RELIGIOUS HOUSES On the Saturday before the third Sunday in Lent, 1276, the priory was visited by the prior of Wenlock and the equerry of the abbot of Cluni. The community then numbered thirty- two, and the visitors reported that their mode of life was conducted with propriety and regularity. The same general injunctions that were issued throughout the visitation were served on the prior relative to the use of the saddle-crupper, riding leggings, the eating of meat, reading in the farmery, and remaining in the convent after compline. The debts of the house amounted to the serious sum of ;^504. In 1279 there was a visitation by the priors of Mont Didier (France) and Lenton. They arrived at Castle Acre on 8 September. They reported that the brethren numbered thirty-five, and that they conducted themselves well, and carried on the divine offices and all ecclesiastical rites in a proper manner. The liabilities of the house were 1,700 marks, though the debt was only 600 marks when the prior was first appointed. The house had also become responsible for the debt of 200 marks of Miles, the present abbot of V6zelay (France), at the time when he was prior of Lewes.' The prior was too extravagant [nimis sumptuosus), but would willingly resign if another superior could be found. ^ In January, 1344, Clement VI received a peti- tion from John de Warenne, earl of Surrey, stating that the dispensation on account of illegitimacy, granted by John XXII and renewed by Gauce- lin, bishop of Albano, under order of Benedict XII, to his brother William, prior first of Hoxton and then of Castle Acre, formerly monk of Lewes, was of no avail, because it was given for a non- conventual priory — Hoxton being non-conven- tual but Castle Acre conventual — praying that, notwithstanding William's illegitimacy, he may retain the priory of Castle Acre. In the event Prior William was rehabilitated and dispensed, and the fruits received were remitted.' It would ■seem that William not long afterwards resigned •or was degraded from the office of prior, as an order was issued in 1349 for the arrest of William de Waren and Robert de Neketon, monksof Castle Acre, who had spurned the habit of their order and were vagabond, and their ■delivery to William Picot their prior.* An undated visitation among the Cluni muni- ments, but probably of the year 1 390, gives the number of the monks as twenty-six, and states that there were seven daily celebrations written down on the table, three of which were with music and four plain. Twenty-six is named as ' Milo de Columbiers was prior of Lewes from 1263 to 1274; at the latter date he resigned on teing appointed abbot of Vezelay — Robert de Hake- beche was at this time prior of Castle Acre. ' Duckett, CAart. and Rec. of Cluni, ii, 127, 142. ' Cal. Papal Pet. i, 30.
- Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, pt. iii, m. 22.
the full complement of monks, though it is stated that formerly the number was not limited and was sometimes upwards of thirty.' A table of all the affiliated foundations of the abbey of Cluni throughout Christendom, drawn up about the year 1500, gives the number of the monks then at Castle Acre as twenty-six.^ The indulgence of the Portiuncula was granted in August, 1 40 1, by Boniface IX to penitents, who on the next Passion Sunday and on the feast of St. James should visit the Cluniac church of Castle Acre and give alms for the repair of tiie church, wherein are divers relics of saints, and to the which a great number of people resort. The prior, sub-prior, and ten other priests chosen by them, were authorized to hear confessions on those two feasts, and on the two days immedi- ately preceding them. A singular question of conscience arose in 1404 as to the observance of an oath taken by Simon Sutton, prior of Castle Acre. On his ob- taining the priory, the Earl of Arundel, asserting himself to be patron, exacted from him an oath not to alienate its woods or possessions, nor to manumit his serfs without licence of the earl or his successors. Subsequently he regretted taking this oath lest it should prejudice the priory rights, and appealed to the pope as to its lawfulness. Innocent VII, after passing a salutary penance on Simon for his incautious oath, decided that the oath was void, as laymen had no such power over persons and things ecclesiastical.* The Valor of 1535 gives the clear annual value at ;^3o6 i is. 4^^/. The offerings at the arm of St. Philip, their most important relic, averaged at that time loj. a year. Thomas Mailing, who had been admitted to office in June, 15 1 9, was prior. On 27 Janu- ary, 1536, when he wrote a note to Cromwell, of a character only too frequent during that un- happy period, the prior stated that he was send- ing four marks by the bearer to Cromwell ' for a poor token,' and a patent of four marks a year to him for life out of the monastic revenues. He also said that the bearer was bringing the evidences of his poor house to Cromwell accord- ing to his injunctions, but begged him to dispense with or qualify some of his orders.' In February the priory was visited by the inqui- sitors, Legh and Ap Rice, who claimed that seven of the monks had confessed to foul sins. But so little credence was in truth given to these tales that in the following month (March, 1536) Thomas Mailing, the superior of a singularly polluted house, if the royal visitors were to be believed, was chosen by the bishop of Norwich to be presented to the archbishop, together with
- Ibid, ii, 210.
- Pignot, Ordre de Cluni, ii, 566.
' Cal. Pap. Reg. v, 415. « Ibid, vi, 78. ' L. and P. Hen. Fill, x, 66. 357
