Bexley Church: Some Early Documents

BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS By F. R. H. Du BOULAY, M.A., F.R.Hist.S. WHENEVER documents which bear upon the history of a parish church can be collected, it is generaUy the history of that church as an object of material value and dispute which is Uluminated. This is so through the very nature of surviving evidence, but it seems a mistake to regard such aspects of the past as regrettable bypaths which, by some ironical accident, are all that we can explore. For, though churches were indeed objects of material value, it may be questioned whether the temporal and the spiritual can, in the combined story of conversion and civilization, be so nicely discriminated, or whether Europe could ever have been transformed into Christendom Avithout the powerful notion that heaven might be bought with property, given at once to sustain churchmen in theh task and to ransom the souls of donors. And in another way too the apparently base and occasional evidences of worldly strife over church temporalities serve the central themes of history, if one wUl see aU the litigation which makes up so large a proportion of church history less as the fruit of mere malice and ambition on the part of men who ought to have knoAvn better than as the product of an arduous struggle away from anarchy and towards the stability of pohtical behaviour. For such large reasons, and in theh smaU way, the documented notes which foUow may be of interest, though some may find them so for reasons quite different. The Domesday information about Bexley church is extremely terse : " there is a church and three mUls worth 48s."1 Solid objects of value are described together. Since A.D. 814 Bexley had belonged to the archbishop of Canterbury,2 and in early Norman times the priest of St. Mary's and his parishioners were subject to the lord of Canterbury as to a secular, not only an ecclesiastical, seigneur. The first glimpse of this relationship comes from a charter of Archbishop Ralph (1114- 1122),3 announcing that he had given to WUliam, the priest, and the church of Bexley the right to send a certain number of animals into his pastures without payment, and to receive also a tithe of his pannage, which is to say, the tenth part of the money paid by the local people to the archbishop for their pasture rights. This was a valuable gift at a x. Victoria County History of Kent, iii (1932), 210. 2 W. de G. Biroh, Cartularium Saxonicum, i (1886), No. 346. For disoussion of this charter see J. K. WaUenberg, Kentish Place-Names (Uppsala, 1931), 133-9, and Dr. Gordon Ward in Arch. Cant., 1941. 8 Publio Record Office, Exchequer K.R., Ancient Deeds, Series A (E40), No. 5005. See Plate I and Appendix, No. 1. 41 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS time when the woodlands formed one of the principal economic assets of the surrounding district. The grant was renewed by the next archbishop, WUliam of CorbeuU, between 1126 and 1136, in the name of his clerk Jordan, who was evidently by then priest of Bexley.1 The event which foUowed was the most decisive one in the medieval history of Bexley church. By the first quarter of the twelfth century the foundation of new rehgious houses in England was in fuU flood. To make or support new foundations was a fashionable work of piety, and among other beneficiaries of this impulse were the Austin canons. Theh priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, London, was founded about 1107 by canons from St. Botolph's, Colchester, and endowed by Queen Maud on the advice of Archbishop Anselm. It seems that in the early years the canons of the new house were poor, but they soon acquired lands and built up an influential position in London church hfe.2 The archbishop of Canterbury, Wilham of CorbeuU, himself a former canon of Aldgate,3 helped them by granting them Bexley church in free and perpetual alms. This act, of which we are again fortunate enough to possess the contemporary deed, took place between 1128 and 1133.4 Very soon afterwards Archbishop WUham issued another charter hke the first but supplemented with clauses which specify the grant to Aldgate Priory of " aU tithes of tithe-able things ", the rights of pannage such as had been contained in the earhest charters to Bexley church, " and aU right customs belonging to the church ".5 This second charter in effect gathers up aU the past rights granted to Bexley church and presents them explicitly with the church to Aldgate Priory. When medieval archbishops gave their lands or performed any important acts in connection with theh estates, these acta were confirmed by the prior and chapter of Canterbury Cathedral Priory. Theh testimony to this appropriation of Bexley church is perhaps the earliest extant document of this nature.6 The bishop of Rochester, in whose diocese Bexley lay {though within the " peculiar" jurisdiction of Shoreham deanery, belonging to Canterbury), was also interested, and his testimony in the present instance hkewise exists.7 The appropriation of Bexley church 1 Ibid., No. 7915. 2 J. C. Dickinson, Origins of the Austin Canons and their introduction into England (1950), 109-111. 3 Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MS. 448, fo. liv. 4 P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 4986. See Plate II and Appendix, No. 2. 6 Ibid., No. 15,739. See Appendix, No. 3. 0 Ibid., No. 15,743. See Plate III and Appendix, No. 4. 7 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 15,749. See Plate IV and Appendix, No. 5. Alexander IV's BuU of 11 Oct., 1267, confirming the priory's rights, speaks of the former grant by archbishops ac collatione capituli Qantuar', ac episcopi Roffensis loci diocesani accedente consensu (T. Rymer, Foedera (Record Commission, 1816), i, 364). 42 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS to Aldgate Priory was confirmed by the two subsequent archbishops, Theobald and Becket.1 As is weU-known, the appropriation of a parish church to a rehgious house meant that the house acquired both the duty and the right to provide for that church's service, reserving for itself a proportion of that church's income. Such a monastery had three alternatives : it could put one of its own subjects in to serve the church ; for a house of canons this was easier than for a house of monks, though the serving of cures by regular canons was probably especiaUy uncommon at this early period2; secondly, the monastery could appoint a secular priest as rector who, being instituted by the diocesan bishop, served the church and enjoyed the income of tithe and offerings, but paid some kind of annual pension to the patron monastery ; thhdly, the monastery might itself draw the main income of the church—the greater tithes—thereby itself becoming " rector ", and arrange for the church to be served by a vicar to whom would be assigned a stipend or some minor proportion of the parish church's income. This last arrangement, a usual one, was liable to abuse, and before long such appropriations as that now in question were regulated by diocesan bishops in order to secure an adequate income for vicars and hence to safeguard the proper cure of souls.3 In the case of Bexley it seems that at least by the time of Archbishop Baldwin (1184-90) the income was divided into three parts of which the canons of Aldgate had two and the vicar one.4 Baldwin, however, presented a clerk to the vicarage without the consent of the canons. This was the first, but not the last, occasion upon which the rights of Aldgate Priory were usurped. The canons sought papal letters, and after a long period of dispute the intruded vicar, Arnold, resigned the vicarage into the hands of the archbishop. By the time he did so there was a new archbishop, namely Stephen Langton, who, between 1213 and 1215, acting by papal authority and Avith the consent of the canons, drew up an agreement for the future. Arnold was to be presented anew, but by the prior and canons, as was theh right, and instituted by 1 Theobald's grant (Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 5002) is printed by A. Saltman, Theobald (1956), p. 384. Becket's grant is Anc. Deeds, Series A, No. 4913 (P.R.O. Museum). Most of these earliest documents were copied into the incomplete fifteenth-century register of Aldgate Priory, now Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MS. 448. 2 Dickinson, op. cit., 214-223. 3 An exceUent recent treatment of this subject is the Rev. G. W. 0. Addleshaw's Rectors, Vicars and Patrons (St. Anthony's HaU Publications, No. 9, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York, 1956). 4 Canterbury Cathedral MS. E 24, fo. 91 (a copy of a thirteenth-century custumal which, under Bexley, clearly embodies very early thirteenth-century material): Canonici sancte Trinitatis London' sunt persone eeclesie de Bixle a tempore WUlelmi arcMepiscopi, et habent modo duas partes; et Ernaldus est vicarius perpetuus de dono Baldewini archiepiscopi et habet terciam partem in ecclesia. Ecclesia ilia debet habere in pastura archiepiscopi viij boves et ij stottos et x porcos in pessona quando habetur pessona. 43 8 BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS the archbishop in due form. As for the division of income, the canons were to have the greater tithes, that is, of sheaves, of the mUls and of hay, and theh own barns within theh own special close. AU other revenues, together with the lands and buUdings belonging to the church, were to go to the vicar, who was in addition to receive two marks a year (one at Michaelmas, one at Christmas) from the camera of the prior and canons. The vicar was to be absolutely responsible for payment of the dues known as episcopalia. If the canons defaulted in paying this pension for more than a fortnight, affahs were to revert to the former state when the vicar simply took a thhd of the revenues. Not more than a year or two after this arrangement had been made, the prior and canons further agreed to farm out then portion to Arnold for the duration of his life at the rate of twenty marks per annum.1 This scheme was working peacefuUy shortly afterwards, when an instrument of Prior Richard of Aldgate (1222- c.1250) testified that he had presented to the perpetual vicarage of Bexley, as it had been defined by the late Archbishop Langton, the chaplain Ralph who had, in the chapter of the canons, sworn on the Gospels to serve the prior and canons faithfuUy.2 The repeated acta of twelfth-century archbishops, not to speak of the careful ordination of the vicarage by Stephen Langton, might have been enough, one would suppose, to make clear to everyone for ever how the incumbency of Bexley church was to be maintained. But this was not so. A long dispute broke out while Boniface of Savoy was archbishop (1245-70). Its history is contained in documents now among the Pubhc Records, some of which were printed by Rymer, others of which have not seen the hght.3 Archbishop Boniface had apparently proposed to visit Bexley church and to demand a procuration from its revenues on the occasion. When Aldgate Priory resisted this procedure, the archbishop had " despoUed " the church by seizing some part of its income. On 20 July, 1252, Pope Innocent XV wrote very courteously to the archbishop telling him that since the question of visitation had been settled it did not become his honour to detain the church's property.4 Boniface did not comply with the pope's request, for on 17 Aprh, 1254, Ave find Innocent IV writing to Aymer of Valence, bishop-elect of Winchester, and referring to the lengthy litigation which had been taking place before judgesdelegate in England between the prior and convent of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, on the one hand, and Archbishop Boniface of Canterbury on the other, over the church of Bexley, which the convent claimed the 1 Acta Stephani Langton (ed. K. Major, Canterbury & York Society, vol. L, 1950), Nos. 31, 32. 2 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 6463. 3 Notably P.R.O. Exch., K.R., Eccles. Docs. (E 135), Bundles 4/11 and 16/9. 1 Foedera (Record Commission, 1816), i, 283. 44 BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS archbishop had despoUed of tithes, and to which he had cohated his own candidate, WUliam de Papia, even though the patronage rested with Aldgate Priory. The pope now requhed that Aymer cite the archbishop and master WUham to appear before him with the documents of the case. On 28 August Aymer replied to the pope that he had sent the Prior of Reading to Canterbury, where on 11 August he had delivered the summons in the cathedral before some members of the convent, but that there had been no-one there to ask for a copy of the Prior of Reading's mandate, though the latter had left his copy on the high altar. Aymer also told the pope that he had summoned master William de Papia through the Prior of Southwark, who had gone to Bexley church on 16 August, cited him publicly, and left a copy of the mandate for master William's proctor.1 . The cause evidently came quickly to Rome. On 6 January, 1255, the auditor to whom Pope Innocent had assigned the dispute, a papal chaplain caUed Rainer of Viterbo, issued from Naples an interlocutory judgement that the convent of Aldgate should for the time being, causa custodie, be put in possession of Bexley church and its tithes. Aldgate Priory's proctor, brother Ralph, one of the canons, had argued that the church and its tithes had been appropriated to the priory since time immemorial, but that the archbishop had permitted the tithes to be taken (by whom he did not specify), and that afterwards master WUham de Papia had occupied church and tithes himself. Brother Ralph had asked for restitution of the misappropriated income which he estimated at 200 marks, and for costs and damages amounting to 100 marks. Master WiUiam had neither appeared in person nor sent a proctor, and this default made master Rainer's judgement the obvious course.2 About three weeks later Alexander IV, who had been pope since December, 1254, ordered the bishop of London and his Official to execute this interlocutory sentence and put the priory back into possession of Bexley church.3 The case was then evidently remitted to master Rostand, papal subdeacon and coUector in England, for final settlement. On 1 March, 1256, Archbishop Boniface from BeUey constituted master Hugh de Mortimer (Official of the Court of Canterbury) his proctor to assent to the ordination made by Rostand, provided that no prejudice was done thereby to WUliam de Papia.4 The real settlement as far as Archbishop Boniface was concerned must have been worked out in private discus- 1 P.R.O.E. 135, 4/11, No. 4. 2 Ibid,, No. 6. The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV (c. 1291) assessed Bexley church at £40 p.a. in temporals, £20 in spirituals, the .vicarage at £6 13s. 4d. (T.P.N., Record Commission, 1802, pp. 6, 7 ,7b). 3 E 136, 16/9, No. 2. Harl. MS. 6839, No. 23 (uncatalogued) is a late copy of Alexander IV's letter, dated 31 Jan. 1265. Of. also Foedera, i, 313-14. 4,E 135,4/11, No. 1. , • 45 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS sions between his proctor, master Hugh, and the papal agent Rostand. On 25 April next they issued a joint letter, saying that the archbishop, who had been claiming the coUation to Bexley church, would henceforth not molest the prior and convent of Aldgate nor claim any right in the church, but reserving any right which master WUliam de Papia might have acquired in the church. This last question was one for WUham and the priory to settle between them. MeanwhUe, the archbishop would " remit his indignation " with the prior and convent, who would in turn obey him hke devoted sons.1 On 8 September, 1257, a definitive sentence came from Stephen, cardinal bishop of Palestrina.2 Now, this document, though filed with the others, really belongs to a sequel of the case which had been settled, as just described, in England. It seems that master WUliam had soon afterwards been preferred to the bishopric of Pavia3 and that Bexley church, vacant as a consequence, had been conferred by proxy, and by the pope's verbal permission, upon one Ubaldino, nephew of Octavian de Ubaldmis, cardinal-deacon of St. Maria in via lata.4" Once more, therefore, the canons of Aldgate had had theh right to present snatched from them. Once more they went to law. Their new appeal to the pope was remitted to Cardinal Stephen as auditor, before whom proctors of the parties appeared. And once more, though the priory won its case, the wrongfuUy presented man was not the loser. After argument before the cardinal it was agreed that the coUation of Bexley church upon WUham of Papia and Ubaldino ahke should be declared nuU, and perpetual sUence in the matter was enjoined upon Ubaldino. At the same time, the priory agreed, through brother Ralph its proctor, to pay to Ubaldino an annual pension of 25 marks sterling untU the prior of Aldgate should have secured for him a benefice in England, with or without cure of souls, worth at least 60 marks per annum] By this heavy concession the priory secured definitive sentence from the auditor, confirmed by Alexander IV on 11 October, 1257,5 that the appropriation of Bexley church to itself should never again be caUed in question. On 9 and 10 March, 1258, the prior and convent of Aldgate were formally inducted by apostolic authority into corporal possession of Bexley church,6 but this was not before the pope had written to two English prelates ordering them to compel the priory to pay the pension under pain of censure.7 1 Ibid., No. 5. (E 135, 16/9, No. 1, is a copy of this). 2 Ibid., 16/9, No. 2. Stephen de Vancsa, card.-bp. of Palestrina (Preneste) 1251-69 (C. Eubel, HierarcHa Oatholica medii aevi (1913), p. 37). 3 Guillielmus Caneti, episcopus Papiensis, 1256-72 (Eubel, op. cit., p. 389). 1 C. Eubel, op. cit., p. 52. 6 Foedera, i, 364. 0 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 15,760. 7 15 November, 1268, Alexander IV to the bishop-elect of Winchester and master Alexander de Ferentino, canon of St. Paul's, London (Foedera, i, 364). 46 BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS The problem which at this point demands an answer is whether these wrongful coUations were made deliberately or by mistake. To the historian, with the documents of a hundred and fifty years spread out before him, it seems strange that the rights of Aldgate priory should have been so often forgotten and that attempts of archbishop or pope to fiU Bexley church with theh own nominees should have been anything but disingenuous. Certainly, the events under Archbishop Boniface strongly suggest his stubbornness once the issue was joined, but whether he set out in the first place to subtract rights from Aldgate priory is another question. There is room for doubt. Bexley was a demesne manor of the archbishops, where the archbishop's special lordship in the form of advowson might be expected. Archbishops changed, and might weU not be conversant with aU the detaUs of local juridical arrangements. They did not carry aU their archives with them. Theh household clerks might be as new as themselves to the job.1 As for the pope, he might understandably give verbal leave to some persuasive impetrant to seek a benefice the rights of which had not been fully investigated.2 It wfll be noted that in aU the lawsuits over Bexley church the priory received fahly rapid recognition of its rights, even though it had to submit to vexatious litigation and compromises which may to us seem hard. The facts once known were not controverted. To strengthen this lUielihood that disputes might arise out of mere carelessness or " breakdown in communication " it is possible to quote the case in which Archbishop Pecham was involved. Not thhty years after the final award in favour of Aldgate priory Pecham, who was both a just and an able man, coUated one WUham of Shoreham to the vacant vicarage without reference to the patrons. Within three days the priory presented its own candidate, Geoffrey the Red. Pecham immediately acknowledged his mistake. He had, wrote his Official, acted on the advice of men about him, but had since informed himself through more truthful Avitnesses, and confirmed the priory's right. Geoffrey was therefore to be instituted on the priory's presentation, as long as he was found suitable.3 A puzzle occurs here. Pecham's declaration, summarized above, was made through the Official of the Court of Canterbury on 7 May, 1286. On 17 May the same year, 1 Leading parishioners also might be uncertain about the rights of presentation. In 1279 a Bexley jury at Canterbury declared that "Boniface, archbishop, gave the church of Bexley, whioh is worth 30 marks p.a., to a oertain William of Pavia, clerk, who afterwards was elected to the See of Pavia and resigned the said church. And the Prior of Christ Church, London, now holds the said ohuroh, they know not by what warrant." (Canterbury Assize Roll 369. quoted by W. H. Mandy in Woolwich and District Antiquarian Society Reports, vol. xxiii, 1920-6.) 2 Thomas Gascoigne'in the 1460's described how an exasperated pope might give effective verbal permissions. 0 qualisest ista vocalis concessio I (Loci e Libro veritatum, ed. J.E.T. Rogers (1881), p. 8). 3 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 6303. 47 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS however, the archbishop's register records the institution to Bexley vicarage of WUliam of Shoreham on the presentation of the prior and convent of Aldgate,1 as though by a sort of compromise reminiscent of former compromises the wrongfuUy presented candidate had, in fact, been chosen eventuaUy by the right patrons. Yet Geoffrey the Red can hardly have been turned down as unsuitable, nor disappointed for ever, for less than two years later he sealed a deed by which, as perpetual vicar of Bexley, he admitted having taken tithes belonging to Aldgate priory and promised before witnesses never to do so again.2 Geoffrey was stUl vicar on 2 November,. 1289, when he sealed a receipt (which survives) for one mark of his pension due at Michaelmas that year.3 At least it is clear that by then the system requhed in Langton's ordination of the vicarage was working smoothly. The system continued to work without recorded hitch untU the Reformation. Most of the institutions to the vicarage can be traced in the archiepiscopal registers. When Bexley church feU vacant the new incumbent was always presented by Aldgate priory, admitted and instituted by the archbishop, and inducted by the Dean of Shoreham upon the archbishop's mandate, until the passing of priories from the Enghsh scene left the presentation in the hands of Henry VIII.4 Two minor incidents, however, remind us that a litigious interest in parish churches was not confined to the world of clerics. Parishioners sometimes made a bid for what they thought to be theh rights, though in such matters they tended to be at a disadvantage and seldom got into the records save as subjects to be overruled and peremptorily admonished. In 1282 Pope Martin IV ordered certain parishioners of Lessness and Bexley churches, both belonging to Aldgate, to pay theh tithes to the monastery under pain of censure, for the parishioners had been claiming that tithes of produce were not due.6 In 1325 a parishioner of Bexley evidently objected to the priory's presentee, and the case was brought to the Archbishop's Audience and sent by him to the Dean of the Arches for decision.0 The presentee in question was a priest called John of Clavering, also by coincidence nicknamed " le Rede ". The Dean of the Arches had orders to institute him if he won the case. He must have done so, for shortly afterwards he was instituted.7 1 Register of Archbishop Pecham (Canterbury & York Sooiety, 1907-8), pp. 49, 50. 2 E 135, 4/11, No. 2. 3 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 16,742. 4 The king presented Henry Kibton, clerk, who was instituted on 12 March, 1540 (n.s.) (Register of Archbishop Cranmer, fo. 375b.) 6 Foedera, i, 606. 0 Register of Walter Reynolds, fol. 144 (6 December). 7 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 12,779 (12 December). Fragment of seal of Dean of the Arches in green wax. 48 - ••••:••••*<-•••»•-• " """ "'" *# • • • i \ * .«MMHWg_^ Between 1114 and 1122. Archbishop Ralph grants pannage and pasture rights to the priest and church of Bexley. Transcript in Appendix, No. I. PLATE II « * # . * TWflA r asws^i^A^«pj^a-g^-a• HUl ^tn^iwk/wfl* «<&»&**«& SionAjA wf.uuliW *«ft«r fern qn& W^ttlUm***- Between 1128 and 1136. Prior Elmer and the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, inform the Bishop of Rochester that they have witnessed Archbishop William's gift of Bexley church to Aldgate Priory. Transcript in Appendix, No. 4. PLATE IV ^3-iLf 1 v e c S 4* ~ 3 fits = - as x BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS This is the end of the story of legal contention. But it would be a failure of historical perspective to stop there, imagining the vicar of Bexley at best the symbol of compromise, at worst the object of appeals. The vicar was a villager. • His income from his cure was not great, and the getting of most of it involved him in agricultural matters,1 so that he was necessarily one of the villagers quite apart from the fact that he was canonically bound to reside and in fact did serve his church personally. One cannot say as a matter of generalization that the vicar of Bexley was either a poor or a well-to-do man. Without doubt the vicars varied in this respect. At times the benefice might be held in plurality. We have seen how a well-connected Italian tried for it. In 1308 it was held along with the vicarage of Wrotham by the Dean of Shoreham, who would have been a man of some mark.2 In 1331 a residential prebendary in the royal free chapel of St. Martin le Grand, Laurence de la Ryde, thought fit to exchange his London benefice for the vicarage of Bexley.3 But the vicarage, modest enough to be excused ecclesiastical taxation on occasion,4 might be held by a man of little substance, whether he were actually a canon of Aldgate, as happened between 1415 and 1426,5 or a secular priest like Sir Thomas Hardyng, whose rather humble testament was proved in 1494,6 or Sir Miles Tomlinson who remained curate of Bexley for many years in the early sixteenth century, witnessing the testaments of his parishioners as they approached their days of reckoning.7 All the while the canons of Aldgate were pursuing their legitimate interests in the parish according to the arrangement which Stephen Langton had long ago laid down. An account of 12858 shows their warden in Lessness, just north of Bexley, hiring required labour, like the carter engaged in Bexley during the autumn, presumably to remove the tithes, and a glimpse of the same sort is afforded in 1330,9 when the executors of a Bexley testator gave permission to the prior and convent of Aldgate, as parsons of the church, to remove their tithe of hay from the testator's land at any time of the day or night " for peril of this rainy weather in which so much hay has been destroyed ". The end of contentions was that the profit of the fields might be divided in peace. 1 Cf. Reeve's account of Bexley, 1472-3 (P.R.O. Ministers' Accounts, General Series, Bundle 1130, No. 4). 2 Kent Arobives (Maidstone), U 47/3, T 46, No. 2. 3 E 135, 4/11, No. 3. 4 Register of Archbishop CMchele (Canterbury &. York Society, vol. XLVI), iii, 117. 5 Ibid., 137, 242. 0 Prerog. Court of Canterbury Wills (Somerset House), 14 Vox. ' E.g., ibid., 24 Fetiplace (1505), and 25 Porob (1527). 8 Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 14,529. 3 Ibid., No. 4998. See Appendix, No. 6. 49 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS APPENDIX : A SELECTION OF DOCUMENTS (1) [1114-22. Archbishop Ralph grants pannage and pasture rights to the priest and church of Bexley.] Radulfus Cantuariensis arohiepiscopus Anfrido dapifero et toti parrochie de Bix, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo presbitero et ecclesie sancte Marie de Bix oeto animalia in dominico herbagio nostro, quatuor boves et quatuor uaccas ; et decern porcos in bosco nostro sine patnagio ; et totam decimam de patnagio nostro de porcis et dedenariis. Test' Johanne archidiacono, et Ricardo Norwicensi archidiacono, et Anfrido dapifero, et Waltero et Alano et Hosberto clericis, Willelmo Caluo, et Willelmo de sancto Albano, Rodberto filio Riculfi. Endorsed. Radulfus arohiepiscopus de viij0 animalibus in dominico herbagio et de x porcis sine patnagio et de decima patnagii in Bixle, que ipse contulit ecclesie et Willelmo presbitero. Fragment of seal in red wax. Text. Public Record Office, Ancient Deeds, Series A (E 40), No. 5005. See Plate I.1 (2) [Aldington, Kent, 1128-33. Archbishop William appropriates Bexley church to the priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate.] Willelmus Dei gratia arohiepiscopus et sedis apostolice legatus Johanni eadem gratia Roffensi episcopo et omnibus hominibus et amicis suis tam clericis quam laicis totius archiepiscopatus, salutem et Dei benedictionem. Sciatis me concessisse et dedisse in elemosina ecclesiam sancte Marie de Bix monasterio sancte Trinitatis Lundonie et canonicis ibidem Deo famulantibus tam presentibus quam futuris inperpetuum. Teste eodem episcopo Johanne Roffensi, et Helewiso archidiacono, Giffardo capellano, Willelmo et Alano monachis, Simone et Aluredo canonicis, Godefrido et Lupello, Wulfrico, Jordano, Alano, Henrico, Moise, Gildewino, Godrelino, clericis, Willelmo de Einesford patre et Willelmo filio eius, et Anfrido, dapiferis [sic], Osberto, Willelmo de Albano et Rodberto filio Radulfi, Willelmo de Pagaham et Giffardo filio eius, Rodberto filio Ric', Radulfo camerario et Wlmaro, cum multis aliis apud Aldintuna. Endorsed. Carta Willelmi archiepiscopi de ecclesia de Bix nobis data. Tag of parchment inscribed " Bixle ", with fragment of seal in red wax. Text. P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 4985. See Plate II. 1 Grateful acknowledgement is due to the Public Record Office for permission to reproduce these documents. 50 BEXLEY CHURCH : SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS Notes. This act (or the next) was witnessed also by Prior Elmer of Canterbury (see Plate III), who became prior in 1128. William of Eynesford was sheriff of Kent not later than 1133, and would probably have been called such here, if this act had been written after that date (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ed. C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne (1956), ii, No. 1867). The endorsement was evidently made by Aldgate Priory, the recipient. (3) [An elaboration of the above grant by Archbishop William.] As above, down to inperpetuum. Then : cum omnibus deoimis omnium rerum que decimari debent, etnominatim de patnagio de porcis et de denariis ; et decern animalia in dominico herbagio nostro, et decern porcos in bosco nostro sine patnagio ; et cum omnibus rectis consuetudinibus eidem ecclesie pertinentibus. Teste Johanne episcopo Roffensi, et Helewiso archidiacono Cant', Willelmo et Alano monachis, Simone et Aluredo canonicis, Godefrido, Lupello, Wlfrico, Alano, capellanis, Henrico, Moise, Gildewino, clericis, Willelmo de Einesford et Willelmo filio eius, et Anfrido dapifero, Osberto, Willelmo de sancto Albano, Rodberto filio Ric', Willelmo de Pagaham et Giffardo filio eius, Radulfo camerario et Wlmaro, cum multis aliis apud Aldint'. Endorsed. WiUelmus arohiepiscopus de ecclesia de Bixle et de x animalibus in dominico herbagio et de x porcis sine patnagio et decima patnagii. Text. P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 15,739. Notes. This version is in a hand similar to that which wrote the previous charter, though the ink now looks browner, and the style of contractions is different. Slit for seal tag, but the document has been trimmed and bound at the edges. A small arabic 5 in ink similar to that of the text appears in bottom left-hand corner. The charter is about one and a half inches broader than the preceding one. [1128-36. The Prior and monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, tell the Bishop of Rochester that they have witnessed Archbishop William's gift of Bexley church to Aldgate Priory.] (4) Domino Johanni Dei gratia Rofensi episcopo et omnibus Christi fidelibus, Elmerus prior ecclesie Christi Cantuarie et monachi eiusdem ecclesie, salutem. Sciatis quia nos audiuimus et testes sumus quando 51 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS dominus WUlelmus Cantuariensis arohiepiscopus dedit ecclesiam de Bix oum omnibus que ad earn pertinent, sicut ipsius archiepiscopi carta testatur, ecclesie sancte Trinitatis Lundonie et canonicis in eadem ecclesia Deo famulantibus in elemosinam. Valete. ' Endorsed. Testimonium conuentus Cantuarie super donationem ecclesie de Bixle nobis a Willelmo archiepiscopo factam. Bixle. ••• Text. P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 15,743.- See Plate III. Notes. Elmer was prior 1128-37 (V.C.H. Kent, ii (1926), 119). The endorsement suggests that this charter was Aldgate Priory's copy. Edges repaired. Slit for tag. (5) [1128-37. The Bishop of Rochester informs his diocese that he lias witnessed Archbishop William's gift.] Johannes gratia Dei Rofensis episcopus omnibus parochianis suis clericis et laicis, salutem. Sciatis me presentem fuisse et quantum ad me pertinuit assensum prebuisse et confirmasse donationem quam dominus WiUelmus arohiepiscopus fecit donans ecclesiam sancte Marie de Bixle cum terris et decimis et omnibus rebus ad eandem ecclesiam pertinentibus ecclesie sancte Trinitatis Lundonie et canonicis ibidem Deo seruientibus. Endorsed. Bixele, and, the other way up, in a slightly later hand. Confirmacio Roffensis Ep . . . Testimonium Johannis episcopi Roffensis super donationem ecclesie de Bixle n[obis] a Willelmo archiepiscopo factam. Text. P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 15,749. See Plate IV. Notes. Also apparently Aldgate Priory's copy. Edges rebound after mutilation or trimming. No slit for seal, nor any remaining sign of seal. (6) [4 August, 1330. The executors of the testament of Rose of Burford permit the prior and convent of Aldgate, as rectors of Bexley, to remove their tithe of hay from " Shitemede " at any time, because of the bad weather.] • A toutz iceux qui ceste littere verront ou orront, Johan de Pulteneye, Henr' de Iddebur', Thomas de Betoygne et Johan de Mucheldeure, executeurs du testament Royse de Burford, salutz on dieu. Pur peril de icest pluvious temps dount mouls des feyns perissont, nous voloms et grantoms per ceste littere que le priour et la covent de Cristchurch de Loundres, persones de la Esglise de Bixle, a quy la dysme du pre de Shytemed est aportenant douncien droyt, par eny ou per lour attornez preygnant et carient hors du dit pre un moyloun de feyn pur lour disme 52 BEXLEY CHURCH: SOME EARLY DOCUMENTS quele houre et quant lour plest de iour ou de nuyt veant lour profit a ceo faire sauntz contredit de nul homme. En tesmoynance de quele chose a ceste littere patente nous avoms mys nos seals. Donee a Loundres le quart jour Daugst Ian du Roy Edward tierz apres le conquest quart. Endorsed. Byxle. Scitemed. Text. P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, Series A, No. 4998. Notes. The priory of Holy Trinity was also known as Christ Church, London, at least as early as Henry II's reign (V.C.H. London, i (1909), 466, n. 26). This document has also been trimmed and is Avithout seals. 53