6. THE PRIORY OF LITTLE MARLOW
The origin of this priory is quite unknown:
neither the date of foundation nor the name
of the founder can as yet be recovered. Leland indeed gives as the traditional founder
one 'Geoffrey, Lord Spencer,' a personage
unknown to history. (fn. 1) The patronage of the
monastery and the parish church was in the
family of d'Anvers early in the thirteenth century; the earls of Gloucester also gave their
consent to the election of some prioresses of
this period. (fn. 2) The earliest record of this
priory is found in the Rolls of Bishop Hugh of
Wells, under the year 1218, but it does not
imply that the house was then newly founded. (fn. 3)
It may indeed have come into existence almost any time in the later half of the twelfth
century.
We hear of the priory in the thirteenth
century only in connexion with a few unimportant lawsuits. (fn. 4) In 1292 the conventual
church was rebuilt and its high altar dedicated
by Bishop Sutton (fn. 5) ; but the nuns were very
poor at the time, and received indulgences
and a licence to beg alms in 1300 and 1311
from Bishop Dalderby. (fn. 6) In 1339 they made
a grant to the Bishop of Lincoln in consideration of his improvement of the estate of their
house, (fn. 7) but they were evidently still barely
self-supporting, for the following year the
assessors of the ninth of sheaves, lambs and
fleeces in the county of Buckingham were
ordered to supersede the assessment of that
subsidy of the priory of Little Marlow, as it
was so slenderly endowed that its goods did
not suffice for the maintenance of the prioress
and convent. (fn. 8) From 1338 to 1350 the
prioress appears to have been a relation of
Sir John de Stonore, a knight of the shire;
and it is possible that his mediation secured
better terms for the nuns than they would
otherwise have been able to obtain, at the
ordination of the vicarage of Little Marlow
Church in 1344. (fn. 9) Early in the fifteenth
century there was a long suit in connection
with the advowson of the Church of Hedsor,
which had belonged to the priory since the
days of Hugh of Wells. It is difficult now
to be quite sure of the rights of the matter,
but the patronage of this church seems to
have been resumed by the Crown, and the
prioress had in some way impeded the presentation of a chaplain, and tried to reclaim the
advowson. (fn. 10) In 1403 she made a complaint
before the Court of King's Bench that John
Stephen, chaplain of Hedsor, had broken into
her close, had struck, wounded and ill-treated
her and taken away goods to the value of 40s.
and committed other enormities against the
king's peace, to the grave damage of her house:
and on a second occasion had taken away
books, vestments, keys, household utensils,
etc. John roundly denied the whole charge. (fn. 11)
The Crown apparently declined to examine
it, on the ground that the prioress had attempted to impede the presentation of this
chaplain and to secure the advowson of the
church. The prioress then brought forward
two pleas: a fresh one against the chaplain,
and another against the Crown, claiming the
advowson of Hedsor; but nothing came of
these; perhaps they were dropped as hopeless. (fn. 12)
There are no visitations of this house recorded in the episcopal registers except one
of Bishop Dalderby in 1300, which was merely
for the purpose of explaining to the nuns the
Statute of Pope Boniface VIII. Pro clausura
monialium. (fn. 13) This statute was intended to
compel the English nuns of all orders to observe a stricter enclosure; but though Bishop
Dalderby did his duty conscientiously by
explaining it to all the houses under his care—
sometimes under rather trying circumstances
—it seems to have been quite ineffectual.
The English Benedictine nuns and Austin
canonesses never had been strictly enclosed,
and quietly ignored the new regulations, even
though they came from the pope himself. In
later episcopal visitations the nuns of these
two orders were often ordered not to go out
without the consent of their superiors: but
there was no established rule or custom before
the Reformation to prevent them going out
of the cloister at all.
Although the earlier history of this house
is so little known, we happen to possess some
interesting details of its latter days and of the
circumstances immediately preceding its dissolution. The last prioress, Margaret Vernon, appears to have been on friendly terms
with Thomas Cromwell, even while he was
still in the service of Cardinal Wolsey, and not
so well known to the religious of England
generally as he afterwards came to be. The
study of this lady's character does not produce
a very pleasant impression. Her house was
doubtless in excellent order, and she showed
herself a good steward of its property: she
may quite well have been a kind and considerate superior; but she was very evidently a
scheming and worldly woman, with a keen
eye for her own advancement and no real love
for the little priory over which she ruled. As
early as 1529 we find her writing to Cromwell
about a vacancy in the priory of St. Helen's. (fn. 14)
She had heard from 'Lewys, a goldsmith in
the town,' that the sub-prioress was likely to
secure the post; if she herself still has any
chance, Cromwell may offer his master the
sum 'we were at a point for'; in any case
she begs him to let her know 'my lord's pleasure,' so that she may settle herself in quietness. Her intrigues were not successful at
this time, and she turned herself to arranging
the affairs of her own house. (fn. 15) But not very
long after she wrote to Cromwell again to
inquire when he would be in her neighbourhood, and when she would be likely to find
him in his own house, as she required his
counsel on several matters. (fn. 16)
In 1530 Bishop Longland visited Little
Marlow and found there five nuns besides the
prioress; every one of them answered Omnia
bene except Dame Katherine Picard, who
drew attention to the fact that there was
no sub-prioress. There were no injunctions
delivered. (fn. 17)
In 1535 the royal visitors arrived, and in
accordance with the injunction which forbade the profession of any under twenty-four
years of age, dismissed three of the nuns. (fn. 18)
They do not seem to have found anything else
amiss. Dame Margaret however found these
proceedings 'not a little to her discomfort,'
and wrote to Cromwell again for advice. (fn. 19)
The First Act of Suppression was passed very
soon after, and the local commissioners (fn. 20) reported of this house as in good estate, and out
of debt, mentioning at the same time that
there were only two nuns there, (fn. 21) who both
desired to enter other houses of religion, and
four servants attached to the monastery, two
men and two women.
The surrender of the house was received
by William Cavendish on or before 23 September, 1536; in a letter of that date he
reports his discharge of the religious whom he
found there, adding that 'my lady took the
matter very like a wise woman,' and delivered
him all the goods of the house. (fn. 22) 'My lady'
had probably some assurance already from
Cromwell of preferment to another monastery, and had few regrets in leaving Little
Marlow. (fn. 23) She was made Abbess of Malling
three months later, and surrendered that
house also on 29 October, 1538, having profited not a little by the exchange, (fn. 24) for the
revenues of Little Marlow would only have
furnished her with a pension of £4 or £5,
while the Abbess of Malling received an
annuity of £50.
The original endowment of the house cannot be exactly given, as no foundation charters
remain. It seems to have comprised some
land about the priory, and the churches of
Little Marlow and Hedsor. The latter was
lost at the beginning of the fifteenth century.
In 1291 the temporalities of the priory outside this county were only reckoned at 1s. per
annum. (fn. 25) The revenue of the house is given
in the Valor Ecclesiasticus as £23 3s. 7d. (fn. 26) ;
the local commissioners a little later give the
same total. (fn. 27) The moveable goods of the
house at the dissolution were worth £17 0s. 2d.,
the bells, lead, etc., £4 10s. 8d. (fn. 28) The ministers' accounts amount to £22 16s. 10d. (fn. 29) The
revenues of this house were granted to the
new foundation at Bisham. (fn. 30)
Prioresses of Little Marlow
A., (fn. 31) died 1230
Maud d'Anvers, (fn. 32) elected 1230, occurs
1232
Admiranda, (fn. 33) elected 1237, occurs 1247
Cecily of Turville, (fn. 34) occurs 1256, resigned
1258
Christine de Whitemers, (fn. 35) elected 1258,
died 1264
Felicia of Kimble, (fn. 36) elected 1264, resigned
1265
Gunnora, (fn. 37) elected 1265, resigned 1271
Margery of Waltham, (fn. 38) elected 1271
Agnes of London, (fn. 39) resigned 1291
Agnes of Clevedon, (fn. 40) elected 1291, resigned
1298
Julian of Hampton, (fn. 41) elected 1298, resigned 1305
Rose of Weston, (fn. 42) elected 1305
Joan de Stonore, (fn. 43) elected 1338, died
1350
Margery Jeromide, (fn. 44) elected 1350
Susanna of Hampton, (fn. 45) occurs 1395
Elizabeth Broke, (fn. 46) resigned 1474
Isabel Savage, (fn. 47) elected 1474
Eleanor Kirby, (fn. 48) occurs 1492
Eleanor Bernard, (fn. 49) occurs 1516
Margaret Vernon, (fn. 50) last prioress, occurs
1528