¹ All references to county locations in this paper are in accordance with county boundaries as they were before the recent local government changes.

² Lennard, R., Rural England 1086–1135, Oxford 1959, 319–23. For discussion of the profits which a lay owner might draw from a church in the early twelfth century, seeGoogle ScholarBrett, M., The English Church under Henry I, Oxford 1975. 229–30Google Scholar.

³ See Addleshaw, C. W. O., Rectors, Vicars and Patrons in twelfth and early thirteenth century Canon Law, York, St Anthony's Hall Publications no. 9, 1956, 17–18.Google Scholar

⁴ The terms patronus and advocalus, for the patron of a church, were interchangeable for a period around the middle of the century, but eventually the former became the standard term. However, memory of the ‘advocate’ was perpetuated in the term t advocationis, which, like ius patronatus, became a normal means of referring to the right of a patron. The ius presentandi, or right of presentation, was a right (and now the only right) which inhered in the ius advocationis.

⁵ This must be somewhat conjectural, since we are singularly ignorant of the level and nature of lay piety at this time. A good discussion for the later part of the twelfth century is provided by Cheney, C. R., From Becket to Langton, Manchester 1956, 163–73Google Scholar. and his remarks apply a fortiori to the earlier years. Cf. also Hallam, E. M., ‘Henry as a founder of monasteries’, in this JOURNAL, xxviii (1977), 115, for comments on the piety of Henry ii. Only rarely is pious or devotional language (other than the purely conventional) expressed in lay deeds olgift to the Church, but even then one cannot be certain that these are the sentiments of the donors and not those of the clerks who wrote them. Grants were made explicitly in return for spiritual rewards, such as the salvation of the donor's and his family's souls, the benefit of the monks' prayers, the right to receive the monastic habit ad succurrendum when near to death, etc., and this contractual element probably gives the best clue as to the average layman's attitude when making a grantGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Stenton, F. M., Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History of the Danelaw (cited hereafter as Documents), London 1920, Ixxiv.Google Scholar

⁷ B.L. Egeton MS 3031 (Reading cartulary), fo. 4v; , calendared, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii, ed. Johnson, C. and Cronne, H. A., Oxford 1956. 282Google Scholar.

⁸ Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, ed. Salter, H. E., Oxford Hist. Soc. (1929-1936), iv. 465–6.Google Scholar

⁹ The Chartulary of Lewes Priory. The portions relating to counties other than Sussex, ed. Budgen, W. and Salzman, L. F., Sussex Rec. Soc. (Additional vol., 1943), ‘The Wiltshire, etc., portion’, 31.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Finberg, H. P. R., ‘Some Early Tavistock charters’, EHR, Ixii (1947). 358.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cambridge U.L., Ely Diocesan Charters, IB/123. A similar attitude is apparent in episcopal appointments of parish incumbents until about the middle of the century, before the later formula of admission and institution had been devised. E.g., in 1147–57 Hilary, bishop of Chichester, conferred the church of Eartham (Sussex) on Richard the chaplain with the words: ‘Notum sit … quod nos ecclesiam de Erham … Ricardo capellano … concessimus habendam in elemosinam et gubernandam cum omnibus pertinentiis suis’— The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester 1071–1107, ed. Mayr-Harting, H., Canterbury and York Soc. 1964, 93Google Scholar . discussed by the editor, 37. In 1149 William, bishop of Norwich, conferred Stalham church (Norfolk) on the clerk Jocelin in similar terms:‘Notum fieri universitati vestre volumus quod nos dedimus canonice Joscelino clerico nostro ecclesiam de Stalham in elemosina cum omnibus pertinentiis suis’— The Register of St Benet of Holme, ed. West, J. R. (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 1932), i. 50Google Scholar.

¹² Select Documents of the English Lands of the Abbey of Bee, ed. Chibnall, M. (Camden 3rd se., Ixxiii, 1951), 5–6.Google Scholar

¹³ Moey, A., Bartholomew of Exeter, Cambridge 1937, 115.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cambridge, King's College Muniments, H26/1. Ralph was apparently dead in 1187, when his land was in the king's hand (Pipe Roll 33 Henry II, 76).

¹⁵ Cambridge U.L., Add. MSS 3020—1 (Red Book ofThomey), fos. iov, 421r.

¹⁶ The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory, ed. Darlington, R. R. (Pipe Roll Soc. Ixxvi, 1958), 56.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Sandford Cartulary, ed. Leys, A. M. (Oxfordshire Rec. Soc. 1938-1941), ii. 188–9Google Scholar .

¹⁸ Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hibemiae, ed. Wilkins, D., London 1737, i. 383.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bristol Abbey cartulary (in the ownership of the Trustees of the Berkeley Estates, Berkeley Castle; microfilm in the Bodleian Lib., Oxford), fo. 33r. Cf. William, earl of Gloucester's grants of the churches of Eltha and Brasted (Kent) to Keynsham Abbey after 1166, ‘in quantum ius ad advocationem et dominium fundi pertinet’— Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Patterson, R. B., Oxford 1973, 100–1Google Scholar.

²⁰ E.g., B.L. Egerton MS 3316 (Bath cartulary), fo. 62r (1174–9); Cartulary of the Priory of St Gregory, Canterbury, ed. Woodcock, A. M. (Camden 3rd ser, Ixxxviii, 1956), 26 (1174–1182)Google Scholar.

²¹ Early Yorkshire Families, ed. Clay, C. and Greenway, D. E. (Yorks Arch. Soc., Rec. series, cxxxv, 1973), 110:Google Scholar ‘…concessi et dedi quantum fas est laico persone….’.The grant was confirmed by Mowbray, Roger de, ‘quantum persone laice licet concedere’.mdash; Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107–1191, ed. Greenway, D. E., London 1972, 131Google Scholar . A two-fold pious uncertainty is evidenced by Roger de Mowbray's own grant to Newbugh Priory (Yorks) of the churches of Masham and Kirkby Malzeard (Yorks) and Langford (Notts); he granted the churches by the formulae, ‘quicquid juris habui in ecclesiis de Massarn’ (etc.) and ‘quicquid laicus potest in ecclesiis conferre alicui collegio religiose’ (ibid., 141).

¹⁰⁰ The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. Rees, U., Aberyswyth 1975, ii. 307.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot (cited hereafter as Letters and Charters), ed. Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Cambridge 1967, 355.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cart. Canterbury, 28. On this occasion the incumbent rector also resigned and the archbishop conveyed his ‘parsonage’.to the canons along with the donor's right of patronage. A similar, though not identical, transaction took place before the archdeacon of Oxford in the rural chapter of Witney, when Stephen de Ponsold and his wife granted the church of Cornwell to Eynsham Abbey in 1151–73; the incumbent resigned the church into the archdeacon's hand, and he then assigned the parsonage of the church to the abbot and convent in perpetuity, ‘On the presentation of the aforesaid Stephen’— Eynsham Cartulary, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxford Hist. Soc. i, 1907-1908), 66–7.,Google Scholar

²⁵ Calendar of Documents preserved in France, ed. Round, J. H., H.M.S.O., London 1899, 484Google Scholar . Throwley church was confirmed by the archbishop ‘ex presentatione et postulatione Willelmi de Ipra tune advocati’— Saltman, A., Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, London 1956, 464Google Scholar . The church of Chilham, however, was confirmed to the abbey by Theobald a few years later, as having been given by Hugh son of Fulbert per manum nostram (ibid., 465).

²⁶ Winchester, Hampshire Record Office, Southwick Priory Register No. 1 (on deposit), fo. 3r.

²⁷ Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, ed. Loyd, L. C. and Stenton, D. M., Oxford 1950, 302.Google Scholar

²⁸ Eton College Muniments, Ellingham charter no. 2; Calendar of Documents in France, 348.

²⁹ B.L. Harley MS 391 (Waltham cartulary), fo. 97r. See also above note 25, and the grant and confirmation of West Rasen church (Lines) to Abbey, Marmoutier (Calendar of Documents in France, 443–4Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Brooke, C. N. L., ‘The missionary at home: the Church in the towns, 1000–1250’, Studies in Church History, vi, Cambridge 1970. 72Google Scholar . For a fuller discussion of this phenomenon in the case of London churches, see C. N. L. Brooke assisted by Keir, G., London 800–1216: the Shaping of a City, London 1975. 135–6Google Scholar

³¹ Cartularium Monaiterü de Rameieia, ed. Hart, W. H. and Lyons, P. A. (Rolls Series 1884) i. 132Google Scholar . This is presumed to date from Abbot Reginald's time, since it appears in the section relating to his abbacy. Cf. the grant to St Benet of Holme Abbey of the church of St Michael, Norwich, by Stigand the priest and his son in 1126–7 (Register of Holme (as note 11), i. 49).

³² Cartularium Abbathiae de Whiteby, ed. Atkinson, J. C. (Surtees Soc. 1879-1881), i. 180Google Scholar . Equally often, however, a parish church newly established within the parochia of an older church might be lost to the monastic possessor of the latter. Humber (Herefs) is a case in point: in 1123 it was listed by the bishop of Hereford among the places lying in the parochia of Leominster, whose ancient church had been given to Reading Abbey (Monasticon, iv. 56), but before 1155 the 'church* of Humber was granted to Brecon Priory by the local lord, Walter del Mans, who had bought off Leominster's claims by a grant of land and the preservation of its rights of sepulture in Humber (Letters and Charters, iii, 386–7).

³³ Chronicon Monasteii de Abingdon, ed. Stevenson, J. (Rolls Series 1858), ii. 27–9.Google Scholar

³⁴ No evidence survives of the grant of these churches to Reading, but the earliest reference to them, in a diocesan confirmation to the abbey in 1189–93- asserted that they had been in its possession since the time of Bishop Roger (B.L. Egerton MS 3031. fo 73r which takes one back to the period of the abbey's foundation and acquisition from Henry I of the manor and church of Reading. It can be shown that the abbey held the manors of these places by about 1150, again without evidence of original grants. There are strong grounds for believing that the manors originally formed parts of the manor of Reading and that the churches were established on lands which thus lay in the large early parish of St Mary's church in Reading, whose former status as a minster church is attested by the still surviving name of Minster Street, Reading, first occurring as such (in surviving records) in thirteenth-century deeds.

³⁵ Respectively: Transcripts of Charters relating to Gilbertine Houses (hereafter cited as Transcripts of Charters), ed. Stenton, F. M., Lincoln Rec. Soc., xviii (1922), 2–3Google Scholar ; B. L. Egerton MS

²¹⁰⁴ (Whewell cartulary), fo. 97v; Cartulary of St Mary Clerkenwell, ed. Hassall, W. O., Camden 3rd ser., Ixxi (1949), 9. Letters and Charters, 405. The Whewell notice is a confir mation, dated 1201, by Herbert Poore, bishop of Salisbury, of his predecessor Bishop Jocelin's confirmationGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Constable, G., Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century, Cambridge 1964.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ For a fuller discussion of these points, see , Brett, English Church, 225–6Google Scholar . Most of our information comes from grants of tithes from lay lords to various religious causes, and it is easy therefore to conclude that, although lay control existed, the Church benefited in one way or another from its operation. And yet it is reasonable to suppose that in places, especially when the times were disturbed, lay ownership of tithes meant non-payment or withholding of tithes. Possible examples are Chron. Abingdon, ii. 225–6; Letters and Charters, 391–2.

¹⁰⁰ Cart. Oseney, v. 111. In 1189 Thetford leased the tithes in perpetuity to Osney Abbey (ibid., 110).

¹⁰⁰ The Chartulary of Boxgrove Priory, ed. Fleming, L. (Sussex Rec. Soc., lix, 1960), 67Google Scholar . , Brett, English Church, 226Google Scholar , states that there is little evidence for this division in the early twelfth century, citing only the foundation charter of Tutbury Priory—The Cartulary of Tutbury Priory, ed. Saltman, A. (Staffs Rec. Soc. 1962), 63—but the principle is clearly behind Turoldof Hanney's grant of tithes to Abingdon in 1104–5 (Chron. Abingdon, ii. 142)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Episcopal Charters for Wix Priory’ in A Medieval Miscellany for D. M. Stenton, ed. Barnes, P. M. and Slade, C. F. (Pipe Roll Soc., Ixxvi, 1962), 61.Google Scholar

⁴¹ B.L. Lansdowne MS 442 (Edtngton cartulary), fo. 178v. Amaury was most probably dead by 1187, since his bequest to Reading Abbey of lands in Berkshire was confirmed by Henry 1185–7 (B.L. Egerton MS 30 fos. 28r, 23v). The tithes in Carswell were confirmed to Wallingfod Priory by Bishop Jocelin of Salisbury before 1184 (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Berkshire Charters, 3), but this could antedate Amaury's confirmation. The tithes were leased to the rector of Buckland in 1319 (B.L. Lansdowne MS. 442. fos 178v) and so came into the possession of Edington College when it acquired Buckland church in 1358 (Victoria History of Berkshire, iv. 460).

⁴² B.L. Add. MS 15314 (StDenys cartulary), fo. 100r.

⁴⁵ Landboc sive Registrum … de Wincelcumba, ed. Royce, D., Exeter 1892-1893. i, 82Google Scholar . For an early thirteenth-century parallel, see Liber Antiqu (below note 96), 84.

⁴⁴ , Constable, Monastic Tithes, 165–85Google Scholar , esp. 168–70, 188–5. In the latter case, the argument that all monks were entitled to receive tithes by service of the altar (understood in a general sense) evolved in part from eleventh-century theory that monks who per formed pastoral work should accordingly receive tithes or alms from those they served (ibid., 165–7). This cannot have carried any theoretical weight, one imagines, unless monastic performance of some kinds of pastoral work was true on a significant scale in practice, although the evidence for such is, it must be admitted, scanty and far from conclusive.

⁴⁵ Libellus de Diversis Ordinibus et Professionibi qui sunt in Atcdesia, ed. Constable, G. and Smith, B., Oxford 1972, 26–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ In urban parishes, which particularly in cities were often numerous and small in area, the situation was rather different, for the income of those churches seems commonly to have consisted primarily of offerings rather than tithes (even though in theory tithes were payable on all produce, including profits from trade and craft, known from the mid-twelfth century as ‘personal’ tithes) and certainly did not include the greater tithes of a rural parish. For a recent and useful discussion of this practice in London parishes, see , Brooke and , Keir, London, 800–1216, 126–33Google Scholar ; for tne problems surrounding the definition and payment of personal tithes, see , Constable, Monastic Tithes, esp. 34, 268 note 2, 287–8Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ The term is not normally found in twelfth-century charters and episcopal acta, but came into regular use in the early thirteenth century. For its meaning, see Hartridge, R. A. R., A History of Vicarages in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1930, 36–7Google Scholar . Normally it signified the offerings and lesser tithes together, but usage was rather inconsistent in the early thirteenth century, when it was sometimes used for the offerings as distinct from the lesser tithes.

⁴⁸ Conversely, the Church was willing to protect the legitimate and reasonable rights of monasteries where these were in jeopardy, and popes and bishops readily intervened on their behalf against recalcitrant parish clergy and others. See, for example, the mandate of Pope Lucius in in 1184–5 concerning Worcester Cathedral Priory's churches of Lindridge and Overbury (Cart. Worcester, 111–2).

⁴⁹ Matthew, D. J. A., The Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions, Oxford 1962, 59–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Chibnall, M., ‘Monks and Pastoral Work: a problem in Anglo-Norman history’, in this Journal, xviii (1967), 165–72Google Scholar . The points and distinctions made by Mrs Chibnall are important and valid, but they cannot be said to have settled the matter. It is essential, as she suggests (166–7), to consider what was meant in this period by ‘the parish’, ‘not simply as a territory …, but also as a concept’, and what were the duties of a parish priest. As she remarks (170): ‘The rights of the parish priest within his cure must have remained far from complete or explicit or generally understood in the late eleventh century and even, in places, up to the time of Gratian.’.Equally, it is indisputable that monks ‘did not often serve parishes in anything like the sense that such a phrase would have in the post-Gratian period’.(171), but this does not exclude the possibility that they may, in places and at times, have performed all that a secular priest would have done in a local church before the Gratian period. One wonders, for example, how the status and responsibilities of the secular priest vf Haney (Berks) in the early twelfth century were regarded—in a grant of tithes to Abingdon Abbey in 1104–5, tne lord, Tuold of Hanney, reserved a third of his corn tithes to ‘the priest serving him’.(Cron. Abingdon, ii. 142); he was ciearly a ‘parish priest’, but did he do more than serve the lord and his tenants in a pastoral and sacramental sense, as and when required, and on terms laid down more by the local lord than by the bishop? If one may ask this question, may one not also ask whether a monastic lord ol an estate with an incipient parish church might not choose to have as its ‘serving’.priest a priest-monk of its own community? Mrs Chibnalls criticism of Matthew (168) is valid, since, as Prof. Brooke remarks, ‘there was certainly no policy of monastic participation’.( ‘The missionary at home’, 82), but there is simply insufficient evidence to say whether or not monks did, as a matter of fact, serve as parish priests within the terms of what that would signify at the time. Readers of monastic cartularies cannot but be struck by the fact that, although charters granting churches to monasteries are frequent at this time, documents defining or regulating the service of those churches are on the whole infrequent before the mid-twelfth century. Compilers of lists of incumbents of parish churches will likewise recall how rarely the name of an incumbent before that time is recorded. In short, very little is known about the service of most English churches in the years around 11 oo, and the onus of proof is to be shared equally by those who urge monastic service as by those who minimize it. See also above note 44.

⁵¹ Brooke, loc. cit.; see also Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Gilbert Foliot and his Letters, Cambridge 1965, 84–5Google Scholar.

⁵² Dickinson, J. C., The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England, London 1950, 26–39, 198–201.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cartulary of the Monastery of St Frideswide at Oxford, ed. Wipram, S. R. (Oxford Hist. Soc. 1895-1896), i. 27Google Scholar ; also Holtzmann, W., Papsturkunden in England, iii. Göttingen 1952, 191Google Scholar . Cf. Pope Alexander ill's concession to the Augustinian abbey of Cirencester in 1178—The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey. Gloucestershire, ed. Ross, C. D., London 1964, i. 148Google Scholar ; , Holtzmann, Papsturkunden, 380Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Oxford, Christ Church College Treasury, MS ‘Nutley Charters’, mem. 10.

⁵⁵ Colvin, H. M., The White Canons in England, Oxford 1951, 23.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ , Haidge, History of Vicarages, 176Google Scholar ; , Dickinson, Austin Canons, 232Google Scholar ; , Colvin, White Canons, 22–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ The authority of the bishops in these respects was made effective by stages, as and when possible and as the attitude of individual bishops became adjusted to the changing climate of opinion. An interesting transitional stage is indicated by a document of Brecon Priory concerning the filling of one of its churches. In 1148–76 David, bishop of St Davids, stated that the prior presented to him a new incumbent for the church of Llagose and that, in his presence, the prior gave the church to the incumbent, the gift being conceded and confirmed by the bishop. It is notable in this case that, although the bishop has become intimately involved in filling the church, the proprietary aspect of the priory's position is still sufficiently strong for it to be the prior, not the bishop, who actually ‘gives’ the church to the next incumbent. See ‘Cartularium Prioratus S. Johannis Evang. de Brecon’, ed. Banks, R. W., Achaeologia Cambrensis, 4th se. xiv (1883), 44–5Google Scholar . This unusually detailed example, in which we are precisely informed of the bishop's part in the process, may throw light on other cases, some even later, where a monastery ‘gives’ a church to an incumbent without apparent reference to the diocesan. Compare, e.g., Reading Abbey's. grant of the parochial chapel of Eye (Herefs) to Osbert son of Osbert in 1173–86 (B.L. Cotton MS Domitian A iii (Leominster cartulary), fo. 161v—printed,Kemp, B. R., ‘Hereditary Benefices in the Medieval English Church: a Herefordshire Example’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xliii (1970), 11—12Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ The Cartulary of Blyth Priory, ed. Timson, R. T. (Thoroton Soc. 1973) i, 151Google Scholar . The monks had been granted the future ‘appropriation’.of the church in 1164–81 (ibid., 206), but this had failed to take effect.

⁵⁹ Eynsham Cartulary, i, 58–61.

⁶⁰ For further discussion, see , Addleshaw, Rectors Vicars and Patrons, 13–14.Google Scholar

⁶¹ For example, from the thirteenth century onwards the word parochia was almost invariably used for a parish in the sense familiar today, but, although it acquired this meaning in the twelfth century, it was then still fairly commonly used for a bishop's diocese (or even an archdeacon's archdeaconry), representing an archaic survival from much earlier practice— see, e.g., , Saltman, Theobald, 244. 253, 276, 547.Google Scholar

⁶² , Brett, English Church, 231Google Scholar , has cited the possible lack of clear distinction between patronus and persona in the early twelfth century; great care is also necessary with the terms rector, capella, ecclesia, advocatus, ius advocationis, etc. (see also above note 4).

⁶³ This is the terminology of the later twelfth century, but for the early years the word ‘installed’.would be more appropriate. See above note 57.

⁶⁴ Respectively: B. L. Egerton MS 3667 (Carisbooke cartulary), fo. 26v; P.R.O. C 115/K/A.1 (Llanthony cartulary), section xiii, no. 17; Chart. Lewes other than Sussex (as note 9), ‘The Wiltshire … portion’, 32.

⁶⁵ Boarstall Cartulary, ed. Salte, H. E. (Oxford Hist. Soc. 1930), 5–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cambridge U.L., Ff. 2.33 (Bury St Edmunds sacrist's cartulary), fo. 96r.

⁶⁷ It is clear that, in the period before episcopal control was made effective, there was a danger of monastic patrons demanding excessive pensions from their rectors. Pope Alexander in prohibited the imposition of new pensions and the increase of existing ones without the consent of the bishop (Cheney, From Becket to Langton, 155, 129), and this policy was pushed through in the later twelfth century. For instance, Reginald FitzJocelin, bishop of Bath, in confirming to the sacristy of Glastonbury Abbey £4 per annum from St John's church in the town,, forbade ‘sub interminacione anathematis ne quis in posterum abbas vel prior vel sacrista de prefata ecclesia aliquid alio modo ordinae presumat’— The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, ed. Watkin, A. (Somerset Rec. Soc. 1947-1956). i, 15–16Google Scholar . For an example of the increase of a pension under episcopal supervision, in this case in 1198–1208 and involving a doubling of the pension, see Cart. Tutbury, 42.

⁶⁸ B.L. Egerton MS 3031, fo 52r

⁶⁹ After 1180 the abbey of Bury St Edmunds was receiving the large pension of 10 marks from the vicar of its church of Woolpit (Suffolk)—The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, ed. Butler, H. E., London 1949. 49–50—and in 1195–1200 the bishop of Bath allowed the abbey of Mcnt St Michel to receive 15 marks from the vicar of its church of MartockGoogle Scholar (Somerset), later increasing this to 20 marks (Calendar of Documents in France, 879), but pensions of such dimensions were exceptional.

⁷⁰ Letters and Charters, 443, 445. Cf. an equally clear statement concerning the church of Chion (Wilts): when Margaret de Bohun granted it to Llanthony Secunda Priory in c. 1167, it was established that the perpetual vicar was to have ‘the aforesaid church with all possessions and liberties that it had on the day when I gave it to the aforesaid canons’ and to pay an annual pension (‘Charters of the Earldom of Hereford, 1095–1301’, ed. Walker, D., Camden Miscellany XXII (Camden 4th ser. i, 1964), 53. 55)Google Scholar; however, in this case the priory was not made rector, since the church already, had as rector Reginald itzjocelin, archdeacon of Salisbury, who did not surrender his position until he became bishop of Bath in 1174 (ibid., 55; P.R.O. Llanthony cartulary-, section i, no. 33, and section viii, no. 71), and the priory of Monkton Farleigh also had a claim to the church, which was not released until after 1174 (‘Charters of the Earldom of Hereford’, 58).

⁷¹ It also helps to explain the occasional remarkable situation in which a religious house as rector of a parish church accepts another religious house as ‘vicar’.or ‘perpetual vicar’.in return for an annual pension: e.g. in 1146–74 the Cluniac priory of Bromholm (Norfolk) was admitted to the perpetual vicarage of Witton for an annual pension of I marks to Castle Acre Priory, of which it was a dependency (Cambridge U.L., Mm, 2.20 (Bromholm cartulary), fo. 2v); and in 1163–80 the Benedictine nuns olStratford-at-Bow were instituted in the church of Islington (Middx) for an annual pension of i mark to the rectors, the dean and chapter of St Paul's (Letters and Charters, 440). In 1186–9 the prior and convent of Bermondsey conceded their church of Englishcombe (Somerset) to Bath Cathedral Priory for an annual pension of 501., declaring that, if Bath failed in payment of the pension, they might return to their church sicut legitima persona (B.L. Egeon MS 3316 (Bath cartulary), lo. 48r.) In all these cases the religious house receiving the church (whether named as vicar or not) was presumably to take a good deal of its revenues, but what was to happen in respect of the serving priest is not made clear.

⁷² In some cases a reference to a church ‘with all its appurtenances’.may conceal the fact that already a considerable part of its revenues had been lawfully abstracted. For example, where a monastery had the patronage of a parish church and also held a manor or extensive estate in the parish from which it was not liable to pay tithes (see Constable, Monastic Tithes, z20–70), a reference to ‘the church with all its appurtenances’.may exclude these demesne tithes. The Red Book of Thorney contains some interesting cases. Inn 76–93 Abbot Solomon granted ‘the church of St Mary, Whittlesey (Cambs), with all its appurtenances’.to Odo son of Odo as rector, who was to pay an annual pension of zoj. and who undertook not to exact tithes from the demesne (curio); the abbot made a similar grant of the church of Haddon (Hunts). The case of Twywell church (Northants) in the thirteenth century is even more illuminating: Abbot Ralph (1198–1216) granted the church with its appurtenances for an annual pension of os. from the rector; Abbot Robert in (1217–37) granted the same to a new rector, who paid the same pension and swore not to exact tithes from the abbey's demesne in the vill; but in 1238–53 Abbot David presented a further rector for the same pension, without mentioning the exclusion of the abbey's tithes (Cambridge U.L. Add. MS 3021, respectively fos. 42r, 42v, 426v, 435, 440v). Compare the specific exclusion of the tithes of Tutbuy Priory's demesne in the episcopal institution of a new rector to their church of Mayfield (Staffs) in 1188–94 (Cart. Tutbury, 31).

⁷³ Cart. Worcester, 109–110.

⁷⁴ Cart. Cirencester, ii. 339—42.

⁷³ Gray, A., The Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge (Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Octavo Series, xxxi, 1898), 91Google Scholar . The grant to the nuns of the advowson of the church by Sturmi of Cambridge is ibid., 90.

⁷⁶ In view of the frequent disputes over patronage of parish churches in the twelfth century, some monasteries may have endeavoured to reinforce their tenure of churches by becoming rector, though receiving only a pension, since a rector was slightly more difficult to dislodge than a patron. The point cannot be pressed, since the settlement of a patronage dispute might well result in the ejection of a rector, but a monastery as rector had increased scope for defence of its rights both in the lay courts and in the Church courts. Concern for a monastery's position as rector is evident in some deeds: for instance, in c. 1140–5 Guy de Offeny gave the church of West Bromwich (Staffs) to Worcester Cathedral Priory, declaring that, ‘as I have given the same church to the prior and monks in perpetuity, I wish that it be in their hands in perpetuity, and that they admit no parson to it other than themselves, but have a priest vicar there’ (Cart. Worcester, 101–2); and in 1150–1 a former archdeacon of Ely testified that the church of Whittlesey ‘never had any other parson apart from the abbot and convent of Thorney’ (, Saltman, Theobald, 527Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ The extent to which bishops insisted, or were able to insist, on security of tenure for the serving priest, and his appointment by the diocesan, varied in particular cases. Although the main trend was towards security of tenure and episcopal appointment, some monasteries were on occasions allowed greater freedom in disposing of their churches. E.g., in 1154–67 the archbishop of York confirmed the church of Kirkīevington (Yorks) to Guisborough Priory and conceded ?ibeam … potestatem ordinandi ibi clericn, cui tamen de beneficiis eiusdem ecclesie providebitur unde.,.(etc.),—Cartularium Prioratus de Gysebume, ed. Brown, W. (Surtees Soc., 1889, 1894), ii 46–7Google Scholar . In granting the appropriation of Tutbuy parish church to the monks of Tutbuy Priory, probably in 1175–82, the bishop of Coventry conceded ‘ut in ecclesia … per vicarium suum faciant ministrare, quem vicarium ipsi monachi in domo proprio secum habeant si voluerint, vel certam ei assignent pensionem exterius eumque recipiant vel amoveant prout commodo suo melius noveint expedite’ (Cart. Tutbury, 30). In c. 1181–7 Gilbert oliot, bishop of London, appropriated elsted church (Essex) to the nuns of Holy Trinity, Caen, ‘salvo duorum capellanorum sevitio qui eidem ecclesie annuatim desevient ad custum dictaum abbatisse et conventus’ (Letten and Charters, 405). In a thirteenth-century appropriation of Mayfield church (Staffs), Tutbury was allowed to serve the church per ydoneos capellanos, without reference to a perpetual vicarage (Cart. Tutbury, 32), and it was not until 1253, when there was a ‘rector’ of Mayfield, that a fully developed vicarage was enjoined (ibid., 36).

⁷⁸ Monastic dissatisfaction with a pension is evident on occasions. In conceding the request of Monkton Farleigh Priory (Wilts) for the appropriation of Chippenham church and its chapels in 1154–84. the bishop of Salisbury declared that ‘ex quibusdam capellis ad eandem ecclesiam pertinentibus, quas clerici ipsoum’ (the monks) ‘possident, modicas pecipiunt pensiones, quod eis in multa et gavia damna pervenie cognoscimus’—P.R.O. Ancient Deed B 11667; Trowbridge, Wilts Record Office, 192/54 (Monkton Farleigh Roll), mem. 1, no. 2. For a later instance see the appropriation of High Ercall church (Salop) to Shrewsbury Abbey in 1228, in which the bishop of Coventry gave as the special reason for granting it, ‘quod ex ecclesiarum patonatu multum vobis oneris et parvum hue usque commoditatis accreveit’ (Cart. Shrewsbury, i. 69).

¹⁰⁰ , Wilkins, Concilia, i. 383.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Early Yorkíhire Charters, vi. 82–3, cited and discussed by , Cheney, From Becket to Langton, 133–4Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Acta ofChichester, 58–9.

⁸² Respectively: Voss, L., Heinrich von Blois, Bischof von Winchester 1129–71, Berlin 1938, 159–60Google Scholar ; , Finberg ‘Some Early Tavistock Charters’, 358Google Scholar . Both are cited by , Cheney, op cit., 134Google Scholar . A remarkably early case of the division of revenues between monastic possessor and vicar is apparently provided by a supposed act of Roger, bishop of Salisbury, to the leper house of Pont Audemer (Normandy) in c. 1129–39, in which he granted the greater tithes olSturminster Marshall (Dorset) in appropriation and reserved the lesser tithes for the maintenance of the vicar: printed, Kealey, E. J., Roger of Salisbury, Berkeley 1972, 256–7Google Scholar . However, there are grave doubts as to the authenticity of this text and, if genuine, as to its attribution to Bishop Roger. The cartulary copies (Rouen, Bibliothèque de la Ville, Y 200, fos 34r, 48v) give only the initial of the bishop's name, so that the reference might be to Bishop Roger or Bishop Richard Poore (1217–28), but the text is suspect for both bishops. The bishop's title, dei permissione Sar' ecclesie minister humulis, is not found in Roger's other acts and is much more characteristic of thirteenth-century usage (see Cheney, C. R., English Bishops' Chanceries 1100–1250, Manchester 1950, 62–4)Google Scholar , while the general tone of the act, particularly the matter-of-fact references to greater and lesser tithes, does not ring true. On the other hand, although the bishop's title is one of two variants regularly used by Bishop Richard (see Charters and Documents… of Salisbury, ed. Jones, W. R. and Macray, W. D. (Rolls Series 1891)Google Scholar , passim), the text is archaic for an episcopal act of this type in his time, notably in its primitive epistolary form, ending with Valete and without a dating clause and witness list. Certainty is impossible, partly because the early history of Pont Audemer's involvement in the spiritualities of Sturminster Marshall is obscure, but, since Bishop Richard is known to have made a separate provision for the tithes of the church, one may be faced here with an amended and interpolated act of Bishop Roger, which he no doubt issued in confirmation of the grant of the church to the leper house by Waleran, count of Meulan (cartulary, fos. 5r, 8r, 48v). On this point I have benefited from discussion with Miss S. Mesmin, who is preparing an edition of the Pont Audemer cartulary.

⁸³ On this in general see Harvey, P. D. A., ‘The English Inflation of 1180–1220’, Past and Present, no. 58 (11, 1973), 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁴ , Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, 128–9Google Scholar ; , Cheney, From Becket to Langton, 135Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ , Cheney, op. cit., 135Google Scholar ; Cheney, M., ‘Pope Alexander in and Roger, Bishop of Worcester, 1164–1179: the exchange of ideas’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Monumenta luris Canonici, Series C: Subsidia, v, 1976), 217Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Op. cit., 136.

⁸⁷ The Cartulary of Darley Abbey, ed. Darlington, R. R. (Derbs Arch. Soc, 1945), ii, 602.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Cambridge, Pembroke College Muniments, Soham A4

⁸⁹ Westminster, Dean and Chapter Muniments, no. 7604.

⁹⁰ Respectively: Cart. Clerkenwell, 23–4; Liber Antiqu (below note 96), 76.

⁹¹ , Finberg, ‘Some Early Tavistock Charters’, 370Google Scholar. Cf. the charter of the abbot and convent of Mont St Michel, dated 1184, granting to a clerk their church of Wath (Yorks), on condition that two-thirds of the obventions and of all tithes of the church should be made over to them and that the clerk received the remaining third with the glebe and the offerings of bread, eggs and flesh—The Cartulary of St Michael's Mount, ed. Hull, P. L. (Devon and Cornwall Rec. Soc., n.s. v, 1962 for 1958), 39–50Google Scholar. The clerk was not styled a perpetual vicar, however, and whether the arrangement received diocesan confirmation is not clear.

⁹² Register of Holme, i. 64.

⁹³ Liber Antiqu, 7, 13 (see note 96).

⁹⁴ In the late twelfth century episcopal grants of appropriation began to include specific regulations regarding the spiritual dues which every parish church was required to pay to the bishop and other diocesan officers, for which in general see Cheney, From Becket to Langton, 149–54. Earlier episcopal acta rarely made reference to these dues when confirming churches to religious houses, except in so far as they were covered by a formula reserving the rights of the bishop or of the cathedral church in general. Responsibility for payment lay essentially on the incumbent of the parish church, but when a church was appropriated to a monastery, the problem arose of determining whether the burden should lie on the monastic rectors or on the perpetual vicar, or whether it should be apportioned between them. This consideration affected the assessment of vicarages, for those where the vicar bore the burdens needed to be of greater value than otherwise. See , Hatidge, History of Vicarages, 43–5Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ The figure is taken from Cheney, C. R., op. cit., 136Google Scholar, but since he appears to place little emphasis on the difference between pension-paying vicarages and vicarages with assigned revenues (ibid., 133 and appendix II), the estimate may need adjusting for the present discussion.

⁹⁶ Liber Antiluus de Ordinationibus Vicariarum tempore Hugonii Wells, Lincolniensis Episcopi, 1209–1235, ed. Gibbons, A., Lincoln 1888.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Op cit., 132.

⁹⁸ E.g. the vicarages in the churches of St Bartholomew, St Edmund, St Giles and St Michael in Northampton, all belonging to the Cluniac priory olSt Andrew, Northampton (Liber Antiquus, 34–5.) The vicar of Ampthill (Beds) is also said to have the whole church, but the demesne tithes are expressly excluded (ibid., 21; cf. above, p. 151, n 72).

⁹⁹ This statement applies to perpetual vicarages in churches fully appropriated to a monastery; it is not true of perpetual vicarages in which the monastery continues to present an individual rector (as in the twelfth century at Checkendon, above, p. 149), for these commonly remained of the pension-paying type. See, for instance, the cases of Yaxley (Hunts) held by Thorney Abbey (1225) and Sturminster Marshall (Dorset) held by the Norman leper house of Pont Audemer (1204)—respectively, Cambridge U.L. Add. MS 3020, fo. 72v; Rouen, Bibliothèque de la Ville, Y 200. fo. 49r. (For an example of a vicarage with assigned revenues under a monastically presented rector, see Eynsham Cartulary, i, 137–8.) It should also be noted that occasionally perpetual vicarages of the ‘assigned revenues’ type might themselves be subject to a pension payable to the appropriating monastery—in 1201, for example, Reading Abbey was confirmed in the appropriation of the Berkshire churches of St Mary Reading, St Giles Reading, Wargrave, Beenham, Cholsey and Tilehurst, the vicars of which received certain assigned categories of income, but also paid annual pensions to the abbey, the largest being 603. (B.L. Egerton MS 3031. fos. 96v-97v).

¹⁰⁰ On hereditary benefices, see , Brett, English Church, 219–80Google Scholar; , Cheney, From Becket to Langton, 14–15, 126–9Google Scholar; Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Gregorian Reform in Action: clerical marriage in England 1050–1200’, Cambridge Hist. Jnl, xii (1956)Google Scholar, For examples, see Barlow, F., Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars, Oxford 1950, 33–5Google Scholar; , Kemp, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xliii (1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See Transcripts of Charters, xxiii-xxiv; Documents, Ixxv-lxxvi.

¹⁰² See , Cheney, op. cit., 121–2Google Scholar. For examples of removable chaplains serving in churches appropriated to a cathedral monastery in 1205, see Norwich Cathedral Charters, ed. Dodwell, B., i (Pipe Roll Soc. Ixxviii, 1974 for 1965-1965). 80–1, 83–4. 86–92Google Scholar. For churches appropriated to an exempt abbey (1191), see Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. Brewer, J. S. (Rolls Ser. 1879-1880), i. 374–5Google Scholar.