RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



frankalmoign. Again, in 1344,* in a charter of 

 Edward III, the former charters of Edward I and 

 Henry II are spoken of as made to the ' master 

 and canons of the house of Swine,' while the 

 second charter of Henry II is more particularly 

 alluded to as having been to the ' church of St. 

 Mary of Swine and the nuns' there. The 

 matter is not altogether clear. There is no in- 

 dication that Swine was in any way connected 

 with Sempringham, or the Gilbertine order, but 

 its constitution, as revealed by a visitation of Arch- 

 bishop GifFard in 1267-8,' is something very like 

 a Gilbertine house, with its canons and conversi, 

 and the nuns and lay-sisters. It is however 

 noteworthy that when appealing for outside 

 assistance in regulating its affairs, Archbishop 

 Romanus' did not apply to Sempringham, but to 

 the Abbot of Pr6montr6 and the abbots of that 

 order, assembled in their general chapter. 



In 1236 ' Saer II of Sutton quitclaimed to the 

 prioress, Sybil, and her successors the advowson of 

 Drypool, and also gave certain marsh lands. The 

 prioress, on her part, granted that she and her 

 successors would find a suitable chaplain and clerk, 

 vestments, and all necessaries for a service in the 

 chapel of St. George at Ganstead for the souls of 

 Saer, his ancestors and successors, and a free 

 chantry in his manor of Southcoates, such as he 

 formerly had at his own charges. 



Among the later benefactors of Swine should 

 be mentioned the munificent Walter Skirlaw, 

 Bishop of Durham,* a native of the parish, whose 

 sister was at one time prioress. By his will, 

 dated 7 March 1403-4,' Bishop Skirlaw be- 

 queathed ;^ioo to the monastery of the nuns of 

 Swine for a perpetual obit, and by a codicil 

 (i August 1404) ^^ signed in the great hall of the 

 manor-house of Howden, in the presence of his 

 sister Joan, Prioress of Swine, the bishop be- 

 queathed lOOi. to Katherine Punde, one of the 

 nuns of Swine. 



According to the Taxation of 1291 the church 

 of Swine was rated at ^^53 6s. 8^.," and the tem- 

 poralities of the prioress at ;^48. In a return 

 made in 1526 ^^ the clear yearly value was stated 

 to be £78, and according to the Fa lor Ecclesiasti- 



When Archbishop GifFard held a visitation on 

 13 January 1267-8" it was found that Amice 

 de Rue (presumably one of the nuns) was a 



* Chart. R. 139 (21 June 18 Edw. III). 



' JrMp. Giffard't Reg. (Surt. Soc), 146. 



' York Archiepis. Reg. Romanus, fol. 6ii5. 



' Feet of F. Vorks. file 30, no. i (East. 20 

 Hen. III). 



' Burton, Miiit. Ebor. 253. 



' Test. Ebor. \, 309. " Ibid. 314. 



" Dugdale, Mm. Angl. v, 493. 



" Dom. P. 1526 (return by Brian Higdon), 

 see L. and P. Hen. VIII, iv, 200 1 . 



" Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), v, 114. 



" Archbf. Gifard'j Reg. (Surt. Soc), 147-8. 



slanderer, untruthful, careless, hurtful and re- 

 bellious towards the convent, and so were nearly 

 all the others when the faults of the delinquents 

 were made known in chapter, to such an extent 

 that the prioress, or her vicegerent, without the 

 help of the archbishop was unable to effect cor- 

 rections, as the observance of the rule required. 

 Silence was not kept in church, cloister, refectory, 

 or dormitory. Three nuns, sisters by birth and 

 profession, by name Sybil, Bella, and Amy, 

 often rebelled against the corrections made by 

 the prioress, and three other sisters, Alice de 

 Scruteville, Beatrix de St. Quintin, and Maud 

 Constable joined them. The sick nuns were 

 badly provided for, and had little more to eat 

 than those who were well had in the refectory, 

 though Saer de Sutton had formerly given half a 

 bovate of land to provide for the sick nuns and 

 sisters, of which they received nothing. Alice 

 Brun and Alice de Adeburn had received their 

 veils simoniacally.^' Money which had been 

 given to the convent out of charity for pittances, 

 and purchasing shifts [camisias] and other ne- 

 cessaries, the prioress received, and it would be 

 better kept by two honest nuns, and never put 

 to other uses. The nuns were not properly pro- 

 vided with shoes, only receiving one pair a year ; 

 similarly, as regarded clothes, they scarcely re- 

 ceived a single tunic in three years, and a single 

 cloak in twenty, unless they were able to beg 

 more from relatives and secular friends. The 

 prioress was a suspected woman, too credulous, 

 and too ready of tongue, breaking out in correction 

 and frequently for equal offences dealt unequal 

 punishments, and with long-continued hatred 

 persecuted those she hated, until an opportunity 

 came for wreaking her vengeance; so that the nuns, 

 when they realized that they would receive too 

 heavy a punishment, contrived by the threats of 

 their neighbours that the severity would be miti- 

 gated. There were many discords between the 

 nuns and the sisters, and the sisters maintained 

 that they were the equals of the nuns, and might 

 wear the black veil like nuns, which was not the 

 custom in other houses." Two windows, through 

 which the food and drink of the canons and con- 

 versi were passed, were not properly kept by the 

 nuns, caWed Janitrices, so that suspected confabu- 

 lations between the canons and conversi on the 

 one part, and the nuns and sisters on the other, 

 frequently took place. 



The door which led to the church was very 

 carelessly kept by a secular servant, who allowed 

 the canons and conversi to enter in the dusk that 

 they might hold conversations with the nuns andJ 



" That is, no doubt, payment beforehand had beem 

 made to the monastery on condition that they were to 

 be received as nuns, a fault often condemned. 



"On 21 June 1 3 1 1 Archbishop Greenfield issued 

 a general order that nuns only, and not sisters, were 

 to use the black veil in the diocese of York ; York 

 Archiepis. Reg. Greenfield, ii, fol. 24. 



179 



