ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



national matters began to settle down, there is ample proof of activity 

 and vigour in repairing and improving what had been ruinated by 

 neglect and war. The election of Prior Godebowre of Carlisle almost 

 synchronised with the period indicated, and very soon after his appoint- 

 ment his labour in beautifying the priory was begun. It is scarcely 

 possible to exaggerate the value and amount of the work done by him 

 and his two successors within the priory precincts. Their names or 

 initials are found almost everywhere. Turning to Holmcultram, the 

 largest and wealthiest house in the county, the same evidence of vitality 

 and zeal was manifest at this time. Abbot Chamber was a great builder, 

 and the fragments of his work in that church and neighbourhood are 

 monuments of his energy and skill. Meanwhile the religious men of 

 the neighbouring priory of Lanercost were not idle. There is no need 

 to search the ruins for bricks and mortar, inscriptions and dates, as valid 

 witnesses of contemporary facts. We have documentary proof that the 

 prior and his brethren were just as active as their neighbours in bringing 

 up their church and conventual buildings to the requirements of a more 

 peaceful and settled period. 1 That which strikes us in all these improve- 

 ments and decorations is the evidence it affords, which cannot be con- 

 tested, that the monasteries on the Border were full of life and vigour at 

 the time that violent hands were laid upon them. 



Conspicuous in this movement was the desire to recall the monas- 

 teries to their ancient ideals of austere devotion and charity. With the 

 restoration of the outward fabrics of the monasteries there was a corre- 

 sponding revival of monastic rule and a general transformation of religious 

 life. It was a time of national renascence. Wolsey was its guide. His 

 attempt to save the church of England in its entirety by a judicious 

 reformation has not received the attention it deserves. But we are only 

 concerned with his doings so far as they relate to our own district. 

 Synods of the regular and secular clergy were held and codes of regula- 

 tions were drawn up and issued to the monasteries and the bishops. We 

 have no certain evidence that any of the local ecclesiastical magnates 

 took part in the deliberations at Leicester and London. Whether they 

 did or not is immaterial ; we know their attitude. Prior Simon, whose 

 zeal at Carlisle is well known, did not appear in person or by 

 proxy at Leicester in 1518, but the worst complaint the visitors of his 

 Order could make against him was that he had forwarded his dues with 

 the accustomed liberality of his house.* It is fortunate that we have a 

 clear statement, a year or two later, of the views of the bishop of 

 Carlisle on the religious movement of this time. It is a most pathetic 



' Additional MS. 24,965, f. 218 ; L, and P. of Henry VIII., vol. iv. 128. 



2 The priors of Kyrkam and Worsthorpe, visitors of the province of York, certified ' quod prior 

 de Carlill nee per se nee per procuratorem comparet, cum quo tamen mitius agitur prematura sua liberali- 

 tate loci debita ' (Cotton MS. Vespasian, D. i. 68b). At this Council the Cardinal was admitted a con- 

 frere of the chapter and commissioned to reform the Order (Ibid. Vitellius, B. iii. 223). Wolsey lost no 

 time in issuing his ordinationei ft statuta, consisting of eighteen articles, on the internal discipline of 

 Austin monasteries (Ibid. Vespasian, F. ix. 22 et seq.). These statutes have been printed by Wilkins 

 (Concilia, iii. 683-8). The priories of Carlisle and Lanercost would be affected by these injunctions. 



45 



