RELIGIOUS HOUSES 
Woburn in a similar case) unable to meet 
the difficulty. There is no sign of any other 
grave faults having been committed, nor of 
anything like luxurious living! The new 
prior, according to the bishop’s advice, set 
himself to limit the expenses of the whole 
house and assigned a fixed income to the 
kitchen for the future? ; the deposed prior 
had a proper maintenance assigned to him at 
Ruxox.? The canons seem to have borne 
no illwill to Bishop Sutton for his corrections, 
and were ready on his next visit to their 
church (which was made not officially but 
only in passing) to praise him for his excellent 
sermon.* Other visitations of his are men- 
tioned in 1284,° 1287,° 1288,” and 1293 °; 
the last was only to confer orders. Arch- 
bishop Peckham came in 1284, but found all 
well® (fas the bishop had been there quite 
lately,’ the chronicler nafvely remarks) ; and 
Archbishop Winchelsea in 1293.1° The only 
serious charge that could be laid to the door 
of the canons all through the thirteenth cen- 
tury was their inability to keep clear of debt; 
and the record shows that this was often quite 
as much their misfortune as their fault. 
There are many incidental remarks of the 
chroniclers which serve to show that the tone 
of the house was thoroughly religious, and 
that the canons were faithful in keeping their 
rule.1* It will suffice to instance, early in the 
1 Bread and beer are constantly spoken of as the 
ordinary fare of the canons and their boarders also ; 
and when the beer failed in 1274 the chronicler 
notes as an exceptional event the purchase of five 
casks of wine, adding ‘ multum profuit nobis,’ as if 
it were a novelty, or perhaps implying that they 
had been living lately on poorer food than usual, 
on account of poverty. The chronicle is full of 
these little life-like touches, which increase both its 
interest and its trustworthiness. 
2 Ann. Mon. (Rolls Series), iii. 287. 
3 The prior was allowed fourteen white loaves 
and fourteen gallons of better beer, with 8d. for 
‘ companagium ’ every week, and an allowance of 
20s. a year, with corrodies and pay for a servant and 
astable boy. This is a very scanty allowance com- 
pared with that granted to a retiring prior in 1328 
at Hexham, of the same order (Annals of Hexham 
[Surtees Society], I. appendix Lxxiii). The house at 
Ruxox was used as a residence for priors who had 
resigned as early as 1202 (4m, Mon. [Rolls Series], 
ili. 29). 
4 Ibid. 294. 
5 Ibid. 313. 
6 Tbid. 340. 
7 Thid. 342. 
8 Ibid. 391. 
9 Ibid. 315. 
10 Thid. 391. 
11 In 1288 a novice was not allowed to make his 
profession, as being too illiterate, frivolous in be- 
century, the generous treatment of the two 
young canons (one only a_ novice), who 
escaped by night through a window and went 
to join the Friars Minor at Oxford. ‘They 
were indeed solemnly excommunicated and 
compelled to return ; but after they had done 
their penance in the chapter house and had 
been absolved, they were allowed a year to 
consider the matter, and if after that time 
they preferred the stricter order, they were 
granted permission to depart; if not, they 
might remain at Dunstable.’* A good deal 
later than this, in 1283, the apologetic way 
in which the chronicler relates how the prior 
went out to dinner with John Durant }° is 
sufficient to show that the ordinary rules and 
customs of the order were not commonly 
broken. 
During the fourteenth century there were 
several visitations. ‘There is no notice of any 
by Bishop Dalderby ; but he commissioned 
the prior of Dunstable in 1315 to visit the 
nuns of St. Giles-in-the-Wood in his name.*4 
Bishop Burghersh in 1322 wrote to order the 
prior and convent to take back a brother who 
had been ona pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 
and asserted that he did so with the permission 
of his superior ; anda little later the prior was 
cited for refusing to obey this injunction.’® 
In 1359'* Bishop Gynwell, passing by the 
priory, noticed ‘ certain insolences and unlaw- 
ful wanderings’ of the canons, and wrote to 
reinforce the rule that none should go beyond 
the precincts of the monastery without reason- 
able cause, nor without the permission of the 
prior ; and ordered further that such per- 
mission should not be too frequently given. 
He also reminded them of the rule that none 
should eat or drink outside the monastery, or 
talk with seculars without permission. 
In 1379 Bishop Buckingham confirmed an 
important ordinance of Thomas Marshall,?? 
haviour, and of a restless disposition (ibid. 342). 
There are frequent references to the divine office. 
At the same time the chronicle is full of human 
nature. 
12 Thid. 133. 
13 [bid. 302. ‘’This was quite against the custom 
observed in our monastery,’ says the chronicler, 
‘but it may be excused, because he owed John so 
much money, and dared not offend him.’ 
14 Linc. Epis. Reg., Memo. Dalderby, 317d. 
16 Ibid. Memo. Burghersh, 75d, 76d. 
18 Tbid. Memo. Gynwell, 340. The prior of 
Dunstable was elected definitor in this year at the 
general chapter of the order, as well as in 1340. 
In 1350 a prior of Dunstable was president, being 
one of the very few who were able that year to 
assemble (Cott. MS. Vesp. D i. ff. 47, 50, §4). 
it Linc. Epis. Reg., Memo. Buckingham, f. 82d. 
The prior alludes in this ordinance to the ‘ consti- 
375 
