Page:VCH Buckinghamshire 1.djvu/412

Rh lay hands on, not even sparing the sacred vessels : whereupon the king not only con- soled the monks with kind words, but sent them three new chalices and the necessary vestments for three chaplains, as well as £15 in money. In November 1286 the debts of the house had become so serious that Ed- ward I. took the priory under his protection and appointed a royal clerk, Richard de Rothewell, to the custody of the temporalities during his pleasure. The house is here de- scribed as being of the patronage of the king. As pertaining to his prerogatives the king exercised the right of imposing boarders, and on 20 August, 1316, John de Ditton, clerk, obtained letters to the prior and con- vent entitling him to receive the pension they were bound to grant to one of the king's clerks by reason of the new creation of a prior. Some years later, in February 1333-4, Robert de la Chapelle was sent to the house to receive such maintenance as John Close, deceased, had had.

Not much is known of the external history of the priory, though the names of the priors are found in regular succession both in the episcopal registers and the patent rolls. There is no record even of any important law- suit connected with this house. Finally, in the year 1493, when the number of inmates was reduced to three, King Henry VII. pe- titioned Pope Alexander VI. to allow him to suppress the house and apply its revenues, the yearly value of which was estimated at 260 florins auri de camera, to the chapel and chantry which he had founded next to St. George's, Windsor, together with a hospital for the poor and other ' miserable persons ' in the town of the same. The Bull which granted this request describes the monastery as situated in a deserted place, and inhabited for some time past by a prior with only two monks, who had not even been professed in the house : the buildings had fallen into al- most irreparable ruin through the neglect of those who had charge of them. A sub- sequent Bull of Julius II. allowed the king to apply the revenues of the priory to his new chapel at Westminster instead of to Windsor, and this plan was carried into effect four or five years later.

Archbishop Peckham visited the priory early in 1280 and found the conduct of the prior, William de Esteneston, so bad that he absolved him from office. The monks ob- tained leave to elect, and on 8 March, 1279- 80, the king signified his assent to the election of Adam de Hanred or Henred. The arch- bishop wrote to Oliver Button, then bishop- elect of Lincoln, forbidding him to assign any pension or portion to the late prior of Luffield beyond the common share, unless he should think fit to send him to do penance for his excesses in another monastery, stating that in the face of his express prohibitions and on the very day of the archbishop's departure the prior had admitted women into the cloister of the monastery and had wasted the goods of the house on them. Archbishop Peckham visited the priory again in the autumn of 1284, and found that William de Esteneston had prevailed on his diocesan to grant him the usual privileges of a retired superior for so long as he should behave himself honestly and regularly. This indulgence the archbishop found he had grossly abused, and on 15 No- vember Peckham issued a decree that brother William de Esteneston should be deprived of the special chamber assigned to him in the infirmary, which should henceforth be re- stored for the use of the sick, that he should take his meals with the monks in the refectory, and share the food of the ordinary brothers, should sleep in the dormitory and attend the day and night offices in the church unless obviously ill, should receive the same treat- ment in the infirmary if he should fall ill as any other brother, and that his servant (garcio) should lodge with the other servants of the community and not within the cloister. The archbishop, in order to prevent the abuse spreading, ordered that the door leading from the chamber occupied by the late prior into the orchard should be locked and the key kept by the prior until a wall could be built round the orchard. After that the sick should have liberty to go in and out of the orchard until sunset, when the door should be locked and the key placed in the custody of the prior. If the culprit refused to adhere to these re- gulations he was to be separated from the community and kept in seclusion according to their rule until he rendered humble obedi- ence. If he should show signs of apostasy, as was to be feared, or attempt to renew his crimes, he was to be placed in close custody.

There was much discord in the house at the close of the century, which showed itself in several successive elections. In 1285 Bishop