POLITICAL HISTORY 



decessor. Clever, selfish, and unscrupulous, William of St. Carileph was a wise 

 and sagacious administrator, and under his rule Durham soon recovered from the 

 ruin wrought by the two Norman punitive expeditions. For over seven years 

 the county benefited by the bishop's strong rule, but being implicated in the 

 rebellion against William Rufus he was deprived, and after a siege the castle 

 of Durham was surrendered to Ivo Taillebois and Erneis of Burun, the king's 

 representatives, on 14 November, 1088. '** Three years elapsed before the 

 bishop was restored. Towards the end of that period, in May, 1091, King 

 Malcolm, taking advantage of William Rufus's absence in Normandy, again 

 invaded Northumbria and penetrated as far as Chester-le-Street."" Rufus 

 hastened back to repel the invasion, and on his march to the frontier restored 

 the bishop to his see on 14 September, 1091.-^ About this period, 109 1—2, 

 was executed the charter to which, it is submitted, the Palatinate rights of the 

 bishops of Durham may be traced. This document purports to record the 

 sale by Robert Mowbray, earl of Northumberland (with the king's sanction), 

 to the bishop of Durham and his successors (i) of the earl's right to half 

 of certain fines within lands mostly in the parish of Aycliffe ; (2) the. passagium 

 outside the city of Durham ; and (3) ' quicquid praedictus Comes calumnia- 

 batur Super omnes terras et consuetudines et homines Sancti Cuthberti.' "^ It 

 is to this third clause that attention is directed. At that period the whole of 

 the country between the rivers Tyne and Tees did not belong to the see of 

 Durham, for the district known as the wapentake of Sadberge, bordering on 

 the Tees, did not become part of the bishopric till it was purchased by Bishop 

 Pudsey a century later. Over the land, however, then belonging to the see, 

 the earl it appears had certain rights, and by this grant he conveyed to the 

 bishop whatever rights he (the earl) had. It is therefore necessary 

 to try to ascertain what the earl's rights were. We have seen above that 

 until 954 Northumbria was a separate kingdom under, from 829, a more or 

 less ill-defined suzerainty of the English kings. In 954 the kingdom was 

 reduced to an earldom ; but the change was almost nominal, for the earls, 

 mostly of the house of Bamburgh, were virtually independent and exercised 

 regal powers. It does not appear that the Conqueror cut down their 

 privileges."^ The only direct evidence now subsisting of the. Jura regalia 

 exercised by the earls is a fine taken before Henry of Pudsey, justiciar of 

 Bishop Hugh Pudsey in 11 90 when he was earl of Northumberland.^* 



If in Pudsey's time the earls of Northumberland still had jura regalia it 

 may be assumed that a century earlier they exercised similar powers, the 

 tendency during that century, and especially during the latter part of it, being 

 to cut down the powers exercised by the holders of great franchises. 



" Angl.-Sax. Chron. sub anno 1088. 



'" Simeon, op. cit. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 218, 221 ; Angl.-Sax. Chron. sub anno 1 091. 



■' Simeon, op. cit. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 218. 



" The charter is printed in Fcodarium Prior. Dun. (Surtees Soc), p. Ixxxii. The original is missing,, 

 and only a transcript made early in the twelfth century exists in the Treasury at Durham. The transcript 

 is on a piece of parchment which also contains a transcript of a charter of Hen. I to Bishop Flamb.ird. 

 Feod. p. Ixxx. Canon Greenwell is of opl,nion that there is nothing to raise any suspicion as to the authenticity 

 of this charter. 



'*" Davies, England under the Norman and Jngevin Kings, 5 1 7. 



" A copy of the bishop's fine together with a note on its curious history is given in Northumb. County 

 Hist, ix, 73. Canon Greenwell, who saw the document now missing, was satisfied as to its authenticity. 

 Further evidence as to the 'jura regalia ' will be found in Mr. W. Page's article on the Northumbrian 

 Palatinates and Regalities ; Arch. Ii, 143. 



2 137 18 



