During the troubled times when England was engaged in Continental wars, soon to become almost continuous, communication between Gascony and England must have been so difficult as to be well-nigh impossible to men of peace. Convoys under military protection were in imminent danger of capture, and from what we know, especially in the case of naval warfare at this period, there were few of the vanquished who escaped death. In addition to the dangers of travelling another source of great difficulty was felt by the Prior and his officials. The King was in constant and urgent need of money to permit of the prosecution of his warlike policy, and his agents were not too scrupulous as to how it was obtained. If it could be represented that the property of the alien religious houses in the King’s dominions could be used for the support of his enemies abroad, or if it could be urged in extenuation that funds sent abroad by the alien communities could be captured in transit, it is evident that the King would have many excuses and would exercise little scruple in levying heavy contributions on the property of the alien clergy in this country, or even of confiscating it entirely. It was under these conditions that the earliest suppressions and confiscations of the alien houses took place.
Fig. 8.
After an ancient drawing in the Gardner collection. On the left is part of the south end of the chapel of St. Mary Roncevall; in the foreground and to the right the gardens of the Convent. In the distance the river and the buildings of Whitehall and Westminster.
In 1321 we have a very suggestive record that William Roberti, Canon of the Hospital of St. Mary, is appointed Proctor-General in England for the recovery of their lands and rents. The late Proctor, John de Roncesvalles, had died, and the Prior in Navarre,[[10]] not being informed of the fact, did not appoint a new Proctor, “war and other impediments hindering them, so that their lands and rents were taken by divers men.” Immediately following, letters of protection are given to William Roberti to aid him in his task, “in consideration of the benefits constantly given in that Hospital to poor pilgrims visiting the shrine of Santiago.” As the result of this vigorous action the House of St. Mary Roncesvalles at Charing passed through a period of comparative prosperity, for so late as 1335 a strong policy still seems to have been pursued. In that year there is an interesting record of the recovery of 10 acres of land known as “Roncesvalcroft,” in Kensington. It was stated to have been abandoned by the brethren and was in the occupation of a certain Simon de Kensyngton. In such matters, however, the King’s agents were usually very active. Simon de Kensyngton did not long remain in possession, for the watchful eyes of William Trussel and Walter de Hungerford, the King’s escheators, were upon him and they claimed the land for the Crown. The legal argument in this dispute goes on to state how the land, not being held directly from the Crown, was restored to the brethren.
[10]. Andrés Ruiz de Medrano; ob. August 21, 1327 (?).
It was in the second quarter of the fourteenth century that the community of St. Mary of Roncesvalles in this country appears to have been most prosperous. The Convent at Charing Cross was the headquarters of the brethren in our islands. The Procurator for the Prior who managed the estates and collected the revenues had his residence there. The property they possessed in London was the most valuable, and consisted of plots of land in various parts of the suburbs, as well as at Charing Cross, but the Convent also possessed a considerable amount of property in Canterbury and at Oxford. Evidence remains that they derived revenue from property in Norwich and that they had possessions elsewhere in England, in Wales, in Ireland, and in Scotland. The income derived from these possessions was sufficient to permit of a subsidy towards the support of the Mother House in the Pyrenees.
At Charing Cross itself the Priory possessed a piece of land fronting on the river and extending back to the roadway between London and Westminster. The depth of this plot was then not so great as it is now, for the waters of the river extended much nearer to Charing Cross than at present.[[11]] The position of Inigo Jones’s well-known watergate at the foot of Buckingham Street, the last relic remaining of York House, indicates the line of the river bank at a date over two hundred years subsequent to the time now under consideration.
[11]. Charing Cross stood approximately on the site now occupied by the statue of King Charles I.
Occupying the most easterly part of the river frontage was situated the Church of the Convent. This Church, or Chapel as it was usually called in London, was built soon after the foundation of the Convent, but there is evidence that considerable alterations and additions were made much later, perhaps at the end of the fourteenth, and again during the last phase of the existence of the house, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Some idea of the appearance of the Chapel and the neighbouring buildings may be gained by studying two ancient drawings still in existence, made while the conventual buildings were standing. One of these is the well-known sketch of London by Anthony Van den Wyngaerde, dating from the middle of the sixteenth century. The other is a very beautiful sketch in the Gardner collection which shows a portion of the south-western end of the chapel, the gardens of the Convent, and in the distance Whitehall and Westminster. Judging by the evidence thus obtained, the chapel consisted of a rectangular nave, built of stone. The type of work indicates that it was built about the middle of the thirteenth century. There appear to have been two storeys in this building, the lower storey with three large pointed windows, and the upper storey with three smaller windows also pointed. The upper part, with the small windows, may have formed the clerestory. It is possible, however, that the upper part of the church was cut off from the lower part, and that this upper storey was lighted by the three smaller windows alluded to. Instances of this arrangement are known to have occurred in the churches belonging to hospitals. In such cases part of the church served the purpose of sheltering the sick, while at the eastern end was the chapel proper, arranged so that the sick should have the full benefit of the services of the church.
The pitch of the chapel roof was steep, the form most easily constructed at the period of which we speak, and was no doubt covered with lead. A belfry was situated at the north-eastern end of the chapel. Certain buildings of a much later date than the main part of the edifice, and probably built of brick, are seen to have been added to the northern and southern ends of the chapel, and along the river front. From a terrace on the south-east side of the chapel stairs led down to the water’s edge. Immediately to the west of the chapel were the Convent gardens, extending in the direction of the roadway to Westminster, and partly terraced to the river bank. Lying back from the chapel were the conventual buildings and other tenements in the possession of the community. These appear to have been arranged on both sides of a court which opened on the high road close to the cross.