ciles his conjecture with the fact that Rye and Winchelsea were never held by the Abbot in connection with Guestling hundred at all, nor as any part of the manor of Rameslie ;
but they were always held and reckoned as part of the manor of Steyning. To prove this, I give the extract from the Charter of Resumption by Henry III., A.D. 1247, witnessed to amongst others by Simon De Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and Richard Earl of Cornwall, afterwards King of the Romans[1].
" By means of Winchelsea and Rye, which are called the more noble members of our Cinque Ports, which the abbot and monks of Fecamp have hitherto possessed , to whom it is not lawful to contend with material arms against the enemies of the realm , irrecoverable loss might happen, and may this never be (quod absit ) to us and to our heirs in time of war , if in such wise they remained without defence in the hands of the abbot and monks. Wherefore under the advice of the nobles of our realm , and with the good will of the said abbot and monks of Fecamp, we have resumed the aforesaid towns of Winchelsea and Rye (de la Rye) with the harbours and advowson of the churches . . . . . as far as the manor of Guestling (feodum ) . . . . . . Giving and by this charter confirming to the same abbot and monks of Fecamp, for us and for our heirs in good and sufficient exchange (escambium ) for the aforesaid towns of Winchelsea and Rye, our manor of Cheltenham in the county of Gloucester . . . . . to be held of us and of our -
- ↑ Holloway's Rye, 278.
