A HISTORY OF xVORFOLK 



The episcopal visitations at the end of the 

 fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries 

 prove that the prior)' of Walsingham, corrupted 

 probably by the wealth that pilgrims poured into 

 its lap, was the most disorderly and demoralized 

 religious house of the diocese.^ 



Bishop Goldwell held a personal visitation of 

 the priory on I September, 1494, when John 

 Farewell was prior. The prior and sixteen 

 canons attended the visitation. Matters were 

 evidently in an unsatisfactory state, but no one 

 dared to speak of aught save trivial complaints, 

 and the record expressly says that the prior was 

 afraid to say all that he knew. The bishop de- 

 ferred his injunctions, and soon after Prior Fare- 

 well resigned and accepted the rectory of 

 Ryburgh. 



Twenty years elapsed before there is record of 

 another visitation. During that period the wealth 

 of the priory had materially increased, chiefly 

 owing to the royal example of Henry VII and 

 Henry VIII, which made pilgrimages to Wal- 

 singham fashionable among the nobility and 

 courtiers. The number of the canons nearly 

 doubled, and disorder increased in a like ratio. 

 The visitation of Bishop Nicke on 14 July, 15 14. 

 revealed a sad state of affairs. The prior and 

 thirty-one canons were severally examined. The 

 inquiry proved that the prior was leading a scan- 

 dalous life ; that he went by night into the chapel 

 of Our Lady to abtract treasure ; that he kept an 

 aged fool ; that he treated the canons with inso- 

 lence and brutalit}', and had deliberately warned 

 them in chapter before the visitation that those 

 who revealed anything to the bishop should suffer 

 for it. His evil example had corrupted the canons, 

 many of whom broke bounds, frequented taverns, 

 and were constantly quarrelling, whilst some had 

 even broken into the prior's cellar, stolen his 

 wine and sat up at night drinking. No wonder that 

 the servants were insolent and the boys rebellious. 

 The bishop at once issued certain strict injunc- 

 tions, and associated the prior of West Acre with 

 Prior William Lowth making the latter swear to 

 receive none of the goods or possessions of the 

 house without the knowledge of the coadjutor 

 prior. The visitation was then prorogued until 

 15 March. 



On 30 August of the same year, further regu- 

 lations for reformation of discipline were promul- 

 gated in the chapter-house by Dr. Thomas Hare 

 and four other commissaries of the bishop. These 

 chiefly related to the strict wardenship of the 

 chapel of Our Lady, ordering that the warden do 

 pay over all money received into the treasury 

 every Saturday, and at the same time go through 

 the inventory of the jewels. Prior William 

 Lowth was compelled to resign, and Richard 

 Vowell was appointed in his place. It is any- 

 thing but creditable to the bishop and others 



concerned that the evil-lived Lowth was per- 

 mitted to become prior of West Acre. 



On the vacancy occurring, the prior took the 

 opportunity of obtaining the cancelling of the 

 congi cTelire that had been wrongfully issued by 

 Henry VII, on 15 September, 1503, for the elec- 

 tion of Prior Lowth; evidence being produced that 

 the convent had always elected a prior without 

 licence from the Earls of March, their founders, 

 or from any of the king's predecessors." 



The bishop at last issued new statutes for the 

 rule of the priory, but Prior Vowell was unable to 

 obtain their acceptance by a majority of the con- 

 vent, and the attempt led to much dissension. On 

 13 July, 1520, the priory was visited by the 

 suffragan bishop of Chalcedon. The sub-prior 

 Edmund Warham, who had held that office for 

 many years, and two of the canons gave loyal 

 support to the prior, but six of the canons told 

 the visitor to his face that they declined to have 

 anything to do with the new statutes, whilst 

 eight others were in other ways refractory. The 

 scandals, however, seem to have abated ; the prior 

 and sub-prior merely complained of disobedience. 

 The suffragan and his fellow commissioners called 

 upon the seven worst offenders to submit them- 

 selves and ask pardon, which they seem to have 

 done. As penance, they were required for the 

 next seven days to take the lowest places in 

 quire ; on the next Wednesday to fast on bread 

 and beer ; and on the same day, after the Lady 

 Mass, to kneel before the high altar and say five 

 Our Fathers. 



The visitation of August 1526, seems to show 

 that Prior Vowell had by that time purged his 

 house of disorder and disobedience ; but there 

 were complaints that no scholars were sent to 

 the university, and that the younger brethren 

 had no one to instruct them in grammar. 



The last visitation was held on 9 August, 

 1532, when Prior Vowell produced his accounts 

 and inventory. The aged Sub-Prior Edmund 

 Warham testified omnia bene^ and so did John 

 Clenchewarton the cellarer, Nicholas Mileham 

 the treasurer, Simon Orrj' the sacrist, John Har- 

 low the chanter, Richard Garret the warden of 

 the chapel of Our Lady, and the rest of the 

 twenty-three canons, save one, who were present. 

 The one complainant was Canon William Race, 

 who alleged that two of his fellow canons were 

 irregular at mattins, and that there was some short- 

 ness of food. It is pleasant to find that at the last 

 visitation of this once disorderly house nothing 

 was found worthy of reformation.' 



Mention has already been made of some of the 

 earlier royal visitors to the shrine of Walsingham, 

 and its fame did not wane with the progress of 

 time. An anxious affectionate letter of Margaret 

 Paston to her husband John Paston, when he lay 



' See Dr. Jessopp's introduction to the Isorw. 

 ru'it. 



' L. and P. Hen. Fill, i, 911. 

 ' Jessopp, Norte. Fisit. (Cam. Sec), 57, 113, 147, 

 170, 252, 314. 



396 



