CATHEDRAL PRECINCTS
The history of the CATHEDRAL PRECINCTS
probably goes back to a time before the bishop and his
canons were settled in Chichester. There is some
slight reason to believe that the Bishops of Selsey
were acquiring property in the city before 1066, and
that when the see was moved in 1075, (fn. 1) the bishop
and clergy of the cathedral had already some foothold
in the south-western quarter (acquired perhaps as
a possible place of refuge). The grant of this quarter
to the bishop, although it had doubtless taken place
earlier, cannot be traced further than the charter of
William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel, husband of
Adeliza, widow of Henry I, who in 1147 confirmed to
the church of Holy Trinity whatsoever the church
had by right in the quarter of the city in which the
church, the houses of the canons and of the bishop lay,
with soc and sac, etc., from the South Gate to the
West Gate. (fn. 2) This charter was confirmed by
Stephen with a clause empowering the church to hold
free from all exactions and customs, with soc and
sac. (fn. 3) Jurisdiction over the quarter was given to
the bishop and maintained by him and the dean and
chapter until 1835. It extended outside the wall to
the outer line of the Lavant. Hence the question
of the repair of this portion of the wall was a constant
anxiety to the city, and the liability of the bishop
and the dean and chapter to contribute to murage
was more than once in dispute. The lands and the
jurisdiction over them seem to have been held in
common by the bishop and the dean and chapter
until the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th
century. (fn. 4) The bishop, however, had the separate
court of his Palace (Curia Palacii), and to this court
and to the Hundred of Manwood his tenants by knight
service owed suit. (fn. 5) The bishop held a view of frankpledge, but it is uncertain if he had a customary court
for his tenants within the city.
The dean's jurisdiction goes back to the time of
Matthew the Dean (c. 1180–90). (fn. 6) Richard the
Robber, who had married the daughter of Simon,
son of the dean, sought justice in the dean's court
as to land which he seems to have held until the fire
in the city in 1187, when possibly there was confusion
as to the ownership of the burnt-out sites. William
Gibet owed suit to the halimote of the dean (Hallemot
domini Decani) in the time of Simon the Dean (1220–
1230) for a tenement in North Street (fn. 7) and Master
Richard, son of Hamo de Felpham, granted 6d. a year
to the common fund (communa) of the cathedral
church, and 4d. to the reeve of the city by the hands of
the canons, which he granted in full chapter of Chichester, and afterwards in the hundred court of the city. (fn. 8)
Later (1232–48) a case was heard in the dean's court
in Chichester (fn. 9) as to land granted to Emery de Rouen,
saving suit of court when needed to the afforcement
of the court; the witnesses named are six well-known
citizens and the court of the dean (curia Decani).
The confusion of authority was conspicuous in a
notorious case, already referred to, of a theft from
the shrine of St. Richard, in which a certain clerk,
Nicholas de la Crane, (fn. 10) stole some jewels from the
shrine, secreted them on his person, and when he
found himself unable to leave the cathedral in safety,
secreted them in a trunk, where they were found by a
Friar Minor and handed to the dean and chapter.
When Nicholas ventured out of the church, he was
immediately taken by John Peche, the bishop's
seneschal. Peche handed his prisoner over to the
sheriff, who died. What became of Nicholas no one
knew: he was outlawed, but had no goods and was
not in a tithing as he was a clerk.
In the 14th century both bishop and dean made
agreements with the city as to possible conflict of
jurisdictions. The indentures which contain these
agreements are dated 1358 and 1359, (fn. 11) and possibly
form one of the last stages in settling the dispute
which was so notorious in 1342–4. The dean and
chapter on the one hand, and the mayor and community of the city on the other, admitted that disputes had arisen as to suit to the views of frankpledge held by the bishop and by the dean, for their
tenants, and as to matters, which the mayor and
commonalty asserted, in the name of the king,
belonged to them. It was agreed that if any tenant
of the dean and chapter, or of the dean alone,
within the city, 'in arte sua delinquens' should be
unreasonably cited to the view of frankpledge held
by the mayor, or to a certain day called 'Somerlagheday,' or should be oppressed by the said mayor
and community or their officers by any fine or ordeal
(jewysam) in any manner, other than that to which
the tenants of the king or of the mayor were liable,
a fine of 40d should be paid each time to the dean.
A parallel agreement was made by the bishop and the
mayor. (fn. 12)
THE PALLANT
It seems impossible to ascertain precisely how the
Archbishop of Canterbury obtained possession of
THE PALLANT, a large part
(covering about 12 acres) of
the south-eastern quarter. As
his property here was always
held as parcel of the manor
of Pagham, (fn. 13) it is possible
that he acquired it with that
manor from Bishop Wilfred. (fn. 14)
There is little doubt that the
only church in Chichester
mentioned in Domesday, and
that belonging to the archbishop, (fn. 15) was the church of
All Saints in the Pallant. (fn. 16)
Archbishopric of Canterbury. Azure an archbishop's cross or set upright and surmounted with a pall argent charged with four crosses formy fitchy or.
It seems likely that the
archbishop made a small inner
inclosure, (fn. 17) having as its
centre a secondary carrefour
which perhaps represents part of the original Roman
plan, and was marked by a wooden cross down to
the 18th century. (fn. 18) Surrounding the archbishop's
quarter, however, were the tenements of a number of
foreign lords, but the 'Pallant' touched the south
wall. (fn. 19)
The records of the Archbishop's Court in the
Pallant (fn. 20) unfortunately only begin in October 1439
(18 Hen. VI); the extent of the archbishop's jurisdiction had evidently been in dispute in the 13th
century, when the claim was made to view of frankpledge, assize of bread and ale, pillory and tumbril. (fn. 21)
The archbishop, John Peckham, stated that he and all
his predecessors had held a free court (liberam curiam)
for his tenants for these causes. The jurors stated in
reply that Robert [Kilwardby], the archbishop
(1273–9), was the first to claim these liberties and that
he had usurped them. The archbishop appears to
have made good his claim, though there are few traces
of his court till the 15th century.
At the same time the archbishop was called upon to
answer to Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, concerning his
refusal to allow his tenants in the Pallant to pay
stallage to the earl. The archbishop replied that
there was a distinction between 'stallagium' and
'theoloneum,' claiming that he owed only the latter,
but the earl showed that previous kings, Richard I,
John and Henry III, when the city was in their hands,
had been accustomed to take stallage. (fn. 22)
The first of the rolls extant, headed 'View of
Frankpledge with Court,' contains little of importance
save for topographical purposes. The rector of the
Pallant and the lord's beadle (bedellus) are named and
the highways of the South and East Pallant (Palente);
in the next court 12 burgesses present five cases of
brewing against the statute, including two of themselves. Cases are referred back to the archbishop's
council or to the steward; the dean and chapter of
Chichester owed suit to the court, but apparently
usually defaulted; (fn. 23) Richard Exton, one of the
afferrers of the court in 1490, was a butcher, who took
excessive profits. Five years later, as mayor, he arrested
a man from Drayton, within the Pallant, on suspicion
of felony, and took him unlawfully to the gaol at
Eastgate against the privilege and to the prejudice of
the archbishop, to whose council the matter was
referred. It was stated that the mayor with four
men and the mace (cum le masu) had come into the
Pallant in person to make the arrest. (fn. 24)
In 1524 an interesting agreement (fn. 25) was made
between the mayor, John Cresweller, and his brethren,
and the archbishop on behalf of the tenants of the
latter, who were to be allowed to buy and sell freely
within the city according to my Lord of Canterbury's
Charter, without interference from the mayor. The
archbishop on his side appointed John Halle, his
servant, to watch all manner of 'crafty' men dwelling
within the Pallant. If they were not conducting
themselves lawfully, Halle was to correct them, and
to act in co-operation with the mayor in the supervision of victuals passing from the city into the
Pallant.
In 1534, however, the mayor, John Lane, and citizens sent a petition to the king touching the ruin and
decay of their town, which had been occasioned partly
'by the tyranny of the late Bishop of Canterbury,'
who interfered with the liberty which they claimed
'in the parish called the Pallant.' (fn. 26)
The 'custom of the Pallant' may be deduced in
one or two cases from these rolls. It is stated in the
reign of Henry VIII that there were no heriots by
ancient custom; a garden could be devised by will,
and other testamentary cases concerning tenements
are mentioned without detail; on the whole, however,
it is not possible to ascertain how the manorial
organisation of the Pallant compared with the borough
conditions elsewhere in the city. Further complications were due to the fact that many tenements were
held by the cathedral clergy from the archbishop.
Unjust entry within the liberty was referred to the
archbishop's seneschal and council. The rolls throw
a little light on the occupations prevalent in this
quarter: John Whitegod was 'Custos le Oystry' (fn. 27)
in c. 1520, and took excessive profits; tanners are
mentioned several times—one, John King, held a
mansion house in South Pallant, which he acquired
from John Bachelor, rector of the Pallant (c. 1440);
it had formerly belonged to Walter Goldsmith.
Tallow-chandlers and hucksters of bread and butchers
are the only other tradesmen mentioned. (fn. 28)
There is a mention of the cross in the Pallant
in 1485 or 1486; the highways were constantly presented as requiring repairs, and in 1490–1 the
king's highway 'juxta Southwallis' is presented as
defective. (fn. 29)
In the reign of Henry VIII the bailiwick of Pagham
passed by exchange to the Crown, when it and the
Pallant were annexed to the Honour of Petworth and
were dealt with in 1544 as parcel of the Hundred of
Aldwick. (fn. 30)
In 1552 the Archbishop of Canterbury's property
and jurisdiction in the Pallant were conveyed to the
mayor and corporation, to hold in free socage of the
king as of his Honour of East Greenwich. (fn. 31) Henceforth the Pallant fell under the ordinary jurisdiction
of the city. But the church of All Saints in the Pallant remained as the Archbishop's 'peculiar.' The
courts of the Peculiar of Pagham were held in the
chancel until 1639, when orders were given that a new
'consistorie' should be made in the belfry. (fn. 32)
KINGSHAM
In the time of Henry I, Martinsgrove, Drayton,
Shopwick, 'Orrea Regis,' which we must identify
with KINGSHAM, (fn. 33) and 'Egley' (fn. 34) pertained to the
city of Chichester and the reeves received the gavel
which they handed to the Exchequer. It seems
probable that Kingsham and Egley comprised approximately the parish of St. Pancras, as the advowson
of the church went with the manor of Kingsham.
King Henry gave these lands to Reginald Hareng and
to two knights, Conan and William de Fraxino, whose
lands seem to have reverted to the Earl of Arundel,
who gave them to whom he willed. (fn. 35) It was not
known in 1212 to whom Kingsham and Egley went, (fn. 36)
but in 1218 it appears that they had passed to William
Ruffus, whose daughter and co-heir, Emma, married
Bartholomew de Leigh of Thurleigh (d. c. 1217).
Their daughter and heir Nichola married Roger de
Cauz and Kingsham and Egley went to their daughter
and heir, Emma, who married first John de Segrave
and secondly John de Grey of Shirland (d. 1256).
Emma had by her second husband a son, Reginald de
Grey of Wilton, (fn. 37) who in 1297 enfeoffed William de
Ayot of his manor of Kingsham with the advowson
of the church, (fn. 38) presumably St. Pancras. William de
Ayot died in 1325 seised of the advowson of the church
of St. Pancras held of the king by serjeanty, by the
curious service of rendering to the king, whenever
he should come by a lane called 'Goudeslane' or
'Gode Lane' (presumably at Kingsham) to make
war upon the southern sea, a spindleful of raw thread
for making a false cord for a crossbow. William left
a son, Nicholas, aged 34 years, (fn. 39) who in the same year
enfeoffed William de Sydney of these lands and the
advowson. (fn. 40) He died in 1331 seised of Kingsham
and the advowson of St. Pancras by the same service.
He held jointly with Isabel his wife, then surviving,
by the feoffment of William de Sydney, who settled
the property on the heirs of the body of Nicholas
with remainder to John, son of William Ayot (Heyot)
the elder, and the heirs of his body, and reversion to
William de Sydney and his heirs. Nicholas left a son
William, aged one year. (fn. 41) Isabel, widow of Nicholas,
died in 1374 seised of the manor and advowson,
leaving a daughter Elizabeth, wife of Valentine
Bromdene, aged 40 years. (fn. 42) In 1394 Elizabeth
Taverner, possibly daughter of Elizabeth Bromdene,
died seised of the manor and advowson, leaving a son
John. (fn. 43) John Taverner died in 1414, leaving no heirs
of his body. His wife Alice survived him, and his
heirs were his kinswomen Margaret and Joan, (fn. 44) to
whose husbands, John Skardevyle and John Michellgrove, Alice granted her life interest without royal
licence, whereupon the manor and advowson were
seized by the king. (fn. 45) Alice died in 1422. (fn. 46) John, probably a son of John Michellgrove and Joan, married
Mary, daughter of William de Sydney who was holding
Kingsham in 1428, (fn. 47) and their daughter and heir,
Elizabeth Michellgrove, married John Shelley. (fn. 48) The
manor and advowson passed from John Shelley and
Elizabeth to their son Sir William Shelley, justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, and from him to his
second son, Thomas Shelley of Mapledurham. In
1562 the manor and advowson was settled on Thomas
Carpender and Agnes his wife for life, with remainder
to Thomas Shelley. (fn. 49) Henry, son of Thomas Shelley,
in 1580 gave Kingsham and the advowson of St.
Pancras to his cousins William and John Shelley, sons
of John Shelley of Michellgrove. (fn. 50) John Shelley, the
younger, died in 1592 and left the reversion of half
the manor and half the advowson, after the death of
Agnes Carpender, to his son, John, who was then a
minor. (fn. 51) Two years later William Shelley was
attainted for his papist sympathies and his lands were
confiscated, Lady Elizabeth
Russell (fn. 52) and Roland Deacon (fn. 53)
receiving the rents of Kingsham. William Shelley died in
1597 and his nephew, John
Shelley, obtained the restoration of the manor and advowson. John was created a
baronet in 1611 and leased
the manor in 1622 to George
Oglander and Mary his wife. (fn. 54)
He died about 1644 and was
succeeded by his grandson, Sir Charles Shelley (d.
1681), and he by his son Sir John, the third baronet
(d. 1703). Sir John, the fourth baronet, died in
1771, in which year Kingsham Farm was sold to
Joseph Randall, the former tenant, shortly after it
had been enfranchised by private Act of Parliament.
Randall devised it by will to his nephew William
Dearling. The advowson of St. Pancras church was
held by W. Dearling in 1804. (fn. 55) The manor or farm
was later purchased by the Duke of Richmond and
the farm is now a depot for Agricultural Research
and Demonstration. Such remains of the old buildings as have been preserved (fn. 56) will still probably be
kept free from modern developments of the city of
Chichester.
Shelley. Sable a fesse engrailed between three whelk-shells or.