EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS
1. THE BISHOP
Normally, the bishop of the diocese in which a religious house was
situated, was its Visitor and ultimate authority, except in so far as an
appeal lay from him to the pope. In process of time exemptions from the
regular jurisdiction of the diocesan tended to multiply; whole Orders,
like the Cistercian and the Cluniacs among the Benedictines, and the
Premonstratensians among the Canons Regular, and even individual houses,
like St. Alban’s and Bury St. Edmunds, on one ground or another obtained
their freedom from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. In the case of great
bodies, like those of Citeaux, Cluny, Prémontré, and later the
Gilbertines, the privilege of exemption was in the first instance obtained
from the pope, on the ground that the individual houses were parts of a
great corporation with its centre at the mother-house. Such monasteries
were all subject to the authority of a central government, and regular
Visitors were appointed by it. In the thirteenth century, on the same
principle, the mendicant Orders, whose members were attached to the
general body and not to the locality in which they might happen to be,
were freed from the immediate control of the bishops of the various
dioceses in which their convents were situated.
In the case of individual houses, the exemption was granted by the Holy
See as a favour and a privilege. It is hard to understand in what the
privilege really consisted, except that it was certainly considered an
honourable thing to be immediately subject only to the head of the
Christian Church. Such privileges were, on the whole, few; only five
Benedictine houses in England possessed them, and even such great and
important abbeys as Glastonbury, in the South of England, and St. Mary’s,
York, in the North, were subject to the regular jurisdiction of the
diocesan. In the case of the few Benedictine houses which, by the
intercession of the king or other powerful friends, had obtained exemption
in this matter, regular fees had to be paid to the Roman chancery for the
privilege. St. Alban’s, for example, at the beginning of the sixteenth
century, made an annual payment of £14 to the papal collector in lieu of
the large fees previously paid on the election of every new abbot, and as
an acknowledgment of the various privileges granted to him, such as, for
example, the right to rank first in dignity among the abbots, and for the
abbot to be able “even outside his own churches to use pontificalia and
solemnly bless the people.” Edmundsbury, in the same way, paid an annual
sum for its exemption and privileges, as also did Westminster, St.
Augustine’s (Canterbury), Waltham Holy Cross, and a few others. By this
time, too, some of the Cluniac houses, such as Lewes Priory and Lenton,
had obtained their exemption and right of election.
In regard to the non-exempt monasteries and convents--that is
ordinarily--the relation between the bishops and the religious houses was
constant; and, apparently, with exceptions of course, cordial. The
episcopal registers show that the bishops did not shirk the duty of
visiting, and correcting what they found amiss in the houses under their
control; and whilst there is evidence of a natural desire on their part to
bring the regular life up to a high standard, there is little or none of
any narrow spirit in the exercise of this part of the episcopal office, or
of any determination to worry the religious, to misunderstand the purpose
of their high vocation, or to make regular life unworkable in practice by
any over-strict interpretation of the letter of the law. It is, of course,
after all, only natural that these good relations should exist between the
bishop and the regulars of his diocese. The unexempt houses were not
extra-diocesan so far as episcopal authority went, like those of the
exempt Orders; but they were for the most part the most important and the
most useful centres of spiritual life in each diocese. It was therefore to
the bishop’s interest as head of the diocese to see that in these
establishments the lamp of fervour should not be allowed to grow dim, and
that the good work should not be permitted to suffer through any lessening
of the cordial relations which had traditionally existed between the
bishops and the religious houses within the pale of his jurisdiction.
The bishop’s duties to the religious houses in his diocese were various.
In the first place, in regard to the election of the superior: here much
depended upon the actual position of the monastery in regard to the king,
to the patron, or even to the Order. If the king was the founder of the
house or had come to be regarded as such, which may roughly be said to
have been the case in most of the greater monastic establishments, and
especially in those which held lands immediately from the Crown, then the
bishop had nothing to say to the matter till the royal assent had been
given. The process has been already briefly explained; but the main
features may again be set out. On the death of the superior, the religious
would have to make choice of some of their number to proceed to the court
to inform the king of the demise and to obtain the _congé d’élire_, or
permission to elect. The first action of the king would be the appointment
of officials to administer the property in his name during the vacancy,
having due regard to the needs of the community. He would then issue his
licence for the religious to choose a new superior. All this, especially
if the king were abroad or in some far-off part of the country, would take
time, sometimes measured by weeks. On the reception of the _congé
d’élire_, the convent proceeded to the formal election, the result of
which had to be reported to the king; and if he assented to the choice
made, this was signified to the bishop, whose office it was to inquire
concerning the validity of the election and the fitness of the person
chosen--that is, he was bound to see whether the canonical forms had all
been adhered to in the process and the election legal, and whether the
elect had the qualities necessary to make a fitting superior and a ruler
in temporals and in spirituals. If after inquiry all proved to be
satisfactory, the bishop formally confirmed the choice of the monks and
signified the confirmation to the king, asking for the restitution of
temporalities to the new superior. If the election was that of an abbot,
the bishop then bestowed the solemn blessing upon the elect thus
confirmed, generally in some place other than his own monastic church,
and wrote a formal letter to the community, charging them to receive their
new superior and show him all obedience. Finally, the bishop appointed a
commission to proceed to the house and install the abbot or prior in his
office.
In the case of houses which acknowledged founders or patrons other than
the king, the deaths of superiors were communicated to them, and
permission to proceed to the choice of successors was asked more as a form
than as a reality. The rest was in the hands of the bishops. In ordinary
circumstances where there was no such lay patron, a community, on the
death of a superior, merely assembled and at once made choice of a
successor. This election had then to be communicated at once to the
bishop, whose duty it was to inquire into the circumstances of the
election and to determine whether the canonical formalities had been
complied with. If this inquiry proved satisfactory, the bishop proceeded
to the canonical examination of the elect before confirming the choice.
This kind of election was completed by the issue of the episcopal letters
claiming the obedience of the monks for their new superior. It was
frequently the custom for the bishop to appoint custodians of the
temporalities during the vacancy at such of these religious houses as were
immediately subject to him. The frequency of the adoption by religious of
the form of election by which they requested the bishop to make choice of
their superior is at least evidence of the more than cordial relations
which existed between the diocesan and the regulars, and of their
confidence in his desire to serve their house to the best of his power in
the choice of the most fitting superior.
Sometimes, of course, the episcopal examination of the process, or of the
elect, would lead to the quashing of the election. This took place
generally when some canonical form had not been adhered to, as on this
matter the law was rightly most strict. Less frequently, the elect on
inquiry was found to lack some quality essential in a good ruler, and it
then became the duty of the bishop to declare the choice void. Sometimes
this led to the convent being deprived of its voice in the election, and
in such a case the choice devolved upon the bishop. Numerous instances,
however, make it clear that although legally the bishop was bound to
declare such an election void, he would always, if possible, himself
appoint the religious who had been the choice of the community.
In other instances again, the bishop’s part in the appointment of a new
superior was confined to the blessing of the abbot after the confirmation
of the election by the pope, or by the superior of the religious body.
This was the case in the Cistercian and Cluniac bodies, and in such of the
great abbeys as were exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. Sometimes, as in
the case of St. Alban’s, even the solemn blessing of the new abbot could
by special privilege be given by any bishop the elect might choose for the
purpose.
Outside the time of the elections and visitations, the bishops exercised
generally a paternal and watchful care over the religious houses of their
diocese. Before the suppression of the alien priories, for example, these
foreign settlements were supervised by the Ordinary quite as strictly as
were the English religious houses under his jurisdiction. These priories
were mostly established in the first instance to look after estates which
had been bestowed upon foreign abbeys, and the number in each house was
supposed to be strictly limited, and was, in fact, small. It was not
uncommon, however, to find that more than the stipulated number of
religious were quartered upon the small community by the foreign superior,
or that an annual payment greater than the revenue of the English estate
would allow was demanded by the authorities of the foreign mother-house.
Against both of these abuses the bishop of the diocese had officially to
guard. We find, for instance, Bishop Grandisson of Exeter giving his
licence for a monk of Bec to live for some months only at Cowick Priory,
and for another to leave Cowick on a visit to Bec. Also in regard to
Tywardreath, a cell of the Abbey of St. Sergius, near Ghent, the same
bishop on examination found that the revenue was so diminished that it
could not support the six monks it was supposed to maintain, and he
therefore sent back three of their number to their mother-house on the
Continent. This conclusion, be it remarked, was arrived at only after
careful inquiry, and after the bishop had for a time appointed a monk from
another religious house to assist the foreign superior in the
administration of the temporals of his priory. Upon the report of this
assistant he deprived the superior for negligence, and appointed
custodians of the temporalities of the house. From the episcopal registers
generally it appears, too, that once the foreign religious were settled in
any alien priory, they came under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the
locality, in the same way as the English religious. The alien prior’s
appointment had to be confirmed by him, and no religious could come to the
house or go from it, even to return to the foreign mother-house, without
his permission.
In regard to all non-exempt monastic establishments of men and convents of
women, the episcopal powers were very great and were freely exercised.
Thus to take some examples: the Benedictine abbey of Tavistock in the
fourteenth century was seriously troubled by debt, partly, at least,
caused by an incapable and unworthy superior. This abbot, by the way, had
been provided by the pope; and apparently the bishop did not consider that
his functions extended beyond issuing a commission to induct him into his
office. In a short time matters came to a crisis, and reports as to the
bad state of the house came to the ears of Bishop Grandisson. He forthwith
prohibited the house from admitting more members to the habit until he had
had time to examine into matters. The abbot replied by claiming exemption
from episcopal jurisdiction, apparently on the ground that he had been
appointed by the Holy See. The bishop, as he said, “out of reverence for
the lord Pope who had created the both of us,” waived this as a right and
came to the house as a friend, to see what remedy could be found to allay
the rumours that were rife in the country as to gross mismanagement at the
abbey. How far the bishop succeeded does not transpire; but a couple of
years later the abbot was suspended and deposed, and the bishop appointed
the Cistercian abbot of Buckland and a monk of Tavistock to administer the
goods of the abbey pending another election. How thoroughly the religious
approved of the action of the bishop may be gauged by the fact that they
asked him to appoint their abbot for them.
In the ordinary and extraordinary visitations made by the bishop, the
interests of the religious houses were apparently the only considerations
which weighed with him. Sometimes the injunctions and monitions given at
a visitation appertained to the most minute points of regular life, and
sometimes the visitatorial powers were continued in force for considerable
periods in order to secure that certain points that needed correction
might be seen to. One curious right possessed and exercised by the bishop
of any diocese on first coming to his see, was that of appointing one
person in each monastery and convent to be received as a religious without
payment or pension. It is proper, however, to say that this right was
always exercised with fatherly discretion. Again and again the records of
visitations in the episcopal registers show that the bishop did not
hesitate to appoint a co-adjutor to any superior whom he might find
deficient in the power of governing, either in spirituals or temporals.
Officials who were shown to be incapable in the course of such inquiries
were removed, and others were either appointed by the bishop, or their
appointment sanctioned by him. Religious who had proved themselves
undesirable or impossible in one house were not unfrequently translated by
the bishop to another. Thus in A.D. 1338-9 great storms had wrought
destruction at Bodmin. The priory buildings were in ruins, and a sum of
money had to be raised for the necessary repairs which were urgently
required. Bishop Grandisson gave his permission for the monks to sell a
corrody--or undertaking to give board and lodging for life at the
priory--for a payment of ready money. A few years later, in 1347, on his
visitation the bishop found things financially in a bad way. He removed
the almoner from his office, regulated the number of servants and the
amount of food; and having appointed an administrator, sent the prior to
live for a time in one of the priory granges, in order to see whether the
house could be recovered from its state of bankruptcy by careful
administration.
One proof of the friendly relations which as a rule existed between the
bishop and the regular clergy of his diocese may be seen in the fact that
the abbots and superiors were frequently, if not generally, found in the
lists of those appointed as diocesan collectors on any given occasion. The
superiors of religious houses contributed to the loans and grants raised
in common with the rest of the diocesan clergy, either for the needs of
the sovereign, the Holy See, or the bishop. That there were at times
difficulty and friction in the working out of these well-understood
principles of subordination need not be denied; but that as a whole the
system, which may be described as normal, brought about harmonious
relations between the bishop and the regulars must be conceded by all who
will study its workings in the records of pre-Reformation episcopal
government.
2. THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND GENERALLY
The monastic Orders were called upon to take their share in the common
burdens imposed upon the Church in England. These included contributions
to the sums levied upon ecclesiastics by Convocation for the pope and for
the king in times of need; and they contributed, albeit, perhaps, like the
rest of the English Church, unwillingly, their share to the “procurations”
of papal legates and questors. Sometimes the call thus made upon their
revenues was very considerable, especially as the king did not hesitate
on occasions to make particular demands upon the wealthier religious
houses. At Convocation, and in the Provincial Synods the regular clergy
were well represented. Thus, from the diocese of Exeter in the year 1328-9
there were summoned to the Synod of London seven abbots to be present
_personaliter_, whilst five Augustinian and seven Benedictine priories
also chose and sent proctors to the meeting. As a rule, apparently, at all
such meetings the abbots, and priors who were canonically elected to rule
their houses with full jurisdiction, had the right, and were indeed bound
to be present, unless prevented by a canonical reason. The archbishop, as
such, had no more to say to the regulars than to any other ecclesiastic of
his province, except that during a vacancy in any diocese he might, and
indeed frequently did, visit the religious houses in that diocese
personally or by commission.
3. THE ORDER
Besides the supervision and help of the bishop, almost every religious
house had some connection with and assistance from the Order to which it
belonged. In the case of the great united corporations like the Cluniacs,
the Cistercians, the Premonstratensians, and later the Carthusians, the
dependence of the individual monastery upon the centre of government was
very real both in theory and in practice. The abbots or superiors had to
attend at General Chapters, held, for instance, at Cluny, Citeaux, or
Prémontré, and were subject to regular visitations made by or in behalf of
the general superior. In the case of a vacancy the election was
supervised and the elect examined and confirmed either by, or by order of,
the chief authority, or, in the case of daughter-houses, by the superior
of the parent abbey. Even in the case of the Benedictines, who did not
form an Order in the modern sense of the word, after the Council of
Lateran in 1215, the monasteries were united into Congregations, for
common purposes and mutual help and encouragement. In England there were
two such unions, corresponding to the two Provinces of Canterbury and
York, and the superiors met at regular intervals in General Chapters.
Little is known of the meetings of the Northern Province; but in the South
the records show that they were regularly held to the last. The first and
ordinary business of these General Chapters was to secure a proper
standard of regular observance; and whatever, after discussion, was agreed
upon, provided that it met with the approval of the president of the
meeting, was to be observed without any appeal. Moreover, at each of these
Chapters two or more prudent and religious men were chosen to visit every
Benedictine house of the Province in the pope’s name, with full power to
correct where any correction might be considered necessary. In case these
papal Visitors found abuses existing in any monastery which might render
the deposition of the abbot necessary or desirable, they had to denounce
him to the bishop of the diocese, who was to take the necessary steps for
his canonical removal. If the bishop did not, or would not act, the
Visitors were bound to refer the case to the Holy See. By the provisions
of the Lateran Council in A.D. 1215, the bishops were warned to see that
the religious houses in their dioceses were in good order, “so that when
the aforesaid Visitors come there, they may find them worthy of
commendation rather than of correction.” They were, however, warned to be
careful “not to make their visitations a burden or expense, and to see
that the rights of superiors were maintained, without injury to those of
their subjects.”
In this system a double security was provided for the well-being of the
monasteries. The bishops were maintained in their old position as
Visitors, and were constituted judges where the conduct of the superior
might necessitate the gravest censures. At the same time, by providing
that all the monasteries should be visited every three years by monks
chosen by the General Chapter and acting in the name of the pope, any
failure of the bishop to fulfil his duty as diocesan, or any incapacity on
his part to understand the due working of the monastic system, received
the needful corrective.
One other useful result to the monasteries may be attributed to the
regular meetings of General Chapter. It was by the wise provision of these
Chapters that members of the monastic Orders received the advantage of a
University training. Common colleges were established by their decrees at
Oxford and Cambridge, and all superiors were charged to send their most
promising students to study and take their degrees in the national
Universities. Strangely enough as it may appear to us in these days, even
in these colleges the autonomy of the individual Benedictine houses seems
to have been scrupulously safeguarded; and the common college consisted of
small houses, in which the students of various monasteries dwelt apart,
though attending a common hall and chapel.
4. THE IMPROPRIATED CHURCHES
In regard to the external relations of the monastic houses, a word must be
said about their dealings with the parochial churches appropriated to
their use. Either by the gift of the king or that of some lay patron, many
churches to which they had the right of presentation became united with
monasteries, and a considerable portion of the parish revenues was applied
to the support of the religious, to keeping up adequate charity, or
“hospitality” as it was called in the neighbourhood, or other such
objects. The practice of impropriation has been regarded by most writers
as a manifest abuse, and there is no call to attempt to defend it. The
practice was not confined, however, to the monks, or to the action of lay
people who found therein an easy way to become benefactors of some
religious house. Bishops and other ecclesiastics, as founders of colleges
and hospitals, were quite as ready to increase the revenues of these
establishments in the same way.
In order that a church might be legally appropriated to a religious
establishment the approval of the bishop had to be obtained, and the
special reasons for the donation by the lay patron set forth. If these
were considered satisfactory, the formal permission of the Holy See was,
at any rate after the twelfth century, necessary for the completion of the
transaction. The monastery became the patron of the benefice thus attached
to it, and had to secure that the spiritual needs of the parish were
properly attended to by the vicars whom they presented to the cure. These
vicars were paid an adequate stipend, usually settled by episcopal
authority.
Roughly speaking, the present distinction between a vicarage and a rectory
shows where churches had been appropriated to a religious house or other
public body, and where they remained merely parochial. The vicar was the
priest appointed at a fixed stipend by the corporation which took the
rectorial tithes. It has been calculated that at least a third part of the
tithes of the richest benefices in England were appropriated either in
part or wholly to religious and secular bodies, such as colleges, military
orders, lay hospitals, guilds, convents; even deans, cantors, treasurers,
and chancellors of cathedral bodies were also largely endowed with
rectorial tithes. In this way, at the dissolution of the religious houses
under Henry VIII., the greater tithes of an immense number of parish
churches, now known as vicarages, passed into the hands of the noblemen
and others who obtained grants of the property of the suppressed
monasteries.
Whilst the impropriation of churches to monastic establishments
undoubtedly took money out of the locality for the benefit of the
religious, it is but fair to recognise that in many ways the benefit thus
obtained was returned with interest. Not only did the monks furnish the
ranks of the secular priesthood with youths who had received their early
education in the cloister school or at the almonry; but the churches and
vicarages of places impropriated were the special care of the religious.
An examination of these churches frequently reveals the fact that the
religious bodies did not hesitate to spend large sums of money upon the
rebuilding and adornment of structures which belonged to them in this way.
[Illustration: HENRY VII GIVING CHARTER TO MONKS AT WESTMINSTER HALL]
5. KING AND PARLIAMENT
Of many of the religious houses, especially of the greater abbeys, the
king either was, or came to be considered, the founder. It has already
been pointed out what this relation to the Crown implied on the part of
the monks. Besides this the Crown could, and in spite of the protests of
those chiefly concerned, frequently, if not ordinarily did, appoint abbots
and other superiors of religious houses members of the commissions of
peace for the counties in which their establishments were situated. They
were likewise made collectors for grants and loans to the Crown,
especially when the tax was to be levied on ecclesiastical property; and
according to the extent of their lands and possessions, like the
lay-holders from the Crown, they had to furnish soldiers to fight under
the royal standard. In the same way the abbot and other superiors could be
summoned by the king to Parliament as barons. The number of religious thus
called to the House of Peers at first appears to have depended somewhat
upon the fancy of the sovereign; it certainly varied considerably. In
1216, for example, from the North Province of England eleven abbots and
eight priors, and from the South seventy-one abbots and priors--in all
ninety religious--were summoned to Parliament by Henry III. In 1272 Edward
I. called only fifty-seven, mostly abbots, a few, however, being cathedral
priors; and in later times the number of monastic superiors in the House
of Peers generally included only the twenty-five abbots of the greater
houses and the prior of Coventry, and these were accounted as barons of
the kingdom.
6. THE MONASTIC TENANTS
The division of the monastic revenues between the various obedientiaries
for the support of the burdens of their special offices was fairly
general, at least in the great religious houses. It was for the benefit of
the house, inasmuch as it left a much smaller revenue to be dealt with by
the royal exchequer at every vacancy. It served, also, at least one other
good purpose. It brought many of the religious into contact with the
tenants of the monastic estates and gave them more knowledge of their
condition and mode of life; whilst the personal contact, which was
possible in a small administration, was certainly for the mutual benefit
of master and tenant. Since the prior, sacrist, almoner and other
officials all had to look after the administration of the manors and farms
assigned to their care, they had to have separate granges and manor-halls.
In these they had to carry out their various duties, and meet their
tenants on occasions, as was the case, for example, at Glastonbury, where
the sacrist had all the tithes of Glastonbury, including West Pennard, to
collect, and had his special tithe-barn, etc., for the purpose.
Two books, amongst others, The _Rentalia et Custumaria_ of Glastonbury,
published by the Somerset Record Society, and the _Halmote Rolls_ of
Durham, issued by the Surtees Society, enable any student who may desire
to do so, to obtain a knowledge of the relations which existed between the
monastic landlords and their tenants. At the great monastery of the West
Country the tenure of the land was of all kinds, from the estates held
under the obligation of so many knights’ fees, to the poor cottier with an
acre or two. Some of the tenants had to find part of their rent in
service, part in kind, part in payment. Thus, one had to find thirty
salmon, “each as thick as a man’s fist at the tail,” for the use of the
monastery; some had to find thousands of eels from Sedgemoor; others,
again, so many measures of honey. Some of those who worked for the
monastery or its estates had fixed wages, as, for example, the gardeners;
others had to be content with what was given them.
Mr. Elton, in an appendix to the Glastonbury volume, has analysed the
information to be found in its pages, and from this some items of interest
may be given here. A cottier with five acres of arable land paid 4_d._
less one farthing for rent, and five hens as “kirkset” if he were married.
From Michaelmas to Midsummer he was bound to do three days’ labour a week
of farm work on the monastic lands, such as toiling on the fallows,
winnowing corn, hedging, ditching, and fencing. During the rest of the
year, that is, in the harvest time, he had to do five days’ work on the
farm, and could be called upon to lend a hand in any kind of occupation,
except loading and carting. Like the farmers, he had his allowance of one
sheaf of corn for each acre he reaped, and a “laveroc,” or as much grass
as he could gather on his hook, for every acre he mowed. Besides this
general work he had to bear his share in looking after the vineyard at
Glastonbury.
Take another example of tenure: one “Golliva of the lake,” held a
three-acre tenement. It consisted of a croft of two acres and one acre in
the common field. She made a small payment for this; and for extra work
she had three sheaves, measured by a strap kept for the purpose. When she
went haymaking she brought her own rake; she took her share in all
harvest work, had to winnow a specified quantity of corn before Christmas,
and did odd jobs of all kinds, such as carrying a writ for the abbot and
driving cattle to Glastonbury.
The smaller cottagers were apparently well treated. A certain Alice, for
example, had half an acre field for which she had to bring water to the
reapers at the harvest and sharpen their sickles for them. On the whole,
though work was plenty and the life no doubt hard, the lot of the Somerset
labourer on the Glastonbury estate was not too unpleasant. Of amusements
the only one named is the institution of _Scot-ales_, an entertainment
which lasted two, or even three days. The lord of the manor might hold
three in the year. On the first day, Saturday, the married men and youths
came with their pennies and were served three times with ale. On the
Sunday the husbands and their wives came; but if the youths came they had
to pay another penny. On the Monday any of them could come if they had
paid on the other days.
On the whole, the manors of the monastery may be said to have been worked
as a co-operative farm. The reader of the accounts in this volume may
learn of common meals, of breakfasts and luncheons and dinners being
prepared ready for those who were at work on the common lands or on the
masters’ farming operations. It appears that they met together in the
great hall for a common Christmas entertainment. They furnished the great
yule-log to burn at the dinner, and each one brought his dish and mug,
with a napkin “if he wanted to eat off a cloth”; and still more curiously,
his own contribution of firewood, that his portion of food might be
properly cooked.
Of even greater interest is the picture of village life led by monastic
tenants which is afforded by the _Durham Halmote Rolls_.
“It is hardly a figure of speech,” writes Mr. Booth in the preface of
this volume, “to say we have (in these Rolls) village life
photographed. The dry record of tenures is peopled by men and women
who occupy them, whose acquaintance we make in these records under the
various phases of village life. We see them in their tofts surrounded
by their crofts, with their gardens of pot-herbs. We see how they
ordered the affairs of the village when summoned by the bailiff to the
vill to consider matters which affected the common weal of the
community. We hear of their trespasses and wrong doings, and how they
were remedied or punished, of their strifes and contentions and how
they were repressed, of their attempts, not always ineffective, to
grasp the principle of co-operation, as shown by their by-laws; of
their relations with the Prior, who represented the Convent and alone
stood in relation of lord. He appears always to have dealt with his
tenants, either in person or through his officers, with much
consideration; and in the imposition of fines we find them invariably
tempering justice with mercy.”
In fact, as the picture of mediæval village life among the tenants of the
Durham monastery is displayed in the pages of these _Halmote_ accounts, it
would seem almost as if the reader were transported to some Utopia of
Dreamland. Many of the points that in these days advanced politicians
would desire to see introduced into the village communities of modern
England in the way of improved sanitary and social conditions, and to
relieve the deadly dulness of country life, were seen in full working
order in Durham and Cumberland in pre-Reformation days. Local provisions
for public health and general convenience are evidenced by the watchful
vigilance of the village officials over the water supplies, the stringent
measures taken in regard to springs and wells, to prevent the fouling of
useful streams, as to the common places for washing clothes, and the
regular times for emptying and cleansing ponds and milldams.
Labour, too, was lightened and the burdens of life eased by co-operation
on an extensive scale. A common mill ground the corn of the tenants, and
their flour was baked into bread at a common oven. A smith employed by the
community worked at their will in a common forge, and common shepherds and
herdsmen watched the sheep and cattle of the various tenants, when
pastured on the fields common to the whole community. The pages of the
volume, too, contain numerous instances of the kindly consideration
extended to their tenants by the monastic proprietors, and the relation
which existed between them was in reality rather that of rent-chargers
than of absolute owners. In fact, as the editor of this interesting volume
says: “Notwithstanding the rents, duties, and services and the fine paid
on entering, the inferior tenants of the Prior had a beneficial interest
in their holdings, which gave rise to a recognised system of tenant-right,
which we may see growing into a customary right; the only limitation of
the tenant’s right being inability, from poverty or other cause, to pay
rent or perform the accustomed services.” And, it may be added, even when
it was necessary for a tenant on these accounts to leave, provision was
made with the new tenant to give the late owner shelter and a livelihood.
[Illustration: SENESCHAL JOHN WHITEWELL AND MOTHER]
[Illustration: ILLUMINATOR OF ST. ALBANS]