Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu/332

 256 THE ALIEN PKIORY OF ANDWELL. extract from tlie register of the Abbey of Gloucester : — " A.I). MXCVL Hugo de Portu factus Monachus in Wynton, declit ecclesicT S. Petri, Glouc, Lytelton in Hanteschire, Willelmo Rege juniore confirm ante : Henricus filius Hugonis de Portu carta sua confirmat donum patris sui : Adam de Portu similiter confirmat : tempore Serlonis Abbatis."^ This Adam, as well as Henry, is supposed to have been the son of Hugh. Henry, who seems to have been the elder, gave Shireburne, and other possessions, to the Abbey of Cerasic ; his wife Hadwise, and his sons William and John, being among the witnesses of the grant. After him came John de Port, who confirmed the grant, which Henry his father (so the charter calls him) had made, with the assent of his (John's) wife Matilda, and his sons Adam and Hugh. He is stated by Sir Harris Nicolas to have been living as late as a.d. 1167. His son Adam succeeded him, and appears to have exchanged the tithes of all his mills at Shireburne, which the monks had there by his fishpond (vivarium) that his grandfather gave them at the foundation of their house ; though how the fishpond came back to him is not stated : His wife Sybilla, who has the addition of " comitissa," was a witness to the deed. Up to this point then, the descent of one branch of the family is clearly traced by their own acts. Here however there seems to be a difficulty : The account of this Adam in Duo-dale's Baronao-e is somewhat confused, and it is probable that he has ascribed to one Adam de Port acts and events that should be referred to two of that name. He notices the exchange just mentioned, and that the Countess S^'billa witnessed it, and then, after a few more particulars of his life, proceeds to say, " After this Adam, I do not discern that his posterity did any longer bear the surname of Port, but assumed that of St. John ; the reason whereof I suppose to have been, because jIabell his wife, was grandchild and heir to Roger de St. John, viz., daughter of Reginald de Aurevalle, by JMurielle, daughter of him the said Roger." Now it is assumed in this that Adam the husband of Sybilla, and Adam the husband of Mabell de St. John were the same person. It is not indeed impossible that such might have been the case, but I think that there is good reason to beHeve that it was not so. In an interesting " Abbat Serlo dicil 1 104. Mon. Angl., vol. i. p. 548.