A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



lay hands on, not even sparing the sacred 

 vessels : whereupon the king not only con- 

 soled the monks with kind words, but sent 

 them three new chalices and the necessary 

 vestments for three chaplains, as well as 15 

 in money. In November 1286 the debts of 

 the house had become so serious that Ed- 

 ward I. took the priory under his protection 

 and appointed a royal clerk, Richard de 

 Rothewell, to the custody of the temporalities 

 during his pleasure. 1 The house is here de- 

 scribed as being of the patronage of the king. 

 As pertaining to his prerogatives the king 

 exercised the right of imposing boarders, 

 and on 20 August, 1316, John de Ditton, 

 clerk, obtained letters to the prior and con- 

 vent entitling him to receive the pension they 

 were bound to grant to one of the king's clerks 

 by reason of the new creation of a prior. 2 

 Some years later, in February 1333-4, Robert 

 de la Chapelle was sent to the house to receive 

 such maintenance as John Close, deceased, 

 had had. 3 



Not much is known of the external history 

 of the priory, though the names of the priors 

 are found in regular succession both in the 

 episcopal registers and the patent rolls. 

 There is no record even of any important law- 

 suit connected with this house. Finally, in 

 the year 1493, when the number of inmates 

 was reduced to three, King Henry VII. pe- 

 titioned Pope Alexander VI. to allow him to 

 suppress the house and apply its revenues, the 

 yearly value of which was estimated at 260 

 florins auri de camera, to the chapel and 

 chantry which he had founded next to St. 

 George's, Windsor, together with a hospital 

 for the poor and other ' miserable persons ' in 

 the town of the same. The Bull which 

 granted this request describes the monastery 

 as situated in a deserted place, and inhabited 

 for some time past by a prior with only two 

 monks, who had not even been professed in 

 the house : the buildings had fallen into al- 

 most irreparable ruin through the neglect of 

 those who had charge of them. 4 A sub- 

 sequent Bull of Julius II. allowed the king to 

 apply the revenues of the priory to his new 

 chapel at Westminster instead of to Windsor, 5 

 and this plan was carried into effect four or 

 five years later. 



Archbishop Peckham visited the priory 

 early in 1280 and found the conduct of the 

 prior, William de Esteneston, so bad that he 



1 Pat. 14 Edw. I. m. 4. 



3 Close, 10 Edw. II. m. 2yd. 

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



4 Dugdale, M on. iv. 346. 



8 Ibid, and Rymer, Feeders, xii. 563, and xiii. 97. 



absolved him from office. 6 The monks ob- 

 tained leave to elect, and on 8 March, 1279- 

 80, the king signified his assent to the election 

 of Adam de Hanred or Henred. 7 The arch- 

 bishop wrote to Oliver Button, then bishop- 

 elect of Lincoln, forbidding him to assign any 

 pension or portion to the late prior of Luffield 

 beyond the common share, unless he should 

 think fit to send him to do penance for his 

 excesses in another monastery, stating that in 

 the face of his express prohibitions and on the 

 very day of the archbishop's departure the 

 prior had admitted women into the cloister 

 of the monastery and had wasted the goods of 

 the house on them. 8 Archbishop Peckham 

 visited the priory again in the autumn of 1284, 

 and found that William de Esteneston had 

 prevailed on his diocesan to grant him the 

 usual privileges of a retired superior for so 

 long as he should behave himself honestly and 

 regularly. This indulgence the archbishop 

 found he had grossly abused, and on 15 No- 

 vember Peckham issued a decree that brother 

 William de Esteneston should be deprived of 

 the special chamber assigned to him in the 

 infirmary, which should henceforth be re- 

 stored for the use of the sick, that he should 

 take his meals with the monks in the refectory, 

 and share the food of the ordinary brothers, 

 should sleep in the dormitory and attend the 

 day and night offices in the church unless 

 obviously ill, should receive the same treat- 

 ment in the infirmary if he should fall ill as 

 any other brother, and that his servant (garcio) 

 should lodge with the other servants of the 

 community and not within the cloister. The 

 archbishop, in order to prevent the abuse 

 spreading, ordered that the door leading from 

 the chamber occupied by the late prior into 

 the orchard should be locked and the key kept 

 by the prior until a wall could be built round 

 the orchard. After that the sick should have 

 liberty to go in and out of the orchard until 

 sunset, when the door should be locked and 

 the key placed in the custody of the prior. 

 If the culprit refused to adhere to these re- 

 gulations he was to be separated from the 

 community and kept in seclusion according to 

 their rule until he rendered humble obedi- 

 ence. If he should show signs of apostasy, 

 as was to be feared, or attempt to renew his 

 crimes, he was to be placed in close custody. 9 

 There was much discord in the house at the 

 close of the century, which showed itself in 

 several successive elections. In 1285 Bishop 



8 Reg. of Archbishop Peckham (Rolls Ser.), i. 101. 



7 Pat. 8 Edw. I. m. 21. 



8 Reg. of Archbishop Peckham (Rolls Ser.), i. 102. 



9 Ibid. iii. 584-5. 



348 



