who adopted S. Norbert's version), and there was also a very singular order of Canons founded by S. Gilbert of Sempringham, whose rule was compounded from those of S. Augustine and S. Benedict, and part of whose system it was to have societies of Canons and Canonesses living in the same institution. This order, which did not bear a very good reputation, is principally famous for its connexion with Robert de Brune, who has left us the 'Chronicle of England' and the 'Handlyng Synne' in the racy English of the fourteenth century. The Chronicle of Dunstable' furnishes us with a most interesting history of an important house of the order of Austin Canons in England, and we must express our acknowledgments to the editor for placing it so conveniently within the reach of all those interested in mediaval times. The author of the earlier portion of this Chronicle was Richard de Morins, prior of the house from 1202 to 1242, and from his narrative we gather that he was by no means an unimportant person in his day. He was employed in confidential services, both by King John and the Pope, and acted as a special visitor of religious houses, and as an assessor of the damages brought to the Church by John.

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the writer is narrating the events of his own time, and a stirring time indeed it was both in Church and State. The dread Interdict of Rome had fallen upon the land, and the Chronicle furnishes us with some very valuable information as to what the exact effects of this curse were: On the Sunday on which they sing Isti sunt 'dies (Passion Sunday), the whole of England and Wales was 'interdicted, and even those who had special privileges, had to cease from exercising them, except only the white monks '(Cistercians), who, not long after, were forced with much violence 'to observe the Interdict. Then the bodies of the dead were 'buried outside the cemetery, and without the presence of the 'priest. Marriages and churchings were celebrated at the door of the church, and the gospel read to them there. On Lord's 'Days the sermon was made to the people outside the church, 'and there the bread which had been blessed and the holy water were given to them. The priests baptized within the churches, and that the chrism might not be lacking, they were allowed by the Pope to mix oil with it. Those who wished to offer were allowed to approach the altars.'1 This certainly gives a more favourable picture of the effect of an interdict than is sometimes drawn, and helps us to understand how it came to pass that the land could hold out against it for so many years. The reprisals taken by the furious king did not amount to what he had sworn

1 Annal. de Dunstap. p. 30.

per dentes Dei that he would do. He had threatened to expel the whole clergy of England, and to seize all their goods, to cut off the noses and tear out the eyes of every Roman in the land, and to send them thus mutilated to their patron at Rome, but his fury soon cooled down. The king ordered the goods of 'all the religious and of all clerks to be taken for him, and 'that every one should be expelled the land who would not 'sing the service. But four days afterwards his fury was ' appeased, and the said goods were placed under the custody of 'the constables.' 2 Nevertheless very considerable sums were extorted by John from the Church. We, among the rest,' says the Dunstable annalist, had to pay 20 marks.' The time however soon came when the Church again had the upper hand, and in spite of the king's crafty precaution in making all the religious houses and clergy sign a deed, declaring that what he had received from them had been given freely, a retribution had to be forthcoming. How far John's restoration of ecclesiastical goods corresponded with his robberies is a soniewhat curious point of inquiry. The sees of the exiled prelates were first restored to their commissioners, and a sum of eight thousand marks was sent to them in Flanders in preparation for their return. The whole of the plundered property was to be restored before Easter (1213), and before Christmas a certain part. The Dunstable Chronicle' would seem to assert that this compact was fulfilled, at least as regards the bishops. 'He paid them as much as forty thousand marks, and for the ' residue he granted them privileges.'

There is however considerable doubt as to the accuracy of this statement, and the less dependence can be placed on the 'Dunstable Chronicle' here as the whole of the events connected with the restitution are put a year too early, the legate Nicholas having arrived at Michaelmas, 1213, not 1212.3 The confusion is somewhat hard to account for, as the prior of Dunstable was one of the commissioners appointed to assess the amount of damage which had been suffered by ecclesiastical persons, and returned it, for the Diocese of Lincoln, alone at 23,000 marks. But that this, or anything like this, was in reality ever repaid by John, (as the words quoted above would seem to imply there is no good ground for believing. Roger of Wendover distinctly tells us that after three councils held, at London, Wallingford, and Reading, and after the claims of the clergy had been formally exhibited, the legate allowed the king

1 Roger de Wendover, iii. 222.

2 Annal. de Dunstap. p. 30.

3 Roger de Wendover, iii. 274 (Ed. Coxe); Annales de Waverleiâ, 277. (Ed Luard).

6

to defer payment, and only 15,000 marks were actually paid by him to the bishops. The Waverley Chronicle' says, that the king gave the bishops this sum by way of getting them on his side against the inferior clergy, to whom he refused to give anything. There is no doubt that the legate and the pope's party in England were already taking the king's part as against Archbishop Stephen Langton, and those who really cared for the English Church; and the Prior of Dunstable, who was an employé of the Roman see, may very probably have magnified the king's payments, as taking the cue from his patrons. Our notions of Romish morality are not raised when we read that Pandulph, repairing to Rome, greatly blackened the reputation of the Archbishop of Canterbury before the Chief Pontiff, and bestowed such mighty praises on the King of England as to assert that he had never seen a king so humble and so modest, 'so that that king gained wonderful favour in the regard of the 'Lord Pope.' With the pope thus on his side it was not likely that John would much concern himself about the repayment of the sums robbed from the unfortunate clergy, and it can hardly be imagined that any real restitution was made. But while Rome forgot to protect the interests of those who had been faithful to her, she did not the less wreak her vengeance upon those who had ventured to disregard the Interdict, and to celebrate any of the proscribed services. Some of these were sent to Rome, others were deprived of their benefices in England, and barred from getting any other preferment, while the altars where mass had been celebrated were destroyed, and replaced by new ones.2

Meanwhile Dunstable Priory began that assertion of secular rights, and that grasping after secular power which brought the canons into such violent and bitter quarrels with their neighbours. In the year 1219 the Prior obtained a right to hold his court for the trials of pleas of the Crown, the justices itinerant acting as assessors, and immediately afterwards we read of a suit of the burgesses of Bedford, to claim exemption from paying tolls to Dunstable, which they failed to carry. The establishment of a religious house was by no means an unmixed advantage to a town or neighbourhood. Having access to nobles and kings, whom they were able to influence by the promise of ecclesiastical benefits, the abbots and priors were placed at a great advantage towards the unprotected burgesses and farmers, an advantage which they did not fail to use. It was a tempting thing for a feudal lord to grant a privilege which cost him nothing, in exchange for the promise of masses and church privileges, but 2 Annal. de Dunstap. pp. 40-51.

1 Roger de Wendover, iii. 279.

1

the tolls or the dues lightly given to the abbey might be the cause of bitter trouble and annoyance to their lay neighbours. Then came in the claim for tithes and offerings, which the people, already having a parish priest to whom these payments were also due, would not welcome very readily, and when Richard Prior brought an action against the burgesses of 'Dunstable, for the tithes of all trade and bargaining wherever 'exercised, and for the tithe of hay and mills, and for certain 'oblations,' we may easily suppose that the townsfolk wished the canons had chosen some other spot for their settlement. The claim was allowed by clerical judges, the ancient custom of oblations was to be kept up, and in addition, the people were to give a contribution for building the church. It was doubtless no slight thing for the temporal interests of the Dunstable Priory to have so able and influential a man as Richard de Morens at its head. The Chronicle' continues to record the growth of their property, either by lands, fines, tolls, or privileges, and if all the thousand religious houses in England were growing at the same rate we certainly must commiserate the case of the laity. But the Dunstable burgesses were not altogether tolerant of the rapid growth of their influential neighbours. They resisted with zeal and obstinacy, although having to contend against the legal skill and the influence of the prior, they were contending at great disadvantage. The townsfolk preferred a claim that in this court, of which the prior had procured the establishment, he should not have the power of inflicting upon them a higher fine than four marks. They also claimed that if they were to have a court of their own, they should not be compelled to attend the king's courts as well, and that no strangers should be admitted to plead against them in their courts. The prior too, they said, had no right to seize their goods when they were on the public highway, and if he claimed the power to fine and distrain, he was bound to free them from the fines and distraining of others. In fact the citizens very naturally did not like to have a multitude of masters, but were ready to accept the prior as their immediate superior, on the condition of their thus saving themselves all other responsibilities. On this point however they quickly came into sharp collision with the king's courts, and being summoned on a cause to Bedford, and refusing to appear, four-and-twenty of them found their way into prison, and were heavily fined. Nor was this the extent of the mischief which their ill-judged contumacy brought on the Dunstable burghers. The complaisant prior, ready to recognise the royal authority, and the

1 Annal. de Dunstap. p. 65.

surly citizens who disputed it, stood on very unequal ground before the king, and by a little skilful management, and a present of 100 marks, the convent obtained a royal charter, giving them the suzerainty of the town of Dunstable, to have and to hold as well and as fully for all subsidies, fines, court services, ' and customs, as we and our heirs should hold it, if the said 'town of Dunstable, and the said burgesses were ours and in our hand.' The most remarkable part of this piece of sharp practice of the prior and canons remains to be told. They had got the gift of the town and citizens for the moderate price of a hundred pounds, but they determined to make the townspeople themselves pay the greater part of this. Accordingly the first aid' which they required under their new powers was the 'aid' of 100 marks, to be paid by the town, towards the expense of procuring for themselves new masters. This, says the 'Chronicle,' with somewhat of naïveté, was 'assessed by honest men of the town, 'but the money was collected by the bailiffs of the prior.' The payment was not made, as we might expect, altogether cheerfully. One Martin Duke, could not see his obligations in the matter quite plainly, whereupon his corn was seized by John Young, acting for the prior. A fight ensued, and many were wounded on both sides, but the skill of John Young triumphed at last, and the unhappy Duke saw his corn conveyed in spite of him into the court of the priory. We have here not a bad illustration of the predominating selfishness which characterizes the whole organization of these religious establishments. They were to settle themselves where they pleased, and as they pleased; and when established, they might disregard everything else but their own interests, and ride roughshod over any that came in their way, in order to further these. The theory was that religion was advanced by the prosperity of the religious house, and thus that the people existed for the convent, not the convent for the people. Having bought the town of Dunstable, and looking upon the burgesses as his men,' the prior could exact anything he pleased from them, and if they ventured to refuse, there was the ready weapon of excommunication and all its fearful consequences, which these religious men did not hesitate to use by way of enforcing even the most trivial of their dues. 'A dissension arose between the 'Prior of Dunstable and ten of his burgesses about the withholding of offerings. For they had made a conspiracy together, that ' at weddings, churchings, and funerals, only two persons should follow the chief person, and for this, these ten were excommu'nicated. But the people in spite of this, communicated with

1 Annal. de Dunstap. p. 106.