No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2012
It has been to me an agreeable task to comply with your request that I should examine and give you some account of the parcel of early documents, the exhibition of which before the Society of Antiquaries Miss Portman has been good enough to procure.
page 417 note a Mon. Dioc. Exon. p. 224.
page 417 note b MS. Harl. 3660.
page 417 note c The Clavile family were once of considerable importance in Devon and Dorset. At the time of the Survey Walter de Clavile held in chief not only Burlescombe, but also several other manors in Devonshire (Domesday, i. 112), and Morden near Blandford, and other manors in Dorsetshire. His descendant, probably his grandson, the founder of Canonsleigh, held two knight's fees in Devonshire of the honour of Gloucester, and was so returned by William Earl of Gloucester in 12 Hen. II. (See Lib. Nig. Scacc. apud Hearne, p. 161, and Polwhele's Devon, p. 208.) No complete genealogy of the family appears to exist. The following pedigree is taken in part from Pole's Devon Collections, p. 212, enlarged by a careful examination of the Harleian Cartulary:—
Here the connection of the Claviles with Canonsleigh ceases. Sir W. Pole makes Sir John I. to be brother and not son to Sir Roger. His pedigree is without vouchers, but is probably derived as to this portion from the pleadings in the suit between Beare and Percehay presently to be mentioned.
He proceeds as follows :—
In Hutchins's History of Dorset it is stated that John Clavyle held Morden cum membris in the 6th of Edward II. for two fees, of the Earl of Gloucester. This is no doubt our John de Clavile I. He was dead it would seem, leaving a son under age, in the 1st year of Edward III., as a writ then issued to the eseheator on this side Trent to seize, among other estates in a similar plight, the lands of which John Clavyle deceased had died seised. This was in consequence of the attainder of Hugh Despencer the younger, who had married one of the coheirs of the honour of Gloucester; and two years after, Geoffrey de Royston had a grant of the custody of two-thirds of the manor of Bridelescumbe (Burlescombe), which was of John de Clavile, deceased, to hold until the majority of the heir.2 What relationship this heir of John I. bore to him does not appear. If, as Sir W. Pole has it, it was his son of the same name (John II.), he must, I think, have died before the 23rd Edward III. leaving a third John his heir. For in that year Andrew Luterell had a grant of the custody of the manor of Burlescombe, together with Lomene (Lowman) Clavile, to hold during the minority of the heir of John de Clavile, who held of Hugh Despencer, deceased, &c. Now this heir of John de Clavile can hardly be the same as “the heir of John de Clavile” before mentioned (that is of John de Clavile I.), as John I. was dead in the 1st year of the reign, and his heir, even if a posthumous son (the extreme case) must have been out of ward in the 23rd year. Pole's statement is probably correct as to three successive fathers and sons all of the same name, though, in spite of the identity of Christian name, John II. may possibly have been a brother of John I. In the 25th year of Edward III. this Andrew Luterell had a grant of the marriage of the son of John de Clavill. This son was probably John, the third John of Pole's pedigree, as in 47 Edw. III. John Clavel of Morden (according to Hutchins) held lands in Little Kimmeridge. Hutchins next mentions a William Clavile (who died 20 Ric. II.) who held East and West Morden of Edmund, Earl of March, by knight's service. He adds that these Claviles seem to have been the principal branch of the family, and to have become extinct at Morden about 1374. A younger branch continued to Hutchins's day at Smedmore in Dorsetshire These facts, so far as they go, substantiate Sir W. Pole's pedigree.
page 419 note a Oliver, p. 135.
page 418 note 1 Sir W. Pole inserts a William, Walter, and William between the Walter of Domesday and the founder.
page 418 note 2 See Walter's charter of foundation printed in Oliver, Dioc. Exon. p 226.
page 418 note 3 Charter of confirmation. MS. Harl. 3660, Legh, Clavile, No. vii.
page 418 note 4 Ibid. Clavile charters, No. x.
page 418 note 5 Ibid. No. xi.
page 418 note 6 Ibid. No. xiii.
page 418 note 7 Rogerus de Clavile fil. et hær. Will, de C. dedit terras Prioratui S. Nicholai Exon. Coll. Topogr. et Gen. i. 385.
page 418 note 8 Cartul. Clavile, No, xv.
page 418 note 9 Ibid. fo. 42.
page 418 note 10 Ibid. fo. 68 b.
page 418 note 11 Ibid. fo. 69.
page 418 note 12 Infra, App. No. V.
page 418 note 13 Under East Morden, iii. 130.
page 419 note 1 Abb. Hot. Orig. ii. 5, col. i. ro. 8.
page 419 note 2 Ibib. p 28, col. i. ro. 7, Cant.
page 419 note 3 Ibid. p 216, col. i. ro. 4.
page 419 note 4 Ubi supra.
page 419 note 5 See his vol. i. 316, where a pedigree of this branch is given, but the connection with the modern family is not made out.
page 420 note a Each of the deeds transcribed into the cartulary has a mark of reference thereto endorsed on it.
page 420 note b Harl. 3,660, fo. 61. The following genealogical notes from the cartulary may be worth preserving:—
page 420 note c See Dugd. Monasticon as to this title.
page 420 note d MS. Harl. 3,660, p. 61
page 420 note 1 One of the name Robert was Archdeacon of Surrey, according to Le Neve, in 1130 and 1171.
page 421 note a Josceline died Nov. 19, 1242, and his successor was not elected for two years afterwards. Dugd. Mon. ii. 277.
page 421 note b Some attempt at examining the validity of this claim will be found in a footnote to the Appendix No. I. Whether the convent was not satisfied as to the validity of the appropriation made by the archdeacon, sede vacante, or what the reason may have been, we cannot tell; but it appears from the cartulary that William de Bitton, who succeeded to the see of Bath and Wells in 1248, after the short incumbency of Bishop Roger of Sarum (1244–1247), in the first year of his pontificate again appropriated Sampford to the monastery by an instrument, which, though in other respects very nearly following the tenor of the archdeacon's appropriation, omits all reference to it, except what may be, implied from the following clause, “Hæc autem sic duximus ordinanda salvis nobis et successoribus nostris per omnia dignitate, auctoritate et jurisdictione et episcopalibus consuetudinibus et archidiacono loci jure archidiaconali &c.
page 422 note a The following descents of this family are deduced from the Harleian Cartulary (fo. 44 b. et seqq.):
page 422 note b Sir Johele de Valletorte, sheriff of Somerset, was a witness to Baldwin's charter, which is without date. His name, however, does not occur in the list of sheriffs either in Fuller's Worthies or in Collinson's History of Somersetshire.
page 422 note c This instrument and the former, it will be oberved, are of even date (St. George's Day 1243), and the same persons are named as attesting witnesses. The two transactions recorded by the two deeds are presumably therefore “of the same piece,” though neither instrument expressly recites the tenor or purport of the other.
page 422 note d The perpetual curacy of Thorne St. Margaret still is or very lately was in the gift of the Archdeacon of Taunton.
page 422 note e Commnuniarius or communicarius was an officer in a religious foundation whose duty it was to distribute the commons of money or provision to the members of the body. See Ducange sub votibus.
page 423 note a John is not among the Treasurers of Salisbury in Hardy's Le Neve. Jordanns is there named as Treasurer in the years 1142 and 1184.
page 423 note b MS. Harl. 3660, fo. 70.
page 424 note a Oliver, Mon. Dioc. Exon. 224.
page 424 note b Oliver, 225. He calls her, from the Exeter Register, de Tablere. She received the benediction of the bishop as abbess on Oct. 28, 1284.
page 425 note a The seals to this instrument have perished, and it has not been thought necessary to print it in extenso.
page 425 note b Memorand. in Scacc. 29 Edw. I. de term. Trin. 43. Dr. Oliver has given the reference, not quite accurately, to the Year Book.
page 425 note c I have been disappointed at finding no papal instrument relative to this transaction in the Vatican Transcripts, now in the British Museum.
page 427 note a See Scott's Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, p. 105; article on the Betable, by Mr. Burges.
page 427 note b See particularly, a long form of such a proceeding, on the election of an abbat of Glastonbury, in the Monasticon, article Glastonbury.
page 428 note a The great seal, as appended to the congé d'élire, is figured in Sandford, Genealogical History, p. 456, but it is to be noted that the words of the legend are separated on both sides by colons and roses, not by colons on the obverse and roses on the reverse, as Sandford has represented it.
page 428 note b Oliver, p. 226.
page 428 note c The charter will be found at fo. 43 b, MS. Harl. 3660.
page 429 note a Hafltaus in his Glossarium Germanicum Medii Aevi has the following passage (Article Bäncke, p. 92): Die bier Gaeneke. Quatuor scamna, in quibus judici assidebant Scabini in judicio solenni. Per metonymen, judicium plenum duodecim ferè scabinorum, cujus figuram ita describit Gryphiander in Tractatu de Weichbild Saxonico, c. lxv. n. 3, “Collocatum erat tribunal in loco editiore pro judice, cui in quatuor scamnis sive bancis quadrato ordine circumsedebant Scabini.” …. Vocabantur autem Die bier Baeneke non solum Judicia Provincialia sed etiam majorum civitatum. Haltaus then gives several references to documents where the expression in question in the Latin form is used in reference to local courts at Mechlin, Cologne, and elsewhere. Of these the following is most to our purpose. A Charter (a.d. 1256) of Henry III. Count of Misnia, and Landgrave of Thuringia, to the town of Altenberg contains this passage: “Quicunque fecerit emendam extra figuram judicii, ita quod digitum non levat [i.e. juramento se astringat] infra quatuor scampna, de emenda pollicita convinci non potest, sed juramento, si voluerit, se purgabit.” I am indebted for this reference to Grimm, Deutsche Rechts-Alterthümer, pp. 212, 810. At the latter page will be found, among much other learning as to the material form of ancient Teutonic Courts, additional instances where the expression “die vier Bänke ” is used, as in the statutes of the Hanse town of Bremen, and in Magdeburg records.
page 431 note a Turkeby, Cartul.
page 431 note b Forn, Cartul.
page 431 note c The phrase should run “in puram perpetuam et liberam elemosinam quietam,” &c. The Cartulary follows the present text. The document seems carelessly drawn. The construction of the second sentence presents more than one difficulty.
page 432 note d This claim of the Archdeacon of Taunton to have the entire episcopal jurisdiction within his archdeaconry vacante sede (or in more modern language to have the guardianship of the spiritualities on such occasions) is too remarkable to be passed over in silence.
I have not been in a position to ascertain, as might be done by examination of the Wells registers, whether the jurisdiction really ever belonged “de antiqua consuetudine” to the archdeacon of Taunton or any other archdeacon of that diocese, but I have not found an instance of a similar claim elsewhere. As advanced however in the text the claim must fail from its generality, being for every archdeacon in his own archdeaconry. For, as the following short review of the authorities will show, although the right to the guardianship of the spiritualities in England is involved in some obscurity, yet it lies generally between the dean and chapter and the archbishop only.
“By the Canon Law,” says Burn, “the Dean and Chapter are the guardians of the spiritualities during the vacancy ; and it hath been allowed, that of common right they are so at this day in England, and that the Archbishop hath this privilege only by prescription or composition; and divers Deans do challenge this by ancient charters from the Kings of this realm.” Lord Coke, whom Burn cites, supports the first of these propositions, and on examining the works of the canonists it is quite clear that the general rule of their law is in favour of the chapter having and exercising the spiritual jurisdiction during the vacancy of the see, although to this there may have been some exceptions in some places.
Lyndwode says, “Custodia Spiritualium et Temporalium de Jure Communi pertinet ad Capituium.” (Jus Commune in Lyndwode's sense of course means the general Canon Law.) In support of his proposition he quotes “De Major, et Obed. c. quum olim ” (Decretal. Greg. ix. lib. i. tit. 33. c. 14) where Gregory LX. (1227—1241) directs the confirmation of a conventual election to be made sede vacante by the chapter of the cathedral of the diocese; and “De Maj. et Ob. c. unico, lib. 6,” (Sexto Decretal, lib. i. tit. 17) where Boniface VIII. (1294—1303) says “Episcopali sede vacante, potest capituium, seu is ad quern episcopalis jurisdictio tune temporis noscitur pertinere, iis quibus posset episcopus si viveret ab excommunicationis sententia…. absolutionis beneficium impertiri, &c.” “De consuetudine tamen,” continues Lyndwode, “potest pertinere ad alium, sicut notatur et legitur De Offic. Ordi. c. præsenti, lib. 6, (Sexto Decretal, lib. i. tit. 16, e. 9),” which passage however, relates merely to guardianship of temporalities, “et De Elect, c. Statutum, in Clem. (Constit. Clementinæ i. 3, 7,)” where Clement V. in the Council of Vienne, (1311) after providing for the preservation to the successor of the profits of spiritual or secular courts during a vacancy, says “Ceterum ad singulares personas, ad quas ratione dignitatis jurisdictio cum ejus emolumento devolvitur sede vacante, de consuetudine, privilegio, vel jure alio speciali, volumus præsentem constitutionem extendi.” See Decretal, vi. tit. 8. De supplenda negligentia prælatorum, c. iii. And see all the foreign authorities collected in the Tractatus Universi Juris, tom. xiii. pars 2a, p. 414 verso.
The law on this point seems to have been in an unsettled state in the province of Canterbury in the thirteenth century, the archbishop and the several chapters each claiming the right. After considerable disputes, the question was settled by Archbishop Boniface so far as regarded certain of his suffragan sees. The agreements made by him with the chapters of those dioceses appear to be the compositions alluded to by Coke. Lyndwood mentions several of these compositions in his Provinciale, lib. v. tit. 15, “De pænis ” constit. “Tantum incaluit ” ad verbum “custodi spiritualitatis, ” where he says, “Loquitur (Johannes Peckham, Archiep. Cant.) secundum consuetudinem Provinciæ, secundum quam Archiepiscopus vacante sede deputat custodem spiritualitatis ; vel loquitur secundum compositionem inter Archiepiscopum et Ecclesias Cathedrales initam, prout inter Bonefacium et diversas Ecclesias Cathedrales suæ Provinciæ variæ compositiones in ea parte factæ sunt, viz., inter Londini, Sarisbur', Lincoln', Norwich', Wigorn', &c., et alias suæ Provinciæ Ecclesias Cathedrales ;” and in lib. ii. tit. ], De judiciis, const. “In causis,” ad verbum “committatur,” speaking of the jurisdiction in causes matrimonial of Officials principal and others, he notices, “Officialem quem dat capitulum, vel alius ad quem spectat, sede vacante.” The words vel alius, &c., it may be noted in passing, seem to imply that even when Lyndwode wrote the jurisdiction was not quite clear, or at least that the law or practice was not uniform as to the authority by whom the official was to be appointed.
The composition between Archbishop Boniface and the Chapter of London dated August 21, 1262, is printed in Wharton, De Episcopis Londinensibus, page 255, and seems to be much of the same character as the rest. From the recitals it appears that the dispute had run very high, and had been carried to Rome. The agreement (which Newcourt says is still adhered to) was, that on the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of London, the chapter should present to the archbishop two or three of their canons, or one minor canon with one or two major canons, of whom the archbishop was to choose one to be the official, and to have institutions and collations and exercise other jurisdiction, by the authority of the archbishop, who however was not to interfere with him in the execution of his office. The composition between Archbishop Boniface and the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, between whom there had been long litigation on the subject in the Eoman Court, is printed in Wilkins's Concilia, i. 756. It is dated 1261. The Chapter are to present three or four of the canons, of whom the Archbishop is to appoint one as Official to exercise the episcopal jurisdiction, except in the city of Lincoln and the cathedral, where the Dean himself is to have it.
The see of Salisbury was vacant in 1272, and it appears from an instrument relating to the appropriation of the churcli of Morden to Canonsleigh, that at that time the jurisdiction was exercised by an Official constituted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The passage proving this runs “provisioni … Magistri Constantini de Mildenhall officialis Saresbur' sede vacante à Domino Cantuar' Archiepiscopo tocius Anglie primate constituti.2”
Battely (App to Suppl. Hist. Cant. No. iv. b. c), quoting a MS. treatise in the Archives of Christ Church, Canterbury, consisting mainly of extracts from the registers, says, “in omnibus aliis diocesibus (which, from the context looks as if Rochester alone was excepted) totius Provincire Cantuarise, sede vacante, omnis jurisdictio et potestas ordinaria ad Archiepiscopum Cant, totaliter est devoluta et translata, et ipse archiepiscopus de officiis et ministris aliis ordinabit ibidem pro exercitio jurisdictionis, et durante vacatione archiepiscopus omnes proventus habebit.”
But the case of Rochester is peculiar : for there the Archbishop of Canterbury, as is well known, was patron ; and, on a vacancy, had the custody of the temporalities, and gave restitution of them, receiving the homage of the newly appointed bishop.
I am informed that at the present day, in some cases (apparently those above-mentioned where Boniface's compositions exist), the dean and chapter nominate three persons, of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury, through his vicar-general, appoints one as commissary, while in other cases the vicar-general assumes the guardianship which he exercises through surrogates appointed by himself. In the case of the see of London, I learn that the canon who happens to be in residence at the time of the occurrence of the vacancy is alwaysselected to exercise the jurisdiction.
The common lawyers from an early date appear to have been in doubt as to the rights of the matter.
The Lincoln composition was pleaded before the Court of Common Pleas in Easter Term 17 Edward III. (1344) in a quare non admisit brought by the King against the Archbishop of Canterbury as guardian of the spiritualities of the bishopric of Lincoln vacante sede, for not admitting the King's presentee. The archbishop's counsel Pult[on?] pleaded in abatement to the writ, that by composition between the dean and chapter and the predecessor of the archbishop, it was ordained that in time of voidance, &c, the dean and chapter should choose three of the chapter and present them to the archbishop as metropolitan and superior, and the archbishop should choose one of the three, who during the vacancy should do what appertains to an ordinary, and should have institution and induction (i.e. the right to institute, &c, as ordinary):—that in the present case the dean and chapter chose A. B. and C. and presented them to the archbishop, who selected one, B, who entered on and exercised the office ; and so the archbishop was not guardian, but merely superior as metropolitan, so that the writ did not lie against him.
For the Crown, Thorpe replied that by common right the archbishop was guardian during a vacancy, and besides that the person selected to exercise the jurisdiction acted in fact as the official of the archbishop by whom he was chosen, and by his commission; and that he answered to the archbishop for the issues and profits of his office, so that indeed the archbishop was chief guardian and the minister of the King for the King; and that no composition between the archbishop and the chapter could discharge the former as against the King. Upon this, Pole for the defendant rejoined by a traverse of the archbishop's right at common law, for, said he, “by common right and law the dean and chapter are the guardians unless this be modified by prescription or composition.” Moreover, that it did not fall within the province of the King's Court to inquire who was guardian, but that the writ should be addressed to the guardian in general terms, and not to the holder of the office by name. Thorpe explained himself to mean by “common right” that it was usual, and in fact universal, in the realm that the archbishop should be guardian.
After some further argument, Stouford gave judgment. He said that the jurisdiction was one which had always existed, and that in his opinion it had its commencement by licence of the King : winding up with the rather questionable dictum, that in the time of Richard I. (the time of legal memory) and ever before, the archbishops were guardians, until in King Henry the Third's time, for default of good guardianship, &c, the composition was made ut supra : “and we do not consider that a composition made between the parties since the time of memory can discharge the archbishop as against the King.” The matter ended here, as the.see of Lincoln was shortly afterwards filled up, and the King sued the new bishop.
This case was cited by Coke in the argument in Grange v. Denny, Bulstrode, part 3, 174, and indeed it is this case which was in his mind when stating the law in 2 Institute 15, already cited. Coke, however, rather stretches the case to prove, what it does not, that of common right the dean and chapter are guardians of the spiritualties; but he adds, “but now the archbishops have used to have this by way of composition, as great lords will incroach all into their own hands.” Dodderidge, J., continuing the discussion in Grange v. Denny, remarked, as to an archbishop, that vacante sede of a bishop within his province he himself is guardian of the spiritualties. sed sede vacante of his own diocese, the dean and chapter of this is guardian of the spiritualties. Lord Coke answers to this—“This did commence by way of composition, but originally it was not so, but the dean and chapter was guardian of the spiritualties.” Dodderidge: “It doth not appear to be so by our books, no mention being made of any such composition, but the guardian of the spiritualties to be according to the difference before put between a province and a diocese.”
In Broke's Abridgment is the following memorandum (Administrators et Administration, ca. 46):— “Nota per omnes legis peritos, et per ceux del arches (the advocates of the Arches Court), quod tempore vacationis d'un Archevesque ou d'un Evesque, le Deane et le Chapter committra l'administration;” that is to say, that the right of the ordinary to grant administration of the goods of defunct persons within his jurisdiction is to be exercised sede vacante by the dean and chapter.
Cowell (Law Dictionary, sub voce Custos) says :—“The appointment of custos spiritualitatis or spiritualium by the canon law appertains to the dean and chapter; but at present with us in England to the archbishop of the province by prescription. Howbeit divers deans and chapters (if Glover says truly in the preface to his Readings,) do challenge this by ancient charters from the kings of this land.”
Ayliffe, Parergon, 125, puts the matter rather differently. He says—“Of common right the dean and chapter are guardians of the spiritualties during the vacancy of a bishopric (citing Decretal, lib. v. 7, 9, or rather the gloss on that text): but the usage of England is, that the archbishop is the guardian of the spiritualties during such vacancy as to matters of jurisdiction, &c.” And he refers to the case of the Dean and Chapter of Durham v. Archbishop of York, 1 Ventr. 225, the report of which case is shortly as follows.
In a prohibition the archbishop pleaded a prescription that he and his predecessors have time out of mind been guardians of the spiritualties of the bishopric of Durham sede vacante; and issue was joined thereupon, and tried at the bar this term. (Michs. 24 Chas. II.) Hall said:—“de jure commnni, the dean and chapter were guardians of the spiritualties during the vacancy as to matters of jurisdiction, &c. but the usage here in England is that the archbishop is guardian of the spiritualties in the suffragan diocese.” There was much evidence given that anciently during the vacancy of Durham the archbishop had exercised jurisdiction, both contentious and other, as guardian of the spiritualties; but since Henry VIII.'s time it had been for the most part administered by the dean and chapter: and the verdict was here for the dean and chapter.
The curiosity of the question, and the absence of clear information in the text books, may, it is hoped, be pleaded as an excuse for the great length of this note. In countries where the decrees of the Council of Trent are accepted, the matter is definitively settled. See Cone. Trident. Sess. xxiv. “de Reformatione,” cap. 16. “Capitulum sede vacante … . officialem seu vicariurn infra octo dies post mortem episcopi constituere tenetur.”
It should be observed that in the appropriation of Sampford the dean and chapter were consenting parties (as, indeed, by the canon law they must have been, see Decretal, lib. iii. 10, 8, de hüs qui fiunt à prælato sine assensu capituli), and so may not have been interested in disputing Archdeacon Walter's law in that case; yet the general claim was adverse to them.
page 432 note 1 Eccl. Law, Bishops, 225.
page 432 note 2 2 Inst. 15.
page 432 note 3 De Immunitate Ecclesiæ, lib. iii. tit. 28, ‘contigit aliquando,’ ad verb, custodiam.
page 433 note 1 A summary of it is given by Newcourt, Repertorium, i. 35. It will also be found at full length in Wilkins's Concilia, i. 758.
page 433 note 2 Harl. MS. 3660, fo. 70.
page 434 note 1 See Battely, pt. ii. 62.
page 434 note 2 Year Book, 17 Edw. III. Pasch. No. 9, fo. 23.
page 437 note a In the Cartulary, the word “clerico ” is inserted after the name of Henry de Champflour. A person of these names was sheriff of Somerset 1236.
page 439 note a Probably Josceline, Bishop of Salisbury, 1142–1184.
page 443 note a A conventual prior is one who is himself the head of the house; a claustrai prior, one who lias an abbat over him; v. Lyndw. ad Constit. De scrutinio in ordine, &c. c. cumquanta, v. prior.
page 444 note a The congé d'élire, or licence of the patron to elect a head, was required just as much in the case of a small abbey like Canonsleigh, as it is at the present day before the chapter of Canterbury or London can elect an archbishop or bishop.
In the present instance, Eichard Neville, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury (the “king-maker”), appears to have been founder and patron in right of his wife Anne Beauchamp, ultimately heir of her brother, Henry, Duke of Warwick, himself heir of Isabel Despencer, by her second husband, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick: this Isabel being sister and heir of Eichard Despencer, Earl of Gloucester, great-grandson of Edward, second son of Hugh le Despencer the younger, and heir of his mother Eleanor, eldest sister and coheir of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hereford, son and heir of Gilbert, son and heir of Matilda de Clare, the foundress of the abbey. On the attainder of the king-maker, who only survived Alice Parker's election by one year, having been slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471, his possessions coming to the crown, King Henry VII. became founder, and as such gave congé d'élire on the next election of an abbess in 1488, when Alice Parker died, and again in 1499, after the death of Joan Stubbe.
page 444 note b The day of the month seems mistaken. The 17th of March in 157, with which year all the rest cf the dates agree, fell on Sunday not on Saturday.
page 444 note c Probably the same person as Joan Stubbe, afterwards abbess.
page 444 note d A religious person might be held “tacitly professed ” who, being of full age, remained in the monastery upwards of a year, wearing the habit of the order, although he or she had not solemnly taken the vows. See as to this, Lyndwode, Tit. De Regularibus c. Sanctimoniales.
page 445 note a The Constitution Quia propter “is the 24th canon of the fourth Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III. a.d. 1215. which requires the election to be made by scrutiny of votes; by compromise (when the chapter agreed to delegate their powers for this occasion to certain individual members of their body) ; or lastly, by inspiration, i.e. by unanimous concurrence and acclamation.” Dr. Oliver, from whose Preface (page ix) I quote, gives the text of the Constitution from Concilia, xxviii. 183, ed. Paris, 1644. He might have added the reference from the Corpus Juris Canonici, namely, Extra de Electione, e. Quia propter. (Decretal. Greg. IX lib. i. tit. vi. cap. xlii.)
page 445 note b This is a Constitution of Boniface VIII, and will be found in Sexto Decretalium, lib. i. It. vi. De Electione, &c., c, xliii. It refers to elections in houses of females alone. The only passage which illustrates the subject is extracted in the next footnote.
page 446 note a Canonical election may be in one of three ways—Per viam Spiritus Sancti, sive per innpirationem, where as in the present case the choice is immediate and unanimous: per viam scrutinii, by majority of votes of all the electors separately taken: or, per viam compromissi, where the electors nominate one person or more to whom the choice of the person to be elected is left.
page 446 note b “Nee in abbatissam aut priorissam, ubi per priorissam monasterium gubernatur, de cetero eligatur aliqua nisi tricesinium annum compleverit, et expresse professa merit ordinem regularem.” Const. Indempnitatilns, ubi supra.
page 449 note a Sir W. Pole (Dev. Coll. 92) says that Robert de Veteri Ponte was sheriff of Devon and Eudo de Bellocampo in his place from 12 John to the end of the reign. The deed would seem to show that Vipont was the deputy. In the lists of Exeter mayors and provosts, Walter la Chawe (Le Caws) figures from 1232–1267 ; and Walter Thurbert from 1219 to 1236. The date of the deed is, therefore, most likely very late in the reign of King John.
page 449 note b Alibi, Rogerus Emeray.
page 449 note a Walter la Chaw or Chaw succeeded Nicholas Ilchester (who died in office), in 1267, Philip Palmer and Hugh de Langdon being his Provosts. (Jenkins, Hist. of Exeter, p. 45.) Hilary Blondy occurs in the same list as Mayor in 1255, and again in 1258, when Roger FitzHenry was his Provost. Oliver, Hist, of Exeter, 228, omits Hilary Blondy in these years, but makes an individual of that name Mayor in 1227. Walter de Molton occurs as Provost in 1240, 1241, 1243.