By the Rev. W. Gilchrist Clark, M.A. 



303 



make rne or any other yo r servant privey of their procedings, yf it were knowen 

 that I did reveale this matier unto you. Thus knoweth Allmightie God Who 

 have yo r good M r ship in his blessed tuition. 

 "From Eoyston the xvij of Octobre. 



" Yo r assuredly faithf ull servant John Ap Rice." 



At length the visitation, conducted as it must have been in a 

 i very perfunctory manner, and with the animus which must be 

 j apparent to every reader, was concluded and reported to the King. 



The result was the Act which suppressed the smaller monasteries, 

 [J i.e., those under £200 annual revenue. Why this distinction was 

 made is not clear ; the reason assigned is that religion was better 

 kept in the larger houses than in the smaller : but this is not borne 

 l| out by the facts ; there is not, either for good or for bad, anything 

 ; to choose between the larger and the smaller monasteries. 



But the act was passed, and a new court — that of the Augment- 

 ] ations, was called into existence to deal with the revenues. It 

 consisted of a chancellor (Sir Eichard Eich) , a treasurer (Sir Thomas 

 j Pope), attorney, solicitor, ten auditors, seventeen particular re- 

 | ceivers for special districts, clerk, usher, and messenger, and was 

 j appointed April 24th, 1536. 1 



The next step was to ascertain definitely which houses came 

 j within the fatal limits, and to this end commissions were issued 

 , to three commissioners in each shire, directing them to act with 

 ! three others, appointed ex-officio, including the particular receiver 

 for the shire, in finding out the number, names, revenue, and 

 character of each house below the yearly value of £2 00. 2 

 The work was done ; and the return for Wiltshire — which was 

 supposed to be lost — has recently, together with those for 

 Gloucestershire, Hampshire, and Bristol, been re-discovered by 

 Fr. Gasquet among the Chantry Certificates in the Eecord Office, 

 and published by him in the Dublin Review of April, 1894. 3 It 

 deals with the houses of Maiden Bradley, Farley, Lacock, Kington, 

 Stanley, Easton, Ederos (or Ivy church), Poulton, and Marlborough, 

 and it is noticeable that this report, made by men who certainly 



1 Letters and Papers, xiii. (ii.), 1520, i. 

 2 lb., x., 721. 

 3 See Appendix A. 



