A . HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



churches of Crowhurst and Ticehurst, his gift 

 being ratified by Henry count of Eu, and subse- 

 quently confirmed by Walter's son Peter deScotney, 

 who stipulated that the priests for these churches 

 should be chosen, and if necessary deprived, by 

 the lord of Crowhurst and the canons acting in 

 common. 44 Peter also confirmed to them certain 

 lands and the tithe of all his salt." These two 

 churches were confirmed to the priory by Bishop 

 Seffrid II (1180-1204), and again, with the 

 addition of those of Dallington, Ashburnham, 

 and St. Michael of Hastings, by Ralph Neville 

 in I237 46 ; but Crowhurst not long afterwards 

 came into the hands of the canons of the col- 

 legiate church of St. Mary in the Castle of 

 Hastings, the priory retaining only a pension of 

 4 marks. The temporal endowments of the 

 house were small, amounting only to j8 13*. 4^. 

 in 1 29 1. 47 Licence was obtained in 1334 to 

 acquire lands to the value of IOO*., 48 but the en- 

 croaching sea devoured their profits more rapidly 

 than benefactors replaced them, and in a petition 

 for leave to acquire lands to the amount of ^15 

 about this period possibly preceding the licence 

 given the prior states that owing to the in- 

 undations three churches in Hastings, formerly 

 worth jioo, are now not worth 2cw. 48 The 

 three churches were no doubt St. Michael, 

 St. Peter, and St. Margaret, 50 but their original 

 value appears to be much exaggerated. The sea 

 continued to encroach until at last the priory itself 

 was in danger of being swept away, and Sir John 

 Pelham in 1413 gave them a site at Warbleton 

 to which Henry IV licensed them to remove ; 61 

 the king further gave them a grant for twenty 

 years of the manor of Monkencourt in Withy- 

 ham, late belonging to the alien priory of 

 Mortain. 52 After their settlement at Warbleton 

 the canons were called by the title of ' the New 

 Priory of Hastings.' 



In 1229 Gilbert of Laigle, lord of Pevensey, 

 wishing to found a house of religion, bestowed 

 lands at Michelham and elsewhere upon the 

 prior of Hastings to that intent ; 63 the resulting 

 priory of Michelham does not, however, seem 

 to have been in any sense a cell of that of 

 Hastings. 



Archbishop Peckham visited the priory in 

 1283, when the canons, disregarding their oaths, 

 kept back matters of importance, probably 

 through fear of the prior ; but afterwards two 

 of them confessed, or rather denounced, serious 

 irregularities. The prior was not legitimate and 

 was a man of little learning ; he did not sleep 



" Suss. Arch. Coll. xiii, 171. " Ibid. 



46 Chich. Epis. Reg. Sherborn, fol. 70 b. 



"Taxatio (Rec. Com.), 41. 



"Pat. 8 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 27. 



"Anct. Pet. 2502. 



40 Suss. Arch. Coll. xiii, 143, 174. 



*' Pat. 14 Hen. IV, m. 19. "Ibid. 



"Pat. 13 Hen. Ill, m. 7 



7 6 



with the others, came rarely to chapter, and did 

 not take his place with his brethren in the church. 

 He kept all the property of the house in his own 

 hands, took the side of his servants against the 

 canons, and oppressed the men of the neighbour- 

 hood. Further, he had made sub-prior one John 

 de Wepham, who stirred up strife in the house 

 and even drove two of his brethren out of it, 

 and was, moreover, known to have property and 

 business dealings on his own account. 64 Also the 

 prior wandered about the country with a single 

 attendant and ruled neither himself nor his 

 brethren rightly. 86 The archdeacon of Lewes 

 was ordered to inquire into the case, but the 

 result is not known. In 1300 the prior, John, 

 possibly the same whose conduct has just been 

 considered, was accused of dilapidation and other 

 offences and, evidently fearing deprivation, re- 

 signed at once without awaiting an inquiry. His 

 rule had so exasperated all the canons that the 

 archbishop feared his continuing to dwell in the 

 priory would lead to much unseemly strife ; he, 

 therefore, desired that the prior might be sent 

 back as a simple canon to the priory of Michel- 

 ham, from which he had been taken originally. 66 



In 1352 certain poor tenants of Ticehurst 

 brought an action against the prior of Hastings 

 for withdrawing an annual payment of 40*. 

 made in alms. He claimed that the alms had 

 only been given of goodwill in time past and 

 were not obligatory, as the priory held of the 

 gift of Walter de Scotney in frankalmoign ; 

 against this the crown lawyers asserted that long- 

 continued custom was binding, but the final 

 decision is not given. 67 



When prior John Hassok resigned in 1402 

 Richard Weston, canon of Michelham, was 

 elected in his place, 68 and himself resigned in 

 1413, retiring to his former house, where he was 

 granted food, attendance and other necessaries for 

 the remainder of his life. 68 There were at this 

 time only three canons besides the prior, 60 but in 

 October, 1441, there were five. At this time 

 the house was in debt to the extent of 20 marks, 

 and the prior was ordered to keep the annual 

 expenses below ^40 ; 61 the result was satisfac- 

 tory, as by the following January the debts 

 were reduced to 10 marks, with good prospect of 

 their soon being completely cancelled. 63 At the 

 visitation in January, 1442, only three canons 

 beside the prior are mentioned ; probably two 

 others were acting as incumbents of Ashburn- 

 ham and Dallington, as was the case in 1478. 

 At this latter date there were considerable defects 



54 ' Qui proprietarius est et negotiator ' ; this was, 

 of course, contrary to the rule of poverty. 

 " Reg. Epist. Peckham (Rolls Ser.), ii, 608. 

 M Cant. Archiepis. Reg. Winchelsey, fol. 137. 

 47 Assize R. 941, m. 31. 

 " Chich. Epis. Reg. Reade, fol. 81 b. 

 " Ibid. " Ibid. 



" Ibid. Praty, fol. 71 b. 6> Ibid. fol. 80. 



