the Founder of Huln Abbey, €e. ra 
_II. 4. With respect to John de Vescy, the tes- 
timony of Camden and of Leland has been given 
before: that he was in early times considered as the 
founder is, I think, clear from Pat. 4, Ed. 2, p. 1, 
m. 3, pro confirmatione donationum Foannis de 
Vescz et aliorum. And Bishop Tanner refers us to 
mss. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dodsworth, vol. x1v, 
f. 15, excerpta e Cartulario Carmelitarum de Aln- 
wyke.* 
2. But Dr. Ferriar is of opinion, that “ the nee 
of founder could only belong to William de Vescy.” 
I apprehend Dr. Ferriar asserts this on the autho- 
rity of Mr. Grose. ; . 
William de Vescy certainly lived at - the time 
| Huln Monastery was founded; but still he has no 
_ just claim to the title of founder. By the charter 
of John Lord Vescy we find, that the said John 
did grant to the White Friars, all the buildings, 
é&c. which William de Vescy his father permitted 
them to inhabit. Hence, it should seem, that John 
de Vescy brought those friars from the Holy Land; 
that, at his intercession, they were permitted to in- 
habit Huln Abbey ; and that he afterwards granted, 
é&c. And therefore, to Fohn de Vescy the appel- 
lation of founder properly belongs. 
The same disposition which induced John de 
Vescy to bring the Carmelites into England, and to ° 
* Not. Monast. p, 398. 
