Page:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu/203

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

Mayoralty of John le Marewe (1333-34) William de Clowne's name heads the list of "honest men" who dined with the Mayor at Michaelmas and on other occasions; and also of a deputation which was sent to Heigham by the lord's order "for the business of the community." When Queen Phillippa stayed at Leicester Abbey in July, 1336, wine was presented to her in the presence of William de Clowne and others coming with the Mayor. In a Tallage Roll of this year he appears as one of the wealthiest men in Leicester, his goods and chattels being valued at £6 sterling, and those of only one burgess were worth more. He sold that year to the Mayor a barrel of wine for presentation to the Earl of Lancaster. In the next year he presided at two municipal dinners, and his own Mayoralty, in 1338-39, was distinguished by a large and popular hospitality, in the course of which the community were regaled in the Saturday Market by minstrels playing on pipes and by 26 gallons of ale. On May 23rd, 1343, he executed a deed as Bailiff of Leicester, and after that date he disappears from the Municipal Record.

On the death of Richard de Tours in 1345, William de Clowne was elected Abbot of Leicester, and presided over the Abbey with marked ability until his death, which occurred on January 22nd, 1377. Was he the same William de Clowne as our Leicester burgess? Was the merchant ordained in middle life, like the Bristol merchant, William Canynges, after laying down his municipal offices, and elected Abbot within three years? If so, he must have been ordained some time after May, 1343, and before 1345. The Episcopal Register of the Diocese of Lincoln seems to show that there were no ordinations by the Bishop of Lincoln at that time, although there were a great many Letters Dismissory to enable men to be ordained by other bishops. Clowne's name does not appear, however, to be amongst them.[1] Moreover, Henry of Knighton does not mention that the Abbot had been a layman, and his silence seems conclusive, since he was not at all the kind of person to hold his tongue, had there been anything unusual about his Abbot's election. He may perhaps have been a son or nephew of the


  1. I am indebted to the Rev. Canon C. W. Foster for this information.

157