RELIGIOUS HOUSES three of the most trustworthy monks should be elected by the chapter to assist with the accounts. An order was also made for preparing a tripartite inventory of the goods of the house. Sub-prior Cowper was ordered to pay £^ at the rate of 20S. a year, to make good his losses.^ The superior of the large monastery of Holm, being a mitred abbot, was often summoned away on national and other business, which probably accounts for the absence of Abbot John Redyng at the visitation of 15 14. Abbot Redyng died toward the dose of the year 15 16, and his successor came from the priory of Colchester. John Salcot (or Capon), who was elected abbot in February, 15 17, was a man of much academic disrincrion at Cam- bridge. Although he gained an evil repute in his later days, for avarice, when bishop of Salisbury, he seems to have revived the discipline of the abbey of Holm. At the visitation of 20 July, 1520, held by the bishop of Chalcedon and other episcopal commissaries, Abbot Salcot and twenty-one monks were examined. Unless there was a singularly successful conspiracy to deceive, the condition of things at Holm had most materially improved ; for all, save one, of the monks contented themselves with the state- ment ' omnia bene.' The one complainant, Nicholas Norwich, objected to Prior Tacolneston keeping in his own hand the offices of chamber- lain and sacrist. The abbot said that the house had not incurred any debt in his time, but that it had been so burdened in the days of his prede- cessors. The visitors ordered him to produce his accoimts and inventories at the Michaelmas synod at Norwich.' Dr. Jessopp thinks that there is good reason to believe that this abbot in the following years was more often at Cambridge than at Holm, being anxious to take his part in the controversies of the times. At the next recorded visitation, held in June, 1526, Abbot Salcot handed in the accounts of the abbot's and cellarer's offices, and also a very considerable schedule of the indebted- ness of the monastery. Some twenty monks w^ere examined, half of whom considered that all was going on well. The complaints of the -others were not serious. There was an excess •of dogs within the precincts ; the altar cloths were not clean, and there was a lack of due -ser-ice for the sick. The abbot, supfKjrted by several of the monks, complained that William Bynham set a bad example by continually ab- senting himself from mattins, imder the pretence ■of iUness, although they all knew that he enjoyed good health, and by dav ate and drank like the Test. William Hornyng said that many build- ings and barns on their manors had been blown -over that year in a %-iolent gale, Hornyng is styled an ' oute-rider,' a term that was evidently applied to a monk whose duty it was to visit the outlying granges. The injunctions consequent on this visitation provided that two of the senior and most suitable monks should be deputed once a year to supervise the manors and their repairs ; that an unnecessary number of dogs should not be fed in the monastery, for they devoured the fiagments from the tables which ought to be distributed to the poor ; that Bynham should be severely punished ; that better and more dilijent attention should be paid to the sick ; and that the altar cloths should be kept in better con- dition. The bishop also ordered that Bynham should be confined in the episcopal prison at Norwich, but afterwards remitted this punish- ment, at the urgent request of the abbot. The sub-prior, however, was advised that if Bynham was disobedient in the future, he should be at once sent to Norwich for imprisonment.' The last visitation was opened on 14 June, 1532. Abbot Salcot had been preferred to the great abbey of Hythe, imder strong pressure from the king, and he had been succeeded by William Repps, D.D., the late sub-prior of Norwich, in 1530. At this visitation the abbot declared that all things were as they should be, save the con- siderable debt. The complaints of the fifteen monks who gave evidence were much varied and showed considerable irregularity and laxity of discipline. Several of the monks were chareed with using Unen shirts and boots instead of sandals {ocrds) outside the monastery. It was again said that there were too manv do^s, and Richard Norwich, the new 'outrider,' was charged with negligence in the repair of the granges. The prior excused to the bishop his use of boots, owing to the disease in his shins, and for this he had the abbot's leave. Roger Rawworth, sacrist, complained much of the prior's negligence, particularly in not rising for mattins, and neglecting other offices ; he also mentioned five of the junior monks, who knew nothing of grammar. The third prior was charged with being wholly given over to hunt- ing, both in winter and summer, after mattins, about three or four o'clock. It was considered that the sacrist was much at fault as to the condition of the vestments and ornaments of the church. The conduit into the cloister was choked up, and the rear dorter was in a shameful condition ; both of these neglects were the fault of the sacrist. There was also much irregularity in paying the monks their pittances or f>ocket- money. The injunctions consequent on this visitation have not been presen'ed ; but there is an entry of the debts of the abbev, which had then reached the great total of ;^6oo izr. 5j<i.,* although the clear annual value of the monastery, according to the Valor of 1535, was only ^^583 17/. oii. When Ap R:ce and Legh visited St. Benet's at the close of 1535, they professed to have ' h'orm. Ftiit. (Camd. Soc), 126-S. ' Ibid. 174-5. ' Ibid- 213-5.
- Ibid. 278-S4.
335
