A HISTORY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 



period make the charges incredible. He relies 

 upon the assumption that WaUingford was good 

 because he erected the beautiful high altar 

 screen at the abbey, which is no evidence of 

 moral character ; that he fostered education, 

 when he really only barely fulfilled the abbey's 

 obUgation ; that the inquiries at Pre and Sop- 

 well in 1480 were thorough, but of this there is 

 no evidence ; that he was appointed in 1480 

 visitor of the Benedictine houses of the Lincoln 

 diocese, which only shows that he was of good 

 fame at that particular date. He thinks that 

 the charges of the monition are so sweeping that 

 they suggest the purely formal attribution of 

 crimes in a general pardon ; and says further 

 that it would have been impossible to read in 

 pubHc the eulogy of WalUngford contained in 

 the Obit Book if it had been untrue and he 

 had been a villain and spendthrift as he is some- 

 times depicted. 



But the actual ground for one of Morton's 

 charges appears in a petition in Chancery.^^ 

 Elizabeth Webbe, the Prioress of Sopwell 

 appointed in March 1480-1, had brought a 

 suit in the Court of Arches for unjust removal 

 and had won ; on reassuming her position she 

 had been beaten by the archdeacon's deputies 

 and thrown into prison. There was evidently 

 foundation also for the report about Pre, for 

 shortly before Michaelmas Helen ceased to be 

 prioress,^ and her successor seems to have been 

 chosen from Sopwell.^ These two cases are a 

 gauge of the credibility of the other accusa- 

 tions. The changes at Pre, indeed, as showing 

 the need for reform at the nunnery are a pre- 

 sumption against the innocence of the monks 

 who were said to share the nuns' guilt. This 

 was not the only time the monks had been 

 mentioned in connexion with the communities 

 of women near the abbey. Years before Wheat- 

 hampstead had had to forbid visits without 

 leave to these nunneries.'* With relaxation of 

 discipline, therefore, trouble in this direction 

 might be expected. \\ alHngford, as the Tyne- 

 mouth afifair proves, was to say the least careless 

 about the fitness of those to whom he gave 

 office, so that it is very unlikely that the monks 

 were kept under proper control. It need 

 hardly be said that ill-considered appointments 

 to office made the maladministration of the 

 dependent houses probable. 



The actual sins of commission attributed to 

 him are usury, simony and waste of the abbey's 

 property for immediate gain. Years before, it 

 may be observed, the author of the so-caDed 

 register had declared him guilty of usury and 

 peculation. But putting this aside, he had been 



'' Early Chan. Proc. bdle. 181, no. 4. 

 '^ Mins. Accts. Hen. VII, no. 275. 

 '^ See below, St. Mary de Pre. 

 ^ See above, p. 401. 



accused in Chancery of sharp practice and 

 dishonesty. A certain W'ilUam Browning had 

 said that the evidence of his holding had been 

 erased from the Court Rolls so that the abbot 

 might seize his lands ^ ; in another instance a 

 lease had been granted by W'allingford to 

 Edward Leventhorp, with Lord Hastings as 

 trustee, and after the death of the two men the 

 abbot tried to get the lease from Lady Hastings 

 to the detriment of the owner, the lessee's 

 former \\ ife *° ; proceedings against Wallingford 

 were also instituted by the executors of a will 

 about some goods which had been deposited by 

 the testator in Pre nunnery, and had been 

 seized by the archdeacon and kept by the 

 abbot.*' 



It will be generally allowed that a man who 

 laid himself open to this kind of charge gave 

 cause for the belief that he had no scruples 

 where his own profit was concerned. As to the 

 notice of him in the Obit Book,*' it describes 

 what he had done for the abbey as archdeacon, 

 prior, and kitchener, then relates that as abbot 

 within fourteen years he had paid his prede- 

 cessor's debts, made the screen valued at 

 1,100 marks, finished the chapter-house at a 

 cost of j^i,ooo, expended j^ioo on the church, 

 jfioo on the endowment of a weekly mass in 

 honour of the name of Jesus, ^^60 on making a 

 mitre and two pastoral staves, ^^loo on building 

 his chapel and sepulchre ; he had also incurred 

 heavy expenses in defence of the abbey's 

 immunities against the Archbishop of Canter- 

 bury ; yet in spite of all this he left the monastery 

 free from all debt. These were works for which 

 the convent owed him praise ; but they do not 

 make his neglect of disciphne and the con- 

 sequent disorders at St. Albans impossible, nor 

 preclude his raising money by unlawful or 

 wasteful methods. 



Wallingford appears to have died just before 

 20 June 1492.'* 



Of Thomas Ramryge,*" who succeeded him, 

 it is almost impossible to form a clear estimate. 

 A very unfavourable opinion of him might be 

 drawn from various petitions in Chancery. 



" Early Ch?n. Proc. bdle. 54, no. 387. The 

 case occurred either in 1476 or 1483-5. 



'' Ibid. bdle. 66, no. 46. The date of this petition 

 is 1483-5. 



'' Ibid. bdle. 97, no. 6. Tliis case happened when 

 Morton was chancellor. 



^* Printed in Reg. of St. Albans, i, App. D. 



^' The abbey was already vacant on 20 June (Add. 

 Chart. 34350), but the conge d'elirev/i.i not given until 

 nine days later (Pat. 7 Hen. VII, m. 3). Abbot 

 Gasquet first pointed out the mistake in Dugdale's 

 AfOT., where Walhngford's death is dated 1484 {Engl. 

 Hist. Rev. xxiv, 92). 



*" He is mentioned in 1476 as third prior {Reg. of 

 St. Jlbans, ii, 142), in 1480 as sub-prior (ibid. 

 239), and in 1484 as prior (ibid, i, App. D). 



408 



