A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



18 March 1334, the king conceded the superior 

 right of the abbey,'" which nevertheless had to 

 pay 300 marks for the recognition/^' 



In addition to this Richard de Moseley, to 

 whom Queen Isabella had given the chaplaincy 

 a fortnight before Edward's letters patent, had to 

 be bought out by a pension of ^^40 a year for life.'" 



The abbey's title was afterwards several 

 times attacked and the convent put to much 

 trouble and expense. In 1344 an inquiry was 

 ordered into allegations that Peter of Chester had 

 held the chapel in gross, not as a dependency of 

 Whalley, and that the abbey had quitclaimed its 

 pretensions to the Earl of Lincoln.'^' It was 

 not until May, 1346, that Abbot Lindley in- 

 duced the king to confirm his recognition of its 

 rights.^"' The question was reopened when 

 Queen Isabella's tenure of Clitheroe determined 

 and it reverted to Henry, earl and afterwards 

 duke of Lancaster, nephew of Earl Thomas. 

 Henry did indeed resign his claims on the ad- 

 vowson in 1349,'^ and collated at least one 

 chaplain.'^ Several clerks also had obtained 

 papal provisions of the chaplaincy,"' and after 



'" Coucher, 229, confirmed by Isabella on 13 May. 

 The extant evidence is rather conflicting. The 

 chapel was separately endowed by Robert de Lacy 

 towards the end of the eleventh century with half a 

 plough-land in Clitheroe (reduced later to two ox- 

 gangs), and the tithes of his demesne lands in Black- 

 burnshire and of animals, &c. in the forests of Bow- 

 land and Blackburnshire. A chaplain named William 

 obtained letters of protection for the chapel (described 

 as 'justly collated to him ') and its endowments from 

 Pope Urban II (1088-99), or Urban III (1185-7), 

 probably the former; Towneley MS. fol. 210. 

 Whitakcr, however, says (op. cit. i, 257) that Richard 

 de Towneley held the chaplaincy about 1215 by gift 

 of his brother Roger, the dean of Whalley. But no 

 authority is given for this statement. 



'" In the inquisition after the death of the Earl of 

 Lmcoln in 131 i the annual value of the chapel is 

 given as ;^14 6/. id. ; Three Lams. Doc. (Chet. Soc), 5. 

 If this be correct the transaction of 1334 practically 

 amounted to a purchase of the advowson by the 

 abbey. The pension granted to Moseley suggests, 

 however, an understatement; see above. In 1380 

 the yearly income of the endowment was estimated to 

 be £27 13/. i^d.; Towneley MS. fol. 212. The 

 Pontefract Chartulary no doubt exaggerates in stating 

 its annual value as 100 marks ; Dugdale, Mon. v, 642. 



^■' Coucher, 234. A dispute at once arose with the 

 vicar of Whalley as to who was responsible for the cure 

 of souls and the provision of a chaplain. The bishop 

 decided in 1339 that the cure belonged to the vicar 

 but the abbey must find the chaplain and clerk ; 

 Whitaker, op. cit. i, 178 ; Coucher, 235. 



^-"Cal. of Pat. 1343-5, p. 425 ; Coram Rege R. 

 342, m. 78 d. 



'« Cal. of Pat. 1345-8, p. 85 ; Comher, 331. 



"'Towneley MS. fol. 38/ ; Cal. of Pat. 1348-50, 

 p. 469. 



"'Whitaker, op. cit. i, 257 ; cf. Cal. Pap. Letters, 

 iv, 70. 



"* Ibid.; Cat. Pap. Pet. i, 264, 324, 384. 



the death of Duke Henry Edward III put 

 in John Stafford on the plea that the duke had 

 alienated the advowson to the abbey without 

 his licence."" On 12 December, 1363, he 

 restored the advowson to Duke John and his 

 wife. In 1365 Abbot Lindley was pro- 

 ceeding in the Court of Arches against Staf- 

 ford,"' and three years later Urban V ordered 

 an investigation of the claim of John de Parre, 

 who had a papal provision."^ The rights of 

 Whalley seem to have been upheld. ''' In 1380 

 they were once more, and as far as we know for 

 the last time, called in question. The officers 

 of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, alleged the 

 existence of an endowed chantry in the chapel 

 which Queen Isabella, they said, gave to Whalley 

 on condition of its maintaining daily service 

 therein. As service was only held three times a 

 week and the chapel had become ruinous the 

 abbey, it was urged, had forfeited its rights. A 

 local jury, however, decided in its favour.^'* 



The heavy expense to which the convent was 

 put in defence of its claims may perhaps help to 

 explain the slow progress of the new monastery 

 buildings. In 1362 the monks were excused 

 their contribution to the Cistercian levy until 

 their church should be finished and the dormitory 

 and refectory built."' But despite this and some 

 valuable gifts of land the financial position of the 

 house continued to be precarious. In 1366 its 

 expenditure exceeded its receipts by ;^I50 and 

 its debt amounted to over ;^700. Much of this 

 was incurred in consequence of the unsuccessful 

 attempt made in October, 1365, by Richard de 

 Chester, abbot of Combermere, supported by a 

 party among the monks and 'other malefactors' 

 to get rid of Abbot Lindley and replace him by 

 William Banaster. Lindley called in the civil 

 authorities against his opponents, who for a moment 

 held the monastery against the sheriff and '■posse 

 comhatus ' with ' watch and ward.'"^ There 

 were only twenty-nine monks instead of the sixty 

 contemplated on the removal to Whalley.'" An 

 attempt to secure the appropriation of another 

 valuable benefice had not been successful. Henry,, 

 earl of Lancaster, who died in 1345, or his son 

 and namesake before he was raised to the ducal 

 dignity, bestowed upon them the advowson of the 



""Whitaker, op. cit. i, 257, 261 ; Lich. Epis. Reg, 

 Stretton, fol. 46^. 



"'Towneley MS. fol. 215-16. 

 "' Cal. Pap. Letters, iv, 70. 



„,r' ^"' ^' ^ "^^^^y '^o'^- Duke John exacted /coo; 

 Whitaker, op. cit. i, 97, 262. 



'^Towneley MS. fol. 212-14. The stipend paid to 



33^^f?i".° '"/ 5 ^ ' ^»5 U ■' Whitaker, op. cit. i, 2 5 7. 

 Ibid. I, 96. Part of the church was in occupation 

 by 1345 ; Lanes. Final Concords (Rec. Soc ) ii i%c „ 



"« Coram Rege R. 426, m. xv ; Whitake^, op. cit. i^ 

 97. Banaster was probably a kinsman of John Banaster 

 ot Walton, one of the ' malefactors.' 



'^' Ibid. But those resident at the granges are per- 

 haps not included. There was only one ' convenus ' 

 36 



