SHARP PRACTICE?
Posted: 31 Jan 2014, 09:34
SHARP PRACTICE?
We have to decide what Henry de Lacy was up to when he gave the Cistercians at Fountains Abbey a defective title to the Manor of Barnoldswick. Of course it might be a mistake but I can't believe that a man like Henry could be that careless or that his scribes and advisers had missed the two errors. Another question that has worried me over the years is why Henry, when for whatever reason he decided to found a monastery, decided on Barnoldswick, as far away as possible from his seat at Pontefract. Could it be that a piece of land on which his title had lapsed was one he could well do with unloading? Was the ploy, for that is what I now believe it was, of making the mistake in the perambulation a way of making sure that the grant would be tied up in court for many years and further, it would be the Cistercian's problem and not his? I'll leave others to judge but this is the conclusion I have come to after years of research.
Let's go back to May 1147 when according to Serlo, Alexander of Fountains with 12 monks and 10 lay-brothers arrived in Barlick to take up residence. This can't be the full story. The Cistercians were well organised and had a rule: 'No abbot shall be sent to a new place without at least twelve monks ... and without the prior construction of such places as an oratory, a refectory, a dormitory, a guest house, and a gatekeeper's cell, so that the monks may immediately serve God and live in religious discipline'. Again, the Cistercians were known to prefer locations 'far from the habitation of man'. This was why they were so popular with the Normans because they were ideal for settling on waste lands and improving them and there was plenty of that after the Harrowing of the North in 1069/1070 as part of the Conquest. In Barlick they were being put into the middle of a relatively prosperous and well settled manor. We know that in similar situations, as at 'Akarinton' (Accrington) in about 1490, the monks dispossessed the local inhabitants as soon as they arrived. Did they do this to Brogden?
Did Henry send his men at arms to effect the evictions? What preparations were made for the arrival of the monks, did Henry build the necessary facilities or were corners cut and existing farm houses used. Some provision must have been made but Serlo's account tells us nothing of this. The abbey site was also within earshot of an existing church and there was a clerk (priest) in post who was of a different order of monks to the Cistercians.
All the matters we have looked at were unusual and bear the marks of a botched project which seems guaranteed to cause friction and possibly serious trouble. This is of course exactly what happened and next week I'll go into the unhappy details.
Bolton Priory. Founded at the same time as Barnoldswick Abbey.
We have to decide what Henry de Lacy was up to when he gave the Cistercians at Fountains Abbey a defective title to the Manor of Barnoldswick. Of course it might be a mistake but I can't believe that a man like Henry could be that careless or that his scribes and advisers had missed the two errors. Another question that has worried me over the years is why Henry, when for whatever reason he decided to found a monastery, decided on Barnoldswick, as far away as possible from his seat at Pontefract. Could it be that a piece of land on which his title had lapsed was one he could well do with unloading? Was the ploy, for that is what I now believe it was, of making the mistake in the perambulation a way of making sure that the grant would be tied up in court for many years and further, it would be the Cistercian's problem and not his? I'll leave others to judge but this is the conclusion I have come to after years of research.
Let's go back to May 1147 when according to Serlo, Alexander of Fountains with 12 monks and 10 lay-brothers arrived in Barlick to take up residence. This can't be the full story. The Cistercians were well organised and had a rule: 'No abbot shall be sent to a new place without at least twelve monks ... and without the prior construction of such places as an oratory, a refectory, a dormitory, a guest house, and a gatekeeper's cell, so that the monks may immediately serve God and live in religious discipline'. Again, the Cistercians were known to prefer locations 'far from the habitation of man'. This was why they were so popular with the Normans because they were ideal for settling on waste lands and improving them and there was plenty of that after the Harrowing of the North in 1069/1070 as part of the Conquest. In Barlick they were being put into the middle of a relatively prosperous and well settled manor. We know that in similar situations, as at 'Akarinton' (Accrington) in about 1490, the monks dispossessed the local inhabitants as soon as they arrived. Did they do this to Brogden?
Did Henry send his men at arms to effect the evictions? What preparations were made for the arrival of the monks, did Henry build the necessary facilities or were corners cut and existing farm houses used. Some provision must have been made but Serlo's account tells us nothing of this. The abbey site was also within earshot of an existing church and there was a clerk (priest) in post who was of a different order of monks to the Cistercians.
All the matters we have looked at were unusual and bear the marks of a botched project which seems guaranteed to cause friction and possibly serious trouble. This is of course exactly what happened and next week I'll go into the unhappy details.
Bolton Priory. Founded at the same time as Barnoldswick Abbey.