convention, he was met by a decided refusal. In 

 his rage he excommunicated the prior and the 

 entire chapter, and sent emissaries who broke 

 into the church on St. Cuthbert's Day, inter- 

 rupted the holy offices, and with impious hands 

 dragged the prior and his assistants from the very 

 altar itself.^' But he did not thereby obtain 

 admission to their councils. 



Possibly there was some ground for his com- 

 plaints. The property of the house was rapidly 

 increasing, and the monks may have been trying 

 to extend their authority to an unwarrantable 

 degree. In any case they had their revenge. 

 Not only did they hand down the bishop's name 

 to posterity loaded with obloquy, but when in 

 1208 he died excommunicate they refused his 

 body Christian burial, and it was interred by 

 laymen in an obscure grave with no religious rite 

 of any kind.^ 



Encouraged no doubt by their victories over 

 Bishop Philip, the monks took a very high hand 

 with his successor, Richard Marsh.'^ When he 

 sought to encroach on their privileges they went 

 to law with him, and at last, in wrath at his 

 exactions, they accused him to the pope of blood- 

 shed, simony, sacrilege, gross immorality, perjury, 

 and other crimes. The pope appointed the 

 bishops of Ely and Salisbury his delegates to hear 



" Raine, Hist. Ch. of York (Rolls Series), ii, 395 ; 

 Hutchinson, Hist. Dii?: i, 165-7. The prior himself 

 died on the return journey. 



" Walter of Coventry, Memoriale (Rolls Sen), ii, 

 13; ; Hoveden, Chron. (Rolls Sen), iv, 69, 70. 



" Geoff, of Coldingham ; see Angl. Sacr. yzS. 



" Hutchinson, Hist. Dm: i, 189. 



" Consecrated in 1 21 5. 



and inquire into the truth of these charges. 

 Bishop Marsh, however, appealed direct to the 

 pope : and at Rome his money prevailed to 

 soften the pontiff's anger and to protract the 

 suit. How it would have been decided is diffi- 

 cult to guess ; but when in 1226 it was brought 

 to an abrupt conclusion by the sudden death of 

 the bishop, the monks, regarding the occurrence 

 as a notable example of the Divine judgement, 

 considered that thev had again been victorious.^^ 



With regard to the election of Bishop Marsh's 

 successor, Richard le Poor, the monks were opposed 

 alike by the king and the pope ; but, though at 

 first defeated in the struggle, and threatened 

 with the loss of the freedom of election which 

 they had hitherto enjoyed, in the end they over- 

 came all opposition.'' The event proved their 

 choice a wise one. In Bishop le Poor they found 

 a patron at once just and liberal, learned and 

 devout. In order to secure them in quiet and 

 undisturbed possession of their property, and to 

 prevent any future disputes between them and 

 their bishops, he entered into an agreement with 

 them in 123 1 usually known as ' le convenit.' 

 The articles of this agreement dealt with the 

 action of the courts, bailiffs, officers, &c. of the 

 bishop and prior respectively ; with the questions 

 of wreckage, customs, tolls, weights and measures, 

 and the like ; and with the punishment of various 

 classes of offenders. It was conceived in a spirit 

 of strict justice and moderation, and was certainly 

 calculated to prevent either party from encroach- 

 ing on the rights and privileges of the other, or 

 from acquiring an undue degree of predominance 

 in the diocese.'* 



On the death of Bishop le Poor in 1237 diffi- 

 culties at once arose as to the choice of his 

 successor. The monks rejected the king's can- 

 didate, probably not more because of his unsuit- 

 ability than because they were determined to 

 retain their privileges unbroken, and proceeded 

 to elect their own prior, Thomas of Melsanby. 

 The king objected, on the rather absurd ground 

 that Thomas, when prior of Coldingham, had 

 sworn allegiance to the king of Scotland. He 

 also accused him of simony and other crimes, 

 and of lack of learning.'' The archbishop of 



'* Roger of Wendover, FJor. Hist. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 

 256-9 ; Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 

 61-4; Hist. Angl. ii, 245. 



" Roger of Wendover, f/^r./Zw/. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 309; 

 Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. (RoUs Ser.), iii, 113 ; Hist. 

 Angl. ii, 286 ; Pat. 10 Hen. Ill, mm. 5, 3, \,xd.; 

 1 1 Hen. Ill, m. 12, &c. 



«»Harl. MS. No. 1393. Printed in Ires. Script. 

 (Surt. Soc), App. Ixx, ex orig. A. I, 2, Pontif. 



'^ Another unreasonable charge was that of homi- 

 cide, based on the fact that a certain acrobat had 

 fastened a rope between the two western towers ot 

 the church, and while performing on it had fallen 

 and been killed. The king said that the prior ought 

 to have prevented the man's sacrilege, and was there- 

 fore responsible for his death. 



93 



