No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
The union of the neighbouring episcopal sees of Lismore and Waterford on 16 June 1363 brought to an end a history of disputes and sometimes violent disagreements between the two bishoprics which had lasted for almost two centuries since the arrival of the English invaders in Ireland. The early history of this conflict, up to 1228, has already been dealt with in detail, while its conclusion, from 1325 onwards, has also been treated in outline. What happened between 1228 and 1325, however, has never been discussed, and while this note does not in any way purport to fill this gap, the document upon which it focuses, which dates from 1285, adds something to the stock of knowledge on this topic. It has been in print in summarised translation for well over a century, but it has never been published in full, analysed or put in context, and it has been quite ignored in all previous discussions of this controversy. It gives rise to some interesting questions about the relationship between the English and Irish administrations at the end of the thirteenth century, however, and about how important decisions were taken at the heart of Edward I’s government. It also casts intriguing light on a difficult time in the career of Stephen of Fulbourn, bishop of Waterford, perhaps Edward Fs most important and powerful servant in Ireland until his death in July 1288.
1 I have used the adjective ‘English’ in relation to the invasion and the invaders, rather than ‘Anglo-Norman’ or ‘Anglo-French’, because this is the word employed by contemporaries: see Duffy, Seán, Ireland in the middle ages (London, 1997), pp 58-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Dunning, P. J., ‘Pope Innocent III and the Waterford-Lismore controversy, 1198-1216’ in Ir. Theol. Quart., xxviii (1961), pp 215-32Google Scholar; Watt, J.A., The church and the two nations in medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), pp 62-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 81-2; idem, ‘Negotiations between Edward II and John XXII concerning Ireland’ in I.H.S., x, no. 37 (Mar. 1956), pp 1–20Google Scholar.
3 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 91.
4 Dunning, ‘Innocent III & the Waterford-Lismore controversy’, p. 232. According to Watt, ‘The violence of Waterford towards Lismore was the first sustained act of Anglo-French aggression in Ireland’ (Church & two nations, p. 62). Elsewhere the same author has stated: ‘When the dispute began, it was between an Anglo-French prelate and an Irish one and should be considered ... as evidence of the ill feeling between the nations in the early thirteenth century’ (The church in medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1972), p. 98).
5 Cal. close rolls, 1227-31, p. 110.
6 Dunning, ‘Innocent III & the Waterford-Lismore controversy’, p. 232; Watt, Church & two nations, p. 82; Cal. close rolls, 1227-31, p. 38.
7 It was ‘part of a reasonably comprehensive scheme by which Anglo-Irish order was to be promoted by the church’ (Watt, ‘Negotiations between Edward II & John XXII’, p. 8).
8 ‘It was intended as a measure to facilitate the subordination of the Irish dioceses to the English sector of the church and to the colonial government’ (Watt, Church in medieval Ireland, p. 142).
9 Cal. papal letters, 1305-42, p. 261; Theiner, Augustine (ed.), Vetera monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum (Rome, 1864)Google Scholar, no. 470. Pope John also ordered the unions of Cork with Cloyne, and Tuam with Achonry, Kilmacduagh and Annaghdown.
10 Theiner (ed.), Vetera mon., no. 619; Cal. pat. rolls, 1354-8, pp 473-4.
11 The only extant text approximating to such an agreement dates from the first part of 1281 and relates to disputes over various lands claimed by both bishops which had been settled before the court of common pleas at Dublin. The bishop of Waterford had quitclaimed to the bishop of Lismore all his rights and claims in five specified manors, and in return the bishop of Lismore had granted his neighbour one manor and an annual rent of £50 payable from the manor of Lismore. There is no mention of an annual payment of 100 marks, however, or of the settlement being related in any way to the union of the two sees. See P.R.O., KB 27/112, m. 27d; Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 396. This dispute had been going on since at least the mid-1250s: see Cal. close rolls, 1256-9, p. 120; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 529.
12 Cal. pat. rolls, 1281-92, pp 178, 183; Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, nos 87, 98. If he did go, he was back in England by July 1288: see Cal. pat. rolls, 1281-92, pp 297, 298.
13 He was collector and auditor in Ireland of the taxes levied for the financing of the Lord Edward’s crusade of 1270-74, namely the papal tenth, the lay twentieth and the Jewish tallage: see Cal. pat. rolls, 1266-72, pp 458-9; ibid., 1272-81, pp 30, 43, 51, 61; Cal. close rolls, 1272-9, pp 34, 83, 106; Rymer, , Foedera, , ed. Clarke, Adam and Holbrooke, Frederic (4 vols, London, 1816-69)Google Scholar, i, pt 1, p. 485.
14 Watt, Church & two nations, p. 152. When the dean and chapter of Waterford elected Stephen in 1274, unanimously and expressly at the king’s request, ‘they firmly hoped that by his industry and influence with the king, their church, which had been reduced to poverty, will find timely relief’ (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1009).
15 Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The administration of Ireland, 1172-1377 (Dublin, 1963), pp 81, 99Google Scholar; Fryde, E. B.et al. (eds), Handbook of British chronology (3rd ed., London, 1986), p. 375Google Scholar.
16 Richardson & Sayles, Admin. Ire., pp 93, 99; Moody, T. W., Martin, F. X. and Byrne, F.J. (eds), A new history of Ireland, ix: Maps, genealogies, lists (Oxford, 1984), p. 501Google Scholar.
17 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1972; Cal. pat. rolls, 1281-92, p. 36. An overall impression of Stephen’s versatility and usefulness to the king in Ireland throughout his career can be gleaned from a brief look at the entries relating to him in the indexes to Cal. doc. Ire.
18 Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, p. 328; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1599: Handbook of British chronology, p. 366.
19 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 2153; Cal. pat rolls, 1281-92, p. 127.
20 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 2; ibid., 1252-84, nos 2332-8; Richardson & Sayles, Admin. Ire., pp 54-5.
21 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 59. The accounts themselves appear on the pipe roll for 1290-91 (P.R.O., E 372/136, rot. 33, m. lv). They were not included in Cal. doc. Ire. (no extracts from the pipe rolls were) and have never been published.
22 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 121; Cal. pat. rolls, 1281-92, pp 188, 189. It appears that Stephen may still have had to pay the king some £4,000 of what he owed, albeit only in half-yearly instalments of 500 marks: see Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 129.
23 Both Stephen and Burnell had been supposed to go on crusade with the Lord Edward in August 1270. Neither did, however. On 7 August 1270, indeed, Stephen was granted letters of protection at Edward’s request. He was about to set sail with Edward for the Holy Land, the request stated, but he now had some business to conduct on Edward’s behalf, ‘in comitiva dilecti clerici nostri domini Roberti Burnel’.The business in question may have been connected with Stephen’s appointment on 5 September 1270 as a collector of the papal tenth in Ireland. See P.R.O., SC 1/12/15, printed in Roulx, Joseph Delaville le, Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitallers de S. Jean de Jerusalem, 1130-1310 (4 vols, Munich, 1980 ed.), iv, no. 3400Google Scholar; Cal. pat. rolls, 1266-72, pp 458-9; Rymer, , Foedera, i, pt 1, p. 485Google Scholar.
24 See above, n.14. Burnell remained in England and assumed overall control of the Lord Edward’s lands and finances after the latter had left on crusade. After the death of Henry III he supervised the conduct of royal government on behalf of the absent new king. For more on this see Huscroft, Richard, ‘Robert Burnell and the government of England, 1270-1274’ in Prestwich, Michael, Britnell, R. H. and Frame, Robin (eds), Thirteenth-Century England VIII: the proceedings of the Durham conference, 1999 (Woodbridge, 2001), pp 59–70Google Scholar.
25 A letter sent by Archbishop John Pecham to his predecessor Robert Kilwardby in August 1279 concerning the scandalous conduct of an unnamed bishop has traditionally been thought to refer to Burnell, and the comments of the Dunstable annalist after his death, while stressing his openness and affability, also hint at his immorality and acquisitiveness: see Registrum epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. Martin, C. T. (3 vols, Rolls Series, 1882-5), i, 46-7Google Scholar; ‘Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia’ in Luard, H. R. (ed.), Annales monastici (5 vols, Rolls Series, 1864-9), iii, 373Google Scholar.
26 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 59. Burnell and Stephen witnessed three royal charters together at Woolmer in the first week of August 1285 (P.R.O., C 53/73, mm 7-8; Cal. chart, rolls, 1257-1300, pp 319-20; Huscroft, Richard (ed.), The royal charter witness lists of Edward I (List and Index Society, vol. 279, London, 2000), p. 71Google Scholar).