CITY OF DURHAM
The black shadow of the papal interdict fell
upon Durham, and much impressed Geoffrey
the chronicler. No service, no bells, no processions 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. (fn. 1) In Durham, during the long
vacancy after Philip (1208–17), the one ray of hope
was the election of William as prior in 1209. (fn. 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 monastery and to the monastery tenants. His tenure
of office witnessed a royal confirmation of the
Cuthbertine liberties, (fn. 3) 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. (fn. 4)
But the new bishop falsified the hopes that had
been formed, and all the old strife between
bishop and monks broke out again. (fn. 5) 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 settlement of all outstanding questions between
bishop and monks. (fn. 6) The sphere of the bishop's
court and the sphere of the prior's had to be
defined, (fn. 7) 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 weights 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
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 1233, 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. (fn. 8)
An extraordinary story preserved about
Melsamby in the king's objections runs as
follows: 'He ought to be rejected as a murderer. 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.' (fn. 9) 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 Testament. 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. (fn. 10)
There must have been a great deal of hospitality
at the monastery; but beyond an occasional
reference to visitors of importance, no special
account of this department exists. Accordingly,
a somewhat obscure allusion to the conditions
of life in the abbey is interesting. It occurs
in 1272 in connexion with a proposed surrender
of Bearpark or Beaurepaire, on the western side
of the city, a refugium of the prior lying in the
wide open valley and enlivened by the breezes
that sweep in from the western uplands. The
monks made emphatic protest against the proposal, alleging that the convent cannot agree
to give up 'Beaurepaire ubi conventus quorum
labor est gravis et aer corruptus habet pro
majori parte suam recreationem.' (fn. 11) This may
be interpreted to mean that it is their one special
place of relaxation, since the work at Durham
is heavy and the air bad. But in what sense bad?
The actual Durham air is healthy, but somewhat
sleepy in summer; but this is, perhaps, not
likely to be the chronicler's meaning. It has been
suggested that the words refer to what was, in
days of imperfect sanitation, a very real drawback in the life of the monastery and city.
Durham Abbey did not receive the purging
help that the river so generally gives in other
places. Here the latrines gave upon the precipitous bank some 105 feet above the Wear,
and the house depended in a general way on the
length of the drop. With the river low, as it often
is in summer, and with a prevailing westerly
breeze, the defects of mediaeval drainage must
have been constantly and painfully apparent.
Under such circumstances, the monks were in
consternation at the prospect of losing their chief
holiday resort.
The long-standing dispute as to the Archbishop of York's right to visit the chapter and
the see, introduced some strange episodes in
which the city took its part. In 1274 during
the vacancy after Bishop Stichill's death Archbishop Giffard, who was much concerned with
the reform of abuses at York, made a visitation
of the monastery, after which he proceeded to
the castle in pontifical state, no objection being
taken to his action. (fn. 12) Giffard's successor, Archbishop Wickwane, a prelate of more vigorous
reforming tendency, found a very different
temper prevailing when he visited Durham.
The change was due to a presentation dispute,
Wickwane refusing to institute a nominee of
prior and convent to a living in Yorkshire. The
Archbishop by an unwarranted stretch of his
authority demanded to visit the chapter during
the temporary absence of the Bishop of Durham
and entered the city without opposition. As he
came up Saddlergate to the great north gate
of the castle in order to pass up to the cathedral
he found his way blocked by the barons of the
bishopric. Halting there, he addressed the
people and proceeded to excommunicate the
bishop, who naturally sided with the monastery,
as well as the prior and convent, citing them to
undergo his visitation at a later date. An
appeal to Rome issued in a triumph for the
prior, (fn. 13) but the death of the bishop in 1283
renewed the strife. Wickwane again journeyed
to Durham to force what he considered his
undoubted right sede vacante. The prior even
refused him admission to the cathedral. Upon
this the Archbishop descended the hill and
made his way to the church of St. Nicholas,
which lay upon episcopal land in the borough
of Durham, and was probably claimed as his by
right during the vacancy of the see. Hereupon
some of the youths of the borough made up
their minds to resist the Archbishop's action as
an invasion of the rights of Durham and so
alarmed the Archbishop by their demonstration
that he was glad to escape from the church.
He made his way, apparently, through a back
door and down a flight of steps leading into
Walkergate, and so, with what secrecy he could,
to the river bank and thus to the hospitable
shelter of Kepier. The brief chronicle of this
escape contains one incidental reference of
importance when it tells us that Wickwane fled
down the steps 'towards the schools.' We have
already discovered an allusion to schools in the
Bailey, more than a century before this date,
but here we get what seems to be a distinct
trace of schools in the borough which was
directly a part of the episcopal section of Durham. It may be added that the popular Hugh
Darlington, who had resigned the priorate to
Richard Claxton, the prior opposing Wickwane,
was re-elected in 1285 and made his second
tenure of office memorable by bringing the strife
to an end. (fn. 14) It was Prior Hugh's last considerable act, for soon after this he began to
show the infirmities of age and was forced to
resign.
Another scene enacted in 1290 within the
cathedral throws some light upon mediaeval
customs and manners in Durham. There were,
of course, various serjeanties and services by
which the barons of the bishopric held their
lands and houses. The repulse of Wickwane
at the North Gate was effected by the barons
of the bishopric (per milites episcopatus), and their
part in the drama looks as if the resistance of
invasion was a duty of military service at the
North Gate. The tenures are very imperfectly
known, but the story now to be told shows that
the Raby lands were held on condition of presenting a deer at the abbey on St. Cuthbert's
feast in September. The destination of the
animal is in itself interesting, for the lord of
Raby was in no sense a baron of the prior but
of the bishop. It seems probable, therefore,
that this custom was a reminiscence of the
earlier period when Canute gave the manors of
Raby and Staindrop to the congregation of
St. Cuthbert about 1018. Probably the prior
still received the payment even after the division
of lands between bishop and convent, and
apparently the arrangement was confirmed after
Flambard's death in 1131. There was no
difficulty until 1290, when the third Lord
Nevill, Ralph, who was then in possession of
Raby, made claims upon the prior in return
which caused much trouble. This Ralph has
been mentioned in a previous article (fn. 15) as one
of those who induced nearly all the knights and
freeholders to revolt against Bek. In 1290 he
was probably asserting himself in preparation
for the leadership which he afterwards assumed.
On this occasion he brought the deer and made
the unheard-of demand that not only he himself, as always, but all his retinue should be
entertained by the prior. It was the great
gala day in the Durham year when the city
was filled to overflowing and the prior's hospitality was probably strained to the utmost. The
prior perhaps refused on the score of difficulties
of service, whereupon Ralph said that his own
servants should wait, but that all his retinue
should dine with the prior. Since a knight's
retinue was no small company Prior Hotoun
refused again and gave orders that the deer
should not be accepted when and if Nevill
brought it with the customary pomp to the
shrine of St. Cuthbert. Nevill meant to come
and to dine with all his following, and accordingly he issued many invitations for the spectacle.
In vain John Balliol of Barnard Castle advised
him to yield his claim, but Nevill refused and
presented himself at the church door with his
offering. A procession was formed and with
much winding of horns paced up to the shrine
carrying the stag with great pomp, not to the
hall of the prior, but right up to the Nine Altars.
When the prior saw what was intended he
refused to have the animal received in this
tumultuous manner. Hereupon the servants
of Nevill proceeded to bear it off towards the
kitchen in order to cook it, apparently for the
lord of Raby and his friends. A disgraceful
struggle arose and monks and men were soon at
strife within the church. The monks caught up
the candles round the shrine and using them as
weapons drove back the servants of Nevill.
Two suits followed, the one before the Pope
at Rome for hindering the divine offices, and
the other before the bishop's justices for
assault, but both parties in the end agreed not
to proceed on the earnest entreaty of some who
strove to mediate between them.
We have now come well into the reign of
Edward I and the restless episcopate of Bishop
Bek. A franchise such as that of Durham was
not likely to escape the king's notice, while Bek
was not the man to let his liberties and dignities
suffer any eclipse if he could help it. For
nearly twenty years no collision took place, but
troubles began in 1293, when the king made a
review of franchises and titles. He acted with
promptitude, seizing all such liberties into his
own hands for due scrutiny and decision.
Accordingly, for the time being, he resumed into
his own hands all the jura regalia of the palatinate. A regular inspection was carried out,
as has been said in another volume, (fn. 16) and the
final award notifies various matters of right
which affect the city of Durham as well as
others which touch the bishopric more generally.
In these clauses the importance of Durham
comes out very clearly. Thus the bishop held
pleas of the Crown at Durham; he had his own
gallows and mint within the city; he had his
own market and fair. The market was the
Saturday market, which is, at least, as old as the
time of St. Godric in the 12th century. The
fair refers chiefly to that at the Translation of St.
Cuthbert (4 Sept.), but also to the spring festival
on 20th March. The document shows that
the prior had the old Elvet liberties still, as he
had had them since the days of St. Calais. This
document belongs to a period when the King
of England was already trying to get a hold in
Scotland through John Balliol. Next year the
prior was deputed by the king as his commissary
to collect all dues accruing to the Crown within
the bishopric. This brought him, as similar
action brought the various collectors elsewhere,
into grave disrepute with the commonalty of the
bishopric, undoing the popularity of the last
priors. Bek was much troubled by the amplitude of the prior's position, which had been
steadily growing. It was, possibly, in part to
regain the importance of earlier bishops that Bek
became a builder. In various ways he asserted
himself, and gained a prestige which the last
bishops had somewhat lost. He built the
magnificent hall at the castle, so long attributed
to Bishop Hatfield, and in all probability placed
there the two 'seats of regality' which Bishop
Fox altered in or about 1499. These, it may
be conjectured, were thrones for his dual
capacity as bishop and as ruler of the palatinate.
Before the one, no doubt, the barons of the
bishopric took their oaths of allegiance, and
before the other the clergy of the diocese gathered
to take the oath of allegiance to the bishop.
The expedition of 1296, when Edward I
passed through Durham, took many men from
the palatinate across the borders into Scotland,
and this service outside the bishopric proper
led them to formulate a claim, which they had
long tacitly held, that no obligation of service
outside the palatinate was incumbent upon
them. Durham men were again at Falkirk in
1298, returning without permission before the
campaign was over. The warlike Bishop Bek
remonstrated with the deserters, who pleaded
the immemorial right of bishopric men to serve
only between Tyne and Tees, on the ground that
they were the privileged guardians of the body
of St. Cuthbert. The bishop flung them into
his prison at Durham, an act which incensed the
bishopric barons and free tenants to the utmost,
until the movement assumed the proportions of
a serious rebellion. One outcome, which the
bishop probably did not desire, was the growing
popularity of the prior, with whom the offended
men of Durham sided as against the bishop.
We have no specific date in the chronicle for
the building of Auckland Castle and Chapel,
but it is not improbable that Bek, the builder
of both, erected the magnificent new abode as a
residence which would prove more pleasant
than Durham Castle and the immediate neighbourhood of prior and convent. The feud
between bishop and prior continued, despite
the good offices of the king, and was intensified
in 1300 by a sudden attack upon the prior's
lands carried out by Bek's command. The
bishop seized some of the prior's manors into
his own hands, taking their rents and destroying
the parks. Scenes recalling those of the time of
Bishop Philip were now enacted, when a regular
siege of the abbey began. Armed men surrounded it to prevent all approach of food or of
messengers. Down below in the valley men
broke up the prior's aqueduct, which seems to
mean the conduit crossing the river and bringing
water to the cathedral and Palace Green. Bek
was determined to oust Prior Hotoun, and
although he was not personally responsible for
every act of violence which now took place, he
was sufficiently to blame. Hotoun and his
monks held the monastery and its surroundings,
but the superior force of Luceby, the prior of
Bek's choice, beat in the doors of the cloister and
let his partisans into the church. In the general
hubbub Luceby was actually installed and by
the bishop's support he was kept in position.
Prior Hotoun was thrown into prison, but
managed to escape and take his appeal to
Rome. (fn. 17) It was the famous Boniface VIII who
heard this appeal and in the result the prior
obtained a favourable decision, though he died
before he could be reinstated. A sentence of
Boniface when examining the adherents of the
bishop proves incidentally the great prestige
and importance of the prior's position at this
time. Bek urged that Hotoun had resigned his
office voluntarily, but Boniface brushed aside
the suggestion, saying that no one who knew
what it was to be Prior of Durham would ever
voluntarily give up the position.
The strife between bishop and prior cannot
have failed to absorb the attention of the city
of Durham with its various jurisdictions depending on one or other of the two chief figures.
And yet another of the various struggles in
which Bek was engaged must have had a more
vital effect upon the citizens generally. The
circumstances have been set out in another
volume (fn. 18) and are concerned with a long constitutional dispute between the bishop and the
commonalty of the bishopric. One point in
this, namely the question of service outside the
boundaries, has already been named. The
commonalty complained at the Parliament of
Lincoln as to various infringements of their
rights. These do not concern us generally,
though the decisions, no doubt, eased the people
from certain miscarriage of justice, and other
grievances which they preferred. Right of free
entry to St. Cuthbert's shrine was allowed to all
men of the bishopric; hunting was made widely
possible; and various other rights were assured.
The document clearly shows that Bek had very
greatly tyrannized over the country at large, but
its silence about the bishopric boroughs makes
it probable that these in general, and Durham
in particular, were quite able to hold their own.
The evidence of the Assize Roll of 1243 as to
the strength of the burgesses of Durham is
thus supported after an interval of sixty years.
We have now definitely entered the 14th
century, which is one of the darkest of all the
centuries of local history. In the past the
troublers of the peace had often come from
within, but in and after Bek's day they came
from without in the shape of Scottish invader,
or of pestilence and famine. The first rumours
of troubles with the Scots were brought into
Durham in 1277, and after a respite they revived
in 1296, the year of the desolation of Hexham.
Edward's operations in Scotland kept further
invasion at bay for a number of years, but in
and from 1308 the troubles merely died away
in winter to revive with the new spring of each
year. Soon after his marriage in 1308 Edward II
would seem to have been with his wife at Durham, for a single roll of Bek's episcopate belonging
to that year contains the receipt entered by the
bishop's official: 'And for 7s. 10d. of the
meadow at Durham because the King and
Queen took the whole of the first crop.' The
meadow in question was close to the city and
in the neighbourhood of Franklyn Wood, which
was the bishop's special preserve. For Edward's
expedition into Scotland in 1309 a special order
was received from the king to raise forces in the
bishopric. Next year, as the Scottish menace
pressed more threateningly, alarm grew, and
we find an instance recorded of money banked
within the castle at Durham for safety's sake. (fn. 19)
Bek died in 1311, receiving interment within
the cathedral instead of the chapter house.
With his successor's appearance in Durham
we get the splendid palatinate register of Bishop
Kellaw (1311–18), the only palatinate record
that has survived. Since it is chiefly occupied
with the general affairs of the bishopric as a
whole, we cannot expect to find much detail
concerning Durham in particular. A few points
of local history, however, are mentioned in it.
We have, for instance, the bishop's confirmation (fn. 20) of the foundation in 1312 of the chapel
of St. James on the New Bridge of Durham, or
Elvet Bridge. This chapel was situated at the
north end of Elvet Bridge and existed on this
site until the dissolution of the chantries. At
the south end a chapel had already been founded
by William, son of Absalon, between 1274 and
1283. Another grant of the same period as the
chapel of St. James was the right of free fishery
between the old and new bridges within the city.
It should be noticed that the conveyance of this
privilege from the bishop to the prior and convent describes the old bridge as lying 'between
the market of Durham and South Street.' As
there is no mention of Silver Street the words
seem to suggest that the name now given to the
descent from the market place to the bridge was
bestowed at some later period. Kellaw's Register also shows us incidentally that the church of
St. Nicholas was in disrepair in 1312, when a
survey was ordered by the bishop. (fn. 21)
The most interesting local topic in Kellaw's
Register is the Scottish aggression. A letter
from the bishop in 1311 excusing himself from
attendance at a Council in Rome, to which he
had been summoned by the pope, illustrates
the position at the time. He says that in
September Brus and his confederates swarmed
into the diocese burning churches, boroughs,
towns, crops, in their way. They spared neither
sex nor age and were already preparing an
invasion to outdo their former severities, so that
a general flight was in progress. The fears of
the bishop were verified, but his presence
seemed to put some heart into the citizens of
Durham. A commission was issued to levy
contributions for the see, and various assessments were made. Perhaps an indulgence of
forty days granted by the bishop at this time (fn. 22)
to all who should listen to the preaching of the
gospel in Durham Cathedral may be connected
with the general fear felt as the Scots drew
nearer. Next year (1313) the Scots crept up
nearer and nearer to Durham. The suburbs,
at all events, if not the city itself, were fired by
Brus's troops. The vague time-marks, however, make it impossible to date this calamity (fn. 23)
with any precision, if it actually took place, and
it seems curious that an event of such magnitude
should receive no confirmation from any writer
except the two chroniclers. Was the rebuilding
of the barbican before the North Gate a consequence of this fire, or was the defence added
in view of the approach of the Scots? At all
events in May 1313 the bishop's order went forth
to estimate the loss to the rector of the North
Bailey Church and some others whose houses,
abutting on the North Gate, would have to be
taken down in the process of building the wall
of the barbican. (fn. 24)
There are other traces of taxation and trouble
about this time. In the previous year the king
wrote to the bishop concerning a complaint of
the commonalty of the city who had been summoned, unjustly as it appeared, to pay tallage to
the bishop. (fn. 25) Eventually, however, the king
did not merely acquiesce in the levy, but commanded the bishop to exact it. In 1315 the
king notified the bishop that he had assented to
the grant of murage by the latter to the city of
Durham. This had clear reference to recent
Scottish trouble, for the king's writ says: 'The
men of your Liberty of Durham have suffered
loss beyond calculation owing to the constant
ravages of the Scots who have pillaged and burnt
excessively in those parts, and all the more
frequently because there are no military fortresses
or towns defended by walls wherein to find
refuge or shelter for the security of themselves
and their goods.' The petitioners beg that the
king would allow the grant of murage on
things for sale which come into the city. (fn. 26)
This was in May: then came the most severe,
perhaps, of all the invasions so far, the Scots
sweeping right up to Durham. It might have
been thought that the land was bare, as though a
swarm of locusts had passed over it, for after
the great descent of 1313 a terrible murrain had
fallen upon flocks and herds, followed by such a
famine that grain of all kinds was sold at starvation rates. The chronicler even says that
women ate their own babes, so famished were
they. But the Scots knew that some oases
remained, and that wealth was stored up in
Durham, so that at the end of June 1315 they
threw themselves right into the county and
made, it would seem, for Durham. The city
was probably full of refugees, and of driven
flocks and herds, but bishop and prior were
away, and perhaps it was useless to try anything
like a siege. The Scots rushed off to Bearpark,
where the prior was, and surrounded the park.
Prior Burdon got the alarm and managed to
flee on horseback in the direction of Durham,
the Scots in hot pursuit, and although they
failed to catch him they seized his carriage
and equipage with practically all the contents
of the house at Bearpark. (fn. 27) Glutted with
booty, Brus made off to Chester-le-Street.
The men of Durham conferred together and
hastily carried out a house-to-house visitation
of the city and neighbourhood in order to
purchase a truce from the Scots. This was not
the first occasion on which the commonalty of
the bishopric tried to arrange truces. Other
instances can be quoted, but this collection has
the interest of being carried through by the
Durham members of the community. (fn. 28) There
was little respite, for next year on St. Swithun's
day so vast a flood came that all the lands
adjacent to streams were flooded, carrying off all
the crops in indiscriminate ruin, breaking down
mills, bursting the dams, rushing into the
houses, as the waters rose, and drowning men,
women and children. Once more murrain,
pestilence, and general want fell upon the city
and neighbourhood.
The threatening cloud did not lift for some
time. The Scots had been not merely aggressive
but insolently overbearing since 1314, when the
battle of Bannockburn was fought. The
minority of David of Scotland gave the Englishmen new hope, and at Dupplin in 1332 the
English took heart of grace. Next year when
the king was on his way to the great triumph of
Halidon Hill he stopped at Durham, where a
quaint episode described by the chronicler took
place. As our authority is Graystanes himself,
who in that very year was elected to be Bishop of
Durham, it may be presumed that his tale is
true. He records that Edward III was being
entertained by the prior. After nearly a week
had passed, Queen Philippa arrived and drove
to the monastery gate, and made her way to
the prior's house. After supper she went to
bed, and then one of the monks plucked up
courage to tell the king of the traditions of the
abbey and St. Cuthbert's dislike to the presence
of women. At the king's suggestion the queen
threw a cloak over her and made her way across
the Palace Green to the castle. (fn. 29) A requisition
had already been made for baggage carts, and
these had been concentrating at Durham, (fn. 30)
whence the move was made northwards towards
Berwick, near which the English revived at
Halidon Hill the success of Dupplin.
Bishop Bury succeeded Beaumont in 1333.
This celebrated lover of books made Durham
not merely the resort of men of learning, but a
home of books. Chiefly impressive to the poor
were his bountiful gifts of money, for he had a
regular scale of largess to be distributed whenever he drove between Durham and Auckland,
or Durham and Newcastle. His first appearance
in the city was in June 1334, when he was
enthroned by Prior Cowton within the cathedral.
Afterwards he gave a great banquet in the castle
hall, at which a brilliant assembly was present—Edward III and Queen Philippa, the king's
mother, Isabel of Boulogne, David II King of
Scotland, the two archbishops, John Stratford
of Canterbury and Willian la Zouche of York,
five bishops, seven earls with their wives, all
the great men north of Trent, many knights and
squires, several abbots, priors and monks, and
also an innumerable throng of the commonalty
of the bishopric. (fn. 31)
It is during Bury's episcopate that we get a
little group of references to St. Margaret's
chapel in the Old Borough, which may indicate
some extension in that direction. St. Margaret's,
since its foundation in the 12th century, had
been a chapel of ease to St. Oswald's. Various
documents suggest that the parishioners were
not quite content with the subordinate position
of the chapelry. In 1343 Prior Fossor became
cognizant of the fact that a baptismal font had
been erected without any reference either to the
bishop or to the prior, who was patron of St.
Oswald's. The prior had it removed, to the
great indignation of the people in the Old
Borough, who made a bitter complaint to the
bishop in the castle. He tried to mediate, and
ordered a parish meeting within the chapel to
discuss the question whether the font should
remain against the will of the monastery, or
on the express understanding that it was by the
prior's grace. In the end the font was allowed
to remain on condition that there should be no
prejudice to the prior's rights. (fn. 32) The bishop
proved a further kind friend of St. Margaret's.
The parishioners were evidently extending their
church, and had begun a south aisle, in which
was an altar dedicated to St. Thomas of Canterbury. Unfortunately their means did not
suffice to complete the work in progress, so that
the bishop was moved to send a brief to the
clergy of his diocese asking them to contribute.
Meanwhile there had been a recrudescence of
Scottish troubles, and in 1341, according to
Froissart, Durham itself was burned, but the
assertion is otherwise unsupported, and it has
been supposed to refer to Auckland or some
other town. (fn. 33) The neighbourhood of Durham
was rarely quiet in these days for long together,
and, if the Scots receded, the ways were infested
with robbers who did much damage. In fact
the dangers of the roads must have kept the
pilgrims from approaching the city, so that the
annual fairs were probably much impoverished. (fn. 34)
With the Battle of Durham in 1346, when the
men of Durham largely contributed to the successful issue of the battle outside the city, a
temporary improvement began. So far as the
Scots were concerned, they were no further
trouble for a long time, but a far greater evil
than any of the Border invasions fell upon the
neighbourhood in 1349 with the advent of the
Black Death. It does not seem conceivable that
the city escaped, but numerous and pathetic as
are the details of the ravages in the bishopric at
large no very clear tradition has survived of
mortality in Durham itself. It may be argued
from a request for money to repair the cathedral
in 1359 that the abbey was much impoverished (fn. 35)
by the Scottish wars, and perhaps references to
mortgages show that the times of pressure had
obliged some owners to raise money, while
money-lending in Durham appears to have been
profitable. (fn. 36) Bishop Hatfield, however, was
able to find workmen in 1350 when he entered
into a bond (fn. 37) with a certain John of Northallerton to rebuild the roof of the castle hall.
The Cursitor records, which exist from the
time of Bury onwards, contain a good many
references of some interest as to the conveyance
of property in those parts of the city belonging
to the bishop. We find the lease of a messuage
and garden on 'the place of Durham,' (fn. 38) of
'a place or plot in Owengate,' of 'a place of
land . . . under the moat of the Castle of
Durham,' of 'one close called Spetelplace
formerly occupied by men who were lepers, and
now lying waste without occupation of any
lepers,' (fn. 39) of 'a piece of land of the waste of
the lord outside the north gate of Durham to
the south of the said gate between the postern
there and a certain round tower situated in the
wall of the castle behind the tenement of the
Master of Kepier Hospital.' (fn. 40) Thus we have
proof that in the 14th century houses abutted
on the Palace Green, that there were plots of
land leased out below the keep, that the name of
Owengate is at least as old as the century in
question, though probably much older. The
reference to the old Spitalplace shows that there
were other hospitals than Kepier and Sherburn
in the neighbourhood.
Another lease mentions Jebet Knoll, (fn. 41) and this
is, no doubt, the little eminence in full view of the
city on the north-west which is still called Gibbet
Knoll. Another speaks of the Tolbooth in
Durham, and conveys a shop under it. (fn. 42) Many
other references to the Tolbooth, which was reerected by Tunstall in the 16th century, show
that it must have been a building of some size
standing in the market-place and with shops
leased out below it. Again in 1398 'William
Warde took from the lord a place of the waste of
the lord under the walls of the Castle of Durham
on the east, viz., in length from Kingsgate to the
Quarry where John Lowyn digs stones, and in
width from the wall of the aforesaid Castle to
the water of Wear to hold and enclose in severalty.' (fn. 43) Other parts of the city named in these
rolls of the 14th century are Clayport, Saddlergate, Feshewerrawe or Fleshewergate, Alvertongate, North and South Bailey. All these names
survive to-day, with very little change.
If we had more evidence for the period before
Bury and Hatfield, we should probably get proof
of many changes and improvements in mediaeval
Durham, and of quickening trade. The first
reference, that has been noted, to the inclosing
and paving of the city, other than the mention of
murage above, is in 1379, when Bishop Hatfield
made a grant of tolls for the purpose of inclosing
and paving, (fn. 44) but no light is thrown on the
details of what was done. In the previous
year the commonalty of the bishopric made a
clamosa querela to the bishop, representing to
him that the butchers, fishmongers, inn-keepers,
and vintners were asking prices higher than
those allowed by recent statute. A special
commission was issued to the judges to hear the
complaint, and to put an end to such offences. (fn. 45)
The grievance does not refer to Durham alone,
of course, yet the Durham tradesmen probably
bore their share.
Some of the references in the lines above have
to do with the episcopate of Skirlaw (1388–1405). A year before his consecration trouble
was occasioned by some men who broke prison.
Possibly this indicates that the building, which
was then on the west side of Palace Green, was
ruinous. At all events, Skirlaw made it his
business to build a new gaol, which was afterwards completed by Langley, and continued to
be the ordinary gaol of the city until 1820. An
important little valor of Skirlaw's first year
informs us not only as to the building of the
prison, but as to other matters connected with
its immediate neighbourhood.
This interesting document states that the
castle with all houses and rooms was in good and
thorough repair. Within its walls stood the
abbey and two parish churches and between the
lower gates of the castle and the graveyard of the
abbey was a space called 'le Place' containing
by estimation 2 acres with the houses intended
for the offices of the Chancery, Exchequer and
Receipt; a hall for the Pleas of Justice; a
granary; a large grange; and various other
rooms on the west side of the said space pertaining to the old gaol before the lord built anew
the tower called 'le Northgate' at the entrance
to the castle where his gaols now are by his
ordinance; and a house for coining money
built on the east side of the said space. These
buildings returned nothing because they were
occupied by the constable, chancellor and
moneyer. The mint, which was held by Mulkus
of Florence, the lord's moneyer, was then worth
40s. a year, but at the time of the change of the
coinage of the money of England brought in
20 marks. The city of Durham with its rents,
services, courts, customs, fines on the citizens,
proceeds of two water-mills, ovens, fair and
market tolls and all other profits and commodities belonging to the said city, escheats,
forfeitures of lands and houses, if any, was let
to farm to Nicholas Hayford and his fellows at a
term of six years for 110 marks a year. The
constable had a parcel of land called Hardenfeld, lying near Washington, to support a
chaplain celebrating within the chapel of the
same castle. There was there also a [wood]
called Franklyn, full of great oaks, containing
by estimation 300 acres. A certain meadow
called Le Bishopmeadow containing by estimation 27 [acres] was let for 106s. 8d. a year.
John Cook held a house once belonging to John
Morpathe. John Runkhorn, chaplain of the
chantry of St. James upon the new bridge of
Durham, held a house and a . . . . with a meadow
called Millmeadow. Margaret Corbridge held a
tenement in the Bailey near Owengate, once
belonging to Hugh Cor[bridge]. The commoner of Durham held a tenement in the bailey,
once belonging to Robert of Leicester. John
Dighton held a tenement in the North Bailey
once belonging to Peter Mainsforth and rendered 3s. John Arceys, chaplain, holds a
tenement, newly approved, on the Place near the
inn of the Archdeacon of Durham, once the
property of William Orchard and rendered 17s.
The same chaplain held a place there newly
approved, once belonging to Master John Hagthorp, and rendered 12d. Geoffrey Langton,
rector of the Church of St. Mary in the North
Bailey, held a tenement without the North Gate,
near a vennel there and rendered 5s. a year.
The Almoner of Durham held within the Bailey
aforesaid a tenement with a garden formerly
Lightfoot's, and rendered 3s. a year. John
Aslacby held a certain stage adjoining the tenement of Ralph Warshop before his door and
rendered 1d. The heir of John Lumley held a
tenement formerly belonging to Alan Goldsmith
in Saddlergate in Durham, and rendered 16d.
William Werdall held a tenement in Saddlergate,
once belonging to the said Alan, and rendered
4d. a year. Thomas Colvell held one place
upon the moat, on the western side of the
tenement once belonging to John Malleson,
which used to render 14d. but was then occupied
by those employed by the lord on building of the
new tower 4d. . . . held a garden on the eastern
part of the same bridge once belonging to
Robert Herlesey and before that to Agnes
Brown and rendered 4d. a year. Thomas Clerk
held a tenement formerly belonging to John
Marshall within the North Gate near the tenement of Thomas Smith. Thomas Gray, knight,
of Houghton, held a tenement in Owengate, and
rendered 3d. a year. The Prior of Durham
held a tenement in Saddlergate, once belonging
to John Appleton. He also held a tenement
called Wearmouthplace within the North Bailey
once belonging to Robert Greenwich. The heir
of William Catterick held a tenement formerly
William Fleshewer's under the moat towards the
old bridge and rendered 6d. John Wyrethorp
held a garden under the Castle Moat formerly
John Woodcock's and rendered 12d. John
Killinghall held a garden outside Kingsgate
once Henry Klidrow's and renders 2s. There
is in the same place a garden lately in the occupation of William Auckland, lying waste and
unoccupied. William Huddlestone held in right
of his wife, a tenement near Owengate on the
south side and formerly John Cutler's and rendered at St. Cuthbert's Feast and in September one pound of pepper. John Runkhorn
held two waste places under the arches of
Elvet Bridge, and a parcel of ground, and
rendered 10d. John Dighton held a tenement,
formerly Robert Walton's, and previously
William Lanchester's, in the North Bailey, and
rendered 6d. a year. Thomas Goldsmith held
a shop under the Tolbooth once J. Cusson's
and rendered 6s. 8d. Agnes Cupper held a shop
under the Tolbooth, and rendered 10s. a year.
Thomas Plumer held a place under the moat,
once John Chester's and rendered 6d. a year.
Thomas Smith held a tenement formerly the said
John Chester's and rendered 12d. a year. There
is in the same place a tenement, formerly John
Maidenstan's in the Bailey of Durham. He
rendered at the Feast of St. Cuthbert in September one pound of cumine. 'He does not know
where it lies, so let inquiry be made.' There
was in the same place a house formerly Ede
Barbon's, which was then waste and out of
occupation. Ralph Shotton held a garden
under the Castle Moat formerly William Ward's
which had usually paid 2s., then only 12d. Thomas
Bulman held a garden under the moat rendering
12d. Thomas Walworth held a garden there
and rendered 12d. Joan Clerk held a garden
there and rendered 12d. Elias Harper held a
garden near the said Joan's, formerly William
Orchard's, towards the Wear which had usually
paid 18d. a year. Isabella Fenrother held a
garden on the waste reclaimed near Kingsgate
on the south side, rendering 6d. John P..lman,
chaplain, held two gardens there, each
rendering 4d. Roger Wright held a garden
formerly Matilda Raven's, usual rent of which
was 12d. There is there a garden lying between
the garden of Matilda Raven and the garden of
Richard le B. . . garth. John Kay, chaplain,
held a venell formerly Theodore Coxside's in
Saddlergate, rent 2d. Margery, who was wife
of Hugh Corbridge, held a place of ground near
her own house under the Castle Moat, containing
30 ft. in breadth, and in length 38 ft. and
rendered 2d. a year. (fn. 46)
The document seems to be a return of all
rents let out to farm in Durham itself by the
bishop. As has been seen in Boldon Book, the
city was even then at farm, and in the 14th century the grants of one or other section of the
bishop's property are not infrequent. Thus in
1386 Fordham in a deed enrolled granted to John
Lewyn, Walter Cokyn, Roger Aspour, Henry
Sherburn 'the borough' of Durham to farm
with all rents, services, etc. appurtenant thereto
for the term of six years. A year later Thomas
Tudhoe, and John Custson surrendered the farm
of 'the vill' of Durham to Ralph de Eure the
steward thereof who demised the same to others
in turn. It is by no means improbable that the
valor quoted above refers to the steward's statement of particulars in connexion with the
demise here named. The details are in some
respects a help to forming a picture of Durham
in 1388. The castle was in good repair, as of
course it would be after Hatfield's work upon it. (fn. 47)
St. Mary, in the South Bailey, was already a parish
church. Around the Palace Green were two
sets of buildings. On the west side were the
earlier exchequer and chancery courts, the court
of justice, the old gaol, and certain buildings of
store. The old gaol had been recently superseded, and as the document speaks of extensive
work on the new gaol it is probably safe to say
that Fordham, or more probably Hatfield, built
the new fabric. All these houses were official
and produced no rent. On the east side stood
the mint, to which we shall recur. On the same
side, as we know, though the document does not
say so, was the inn of the Archdeacon of Northumberland, and beside it were other houses.
Apparently a careful distinction is drawn between the Bailey, the North Bailey, and the South
Bailey. There is no difficulty as to the last two,
but Margaret Corbridge's house and garden may
suggest that the Bailey was the space behind
Owengate and below the castle mound. If so
her garden may perhaps still be identified as the
garden inclosed and still in that position. The
rector of the North Bailey church seems still to
have lived outside the north gate, as a previous
reference in 1311 makes clear. There were
houses and gardens below the moat, both on the
Framwellgate side and round towards Saddlergate. There were several gardens below the
Bailey wall, and between it and the river.
Finally there were two instances of quaint
mediaeval tenure, but nothing is here said of
Castle-Ward and other duties.
Attention must be drawn to the mint. The
valor places it on the east side of Palace Green.
It was under the management of a Florentine,
but it was not long in his hands. Seven years
later 'William Ward took from the lord a house
or a place in the Castle of Durham called
Moneyer's house together with another room
beyond the gate called Owengate, to hold until
some moneyer should come who wishes to make
money in the same.' (fn. 48) This suggests that the
moneyer had a residence, perhaps, on the north
side of Owengate, whilst his mint proper was on
the south side of that street. This not only
works in with local tradition (fn. 49) but is supported
by a document of 1455 which leases 'on the
east of the Place of Durham' and 'South of
an ortus (sic) called Coneyorgarth' a parcel of
the lord's waste. (fn. 50) Obviously the Coneyorgarth
or Mintersgarth was on the south of Owengate.
References to the mint in the 15th century are
pretty frequent. In 1460 one Norwell of
Durham, coiner, entered into bond with certain
persons to pay so much to the bishop for the
farm of the coinage, delivering up the dies and
instruments used after the expiration of a year. (fn. 51)
He was also to answer to the bishop for any
defect. In 1473 a goldsmith of York was
licensed to make the coining dies, (fn. 52) but in 1476
the grant was to one William Omoryghe, goldsmith of Durham, to make, grave, and print
coining irons for the mint of the bishop of
Durham, under the supervision of John Kelyng,
Chancellor of Durham, and John Raket. (fn. 53) In
1490 there was another bond on the appointment
of mintmaster, (fn. 54) and in 1493 there was a bond
in £200 entered into by five tradesmen of Durham
for the due execution of the office of keeper of
the mint of Durham. (fn. 55) The mintmaster was
one of the five, and his name was William
Richardson, merchant. The danger of false
coining naturally led to such precautions as these
bonds and covenants suggest, and that vigilance
was needed is attested by the fact that in 1475
false money had been issued, for which offence
the king's pardon was sought and obtained. (fn. 56)
It is now necessary to return to the history of
the city in the 15th century. The period opens
with many evidences of founding and repairing.
Much of this is due to Cardinal Langley, who
became bishop in 1406. He left his mark upon
Durham in various ways. It is, once more, a
little difficult to assign dates to his work, but it
is probable that the considerable changes at the
north gate of the castle are to be attributed to
the early years of his episcopate. At all events
in 1413 a lease of a chalk-pit and quarry at
Sherburn was granted to Thomas Alanson on
condition of rendering 120 horse-loads of chalk
'to the works of the castle of Durham.' (fn. 57) The
chronicler ascribes to Langley 'the whole of
Durham gaol, and the very costly stone gates of
the gaol, where in old times was the ancient
gateway at that period in disrepair.' (fn. 58) Until
Langley's time the gaol was in an entirely
different part of the castle precincts, and he
built the great gaol tower over Saddler Street
which lasted until 1820. It is not improbable
that the older gaol occupied the site of the
exchequer buildings rebuilt by Neville about
1450. In any case it must have been near them.
Langley's rearrangement of the ground at the
top of Saddlergate and behind Owengate,
towards the castle, cannot be followed in detail,
as no exact description survives, and later
adaptation introduced alterations. There were,
however, various alleys and spaces running back
towards the mound of the keep, both above and
below the great gateway. In 1453 there was a
lease to Richard Raket, clerk of the exchequer,
of 'a small garden lying next the wall of the
castle which leads from the north gate to the
tower of the castle . . . and a parcel of waste
land lying next the said wall between the tenement of Ralph Earl of Westmorland and William
Prior of Durham on the one part, and the said
wall as far as the entrance which leads to the
great house of the seneschal in the said north
gate on the other part.' (fn. 59) All the parts here
named appear to be on the Palace Green side
of the great gate.
Langley, probably, pulled down a good deal of
old work on the west of the Green. There had
been a wall from the keep to the cathedral
running along the east side of the Green, originally built by Flambard, and its foundations can
still be traced underneath existing houses.
When the cardinal founded in 1414 his two
schools, the one for grammar and the other for
music, he probably destroyed this wall. For a
description of the schools and for the story of
their refoundation by Cosin in the time of
Charles II, the reader must be referred to the
first volume of this series. Cardinal Langley
also founded the chantry in the Galilee, and
restored the Galilee itself, at considerable cost.
Under the chantry his tomb in time was placed. (fn. 60)
In the midst of these operations a terrible visit
of pestilence fell upon Durham in 1416, (fn. 61) and
also, later, in Langley's last year, 1438. (fn. 62) In
between these two pestilences occurred one of
the most notable calamities in Durham history,
when in 1429 a terrific thunderstorm burst (fn. 63)
over the city and destroyed the upper part of
the central tower of the cathedral. Prior Wessington wrote a pathetic account to the bishop
concerning the damage done. The storm was
not only terrible but quite unheard of in those
parts, lasting from ten o'clock at night to seven
next morning. Just before 1 a.m., when the
monks were at matins, a crash so awful came
that they thought the building was collapsing.
Probably at this time the wooden top of the
bell-tower was struck, but the fire was not discovered until the storm abated, and then until
noon the flames gained an increasing hold,
whilst the molten lead began to pour through
the roof on to the pavement below. The people
rushed up to the church as the news of the conflagration spread, and at last by their efforts and
prayers the flames subsided after raging for about
twelve hours, whereupon monks and populace
sang a Te Deum. The concourse was all the
greater because it was Corpus Christi day, a
general holiday, when all the trade gilds
walked in procession. Probably Wessington's
work of repair in the cathedral was partly in
consequence of the damage done by this storm. (fn. 64)
Beside Bishop Langley's chantry in the
Galilee, served by the masters of his two newly-built schools, (fn. 65) several other chantries were
established at this time by clerical donors, and in
1431 St. Margaret's Chapel at last received the
status of a parish church. (fn. 66)
The Corpus Christi gild, whose inauguration
is much earlier, probably, was refounded in
1437. To this gild Thomas Billing had granted
permission to inclose and cover a well in his
manor of Sidgate near Framwellgate, and to
bring the water by a subterranean aqueduct to
the market place of the city for the use and convenience of the men and burgesses thereof. Such
is the chartered beginning of the main freshwater supply of the centre of the city, a supply
which has only been superseded by other means
within the memory of men still living. Bishop
Neville confirmed the arrangement in 1451. (fn. 67)
It was in this same year that the earliest
extant incorporation of a special trade fraternity
took place, and as had been the case in London
the first incorporation was granted to the
weavers. The Assize Roll of 1243 shows that
such trade was vigorous in Durham two centuries before this date, so that as in the case of
the Corpus Christi gild Neville's charter is
probably an incorporation of an existing society.
The ordinance follows more or less the usual
lines of such documents. Corpus Christi day
was the trade festival when the gildsmen walked
in procession, and were to 'playe or gar playe ye
playe yat of old times longes to yair crafte at
yair allens costage after the ordinance of the
two wardens, and ilka man sall be at ye said
procession yearly when his oure is assygned
by the wardens and at all other meetings under
penalty of 6d. to the Bishop and 6d. to the lights
of the crafte unless reasonably excused.' This
company and others acted on strictly protectionist principles, of course, and were allowed
'to take to prentes noe Scottesman nor noe
Scotteswoman on payne of 6s. 8d. to the Bishop,
and 6s. 8d. to the lights for ilk defaute.' A few
years later a dispute sprang up between rival
branches of the craft, and an inquisition was
held at Durham to decide the matter, when it
was ruled and the decree enrolled that 'no one
of the said craft is to make the work of the other
under a penalty of 100 shillings.' (fn. 68)
The cordwainers were next in order of enrolment. In 1458, and by confirmation in 1460,
this company was incorporated in much the same
way as the weavers had been. (fn. 69) Then came the
barbers, whose oldest extant ordinary is in 1468,
from which it appears that, as usual, the term
barbers is intended to comprise surgeons as well.
In later days they affiliated certain other trades
to their fraternity. (fn. 70)
Other trades in the city were perhaps not as
yet incorporated, or they may have been refounded after the Reformation. In 1448, for
instance, the fullers and the shoemakers were
prohibited from employing any native of Scotland in their craft. (fn. 71)
In the 15th century the shrine of St. Cuthbert
was a great attraction still, and pilgrims flocked
to the city as they had done for more than four
centuries, bringing demands which the various
companies were able to supply abundantly. (fn. 72)
In the main the century was peaceful, for
Scottish troubles were rare, and the astute
opportunism of Booth saved city and bishopric
from reprisal when the Yorkist side became
supreme. When we turn to the conditions of
life in Durham at this period there is little to
guide us. In 1417 a fatal accident at the butts
near Framwellgate shows that archery was
practised by the inhabitants. We have already
seen the allusions to the mystery plays of the
gilds, an observance which no doubt took up a
large amount of time and preparation as May
approached year by year. In 1492 a chance
entry suggests a large unwritten chapter in local
history, which if it could be recovered would
entertain the reader with that long list of Durham
characters who have played their part in the life
of the city and have passed away. Two shoemakers became bail for the good behaviour of
'Thomas Smyth, minstrel, of Durham, otherwise called Piper whom the Lord Bishop had
pardoned for all felonies and other offences.' (fn. 73)
There was fishing in the river, and the Wearthen,
as now, was a salmon river. How far it was
generally open to all does not appear, but in
1390 and again in 1437 commissions were
issued to observe the 'fence months.' This, of
course, was in accordance with the statute of
Westminster the Second.
The end of the 15th century witnessed more
building in Durham. Bishop Fox carried out
the changes associated with his name in the
castle, dating their completion, perhaps, by the
legend which is still to be seen over the kitchen
hatch, viz. 1499. This was the year in which he
was the means of concluding the prospective
marriage between James IV of Scotland and the
Princess Margaret of England. The bride's
youth postponed it for some four years, and Fox,
meantime appointed Bishop of Winchester,
came back in the royal retinue proceeding to
Scotland to give a royal feast to Margaret and
the noble company that assembled in the hall.
Possibly Fox's elaborate changes were designed
to make this banquet worthy of the match which
he had so largely brought about. A visit from
Lord Darcy, destined many years later to be a
rebel leader, gives an interesting side-light. He
said to Fox: 'My lord, both I and my lady was
in all your new works at Durham, and verily they
are of the most goodly and best cast that I have
seen after my poor mind, and in especial your
kitchen passeth all other.'
Princess Margaret's visit to Durham is the
most picturesque event, perhaps, in the history
of the city ; it gives, moreover, a sort of farewell
description of the mediaeval monastery on a
festival occasion. (fn. 74) In connection with it,
too, we find elsewhere for the last time recorded
how the shrine of St. Cuthbert was still visited,
and how cures were reputed to be worked there. (fn. 75)
A far more detailed account of what the great
monastery was in its very latest years is given
in really fascinating detail by the author of
the Rites of Durham, which was written in
1593 by one whose memory went back to its
sunset days in the twenties and the thirties. (fn. 76)
After the visit of the princess, the next conspicuous event is the Scottish invasion of the
bishopric, and the great English victory at
Flodden. (fn. 77) Ruthall the bishop, who was with the
king in France, hurried back to Durham, and from
the castle superintended the Durham musters.
From the castle too he wrote to Wolsey a full
account of Flodden, (fn. 78) telling him how the
Durham people ascribed their triumph to the
intercession of St. Cuthbert, and how the King
of Scots' banner, sword, and 'gwyschys,' or
armour for the thighs, had been brought to
the cathedral. The banner was hung up near
the feretory. (fn. 79) The signal triumph must have
brought much satisfaction to the city which
had been harassed by the Scots.
Just before the Scottish war, Bishop Bainbridge had made a grant of some importance
to the people of Durham when he gave the
prior and convent all the right bank of the
river between Elvet and Framwellgate Bridges
below the castle and cathedral walls down to
the Wear, and also the river itself between
those points, reserving ingress and egress for
all the castle folk and right of winning stones
for the walls with full access to them. The
reason of the grant is 'lest the prior and convent
and their successors in time to come should be
troubled, disturbed, or annoyed by ill-disposed
persons in their prayers and other divine offices.' (fn. 80)
Then they were able to police and guard what
Durham calls ' the Banks' on both sides, the
other side being theirs already. The bishop
lost what in later days, when trees were planted,
came to be the most beautiful part of the
peninsula. (fn. 81)
From this we pass on to mention the classic
reference to Durham so often quoted from
Leland's Itinerary. The writer paid his visit
to the city on the eve of the great changes,
but probably before the demolition of the
shrine of St. Cuthbert in 1538.
The town self of Durham standeth on a rocky hill,
and standeth as men come from the south country
on the ripe of Wear. (fn. 82) The which water so with his
course natural in a bottom windeth about, that from
Elvet, a great stone-bridge of 14 arches, it creepeth
about the town to Framwellgate Bridge of three
arches (fn. 83) also on Wear, that, betwixt the two bridges,
or a little lower down at St. Nicholas, the town
except the length of an arrow-shot is brought in
insulam. And some hold opinion that of ancient
time Wear ran from the place where now Elvet
Bridge is straight down by St. Nicholas now standing
on a hill, (fn. 84) and that the other course part for policy,
and part by digging of stones for building of the town
and minster was made a valley, and so the water-course
was conveyed that way, but I approve not full this
conjecture. (fn. 85) The close itself of the minster on the
highest part of the hill is well walled, and hath
divers fair gates. The Church itself and the Cloister
be very strong and fair, and at the very east end is
a cross-aisle beside the middle cross aisle of the
minster church. (fn. 86) The Castle standeth stately on
the north-east side of the Minster, and Wear runneth
under it.
Leland adds some words as to recent improvements at the castle, which would be
those of Fox, and then concludes: 'The building
of Durham Town is meetly strong, but it is
neither high nor of costly work.' Obviously
Leland had no eye for anything outside the
peninsula itself.
Leland had no anticipation of the great
changes which even then were setting in.
Tunstall the bishop was very little in Durham.
When the supremacy was agitated in 1532,
special messengers came to Durham as well
as to Auckland and Stockton to seize any
'books bearing on the king's cause.' (fn. 87) Incidentally, we find how ill furnished the castle
was, for the visitors found 'such a little household stuff.' Tunstall soon came down, and
in Durham preached the king's supremacy
very convincingly. In the next year or two,
the people of Durham had to witness the
visits of royal commissioners and the virtual
suspension of the bishop's powers in his own
capital. (fn. 88) Then came the monastic visitation
at the end of 1535, but the visitors could find
no flaw in the morality of Durham Abbey,
though certain local superstitions were held
up to ridicule. All the royal action was a
blow to the bishop's power, and still more
severe was the act of resumption in 1536,
which was the greatest diminution of the jura
regalia that any bishop had yet suffered. (fn. 89)
Before the year was over, the first act of the
Pilgrimage of Grace had been carried out,
which was not entirely a religious demonstration,
but largely, as one of the leaders said, a rising
'under Captain Poverty.' (fn. 90) The Durham insurgents bore away the banner (fn. 91) of St. Cuthbert
as their ensign.
The rising collapsed about March 1537,
when Norfolk held his assize in Durham castle, (fn. 92)
an event of great significance, for here was the
royal power over-riding the paramount authority
of the bishop in Durham. (fn. 93) A year later came
a catastrophe which meant more to the tradesmen and inhabitants of Durham than any
diminution of episcopal independence. The
shrine of St. Cuthbert was despoiled in March
1538, close to the spring feast and fair of the
saint, and the very centre of the arch upholding
the fabric of mediaeval Durham at once fell in. (fn. 94)
It was a loss of means to very many in the
city, and even of subsistence to some. A year
before, another rebellion would have been the
result, but men had learnt to fear the king's
mailed hand, which after the Pilgrimage of Grace
had hit hard. A horseman on the London
road said to a man of Durham: (fn. 95) 'Is there
none that grudgeth with such pulling down of
abbeys in your country ?' To this the wayfarer
replied: 'I trust no, for if there be any such
they keep it secret, for there hath been so sore
punishment.' In 1539, a conversation in Durham Castle gives a glimpse of the reign of
terror that had set in when at dinner in hall
one present declared that the Prior of Mount
Grace would never surrender his charterhouse. (fn. 96)
But he did, and, before the year was out, the
great Benedictine abbey of Durham had surrendered, (fn. 97) an event which, to the speaker in
the hall that day, would have seemed unthinkable.
So the shrine was despoiled of the saint's
body, and the abbey came to an end. To the
citizens of Durham it must have seemed as if
the glory of Durham had departed. But it
was intended to re-constitute the foundation
on a secular basis, and an interim constitution
was drawn up. (fn. 98) Under this, the prior acted
as guardian, the estates and property were
administered by his direction, and the household
carried on by a sufficient staff until the details
were settled with much debating and alteration
of plan. No doubt the people of Durham were
given to understand that a new and, perhaps,
a better order was designed. For the present
it was ordered that all debts and expenses should
be duly paid. All superfluous servants were
to be discharged with six months' wages in
advance. It is probable that a large amount
of the abbey plate went up to London 'for
the King's majesty's use.' As for the church
services, daily matins at 6 and Mass of Our
Lady were ordered to be sung according to the
use of Sarum. (fn. 99)