A HISTORY OF YORKSHIRE 



prioress, but owing to irregularities in the process 

 of election the archbishop quashed it, and then 

 directed the rector of Hawkley to install Beatrice 

 de Holm as prioress of Arden. She cannot have 

 proved satisfactory, for in 133 1 " the archbisliop 

 directed commissioners to visit Arden, and, if 

 necessary, depose the prioress, and arrange for 

 the election of a successor. What was done is 

 unfortunately not recorded. On 28 June ^ in the 

 same year the Prior of Newburgh and the vicar 

 of Feliskirk made return for the king's exchequer 

 as to the taxing of Arden, that the nuns possessed 

 no ecclesiastical benefice, and that their whole lay 

 property scarcely exceeded by 20s. a year ' miseram 

 sustentacionem earundem^ and that there was 

 nothing else to be taxed. 



In November 1334," and again in 13 50,*' 

 commissions were issued to hold visitations of the 

 nunnery, but as nothing is said as to the result 

 of these visitations perhaps it may be charitably 

 assumed that there was nothing seriously amiss. 



On 16 July 1372^ Archbishop Thoresby 

 directed the prioress and convent to re-admit one 

 of their nuns, Margaret Colville. who had 

 apostatized and been guilty of incontinence with 

 Robert Wetherhird, a layman. 



On 6 October 1392 ■■* Archbishop Arundel 

 appointed commissioners to receive the resignation 

 of the prioress, and confirm the election of her 

 successor, Eleanor,-' against whom very serious 

 complaint was made a little more than three 

 years later. 



On 24 February 1396^^ Mr. John de South- 

 well, commissary of the dean and chapter ude 

 vacantly held a visitation of Arden. Eleanor, the 

 prioress, stated that she was elected when twenty- 

 six years old. She admitted that during the 

 whole time she had held office she had never 

 consulted her sisters as to the affairs of the house, 

 that whenever she had the common seal in her 

 private keeping, even when away from the 

 priory, she had used it for entering into obliga- 

 tions on the part of the house. She further 

 admitted that silence was not observed, and that 

 talking went on even in the quire during service. 

 On the other hand she complained that the 

 sjcristii, when monished by her, still neglected 

 her duty, and that the bells were not rung as 



" York Archiepis. Reg. Melton, fol. 254. 



» Ibid. fol. 253. " Ibid. fol. 1993. 



" Ibid. Zouch, fol. i683. 



" Ibid. Thoresby, fol. 192. 



-* Ibid. Arundel, fol. 43^. 



" .-^n account for her three years of office was 

 produced at the inquirj', which makes it clear that 

 she had been elected in 1 392, though her name is not 

 given at that date. 



'' York Archiepis. Reg. sed. vac. The commission 

 to visit ii on fol. 206. The account of the visitation 

 (a very rare entry in the York Registers) is on fol. 

 208, &c. The latter is printed (not quite accurately), 

 2V//. Eior. i, 283 n. &c. 



they should be, in consequence of which the 

 services were not held at the proper time. 



Christiana Darell, a nun, stated that the 

 prioress sent three young nuns out to make hay 

 early in the morning, that they did not return 

 before dark, and so divine service nondum est 

 dictum. She further alleged that the prioress 

 received all the revenues of the house, and spent 

 them as she liked, without the knowledge of her 

 sisters, and that sometimes she had the common 

 seal in her private keeping, and sometimes gave 

 it to Elizabeth Darell, so that she could use it at 

 pleasure. Moreover, a covered piece of silver, 

 and a maser, worth at least 405., had been 

 pawned and were lost, and the official seal of the 

 prioress was in pawn with another maser. She 

 complained that their corrody, or allowance of 

 ale, was badly and irregularly delivered, and that 

 owing to the prioress's neglect in buying corn, 

 she had had to pay \\d. a bushel for wheat, 

 when it might have been had for <^d., 8d., or jd. 



Elizabeth Darell, another nun, said that for a 

 whole year the prioress had the common seal in 

 her private keeping. She stated that when the 

 prioress took office, the house was in a sound 

 financial condition and that they only owed i 5 

 marks, and that the prioress had received many 

 sums of money, by gift and in alms. 



Elizabeth Steyne, Alice Barnard, Agnes de 

 Midelton and Elizabeth de Thornton, nuns, said 

 that the seal of the prioress and a maser were 

 together in pledge for 5;. ; that the prioress incited 

 the secular boys and laymen to chatter in the 

 cloister and church ; also that there were no 

 candles at the altar, nor had they light to say 

 matins and other canonical hours, and the paschal 

 candle had been deficient all the time the prioress 

 had held office. They said they did not get 

 their corrodies when due. Sometimes the delay 

 was for a fortnight, and at others for a month, so 

 that they had to drink water. They added a 

 much graver charge, that the prioress slept in her 

 chief chamber outside the dormitory, without 

 a reasonable cause, during the greater part of the 

 summer, and that she was defamed with a cer- 

 tain John Bever, a married man, that they had 

 slept together in a house at night, and that on 

 one occasion they lay alone together within the 

 priory, in the prioress's chamber. They stated 

 further that when the prioress took office the 

 house only owed 1 5 marks, but that at the time 

 of the visitation it was heavily in debt, although 

 the prioress had received several sums of money, 

 as from John Aslakby 9 marks, from Dan Henry, 

 the nuns' chaplain, 4 marks, from William de 

 Thornton 7 marks, from Robert Howm 4 marks, 

 from the Lady de Roose 20s., from Henry Erden 

 2 marks, and from Robert Barbour 20s. The 

 prioress had also received money for a wood she 

 sold, and concealed the sale from them. She 

 had moreover sold and destroyed many planta- 

 tions, without their consent, and disposed of the 

 14 



