A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



between 1364 and 1366 tried to buy out the 

 rival claims ; the presentation of the vicar was 

 reserved for the prior of Lytham/' The scheme 

 broke down, however, and though the priors of 

 Lytham presented rectors as late as 1 422-5,'' a 

 compromise seems to have been subsequently 

 arranged by which they resigned the patronage 

 to the Vernons on payment of an annual pension 

 of 13/. 4</. from the church.*" The right of 

 Durham Priory to the cell of Lytham itself was 

 impugned, in 1243, ^7 ^^^ abbot and monks of 

 Evesham, who alleged that they had been in 

 peaceful possession of the said cell by William of 

 Lytham, their fellow monk, but that the prior 

 and convent of Durham and Roger their monk 

 usurped their just claim.** The claim was prob- 

 ably based upon Richard son of Roger's arrange- 

 ment with Abbot Roger of Evesham, already 

 mentioned. Papal delegates induced Evesham, 

 in 1245, *o withdraw it, but Durham agreed to 

 pay her 30 marks.*^ This condition remaining 

 unfulfilled the claim was reasserted in 1272, and 

 two years afterwards delegates appointed by 

 Gregory X enforced payment of the money and 

 enjoined silence upon Evesham.*' 



Disputed rights of pasture on the borders of 

 Lytham brought the monks into conflict with 

 their neighbours, the Butlers of Lytham,** the 

 Beethams of Bryning and Kellamergh,*' and the 

 Cliftons of Westby. In 1320 Prior Roger of 

 Tynemouth complained to the earl of Lancaster 

 that William de Clifton had invaded the priory 

 with 200 armed men, rescued some impounded 

 cattle, done damage to the amount of £100 and 

 put him in fear of his life so that he dare not 

 stir abroad.** 



Prior Roger's relations with his superior at 

 Durham were also strained. He was charged 

 with oppressing the tenants and selling the stock 

 to maintain an excessive household.*' But times 

 were bad ; Scottish raids had so reduced the value 

 of the Lytham temporalities that they were rated 

 for the tenth at £2 only, instead of ;^i i 6s. 2d., 

 the assessment of 1292.** Durham itself was in 

 difficulties and giving its creditors a lien on the 

 revenues of its cells,*' so that possibly Roger was 

 not wholly to blame. 



"Lytham Charters, 13-22, 26, 28; 4a, 436, 

 Ebor. 4. 



" Ibid. 2a, 2ae, 4ae, Ebor. 70. 



*" Before 1493 (ibid. 27 ; cf. 2a, 430, 43). 



'' Ibid. 2a, 4ae, Ebor. 15, 26. 



« Ibid. 



"' Ibid. 13, 15 ; Cartukrium tertium, fol. 132^. 



** Lytham Charters, 2a, 436, Ebor. 14, 24. 



»» Ibid. 48. 



** Ibid. 46 ; 4a, 4ae, Ebor. 7. 



'*■ Dur. Misc. Chart. 5315, 5470, 5484, 5561-2. 



'^ Pope Nich. Tax. (Rec. Com.), 309. Comparison 

 with the ' compoti ' roUs shows that the rating of tem- 

 poralities in 1292 allowed a liberal deduction from 

 full value. 



^ Dur. Misc. Chart. 5560. 



The priors sometimes rebelled against the 

 complete subjection to the mother house upon 

 which the founder had insisted. They were 

 merely the agents of the con\ ent of Durham,'" 

 and had to attend the general chapter there at 

 Whitsuntide, bringing with them an inventory 

 of the goods of the cell and a balance sheet for 

 the year." Although instituted by the arch- 

 deacon of Richmond,'* and owing canonical 

 obedience to him for the appropriated church of 

 Lytham, discharging its burdens and ministering 

 to the parishioners either in their own person or 

 (usually) by one or two secular chaplains, they 

 were liable to be recalled at any moment." It 

 was alleged that the frequent changes in the head- 

 ship of the priory did it injury; that they were 

 sometimes arbitrary is shown by the case of 

 Richard of Hutton. Richard was sub-prior of 

 Durham when Hugh of Darlington became prior 

 in 1285, and having offended him was sent to 

 Lytham as prior, only to be removed as soon as 

 he began to make his mark there.'* Robert of 

 Kelloe, who became prior of Lytham in 1351, 

 procured a papal bull some ten years later exempt- 

 ing him from being removed from the office 

 during his life without good cause shown. But 

 he was compelled to renounce it and return to 

 Durham.'" About eighty years later Prior William 

 Partrik procured a similar bull from Eugenius III, 

 and royal letters patent condoning his action.'* 

 The reservation, however, of power to remove 

 him for sufficient cause afforded a loophole of 

 which his superiors took advantage. They ac- 

 cused him of non-attendance at the general 

 chapter, of omission to pay any contribution 

 (collecta) to the mother house for two years, and 

 of having set upon the bearer of their letter of 



" The title of warden (custos) which more clearly 

 indicated this subordination was occasionally applied 

 to them. In 1292 the prior being summoned to show 

 by what warrant he claimed to have wreck of the sea 

 at Lytham fell back on the authority of the prior of 

 Durham, ' who could remove him,' but having pre- 

 viously claimed the right in his own name was decided 

 to be 'in mercy' ; Dugdale, Mon. iv, 282. 



" Dur. Chart. Locellus, ix, No. 63 ; Hist. Dunelm. 

 Scriptores Tres. (Surtees Soc), App. p. xl. 133 of 

 these ' compoti ' rolls arc preserved at Durham, forming 

 a fairly complete series from the beginning of the thir- 

 teenth century to the Dissolution. 



" Lytham Charters, 3a, 436, Ebor. 3 1 ; 23, 2ae, 

 4ae, Ebor. 76. 



^ Ibid 23, 436, Ebor, 18, 33, 40. This W3s con- 

 trary to the USU31 pr3ctice. Normally, a prior insti- 

 tuted by the ordinary could not be removed except 

 for grave reasons, approved by him ; Prioi-y of Pen- 

 wortham (Chet. Soc), 99. The reason why the priors 

 of Lytham were so instituted, while those of Pen- 

 worth3m never were, is probably to be found in the 

 disinclination of the convent of Durham to be bound 

 to canonical obedience to the archdeacon of Richmond. 



^ Hist. Dm. Script. Tres. 72. 



** Lytham Charters, 2a, 436, Ebor. 29. 



^ Dugdale, Mon. iv, 282. 



108 



