Page:VCH London 1.djvu/557

 RELIGIOUS HOUSES litigation pronounced in favour of the priory in 1254.'*^ The convent, however, though com- pletely establishing its claim, was not wholly victorious, for when Master William, who had been put into the church by Boniface, was raised to a bishopric, it was conferred by papal licence on Ubaldino, nephew of the cardinal of Santa Maria in Via Lata ; and the court of Rome decided, while annulling the grants to William and Ubaldino, that the prior and convent were to pay an annual pension of 25 marks to the latter until they had secured for him a benefice worth at least 60 marks per annum.** While this case was proceeding, a difficulty had arisen in the internal affairs of the priory itself.*^ There had been some irregularity about the appointment of the prior, John de Toking, but his election had been in the end confirmed by the bishop. He had been in possession for over two years, when during his absence at Rome,** presumably over the Bexley affair, an inquiry was ordered by the bishop, and he was suspended for non-observance of his oath. But John had been of service to Albert of Parma,*^ the papal legate in England, and the pope in 1254, declaring the oath simoniacal in nature, dispensed him from any obligation to fulfil it, and gave him power to hold the priory. It would seem that in the defence of the material interests of the house the prior neglected a more important duty, for the discipline and supervision must have been lax if Matthew Paris' tale is true that in 1256 one canon killed another, and then wounded himself to prove provocation.*^ The king up to this time had shown himself well disposed towards the priory : besides the confirmation of their charters in 1227, he had in 1253 granted them free warren in their demesne lands in the counties of Hertford, Kent, and Middlesex, and had given them leave to hold a weekly market and an annual fair at their manor of Corney.*' It is possible therefore that his severity in taking the priory into his hand in 1256 because a thief who had escaped from Newgate took refuge there,** may have been due to the queen's influence. Eleanor was just then engaged in a contest with "Harl. MS. 6839, No. 23. Pope Innocent IV died Dec. 1254, and Alexander iV, his successor, ordered the sentence to be carried out in 1255. " Cal. Pap. Letters, i, 299. " The papal letter above merely says he was sus- pended in his absence, but the letter of the pope in 1254, printed in Rymer, Foedera, i (i), 306, makes it clear that he had been to Rome. "Albert had been sent to England in 1 2 52 to offer Sicily to the earl of Cornwall. Gasquet, Hen. Ill and the Church, 349. " Cal. of Chart. R. i, 427; Guildhall MS. 122, fol. 790. " Stow, Surv. of Loud. (ed. Strype), ii, 5. the convent over the custody of St. Katharine's Hospital, which she was determined to wrest from them, though they held it by the grant of the founder, Maud wife of King Stephen.*' The civil courts in 1255 twice decided that the perpetual custody of the hospital belonged to the priory. She then declared to Fulk, bishop of London, that the priory had wasted the goods of the hospital and unjustly detained its charters and seals, and requested him to make an inquiry. From the inquisition taken on St. Giles's Day, 1257, '^ appears that the priory and convent had appointed one of their own canons to be master of the hospital, but with this exception they do not seem to have exceeded their rights. The bishop, however, deprived them of the custody, and made the brothers and sisters of St. Katharine renounce all obedience to them. In 126 1 Bishop Henry de Wengham and others suc- ceeded, by threatening the prior with the king's displeasure, in obtaining an oral surrender of the custody. The canons appealed to Rome, and obtained a decision in their favour from Pope Urban IV,*** but to no purpose ; they never regained the custody of the hospital. Eustace, prior 1264 to 1280, took advantage of the disgrace into which the City fell after Evesham, to inclose within the priory bounds a piece of the high road running from Aldgate to Bishopsgate.*^ Certain ordinances for the prior of Holy Trinity, issued by ' John bishop of London,' are probably to be attributed to Bishop John ChishuU during Eustace's time of office.'* In these the bishop enjoins the prior to dwell at home more with the brethren, giving greater attention to his divine ministry, and resorting more frequently than he is wont to the obser- vances of his profession in choir, chapter, and other places, that he may teach his brethren by the example of his life, and by the word of doctrine inspire them with zeal for religion, not annoying them with bitter words, but re- proving them, if they go astray, in all patience. He is also ordered not to concern himself with secular business beyond what necessity demands,'* but to appoint a fitting person of the monastery to each office with the consent of the convent or the greater part of the same. These persons, and the bailiffs of the manors, are to render an •' Guildhall MS. 122, fol. 750-4 ; Ducarel, ' Hist, of Hospital of St. Katharine,' in Bibl. Topog. Brit, ii, 3 et seq. '° Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (i), 439. " Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), i, 407, 412, 418. " They are on a little membrane which is fastened into the Lond. Epis. Reg. Baldock and Gravesend, fol. 5, at the place where the ordinances of Archbishop Robert Winchelsey, I 303, are given. If they are by Chishull their date would be 1275 or 1276. " It may have been owing to this injunction that Eustace refused to act in person as alderman of Portsoken Ward and appointed a deputy. Maitland, Hist, of Lond. loi I. 467
 * ' Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (i), 362.
 * ^Chron. Maj. (Rolls Ser.), v, 571.