A HISTORY OF RUTLAND visitation in the last year of his episcopate ; but the results of his inquiries are not recorded.' Bishop Sutton in 1298 wrote an urgent letter to the prior of Kenilworth, begging him to take some measures to secure better order. The prior of the cell was constantly absent, the house was so dilapidated and decayed that it was a scandal to the neighbourhood, and the revenues were so mismanaged that if something was not done soon the canons and their servants would have to beg their bread. The Prior of Kenilworth in answer assured the bishop that the picture was overdrawn, and asked him to wait at least till the next Michaelmas before taking any steps. The bishop was annoyed and would not promise ; but he stayed his hand for a while all the same.* The next year there was a fresh difficulty. Richard de Bremesgrave, the prior, had thought it sufficient to tender his resignation to his imme- diate superior at Kenilworth ; but the bishop maintained that he alone could give the cure of souls to any man in his diocese, and that he alone could receive such resignation. Richard, safe home at Kenilworth, took no notice ; and the bishop had to save his dignity by declaring him formally deposed for contumacy.' A new prior was then sent, but in a year he too retired to Kenilworth, protesting that he was neither able nor willing — nee valens nee volem — to cope with the difficulties of the situation.* Stephen of Ketton, who was prior a few years later, had troubles of quite another kind. He got into difficulties with his own superior, and appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was recalled, with the two canons who were his companions, to the mother house, and placed under restraint ; but the others escaped after a while, and carried a woeful tale to the pope. They said that they with Stephen had taken refuge in the monastery of Torksey, by permission of the bishop ; and that they had been dragged away from before the high altar and imprisoned with great harshness. The pope committed the case to the Bishop of Ely ; and ordered that if the facts were as stated all three canons of Brooke should be placed in some other monastery of the order. The results of the inquiry have not yet come to light, and it is quite possible that the story may have been much exaggerated.' From this time onwards we know practically nothing of the history of the house : but the list of priors is carefully preserved in the Episcopal Registers. The last prior, Roger Harwell, in- volved his superiors in a good deal of difficulty. He had tried to secure for himself a handsome retiring pension, more than the abbot felt able to give him. Consequently, when the royal com- missioners arrived in 1535 to visit the house, he ' Line. Epis. Reg. Rolls of Wells.
- Ibid. Inst. Sutton, fol. 64. ' Ibid. fol. 6].
' Ibid. Inst. Dalderby, fol. 102. ' Cal. of Papal Letters, ii, 77. represented it as an independent monastery,* and surrendered it to them of his own accord, secur- ing a pension of ^ o^ Unfortunately the abbot had a year before promised a lease of it to a friend of Cromwell, and had entered upon a bond of 1,000 marks as security that the agree- ment should take effect. He wrote earnestly to Cromwell to help him, either by getting his rights renewed at Brooke, or by procuring him a release from the bond.' The answer is not recorded ; but the abbot certainly did not get the priory back, for it was granted in the follow- ing September to Anthony Cope.'" The original endowment '"* seems to have included no more than the demesne land and as- sarts where the priory stood, with about 228 acres of wood. The Taxat'io of 1 29 1 showed the temporals of the prior in Rutland and Leicester- shire to be worth ^^44 ioj. 4^;^.," which certainly ought to have maintained three canons : the Valor Eec/esiastieus stated the revenue as ^{^40 clear.^^ In 1535 the commissioners said that the income of the house was ^^46 18;. 9^^.; there were eleven servants, and eight persons holding corrodies. The only canon in the monastery was the prior : the buildings were ' for the most ruinous.' Movable goods were valued at ^^51 10/. 2d.; there were no serious debts.'* Priors of Brooke Ralf," occurs 1180 Richard of Lichfield,'* presented 1230, died 1243 John of Wotton,'^ presented 1243 Robert of Ledbury,'^ presented 1251, resigned 1285 ' ' A head house for anything we hear to the contrary,' the commissioners said in their report. Dugdale, Mon. vi (i), 233. L. and P. Hen. Fill, x, 1191. »" Aug Off. Misc. Bk. 232, fol. 17. » The abbot's letter, from Cott. MS. Cleop. E. IV, fol. 214, is printed in Wright, Hist, of Rut. 26. He speaks of 'the unjust and untrue behaviour of such my canon as I sent thither to have the governance and rule thereof; and for that he had not such profitable and commodious pension assigned and made sure unto him during his life as he and his council would and could devise and ask, hath intituled the king's highness . . . unto whole title and interest thereof.' '° Ibid. 27. '°^ Two folios, relating to gifts in Belton and Martinsthorpe, remain of a chartulary of this priory ; Exch. Eccl. Docts. bdle. 2, no. 9. " Pofe Nieh. Tax. (Rec. Com.) 66, 67. " Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iv, 343. " Dugdale, Mon. vi (i), 233, from the original re- port of the commissioners for this county. The prior w.is said to be of good living by report : and until recently there had been two other canons with him. " Dugdale, Mon.{i), 233. " Line. Epis Reg. Rolls of Wells. '" Ibid. Rolls of Grosteste. " Ibid. Rolls of Gravesend. 160
