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.