diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69852-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69852-0.txt | 3301 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3301 deletions
diff --git a/old/69852-0.txt b/old/69852-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index db940a7..0000000 --- a/old/69852-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3301 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Westminster Abbey: the last days of -the monastery, by Herbert Francis Westlake - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Westminster Abbey: the last days of the monastery - as shown by the life and times of Abbot John Islip, 1464-1532 - -Author: Herbert Francis Westlake - -Release Date: January 21, 2023 [eBook #69852] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Chuck Greif, MWS and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet - Archive/Canadian Libraries) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WESTMINSTER ABBEY: THE LAST -DAYS OF THE MONASTERY *** - - - - - - WESTMINSTER ABBEY THE LAST DAYS OF THE MONASTERY - - _Works by the same Author_ - - ST. MARGARET’S, WESTMINSTER - THE PARISH GILDS OF MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND - WESTMINSTER, AN HISTORICAL SKETCH - ETC. - - - - - WESTMINSTER ABBEY - - THE LAST DAYS OF THE - - MONASTERY - - AS SHOWN BY THE LIFE AND TIMES OF - - ABBOT JOHN ISLIP - 1464-1532 - - BY - - H. F. WESTLAKE, M.A., F.S.A. - - _Custodian and Minor Canon of Westminster Abbey_ - - [Illustration: colophon] - - LONDON - PHILIP ALLAN & CO. - QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE - - - - - First Published in April, 1921 - - - Printed by Whitehead Brothers, Wolverhampton - - - - -FOREWORD - - -The story of the last forty years of the monastery of Westminster -centres round two persons. In the thirty-two years of John Islip’s rule -as Abbot he raised its glory to a height which it had never before -attained. In the eight years that followed Abbot Boston reduced it to a -level which made its dissolution easy. To plead that Boston was merely -Cromwell’s tool is to offer but little excuse, for it was a position -Islip would have disdained to occupy. Had Islip lived to witness an end -which perhaps was inevitable he might well have been involved in a -tragedy such as that of Abbot Whiting of Glastonbury. As a man on the -fringe of public life some accusation would not have been difficult to -fabricate. - -The history of these days therefore is best told in a biographical form, -for Islip’s activities and Boston’s slack rule touched every department -of monastic life. There are few subjects about which greater -misconceptions still prevail than the dissolution of the monastic -houses, and while this little book cannot hope to clear these away it -may at least provide the true story of one such dissolution. The tale of -the revival of the monastery under Feckenham in the reign of Queen Mary -has not been told. It is a detached episode of very great interest but -of very little importance save in one respect quite unconcerned with the -after history of Westminster Abbey, namely that one of Feckenham’s monks -lived to pass on the lighted torch of the Benedictine succession. - - H. F. WESTLAKE. - -_The Cloisters, - Westminster Abbey._ - - - - -CONTENTS - - -FOREWORD _Page_ v. - -CHAPTER I. The Management of the Monastery 1 - -” II. Early Years of Brother John Islip 26 - -” III. From 1492 to 1498 37 - -” IV. Islip as Prior 53 - -” V. Islip as Abbot 67 - -” VI. Islip in Public Life 84 - -” VII. Islip as a Builder 98 - -” VIII. The Last Days of the Monastery 112 - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MONASTERY. - - -The Rule of St. Benedict, made about the year 540, contemplated only -some four officials as in the main responsible for the management of the -monastery. These were the Abbot, Prior, Cellarer and Porter. St. -Benedict indeed makes mention of a class of officers called Deans, each -of whom would be responsible for a group of ten monks engaged in the -work of the field which formed an essential part of his scheme of life, -but in actual practice no record exists, in England at least, of the -subsequent existence of such officers. In the monastic government also -some further distinction was made as between the few monks who were -priests and the majority who in the earlier years of monastic history -were commonly laymen. - -By the time of Lanfranc, in the course of a quite natural development, -additional officers had come to be necessary, and besides those of the -Rule there is mention in his _Constitutions_ of the Cantor, Sacrist, -Guestmaster, Almoner and Infirmarer. In the _Customary_ of St. Peter’s, -Westminster, compiled by Abbot Ware about the year 1266, the number of -Obedientiaries or principal officers had risen to at least fourteen, -while to these must be added the many junior officers who worked -directly under them either as deputies or assistants. - -The gift or purchase of outlying estates and churches necessitated the -appointment of officers to superintend their management and to be -responsible for the due collection from them of rents and _pensions_. -Moreover any particular extensions of the monastic buildings or church -involved the appointment of a temporary _Warden of the New Work_ to -account for the necessary receipts and expenditure. It was customary to -assign particular estates to the support of particular departments or -else to arrange for the equitable division of profits among them all. -Thus each official had definite sources of income for his office and -definite objects upon which that income was to be expended. Year by year -he was required to submit for audit a roll or balance-sheet accounting -for the monies of his department, and to many of these rolls were -attached bills or subsidiary rolls of which the chief roll might contain -but a summary. It is from the survival of such rolls that a knowledge -of the internal economy of the monastery can be obtained, the duties of -the various officials outlined, and the progress and cost of new -buildings or repairs duly marked. At Westminster the number of such -surviving rolls is over three thousand, and in addition there are many -account-books exhibiting in the utmost detail the expenditure in certain -of the departments. - -Exceptions to the general scheme must, however, be noted. At Westminster -the precentor’s office had some small property in land attached to it -and received some few pensions from churches, but the precentor himself -kept no rolls, for his income and expenditure were small, and his duties -were not such as to call for much outlay of money. The adult portion of -his Secular Choir, the forerunners of the lay-vicars of the present day, -were paid by contributions from the Sacrist and others, while the -Subalmoner had the care of the Singing-children. - -The archdeacon’s duties were those of a legal rather than monastic -character, and in consequence the history of his office is not to be -found in monastic rolls. Similarly in the case of officers such as the -prior and others, whose work was mainly that of supervision and -discipline, little record survives, with the result that these are for -the most part far more shadowy figures than the administrative -officials. The latter seem oftentimes to live again by the human -touches which creep unawares into what at first glance might seem to be -dull and stereotyped records of receipts and expenditure, and to leave -small room for the record of personality. When we have read through some -pages of Brother Thomas Browne’s ill-written account-book, which in due -course he must submit for the Abbot’s inspection, how shall we translate -the homely hexameter which quite suddenly appears: _Si mea pena valet, -melior mea litera fiet_? Brother Thomas becomes no such remote figure -after all! - -St. Benedict had with keen foresight anticipated the possibility of a -certain rivalry as between the Prior and Convent on the one side and the -Abbot on the other, and he would seem to have regarded the prior’s -office as a necessary evil with which he would rather have dispensed. -Could he have foreseen such a development as took place at Westminster -it can hardly be doubted that he would have devised some special -statutes to meet a situation which could never have been consistent with -his ideals or with that half-departure from them which he may in his -broad-mindedness have contemplated. For Westminster’s Abbot was a feudal -lord with the additional dignity of a mitre. - -In that later history with which we are most concerned he dwelt apart -from his flock. He was no longer the parent at the head of the table, -with his children gathered round him at the common meal. Affairs of -state or of his own manorial business were among the lesser calls which -might take him away from the family of which he was nominally the -father. - -The mere fact that he so dwelt apart was for more than two centuries a -fruitful source of dissension. Two households had to be maintained from -a common income: what was the proper division of it? New estates were -bequeathed: what was their proper allocation? Anniversaries had to be -performed: how should the proceeds be distributed? Innumerable and -inevitable expenses had to be met: what share ought the Abbot to -undertake? - -Such were some of the questions which from time to time disturbed the -peace of the family. Here and there a question could be solved by -special legislation. It was easy when a vacancy occurred in the Abbacy -for the Prior and Convent before they proceeded to election to lay down -that the next Abbot should be solely responsible for the maintenance of -the walls which protected their buildings from the periodical threat of -inundation from the Thames. It was easy at such a time to adopt the -general principle that of future bequests the Abbot should take four -parts, the Prior two, and each professed member of the Convent one; but -there came times when the ordinary provision for the Convent table was a -matter of anxious thought while the Abbot might seem to have no such -cares. It is no wonder that, until some working arrangement was arrived -at, each ensuing vacancy in the Abbacy should be the occasion for the -formulation of conditions to which the new Abbot was bound to subscribe. - -It is much to the spiritual credit of the Westminster community that in -general such problems were met by the spontaneous generosity of the one -side or the other. In all but one or two clearly defined cases it may be -said that these problems ultimately made for goodwill rather than -disruption, as giving occasion for the exercise of the primary virtue of -the Christian life. They form indeed no part of the actual story, but -some account of their nature is a necessary preliminary to an -understanding of the economy of the monastery at any period of its -history. - -It is interesting to make a survey of the life and duties of the various -conventual officials in these latter days. - -In theory the Abbot still slept in the dormitory and a chamber was kept -there for his use. In practice the only person who had access to it was -the Receiver of his household, and Brother John Islip records that when -he himself held that office he had two hundred pounds in money belonging -to the Abbot which he kept in a chest in this chamber. In theory the -Abbot dined in the refectory. In practice this may have occasionally -happened, but these occasions were evidently few. The ordinary -arrangement was for a fixed allowance of bread, generally six convent -loaves, to be sent to the Abbot when he was actually in residence at -Cheyneygates--the house now occupied by the Dean--or at his Manor of Eye -hard by. This allowance was not sent if he were absent at any other of -his manors. Otherwise he was expected to maintain his household and -entertain his private guests out of his official income. As it would not -always be easy to distinguish between personal and official visitors it -was provided that the Abbot might bring four guests to the refectory -without charge, but should he bring more than this number he was to be -responsible for the additional costs. - -The Abbot’s income was derived from a considerable number of sources, -and in spite of the many existent documents which record them it is not -easy to make any exact estimate of its total, but at the close of the -fifteenth century it would seem to have amounted to not less than six -hundred pounds a year, no mean sum when the relative value of money is -considered. From this of course there were many necessary outgoings. -Estates had to be kept up and wages paid to local bailiffs and workmen, -and at the end of the financial year but a small balance remained to be -carried forward--and this sometimes was on the wrong side of the -account. In one casually selected year the actual household expenses of -the Abbot averaged more than forty pounds a month. - -The income and expenditure of the Prior were of course on a more modest -scale. Oysters, plaice, sturgeon, salmon, whelks--all these and many -other articles of food appeared on his table as on the Abbot’s, but his -position did not require the same amount of entertaining of guests as -fell to the latter. Moreover these were frequently of a lower degree in -the social scale. For instance we note his breakfasts to the singing-men -and dinners to those who had just made their profession in the -monastery. Visits to his estate of Belsize formed his customary means of -relaxation from the many cares of the monastery. - -It may be well to say that neither in the case of Abbot or Prior does -there appear to have been any ostentation in their manner of life or any -extravagance in expenditure. Each played the part that the standard of -the time expected of him. If the Abbot seems rather the feudal lord than -the father of his flock at this period of monastic history, he was the -victim of a development which he had done nothing to create and saw no -adequate reason to alter. The Abbot of Westminster in the sixteenth -century was no more deserving of censure for his mode of life than is a -Dean of Westminster in the twentieth. - -Of the administrative officials the Sacrist is in many ways the most -interesting. He was responsible not only for the general survey of the -fabric of the church and the necessary repairs thereto, but also for the -provision of most of the accessories of worship. The main items of the -income of his office were derived from properties within easy reach of -the monastery, so that business was not apt to arise which would take -him far afield from what must have been rather exacting duties. Taking a -typical roll of the early sixteenth century, a long list of houses in -the Sanctuary and King Street, Westminster, brought him rents amounting -to about £137 out of a total income of just over £208. Some little -property in London and elsewhere, with pensions from half a dozen -churches such as Sawbridgeworth and Bloxham, the “farm” of St. -Margaret’s, Westminster, and the offerings in various of the Abbey -chapels, accounted in the main for the balance. Among some curious items -of receipt there is the yearly sum of thirty shillings and five pence -paid to him by the Sheriffs of London for the maintenance of the lamp of -Queen Matilda. - -Apart from some few entries for the repair of houses his expenditure -fell under four main heads. First, more than fifty-five pounds was spent -under the title “purchase of stores.” This included every kind of light, -whether wax or oil, for both church and monastery, incense, grease for -the bells and charcoal for the sacristy. - -The next heading is the familiar “church expenses.” No less than -twenty-four thousand breads were bought for the Celebrations. A long -list includes the costs of the setting up of the great Paschal candle; -repairs to vestments, thuribles, candlesticks, bells and other -accessories; clearing away snow from the church roof and scattering the -crows and pigeons that strove to nest there; mending the Abbot’s -pastoral staff and buying seven imitation pearls at two pence each to -adorn his mitre. In similar lists in other of the Sacrist’s rolls we -find record of the periodical lending of copes for service in the King’s -palaces at Westminster and London, and in the year 1520 of the purchase -of canvas and a chest in which to pack the copes for despatch across the -sea, doubtless for Wolsey’s use on the occasion of the historic meeting -between Henry VIII. and Francis I. on the Field of Cloth of Gold where a -chapel had been erected, “the last and most gorgeous display of the -departing spirit of chivalry.” - -The two other main heads of expenses are repairs of the church and wages -of the various workmen and servants, among whom are the clock-keeper, -the rent-collector, the washerwoman and butler. - -The few remaining rolls of the Subsacrist contain in detail matters -which are only summarised in the account of his superior. He was -responsible for the distribution to the various chapels of their proper -allotment of candles prior to the celebration of their special feasts. -It is from him that we learn the dedications of forgotten altars, with -here and there hints of old customs and lost usages. - -Take for example the roll for the year ending at Michaelmas 1524. It is -thirty-three feet in length and accounts in the utmost detail for the -consumption of nearly five thousand pounds of wax, of which only some -five hundred were for what may be called lighting purposes as distinct -from “lights.” From the notes which he supplies it is not hard to -picture the refectory at Christmas time with the _corona_ above St. -Edward’s statue ablaze with candles, the windows all lit up and the -flaming torches that accompany the carrying-in of the boar’s head. Or -pass to the infirmary towards the end of that year where Brother Richard -Charyng lay on his deathbed. He was thought to be dying on August 30th, -but on September 3rd he was still alive. The Subsacrist knows it for he -has had to supply pound tapers for his “Aneyleng.” He reminds us that -Abbots Berkyng, Bircheston, and Colchester were still remembered in the -monastery though the first died as early as 1246, for he has supplied -candles for the celebration of their “obits.” When he writes of the -“brassen chappell w^{t.}in the new chappell” we know what we had long -suspected--that there was an altar within the _grille_ which surrounds -the tomb of Henry VII. A few hints more and we could identify the -dedications of the chapels in the apse of that King’s building. When -somewhere near St. George’s day he issues a two-pound taper for the -dragon, does he refer to some pageantry within the Abbey church or was -it a gift to its appanage St. Margaret’s, where we know a dragon to have -been kept? - -Perhaps the solution is to be found in a mandate addressed by Henry III. -to Edward, son of Odo the goldsmith, requiring him to cause a dragon to -be made in the fashion of a standard, of red silk sparkling all over -with gold, the tongue of which should be made to resemble burning fire -and appear to be continually moving, and the eyes of sapphires or other -suitable stones. This standard was to be placed in the Church of St. -Peter, Westminster. - -The Chamberlain, like the Sacrist, derived most of his income from the -rents of properties within easy reach. Bequests in the past had been -specifically made for the provision of clothing for the monks, which was -the Chamberlain’s main duty. Nine London churches and two country ones, -those of Ashwell and Uppingham, made contributions to an income of about -ninety pounds a year. The Chamberlain was responsible neither for the -clothing of the Abbot nor the outfit of the novices. The former was -required to provide all things for himself while the Treasurer paid for -the somewhat elaborate list of articles required for the latter. Islip -as Treasurer wrote down the full catalogue of these:-- - - In primis payede for ij peyre Straylys. [Stragulæ = bed blankets] - - Item pro uno materes cum j bolster. - - Item for a payre Blankettis. - - Item for ij Coverleddis. - - Item for a pylow w^{t.} ij pylowe Berys [cases]. - - Item for a Nyghte Cappe w^{t.} ij kerchrys. - - Item for a Coembe [? comb]. - - Item for a peyre Corkys. - - Item for Cersey for ij peyre hoson w^{t.} the makyng. - - Item for the makyng of ij peyre Shockys. - - Item for ij peyre Botis. - - Item for ij ffemorallis [drawers] w^{t.} the makyng. - - Item for a Brygerdell. - - Item for viij erdis of stamyn [linen] for ij stamyns [shirts] price - the erde iiij d. - - Item for a petycote. - - Item for ij erdes and a quarter of Blake for on Cote price the erde - ij s. viij d. - - Item for ij erdis di of Blacke Cloth for an other Cote price the - erde iij s. - - Item for ij erdis and quarter of Blacke Coton for a Nygth Cote - price the erde xij d. - - Item for lynyng to the same iij Cotis to eche of them iiij erdis - and a quarter price the erde Vd. ob. q^{a.} - - Item for the makyng of ij hames Whodis. - - Item for a pec. of Say to make ij Cowlys and a frocke. - - Item for a Gerdell ij d. A purse viij d. A peyre of knyves viij d. - - Item for viij lambes skynys for to ffur a hode and ij Cotis Slevys - at the hande. - - Item for ffurryng of the same. - -The total for this bill came to £2 6s. 5d. exclusive of the first six -items which have no charge entered and so were presumably drawn from -stock. - -The Chamberlain was accustomed to renew only some seven articles, those -for actual day and night-wear. Directly responsible to him were the -tailor, skinner and barber, the last of whom beside shaving the brethren -had probably to bleed them periodically. - -The Treasurer’s income in the early sixteenth century was no less than -three hundred and seventy-six pounds a year, of which two hundred and -forty-one pounds were derived from twenty-four manors. Of these the -Manor of Battersea was worth about sixty pounds. Hendon was even more -profitable with eighty-eight, while Aldenham produced fifty-seven. It -will be well, however, to mention some of the items of his expenditure -before noting the sources of the remainder of his income. - -First in the demands on his purse was the purchase of grain. Four -hundred quarters of wheat and a rather larger quantity of barley were -bought for the Convent’s consumption either in the form of bread or -beer. Not all of this was purchased from outside. It will be obvious -that since many of the offices were endowed with land each might have -grain at its disposal, and it was clearly advantageous to have one’s -market so close at hand. Hence there arose a system of what may be -termed interdepartmental dealing, the Treasurer purchasing the produce -of other offices in wheat and at the same time perhaps selling his own -surplus goods to others of his brother-officials. - -The Treasurer’s main purpose was the sustenance of the brethren. -Accordingly in addition to his own purchases of food in the form of -grain he made an allowance of ten shillings a day to the _Coquinarius_, -whose office is not adequately described if his title be translated -simply as “cook,” while the ordinary rendering of “kitchener” entails -the same objection. The _Coquinarius_ would seem to have been a steward -of the kitchen, combining the duties of an overseer and caterer. We -shall take some further notice of him later. - -Payments of the bailiffs of his manors, law expenses, and sundry items -of no general interest added to the Treasurer’s expenditure; and at -this period of history he found it, like his brethren in other -monasteries, impossible to make both ends meet, and indeed his -expenditure exceeded his assigned income by some hundreds of pounds. - -That portion of his income, about one hundred and thirty pounds, of -which no source has yet been indicated was drawn from the merging into -the Treasurer’s office of other offices which in former times had been -held separately. The love for the Abbey felt by Queen Eleanor, wife of -Edward I., had been marked by large monetary gifts during her lifetime. -Her burial by the shrine of St. Edward prompted her husband to make -proper provision for the maintenance of her anniversary, and five manors -were almost immediately assigned to the monastery for that purpose, -those of Birdbrook, Edenbridge, Westerham, Turweston and Knowle. Two -other foundations of a similar character in connection with Richard II. -and Henry V. succeeded in due course, and Wardens were appointed to -administer the three. - -By the time with which we are concerned these offices had been -practically merged with the Treasurership. Consequently the Treasurer -must account for the receipts and expenditure connected with them. The -income therefrom swelled his total but gave him no surplus for his own -purposes, since he must purchase the wax, pay for the masses said and -distribute what remained among the brethren in the usual proportion. - -The office of Cellarer in the later history of the monastery of -Westminster was one of dignity and importance, but its duties were -probably of a considerably less exacting character than at the -beginning. The tendency had been to divide the work formerly assigned -and with the growth of buildings to create new offices, such as that of -the Granator, rather than merely to provide assistants. Thus in the year -ending Michaelmas 1527 the income of the office was only some eighty -pounds a year, of which fourteen were spent in mending wagons, shoeing -of horses, repairs of the water-mill and all the various expenses -commonly associated with the life of the farmer. - -The Cellarer had the oversight of the brewery, bakery and stables; paid -the wages of the various labourers connected with them; bought shovels, -coal-baskets and scoops; was responsible for repairs to the aqueduct -which brought the Convent water--a frequent source of trouble,--and -indeed performed a variety of small tasks the recital of which would -only be tedious. In fact he was an altogether different person from what -the popular imagination of to-day conceives him to have been. - -The Granator’s account was rendered yearly like that of other officers, -but it was an account in kind and not in money. He dealt solely with -wheat, malt and oats, and the account was balanced in terms of these. -So much had come from Wheathampstead; so much had he received at the -hands of the Treasurer; so much had he delivered to the baker, and so -on. His office demanded honesty on the part of its holder but made -little demand on intelligence or business capacity. - -The Almoner’s rolls bring into view an entirely different aspect of -monastic life. For any proper understanding of his office it is -necessary to remember that the distribution of alms was an inevitable -accompaniment of requiem masses. Did the Abbot or other benefactor of -the monastery desire to be remembered in prayer after his death, then he -not only bequeathed property to endow masses but assigned that portion -of its yield which was to be distributed amongst the poor. Among the -poor he would rightly reckon the brethren of his own monastery as well -as those who came to its gates for alms. With some such endowments, -though not with all, the Almoner was associated as administrator. - -For example, on the anniversary of the death of Richard Berkyng, who had -been Abbot from 1222 to 1246, we find the Almoner of the sixteenth -century distributing twenty pence to each of the monks as well as paying -one shilling to the celebrants of the mass which was still said weekly -for the Abbot’s soul. - -Moreover the provision of some small amenities and comforts for the -brethren was reasonably regarded as a legitimate charge upon the -Almoner’s resources. Thus he was accustomed to pay for mats for the -cloister, dormitory and refectory. When the novice first arrived at the -monastery it was the Almoner who saw that his _camera_ or chamber in the -dormitory was first properly cleansed, paid the penny for his tonsure -and bought two pennyworth of straw with which to stuff his mattress. He -made some public distribution of alms on rogation days to an amount -varying from three to five pounds. - -But the foregoing duties are incidental and the Almoner’s first duty was -to preside, with the Subalmoner’s aid, over the almonry itself--which -lay to the south of Tothill Street outside the ancient boundary-wall of -the precinct. Here was an almshouse and its chapel of St. Anne, but -little can be discovered as to either. Prior to the foundation of the -time of Henry VII., of which something will be said later, we read of -payments to the “six poor men of St. Edward” who in the year 1492 begin -to be called the “six soldiers of St. Edward.” Then there are the -lay-brothers of the almonry, also six in number, who received one mark a -year for their clothing and for whom sixteen pence a week was paid for -food. These latter come first into view in the rolls about the year -1390, when each was receiving a loaf daily from the Cellarer. Provision -was made for them to attend a weekly mass on Saturdays, but their other -duties and manner of life generally in later days do not seem to be -anywhere defined. - -The Almoner’s income was not large, amounting in an average year to -about seventy pounds. Some further account of his cares will appear in -the narrative of Abbot Islip’s earlier years. - - * * * * * - -Just as the Almonry had its chapel of St. Anne so the Infirmary placed -itself under the protection of St. Katharine, but while the Almonry has -long disappeared the ruins still remain to hint the beauties of the -Infirmary chapel, and the Infirmarer’s own refectory is still intact. - -About thirty-three pounds represents the average income attached to the -office. The two rectories of Wandsworth and Battersea provided more than -a third of this, and the Church of St. Andrew at Pershore a little over -eight pounds. A few rents of houses and a portion of the Manor of Parham -in Sussex made up the remainder. - -The Infirmarer kept a careful record of the names of his patients and -the number of days which each spent under his charge. This was necessary -in order that he might render a faithful account of his stewardship, for -it was considered that the cost of a sick monk was three pence on a meat -day and two pence on a fish day. The allowance for his own expenses was -reckoned at twenty-three pence a week. On St. Katharine’s day he was -accustomed to send twenty shillings for the entertainment of the Abbot -and Convent, and the balance of his income might be charged with -necessary repairs either to the Infirmary buildings or to the houses of -which the Infirmarer was the landlord. - -In addition to the Treasurer of whom some account has been given there -was an official known as the Domestic or Inner Treasurer, whose rolls -are of interest as shewing in part the manner by which the monks -obtained their slender individual incomes. - -So far as this department was concerned these arose from the endowments -of various chantries within the church. In some cases only the -celebrants of the masses received any payment, but in others all the -brethren participated. In the case of the anniversary of Abbot Kyrton -the Prior received two shillings and each brother one, while the -reigning Abbot did not benefit. In that of one John Blokley the Abbot -took eight pence, the Prior, the President of the Refectory, and the -Refectorer four pence each, and the brethren two pence each. - -The Domestic Treasurer dealt also with the receipts from properties -which belonged in common to the Prior and Convent as distinct from the -Abbatial lands and manors. Each officer taxed his own income at the rate -of one penny in the mark towards the general fund, but it does not -appear that the Domestic Treasurer administered the proceeds. - -The Refectorer’s office was not one of great importance. It might be -supposed that he was concerned with the provision of meals for the -brethren, but the only article of food which it was his duty to provide -was cheese, which cost between three and four pounds a year out of an -income of little more than ten. He was responsible for the general -upkeep of the refectory, whether for the repair of its walls and windows -or the renewal when necessary of the cloths and other appurtenances of -the table. He provided the wax for such candles as the Subsacrist was -not required to supply, and cushions for the seats of the President and -seniors. - -Some slight information can be gleaned from his rolls as to the general -arrangements of the refectory. There was the table of the President with -the _skilla_ or bell beside it, the sounding of which marked the various -incidents of the meal; the two tables of the senior monks, the two -tables appropriated to the undistinguished among the brethren, the table -of the novices, and finally that set for the poor--the _mensa pauperum_. -Somewhere in the refectory stood a statue of St. Edward with a crown of -lights above him, which must be in order for the Feasts of the -Translation and Deposition of the Convent’s tutelary saint. We note the -homely designation of the larger cups as the _Long Robin_ and the -_Charity Bowl_. - -The Monk Bailiff is perhaps the most perplexing of any of the monastic -officers. It is not possible as in the case of others to obtain any -adequate conception of his duties from the rolls which he kept, for he -records merely the payment of fees without specifying the various -services rendered. It must be supposed that he was responsible for -general matters of law in which the monastery might be involved, for he -notes year by year a payment of twenty shillings to the monastery’s -attorney in the royal exchequer, of another twenty shillings to an -attorney in the King’s Bench and of double that sum to an attorney in -the Common Bench, with other smaller payments to legal officials. Fees -to the bailiffs of the liberties in various counties also occur with -regularity. He had his own apartments and staff of servants, his own -stables, grooms and horses. - -Some few of the Kitchener’s notebooks have survived, shewing in the -utmost detail all the items of his expenditure on the food of the -brethren. Wednesday, Friday and Saturday were ordinarily kept as days of -abstinence from meat. It seems probable from the form of certain entries -that meat was served in the Refectory only on Sundays. In the -Misericorde where the brethren who had been bled took their meals, as -well as those monks who for any reason had been ordered a more generous -diet, meat was served on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, both at dinner -and supper--unless of course some fast-day fell on one of these, while -eggs might be served for supper there on Wednesdays. - -The ordinary dinner in the Refectory consisted of two fish courses with -the Convent loaf in addition. On Sundays it was not uncommon to provide -nine pieces of beef, two sheep and two fat pigs, with “smalle -poddynges.” Forgotten terms are recalled in _scroffe_ or Shrove Sunday -and Shrove Monday as well as Shrove Tuesday. On the two latter days a -breakfast was provided, in addition to the ordinary fare, of red -herrings and red sprats. Throughout Lent neither meat nor eggs was -provided either in the Refectory or Misericorde, but leeks, onions, and -peas for pottage occur frequently, with now and then a pittance of salt -eels. The Sunday dinner was varied by the provision of figs and almonds. -One red herring each was served on Good Friday with some almonds and -rice, but white herrings were bought for guests. On _Schere_ or Maundy -Thursday it was the custom for the Abbot to supplement the Convent meal. -Easter Day of course saw a considerable relaxation. Eggs for breakfast -and supper, veal and beef at dinner with currant puddings to follow, not -to mention two gallons of wine, marked the joyous character of the -festival. The Kitchener’s expenses varied between three and six pounds a -week. - -One other important officer remains to be noted, the Warden of the Lady -Chapel. He had his own property and consequently was obliged to submit -his accounts for yearly audit, but it is sufficient to say of him that -he did for the Lady Chapel in all respects what the Sacrist did for the -rest of the church. - -A number of minor officials receive occasional mention. We read of the -Wardens of other Chapels in the monastery, of the Keeper of St. Edward’s -Shrine, the Keeper of the relics and so on, but curiously enough only -here and there is there any actual record of a Guestmaster and that only -in the reign of Henry III. It seems probable that every professed monk -in the monastery was provided with some specific task or charge. - -It would be easier to write a volume than a single chapter on monastic -life at Westminster. What has been here set down is no more than what -the surviving rolls and documents of the later times actually tell as to -the surroundings and life of the last sixty years of the monastery’s -history. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -THE EARLY YEARS OF BROTHER JOHN ISLIP. - - -In the closing years of the fifteenth century, almost certainly in the -year 1492, John Islip began to keep a diary. Like many another such -volume it is remarkable for the prolixity of its earlier pages, the -scantier entries which succeed them, and the final omission of all but -necessary business notes which had to be recorded somewhere. It is from -this diary that the facts of his first years are derived. He was -twenty-eight years old and it seemed a fitting occasion to put down -something of the story of his life, for already he had become of some -importance in the monastery by his appointment to offices of -considerable responsibility and trust. So he records what seemed to him -the leading events of his earlier days and some few happenings in the -life of the outside world that had struck him as of interest or -importance. - -He was born at Islip in Oxfordshire on June 10th in the year 1464. Islip -itself had been the birthplace of Edward the Confessor whose father is -said to have built a palace there. Its manor was an early endowment -given by Edward to his newly-founded monastery of Westminster and, if -old Thomas Hearne is to be believed, “the said mannour was formerly the -best wooded of any mannour that belonged to Westminster.” - -As far back as the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272) there had been at -Islip a small chantry chapel in memory of the Confessor which the same -writer tells us stood “a little way Northward from the church but -fifteen yards in length and a little above seven in breadth.” It may be -assumed that its character changed with the dissolution of the chantries -in 1547, for it was afterwards turned into a barn and is shewn as such -in an engraving in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for December, 1788, but is -recorded there as having disappeared at least twenty years before. - -From the time of its first building the Abbot and Convent of Westminster -had appointed the chantry priest who ministered at its altar. The little -town had already been the birthplace of at least one great churchman in -the person of Simon, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1349, and -had given one monk to Westminster in the same century. The more -conscientious of the chantry priests were wont to spend in the -education of children the considerable leisure that their duties allowed -them, and it is no great flight of fancy which imagines the first -training of and the awakening of the first sense of vocation in John -Islip as due to the teaching of such an one. - -Of his parents nothing is known, but from the fact that in 1496 he was -himself paying thirteen shillings and four pence quarterly from his -small allowances for the board and education of his sister Agnes, with -an additional shilling for her shoes and gaiters, it may be supposed -that they were by then no longer living. It was customary on entering -the monastery for the family name to be discarded and the place name -used instead, so we know him only as “John Islip.” - -The search for his patronymic yields nothing of certainty. For a moment -it seems successful when in a document of the year 1506 we read the -words _Johannes de Pacientia Abbas_, but the hope is ludicrously -dispelled when we find that but for scribal carelessness they would have -read _Johannes Dei pacientia Abbas_. One possible clue may be given for -what it is worth. In the second picture of the beautiful mortuary roll -which was begun in Islip’s honour but which was destined never to be -completed, St. Giles is depicted as standing alone on the right-hand -side of the Abbot as he lay on his deathbed, while in the dexter corner -of the base of the penwork which frames the Abbot’s portrait in the -first picture are shewn the arms of the family of Giles, the sinister -corner being filled with the arms of the monastery. The significance of -the relative position of these two shields will be appreciated by the -student of heraldry. It may be noted also that in the time of Islip’s -rule as Abbot mention is found of a chapel of St. Giles[1] which seems -to appear then for the first time and may well have been one of the -radiating chapels of the apse of the new Lady Chapel built by Henry VII. - -The connection between the monastery at Westminster and the town of -Islip must have been kept alive not only by the chantry chapel and the -sentiment that must needs have linked the places of the Confessor’s -birth and burial, but also by the visits which from time to time were -paid to his manor by the Abbot or one of his officials. Doubtless many a -recruit was thus brought to the Abbey from one or other of its outlying -estates. So it came to pass that John Islip entered the monastery on -March 21st, the Feast of St. Benedict, 1480, and for six years--he -records it himself as seven--lived the common life of the novice. - -He was not yet sixteen years old and it may be supposed that the -somewhat confined character of the life of the cloister told for a time -on the health of the country-bred lad, for in the first three or four -years at Westminster he spent three considerable periods in the -infirmary, his first and most severe illness lasting more than two -months. - -The monastery at the time of his entrance was somewhat depleted in -numbers doubtless owing to the troublous years through which England had -been passing. In the preceding decade only some ten novices had sought -entrance and at the beginning of the year 1480 there were less than -forty monks. In this year, however, there were eight admissions, and the -number was never again to fall so low in Islip’s lifetime. - -The Abbot was John Estney, a man of about sixty years of age who had -ruled the monastery already for six years and was to rule it for -eighteen more. To him in all probability more than to any other were due -the influences which were to shape Islip’s life, and indeed it may well -have been he who brought the boy to the monastery in the first place. He -had been a priest for thirty-eight years and had held most of the -offices of importance in the community. - -For a time the ways of Abbot and novice lay widely separated, but the -interest of the one and the ability of the other were destined within a -few years to bring them together in the closest contact. Estney was by -no means the oldest of the monks either in years or seniority. Pride of -place in both respects was shared between three others. John -Amondesham, priest and scholar, was now seventy-two years old at least. -He had been sent to the University of Oxford as a selected student as -long ago as the year 1432 and was reputed sufficiently learned to have -been brought from there on two occasions to preach the Good Friday -sermon before the monastery. He had never risen higher than the position -of Sacrist, and that post he had long relinquished to spend his days -quietly in one of the _cameræ_ of the Infirmary. When John Islip first -saw him he had but a year more of life left to him. - -Contemporary with Amondesham were Richard Sporley and Richard Tedyngton, -men presumably of no more than mediocre ability though the former -perhaps would have laid claim to some literary skill in the compilation -of a history of the Abbey, derived mainly from the work of one who had -been his fellow-monk, John Flete. It is a claim which the verdict of -to-day will not allow. Old men were Brothers Sporley and Tedyngton but -still with some years of life before them. - -Of those who entered at about the same time as Islip three shewed -promise enough to be sent to the University, but no one of them left any -obvious mark afterwards upon the community at Westminster. - -The life as a novice was one of strict discipline and considerable toil. -Until the rules of the new life were learnt in practice as well as -theory it may well have been irksome, as indeed all strict discipline -must be until it is seen as a means and not an end, as the necessary -grammar before the new language can unfold its beauties. - -The customary period of the novitiate was seven years. During this time -the novice was under the sole care of the novice-master, through whose -hands he received all his necessary clothing and bedding, supplied -ultimately by the Chamberlain. He received none of the monetary -allowances made to professed monks, nor indeed was he allowed to handle -money at all. His instruction came from the novice-master, who was to -report the matter if he shewed signs of special ability in order that -his claims to a university career might be considered, in accordance -with the Benedictine custom of sending to Oxford one in twenty of the -community. - -The main subject in the educational system was of course the Latin -tongue in order that a proper understanding might be acquired both of -the Scriptures and of the various orders of service. The latter indeed -had to be learnt by heart and the novice-master would hear the -repetition. - -John Islip would seem not to have shewn any great ability as a scholar, -at least in Latin, for he was not one of those selected to proceed to -the university. He was sufficiently advanced, however, to be professed -and ordained priest in his twenty-second year in accordance with a -special privilege of the Westminster community. Scarcely had he said his -first mass when he was appointed domestic chaplain to the Abbot and -probably at the same time to the office of Sub-almoner. The former -appointment would bring him into intimate contact with a wider life than -he had hitherto known, while the latter would provide the first test of -those administrative abilities which might mark him in due course for -promotion to higher offices. - -The duties of the Abbot’s chaplain in these later years of the monastery -of Westminster are nowhere defined. In the fourteenth-century Customary -of Canterbury it is written that such chaplains should be polite, -discreet and pleasant, especially to all strangers. They form as it were -a link between the Abbot and his Convent and are bidden to foster the -love of the Abbot to the Convent and that of the Convent to the Abbot. -Their other duties relate mainly to the due performance of masses in the -private chapel and the general regulation of the Abbot’s household. At -Durham it was the custom for the chaplain to be summoned to the bedside -of a dying monk “who staied w^{th} him till he yealded y^{e} ghoste,” -but no such duty seems to have been required at Westminster, the Prior -being deemed responsible for the last offices. It can, however, hardly -be wrong to assume that the position was one of tact and confidence as -well as of invaluable experience to a man who within a comparatively -few years was himself to occupy the Abbot’s place. - -As Sub-almoner Islip’s duties were of a very practical character. His -primary responsibility was for the children of the almonry and of the -song school. These had their meals in common and were clothed and -educated at the expense of the monastery. In due course the Sub-almoner -took them to London to be apprenticed to masters of different trades, -and would use the opportunity to purchase russet-coloured fustian for -the coats of the “syngyng children,” with white cotton to line them, -black velvet to bind them, and “sylkyn poyntts” for further decoration. -His interest in the children did not end with their passing from his -immediate control, for visits were paid from time to time to their -masters and presents made in time of sickness. - -Apparently the purchase of music books came into his department--if we -may judge from a payment of five shillings made on one occasion for a -“pryksong booke of masses, antems and other songis.” Year by year on St. -Nicholas’ Eve and Day the festival of the Boy-Bishop was kept by the -singing children, and it was the Sub-almoner’s duty to provide the -necessary costumes as well as provisions for the festivity, such as -milk-bread, “cowmfetts,” and the like. New shoes and hosen were bought -as well as gloves, and eight pence had to be provided for the -Boy-Bishop’s offering at the shrine of St. Edward and the altar of Our -Lady of the Pew. - -The singing children assisted at the high mass and evensong on all the -principal feasts, and doubtless some of them developed a vocation for -the monastic life. - -Besides the charitable care exercised by the Sub-almoner over the -children of the almonry and song school, he was in part also responsible -for the children of the Grammar School whose parents were not in need of -charity. The latter had a master of their own who was paid three -shillings and four pence a quarter in money for his trouble, but -probably received his board and lodging in addition. The grammar -children, as they are called uniformly both in monastic times and -throughout the years immediately succeeding the dissolution, find a -complete continuity with the Westminster School of to-day, and it is in -consequence with no surprise that we read in a Sub-almoner’s notebook -about the year 1526 of the payment of sixteen pence for “wryttyng of a -play for the children.” - -Among the officials responsible to the Sub-almoner were the butler and -keeper of the “Corde Hall” or _Corde_ as the monastic _Misericorde_ was -commonly called, and here it would seem the grammar children took their -meals. - -With such cares as these Islip’s life can have been no idle one, though -he did not think it worth while to record in his diary anything of such -commonplace tasks. These were duties within the cloister so to speak, -and he began his diary on his appointment to offices which would take -him farther afield and provide him with responsibilities to which his -earlier duties might seem trivial. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -FROM 1492 TO 1498. - - -Next in chronological sequence to the references in his diary to Islip’s -earlier years is the brief entry that “on October 2, 1492 the King -crossed the sea and came to the town called _Le Slewse_ and afterwards -went as far as _Bulleyn_, and there was killed Lord John Savage, Knight, -by the French, and various others, and in the month of December the King -returned.” - -We may note first of all a point of some small historical interest. The -date of the King’s return to England is given as December 17th by Hall, -Stow, and other chroniclers, but the _Chronicle of Calais_ gives -November 17th, a date with which Professor Pollard seems to concur, for -he says that there is nothing to account for Henry’s delay at Calais for -a whole month.[2] Islip of course does not account for it, but he must -be allowed to settle the month, for he had particular reason to -remember it, apart from the fact that he was a diarist contemporary -with the event he was recording. Henry’s expedition was important enough -in itself to call for chronicle, for it resulted in the long-delayed -peace with France; but Islip recorded nothing that did not touch the -monastery directly or indirectly, and this was a matter of direct -importance to it as will presently appear. - -In 1487 Henry VII. in a letter to the Pope related how a rumour of his -defeat and the dispersal of his army had been circulated in London and -Westminster. “When this was heard by some of those who by reason of -their crimes enjoy the privileges and immunities of Westminster, being -of opinion that after the commission of any nefarious crime soever they -could have the free privilege of returning to that sanctuary ... took up -arms for the purpose of plundering the houses of those whom they knew to -be in the field with us and mustered in a body for the commission of -crime. Amongst their number was one John Swit who said: ‘And what matter -the censures of Church or Pontiff? Do you not perceive that interdicts -of this sort are of no weight whatever, since you see with your own eyes -that those very men who obtained such in their own favour are routed and -that the whole anathema has recoiled upon their own heads?’ On -pronouncing these words he instantly fell dead upon the ground and his -face and body immediately became blacker than soot itself.... Verily we -give thanks to Almighty God Who of His ineffable mercy has exhibited in -our Kingdom so great a miracle concerning the Xtian faith.” - -Miracle or not--and some of its more repulsive details have been -omitted--it will be seen that Henry had no love for the sanctuary men -who typified the very reverse of that law and order which he was -endeavouring to establish. The Abbot was ultimately responsible for the -safe keeping of the sanctuary men, as well as for the convicts committed -to his prison, and was doubtless duly censured by the King. Indeed he -would have had to obtain a royal pardon. Unfortunately at the end of -September, just as Henry was starting on his expedition, twelve convicts -escaped from the Abbot’s prison. - -Henry was actually on the road but Prior Essex and others set out in hot -haste to catch him. They came up with him at Canterbury and asked for -his pardon. Henry, however, would not grant it, and told them he should -defer the matter until he returned from France and came to Westminster. - -It can easily be imagined with what trepidation the Convent awaited the -King’s return, for they had reason to expect the severest penalties. -Their fears were not unjustified, for on February 9th, 1493, the matter -came before the King’s Bench and the Abbot was adjudged to pay the King -no less than twelve hundred pounds. Such a sum could not immediately be -forthcoming, and the Abbot accordingly entered into a bond for the -payment. - -Eventually, however, by the intervention of Sir Reginald Bray the King -reduced the penalty to a thousand marks, the last instalments of which, -amounting in all to £166 13s. 4d., were paid off by Islip as Abbot’s -Receiver in the year 1497. That Islip was correct in his note of the -month of the King’s return may therefore well be credited. - -Islip goes on to record that in this same year, 1492, there died at -Bermondsey the lady Elizabeth, sometime queen and wife of Edward IV. -Again the matter is not one solely of external interest. On two -occasions Elizabeth had sought sanctuary at Westminster. The first was -in 1470 when with her daughters and Lady Scrope she had fled to the -precinct on the reverse of Edward IV. in that year. Here her son, Edward -V., was born. Her food was sent from Abbot Milling’s household and the -Abbot himself was godfather to the ill-fated child at his baptism by the -Sub-prior. When Edward returned in triumph to London she left to join -him, only to return some twelve years later with the young Duke of York. - -On this second occasion she received the personal hospitality of Abbot -Estney. Islip was but a novice at the time but he could not have helped -knowing of the important events which were happening within the -monastery itself. Moreover Elizabeth’s name was already honoured in the -community as the donor of the new chapel of St. Erasmus erected in 1478, -probably at the west door of the old Lady Chapel. - -When in 1486 she was restored to her full rights as queen-dowager she -could think of no more pleasant place to live than in the monastery -which had formerly sheltered her, and the Abbot’s house called -Cheyneygates (the present Deanery) was leased to her for forty years. -She lived there, however, but a few months, for in 1487 her lands were -again forfeited and she retired to end her days in the abbey of -Bermondsey. - -In the summer of the year 1491, probably in the month of June, Prior -Robert Essex died, and in July the Westminster students were summoned -from Oxford to assist in the election of his successor. Among them was -Roger Blake, and upon him fell the choice of the Convent. He survived -his appointment, however, only a few weeks, and by Michaelmas George -Fascet was appointed in his place. - -Blake as a student at Oxford had of course held no appointment within -the community, so that his election as Prior made no change in the roll -of its officers. Fascet on the other hand held the two important -positions of Treasurer and Monk-Bailiff as well as being Warden of the -Manors. These offices thus became vacant and in addition other changes -were taking place. William Mane who had held office along with Fascet -both as Treasurer and Warden of the Manors had been appointed Almoner. -For a short time he carried on the duties of Monk-Bailiff in place of -Fascet, but the total burden must have proved too heavy to bear, and -accordingly on October 12th, 1492, John Islip was chosen to hold with -him the joint office of Warden of the Manors and along with Richard -Newbery to succeed him and Fascet as Treasurers. At the same time Islip -took Mane’s place as Monk-Bailiff and Warden of the Churches. - -Islip was only twenty-eight years of age and there were twenty-three -monks senior to him in a community that numbered about fifty. It argues -well alike for his personal popularity and for the esteem in which his -administrative abilities must have been held by both Abbot and Convent -that the choice for such high offices should have fallen upon him. - -Two attractive prospects were opened to him on his accession. As -Monk-Bailiff he had separate apartments where his business could be -transacted and where on occasion he could entertain friends. Accordingly -we find in his diary for Sunday, February 10th, 1493, an entry which may -be translated: _I was at the High Mass but I did not sit in the -Refectory because John Butler of Warwickshire and Thomas Candysse dined -with me in the Bailiff’s guest-room._ - -Still more alluring perhaps to one in whom the life of the cloister can -never have stamped out the love of the open country was the necessary -duty from time to time as Treasurer of making a tour of the various -properties of the monastery. It is not surprising that this should have -been found necessary in his first year of office. Acquaintance with -these properties was certainly to be desired and there can have been no -conflict between the call of duty which would take him again into the -ways of men and the cloistered conscience which would shut him from -them. - -St. Benedict himself indeed sanctioned occasional absence from the -cloister so long as the Abbot’s leave was first obtained. The novice -vowed faithfulness to the monastery of his profession but not complete -or permanent seclusion within its walls, and if it be urged that such -protracted absence as this of the new Treasurer would never have been -contemplated by St. Benedict it might with equal truth be argued that -St. Benedict could hardly be expected to foresee the acquirement of the -scattered properties which made such absence necessary. In any case the -Benedictine ideal of the monastery was the ideal of the self-contained -family and would not be infringed in spirit at least by the necessary -absence on family business of one member of it. - -Accordingly after dinner on Sunday, June 30th, 1493, Islip set out on a -tour which was to last nearly a month. On the first day he rode as far -as Aldenham and held a court there on the Monday morning. Rising betimes -on Tuesday he rode as far as Berkhampstead to mass, dined with Master -John Shorne and went on to Langton for the night, where he held a court -the next day. Thursday was a day of relaxation and he records that the -whole of it was spent in the forest hunting in company with Master -Lanxston and Master Gifford. Langton to Turweston and Banbury, Banbury -to Warwick and Knowle, Coventry, Leicester, Oakham, Oundle, Huntingdon, -so does he proceed, rising early and covering many miles before hearing -his daily mass and breaking his fast. Offord, Langford, Ashwell, Malden, -Feering, Kelvedon, Benfleet, Romford, such are some further stages of -his journey. Only once did he spend more than one night in the same -place, so that the tour if pleasant was by no means dilatory. He reached -home again on July 24th. - -He does not record what servants attended him, but the whole cost of his -journey was two hundred and fifty-one marks, an average of ten marks a -day, so that it is probable that such retinue accompanied him as -befitted the dignity of his office and the safety of his person. That -some such protection was necessary in those unsettled times will -presently appear. - -For the most part his tour was devoid of trouble incidental to the -business aspect of it. Only at South Benfleet had he reason to suspect -that anything was wrong. His suspicions were evidently corroborated -after his return to Westminster, for on August 11th he returned to South -Benfleet and seized the goods of William Gose who was his “farmer” or -agent for the manor and parsonage there. A careful inventory and -valuation was made of them, and they were reckoned to be worth just over -forty-two pounds. Gose was evidently dismissed from office, for a little -later Islip records the handing over of the stores of the manor to -Thomas Petigrewe. - -The dangers of the road have just been hinted at and he was a wise man -who kept to the King’s highway. That Islip had them in mind may be -assumed from a long entry in his diary somewhat previous to his tour. It -was a story which he had heard at the Abbot’s table one Sunday from -Richard Dolonde the Abbot’s guest. A certain priest with three servants -had wandered from the high road and come to Egerston at about eight -o’clock in the evening. When the priest’s groom went into the stable of -the inn to fetch straw for his horses he found beneath the straw two men -lying dead. He came and told his master what he had found, and the -latter called the hostess and told her that he could not stay there that -night. She asked him the cause and said “The supper is prepared, the -meat killed and all things are ready, and now you will not wait, I -marvel strongly.” Then the priest pretended different reasons for his -going and at last told her the true one, saying “I do not dare to stay -the night here for that two men lie dead in your stable.” She answered -“This is the truth, don’t doubt it. It so happened yesterday towards -nightfall two knights were here and their servants fought among -themselves so that these two men were killed, then the others in fear -asked my husband and me to hide their bodies and bury them this night. -This we intend to do, so don’t fear.” The priest believed indeed that -what the woman said was true and so stayed. But about nine o’clock the -priest was lying on his bed, being unwilling to get into it because of -his fear, when the landlord came and knocked at the chamber door and -said “Sir, I have brought you apples and pears and a draught of good -wine.” Then the priest replied “I am in bed, I do not wish to drink -to-night.” But the other said “Open the door that I may speak with you.” -Then the priest said “No.” The other replied “Then I will break it.” So -he broke the door and came to the priest with eleven other men -well-armed and said “Seek pardon of your Creator for you shall die and -all your servants,” who when he heard this asked that he might hear the -confessions of his servants. So he heard them and when confession was -done the priest came with his servants and but one dagger and rushed on -the men and killed nine of them. The other three were taken and hanged, -and the wife was burned and so the priest escaped with his servants, -“thanking God to Whom was the honour and the glory, Amen.” - -It may be with such dangers in mind that Islip spent three pence on -arrows for his servant, Robert Seston. The latter received five -shillings a quarter for his wages but was provided with clothing, shoes, -and doubtless food also, at his master’s expense. In addition he might -look forward to a tip of twenty pence on Christmas day as well as on the -anniversaries of Queen Eleanor and King Richard II. As Monk-Bailiff -Islip had his own cook and outfit of kitchen utensils, while two grooms -were in his permanent employment to look after the needs of the seven or -eight horses living in his stables. - -It might well be thought that the offices to which Islip had been -appointed in the year 1492 would have provided him with but little -leisure from their exercise to assume new duties. In the year 1496, -however, William Brewode retired from the onerous position of Cellarer -and Islip was elected in his place. The reason for this retirement does -not appear. Brewode was only fifty years of age and there was no -suggestion that he was unfit any longer to hold an office which he had -honourably filled for twelve years and which four years later he was to -fill again for a brief space before becoming Warden of the Lady Chapel. -It may be that Islip was already so clearly marked out for promotion to -the highest places of all that it was thought well for him to have -experience of the widest possible character. This, however, is the -merest speculation, and the reason for the change must be left in -obscurity. In the same year Islip appears in the _rôle_ of Abbot’s -Receiver, a position he may have occupied for the four previous years -though no record of it has survived. - -In the two years that followed no incident seems to have occurred of -sufficient importance to call for special mention either in his own life -or that of the monastery until the beginning of the year 1498, when a -few entries recall a story of some historical interest in which Islip -was directly involved. - -As far back as the year 1415 Henry V. had directed in his Will that his -body was to be buried in the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster, -among the sepulchres of the Kings on the spot where the relics of the -saints were commonly kept. The beautiful chantry chapel which was -afterwards built in his honour attests the care with which his direction -was carried out. - -About the middle of the fifteenth century, before the chapel was -entirely completed, Henry VI. paid many visits to the Abbey church to -see his father’s tomb and select the site for his own, moved thereto by -the same love for St. Edward that had fixed his father’s choice. Many -spots were suggested. Here he could lie, in the grave where Queen -Eleanor’s bones had so long rested. It would be no trouble to move her -tomb. Or there in the Lady Chapel was a suitable place. True the tomb of -his mother Katharine must be moved further westwards, but then the -opportunity could be used to see that it was more “honourably -apparelled.” Or why not move Henry V. a little to one side and so make -room for the son by the father? “Nay, let hym alone, he lieth lyke a -nobyll prince, I wolle not troble hym.” In the same spirit did he reject -one suggestion after another, finally choosing a site on the north side -of the Confessor’s Shrine, and John of Thirsk the Abbey mason was called -upon to mark out the place with his pick. - -When, however, some twenty years later Henry died in the Tower his body -was taken first to the Abbey of Chertsey. In consequence of the story of -miracles wrought at his tomb Richard III. caused the coffin to be -removed to Windsor. In the ordinary course of events the story should -end there. But a second chapter begins with the devotion to Henry’s -memory which began to spring up in the country, more especially in the -east and north, within less than ten years from his death. Images of -him were set up in churches and lights burnt before them. New gilds were -founded in his honour and old gilds in one or two instances added his -name to their dedications. He had already been canonised in the popular -imagination before Henry VII. determined to secure that canonisation by -authority and build a shrine-chapel at Windsor where his body already -rested. - -The claims of Windsor were immediately contested by the Abbeys of -Chertsey and Westminster. On February 20th, 1498, the Abbot and Convent -of Westminster petitioned the King _pro corpore beati viri Henrici -Sexti_. The matter was referred to the Lord Chancellor and the Privy -Council, sitting in the Star Chamber and at Greenwich. - -Proceedings began on February 26th and the Abbot of Chertsey was heard -first. He advanced the subtle plea that the royal corpse had been -forcibly exhumed and taken away without the consent of his convent by -Richard who was King in fact but not in right, leaving it to be inferred -that such removal was therefore unlawful. The Dean and Chapter of -Windsor followed. They had been wise enough to take advantage of the -traditional enmity between the Abbey of Westminster and the College of -St. Stephen in the royal palace. They found ready councillors in the -Dean and Canons of the latter foundation and learned probably from them -the form of the plea which it was intended to put forward on behalf of -the Abbey. They first of all contended that so far from the removal -being against the will of the Chertsey monks the Abbot himself had -actually assisted at the exhumation with his own hands. Moreover the -King had chosen his own place of sepulture at Windsor. They added that -if no choice at all could be proved then possession ought to decide the -matter. - -The Abbot of Westminster was represented by the Prior, George Fascet, -and Islip as Monk-Bailiff. Islip was no stranger to the law, for in 1492 -his name appears on the admission register of Gray’s Inn and in 1512 he -was regarded as among its most distinguished members. - -The Westminster plea was first of all Henry’s own choice. A mass of -testimony was offered from the sworn statements of twelve different -witnesses who had been present at one or other of Henry’s visits to the -Abbey church. This was a strong case in itself as it does not appear -that Windsor had any such evidence to offer. Secondly it was pleaded -that Westminster had for a long time been and still was the burial-place -of Kings, and thirdly that since the Palace of Westminster was bound by -both practical and sentimental ties to the Abbey Henry was to be -considered a parishioner. - -The case was adjourned till March 2nd and Islip records the many -incidental expenses to which he had been put for counsel’s opinion, -travelling costs and the like. - -Judgment was given on March 5th in favour of Westminster, on the ground -of Henry’s own choice and because it was the burial-place of kings. -Needless to say the fact that the Yorkist Kings Edward IV. and Richard -III. were interred elsewhere was ignored. - -It is from this judgment that we must date the first conception of the -new Lady Chapel, commonly known as the Chapel of Henry VII. Its -foundation-stone was not to be laid for four and a half years and in the -meanwhile its primary purpose was to disappear. In the meanwhile also -fresh changes came into the life of the monastery, and the rest of the -story may well take its place in connection with them. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -ISLIP AS PRIOR. - - -On May 24th, 1498, Abbot John Estney died. He had ruled the monastery -for twenty-four years and was nearly eighty years of age. There are -indications that he had been for some time failing in health, and the -fact that he had played no part in the action before the Privy Council -in the matter of the burial of Henry VI. suggests that most of his -powers had been by this time delegated to others. He had deserved well -of the community and his loss must have been felt keenly by his sometime -Chaplain, John Islip. - -The choice of the Convent fell upon Prior Fascet as Estney’s successor. -He was only about forty-two years old, but it must have been fairly -clear from the first that the choice was made rather in view of his past -services than for any future benefit he could confer upon the -community. The plea of unfitness for the task that he made when the -election was first announced to him was more than merely formal. But a -year later and he was to forsake the independence of the abbatial manors -and occupy the chamber in the monastic infirmary specially set apart for -those for whom there seemed some hope of restoration to health. For him, -however, such restoration was not to be, and in the late summer of the -year 1500 he died. This is, however, to anticipate, and we must go back -to his appointment to the Abbacy two years earlier. - -He chose Islip as his successor in the office of Prior. It is at this -point in Islip’s career that one of the small difficulties in the -reconstruction of mediæval monastic life presents itself. There were two -occasions in a monk’s career at Westminster which were deemed worthy of -especial congratulation. The one was the celebration of his first mass -after ordination to the priesthood, following on the conclusion of his -noviciate, and the other when for the first time he sat _ad -skillam_--“by the bell.” The _skilla_ was the bell which was sounded by -the Prior, or in his absence by the President, in the Refectory for -grace to be said, for the lection to begin or end, or for some other -usual signal of the mealtime. To sit by the bell, therefore, primarily -meant to preside at the monastic meal. - -The phrase, however, seems to have been used more loosely of those who -occupied seats at the President’s table and thus to become capable of a -certain ambiguity. It was customary at Westminster for the heads of the -various departments to make a present in money or in kind to a monk -after his first mass and his first sitting _ad skillam_. If we are to -assume the wider meaning of the latter phrase it is impossible to -determine what were the qualifications which a monk must possess or the -period of probation through which he must pass before his promotion _ad -skillam_. Islip was not thus advanced until he became Prior, when he -must inevitably so sit; so that the qualification was evidently not that -of the holding of monastic office, however important. Moreover a survey -of the careers of a large number of monks shews that anything from four -to more than thirty years from their profession might elapse before such -promotion came. For example Kirton did not sit _ad skillam_ until he -became Abbot in 1440, thirty-two years after his first mass; while -Thomas Gedney passed to the high table in 1421, within five years of his -profession. Kirton indeed had spent some years of his monastic life at -Oxford and never occupied the position of Prior, yet it would be -expected that on one or other of his visits to Westminster he would be -found to have been sitting at the high table at a far earlier date. - -If, however, the narrower meaning of the phrase, that of actually -presiding in the Refectory, may be taken as indicating the occasion upon -which _exenia_ or complimentary gifts were made, the difficulty to some -extent disappears. Actual seniority of profession would then determine -the occasion of the gifts. A relatively young monk such as John Islip -might have sat at the high table long before some accident found him as -the senior monk present in the Refectory, and the same fate might befall -one many years older than himself. Moreover it seems probable from the -fact that two tables were reserved for the senior monks in the Refectory -in addition to the table of the President that the narrower -interpretation of the phrase as used at Westminster is the more correct. -This is borne out also by the fact that the phrase itself is found not -only in its ambiguous form as _primo sedente ad skyllam_ but also as -_primo presidente ad skyllam_ which would seem to admit of no ambiguity -at all. It is to be observed that the phrase is undoubtedly used in the -narrower sense at Westminster at the close of the thirteenth century. - -This digression is of some importance to a proper understanding of -Islip’s career. It might be supposed that his early advancement to -important offices had awakened some jealousy in the hearts of his -fellows and had thus delayed his admission to the high table until as -Prior he could no longer be excluded from it. That this was not the -case must be evident from the fact that two years later the brethren -themselves unanimously elected him to the highest office of all. - -One further argument may be adduced. It is commonly said that the Abbot -was solely responsible for the appointment of monks to the different -offices of the monastery.[3] In the case of Westminster this general -rule requires some modification. From the time of Abbot Crispin to Abbot -Wenlock, that is to say from A.D. 1085 to 1307, it was indubitably the -custom for the prior and Convent to select two to four monks from whom -the Abbot might make his appointment to certain at least of the vacant -offices. Since in all other respects the agreements between the -Westminster Abbots and their monks continued in force in the centuries -succeeding Abbot Wenlock, there is no reason to suppose from the lack of -evidence that this particular custom changed. It may be assumed -therefore with something more than probability that Islip represented -the selection of the monastery at most stages of his advancement. - -On becoming Prior Islip resigned his offices as Treasurer, Monk-Bailiff -and Warden of the Churches, all of which on occasion would take him -abroad from the cloister. He retained, however, the duties of the -Cellarership, which was a more domestic office. - -As Prior indeed he had to do the work which St. Benedict had designed -for the Abbot. He must be in practice what the Abbot was in theory--the -father of the Conventual family. As will appear later the Abbot, -especially of such a monastery as Westminster, was apt to be drawn into -the vortex of public affairs to an extent which left him little leisure -for the essential duties of his position. To some extent also it must be -admitted that the Prior did not share the full life of the brethren. He -had a separate house at the end of the Dark Cloister running parallel to -and south of the Refectory. - -Islip himself has left little record of his own tenure of the office, -but if the documents which attest the story of his successor may be -taken as illustrative of the Prior’s life in general, it must be assumed -that his share in the common life was occasional rather than constant, -while the existence of such officials as the Sub-prior and the third or -fourth Priors points to a delegation of duties and a system which may -have worked well in practice but was not consonant with the Benedictine -ideal. Those who are familiar with the course of the development of the -collegiate life which Henry VIII. designed for his new foundation at -Westminster in after-days will have observed the same forces at work in -the gradual isolation of the higher officials from the common table and -a somewhat quicker immersion in outside duties. It can hardly be doubted -that such forces are disruptive in tendency, not necessarily of the body -itself, but of the purpose and ideal for which it was called into being. - -The Prior in fact found little difficulty in an occasional absence of -days together from the monastery. A pilgrimage to the Rood of Grace at -Boxley did not require any particular planning or arrangement, while the -record of visitors entertained by “your mastership,” as Prior Mane’s -faithful steward was wont to call him, shews the independent character -of the hospitality which he exercised. Whatever may have been the -frequency of his visits to the cloister Mane would seem seldom to have -dined in the Refectory. He appears indeed as no unfit ruler of the house -but he stands aloof from it none the less, a figure to be regarded by -the younger brethren with more awe than love. There is nothing to shew -that such a life was regarded as other than normal or that his immediate -predecessors had lived in other fashion. - -Fascet had been Abbot little more than a fortnight when he signed an -indenture binding himself and the Convent to pay Henry VII. the sum of -five hundred pounds, one hundred of which was to be paid at the -following Christmas and the remainder in two equal portions at the end -of the ensuing years. The King had represented that he was about to be -put to great expense both in obtaining the papal license for and the -actual removal of the body of Henry VI. from Windsor to London. Moreover -the “diuerse other many and grete charges that our said souverain Lord -must bere by the chaunge and alteracion of suche thinges as his Highness -... hadde ordeyned and purposed to have made and done within the said -College of Wyndesore” formed an additional claim upon a Convent already -somewhat put to it to find money for other purposes. - -The total sum was, however, paid in the year 1500-1, and John Islip as -the new Sacrist duly recorded it in his roll of account. The entry which -he made was apt to be misleading. Translated it would run thus: “Paid -for the removal of the body of the illustrious King Henry VI. from -Windsor to the monastery of the Blessed Peter, Westminster.” It was -doubtless this entry that subsequently gave rise to the tradition that -the actual removal took place and the body laid in some temporary -resting-place until the new chapel should be built as its shrine. The -fact that the papal brief for the removal was not granted until May -20th, 1504, would be by itself sufficient to disprove the tradition, but -if further proof were needed it could be found in the Will of Henry -VII., which was begun in 1509 and contained the note that the King -proposes _right shortely to translate ... the bodie and reliques of our -Uncle of blessed memorie King Henry the VI^{th.}_ - -For some unknown reason the translation was never carried out. It has -been suggested that the large sum of money demanded for canonisation -coupled with Henry’s parsimonious character proved sufficient to stay -the project; but there is no evidence for this conjecture and it seems -more reasonable to suppose that the canonisation was delayed until the -new chapel should be sufficiently ready to receive the body, otherwise -pilgrims would be flocking to Windsor rather than Westminster. Before -the chapel was thus ready Henry VII. died, and it may well be that his -successor had not the same interest in the matter as his father or the -same concern to defend his title to the throne. - -One further item of interest may be noted here. The privy purse expenses -of Henry VII. contain payments amounting in all to more than sixty-eight -pounds to Master Esterfelde for making the tomb of Henry VI. at Windsor, -and a further payment to him of ten pounds for the actual conveyance of -this tomb to Westminster. Its ultimate fate, however, was never -recorded. - -Whatever might be the final decision of the Convent Abbot Fascet can -have had little doubt as to the proper person to succeed him. In a deed -which is undated but which belongs probably to the year 1499 he -delegated to his Prior, John Islip, his full authority over the -monastery, and Islip became Abbot in fact if not yet in name. His end -was not far off, and in the summer of 1500 he died and was laid to rest -in the Chapel of St. John Baptist. - -In due course the royal license was issued to Islip as Prior to proceed -to the election of an Abbot in his place. On October 26th the office of -Abbot was formally declared vacant in the Chapter House. In addition to -Islip some thirty-eight of the monks were present and also Dr. Richard -Rawlyns, a notary, Thomas Chamberlayn, and two representatives of the -law, Doctor Edward Vaughan and Dr. William Haryngton. The election was -fixed to take place on the following day though deliberation might be -prolonged if it seemed desirable. Mass of the Holy Spirit was then -solemnly sung at the high altar and afterwards all assembled in Chapter. - -The gathering of the brethren was larger by five than on the previous -day, while Dr. Rawlyns, three legal representatives and a lay witness, -Edmund Dudley, were in attendance. Dr. Rawlyns preached a solemn -discourse on the text: _Instead of thy fathers thou shalt have children, -whom thou mayest make princes_. “Come, Holy Ghost” was then sung, with -the customary prayers following. The letters patent were read, the names -of the brethren present scrutinised, proclamation made at the Chapter -House door that any who had legal interest in the election should come -in, and then Islip as Prior solemnly warned any who lay under -excommunication, suspension or interdict, or who were for any other -reason disqualified to take part in the election, forthwith to depart. - -Dr. Vaughan then formally inquired of the assembled Chapter by what -method they desired the election to go forward. The reply was _per viam -Spiritus Sancti_, and William Lambard, the senior of the monks present, -nominated John Islip. The choice was immediately acclaimed by all the -brethren without discussion or consultation of any kind. - -Lambard at once proceeded to make record of the election. Brother John -Islip, he wrote, was a man careful and discreet, an ornament to the -priesthood in life and habit, wise alike in things spiritual and -temporal, and anxious to preserve and defend the rights of the monastery -of his choice. Procession was then formed to the high altar and _Te -Deum_ sung the while. On reaching the altar Dr. Vaughan made public -proclamation of the election. The brethren then returned to the Chapter -House where the two seniors present, Brothers Lambard and Charyng, were -deputed to carry the formal announcement of his election to the Prior’s -lodging whither the Abbot-elect had retired. Islip proclaimed himself -unworthy of such high office but eventually consented to election -_multipliciter se excusans_. He recorded his acceptance in this form: - -“In the name of God, Amen. I, John Islip, monk of the monastery of St. -Peter Westminster directly attached to the Roman Church, of the order of -St. Benedict, vowed to the order and rule of the same in the said -monastery and canonically elected Abbot thereof, unwilling to resist the -divine will, at the urgent request of the Chapter of the said monastery -and its proctors do consent to my election, in honour of Almighty God, -the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Peter patron of the said monastery and the -glorious Confessor St. Edward the King.” - -The Abbot-elect would seem to have celebrated the occasion by giving a -modest dinner to the Convent if we may judge from the long list of -articles of food purchased by the steward of his new household on that -day. The cost amounted to seventeen shillings and ten pence and the list -included “a potell of swet wyne”--bought perhaps to fill a loving-cup. - -Some formalities, however, were necessary before the Abbot-elect could -be installed. The papal confirmation had to be obtained as also various -royal grants of the Abbot’s temporalities. Some of the latter are dated -November 13th and consist of mandates to the Crown escheators in various -counties to deliver the temporalities in their hands. - -Matters were sufficiently forward for the installation to be fixed for -November 25th. The three days previous were spent by Islip at the -Abbot’s Manor of Neyte, close to Westminster, where various presents of -food were made to him by his new tenants. - -On the morning of the day _when my lord was stalled_ he came from the -Chapel of St. Mary Magdalen at the far end of Tothill Street, then one -of the chief highways of Westminster, with a great number of nobles, -friends and servants and was met in the Conventual cemetery just outside -the west door of the church by five of the senior brethren, Charyng, -Waterden, Langley, Holand and Borough. Waterden handed him the oath -customarily taken by the Abbots to observe “all the rights, statutes and -laudable constitutions and customs of the monastery.” He first read it -through in a low tone and then recited it in a loud and clear voice. -Then there came to him the Sub-prior and the rest of the monks with -book, cross and pastoral staff. He knelt and kissed the book and so was -led in procession into the church where the installation was duly -performed. He subsequently gave a banquet at which probably the whole -Convent was entertained, its cost amounting to no less than £4 13s. 7d. - -So he entered on his new dignities. He was but thirty-six years old and -there were no less than sixteen of the brethren who were his seniors in -point of profession. Twenty years had seen him pass from the -country-bred novice to the high position of a mitred Abbot at the -opening of a century destined to bring to the Church changes greater -than any that had happened to it since St. Augustine first landed on the -shores of Kent. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -ISLIP AS ABBOT. - - -Following on his installation as Abbot, Islip was the recipient of -various presents in money from the obedientiaries of the Abbey as well -as of many in kind from friends outside. - -The first month of office was spent quietly at Cheynygates and the -earliest record of a visit abroad is contained in his steward’s note -that “this yere my lorde Abbot, the Prior, the monk bayly, and all the -Convent kepe ther Crystemasse w^{t.} my seyd lord Abbott at his maner of -Neyte.” The entertainment was of the most lavish character, in striking -contrast to the relative frugality of the Abbot’s ordinary household -expenses. Two oxen at 13s. 4d. each, seventeen sheep at 1s. 6d. each, -nine pigs at 2s. each, twenty-seven geese, twenty-three capons,--such -were some of the purchases, while what may be called the bill for -dessert came to £2 6s. 8d., the whole amounting to more than eight -pounds. - -For a time the new Abbot found leisure to audit his household accounts -and append his signature with its accustomed _rubrica_ thereto, but he -did not long continue the practice, perhaps because he found that he was -being honestly served and more important matters were to hand. His -steward records that the second Christmas was spent at Hendon “and -maister prior and maister monk Bayly to gether at maister prior’s -place.” The latter facts were no business of his, but we are glad of his -gossiping pen and shall have occasion to quote him again. - -It is important to notice an innovation in the monastic system which -Islip continued but which was initiated by Estney. The story of the -completion of the building of the nave will be told later, so that it -need not be dwelt on now. In his anxiety for this work Estney on -becoming Abbot in 1474 retained in his hands the two offices of Sacrist -and Warden of the New Work, as bearing directly on the building -operations. This retention was continued by Fascet and Islip in turn. -All of them of course employed deputies to assist them but maintained -control of the funds of the two offices. - -Estney was the first Abbot to hold an office in the monastery, and it -must argue well for his personal influence or popularity that he was -allowed to do so. In an earlier century such action would have been -strongly resented, so clearly defined were the relative positions and -functions of ruler and ruled. - -It is a matter of no little difficulty to estimate the meaning and -importance of such an innovation. It is possible to read into it a -symptom of the declining vigour of monastic life, more especially in -view of the fact that in the early sixteenth century the tendency was to -unite various offices in one holder and so for many monks never to hold -office at all. But it does not seem necessary to invest Estney’s action -with any such indication of decay in strength on the part of those over -whom he ruled. The work of rebuilding the nave was the greatest -enterprise of its kind which had ever been undertaken by the Abbot and -Convent, and it might well be considered a sign of common sense that the -two offices which were especially _ad hoc_ should have been allowed by -the Convent to be retained by the chief director and inspirer of the -task in hand. Delay and friction may have occurred in the previous years -when there was divided responsibility. But when all is said it must be -admitted that the true significance of the innovation has not been -adequately determined. For the purposes of the present story, however, -there is this advantage that the rolls of the retained offices provide -much additional material for noting Islip’s personal activities. - -At the time of Islip’s accession the financial management of the -monastery must have given occasion for anxious thought. The payment of -royal subsidies was shared between the incomes of the different offices -and weighed heavily upon all, amounting roughly as it generally did to a -five per cent. tax upon diminishing receipts. For four years tithes had -decreased in value and in each of them the Sacrist’s roll had shewn a -deficit which in Islip’s first year had fortunately to some extent been -compensated for by an increase in the rents from Westminster property. -An annual payment of fifty shillings from the Royal Exchequer for the -renewal of candles about the tomb of Edward I.--a payment which had been -made for centuries--was discontinued in 1497, and not for seventeen -years did Islip secure its revival and then only for a time. Offerings -at the different altars which in 1496 had amounted to more than -forty-eight pounds had in 1500 shrunk to less than thirty-six. - -Until the year 1509 Islip was unable to shew any credit balance in the -Sacrist’s account, though he gradually reduced the deficit. In that -year, however, occasions of special profit arose. The offerings at the -burial of Henry VII. came to more than one hundred and forty-eight -pounds, those at the funeral of the lady Margaret his mother to -twenty-two, and the oblations at the High Altar at the subsequent -coronation of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon to forty-seven. - -Islip, however, in the earlier years of his abbacy did not regard the -need for rigid economy as any excuse for the restriction of services. On -the other hand he would seem to have multiplied the number of masses -said in the church, for while in his first year nineteen thousand -“breads” were purchased for this purpose no less than twenty-nine -thousand were required in the second. In 1504 considerable outlay was -made on the repair of vestments, lamps and other ornaments of the -church, and there is in these years every evidence that there was no -slackening at least of the external observances. Small items of -expenditure have their interest. Henry VII. would seem to have had a -private apartment in the church, for in 1491 keys had been bought for -his seat and closet therein, while in 1504 there is a payment of four -pence for “teynterhokys and cordes for the travers of the lord king in -the church,” and a further expenditure of two pence for rosemary bought -for the King. - -The Abbey church has been the scene of many a service of striking -splendour in the course of its long history but few of them can have -rivalled in curious impressiveness that which took place in November of -the year 1515. Wolsey had attained the goal of his immediate though not -of his ultimate desires, and on the fifteenth of the month his -cardinal’s hat was brought in solemn procession through London to the -Abbey church, where Islip and eight other Abbots received it and -solemnly laid it upon the High Altar. On Sunday the 18th Wolsey, -attended by nobles and gentlemen, came from York Place to the church, -where mass was solemnly sung by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There were -present the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, the Bishops of Lincoln, -Exeter, Winchester, Ely, Durham, Norwich and Llandaff, beside the Abbots -of Westminster, St. Albans, Bury, Glastonbury, Reading, Gloucester, -Winchcombe, Tewkesbury, and the Prior of Coventry. The sermon was -preached by Colet, Dean of St. Paul’s, who is recorded to have said that -“a cardinal represents the order of seraphim which continually burneth -in the love of the glorious Trinity, and for these considerations a -cardinal is apparelled only in red, which colour only betokeneth -nobleness”--surely adulation enough even for Wolsey’s ambitious spirit! -The final prayers and benediction were pronounced by the Archbishop of -Canterbury over Wolsey’s prostrate form as “he lay grovelling” before -the High Altar, and at last the hat was placed on his head. It is -interesting for those acquainted with Abbey traditions to note that in -the recessional the cross was carried before the new cardinal though he -was not yet a papal legate, while no such distinction was accorded to -the Archbishop of Canterbury. - -The Abbey of Westminster was proud of its exemption from all but papal -jurisdiction. No bishops made there any disciplinary visitations. Wolsey -became legate in 1518 and Polydore Vergil records that he made a -visitation of the Abbey in that year. Of this the Abbey records shew no -trace though notice was given of such visitation by Wolsey and -Campeggio. - -One document (a copy) which still survives and refers to that year -belongs probably to a later occasion. It is a roll on which appears as -title _A Supplicacon of a monk of Westm’ to y^{e} beshop of Rome_. Its -preamble begins:--“Pitteously complaynyth unto your most holly -ffatherhed, well of all remedy, hed and superyor of the spirytuall powr, -your pour suppliant and orator.” The monk remains anonymous, but his -complaint is that in 1518 when Islip was Abbot and William Mane Prior it -fortuned the said Prior to be robbed and spoiled of certain goods by a -servant and kinsman of his own, “so being forth at a place of his called -Belsaes.” When tidings was brought to Mane “he sayd strayth that it was -my arte and dede and put it holy to me that I had Robbed hym of lij lib. -of plate and so incontynet went unto the abbot then lyeng at Hendon ... -uppon the which I was ffet owt of my chamber by Dane John Chorysshe then -beyng his chapelayn which brougt me unto the prior, which prior -commandyd me unto ward in a sertayn chamber where I dyd contynue -withowte bed ... untyll the commnyg hom of the Abbot, at whose commyng -I was examynd and then the prior had nothyng to say unto me but askyd me -wher I had the iiij lib. that I did hend unto marshall of Barmysay wher -as this I declaryd me to have it by the deth of my father ... the prior -comayndyd me ayenn unto the pryson untyll he had made dew prove thereof -and in the meane season thabbot did return unto Hendon and at his -commyng ayenn whan the trowgh began to Appere they beyng asshamed of the -sayd slander the abbot cam unto me and sayd Brother A.B. wyll you put -this matter unto my handis and I promyse yew I shall se yow have a great -mense made, And forbycause I was under his obbedience I was content so -to do but as yet I had never nothyng but toke by that means a great and -greavous sykenesse, at which tym of sycknesse it cam unto my lot to syng -the chapter masse, but I beyng dyseasyd durst not nor could not take it -uppon me but yet w^{t.} compulcion he cawsyd me to do it, so it fortuned -the sayd day at masse at the Gospell tyme by the reason of that sycnesse -so takyn to be so sycke that I sownyd at the Auter where at they were -fayn to cut my gyrdell to revyue me, so that after masse as sone as I -cam in to the revestery I was compelled to vomyt.... - -“ ... And after that toke a sycnesse which held me iiij yeres. And where -as ther is a howse cawlyd the farmary to kepe syck men in to the which -ther is a lowyd I lib, by the yere to be put to that use wher as every -oon beyng sycke iij d. by the day w^{t.} sertyn fagottis and other -thyngis. your sayd suppliant had nether but lay at his owne cost utterly -to his undoyng and to the poverysshement of his ffriendis.... But uppon -a malyciouse mynd the pryor that now is informyd the abbot so that he -sayd openly at the chapeter that I was a gret dysoymaler and was no more -syck than his horse yet he discharged me there. And so after incontenent -w^{t.} sutche small comfortis as I had and purchased of my ffrendis I -did send for m^{r.} Docter yarkeley doct^{r.} barlet Doct^{r.} ffreman -m^{r.} Grene m^{r.} Pawle which opynly did prove me to be infected with -dyvers sycknesse whereof the lest were able to kyll a Ryht strong man, -the Abot heryng of thys comanydy me to ly in the subchamber and there I -lay iij quarteris of a yere and vj weekis withowt anny succoure of the -howse ... but had utterly peryeshed but for my ffrendis....” - -The suppliant goes on to ask that bulls may be issued commanding the -monastery on pain of excommunication to give him the first benefice that -shall happen to be vacant so that it be of the value of twenty pounds -with his portion, monk’s pension, stall in choir and voice in Chapter on -a day of election. - -It is unfortunate that the name of the author of this realistic petition -cannot be recovered, but the petition itself alone survives. We have -only one side of the case and it may have been true that he was no more -sick than the Abbot’s horse! It may be that this petition was presented -in 1525 when Wolsey signified his intention of holding a visitation of -the Abbey. Islip wrote a reply to the cardinal promising to be present -with all his monks. He admits the need of such visitations, for abbots, -abbesses, and priors have become lax in their mode of life and -observance of rule, and lukewarm in their examples; while regulars who -ought to be models to the laity in life, in morals and good works, lead -lives little corresponding thereto, to the great scandal of many. The -letter is a disinterested comment on the monasticism of the day but it -would be foolish to draw any sweeping conclusion from it. Islip had -conducted such visitations himself, and in 1516 had seen fit to suspend -a Prior of Malvern. No records of the result of Wolsey’s visit seem to -remain beyond its cost, and doubtless he found little upon which to -comment. - -The Benedictine custom of sending certain of their monks to Oxford has -already been mentioned. Towards the close of the thirteenth century -Gloucester College had been established there, to which a few years -later Westminster students began to be admitted. Among those in -residence there in 1522 was Thomas Barton, already a Doctor of Divinity -and about to become Prior of the students of the college. An -interesting document survives in his handwriting which may be allowed to -speak for itself: - -“This byll testyfythe y^{t} we V scholars w^{th} other V w^{th} us of -y^{e} brethrens of Gloster colege hathe expendyd yn y^{e} observaunce of -holy sent Edwardis o^{r} patronys servisse kept at yslipe yn hys -chappell & of y^{e} dyryge & massys kept y^{r} yn y^{e} paryshe churche -for y^{e} sowlys of y^{e} parentis of o^{r} most worshypfull spirituall -father y^{n} god y^{e} abotte of Wesminster the summe of x^{s} the yere -of o^{r} lord a mcccccxxij^{ti} the xv^{th} day next after mykyl day - - by me rudely wryt - Dan Thomas Barton - monk of Wesmynster” - -Immediately upon Barton’s appointment as Prior of the students Islip -made him a present of over four pounds, a typical instance both of his -personal generosity and of the interest which he shewed in the absent -sons of his house. - -In Islip’s time the monastery was represented also at Cambridge at the -hostel called Buckingham College, which was founded in 1428 for -Benedictine students drawn from monasteries in the eastern counties. The -connection of Westminster with Cambridge began in practice in 1499, just -about the time when Islip as Prior received the delegation of Abbot -Fascet’s powers. His interest in the Cambridge students is evident from -a letter which he wrote about the year 1524 to John Thaxted, Abbot of -Walden, calling his attention to the condition of their college which -was without a rector, and expressing a wish that John Hastley, a student -from Selby Abbey, might have leave to pursue his legal studies at St. -Nicholas’ Inn. The generosity of the Lady Margaret to the university was -probably not without its influence in strengthening the connection with -Westminster. - -Islip, like many of his predecessors, had some unfortunate experiences -in connection with the Gatehouse prison, for the security of which he -was personally responsible. In 1506 one John Calcote, Gentleman of -London, who was in his charge on various accusations of felony, managed -to escape from custody, and Islip was accordingly fined. Two years later -George Wolmer, Yeoman of Lingfield, fled for sanctuary to St. Mary -Overy, Southwark. He was outlawed, but later on was arrested in England. -He pleaded benefit of clergy and was handed over to Islip’s care. On his -subsequent escape a Middlesex jury found a charge of negligent custody -duly proved. - -Yet the keeping of the gaol in spite of these and other instances of -resultant trouble would seem to have been profitable, for Islip was -diligent in defending not only the rights of sanctuary but also the -privileges of receiving accused folk whether clerical or lay arrested -within his jurisdiction, a diligence observable in subsequent centuries -in those who took his place, though not his office. He was jealous too -of his position as Abbot of Westminster, with all that that high office -involved. For example, it chanced that he was present at a Chapter of -the Prior and Convent of Greater Malvern in 1529, perhaps on a -visitation, and he took the opportunity of professing certain of their -novices, but he was careful to make it understood that he was in no way -detracting from the old arrangement by which the Malvern monks must make -their profession at Westminster. - -The various inventories of the time and the records of the Augmentation -Office and Exchequer bear testimony to his generous gifts of vestments -and ornaments to the Abbey church. The elaboration of his unfinished -mortuary roll witnesses to the esteem in which his Convent held him. He -was the last of the great Abbots of Westminster, a not ignoble line, and -it may confidently be asserted that his rule will bear comparison with -that of any of his predecessors. - -It is natural to scan the Abbey records of his time for signs of the -approaching cataclysm and equally natural perhaps to exaggerate the -significance of their presence or absence. Among these records the signs -are few. As long as Islip lived one might suppose from them that -monastic life at Westminster eight years before the dissolution of the -monastery was pursuing the same even and profitable course that it had -pursued half a century earlier when he first entered the monastery, and -indeed that in some respects it was shewing even greater vigour. The -enthusiasm for the internal work of the rebuilding of the nave and the -external stimulus of the foundation of Henry VII. do not point to a -community anticipating any breaking of its bonds. - -Yet it must be confessed that the materials for an accurate and -well-considered judgment are lacking. If a verdict must be passed on the -evidence which exists it would be in favour of the supposition just -mentioned. At the same time it must not be supposed that the community -was blind as to the general trend of the times or oblivious to the -possibilities that awaited it. - -Two things stand out in the last year of Islip’s life as pointing to the -fact that the Convent was facing forces too strong for it. In 1531 it -was paying an annual bribe to Thomas Cromwell, a payment which was -euphemistically called “a fee granted to him for the term of his natural -life,” the Sacrist’s share of which was £6 13s. 4d. The second -indication lies in the unequal bargain made by Islip with the King in -the exchange of property. After Wolsey’s fall the King had annexed York -Place, ignoring the fact that it was the property of the northern -archbishopric and not that of Wolsey himself. The larger portion of the -residential part of the Palace of Westminster had been destroyed by fire -in 1512 and the King proposed enormous extensions to Whitehall, as his -new palace was now to be called. For these he must acquire the houses on -both sides of the street to the north and south of the existing -buildings. Most of these houses belonged to the Abbey and it can be -easily imagined that Islip would be unable to withhold his assent to the -scheme. He was employed along with Thomas Cromwell to pay compensation -to evicted tenants, and in this way a sum of more than eleven hundred -pounds was disbursed. But the Convent itself received no adequate -compensation. Henry indeed gave it the Priory of Poughley in Berkshire, -one of the smaller houses which Wolsey had dissolved. Poughley had been -founded about 1160 by Ralph de Chaddleworth as a house for Austin Canons -and in theory its revenues amounted to about seventy pounds. In actual -practice the Abbey were worse off by some fifteen pounds a year. - -It remains only to note one or two instances of Islip’s activities. When -the ancient college of St. Martin-le-Grand in London came into the -possession of the Abbey at the beginning of the sixteenth century Islip -drew up new statutes for it, and the records of his dealing with this -foundation shew evidence of a shrewd business mind. From time to time -his name occurs in connection with the General Council of Benedictines -of which he was President in 1527. On this occasion he issued a -commission to William, Abbot of Gloucester, to hold a visitation of the -Abbey of Malmesbury where there had been a rebellion of the members of -the house against their Abbot. Towards the end of his life he was one of -the royal chaplains, but the record of his appointment does not appear. - -Islip died on Sunday, May 12th, 1532, at his manor house of Neyte, and -was buried four days later in the centre of his own chapel. So great was -the public interest in his funeral that its train is said to have -stretched from Neyte to Tothill Street. The Abbot of Bury officiated at -the interment and pontificated at the mass of requiem on the day -following, the sermon being preached by the Vicar of Croydon. The -references to Islip’s work as a builder which Hacket makes in his life -of Bishop Williams may be very inaccurate, but there is no reason to -question his estimate of Islip’s character as “a devout servant of -Christ and of a wakeful conscience.” The last great Abbot of -Westminster, it may be truly said of him that he was _felix -opportunitate mortis_. His latter days may well have been full of -anxiety, but he did not live to see the storm break or to suffer in the -vast upheavals which were so soon to follow and which assuredly would -have broken his heart. But three days after his death the clergy in -Convocation were forced to consent that they would neither enact nor -enforce new canons without the royal initiative and assent. On the very -day of his burial Sir Thomas More handed back the Great Seal to the -King. Islip’s funeral was “the funeral of the Middle Ages.” - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -ISLIP IN PUBLIC LIFE. - - -The personality of the Abbot of Westminster can seldom have been a -matter of indifference to the reigning Sovereign. The mere proximity of -Court and monastery would alone be sufficient to ensure some degree of -friendship or provoke some measure of antagonism, and instances are not -wanting of both. But when it is remembered that the Abbey church was the -place of burial of many and the place of coronation of all the Kings; -that it contained the saintly relics of one and owed its very structure -to another, it is not surprising that at times Abbot and King should be -brought together in intimate contact. - -When Islip first became Abbot every circumstance combined to bring such -contact about. Henry VII. was half ready with the plans for his new -chapel and Islip’s enthusiasm as a builder must already have been -obvious. It may be supposed that Islip had already attracted the royal -notice by his share in the matter of the proposed translation of Henry -VI., and the King’s assent to his election would seem to have been given -readily enough if we may judge by the relative lack of delay in issuing -the royal writs that dealt with the Abbot’s temporalities. - -One small incident suggests that the new Abbot soon became on intimate -terms with the King. Islip’s cook had evidently a reputation for the -excellence of his marrowbone puddings, for presents of such to the Lord -Chamberlain and others of his friends were not infrequent. Before Islip -had been Abbot for six months we find in his household accounts the -record of the purchase of “ij marybons for ij podyngis for the Kyng.” -The cost was only two pence, but in skilled hands the value was -evidently more. The present of a buck from one to the other would be a -matter of no surprise, but there is a certain intimacy, indefinable -perhaps but none the less real, implied in so trivial a gift as that of -a marrowbone pudding. - -A few weeks later the Abbot’s steward notes that “the Kingis grace dyned -at Cheynygate.” The cost of the entertainment was only 17s. 4d. and the -fare provided was by no means elaborate. It was on a Friday so no meat -was served, and the only purchases unusual to the Abbot’s accounts were -wine and strawberries which together cost 3s. 8d., a barrel of ale for -2s. and a “potell of wyne for to Sowse ffysche w^{t.}” for 4d. The -endowment of the King’s new chapel and the services to be performed in -it when finished would have been a topic of interest to both and in -itself have provided sufficient matter for conversation. A further -instance of friendly relations may be found in the royal presents to -Islip of two tuns of wine yearly which began in the year 1501. - -Islip’s first entry into public life, so far as can be discovered, must -date from his appointment in 1504 as treasurer of the hospital of the -Savoy, then about to be rebuilt by Henry VII. It does not appear that -the Abbot had any particular share in the work beyond the actual -guardianship of the funds. The money came to him in sealed bags which -were probably deposited in the undercroft of the Chapter House. He might -not deliver them over without the royal warrant in Henry’s lifetime or -an order signed by seven at least of Henry’s executors after his death. -In 1512 he had as much as ten thousand pounds in his keeping, the last -instalment of which he paid over late in the year 1515 when his -connection with the hospital came apparently to an end. - -The trust which Henry VII. placed in him was continued by his successor, -and in September, 1513, Islip appears as a member of the Privy Council -of Henry VIII. Thomas Wolsey had been appointed to the Council two years -before. The Abbot and the future Cardinal must, however, have been -acquainted at an earlier date, for in 1505 Wolsey had been appointed a -chaplain to Henry VII. In 1507 the Abbot and Convent had granted to Sir -Richard Empson the parsonage and adjoining gardens of St. Bride’s, Fleet -Street, and when Empson fell the grant was given to Wolsey, who thus -became a tenant of the Abbey. Moreover both Islip and Wolsey were among -the personal friends of Sir Reginald Bray, a favoured adviser of Henry -VII. - -Reference has been made elsewhere to Islip’s legal training. This was -doubtless responsible for his appointment in 1510 as a trier of -petitions of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, an office which he -continued to fill in the years that followed. In 1519 Wolsey deputed him -along with others to hear the causes of poor men depending in the Star -Chamber, while in 1512 and subsequent years his name appears on the -Commission of Peace for the County of Middlesex. - -Among the minor activities of these years may be included Islip’s work -in 1524 as a Collector for Middlesex on behalf of the loan for the war -with France, and in 1526 as a Commissioner of Sewers from East Greenwich -to Gravesend, work in which he was associated among others with Sir -Thomas More and Lord Cobham. It is interesting to note in the Navy List -for 1513 the Abbot of Westminster as part owner of the ship _Kateryn -Fortileza_, doubtless one of that gallant squadron which swept the -Channel under Sir Edmund Howard and blockaded the port of Brest. - -Little record remains of any activity Islip may have displayed in -Parliament. As a mitred abbot he was summoned to the assembly which met -early in 1515, and there is some evidence to shew that in 1523 he was -not a silent member, but his record in this connection is to be sought -in the work of Parliament in general rather than in individual effort. - -Elusive references to Islip in public documents are not infrequent in -the second decade of the sixteenth century, but it is not easy to place -them in their historical setting. For instance we find that he had -evidently made a loan of some magnitude to his fellow Privy Councillor, -the Earl of Shrewsbury, but the purpose of the loan cannot be discovered -and we note only the difficulty which Shrewsbury had in making repayment -and the not unusual mode of behaviour on the part of the defaulting -debtor of sending a present of venison in place of an instalment of the -debt. - -At this time Islip would seem to have stood just on the outer fringe of -public affairs. He dined with Wolsey in 1516 to meet the ambassadors -from Scotland, and in the summer of 1520, when the mission from France -was being shewn the sights of London, he “enterteigned” the three -gentlemen that composed it with “right goodly chere,” for among those -sights was the King’s new chapel at Westminster, not to mention the -Hospital of the Savoy. So, too, he visited the Princess Mary at -Richmond and is able to report with the rest of the Privy Council that -she “is right merry and in prosperous health and state, daily exercising -herself in virtuous pastimes.” The visit was followed by gifts of -puddings, for the bringing of which the Abbot’s servants were duly -tipped by the Princess. Again, on the occasion of the important visit of -the Emperor Charles V. to England in May, 1522, Islip was summoned along -with his brethren of Bury, Canterbury and Bermondsey, to attend Wolsey -at Dover to meet him, but this must not be interpreted to imply that -Islip had any share in the important matters that were to hand. It would -be but a compliment to his orthodox majesty to be met by representative -Churchmen and to the Churchmen themselves to be asked to meet him. - -Among the problems of the earlier Tudor period was one of interest at -the present time. There are no unimpeachable statistics as to the -proportion of English land which was held by the Church but that -proportion was undoubtedly large. Many of the monasteries were landlords -on a large scale and yet were suffering the pinch of severe poverty. The -land was becoming denuded of tenants and rapidly passing from the plough -to pasture. Increasing demands from the royal exchequer upon monastic -houses aggravated the evil and it has been well said that “debt with no -chance of redemption weighed heavily upon all.” - -It was a problem that Islip could view both with personal knowledge and -official interest. It was a natural but at the same time an anomalous -appointment which placed Islip in 1516 on a Commission among whose terms -of reference were inquiries as to what towns, hamlets, houses and -buildings had been destroyed since 1489; what and how much land in -cultivation in that year had since been converted into pasture; what -number of parks had since been inclosed, and what land had been added to -existing parks. Islip was concerned in this inquiry with Middlesex only, -but that county included his own Manor of Hendon as well as other -portions of the abbatial property, not to mention manors such as Ashford -which belonged to his Convent. - -In 1522 was levied the first of a series of loans designed to defray the -costs of ineffective foreign wars and Islip was associated with Sir -Andrew Wyndsore and Thomas Docwra, the Prior of the Order of St. John, -as a Commissioner for Middlesex. Theirs was the unpopular task of making -a list of all the residents in the county who possessed a yearly income -of twenty pounds in goods or land, of ascertaining the total value of -their property and assessing the tax due from them by way of loan. But -if Islip had thus to deal with others he did not escape himself. His -own contribution was one thousand pounds, equalling that of the -Archbishop of Canterbury, a sum which by now he could ill afford. At the -same time he had to look forward to the payment of his share of an -annual grant levied upon the whole spirituality of the kingdom for the -King’s expenses in France. - -In 1525 Islip was sent by Wolsey to inquire into the affairs of the -Abbey of Glastonbury. Abbot Richard Beere had died and considerable -delay had occurred in electing his successor. Finally the forty-seven -monks decided to remit the appointment to Wolsey who selected Richard -Whiting, then Chamberlain of the Abbey, for the vacant office, doubtless -on Islip’s recommendation. It was perhaps well that Islip did not live -to see the tragic fate that was to overtake the new Abbot. - -Another side of Islip’s later life is seen in his occasional presence at -the trial of those accused of holding or promulgating heretical -doctrine. It is easy to-day to enlarge upon the bigotry and intolerance -of the judges at such trials, and to make much of the unreliable stories -of men such as Foxe. It is less easy but it is imperative for a proper -understanding to make the necessary effort of imagination and place -oneself in the position of men faced with the spread of opinions which -were subversive of all that they believed true and all that they held -dear, opinions which they thought to be destructive of a social order -which they had long prized. It is foolish to defend them on the ground -that they but found men guilty or not guilty of offences for which the -civil and not the ecclesiastical arm awarded the punishment. They would -have scorned such a plea in their own defence. It is better to try to -understand the point of view which could place men of such gentle -character as Thomas More in the position of apparent persecutors. The -old order was changing, and the phenomena which accompany such changes, -whether ecclesiastical or social, are apt to be the same in every age -though they find expression in different modes of action. It is the form -of expression which characterises the age rather than the phenomena -which produce it. - -Islip’s first connection with such matters appears to have been in 1526, -when Wolsey appointed him to search for heretics among the Hanseatic -merchants in London. The search was apparently successful, for he -presided together with the Bishop of Bath and Wells at the trial of one -Hans Ellerdope, the main accusation against whom was the possession of -one of Luther’s prohibited treatises. The trial took place probably in -the Chapter House of the Abbey, for the Prior, the Archdeacon, and -another monk were all present. Ellerdope protested that he could neither -speak nor understand Latin. He had not therefore read a single page of -the book but had refrained from burning it because it was not his own -property. He had found it in the chamber of one of his master’s agents -on whose death he had taken possession of it. The issue of the trial -does not appear but it seems probable that Ellerdope was acquitted. - -In 1527 the Chapter House was definitely the scene of a trial. On this -occasion Wolsey, attended by a long array of bishops, lawyers and -others, presided there at the trial of one Thomas Bilney for heretical -pronouncements. Bilney is only of interest as being, according to Foxe, -“a Cambridge man and the first Framer of that University in the -knowledge of Christ.” More interesting would it be to have heard the -talk of the monastery upon the trial which was taking place in its very -centre. - -In the last two years of his life Islip was connected with two more such -trials, both of which were held in the Consistory Court in St. Paul’s -Cathedral and were presided over by the Bishop of London. One of these -was that of Richard Bayfield, a renegade monk of Bury, against whom -thirteen articles of offence were alleged. The more important items in -the indictment were the importation of the works of Luther and of divers -other heretics, and the holding of opinions contrary to Holy Church. The -Abbots of Westminster and Waltham together with certain of the nobility -and others assisted the Bishop at the trial. Bayfield was found guilty -and handed over to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London. In due course he -suffered at the stake. The second trial was that of a leather-seller, -John Tewkesbury, who came to the same end, but in this case Islip seems -only to have been present at the first hearing. - -But if this aspect of Islip’s public life is little calculated to -attract the sympathies of more tolerant times still less perhaps is the -part which he played in the matter of the King’s divorce. It was but a -minor part, but there can be little doubt as to Islip’s views in the -case. No sadder fate fell to any woman in English history than came to -Katharine of Arragon. Yet sympathy is apt to outrun judgment, and the -easily formed verdict of all but the student dwells on the pathos of her -story, makes much of the King’s sensual inclinations, and is entirely -uninterested in and impatient of the problems and niceties of -ecclesiastical law. - -To attempt some defence of Islip’s action is not necessarily to attempt -the same for Henry, though the efforts of the one were enlisted in the -service of the other. To a Churchman such as Islip, though not to the -Statesman such as Wolsey, there was but one point at issue in the matter -and that was the legality of the original dispensation for the marriage -which Pope Julius II. had granted. This can hardly be too strongly -emphasised if strict justice is to be done to men such as he was. In -this connection it is to be noted that eight of the foreign universities -to whom the question was submitted and as to the general impartiality of -whose judgment there can be little question decided that the Pope’s -dispensation was null and void. The verdicts of the English universities -in Henry’s favour and those of the Spanish against him may be neglected -as not uninfluenced by questions of expediency, but it is impossible to -ignore the importance of the decision of the others. - -Islip was present on two famous occasions in the year 1529: on May 31st, -when the papal commission was presented to Cardinals Wolsey and -Campeggio by the Bishop of Lincoln and a citation issued for the King -and Queen to appear before their Court, and on June 18th, when the King -appeared by proxies and Katharine attended in person to protest against -the Cardinal’s jurisdiction. In the furtherance of the King’s suit Islip -was employed with others to search for documents among the royal papers -and to report on others in the possession of Garter King of Arms. - -On July 13th, 1530, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent a petition to -Clement VII. praying him to grant the divorce “if it can be granted with -justice.” This petition was signed by both Archbishops, by four Bishops -and by twenty-two Abbots of whom Islip was one. The Pope’s difficulties -in the matter are well known and the story of Islip’s connection with -it may be concluded with the mention of the letter which the King wrote -on July 10th, 1531, telling Benet to suggest to the Pope that if he were -afraid of the Emperor Charles, as he undoubtedly was, the Archbishop of -Canterbury might be appointed to judge of the matter. With the -Archbishop might be associated the Abbot of Winchcombe or the Abbot of -Westminster, “a good old father.” This suggestion of course came to -nothing and Islip did not live to see the matter finally determined. - -Some time, however, before Henry’s letter Wolsey had died. Before his -fall it had seemed for a moment that others would be involved with him -among whom was Islip. In one of the indictments of Wolsey under the -_Statute of Præmunire_, an undated copy of which is in the archives of -the Abbey, Islip was also charged. After setting forth the accusations -against Wolsey the document may be translated somewhat thus:-- - -“Nevertheless John, Abbot of the monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, -little weighing the said statute, verily indeed setting it at naught, -scheming and seeking after the said Cardinal in all his evil deeds, -joined himself to him in a fuller and more extravagant use of his said -powers and pretended legatine authority, and took him as his guide and -almost as his tutor and gradually undermined the laws of this realm and -at last almost extinguished the same, with the result that the -aforesaid Cardinal bore himself the more loftily and insolently in his -legatine state and dignity. Upon a day at Westminster the said Abbot -submitted himself to the Cardinal and accepted and approved the several -legatine faculties and professed obedience to the same Cardinal and -promised it by a binding oath. And also he promised him the annates of -his exempt monastery right up to the Feast of the Annunciation, 20 Henr. -VIII., and caused him to be paid in full at Westminster. And so the said -Abbot abetted the said Cardinal in his contempt of the King....” - -_Præmunire_ was a convenient weapon in the King’s hands and he was -graciously pleased to pardon Islip with various others against whom -similar indictments had been laid. The pardon in Islip’s case may have -facilitated the acquisition by the King of lands on which he had cast a -covetous eye, the story of which has already been told. - -Such is the record of the part played in public affairs by a Westminster -abbot in the later history of the monastery. Scanty as it is and -disconnected, it will yet be seen how that public life from which he -could hardly escape must have severed him from the spiritual duties -which the Rule of his Order enjoined upon him. In justice to him it must -be said that he was the victim of a system which had developed too far -for him to be able to check it. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -ISLIP AS A BUILDER. - - -When Islip died in 1532 the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster, was -already (with the exception of Hawkesmoor’s addition of the incongruous -western towers in the eighteenth century) substantially the church that -exists to-day, but in order to understand Islip’s contribution to the -buildings as well as the structure erected to some extent independently -of his personal initiative, it is necessary to go back to the time when -Henry of Reims produced his plan for the new church which Henry III. had -designed to erect on the site where for nearly two centuries the old -Norman buildings of the Confessor had stood. - -In the year 1220 a Lady Chapel had been begun at the east end of the -Norman church, and when twenty-five years later the Norman apse had to -make way for Henry III.’s new structure the Lady Chapel must have been -incorporated into the plan. When the King died the presbytery, choir, -and transepts had been completed. In 1298 a disastrous fire destroyed -the greater part of the Conventual buildings, and thus work and money -which might have gone to the completion of the church were diverted to -the rebuilding of the monastery. - -For a century the Norman Nave served the Gothic church, but about the -year 1365 the rebuilding of the Nave was seriously undertaken on the -initiative of Simon Langham, who had been Abbot from 1349 to 1362 and -subsequently Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal. The -story of Langham’s generosity does not belong to the present narrative -and it must suffice to say that when Islip entered the monastery in 1480 -a beginning was being made with the vaulting of three of the four -westernmost bays, while the final bay was already raised to the -triforium level. Abbot Estney’s enthusiasm for the work is obvious to -any who can read between the lines in what are designed to be simple -records of receipts and expenditure, and there can be little doubt that -Islip caught the infection of that enthusiasm in the course of his -association with the Abbot as his Chaplain. Abbot Fascet’s association -with the work was honourable if short, and consisted mainly in -generously wiping out debts the payment of which he might legitimately -have charged on the fabric fund. It is not true as stated in Hacket’s -life of Bishop Williams that Islip was responsible for the whole -rebuilding of the nave, but his was certainly the glory of its -completion. - -Meanwhile at the other end of the church building of an entirely -different character was going on. It is hardly possible to emphasise too -strongly the contrast. At the west end were builders “original enough -not to seek after originality in their work,” continuing in the -fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the style and plan laid down by Henry -of Reims in the middle of the thirteenth. At the east end the new Lady -Chapel was being erected with all the glories of fan tracery in the most -elaborate development of the Perpendicular. If further contrast be -desired it can be found in Islip’s contemporary building of the Jesus -Chapel, roughly midway in position and style between the severe and the -ornate beauties of the opposite ends of the church. - -The west front of the church as Islip left it at his death may be seen -in two pictures. The former of these is an inset into the elaborate -capital letter which should have begun the word _Titulus_ in Islip’s -mortuary roll, destined unfortunately never to be carried further. Here -on the northern tower of the nave stands the great wheel by means of -which the heavy stones were raised. It is perhaps no great matter if -this picture seems to shew the southern tower in a somewhat more -advanced stage than Hollar depicted it in his engravings of 1653 and -1655. - -In 1502 the Chapel of St. Erasmus was dismantled and the old Lady Chapel -demolished. The image and canopy of the Saint were placed by Islip over -what is now the entrance of St. John the Baptist’s Chapel; and on -January 24th, 1503, Islip, attended by a distinguished company, laid the -foundation of the King’s new chapel. - -With the disappearance of the old chapel went also the tombs of Abbot -Berkyng and Queen Katharine of Valois, Henry’s “graunt Dame of right -noble memorie.” Her coffin was to lie unburied for more than two -centuries and a half. Within less than three weeks from the laying of -the stone Henry’s wife, Elizabeth of York, died at the Tower of London. -Her body was brought in solemn procession a few days later as far as -Charing Cross, where it was met by the Abbots of Westminster and -Bermondsey in full pontificals with the Convent of the former all vested -in black copes. After the solemn censing of the corpse the procession -moved onwards to the Abbey church and the funeral service with a sermon -by the Bishop of Rochester was duly performed. Then comes a gap in the -story, for the site of her immediate burial is unknown. Six years later -her husband directed in his Will that the body of the Queen “be -translated from the place where it nowe is buried and brought and laide -with oure bodye.” This was of course done, but as to the year and manner -of it the records are perplexingly silent. - -In the building of the new chapel the King’s mother, Margaret, Countess -of Richmond, took considerable interest. At the end of the year 1496 she -had endowed a chantry for herself at the Shrine of St. Edward, and there -mass was said daily for her good estate during life and for her soul -after death. She had planned also to found a chantry at Windsor in the -new work there, but it does not seem to have come into being, and it is -possible, though there is no evidence to prove it, that with the adverse -judgment given in the matter of the body of Henry VI. her eyes turned -like those of her son towards Westminster. It is certain that from -Easter, 1505, a weekly mass was being said for her in the new foundation -and it may therefore be supposed that the south aisle, rightly called -the Lady Margaret’s Chapel, must have been completed by that date. It is -true that about the same time she had provided for masses to be said at -the old Lady Altar on the north side of the church until Henry the -Seventh’s Chapel should be finished, but entries begin to occur -referring to the “King’s mother’s chapel” which preclude the possibility -of any other identification. - -This weekly mass fell to the monks in turn and the celebrant received -three shillings and four pence, which seems a generous endowment. It is -noteworthy that one shilling was being paid at this time for the weekly -mass for Abbot Estney, probably in the Chapel of St. John Evangelist -where he was buried, though the altar is not specified. - -The Lady Margaret was indeed a generous benefactress of the new -foundation. She gave to the Abbot and Convent the churches of Cheshunt -and Swineshead, of the yearly value of more than fifty-three pounds, for -the special purposes of the chantries, and also various lands at West -Drayton and elsewhere, the proceeds of which the Abbot was to spend in -the salaries of divinity readerships at the universities, while in her -Will she made gifts of various ornaments to “oure chapell at -Westminster” as well as assigning legacies for masses. She is stated to -have built an almshouse for poor women in the Almonry by the Chapel of -St. Anne. - -On St. Peter’s day, 1509, she died in the Abbot’s house, and Bolton, -Prior of St. Bartholomew’s, was charged with the erection of her tomb. -The Sacrist of that year records the receipt of twenty-two pounds in -mass-pence at her funeral. - -The arrangements for the new foundation were of the most elaborate -character. For his own guidance Islip found it necessary to summarise -the long indenture made between the King and himself. Apart from the -worship in the chapel itself Henry VII. was to be remembered daily both -at the high mass and the Chapter mass. Ultimately the masses in the -King’s chapel were to be said only by bachelors or doctors of divinity, -though the Abbot, Prior, and Monk-Bailiff were to be excused this -qualification. - -Accordingly the Abbot was bidden to cause the Oxford students of his -monastery to take these degrees as soon as might be and within three -months thereafter to appoint them to the service of the King’s masses. -Three additional monks above the present number of the monastery were to -be acquired and placed on the new foundation to say each a mass daily -for the King’s welfare in life and death. These three masses were to be -said at the altar “under the lantern place” until the chapel should be -ready. The greatest bell was to be rung for forty strokes or above a -quarter of an hour before each of these masses and from noon till one -o’clock before the preaching of certain “solemne sermondis” appointed -for various feasts and fasts. Once a year every priest in the monastery -was to say a mass of requiem with special collects and every lay-brother -the psalter of David or our Lady. Needless to say the most elaborate -directions were given as to tapers and torches. Various officials of the -kingdom such as the Chancellor, Treasurer, Master of the Rolls, Barons -of the Exchequer and Justices of the Benches were to receive fees if -they attended the anniversary. So too the Mayor of London, the Recorder -and Sheriffs, for whom the costs of their barges were to be defrayed. In -default of attendance the fees were to go to the prisoners in the King’s -Bench or “mareschalsy.” A weekly distribution of alms was provided for -and an almshouse for thirteen poor men founded. Some nineteen other -monastic or collegiate foundations were to receive fees from the Abbot -of Westminster for the performance of services, as well as the -Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Masters, and scholars of both universities. -It would be tedious to follow Islip’s summary of the duties in any more -elaborate detail and it must suffice to add that specific forfeitures of -money were prescribed for the neglect of any article contained therein. - -To meet all these expenses the King’s endowment was generous. The -Deanery of St. Martin-le-Grand, the Priory of Luffield, various manors -and advowsons formed substantial gifts, while a sum of more than five -thousand pounds in money was made over for the purchase of other -estates. In the Orde MS. there is the entry of a payment of thirty -thousand pounds for the purchase of lands for the King’s new chapel, but -it is not possible to verify the accuracy of what is only a transcript -from the privy purse expenses of the King. The same manuscript records -in seventeen different items the payment of £9,844 18s. 3d. to the -Abbot of Westminster for the carrying on of the building between October -1st, 1502, and May 20th, 1505. A number of entries in the King’s Books -of Payments (Treasury of Receipts) beginning in January, 1506, amount to -more than £11,188, and so the total expenditure on the new building was -certainly more than twenty-one thousand pounds. The last entry occurs on -April 15th, 1509, about a week before the King died. It would appear to -be a final payment for it refers to the _accomplishment and performing_ -of the chapel, while no entries of payments occur in the succeeding -book. It is unfortunate that it is not at present possible to do much -more than note the cost of the chapel and the years occupied in the -building, for the “reckonings” which were presented by Islip from time -to time for the royal approval do not appear, though all probable -sources have been searched. - -Islip would seem to have been the general supervisor of the works and -responsible for the disbursement of the money, but the building itself -was carried on under the direction of the royal workmen. One problem of -the greatest interest remains unsolved, and that is the identity of the -master-mason or architect who made the original design and plan of the -chapel. Among the names suggested have been John Alcock, Bishop of Ely -from 1486 to 1501; Sir Reginald Bray; Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester -from 1501 to 1528, and even the King himself. Mr. Lethaby[4] assumes -that there can be no doubt that Robert Vertue, the senior royal mason, -was the architect, but in the absence of evidence the matter must remain -unsolved. It is to be noted that the only person mentioned in the -directions as to the chapel given in the will of Henry VII. is the Prior -of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, who is described there as the master -of the works of the said chapel. The reference is of course to Bolton -who was Prior from 1505 to 1532 and whose work in his own church may -still be seen. Stow refers to him as a great builder and in any -discussion as to the identity of the architect his name must not be -forgotten. - -Mention has been already made[5] of the “brassen” chapel or chapel -within the grille surrounding the tomb of Henry VII. One reference to -this occurs in the Exchequer Accounts of September, 1505, where a -payment is recorded of twenty pounds to “Thomas Ducheman Smith” for -copper-work for the “chapell of metal” at Westminster. This chapel is -said to have been called St. Saviour’s, while the high altar of the new -building retained its dedication to the Blessed Virgin. The dedications -of the chapels in the apse cannot be determined with certainty, but -among them may well be St. Dionysius, St. Ursula and St. Giles, for -chapels in honour of these find mention in the Sub-sacrist’s roll for -the year ending at Michaelmas, 1524. If the last-named chapel may be -identified with “o^{r} ffather Abbottes Chappell w^{t.} in the new -chapell” for which the Sub-sacrist was wont to supply six candles a -year, there would be some slight additional reason for supposing that -Islip’s family name was Giles. - -The work of Torregiano in connection with the tomb of the royal founder -is too well known to call for additional record. - -The devotion of the Jesus mass, which began to be popular towards the -close of the fifteenth century, was in vogue at Westminster some years -before the actual erection of the Jesus Chapel. For instance, in an -indenture made between the Countess of Richmond and the Abbot and -Convent in the year 1506 it was agreed that when her chapel was ready an -altar should be erected there in honour of the Holy Name and the -Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, and that among the masses said there -should be a Jesus mass every Friday. - -It does not appear when the Jesus Chapel, now commonly known as the -Islip chantry, was built. Its accounts, if they survive, are so -inextricably mixed up with those of building in other parts of the -church that it is impossible to separate them. We have, however, hints -here and there which suggest that it followed closely upon the -completion of the chapel of Henry VII. It is certain that the Jesus -Chapel was in use before it was actually finished, for the Sub-sacrist -notes the provision of pound tapers to be burnt there at Christmas, -1523, while two years later there is a record in the _Novum Opus_ roll -of a payment for carving in the chapel. The final decoration was not -completed until 1530, when Master Humfrey received the last instalment -of the money owing to him for “payntyng uppon the wall in Ihs Chappell” -and for some further work in connection with the Five Wounds which John -Ellys had made for the stairs. The Islip roll gives some faint -indication of the painted Crucifixion on the eastern walls above the -altars and shews also the medallion of the head of our Lord on the outer -side of the western parapet. There is record that weekly masses were -said for Islip after his death and these would naturally be performed in -the chapel where he lay buried, so that Islip’s chantry is a fitting -description of it; but it is to be regretted that its earlier name and -dedication should be relatively forgotten. - -The completion of the nave and the building of this chapel do not form -the whole tale of work for which Islip was directly responsible. The -same document which records the payment for painting of the Jesus Chapel -refers to _my lordes chapell at Chenygates_. On the northern side of the -courtyard over part of the substructure of Abbot Litlyngton he built a -set of rooms of two storeys and continued the building round the side of -the south-west tower, making a window into the nave of the church. The -whole of course forms a private part of the present Deanery, but the -panelled chamber called Jericho Parlour which looks on to the courtyard -is well enough known. The chapel at Cheynygates has been identified with -a chamber on the upper floor built in between the tower and the first -buttress of the nave. - -In addition to the work in connection with the Abbey church and his own -house Islip was called upon in 1518 to undertake the rebuilding of the -chancel of St. Margaret’s Church, of which the Convent took the -rectorial tithes. The rebuilding of that church had already occupied -some years of the previous century but had been carried on with a view -to the least possible disturbance of parochial worship. The nave was -completed before Islip was required to rebuild the chancel. It was work -which he could not neglect, for the King had made a special grant of -land to facilitate the extension of the church. In justice to him it -must be mentioned that there is no evidence to shew that he desired to -escape his responsibilities. When in 1905 the chancel was still further -extended the demolition of the east wall revealed two stones bearing -Islip’s _rebus_ with which in some of its varying forms the visitor to -the Abbey church is familiar. These stones may still be seen -incorporated into the east wall of the chancel of St. Margaret’s and in -fact their pattern has been multiplied in the frieze of the wooden -panelling. - -No narrative of Islip’s work as a builder would be complete without some -attempt, however slight, to indicate the debt which the world owes to -the activity which he and his immediate predecessors displayed. This can -only be estimated by a consideration of the Abbey church as it is with -some thought as to what it might have been. The conservatism with which -the later builders of the nave adhered to the original pattern has given -to the church “a unity and a harmony which largely contribute to its -special beauty.” So far as the interior of the church is concerned -nothing could destroy this, for Islip lived to complete it. How much -that unity has been destroyed externally by the addition of Hawkesmoor’s -western towers is sufficiently obvious, and we are left to conjecture -the possible fate of the interior also had its completion been left for -a later age. If Islip had not died when he did it is probable that the -march of events would not have allowed him to finish the western front -as he must have desired to do. That he lived to do so much must be a -matter of thankfulness to the many who love the place with -understanding. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -THE LAST DAYS OF THE CONVENT. - - -“The knell that tolled at Islip’s death was really a knell for the -Convent itself.” The appointment of his successor was long delayed and -it is probable that intrigue was rife in the matter. John Fulwell, then -Monk-Bailiff, was evidently strong enough to assume considerable -authority in the monastery and it may well be that he looked to be -appointed himself. On October 16th, 1532, he wrote to Cromwell reporting -that “all things in the sanctuary as well within the monastery as -without are in due order, according to the advertisement you gave me -when I was last with you in London. At your return I trust you shall not -hear but that we shall deserve the King’s most gracious favour in our -suit.” Whatever may have been Fulwell’s hopes they were destined to be -disappointed as was an effort made three years later by his friends to -bribe Cromwell into giving him the Priorship of Worcester. - -The year drew to a close without any appointment to the vacancy, and not -until May in the following year is there any certain news of its being -filled. On the twelfth of that month William Boston, a monk of -Peterborough, took the oath in the Chancery Court to observe the -conditions of the foundation of Henry VII. For three hundred years some -son of the house had been chosen to rule over it. Boston was a stranger -and it is doubtful if he obtained his office in a manner honourable to -himself or to those who procured it for him. Three of the abbatial -manors were mortgaged by him until he should have paid five hundred -pounds to Cromwell and Sir William Paulet who was Controller of the -royal household. It is perhaps unfair to blame him for the exchanges of -land with the King by which the Abbey lost the manors of Hyde, Neyt and -Eye, together with Covent Garden, but it is the fact which is most -remembered against him. - -It was in his time and in his own Chapter House that the famous thrill -of horror ran through the assembled Commons at the reading of the -_Comperta_ or findings of the Commissioners employed to make a case -against the monastic houses of England. How much credit may be given to -the findings of men who were themselves of a not too high standard of -morality and honesty we shall not attempt to determine. It must be -sufficient to say that no breath of scandal touched Westminster. It was -a city set upon an hill which could not be hid, and its fall came for -none of those grosser sins alleged against some other houses. - -The story of Abbot Boston’s rule cannot be told in any detail owing to -the lack of material. A kind of paralysis seems to have fallen on the -monastery with his election. Account rolls if written at all were left -untotalled, unbalanced and unaudited. He gathered into his own hands the -more important offices as they fell vacant, holding ultimately those of -the Sacrist, Cellarer, Warden of the New Work, Warden of the Lady -Chapel, and Domestic Treasurer. It would almost seem as if Boston had -been brought in to undo all that Islip had wrought and deliberately to -provide an excuse for a dissolution which in Islip’s day would have been -hard to find. - -Under Cromwell’s influence and in obedience to his orders as -Vicar-General Boston allowed his monks to be absent from the monastery -on any plea of mental or bodily recreation. It was a subtle move thus to -recreate a desire for the world that had once been renounced. This and -the absence of any responsibility of office within the monastery were -swift to sever the bonds of what in Islip’s day had been a family with -but little dissension, and the path to the final dissolution was an easy -one. - -On January 16th, 1540, the deed of surrender was signed by Boston and -twenty-six of the brethren. The Abbot became Dean of the new collegiate -foundation and many of the house remained therein as prebendaries or -minor canons. Among these was Thomas Elfrede, who was installed as ninth -prebendary. To him the change cannot have brought much comfort. -Forty-two years previously he had taken part in Fascet’s election as -Abbot, and he had been one of those who voted in 1500 for Islip. It -would be small wonder if his heart yearned for the older days and -misliked the new. There is a note of pathos in the request which the old -man recorded in his Will that he should be buried by the south door of -the church in what was _sometyme the procession waye_, desiring to be -carried in death along the path he had trodden so many times in the more -peaceful days of his profession. - - - THE END. - - - - - NOTES - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER I. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - Rolls and Accounts of the Obedientiaries, 1480-1532. - - -BOOKS: - - Bentley: _Excerpta Historica_, p. 404. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER II. - - -BOOKS: - - _The Rites of Durham_: Surtees Society, 1902 Vol. II. - - _Customary of St. Augustine’s Canterbury and St. Peter’s - Westminster_, Henry Bradshaw Society, Vol. I., 1902; Vol. II., - 1904. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - _Islip’s Diary_, Mun. 33290. - - _Sub-Almoner’s Notebook_, Mun. 33301. - - _Domesday Chartulary._ - - _Mortuary Roll of John Islip._ - - _Infirmarer’s Rolls_, 1480-84. - - Muns. 9462, 12790, 6631 _dors._ - - -VOW ON PROFESSION. - -“Ego, frater N., promitto stabilitatem meam et conversionem morum meorum -et obedientiam secundum regulam Sancti Benedicti, coram Deo et Sanctis -omnibus Ejus, in hoc monasterio quod est constructum in honore Beati -Petri, Apostolorum principis, in presentia domini N. abbatis.” - - -COATS OF ARMS. - - ISLIP Ermine, a fesse engrailed between three weasels, ensigned of - a jewelled mitre. - - GILES Ermine, a fesse engrailed between three crosses formy fitchy, - three martlets on the fesse. - -[Hope: _Vetusta Monumenta_.] - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER III. - - -BOOKS: - - Pollard: _Henry VII._ - - Stanley: _Memorials of Westminster Abbey_. - - Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1479. - - Venetian State Papers. - - _Archæologia_, 1914, - - Sir William Hope: _The Funeral, Monument, and Chantry Chapel of - King Henry the Fifth_. - -Surtees Society, Vol. 35. - -Douthwaite: _Gray’s Inn_. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - _Register Book_, I. - - _Rolls of the Monk-Bailiff_, _passim._ - - _Islip’s Diary_, Mun. 33290. - - _Depositions touching the site of the tomb of Henry VI._, Mun. - 6389**. - - _Judgment of the Privy Council_, Mun. 6389*. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER IV. - - -BOOKS: - -Dr. J. A. Robinson: _The Abbot’s House at Westminster_. - - ” ” : _The Benedictine Abbey of Westminster_ - (Church Quarterly Review, - April, 1907). - -Rymer : _Fœdera_, Vol. XIII., pp. 103, 104. - -Neale and Brayley : _Westminster_, Vol. I., pp. 6-8. - -Bentley : _Excerpta Historica_, Privy Purse - Expenses of Henry VII. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - _Death of Abbot Estney_, Mun. 5459. - - _Domesday Chartulary_, ff. 629, 633, 638, 639. - - _Prior Mane’s Household Accounts_, Mun. 33325. - - _Sacrist’s Roll_, 16-17 Henry VII. - - Muns. 5448, A, B, C; 5444, 5449, 5450, 5454, 6389***. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER V. - - -BOOKS: - -Dugdale : _Monasticon_. - -J. A. Robinson: _The Benedictine Abbey of Westminster_ - (Church Quarterly Review, April, - 1907). - -A. P. Stanley : _Memorials of Westminster Abbey_. - - -PUBLIC RECORDS: - - _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic_, 1500-1532. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - _Sacrist’s Rolls_, 1490-1532. - - _Articles of Complaint_, Mun. 5447. - - _Visitation Documents_, Muns. 12788, 12789, 12790. - - Muns. 15212, 15703, 12757, 22950, 12521, 9611, 19814, 13188, 13304. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER VI. - - -BOOKS: - -Pollard: _Henry VIII._ - -Rymer : _Fœdera_, XIII., 269. - -Foxe : _Acts and Monuments_. - - -PUBLIC RECORDS: - -_Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, 1500-32._ - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - - _Enrolment of Præmunire against Wolsey and Islip_, Mun. 12256. - - _Islip’s Household Accounts_, Mun. 33320. - - _Savoy Papers_, Muns. 32408-24. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER VII. - - -BOOKS: - -C. H. Cooper : _The Lady Margaret_. - -R. B. Rackham : _The Nave of Westminster_ (Proceedings - of the British - Academy, Vol. IV.). - - -J. Armitage Robinson: _The Abbot’s House at Westminster_. - - ” ” : _The Benedictine Abbey of Westminster_. - (Church Quarterly - Review, April, 1907). - -H. F. Westlake : _St. Margaret’s, Westminster_. - -Sandford : _Genealogical History of the - Kings and Queens of England_. - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - -_Subsacrist’s Rolls_, Muns. 19836, 19818. - -_Account Book of John Fulwell_, Mun. 33303. - -_Novum Opus Rolls._ - -Abstract of _Royal Indenture_, Mun. 6637. - - -PUBLIC RECORDS: - -British Museum: (_Orde MSS.), Addl. MSS._ 7099. - -: _Harleian MSS._ 1498. - -Public Record Office: _Books of Payments, Exchequer T. of R., Misc. -Books_ 214, 215. - - -MATERIALS FOR CHAPTER VIII. - - -BOOKS: - -Widmore : _History of Westminster Abbey_. - -Rackham : _Nave of Westminster_. - -Robinson: _Benedictine Abbey of Westminster_. - -Register of Consistory Court. - - -PUBLIC RECORDS: - -_Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, 1532-5._ - - -WESTMINSTER ABBEY MUNIMENTS: - -Rolls of the _Novum Opus_, 1532-4, and 12787. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] See also page 108. - -[2] Pollard: Henry VII., Vol. I. page 93 and note. - -[3] cf. Abbot Butler: _Benedictine Monachism_, p. 199, quoting from -Cardinal Gasquet; _English Monastic Life_, pp. 42-50. - -[4] Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen, page 255. - -[5] See page 11. - - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WESTMINSTER ABBEY: THE LAST -DAYS OF THE MONASTERY *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: - -• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - -• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - -• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ - -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |