A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



consent to the election of some prioresses of 

 this period. 1 The earliest record of this 

 priory is found in the Rolls of Bishop Hugh of 

 Wells, under the year 1218, but it does not 

 imply that the house was then newly founded. 2 

 It may indeed have come into existence al- 

 most any time in the later half of the twelfth 

 century. 



We hear of the priory in the thirteenth 

 century only in connexion with a few unim- 

 portant lawsuits. 3 In 1292 the conventual 

 church was rebuilt and its high altar dedicated 

 by Bishop Sutton 4 ; but the nuns were very 

 poor at the time, and received indulgences 

 and a licence to beg alms in 1300 and 1311 

 from Bishop Dalderby. 5 In 1339 they made 

 a grant to the Bishop of Lincoln in considera- 

 tion of his improvement of the estate of their 

 house, 8 but they were evidently still barely 

 self-supporting, for the following year the 

 assessors of the ninth of sheaves, lambs and 

 fleeces in the county of Buckingham were 

 ordered to supersede the assessment of that 

 subsidy of the priory of Little Marlow, as it 

 was so slenderly endowed that its goods did 

 not suffice for the maintenance of the prioress 

 and convent. 7 From 1338 to 1350 the 

 prioress appears to have been a relation of 

 Sir John de Stonore, a knight of the shire ; 

 and it is possible that his mediation secured 

 better terms for the nuns than they would 

 otherwise have been able to obtain, at the 

 ordination of the vicarage of Little Marlow 

 Church in 1344. Early in the fifteenth 

 century there was a long suit in connection 

 with the advowson of the Church of Hedsor, 

 which had belonged to the priory since the 

 days of Hugh of Wells. It is difficult now 

 to be quite sure of the rights of the matter, 

 but the patronage of this church seems to 

 have been resumed by the Crown, and the 

 prioress had in some way impeded the presen- 

 tation of a chaplain, and tried to reclaim the 



1 Line. Epis. Reg. Rolls of Hugh of Wells, 

 Grosstete and Gravesend. The earliest presen- 

 tation in 1230 names only Agnes d'Anvers as the 

 patroness. 



J Liber Antiques (ed. Gibbons), p. 84. 



3 Feet of F. 16 Hen. III. No. 25 ; ibid. 31 

 Hen. III. 3 ; ibid. 42 Hen. III. 13. These are 

 concerned only with small parcels of land in the 

 county. See also Close, 13 Hen. III. m. 10. 



4 Line. Epis. Reg. Memo. Sutton, 92. 

 s Ibid. Memo. Dalderby, gd, 188. 



Pat. 13 Edw. III. pt. ii. m. 7. 



7 Close, 14 Edw. III. pt. ii. m. 23. 



8 Line. Epis. Reg. Inst. Burghersh, 353 ; and 

 Memo. Bek, 92. Sir John de Stonore petitioned 

 in 1339 for the appropriation of both moieties of 

 the church to the priory. 



advowson. 9 In 1403 she made a complaint 

 before the Court of King's Bench that John 

 Stephen, chaplain of Hedsor, had broken into 

 her close, had struck, wounded and ill-treated 

 her and taken away goods to the value of 40^. 

 and committed other enormities against the 

 king's peace, to the grave damage of her house : 

 and on a second occasion had taken away 

 books, vestments, keys, household utensils, 

 etc. John roundly denied the whole charge. 10 

 The Crown apparently declined to examine 

 it, on the ground that the prioress had at- 

 tempted to impede the presentation of this 

 chaplain and to secure the advowson of the 

 church. The prioress then brought forward 

 two pleas : a fresh one against the chaplain, 

 and another against the Crown, claiming the 

 advowson of Hedsor ; but nothing came of 

 these ; perhaps they were dropped as hope- 

 less. 11 



There are no visitations of this house re- 

 corded in the episcopal registers except one 

 of Bishop Dalderby in 1300, which was merely 

 for the purpose of explaining to the nuns the 

 Statute of Pope Boniface VIII. Pro dausura 

 monialium. 12 This statute was intended to 

 compel the English nuns of all orders to ob- 

 serve a stricter enclosure ; but though Bishop 

 Dalderby did his duty conscientiously by 

 explaining it to all the houses under his care 

 sometimes under rather trying circumstances 

 it seems to have been quite ineffectual. 

 The English Benedictine nuns and Austin 

 canonesses never had been strictly enclosed, 

 and quietly ignored the new regulations, even 

 though they came from the pope himself. In 

 later episcopal visitations the nuns of these 

 two orders were often ordered not to go out 

 without the consent of their superiors : but 

 there was no established rule or custom before 



9 The dispute is carefully set out with the re- 

 ferences in Records of Bucks, viii. 499-507. 



10 De Banco Rolls, no. 570, m. 2I3<I. 



11 Records of Bucks, viii. 499-507. 



12 Line. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, tod. The 

 injunctions were 'That they should take care to 

 keep within the monastery, and not go out to any 

 place whatsoever, contrary to the form of the afore- 

 said statute, nor allow any to enter the monastery.' 

 At Little Marlow in particular it was added ' That 

 they were to close all their doors, and especially 

 that one which opens towards the inner parts of the 

 monastery, and give no person, honest or dishonest, 

 leave to enter without reasonable and manifest 

 cause.' In the same year, 1300, Bishop Dalderby 

 requested the nuns of Little Marlow to receive 

 back again to community life a lay sister who had 

 desired and attempted to serve God as an anchoress, 

 but found herself unable to continue in that state of 

 life. Ibid. Memo. Dalderby, IO. 



358 



