A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



vilege of exemption, and to explain that he 

 and his convent did this of their own free will. 1 

 In 1276 the same abbot was involved in a suit 

 with his tenants of the manor of Boycott on 

 the subject of feudal customs. 2 In 1280 he 

 had to complain of trespasses and injuries done 

 to him in his house in London, 3 and at about 

 the same time he was distrained for scutage 

 for his property in Maryland, but it was 

 finally proved that none was really due. 4 In 

 1302 the abbey was taken under the king's 

 protection, and as it was greatly burdened with 

 debt, John of Tingewick, rector of Wappen- 

 ham, was appointed custodian of the house, 

 to aid the monks by his counsel, and to super- 

 intend the administration of its revenues. 6 

 It seems however that John took base advan- 

 tage of his position, for in 1308 6 a suit was 

 brought by the abbot and convent against 

 him and many others, for breaking down their 

 enclosures in Syresham and depasturing the 

 corn that grew there. In 1325 Abbot Roger 

 de Gotham acknowledged a debt of 200, 

 which however he contrived afterwards to pay 

 off. 7 In 1392 the house seems to have re- 

 covered its prosperity a little ; for the abbot 

 and convent were in a position to take over the 

 cell of Weedon Pinkeney from the Abbot of St. 

 Lucien near Beauvais in France, at a pension of 

 12 marks a year, afterwards commuted for a 

 payment of 300 marks in full quittance. 8 The 

 purchase of Weedon Pinkeney however in- 

 volved the monks of Biddlesden in a long dis- 

 pute with the rectors of Wappenham, in whose 

 parish part of the property of the late priory 

 lay. Two or three attempts were made to 

 settle the question of tithes, but it was not 

 finally arranged until 1406. In this year the 

 rector agreed not to molest the monks in 

 future in respect of any property that had 

 belonged to St. Lucien ; and received in com- 

 pensation two acres of cornland, with two 

 lambs and two cheeses yearly. The final 

 agreement was ratified by Bishop Repingdon 

 and the Archbishop of Canterbury. 9 



Of the internal history of the house nothing 

 whatever is known until just before the dis- 

 solution. An abbot was deposed in II92, 10 



i Harl. MS. 4714, f. 1 33d. There was a similar 

 dispute about tithes in Syresham in 1382. Ibid. 

 156-161. 



a Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 192. 



a Pat. 8 Edw. I. m. 18. 



4 Dugdale, Man. v. 366. 



6 Pat. 30 Edw. I. m. 26. 



Ibid. 2 Edw. II. m. 26d. 



7 Close, 19 Edw. II. m. 243. 

 s Harl. MS. 4714, f. 25od. 



Ibid. ff. 22ld-242. 

 10 Ann. Man. (Rolls Ser.), ii. 251. 



366 



but his offence is not recorded. The house 

 was exempt from episcopal visitation, like all 

 Cistercian monasteries, so that the Lincoln 

 registers throw no light upon its condition 

 from its foundation to its surrender. As its 

 yearly income was under 200, it would natu- 

 rally have been dissolved with the smaller 

 monasteries in 1536. In this year the local 

 commissioners reported that there were eleven 

 monks in the house, of whom nine were priests, 

 and none guilty of any immorality. There 

 was a former abbot living in the house, with a 

 pension of 13 6s. ^d. for his maintenance, 

 and there were as many as fifty-one servants 

 attached to the monastery, of whom twenty- 

 four were ' hinds ' or farm labourers, thirteen 

 did the work of the house, nine were children 

 (possibly servers at mass), and four were 

 women who came in by the day. 11 The com- 

 missioners stated further that only one of the 

 monks desired a capacity to depart to another 

 house of religion, but this does not seem very 

 consistent with the fact that they petitioned 

 for the monastery to be continued, and actu- 

 ally paid as much as 133 6s. Sd. for this pri- 

 vilege. 12 The house was not surrendered till 

 25 September, 1538. The form of the sur- 

 render is not of the ordinary type, and is in 

 English. As it has been more than once 

 printed in full, there is no need to reproduce 

 it here verbatim. 13 It has received the more 

 attention because it is not, like so many others, 

 a merely formal declaration that the surren- 

 der is quite voluntary and that there are many 

 excellent but unnamed reasons why it should 

 be made ; but it contains a certain amount 

 of vague self-accusation. Summed up, it is 

 a confession that the ' manner and trade of 

 living ' of the monks of Biddlesden and others 

 of their ' pretensed religion ' for many years 

 past did most principally consist in ' dumb 

 ceremonies ' : that they had been exempt 

 from their own ordinaries and diocesans and 

 subject to ' forinsecal potentates ' such as the 

 bishops of Rome and abbots of Citeaux, 

 ' which never came here to reform such dis- 

 cord of living and abuses as now have been 

 found to have reigned amongst us ' : and that 

 they had never been taught in the true know- 

 ledge of God's laws, but now had happily 

 discovered by the study of the gospel that it 

 was most expedient for them to be ruled by 

 their Supreme Head the king. Even if this 

 document had been composed by the monks 

 themselves and not merely handed to them 



11 Dugdale, Man. v. 365 ; from Browne Willis. 

 " L. and P. Henry Vlll. xiii. (2) 422 and 457. 

 " Deed of Surrender (P.R.O.) 22 : and see L. 

 and. P. Henry Vlll. xiii. (2), 421. 



