Page images
PDF
EPUB

clergy, as of the wool lately granted by the Parliament of Westminster. By the K.1

On May 23, 1340, at Westminster. The King granted licence for the prior and convent of Lewes to alienate in mortmain the church of Upmerdon, co. Sussex, to the prior and canons of Shelbrede; and for the appropriation of the same by the prior and canons. At the request of John de Warenne and Henry de Percy.2

At the same time and place. Licence to the prior and convent of Lewes to appropriate the church of Pecham of their own advowson. At the same request.3

1341. March 27. Shene. Testification that, whereas the King by letters patent lately granted to John de Warenna, Earl of Surrey, the advowsons of churches pertaining to the alien priory of Lewes, for such time as the priory should be in his hands on account of the war with France, although he has since restored to the prior the priory, with the knights' fees, advowsons of churches, goods, and all other appurtenances, to hold, as the prior held them before they were taken into his hands, yet at the time of restitution it was, and still is, his intention, and the prior at his command certified, by letters, him in the Chancery that it is also his wish that during the war the advowsons should be with the earl, the presentations to vicarages pertaining to the priory only being reserved to the prior in the meantime. By p.s. and letter of the prior remaining in the files of the Chancery. For securing the fulfilment of this, in the following year the King issued the following:-

1342. May 25. Westminster. Prohibition to all ecclesiastical persons from proceedings in derogation of the King's grant by letters patent to John de Warenna, Earl of Surrey, of the advowsons of churches pertaining to the priory of Lewes, now in his hands by reason of the war with France, or of the earl's presentation by virtue of such grant, of Master Adam de Strattron, King's clerk, to the church of Horstedekeynes, dioc. Chichester, for effecting an exchange of the church of Devenbery."

1342. July 15. Tower of London. Similar prohibition in reference to a presentation to the church of Clayton.“

1341. December 6. Newcastle-on-Tyne. There comes an echo of the troubles in the North. The prior and Friars Preachers of

1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 505. 2 Ibid., p. 523. Shelbrede, a priory of Augustine canons. Founded by Ralph Ardent, knight; valued at the Dissolution, 672 15s. 10d. (Monasticon Anglicanum.)

3 Ibid.

4 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1340-1343, p. 160. Presentation was made to Conisborough Church on October 4, 1341; to Hatfield, October 30, 1341; to Fishlake, November 14, 1345; to Kirk Sandal, April 3, 1339. 6 Ibid., p. 543.

5 Ibid., p. 458.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne have represented to the King that:-Whereas they and their predecessors have been wont to have in the past, gates on their soil for entering and closing their manse in the said town; in a contention which arose between men of the county of Northumberland and certain of the town, at the time when the Earl of Surrey, then warden of the march of Scotland, was lodged in the said manse, these gates, for no fault of theirs, were broken down; and although they, as lawful was, would have replaced their gates and set them up again, some men of the town have hitherto, with little justice, prevented them from doing so; and he, out of reverence for God, to whose service the said Friars are specially bound, continually celebrating for his good estate and the souls of his progenitors, has granted licence for them to replace their gates. By p.s.1

1342. July 10. Tower of London. An interesting enquiry comes before the King. Inspex. and confirmation of a release and quitclaim, in fee, dated at Bothemshull, 7 November, 1341, by John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and Stratherne, lord of Bromfeld and Yale, to William de Sandale of Wakefeld, and Hugh his brother (after inquisition made, whether they were bondmen, as the earl claimed, or of free condition, by Simon de Baldreston and another, then his stewards in the parts of Wakefeld and Sandale; by the oath of his free tenants and others of those towns, whereby it was found that their grandfather, John del Wro, was a man of free condition; holding lands of him—the earl-at will; and he begat one John their father :) of all manner of challenge or action he had or could have against them by reason of bondage or villenage. By p.s.2

[blocks in formation]

1342. August 25. Tower of London. Many grants of small parcels of land, usually in the wastes of the manors, had been made by the earl, and now, under the altered remainder, they had to be confirmed by the King, as his reversionary interest was affected by them. It is hardly necessary to give them all, but the following is of sufficient interest, as, in addition to the condition rendering it and them necessary, names mentioned are not without interest. Under the above date and place :-Inspeximus of letters patent of John, Earl of Warenne, Surrey, and Strathern, Lord of Bromfeld and Yale, granting 2 Ibid., p. 486.

1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1340-1343, p. 352.

in fee to his serjeant, Henry de Kelsterne, his larderer, 20 acres of land, with the appurtenances, in his manor of Haytfeld, co. York, in a place called 'Bradeholmhull,' between his mere of Braithmere towards the east, a water called 'Countessemere' towards the west, &c., . . . . at a rent of 6s. 8d. per annum. Witnesses, Sirs William Fraunk, Thomas de Neirford, and William de Warenna, and others. Dated at his manor of Haitfeld, 27 January, 6 Edw. III.—1332. And ratification thereof, notwithstanding that, in the event of the death of the said earl without heir of his body, the reversion of the manor should come to the King.1

1342. November 12. The King orders the Earl of Warenne to

come to him with his men. Similar orders to others. And on December 20 the King desires John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, to be ready to come to France on March 1, with 40 men-at-arms and 100 archers. Similar letters sent to others. And on January 3, 1343, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and others are ordered to send lancemen from their several lands in Wales to the King in Brittany.*

FURTHER QUESTION OF DIVORCE.

Earl Warenne and the Countess Joan had now-1344-been married many years, and after several changes his property had been resettled, as doubtless his relations desired. They were both getting old, but the earl, although they are said to have lived together, does not appear to have been really reconciled. He again bethought him of a divorce, and raised the question as to the validity of the marriage on the ground of near relationship. The following extract from the Papal Registers shows what happened :

1344. Clement VI. 5 kal. March. V., by Avignon. To the Bishop of Winchester. Mandate at the request of the Queen of France and Philippa, Queen of England, to warn and compel John, Earl of Warenne, to receive and treat with marital affection his wife, Joan de Barre, whom he married by virtue of a dispensation (indult) granted by Clement V. (they being related in the fourth degree), and having lived together for thirty-two years; notwithstanding his pretence that the said dispensation was surreptitious, inasmuch as they are related respectively in the third and fourth degrees from a common stock.

1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1340-1343, p. 512. Synopsis of Rymer's Fadera.

3 Ibid.

4 Synopsis of Rymer's Fœdera.
5 Cal. Papal Registers, Papal Letters,

iii.,

p. 116.

This declaration of the Pope as to the validity of the marriage of Earl Warenne was afterwards referred to and used as a precedent, thus-1354. July 30. Avignon. Innocent VI. Confirmation with exemplification, at the request of Richard de Baskerville, knt., and Isabella his wife, of the dioc. Hereford, of the letters issued by Clement VI., 2 non. Junii, anno 3, ruling in the case of John, Earl of Warenne, and Joan de Barro, that dispensation of the marriage of persons related in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are related in the fourth and third degrees. And again in 1358, at the request of Robert de Bures, knt., dioc. Norwich.2

Curiously, at this time follows:-1344 March 28. John, Earl of Warenne, for

Earl Warenne petitioned the Pope as Avignon. Petition to the Pope from plenary indulgence at the hour of death for himself, his wife, his son, William de Warenna, knight, and Margaret, his wife; and for Robert de Lynne, his chaplain, monk, of Castle Acre, dioc. Norwich. Granted.

In 1345 Joan de Bar, Countess of Warenne, wife of the earl, was going abroad on the King's service; and on February 8, at Westminster, for her security and indemnity, the King ordained that the lands, which by his ordinance the earl has assigned to her for her maintenance, with all the goods thereon, be taken into his hands for safe custody, against such as might enter and spoil them in her absence. He granted also that in any plea against the earl or other tenant, for life or otherwise, of any lands which belong to her, where she would have the right to be admitted if she were present, William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton, William de Clynton, Earl of Huntingdon, and three others, whom she has attorned in her place before the King until the Purification next, or their deputies, shall be admitted; and that if the earl die while she is in parts aforesaid, they shall have power to act for her, even though she be not called in these presents, Joan, late wife of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, until the said Purification. By p.s. And on February 11, at Westminster, he granted to the countess, notwithstanding the ordinance that the lands shall be in the King's hands, ministers and others, whom she by letters patent shall depute to receive and administer the goods therein for her use, shall have full powers to do this, and

Cal. Papal Letters, iii., p. 522. 2 Ibid., p. 595.

Cal. Papal Petitions, i., p. 46. This

is entered as a grant in Cal. Papal Letters, ii., p. 145.

4 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1343-1345, PP. 432, 433.

to audit accounts of the bailiffs and receivers thereof as though they were the King's ministers. By p.s.1

EARL WARENNE AND THE PRINCESS MARY.2

And now comes the most remarkable document in the whole of this series. The earl had been thwarted in his various and repeated attempts to get rid of his wife, putting forward first one reason and then another, and now, after the failure of them all, he is yet determined in the matter, and puts forward the most remarkable statement of all. He stated or confessed that there had been irregularity between himself and his own relative, his wife's aunt, the Princess Mary, fifth daughter of King Edward I., before he was married! He then was nineteen, and the Princess Mary was twenty-seven. She was at the time a nun of Fontevrault, at the monastery of Ambresbury; and if the statement really was true, he was ipso facto excommunicate. But was it so? Princess Mary had now been dead some years. If this fact had been brought forward at the time of the first attempt at divorce and proved, it would have carried the day, as it is improbable that the Pope would have overlooked it. Anyhow, the earl had confessed to this, and the matter had to be dealt with. It was laid before Pope Clement VI., and he at V., by Avignon, on May 15, 1345, issued a mandate to the Bishop of S. Asaph to absolve John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and Stratherne, Lord of Bromfeld and Yale, from excommunication, which he has incurred by inter

1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1343-1345, pp. 432, 433.

2 Princess Mary. She was the daughter of Edward I. She was born in 1278, and when four years old, in 1282, her grandmother, the Queen-mother Eleanor, was desirous that they together should enter as nuns the Monastery of Nuns at Ambresbury. This was accomplished on August 15, 1285, when Mary was in her seventh year. The King was present; he dated letters patent there on August 15 to 17 inclusive. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1281-1292, pp. 186-90.) They lived there together until June 24, 1291, when Eleanor died. King Edward appears to have visited them frequently during his mother's lifetime. There is evidence that he was there on Jan. 20, 1286 (Ibid., pp. 218-19), on Oct. 28-29, 1289 (Ibid., pp. 325-6), April 17, 1290 (Ibid., p. 349), and on 16, 17 and 18 of the same month (Ibid., pp. 150-2); on Feb. 9, 1291, also on 17, 18 and 20 of the same month (Ibid., pp. 420-2 and p. 454); and on Sept. 10 to 12 of the same year. Eleanor had died between these two visits (Ibid., PP. 442, 445). When Mary entered

Ambresbury it was intended that when Queen Eleanor died she should go to the Abbey of Fontevrault, the mother house, but he decided for her to remain in England. She was usually spoken of as "The Lady Mary, the King's dearest daughter, a nun of Fontevrault, now staying at Ambresbury.' When she entered, Edward granted to the abbey £100 yearly for the maintenance of her chamber. In 1317, and again in 1319, there was some objection to her making visitation of the houses of the same Order in England, by the abbess of Fontevrault, but intervention of Edward II. and the Pope overcame it. King Edward said he did not believe any other lady of the Order would make the visitation more usefully than her, and he was not aware that she had deviated from right whilst doing so. (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 470, and Cal. Papal Letters, ii., p. 427.) In 1329, 4 non. November, the Pope granted permission for her confessor to give her plenary absolution at the hour of death. (Ibid., p. 302.) She died in 1332.

« PreviousContinue »