A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



of Coldingham, certain lands belonging to the 

 priory of Holy Island, and, almost worse, ' the 

 convent's remaining pastures which lie near the 

 Marches, they being without any place in the south 

 for keeping their stock in safety.' The king, 

 in response to their appeal, granted them the 

 custody of the priory of Burstall, but this was 

 subsequently vacated, the prior resigning it in 

 May, 1382."" About the same time the convent 

 received grants of the advowson of Stamford 

 Church, CO. Lincoln ; ''^ the reversion of two 

 bovates of land and the advowson of the church 

 of Ruddington, co. Nottingham ; a messuage and 

 two bovates of land in Flaxton, and the advow- 

 sons of Bossall and Fishlake, co. York ; and of 

 Frampton, co. Lincoln,^'" for the support of their 

 monks and students at Durham College. All 

 these donations must have gone far to recoup the 

 monastery for its losses ; and the century of 

 storm and strife ended for the house more pros- 

 perously than could have been expected. 



The records of episcopal visitations of the 

 convent are unhappily very few, and most of the 

 documents of which they consist are purely formal. 

 Of Bishop Bek's visitations some account has 

 already been given. In 1 3 1 4 Bishop Kellaw visited 

 the convent and appointed the master of Kepier 

 and two others to correct certain irregularities 

 which he found.''' The prior and monks were 

 commanded to submit to correction as to the 

 points mentioned in a certain schedule,^'* but this, 

 unfortunately, though sent with the mandate, 

 was not copied into the register, and so is lost. 

 Five monks were subsequently summoned to 

 appear before the bishop to answer for their con- 

 duct,''* and the purgation injoined upon two 

 others was respited ;''^ but no particulars of their 

 offences are given. 



Of the visitations of Bishop Bury in 1342,'" 

 and of Bishop Langley in 1408 ''* no records 

 remain save the summons in each case to the 

 prior and convent, and other formal entries. 



On 26 March, 1355, Bishop Hatfield, having 

 visited the convent, issued a set of injunctions 

 which bear strong indirect evidence to the good 

 character and conduct of the monks. Almost the 

 only fault he had to find was that the discipline 

 was a little too severe. He directed, amongst 

 other things, that a competent doctor should be 

 provided for the brethren, and that the latter, 

 when sick, should be carefully tended, allowed 

 light and delicate food, and visited daily by the 

 cellarer. The monks were to have a proper 

 amount of recreation and of intercourse with 

 their friends. Hospitality was to be exercised 



"" Pat. 4 Ric. II, pt. 3, mm. 12, 11. 

 "■ Pat. 6 Rlc. II, pt. 2, m. 5. 

 "■ Pat. 7 Ric. II, pt. 2,m. 28; 10 Ric. II, pt. i,mm. 

 9, 1 6. '" Reg. Pakt. Dun. (Rolls Ser.), i, 639, 640. 



'" Ibid. 643. "' Ibid. 645. 



"« Ibid. 646. '"Ibid, iii, 514. 



''* Dur. Epis. Reg. Langley, fol. 19, 19 </. 



and the poor relieved. Certain defects in the 

 church fabric were to be made good."^ 



Very little, comparatively speaking, is known 

 of the history of the convent during the fifteenth 

 century. The doctrines of Wyclif and of the 

 new school of thought, which began to agitate 

 the minds of men in southern England, do not 

 seem to have penetrated into the bishopric to 

 any great extent."" It is true that in March, 

 1413— 14, Bishop Langley ordered the priors of 

 Durham and its cells to hold solemn processions 

 during Lent, with litanies in which the people 

 were to join, on account of the spread of heresy 

 in England ; '" but this has the appearance of 

 a general command issued in every diocese 

 and having no special application to Durham. 

 Several reasons suggest themselves for this con- 

 servatism in religious matters. In Durham the 

 church was pre-eminently the centre of life and 

 thought ; the people were St. Cuthbert's folk, 

 set apart to a certain extent by their traditions, 

 very independent by nature, and having com- 

 paratively little intercourse with foreign coun- 

 tries or even with other parts of England. 

 Moreover, the minds of men, both secular and 

 religious, were greatly occupied with making 

 good the damage wrought by the Scottish in- 

 vaders during past years ; and, last but not least, 

 the bishop and the monks between them held 

 by far the largest part of the landed property in 

 the county. The following inventory of the 

 possessions or the convent, dated 1464, shows, 

 by comparison with the list in King John's 

 Charter, how in spite of all their troubles the 

 monks had enlarged their territory and increased 

 their wealth ; at this date they owned the vills 

 of Shoreswood, Wallsend, Willington, Over and 

 Nether Heworth, Follonsby, Hebburn, Monkton, 

 Hedworth, Simonside, Jarrow, Harton, Westoe, 

 South wick, Shields, Fulwell, Wearmouth, Dal- 

 ton, East and West Rainton, Moorsley, North 

 and South Pittington, Coupon, Newton, Wol- 

 viston, Billingham, Blakiston, Burdon, Skirning- 

 ham, Newton Ketton, Aycliffe, Woodham, 

 Chilton, Ferryhill, East, Middle and West 

 Merrington, and Edmondbyers ; the manors of 

 Felling, Wardley, Fulwell, Westoe, Pittington, 

 Eden, Monk Hesleden, Bewley, Bellasis, Ketton, 

 Aycliffe, Ferryhill, East Merrington, Bearpark 

 [Beaurepaire], Aldin Grange [Aldyngrige], and 

 Houghall (constituting the service of two knights' 

 fees) ; lands, houses, rents, &c. in Norhamshire, 

 Islandshire, Harbottle, Warkworth, Cramlington, 

 Newcastle, Pipewellgate, Hawthorne, Silksworth, 

 Wareknoll, Ludworth, Hulam, Hutton Henry, 

 Hartlepool, Fishburn, Claxton, Pounteys, Barmp- 

 ton, Newsham, Winston, Osmundcroft, Cleatlam, 

 Berford, Summerhouse, Staindropshire, Coatham 



'^' Dur. Epis. Reg. Hatfield, fol. 21 d. 



"" About I 376 (or later) we read of a monk of Dur- 

 ham disputing with Wyclif. Fasciculi Xizaniorum (Rolls 

 Sen), 241. "' Dur. Epis. Reg. Langley, fol. 66. 



100 



