Sidelights on the Rectors and Parishoners of Reculver the Register of Archbishop Winchelsey

— • — SIDELIGHTS ON THE RECTORS AND PARISHIONERS OF RECULVER FROM THE REGISTER OP ARCHBISHOP WINCHELSEY. BY ROSE fi.Tt.ATTAM, O.B.E., D.LITT., E.S.A., E.R.BCtST.S. THE exceptional wealth of the benefice of Reculver was a disturbing factor in the history of the parish. The Archbishops of Canterbury had been in possession of the manor and the advowson of the church since the gift by King Edred in 949. The Saxon abbey had then ceased to exist, but the building continued in use as a parish church. In the late thirteenth century it was the mother church of four dependent chapels which had come into existence for the service of the inhabitants of the manor who numbered over a thousand. The chapels were at Hoath, St. Nicholas in Thanet, All Saints, no longer in existence, between St. Nicholas and Birchington, and Heme. On several occasions the Crown and the Papacy claimed the presentation to Reculver for their nominees. From 1295 until 1308 there were rival rectors, and violent seizures of tithes for four summers. In the space of twelve years three rectors were notable men, John de Langton, Edward I's chancellor, afterwards Bishop of Chichester (1305-1337), Simon of Faversham, who had served the University of Oxford as chancellor of the University, and Nicholas of Tingwick, Edward I's most trusted physician, a Balliol man and a benefactor of his University. Archbishop Wmchelsey, the most outstanding Oxford scholar of his generation in church and state, made a fresh arrangement to promote the spiritual welfare of the parishioners on his manor of Reculver. The parishioners suffered a grievous wrong when in 1276 Archbishop Kilwardby (1273-1278), a Dominican Friar, appropriated the church of Reculver to two hospitals, the leper hospital of Harbledown and the hospital of Northgate, Canterbury.1 They were founded by Archbishop Lanfranc (1070-1089) who charged the revenues of the see of Canterbury with an annual payment of two hundred and forty marks (£160) a year for their maintenance. Archbishop Kilwardby intended 1 Calendar of Papal Letters, I, p. 511; Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, II, p. 284 (Rolls Series). 2 SEDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WINOHELSEY to free himself and his successors from a heavy burden. The complete record of the act is missing ; in 1278 the Archbishop was created Cardinal Bishop of Porto and it is alleged that he carried away to Rome the registers of the Archbishops which were never recovered.1 The chapter of the cathedral monastery of Canterbury consented to Archbishop Kilwardby's arrangement which provided that the Keeper of the leper hospital at Harbledown should pay a hundred marks (£66 13s. 4d.) to the hospital of Northgate, Canterbury, and retain a hundred and forty marks (£93 6s. 8d.) for the lepers under his care. The assessment of Reculver in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas in 1291 is interesting; the rector's portion was assessed at 170 marks (£113 6s. 8d.), the vicar's share at twenty-five marks ; these figures represented approximately two-thirds of the estimated average income in Archbishop Kilwardby's gift to the Hospitals ; the obligation of two hundred and forty marks was covered in the assessment of a hundred and seventy marks which would give a margin of ten marks for the cost of collection and yearly variations. By this appropriation to the hospitals the spiritual provision for the parishioners of Reculver was reduced to approximately one-eighth of the former amount; the vicar who took the place of the wealthy rector was nevertheless bound to maintain chaplains for the services of the chapels and to contribute to the repair of those buildings. By an unusual provision the parishioners were responsible for the repair of the chancel as well as the nave of the mother church of Reculver. The consequences of Archbishop Kilwardby's action were disastrous. The parishioners were so resentful of their subjection to lepers that they withheld payment of their tithes, and the hospitals suffered a serious loss of revenue. The vicar of Reculver neglected his obligation to send a chaplain to celebrate mass daily in the chapels of All Saints in Thanet and of St. Nicholas, and their parishioners complained to Archbishop Peckham, the Franciscan friar who succeeded Kilwardby. He held an inquiry, and on April 27th, 1284, he decreed that the vicar should provide a chaplain to serve the two chapels and insisted that the inhabitants and the vicar alike were bound to contribute to the repair of the buildings.2 In 1296 liability to contribute to the restoration of the fabric of All Saints' chapel was disputed. On June 12th, parishioners came to Bourne near Canterbury bringing documents to exhibit to Archbishop Winchelsey's commissaries ; it was settled that the street called North Street from the house of the late John de Aula as far as the house of Richard le Rydere on either side of the said street lay within the bounds of the chapel of All Saints, and therefore all the inhabitants of the street, and those who had lands adjoining it, were 1 R. C. Jenkins, Diocesan History of Canterbury, pp. 156, 157. 2 Register of Archbishop Peckham, ff. 206v, 207. I am indebted to Dr. Irene ChurchUl for this reference. SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE AROHBISHOE WTNOHELSEY 3 parishioners.1 This is an early instance of a compulsory church rate for the repair of the fabric. Archbishop Peckham determined to remedy tile injury to the hospitals. He petitioned Pope Nicholas IV for a faculty to revoke the appropriation of Reculver and to reimpose the original charge of £160 a year on the revenues of the see. This faculty was granted in 1290.2 The division of the benefice between the reotor and the vicar remained. Archbishop Peckham recovered the right of presentation to the rectory, and rewarded his chancellor, Master Luke, by instituting him to Reculver.3 The Archbishop died on December 8th, 1292, and Master Luke did not long survive him. Edward I quickly exercised the right of the Crown to fill vacant livings when the see of Canterbury was vacant. On March. 18th, 1293, be presented bis chancellor to the wealthy benefice of Reculver, although Langton already held the rectories of Brough under Stainmore in the diocese of Carlisle and Breadsall in the diocese of Lichfield,* and had no papal dispensation to take another benefice. Archbishop Winchelsey was consecrated at Aquila in central Italy on September 12th, 1294. He returned to England and landed at Yarmouth on January 1st, 1295. He began a visitation of his diocese and found much amiss at Reculver; some of the parishioners were presented for the sins of fornication and adultery, others for witchcraft and usury ; if unable to establish their innocence by purgation, they were condemned to be whipped round the church and the market place. The Archbishop issued a mandate to the rector's commissary and to the vicar jointly to see that the penances were performed ; the names of guilty parishioners were written on a schedule attached to the mandate, others had the opportunity of clearing themselves by purgation.5 At this visitation the Archbishop was told of the contention between the parishioners and the vicar about the custody of offerings placed in a chest which stood in front of the great stone cross between the chancel and the nave. This is the sole recorded mention of that great stone cross which was described in 1540 by the antiquary, John Leland. When he visited Reculver, he saw something, which as Sir Charles Peers noted8 raised him to an enthusiasm which be seldom displayed : " Yn 1 Register of Archbishop Winchelsey, I, p. 113 (Canterbury and York Society). a O.P.L., I, p. 611. 3 Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Decern., p. 1952 ; Sede Vacante Institutions, p. 103 (Kent Records, 1923). 1 O.P.L., p. 626. 5 Winchelsey, I, p. 101. 0 " Reculver : its Saxon Churoh and Cross", Archaeologia, LXXVTI, pp. 241- 4 SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WUSTCHELSEY. the enteryng of the quyer ys one of the fayrest and the most auncyent crosse that ever I saw, a ix footes, as I ges, yn highte. It standeth lyke a fayr columne. The base greate stone ys not wrought. The second stone being rownd hath curiously wrought and paynted the images of Christ, Peter, Paule, John and James, as I remember. Christ sayeth Ego sum Alpha et 0. Peter sayeth, Tu es Christus' filius Dei vivi. The saing of the other iij when painted majusculis Uteris Ro. but now obliterated. The second stone is of the Passion. The third conteineth the xii Apostles. The iiii hath the image of Christ hanging and fastened with iiii nayles and sub pedibus sustentaculum. The hiest part of the pyller hath the figure of a crosse." Plates I and II. Sir Charles Peers has identified carved fragments of this richly carved stone cross in the modern church at Hillsborough, a mile inland from the old church of Reculver which was partly pulled down in 1805. In a communication read to the Society of Antiquaries in 1927 he has claimed that the cross was put up by the first builder of the monastery of Reculver not much after the year 670, and has shown that it stood on a masonry platform immediately west of the arcade of three semicircular arches of Roman brick springing from lofty circular stone columns which divided the nave from the chancel. The columns with their capitals and bases still exist, and now stand in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral. At the time of Archbishop Winchelsey's visitation a chest for offerings and alms stood in front of the great stone cross. The parishioners claimed the offerings for the fabric fund, because tbey bad accepted responsibility for the repair of the chancel as well as the nave, and they also provided service books, ornaments and vestments. The vicar complained to the Archbishop that the parishioners persuaded strangers to put their offerings into the chest, and moreover tbey placed their own offerings made at the churching of women after childbirth: at weddings and at funerals in the chest instead of giving tbem at the high altar, and so they defrauded him of his dues. He also alleged thai the parishioners opened the chest as they chose and spent money or other purposes than the repair of the fabric. In a judgment given or June 12th, 1296, the Archbishop decreed that the chest should hav< four keys, one kept by the vicar, two by parishioners elected by the community, the fourth by an elected parishioner of Heme chapel It was understood that the chest was to be provided with three or fouJ different locks, and could only be opened when three or four of th< parties were present with their keys. The feast of the Nativity of th< Virgin (September 2nd) drew crowds to Reculver, and on that annua occasion the Archbishop settled that a clerk in orders, wearing a surplice and two or three of the parishioners if they wished, should collect th< offerings and put them in the chest. If money should be needed for th< repair of the fabric and other obligations, the chest should be unloekec PLATE I. RECULVER CROSS. Archaeologia, Vol. 77. Stone No. I. PI. XLII. PLATK II. RECULVER CROSS. Archaeologia, VoS. 77. Stone No. 5. PI. XLiV. SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WXNOHELSEY. 5 and the offerings counted in the presence of the vicar and some of the parishioners, the amount written down, two parishioners chosen to spend it and render an account.1 The vicar and parishioners were also at variance about legacies and offerings for the hghts of the church and the provision of seven candles in the chancel. The Archbishop decreed that two parishioners should be elected to receive offerings for hghts in the presence of the vicar, maintain the hghts and render an account once a year. The vicar was under an obligation to provide six candles in the chancel and two processional candles at his own expense. Parishioners elected by the community were bound to renew their oaths of faithful administration every year in the presence either of the rector's commissary or of the vicar and of some of the parishioners. The rector to whom the Archbishop referred in this award was not the Crown nominee and powerful chancellor, John de Langton. He was only in subdeacon's orders and had as yet no papal dispensation to hold Reculver with his other benefices. Archbishop Winchelsey had the courage to regard the rectory as vacant, and in 1295 he presented Thomas of Chartham who was duly inducted but to httle purpose save vexation.2 Year by year, as the Archbishop recaUed in 1299, John de Langton seized the rector's tithes. On June 11th in that year the chancellor landed at Dover after an absence of nearly four months. He had been at the papal court in Rome with letters from Edward I in support of his election to the see of Ely. He was unsuccessful but as a compensation for his disappointment Boniface VIII had given him, on April 21st, a licence to retain the treasurership of the cathedral church of Wells, eanonries and prebends in seven cathedral churches and one collegiate church, six parish churches in as many different dioceses with leave to acquire two more benefices up to a total value of £1,000 a year.3 One of the parish churches which he could retain was Reculver.3 Soon after Langton's return to England he sent a large band of armed men and servants to break into the rectory and buildings of Reculver and of the chapels. They occupied the buildings in dayhght in the presence of the parishioners with the intention of seizing the rector's tithes.4 Their arrival was reported to the Archbishop by the rightful rector, Thomas of Chartham. On July 18th and 24th, Winchelsey issued mandates to bis commissary, Master Martin, to warn the offenders to withdraw and make restitution under penalty of excommunication, and also to see that proclamation was made during mass on Sundays 1 Winchelsey, I, pp. 87-9. 8 Ibid., I, p. 350. 3 C.P.L., I, p. 581. 4 Winchelsey, I, pp. 360-8. 4 6 SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WINOHELSEY. and festivals in the parish church of Reculver and the four dependent chapels, instructing the parishioners to withhold their tithes from any other person than the rightful rector. They should be told not to set aside the tenth part at harvest time, but to reckon the quantity and store the whole crop until Thomas of Chartham could claim it. On August 6th the Archbishop cited John de Langton to appear in person or by proxy before his court on September 18th. Worse news came to the Archbishop. John de Langton's men shot rabbits and hares on the Archbishop's warren at Reculver, terrorized his bailiff and servants and prevented them from carrying the harvest on the manor until they had taken what they wanted for themselves. On August 13th Master Martin received a mandate to summon these evildoers to appear before the Archbishop's court, and to forbid the vicar and his chaplains to celebrate mass if any of them were present. The Archbishop concluded, " If it happens that you cannot get safely to Reculver and the chapels, send for the vicar and chaplains to meet you in a safe place and give them these instructions." There was more unwelcome news for the Archbishop. He learnt that on June 28th, at the King's request, and in accordance with the Canon Law, Pope Boniface VIII had provided John de Langton to the archdeaconry of Canterbury which fell vacant at the Curia when the late archdeacon, Richard Fering, was preferred to the archbishopric of Dublin.1 On September 23rd Winchelsey formally notified the clergy and laity of the diocese that he had admitted John de Langton to the office of archdeacon and told them to obey him in all matters relating to his office.2 The parish of Reculver, however, like others in the diocese of Canterbury in the Archbishop's coUation, was exempt from the jurisdiction of the archdeacon.3 The Archbishop's summons to John de Langton to appear before bis court was sent to the deans of the cathedral churches of Lincoln, Chichester and Salisbury to be read in choir and chapter, as well as to Master Martin ; if the chancellor should be hindered from coming by business in the King's service, he was bidden to send a proctor with instructions to answer the charges of which the deans were to furnish him with sealed copies.* John de Langton failed to appear, but eventually sent a proctor who made appeals which were declared frivolous and intended to set aside the law.6 On January 22nd, 1300, the Archbishop gave sentence that the chancellor or his agents should be removed and compeUed to 1 O.P.L., I, p. 683, of. Corpus juris canoniai, ed. Friedberg, I I , p. 1021. a Winchelsey, I, p. 360. 8 I. J. Churohill, Canterbury Administration, I, pp. 85-7. i Winchelsey, I, pp. 354-6. s Ibid., I, pp. 373-5. SIDELIGHTS ER0M THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WTOOHELSEY. 7 make restitution to the rightful rector, Thomas of Chartham. Master Martin was instructed to publish the sentence on Sundays and festivals in Reculver and the chapels and other churches in the neighbourhood. The penalty of the greater excommunication was threatened for failure to withdraw within three days and to make restitution of spoils. The chancellor's men and servants stayed in possession at Reculver. On March 8th, 1300, after taking counsel with the lawyers of his court, the Archbishop pronounced that John de Langton had come under the penalty of the greater excommunication, and was thereby deprived of ah the benefices which he held in England. The Bishop of London received a mandate to publish the judgment, and to notify the patrons of Langton's benefices that these were vacant.1 There can be httle doubt that Bishops of other dioceses in the province of Canterbury had similar instructions. Nevertheless, John de Langton's men were still in possession at Reculver on May 8th, when the Archbishop told his commissary to go in person before June 11th and remove the intruders from Reculver, its chapels and buildings.2 No evidence of their ejection has come to hght. John de Langton's appeal through his proctor, John de Kybbeworth, was favourably considered at the Curia ; Pope Boniface VIII instructed the Bishops of Sahsbury and Rochester and the Dean of St. Paul's to act as judges delegate in the case between the Archbishop and the Archdeacon of Canterbury, and in the case of the rival rectors of Reculver.3 So great were the delays that it was not until June 24th, 1301, that the judges appointed the Archdeacons of London and Colchester and two canons of St. Paul's to act for them. It is probable that John de Langton had ceased to claim Reculver some months earher. There is an entry on the Patent RoU dated November 15th, 1300, that Edward I sanctioned the grant in mortmain to Thomas of Chartham, described as rector of Reculver, of fifteen acres of land in that parish.4 In the few years of peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of his benefice, he erected fine and spacious buildings at great labour and expense and with the Archbishop's help and advice.5 He died early in 1306. His nephew and executor sold the buildings to a layman, contrary to the late rector's intentions. John de Langton was consecrated Bishop of Chichester on September 19th, 1305, and the archdeaconry of Canterbury fell vacant. Almost ten weeks had elapsed between the Archbishop's confirmation of his election and the consecration, and Winchelsey hoped to appoint a man of peace as archdeacon. His choice feU on Simon of Faversham 1 Winchelsey, II, pp. 891-5. 2 Ibid., I, p. 388. 3 Register of Simon of Gaunt, I, p . 68 (Canterbury and York Sooiety). 1 Calendar of Letters Patent 1293-1300, p. 542. 5 Winchelsey, II, pp. 1056-8. 8 SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WTNOHELSEY. to whom he had given the rectory of Harrow about 1300.1 Simon of Faversham, regent master in theology, had been chancellor of the University of Oxford since January 31st, 1304. He was a distinguished scholar, who has left considerable literary remains in manuscripts at Merton CoUege, in the University Library of Leipzig, at Erfurt, and in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. He wrote commentaries on the logical, natural and ethical books of Aristotle.2 He gave several books to St. Augustine's monastery at Canterbury. He was admitted to the archdeaconry of Canterbury on September 22nd, 1305, but only held it for five months when he gave it up without protest; news came that Pope Clement V had presented Bernard Ezii de Lebreto who was under age and had only received the first tonsure. On February 13th, 1306,in obedience to the papal mandate, the Archbishop admitted the proctor of this Gascon youth who did not reside in England and was privileged to draw the fruits of his Enghsh benefices, and again dispensed in 1308 from taking orders until he should be twenty-five.3 Thomas of Chartham had died and the Archbishop presented Simon of Faversham to the rectory of Reculver. On February 14th he resigned from the office of chanceUor of the University. He was not to enjoy peaceful possession of Reculver. There was another claimant, Walter of Maidstone, who was obnoxious both to Winchelsey and Edward I. When rector of Naflstone in Leicestershire he had forged letters in the name of the Bishop of Lincoln, and used them in the diocese of Canterbury. He was deprived of his benefice by the Archbishop who oaUed in the secular arm to arrest him. He was imprisoned for two years; and when released, returned to NaUstone. The circumstances were made known to Pope Boniface VIII who sent a mandate in 1300 to the Bishop of Lincoln or his official to arrest him, if necessary to caU in the secular arm and send him in custody to the Curia with the forged letters held by the King. Whether Walter of Maidstone reached the Curia as a prisoner or traveUed there on his own account is not known. Subsequently he gained the favour of Pope Clement V and was aheady a hcensed pluralist when he aimed at securing Reculver, the only benefice in the diocese in the gift of the Archbishop of the value of £100 a year.4 Winchelsey was no longer able to defend Simon of Faversham. His own long conflict with Edward I was drawing to a close. On March 25th he heard the news that Pope Clement V had suspended him 1 A. G. Little and F. Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 262-6 (Oxford Historical Society, 1934); J. 0. Russell, Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England, p. 148 (Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Supplement 3, 1936). * D. A. Callus O.P. " Introduction of Aristotelian Learning to Oxford." Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. XXIX, p. 52. I am indebted to Dr.. A. Q. Little for this reference. 8 Winchelsey, I, p. 504 ; O.P.L., II, pp. 47, 48. * O.P.L., I, p. 690 j II, pp. 6, 12, 13, 36. SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WHTOHELSEY. 9 from the administration of spirituahties and temporahties ; he awaited the formal citation to the Curia to answer the charges brought against him by Edward I ; it was dehvered to him at Dover on May 18th and the next day he took ship for France to find the Pope at Bordeaux. Edward I knew of the suspension, probably before the Archbishop. He espoused the cause of Simon of Faversham in a letter to Clement V dated AprU 12th. " Master Simon," he pleaded, " who is distinguished for learning and virtue, fears to be vexed and disquieted by reason of a papal provision for a clerk much inferior in merits and goodness."1 On May 24th Master Simon received a royal letter of protection to go to the Curia and defend his claim to Reculver against Walter of Maidstone who became Bishop of Worcester in 1313. Simon died at the Curia before July 19th.2 After his death both Clement V and Edward I claimed the presentation to Reculver. The King assumed that during the Archbishop's suspension it was his right, as in a vacancy of the see, to administer the temporahties and to fUl vacant benefices. On August 23rd he rewarded his physician, Master Nicholas of Tingwick, with the rectory of Reculver. 3 Clement V claimed the administration of temporahties and spirituahties and had aheady taken steps to secure them by appointing commissaries on April 20th.4 The Pope prevaUed over the King; on September 11th Edward yielded his claim but petitioned Clement V to ahow Nicholas of Tingwick to hold Reculver with his other benefice of ColeshUl in Berkshire.5 He pleaded that he owed his recovery from a long illness next under God, to his beloved physician, and he knew of no one in his kingdom more skiUed and fit to look after his health than Master Nicholas and he had the utmost confidence in him. Master Nicholas was an Oxford scholar in priest's orders, who had leave of absence from the Bishop of Salisbury from 1302 to 1308 to study theology and canon law at the university.6 In 1301 he had presented a priest to serve the cure of souls at ColeshUl in his absence, and had to make provision for him from the fruits of that benefice which were assessed only at £16. The papal administrators refused to admit Master Nicholas tc Reculver; they were probably aware that Clement V had aheadj provided Bernard de BovisviUa to the rectory on the ground that Simon of Faversham had died at the Curia.7 On October 20th Edward ] 1 Calendar of Letters Close 1302-7, p. 434; Calendar of Letters Patent 1301-7 p. 438. a O.P.L., II, p. 22. 3 Calendar of Letters Patent 1301-7, p. 461. * W. Stubbs, Historical Introductions to the Rolls Series, pp. 493-5. 5 Rymer, Foedera, I, 1005, 1006. 0 Register of Simon of Gaunt, II, pp. 848, 858, 871. ' O.P.L., II, p. 38. 10 SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OF ARCHBISHOP WINOHELSEY. repeated his instruction to them to admit Master Nicholas whose probity and honesty he had commended, adding that he marveUed at their refusal and was angered by it.1 The admission of Nicholas is not recorded. He got possession, and Clement V declared that he temerariously withheld it and hindered Bernard de BovisviUa or his proctor from entry. Edward I died on July 7th, 1307. Edward I I asked Clement V to remove the suspension and the Archbishop returned to England in March or AprU 1308. The Pope at once desired him to oust Nicholas of Tingwick, but before the rector received a citation to appear at the Curia Edward I I issued writs of prohibition against the Archbishop and his commissary. Before Winchelsey left for England the Pope had admonished him to refrain from offences against the Crown, so far as possible. In excusing himself from further action against Nicholas, he recaUed this warning to the Pope's memory and urged the disastrous consequences of faUure to obey writs of prohibition. Moreover he pleaded his own bodily weakness and the varied and arduous occupations in which he was engaged to promote the common weal.2 If, as seems probable, this undated letter to Clement V was written as late as 1310 the Archbishop referred to his service as one of the twenty-five Lords Ordainers appointed to act in the constitutional crisis. Winchelsey was not so much absorbed in state affairs as to overlook the long neglect of the spiritual welfare of the inhabitants of Reculver. He issued a remarkable ordination of three perpetual vicarages for the service of the parish church and the chapels ; it was drawn up by a public notary, Geoffrey of Brampton, and on July 24th, 1310, the seals of the Archbishop, the chapter of Canterbury and the public notary were affixed at Charing.3 In the preamble to the document the Archbishop stated that a rector and one vicar could not minister to parishioners who numbered over a thousand under Archbishop Peckham, and were continuaUy increasing. In the past the rector had appointed as vicar an ignorant priest removable at his wUl. Therefore Winchelsey ordained that there should be three perpetual vicars, one for the parish church of Reculver and the nearby chapel at Hoath, another for the two chapels in Thanet, St. Nicholas and AB Saints, and a third for the chapel at Heme, aU three, to serve their cures under the rector to whom they owed canonical obedience. To the vicar of Reculver the Archbishop assigned aU oblations in that church and in the chapel at Hoath, the tithes of hay, flax, wool and milk, of lambs, gardens and other smaU tithes and the land on which the rector's house stood. To the vicar of the chapels of St. Nicholas and AU Saints the Arohbishop assigned 1 Calendar of Letters Close 1302-7, p. 419. 1 Winchelsey, II, pp. 1044-6. 3 Ibid., II, pp. 1127-31. SIDELIGHTS EROM THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WXNOHELSEY. 1] similar offerings and tithes and the land belonging to those chapels, and the same to the vicar of the chapel at Heme. The three vicars had each to maintain a suitable assistant priest. The vicars of St. Nicholas with AU Saints and of Heme were bound to pay pensions of £3 3s. 4d, and £2 respectively to the vicar of Reculver. They were under ar. obhgation to come in procession with the assistant priests and the parishioners of the chapels to the mother church on Whit Monday, and to be present for the procession and office of the mass on the feast oJ the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 2nd). The parishioners of the mother church were held responsible foi repairing or rebuUding the chancel and providing service books and ornaments in accordance with their laudable custom in the past. The vicar of Reculver was bound to fulfil the obhgation which he previously bore for Reculver and the chapel at Hoath. The vicars of St. Nicholas with AU Saints and of Heme had the obhgation to provide service books and ornaments and to repair or rebuUd the chancels of then chapels. Whenever the tax of a tenth should be levied on the assessment of the undivided vicarage in 1291, the Archbishop fixed the contributions at 12s. ld. for the vicar of Reculver, l i s . 4d. for the vicar of St. Nicholas with AU Saints, and 9s. lid. for the vicar of Heme to make the total of £1 13s. 4d. The right of presentation to the three vicarages was reserved to Master Nicholas of Tingwick and his successors. The Archbishop instituted John de H. to Reculver, Andrew de Grantesete to St. Nicholas and Ah Saints, Hugh de ? to Heme ;x aU of them owed canonical obedience to the rector. It is unlikely that Master Nicholas then resided in the rectory at Reculver. In 1309 Bishop Simon of Gaunt, who had given him sis years leave of absence from his rectory of ColeshUl to study ai Oxford, presented him with a smaU prebend, and three years later promoted him to the weU endowed prebend of Bedwyn, assessed at £50 a year with a house in Salisbury Close.2 In 1314 Archbishop Reynolds satisfied himself that Nicholas was entitled to hold the rectory of Reculver in pluralism with ColeshUl.8 His interest lay in the promotion of sound learning at Oxford, and as he was in secure possession of bis preferments he became a benefactor of the University.4 In 1321 he obtained a hcence for a grant in mortmain of two properties described as messuages in the town of Oxford for the perpetual endowment of two masters in arts to superintend the grammar schools. In 1 The bottom of the leaf of the Register is damaged. 3 Register of Simon of Gaunt, I I , pp. 708, 749, 792. 3 Register of Reynolds, f. 105. 1 A. G. Little, "Grammar Schools of Oxford", English Historical Review VI, pp. 152, 153. 12 SIDELIGHTS ER0M THE REGISTER OE ARCHBISHOP WTNOHELSEY. 1325 he was one of the two magistri extranei of BaUiol CoUege and had the degrees of Doctor of Medicine and Bachelor of Theology. He was not regularly in residence at Salisbury, for in 1320 he paid a fine to the chapter for absence and in 1328 he granted a lease of his prebendal house in the Close.1 In the later years of his hfe he may more often have resided at Reculver. In 1325 Archbishop Reynolds issued a commission to him to exercise the jurisdiction of Reculver which was exempt from the Archdeacon of Canterbury.2 He was the physician of Prior Eastry of Canterbury who wrote him a grateful letter in 1324.3 He died in 1341 or early in 1342. Thomas Nye, the rector of Aldington, kept him in grateful remembrance when in 1354 he founded a chantry at Reculver for the souls of Nicholas of Tingwick and Thomas of Astley, sometime the rectors under whom he served when vicar of Reculver.4 I record my thanks to Sir Charles Peers and to the Society of Antiquaries for their kind permission to reproduce two of the illustrations of the stones of the Great Cross. It is fuUy described in Archaeologia, Vol. 77, pp. 250-6, with iUustrations of all the remaining portions. 1 Liber Evidentiarum C, f. 464a (Muniments of Dean and Chapter of Salisbury). I am indebted to Miss K. Edwards for this reference ; of. " The Houses of Salisbury Close in the 14th century ", British Archaeological Journal, 1939, p. 104. 2 I. J. Churohill, Canterbury Administration, II, p. 28. 3 Litterae Oantuarienses, I, p. 120 (Rolls Series). 4 Ibid., I I , p . 319.