RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



which church was held by three portionaries, sometimes called canons or 

 prebendaries, were true colleges. The alien priories were few and, with 

 the exception of Holy Trinity, York, unimportant, 



Selby Abbey is said to have owed its existence to the settlement of a 

 hermit at that place, and instances of hermits occur in Yorkshire records with 

 some frequency. In 1 3 1 5 King Edward II sent Lambert le Flemyng of 

 Ypres with four other hermits to reside at Knaresborough," and three years 

 later he gave jbs. bd. to the six hermits of ' Haywra ' in Knaresborough Forest, 

 of whom Brother Lambert was the proctor.^' This hermitage was probably 

 of early date, as in 1267 John Floterdasse killed ' a certain hermit dwelling 

 in le Wra.'" At Knaresborough also was the hermitage of St. Robert, 

 which continued to be occupied until at least the middle of the 14th cen- 

 tury." Mention may also be made of Matthew Danthorpe, hermit, who 

 in 1399 tactfully built a chapel at Ravenspur to commemorate the landing 

 of Henry IV. ^^ Instances of the more strictly secluded class of anchorites 

 are to be met with in the archiepiscopal registers and elsewhere." 



HOUSES OF BENEDICTINE MONKS 



I. THE PRIORY OF MONK BRETTON 



The priory of Monk Bretton was founded 

 early in the reign of Henry II by Adam Fitz 

 Suain for monks of the Cluniac order.^ He gave 

 to God, St. Mary Magdalene of Lund, and 

 Adam, at that time Prior of Bretton, and the 

 monks there, the whole of Bretton with some 

 mills and other property.^ From the mention 

 of an existing prior, this foundation charter must 

 be later in date than the letter which the 

 Prior of La Charit6-sur-Loire addressed to him 

 as his ' dear and special friend and benefactor,' 

 and in which he granted leave for the founder to 

 choose a prior and other monks to form the 

 convent from St. John's Pontefract and other 

 houses of the Cluniac order in England. ^ On 

 the strength apparently of this Pontefract claimed 

 jurisdiction over Monk Bretton almost as if it 

 were a cell only, and not merely, as seems to 

 have been contemplated, an independent daughter 

 house. 



In his letter to Adam Fitz Suain, the Prior 

 of La Charit^, to whose house Pontefract was 

 affiliated, had granted that the monks of Bretton 

 should freely elect their prior, but the Prior of 

 Pontefract if requested by the convent of Bretton 



"Exch. Acts. 376, no. 7. 

 " Lib. R. Chan. li Edw. II, m. 13. 

 " Assize R. 1051, m. 11. 



" See account of the Friary of Knaresborough 

 belovs'. 



"• Cal. Pat. 1 399-1401, p. 209. 



" e.g. Giffard's Reg. (Surt. Soc), 108. 



' Dugdale, Mon. Angl. v, 131. 



' Ibid. 136, no. i. ' Ibid. no. ii. 



should attend the chapter, with the patron, for 

 the election. 



These relations between Pontefract and Bret- 

 ton led to disputes and ill feeling, and Pope 

 Alexander IV* in 1255 issued a mandate 

 directing the Dean and Archdeacon of Lincoln 

 to make inquiry and decide between the two 

 houses. The monks of Pontefract had, rightly 

 or wrongly, regarded Monk Bretton as a cell 

 of their house, and the Prior of Pontefract had 

 claimed a right to the appointment of the Prior 

 of Monk Bretton, which Monk Bretton had 

 refused. As a consequence the sub-prior of 

 Monk Bretton reported in 1267 that this con- 

 vent had been without a prior for fifteen years, 

 the monks claiming the free election of their 

 prior, and the Prior of Pontefract claiming to 

 present to the post, and actually presenting 

 Adam de Northampton, whom the daughter 

 house refused to accept.* An agreement was 

 arrived at in 1269 as follows: Monk Bretton 

 was to pay 20J. a year to Pontefract ad pitantiamy 

 and the monks of Bretton were to have the free 

 election of their prior and were to be free from all 

 kind of subjection or obedience to Pontefract. 



When, however, the monks of Bretton elected 

 a prior they were to send for the Prior of 

 Pontefract to Pontefract, and not elsewhere, that 

 the elect might be installed by him. If the 

 prior was not at Pontefract, the Prior of Bretton 

 was to be installed by the sub-prior, or third 

 Prior of Pontefract, but the Prior and convent 

 of Pontefract were to have no right of objecting 

 to the elected Prior of Bretton. The Prior and 

 convent of Pontefract were to obtain a confir- 



* Ibid. 137, no. iii. ' Assize R. 1050, m. 13. 



91 



