A HISTORY OF LONDON organized and long-thought-out plan, which could not have been put into execution without the knowledge of some of the monks, that the sacrist, the sub-prior, the cellarer, seven monks and certain servants of the sacrist were guilty at least of col- lusion, and that the cellarer and certain of the monks had been in the habit of consorting with one of the chief culprits and joining with him in eating and drinking with women of evil life.'"- That the abbot was unaware of what was taking place in the monastery seems clear, but this is a doubtful point in his favour. He must have been guilty of extraordinary negligence to retain such men as Adam de Warefeld, Alexander of Pershore, and Ralph Morton as sacrist, sub- prior and cellarer, and a somewhat significant light is thrown upon his character by an entry in the annals of Worcester under the year 1300. As president of the General Chapter of Bene- dictines held at Oxford, Abbot Walter decreed, says the annalist, that every prelate might give his monks dispensation to eat flesh as seemed expedient to him ; he also provided for the omission of lengthy prayers between the hours, and, adds the chronicler, ' dubito quod futuris temporibus superfluum videbatur Pater Noster.' ^"^ But by far the most prejudicial evidence against him was given in the case of Prior Reginald de Hadham, which was only finally decided in 1308, after Walter's death. It would seem by the notarial instruments ^'^ that at some date previous to July, 1307, the prior and certain monks petitioned the abbot to reform abuses and to observe the com- positions as to the division of the revenues of the house. Walter thereupon conceived a violent prejudice against the prior, and without legitimate warning suspended him from his office. Reginald appealed to Rome, and Brother Roger of Alden- ham, who drew up the instrument of the appeal, was consequently banished to the cell of Hurley. At the beginning of September,^"' despite the fact that the appeal was still pending, the abbot summoned the discontented monks for correction in chapter, and brought certain charges against Reginald, stating that his election as prior had been uncanonical, that he had misappropriated the revenues of other offices which he had held, that he had encouraged Roger of Aldenham in disobedience and vagrancy, that he had continued to exercise his office after his suspension, that he had appealed to Canterbury against the liberties of the house, and that he had had the abbot falsely and maliciously accused in the matter of the robbery of the treasury ; he further sum- moned Reginald to purge himself, but when he showed himself ready to do so refused to accept his compurgators, excommunicated, deprived and imprisoned him in defiance of his appeal, and proceeded to the election of a new prior. During the remainder of the year no word appears to have come from Rome, and the abbot and his party remained supreme in the house until Walter's death on Christmas Day. The following spring, however, the case was heard by papal commissaries, and as no one appeared on behalf of the late abbot and the witnesses were unanimous in praise of Reginald, the sentences against him and against Roger of Aldenham were reversed, and he was restored to his office. This, however, was not the end of the troubles at Westminster. A vacancy of two years and sixteen weeks followed,^"* and evidently the rivalry between the two parties in the house continued and caused great disorder. On 14 July, 1308, the king wrote to the prior and convent complaining of dilapidations and appointing a commission of lawyers to inquire into the case.^"' Even this seems to have been without permanent effect, and in May, 13 10, Edward wrote again to the prior complaining that the abbey was moult abessez et empoverez par la dissolucion des moignes . . . qui ont alez avant ces houres desor- denement wakerantz hors de lour meson . . . . et deg.-istent les biens de la meson a grant ameneusement des . . . aumones. He exhorted the prior to keep the monks to the observance of their profession, and not to allow them to leave the close without permission. If visible reforms were not speedily made the king threatened so to lay hands upon the monks and their goods that all the other houses of the order ' se chastieront par ensample de vous.' ^"^ In the meantime, however, the new abbot had been admitted and consecrated. His election, as might have been expected at a time of such great internal dissension, had not been unattended with difficulties. When the choice fell on Richard de Kydington several members of the house com- plained of his infamia et insiifficienda suggesting that he was supported by Piers Gaveston,^"' and the prior of Sudbury appealed to Rome on the ground that he had not been summoned to take '"' Jnct. Kal. and Inventories of the Exch. (Rec. Com.), i, 251-290 ; Mr. Burtt's article in Gleanings, 282-90. '« Jnn. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), iv, 547. "» D. & C. Westm. ' Priors,' 56. "" Apparently the abbot's own party in the house induced him in August to confirm the com- positions for his successors, while reser'ing his own right to disregard them. D. & C. Westm. ' Compo- sitions,' 13, 2. "« Cott. MS. Claud. A. viii, fol. 62./. '"" D. & C. Westm. 'Jurisdictions,' 36, 33, No. 29 (6). ""Ibid. 36, 33, No. 29 (i). The document is dated from Kennington, 23 M.iy in the third year of the king, and Widmore and others have attributed it to Edward I. The patent rolls of 23 May, 1275, how- ever, are dated from Westminster, while those of the corresponding day 13 10 are dated from Kennington. "" Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. i, App. 94. 442
