A HISTORY OF SURREY 



chaplain, and John de Fyfhyde his yeoman.* 

 A commission was instituted to make due 

 enquiry, but with what success is not known. 

 The parson of the church of Ludgershall, 

 Bucks, was at one time found guilty of taking 

 the corn of the prior of Bermondsey.^ A 

 convenient means for reprisal and for exhibit- 

 ing ill-will towards the priory lay in the fact 

 that its position rendered it always open to 

 the danger of inundation from the Thames 

 imless the dykes and ditches which protected 

 it were well guarded and maintained. In 

 1313a commission was appointed to investi- 

 gate the complaint of the prior of Bermond- 

 sey that certain persons at Bermondsey, 

 Rotherhithe, Camberwell and Peckham, had 

 cut and carried away his corn growing on 

 the lands lately assigned to him in these 

 places. Revenge was probably the motive 

 for this depredation, for in the evidence it 

 appeared that in order to recoup the Bishop 

 of Bath and Wells and the prior of Ber- 

 mondsey, who had suffered much loss and 

 damage through the flooding of their lands 

 from the Thames, and to compensate them 

 for the charges which they had incurred in 

 repairing the breach of the wall and bank 

 near Bermondsey, the lands of those indi- 

 viduals who were bound to assist in such 

 repair, and had refused, were delivered over 

 to the bishop and prior until they should be 

 satisfied in these expenses.^ In the year 1346 

 the prior complained that Alan Ferthyng of 

 Southwarkand twelve others broke and threw 

 down his close and dykes at Bermondsey, 

 and dug so much in his several soil there 

 that by the throwing down and digging 140 

 acres of meadow were inundated, and the 

 profit thereof entirely lost to him. Added 

 to which they felled his trees and carried 

 them off with other goods, and assaulted his 

 men and servants, so that he lost their ser- 

 vices for a great time.* On one occasion the 

 contumacy displayed by the prior and 

 brethren led to their excommunication by the 

 Pope. In December 1363 Urban IV. con- 

 firmed to Gregory de London, layman, gold 

 embroiderer of the pope's household, a man- 

 date of Alexander IV., ordering the dean of 



' Pat. 12 Edw. I. m. 13d. 



2 Abbrsv. Plac. (Rec. Com.), Easter, 17 Edw. I. 

 p. 281. 



' Pat. 7 Edwr. II. pt. i. m. l6d. 



« Ibid. 20 Edw. III. pt. ii, m. I5d. The 

 tenants of Letcombe and ChaUow chose a more 

 respectful method of stating their grievance. 

 They wrote the prior that his manor of Letcombe 

 was not being well kept, and prayed him to examine 

 its state and apply remedies and let them know his 

 pleasure by the bearer (Anct. Corresp. vol. 37, 51). 



68 



St. Paul's to command 1 5 marks a year to be 

 paid to him by the prior and convent of Ber- 

 mondsey. As they did not pay the money 

 the dean issued a sentence of interdict, and 

 cited them to appear within three months, 

 and on their disregarding this, by authority of 

 papal letters, he excommunicated and sus- 

 pended the prior, sub-prior, cellarer, sacristan 

 and convent. Again citing them, Gregory 

 himself having appeared, the case was heard 

 by the Bishop of Palestrina, and in the rebel- 

 lious absence of the other party, judgment 

 was given in his favour. The priory was 

 condemned in costs and to remain excom- 

 municate till they had made full satisfaction.' 

 Appeals were constantly made by creditors 

 of the house in order to get their claims 

 settled, for, in marked contrast to the import- 

 ance enjoyed by Bermondsey, its vast posses- 

 sions and imposing rent roll, are the accounts 

 of its struggle with dire poverty from the 

 twelfth century onwards, ever hampered by 

 debt and threatened with destitution. In 

 addition to the losses they suffered by the 

 flooding of their lands in the low-lying dis- 

 trict surrounding Bermondsey and the 

 economic causes which impoverished all 

 religious foundations during the fourteenth 

 and fifteenth centuries, the policy of the 

 Cluniac order itself seems to have con- 

 tributed to that want of good government 

 which might have overcome, or partially 

 overcome, these natural difficulties. It was 

 the aim of Cluny to keep dependant houses 

 in entire subjection to the parent house, and 

 to regard their heads merely as the nominee 

 of the abbot of Cluny, or in the case of Ber- 

 mondsey of the prior of La Charitd, to 

 which house it was immediately subject, to 

 be appointed, suspended and recalled at will.' 

 From the year 1134, when the fourth prior 

 died, to 1 1 84, during which time eleven 

 priors had borne rule, only one died at his 

 post ; and this short term of office which 

 marked the government of the convent was 

 aggravated by the mortality among its heads 

 in certain years,' caused no doubt by the 



^ The pope confirmed the sentence and the 

 Bishop of London and Archdeacon of Essex were 

 ordered to enforce judgment {Papal Reg. i. 

 404-6). 



■* This explains the frequent discrepancy be- 

 tween the ' Annals ' and other records as to the 

 rule of many of the priors. The brethren pro- 

 bably continued to regard as their head one who 

 for a time had been recalled and suspended, while 

 the records note ad interim appointments. 



' To quote special instances, in the year 1 1 86 

 occurred the death of three priors, Constantine, 

 Henry de Soilly, and Adam {Ann. Man. [Rolls 



