A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



the great feasts and on principal doubles. The 

 chartulary also contains a copy of the assent of 

 Mary the prioress and the nuns to this ordinance, 

 sealed in their chapter-house on 5 October ; 

 and of that of the dean and chapter of Norwich, 

 sealed on 7 October. The surplus of this en- 

 dowment, after paving the stipend of the master 

 and chaplains, was to go to the common fund of 

 the priory, and to be used towards the susten- 

 ance of two additional nur.s. 



Licence was obtained by the priory for 

 50 marks in 1392 for the alienation by Robert 

 Ashfield and others of 12s. \d. rent in Totting- 

 ton, Norfolk, and of the reversion of that manor 

 after the deaths of John de Bokenham senior 

 and John de Bokenham junior, to find three 

 tapc-rs to burn daily before the high altar at high 

 mass in the conventual church. 1 



Licence for £40 was granted in 1400 to the 

 prioress and nuns of Campsey for Robert Ash- 

 field and others to assign to them the manor 

 called Blomvyle bv Perham, together with con- 

 siderable lands in Wickham Market and adjacent 

 places, and the advowson of Pettistree, with 

 leave to appropriate. 2 



In 14 1 6 an important return was made of 

 the appropriated churches of the diocese of 

 Norwich, with the dates of the appropriation. 

 The following are those entered as pertaining to 

 the priory of Campsey : — 



Ludham, 1259; Bredfield, 1259; Totting- 

 ton, 1302; Wickham Market, 1343; Tun- 

 stead, 1350 ; and Pettistree, 141 3. 3 



The Valor of 1535 gives the clear annual 

 value of this priory as ^182 gs. $d. The tem- 

 poralities consisted of the manors, with members, 

 of Campsey, Wickham Market, Overhall and 

 Netherhall Denham, Tottington-cum-Stanford, 

 and Swefling, of the clear value of ^158 19/. $\d. 

 The spiritualities, then consisting of the rectories 

 of Wickham and Pettistree (Suffolk) and Tun- 

 stead and Tottington (Norfolk) were valued at 

 ^23 gj. iiW.' The wealthy chantry of Ufford 

 foundation, within the conventual church, was 

 worth ^35 6j. 8^., and was most certainly part 

 of the priory's property, as the surplus, after 

 paying the chantry priests' stipends, went to the 

 common fund of the nunnery. To exclude 

 this from the sum total of the priory's income 

 was a mere piece of trickery to bring this house 

 within those that were to be suppressed in 1536, 

 and which were bound to have a less income 

 than ^200. 



Archdeacon Goldwell visited Campsey on 

 24 January, 1492, as commissary of his brother 

 the bishop. The visitation was attended by 

 Katharine the prioress, Katharine Babington, the 

 sub-prioress, and eighteen other nuns. Each 



1 Pat. 16 Ric. II, pt. i, m. 34. 



'"' Ibid. I Hen. IV, pt. v, m. 4. 



3 Norw. Epis. Reg. viii, fol. 128. 



1 Valor Eccl. (Rcc. Com.), iii, 415-17. 



was examined severally and separately, but no- 

 thing was found that demanded reformation.' 



Bishop Nykke personally visited Campsey in 

 1 5 14. The prioress, Elizabeth Everard, gave a 

 good account of everything pertaining to the 

 house, and in this she was supported by Petronilla 

 Fulmerston, the sub-prioress, and eighteen other 

 nuns, none of whom had any complaint to 

 make. 6 



A prioress and the full number of twenty nuns 

 were found here at the visitation of 1520, when 

 everything was again found to be satisfactory. 7 

 The like number attended the visitation of 1526, 

 when Elizabeth Buttry was prioress. Each of 

 these ladies bore testimony to the good estate of 

 the house in slightly varied phraseology. The 

 only shadow of a complaint was from Margaret 

 Harman, the precentrix, who, after stating that 

 for the past thirty-five years she had never known 

 anything worthy of correction or reformation, 

 added that the office books in choir needed some 

 repair. 8 



The prioress Elizabeth Buttry had only just 

 been appointed when the last-named highly 

 favourable visitation was held. Judging from 

 the last visitation of 25 June, 1532, her rule over 

 this happy, peaceful nunnery was unsatisfactory. 

 Only six out of the eighteen nuns examined 

 made an omnia bene report. The remainder all 

 complained of the too great strictness and 

 austerity, and more particularly of the parsi- 

 monious and stingy character of the prioress. 

 Even Margaret Harman, who was then sacrist, 

 and who had been a nun of this house for forty- 

 one years, said that the food was sometimes not 

 wholesome. Others complained much more 

 bitterly of the food and of the unhealthy cha- 

 racter of the meat. Katharine Grome, the pre- 

 centrix, said that within the last month they had 

 had to eat a bullock that would have died of 

 disease if it had not been killed. Another sister 

 complained of the unpunctuality of the cook ; 

 their dinner hour was supposed to be six, but 

 sometimes it was eight o'clock before they had 

 finished the meal. There was, however, no kind 

 of moral delinquency alleged of anyone ; and 

 the bishop, after enjoining the prioress to provide 

 a more liberal and wholesome diet, and the cook 

 to be more punctual, gave his blessing, and dis- 

 solved the visitation. 9 



The exact date of the suppression of this 

 house is not known, but it was some time in the 

 year 1536. 



An inventory of the goods and chattels was 

 drawn up on 28 August of that year by the 

 Suffolk commissioners. The high altar of the 

 conventual church was well furnished with a 

 white silk frontal, a carved wooden reredos, four 

 great candlesticks of latten, a lamp of latten,and 



Jessopp, Visit. 35- 

 Ibid. 179-80. 

 Ibid. 290-2. 



6 Ibid. 133-4. 

 ■ Ibid. 219. 



II 4 



