Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/252

 DURHAM DURHAM succeeded by William de S. Carilef, who began the present cathedral, the foundation being laid 29 July, 1093. He also rejihiced the secular cathedral clergy by Benedictine monks from Jarrow and Wearmouth. The situation of the cathedral is very remarkable, as it stands high on the cliff overhanging the river, and the building itself is most imposing, with its noble propor- tions, and what Dr. Johnson called its appearance of "rocky solidity and of indeterminate duration". Bishop Carilef died shortly after beginning it ; but the building was carried on T^-jth energj' by the ne.t bishop, the infamous Rannulf Flambard. He built the nave and aisles and the lower part of the west front, and in 1104 the shrine of St. C'uthbert was transferred to the new cathedral. In 1 14.S the see was usurped by William Cumin, chancellor of the Iving of Scotland, West Towers .m> Cloister Court, DrRHM C.vthedral who for sixteen months violently kept the rightful bishop out of possession. This interfered with the building, but the next bishop, Hugh de Pudsey, was a great builder, and among his additions is the "Gali- lee Chapel", a unique specimen of transitional work. Another special feature of Durham cathedral is the eastern transept, known as the "Chapel of the Nine Altars", built by Bishop Poor about 1230. The cen- tral tower (214 feet) was rebuilt towards the end of the fifteenth century. The bishops also built their own half-regal residence, Durham Castle, and the extensive buildings of the monastery, portions of which still remain. The relations between the bishops and the monks were frcfiuently verj' strained, especially in the time of the warrior-prelate, Antony Beck, though bishops like Hichanl Poor, Richard de Kellaw, or the scholar, Richard de Burj-, lived in harmony with them. Civil Jurisdiction of the Bishophic of Ddr- HA.M. — The twofold jurisdiction of the bishops of Dur- ham was clearly recognized by law from early times. In the reign of Edward I the Rolls of Parliament state: "Episcopus Dunelmensis duos habet status, videlicet, slatum epi.scopi quoad spiritualia et statum comitis palacii quoad tenementa sua temporalia." But the origin of this civil jurisdiction has never been ascertained. According to one theory it represents a local survival of the old Northumbrian Kingdom. According to another view it was conferred by grant of some king, Alfred or, more plausibly, William the Conqueror. There is, however, no historical trace of any such grant, and recent research makes it more probable that it is a development of immunities granted to the Bishopric of Durham. Even before the Conquest the bishops held large endowments of land known as the patrimony of St. Cuthbert. Terra or patrimonium Sancti Cuthherti. Therefore the dio- cese possessed large franchise or immimity both as against the sovereign power of the King of England and the local rights of the Earl of Northumberland. Thus the bishopric was not included in Domesday Book, and even at the time of the Conquest the coimty of Durham was governed by the bishop with almost complete local independence. These extensive rights were strengthened by the fact that the bishops fre- quently had to repel Scottish invasions, by their own forces and at their own expense, which fostered both the military and financial independence of the palati- nate. The strong local feeling of Northumbrian inde- pendence also prevented the formation of any firm ties with the English sovereigns, until the masterful policy of Henry II brought Durham into subordina- tion to the central government. But this subordina- tion was exceedingly limited even then, and the bish- opric escaped the deprivation of its privileges which befell many other franchises at that time. This was due to Bishop Hugh de Pudsey, who was the king's cousin and personal friend, and who took care as time went on to obtain the charters necessary to safeguard the liberties of his see. These were most considerable. First, the bishop had within the bishopric every right that the king had in the country : Quicquid rex habet extra episeopus hahet intra. He was therefore the head of the civil government, with appointment of all civil officers. The bishop's writ, not the king's, ran within the bish- opric, and the "Bishop's peace" was regarded as dif- ferent from the "King's peace" until the time of Henry VIII. Offenders and law-breakers were tried in the bishop's court and if necessary punished by his officials. Forfeitures for treason and forfeitures of war were both his right, and he could create corpora- tions, and erect fairs and markets. He did not, how- ever, have the right of making treaties with foreign powers, though instances of attempted secret treaties with Scotland are not wanting. The bishops had their own mint, and their coinage bears their initials on the reverse of each coin. From the feudal point of view the bishop was very strong, as he was the uni-er- sal landlord, and all land was held mediately or imme- diately of him and not of the king. From this fol- lowed his rights of wardship, rights to all mines and to treasure-trove, as well as his extensive forest rights. At law he could stay procetlure against offenders, grant pardons and even suspenil the application of a statute. He had courts of common law, eqiiity, and admiralty, besides his spiritual courts; and he regu- lated the relations between the latter and the tem- poral courts. Thus, in theory, the bishop was as a king in his bishopric, but in practice his power was limited by the sovereign. In some instances the king actually in- fringed upon his rights, and in other cases there was conflict of jurisdiction. I'p to the end of the thir- teenth century the episcopal power dcxeloped in every way, then followed a jieriod iluring which the kings somewhat unwillingly tolerated the position, for the sake of the convenience of having what amoimted to a buflfer state between England and Scotland, and also becau.se it was difficult to solve a problem so beset with complications both ecclesiasti- cal and feudal. Although it is sometimes stated that the bishops had a council in the nature of a parlia- ment, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have