Chapter V: Financial Difficulties (3)

The situation at the great Abbey of Shaftesbury was the same. As early as 1218 the Pope had forbidden the community to admit nuns beyond the number of a hundred because they were unable to support more or to give alms to the poor; in 1322 Bishop Mortival wrote remonstrating with them for their neglect of the Pope's order and repeating the prohibition to admit more nuns until the state of the Abbey was relieved, on the ground that the inmates of the house were far too many for its goods to support; and in 1326 (in response to a petition from the Abbess asking him to fix the statutory number) the Bishop issued an order stating that the house was capable of maintaining a hundred and twenty nuns and no more and that no novices were to be received until the community was reduced to that number[698].

Episcopal prohibitions to receive new inmates without special licence were very common, especially in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Bishops realised that overcrowding only increased the growing poverty of the nunneries. In the poor diocese of York, between 1250 and 1320, the nuns were over and over again forbidden to receive nuns, lay sisters or lay brothers without the licence of the Archbishop. Injunctions to this effect were issued to Marrick (1252), Swine (1268), Wilberfoss (1282), Nunappleton (1282, 1290, 1346), Hampole (1267, 1308, 1312), Arden (1306), Thicket (1309, 1314), Nunkeeling (1282, 1314), Nunburnholme (1318), Esholt (1318), Arthington (1318) and Sinningthwaite (1319)[699]. At Swine, after the visitation by Archbishop Walter Giffard in 1267-8, it was noted among the _comperta_

that the house of Swine cannot sustain more nuns or sisters than now
are there, inasmuch as those at present there are ill provided with
food, as is said above, and that the house nevertheless remains at
least a hundred and forty marks in debt; wherefore the lord Archbishop
decreed that no nun or sister should thenceforward be received there,
save with his consent[700].

A very severe punishment was decreed at Marrick, where the Archbishop announced that any man or woman admitted without his licence would be expelled without hope of mercy, the Prioress would be deposed and any other nuns who agreed condemned to fast on bread and water for two months (except on Sundays and festivals)[701]. In other dioceses the bishops pursued a similar policy. But it was not easy to enforce these prohibitions. Four years after Archbishop Greenfield's injunction to Hampole (1308) he was obliged to address another letter to the convent, having heard that the prioress had received

a little girl (_puellulam_), by name Maud de Dreffield, niece of the
Abbot of Roche, and another named Jonetta, her own niece, at the
instance of Sir Hugh de Cressy, her brother, that after a time they
might be admitted to the habit and profession of nuns[702].

The predicament of the Prioress is easily understood; how was she to refuse her noble brother and the Abbot of Roche? They could bring to bear far more pressure than a distant archbishop, who came upon his visitations at long intervals. Moreover the ever present need of ready money made the resistance of nuns less determined than it might otherwise have been; for a dowry in hand they were, as usual, willing to encumber themselves with a new mouth to feed throughout long years to come.

Prohibitions from increasing the number of nuns become more rare in the second half of the fourteenth and during the fifteenth century. Even when the population recovered from the havoc wrought by the Black Death, the numbers in the nunneries continued steadily to decline. Perhaps fashion had veered, conscious that the golden days of monasticism were over; more likely the growing poverty of the houses rendered them a less tempting retreat. A need for restricting the number of nuns still continued, because the decline in the revenues of the nunneries was swifter than the decline in the number of the nuns. Thus in 1440-1 Alnwick included in his injunctions to seven houses a prohibition to receive more nuns than could competently be sustained by their revenues[703], and the evidence given at his visitations shows the necessity for such a restriction. The injunction to Heynings is particularly interesting:

For as mykelle as we fonde that agayn the entente and the forbedyng of
the commune lawe there are in your saide pryorye meo nunnes and
susters professed then may be competently susteyned of the revenews of
your sayde pryorye, the exilitee of the saide revenews and charitees
duly considered, we commaunde, ordeyn, charge and enioyne yowe vnder
payne etc. etc. that fro this day forthe ye receyve no mo in to nunnes
ne sustres in your saide pryory wyth owte the advyse and assent of hus
(and) of our successours bysshope of Lincolne, so that we or thai,
wele informed of the yerely valwe of your saide revenews may ordeyn
for the nombre competente of nunnes and susters[704].

Nevertheless even at Nuncoton, one of the houses to which a similar injunction was sent, a nun gave evidence "that in her oun time there were in the habit eighteen or twenty nuns and now there are only fourteen," and the Bishop himself remarked that "ther be but fewe in couent in regarde of tymes here to fore"[705]. Everywhere this decline in the number of nuns went steadily on during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries[706]. And from the beginning of the fifteenth century there appear, here and there among visitatorial injunctions, commands of a very different nature; here and there a Bishop is found trying, not to keep down, but to keep up the number of nuns. Instead of the repeated prohibitions addressed to Romsey at the beginning of the fourteenth century, there is an injunction from William of Wykeham in 1387, ordering the Abbess to augment the number of nuns, which had fallen far below the statutory number[707]. Similarly in 1432 Bishop Gray wrote to Elstow,

since the accustomed number of nuns of the said monastery has so
lessened, that those who are now received scarcely suffice for the
chanting of divine service by night and day according to the
requirement of the rule, we will and enjoin upon you the abbess, in
virtue of obedience and under the penalties written above and beneath,
that, with what speed you can, you cause the number of nuns in the
said monastery to be increased in proportion to its resources[708].

At Studley in 1531, although the house was badly in debt, the nuns were ordered to live less luxuriously and "to augment your nombre of ladyes within the yere"[709]. In this connection Archbishop Warham's visitation of Sheppey in 1511 is significant. The Prioress, when questioned as to the number of nuns in the house, said that "she had heard there were seventeen; she knew of fourteen; she herself wished to increase the number to fourteen if she could find any who wished to enter into religion"[710]. It is an interesting reflection that Henry VIII may simply have accelerated, by his violent measure, a gradual dissolution of the nunneries through poverty and through change of fashion.

This account of the attempts of medieval bishops to prevent the nunneries from burdening themselves with inmates, beyond the number which could be supported by their revenues, leads to a consideration of the other methods employed by them to remedy the financial distress in which the nuns so often found themselves. These methods may be divided into three classes; (1) arrangements to safeguard expenditure by the head of the house and to impose a check upon autocracy, (2) arrangements to prevent rash expenditure or improvident means of raising money, by requiring episcopal consent before certain steps could be taken, and (3) if the incompetence of the nuns were such that even these restrictions were insufficient, the appointment of a male _custos_, master or guardian, to manage the finances of the house.

Arrangements for safeguarding expenditure by the head of the house were of four kinds: (1) provision for the consultation of the whole convent in important negotiations, (2) provision for the safe custody of the common seal, (3) provision for the regular presentation of accounts, and (4) the appointment of coadjutresses to the Prioress, or of two or three treasuresses, to be jointly responsible for receipts and expenditure. It was a common injunction that the whole convent, or at least "the more and sounder part of it," should be consulted in all important negotiations, such as the alienation of property, the leasing of land and farms, the cutting down of woods, the incurring of debts and the reception of novices[711]. It has already been shown that Prioresses acted autocratically in performing such business on their own initiative, and the injunction sent by Peckham to the Abbess of Romsey shows the lengths to which this independence might lead them[712]. Flemyng's injunction to Elstow in 1421-2 is typical:

That the Abbess deliver not nor demise to farm appropriated churches,
pensions, portions, manors or granges belonging to the monastery, nor
do any other such weighty business, without the express consent of the
greater and sounder part of the convent[713].

At Arthington in 1318 the Prioress was specially ordered to consult the convent in sales of wool and other business matters[714]; the Prioress of Sinningthwaite the next year was told to take counsel with the older nuns and in all writings under the common seal to employ a faithful clerk and to have the deed read, discussed and sealed in the presence of the whole convent, those who spoke against it on reasonable grounds being heard and the deed if necessary corrected[715]. Provision for the safe custody of the common seal, and for the assent of the whole convent to all writings which received its imprint, was a necessary corollary to the demand that the Prioress should consult her nuns in matters of business. Medieval superiors were constantly charged with keeping the common seal in their own custody[716] and nuns and bishops alike objected to a custom which rendered the convent responsible for any rash agreement into which the Prioress might enter. Elaborate arrangements for the custody of the seal are therefore common in visitatorial injunctions. In 1302 Bishop John of Pontoise wrote to Romsey that

whereas from the bad keeping of the common seal many evils to the
house have hitherto happened (as the Bishop has now learned from the
experience of fact), and also may happen unless wholesome remedy be
applied, three at least of the discreeter ladies shall be appointed by
the Abbess and by the larger and wiser part of the convent to keep the
seal; and when any letter shall be sealed with the common seal in the
chapter before the whole convent, it shall be read and explained in an
intelligible tongue to all the ladies, publicly, distinctly and openly
and afterwards sealed in the same chapter, (not in corners or
secretly, as has hitherto been the custom,) and signed as it is read,
so that what concerns all may be approved by all. Which done the seal
shall be replaced in the same place under the said custody[717].

These injunctions were repeated by Bishop Woodlock nine years later, but in 1387 William of Wykeham laid down much more stringent rules. The seal was to be kept securely under seven, or at least five locks and keys, of which one key was to be in the custody of the abbess and the others to remain with some of the more prudent and mature nuns, nominated by the convent; no letter was to be sealed without first being read before the whole convent in the vulgar tongue and approved by all or by the greater and wiser part of the nuns[718]. Seven locks was an unusually large number; usually three, or even two, were ordered. At Malling, where, as we have seen, Bishop Hamo of Hythe unwillingly confirmed an "insufficient and ignorant" woman as Abbess, he took the extreme step of sequestrating the common seal and forbidding it to be used without his permission[719].

Another method of keeping some control over the expenditure not only of the head or treasurers of the house, but also of the other obedientiaries, was by ordering the regular presentation of accounts before the whole convent; and in spite of the injunctions of councils and of bishops no regulation was more often broken. Bishop Stapeldon's rules, drawn up for the guidance of Polsloe and Canonsleigh, afford a good example of these injunctions, and deal with the presentation of accounts by the bailiffs and officers of the house, as well as by the Prioress:

Item, let the accounts of all your bailiffs, reeves and receivers,
both foreign and denizen, be overlooked every year, between Easter and
Whitsuntide, and between the Feast of St Michael and Christmas, after
final account rendered in the Priory before the Prioress, or before
those whom she is pleased to put in her place, and before two or three
of the most ancient and wise ladies of the said religion and house,
assigned by the Convent for this purpose; and let the rolls of the
accounts thus rendered remain in the common treasury, so that they may
be consulted, if need shall arise by reason of the death of a
Prioress, or of the death or removal of bailiffs, receivers or reeves.
Item, let the Prioress each year, between Christmas and Easter, before
the whole convent, or six ladies assigned by the convent for this
purpose, show forth the state of the house, and its receipts and
expenses, not in detail but in gross (_ne mie par menue parceles mes
par grosses sommes_), and the debts and the names of the debtors and
creditors for any sum above forty shillings. And all these things are
to be put into writing and placed in the common treasury, to the
intent that it may be seen each year how your goods increase or
decrease[720].

Bishop Pontoise ordered that at Romsey an account should be rendered twice a year and at the end thereof the state of the house should be declared by the auditors of the convent, or at least by the seniors of the convent, but finding the practice in abeyance in 1302 he ordered the account to be rendered once a year[721]; his ordinance was repeated by Bishop Woodlock in 1311[722] and by William of Wykeham in 1387[723], both of whom specially refer to the rendering of accounts by officials and obedientiaries as well as by the Abbess[724]. More frequently, especially in the smaller houses, the Bishops confined their efforts to extracting the main account from the Prioress, with the double object, so ungraciously expressed by Archbishop Lee, "that it may appere in whate state the housse standith in, and also that it may be knowen, whethur she be profitable to the house or not"[725]. How far it was a common practice that the accounts should be audited by some external person, it is impossible to say. Our only evidence lies in occasional injunctions such as those sent by Bishops Pontoise and Woodlock to Romsey, or by Bishop Buckingham to Heynings; or an occasional remark, such as the Prioress of Blackborough's excuse that she did not render account in order "to save the expenses of an auditor"[726]; or an occasional order addressed by a Bishop to some person bidding him go and examine the accounts of a house. In 1314 William, rector of Londesborough, was made _custos_ of Nunburnholme on peculiar terms, being ordered to go there three times a year and hear the accounts of the ministers and _prepositi_ of the house; his duties were thus, in effect, those of an unpaid auditor and no more[727]. It is probable that the accounts of bailiffs and other servants were audited by the _custos_, in those houses to which such an official was attached[728]; whether his own accounts were scrutinised is another matter. In 1309 Archbishop Greenfield wrote to his own receiver, William de Jafford, to audit the accounts of Nunappleton[729], and after the revelations of Margaret Wavere's maladministration at Catesby in 1445, a commission for the inspection of the accounts was granted to the Abbot of St James, Northampton[730]. In some cases the annual statement of accounts was ordered to be made before the Bishop of the diocese, as well as the nuns of the house, and in such cases he would act as auditor himself[731].

It was also a common practice for the Visitor to demand that the current balance sheet and inventory (the _status domus_) of a monastic house should be produced, together with its foundation charter and various other documents, before he took the evidence of the inmates at a visitation. The register of Bishop Alnwick's visitations shows the procedure very clearly; usually there is simply a note to the effect that the Prioress handed in the _status domus_, but at some houses the Bishop encountered difficulties. At St Michael's Stamford, in 1440, the old Prioress (who, it will be remembered, had rendered no account at all during her twelve years of office) was unable to produce a balance sheet, or one of the required certificates, and Alnwick was obliged to proceed with her examination "hiis exhibendis non exhibitis." He made shift however to extract some verbal information from her; she said that the house was in debt L20 at her installation and now only 20 marks, that it could expend L40, besides 10 marks appropriated to the office of pittancer and besides "the perquisites of the stewardship"; she said also "that they plough with two teams and they have eight oxen, seven horses, a bailiff, four serving-folk, a carter for the teams, and a man who is their baker and brewer, whose wife makes the malt"[732]. At Legbourne also the Prioress

showed the state of the house, as it now stands, as they say, but not
annual charges, etc.... She says that the house owed L43 at the time
of her confirmation and installation and now only L14; nevertheless
because the state of the house is not fully shown, she has the next
day at Louth to show it more fully[733].

At Ankerwyke also Clemence Medforde gave in an incomplete balance sheet:

she shewed a roll containing the rents of the house, which, after
deducting rent-charges, reach the total of L22. 6. 7. Touching the
stewardship of the temporalities and touching the other receipts, as
from alms and other like sources, she shews nothing, and says that at
the time of her preferment the house was 300 marks in debt, and now is
in debt only L40, and she declares some of the names of the creditors
of this sum[734].

A special demand for a complete statement of accounts was sometimes made in cases where gross maladministration was charged against a prioress. Thus in 1310 Archbishop Greenfield ordered an investigation of certain charges (unspecified, but clearly of this nature) made against the Prioress of Rosedale; her accounts,

as well as those of all bailiffs and other officials and servants who
were bound to render accounts, were to be examined and the prioress
was ordered to render to the commissioners full and complete accounts
from the time of her promotion, as well as a statement of the then
position of the house,

and a further letter from the Archbishop to the Subprioress and nuns ordered them to display the _status domus_ to the commissioners, as it was when the Prioress took office and as it was at the time he wrote. She resigned shortly afterwards, _sentiens se impotentem_; but in 1315 her successor was enjoined to draw up a certified statement showing the credit and debit accounts of the house and to send it to the Archbishop before a certain date[735]. Usually the Bishop demanded not only the account roll of a house, but also an inventory, doubtless in order that he might see whether anything had been alienated, and these inventories sometimes remain attached to the account of the visitation preserved in the episcopal register[736].

If a Prioress were found to be hopelessly incompetent or unscrupulous, but not bad enough to be deprived of her position, Bishops sometimes took the extreme measure of appointing one or more coadjutresses, to govern the house in conjunction with her; and often (even when there was no complaint against the Prioress) the nuns were ordered to elect treasuresses, to receive and disburse the income of the house from all sources. One of the _comperta_ at the visitation of Swine in 1268 was to the effect that

the sums of money which are bestowed in charity upon the convent, for
pittances and garments and other necessary uses, are received by the
Prioress; which ought the rather to be in the custody of two honest
nuns and distributed to those in need of them, and in no wise
converted to other uses[737].

At Nunkeeling in 1314 it was ordained that all money due to the house should be received by two bursars, elected by the convent[738], and in 1323 Bishop Cobham of Worcester made a similar injunction at Wroxall, that two sisters were to be chosen by the chapter, to do the business of the convent in receiving rents, etc.[739] Elaborate arrangements for the appointment of treasuresses were made by Bishop Bokyngham at Elstow and at Heynings, in 1388 and 1392 respectively, and by Bishop Flemyng at Elstow in 1421-2[740]. It will suffice here to quote the much earlier arrangement made by Archbishop Peckham at Usk in 1284:

"Since," he wrote, "lately visiting you by our metropolitan right, we
found you in a most desolate state (_multipliciter desolatas_),
desiring to avoid such desolation in future, we order, by the counsel
of discreet men, that henceforth two provident and discreet nuns be
elected by the consent of the prioress and community; into whose hands
all the money of the house shall be brought, whether from granges, or
from appropriated churches, or coming from any other offerings, to be
carefully looked after by their consent. And as well the Prioress as
the other nuns shall receive (money for) all necessary expenses from
their hands and in no manner otherwise. And we will that these nuns be
called Treasuresses, which Treasuresses thrice in the year, to wit in
Lent, Whitsuntide and on the Feast of St Michael, shall render account
before the Prioress for the time being and before five or six elders
of the chapter."

In addition they were to have a priest as _custos_ or administrator of their temporal and spiritual possessions[741].

The appointment of a coadjutress to the head of a house in the administration of its affairs is of the same nature. The appointment of coadjutresses was a favourite device with Archbishop Peckham, to check an extravagant or incapable head. At the great abbey of Romsey three coadjutresses were appointed, without whose testimony and advice the Abbess was to undertake no important business[742]. At Wherwell one coadjutress only, a certain J. de Ver, was appointed in 1284, and the same year the Archbishop wrote to his commissary on the subject of the Priory of the Holy Sepulchre, Canterbury:

Since by the carelessness and neglect of the Prioress the goods of the
house are said to be much wasted, we wish you to assign to her two
coadjutresses, to wit Dame Sara and another of the more honest and
wise ladies; but let neither be Benedicta, who is said to have greatly
offended the whole community by her discords.

Here, as at Usk, Peckham appointed in addition a master to look after their affairs[743]. At the disorderly house of Arthington Isabella Couvel was in 1312 associated with the Prioress Isabella de Berghby, but the Prioress seems to have resented the appointment and promptly ran away[744]. In the Exeter diocese Bishop Stapeldon made Joan de Radyngton coadjutress to Petronilla, Abbess of Canonsleigh in 1320[745]; and in the diocese of Bath and Wells Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury in 1335 appointed two coadjutresses to Cecilia de Draycote, Prioress of White Hall, Ilchester, and in 1351, when his visitation had revealed many scandals at Cannington, including the simoniacal admission of nuns and unauthorised sale of corrodies by the Prioress, the Bishop, instead of depriving her "tempered the rigour of the law with clemency" and appointed two coadjutresses without whose consent she was to do nothing[746]. Bishop Alnwick made use of this method of controlling a superior in several cases where serious mismanagement had come to light at his visitation[747], and other instances of this method of controlling the administration of a superior might be multiplied from the episcopal registers.

The appointment of treasuresses and of coadjutresses and the provision for due consultation of the chapter, custody of the common seal and presentment of accounts had the purpose of safeguarding the nuns against reckless expenditure or maladministration by the head of the house, and, where the injunctions of the Visitor were carried out, such precautions doubtless proved of use. Some further check was, however, necessary, to safeguard the nuns against themselves, and to prevent the whole convent from rash sales of land, alienation of goods and from all those other improvident devices for obtaining ready money, to which they were so much addicted. The Bishop often attempted to impose such a check by forbidding certain steps to be taken without his own consent. The business for which an episcopal licence was necessary usually comprised the alienation of land or its lease for life or for a long term of years, the sale of any corrodies or payment of any fees or pensions, and (as has already been pointed out) the reception of new inmates, who might overcrowd the house and thus impose a strain upon its revenues[748]. Other business, such as the sale of woods, was sometimes included[749]. The prohibition of corrodies, fees and pensions was doubtless intended to protect the nuns against the exactions of patrons and other persons, who claimed the right to pension off relatives or old servants by this means, as well as against their own improvidence in selling such doles for inadequate sums of ready money. As typical of such prohibitions may be quoted Alnwick's injunction (given in two parts) to Harrold in 1442-3:

Also we enioyne yow, prioresse, and your sucessours vndere payne of
pry[v]acyone and perpetuelle amocyone fro your and thaire astate and
dygnyte that fro hense forthe ye ne thai selle, graunte ne gyfe to ony
persone what euer thai be any corrody, lyverye, pensyone or anuyte to
terme of lyve, certeyn tyme or perpetuelly, but if ye or thai fyrste
declare the cause to vs or our successours bysshoppes of Lincolne, and
in that case have our specyalle licence or of our saide successours
and also the fulle assent of the more hole parte of your couent. Also
we enioyne yow prioresse and your successours vndere the payne of
priuacyone afore saide that ye ne thai selle, gyfe, aleyne, ne felle
no grete wode or tymbere, saue to necessary reparacyone of your place
and your tenaundryes, but if ye and thai hafe specyalle licence ther
to, of vs or our successours bysshoppes of Lincolne and the cause
declared to vs or our successours[750].

An exceptionally conscientious Bishop would sometimes send even more full and elaborate instructions to a nunnery on the management of its property, and examples of such minute regulations are to be found in the injunctions sent to Elstow Abbey at different times by Bishop Bokyngham (1387)[751], Archbishop Courtenay (1389)[752] and Bishop Flemyng (1421-2)[753]. Bishop Bokyngham also sent very full injunctions to Heynings in 1392 and these may be quoted to illustrate the care which the Visitors sometimes took to set a house upon a firm financial footing, so far as it was possible to do so by the mere giving of good advice:

The Prioress, indeed, shall attempt to do nothing without the counsel
of two nuns, elected by the convent to assist her in the government
of the aforesaid priory, both within and without; and when any
important business has to be done concerning the state of the priory,
the same Prioress shall expound it to the convent in common, and shall
settle and accomplish it according to their counsel, to the advantage
of the aforesaid house. And each year the receiver shall display fully
in chapter to the convent in common the state of the house and an
account of the administration of its goods, clearly and openly
written.... Item we command and ordain that the common seal and
muniments of the house be faithfully kept under three locks, of which
one key shall be in the custody of the prioress, another of the
subprioress and the third of a nun elected for this purpose by the
convent.... Item we enjoin and command that two receivers be each year
elected by the chapter, who shall receive all money whatsoever,
forthcoming from the churches, manors or rents of the said priory, the
which two elected (receivers), together with the Prioress and with an
auditor deputed in the name of the convent, shall hear and receive in
writing the computation, account and reckoning of all bailiffs without
the precincts of the house, who receive any moneys, or any other goods
whatsoever in the name of the said convent, from churches, manors or
rents. And afterwards the same two elected receivers, before the
Prioress and two other of the greater, elder and more prudent nuns,
elected to this end by the convent, shall faithfully render at least
twice every year the account and computation of all the receipts and
expenses of the same (receivers) within the precincts of the aforesaid
house, to the said Prioress and two sisters elected and deputed in the
name of the convent. And when this has been done, we will and enjoin
that twice in every year the Prioress of the aforesaid house show the
whole state of the aforesaid house in chapter, the whole convent being
assembled on a certain day for this purpose. And we will that the roll
of the aforesaid balance sheet, or paper of account or reckoning,
remain altogether in the archives of the aforesaid house, that the
prioress and the elder and more prudent (nuns) of the aforesaid house
may be able easily to learn the state of the same in future years and
whenever any difficulty may arise. And let bailiffs be constituted of
sufficient faculties and of commendable discretion and fidelity, the
best that can be found, and let them similarly render due account
every year before the same prioress and convent.... Furthermore we
will that the Prioress and convent of the aforesaid house do not sell
or concede in perpetuity or grant for a term corrodies, stipends,
liveries or pensions to clerics or to laymen, save with our licence
first sought and obtained[754].

At Elstow Bokyngham gave a more detailed injunction about the appointment of bailiffs and other officers.

Let the Abbess for the government of the aforesaid monastery have
faithful servants, in especial for the government and supervision
without waste of the husbandry and the manors and stock and woods of
the aforesaid house; the which the Abbess herself is bound, if she
can, to supervise each year in person, or else let her cause them to
be industriously supervised by others; and to look after the external
and internal business of the house and to prosecute it outside let her
appoint also some man of proven experience and of mature age[755].

The purpose of those regulations and restrictions which have hitherto been described, was to assist the nuns in managing their own finances. But the nuns were never very good business women, and they were moreover in theory confined to the precincts of the cloister, so that it was difficult for them to manage their own business, unless they imperilled their souls by excursions into the world. During the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, therefore, a common method of extricating them from their difficulties was by appointing a male guardian, known in different places as Custos, Prior, Warden or Master, to supervise the temporal affairs of a house and to look after its finances. In the early history of Cistercian nunneries each house was governed jointly by a Prior and Prioress and in some cases a few canons are found holding the temporalities jointly with the nuns. Of these Cistercian houses Mr Hamilton Thompson says:

As in the case of the Gilbertine priories, such nunneries are rarely
found outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire: they were under the bishop's
supervision and their connexion with the order of Citeaux was nominal.
Their geographical distribution, as well as the fact that St Gilbert
attempted to affiliate his nunneries to the Cistercian order and
modelled them upon its rule, provokes the suspicion that such houses
were a result of the growth of the Gilbertine order, and, if not
intended to become double houses, were at any rate imitations of the
corporations of nuns at Sempringham and elsewhere[756].

References to canons occur in connection with the houses of Stixwould, Heynings and Legbourne in Lincolnshire[757], Catesby in Northamptonshire[758] and Swine in Yorkshire[759]. The _comperta_ of Archbishop Giffard's visitation of Swine in 1267-8 show that the house at that time closely resembled the double houses belonging to the Gilbertine order.

_Item compertum est_, that the two windows, by which the food and
drink of the canons and lay brothers are conveyed (to them), are not
at all well guarded by the two nuns who are called janitresses,
inasmuch as suspicious conversations are frequently held there between
the canons and lay brothers on the one hand and the nuns and sisters
on the other. _Item compertum est_ that the door which leads to the
church is not at all carefully kept by a certain secular boy, who
permits the canons and lay brothers to enter indiscriminately in the
twilight, that they may talk with the nuns and sisters, the which door
was wont to be guarded diligently by a trusty and energetic lay
brother.

It has already been described how the ill-management of the canons and lay brothers ("who dissipate and consume, under colour of guardianship, the goods outside, which were wont to be committed to the guardianship of one of the nuns") caused the nuns to go short in clothes and food and even to be reduced to drinking water instead of beer twice a week, though the canons and their friends "did themselves very well" (_satis habundanter et laute procurantur_)[760]. In most cases this double constitution of nuns and canons was in abeyance in Cistercian houses before the fourteenth century, though a prior and canons are mentioned at Stixwould in 1308[761] and Richard de Staunton, "canon of Catesby," was made master of that house as late as 1316[762].

In other houses where no trace of canons has survived there are often references to the resident Prior, especially in the dioceses of York and Lincoln, and this official is sometimes found in Benedictine houses (e.g. Godstow[763], St Michael's Stamford[764], and King's Mead, Derby[765]). He seems to have acted as senior chaplain and confessor to the nuns as well as supervising their financial business. In cases where a nunnery was in some sort of dependence upon an abbey or priory of monks, it is usual to find a religious of that house acting as _custos_ of the nuns. At St Michael's Stamford, for instance, the abbots of Peterborough had the right of nominating a resident prior, subject to the approval of the Bishop of Lincoln, and the office was often held by a monk of Peterborough[766]. Similarly a monk of St Albans acted as _custos_ of Sopwell[767] and a canon of Newhouse dwelt at Brodholme "to say daily mass for the sisters and to overlook their temporalities"[768]. The joint rule of Cistercian houses by a Prior and Prioress seems to have died out in most cases by the end of the thirteenth century, but it was customary for some secular or regular cleric to be appointed in most of the small and poor houses of York and Lincoln to look after their business[769]. Usually the _custos_ appointed was the vicar or rector of some neighbouring parish. Archbishop Romeyn, for instance, placed Sinningthwaite, Wilberfoss and Arthington under the guardianship of the rectors of Kirk Deighton, Sutton-on-Derwent and Kippax respectively, and he made the vicars of Thirkleby and Bossall successively masters of Moxby[770]. Bishop Dalderby of Lincoln appointed neighbouring rectors and vicars to be masters of Legbourne, Godstow, Rowney, Sewardsley, Fosse, Delapre, St Leonard's Grimsby, and Nuncoton[771].

Sometimes, on the other hand, canons or monks of religious houses in the vicinity were charged with looking after the affairs of nunneries. Swine was managed by Robert de Spalding, a canon of the Premonstratensian house of Croxton, and in 1289-90 Archbishop Romeyn wrote remonstrating with the Abbot of Croxton for recalling him, and begging that he might be allowed to continue at Swine, "cum idem vester canonicus proficuos labores ibidem impenderit ad relevacionem probabilem depressionis notorie dicte domus"; but the capable Robert was not allowed to return and in 1290 John Bustard, canon of St Robert's Knaresborough, was appointed in his place. John was not a success and the next year the Abbot removed him; in 1295 Robert of Spalding became master again and in 1298 the rector of Londesborough was appointed[772]. At Catesby in 1293 the office of master was held by a certain Robert de Wardon, a canon of Canons Ashby, who had apparently left the nuns and gone back to his own house, to the great detriment of the nunnery, for Bishop Sutton wrote in 1293 to the Prior of Canons Ashby, bidding him send back the truant[773]. Similarly a canon of Wellow is found as warden of St Leonard's Grimsby in 1232 and in 1303[774], a monk of Whitby as guardian of Handale and Basedale in 1268[775], a canon of Newburgh at Arden in 1302[776] and a canon of Lincoln at Heynings in 1291: concerning the latter Bishop Sutton wrote to the nuns that since, "because of private business and various other impediments he is prevented from looking after your business as much as it requires, the vicar of Upton your neighbour is to look after your affairs in his absence," and in 1294 he was definitely replaced by the rector of Blankney[777]. It is clear from this letter that the masters of nunneries could be non-resident and this was no doubt usually the case when the office was held by the rector of a neighbouring parish. Indeed sometimes the same man would be master of more than one nunnery; as in the case of the monk of Whitby mentioned above. It was probably rare after the beginning of the fourteenth century for a _custos_ to reside at a nunnery, as the early Cistercian priors had done[778].

The appointment of _custodes_ to manage the finances of nunneries was a favourite policy with Archbishop Peckham, doubtless because it facilitated the enforcement of strict enclosure upon the nuns. At Godstow there was already at the time a master, but Peckham also gave the custody of Davington to the vicar of Faversham in 1279, and that of Holy Sepulchre, Canterbury, to the vicar of Wickham in 1284, while at Usk in 1284 he ordered the nuns to have "some senior priest circumspect in temporal and in spiritual affairs to be, with the consent of the diocesan, master of all your goods, internal and external, temporal and spiritual"[779]. At other times a _custos_ would be appointed to meet a particular difficulty when the financial state of a house had become specially weak. About 1303, for instance, a monk of Peterborough was made for a season special warden of St Michael's, Stamford, "with full powers over the temporalities and of adjudicating and ordering all temporal matters both within and without the convent as he should think profitable"; the appointment is specially interesting because there was at the time a resident prior at St Michael's and the "spiritual disposition of all things concerning the house" is reserved to this prior and to the prioress[780]. A more serious crisis occurred at the Priory of White Hall, Ilchester, which was evidently in a disorderly condition at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In 1323 Bishop John of Drokensford wrote to Henry of Birlaunde, rector of Stoke and to John de Herminal, announcing that the Prioress, Alice de Chilterne, was defamed of incontinence with a chaplain and had so mismanaged and turned to her own nefarious uses the revenues of the house that her sisters were compelled to beg their bread; she had however submitted herself to the Bishop, but as public affairs called him to London and as he did not wish to leave the nunnery unprovided for, he committed the custody to these two men, ordering them to administer the necessities of life to the Prioress and sisters, according to the means of the house, until his return[781]. Some ten years later Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury similarly gave the custody of White Hall, Ilchester, to the rectors of Limington and St John's Ilchester[782]. The nunnery of Barrow, near Bristol, was also in a disorderly condition; in 1315 John of Drokensford wrote to the Prioress ordering her to leave the management of secular matters to a _custos_ appointed by him, and the same day appointed William de Sutton; and in 1324-5, when he had been obliged to remove the Prioress Joanna Gurney, he committed the custody of the house to William, rector of Backwell, ordering him to do the best he could with the advice of the subprioress and one of the nuns[783]. More often sheer financial distress, rather than moral disorder, was the reason for which a _custos_ was appointed to a house. At St Sepulchre's Canterbury, the rector of Whitstable was made _custos_, "by reason of the miserable want and extreme poverty of the said house" (1359) and for the same reason another secular cleric received the "supervision, custody or administration" of the same house in 1365[784]. In 1366 Thomas Hatfield, Bishop of Durham,

pitying the miserable state of St Bartholomew's at Newcastle-on-Tyne,
both as to spirituals and temporals, and dreading the immediate ruin
thereof, unless some speedy remedy should be applied, committed it to
the care of Hugh de Arnecliffe, priest in the church of St Nicholas in
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, strictly enjoining the prioress and nuns to be
obedient to him in every particular and trusting to his prudence to
find relief for the poor servants of Christ here, in their poverty and
distress.[785]

Sometimes the nuns themselves begged for a _custos_ to assist them, in terms which show that they found the management of their own finances too much for them. At Godstow in 1316 the King was obliged, at the request of the Abbess and nuns, to take the Abbey into his special protection "on account of its miserable state," and he appointed the Abbot of Eynsham and the Prior of Bicester as keepers, ordering them to pay the nuns a certain allowance and to apply the residue to the discharging of their debts[786]. Similarly in 1327 the Prioress and nuns of King's Mead, Derby, represented themselves as much reduced, and begged the King to take the house into his special protection, granting the custody of it to Robert of Alsop and Simon of Little Chester, until it should be relieved. Three months later Edward III granted it protection for three years and appointed Robert of Alsop and Simon of Little Chester custodians, who, after due provision for the sustenance of the prioress and nuns, were to apply the issues and rents to the discharge of the liabilities of the house and to the improvement of its condition[787]. Some interesting evidence in this connection was given during Alnwick's visitations of the diocese of Lincoln. When Clemence Medforde, the Prioress of Ankerwyke, was asked whether she had observed the Bishop's injunctions, she answered

that such injunctions were, and are, well observed as regards both her
and her sisters in effect and according to their power, except the
injunction whereby she is bound to supply to her sisters sufficient
raiment for their habits, and as touching the non-observance of that
injunction she answers that she cannot observe it, because of the
poverty and insufficiency of the resources of the house, which have
been much lessened by reason of the want of a surveyor or steward
(_yconomus_). Wherefore she besought my lord's good-will and
assistance that he would deign with charitable consideration to make
provision of such steward or director.... And when these nuns, all and
several, had been so examined and were gathered together again in the
chapter house, the said Depyng (the Visitor) gave consideration to two
grievances, wherein the priory and nuns alike suffer no small damage,
the which, as he affirmed, were worthy of reform above the rest of
those that stood most in need of reform, to wit the lack of raiment
for the habit, of bedclothes and of a steward or seneschal, but in
these matters, as he averred, he could not apply a remedy for the
nonce without riper deliberation and consultation with my lord[788].

Similarly the old Prioress of St Michael's Stamford, when asking for the appointment of two nuns as treasuresses, complained "that she herself is impotent to rule temporalities, nor have they an industrious man to supervise these and to raise and receive (external payments)"; another nun said that "they have not a discreet layman to rule their temporalities," and a third also complained of the lack of a "receiver"[789]. At Gokewell, on the other hand, the Prioress said "that the rector of Flixborough is their steward (_yconomus_) and he looks after the temporalities and not she"; he was evidently a true friend to the nuns, for she said "that the house does not exceed L10 in rents and is greatly in debt to the rector of Flixborough"[790]. The terms of appointment of _custodes_ often specify the inexpertness of the nuns, or their need for someone to supervise the management of their estates[791]. Perhaps the fullest set of instructions to a _custos_ which have survived are those given by Archbishop Melton to Roger de Saxton, rector of Aberford, in making him _custos_ of Kirklees in 1317:

Trusting in your industry, we by tenour of the present (letters) give
you power during our pleasure to look after, guard and administer the
temporal possessions of our beloved religious ladies, the Prioress and
convent of Kirklees in our diocese, throughout their manors and
buildings (_loca_) wherever these be, and to receive and hear the
account of all servants and ministers serving in the same, and to make
those payments (_allocandum_) which by reason ought to be made, as
well as to remove all useless ministers and servants and to appoint in
their place others of greater utility, and to do all other things
which shall seem to you to be to the advantage of the place, firmly
enjoining the said prioress and convent, as well as the sisters and
lay brothers of the house, in virtue of holy obedience, that they
permit you freely to administer in all and each of the aforesaid
matters[792].

It must have been of great assistance to the worried and incompetent nuns to have a reliable guardian thus to look after their temporal affairs, and it is difficult to understand why the practice of having a resident prior died out at the Cistercian houses and at Benedictine houses (e.g. St Michael's, Stamford) which had such an official in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Even the appointment of neighbouring rectors as _custodes_ of nunneries in the York and Lincoln dioceses ceased, apparently, to be common by the middle of the fourteenth century[793]. It is a curious anomaly that this remedy should have been applied less and less often during the very centuries when the nunneries were becoming increasingly poor, and stood daily in greater need of external assistance in the management of their temporal affairs.