ation" that he knew the facts to be so. It must be remembered, too, that one fact proves that the actual accusations or Comperts—whether in the form of the visitors' notes or of the mythical "Black-book"—could never have been placed before Parliament for its consideration in detail. We have the Comperta documents—the findings of the visitors, whatever they may be worth, whilst on their rounds—and we can see for ourselves that no distinction is made between the greater and lesser houses. All are "tarred with the same brush": all, that is, are equally besmirched by Layton and Legh, by London and Ap Rice. "The idea that the smaller monasteries rather than the larger were particular abodes of vice," writes Dr. Gairdner, "is not borne out by the Comperta." Yet the preamble of the very Act suppressing the smaller monasteries because of their vicious living declares positively that "in the great and solemn monasteries of the realm" religion was well observed, and God well served. Can anybody imagine for a moment that this assertion could have found its way into the Act, had the reports of the visitors been laid, for the inspection of the members, upon the table of the House of Commons? We are consequently- compelled to accept the account of the matter given in the preamble of the Act: namely, that the measure was passed on the strength of the King's "declaration" that the charges against the smaller houses were true.
In its final shape the measure enacted that all religious houses not possessed of an income of more than £200 a year should be given to the crown, the heads of such houses receiving pensions, and the religious, despite their alleged depravity, were to be admitted to the larger and more observant monasteries, or licensed to act as secular priests. The measure of turpitude fixed by the Act was thus a
