RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



do service at hue and cry except at a certain 

 place. To this it was answered that they 

 kept watch in the town of Kingston and suit 

 of hue and cry where and when they were 

 bound, but that they were never required to 

 keep watch beyond the water outside the town 

 of Kingston, but within the town as the other 

 men of the town do ' pro homine mortuo,' 

 and not beyond the water which is at the 

 end of the market towards Guildford.* The 

 prior and canons secured a recognition of 

 their liberties by the justices itinerant of Ed- 

 ward I. in 1278,'' but they had to sustain 

 frequent suits for the possession of property 

 in different counties. They were successful 

 in obtaining verdicts in suits brought against 

 them for their right to hold a court in con- 

 nection with the church of Patrixbourne,' 

 for their sake within the city and suburbs 

 of London,* and for the possession of 

 the manors of Worth, Kingswood, Sels- 

 wood, and Ewell of ancient demesne.^ 

 Judgment was reserved for hearing before 

 the Treasurer and barons of the Ex- 

 chequer in suitsrespecting courts held by them 

 within the counties of Buckingham® and 

 Hertford,^ and for their right to hold a view 

 of frank pledge and erect gallows in their 

 manor of Alconbury in county of Hunt- 

 ingdon.* In the reign of Edward III. they 

 were summoned to show their right to hold 

 a view of frank pledge in Meppershall in the 

 cotmty of Bedford, the king's attorney con- 

 tending that it was not claimed in the last 

 iter. Judgment was given against the prior 

 who was amerced.^ These suits are perhaps 

 only such as might be expected in connection 

 with a house acquiring large property in 

 different counties, but it shows a vigorous 

 determination not to relinquish any of the 

 rights or profits of the house. Edward III. 

 in 1345 ordered inquiries to be made in 

 Surrey ' whether as is said, the prior and con- 

 vent of Merton and their predecessors have 

 unduly acquired to them and their house lands 

 held of the king and others beyond the lands 

 granted to the house at its foundation,'" 

 but the result of the inquiries is not known. 

 The prior was impleaded by his tenants of 

 Selswood, member of the manor of Ewell, 

 in Michaelmas term 131 6, for demanding of 

 them more service than was due of custom, 



» Abhrev. PUc. (Rec. Com.), 136. 



2 Plac. de quo war. (Rec. Com.), 281. 



3 Ibid. pp. 313. 342- 



* Ibid. p. 473- ' Ib"^- P- 739- 



6 Ibid. pp. 85-6. ' Ibid. p. 289. 

 8 Ibid. 303. » Ibid. p. 39. 



i» Pat. 19. Edw. III. pt. I, m. izd. 



to which he made reply that no more was 

 required than that which a predecessor re- 

 covered by law in a former suit and that the 

 tenants themselves had failed to perform the 

 service to which they were bound and judg- 

 ment was given to the prior accordingly.'* A 

 petition to the king from his ' poor tenants of 

 ancient demesne of manor of Merton ' indi- 

 cates a very harsh and summary method of 

 dealing with their tenants by the canons. 

 The petitioners recite that, whereas the 

 manor had been made over by King Henry 

 on condition that the tenants should hold 

 their lands by certain services and customs 

 according to ancient usage, the prior who then 

 was and William de Kent, his fellow monk, 

 came to the houses of the tenants and broke 

 open their chests and took away the muni- 

 ments and charters belonging to the said ten- 

 ants and carried them away and had further 

 assaulted them. The tenants claimed redress, 

 and prayed that the prior should be summoned 

 to show why he had abused them of their heri- 

 tage, ' of which their predecessors had been en- 

 feoffed by King Harold, and that the king 

 would grant protection to his poor tenants of 

 Merton,' so that no man might do them 

 wrong or molest or do bodily harm to them 

 or their chattels.*^ In addition to the large 

 estates already held by the prior and canons 

 of Merton they obtained a licence in 1337 

 from Edward III. to acquire in mortmain 

 land and rent not held in chief to the 

 yearly value of ;^io,*^ and a similar grant 

 was made them in January 1388-9 by 

 Richard II." 



During the reign of Edward III. an im- 

 portant recognition was obtained from the 

 Crown respecting the custody of the tem- 

 poralities of the priory during voidance. On 

 27 March 1335 the sub-prior and convent 

 complained that during the voidance occa- 

 sioned by the death of Prior William de 

 Brokesburn the issues of the temporalities had 

 been received and levied by the king's 

 escheator, whereas they and their prede- 

 cessors had hitherto received all issues on 

 such occasions, time out of mind, without 



11 Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 325. In the course 

 of the suit it was alleged by the prior that he 

 possessed the right to claim from each tenant one 

 pig in every ten and two pigs in every twenty, and 

 if a tenant had less than ten pigs a penny could be 

 claimed for every pig. For examples of a similar 

 customary claim in Domesday see V.C.H. Sun. i. 



291. 



12 Anct. Pet. 3007. 



13 Pat. 2 Edw. III. pt. iii, m. 30. 

 " Ibid. 12 Rich. II. pt. ii, m. 28. 



99 



