A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



liamshire), and ' Wikelay.'^ In the case of 

 Bolton, Heysham, Preston, and Poulton con- 

 siderable areas of church land were conveyed 

 with the advowsons. 



Most of these churches were gradually alienated 

 before the fourteenth century. Those in the 

 Midlands were soon lost, either by amicable 

 arrangement or by crown resumption on Count 

 Roger's forfeiture in 1 102. It has been sug- 

 gested that with them Henry I resumed Preston, 

 Childwall, and perhaps Poulton.^ This, how- 

 ever, seems open to doubt. The circumstances 

 under which another of its advowsons was lost to 

 the priory in the reign of Stephen are fortunately 

 known. Among Roger's gifts were Kirkham 

 church and the tithes of Walton-on-the-Hill. 

 But in a charter issued in 1093 or shortly after- 

 wards his sheriff Godfrey, with his consent, 

 conveyed the churches of Walton and Kirkham 

 to the abbey of St. Peter at Shrewsbury, the 

 chief English foundation of the count's father, 

 Roger of Montgomery.' The only probable 

 explanation of the double grant is that between 

 the date of this charter and that of Count Roger's 

 definitive foundation of the priory he had taken 

 into his own hands again some estates held of 

 him by Godfrey when the Shrewsbury charter 

 was drawn up. Nevertheless the latter was con- 

 firmed by Archbishop Thomas of York and 

 by Henry I.' Litigation between the two houses 

 inevitably followed and the dispute being sub- 

 mitted to the arbitration of Bernard, bishop of 

 St. Davids, the Lancashire monks had to resign 

 Kirkham church and the Walton tithes to the 

 abbot of Shrewsbury, who in return gave them 

 a plough-land at Bispham and the tithe of the 

 adjoining township of Layton with Warbreck.' 

 A charter issued by David king of Scots as lord 

 of the honour of Lancaster, which protects 

 Shrewsbury's rights in the church of Kirkham, 

 is extant and probably followed the composition 

 arranged by Bernard.'" It seems not unlikely 

 that these events took place in 1141 during the 

 short-lived triumph of the Empress Maud, of 

 whom Bishop Bernard was an ardent partisan. '' 

 Fear lest the decision might be invalidated on 

 political grounds may have dictated the further 

 reference of the dispute by Shrewsbury Abbey to 

 Archbishop William Fitzherbert of York, who 

 m a synod, apparently held in 1 143, gave judge- 

 ment in its favour.^' There were other out- 

 standing questions between S6es and Shrewsbury, 

 and in a general settlement effected four years 

 later the former, while confirming the resignation 



^ Mr. Farrer suggests that this is Wakerley, North- 

 ants, but quaere. 



^ Lanes. Pipe R. 292-4. 



'Ibid. 269. ° Ibid. 272, 280. 



'Ibid. 276. "Ibid. 275. 



" Tait, Mediaeval Manchester and Be^nnings of 

 Lancashire, 167. 



" Ibid. 16S ; Lanes. Pipe R. 280. 



of Kirkham, restored the plough-land at Bispham 

 and the tithes of Layton and Warbreck, receiv- 

 ing in return the chapel of Bispham and certain 

 disputed property in Shropshire." Roger's gifts 

 to the Norman abbey were confirmed by Pope 

 Innocent II on 3 May, 1 139,'* by Ranulf 

 Gernons, earl of Chester, probably in 1 149," and 

 by John, count of Mortain when lord of the 

 honour of Lancaster, between 1 189 and 1 193.'* 

 During this period also John granted to the priory 

 the privileges of having all suits touching its 

 lands tried before himself or his chief justiciar, 

 and of taking their tithes from his demesne lands 

 whether they were in his own hands or not." 



Meanwhile the advowson of Preston had 

 passed away from the priory. In 1 1 96 Theo- 

 bald Walter claimed the advowsons of Preston 

 and Poulton, seemingly on the strength of the 

 grant he had received two years before of the lord- 

 ship of Amounderness. The matter was settled 

 in the king's court ; Theobald quitclaimed his 

 rights in the advowson of Poulton with Bispham 

 chapel, and the abbot and convent of S^es did 

 the same as regards the advowson of Preston, but 

 secured an annual pension of 10 marks from that 

 church.'* This was probably as much as they 

 could have derived from it in any case so long as 

 it remained unappropriated. A little later the 

 advowson of Melling church was transferred to 

 Roger de Montbegon of Hornby," who resigned 

 all claim upon its chapel at Gressingham, which 

 Pope Celestine III had appropriated to the priory."' 



" Lanes. Pipe R. 282-3. 



" Hist, of Lane. Ch. 105. 



" Lanes. Pipe R. 296. For the date seep. 187. 



" Ibid. 298. 



" Ibid. 1 16 ; cf. Hist, of Lane. Ch. 1 6-1 7. 



" Final Cone. (Rec. See. Lanes, and Ches.), i, 6. 

 Mr. Farrer infers from these proceedings that the ad- 

 vowson of Preston and probably that of Poulton had 

 been taken from Sdes by Henry I on the forfeiture of 

 Roger of Poitou ; Lanes. Pipe R. 293-4. But if 

 the crown had been in possession for nearly a century 

 Theobald would hardly have had to bring a claim 

 against the abbey, much less make the concessions he 

 did. He obtained the advowson of Kirkham in the 

 same way from Shrewsbury Abbey, which had certainly 

 not been disseised of it ; Final Cone, i, 2. His claim 

 in all three cases may have been based on a contention 

 that Roger's forfeiture had invalidated the titles. Nor 

 was Sees disseised of the vill of Poulton in 1 102 as 

 Mr. Farrer (loc. cit.) asserts. Its omission from the 

 Testa de Nevill has parallels, and the priory of Lan- 

 caster was chief lord of the vill in the thirteenth 

 century ; Hist, of Lane. Ch. 483. 



" While Henry de Bracqueville was abbot (i I85- 

 l2Io) of Sees (Dugdale, Mon. vi, 990 ; Neustria Pia, 

 582). A dispute in the previous century between 

 Prior Nicholas and a rector of Melling had been 

 settled by Hugh Pudsey, bishop of Durham (1153- 

 95) ; tlie prior granted the church and Gressingham 

 chapel to the rector for a pension of 20/. (Round, 

 Cal. of Doc. France, 239). 



"Hist. ofLan:. Ch. 20, 117. 



168 



