HOUSES OF BENEDICTINE MONKS
1. THE PRIORY OF MONK BRETTON
The priory of Monk Bretton was founded
early in the reign of Henry II by Adam Fitz
Suain for monks of the Cluniac order. (fn. 1) He gave
to God, St. Mary Magdalene of Lund, and
Adam, at that time Prior of Bretton, and the
monks there, the whole of Bretton with some
mills and other property. (fn. 2) From the mention
of an existing prior, this foundation charter must
be later in date than the letter which the
Prior of La Charité-sur-Loire addressed to him
as his 'dear and special friend and benefactor,'
and in which he granted leave for the founder to
choose a prior and other monks to form the
convent from St. John's Pontefract and other
houses of the Cluniac order in England. (fn. 3) On
the strength apparently of this Pontefract claimed
jurisdiction over Monk Bretton almost as if it
were a cell only, and not merely, as seems to
have been contemplated, an independent daughter
house.
In his letter to Adam Fitz Suain, the Prior
of La Charité, to whose house Pontefract was
affiliated, had granted that the monks of Bretton
should freely elect their prior, but the Prior of
Pontefract if requested by the convent of Bretton
should attend the chapter, with the patron, for
the election.
These relations between Pontefract and Bretton led to disputes and ill feeling, and Pope
Alexander IV (fn. 4) in 1255 issued a mandate
directing the Dean and Archdeacon of Lincoln
to make inquiry and decide between the two
houses. The monks of Pontefract had, rightly
or wrongly, regarded Monk Bretton as a cell
of their house, and the Prior of Pontefract had
claimed a right to the appointment of the Prior
of Monk Bretton, which Monk Bretton had
refused. As a consequence the sub-prior of
Monk Bretton reported in 1267 that this convent had been without a prior for fifteen years,
the monks claiming the free election of their
prior, and the Prior of Pontefract claiming to
present to the post, and actually presenting
Adam de Northampton, whom the daughter
house refused to accept. (fn. 5) An agreement was
arrived at in 1269 as follows: Monk Bretton
was to pay 20s. a year to Pontefract ad pitantiam,
and the monks of Bretton were to have the free
election of their prior and were to be free from all
kind of subjection or obedience to Pontefract.
When, however, the monks of Bretton elected
a prior they were to send for the Prior of
Pontefract to Pontefract, and not elsewhere, that
the elect might be installed by him. If the
prior was not at Pontefract, the Prior of Bretton
was to be installed by the sub-prior, or third
Prior of Pontefract, but the Prior and convent
of Pontefract were to have no right of objecting
to the elected Prior of Bretton. The Prior and
convent of Pontefract were to obtain a confir
mation of this order by the Priors and convents
of Cluny and La Charité and the monks of
Bretton then at Cluny were to be set free and
return to Bretton.
Either the Prior and convent of Pontefract
failed to leave Bretton to itself, or the monks of
the latter house decided that their independence
could only be secured by a total and complete
severance of their house from the Cluniac order.
For at a visitation of the English Cluniac houses
made in 1279 (fn. 6) by order of the Abbot of Cluny
the visitors reported as follows, regarding Monk
Bretton:—
On Monday preceding the feast of the Nativity of
the Blessed Virgin (8 September) we arrived at the
priory of Monk Bretton, accompanied by certain
officers of the sheriff . . .
Knocking at the outer gate, we demanded admittance in the name of our Lord Abbot, on whose
service we had come to carry out the visitation of the
house. To this we received no answer. Again and
again the knocking was repeated, but to our continued
demand for admission the portal-gate remained persistently closed. A certain person, however, whose
name was William de Riole, seemed to be acting for
the prior and sub-prior and the rest of the convent,
on this occasion, and upon him, in presence of all,
we proceeded to pass sentence of excommunication;
which being done publicly and in writing, we took
our departure. The same day we immediately reported the matter to the king, and to the sheriff, and
in due course received the following commands and
instructions:—By the king we were ordered to take
into custody the above William de Riole; and the
sheriff directed us to force or make good our entrance
into the priory. As for myself, I quitted the spot,
but left the Prior of Montacute to await the necessary
warrants and summonses. On their arrival we returned
to Monk Bretton Priory, accompanied by the bailiff
and other sheriff's officers. On entering the priory,
he at once proceeded to the church, and knocked at
the door of the chapter-house. Certain of the
inmates, habited in the dress of the order, were there;
some were sitting in the cloisters. The visiting
prior then entered the chapter-house, in order to
carry out the duties of his office, but. not a single
monk appeared, and being asked the reason, the
fraternity affirmed, one and all, that they had no
intention of attending; their prior was away, and
they would not attend without him. Upon this
the Prior of Montacute, in presence of the entire
assemblage, proceded to pass sentence of excommunication upon the said William, the prior, the sub-prior
and the whole contumacious community, proclaiming
them so excommunicated on the part of the Abbot of
Cluny, and revoking at the same time the compact or
agreement which was in existence between the priories,
declaring it null and void. Upon this the Prior of
Pontefract withdrew at once, without either eating or
drinking or holding any further communication between them. It will be imperative to interfere very
seriously in this matter, and consider what measures
are to be adopted.
This revolt was followed up at the beginning
of the following year by the subjection of the
monks as Benedictines to Archbishop Wickwane.
It has hitherto escaped attention that within
just a century after its foundation the priory of
Monk Bretton ceased to be a Cluniac house,
and remained Benedictine, pure and simple, till
the Dissolution. Four months after the refusal
of the convent to respond to the demands of the
Prior of Montacute as Cluniac visitor, Archbishop
Wickwane visited the house, and on 4 January
1280-1, (fn. 7) was received by William de Richale,
the prior, and the ' whole concourse' of the
convent in the chapter-house, where the prior,
sub-prior, and all the monks, individually,
promised canonical obedience to the archbishop
and embodied their vows in a deed, signed and
sealed by the prior with his seal, the seal of the
convent being also appended unanimi conventis nostri
assensu. The archbishop then proceeded with
his visitation, and those things which he found
worthy of correction he expounded ' vive vocis
oraculo eisdem, medicinaliter corrigenda.'
From this time forward special emphasis seems
to be laid on the fact that Monk Bretton was a
Benedictine priory, both in the Papal Letters
and also in the Archiepiscopal Registers. An
attempt was, however, made to re-assert jurisdiction over the house for the Abbot of Cluny
in 1289-90, (fn. 8) which Archbishop Romanus
strenuously contested, with the result that afterwards no more seems to have been done in the
way of trying to force Monk Bretton to continue
its connexion with the order of Cluny. The
house continued, however, to pay £1 yearly to
the priory of Pontefract up to the time of the
dissolution of the latter. (fn. 9) Archbishop Romanus
wrote to Henry, Earl of Lincoln, that certain
persons of the Cluniac order were endeavouring
to hold visitacionem absurdam in the monastery
of Monk Bretton which belonged to his jurisdiction, and in which he and his predecessors had
hitherto been in full and peaceable possession of
visiting and correcting. (fn. 10) The archbishop called
upon the earl not in any way to aid the
Cluniacs on this occasion. This letter to the
Earl of Lincoln was accompanied by another (fn. 11)
to the Dean of Doncaster, and Mgr. William
de Stokes, vicar of Felkirk, enjoining them to
repair to Monk Bretton, and the doors of the
monastery being closed against such presumers,
they were to warn them when they arrived to
retract their error and withdraw. Otherwise
they were to denounce these disturbers solemnly
excommunicate.
What actually took place does not appear, but
on 10 May 1290 (fn. 12) the archbishop gave Brother
William, Prior of the monastery of Monk Bretton, ' nobis et ecclesie nostre Ebor' immediate
subjectum et ab obediencia ordinis Cluneacensis
exemptum,' who for long time had gained praise
within and without the diocese for his religious
life and for a long period had borne rule in
the monastery, a general letter of commendation
to those whom he might visit. There is
another letter dated 29 May (fn. 13) from the archbishop to the king on behalf of the prior,
who is again said to be exempt from Cluniac
jurisdiction and directly subject to the archbishop. The archbishop informed the king that
William de Richale ' non est fugitivus aut vagabundus,' and he prayed the king to revoke a
letter sent to the Sheriff of York, on behalf of
the Cluniae order, so that neither the monastery
nor the archbishop's jurisdiction over it should be
weakened. The next information is the resignation of Prior Richale on 21 September 1291, (fn. 14)
and the confirmation in the chapter-house of
Monk Bretton of William de Eboraco, one of
the monks, elected in his stead.
In 1293 (fn. 15) the archbishop held a visitation of
the house and sent on 6 September his decretum
thereon. The prior was not to be an acceptor
of persons, and was to remember that the goods
of the house were common property. The
brethren were to be punished for their faults, but
not in the presence of laymen. The cellarer,
when not occupied with business inside or
outside the house, was to sleep in the dormitory,
and be present at matins and say mass. Brother
William de Waddeworth, whose fault is not
stated, was to be sent to Whitby, (fn. 16) to undergo a
penance there. The sub-cellarer was to abstain
from upbraiding the brethren, and to behave
more respectfully (honestius) than he was wont to
do to the archbishop. If any monks were incorrigible, the prior was to inform the archbishop.
Brothers Roger de Kelsey, Walter de Holgate,
and Nicholas de Pontefracto, were to undergo
their penances devoutly. It is not said what
faults they had been guilty of, but Roger de
Kelsey was not to go out of the cloister for a
year, and was to take the last place in the
convent. Walter de Holgate was not to go out
for half a year, and was to be the third last
(tercius ultimus) in the convent, during that time.
Nicholas de Pontefracto was to keep his place in
the convent, but was not to go out for a
quarter of a year; and on Wednesdays and
Fridays all three were to fast on bread, ale and
vegetables.
Richard de Halghton succeeded William de
Eboraco as prior in November 1304. (fn. 17) His
rule, though a long one, did not end happily.
On 2 July 1323 (fn. 18) Archbishop Melton wrote
to John de Collyngham, sub-prior, and John
Boyle, precentor of the monastery, as to
the wasteful expenditure of their house, and
directed them to demand, in his name, from
their prior, the keys of the treasury and of other
buildings, to lock up all the property belonging
to the house, in the sight of three or four of the
older and wiser of their brethren. He further
enjoined that all the money for their wool or
any other money coming to them was to be
safely kept in the manner above noted, so that
the prior meantime could not lay hands upon it.
Boyle appears to have been also one of the
bursars, and on 16 July (fn. 19) the archbishop wrote
that it was reported that brother John Boyle
was not of sufficient industry to hold the office
of bursar, and if this were so, they were to
remove him, and choose another better fitted for
the office. The archbishop also intimated his
intention of visiting the monastery, when other
matters would be corrected. There is no record
of the proceedings at such a visitation, but on
22 August (fn. 20) the archbishop deposed the prior,
charging him with wasting the goods of the
monastery and perjury committed in the chancery
court of the king, by pledging the priory in
£ 1,000 to Godfrey de Staynton and William
Scot, and other misdeeds. Richard de Halghton's deposition was followed by the election of
his successor, (fn. 21) at which twelve monks recorded
their votes, the late prior not being one of them.
William de Went received five votes, and
William de Staynton three. The archbishop
quashed the double election of William de Went
and William de Staynton, made in discordia.
As, however, most voted for William de Went,
the archbishop on 26 September appointed him
to the office. (fn. 22)
Richard de Halghton after his deposition left
the house for a time, which accounts for his
vote not being recorded at the election. He
returned, however, shortly afterwards, absque
magno strepitu, as the archbishop described it
in a letter to the prior and convent dated
20 November 1323. (fn. 23) He was to have his
former order as a monk, and if he conducted
himself well and served God laudably, the
archbishop intended, at the instance of the
queen and others, to provide more generously
for him. On 3 January following (fn. 24) the archbishop directed that Richard de Halghton was
to have a separate chamber within the monastery
and one of the monks as his chaplain, according
to the ordinance of the prior, as well as a double
portion of allowance of the food of a monk,
20s. a year pro speciebus and clothes from the
convent, as well as a portion for a servant.
The troubles of the house did not, however,
cease, although unfortunately little more than
hints are given as to what was going on. Pope
John XXII issued a mandate, dated in November
1326, (fn. 25) to the Prior of Thornholme to go to the
Benedictine monastery of Bretton and inquire as
to a charge by Henry de Sandal, one of the
monks, against William de Went the prior, of
dilapidation and other crimes. The prior was
charged with having made William Bassett, an
apostate Friar Preacher, sub-prior, against the will
and protest of the monks. Robert de Langestoft,
who was excommunicate and a forger of papal
letters, had been made cellarer, and the monks
who would give evidence on these points had
been shut up, and in the archbishop's absence
the prior had obtained favour by gifts to nobles
and powerful men of the city and diocese. A
report was to be sent to the pope and the prior
cited before him. What report was sent is not
known, but William Bassett, the apostate Friar
Preacher, was no credit to Monk Bretton and
caused a great deal of trouble. On 20 August
1331 (fn. 26) Archbishop Melton sent him to Whitby
for punishment as a sower of discord in the
convent, and as having admitted the sin of
incontinence. In his letter to Whitby the archbishop said that Bassett had been found guilty
de excessibus enormibus. He returned after a while
to Monk Bretton, and in 1340 made complaint
of the excessive correction from which he had
suffered in the monastery of Monk Bretton. (fn. 27)
The complaint against William de Went cannot
have been substantiated, for he retained office
for the next seven years and resigned in July
1338. (fn. 28)
In 1380-1 the prior was taxed at 27s. 0¼d.,
and there were ten other monks each taxed at
3s. 4d. (fn. 29)
In 1404 another complaint reached Rome
from the convent itself against its prior, and on
19 April 1404 (fn. 30) Boniface IX issued a mandate
to the Archbishop of York to summon William,
Benedictine Prior of Monk Bretton, and if he
found, as the recent petition of the convent contained, that he had dilapidated and alienated its
goods and continued to do so, to deprive him,
license the convent to elect another prior, and
confirm the election. Apparently the complaint of the convent was substantiated, for on
20 December 1404 (fn. 31) Archbishop Scrope confirmed the election of John de Crofton as prior,
vice William de Ardesley resigned.
Monk Bretton was one of the greater houses,
which escaped dissolution under the earlier Act.
Its temporalities (fn. 32) were derived from property,
mostly in its immediate neighbourhood, but
including a few small possessions in Derbyshire,
Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and Lancashire.
The spiritualities were the two consolidated
moieties of the church of Bolton-on-Dearne,
the churches of Monk Bretton alias Lund, Darton, Royston, and Hickleton. The gross annual
revenue was £323 8s. 2d., and the clear value
£239 3s. 6d.
The house was surrendered on 21 November
1539 (fn. 33) by the prior and thirteen monks. Their
goods and cattle were sold for £347 3s. 8d., the
lead of the church amounted to 39 fodders and
there were seven bells.
The plate (fn. 34) belonging to Monk Bretton at
the time of the Dissolution was as follows: ' Item.
j crosse of wodd plated wt silver. Item. an
oder wodd crosse having the iiij evangelistes
enameled. Item. fyve chalices. Item. j little
pixe gylt. Item. ij crewetes. It. j gret
squair salt wt cou' parcell gilt. It. j oder
squair salt wtout cou' parcel gilt. Item. xij
spoones. It. j standing piece wt cou' gylt. It. j
pounced piece. It. ij little pieces. It. iij masors.
It. j goblet wt cover parcell gilt.'
There were fourteen monks pensioned at the
Dissolution. (fn. 35) William Browne the prior
received £40 a year; Thomas Normanton, subprior, and William Roieston, cellarer, each £7;
three others £6 each, seven £5 6s. 8d., and one
(John Pontefract) £6 13s. 4d.
Priors Of Monk Bretton
[Cluniac]
Adam (the first prior) (fn. 36)
Roger, early 13th century (fn. 37)
Adam II, occurs 1227 (fn. 38)
Adam de Norhampton, intruded, occurs
1259 (fn. 39) and 1266 (fn. 40)
R— 1267 (fn. 41)
William de Richale, occurs 1279 (fn. 42)
[Benedictine]
William de Richale, occurs 1280, (fn. 43) resigned
1291 (fn. 44)
William de Eboraco, confirmed 1291, (fn. 44a)
occurs 1297 (fn. 44b)
Richard de Halghton, confirmed 1304, (fn. 45)
deprived 1323 (fn. 46)
William de Went, 1323, (fn. 47) resigned 1338 (fn. 48)
William de Appleby, confirmed 1338 (fn. 49)
William de Staynton, occurs 1347, (fn. 50) died
1349 (fn. 51)
Hugh Brerley, confirmed 1349 (fn. 52)
John de Birthwaite, 1363, (fn. 53) occurs 1370 (fn. 54)
William de Ardesley, 1387, (fn. 55) resigned 1404 (fn. 56)
John de Crofton, 1404, (fn. 57) resigned 1407 (fn. 58)
Thomas Dolldale or Dowdale, confirmed
1407, (fn. 59) died 1425 (fn. 60)
John de Crofton (second time), elected 1425 (fn. 61)
Richard de Ledes, occurs 1435, (fn. 62) 1442, (fn. 63)
1452, (fn. 64) 1484 (fn. 65)
William Batley, elected 1486, (fn. 66) died 1494 (fn. 67)
Robert Drax, confirmed 1494 (fn. 68)
Roger (fn. 69)
Thomas Tickhill, confirmed 1504 (fn. 70)
William Browne, confirmed 1523 (fn. 71)
A seal, apparently of the 12th century, is a
vesica, 2¾ in. by 2 in.; showing a full-length
figure of St. Mary Magdalene, the patron saint.
Of the legend only the word MARIE remains. (fn. 72)