A HISTORY OF SURREY 



the king or his progenitors receiving anything, 

 and they prayed for the restoration of the 

 issues accordingly. The king ordered an 

 inquiry to be made into the matter/ with the 

 result that the escheator was ordered not to 

 intermeddle further with the temporalities of 

 the priory of Merton, but to permit the sub- 

 prior and convent to receive and dispose of 

 the issues thereof without hindrance as they 

 had done in times past, the inquisition having 

 proved that it was the custom for the king's 

 officer immediately after the death of a prior 

 to enter the priory and place a man to guard 

 the outer gate, which is called the great 

 gate of the priory, in the king's name, to 

 stay there during the voidance without re- 

 ceiving anything except his reasonable main- 

 tenance.' 



Merton, like other houses following the 

 Augustinian rule, was subject to episcopal 

 jurisdiction and open to diocesan visitation. 

 Towards the end of 1304 a visitation of the 

 priory during the voidance of the see of 

 Winchester was held by the Archbishop of 

 Canterbury, when various irregularities were 

 alleged against the prior, Edmund Herierd. 

 Eventually, in consequence of these charges, 

 the prior, whilst vehemently protesting his 

 innocence, was compelled to resign on 25 

 September 1305. Permission was granted 

 him to occupy rooms within the priory suit- 

 able for himself and any one member of the 

 house whom he might choose to live with 

 him ; he was also assigned a squire of the 

 body and a servant to attend on him, with a 

 suitable allowance for each.^ The Bishop of 

 Winchester notified the vacancy to the king, 

 as patron, and licence was granted to elect a 

 successor. The chapter met on i Decem- 

 ber, but could not agree, some voting for the 

 re-election of the late prior and the rest 

 making choice of William de Brokesburn. 

 Apparently the numbers for each were equal, 

 and a double return was made to the bishop, 

 who endeavoured to bring about a com- 

 promise, but without success, and on 3 De- 

 cember certified their proceedings to the 

 king.* Edward I. issued a mandate to the 

 bishop to provide a head for the priory of 

 Merton ' out of the bosom of that church,' 

 in order to settle the discords that had 

 arisen since the cession of Prior Herierd. 

 By the king's ordinance the elected persons 

 came before the bishop, and of their own 

 tree will renounced all right they might 



» Close, 9 Edw. III. m. 30. 



" Ibid. m. 28. 



= U'inton. Epis. Reg., Woodlock, f. 114. 



• Ibid. fi. 31-2. ^ 



claim from their election ; but the proctors 

 of the parties elected not having come with 

 power of renunciarion or of submitting to the 

 bishop's ordinance, the bishop dismissed the 

 elected persons. Thereupon the sub-prior and 

 convent unanimously consented to the provi- 

 sion of a prior by the bishop if the royal assent 

 were given.* The bishop's choice fell upon 

 Geoffrey de Alkemondbury, one of the canons, 

 and to him the temporalities were restored on 

 6 March 1305-6.' During these proceed- 

 ings the ex-prior endeavoured to strengthen 

 his party among the canons by lavish enter- 

 tainment and bringing counter-charges against 

 his opponents, with the result that he was 

 reduced to the position of an ordinary canon, 

 and ordered to spend the remainder of his 

 days with his brethren in the cloister.'' 



In July 13 16, the see of Winchester being 

 again void by the death of Henry Woodlock, 

 the Archbishop of Canterbury commissioned 

 certain clerks to visit all religious houses in 

 the diocese with the exception of the priory 

 of Merton, specially reserved to the visitation 

 of the archbishop himself.^ The succeeding 

 Bishop of Winchester, John de Sandale, held 

 large ordinations in the conventual church of 

 Merton in March 1316-7 and in September 

 1318.° William, Bishop of Nantes, acting 

 for the diocesan, visited the priory in June 

 1382, and dedicated three altars and two altar 

 tops (altaria portatilia seu super-altaria).'" 

 Notice of the bishop's intention to hold a 

 visitation of the priory was forwarded to 

 the prior from Southwark on 28 June 

 1387." In the following September the 

 bishop addressed letters to the convent, ex- 

 horting them to adhere more closely than 

 they had been doing to the original constitu- 

 tions of St. Augustine.*^ In the absence of 

 any gross scandal, however, perhaps the most 

 serious blame attached to the monastery by 

 Bishop Wykeham was their neglect to keep 

 in fitting repair the churches and chapels of 

 which they were the rectors. On 6 Novem- 

 ber the bishop commissioned the Dean of 

 Ewell to cite the prior and convent and the 



» Pat. 34 Edw. I. m. 38. 

 * Ibid. m. 33. 



T Winton. Epis. Reg., Woodlock, f. 33. 

 _ 8 Reg. of Sandale (Hants Rec. Soc), 341. The 

 visitation of this priory appears to have been re- 

 served to the archbishops in the voidance of the 

 see of Winchester. 



» Winton. Epis. Reg., Sandale, ff. S3-6ld. 

 " Ibid. Wykeham, ii. f. 198. 

 " Ibid. f. 23od. 



" The rules, extending to a great length, were 

 to be enrolled and recited twice a year (Bodl. 

 Library Laud. MS. 723, f. 52). 



100 



