Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:04:08.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Statute of Carlisle, 1307, and the Alien Priories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Benjamin Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout its history the institutionalised Church has sought in different ways to define its position with respect to the ‘world’, in order to give meaning to the injunction to be ‘in’ this world but not ‘of’ it. During the Middle Ages, the tension was acute because the Church, in its narrow definition of the clergy, claimed to be a separate, spiritual order, set apart from the temporal world. The tangible results of this dichotomy are particularly evident with respect to the real property held by ecclesiastical institutions. Property gave the Church the security to be independent from the lay power and the aristocracy; hence the Church claimed varying degrees of immunity for its property from secular jurisdictions.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 543 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g. John xv. 18–19, xvii, 11, 18.

2 This theme is elaborated in e.g. Southern, R. W., Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, Harmondsworth 1970, 15–16Google Scholar; idem, The Making of the Middle Ages, London 1953, 126–8; and Brooke, C. N. L., Europe in the Central Middle Ages, 2nd edn, London 1987, 337–41, 355–6Google Scholar; see also my The Church and the Aristocracy: lay and ecclesiastical landowning society in fourteenth-century Norfolk, unpublished PhD diss., Cambridge 1989, esp. ch. i.

3 See, for instance, Tierney, B., The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300, Englewood Cliffs 1964, 35–6 (Humbert)Google Scholar, 94–5 (Hugh of St Victor), 175–6 (Clericis Laicos), 193–4, 199–200 (Giles of Rome), 196, 206–7 (John of Paris); Pantin, W. A., The English Church in the Fourteenth Century, Cambridge 1955, 169–72 (Uhtrcd of Boldon).Google Scholar

4 Brand, P. A., ‘The control of mortmain alienation in England, 1200–1300’, in Baker, J. H. (ed.), Legal Records and the Historian, London 1978, 29–40Google Scholar; Raban, S., Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500, Cambridge 1982, 12–28, 38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, , op. cit. 21–6.Google Scholar

5 The statute is printed in Rotuli Parliamentorum (Record Commission, 1783), i. 217, and Statutes of the Realm (Rec. Comm., 1810–28), i. 150–2; the translation is printed in the latter, and also in Documents Illustrative of English Church History, ed. Gee, H. and Hardy, W. J., London 1910, 92–5 no. xxxiii.Google Scholar

6 RP i. 178; Memoranda de Parliament, ed. F. W. Maitland (Rolls Series, 1893), l–li, 76–7, 313–14. The delay in promulgating the statute has not been satisfactorily explained, for it is hard to accept Maitland's suggestion that Edward intended to use it as a lever over the pope, as is pointed out by Heath, Peter, Church and Realm, 1272–1461, London 1988, 53Google Scholar; nor was it connected with obtaining clerical consent. Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England, 4th edn, Oxford 1897, ii. 163 n. 2.Google Scholar

7 For Cistercian attempts to collect a subsidy between 1302 and 1305, see Desmond, Lawrence A., ‘The statute of Carlisle and the Cistercians, 1298–1369’, in Studies in Medieval Cistercian History presented to Jeremiah O'Sullivan, Shannon 1971, 138–62, at pp. 143–5.Google Scholar

8 New, C. W., History of the Alien Priories in England to the Confiscation of Henry V, Chicago 1916, 60–1Google Scholar; Matthew, D. J. A., The Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions, Oxford 1962, 86–7Google Scholar; my debt to this latter work will become apparent. For a religious point of view, see below p. 551.

9 Wood, S., English Monasteries and their Patrons in the Thirteenth Century, Oxford 1955, 37Google Scholar; Morgan, M. M., The English Lands of the Abbey of Bee, Oxford 1946, 122Google Scholar, idem, ‘The suppression of the alien priories’, History xxvi (1941), 204–12, at p. 206; and idem, ‘The abbey of Bec-Hellouin and its English priories’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association v (1940), 33–62, at p. 58.

10 Matthew, , op. cit. 90.Google Scholar On the question of enforcement, Pantin stated that the statute w‘as partly nullified by the king's action’, but this is the result of a confusion between the statute and the anti-papal protests of the same parliament, Pantin; English Church, 76, an error also to be found at Heath, op cit. 130 (although the same work may be correct at 53–4). The order accepting the petition of 1307 described itself as a ‘provisio, ordinatio, concordia et consideration’: RP i. 221; but the statute of provisors of 1351, whose preamble recited not the statute of Carlisle but this petition, alleged that the royal order resulting from it was an ‘estatut’, RP ii. 232–3, SR i. 316–17, as did the 1390 re-enactment, ibid. ii. 69; Documents, 112–16.

11 The attitude of the religious themselves would need to be investigated more thoroughly to give a more complete picture; see below p. 551.

12 This is elaborated in Thompson, , Church and Aristocracy, part ii.Google Scholar

13 MP, 312–14. The abbot petitioned that the English Cistercian abbots be allowed to Pay their portions of the expenses of maintaining suits before the pope to defend the liberties and privileges of the order; see also Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 145.Google Scholar The preamble to the statute is RP i. 217. SR i. 150–1.

4 ‘Numerus religiosorum et aliorum servitorum in hujusmodi domibus et locis religiosis per tallagia hujusmodi census et imposiciones oppressis minuitur cultus divinus et simonie pauperibus infirmis et debilibus subtrahuntur et salutes vivorum, et anime wortuorum miserabiliter defraudantur hospitalitates elemosinarum largiciones ac cetera cessant opera caritatis.’ My translation differs from that in SR in taking ‘minuitur’ with ‘numerus’, rather than with ‘cultus divinus’, in which case ‘numerus’ is left without a verb, and would have to be ‘innumeris’, as RP in fact has it – though SR does not; but ‘innumerus’ is an adjective and not a verb, and could therefore hardly be the main subject of ‘oppressis’ instead of ‘domibus et locis religiosis’.

15 Calendar of Close Rolls, London 1892–, 1288–96, 313; Prynne, W., The History of King John, King Henry III, and the Most Illustrious King Edward I, London 1670, 570.Google Scholar

16 SR i. 91–2; see Thompson, , op. cit. 26–7.Google Scholar

17 In the twelfth century lords had sufficient control over their fees to be able to resume tenements, a process reinforced by the king in the assize of novel disseisin, Milsom, S. F. C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism, Cambridge 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. i and passim; but in the proprietary world of the thirteenth century the right was lost, leaving only the cumbersome proprietary action of customs and services and the increasingly circumscribed process of distraint; Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1898 (repr. 1968), i. 352–5Google Scholar; Plucknett, T. F. T., Legislation of Edward I, Oxford 1949, 56–8, 88–93Google Scholar; Milsom, S. F. C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law, 2nd edn, London 1981, 104–5.Google Scholar

18 SR. 48, 82–3.

19 For the debate which ensued between Church and Crown see Councils and Synods with Other Documents relating to the English Church, II : 1203–1313, ed. Powieke, F. M. and Cheney, C. R., Oxford 1964, ii. 964–6Google Scholar, 1,146, 1,215. For a case under this second part of the clause, see Year Books of the Reign of King Edward III, Year XV, ed. Pike, L. O. (Rolls Series, 1891), 448–51.Google Scholar

20 The statute of Mortmain was inspired by the need to regulate the possession of property by perpetual institutions in a tenurial structure whose value to lords increasingly relied upon the biological accidents which overtook lineages in a patrilineal system; see the works cited in n. 4 and Plucknett, , op cit. 94–102Google Scholar; Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215–1540, Manchester 1968, 49–66.Google Scholar

21 Plucknett, , op. cit. 102–4Google Scholar; Bean, , op. cit. ch. iiGoogle Scholar; Milaom, , op. cit. 107–16.Google Scholar

22 Or similar; see the many foundation charters in Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. Caley, J., Ellis, H. and Bandinell, B., London 1817–1830.Google Scholar On this see Thompson, , Church and Aristocracy, ch. ivGoogle Scholar: a further dimension to this discussion is the distinction between Specific and unspecified spiritual services, and the development of the former from grants m frankalmoin, ibid. esp. pp. 90–1.

23 This is made clear in a gloss on the statute provided by the Crown in response to one of the complaints by the clergy in 1285, Councils and Synods ii. 966 [5]. In line with the Wording, albeit somewhat loose, in the statute that it was founders of religious institutions and their heirs who had the remedy against alienation, the king added that lands «postmodum adquisitis’ did not come under the statute. It seems that this refers to land bought by religious houses for cash or secular services, and would have allowed lands granted later by the founding family to come under the statute; for further comment, Thompson, , op. cit. 91 n. 74.Google Scholar

24 But note that the statute was drawn up two years earlier, before the new papal exactions had come to be felt, see n. 6. For the Carlisle parliament, which is much more noted for the anti-papal protests than for the statute, and the various documents recording it, see Councils and Synods ii. 1,231–6, and the references there cited; Lunt, W. E., ‘The first levy of papal annates’, American Historical Review xviii (1912–1913), 46–64Google Scholar; idem, ‘William Testa and the parliament of Carlisle’, EHR xli (1926), 332-57; idem, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327, Cambridge, Mass. 1939, 63, 486–90; and nn. 25 and 26.

25 ‘Come seinte eglise en toutz ces estats de prelacie en ceste roialme soit fundie par le roi et par ses auncestres et par les ditz contes, barons, et lour auncestres, pur eux et le poeple aprendre de la foi dieu, et faire oreisons et aumoynes et hospitalites en les lieus ou les eglises sont foundeez pur les aimes des foundurs et de lour heyres, et certeynes possessions, qe amontent a les deux parties du roialme, soient par les ditz foundurs assignetz as prelatz pur sustener les charges susditz’: Councils and Synods ii. 1, 232–3; RP i. 219–200. It was this petition which was recited, in a slightly revised form, in the preamble to the statute of provisors of 1351, see n. 10. Note also the subsequent Latin versions of the complaints, of which the first and others forcefully argue that diminution of divine services for the souls of the founders will follow from the papal actions and exactions, ibid. i. 220–1.

26 Ibid. i. 207, 220–1; Councils and Synods ii. 1,235; Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., ‘The parliament of Carlisle, 1307 – some new documents’, EHR liii (1938), 435–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Chronicle of Waller of Guisborough, ed. Rothwell, H. (Camden Society, 3rd ser. Ixxxix, 1957).Google Scholar

27 Ibid. 373–6; Councils and Synods ii. 1,238; see Lamentations i-ii.

28 ‘Secundum legem terre possessiones ecclesiis et locis religiosis collate, si ad usum jundatorum et donatorum voluntati et intentioni contrarium applicentur, certissime per ipsos fundatores et donatores aut eorum heredes poterunt revocan’: Councils and Synods ii. 1, 239–40. For a similar threat see Morgan, , Lands of Bec, 32.Google Scholar

29 Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 145–50Google Scholar; Desmond looks at the statute from the point of view of the Cistercians and sees it as arising out of the history of the order in the previous decade.

30 MP, 76–7.

31 Knowles, M. D., The Monastic Order in England, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1963, 213–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colvin, H. M., The White Canons in England, Oxford 1951, 49–50, 56, 240.Google Scholar

32 RP i. 217; Councils and Synods ii. 1,233; Richardson, and Sayles, , ‘Parliament of Carlisle’, 435.Google Scholar

33 AIP, 313.

34 Those cited above, nn. 8 and 9; but see Desmond, ‘Statute of Carlisle’.

35 Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, ch. ii.Google Scholar The ramifications of this distinction cannot be taken into account here, nor the variations on the basic polarity of conventual priory and cell. The best example of the latter is the priory of Ogbourne, which can be contrasted with conventual daughters of Bee, in Morgan, Lands ofBee; esp. 11–12, 18–25. See also New, History of the Alien Priories, 1–44.

38 Matthew, , op. cit. 120–42Google Scholar; Morgan, , op. cit. 119–37Google Scholar; idem, ‘Suppression of the alien priories’; Rose Graham, ‘The papal schism of 1378 and the English province of the Order of Cluny’, and ‘The English province of the Order of Cluny in the fifteenth century’, in idem, English Ecclesiastical Studies, London 1929, 46–90. In my forthcoming publication on the alien priories, I lay great weight both on the reasons behind, and on the results of the distinction between, conventual priories and cells.

37 The final clause of the petition of 1305 could be taken in this way: ‘Et etiam ad petitionem eorundem Comitum, Baronum, et communitatis regni petentium consimile reo remedium apponi de aliis religiosis qui faciunt aportum ad partes transmarinas sicut Hli de Cluniaco, de Premuster, de Caritate, et alii etc.’: MP, 314. But the examples quoted suggest conventual daughter-houses rather than cells, which is the tenor of the whole Petition. The clause is more naturally seen as an attempt to widen the complaint to include orders other than the Cistercians, who are the main subject of the petition, than to have been an attempt to stop all revenues being exported from lands held in demesne by foreign religious houses.

38 See the title to the rolls in n. 44, and Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate papae Nicholai IV, circa 1291 (Ree. Comm., 1802), 176; also ‘religiosi de potestate regni Franciae‘, Cotton, Bartholomew, Historia Anglicana, ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series, 1859), 259.Google Scholar The terms ‘alien religious’ and ‘alien monks’ were used in parliament in 1346, RP ii. 162, and the former was the most common until the mid-1370s, when ‘alien priors’ began to be used, ibid. ii. 333, iii. 96, 213 (‘priories et possessions aliens’, 1385).

39 Matthew, , op. cit. 73–6.Google Scholar

40 An illustration of this is an order of 1296 sent to the constable of Dover which amounted to a licence for the Master of the order of the Templars in England to cross the Channel with other brothers in the train of a cardinal; he was permitted to take his ‘apportatum’ with him to the Grand Master, as long as it did not reach the king's enemies, CCR 1288–96, 511.

41 Denton, J. H., Robert Winchelsry and the Crown, 1294–1313, Cambridge 1980, 100–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 102, 106–10; the same had been threatened in 1294, ibid. 74.

42 PRO E 106/3/10, 11. The clear statement of the almost identical rubric of these two rolls is that the aliens paid a moiety ‘iuxta taxationem honorum suorum sicut alii de clero indigene’. Therefore I have to take issue with the most detailed account to date of this first major seizure, Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 81–4Google Scholar, where it is argued that the ‘de subsidio regi concesso’ was a fine and not the moiety which the rest of the clergy paid, and it is assumed that the priors paid the ‘de redditu transmarino’ in full (on which see below n. 43). His proof (p. 82) that the ‘de subsidio’ was a fine and not the moiety is flawed because the passage he quotes in support from the Taxatio of 1291, that ‘eodem anno’ the aliens paid a ‘finem’ at the exchequer for custody of their possessions (Taxatio, 176), does not relate to autumn 1294. The statement is part of a list of sums which need to be deducted for one reason or another from the total tenths for the archdeaconries of Hereford and Worcester, including the alien priories which were treated separately, and benefices of the value of six marks or below. The minimum taxable benefice under the moiety of 1294–5, however, was ten marks. It was in the following year, when under Winchelsey's leadership the clergy only ofTered a tenth, that they were forced to accept a minimum of six marks, Demon, , op. cit. 87–8.Google Scholar Therefore the ‘finem’ for custody was paid in 1295–6, when we know, in fact, from other sources that the alien priories were exploited separately. In the earlier year we have the clear statement of the rolls that the moiety was paid. The taxation value may have been modified by the extents taken in the autumn of 1294 (PRO E 106/2), but that they were based on some figure which was regarded as definitive for taxation purposes, rather than constituting a fine imposed on this occasion alone, can be seen from the fact that hardly any of them are round numbers.

43 Calendar of Patent Rolls, London 1891–, 1202–1301, 89–91, 97.

44 PRO E 106/3/10, 11; these are later ‘extracte rotulorum de statu religiosorum alienigenarum de potestate regis Francie de anno xxiij°’. The almost identical rubric at the head of both states that the aliens paid the clerical moiety and ‘medietatem redditus quern ipsi religiosi capitalibus domibus suis in partibus transmarinis…per annum reddere consueverunt’. 3/11 is a duplicate of 3/10, but it has been torn off after the introduction and the first fifteen entries; the figures for ‘de redditu transmarino’ in 3/11, however, are half of those given in 3/10 in all cases but those where this figure was 40s. or below. E 106/3/19 mm. 1–2 is a list headed ‘apportum religiosorum et aliorum quod reddere solebant in partibus transmarinis’, and its figures are identical with those of the ‘de redditu transmarino’ of 3/10. These figures are therefore the assessment of the rent, or apport, whereas those in 3/11 are the moiety which was actually paid.

45 Denton, , Winchelsey and the Crown, 87–8.Google Scholar

46 CCR 1288–96, 458–9; Calendar of Fine Rolls, London, 1911–, i. 362–6; PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 2–4d; Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 82–3; Morgan, ‘Suppression’, 205 n. 4.Google Scholar

47 PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 5–16; CPR 1292–1301, 175–7. These restorations are listed separately from the protections for the rest of the clergy who paid the tenth, ibid. 173–5.

48 PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 5–13. E 106/4/2, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 18 are annual descriptions of the state of the priories from the next year of payment, 25 Ed. 1, up to 1303 (31 Ed. 1); they record the arrears from the previous year, how much was paid at each term in the current year and how much was carried over to the next, in addition to which are royal inquisitions to establish spiritual services incumbent upon conventual priories and other documents relating to these payments and the arrangements made for the custody of these houses. For relaxations which the Crown was forced to allow, see below nn. 143, 164.

49 Powieke, F. M., The Thirteenth Century, Oxford 1953, 653–4Google Scholar; Morgan, , ‘Bec-Hellouin’, 56–7Google Scholar; PRO, E 106/4/18; E 106/1/3.

50 Some conventual alien priories also paid an annual apport, but these were usually nominal sums intended to signify the subjection of the priory to its mother-abbey, and therefore do not need to be taken into account here. East Anglian examples are: Horsham St Faith to Conques, 2 marks; Thetford to Cluny, 1 m; Castleacre, ‘nichil reddit’ (because formally a daughter of Lewes); Stoke-by-Clare to Bec, 20s.; St Neots to Bec, 30s.; Eye to Bernay, nothing: PRO, E 106/3/10.

51 CCR 1307–13, 498; CCR 1296–1302, 77–8, 189–90.

52 CCR 1296–1302, 479–80; ibid. 218; Prynne, , History, 785.Google Scholar

53 CCR 1296–1302, 215–17, 314; Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 141–3.Google Scholar

54 CCR 1296–1302, 330, 495, 576; CCR 1302–7, 68–9.

55 CCR 1296–1302, 348–9, 465, 539; for further monetary regulation, ibid. 480–2.

56 Prestwich, M., ‘Edward 1's monetary policies and their consequences’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. xxii (1969), 406–16Google Scholar; Spufford, P., Money and its Use in Medieval Europe, Cambridge 1988, 162, 204–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; CCR 1272–9, 518; CCR 1279–88, 244; SR i. 219–20.

57 SR i. 131–3.

58 See the discussion below pp. 565–6.

59 Indeed, the enforcement of the statute was sometimes so closely bound up with monetary regulation as to be difficult to distinguish, see below, p. 566.

60 Such methods are discussed below pp. 567–9.

61 The prohibitions on levying tallages which cited no particular policy, CCR 1296–1302, 330, 495, may have been motivated by a combination of aims, or by the conditions of war (or truce), by monetary considerations or, in line with the 1305 petitions, by the need to protect convents from taxation by their orders. The former of these two examples stated that such levies had to be licensed because they might redound to the prejudice of the king, the realm or the priors. See also a 1289 order to Cluniac priors and monks not to send tallages and contributions to Cluny, , CPR 1281–92, 322.Google Scholar

62 SR i. 151; RP i. 217.

63 Brand, , ‘Mortmain alienation’, 40Google Scholar; Raban, , Mortmain Legislation, 26–8Google Scholar; Davies, C., ‘The statute of Provisors of 1351’, History xxxviii (1953), 118–33Google Scholar; Heath, , Church and Realm, 128–32Google Scholar; Pantin, , English Church, 52–75, 82–97Google Scholar; and for the medieval statute in general see Plucknett, , Ugislation, ch. i.Google Scholar

64 With the addition of the conventual alien priory of Spalding (for which see n. 68, and the appendix); RP i. 218.

65 PRO, E 106/4/5. The PRO date is 35 Ed. 1, i.e. 1307, but quaere whether these were not in fact the returns to the 1298 writ, which would ako be supported by the sequence of the files of E 106/4; see List and Index Society xci (1973), 5. The returns are in poor condition, but those from the abbots of Revesby, Kirkstead, Minting, Swineshead, and the bailiff of the abbot of Savigny are wholly or partly legible. For further discussion, see below p. 571.

66 See below pp. 564, 566–7, and Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 150–3.Google Scholar

67 CCR 1318–23, 499; also CCR 1323–7, 211.

68 Graham, , ‘Papal schism’, 48Google Scholar, citing Calendar of Papal Letters, London 1893–, iii. 19; CPR 1345–8, 63; CCR 1346–9, 28. Spalding priory was involved in a long wrangle with its abbot at Rome over visitation, expenses and profession. Later, in 1328, it tried to avoid Paying the apport which was the result of the agreement made in that case, on the basis of the reservation of 1327, CCR 1323–7, 5; CCR 1327–30, 252; and see the appendix. On the other hand, a few Cistercian houses, extraordinarily in this century, did manage to make some token payments in 1343; see below, n. 137.

69 In 1330 Cluniac monks petitioned the king to exclude the jurisdiction of the abbot of Cluny and replace it with the prior of Lewes and episcopal visitation, Reyner, C., Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia, London 1626, 147–8.Google Scholar This can be seen in many of the petitions for denization later; see nn. 36, 169, 173, and Thetford, Monasticon v. 153; CPR 1374–7, 301; also the attempt of Thetford to free itself from Cluny in 1300–4, see n. 165.

70 A further entry ako concerns Cluny, whose proctor was ordered in 1309 to stop collecting the first fruits of some benefices granted to the abbey by the pope until the king had done what was necessary to protect his rights, CCR 1307–13, 241. This case is as much part of papal taxation as monastic, but it is a further example of the Crown exercising internal control over ecclesiastical taxes destined for foreign clergy.

71 Rymer, T., Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae…, The Hague 1745 (using marginal references to original edition), iv. 72Google Scholar; CCR 1323–7, 209–11.

72 Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 87–90Google Scholar, Morgan, , ‘Bec-Hellouin’, 58.Google Scholar This was not a continuous period of war; Matthew states that, in 1325, the truce relieved the position of the alien priories until war was renewed in 1326 – more against Isabella and Mortimer than Charles iv. For present purposes, however, a possible period of relaxation in the middle of these years has been ignored.

73 Foedera (Ree. Comm. edn), London 1816–69, ii/2. 957; CCR 1333–7, 643.

74 Foedcra iv. 777–9; CFR v. 27ff.; Matthew, , op. cit. chs iii and iv.Google Scholar

75 ‘…qe come il ne ad nule fille Mesun en Engleterre, mes qnt q'il ad en Engleterre si tient il en demeigne, et est respondu des issues par ses Baillifs demeigne, remuables a sa volume…dount il prie dur Deu, sur ce remedie, et declaración de l'estatut avantdist, s'il deit il tenir en droit des aliens qe rien n'ount forsq'en lour mayn demeigne auxi corne en droit d'autres qe unt fille Mesuns en Engleterre, et sunt responduz par voie de part et contribucion’: RP i. 2740–5; Matthew, , op. cit. 87.Google Scholar

76 ‘Et quia intencionis nostre non existit, quod prefatis Abbati et Conventui de predicta firma per predictam ordinacionem seu statutum injurietur in hac parte, maxime cum finrmam illam non tanquam superiores vestri, seu a subditis suis de vobis percipere debeant et consueverunt, set pocius a firmariis suis ut predictum est.’

77 Edward's elaboration was necessary, but is also on the face of it confusing, because the farmers were canons – which was presumably why they had been able to hide behind the statute in the first place. The interpretation of both clauses quoted is somewhat elaborate as a result: monk-bailiffs were undeniably ecclesiastically subordinate, but their function in residing in England was not as ecclesiastical subordinates but temporal functionaries. For a case in which the distinction between farmer and proctor breaks down, see below p. 574.

78 Brand, , ‘Mortmain alienation’, 37Google Scholar; Raban, , Mortmain Legislation, 38.Google Scholar

79 See nn. 71, 73.

80 CFR iii. 328.

81 CCR 1327–30, 264; similarly, the dean and chapter of Rouen, CCR 1327–30, 22, 32.

82 RP ii. 9.

83 Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus Inediti, ed. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O. (Camden Soc, 3rd ser. li, 1935), 225, 228.Google Scholar

84 Préaux (whose proctor was the prior of Toft): CCR 1313–18, 495, CFR iii. 15 (1320), CCR 1333–7, 40, 252 (1333); Cluny (demesne manors): CPR 1307–13, 320 (1311), CPR 1321–4, 64, CCR 1318–23, 417 (1322), CCR 1327–30, 279 (1328); Abbess of Caen: CPR 1327–30, 109 (1327). See also CCR 1330–3, 25 (St Ouen), 38 (abbess of Préaux), 356 (St Nicholas, Angers); CCR 1333–7, 452 (Mont St-Michel), 541 (Bee), and the examples in n. 89.

85 CCR 1330–3, 480 (Mont St-Michel), and examples in n. 89, St Evroul, Séez.

86 The abbess of Caen's proctors were permitted, on 16 April 1327, to sell goods and chattels and export the proceeds to her, ‘notwithstanding any ordinance prohibiting traffic with France during the war’: CPR 1327–30, 100. This was after the peace, dated 31 March, had received royal confirmation on 11 April, Foedera iv. 279–81, 287, so that in this case the ordinance was mentioned simply to indicate that it was no longer in force, rather than that this was a special gift overriding it, which makes the point a fortiori.

87 Foedera iv. 246–7; CCR 1327–30, 18–19.

88 With one exception: in 1339 the Treasurer and barons of the exchequer tried to demand the apport of forty marks and arrears thereof since 1327 from the prior of Toft, Proctor of the abbot of Préaux, CCR 1338–40, 173. This must have been an attempt to find funds for the war by imposing retrospective obligations alongside the fines taken annually from the priories since 1337. The prior's complaint implies that only now was he being distrained to render the apport since 1327; if the apport had been demanded at the time, he would have had little difficulty in paying it, since there was a great margin between the figure of forty marks, the apport assessment of 1294 which was used in this case, and his taxaable income of over £100, PRO, E 106/3/10; Taxatio, 83,114b, 178b, 184b, 187b, 191, 192, 241b, 256b. Furthermore, the abbot of Préaux received two restorations of temporalities in this decade which did not make an exception for the apport, CCR 1327–30, 58 (not listed in the writs in the note above), and n. 84.

89 CCR 1327–30, 264 (abbess of Guines), 279 (Cluny); CCR 1330–3, 2 (St Valéry), 106 (Tiron), 353 (St Evroul), 356 (Cîteaux); CCR 1333–7, 194–5 (Séez), 632 (abbess of Caen).

90 See n. 89 above, Guines, Cluny, Caen, Séez.

91 CCR 1327–30, 284.

92 For the technical proof of this point, see the appendix.

93 Fotdera (Ree.) ii/i. 293.

94 CCR 1307–13, 79; Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 150–2.Google Scholar There are many licences which can be found on the close rolls indexed under the constable of Dover; the first permitted eighteen Cistercian abbots to go to general chapter in 1309 with their households and £10 each for expenses, CCR 1307–13, 165.

95 The first to mention the statute was in 1311, CCR 1307–13, 351. Following the 1316 order to the constable (n. 93), licences specified that no ‘apportum, census, or imposition’ was to be taken contrary to the statute, but this soon settled into the phrase ‘no apportum contrary to the statute’: CCR 1313–18, 427, 453, 564; later examples of this phrase are CCR 1327–30, 108; CCR 1330–3, 319, and also the examples in n. 96.

96 Abbot of Fécamp, CCR 1307–13, 203, CCR 1327–30, 423; proctor of Longueville and monks of St Nicholas, Angers, ibid. 108; prior of Newton Longville, , CCR 1330–3, 419Google Scholar; monks of Préaux, , CCR 1333–7, 119, 657.Google Scholar

97 CCR 1327–30, 229.

98 CCR 1307–13, 498. Also CCR 1323–7, 585, Foedera iv. 729–30 (1337).

99 In 1322 a close watch on the ports was enjoined because the contrariants were trying to leave the realm disguised as religious, CCR 1318–23, 535. During the tension engendered by Lancaster's attempted rebellion in Jan. 1329, all ports were closed down except Dover, there everyone was to be searched for letters prejudicial to the Crown or realm, CCR 1327–30, 516–17.

100 CCR 1323–7, 137–8, 211, 331, 346, 535–7, 542, 545–7, 547, 572, 638, 639–40; CCR 1327–30, 239, 516–17; CPR 1324–7, 208–11. Even bundles of merchandise passing through the newly established staples were to be scrutinised; see below n. 118.

101 CCR 1307–13, 44.

102 Ibid. 124, 233, 237; CCR 1313–18, 576, 602; CCR 1318–23, 369–70; CCR 1323–7, 547, 585; CCR 1327–30, 107 (religious), 372, 406, 536–7. Many licences were issued, some specifically under these, CCR 1307–13, 200 (to a religious); CCR 1318–23, 510, 675. Many were for men going abroad on the king's business, e.g. CCR 1307–13, 456, 459, 567, 579, 585. In 1325 reference was made to an ordinance requiring anyone to have a special licence to pass out of the country, CCR 1323–7, 255.

103 CCR 1307–13, 124, and CCR 1323–7, 545–7, 547; CCR 1327–30, 406. Horses were Mentioned in many licences, CCR 1288–96, 511; CCR 1302–7, 137–8; CCR 1323–7, 346, 542, and 638, etc. During the parliament of Carlisle itself it was forbidden to take any corn, beasts or other victuals abroad because they were all needed to feed the parliament and army in the north, CCR 1302–7, 471, 521, 522, 530; e.g. (enforcement) ibid. 473,481, 505, 508, 510.

104 See above nn. 56–7 and CCR 1302–7, 375, 538.

105 Ibid. 137–8, 169, 236, 328, 375; CCR 1307–13, 8, 12, 24, 122, 185, 203, 302, 351, 372. Sums of £10 or £20 were normal, although, in the case of William Greenfield, the archbishop-elect of York travelling to Rome in 1305, the amount was £100 as well as silver vessels, CCR 1302–7, 236. Winchelsey, on the other hand, was forbidden to infringe the ordinance when going into exile in 1306, ibid. 375.

106 CCR 1323–7, 545–7; SR i. 273–4 (1335); CCR 1337–9, 414; SR i. 299 (1343).

107 Although ‘reasonable expenses’ was sometimes used as a blanket term; e.g. CCR 1330–3, 319, 419; CCR 1333–7, 119.

108 CCR 1323–7, 346.

109 SR i. 273–4; CCR 1337–9, 414.

110 Foedera (Ree.) ii/i. 293.

111 Although it, too, singled out the religious, ibid. iv. 729–30.

112 See above p. 555.

113 See n. 110.

114 The prohibition forbidding these monks to travel abroad has not been sufficiently emphasised here; it was part of the first clause of the statute and was very frequently reiterated with the other provisions against ‘apporta’, both in licences and writs; see Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 150–4, 157–9.Google Scholar

115 Mentioned in a licence of 1344 allowing the prior of Horsham St Faith to cross, and he was allowed to take gold for his expenses, CCR 1343–5, 334. See nn. 56–7.

116 Later in the fourteenth century, the abbot of Cluny demanded English palfreys from an intending lessee as part payment, and we know that these arrived whereas much of the cash did not; the abbot was so pleased with one of the animals that he asked his proctors to buy more if they were able to recover any more money, Duckett, G. F., Charters and records among the Archives of the Ancient Abbey of Cluny, London 1888, i. 182, 187–8.Google Scholar

117 See n. 103; some Templars were given a licence to go to Cyprus in 1296 with three horses worth six marks each, CCR 1288–96, 511, which implies that the government was already aware of their export potential. In 1368, when Michael Roger, prior of Long Bennington, was going to Savigny, he had to find a mainpernor that he would bring back his horses or others to the same value, CPR 1367–70, 132.

118 Merchants were exempted from the almost total closure of the ports to both men and materials in early 1326, CCR 1323–7, 545–7. In times of crisis, however, they came under extra scrutiny, as when they were suspected of bearing prejudicial letters in their bundles of Wool carried under the terms of the newly established staples in 1326, ibid. 639–40.

119 CCR 1302–7, 471, 521.

120 CCR 1295–1302, 218; Prynnc, , History, 785.Google Scholar For other and earlier evidence of the export of goods to Norman abbeys by their English cells see Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 69–70.Google Scholar

121 ‘Per manus suas proprias vel per manus mercatorum’: MP, 314.

122 Donkin, R. A., The Cistercians: studies in the geography of medieval England and Wales, Toronto 1978, 148–52Google Scholar, 195–8. Credit ran from buyer to seller at this time because there was a fixed amount of wool being chased by a large amount of Italian money, compared to the later situation of many eager sellers of wool to less liquid merchants, Postan, M. M., ‘Credit in medieval trade’, Economic History Review i (1927–1928), 234–61Google Scholar, at pp. 243–4, 257–8; Spufford, P., Handbook of Medieval Exchange, London 1986, p. xliv.Google Scholar England's trade balance was apparently very healthy, which accounts for the success in attracting so much silver into the country after it had been lost in the 1290s, Prestwich, , ‘Monetary policies’, 414Google Scholar; Spufford, , Money, 139–40, 160–2.Google Scholar

123 Ibid. 254–63; Postan, M. M., ‘Private financial instruments in medieval England’, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte xxiii (1930), 26–75, at pp. 72–5.Google Scholar

124 Spufford, , Money, 255.Google Scholar

125 RP i. 222.

126 For dealings between the Crown, the Italian merchants and the papacy, see Rhodes, W. E., ‘The Italian bankers in England and their loans to Edward I and Edward II’, in Tout, T. F. and Tait, James (eds), Historical Essays, Manchester 1907, 137–68Google Scholar; Kaeuper, R. W., Bankers to the Crown: the Riccardi of Lucca and Edward I, Princeton 1973Google Scholar; Prestwich, M. C., War, Politics, and Finance under Edward I, London 1972, 206–13Google Scholar, 215–18; and Lunt, , Financial Relations, 331–4Google Scholar, 597–603, 641–65.

127 Postan, , ‘Credit’, 245–6.Google Scholar

128 For these words, see Medieval Latin Dictionary, London 1975–, and Latham, R. E., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, London 1965Google Scholar, s.v. Which way the credit ran is difficult to assess: the merchants were performing the service of transferring funds, for which they expected a fee, and they were themselves receiving a loan of cash or merchandise in a country from which there was much to export and on which they might therefore expect to pay interest. In general, it seems that the merchants made their fee from the profit from the purchase and sale of merchandise in the time-lag between receipt and payment, and paid interest simply by performing the service of transfer, Lunt, , op. cit. 602Google Scholar; in any particular situation the balance of needs would have determined the weighting of this equation. But see Spufford, , Handbook, pp. xxxvii–xlivGoogle Scholar, where the functions of transfer and credit association with the bill of exchange are strictly separated.

129 Matthew found parallel evidence that merchants were used by agents in England to transfer profits to Norman abbots, Norman Monasteries, 67–9. It is even possible that the bill of exchange can be directly connected with the alien priories, for the marginalia of the royal rolls of 1294–5 show some of the apports to have been paid ‘per talliam’, and others ‘per billam’, PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 1–2. A tally was a simple receipt, although it quite possibly involved merchants, too; ‘billa’ was also a common word for a receipt, but in the context of funds being transferred across the Channel – indeed, to the vicinity of Paris which, with London and Bruges, was one of the few banking centres of northern Europe, Spufford, , Handbook, p. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; idem, Money, 254 – it may have been the record of a bill of exchange that was shown to the exchequer clerks.

130 Plucknett, , Legislation of Edward I, ch. viGoogle Scholar; Postan, , ‘Credit’, 237Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Financial instruments’, 32–42, on instruments within and without the purview of common law.

131 Gras, N. S. B., The Early English Customs System, London 1918, 94–100Google Scholar, 136–8, 219–20; Carus-Wilson, E. M. and Coleman, Olive, England's Export Trade 1275–1547, Oxford 1963, 3–4, 23–4Google Scholar; see also the monetary legislation itself in nn. 56–7.

132 Spufford, , op. cit. 254Google Scholar; CPR 1324–7, 269; CPR 1327–30, 98–9: CCR 1323–7, 565.

133 See nn. 98, 118; in July 1326 even merchants were finally excluded from travelling, although the staple bypassed this, ibid., and CCR 1323–7, 585.

134 In January 1326 Edward II appointed coastguards to watch the Kent coast for people landing with letters prejudicial to the Crown, as they were evading the ports where control was being exercised, CPR 1324–7, 208–11; this amounts to an admission that control of the ports was inadequate for those who were determined to evade it.

135 Morgan, , Lands of Bec, 122–3.Google Scholar

136 Newington Longeville Charters, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxfordshire Record Society, 1921), 96–7.Google Scholar

137 King, H.P., ‘Cistercian financial organisation, 1335–1392’, this JOURNAL xxiv (1973), 127–43Google Scholar, at pp. 132–3; Desmond, , ‘Statute of Carlisle’, 157.Google Scholar

138 PRO, E 106/4/5; see n. 65.

139 The bailiff of the abbot of Savigny made it clear that the church of Long Bennington was granted directly to Savigny for the benefit of that abbey.

140 PRO, E 106/3/10, 19 m. 1; see above nn. 42–4.

141 CFR i. 362–4; PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 2–4d.

142 PRO, E 106/3/10, 3/19 mm. 5–13: where lands and churches had been leased, the Crown simply took the whole of the farm, e.g. Ivry, see above n. 80.

143 Morgan, , Lands of Bec, 121–2Google Scholar; idem, ‘Bec-Hellouin’, 56–7. Stoke, from £200 to £126 7s. 3d., exactly the profit after the obligations had been deducted from the 1294 taxation figure; and St Neots halved from £140 to £70, which left a margin of £8 15s. 10d.

144 E.g. the two abbeys of Caen, and also Cluny, see nn. 84, 89, 147, Calendar of Charter Rolls, London 1903–27, iv. 271–2; Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 30–2.Google Scholar

145 CCR 1296–1302, 368; CPR 1292–1301, 538.

146 CPR 1327–30, 100; in this case royal action represented a speedy resumption of apports after the period of hostilities and political crisis, by a queen who had strong links with the house by birth and position – as well as access to the levers of power on the deposition of Edward 11. For Isabella's beneficence to the sister house, St Stephen's, see CFR v. 297–8, 347–8; CPR 1340–3, 330.

47 Cluny, in the county of Mâcon, was founded by William 1 the Pious, duke of Aquitaine, but soon passed for ever out of the orbit ofthat duchy into that of Burgundy, Dunbabin, Jean, France in the Making, 843–1180, Oxford 1985, 59–60Google Scholar, 119, 261, 265–6; Brooke, , Europe in the Central Middle Ages, 327 n. 6.Google Scholar In any case, Cluny claimed immunity from secular lordship and also appealed to the protection of the monarchy, but when convenient it chose to regard Henry 1 as a founder. In the crisis of the approaching confiscation of alien lands at the beginning of the fifteenth century an abbot made great play of the fact that the kings of England were founders and major beneficiaries of prayers at Cluny in order to persuade them to let the abbey enjoy its English revenues, Duckett, , charters and Records i. 143–5Google Scholar, 149–50, 177–9, 190–2. The Crown described Cluny as ‘of royal foundation’, CPR 1391–6, 49. The monks of Caen used similar arguments in 1420–1, Matthew, , op. cit. 172–3.Google Scholar

148 CPR 1354–8, 221, 283.

149 Newington Longeville Charters, 96, see n. 68. It is not known whether the twentieths collected from the prior of Newton Longville in 1335 were part of a licensed exaction at this point, although the fact that the proctors' acknowledgement of the receipt of these was made in London may suggest that there was little to hide, see n. 136. The abbot's proctor at this point was John Offord, Edward III's chancellor, who was provided to Canterbury two years later but died before consecration, Handbook of British Chronology, ed. Fryde, E. B., Greenway, D. E., Porter, S. and Roy, I., 3rd edn, London 1986, 86Google Scholar, 94, 233; CFR v. 35, 266. Whether he was proctor on the abbot's initiative or the king's matters less than that it was an arrangement which suited all parties.

150 For Ivry sec Gallia Christiana xi. 652; for the family called ‘Level’ in Normandy, see GEC, The Complete Peerage, ed. Gibbs, V. et al., London 1910–1959, viii. 208ff.Google Scholar; Crouch, D., The Beaumont Twins, Cambridge 1986, 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Depoin, J., Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St-Martin de Pontoise, Pontoise 1899, 470–5.Google Scholar The English and Norman lands were divided c. 1170. Crouch, , op cit. 8–13.Google Scholar

151 Taylor, A.J., ‘The alien priory of Minster Lovell’, Oxoniensia ii (1937), 103–4.Google Scholar

152 Blomefield, F., An Essay towards a Topographical History of Norfolk, London 1805–1811, x. 367.Google Scholar

153 Taylor, , art. cit. 108.Google Scholar

154 Ibid. 109; Victoria County History, Northamptonshire iii. 144, 148.Google Scholar

155 Blomefield, , op. cit. x. 369, 396.Google Scholar

156 Taylor, , ‘Minster Lovell’, 109Google Scholar; CFR iii. 328. This payment appears as both a farm – the result of the specific leasing agreement – and an apport, because it was the abbot's proctor who transmitted the revenues.

157 Taylor, , art. cit. no, 112Google Scholar; CFR v. 35.

158 CFR v. 38–9.

159 For reasons which cannot be discussed here, I hope to develop this subject further in my study of the alien priories.

160 CCR 1288–96, 313; Prynne, , History, 570Google Scholar; see above p. 548.

161 The absence of further complaints presumably reflects the effectiveness of the Crown's measures against non-alien convents. Certainly the picture presented in King, , ‘Cistercian financial organisation’, 132–3Google Scholar, and Desmond, ‘Statute of Carlisle’, would not suggest that the order was receiving very much.

162 They had been founded at the centre of the new Anglo-Norman honours, which tended either to remain intact or to go to other similarly placed families down the centuries, an argument set out in Thompson, , Church and Aristocracy, ch. iiGoogle Scholar; see Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, ch. iiGoogle Scholar; Sanders, I. J., English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086–1327, Oxford 1960Google Scholar; and for the general accumulation of more ancient units by fewer families, McFarlane, K. B., The Nobility of Later Medieval England, Oxford 1973, 143–61 (esp. 151–3)1 172–6Google Scholar, 269–78. The East Anglian conventual alien priories illustrate the point. Horsham St Faith, a part-exception, was founded by a tenant of the honour of Eye, but probably at the point where that honour was itself in royal hands, Monasticon iii. 635; Sanders, , English Baronies, 43.Google Scholar The fourteenth-century heirs were on the edge of the nobility and moved in noble circles, Complete Peerage iii. 275–6, ii. 115–16, xii/2. 154–6; Chester Waters, R. E., The Chesters of Chicheley, London 1878, i. 337–9.Google Scholar Castlcacre was part of the vast Warenne inheritance, which passed to the Fitzalan earl of Arundel and the duke of Lancaster in 1347, Complete Peerage xii/1. 493–512; Blomefield, , Norfolk ii. 53–6.Google Scholar Thetford, founded by the Bigods, remained with the earldom, then the dukedom, of Norfolk until the dissolution, although it passed both by royal grant and inheritance through heiresses, Complete Peerage ix. 577–605; CCR 1339–41, 36; CPR 1360–4, 452. Eye shows that honours which escheated and were re-granted went to royal cadets or titled earls, Robert Ufford, earl of Suffolk and Richard II's queen in this century, Sanders, , English Baronies, 43–4Google Scholar; Complete Peerage xii/i. 429–32; CPR 1334–8, 418, 496; CPR 1338–40, 265; CPR 1381–5, 125–6. Stoke-by-Clare and St Neots were part of the Clare inheritance, which illustrates that even parts of great honours were large enough to form the endowment of the titled. The three heiresses left in 1314 were married into die Despenser, Audley (both of which branches achieved the title of the earldom of Gloucester at different times) and Burgh (earls of Ulster) families, and, by further inheritance, the latter branches went to the Staffords, earls of Stafford (patrons of St Neots) and Mortimers, carls of March (lords of the honour of Clare and patrons of Stoke), Sanders, , English Baronies, 35Google Scholar, Altschul, M., A Baronial Family in Medieval England: the Clares, 1217–1314, Baltimore 1965, 40–1, 165–74.Google Scholar

163 All the Edwards showed favour to French abbeys, whose lands they did not hesitate to exploit not only in war but also in vacancies, where time after time they demanded rights which had been proved previously not to belong to them, Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 76–81.Google Scholar

164 PRO, E 106/4/9, m. 5; Victoria County History, Yorkshire iii. 184.Google Scholar

165 On the death of one prior in 1300, who had been collated from Cluny according to the usual procedure, the subprior and convent elected their own prior rather than accept Cluny's next nominee, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ed. Graham, Rose (Canterbury and York Society, 1952–1956) 703–4Google Scholar; CPL i. 594–5. The bishop of Norwich confirmed the election and, alongside the Bigods – the earl and his brother, the clerk, who had been living in the priory in 1279 – forcibly prevented the monks of Cluny, sent to publish the process against the convent, from entering. The elected prior had not been professed, however, so that the priory was pronounced vacant. Roger Bigod gave further permission to elect, and Thomas Bigod, a monk of Waiden, was chosen by the convent. Winchelsey apparently endorsed this move Reg. Winchelsey, 793, but Cluny regained its right to collation in 1308, after the death of the patron. As a result of the patronage falling to the king, an enquiry was instituted into patronal rights: it stated firmly that it was Bigod who caused the monks to elect Reginald de Eye during the war and who gave him the temporalities, CPR 1307–13, 140.

166 CCR 1341–3, 227.

167 CFR v. 32–3.

168 CFR v. 438; CPR 1343–5, 546; John Ufford had custody again, alongside the prior, in 1358, CFR vii. 62.

169 The petition of January 1296 was recited in the restoration of 1325 and the same phrases were quoted in 1337, CCR 1288–96, 470; CCR 1323–7, 251–2; CCR 1337–9, 151; Monasticon v. 54, where 24 Ed. 1, not xxxiiij, is clearly intended. Even if we did not have the close roll entry for 1296, the 1325 petition quotes the earlier one as made at the instance of John Warenne ‘tune comitis’, who must therefore have been the penultimate earl (d. 1304), not the current one. Mendham, a cell to Castleacre, was similarly released, but only in 1337, CCR 1337–9, 157.

170 CPR 1338–40, 505.

171 Victoria County History, Sussex ii. 64–9; Complete Peerage xii/i. 494–511. For the Warennes' support for wars, ibid. 505–7, 508–11.

172 PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 12 d, 14.

173 See the East Anglian houses: Castleacre, above, and denization confirmed by petition of Richard Fitzalan, the Warenne heir, Monasticon v. 15–16; CPR 1370–4, 286. Thetford, acquired free election at the cost of laymen, and subsequent denization; since in 1379 we find the patron by courtesy, William Ufford, helping the priory, he is likely to have been a contributor, at least, CPR 1374–7, 301; Monasticon v. 153; CFR ix. 129–30; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, London 1904–, xv. 249. Horsham, patron had custody in the decade leading up to denization in 1390, the petition for which mentioned him and foundation by his ancestors, and the ruin of divine services, CFR ix. 261; CPR 1388–92, 366. Stoke-by-Clare, denizen 1395 by a petition from the monks, whose main theme was the founding family and its spiritual services, and rcfounded as a college in 1415, by Edward, earl of March, heir to the honour of Clare, CPR 1391–6, 640; CPR 1413–16, 291–2; Monasticon vi. 1, 415–23, both events coinciding with the emergence of a new earl from minority; Complete Peerage viii. 448–51. Eye, under the regulation of William Ufford, earl of Suffolk, then made denizen at the request of Queen Anne, successive holders of the honour of Eye, CFR ix. 129–30, 329–30; Monasticon iii. 408.

174 See n. 63.

175 Southern, , Western Society, 16.Google Scholar

176 Conveniently printed and discussed in Tierney, , Crisis, 173–6, 182–9.Google Scholar

177 Morgan, , Lands of Bec, 123Google Scholar; Matthew, , Norman Monasteries, 68, 71.Google Scholar

178 See above p. 551.

179 MP, 312.

180 One of the central themes of the Rule of Benedict, e.g. ch. i on the various kinds of monks. See also Uhtred of Boldon, Pantin, , English Church, 170.Google Scholar

181 See above p. 557.

182 See above pp. 560, 563, 564.

183 See New, History, Matthew, Norman Monasteries, and Morgan, Lands of Bec; and below here for this usage.

184 In the Bible this word was used in connection with the tax or tribute owed to Caesar with which the Pharisees sought to trap Jesus, a passage well known in the Middle Ages, Matt. xxii. 17. Its medieval meanings ranged from occasional payments of tax or subsidy for some particular use to regular payments of rent or farm, Medieval Latin Dictionary, s.v. It was probably employed in this position in the statute precisely because of its wide application.

185 PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 12d, 14.

186 CCR 1323–7, 5.

187 PRO, E 106/3/io, 11. The assessment did not correspond to reality in that the cells which handed over profits rather than an agreed sum could not have paid a fixed figure annually. At the beginning of the fourteenth century the monks of Bee and some Norman barons told the pope that the prior of Ogbourne did not pay the abbot of Bec a fixed pension but accounted for all the profits beyond his expenses in running the bailiwick, Morgan, op. cit. 31–2; Porée, A. A., Histoire de l'Abbaye du Bec, Evreux 1901, ii. 60–1, 62–3.Google Scholar

188 PRO, E 106/3/19 mm. 1–2; the title may have been added later, but since the rolls in the note above were also copies and extracts made in Edward ii's reign, this does not affect the argument, except in so far as the word ‘apportum’ may have become exclusively used of this payment later.

189 Foedera iv. 246–7. When the prior of Toft was distrained retrospectively in 1339 for his ‘apport’ to the abbot of Préaux since the peace of 1327, the figure quoted was that at which his ‘redditus transmarinus’ had been assessed in the rolls of 1294–5, CCR 1339–41, 173. Note also the Spalding case, where the prior argued that the payment as assessed in 1294 was that forbidden by the writ, n. 191.

190 Foedera (Rec.) ii/2. 957.

191 CCR 1327–30, 252.

192 MP, 313.

193 The same phrase was used at the end of this petition, where a note was made of another seeking remedy ‘de aliis religiosis qui faciunt apportum ad partes transmarinas sicut xlii de Cluniaco, de Premuster, de Caritate, et alii etc.’. The characteristic payment of these houses, here referred to as an ‘apportum’, was not an annual sum – which only some Cluniac houses paid, and in these cases the sums were very small and not worth passing a statute of Carlisle to stop – but impositions of an extraordinary nature such as those against which the earlier petition was directed.

194 Prynne, , History, 785.Google Scholar

195 CCR 1296–1302, 216–17.

196 Foedera iv. 729–30.