:

not appear to be sufficient evidence: the foundations, up to the level of the timber framing, are all that have remained, and it is certainly not improbable that the piles referred to were first driven down into the river bed, to support the timber framing upon which the piers of masonry were built, after the manner of the "Sublicæ," formerly referred to, the lower beds of the masonry and the frame being intermixed. The bridge at South Collingham presents some peculiarities that at Newcastle crosses the Tyne at right angles, or very nearly so the bridge at the Chesters crosses the North Tyne at right angles, but is at the same time built in the line of the Wall; that, however, at South Collingham crosses the Trent at an angle of 79°, with the result given by Mr. Loftus Brock, that when the axis of the bridge is prolonged to the south-east it falls in with the straight course of a modern road for two miles or so, indicating most probably that this latter is on the site of the Old Roman Way, because, if prolonged further, it would join the main Roman Road (the Fosse Way), at a distance of about 6 miles from the bridge. Taking up the line on the other side of the river and extending it to the north-west, still going perfectly straight, it would fall in with the Roman Road (Spring Lane) going westward into Derbyshire. If the Romans thought it sufficiently important to keep their thoroughfare straight where it crossed the river, they would no doubt consider it equally important to construct a permanent bridge. Here, again, we have the remark by Mr. Loftus Brock, that "no arch stones having being found, it is reasonable to conclude that the roadway was carried on a horizontal framing of oak, resting on the masonry and oak piers." I do not, however, find it stated that other stones have been discovered: and the foundation itself, large and important though it was, was only found by accident.

The Romans were skilful builders of bridges, and they adopted, according to circumstances, two chief modes of construction. 1. Of timber only, as in the cases of the Sublician bridge over the Tiber, and of the Rhine bridge of Julius Cæsar. 2.-Of stone abutments, piers and arches. We may probably rest satisfied that in the earliest times bridges would naturally be

constructed of timber, and that the Sublician bridge, built with a view to such permanence as timber could afford, was, among the Romans, the last of such bridges. If for any strategic or economic purposes it was necessary, or even desirable, to retain the wooden form, they would not have built stone arched bridges across the Tiber. In the case of Cæsar's bridge over the Rhine, its form of construction, and the reason why such was adopted, have been given. It was intentionally temporary, and admirable of its kind. The bridge of Trajan, over the Danube, appears to be the sole basis of the speculation as to wooden roadways resting on stone piers, and it appears inaccurate to conclude that this bridge consisted of stone piers with a timber roadway. Hadrian could have destroyed the bridge, as stated, even if a bridge of arches.

I think that we are justified in arriving at the conclusion that, except for temporary purposes, the Romans, not in this respect deviating from that solidity and substantiality which characterized their work, built their bridges with stone.

It was necessary, in the case of the bridge at Newcastle, to have a strong and permanent bridge over the Tyne. It was necessary at the Chesters to substantially and permanently connect the walls on the east and west banks of the North Tyne, both for communication, and to defend the gap which would otherwise remain between them; and in the case of the South Collingham bridge, the country on each side of the Trent was too extensive and important to suggest any less efficient mode of connecting the permanent thoroughfares which traversed the same than by a permanent bridge.

For the reasons given, and examples quoted in the above paper, it is contended that the three bridges above-named, viz. :-that at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, that at the Chesters, and that at South Collingham, were not constructed with stone piers and timber roadways, but with piers and arches entirely of stone.

TABLE OF PONTIFICAL YEARS

OF THE

BISHOPS OF DURHAM.

COMPILED BY WILLIAM PAGE, F.S.A.

CONSIDERING the interest that has been shown in Durham

Antiquities and the legal use that has been made of the Durham Records, it is surprising that a table of the Pontifical years of the Bishops of Durham (which were used in dating all the earlier records of the Palatinate) has not previously been compiled. Mr. Bond, in his "Handy Book for verifying dates," has printed a very useful table of the ducal years of the Dukes of Lancaster, but has omitted the Pontifical years of the Bishops of Durham altogether.

It must be owned that many of the Durham Records are dated in a very careless and negligent manner, and the dates given cannot be absolutely relied upon without corroborative evidence. As an instance of this, it will be found that in the Halmote Books for nearly every Episcopate, the Pontifical year contains several days and, in some cases, one or two months more than it should. This is especially noticeable in the Episcopates of Bishops Nevill and Ruthall. Curious instances of erroneous dating also occur in the Halmote Book for Bishop Bothe (Durham Cursitors' Rolls, No. 16), in which it is stated that a Halmote was held at Middleham on the 32nd day of July, and another Halmote at Stockton on the 34th day of July, in the thirteenth year of the Pontificate, and again, in the Halmote Book for Bishop Ruthall (Durham Cursitors' Rolls, No. 21), a Halmote is entered as having been held on the 32nd day of April, in the eleventh year of the Pontificate.

One of the difficulties in compiling a table of this nature has been to find out from what event each Bishop counted his Pontifical years, namely, whether from his nomination, election, confirmation, consecration, or translation, the restitution of temporalities, or the death of his predecessor. For the most part the Pontifical years

were counted from the date of consecration or translation, and where there is no evidence to the contrary these dates have as far as possible been adopted, but in many cases it is clear that other dates have been used to count from, as will be seen in the table itself. In a few of the Episcopates there seem to have been two systems of reckoning, one from the consecration and the other from one of the other above-mentioned events; Bishop Kellaw certainly used two systems, as will be seen in his Register, and it is probable that many others did the same. The commencement of the Pontifical years of Bishop Bury appears to have been confused with that of the regnal years of Edward III, that is to say, instead of the Pontifical year beginning on the 19th December, the anniversary of the Bishop's consecration, it began on or about 25th January, the commencement of the regnal year, as will be seen in the Cursitors' Roll of this Episcopate (Durham Cursitors' Roll, No. 29), and in the "Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense," Vol. II (Rolls Series). Bishop Shirwode, although he was not provided to the See of Durham by Pope Sextus till 30th January, 1484, evidently counted his Pontifical years from 29th November, 1483, the date of the death of his predecessor, Bishop Dudley, probably because the issues of the temporalities were granted to him from the time of the vacancy.

The tables of Episcopal years here given extend from the time of Bishop William de S. Carilef, the first Bishop of Durham after the Conquest, down to the death of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, after whose death the Episcopal years, if given at all, are nearly always accompanied by either the regnal or dominical years. Lists of the Bishops of Durham both before and after those mentioned in the tables are also added, with the dates of their consecrations, &c. The dates given have as far as possible been taken from records or chronicles, but great use has been made of Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy's edition of Le Neve's "Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicana," which has been checked and a few errors corrected. Use has always been made of the Bishop of Oxford's "Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum." The other authorities consulted are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Symeon of Durham, Florence of Worcester, Ralph de Diceto, Mathew of Paris, the "Registrum Palatinum

Dunelmense," the Durham Halmote Books and Cursitors' Records, the Patent, Charter and Parliament Rolls, and Rymer's Foedera.

BISHOPS OF LINDISFARNE.

Aidan was consecrated in 635, and died 31st August, 651.

Finan was consecrated in 651, and died in 661.

Colman was consecrated in 661, resigned in 664, and died in 676.

Tuda was consecrated in 664, and died the same year.

(The See was at this date merged into the Diocese of York
for fourteen years).

Eata was consecrated in 678, retired to Hexham in 685, and died on 26th October, 686.

Cuthbert was consecrated on 26th March, 685, resigned early in 687, and died on 20th March, 687.

Eadbert was consecrated in 688, and died on 6th May, 698.
Eatferth was consecrated in 698, and died in 721.

Ethelwold was consecrated in 724, and died in 740.

Cynewulf was consecrated in 740, resigned in 780, and died in

782.

Higbald was consecrated in 781, and died on 25th March, 802. Egbert was consecrated on 11th June, 803, and died in 821. Heathored was consecrated in 821, and died in 830. Egred was consecrated in 830, and died in 8451 or 8462. Eanberht was consecrated in 8453 or 8464, and died in 854. Eardulf was consecrated in 854, removed the See to Chester-leStreet in 875, and died in 900.

BISHOPS OF CHESTER-LE-STREET.

Cutheard was consecrated in 900, and died in 915.
Tilred was consecrated in 915, and died in 928.

Wigred was consecrated in 928, and died in 944.

Uhtred was consecrated in 944, and died in 947.

Sexhelme was consecrated in 947, and was shortly afterwards driven from the See.

1 Flor. Wigorn.

2 Sim. Dunelm. 3 Flor. Wigorn. 'Sim. Dunelm.