A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



In 1409 a dispute between the priory and the 

 vicar of Boxgrove was settled by the bishop of 

 Chichester, who decided that all oblations of the 

 church not specially assigned to the vicarage by 

 the deed of ordination belonged to the monks ; 

 that the vicar ought to advance the interest of 

 the convent to the best of his ability, and to walk 

 in procession with the monks, having a special 

 place assigned him by the prior, and also to 

 assist them in the performance of divine service, 

 being given a stall in the choir as a mark of 

 respect. 



At this time the affairs of the convent would 

 seem to have been in a bad state, as in 1410 the 

 prior and brethren made over to the bishop and 

 other trustees, including Thomas Chaworthe the 

 prior's brother, all their movable goods with full 

 power to dispose of them by gift or sale. 120 Pre- 

 sumably this assignment was made with the view 

 either of avoiding distraint or of liquidating their 

 debts. However this may be, when Bishop Story 

 visited the priory in 1478 the prior and nine bre- 

 thren then resident stated that the house and all 

 things connected with it were in a good state, and 

 had not been so satisfactory for the last forty 



years. 121 



As a result of a visitation held in July 1518, 

 Bishop Sherborn issued a series of injunctions 

 to the prior and convent of Boxgrove. 122 The 

 first thirteen heads of these appear to be general 

 rules of conduct and were addressed also to the 

 priories of Tortington, Hardham, Shulbred, 

 Michelham, and Hastings. They enjoin the 

 maintenance of the full number of monks ; the 

 appointment of a master of the novices ; the 

 regulation of dress, diet, and employment, an 

 order being given that the brethren should have 

 gardens in which to work and refresh themselves; 

 the exercise of hospitality ; behaviour in the re- 

 fectory, the care of the dormitory, which should 

 be well lighted and cleaned, and the custody of 

 the common seal under three keys. The re- 

 maining injunctions seem to have been addressed 

 to the particular prior of the time. He was 

 ordered to keep his accounts more regularly, 

 not to maintain unnecessary servants, and to see 

 that the women employed in the laundry and 

 dairy work were above suspicion. The prior 

 was further enjoined that, whereas he was noted 

 as an archer and wasted his time in shooting 

 matches even outside the priory with laymen, he 

 is in future not to indulge in such matches out- 

 side the priory, and if he desire such recreation 

 to restrict it to the private grounds of the 

 monastery ; also as ' it is not good to take the 

 bread of our children and give it to the dogs to 

 cat ' he shall not keep any dogs, birds, or hawks, 

 but bestow the fragments upon the poor. More- 

 over he is to see that his brethren do not play 



" Chich. Epis. Reg. Reade, fol. 52. 



in Ibid. Story, fol. 23. 



ln Suss. Arch. Coll. ix, 61-6. 



cards, dice, or hunt, and to prevent drinking and 

 gossiping in the church or cemetery on the 

 occasion of funerals. But that which most 

 rouses the horror of the bishop, so that he can 

 hardly believe it to be true, is a report that some 

 of the monks wear boots with turned-down tops 

 (caligis dipkidibus} and tied with many laces. 

 Finally he concludes with the stern words : 



Also, because it is ascertained that the honour of 

 the order, its rules, constitutions, ceremonies, and 

 other observances have long passed away into disuse 

 among you, not without your great peril, my lord 

 prior, we enjoin you by the bond of obedience, 

 diligently and effectually to watch .... so that 

 in reward for your burdens you may be esteemed as 

 a good shepherd in the sharp and terrible day of 

 judgement. 



Considerable improvement appears to have 

 occurred in the state of the priory before the 

 next visitation in 1524, when the only irregu- 

 larities noted were the absence of an instructor 

 in grammar and the fact that the cellarer was a 

 layman. 123 At the last recorded visitation, that of 

 1527, the prior, six brethren, and five novices, 

 appeared and reported that all was well, the priory 

 in fair repair and free from debt, and the monks 

 virtuous and religious. 124 Unless then the monks 

 had perjured themselves, or their decadence was 

 rapid, we may treat as a gross libel the suggestion 

 in the letter which Layton, who visited the 

 priory in the autumn of 1535, wrote to Crom- 

 we ll 125 : < This bringer the prior of Boxgrave 

 " habet tantum duas." He is a great husband and 

 keepeth great hospitality. "Ejus monachi omnes 

 sunt ejusdem farinae." His lands is 100.' 



A letter written to Cromwell at the same time 

 by Lord De La Warr, 126 patron of the priory, speaks 

 in favour of the prior and sets out his great losses 

 and expenses. Within the last four years the 

 house had been robbed of jewels to the value of 

 80, and this very year not only had they had 

 the expense of making five new bells for the 

 church, but a novice had stolen 100 marks of the 

 money for which the prior, as collector of the 

 clerical subsidy, was responsible. Lord De La 

 Warr wrote again to Cromwell in March, 

 1536, begging that the priory of Boxgrove, 

 where many of his ancestors lay buried, and he 

 himself had prepared ' a poor chapel to be buried 

 in,' might be spared, or at least transformed into 

 a college, but that if that might not be, he might 

 at least have the farm of it. He further peti- 

 tioned, when its dissolution had been definitely 

 decided upon, that (i) the church might be left 

 unspoiled as the parish church ; this seems to 

 have been so far granted that the choir, which 

 formed the monastic church, was retained as the 

 parish church, the parochial nave being pulled 



m Chich. Epis. Reg. Sherborn, fol. 92. 



114 Ibid. fol. too. 



m L. and P. Hen. nil, ix, 509. m Ibid. 530. 



