A HISTORY OF LONDON favour by the pope who made him one of his chaplains, and sent him home after a prolonged stay in Rome, armed with powers to reduce his convent to submission. Both parties appealed to the king, the convent in a spirit of humility, and the abbot apparently with the utmost confidence, relying on the papal authority and his own friendship with Henry. He must accordingly have been somewhat surprised when his over- tures were utterly rejected, and he was driven from the royal counsels and favour. Seeing that victory was not easily to be his, he submitted to the arbitration of Richard earl of Cornwall and John Mansel, provost of Beverley, but when they pronounced in favour of the convent he attempted a further appeal to Rome, which was only frustrated by the king's order forbidding anyone to lend him money or to accept his bonds.*' In August, 1252, an amicable settlement was reached with the convent, though Matthew Paris states that the abbot was never restored to Henry's favour ; this statement, however, is open to doubt in view of the part Richard played in the crisis of 1258. The king, being determined not to confirm the charters, and unable to obtain financial aid from the constitutional party without so doing, appealed to the abbots of St. Albans, Reading, Waltham, and Westminster for help. Abbot Richard at once acceded to this request, but the other three houses were proof against his evil example, and probably saved the political situation. Henry was forced to summon the Mad Parliament, and the committee of twenty- four was chosen, the abbot of Westminster being one of the twelve appointed by the king.*' He died near Winchester in July of the same year, according to some authorities, of poison adminis- tered by the Poitevins, though it would seem scarcely politic on their part to avenge them- selves thus on one of the most loyal of the king's adherents.^ Richard of Ware, the new abbot, reaped the fruits of his predecessor's anti-popular attitude. In 1265 Henry attempted to restore to the monks the liberties which had been taken from them by the City ; ** but in May, 1 267, he himself was forced to borrow all the jewels, pictures, and precious stones of the church as well as the gold from the shrine of St. Edward.*^ The following year the popular party became so much exasperated that they broke into the church in the king's absence and carried off the royal treasure deposited there. The chronicler re- marks that ' by God's mercy the rebels spared Matt. Paris, Ci«». Af<7/«r<j (Rolls Ser.), V, 230-1,
- 38, 303-5-
" Ibid. 682-5 ; Ann. Man. (Rolls Ser.), i, 4+7. " Jnn. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), i, 460, and iii, 211. "^ Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 50.
- ^ Syllabus of Rymer's Foedero, i, 76 ; Flores Hut.
(Rolls Ser.), iii, 15, which, however, gives the date as I 268. the monks and their goods,'*' but there was probably not very much worth pillaging at the time, as the monastic jewels were not restored until February, 1269.** Far, however, from grudging all the turmoil into which his friend- ship drew them, the abbot and convent seem to have remained enthusiastic adherents of Henry to the end, and on the occasion of his severe illness in 1270, all the brethren,' fearing to lose so great a patron,' went in procession in the rain from the abbey to the New Temple and back. On their return they found the danger was over, and at the king's command they chanted Gaudent in coelh ' because he had recovered in answer to the prayers of the monks.'*' About this time the character of the house seems to have fallen into somewhat unmerited disrepute. In 1269 the archbishop of Can- terbury and Gregory de Neapoli held a visita- tion as commissaries of Cardinal Ottobon. The commissioners' report was to the effect that the monastery was in a much better condition than many had ' believed and hoped,' and their injunctions point rather to some slight slackness of administration than to any graver disorders. It would therefore seem probable that the rumours had been set on foot by the popular party in London, or by rival houses which were jealous of Westminster on account of the extraordinary favours showered upon it by the king. The cardinal enjoined that in future the obedientiaries should not make aliena- tions of their property without consultation with the abbot, and that they should render their accounts four times yearly ; that the prior should have his room in a place accessible to the whole convent and not at a distance from the cloister as hitherto ; ^ that the infirmarer should provide better for the quiet and comfort of the sick ; that alms should not be misappropriated ; that in future, to prevent the violation of the rule of poverty, the brethren should receive from the chamberlain their clothing rather than purchase- money, which they had too often appropriated to other uses ; that monks who had been in office on their retirement should not retain their " Flores Hist. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 16. " Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iv, App. i, 191. «* Flores Hist. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 22. "' To approach the monastic ideal it must have been most necessary for the prior to be in close touch with the brethren, for according to Westminster tradition ' He is bound to show to all an example of good works . . . He should restrain the restless, comfort the wealc-heartcd, relieve the sick, be patient towards all men ; he should reproach no man with evil, but be long-suffering, that by his mercy he may turn away wrath . . . Constantly bearing in mind that he as well as the abbot will be called upon to give account for (the brethren) before God. In all that he does he should always remember the end, and that he cannot carelessly pass over anything without danger to his soul.' Customary (Hen. Bradshaw Soc), ii, 9. 440
