RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



Walter of Hemingburgh, a canon of Guis- 

 borough who wrote within 200 years of the 

 founding of the priory, states that the year of its 

 foundation was 1 129.^ Pope Calixtus, however, 

 who confirmed the act of foundation by Robert 

 de Brus, died in 1124. Camden and others 

 give 1 1 19 as the year of the foundation, and 

 although no ancient authority can now be quoted 

 for it, that year' seems not improbably the correct 

 date. Anyhow, it is certain that the foundation 

 cannot have been earlier than 1 1 1 9 or later than 

 1124. 



'The generosity of the founder enabled the 

 canons to make a start under very favourable 

 circumstances. Twenty-nine carucates with the 

 advowsons of ten churches and other gifts speak 

 for themselves . . . All through its history the 

 Bruses and their descendants continued to be the 

 munificent benefactors to the canons of Guis- 

 borough. The chief estates of the latter in 

 Cleveland, at Hart in Durham, and in Annan- 

 dale, were entirely due to gifts from that family 

 or from sub-infeudatories of theirs. It is true 

 they had other benefactors, such as Alice de 

 Rumilly in Cumberland, the Lascellcs in 

 Lincolnshire, the Bardolfs at Barningham, and 

 the Stutevilles in the East Riding ; but their 

 grants were not of great value, and cannot be 

 compared with the gifts received by the convent 

 from the Bruses and their descendants. Guis- 

 borough, which at the time of the Reformation 

 was the fourth richest monastery in Yorkshire, 

 being surpassed only by St. Mary's, Fountains, 

 and Selby, may be called without any exaggera- 

 tion the creation of this family.' * 



The chartulary records a large number of 

 gifts from people of small possessions, who could 

 only afford to give a few acres, or even roods. 

 These deeds, which are mostly of the middle of 

 the 13th century, show that a great religious 

 house like Guisborough was popular, not only 

 with people of higher rank as the Bruses, Percies, 

 and Lascelles, but with the franklins and yeomen 

 of the time. Among the charters there are 

 twenty-two entitled Cartae Elemodnariae^ con- 

 taining small gifts to the canons on behalf of the 

 poor, but distinct from the ordinary property of 

 the house. A few of them specially direct what 

 particular use the gift is for, as, for example, fuel 

 for the poor, or ' ad lumen inveniendum pauperi- 

 bus qui ibi hospitantur.' ° These deeds, of about 

 the middle of the 15 th century, indicate that the 

 canons had some sort of hospital for the poor in 

 connexion with the priory before the hospital of 

 St. Leonard of Lowcross came into their posses- 

 sion. These charters are followed by sixty-three 



' See, as to the question of the date of foundation, 

 Guisborough Chartul. Introd. pp. vi-x. 



' Pope Calixtus II was elected on I Feb. 1 1 1 9. 

 * Guisborough Chartul. i, Introd. pp. xvi-xvii. 

 'Ibid. 142-8. 

 ' Ibid. 147, no. ccliii. 



which relate to the building of the church which 

 was burnt down in June 1289.' 



On the death of Peter de Brus III the patron- 

 age of the priory passed to Agnes the wife oi 

 Walter de Fauconberg, and Lucy the wife ol 

 Marmaduke de Thweng. By a charter dated 

 London, 26 October 1275,* Walter and Agnes 

 de Fauconberg and Marmaduke and Lucy de 

 Thweng granted the canons the right of electing 

 a new prior when a vacancy occurred without 

 first obtaining their licence, but stipulated that 

 the new prior upon his election should be 

 presented alternately to the Fauconbergs at 

 Skelton and to the Thwengs at Danby for 

 confirmation. 



An event occurred in the early part of the 

 13th century which does not throw a pleasant 

 light on the methods which the convent pursued, 

 in one case at least, in endeavouring to enrich 

 itself. The canons had obtained a large amount 

 of land in the parish of Kirkleatham, and wished 

 to get possession of the well-endowed church of 

 that parish as well.^ They obtained three grants 

 of it, in almost identical terms, from William de 

 Kilton, the patron, and they proceeded at once 

 to get a confirmation of it from King John in 

 1210. In 1 22 1 Maud the niece and heiress 

 of William de Kilton in conjunction with 

 her husband Richard Dawtrey claimed that 

 William's grant had been obtained from him on 

 his deathbed, and when he was not in full 

 possession of his senses. At first the prior 

 traversed this statement, and maintained that 

 William de Kilton made the grant when in good 

 health and able to know what he was doing. 

 The case was adjourned, and in 1228—9 Michael 

 the prior released his claim, thus practically 

 admitting the truth of the assertion made, of 

 undue influence brought to bear on William de 

 Kilton. 



Among the early grants of a special nature 

 made to the canons, those of a number of salinae 

 at Coatham^" ought to be mentioned. The 

 salinae were situated on low marshland which 

 was overflowed by the higher tides with sea- 

 water. Artificial hillocks were raised on the 

 marsh land, on to the top of which the sea-water 

 was baled, and there evaporated by fires made 

 with a powdered coal which is still washed 

 ashore and made use of by the cottagers. 

 Several of these hills, locally known as salt hills, 

 still remain with their furnaces overgrown and 

 hidden. Many of the religious houses possessed 

 one or more,^^ and in one or two instances it has 

 been possible to identify the particular salina, 

 or salt hill, belonging to a certain house. 



' Ibid, i, 148-64. * Ibid. 98, no. ccxvi. 



° For a full account of this affair see Guisborough 

 Chartul. ii, Introd. p. vii ; 96, no. dccxlv-dcclii, A. 



'" Ibid, ii, 1 1 3-16, I2i-3,D. 



" e.g. Byland, Ellerton on Spalding Moor, Handale, 

 &c. ; Guisborough Chartul. ii, Introd. p. ix. 



209 



27 



