A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



Priory, according to the Valor of 1535, was 

 £140 Ss. Ad. 



Thomas was prior in 1199 and 1200.^ The 

 removal of this prior from his office by the abbot 

 of St. Albans provoked considerable dispute, 

 which is recited at length by Matthew Paris. 

 Robert Fitzwalter, a powerful baron, was a 

 friend of Prior Thomas. Resenting his dismissal, 

 the baron asserted his claim to be patron of the 

 cell, and alleged that he possessed a deed from 

 the parent abbey by which it was stipulated that 

 no prior could be removed without the patron's 

 assent. He therefore impleaded the abbot in 

 the king's court," charging him with coming to 

 the priory of Binham to lodge there with more 

 men and horses than he ought to have, and also 

 with increasing the number of monks there 

 resident, and extorting much money from the 

 men of the priory, from which he ought only to 

 receive one mark yearly. Finally he alleged 

 that the abbot had infringed his rights by re- 

 moving the prior during his absence with the 

 king in Ireland (in i2io). The defence was 

 apparently a denial of Fitzwalter's claim to the 

 patronage, and seems to have been successful. 

 Having therefore obtained no satisfaction from 

 the law he assembled his retainers, and so closely 

 beset the priory that the monks then in residence 

 could not get anything to drink save rain water, 

 or anything to eat save bread made of bran. 

 When King John heard of this outrage he sent 

 an armed force to relieve Binham, and Fitz- 

 walter fled the kingdom. He died some years 

 later, in the reign of Henry III, but to the last 

 persisted in retaining the deed by which he 

 claimed a right over the appointment of the 

 prior. On his death, his friend and fellow- 

 soldier, Adam Fitzwilliam, having learnt where 

 the forged deed had been concealed, delivered it 

 up to the abbot of St. Albans, and presented a 

 silver-gilt pix for the high altar in expiation of 

 his share in the crime, having been privy to the 

 transaction.' 



It is difficult now to gather the nature and 

 origin of the serious dispute that arose almost 

 immediately after the nomination, by Abbot 

 Hugh, of William de Somerton to the priory in 

 1 3 1 8, but it was sufficiently grave to cause the 

 king to write to the pope on the subject in April 

 of that year. The prior appealed to the sheriff 

 of Norfolk to supply him with a lay force suffi- 

 cient to resist the intrusion of the abbot of St. 

 Albans into the priory, and the application was 

 granted ; but on 28 May the king ordered the 

 sheriff, on the appeal of the abbot of St. Albans, 

 immediately to withdraw the force, as the abbot 

 could lawfully exercise jurisdiction there as 

 ordinary by apostolic authority.* The dispute 



' Cott. MS. Claud. D. XIII, fol. 125*, \z6b, 131. 

 ' Cur. Reg. R. 68, m. i J. 



' Matt. Paris, Chron. Mojora (Rolls Ser.), vi. 390. 

 * Close, 12 Edw. II, m. d d. 



continued, and the abbot removed Prior Williarr* 

 from his office ; but the prior, supported by all 

 his monks, refused to leave the house. There- 

 upon, on 28 October, 1320, the king ordered 

 the sheriff to proceed to the priory of Binham to 

 arrest Brother William de Somerton, who called 

 himself prior, and thirteen other monks, and tcv 

 deliver them to the abbot of St. Albans, to whom 

 they are subject, by him to be corrected accord- 

 ing to the rule of St. Benedict. In the letter to- 

 the sheriff it was recited that Simon, abbot of 

 Ramsey, recently presiding over the general 

 chapter of the Benedictines of Canterbury 

 Province held at Northampton, had informed 

 the king that the chapter had found that the 

 monks of Binham were living in disobedience 

 and insolence, had taken up arms and made 

 assemblies of aiders to foment their boldness, and 

 paid no heed to the canonical censures of the 

 abbot of St. Albans, and that consequently the 

 chapter prayed the aid of the secular arm to 

 repress the malice of the offenders.' 



Meanwhile the priory of Binham appealed to 

 Rome, and on 16 July, 1 32 1, Pope John XXII 

 addressed a letter to the English primate on 

 the subject. It was therein recited that 

 Nicholas de Wimundham, sub-prior, and the 

 convent of Binham had complained to the pope 

 that William de Somerton, their prior, who had 

 appealed to the pope on a matter at issue between 

 them, the priory, and the abbey of St. Albans, 

 had his cause committed to Arnold, the king's 

 chaplain and papal auditor, who sent his letters 

 of commission to the abbot. Whereupon the 

 abbot caused the messenger and a notary who 

 accompanied him to be so grievously beaten that 

 their blood was sprinkled on the walls of the 

 church, and the letters were taken from them. 

 The prior was also ejected, and some monks who 

 appealed to the pope were imprisoned and kept 

 without food for six days. The pope ordered 

 the archbishop of Canterbury' to inquire into the 

 matter, and if the allegations were true, to cite 

 the abbot to appear before the pope.* Among 

 the Ormsby-Gore MSS. at Brogyntyn is a letter 

 from Edward II to the pope saying that bad men 

 on the side of the prior of Binham had tried to 

 get the abbot of St. Albans summoned before 

 the pope on a charge of treating the papal 

 nuncios with violence. The king espoused the 

 cause of the abbey, and lauded the abbot, alleging 

 that William Somerton, whom the abbot had 

 made prior, had tried to subtract the cell from 

 its obedience, and for that cause visited the papal 

 court. Edward asked for the pope's support of 

 the abbot.' 



It does not now seem possible to trace the 

 eventual issue of this disturbance, but in about 

 1322 the king placed William de Leycester, 



' Close, 14 Edw. II, m. 17. 

 ' Cal. Papal Reg. ii, 213-14. 

 ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iv, 384. 



344 



