RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



monastery being closed against such presumers, 

 they were to warn them when they arrived to 

 retract their error and withdraw. Otherwise 

 they were to denounce these disturbers solemnly 

 excommunicate. 



What actually took place does not appear, but 

 on lo May 1290" the archbishop gave Brother 

 William, Prior of the monastery of Monk Bret- 

 ton, ' nobis et ecclesie nostre Ebor' immediate 

 subjectum et ab obediencia ordinis Cluneacensis 

 exemptum,' who for long time had gained praise 

 within and without the diocese for his religious 

 life and for a long period had borne rule in 

 the monastery, a general letter of commendation 

 to those whom he might visit. There is 

 another letter dated 29 May ^' from the arch- 

 bishop to the king on behalf of the prior, 

 who is again said to be exempt from Cluniac 

 jurisdiction and directly subject to the arch- 

 bishop. The archbishop informed the king that 

 William de Richale ' non est fugitivus aut vaga- 

 bundus,' and he prayed the king to revoke a 

 letter sent to the Sheriff of York, on behalf of 

 the Cluniac order, so that neither the monastery 

 nor the archbishop's jurisdiction over it should be 

 weakened. The next information is the resig- 

 nation of Prior Richale on 21 September 1291," 

 and the confirmation in the chapter-house of 

 Monk Bretton of William de Eboraco, one of 

 the monks, elected in his stead. 



In 1293^* the archbishop held a visitation of 

 the house and sent on 6 September his decretum 

 thereon. The prior was not to be an acceptor 

 of persons, and was to remember that the goods 

 of the house were common property. The 

 brethren were to be punished for their faults, but 

 not in the presence of laymen. The cellarer, 

 when not occupied with business inside or 

 outside the house, was to sleep in the dormitory, 

 and be present at matins and say mass. Brother 

 William de Waddeworth, whose fault is not 

 stated, was to be sent to Whitby," to undergo a 

 penance there. The sub-cellarer was to abstain 

 from upbraiding the brethren, and to behave 

 more respectfully [honestius) than he was wont to 

 do to the archbishop. If any monks were in- 

 corrigible, the prior was to inform the archbishop. 

 Brothers Roger de Kelsey, Walter de Holgate, 

 and Nicholas de Pontefracto, were to undergo 

 their penances devoutly. It is not said what 

 faults they had been guilty of, but Roger de 

 Kelsey was not to go out of the cloister for a 

 year, and was to take the last place in the 

 convent. Walter de Holgate was not to go out 

 for half a year, and was to be the third last 

 {tercius ultimus) in the convent, during that time. 



" York Archiepis. Reg. Romanus, fol. 35^. 



" Ibid. fol. 36. " Ibid. fol. 40. 



" Ibid. fol. 44. 



'= Whitby Chartul. (Surt. See), ii, 626. Monk 

 Bretton was to pay 50J. yearly for his maintenance at 

 Whitby. 



Nicholas de Pontefracto was to keep his place in 

 the convent, but was not to go out for a 

 quarter of a year ; and on Wednesdays and 

 Fridays all three were to fast on bread, ale and 

 vegetables. 



Richard de Halghton succeeded William de 

 Eboraco as prior in November 1304." His 

 rule, though a long one, did not end happily. 

 On 2 July 1323'^ Archbishop Melton wrote 

 to John de Collyngham, sub-prior, and John 

 Boyle, precentor of the monastery, as to 

 the wasteful expenditure of their house, and 

 directed them to demand, in his name, from 

 their prior, the keys of the treasury and of other 

 buildings, to lock up all the property belonging 

 to the house, in the sight of three or four of the 

 older and wiser of their brethren. He further 

 enjoined that all the money for their wool or 

 any other money coming to them was to be 

 safely kept in the manner above noted, so that 

 the prior meantime could not lay hands upon it. 

 Boyle appears to have been also one of the 

 bursars, and on 1 6 July ^' the archbishop wrote 

 that it was reported that brother John Boyle 

 was not of sufficient industry to hold the office 

 of bursar, and if this were so, they were to 

 remove him, and choose another better fitted for 

 the office. The archbishop also intimated his 

 intention of visiting the monastery, when other 

 matters would be corrected. There is no record 

 of the proceedings at such a visitation, but on 

 22 August^" the archbishop deposed the prior, 

 charging him with wasting the goods of the 

 monastery and perjury committed in the chancery 

 court of the king, by pledging the priory in 

 ;^ 1,000 to Godfrey de Staynton and William 

 Scot, and other misdeeds. Richard de Halgh- 

 ton's deposition was followed by the election of 

 his successor, ^^ at which twelve monks recorded 

 their votes, the late prior not being one of them. 



William de Went received five votes, and 

 William de Staynton three. The archbishop 

 quashed the double election of William de Went 

 and William de Staynton, made in discordia. 

 As, however, most voted for William de Went, 

 the archbishop on 26 September appointed him 

 to the office.^^ 



Richard de Halghton after his deposition left 

 the house for a time, which accounts for his 

 vote not being recorded at the election. He 

 returned, however, shortly afterwards, absque 

 magna strepitu, as the archbishop described it 

 in a letter to the prior and convent dated 

 20 November 1323.^' He was to have his 

 former order as a monk, and if he conducted 

 himself well and served God laudably, the 

 archbishop intended, at the instance of the 



"York Archiepis. Reg. sed. vac. fol. 441J (1304, 

 not 1305 as Mon. Angl. y, 135). 

 ''Ibid. Melton, fol. 158^. 

 "Ibid. fol. 159. ™Ibid. fol. 160. 



"Ibid. "Ubid. 'Mbid. fol. 160^. 



93 



