Walter de Fulburn
Walter de Fulburn, or de Fulbourn (died 1307) was a leading English-born statesman and cleric in medieval Ireland, who held the offices of Bishop of Waterford, Bishop of Meath and Lord Chancellor of Ireland
Biography
He was born in Cambridgeshire, to a distinguished family, several of whose members played a leading part in Irish affairs. His brother Stephen de Fulbourn (died 1288) was Walter's predecessor as Bishop of Waterford and was Archbishop of Tuam 1286-1288; their nephew Adam de Fulbourn also held several clerical and judicial offices in Ireland.
Bishop
Walter's first clerical appointment in Ireland was as Dean of Waterford in 1281; in 1283 he was consecrated Bishop of Meath, but due to a dispute with a rival candidate for the see, Thomas St. Leger, he never exercised the functions of bishop in that see. He was transferred to the bishopric of Waterford in 1286 and held the see until his death in December 1307.
Lord Chancellor
In 1283 he became Lord Chancellor. Elrington Ball, while describing him as "a great personage " admits that he was a failure in that office.[1] Serious complaints were made about the excessive fees being charged to litigants before the Court of Chancery (Ireland), who also complained that there was only one clerk in the Chancery office, who was so ignorant that the writs he issued were useless.[2] Apparently as a result of these complaints Fulbourn stepped down as Lord Chancellor in 1288.
Charged with corruption
In addition he was implicated in the accusations of corruption and inefficiency leveled at his brother Stephen in his capacity of Treasurer of Ireland, since Walter regularly acted as his Deputy.[3] The accusations were considered sufficiently serious to prompt an official inquiry in 1284 into the actions of both brothers, the result of which seems to have been inconclusive. Numerous grievances were aired and various charges were leveled at them, including debasing of the coinage by the issue of the "steeping", an inferior version of the standard silver penny, but neither brother was at that time removed from office. Otway-Ruthven concludes that it is impossible to determine whether or not either brother was guilty of corruption.[4]