From these injunctions it is easy to see the general character of the dangers which beset the religious life and were by no means peculiar to Newstead. Negligence in strict observance of the rule and statutes, the tendency of certain brethren to disorderly habits, and financial carelessness or, at any rate, the risk of the money and business affairs of the convent falling under the control of the prior alone or of one or two officials, without regulation by the whole community, were matters which made injunctions necessary. We probably owe the preservation of these three documents to their exhibition before archbishop Giffard in October, 1267, when William, who had been prior for more than twenty-six years, and was old and in feeble health, sent in his resignation. His letter bears date 24th October,1 when, as we know from another part of the register, Giffard was at Scrooby. There is no record of any visitation of the house by Giffard, and the only other mention of it in his register is his ordination at Blyth, on 20th September, 1274, four young canons, Robert of Teversall, Adam of Lichfield, Alan of Casterton and John of Tickhill, to the diaconate.
The conge d' elire after William's resignation was issued on 30th October, 1267.2 This document was carelessly enrolled,3 and has no consequences recorded. The new prior's name is said to have been William also, but there is no confirmation of his election in the archbishop's register. The patent rolls mention that the priory was again vacant in July, 1270.4 Here again corroborative documents are wanting, but we may assume that 1270 was the date of the election of John of Lexington or Laxton, very probably a member of the well-known family of Lexington, known also by the name of Sutton, which supplied two of its members to the church of Lincoln as deans and bishops in the second half of the 13th century. We have two receipts in October, 1271 for a subsidy and a fine for its payment to the king and prince Edward.5 Such casual requisitions before archbishop Giffard in October, 1267, when William, who had been prior for more than twenty-six years, and was old and in feeble health, sent in his resignation. His letter bears date 24th October,6 when, as we know from another part of the register, Giffard was at Scrooby. There is no record of any visitation of the house by Giffard, and the only other mention of it in his register is his ordination at Blyth, on 20th September, 1274, four young canons, Robert of Teversall, Adam of Lichfield, Alan of Casterton and John of Tickhill, to the diaconate.
The conge d' elire after William's resignation was issued on 30th October, 1267.7 This document was carelessly enrolled,8 and has no consequences recorded. The new prior's name is said to have been William also, but there is no confirmation of his election in the archbishop's register. The patent rolls mention that the priory was again vacant in July, 1270.9 Here again corroborative documents are wanting, but we may assume that 1270 was the date of the election of John of Lexington or Laxton, very probably a member of the well-known family of Lexington, known also by the name of Sutton, which supplied two of its members to the church of Lincoln as deans and bishops in the second half of the 13th century. We have two receipts in October, 1271 for a subsidy and a fine for its payment to the king and prince Edward.10 Such casual requisitions no doubt fell heavily upon the prior and convent. In 1274 they were seriously in debt, and a lay curator, Robert Sutton of Averham, was appointed by the Crown on 16th October, to administer their affairs.11 It was probably in order to meet their liabilities that on 15th November, 1279, they had licence to fell and sell the timber of a wood of forty acres in Sherwood forest.12 On 4th August, 1280, Edward I., who stayed at the priory for a few days from the first of the month,13 gave them leave to fence in their meadow of Bestwood beside the Leen with a small dyke and a low hedge, and to hold it in mortmain.14 This was apparently merely a confirmation of his predecessor's charters relating to the meadow, as we know that it had been enclosed by 1227-8. Letters close, dated 22nd February, 1279-80, mention a wood belonging to the prior not far from Blidworth, beginning at Blakefencrok and extending to the cross called Scarletecros.15
On 4th July, 1280, a month before the king's visit, archbishop Wickwane came to Newstead from Scrooby. In the injunctions or, to use the word which came into habitual usage at York, the decree which he issued in consequence, he showed the spirit of strictness which habitually marked his dealings with his subjects. The summary of this document given by the late Dr. Cox in The Victoria County History of Nottinghamshire16 is of a very general character and totally omits to mention the unfavourable nature of the archbishop's comments upon the conduct of the prior and sub-prior. The opening clauses may be translated in full:
" For the worthy spreading abroad of divine worship and to the honour of the more reverent observance of holy religion,17we, William, etc., in our most careful exercise in the fear of God of the office of visitation and inquiry in the priory of Newstead on the 16th of July, have after this manner brought under the file of reformation those things which we found there to be in need of our correction and instruction;
"Decreeing in the beginning that the prior, setting aside wanton gaddings about18 in God's despite, shall constantly busy himself as a pastor in the service of God and the spiritual refreshment of his brethren; so that he and the flock entrusted to him, turning aside from evil in their present course and continually and heartily embracing good, and cleaving to God finally and firmly, may in all holiness obtain, as men innocent and upright, the heavenly and eternal reward. Provided that the same prior shall not, from carnal affection for anyone, wander headlong or by enticement from the right management of correction, but shall correct and raise up them that fall, without profane respect of persons, and shall more sedulously affect and follow after the companionship of the community,19 asking prudently and with zealous gentleness for its assent in the business of the monastery; so that henceforward unseemly bitterness of speech may be utterly eschewed. Nor shall he burthen the monastery in any way by extravagant behaviour.
"We charge, moreover, by the virtue and witness of our Saviour, that the sub-prior, though he be in somewhat weak health, shall cast off lukewarmness in his office and the lust for wandering outside the house, recalling to his mind and memory that strength is made perfect in weakness. He shall therefore take precaution and make provision in future, at the risk of his estate, that silence and the observance of the rule be entirely restored to the state that is fitting, according to the rule and our predecessors' statutes."
The rest may be summarised. The sick in the infirmary were to be provided, so far as it could be managed, and if they were really ill, with more delicate food than those in good health. Drinking was forbidden after compline, except in cases of sickness. Twice a year, or more often if anyone was suspected of harbouring private property, the carols20 of the canons were to be unlocked and examined by the prior, the sub-prior and other witnesses. Raiment was henceforth to be served out from the common tailory,21 and the distribution of money (in lieu of raiment) was to be given up. The roofs of the frater and dorter must be kept in better repair. Strangers, especially persons of low condition, were not to be suffered to wander about in the cloister buildings and precincts; and no stranger was in any case to enter the infirmary, unless he were a lawyer or a doctor. The common seal must be set to no letter without the previous approval of the whole convent, and must be kept strictly and faithfully. Two canons, Robert of Hickling and John of Tickhill, for the benefit of their morals, were confined to the cloister and the society of their brethren, with directions to the prior and president of cloister to treat them for their demerits as the rule prescribed. Alan of Casterton had left the house: when he returned to the fold, he was to receive correction as the archbishop should advise. The archbishop summarily dismissed Roger of the cellar and Geoffrey of the kitchen,22 as a nuisance to the monastery, from any office in the house. Accounts were to be rendered twice or three times a year, and the injunctions were to be read publicly at the beginning of every month.23
It may be noted that these injunctions occur in Wickwane's register together with similar decrees for the priories of Worksop, Shelford and Thurgarton, which, if compared, afford excellent examples of the variation of common forms to suit special needs. There is a strong likeness between the corrections applied to each monastery, for houses living under the same rule were naturally liable to the same faults; but it is easy to see that the causes of breaches of the rule varied according to the character of those concerned. Thus, while the prior of Worksop is merely exhorted to strictness, without any reflections on his personal character, it is clear that the prior of Shelford, like the prior of Newstead, was too intent on secular pleasures to pay much attention to the spiritual and temporal good of his house; while the prior of Thurgarton, probably a worthy man on the spiritual side, was slack and simple about temporal business and was captious in correcting his brethren. Newstead, however, was the monastery upon whose shortcomings Wickwane dilated with the most solemn emphasis. He seems to have been at Newstead on 1st August, 1280, probably to meet the king,24 and was there again on 21st September, 1283. The document of this date contains no reference to the doings of this visitation.25 Wickwane's register contains a copy of an early charter, which may be definitely dated between October, 1214, and some time in 1216, in the names of Walter, prior of Worksop, and Eustace, prior of Newstead, granting their church of Misterton to archbishop Gray26 this church was subsequently conveyed to the dean and chapter of York, who appropriated it.
Wickwane's successor, John le Romeyn, made his primary visitation of Newstead on 11th January, 1285-6,27 but no documents remain in consequence. On 8th July, 1288, a conge d' elire was obtained, following upon the resignation of prior Lexington.28 The archbishop was out of England, and, for some reason or other, his vicar-general, Henry of Newark, archdeacon of Richmond, had refused to accept the resignation, as the sub-prior and convent notified by their letters patent on ist August.29 Assent was not given to the election of the sub-cellarer, Richard of Halam, till 23rd August.30 Newark, meanwhile, had admitted Lexington's cession : it is possible that it was unwillingly tendered, and that the vicar-general had pressed a reconsideration of the matter upon the convent. When he came to scrutinise the form of Halam's election, he found canonical defects in it which were due, as often happened, to ignorance of formal procedure. Halam, however, was quite a suitable person, and Newark appointed him prior by the way of provision on 2nd September, when he returned his certificate to the chancery.31 The temporalities were restored to the new prior three days later.32
No record of Halam's doings as prior appears to remain. He resigned before 10th December, 1292, the date of the conge d' elire, and the royal assent was given to the election of Richard Grange on 4th January, 1292-3.33 The election was confirmed by the archbishop on gth January,34 and the temporalities restored on 12th January.35 His long rule lasted for thirty-one years.
Archbishop Romeyn visited Newstead a second time in August, 1293, and issued his decree from Southwell on the 19th of the month. Its most important provisions concern the former prior, John of Lexington, who was still in the convent. Romeyn speaks highly of his behaviour, after specially recommending him as a counsellor, with other elders of the house, to the prior in matters of business:
"It is our will that you shall do reverence to the same brother John as you are actually bound, both by reason that, while he was able in body, he exposed himself at his peril to heavy labour for the house and its advantage, and because he admitted very many of you to the habit and nurtured you, as a father his sons, in the sweetness of religious discipline; and also because, out of strong compassion for the scattering and the estate of your house, when it was heavily burthened with debt, he restored to us of his own will, without reservation and in kindness, a writing which he had from us granting the payment of two liveries for himself, one for J. his serving man, and one for J. his groom, with exception of the livery of the canon who was to abide with him and of sixty shillings a year which he had for the raiment of himself and his household, with the will and express condition that, to disburthen the house, we should cancel such writing and make a less ample ordinance touching the same. Wherefore you ought to hold him in most special commendation, in that he agreed to the diminishment of his own estate for your public advantage.
"We ordain therefore and, ordaining, decree that the same brother John shall have his wonted lodging with the garden, wherein henceforward there shall be no refections made nor persons be invited; and every day he shall receive from the common fund a canon's livery for himself and another for his fellow canon, who shall abide with him to say the divine office, and one for such a groom as it is seemly that he should have. He shall have also for his own needs and the pay of his groom thirty shillings sterling yearly, to be paid at three yearly terms, to wit, ten shillings at Michaelmas, ten shillings at the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, and ten shillings at the feast of Pentecost without any contradiction. But if any come to take food with him, he shall eat with them, not in his lodging, but in the frater, if he will, or in the hall."
The other ex-prior, Richard of Halam, appears to have taken his retirement as implying a general leave of absence; for he was ordered to take his place in the convent and live in cloister, until some further ordinance should be made for him.
Romeyn's other injunctions, with a few exceptions, are of a somewhat general kind. Silence was to be observed in the church and cloister buildings. No guests were to be admitted to the frater who were not of honest condition or could do the house some profit. When new raiment was distributed from the common stock, the only legitimate source, old raiment must be given back to the chamberlain. Once more, the infirm must have special diet and not be served with ordinary convent food. Secular folk were not to run about the cloister buildings and chatter; nor was the infirmary to be a place for promiscuous meals and general gatherings of all sorts of people. Accounts were to be rendered at least once a year in presence of the elders, who must announce the state of the house in public and prevent the acquisition of private property by individuals. The sale of corrodies and leases of manors were forbidden without the archbishop's licence. Carols must be examined by the prior once a year. Eight marks bequeathed by one of the Everinghams to the fabric fund of the church had been diverted by Lexington, while prior, to other uses of the house: as soon as the house was in easier circumstances, the money was to be laid out in buying a rent of eight shillings yearly for the purpose intended by the testator. The sacrist had kept a loan of twenty marks furnished by William of Markeaton, which he was to restore, under pain of canonical vengeance, to the use of the house before Christmas; and a bond for its payment was to be made to the lender by indenture between him and the sub-prior. The sacrist, moreover, was in charge of more than one office and behaved independently and haughtily towards his brethren, and when he was corrected. For this and other reasons he was to be removed from his offices and a substitute appointed until the archbishop should order otherwise. The game of dice, finally, was utterly forbidden. In case of disobedience to the decree, the archbishop threatened more serious penalties.36
Only one reference occurs to the priory in the register of Romeyn's successor, Henry of Newark, viz., the issue of letters dimissory for the reception of three novices, John of Nottingham, William of Dingley, and Thomas of Woodcroft, to minor orders, dated 15th February, 1299-1300.37 Archbishop Corbridge's register, however, contains much information about the house. On 23rd March, 1301-2, Roger Mar, sub-chanter of York, was commissioned to hold an inquiry into the state of the monastery.38 This seems to have been in consequence a visitation by the archbishop himself, after which he had received from the convent a statement of its financial position. Mar reported speedily that the house was in low water. The archbishop, finding a remedy difficult, took counsel with experienced advisers and issued, on 6th April, 1302, an interim ordinance by which he associated the prior of Felley and two of the canons of Newstead, Robert of Hickling and Thomas of Burton, with the prior in the financial administration of the house. Full accounts were to be kept and rendered once or twice a year: the unsatisfactory state of things is directly attributed to the fact that no regular accounts had been kept, in spite of the injunction which had been issued more than once. The yearly accounts were to be founded upon the statement already received by the archbishop, and were to be sent in to him. Stringent penalties were promised to the disobedient, and a concurrent mandate was sent to the prior of Felley.39
(1) Ibid. pp. 211, 212.
(2) Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1266-72, p. 163.
(3) The list of priors put up in the east walk of the cloister at Newstead in 1908 is inaccurate as regards the 13th century. Aldred (1230) is a doubtful name. Robert (1236) should be Robert (1234). John of Lexington (no date), who follows, should come after William of Mottisfont, who is wrongly dated in 1256. Whether William of Mottisfont should be William (1241) or his somewhat uncertain successor William (1267) is difficult to settle. Mottisfont was a house of Austin canons in Hampshire, from which one of these Williams may have come.
(4) Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1266-72, p. 442.
(5) Ibid. pp. 580, 584.
(6) Ibid. pp. 211, 212.
(7) Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1266-72, p. 163.
(8) The list of priors put up in the east walk of the cloister at Newstead in 1908 is inaccurate as regards the 13th century. Aldred (1230) is a doubtful name. Robert (1236) should be Robert (1234). John of Lexington (no date), who follows, should come after William of Mottisfont, who is wrongly dated in 1256. Whether William of Mottisfont should be William (1241) or his somewhat uncertain successor William (1267) is difficult to settle. Mottisfont was a house of Austin canons in Hampshire, from which one of these Williams may have come.
(9) Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1266-72, p. 442.
(10) Ibid. pp. 580, 584.
(11) Ibid. 1272-81, p. 62.
(12) Ibid. p. 334.
(13) Cal. Close Rolls. 1279-88, pp. 29, 30, 61.
(14) Cal. Pat. Rolls. 1272-81, p. 393.
(15) Cal. Close Rolls. 1279-88. p. 7.
(16) II., 115.
(17) I.e. in the special sense of religious discipline.
(18) Lasciviosis discursibus. This is the habitual meaning of discurs us, but it might also mean "discourses" in the ordinary sense.
(19) Collegii.
(20) Carols (karolae) seem in this case to be cupboards or wall-lockers. The word was applied usually to the studies partitioned off in the cloister: it is possible that these had doors of which the occupants were permitted to have private keys.
(21) Sartria.
(22) Probably two conversi or lay servants employed as subordinates in these departments.
(23) Reg. Wickwane (Surtees Soc.) pp. 143, 144.
(24) Ibid. p. 68, note 5.
(25) Ibid. p. 288.
(26) Ibid. p. 252.
(27) Reg. Romeyn (Surtees Soc.), I., 254.
(28) Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1282-91, p. 297.
(29) Reg. Romeyn I., 275, 276.
(30) Cal. Pat. Rolls., u.s. p. 300.
(31) Ibid. p. 276.
(32) Cal. Pat. Rolls., u.s. p. 300.
(33) Ibid. 1292-1301, pp. 1, 3.
(34) Reg. Romeyn I., 308.
(35) Cal. Pat. Rolls , u.s. p. 3.
(36) Reg. Romeyn I., 317-19.
(37) Ibid. II., 328.
(38) Reg. Corbndge, fo. 136d. Mr. William Brown. F.S.A., kindly lent the writer his transcripts from this register and that of archbishop Greenfield for the purposes of this article.
(39) Ibid. fo. 137.