RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



William earl of Arundel made a grant of the 

 church of Bilsington in Kent, which was trans- 

 ferred by the priory to the canons of Bilsington 

 in 1226, a rent of ten marks being reserved. 

 In 1344 William de Langeton obtained leave to 

 alienate to Boxgrove Priory lands in North 

 Mundham on the condition that they should 

 provide a chaplain to celebrate daily at the altar 

 of St. Lawrence in Chichester Cathedral for the 

 soul of John de Langeton, the late bishop. 109 



As an alien house Boxgrove was liable to be 

 seized into the king's hands during war with 

 France, and in 1337 the prior was ordered to 

 pay a fine of 60 as well as an annual payment of 

 ^30 for the custody of his house. 110 The monks, 

 however, obtained respite of these payments on 

 the plea that they were all English and had 

 always the right of electing one of their number 

 to be prior, and that their priory had never been 

 seized until the time of the present prior, who 

 was an alien appointed by the pope, John XXII. 111 

 Upon inquiry it was found that the priory had 

 only been seized once before, in 1324, and 

 accordingly the king remitted the charges made 

 and restored the temporalities to the prior. It 

 was, however, again seized by Richard II, who 

 at last in 1383 restored the temporalities and 

 confirmed the decision of 1339 affirming the 

 independence of Boxgrove, 112 which was further 

 confirmed by the popes in 1402 and 1413. By 

 the decree of the former date it was granted that 

 the prior might in future receive the profession 

 of all postulants in the priory, and that the con- 

 vent might elect their prior and nominate him 

 to their patron for presentation to the bishop, 

 independently of the mother house of Lessay 

 which was 'in the hands of schismatics and 

 enemies of the realm.' 113 The papal decree of 

 1413 simply repeats this concession and confirms 

 the profession made by five monks to the prior. 114 



A letter exists from Seffrid, bishop of Chiches- 

 ter, to the abbot and convent of Lessay announc- 

 ing that he had duly instituted their monk, 

 Brother G., to the office of prior of Boxgrove as 

 they had requested, and praying that his rule 

 might be blessed. 115 This was probably Seffrid I 

 (112545), but if it was the second of that 

 name (i 180-1204) his benevolent hopes would 

 seem to have been disappointed, for Bishop 

 Simon (1204-7) a f ter visiting the priory at the 

 abbot's request sent no good report of the house, 

 He found some of the brethren quarrelsome and 

 contentious, others had been long in the priory 

 and even held office without having made their 

 profession, and some were under his sentence of 



109 Pat. 1 8 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 26. 



110 Pat. II Edw. Ill, pt. ii, m. 36. 



111 Pat. 12 Edw. Ill, pt. iii, m. 23 d. 

 "' Pat. 6 Ric. II,pt. ii, m. 14. 



113 Cal. Papal Let. v, 471. 



'"Ibid, vi, 441. 



115 Cal. Doc. France, 332. 



excommunication. With the assent of the prior, 

 whom he believed to be an honest and faithful 

 man, he had taken steps to remedy these faults, 

 and to ensure the obedience of the monks to the 

 abbey and the prior. 116 



At the end of the thirteenth century the 

 abbey of Lessay endeavoured to interfere with 

 the priory's right of election and sent a monk of 

 their own, Ralph de Dumo, to occupy the post 

 of prior. The bishop of Chichester refused to 

 admit him, but confirmed the election of Robert, 

 a monk of Boxgrove. Appeals were made 

 to Popes John XXI (1276-7), Nicholas III 

 (1277-81), Martin IV (128 1-5), and in 1286 to 

 Honorius IV, 117 all of whom appointed persons 

 to hear the case. Meanwhile Robert had re- 

 signed, as had his successor William. John of 

 Winchester, the next prior elected by the monks 

 of Boxgrove, was in 1283 found guilty of in- 

 continency, and first fined by the bishop of 

 Chichester, and then, on the protest of Arch- 

 bishop Peckham that such punishment was both 

 uncanonical and unjust to the convent, who 

 would have to pay the fine, removed from office 

 and sent to do penance at Battle Abbey, whence 

 he returned in March, I284. 118 Thomas, who 

 succeeded on John's deprivation, was prior when 

 Pope Honorius appointed the prior of Arundel 

 and dean of Chichester to hear the case between 

 Lessay and Boxgrove in January, 1286, and 

 still retained office at least as late as 1288. 



Boxgrove was visited in 1275 by the arch- 

 bishop, who as a result issued a series of injunc- 

 tions. Several of these deal with the eating of 

 flesh, which was only permitted under strict 

 conditions, nor was any monk to give away part 

 of his allowance of food to the boys or others. 

 Discussions in the cloisters were to be abandoned 

 except such as led to better life and knowledge, 

 all frivolous and taunting words being set aside. 

 Also the room next the refectory was not to be 

 used for idle enjoyment lest that room which 

 was called ' misericordia ' should become 

 ' judicium.' The use of brown robes and hoods 

 was forbidden, and regulations as to the admission 

 of women were given, great ladies with retainers 

 being allowed to lodge in the priory, but other 

 women being kept to the outer church, or, if 

 admitted to offer at the high altar, obliged to 

 dispatch their business quickly and not speak to 

 the monks. Orders were given to avoid all 

 cause of suspicion in connexion with the granary 

 barn, and that the brother serving at Halnaker 

 chapel should not turn aside on his way except 

 for stress of weather. These injunctions were 

 found to have been disregarded in 1299 an< * 

 were restated with certain additions, the prior 

 being further enjoined to fill up four vacancies 

 amongst the brethren. 119 



Ibid. 332-3. " 7 Cal. Papal Let. i, 483. 



118 Reg. Epist. Peckham (Rolls Ser.),ii, 553, 574, 682. 



"' Cant. Archiepis. Reg. Winchelsey, fol. 766. 



57 



