CHAPTER VII.

Insuper, tu jurabis quod nullas conclusiones per fratrem Wilhelmum Russell, ordinis Minorum, nuper positas et praedicatas, contra decimas personales, et in nostra Universitate Oxoniae, necnon in venerabili concilio episcoporum, anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo vicesimo quinto celebrato Londoniis, solemniter damnatas, nec alicujus earum sententiam tenebis, docebis, vel defendes efficaciter publice aut occulte, nec aliquem doctorem, tentorem vel defensorem hujusmodi, ope, consilio vel favore juvabis[559].

For a similar offence another Franciscan, William Melton, D.D., was arrested at the instance of the University, and compelled to recant[560]. The Alma Mater kept a vigilant eye on her sons wherever they might be. In 1482 Friar Isaac Cusack, D.D., began to create disturbances in Ireland by preaching the old Franciscan doctrine of evangelical poverty; he was captured, sent to Oxford, and degraded and expelled the University as a vagabond and a heretic[561].

The feeling of nationality fostered by the long French wars was not without its influence on the friars in England and especially at the Universities. In 1369 the Chancellor caused a royal proclamation to be published at Carfax ordering all French students at Oxford, both religious and secular, to leave the kingdom[562]. In 1388 a royal writ was issued to the Warden of the Friars Minors in Oxford at the advice of the same convent, warning him to admit no foreign friars who might reveal to the enemy ‘the secrets and counsel of our kingdom,’ and to expel any such friars for whose good behaviour he would not be responsible, or who would not pray or celebrate masses for the King and the good estate of the realm[563].

Among the many problems presented by the reign of Richard II, not the least obscure is the passionate loyalty with which the Franciscans regarded his memory[564]. Yet Richard II and his councillorswere suspected of Lollardy, while his successor posed as the champion of orthodoxy. Henry IV, however, derived his support chiefly from the wealthy ecclesiastics, and the Lollardy of the Court of Richard II was rather political than dogmatic; the opinions prevalent at the Court were more in consonance with Wiclif’s earlier teaching and with the teaching of the Franciscan Order on the need of poverty in the Church and the evils of its endowments, than with the Lollard doctrine of the Eucharist. In the early years of Henry IV the Franciscans were active in organizing conspiracies[565]; the pulpit and the confessional were used to spread disaffection against the new monarch[566]; and the failure of his campaigns was attributed to the magical arts of the Friars Minors[567]. In 1402, eight Minorites of the convent of Leicester were seized, and convicted on their own admission of having organized an armed revolt to find King Richard and restore him to the throne[568]. They were condemned to be hanged and decapitated at Tyburn, and the sentence was carried out in the sight of many thousands without any ecclesiastical protest. One of these friars was Roger Frisby, an old man and Master in Theology[569]. On the Vigil of the feast of St. John the Baptist[570]—the very day on which the rebels were to meet ‘in the plain of Oxford,’ his head was taken from London Bridge and brought to Oxford;

‘and in the presence of the procession of the University, the herald proclaimed: “This Master Friar Minor of the convent of Leicester in hypocrisy, adulation, and false life, preached often, saying that King Richard is alive, and roused the people to seek him in Scotland;” and his head was set on a stake there[571].’

While subject to attacks from without, the Franciscan Order suffered from rival factions within. The long-standing division betweenthe lax or Conventual, and the strict or Observant parties, at length received formal recognition in the Council of Constance (1415) when the Observants were constituted a semi-independent branch under a Vicar-General[572]. How did this arrangement affect Oxford as astudium generale? The Observants as a body produced few students; the reformed houses on the Continent objected to send their brethren to Paris[573]. A few foreign Observants found their way to Oxford in the fifteenth century[574]; and when later in the century Observant friaries were founded in England[575], some of their members studied in the Conventual house at the University[576]. Whether any part of the Convent was set apart for them is unknown: according to all appearance, the brethren of both branches lived together in peace and goodwill.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FRIARS’ MANNER OF LIFE AND MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD: BENEFACTORS.

Lost records.—Mendicancy.—Procurators and limitors.—Career of Friar Brian Sandon.—Charges of immorality against the friars.—Their worldly manner of life before the Dissolution.—Poverty of the Convent.—Sources of income.—Annual grants from the King and others.—Frequency of bequests to the friars.—List of benefactors.—Classes from which the friars were drawn.—Motives which led men to become friars.

Of the internal economy of the Franciscan house at Oxford, or indeed of any friary in England, little is known or ever can be known. TheRegistrum Fratrum Minorum Londoniaeis, in Brewer’s words, ‘the only work of the kind extant. A painful proof, if such were needed, of the utter devastation committed when the Franciscan convents were dissolved, and their libraries dispersed[577].’ We may here give some account of the records which must once have existed in every Franciscan house or province. From the earliest times an annualcompotus[578]or balance-sheet of income and expenditure was drawn up, and if in later days this was sometimes omitted, an ex-warden was always liable to be called to render an account to his successor[579]. In each convent would also be kept a list of the brethren who died there[580]; and lists both of living benefactors and of dead, for whose souls prayers or masses were to be said[581], while many in theirlifetime received ‘letters of confraternity[582].’ In the decrees of the General Chapter of Paris in 1292 it is commanded[583]that each minister should have the lives and acts of holy friars carefully collected in his province and entered in special registers, and bring them to the General Chapter; also that all notable excesses of friars, grave crimes, and credible accusations, the sentences passed and punishments inflicted on the offenders, should be noted in books kept for the purpose, preserved in the archives of the province, and faithfully handed on to each succeeding minister. The acts of Provincial Chapters were also kept[584]. Of these and similar records we have, besides the London register already alluded to, only a few letters of fraternity[585]. Of English Franciscan records originated by or relating to the convent at Oxford, not one (unless the list of lectors and the account of the controversy with the Dominicans in 1269[586]can be called records) is known to exist[587]. Any account, therefore, of the internal life of the convent must be meagre and unsatisfactory in the highest degree.

The hours and numbers of daily services seem to have differed little, if at all, from those observed in other monastic institutions[588]. We may therefore omit this subject and treat of the points which receive additional elucidation from documents relating to Oxford.

The first means of livelihood of the Mendicant Friars was naturally begging. Certain of the brethren were appointed by the Warden to ‘procure’ food for the convent during some fixed period[589]. There were no definite rules as to how many friars should be sent as ‘procuratores’ or ‘limitors’[590]; the details depended on the necessities of the convent and the will of the Superior[591]. Each house had definite ‘limits’ assigned to it, within which its members might beg[592]. The friars went two and two, accompanied by a servant or boy[593]who carried the offerings, which were usually in kind. The friar in Chaucer’s ‘Sompnoure’s Tale,’ himself a ‘maister[594]’ in the schools, after preaching in the church went round the village—

‘In every hous he gan to pore and pryeAnd beggyd mele or chese, or ellis corn[595].’

A good deal of private begging was done by the student friars to obtain the means of study[596]. Roger Bacon appealed to his brother in England, to his powerful and wealthy acquaintances, for money to carry out the commands of the Pope[597].

‘But how often (he writes to the latter) I was looked upon as a dishonest beggar, how often I was repulsed, how often put off with empty hopes, what confusion I suffered within myself, I cannot express to you. Even my friends did not believe me, as I could not explain the matter to them; so I could not proceed in this way. Reduced (angustiatus) to the last extremities, I compelled my poor friends[598]to contribute all that they had,and to sell many things and to pawn the rest, often at usury, and I promised them that I would send to you all the details of the expenses and would faithfully procure full payment at your hands. And yet owing to their poverty I frequently abandoned the work, frequently I gave it up in despair and forbore to proceed.’

Begging of this kind would either be unauthorized or legalized by special license. The statutes of the Order[599]enact that every convent shall have its ‘procurator’ or ‘syndicus,’ who shall transact all the legal business of the house and receive in the name of the Roman Church for the use of the friars all pecuniary alms and bequests, or all such alms and bequests as can be changed into money. The express object of these constitutions was to

‘preserve the Order in its purity and prevent the brethren being immersed in secular affairs[600].’

It would appear that at Oxford in the fourteenth century the office of alms-collector was held by one of the brethren. This conclusion, however contrary to the spirit and letter of the statutes, seems warranted by a remarkable legal document of the year 1341[601]. It is the record of a suit in the Hustings Court, in which Friar John of Ochampton, Warden of the Friars Minors at Oxford, ‘through Friar John de Hentham his attorney,’ charged ‘Richard de Whitchford minor[602],’ with refusing to render an account of the sums received by him when he was ‘receiver of pence of the said warden,’ and with embezzling sixty shillings or more, which he obtained from various people on the Monday after the feast of St. Michael, 1340. Two of the sums are specified, namely, one mark by the hands of Richard, servant of John de Couton, and 12s.by the hands of Thomas of London. The Warden claimed to have suffered loss to the extent of one hundred shillings; Richard de Whitchford could not deny the receipt of the money, but on his request the court appointed two auditors, Richard Cary and John le Peyntour; to these he rendered anaccount, and was found to be sixty shillings in arrears; ‘and,’ the record continues, ‘as he cannot make satisfaction he is committed to prison.’

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Oxford friars sometimes employed laymen to represent them in the courts[603]; sometimes the Warden appeared in person[604], but most of the legal business in the Chancellor’s court at Oxford was undertaken by one of the brethren. From 1507 or before, to the Dissolution, this duty was entrusted to Friar Brian Sandon. His name does not occur in the University Register, and he was, though a priest[605], probably not a student; indeed, his administrative business would hardly have left him time for other occupations. Between 1507 and 1516 and between 1527 and 1534, he appears as plaintiff or defendant in some fifteen suits in the Chancellor’s court[606]. Some of these afford glimpses into the life of the friars. On the 26th of March, 1512[607], Father Brian instituted an action against John Morys, his proctor, alleging that the latter

‘did not according to the convention before entered into between the said friar and John Morys, bring corn to the house of the friars minors;’

and on April 5th John Morys was committed to prison ‘at the instance of the provost (preposeti) of the friars minors for a debt[608].’

But if the friars did not grow corn, they seem to have made use of their meadows as pasture land. On the 20th of May, 1529[609], Friar Brian sued Margery, widow of John Lock, for 7s.8d.,

‘for certain cheeses which the husband of the said Margery bought from the aforesaid Brian Sanden.’

Eventually the case was submitted to the arbitration of William Clare the elder, and Edmund Irishe, bailiffs of Oxford, with the addition of a third if necessary, each party binding itself to abide by the decision of the majority under penalty of 40s., in case of disagreement, to be paid to the party willing to accept the judgment.

While these and similar actions were instituted by Brian in fulfilment of the duties of his position, he was undoubtedly engaged in others of a private nature. At one time he acts as attorney for apriest[610]. At another he is charged with wrongfully keeping a knife, the property ofdominusGalfred Coper[611]. In 1531[612]he had a dispute with his tailor and appealed to the law, alleging

‘that, whereas he had given to William Gos[613], tailor, three yards and three quarters of woollen cloth to make him a habit, the said Gos had purloined one quarter of a yard, and that in consequence his clothes were too short (nimis brevem et succinctam).’

Brian having declared on oath that he had supplied the above-mentioned amount of cloth, Gos promised to give him 14d.as satisfaction for the missing quarter of a yard. But later in the day he again appeared and charged the friar with perjury. After some more recriminations an agreement was come to out of court, and we hear no more of the habit.

That his litigious spirit should sometimes have brought Friar Brian into trouble we cannot wonder. Several times in the latter part of his career he was in danger of ‘bodily injury;’ in 1532[614]he made application to have Robert Holder bound over to keep the peace, and in 1534 the judge ordered that James Penerton should not be released from Bocardo till he found sufficient sureties that he would not inflict bodily harm on Friar Brian or his friends (familiaribus)[615]. The same year he complained of having been libelled by one Giles Mawket, a carpenter (fabro lignario), in the parish of St. Ebbe’s[616]. This was probably a slander on his character, which was not above suspicion. In 1535[617]‘a woman of Radley named Anna’ asserted in the Commissary’s court that she was with child by Thomas Denson, Bachelor of Laws:

‘qui Denson (as the record puts it, reciting the evidence of Joanna Cowper, another woman of ill-fame) egre tulit ut extraneus quisque familiaritate dicte Anne uteretur; because (it is added in the margin) he tok fryer Bryan wrastelyng wthher in a morning[618].’

The records of the Chancellor’s court contain charges of immorality against two other Friars Minors[619]. The first was ‘dompnus’ RobertBeste[620], who was summoned before the court together with a scholar of Broadgates Hall,

‘on grave suspicion of incontinence and disturbance of the peace.’ ‘Then the judge commanded ‘dompnus’ Beste to go to the prison house, namely le Bocardo, and remain there for half-an-hour’—

apparently while his case was considered. It does not appear what the charge against him was, or what (if any) further steps were taken[621]. His companion was warned to moderate his attentions to the same Joanna, wife of William Cooper or Cowper, of St. Ebbe’s, who appeared in the trial above referred to.

Joanna seems to have taken a special interest in the Minorites. At the end of 1533[622]Friar Arthur, B.D., appealed to the court to stop her spreading evil reports against him, which she had failed to prove; she was ordered to abstain in future

‘from defaming the said friar or any of his house on pain of a fine of 40s.to be paid to the Convent of friars minors, and banishment from the town; also that she shall not in any way lay traps (paret ... insidias) for the said Arthur or any of his Order or cause such traps to be laid, under the aforesaid penalties.’

But if Friar Arthur was innocent, he was peculiarly unfortunate. A few months later[623]he again appealed for protection against the libels of Nicholas Andrews and John Poker, scholars of Peckwater’s Inn. At this time Dr. Baskerfeld, Warden of the Grey Friars, was acting as substitute for the Commissary, and he heard the case in the house of the Minorites. The accusation has been carefully obliterated in the Chancellor’s book, evidently by the friars themselves, but the gist of it can be deciphered.

‘Judex interrogavit eosdem an voluissent prefatum Arcturum accusare et denunciare: qui responderunt se nolle[624]hoc facere ...; a quibus judex petiit ... an aliquid scandalosum et d ... scirent contra dictum fratrem, et interrogavit eos quid hoc erat: et dicebant ambo hiis verbis sequentibus (tactis evangeliis); ... they saw the seyde frere Arctur in a chambre at the sygne of the Bere in all hollows parische in Oxoford with a woman in a red capp ... both locked together in a chambre, and seid to the mayd of the hous, “then ba ... why ... suche ale here to be kept? It is not thy masters will and thy mistres that ony suche ale shold be kept here.”’

Friar Arthur strenuously denied the accusation, and the court adjournedfor two hours. When it reassembled, the defendants refused to submit to Dr. Baskerfeld’s jurisdiction, arguing that he was incompetent to decide a case in which one of the members of his convent was so deeply implicated. Two days later, however, they confessed before the judge that they would not swear to their original statement, and both sides promised to forgive and forget the whole matter.

Though none of these charges was actually proved, we must admit that they show that the convent was not in a healthy state on the eve of the Dissolution. There is certainly no trace of the religious fervour by which even in the latter days some of the Observant convents were honourably distinguished. We find the brethren at Oxford engaged in money transactions, lending[625]and borrowing[626], ‘buying and selling[627].’ Friar John Arter[628]kept a horse in the town and raised difficulties about the bill; Randulph Craycoke or Cradoc, who had charge of the horse, would not part with it till he had received ‘about ten shillings for food and grass,’ which sum the friar refused to pay, asserting that Randulph had worked the horse himself (laboravit dictum equum diversis(?)oneribus). The court, to which the disputants appealed, reduced the amount by 2s.; but Arter was probably unable to pay: no one appeared at the time appointed to claim the animal, ‘so we sent Cradoc away with the horse until his bill should be paid.’

The Warden, Friar Edward Baskerfeld, D.D., was plaintiff in a somewhat similar case[629], in which both sides were represented by counsel. In his evidence the friar deposed that he had lent Master Richard Weston, LL.B.,

‘a Roane hors of the value of 20s.in the hostel de flore de leust[630], and that he had handed over the horse to the servant of the Subdean of Excestre in the name of Richard Weston, and that he said these words, stroking (palpando) the belly of the horse: “how I delyver the hors sane and sound without spurre gallyng I prey you delyver hym so ageyn,” and that he never saw hym to this day.’

The parties agreed to submit the dispute to the judgment of three arbitrators, and the result does not appear in the records of the court.

No doubt some of the friars had private incomes and emoluments of their own[631](apart from the allowance or ‘exhibition’ which as students they still received from their native convents or from benefactors); and some may have lived outside the walls of their monastery[632]. But the convent itself was very poor; the love of many had waxed cold, and it was inevitable that in order to get a livelihood they should resort to means forbidden by their Rule.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century[633], the Warden, Dr. Goodefyld, leased one of the gardens lying within the boundaries of the convent to Richard Leke, brewer of Oxford. The terms of the agreement are unknown, but the friars thought them—or Leke’s interpretation of them, very injurious to their interests, and in 1513 and 1514 demanded the repudiation of the contract. Feeling ran very high, and Leke was in personal danger; the Warden was bound over to keep the peace, and promised

‘that if his friars molested Richard Leke, he would keep them in safe custody until the matter had been more fully examined.’

Again the case was referred to arbitration and the decision is unknown. It is interesting to find that Leke was fully reconciled to the friars before his death[634].

The poverty of the brethren was aggravated by the irregularity with which payments, on which they might justly reckon, were made. One of their chief sources of income was a royal grant of 50 marcs per annum during the King’s pleasure, to be paid in equal portions at Easter and Michaelmas. It was first instituted by Edward I[635]in 1289,and was continued by all the kings (with the exception of Edward V) to the Dissolution[636]. Sometimes the sum was paid direct from the treasury; but often (and this seems to have been the general custom as regards royal benefactions to religious houses) a sheriff or other officer was held responsible for the payment; either he was instructed to send the requisite amount to the Exchequer, or he paid the money directly; and the sums which he paid were accredited to him when he produced his accounts at the sessions of the Exchequer. As may be proved by many instances, the system did not conduce to regularity of payment. Edward II, in December 1313, ordered Richard Kellawe, Bishop of Durham[637], ‘to send to our exchequer at Westminster within fifteen days of the day of St. Hilary,’ ten marks in partial satisfaction of the grant[638]. But though this sum was to be the first charge on the arrears in the Durham diocese of the tax of one-half of their income[639]imposed on the clergy by Edward I (A. D.1294), and though writs were repeatedly[640]issued to enforce payment, we find that on the 4th of June, 1315, nothing had been done, ‘unde vehementer admiramur[641].’

The fifty marks were never made a definite fixed charge on the revenues of any one county nor were they levied year by year as a single sum; each year some sheriff or bishop was made responsible for a fraction of the whole amount. The annuity was on several occasions in arrear. Thus Henry IV in the first year of his reign granted the friars ‘of his abundant favour’ (de uberiori gratia nostra) all the arrears that had accumulated during the reign of his predecessor[642]. Affairs of State made themselves felt in the Franciscan convent. In 1450 Parliament passed a general act of resumption, annulling allgrants made since the King’s accession, and the annuity to the friars ceased to be paid[643]. The brethren represented to Henry VI the hardships which this loss of revenue inflicted on them, and in 1453 the King ordered the arrears to be paid,

‘in order that the same warden and friars may be in a happier frame of mind (hillariorem animum habeant) to offer up special prayers for us to the Highest[644].’

Under the circumstances we cannot be surprised if the friars sometimes took legal measures to recover the debts due to them. It was no doubt in connexion with this grant, that in 1466 Richard Clyff, ‘custos’ of the Oxford Grey Friars (first in person and afterwards through his attorney) sued John Broghton, late Sheriff of Kent, in the Court of Exchequer, for 100s.due to him from the preceding year, and claimed damages to the amount of ten marks[645]. In 1488, in like manner, Richard Salford, Warden of the Friars Minors at Oxford, applied to the Barons of the Exchequer to compel John Paston, Knt., late Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, to pay a debt of £10 18s., and put in a claim to £10 damages; he recovered the debt, but the damages were reduced to 26s.8d.[646]On the same day he sued Edmund Bedyngfeld, Knt., late Sheriff of the same counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, for a debt of ‘seven pounds of silver’ and 100s.damages; the amount of the debt and 20s.damages were awarded him[647]. The next year he again brought an action against the same Bedyngfeld and recovered the debt (£4 2s.), while the barons assessed his damages at 10s.instead of the £4 which he claimed[648]. We gather from these instances that though the annuity was usually paid and was not often much in arrear, it was not collected without considerable trouble and expense on the part of the friars. These actions involved a journey to London and the employment of an attorney[649]: they were never settled in one day, and weeks or months elapsed between the first hearing and the second.

The Grey Friars were also in receipt of annual or weekly almsfrom others besides the King. Durham College paid them 50s.yearly[650].

‘In ye accompts of S. Ebbs made before 1542, it appears in all, ytye churchwardens of S. Ebbs parish paid to ye warden of ye Grey Freyers Oxon 6d.per annum[651].’

The nunnery of Godstow[652]gave every week alternately to the Friars’ Preachers and Minors

‘fourteen loaves of the best wheat’ (pasto), worth in money value 8d.a week, ‘for the soul of Roger Writtell; and the aforesaid friars shall have the seal of the monastery to the amount of 34s.a year.’

The nuns also gave annually to each of the four Orders of friars at Oxford 3s.4d.in money, and ‘one peck (modium) of oytemell and one of peas (pisarum) in Lent.’ Among the ‘perpetual alms’ of Osney Abbey is mentioned a grant of 20s.to the four Orders, as the price of one ox, at Christmas, and of 4d.a week to each Order ‘according to ancient custom[653].’

A large part of their revenue was derived from bequests. To minister to the sick and the dying was one of the first duties which St. Francis practised himself and enjoined on his followers: that in this respect the English Franciscans followed his precepts may be seen in the tradition of them which remained in the memory of this country and which Shakespeare has expressed in ‘Romeo and Juliet’:

‘Going to find a barefoot brother out,One of our order, to associate me,Here in this city visiting the sick,And finding him, the searchers of the town,Suspecting that we both were in a houseWhere the infectious pestilence did reign,Seal’d up the doors and would not let us forth.’(Act V, Scene II.)

But work like this receives little notice in history, and where it is mentioned it is usually upon the sordid aspect of the case—the greed for legacies—that the chroniclers insist.

In connexion with Oxford there are perhaps in the extant records only two instances of a Franciscan being found in the chamber of sickness or death. On Nov. 24, 1357, the will of Robert de Trenge[654],Warden of Merton, was proved by the sworn testimony of Friar John of Nottingham of the Order of Friars Minors, and Master Walter Moryn, clerk. The will itself is dated June 14, 1351, but in the Middle Ages it was rarely that a man made his will until he felt that his hours were numbered, and although Robert de Trenge seems to have lived some time longer, he was probably now lying in expectation of death, struck down perhaps by the dreaded plague.

The other instance is of later date, namely 10th Dec., 1514[655]. A scholar, John Eustas, had died intestate at Oxford;

‘at the instance of his administrators, Friar Richard of Ireland, of the Order of Minors, appeared before us (the commissary), and confessed that he had abstracted from the goods of the aforesaid dead man, without competent legal authority, two mantles and thirty-one yards of linen cloth, and in gold 13s.4d., which goods he has still in his possession.’

A few days later Friar Richard Lorcan was ordered by the court to restore these goods under penalty of the law[656].

It is, however, in the wills of men and women of every rank and every status that we get most insight into the work of the friars as visitors of the sick. Unfortunately we possess but few wills as early as the thirteenth or first half of the fourteenth century, while for the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when the popularity of the friars had greatly declined, they are fairly numerous. Taking those proved in the Chancellor’s court between 1436 and 1538, we find that one will in every eight, roughly speaking[657], contains a bequest to the Minorites. In the ‘Old White Book’ (Oxford City Records)[658], the proportion is about one to every four or five, and in the last half of the fourteenth century, one-third of the wills of Oxford citizens contain bequests to the Franciscans; and these figures are borne out by the Oxford wills scattered through the early Registers at Somerset House[659]. The legacies come from all ranks; tradesmen andmerchants being especially well represented. Nor were the benefactors confined to Oxford and its neighbourhood: the Convent, like the University, occupied a national position. But it will be best to give as complete a list as possible of the bequests to the Grey Friars, and leave readers to draw their own conclusions.

John of St. John[660], clerk, by an undated will, probably about 1230, left half a mark to the Friars Minors of Oxford.

Martin de Sancta Cruce, Master of the Hospital of Sherburn, near Durham, left 10s.to them in 1259, with bequests to Friar Richard of Cornwall and others[661].

Boniface of Savoy, Archbishop of Canterbury, left them fifteen marks at his death in 1270[662].

Nicholas de Weston, citizen of Oxford, left them 10s.in 1271[663].

Walter de Merton, Bishop of Rochester, Chancellor of England, and founder of Merton College, bequeathed twenty-five marks to them at his death in 1277[664].

Thomas Waldere, of Wycombe, left them 2s.in 1291[665].

Amaury de Montfort[666], papal chaplain, Treasurer of York, &c. in an elaborate will dated Feb. 2nd, 1300/1, ordered that ‘the goods and revenues of the aforesaid Treasury owed to him’ should be divided into three parts; one-third was to be subdivided into six parts; the sixth part was to be again subdivided into three parts, one of which was to go to the Friars Preachers of Oxford, Leicester, and elsewhere; the second

Back to Index Next