RELIGIOUS HOUSES in the temporal affairs of the priory, but in spite of his age preferred to follow hounds rather than books. The archbishop, therefore, appointed John, formerly official of the bishop of Norwich, and another monk to act with the prior in the control of the business of the house ; he further ordered that if any of the canons wanted to follow the hounds they should do so on horses and not on foot, and that only when the prior himself was present. Those who were suspected of incontinency were not to be allowed outside the priory except in cases of necessity, and then only when accompanied by others of good fame, and if they spoke to women or went into their houses they were to be severely punished ; nor were women to be admitted to the priory on any account, save in the case of great and noble ladies accompanied by their trains who could not be refused. Chess and similar games were at the same time strictly forbidden, one of the canons, Robert de Hunstanton, being singled out as a special offender in this particular respect. Finally, the archbishop ordered that his letter should be copied and shown to the visitors on the occasion of all future visitations, that they might see how far the state of the house had improved. On 2 November, 1492, Archdeacon Goldweli, as commissary of the bishop, visited Coxford, when prior Henry, sub-prior Robert Dereham, and six other canons were present. The report showed that the farmery was not open for the reception of infirm brethren ; that the frater was too cold for sitting at meals ; that it would be for the good of the house to have a grammar master for the younger canons ; and that there was no honest recreation provided.^ Bishop Nicke paid a personal visitation to the priory on 12 July, 15 14. John Mathew, the prior, said that mattin mass was not celebrated ; that the brethren were disobedient, quarrelsome, and incorrigible ; and that Canon John Berdon had taken flight three or four times and was then imprisoned. Sub-Prior John Nytingale said that silence was not observed ; that the prior did not present annual accounts ; that the frater was ruinous ; and that they had no farmery. Canon William Kettilston re-echoed the complaints as to frater and farmery. Canon Richard Andrew said that the prior only rose for the night offices on the four great festivals. Five other canons reported omnia bene. The consequent injunc- tions provided for the presenting of an annual account, for the better observance of silence, for the providing of suitable food for the sick, and for the obedience and religious behaviour in quire of the canons.^ The bishop suffragan of Chalcedon visited in 1520. After preaching in from the text, Sith ioUlciti the prior and ni the chapter-house servare unitatem^ canons were severally ' Jessopp, Norw. Fisit. (Camd. Soc), 29. ' Ibid. 111-12. examined. Prior Mathew complained that at the request of Dr. Hare they had assigned an annuity of 40X. to his nephew, Nicholas Hare, to act as their steward, an office which they found he could not lawfully hold. John Nightin- gale, sub-prior, said that there was no annual return of accounts, but cetera omnia bene. The eight other canons had no complaint, and spoke the praises of the prior. The prior exhibited an inventory of the goods of the house, and was enjoined for the future to lay an annual balance-sheet before the senior canons.' At the visitation on 8 August, 1526, Prior Mathew acknowledged that he had not presented any annual statement of accounts, and John Nightingale, sub-prior, testified that such had not been the custom of the priory for the past forty years. There were only three other canons at the visitation, two of them priests and one a deacon ; they all said omnia bene.* Henry Salter was prior when the last visitation of this house was held in 1532. The prior said that there was no record of the possessions of the house in consequence of his predecessors having kept no accounts ; that he had not yet been prior for a year, but that at the end of the year he promised to produce a balance-sheet. He further reported that Canon Robert Porter had been guilty of incontinence, and had been corrected by Master Rawlins, his predecessor. Sub-Prior William Neville made a good report of everything save as to the condition of the dorter; four other canons were content to testify omnia bene. The visitor enjoined that, with the con- sent of the prior and convent, the house and chamber of the sub-prior should be used as a farmery ; that the dorter should be repaired as soon as possible ; and that the year's balance should be presented within a month after Michaelmas.' John de Cokesford was prior on 17 September, 1534, when the prior and nine canons subscribed to the king's supremacy.* In several documents of I 534-6, evidently referring to the same prior, the sub-prior is indifferently termed Mathew, Coxford, and Adamson ; apparently John Mathew, the former prior, was re-elected about I533' According to Legh and Ap Rice's scandalous comperta of 1 536, one of the oldest canons of this house, the sub-prior, William Neville, con- fessed to them his incontinency.' Later in the same year the county commissioners for sup- pression reported that ' The Priory of Chanones of Cokesforde of the order of Seynt Augustine ys a hede house and hathe a Covent seale and ys of the yearly value of cxx//, ix5, ix//, with xvij//, vijf, xd for the demayne under ther in the occu- pacione of the Prior, Religious persones iij 'Ibid. 169.
- Ibid. 251. ' Ibid. 313-14.
- Rymer, FoeJera (Rcc. Com.), xiv, 501.
' L. and P. Hen. Fill, iv (3), 2699. 379
