Dieulacres Abbey

Amongst the appurtenances of the Earldom of Chester bought up by Henry III after the death of John Scot was the patronage of Dieulacres Abbey, which remained in royal hands for the remainder of the abbey’s history. As far as the Cistercian monasteries were concerned, the powers of a patron were very limited. He had no control over the election of abbots, nor over the internal affairs and administration of the abbey, and, as Cistercian estates were generally held in frankalmoign, neither patrons nor benefactors could exact rent or service from them. The main duty of a patron was to protect the monks, their lands, rights and privileges from anyone who might injure or prejudice them. The monks of Dieulacres could not have wished for a more powerful patron and protector than the King or the heir to the Throne, but sometimes the interests of Dieulacres conflicted with royal policy, and when this happened, the disadvantages of royal patronage became more readily apparent.

Although Henry III put the monks firmly in possession of the Rossall estate, the abbey’s first effective patron after the death of Iohn Scot in 1237 was the Lord Edward, who was made Earl of Chester in 1254. In 1270, Edward issued a charter of confirmation in which he granted to the monks of Dieulacres all the lands and possessions which they had received as gifts from Ranulph de Blundeville. The charter stated quite clearly that the Manor of Leek was to remain free and quit, in accordance with Ranulph’s charter which had been fully confirmed by the King. Neighbouring sheriffs and bailiffs were forbidden to interfere with the Manor, upon pain of a ￡20 fine [1]

The Lord Edward, as Earl of Chester, behaved well towards the monks of Dieulacres, but after he became King, in 1272, his policies were not always favourable to the Religious Orders. The effects of the Statute of Mortmain and the TAXATIO upon the monasteries have already been noted. In addition to these, Edward I instituted the Quo WARRANTO proceedings, whereby a subject could be summoned to prove his title to the lands and liberties which he held.

The first dispute which occurred between Dieulacres Abbey and its royal patron concerned the Manor of Rossall. Henry III’s charters had stated that the Lancashire estate was to be held in frankalmoign, free of all rent; but the acquisition of Rossall was not as simple as it might at first sight seem. The Dieulacres Chronicle says that in 1227-8 Ranulph de Blundeville concluded an agreement with the King, whereby he was to have the Manor of Rossall for the use of the monks of Dieulacres in return for a payment of 700 marks (nearly ￡470). The abbot was to pay this sum in seven annual instalments [2] The Chronicler adds that all the money had been paid by 1233-4, but it appears that the abbot still owed rent to the Exchequer for all the time during which the lands had been held in bail by his predecessors before the frankal- moign grant of 1228. In 1292, Edward I sued Abbot Robert le Burgilon in a plea of QUO WARRANTO, by which he challenged the abbot’s title to Rossall.

The abbot produced Henry III’s charter as evidence, but Edward’s attorney, William Inge, tried to prove that this was invalid on the grounds that in 1228 Henry III had still been a minor, and therefore unable to issue such charters on his own authority. Eventually the abbot appealed to a jury, which concluded that he had the greater right to the manor, by virtue of the royal charter which Henry III had reaffirmed, IN PLENA REGALI POTISTATE, in 1247.

William Inge was still not satisfied. He said that even though the abbot held the manor in frankalmoign at the present time, his predecessors had held it in bail for at least thirty years before the charter or 1247 had been granted; and he still refused to recognise the validity of the charters of 1228. In 1247, the attorney alleged, the manor had been worth ￡66 13s. 4d. PER ANNUM, and the abbot was therefore liable for arrears amounting to ￡2,000 for all the time that the lands had been held in bail. The abbot was accused of detaining ￡666 of this sum, “to the damage of the Lord King”.

The abbot admitted that his predecessors had held Rossall in bail, first of King John, and then of King Henry III; but he maintained that the custody of the lands had been granted free of rent. William Inge then challenged him to prove this by producing some reliable documentary evidence. The abbot was forced to admit that he had none, apart from the charter of Henry III already produced. The attorney, therefore, asked for a judgment in favour of the King, because Henry III’s charter contained nothing to suggest that the abbot was to be quit of rent lor the period before. 1247, and also because the charter of 1228 was anyway considered to be invalid.

It was finally agreed that the King should recover from the abbot the cash value of the use of the Manor of Rossall for all the time that it had been in the hands of the abbot’s predecessors before 1247. An enquiry was made to ascertain the precise length of time during which the manor had been held in bail, and the value of the property at that time. The jury stated on oath that the abbot’s predecessors had held Rossall in bail for seven years of King ]ohn’s reign, and that it had then been worth ￡20 per annum. For the first twenty-four years of Henry III’s reign its value had remained constant, but for the years 1241-1247 it had been worth ￡26 13s. 4d. PER ANUNM. The abbot was therefore liable for arrears of rent amounting to ￡78O, [3] an enormous imposition, when, as we have seen, the total assessment of the entire possessions of Dieulacres at this time amounted to only ￡164 18s. 8d. per year.

The sum, as it turned out, was never paid. The abbot either lodged an appeal, or Edward made a special concession to the abney on account of his position as patron, and in 1293 the King pardoned the abbot for the arrears and ordered the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to acquit him of the ￡780 debt. It appears that .they took no action, for in 1296 the matter was again brought to the attention of the King, who issued another order in which he expressed surprise that his previous instructions had not been carried out. [4]

Among the Staffordshire possessions of Dieulacres, the Manor of Leek stands out as a source of controversy between the abbot and the Crown. In 1275 a QUO WARRANTO inquisition concluded that, in spite of King Edward’s charter of 1270, Abbot Elias held Leek as a tenant-in-chief of the Crown. [5] In 1293 Elias’ successor Robert le Burgilon, was summoned to shew his warrent to hold Pleas of the Crown and to have free-warren, market, fair, gallow and other liberties in Leek. The abbot denied all claim to hol.. Pleas of the Crown, but as far as the other privileges were concerned, he said that King John had given Ranulph de BlundevilIe the right to hold a weekly market and an annual fair in Leek, and that when Ranulph had given the manor to the monks of Dieulacres, all the rights and privileges pertaining to it had been implicitly included. The result of the case was that the abbot was allowed to keep all the rights and liberties which he claimed, except that of taking tolls from all wagons passing through the town. [6]

These lawsuits involved the abbots of Dieulacres in a good deal of worry and trouble, but it must not be thought that by instituting QUO WARRANTO proceedings, Edward I was in any way oppressing the monasteries. The King did not want to abolish private liberties, but simply to find out what liberties were being enjoyed, and by what warrant their holders claimed the right to enjoy them. The Abbot of Dieulacres could not expect to be treated any differently in this respect from hundreds of other lords whose claims were likewise at this time being investigated.

Edward III took a rather exalted view of his rights over the abbey. He seems to have regarded it as a royal foundation, which of course it was not. The issue was brought to a head in 1344, when Abbot Randolph refused to give a corrody to one of the King’s servants, Richard Preston. In the legal battle which ensued, the King`s attorney claimed that there was a precedent for royal “lodgers” at Dieulacres. He said that Edward I had requested a corrody for Robert Carmenton, to whom the abbot had given sustenance for all his life “in bread, beer and kitchen, and other necessaries in the same way as a monk of the house; and 14 shillings annually for a robe, and for the tailoring of the same, 9d; and for his shoes, 4 shillings annually”. The attorney alleged that after the death of Robert Carmenton, Edward III had sent three writs to Abbot Randolph between the beginning of October and Christmas, 1344, requesting a similar corrody for Richard Preston, all of which writs had been treated with contempt.

Abbot Randolph was represented by his lawyer, who denied that there had been any contempt and said that he was prepared to prove that no royal writs had been delivered at Dieulacres. Furthermore, he stated that the abbot was in no way obliged to maintain royal corrodians because, by the charters of Ranulph de Blundeville, which had been confirmed by the King, Dieulacres was exempt from all secular demands and exactions. He also denied that there was any precedent, for he said that Robert Carmenton had never been given a corrody at the abbey.

The King’s attorney then tried to prove the abbot’s obligation to the King by saying that the abbey lands were situated quite outside the boundaries of the County of Chester, and that Earl Ranulph had held them as a tenant-in-chief of King Iohn and of Henry III. Consequently, the present abbot was also a tenantin-chief, for he had shewn no licence for the alienation of the lands into Mortmain. Added to this was the fact that since the extinction of the Norman Earldom of Chester, all the demesne lands and possessions of the Earldom had passed to the Crown. The attorney concluded by saying that the abbot held the Manor of Leek, the wood of Hillswood, and the Manor of Birchall Grange as a tenant-in-chief, and that by reason of this tenancy he was obliged to provide corrodies at the request of his overlord, the King.

The abbot again denied both the precedent and the allegation that he was the tenant. He appealed to a jury which met at Easter 1346. The jurors stated on oath that the Abbey of Dieulacres was of the foundation of the Earl of Chester, and that the abbot and his predecessors had held the abbey, and the other lands referred to, in frankalmoign, and not as tenants-in-chief. They also stated that Robert Carmenton had never received a corrody at the request of Edward I. The suit was, therefore, dismissed In addition to corrodies which were demanded for servants of the Crown, sustenance was often given voluntarily by abbots to private individuals, sometimes as retaining fees to useful workmen or agents, and sometimes in return for gifts of land. Corrodies which were given in this way could be profitable to a monastery; but royal corrodians and others who imposed themselves on the good-will of the brethren often placed a strain on the abbey’s resources. [9]

The abuses to which monastic hospitality was sometimes subjected is reflected in an order which was sent in 1351 by the Black Prince to Thomas Ferrers, Iusticiar of Chester. The order stated that the abbey of Dieulacres, and those of St. Werbergh, Vale Royal and Combermere, “which were founded and endowed by the Prince’s predecessors and are of his patronage, are so excessively burdened by the frequent visits of the people of the country, with grooms, horses and greyhounds, and are so wrongfully annoyed and harrassed in many other ways by people of those parts who aim at abasing them, bringing them to servitude and doing them damage, that their possessions hardly suffice for the sustenance of the small number of monks at present serving God there”. The Iusticiar was instructed to keep a close watch on these abbeys, and to see that these indiscriminate visitsand charges were stopped. He was also ordered to take proceedings against any persons “who from malice are going about to molest or annoy them wrongfully [10]

Neither these injunctions, nor the outcome of the Preston case of 1346, prevented the King from making further requests for corrodies to be provided at Dieulacres. Towards the end of Edward III’s reign, Giles Birforde, a Falconer, was given a corrody at the King’s command; between 1380 and 1399 Richard II had three corrodians at Dieulacres Matthew de Swettenham, a Yeoman of the King’s Chamber; Richard Woodward, a Royal Sergeant; and lohn Rose. [11] It is possible that the presence of these last three corrodians in the abbey was to some extent responsible for the pro-Royalist bias reflected in the continuation of the Dieulacres Chronicle which describes the deposition of Richard II in 1399. [12]

Cistercian Illumination Of Stephen Harding

Go to - Chapter 5

0 Comments: