ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



sioned probably by a previous slackness in the administrative work of 

 the diocese. During the whole term of his episcopate from his consecra- 

 tion in 1258 till his death in 1 278, his life was engrossed with a succession 

 of disputes, sometimes acting as mediator in local differences, often 

 standing out in defence of the rights and traditions of his see. As a 

 reformer he met with determined opposition in the highest quarters. 

 Yielding in his dispute with the abbey of St. Mary, York, in 1266, he 

 relinquished his claim to the custody of the priory of Wetheral during 

 a vacancy, as well as to the institution and removal of the priors, in 

 exchange for the remission of an annual pension due to that priory from 

 one of the churches in his patronage. 1 The King of Scotland failed to 

 deprive him of the church of Great Salkeld 2 in 1261, though he was 

 not so fortunate in his defence of the patronage of the church of Roth- 

 bury in Northumberland, claimed by King Edward. 3 Richard de 

 Crepping, who succeeded the bishop as sheriff of the county in 1272, 

 unjustly charged him before the lord chancellor with urging his tenants 

 to refuse the oath of fealty to the young king, a groundless allegation, 

 which caused much bitterness in the district.* The last four years of 

 the bishop's life were troubled by a long and expensive suit promoted 

 by Michael de Harcla, who claimed that the manor of Dalston and the 

 advowson of the church were his by right of hereditary succession, a 

 suit which was still undecided at the bishop's death." He did not 

 flinch from what he conceived to be the duties of his calling on account 

 of the frowns of kings and magnates, but steadily worked for the rights 

 of his diocese and the welfare of his spiritual subjects. With Robert de 

 Chause the series of bishops who resided in the diocese and gave them- 

 selves wholly to local administration may be said to commence. The 

 chronicler of Lanercost has left us a beautiful picture of the piety and 

 amiability of the bishop's character, his zeal for the honour of God, and 

 the good of His people, which he said would never fade while the world 

 lasted. 6 



The informalities attending the election of a successor to Bishop 

 Robert involved the prior and convent of Carlisle in serious trouble with 

 the Crown. In due course two of the canons were deputed to carry the 

 news to London and obtain the necessary conge d'elire for the election of 

 a new bishop. 7 The choice of the house fell on William de Rothelfeld, 

 dean of York, who renounced the election and died soon after. With- 



> Reg. of Wetberbal, pp 73-7. 



1 Close 46 Hen. III. m. izd ; Rymer, Fcedera, i. 417. 



' Close, 6 Edw. I. m. I5d ; Pat. 18 Edw. I. m. 20; Chron. de Lanercost, p. 102; Rot. Parl. 

 (Rec. Com.), i. 6b, 22b. 



4 Nicolson and Burn, Hist, of Cumberland, ii. 258. 



6 De Banco Rolls No. 6 Mich. 2 and 3 Edw. I. m. 6^d ; No. n, 3 and 4 Edw. I. m. 77d ; No. 17, 

 4 and 5 Edw. I. m. 3d ; No. 36, 8 and 9 Edw. I. m. 43d. An account of this interesting series of pleas 

 will be more appropriately given under the manorial history of Dalston. 



Chron. de Lanercost, pp. 101-2. 



? Pat. 6 Edw. I. m. 3. The licence to elect is dated 27 October, 1278. The name of the prior of 

 Carlisle in 1282 was Robert (Carl. Epis. Reg. Halton MS. f. 14), though perhaps not Robert de Everdon as 

 stated in Nicolson and Burn (Hist, of Cumberland, ii. 259). 



29 



