Proc. Hampshire Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 71, 2016, 110–119 (Hampshire Studies 2016) THE LAST DAYS OF THE ABBEYS OF DURFORD AND TITCHFIELD AND A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY By JANET H STEVENSON ABSTRACT considered an able man by Bishop Redman, two were apostates, one was a novice and The entries for John Simpson in the lists of the heads another was vicar of Pembury, about three of the Premonstratensian abbeys of Durford, Sussex, miles north-west of the abbey in Kent (Gasquet and Titchfield, Hampshire, given in The Heads of 1906a, nos. 260, 388). That the priest’s path, so Religious Houses: England and Wales 1377–1540, called, still led to Pembury from the site of the identify him with John Salisbury alias Thetford, later former abbey in the mid-nineteenth century dean of Norwich and bishop of Sodor and Man. That suggests that the benefice had invariably been identification first appears to have been made by F J served by a canon of the house (Cooper 1857, Baigent in a list of abbots of Titchfield compiled from 176). At Titchfield Abbey in 1500 there was a the registers of the bishops of Winchester and was full complement of thirteen canons including followed by F A Gasquet, who named the last abbot the abbot, and also two novices. Three canons, of Titchfield, in office 1536–7, as John Sampson or however, were serving cures, one at Titchfield Sympson and in parenthesis identified him as John itself but the other two on the Isle of Wight Salysbury, suffragan bishop of Thetford. The relevant and in Exeter. To counter worldliness the register, that of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winches- canons were ordered to desist from adopting ter 1531–51 and 1553–5, however, shows that John fashionable dress on pain of greater excom- Simpson and John Salisbury were different men. This munication and were enjoined to observe paper aims to demonstrate that they were, indeed, the rule on tonsures. As in most other houses different men, explaining how they became confused silence was not well observed (Gasquet 1906b, and conflated. In doing so it offers an account of the no. 589). The position of the order in relation final days of the abbeys of Durford and Titchfield. to Prémontré changed after 1512, when the English abbots successfully severed all con- The Premonstratensian abbeys in England nection with it. The abbot of Welbeck became were exempt from the jurisdiction of diocesan head of the order in England, with the power bishops and little is known of their state after to hold general chapters, to legislate and to 1500. This was the last year for which records hold visitations of its houses, which remained survive of their visitation by Richard Redman, outside diocesan control (Gribbin 2001, 210). abbot of Shap and also bishop of Exeter, as The little that is known of the state of the commissary general of the abbot of Prémontré nine smaller monastic establishments in Sussex in England (Gribbin 2001, 227, 243). There which, unlike Bayham and Durford, were were then no outstanding problems at Durford subject to oversight of the ordinary, allows some and those that were observed seem to have comparisons and contrasts to be drawn. At the stemmed chiefly from poverty, a tendency of episcopal visitations mentioned below and canons to leave the abbey without permission, conducted in 1518 and during the 1520s, the and a lack of vocations. The few problems chief problem in both Benedictine and Augus- noted at the other Premonstratensian house tinian houses was a general lack of enthusiasm in Sussex, Bayham abbey, seem to have had for the rigours of the religious life, an accept- similar causes. Although there were then ance of which may have already resulted in the eleven canons at Bayham including the abbot, easing of strict adherence to the monastic rule. 110 07 stevenson16.indd 110 12/09/2016 10:35:35 STEVENSON: THE ABBEYS OF DURFORD AND TITCHFIELD AND A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY 111 At a 1478 visitation by Edward Story, bishop possible that there may well may have been less of Chichester, the priories of Easebourne and to criticize at Durford and Bayham despite the Hastings both claimed that John Arundel, paucity of evidence after 1500. bishop of Chichester from 1459 to 1477, had Two houses in Sussex were among those dispensed them from rising for Matins in the dissolved in order to finance Cardinal Wolsey’s middle of the night, allowing them to say project to establish educational foundations that office early in the morning instead. That at Oxford and Ipswich. These were Pynham a similar practice was followed in 1478 at the Priory, a small Augustinian house immediately Augustinian priories of Michelham, Pynham south of Arundel in the western division of and Shulbrede suggests that the dispensation the county, and Bayham Abbey in the eastern may have been a general one for those houses division. Since the later fifteenth century there in the diocese subject to episcopal authority had been no more than two or three canons, (Fryde et al 1986, 239; WSRO, Ep. I/1/3, ff. including the prior, at Pynham, and the house 23v, 27–28v, 29v, 33). Injunctions issued by was described as ‘desolate and prophane’ in Robert Sherburne, bishop of Chichester, to December 1524 (Salzmann 1907, 80). Jeremy the Benedictine priory of Boxgrove following Goring, in his article on the short-lived riot his visitation in 1518, the record of which does at Bayham Abbey in Whit week 1525, noted not survive, were also sent to the Augustinian that, of the nineteen houses suppressed by priories of Tortington, Hardham, Shulbrede, Wolsey, only the fall of Bayham was followed Michelham and Hastings. Problems common by armed resistance and the restoration, albeit to all those houses were lack of adequate temporary, of the canons. It is possible that financial resources and insufficient numbers the loyalty of the local population may have to maintain a common religious life and played a part, but there was widespread anger proper observance of the canonical hours. at Wolsey’s financial demands in 1525, notably The prevailing poverty and laxity resulted in those contained in his proposed ‘Amicable inattention not only to the maintenance of Grant’. This, therefore, may have attracted the monastic buildings and their precincts, wider opposition to taxation without consent, but also to personal cleanliness. Unauthorized clerical as well as lay, further afield in Sussex. A absences were common, as apparently was the few rioters may also have held personal grudges tendency, as earlier at Titchfield, to wear fash- against Wolsey’s servant Thomas Cromwell. ionable dress, and to engage in sports such Opposition at Bayham may also have received as archery outside the enclosure. The bishop tacit encouragement from an influential local expressly forbade hunting, and the playing resident magnate, George Nevill, Lord Aber- of games such as dice or cards within the gavenny, a longstanding opponent of Wolsey. precincts, both of which were prohibited by The fact that the disturbances continued canon law (Turner & Blaauw 1857, 61–6). The unchecked for over a week suggests that Aber- two small nunneries in Sussex, the Benedictine gavenny, a justice of the peace and a member house at Rusper with four nuns and the Augus- of the commission of the peace for both Kent tinian priory at Easebourne with four and a and Sussex, supported the rebels’ aims. No novice, evidently had barely enough resources action appears to have been taken locally by either to maintain themselves or to observe the others of influence, however, and the uprising canonical hours. Answers given at visitations in soon died down. The ringleaders were said 1521 and 1524 show both houses to have been to have been arrested and imprisoned, but plagued by petty squabbles such as might be several of those known to have participated expected in a small enclosed community (Way were still living in the neighbourhood in later 1852, 256–7; Blaauw 1857, 22–7). The Augus- years (Goring 1978). Although the causes of tinian community at Hardham comprised only the riot may have been both economic and two canons and two novices besides the prior religious, it is also possible that local anger in 1524 (Dugdale 1830, 307; WSRO, Ep. I/1/4, was further exacerbated by the knowledge that f. 92v), and by 1527 the prior, two canons the poorer house of Durford, like Bayham and a novice (WSRO, Ep. I/1/4, f. 101). It is situated in a wild and inhospitable landscape hants 2016.indb 111 23/08/2016 13:13:53 112 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY near the county boundary, had been allowed sold (Dunkin 1914–15, 201–2). In 1536 the last to stand. That it did so may have been due to prior, Robert Pryklove, was rector of Iping, a the influence of Sir Anthony Windsor. He and living he had obtained through the influence his wife Elizabeth Lovell, a descendant of the of Sir William, members of whose family had Husseys, who had founded Durford and owned been its patrons since at least 1482 (TNA: PRO, portions of the nearby manor of Harting, E 334/1, f. 29; WSRO, Ep. I/1/4, ff. 7, 17, 35v). were its patrons in 1525 (Moger 1953, 15). It is likely that the priories of Michelham and Sir Anthony whose will, proved in 1549, shows Shulbrede, as well as the greater Cluniac house him to have been a pragmatic conservative in of Lewes, had similarly deflected Cromwell’s religion, (Garraway Rice & Godfrey [1938], attentions, at least temporarily, in 1532 by the 270–1) may well have exerted himself success- grant of annuities to him (Gairdner 1880, no.