RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



to be sent to him for absolution.''^ These mea- 

 sures do not seem to have been entirely successful, 

 for three years afterwards the archbishop of York 

 commissioned the abbot of Furness and the pre- 

 centor of Beverley to inquire into alleged irregu- 

 larities in the house and, if necessary, to deprive 

 the prior and his subordinates." 



In 1250 an old dispute writh the patrons, as to 

 their control over the election of the priors and 

 rights of custody during vacancies, reached a 

 final settlement in the royal court. The founder 

 provided in his charter that on the death of a 

 prior the canons should choose two canons and 

 present them to him or his heirs ' ut ille quern 

 communis assensus noster elegerit. Prior effici- 

 atur.' '* From other sources we learn that the 

 prior-elect was then presented by the patron to 

 the ordinary for admission. In 1233 the founder's 

 son, Richard Marshal, earl of Pembroke, was 

 proclaimed a traitor, and the canons seized the 

 opportunity to get this method of election de- 

 clared invalid by Pope Gregory IX.'* But the 

 speedy death of Richard and the succession of 

 his brother Gilbert to the title and estates doubt- 

 less endangered this decision, aided perhaps by 

 the fact that it had been obtained by misrepre- 

 sentation, the canons having led the pope to 

 understand that the form of election just described 

 was 'a custom which had grown up in their 

 church.' ^^ Ultimately in 1250 a final concord 

 was made at Westminster between the prior and 

 William de Valence and his wife Joan, grand- 

 daughter of the founder, who had inherited the 

 patronage, whereby the canons were in future to 

 choose their prior freely, the patron's share being 

 limited to the grant of a licence to elect and the 

 presentation of the new prior to the ordinary — 

 neither of which could be refused ; his rights of 

 custody during a vacancy were made equally 

 nominal. For this latter concession the convent 

 gave 40 marks.'' 



" Harl. Chart. (B.M.), 83, A. 23 (j April, 1245). 

 It is dated at Lyons, where Innocent was staying 

 for the general Council of that year. 



" Baines, Hist, of Lanes, (ed. Croston), v, 630 

 (without reference). 



" Lanes. Pipe R. 341. His further stipulation that 

 the priory should never become an abbey was prob- 

 ably intended to protect this control from abrogation. 

 " G. E. C. Compute Peerage, vi, 201 ; Cal. Pap. 

 Letters, \, 135. 

 « Ibid. 



" Lanes. Final Cone, i, 1 1 1 . The patronage passed 

 on the death (1324) of Aymer de Valence, earl of 

 Pembroke, son of William and Joan, to his eldest 

 daughter, who married John, Lord Hastings, and 

 whose grandson was created earl of Pembroke in 

 1339 ; it remained in that family until the death of 

 the last earl in 1389 {Cal. of Pat. 1377-81, p. 620), 

 when it was inherited by his cousin and heir male 

 Lord Grey de Ruthin, and the Greys (earls of Kent 

 fi-om 1465) held it down to the Dissolution; G. E. C. 

 Complete Peerage, vi, 2 1 1 ; Duchy of Lane. Rentals 

 and Surv. ptfo. 5, No. 15. 



In 1300 the patrons of the church of Whit- 

 tington in Lonsdale desired to transfer the 

 advowson to the priory which had long claimed 

 it in virtue of a grant of Robert son of Gil- 

 michael, lord of Whittington in the time of 

 John, and drew a pension of two marks a year 

 from the church. A jury of inquest, however, 

 found that the transfer would be to the prejudice 

 of the king or the Earl of Lancaster, and the 

 idea was abandoned.'* Cartmel suffered severely 

 from the Scottish raids of 13 16 and 1322 ; so 

 much so that the valuation of the rectory for the 

 tenths was reduced from £^\(i 1 31. 4^. to ;^8." 



At the beginning of the last decade of this 

 century complaints of misconduct on the part of 

 William Lawrence, who had been prior for nine 

 years, reached the ears of the pope. He was 

 accused of dilapidations, of simony in the admis- 

 sion of persons applying to make their profession 

 in the house, and of spending the proceeds in 

 depraved uses and too frequent visits to taverns. 

 The buildings were said to be in ruin, divine 

 worship and hospitality neglected, and scandal 

 given by the prior's too unhonest life.'" Appar- 

 ently the inquiry which Boniface IX ordered in 

 1390 sustained these charges, for the archbishop 

 of York was ordered to deprive the prior of his 

 ofHce and have a new election made (1395).*^ 

 In spite of this, unless there is some error in the 

 record, Lawrence was still prior five years later.*^ 



Apart from what may be contained in the 

 Vatican archives still uncalendared the history of 

 the priory during the fifteenth century is a blank. 

 There is here a great gap in our list of priors. 

 William Hale, who was prior in the last years of 

 the century, appealed to Pope Alexander VI 

 against a decision of Christopher Urswick, arch- 

 deacon of Richmond (1494— 1500), depriving 

 him of his ofKce and sequestrating the revenues 

 of the priory on the ground of certain alleged 

 ' excesses ' not particularized. Hale asserted that 

 evidence had been trumped up against him.*' 

 The result of the inquiry ordered by the pope is 

 not known. But Hale was still prior in 1 50 1, 

 when the archbishop was requested by the house 



™ Lanes. Inq. (Rec. Soc), i, 306. The church 

 was worth 20 marks. Prior Walton is alleged to 

 have presented in 1299, and in 1334 ^^ priory 

 secured legal recognition of its right, but does not 

 seem to have been able to maintain it. (Co. Plac. 

 [Chan.], Lane. No. 26.) 



" Pope Nich. Tax. 308. Its temporalities were 

 similarly reassessed. See below, p. 147. 



"'' Cal. Pap. Letters, iv, 371. In 1385 two of the 

 canons and some servants of the prior found surety of 

 the peace towards the king ; Pal. of Lane. Docquet 

 R. I, m. zb. 



" Cal. Pap. Letters, iv, 382 ; 'To allow the con- 

 vent for this turn only to proceed to the election of a 

 new prior and to confirm the same.' 



'* Ibid, v, 32. Indult to have plenary remission 

 on his death-bed from a confessor of his own choice. 



^ MS. Corp. Christi Cant. 170, fol. 144. 



145 



19 



