The foregoing fragmentary sketch is not to be regarded as a conclusive proof of the existence of concurrent Cornish bishoprics so late as the eleventh century, but it is intended to call attention to some of the sources from which others may seek the necessary means of forming a judgment for themselves. That the monastery-bishoprics were hard to suppress will be evident to everyone who examines the evidence. That they survived in Cornwall for a much longer period than is generally supposed seems more than probable.
_Exeter Episc. Registers, Stapeldon_, p. 97.
St. Petrock’s hundred had, of course, no connection with Rielton or Rillaton, subsequently known as the hundred of East. The confusion may have arisen from the fact that the bailiwick of Pydar was at Rialton, and that of East at Rillaton, formerly Rielton.
The Patent Roll of 7 Richard II (cf. also _Monasticon_, edited by Oliver, p. 4) should be compared with the Patent Roll of 9 Richard II. The former states that Cnut was the founder of the priory of St. German, while the latter states that Leofric was the founder. Inasmuch as the charter of Cnut required the land of Landrake to be given after Burhwold’s death to St. German for the good of the souls of Cnut and Burhwold (_Terram ... commendat ... Sancto Germano_) it follows that both statements were (and were probably understood to be) legal fictions. The earlier document, however, confirms, if confirmation were needed, the evidence as to the reconstruction of the monastery by Leofric as given in Domesday Book, though it is not necessarily conclusive as to the substitution of regular for secular canons. Preb. Hingeston Randolph (_Architec. Hist. of St. Germans_, p. 31) states that “there is no reason to suppose that Leofric took any steps to found a priory at St. Germans.” The statement is far too sweeping. On the other hand, Mr. Haddan (_Councils_, etc., I, 704) relies upon the _ipsissima verba_ of the Patent Roll for one of his main arguments for a single Cornish see in the days of Cnut. By itself the evidence supplied by an early patent roll relating to a transaction which took place nearly four centuries previously is not conclusive, especially when, as in this case, a legal title was needed in order to settle a dispute, and to place a bishop in undisputed possession of an advowson.