was not the Church of the Priory. 25 
may be seen in the Order of St. Brigit, Princess of Sweden, in 
which the men belonging to the double Monasteries are subject to 
the Abbesses, as well as the Nuns. The like is also practised in 
the Monastery of St. Sulpice, in Britany. The Religious Men of 
Fontevraud, in defence of their Institute, bring Instances of 
several double Monasteries, in which they say, the Men were 
subject. to the Women, and particularly they instance that of 
Sempringham; but the Women had no power over the Men, either 
in the Monastery of Sempringham, or others they mention, except 
only that of St. Sulpice in Britany, which is, in that Particular, 
like to Fontevraud. 
“Tt is very singular in the Order of Fontevraud, that its Monas- 
teries are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinaries, and all 
the Authority is vested in the Person of the Abbess of Fontevraud, 
as General and Head of the Order.” 
It occurs to me that this exemption from the jurisdiction of the 
ordinary may have something to do with the non-occurrence, in 
the early bishops’ registers, of any institution to the Church of 
Amesbury. 
In this order then there were monks as well as nuns, all subject 
to the Abbess of Fontevraud, and here, at Amesbury, there was a 
Prior, as well as a Prioress, though he appears to have been a. 
subordinate officer. This appears from a letter, written about 1316, 
by the Princess Mary, daughter of Edward I., a nun of Fontevraud, 
resident at Amesbury, to her brother, King Edward II., printed by 
Canon Jackson. After the death of the Prioress Dambert, the 
Convent had petitioned the Abbess of Fontevraud, to appoint the 
Lady Isabella, one of the Amesbury convent, to the office of Prioress. 
It was feared that the Abbess would not listen to them, but would 
send them a Prioress “‘from beyond the sea there, and a prior by 
her counsel out there.” The King is therefore asked to “‘ send word 
to” the Abbess “ that she do not undertake to burden our Church 
with any prioress out of the Convent, nor with prior other than 
_ the one we have now, but that she would grant us her whom we 
have requested.” 
1 Wilts Arch. Mag., vol. x., page 66. 
