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 



