Page:VCH London 1.djvu/528

 A HISTORY OF LONDON against him were dilapidation and incontinency." Widmore, however, scouts the latter charge, and points out that he must already have been an old man at this date ; ^* moreover, the statement receives no corroboration from the Westminster chronicles. Matthew Paris in one place repeats Wendover's story word for word, but later on he gives an account of the event in his own words, and seems to know nothing of the charge.'* The abbey bore its share in the disturbances of the next two years,'^ and appears to have adopted a prominently royalist attitude, for in I2i6 the monks refused to admit Louis of France, whose soldiers promptly plundered the roval treasure in the abbey.*' The coronation of the young King Henry in October had to be performed at Gloucester, for Westminster was still besieged by the barons' party, but on 17 May, 1220, a second coronation was per- formed in the abbey by the archbishop of Can- terbury.** The history of the next thirty years is chiefly a record of rapid development. Internally the constitution was completely remodelled under Abbot Berking, and the new Lady chapel was begun under the auspices of the king ; *' exter- nally the abbey became of sufficient importance to make its friendship a thing to be desired, and its independence a factor in the economy of the Church which could not lightly be neglected. It was some time between the years 1215 and 1223 that the abbeys of Westminster and St. Edmunds entered into an agreement for mutual aid. In times of vacancy the surviving abbot was to visit the sister house, if desired, and to receive the profession of its novices. Monks of either house were to be entertained honourably at the other, except in the case of those banished for grave misdemeanours. Prayers were to be mutually offered for deceased abbots and brethren. A similar treaty was made with Worcester in 1227, and with Malmesbury before 1 283, and there is a tradition of one with the house of St. Victor of Paris.^ In 1 22 1 Bishop Eustace of London claimed jurisdiction in the abbey, and appeal was made " Flores Hist. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 94, " History, 35. " Chron. Majora (Rolls Ser.), ii, 568 and 576. " Though the abbot is not mentioned on either side in the struggle for the Ch.irter. " Chron. of Reign of Stephen, &c. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 523. This is said to have been at the instigation of the English and French barons. ''' Flores Hist. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 162, and Matt. Paris, Chron. Majora (Rolls Ser.), iii, 58. ^' John de Oxenedes, Chron. (Rolls Ser.), 145. "> Mem. of5t. Edmund's Abbey (Rolls Ser.), iii, 251 ; Ann. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), iv, 423 ; Customary of IVestm. (Hen. Bradshaw Soc), loS ; Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. z6z d. to Rome.*^ It is difficult to determine what were the exact rights of the case, as the abbey based its claim to exemption on a papal bull of the date of the foundation.**^ A very untrust- worthy charter of Dunstan in 959 renounces all rights of the bishop of London in Westminster,''' and there occurs in the doubtful grant of exemp- tion to Abbot Gilbert already mentioned " a tradition of a quarrel as to episcopal claims as early as the time of Abbot Wulnoth, who died in 1049.*' Other ostensible papal bulls of the twelfth century follow the Dunstan tradition.** However this may be, the claim to exemption was probably prescriptive, and the archbishop of Canterbury and the other arbitrators of 1222 were justified in pronouncing in favour of the abbey." There seem to have been revivals of the question, in part at least, in 1229-30, 1 254, and i268.«« Westminster was one of the exempt houses which appealed against the visitation of the abbots of Boxley and Beigham and the pre- centor of Christchurch, Canterbury, in 1232. The papal mandate for the visitation seems to have been issued in due form, and upon the plea that several of the great houses were ' in spiritu- alibus deformata et in temporalibus. . . graviter diminuta.' In the case of Westminster at least the latter charge was probably true, for when the prior of Ely visited a little later he ordered that the conventual seal should be kept under three keys to prevent unlawful alienations,*^ and in 1232 and 1235 special appeal was made to the abbot's tenants to give him an aid on account of his debts."" At the same time there is no reason to suppose that the condition of the house at this time was otherwise unsatisfactory ; Matthew Paris calls the abbot vir religiosuSy and Prior Peter, who died a few years later, was noted for his great holiness.'^ The visitors, how- ever, on coming to St. Augustine's, Canterbury, behaved with such violence that the monks of that house, together with those of St. Edmunds, " Matt. Paris, Chron. Majora (Rolls Ser.), iii, 66. " VVilkins, Concilia,, 598-9, without stating, how- ever, which bull or which foundation. " D. and C. Westm. Book No. 11, fol. 35. " Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 157. ^ D. and C. Westm. Book No. 1 1, fol. 6, 10, &c. the church of Staines to the infirmary and guest- house of the abbey, which was also in dispute, was confirmed, but the convent surrendered the manor and church of Sunbury to the bishop. Widmore {Hist. 63) thinks it was at this date that the first archdeacon was appointed. "* D. and C. Westm. Book No. 11, fol. 667, and Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 183, li^d. ^ Cal.of Papal Let. i, 142. '" C<;/. of Pat. 1225-32, p. 478, and 1232-47, p. 98. " Flora Hist. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 321. 438
 * Supra.
 * ' Wilkins, Concilia, loc. cit. The appropriation of