Financial mismanagement and fraud

As holders of the 'livings' of the parishes of Harrold, Stevington and Brayfield, as well as other properties further afield, Harrold should have been well provided for materially. But as we have noted in an earlier blog, by the 15th century at least, poverty was a fact at the Priory.  In about 1402 they made their case for additional funds: not only was the cost of providing hospitality prohibitive, but "on account of the flooding of a certain great river called the Owse they very often suffered great losses; that its houses, buildings and inclosures were in a ruinous state, and that its fruits, &c were insufficient for such hospitality, for rebuilding and for other burdens..." (cited in the Victoria County History 1912).

How can this have happened?  Where did the money go?  There are three possible explanations: firstly the costs associated with these estates, particularly the churches; secondly financial mismanagement by successive Prioresses; and thirdly fraudulent or deceptive transactions carried out by the Priory's lay patrons.  At times the problems could have been a combination of all three.

St Mary's, Stevington. The various additions of the middle
ages are clearly seen, including chapels which were later
abandoned.  Harrold Priory would have paid for these changes

The 'livings' of the parishes listed above brought income, certainly, but they also brought costs.  The Priory would be responsible for the stipends (salaries) of the cannons (priests) at Harrold, Stevington and Brayfield, and they would also have had to pay for building and maintenance.  The 12th,13th and early 14th centuries saw a more than doubling of the population in Bedfordshire, particularly in rural areas.  The churches were forced to adapt their buildings, and Harrold and Stevington in particular added new aisles, chapels and windows to accommodate the increased numbers of worshipers.  Each of the churches added or enlarged towers during this period, with St Peter's at Harrold building the elegant spire we still see today.

There were other costs associated with the Priory's role: for example the bridge and causeway across the Great Ouse at Harrold was built and maintained jointly by the manors of  Odell, Carlton and Chellington and Harrold Priory.   It may be that in more experienced hands these costs and transactions would have been managed well, but Harrold Priory, it seems, did not always have capable leaders.  Things would certainly have been much more difficult after the arrival of the Black Death in 1348: the revenues of all landowners including the communities at Harrold and Lavendon, were squeezed as labourers died and the survivors demanded better pay for their services.  Many tenant farms lay uncultivated for generations: rentals dropped or dried up altogether and it was another 400 years before the population levels had recovered.

In 1442-1443 Bishop Alnwick of Lincoln complained that the Prioress of Harrold non reddidit compotum, meaning that she had not submitted annual accounts.  Indeed it seemed that she kept no records at all of transactions and had therefore been compromised when tradespeople demanded double the payment for goods or services than had been agreed.  As well as other shortcomings, the Bishop noted that the Prioress had sold a corrody (a lifetime's allowance of shelter, food and drink) for 20 marks, presumably far less than it cost to provide.  She was also rebuked for allowing woodland belonging to the Priory to be cut down, timber being a highly valued resource for building and for firewood.

At the time of the Bishop's visit, Harrold was in debt to the tune of 20 marks (13 pounds 12 shillings and 8 pence), a substantial amount equivalent to several months of rental income, but by no means the highest level of debt in the diocese.  But the Bishop singled out Harrold and stipulated in detail the type of agreements for which the Prioress was required to gain prior approval from Lincoln - contracts, grants of land, pensions, annuities, etc.  To make it clear, he told her that she and her successors must agree to this arrangement "vnder the payne of priouacyone" (Power, 2010, p.226).  All of this suggests that there was little attention being paid to these things and that the Priory's estates were being whittled away.

There was also the suggestion that some of the Priory's patrons were advising the nuns, not in the interests of the community but to the patrons' benefit.  This included the Priory selling or making grants of land or other property to local landowners at below market rates.  The Bishop's representatives also believed that the nuns had been fraudulently deceived in some cases and had signed documents written in latin without having any idea what they were giving assent to.

Interestingly, the same accusations were made in 1536 by the King's commissioner Dr Layton when he reported to Thomas Cromwell prior to the closure of Harrold Priory. Layton describes how "Lord Mordaunt had induced the prioress and her 'foolish young flock' to break open the coffer containing the charters of the priory, and to seal a writing in Latin of which they did not understand a word, but were told it was merely the lease of an impropriate benefice. 'All say they durst not say him nay,' he adds; 'and the prioress saith plainly that she would never consent thereto.'" (taken from A History of the County of Bedford, Volume 1).   Lord Mordaunt's ancestral seat was in nearby Turvey.  As the History's author notes, there is no actual evidence against the patron, "But unhappily there is nothing at all improbable in the story of Lord Mordaunt and the charters. The patron of a house so small and so poor would be in a position to take a very high hand with the little convent, especially as one or two of the nuns would very likely be members of his own family."

It is sad to reflect that Harrold Priory, for all its lands and buildings, should have been reduced to a state of poverty by a combination of misfortunes and mismanagement. Proper care and attention would have allowed it to continue its work in the Harrold community, providing for travelers, feeding the poor and caring for the sick.  At least there is a legacy in the fine church buildings at Stevington, Cold Brayfield and Harrold.


Sources

• Power, Eileen (2010), Medieval English Nunneries: C1275 to 1535, Cambridge University Press
• Spear, Valerie (2005), Leadership in Medieval English Nunneries, Boydell Press.
• 'House of Austin nuns: The priory of Harrold', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 1 (1904), pp. 387-390.  http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40042
• 'Parishes: Harrold', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 3 (1912), pp. 63-68. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42384 
• 'House of Premonstratensian canons: The abbey of Lavendon', A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 1 (1905), pp. 384-386. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40317

Sequere pecuniam: Follow the money

The Tythe Barn, Harrold. Close to the Priory site but
not medieval.    Source: rightmove.co.uk

The foundation of Harrold Priory was based on the grant of the churches of Harrold and Brayfield to the new community.  These had been inherited by Albreda de Blosseville from her father, who held the manor of Harrold. They were then gifted by Albreda's husband Samson le Fort to the priory.  These churches would in turn yield an income sufficient to pay for the upkeep of the churches, the costs of the cannons (priests) serving in them, and provide a surplus besides.  The revenue would mostly have come in the form of tithes (a quantity of the crops grown each year), or occasionally in services rendered or rarely in coin.  The immediate area was some of the richest agricultural land in England and so the priory should have been well provided for.  A 17th century building named 'The Tythe Barn' still stands today on Church Walk in Harrold, right on the corner of what would have been the precincts of the St Peter's church and the priory. This is unlikely to have ever served for receiving tythes as the practice had died out by this period.

This type of transaction was normal in the early medieval period, especially in England, when there was very little coin in circulation in the countryside except at harvest time, when accounts were settled and labourers were paid their wages for the year.  So it was normal practice to gift property to the monasteries and nunneries, and many of these were adept at managing these effectively to maximise their revenues. Bruce Vernarde points to the detailed accounts for Fontevraud abbey in France in the 12th century to show that almost all donations were of land, with building and revenue from customs and tolls coming a distant second and third.  It was also the case that most of Fontevraud's purchases were of land and buildings (especially mills).  It is not known if the water mill which still exists in Harrold was ever part of the priory's patrimony: a mill is listed in the 11th century Domesday book but it does not appear explicitly in Harrold Priory's cartulary.

During the four centuries following the foundation, the priory would have continued to receive grants of land and buildings, as well as occasional sums of money and annual grants of grain or other produce.  These 'gifts' would invariably accompany the entry of a new nun or novice to the community.  Religious communities were not allowed to charge new members or their families for entry - this constituted 'simony' and was frowned on by the church.  Instead they had to rely on 'donations' accompanying the 'gift' of the woman in question to the community.   In the formal documentation which accompanied a new arrival, these gifts may have been expressed in spiritual terms: but as Kathleen Cooke has observed they were understandable in terms of cost-effective solutions to long-term care for elderly widows, provision for unmarried daughters or care homes for the terminally ill. A life in a nunnery, as far as families were concerned, could be seen as a good investment.

From the Harrold cartulary we know that Baldwin des Ardres, Count of Guisnes granted the church of Stevington some time before 1153.  The church of Shakerstone in Leicestershire came to Harrold in the 15th century but the priory, historians seem agreed, was never rich. While at Fontevraud the first prioress Petronille de Chemillé proved to be an excellent steward, actively developing 'the business' through shrewd management and acquisitions, there appears to have been no equivalent prioress at Harrold, which continued to live off its modest landholdings until the end, making the occasional plea for charity.

Bedford's Community Archives describe the priory's financial position as follows:

"A partially complete account roll for 1401-1402 has survived in the ownership of the Boteler family and was transcribed by G.D.Gilmore in Volume 49 of the Bedfordshire Historical Records Society publications called Miscellanea [1970]. It shows that the priory made a small surplus but was certainly not rich.

"The house's lands were never great, in fact in 1291 Pope Nicholas did not bother to include the house in his taxation of the church. In the Hundred Rolls of 1274-1279 the priory is recorded as owning 410 acres of land. By 1340 this figure had actually fallen to about 360 acres. 

"When the foundation was dissolved it was described as having an income of £57/10/- of which £31 came from four rectories (Harrold, Cold Brayfield, Stevington and Shakerstone) £13/18/- from land in Harrold and £12/12/- from small rents in seventeen different villages."


Sources

• Cooke, Kathleen (1990), "Donors and Daughters: Shaftesbury Abbey's benefactors, endowments and nuns, c1086-1130", Anglo Norman Studies. 12 pp. 29-45
• Venarde, Bruce L. (1997), Women's monasticism and medieval society: nunneries in France and England, 890-1215, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
• 'House of Austin nuns: The priory of Harrold', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 1 (1904), pp. 387-390.  http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40042