THE FOUNDATION
OF ST EDMUND'S, PARIS

Dom Stephen Marron
Douai Magazine 3:2 (1924) 99-108/h1>

Some of our readers may not know that Douai Abbey is St: Edmund's Monastery. It existed 1818-1903 in the French town of Douai, hence its present name, but before that it stood for nearly two centuries in the city of Paris, where it was first begun in 1615in the days of persecution. This first beginning of our monastery in Paris is the subject of the present essay.

The foundation of the Paris monastery was an item in the English Benedictine revival which commenced in the second half of Elizabeth's reign. We have already treated of this movement [1] but, for a better understanding of our subject, some points must be recalled to mind. To bring back Benedictinism to England a number of Englishmen became monks abroadsome in Italy, others in Spain, and thus when they returned simultaneously to England in the first year of James's reign, they were two distinct parties belonging respectively to the congregations of Italy and of Spain. The Gunpowder Plot occurred soon after their arrival and the fresh persecution which then broke out gave an impetus, among these English monks, to two movementsthe one for founding monasteries for themselves on the neighbouring Continentthe other, closely linked with this, for uniting into one English body of monks. Fr. Bradshaw, Vicar or Superior of the Spanish party, soon started two monasteries, one at Douai, the other at Dieulouard in Lorraine. At the same time he came to an understanding with Fr. Anselm Beech one of the Cassinese or Italian party, that through the instrumentality of Fr. Sigebert Buckley, an old Westminster monk and last survivor of the former English congregation, continuity with the old congregation should be secured and on these lines the Spanish and Italian parties should, with the consent of their foreign superiors, unite in reviving the old English congregation. Accordingly, in November, 1607, two of the Cassinese party, Frs. Maihew and Sadler, were aggregated to Westminster Abbey by Fr. Buckley.

1. 1 In the recent numbers of this Magazine.

The foreign superiors of the monks approved of the idea of union between their English subjects, who thereupon, in 1611, drew up a scheme of union to be submitted for their final sanction. But the scheme got no further, for Fr. Rudisind Barlow, a recent arrival from Spain, headed a party of opposition, insisting that the united body should be dependent on the Spanish congregation. Through their influence the scheme was dropped, and the same influence soon brought about the removal of Fr. Bradshaw from office.

In the meantime the new English party, the Westminster monks had, with the aid of the Cassinese, secured from the donors of Dieulouard monastery equal rights with the Spanish party in that monastery. To meet this practical difficulty, the Spanish proposed a scheme of union with the English party. The Cassinese were left out of the negotiations. The scheme entailed dependence on Spain, but finally, under pressure and with certain stipulations, the English accepted, and in consequence one of their party, Fr. Foster, was made prior. As he was still in England Fr. Maihew took charge in his name, and thus the English came into power in Dieulouard.

Fr. Anselm Beech, Cassinese, who was in Rome, received a copy of this union. He was in fact the superior of the English party, who were as we have seen really a branch of the Cassinese. He at once took measures to thwart this new movement by pushing forward in Rome a scheme on the lines of the original agreement and embracing all parties. It was sanctioned by the Holy See and officially forwarded thence to the papal nuncios in France and Flanders with orders to put it at once into operation in the English monasteries. This was in the year 1614.

There were by this time four monasteries ; for during these years of negotiations two new monasteries had been foundedone at S. Malo in Brittanythe other at Chelles, near Paris. This Anselmian measure met with diverse receptions. It was readily accepted by the English party at Dieulouard, who had no relish for dependence on Spain. It was respectfully but firmly opposed by the Spanish party at Douai, to whom it came as a bolt from the blue. At S. Malo, Fr. Gifford was superior. He was a monk of Dieulouard but under Spanish obedience, and he decided to await the result of the appeal which the Spanish party were making to Rome. At Chelles, Fr. Francis Walgrave had just been appointed superior. Like Fr. Gifford, he too was of Dieulouard but under Spanish obedience. However, he took the opposite course, accepted the union and sided with Fr. Maihew and the English party at Dieulouard. Another person of interest in this matter was Fr. Bradshaw, the deposed Spanish vicar. After his deposition, he had lived for a time at Chelles, but at this moment he was engaged on the reform of Fontevrauld. It is not to be wondered at that he was, on the whole, in favour of this new scheme, which was on the lines of his original understanding with the Cassinese. In the controversy which ensued, Fr. Walgrave of Chelles, energetically upheld the new union, and towards the end of the year (1614) urged Fr. Bradshaw to come and join him at Chelles. We find Fr. Bradshaw there early in 1615. However it was of no avail. The Spanish appeal had succeeded in Rome, the Cardinals of the Inquisition had on January 15th, 1615, agreed to suspend the union, and on February 19th, directed that such of the Spanish party as had joined the English congregation in virtue of this union, should return to their own congregation. Frs. Bradshaw, Walgrave and others at Chelles, for certain reasons, held out for some months, but at length yielded in the month of August. It was during those months and under the above circumstances that they made the beginning of the new monastery in the city of Paris.

For some years the Paris house formed practically one establishment with Chelles of which something must here be said. Chelles-sur-Marne lay about four leagues east of Paris, and there was established a royal nunnery dating back to the sixth century. Of its early history nothing need be said, but at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the nuns adopted the reform of Fontevrauld [2] and at the same period secured the privilege of having for confessors and chaplains, instead of canons as heretofore, a body of monks. The Cluny monks of S. Martin des Champs undertook to supply the requisite six monks and accordingly established there this small community in place of the canons. Their monastery stood just within the main entrance to the convent grounds and was known as Holy Cross. Towards the end of that century however, the Cluny monks withdrew and for a period the nuns had no resident community of monk chaplains. Princess Marie of Lorraine, who in 1583 had succeeded Renee de Bourbon as Abbess of Chelles, wished to re-establish the resident community of' monks, and early in the 17th century, when the English Benedictines were in great repute on the continent for regular observance, at the instigation of Fr. Laurens Berard, Prior of Cluny College, Paris, and visitator of the convent, she invited the English monks. This was about the year 1611 when Fr. Bradshaw was still vicar of the Spanish party. The invitation was accepted and early in 1612 Fr. Bradshaw sent thither Fr. Walgrave who became confessor to the Abbess, and Fr. Brown who was to be superior of the monks who were shortly assembled to the required number of six. Writing to the General of the Spanish congregation in the summer of 1613, Fr. Walgrave says they already numbered six and the Abbess was willing to receive more. [3] In the following year, Fr. Brown informed the general that they numbered seven religious. His letter is dated February 3rd, 1614, the day on which the Anselmian union was signed in Rome, which brings us back to our subject.

2.They did not join the order of Fontevrauld, but remained an independent convent.
3. Silos Papers. He says the nuns had just given up the white habit of St. Augustine for our black. As we know from other sources this took place on August 7th, 1613, when in chapter the Abbess received the black habit from her confessor, the visitator being also present. See Dom Porcheron's Histoire de Chelles MSS. preserved in Grand Seminaire at Meaux. He says they had the white habit for a centuryevidently since they received the reform of Fontevrauld, as we have mentioned.

It was undoubtedly at Walgrave's suggestion (as Weldon assures us) that the Abbess founded the new house in Paris, but it is very likely 'that Fr. Bradshaw originated the move. The foundation is thus chronicled by a quasi-contemporary writer:

In the year 1615 the illustrious princess, seeing that the monks whom Fr. Bernard [4] had recommended performed their duties in a laudable manner, was desirous to encourage them further; and perceiving that it would be beneficial both for her convent and also for the young men themselves, newly clothed and professed for the service of her convent, that they be educated in Paris in the usual academical course of philosophy and theology, she hired a house suitable for their dwelling and studies, at an annual rent of 200 crowns, [5] furnished it and also established a chapel and altar therein by leave of the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal de Retz Of happy memory. She moreover contributed a further 200 crowns: annually for their support, over and above such alms as they received from generous benefactors to whom she commended them. Since the monks so established in Paris were, in accordance with the intentions of the illustrious Abbess, to serve in the ministry at Chelles, she also willed and ordained that all the monks thus established by her in Paris, must be subject to the bidding of her confessor, who was superior of all monks whether actually residing at Chelles or destined for its service, so that they should be revocable at his will.

And further on the writer states that the Abbess founded the house in Paris 'that she might at the same time provide for the ministry of her own convent and also prepare men suitable to aid in due time the Catholics in England, whenever their superiors should see it good and needful to send them thither.'[6]

4. Here he is called Fr. Bernard, but his name was Fr. Laurens Berard as appears from other documents.
5. Aurea, i.e., scuta aurea, or ecus d'or, a coin worth between five and six francs: to be precise, 114 sous.
6. Syllabus Actorum a Definitorio et Superioribus Congreg: Hispanicae Ord: S. Bened: Anglorum in suburbiis San. Germanicis per apostasiam; editus per R. P. Maurum S. Crucaeum Presb. Bened: et notarium definitorii Congr : Hisp: Parisiis, 1623. Though a pamphlet of controversy it uses the cartulary of Chelles ; hence its value. Fr. Barnes; apparently, drew it up. There is an incomplete copy (8 pages) in Paris, Bibl: Nationale fonds franc: 15769, fol: 252; but I have used Weldon's transcript.

As to the date of the actual beginning the same chronicler says: 'In the said year (1615) on the erection of the Paris residence . . . the superior and convent of the monks at Chelles (as appears from the Chelles cartulary, fol. 6,) on June 25th sent Fr. Augustine White (i.e., Bradshaw) to preside over that residence under the above conditions.' Weldon, giving another account, [7] states that the first monks spent about a month in Montague College and then in October moved into the house which the Abbess had rented for them. 'About a month' might mean a good deal more, the account used is apparently of a much later date [8] and need give no difficulty against the contemporary account composed at Chelles from the cartulary of the monastery. Hence we may accept June 25th, 1615 as the date of the appointment of the first superior and approximately the date of the actual beginning.

7. Memorials vol. l,.pp. 173, 399.
8. Downside Review, July, 1900, p. 153, where Mr. Bishop suggests about the year 1670.

The new foundation was then conceived in the light of the Anselmian union [9] at a time when the Chelles monks were siding with Fr. Maihew and the English party at Dieulouard against the Spanish party. It is also evident that there was an understanding between Chelles and the English party in this matter. The first students at the Paris house were all young monks from Dieulouard sent by Fr. Maihew. In a letter of January 6th, 1616, Fr. Maihew says 'wee have accepted of another residence' which can be none other than Paris; and earlier, on August 26th, 1615, he informed the Cardinals of the Inquisition that he had news from Paris that owing to the calumnies of the Spanish party ' we have lost or are in the greatest danger of losing an annual pension of more than 300 gold crowns which the French clergy with the greatest charity assigned to us.' [10] This was no doubt one of the benefactions made to the Paris house on the commendation of the Abbess, as mentioned above. Apparently then, the Dieulouard party had guaranteed to supply a succession of chaplains for Chelles, and the Paris residence was to be a house of studies for their young monks, chiefly for that purpose. In the light of all this we can well appreciate the difficulty which the Chelles monks felt in submitting again to the obedience of the Spanish party, which they did perforce on August 24th, and we can also understand why they first exacted a promise from the Spanish vicar and other authorities that 'there shall be no innovations in our persons or undertakings until a union has been concluded between us.' [11]

9. The Anselmian Union set up a revived English congregation substantially independent of any foreign congregation.
10. Maihew Papers in our archives. This second letter is in Latin and Fr. Maihew's term is 'Clerus Gallicanus.'
11. Apostolatus, appendix 1, p. 14.

The house which the Abbess rented for the monks was in the Rue S, Jacques, and was known as the Hotel de S. Andre. It was a private residence of the family de S. Andre and at that time belonged to Claire de S. Andre, widow of Nicolas Leclerc. [12] It had been made over to her some fifteen years earlier by her brother Jean de S. Andre, canon of Paris, and from her consequently the Abbess rented it. As we have seen, the Paris residence was regarded by the Abbess as one establishment with Chelles, their house of studies in fact, and was quite subject to the superior of Chelles, Fr. Walgrave, who according to an account in Weldon came over once a week from Chelles to superintend matters.

12. Archives Nationales, Paris, S. 4788 (Seine-Abbayes et communautes de femmes), Her son Nicolas sold it to the Visitation nuns in June, 1626, for 90,000 livres. When they paid 66,300, he remitted the remainder that he might be considered a founder.

Who were the first monks there? Weldon gives a list of the first sixand this he does also in the case of other foundations. Apparently such was the custom of the author whom he chiefly follows, most probably Bishop Ellis. [13] Judging by the lists given for other nouses and also by independent evidence from other sources, this list does not mean that all the six were there at the outset nor even that they were ever there contemporaneously but simply that they were the first six to go there successively. The list is: Frs. Clement Reyner, Nicolas Curre, George Gaire and Alban Roe, with Brs. Placid Gascoigne and Dunstan Pettinger. Various reasons might be suggested why Fr. Bradshaw, the superior, was omitted from the list, but we will not discuss that point. A contemporary list is given by Fr. Barlow in a letter of February 8th, 1616, where he says that at that date there were in Paris with Fr. Bradshaw Frs. Curre, Gascoigne, Gaire and Don Dunstan Pettinger. [14] We are inclined to agree with Mr. Bishop when he says 'it may be reasonably supposed these were its original members.' [15] The next list is in the Acts of Chapter of Dieulouard in October of the same year where as of the English party are given as at ParisFrs. Clement Reyner, N. Curre, P. Gascoigne and D. Pettinger. [16] Fr. Gaire is given as in England and we may note from the Syllabus that on the first of this October, Fr. Bernard Berrington was appointed, by Chelles, superior in place of Fr. Bradshaw. In the Chapter list Fr. Roe is given as at Remiremont. It does not appear at what date he was at Paris, but as the list is correct as regards the other five, no doubt it is also correct concerning him.

13. Apparently Mr. Bishop was of this mind, and that is why he attributes the account which Weldon follows to 'about 1670', as already noted. Bishop Ellis was professed in 1670, and wrote his account when a young monk at Douai. His work is unfortunately lost.
14. Silos Papers.
15. Downside Review, l.c. It may be mentioned that Weldon calls Gaire Sayer. In several documents it is spelt Gayer and allowing for a peculiar formation of the initial capital in the manuscript used by Weldon or Ellis or whoever first copied Sayer, the mistake is easily understood.
16. Nancy archives, dep. Meurthe et Moselle, liasse H. 50.

Owing to the circumstances in which it had been begun, the status of the Paris house was at this period a very peculiar one, and its destinies depended in a very special way on the result of the negotiations for union, which were again set afoot. At length by decree of May 19th, 1616, the Holy See directed that nine definitors be elected from all parties, with powers to effect union; and if the Cassinese still held out, then union be made between the Spanish and English parties, as in fact came to pass. The decree was promulgated by the nuncio in Paris on August 4th, and on March 16th, 1617, the definitors elect were declared by Bentivoglio, who had been recently transferred as nuncio from Brussels to Paris. He appointed the Paris house as the place of meeting and June 1st, as the date for assembling.

The year 1617 was a most eventful one in the history of the Paris house. First of all on April 4th Fr. Gifford, who proved its most intrepid defender, was made superior in place of Fr. Berrington. Fr. Berrington had been appointed in the previous October 'under the expressly agreed condition that despite his presidentship of Paris he should remain none the less a conventual of Chelles, in all things subject to the superior of Chelles.' Now Fr. Gifford was not a monk of Chelles and moreover he was prior of S. Malo, and could not well be subjected to Chelles as his predecessors had been. Nevertheless, seeing that he resided almost continuously in Paris, where he was in great renown as a preacher, and as it was befitting he should have the dignity and standing of superior there for his great merits, the Abbess agreed that he should be made prior, with these conditions only : that whatever he acquired during his priorship, should be devoted to the Paris house ; and that on retiring he should hand over the house again to the superior of Chelles. [17]

17. Syllabus already mentioned.

Another important event was the death of Claire de S. Andre, proprietress of the house, which apparently took place before the assembling of the definitors. Her son Nicolas Leclerc wanted the house for his own purposes and consequently the monks had to look for another. The definitory assembled there however and according to one account preserved in Weldon, Gifford and others disliked the subjection of the Paris house to Chelles, 'especially having a designe to erect a monasterie in Paris which should properly be of ye Englishe Congregation.' [18] At this juncture, Fr. Gifford at his own expenses hired a house from a M. Clopin in the Rue de Vaulgirard, near the Queen's palace of Luxemburg, Faubourg S. Germain. The transference evidently took place about the beginning of October, for then we find great movement, Fr. Reyner went to Dieulouard, Frs. Gascoigne, Curre and Pettinger to Douai. [19] Fr. Matthew Sandford suddenly appears as acting superior. Brs. Gicou and Guillet arrive from S. Malo to which house Fr. Sandford also belonged; quite an influx from S. Malo of which, it must be remembered, Fr. Gifford was still prior. In this month of October also we find the authorities at Chelles busy about purchasing a house for the Paris monks and it was on October 6th that Fr. Walgrave induced the monks of Dieulouard to renounce their claim on the Bluet money, that it might be devoted to this purpose.

18. Inserted in Memorials 1, p. 555. Someone has written at the head of it' Fr. Antony Turberville gives the following account'; but Weldon says (p. 177) that he got it from Fr. B. Gregson who had copied it from an old paper at Lambspring in 1707. The design mentioned was very likely discussed by the definitors.
19. Thus the account in Memorials 1, p. 555.'Proqua ipse proprio nomine stipulavit' says the Informatio (Vatic. Francia 412) which means the same thing. See also the 'Humilis ac sincera narratio' to Spada in 1626 (Francia 412). Bishop Ellis rightly calls Fr. Gifford the founder of the Paris monastery. (Copied in Weldon l.c. vol. 1., p. 160).
20. See Downside Review l.c. and the references given there. That Fr. Pettinger went at the same time I conclude from the fact that he writes a letter from Douai, March 1st, 1618, where he was then in residence. (Paris, Bibl. Nationale, fonds franc. 16131, p. 253).

A word must here be said about this Bluet money. [21] It appears that an English lady, Anne Bluet, entered the convent at Chelles in 1613 (she was professed on September 8th, 1614) [22] and her friends made over to Fr. Walgrave a certain sum of money, on the condition that he paid an annuity to Chelles during her lifetime. In the years 1614 and 1615, when as we have seen he was siding with the Dieulouard party, he placed this money in 'constitution de rentes' in Lorraine, in the Abbess' name but in reality for the benefit of Dieulouard. He now in 1617 (October 6th) persuaded them to renounce their claim for the purpose mentioned, but it appears from his own statement that he did not so employ it at this time. In fact with the Abbess' authority he now purchased a house in the Rue Verbois, in the name of Antoine Avril, a servant of the Abbess, for 7,000 livres, made up of 1,000 ecus given by the King to the convent at the clothing of mesdames de Bourbon and the rest from demi-benefices which the Abbess had by pension on the Abbey of Moirmont. [23]

21. See Nancy archives liasse H. 48: whence the information.
22. Dom Porcheron's Histoire de Chelles.
23. Weldon, Memorials, vol. i, p. 190.

Fr. Gifford and the Paris monks did not, however accept this house, the Abbess paid no further pension after 1617, and from this dates the existence of the monastery as an independent house. This independence however was not easily secured; there were many difficulties ahead. The scheme of union agreed upon by the definitory was at once opposed in Rome by Fr. Anselm Beech and among other means used, he exploited the enmity that then existed between France and Spain. Claiming to act on behalf of the monks of Chelles and Paris he represented to the French legate in Rome [24] that it was dishonourable to France that monks in France should be subjected to Spain, as was done by this union. The legate wrote to the king's counsellors on the point, and Puisieux the secretary of State interviewed Fr. Gifford. He told Fr. Gifford that he feared danger whatever answer was returned and Fr. Gifford at once wrote to Fr. Leander. On February 28th, 1618, Fr. Leander wrote to Fr. Berard, Prior of Cluny College, begging his assistance, and on the same date he wrote also to Puisieux asking him to consider the points which Fr. Berard would present to him. To Fr. Berard he points out that hitherto these monks had been completely under Spanish jurisdiction, whereas under the union only an honorary jurisdiction had been left to the Spanish general whose only rights were to confirm the election of the president and to grant licence to print or to take degrees. This had been done precisely to satisfy the monks in France, chiefly on the insistence of Fr. Gifford. [25] The union was to be forced on no one. Fr. Beech's claim to speak in the name of all the monks in France was false; three at most were with him, viz.: Frs. Bradshaw, Walgrave and Sandford. Indeed even while writing he received letters from the nuncio to say that these fathers being interrogated declared they were not opposed to union. He suggests that the union be allowed to stand for this quadriennium, that meanwhile Puisieux appoint Fr. Berard with Fr. Berulle or the Prior of the Carthusians or any other French priest to visitate Chelles and Paris; also the Bishop of S. Malo to visitate the monastery there; then at the next general chapter we will give satisfaction. [26]

24. The Archbishop of Lyons.
25. The phrase 'ab Hispania dependens', however,was in the scheme or union sent to Rome for approval and was suppressed by the authorities in Rome, as appears from a paper (Francia 412) of replies by the English congregation to Fr. Walgrave's objections to the brief of approbation. No doubt it signified nothing more than what Fr. Leander asserts.
26. Biblio. Nationale, Paris; fonds fr. 16131.

This opposition delayed the confirmation of the union for a long time and left matters in suspense. Fr. Walgrave was certainly dealing with Fr. Beech. {27] Fr. Bradshaw died on May 4th, and passes off the scene. As for Fr. Sandford he is suspected by Fr. Leander because he with Fr. Walgrave was at variance with the vicar for not placing in 'the Chelles and Paris residence (which they have erected in a spirit of contradiction) the monks whom they want,'so says Fr. Leander. [28] Remembering how, when Fr. Sandford became superior, Fr. Reyner and the rest had been removed from Paris, we can appreciate the situation.

27. This is clear from later statements by Fr. Leander
28. In the letter to Fr. Berard.

In the month of September, Fr. Gifford was consecrated Bishop and shortly departed for Rheims. Whereupon the Paris monks were called upon by the authorities at Chelles to subject themselves again to the superior at Chelles, in accordance with the agreement made when Fr. Gifford became prior, and also to leave the hired house and transfer to the one which the Abbess had bought for them. [29] This created new difficulties to arrange which Fr. Leander and Fr. Walgrave met at Amiens in March, 1619. Fr. Barnes was present at the conference and witnessed the agreement which consisted of twenty-one articles and was afterwards known as the Concordat of Amiens. [30] The purport of it was, very briefly, as follows; the Paris house was to be a college depending on Chelles after the analogy of a dependent priory on an abbey in the Spanish congregation. To preserve unity all novices of the two houses were to be clothed and professed at Chelles. The formal studies of a college were to be begun at Paris only when there was a suitable number of students and staff of professors. Their manner of life would be regulated for by the superior of the mission and the regimenwith the counsel and consent of the Abbess' confessor, in her name. Meanwhile Fr. Walgrave was to appoint a superior there, and arrange that the monks rise at 4.0, sing Mass at 10.0, Vespers about 2.0 p.m., Complin about 7.0. Fr. Walgrave was to uphold the union and the Abbess to supply a house and grounds in a convenient place in Paris, furnish it and give an annual pension of 600 florins during her lifetime.

29. Syllabus.
30. Vatican archives, Francia 412.

This agreement was signed on March 17th, 1619, whereupon Fr. Leander commissioned Fr. Walgrave, with the counsel of Frs. Berrington and Matthews, to bring about the transference of the community to the Abbess' house. [31] It must be noted that Fr. Sandford was no longer in Paris. He had gone to Rheims either with Bishop Gifford or soon after. Frs. Berrington and Matthews opposed the transference, finding the house unsuitable for regular observance, also because on account of the opposition of the parish priest no licence could be got for celebrating publicly, and chiefly because there was no security as to the donation. Fr. Leander, with the advice of Bishop Gifford and Fr. Barlow, at Rheims, on April 9th suspended his order until the house be made suitable. He appointed Fr. Berrington superior and ordered Fr. Sandford to return and see that everything was in order that Fr. Berrington might enter on his office on May 15th. Fr. James Shirburne, who was presumably then at Paris, was to take Fr. Berrington's place at Chelles. [32] In a private letter to Fi. Berrington, Fr. Leander names two others of the Paris community Fr. Alphonsus Hanson who had just departed for England and Fr. Dunstan (Everard) who was about to depart. [33]

31. Humilis ac sincera narratio, already cited.
32. Memorials, vol. ii, p. 644.
33. Memorials, vol. ii, p. 627.

When Fr. Berrington entered on his office he at once appointed his council which consisted of Frs. Thomas Monnington, Constans Matthews and John Mumford. The council book still survives and on the fly-leaf Fr. Berringtbn has written: 'The booke of our counsaill heer in this our convent in ye fauxburge of St. Germain from ye 22 of May, 1619, I fr. Bernardus de Sto Petro by ordre and commission from our Superioures being appointed and receaved for Superior heerof although unworthy.' The first council was held on May 24th. Names of members of the community mentioned in the early councils are Frs. Claude White, Tldephonsus Cliffe, Francis Gicou, Br. Gabriel Brett and Brs. Sigebert and Romanus (novices of S. Malo).

The Holy See at length sanctioned the union of 1617, by brief of August 23rd, 1619, and the Regimen in arranging superiors dealt with the Paris monastery precisely as with the other independent houses. The Abbess and Fr.Walgrave continued to protest and make difficulties for some years, but the house at Paris was never again subjected to Chelles.