A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



to the prior aiul convent with regard to their 

 former superior, who was found to have grossly 

 abused his privileges. Brother WiUiam of Este- 

 neston, so ran the archbishop's order, was to be 

 deprived of his chamber, which should be restored 

 to the use of the sick as before ; he should have 

 his meals with the brethren in the frater and 

 partake of the same diet, and should sleep in the 

 common dorter ; unless obviously ill he should 

 attend all the night and day offices in the church, 

 and in the event of sickness or infirmity should 

 receive the same treatment as the ordinary 

 brothers in the infirmary. His servant should 

 lodge with the other servants of the monastery 

 and not in the cloister.^ Peckham also ordered 

 that the door from the chamber occupied by the 

 late prior, which led into the orchard, should be 

 locked and the key kept by the prior until a wall 

 had been built round the orchard. After that 

 the sick should be allowed to go freely in and 

 out of the orchard until sunset, when the door 

 should be locked and the key given into the 

 immediate custody of the prior. If the ex-prior 

 refused to comply with these regulations he should 

 be separated from the community and kept in 

 seclusion, as their rule provided, until he yielded 

 humble obedience. If he showed signs of apos- 

 tasy or attempted to renew his former sinful 

 career he was to be at once placed in close 

 custody {in arcto carcere)? 



It was not, however, easy to obviate the con- 

 sequences of the evil example of such a superior, 

 and William of Esteneston seems to have in- 

 augurated a period of discord combined with 

 irresolution and feebleness of purpose that appa- 

 rently affected the whole house. On the resig- 

 nation of Adam de Hanred in December, 1284, 

 the monks, having obtained licence to elect, 

 chose William of Brackley, one of their number, 

 who received the royal assent to his election. ' 

 The bishop, however, on the ground of internal 

 discords at the time, annulled the choice of the 

 convent and suspended their power to elect, with 

 the intention of providing himself to the house. 

 He found none fit for the rule save brother Adam, 

 whom he straightway reappointed, not without 

 protest from the king, who pointed out that for 

 this second choice no licence had been asked or 

 obtained ; nevertheless, pitying the state of the 

 house, by his special grace he directed the escheator 

 of the county to restore the temporalities to the 

 said Adam till the time of the next Parliament, 

 when the matter should be finally settled.* Adam, 

 thus reappointed, remained in office till 1287, 

 but in the meantime the financial affiiirs of the 

 house became embarrassed and the burden of 

 debt so serious that the king interfered and 

 appointed Richard de Rothewell, a royal clerk, 

 to the custody of the temporalities during his 



1 Reg. of Peckham (Rolls Ser.), iii. 854-5. 



2 Ibid. 3 Pat. 13 Edw. I. m. 29. 

 * Abbrev. Rot. Ortg. (Rec. Com.), i. 49. 



96 



pleasure, describing the house as being of the 

 king's immediate patronage.^ On the resigna- 

 tion of Prior Adam in 1287 Richard of Silveston 

 was elected,* but the vacillating policy of the 

 house showed itself, and on the same day that 

 the king notified his assent to the bishop of 

 Lincoln a messenger arrived from the priory 

 bearing the resignation of the newly-elected 

 prior.7 Having obtained another ' cong(^ d'elire' 

 the convent this time wisely went outside their 

 own ranks and elected John of Houton, a monk 

 of the Cluniac house of Daventry.* But in less 

 than two years the office was again vacant, 

 Prior John having resigned to join the Friars 

 Minor. It seems difficult to credit the lack of 

 steady purpose that characterized the community 

 at this period, but no sooner had the royal assent 

 been obtained to the election of Gilbert de Merse 

 than the newly-elected head decided to resign.* 

 Eventually choice was made of Peter of Suldeston 

 or Shalstone, but he only retained office for four 

 years, and was deposed by the diocesan in October, 

 1284, for disobedience to canonical injunctions 

 for the rule of the house. ^^ William of Brackley, 

 whose election ten years previously had been 

 annulled by the bishop, now succeeded,ii and the 

 priory entered on a period of greater quiet and 

 security, as the prior retained his office for twenty- 

 two years. 



As has been previously mentioned, this priory 

 was regarded as of royal patronage, and the king 

 exercised the right of imposing pensioners, as in 

 cases of other houses of royal foundation. On 

 20 August, 13 1 6, following the recent election 

 of John of Westbury, John de Ditton, clerk, 

 was sent to the prior and convent of Luffield to 

 receive the pension they were bound to give to 

 one of the king's clerks by reason of the new 

 creation of a prior.^^ In 1334 Robert de la 

 Chapelle was sent to the priory to receive such 

 maintenance as John Clocr had enjoyed at the 

 request of Edward I.i* 



This house suffered severely under the visita- 

 tion of the Black Death in 1349 ; the prior and 

 all the monks are said to have died,^* and the 

 rental of the house was declared inadequate for 

 its support. The benefactions of Sir Henry 

 Greene are recorded during the rule of Prior 

 William of Horwood, who succeeded in 1349. 

 Among other gifts he gave 1 00 marks to re-roof 

 the choir of the church with lead ; in return for 

 his kindness the monks promised to celebrate 



^ Pat. 14 Edw. I. m. 4. 

 ^ Ibid. 15 Edw. I. m. 1 1. 



7 Ibid. m. 9. 



8 Line. Epis. Reg. Roll of Sutton. 



9 Pat. 17 Edw. I. m. 18. 



10 Line. Epis. Reg. Memo, of Sutton, f. ill. 



11 Pat. 23 Edw. I. m. 18. 



13 Close, 10 Edw. II. m. 27d. 



13 Ibid. 8 Edw. III. m. 35d. 



1* Gasquet, The Black Death, p. 137. 



