RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



Pankeford, and Woodbastwick, to find a lamp 

 burning daily in the priory church before the 

 high altar at the time of divine services.^ 



Boniface IV sanctioned, in 1 40 1, the appro- 

 priation by this priory of the church of Runton, 

 as their income was too slender for their susten- 

 tation and hospitality. The value of the benefice 

 did not exceed 20 marks, and that of the monas- 

 tery 30 marks. The church might be served by 

 one of their own canons or by a secular priest, 

 removable at the will of the prior.^ 



In 1408 the manor of Perers, and in 141 2 

 tenements in Aylmerton, Felbrigg, and Shipton, a 

 moiety of the advowson of Beeston and the 

 advowson of Runton were all granted to the 

 priory.' 



In 1466 Isabel Lady Morley died seised of 

 the patronage of the priory, and Eleanor her 

 cousin, wife of William Lovell, Lord Morley, 

 inherited it. This patronage had come to the 

 Morleys as heirs of the Cressys. 



John de Walsam, one of the canons of Beeston, 

 got into serious trouble in 1317. The cause of 

 the outrage cannot now be ascertained, but on 

 one occasion he attacked and wounded his dio- 

 cesan with a sword. Ultimately the case was 

 referred to the pope, and the canon sent to Rome. 

 In December of that year John XXII instructed 

 the bishop to enjoin penance and satisfaction on 

 John de Walsam, for now that he had recovered 

 from his wounds the pope had given the canon 

 absolution.^ 



The priory was visited by Bishop Goldwell on 

 25 August, 1494. He was received at the west 

 gate of the monastery by Prior John Poty and 

 the other priests, and proceeded in solemn pro- 

 cession to the high altar of the church, whence 

 he gave his blessing. The visitation was held 

 in the chapter-house. The prior testified that 

 there was only one canon of the house besides 

 himself, namely Thomas Taverner, and he was 

 absent without leave. The bishop enjoined him 

 to have at least two fellow-canons as speedily as 

 possible, and annually to draw up a true return 

 of the priory accounts.' 



Thomas Plattyng, by will proved in 1507, 

 left ()d. to Our Lady of Grace and \d. to Our 

 Lady of Pity in Beeston Priory church.* 



Bishop Nicke visited the house on 18 July, 

 I 5 14. The prior reported that Canon Thomas 

 Taverner was in Norwich without leave. Canon 

 Nicholas Wodforth said that the prior did not 

 produce his accounts, and charged him with a 

 scandal. Canon Robins testified that all was 

 well. Canon Daume said that they had no 

 school ; that mattins were said at five o'clock and 



' Pat. 44 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 36. 

 ' Cal. Papal Reg. v, 416. 



' Pat. 10 Hen. IV, pt. i, m. 24 ; I Hen. V, pt. i, 

 m. 21. * Cal. Papal Reg. ii, 136. 



'" Jessopp, 'Norzv. Visit. (Camd. Soc), 55. 

 ' Reg. Spiltymbre (Norwich), 4. 



not in the night ; that the common seal was in 

 the prior's private keeping, but that everything 

 else was right. Canon Rump knew of nothing 

 to depose/ 



Bishop Nicke again visited Beeston in August, 

 1532, when Richard Hudson, who had become 

 prior that year, exhibited his accounts and inven- 

 tory ; Canon Woodford reported that all was 

 well, with which report Canon Yorke agreed. 

 The bishop finding nothing worthy of reforma- 

 tion dissolved his visitation.* 



On II August, 1539, Prior Hudson and his 

 four canons, Nicholas Wodforth, William Wus- 

 barow, James Fysser, and Robert Swyer put 

 their signatures to the acknowledgement of the 

 king's supremacy.' It is said that the income of 

 the house was never sufficient to sustain more 

 than four canons in addition to the prior ; but 

 this is highly improbable in its earlier days, con- 

 sidering the size of the house as shown by the 

 ruins. 



On 25 March, 1537, Harry Lord Morley 

 wrote to Cromwell making bold to sue him for 

 the priory of Beeston ' whereof sometime I was 

 founder' (patron), understanding that it would 

 be shortly suppressed. He desired to know 

 whether he should sue the king for it.^" 



In some curious way, however, Beeston, 

 though one of quite the smaller monasteries, 

 managed to slip through the meshes of the first 

 suppression. In March, 1538, Sir Richard Rich 

 wrote to Cromwell saying that he intended to 

 suppress Beeston ' which pretended themselves to 

 be friars,' but were canons and so apparelled and 

 known. He stated that they were consuming 

 the goods and chattels.'^ 



The confusion as to the proper nomenclature 

 of this house and as to the order to which the 

 inmates belonged is not a little singular. It is 

 usually described after the same fashion as the 

 other small houses of Austin Canons that were so 

 prevalent in East Anglia ; but Dr. Jessopp says 

 that he has twice found it described in the Nor- 

 wich episcopal registers as 'Hospitale sive Ecclesia 

 canonicorum B. Marie in Prato de Beeston.' 

 Nevertheless it was at one time considered by 

 some to be tenanted by friars, for the patent 

 rolls of 1400 have an entry ' pro Priore de Monte 

 Carmali de Beeston.' '^ 



In the report of the 'mixed commission,' con- 

 sisting of Sir William Paston and three others, 

 the account of this house is headed, ' The Priory 

 of Chanones in Beeston of th' order of Peter- 

 stone, they been callyd Chanones hospitlers and 

 they have a convent scale.' This commission 



' Jessopp, 'Norw. Visit. (Camd. Soc), i 24. 



Mbid. 316. 



' Dep. Keeper's Rep. vii, App. 2, 280 ; Norf. Antiq. 

 Misc. iii, 460. 



'» L. and P. Hen. VIII, xii (i), 321. 



" Ibid, xiii (l), 232. 



" Pat. 2 Hen. IV, pt. i, m. 30. 



373 



