A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



The black shadow of the papal interdict fell 

 upon Durham, and much impressed Geoffrey 

 the chronicler. No service, no bells, no proces- 

 sions were allowed, and in the monastery, 

 though not in the parish churches, one weekly 

 Mass alone was celebrated, and that with closed 

 doors. But these dark days which followed 

 the death of Philip in 1208 brought a new and 

 unheard of oppression upon the men of Durham, 

 and the patrimony of St. Cuthbert generally. 

 Hitherto all taxation had been internal, and had 

 been imposed by bishop or prior as the case 

 might be ; but John now began to impose 

 burdens which no appeal to ancient right or 

 liberty could evade. ^^ In Durham, during the long 

 vacancy after Philip (i 208-1 7), the one ray of hope 

 was the election of William as prior in 1209.2* 

 He was not merely a Durham monk, but a 

 Durham man, and his brief office (1209-15) 

 brought some respite at all events to the monas- 

 tery and to the monastery tenants. His tenure 

 of office witnessed a royal confirmation of the 

 Cuthbertine liberties,^* for which the monks 

 paid 500 marks, and shortly after his death, 

 when the new bishop, Richard Marsh, was 

 appointed, Henry III permitted restoration of 

 lands and houses to all whose property had been 

 confiscated in John's recent march through the 

 bishopric to subdue the northern barons." 

 But the new bishop falsified the hopes that had 

 been formed, and all the old strife between 

 bishop and monks broke out again.'* At last, 

 in 1229, it was ended by the famous compromise 

 drawn up by Bishop Poor and known as the 

 Convenit, which was supposed to be a settle- 

 ment of all outstanding questions between 

 bishop and monks.^* The sphere of the bishop's 

 court and the sphere of the prior's had to be 

 defined,^" but in the result the monks considered 

 that their own liberties had been somewhat 

 overridden by the settlement. One or two 

 matters in this document specially concerned 

 the monastery tenants in Elvet who had suffered 

 much in Bishop Philip's time. It was enacted 

 that ' the customs and amendments respecting 

 brewing and bad bread and bad wxights or 

 measure in regard to the prior's men at Elvet 

 and the Old Borough shall continue for the 

 Durham monks freely and fully for ever ; but 



"* Hist. Dunelm. Script. Ires (Surt. Soc), 27. 

 " Ibid. 



26 Boldon Bk. (Surt. Soc), 98, p. xxiii. 

 " Cal. Pat. 1216-25, P- 77- 



28 Hist. Dunelm. Script. Ires (Surt. Soc), 36. 



29 Teoi. Prior. Dunelm. (Surt. Soc), 212. 



'" The prior's court had been confirmed to the prior 

 by King John in a full and ample manner (ibid. 96). 

 Probably the prior quoted his charter for more than 

 its real value, so that in the disputed area of juris- 

 diction (referred to by Dr. Greenwell, ibid. p. xxiv) 

 the prior drew into his court more than his due. 



if the men of these same are found in the bishop's 

 borough with bad bread, or used bad weight 

 or measure, justice shall be done therein 

 by the bishop's bailiffs, and if there issue thence 

 fine, fee, or other profit, it shall be halved between 

 the bishop and the prior. Moreover, the men 

 aforesaid of Elvet and the Old Borough shall 

 use the same measures and weights which the 

 bishop's men shall use in his Borough of 

 Durham.' 



The years which followed the Convenit seem 

 to have been a period of growth and vigorous 

 development in the city of Durham, so far as 

 our scanty information goes. Melsamby became 

 prior in 1 233, and in 1237 would have been 

 appointed bishop had not Henry III stepped 

 in and prohibited his consecration, on the 

 ground that he could not be sure of his loyalty.'* 



An extraordinary story preserved about 

 Melsamby in the king's objections runs as 

 follows : ' He ought to be rejected as a mur- 

 derer. When a certain performer was going 

 up a rope stretched from tower to tower in the 

 churchyard, with the prior's express permission, 

 he fell and was killed. The said prior ought 

 never to have been present at such unseemly 

 proceedings nor to have given his consent ; 

 indeed, he ought to have expressly prohibited 

 their taking place.' '2 Near the north door 

 of the cathedral is a much-visited tomb. A 

 sculptured figure is represented upon it as 

 holding a glove or purse. Local tradition, well 

 known to all pitmen and others who visit 

 the cathedral, is very definite in maintaining 

 that the grave contains the body of a tight-rope 

 walker who fell from the tower. 



Prior Bertram greatly increased the opulence 

 of the monastery, and left to his successor, 

 Hugh Darlington (1258-72), a well-replenished 

 exchequer. Probably the monastery had never 

 been so prosperous before ; but Bertram left 

 behind him a reputation for more than material 

 prosperity. He was a copyist of liturgical works, 

 and a commentator of some local fame, writing 

 postils on various books of Old and New Testa- 

 ment. His successor, Hugh, had the advantage 

 of being trained by him, and used the wealth 

 of the house in a way which was much approved. 

 In the Barons' War he bought off unwelcome 

 intruders upon the peace and prosperity of 

 Durham, and was able to bring to completion 

 the great bell-tower of the cathedral.'' 



There must have been agreat deal of hospitality 

 at the monastery ; but beyond an occasional 

 reference to visitors of importance, no special 

 account of this department exists. Accordingly, 



'1 Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres (Surt. Soc), 38-9 ; 

 App. no. liv. 



'2 Ibid. App. p. Ixxiii. 



" Greenwell, Dur. Cath. 95, 6. 



16 



