Page:VCH Buckinghamshire 1.djvu/424

Rh consent to the election of some prioresses of this period. The earliest record of this priory is found in the Rolls of Bishop Hugh of Wells, under the year 1218, but it does not imply that the house was then newly founded. It may indeed have come into existence al- most any time in the later half of the twelfth century.

We hear of the priory in the thirteenth century only in connexion with a few unim- portant lawsuits. In 1292 the conventual church was rebuilt and its high altar dedicated by Bishop Sutton ; but the nuns were very poor at the time, and received indulgences and a licence to beg alms in 1300 and 1311 from Bishop Dalderby. In 1339 they made a grant to the Bishop of Lincoln in considera- tion of his improvement of the estate of their house, but they were evidently still barely self-supporting, for the following year the assessors of the ninth of sheaves, lambs and fleeces in the county of Buckingham were ordered to supersede the assessment of that subsidy of the priory of Little Marlow, as it was so slenderly endowed that its goods did not suffice for the maintenance of the prioress and convent. From 1338 to 1350 the prioress appears to have been a relation of Sir John de Stonore, a knight of the shire ; and it is possible that his mediation secured better terms for the nuns than they would otherwise have been able to obtain, at the ordination of the vicarage of Little Marlow Church in 1344. Early in the fifteenth century there was a long suit in connection with the advowson of the Church of Hedsor, which had belonged to the priory since the days of Hugh of Wells. It is difficult now to be quite sure of the rights of the matter, but the patronage of this church seems to have been resumed by the Crown, and the prioress had in some way impeded the presen- tation of a chaplain, and tried to reclaim the advowson. In 1403 she made a complaint before the Court of King's Bench that John Stephen, chaplain of Hedsor, had broken into her close, had struck, wounded and ill-treated her and taken away goods to the value of 40s. and committed other enormities against the king's peace, to the grave damage of her house : and on a second occasion had taken away books, vestments, keys, household utensils, etc. John roundly denied the whole charge. The Crown apparently declined to examine it, on the ground that the prioress had at- tempted to impede the presentation of this chaplain and to secure the advowson of the church. The prioress then brought forward two pleas : a fresh one against the chaplain, and another against the Crown, claiming the advowson of Hedsor ; but nothing came of these ; perhaps they were dropped as hope- less.

There are no visitations of this house re- corded in the episcopal registers except one of Bishop Dalderby in 1300, which was merely for the purpose of explaining to the nuns the Statute of Pope Boniface VIII. Pro dausura monialium. This statute was intended to compel the English nuns of all orders to ob- serve a stricter enclosure ; but though Bishop Dalderby did his duty conscientiously by explaining it to all the houses under his care sometimes under rather trying circumstances it seems to have been quite ineffectual. The English Benedictine nuns and Austin canonesses never had been strictly enclosed, and quietly ignored the new regulations, even though they came from the pope himself. In later episcopal visitations the nuns of these two orders were often ordered not to go out without the consent of their superiors : but there was no established rule or custom before