THE DESOLATION OF THE COUNTRY.
So far the course of the epidemic in England has been followed from
south to north. It is now necessary to consider some statistics and
immediate results of the plague.
The diocese of Salisbury comprised the three counties of Dorset,
Wilts, and Berkshire. The total number of appointments made by the
Bishop, in his entire diocese, is said to have been 202 in the period
from March 25th, 1348, to March 25th, 1349; and 243 during the same
time in the year following.[303] Of this total number of 445 it is
safe to say that two-thirds were institutions to vacancies due to
the plague. Roughly speaking, therefore, in these three counties,
comprised in the diocese of Sarum, some 300 beneficed clergy, at
least, fell victims to the scourge.
The county of Dorset may first be taken. The list of institutions
taken from the Salisbury episcopal registers, given in Hutchins'
history of that county, numbers 211. During the incidence of the
plague ninety of these record a change of incumbent, so that,
roughly, about half the benefices were rendered vacant. In several
cases, moreover, during the progress of the epidemic changes
are recorded twice or three times, so that the total number of
institutions made to Dorsetshire livings at this time was 110.
As regards the non-beneficed clergy, secular and regular, their
proportion to those holding benefices will be considered in the
[p163] concluding chapter. Here it is sufficient to observe that the
proportion commonly suggested is far too low.
It is almost by chance that any information is afforded as to the
effect of the visitation in the religious houses. All contemporary
authorities, both abroad and in England, agree in stating that the
disease was always most virulent and spread most rapidly where
numbers were gathered together, and that, when once it seized upon
any house, it usually claimed many victims. Consequently when it
appears that early in November, 1348, the abbot of Abbotsbury died,
and that about Christmas Day of that year John de Henton, the abbot
of the great monastery of Sherborne, also died, it is more than
probable that many of the brethren of those monasteries were also
carried off by the scourge.
In the county of Wilts the average number of episcopal institutions,
for three years before and three years after the mortality, was
only 26. In the year 1348 there are 73 institutions recorded in the
registers, and in 1349 no less a number than 103,[304] so that of
the 176 vacancies filled in the two years the deaths of only some 52
incumbents were probably due to normal causes, and the rest, or some
125 priests holding benefices in the county, may be said to have died
from the plague.
A chance entry upon the Patent roll reveals the state of one
monastery in this county. The prior of Ederos, or Ivychurch, a house
of Augustinian canons, died on February 2nd, 1349.[305] On February
the 25th the King was informed that death had carried off the entire
community with one single exception. "Know ye," runs the King's
letter, dated March 16th, "that since the Venerable Father Robert,
Bishop of Salisbury, cannot hold the usual election of prior in the
Monastery of Ederos in his diocese, vacant by the death of the last
prior of the same, since all the other canons of the same house,
in which hitherto there [p164] has been a community of thirteen
canons regular, have died, except only one canon, brother James de
Grundwell, we appoint him custodian of the possessions, the Bishop
testifying that he is a fit and proper person for the office.[306]
The general state of the county of Wilts after the epidemic had
passed is well illustrated from some Wiltshire _Inquisitiones post
mortem_. Sir Henry Husee, for instance, had died on the 21st of
June, 1349. He owned a small property in the county. Some 300 acres
of pasture were returned upon oath, by a jury of the neighbourhood,
as "of no value because all the tenants are dead."[307] Again John
Lestraunge, of Whitchurch, a Shropshire gentleman, had half the manor
of Broughton, in the county of Wilts. He died on July the 20th,
1349, and the inquisition was held on August the 30th. At that time
it is declared that only seven shillings had been received as rent
from a single tenant, "and not more this year, because all the other
tenants, as well as the natives, are dead, and their land is all in
the hand of the lord."[308]
So, too, on the manor of Caleston, belonging to Henry de Wilington,
who died on May the 23rd, 1349, it is said that water-mills are
destroyed and worthless; of the six native tenants two have died,
and their lands are in hand; and of the ten cottars, each of whom
paid 12d. for his holding, four have been carried off with all their
family.[309] In other places of the same county woods are declared
to be valueless, "for want of buyers, on account of the pestilence
amongst the population;"[310] from tenants who used to pay £4 a year
there is now obtained only 6s., because all but three free tenants
have been swept away;[311] 140 acres of land and twelve cottages,
formerly in the occupation of [p165] natives of a manor, are all
now in hand, "as all are dead."[312] So, too, at East Grinstead,
seven miles from Salisbury, on the death of Mary, wife of Stephen de
Tumby, in the August of 1349, it is found that only three tenants are
left on the estate, "and not more because John Wadebrok and Walter
Wadebrok, Stephen and Thomas and John Kerde, Richard le Frer, Ralph
Bodde, and Thomas the Tanner, tenants in bondage," who held certain
tenements and lands, are all dead, and their holdings are left in the
hands of the lord of the manor. Also, on the same estate, William le
Hanaker, John Pompe, Edmund Saleman, John Whermeter, and John Gerde,
jun., have also been swept away by the all-prevailing pestilence.
Such examples as these will enable the reader to understand the
terrible mortality produced by this visitation, and in some measure
to appreciate the social difficulties and changes produced by the
sudden removal of so large a number of the population from every part
of the country.
To pass on to the neighbouring county of Somerset. The institutions
given in the episcopal registers of the diocese of Bath and Wells
show that the mortality had already commenced in the county as early
as November, 1348. The average number of inductions to livings in
the county in each month of 1348, previous to November, was less
than three; in November it was nine, and in the following month
thirty-two. During the next year, 1349, the total number of clergy
instituted to the vacant livings of the diocese by the Bishop was
232, against an average in a normal year of 35. For the two years,
1348 and 1349, consequently, out of the 297 benefices to which
institutions were made, some 227 may be said, with fair certainty, to
have been rendered vacant by the great mortality which then raged in
this and other counties of England.
It must be borne in mind that the death of every priest implied
the deaths of very many of his flock, so [p166] that, if no other
information were attainable, some idea of the extent of the sickness
among the laity may be obtained. It cannot but be believed that
the people generally suffered as greatly as the clergy, and that,
proportionally, as many of them fell victims to the scourge. If the
proportion of priests to lay folk was then (as some writers have
suggested) about one to fifty—an estimate, however, which would seem
to be considerably above the actual relation of laymen to those in
sacred orders at that time—the reader can easily form some notion of
the terrible mortality among the people of Somersetshire in the first
half of 1349.
Some slight information, however, is afforded as to the actual state
of the county in one or two instances. In each manor throughout the
country there was held periodically what was known as the Court
of the manor. At this assembly the business of the estate, so far
as the tenants were concerned, was transacted before a chosen and
sworn jury. Holders of land under the lord of the manor came before
the court to claim their tenements and land as the rightful heirs
of tenants deceased, to pay their heriots or fines due to the lord
on every entry of a new holder. At this assembly, too, matters
of police, the infringement of local customs, and often disputes
between the tenants themselves, were disposed of by the officials
of the manor. The record of the business of such courts is known as
the Court roll, and these documents give some information about the
extent of the mortality among the manorial tenants. Here, however,
just as in the case of the institutions of clergy, where the actual
incumbent only is registered and no account is taken of the larger
body of non-beneficed clergy, so on the Court roll only the actual
holder of the land is entered, and no notice is taken of the members
of his family, or of others in the district, such as labourers and
servants, etc., who were not actual tenants of the manor.
Unfortunately the Court rolls for this period are often, if not
generally, found to be missing. They are either lost, or the
disorganised state of the country consequent upon the [p167] great
mortality did not permit of the court being held. There are, however,
quite sufficient of these records to afford a tolerably good idea
of what must have happened pretty generally throughout the country.
Dr. Jessopp has been able by the use of the Norfolk Court rolls to
present his readers with a vivid picture of the havoc made by the
plague in East Anglia. As an illustration of the same, some notes
from a few Court rolls of West of England manors may here be given.
The records of the royal manor of Gillingham, in the county of
Dorset, show that at a court, held on "Wednesday next after the feast
of St. Lucy (13 December), 1348," heriots were paid on the deaths of
some twenty-eight tenants, and the total receipts on this account,
which at ordinary courts amounted to but a few shillings, were £28
15s. 8d. Further, at the same sittings, the bailiff notes that he
has in hand the lands and tenements of about thirty tenants, who had
apparently left no heir to succeed to their holdings. In numbers of
cases it is declared that no heriot has been paid, and this although
the receipts on this score at the sitting of the court, and on many
subsequent sittings, are unusually large. At another court, held
early in the following year (1349) the names of two-and-twenty
tenants of the manor are recorded as having died, and two large slips
of parchment, belonging to the court held on May 6th, give the lists
of dead tenants. Thus in the tything of Gillingham alone forty-five
deaths are recorded, and in the neighbouring tything of Bourton
seventeen.[313]
The next example may be taken from the rolls of a Wiltshire manor,
and ought, perhaps, to have been given in the account of the plague
in that county. On June the 11th, 1349, a court was held at Stockton,
some seven miles from Warminster, consequently only a short distance
from [p168] the boundaries of Somerset. The manor, be it remarked,
was evidently only a very small one. On the parchment record it is
stated that since the previous Martinmas (November 11th, 1348) no
court had been held, and from the entries upon the roll it appears
that out of a small body of tenants on this estate fourteen had died.
How many had been carried off in each household does not, of course,
appear, but in the majority of instances it looks very much as if the
dead tenant had left no heir behind him.[314]
A third instance is taken from the Court roll of the manor of
Chedzoy, near Bridgwater. The plague had made its appearance at
Bridgwater, as before related, some time previous to November 21,
1348. It was to be expected, therefore, that the rolls of a manor
only three miles off would show some sign of the mortality among
the tenants about the same period. As a matter of fact a glance
through the parchment record of a court held on St. Katherine's day,
November 25, 1348, shows that it had made its appearance some time
between September 29th and November 25th. On this latter day some
few of the tenants of the manor are noted as dead, and three or four
fairly large holdings have also fallen into the hands of the lord of
the manor, no heirs being forthcoming. Amongst others, one William
Hammond, who had rented and worked a water-mill, at a place called
_le Slap_, had been carried off by the sickness. The house, it is
noted, had since, up to the date of the court, stood vacant. The mill
wheel no longer spun round at its work, for William Hammond, the
miller, had left no one to succeed him in his occupation.
But this was only a beginning. The next court was held on Thursday
after the Epiphany, January 8th, 1349. What a terrible Christmas
time it must have been for those Somerset villagers on the low-lying
ground about Bridgwater, flooded and sodden by the long months of
incessant rain! At least twenty more tenants are marked off upon
[p169] the roll as dead, and as in this case the actual days of
their deaths are given, it is clear the plague claimed many victims
in this neighbourhood about the close of December, 1348.
Between this and March 23, 1349, the sickness was at its worst in
this manor of Chedzoy. The record of the proceedings at the court,
held on "Monday after the feast of St. Benedict," 1349, occupies two
long skins of parchment closely written on both sides. Some 50 or
60 fines are paid by new tenants on their taking possession of the
lands and houses, which had belonged to others now dead and gone.
Again, who can tell how many had perished in each house? One thing is
absolutely clear. In this single Somerset village many homes had been
left vacant without a solitary inhabitant; many were taken over by
new tenants not connected with the old occupier; and in more than one
instance people came forward to act as guardians to young children
who had apparently been left alone in the world by the death of every
near relative. Take an instance. At this court one John Cran, who, by
the way, took up the house and lands formerly held by his father, who
is said to have died, also agreed with the officer of the court to
take charge of William, the son of Nicholas atte Slope, for the said
Nicholas, and apparently every other near relative of the boy William
had perished in the sickness.
In this same court of March 23rd also several law cases are disposed
of, for they had been settled by the death of one or other or both of
the parties. Thus, in January, 1349, a claim had been laid, at the
sitting of the court, against one John Lager, for the return of some
cattle by three tenants, William, John, and Roger Richeman. At the
March sitting of the court in due course the case was called on. No
plaintiffs, however, appeared, and inquiry elicited the fact that all
three had died in the great pestilence.
The actual document which contains these particulars has, moreover, a
tale of its own to tell. The long entries [p170] on these two skins
of parchment are not all in the same hand. Before the record of the
heavy business done at this court had been all transcribed, the clerk
was changed. The hand which had so long kept the rolls of these Manor
Courts ceases to write. What happened to him? Did he too die? Of
course nothing can be known for certain, but it is not difficult to
conjecture why another at this very time takes up the writing of the
Chedzoy manor records.[315]
Another glimpse of the desolate state to which the country was
generally reduced by this disastrous sickness is afforded by the
case of Hinton and Witham, the two Somerset Carthusian houses. The
King had endeavoured by every means in his power to restrain the
tenants, who survived the plague, from leaving their old holdings
and seeking for others where they could better themselves. Not only
were fines ordered to be inflicted upon such labourers and tenants,
as endeavoured to take advantage of the market rise in wages, but
under similar penalties landowners were prohibited from giving
employment to them. That such a law must have proved hard in the
case of those owning manors, in which some or all of the tenants and
labourers had died, is obvious. It was this hardship which some years
after the epidemic, in 1354, made the Carthusians of Witham plead
for some mitigation of the royal decree. "Our beloved in Christ,
the prior and brethren of the Carthusian Order at Witham, in the
county of Somerset," runs the King's reply, "have petitioned us that
since their said house and all their lands and tenements thereto
belonging are within a close in the forest of Selwood, placed far
from every town, and they possess no domain beyond the said close,
they have nothing to support the prior and his brethren," (and
this) "both because almost all their servants and retainers died
in the last pestilence, and [p171] because by reason of a command
lately made by us and our Parliament, in which _inter alia_ it is
ordered that servants should not leave their villages and parishes
in which they dwelt, as long as they could be hired there, they have
been brought to great need on account of the want of servants and
labourers. Further, that a large part of their lands (for this same
reason) remain waste and untilled, and the corn in the rest of their
estate, which had been sown at the time of harvest, had miserably
rotted as it could not be gathered for lack of reapers. By this they
have been brought into great and manifest poverty." Looking at the
circumstances, therefore, the King permits them for the future to
engage servants and workmen on reasonable wages above the legal sum,
provided that their time of service elsewhere had expired.[316]
The second instance is recorded in the following year, 1355, and
has reference to difficulties springing from the same regulations
as to the employment of labourers:—"The prior and brethren of the
Carthusians of Hinton, in the county of Somerset, have petitioned
us," says the King, "that seeing that they have no support except
by the tillage of their lands, and that the greatest part of their
estates, for want of workmen and servants from the time of the last
pestilence, have been unused and still remain uncultivated, and that
they cannot get any labourers to work their lands," (and further)
"that as many people and tenants were wont to weave the woollen cloth
for the clothes of the brethren from their wool, and do other various
services for them, now through fear of our orders as to servants that
they may not receive greater salaries and stipends from the said
brethren, do not dare to serve them as before, and so leave their
dwelling, so that the brethren cannot get cloth to clothe themselves
properly," they beg that these orders may be relaxed in their regard.
To which petition the King assented, allowing the [p172] Carthusians
of Hinton to pay the wages they had been used to do.[317]
The diocese of Exeter, comprising the two counties of Devon and
Cornwall, was stricken by the disease apparently about the same time
as the county of Somerset. The institutions made by the Bishop of the
diocese, in January, 1349, number some 30, which shows that death had
already been busy among the clergy. The average number of livings
annually rendered vacant in the two counties during the eight years
previous to 1348 was only 36. In the year 1349 the vacancies were
382, and the number of appointments to vacant livings, in each of the
five months from March to July, was actually larger than the previous
yearly average. It would appear, therefore, that in 1349 some 346
vacancies may reasonably be ascribed to the prevailing sickness.
In looking over the lists of institutions it is evident that the
effect of sickness was felt for some years. It is not until 1353 that
the normal average is again reached. The year following the epidemic
the number of vacancies filled up was 80, and even in 1351 it still
remained at the high figure of 57. It is curious to note in these
years that numerous benefices lapsed to the Bishop. These must have
been vacant six months, at least, before the dates when they were
filled by Bishop Grandisson. Sometimes, no doubt, patrons were dead,
leaving no heirs behind them. Sometimes, in all probability, the
patron could find no one to fill the cure. Further, the number of
resignations of benefices during this period would appear to point to
the fact that many livings were now found to be too miserably poor to
afford a bare maintenance.
After the sickness was over here, as in other parts of England,
the desolation and distress is evidenced by chance references in
the inquisitions. Thus at Lydford, a manor on Dartmoor, the King's
escheator returns the value of a [p173] mill at fifteen shillings,
in place of the previous value of double that amount, because "most
of the tenants, who used to grind their corn at it, have died in the
plague." It is the same at other places in the county, and in one
case 30 holdings are named as having fallen into the hands of the
lord of the manor.[318]
A bundle of accounts for the Duchy of Lancaster gives a good idea of
the effect of the pestilence in Cornwall. The roll is for the year
from Michaelmas, 1350, and includes the accounts of several manors
in the Deanery of Trigg, such as Helston, Tintagel, and others, in
the district about the river Camel. In one it is noted that "this
year there are no buyers;" in another only two youths pay poll
tax, two more have not paid, as they have been put in charge of
some land, "and the rest have died in the pestilence." In the same
place pasture, which usually let for 3s. 4d., now, "because of the
pestilence," fetched only 20d.; the holdings of five tenants are
named as in hand, as well as nine other tenements and 214 acres of
land. Again, in another place the rent has diminished by £7 14s.,
because 14 holdings and 102 acres are in hand, together with two
fulling mills; on the other hand credit is given for 8s. 11d., the
value of the goods and chattels of the natives of the manor who have
died. And so the roll proceeds through the accounts of some twelve or
fourteen manors, and everywhere the same story of desolation appears.
Besides numerous holdings and hundreds of acres, represented as in
hand and producing nothing, entire hamlets are named as having been
depopulated. The decay in rent of one manor alone is set down at £30
6s. 1-3/4d.
Attached to the account of Helston, in Trigg, is a skin giving a list
of goods and effects of different tenants named which the lord Prince
"occupied." There are 57 items in this list, which includes goods of
all sorts, from an article of female dress and a golden buckle to
ploughs and [p174] copper dishes; and the total value of the goods
which thus fell into the hands of the Black Prince, presumably by the
death of his tenants without heirs, is £16 18s. 8d.
At Tintagel it is noted that the "fifty shillings previously paid
each year as stipend to the chaplain who celebrated in the chapel,
was not paid this year, because no one would stay to minister there
for the said stipend."[319]
On the 29th May, 1350, the Black Prince, in view of the great
distress throughout the district, authorised his officials to remit
one-fourth part of the rents of the tenants who were left, "for fear
they should through poverty depart from their holdings."[320] But
John Tremayn, the receiver of the revenues of the Prince in Cornwall,
states that even in the years 1352 and 1353, so far from the estates
there showing any recovery, they were in a more deplorable state
still. "For the said two years," he relates, "he has not been able to
let (the lands), nor to raise or obtain anything from the said lands
and tenements, because the said tenements for the most part have
remained unoccupied, and the lands lain waste for want of tenants (in
the place of those) who died in the mortal pestilence lately raging
in the said county."[321]
The loss of the episcopal registers of London for this period
makes it impossible to form any certain estimate of the deaths in
the ranks of the clergy of the capital during the progress of the
epidemic. London contained within its walls, at that time, some 140
parish churches, exclusive of the large number of religious houses
grouped together in its precincts. It is not unreasonable to suppose
that the mortality here was greater than elsewhere. The population
was closely packed in narrow streets, the religious houses were
exceptionally numerous, and many of them, from their very situation,
could have had but very little space. It has already been seen
how fatal was the entry [p175] of the plague into any house, and
consequently the proportion of deaths among the regulars in London
was doubtless greater than elsewhere, whilst other causes must have
also contributed to raise the roll of death among the seculars.[322]
The diocese of London included, with Middlesex, the county of Essex
and a portion of Hertfordshire. The benefices of the county of Essex
were in number some 265, and, like the actual institutions of the
Middlesex clergy for this period, those made in the county of Essex
are unknown. By July, 1349, the consequences of the scourge clearly
appear in the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ for this county. In one
manor ten acres of meadow, which had formerly been let for twenty
shillings, this year produced only half that amount, "because of the
common pestilence." For the same reason the arable land had fallen
in value, and a water-mill was idle, as there was no miller. In
another place 140 acres of arable land was lying waste. "It cannot
be let at all," says the Inquisition, "but if it could be let, it
would be worth but eleven shillings and sixpence" only, in place of
twenty-three shillings. Here, too, pasture had fallen fifty per cent,
in value, and the wood that had been cut could not be sold. So, too,
at a manor near Maldon, in this county, prices had fallen to half the
previous value, and here the additional information is given that,
out of eleven native tenants of the manor eight have died, and their
tenements and land were in hand. It is the same in every instance;
rents had dropped, owing to the catastrophe, to one-half. Arable,
meadow, and pasture could be obtained this year in Essex anywhere at
such a reduction. Other estate receipts had fallen equally. In one
place court fees were three in place of the usual six shillings, and
the manor [p176] dove-house brought in one instead of two shillings.
Water mills were at a greater discount even than this. One, at a
place called Longford, was valued at twenty shillings in place of
sixty shillings, and even at this reduction there is considerable
doubt expressed whether it will let at all.
Lastly, to take one more example in the county of Essex. An inquiry
was made as to the lands held by the abbot of Colchester, who died
on August the 24th, 1349. In this it appears that, in the manors of
East and West Denny, 320 acres of arable land had fallen in yearly
value from four to two pence an acre; 14 acres of meadow from 18d. to
8d.; the woods are valueless, "because there are no buyers;" and out
of six native tenants two are dead. In another place four out of six
have been carried off; in another, only two are left out of seven.
The rent of assize, it is declared, is only £4, "and no more, because
most of the land is in hand."[323]
No account has been preserved of the ravages of the pestilence at the
abbey of Colchester; but the death of the abbot at this time makes
it not unlikely that the disease was as disastrous here as in other
monasteries of which there is preserved some record. It is known that
the town suffered considerably. "One of the most striking effects
was," writes one author, "that wills to the unusual number of 111
were enrolled at Colchester, which at that time had the privilege of
their probate and enrolment."[324]
Talkeley, an alien priory in Essex, was reduced to complete
destitution. It was a cell of St. Valery's Abbey, in Picardy, and
when seized into the King's hands on account of the war with France
the prior was allowed to hold the lands on condition of his paying
£126 a year into the royal purse. Two years after the plague had
visited the county this payment had fallen into arrears, "by reason
of the pestilence lately raging, from which time the said land
[p177] remained uncultivated, and the holdings, from which the
revenues of the priory were derived, remained unoccupied after the
death of the tenants. So terribly is it impoverished that it has
nothing upon which to live, and on account of the arrears no one is
willing to rent the lands and tenements of the priory." In the end
the King was compelled to forgive the arrears of rent.[325]
In the county of Hertfordshire 34 benefices were in the diocese of
London, whilst 22 more were under the jurisdiction of no Bishop,
but formed a peculiar of the abbey of St. Alban's. In both of these
consequently the actual institutions made in the year of the great
plague are unknown. For the portion within the diocese of Lincoln 27
institutions were made in the summer of 1349; so that probably at
least 50 Hertfordshire clergy died at this time.
The values of land and produce fell, as in other places. In one
instance, given in an _Inquisitio post mortem_ into the estate of
Thomas Fitz-Eustace, the lands and tenements, formerly valued at
67 shillings, were on the 3rd of August this year, 1349, estimated
to produce only 13 shillings, and this only "if the pasture can be
let."[326] In the same way the Benedictine convent of Cheshunt, in
the county, is declared shortly afterwards "to be oppressed with
such poverty in these days that the community have not wherewith to
live."[327]
Again the destitution and poverty produced by the pestilence is
evidenced in the case of some lands in the county, given by Sir
Thomas Chedworth to Anglesey priory in Cambridgeshire. It had been
agreed, shortly before the scourge had fallen upon England, that the
monastery should for this benefaction endow a chantry of two secular
priests. In 1351, however, the state of Anglesey priory, consequent
on the fall in rents, made this impossible, and the obligation
was, through the Bishop, readjusted, and the [p178] new document
recites:—"Carefully considering the great and ruinous miseries which
have occurred on account of the vast mortality of men in these days,
to wit, that lands lie uncultivated in innumerable places, not a few
tenements daily decay and are pulled down, rents and services cannot
be levied, nor the advantage thereof, generally had, can be received,
but a much smaller profit is obliged to be taken than heretofore,"
the community shall now be bound to find one priest only, whose
stipend shall be five marks yearly instead of six as appointed, the
value of the property being thus estimated at less than half what it
had been before.[328]
In Buckinghamshire there were at the time between 180 and 200
benefices, in the county of Bedford some 120 and in Berkshire 162.
From these a calculation of the probable number of incumbents carried
off in 1349 by the sickness may be made.
As some indication of the state to which these counties were reduced
by the scourge, a petition of the sheriff of Bedfordshire and
Buckinghamshire, made to the King in 1353, may be here mentioned.
He declared that it was impossible then to pay into the Exchequer
the old sums for the farming of the hundreds, which had been usual
"before the late pestilence." Coming before the King in February,
1353, he not only urged his petition, but claimed to have £66
returned to him, which he had paid over and above his receipts. For
the years 1351 and 1352 he had paid £132 for these rents, as had
been usual since 1342; but he claimed that "from the time of the
pestilence the bailiffs of the hundreds had been unwilling to take
them on such terms." An inquiry by a jury was held in both counties,
and it was declared "that since 1351 the bailiffs of the hundreds had
been able to obtain nothing for certain—except what they could get
by extortion—from the county. Further, that the inhabitants of the
said county were now [p179] so diminished and impoverished that the
bailiffs were able to get nothing for the farms in that year, 1351."
In the same way also John Chastiloun, the sheriff, had received
nothing whatever for his office. In the end the sum claimed was
allowed.[329]
In the Canterbury portion of the county of Kent there were some
280 benefices, which number may form the basis for a calculation
of the death roll. The condition to which this portion of England
was reduced may be estimated from one or two examples. In 1352 the
prioress and nuns of the house of St. James' outside Canterbury
were allowed to be free from the tax of a fifteenth granted to
the King, because they were reduced to such destitution that they
had nothing beyond what was necessary to support them.[330] Even
the Cathedral priory of Christchurch itself had to plead poverty.
About 1350 the monks addressed petitions to the Bishop of Rochester
asking him to give them the church of Westerham "to help them to
maintain their traditional hospitality." They say that "by the great
pestilence affecting man and beast," they are unable to do this, and
as arguments to induce the Bishop to allow this impropriation, they
state that they have lost 257 oxen, 511 cows, and 4,585 sheep, worth
together £792 12s. 6d. Further they state that "1,212 acres of land,
formerly profitable, are inundated by the sea," apparently from want
of labourers to maintain the sea walls.[331] [p180]
The neighbouring county of Sussex, at the time of the appearance of
the disease, counted some 320 benefices. From the Patent Rolls it
appears that in 1349 the King presented to as many as 26 livings
in the county; amongst these no less than five were at Hastings,
at All Saints', St. Clement's, St. Leonards, and two at the Free
Chapel.[332]
In Hampshire, including the Isle of Wight, the average annual
number of appointments to benefices for three years previous to
the pestilence was 21; in 1349 no fewer than 228 institutions are
registered, so that it may fairly be said that over 200 beneficed
clergy were carried off by the sickness.
In the county of Surrey the total number of institutions in 1349
was as high as 92, against a previous average of a little over nine
yearly, so that here, as in Hants, the number of vacancies of livings
was this year increased tenfold. It may fairly be argued that of
the number 92, some 80, at least, of the vacancies were caused by
the epidemic. Several examples have already been given of the havoc
wrought by the epidemic in religious houses in which it had effected
an entrance. Where the head of a community was carried off, it is
practically certain many of the members also would have perished,
and it can be doubted by no one who examines the facts that the
pestilence was not only terrible at the time, but had a lasting and
permanent effect upon the state of the monastic houses. This point
may be illustrated by some of the monasteries of the diocese of
Winchester.
In the city itself the prior of St. Swithun's and the abbess of St.
Mary's Benedictine convent both died, and there is evidence that a
large proportion of both these communities must have perished at
the same time, as well as many at the abbey of Hyde. To take the
Cathedral of St. Swithun's first. In 1325, four and twenty years
before the great mortality, the monks in the house were 64 in
number.[333] Of these the 12 juniors on the list had not at that
time received the subdiaconate. The 34th in order in the community
had been ordained deacon on December 19th, 1310, and all the thirty
below him were his juniors. It is fair to consider that about 60 was
the normal number previous to the year 1349.[334] After that date
they were [p181] reduced to a number which varied between 35 and
40. In 1387 William of Wykeham exhorted the community to use every
effort to get up their strength to the original 60 members[335]; but
notwithstanding all their endeavours they were on Wykeham's death, in
A.D., 1404, only 42. At Bishop Wayneflete's election, in 1447, there
were only 39 monks; three years later only 35; and in A.D. 1487 their
number had fallen to 30, at which figure it remained till the final
dissolution of the house in the reign of Henry VIII.[336]
The neighbouring Abbey of Hyde, a house of considerable importance,
with a community of probably between thirty and forty monks, a
century later had fallen to only twenty. In 1488 it had risen to
twenty-four, and eight of these had joined within the previous three
years. At the beginning of the 16th century, in 1509, the community
again consisted of twenty; but on the eve of the final destruction
of the abbey there are some signs of a recovery, the house then
consisting of twenty-six members, four of whom were novices. So
impoverished was the house by the consequences of the great mortality
that in 1352 the community were forced in order "to [p182] avoid,"
as they say, "the final destruction of their house," and "on account
of their pitiful poverty and want, to relieve their absolute
necessity," to surrender their possessions into the hands of Bishop
Edyndon.[337]
Financial difficulties also overwhelmed and nearly brought to ruin
the Benedictine Convent of St. Mary's, which was reduced to about one
half their former number. To the same generous benefactor, Bishop
Edyndon, they were indebted for their escape from extinction. In
fact, it would appear that at this time many, if not most, of the
religious houses of the diocese were protected and supported by the
liberality of the Bishop and his relatives, whom he interested in
the work of preserving from threatened destruction these monastic
establishments. In the document by which the nuns of St. Mary's
acknowledge Bishop Edyndon as their second founder, they say that "he
counted it a pious and pleasing thing mercifully to come to their
assistance when overwhelmed by poverty, and when, in these days,
evil doing was on the increase and the world was growing worse, they
were brought to the necessity of secret begging. It was at such a
time that the same father, with the eye of compassion, seeing that
from the beginning our monastery was slenderly provided with lands
and possessions, and that now we and our house, by the barrenness of
our land, by the destruction of our woods, and by the diminution or
taking away from the monastery of due and appointed rents, because
of the dearth of tenants carried off by the unheard-of and unwonted
pestilence," came to our assistance to avert our entire undoing.[338]
Six months later the nuns of Romsey, in almost the same words,
acknowledged their indebtedness to the Bishop.[339] Here the results
of the pestilence upon the convent, as regards numbers, are even
more remarkable than [p183] in the instances already given. At the
election of an abbess in A.D. 1333 there were present to record their
votes 90 nuns. Early in May, 1349—that is only 16 years later—the
abbess died, for the royal assent was given to the election of her
successor, Joan Gerneys, on May 7th of that year.[340] What happened
to the community can be gathered by the fact that in 1478 their
number is found reduced to 18, and they never rose above 25 until
their final suppression.
The various bodies of friars must have suffered quite as severely
as the rest of the clergy. It is, however, very difficult to
obtain any definite information about these mendicant orders; but
some slight indication of the dearth of members they must have
experienced at this period in common with all other bodies in
England, ecclesiastical and lay, is to be found in the episcopal
registers of the period. In the diocese of Winchester, for example,
the Augustinians had only one convent, at Winchester. From September,
1346, to June, 1348, they presented four subjects for ordination
to the priesthood; from that time till Bishop Edyndon's death, in
October, 1366, only two more were ordained, both on 22nd December,
1358. The Friars Minor had two houses, one at Winchester, the
other at Southampton; for these, in 1347 and 1348, three priests
were ordained. From that time till the 21st of December, 1359, no
more received orders. Then two were made priests; but no further
ordinations are recorded until after Bishop Edyndon's death. The same
extraordinary want of subjects appears in the case of the Carmelites.
With them, between 1346 and 1348, eleven subjects received the
priesthood. The next Carmelite ordained was in December, 1357, and
only three in all were made priests between the great plague and
the close of the year 1366. The Dominicans also had only one priest
ordained in ten years, that is in the period from March, 1349, to
December, 1359.
Owing to the mortality having swept away so many of [p184] their
tenants, and other consequences traceable to the mortality, the
priory of St. Swithun's became heavily involved in debt. On the
31st of December, 1352, Bishop Edyndon determined to make a careful
inquiry into the state of his cathedral monastery, and wrote to that
effect to the prior and convent. He says in his letter that he has
heard how the temporalities have suffered severely "in these days,
both by the deaths of tenants of the church, from which there has
come a grave diminution of rent and services, and from various other
causes unknown, and that it is burdened with excessive debts." As he
himself was occupied in the King's service, he proposes to send some
officers to inquire into these matters, and begs them to assist them
in every way. He further says that it is reported to him "that in
this our church the former fervour of devotion in the divine service
and regular observance has grown lukewarm;" that both the monastery
and out-buildings are falling to ruins; that "guests are not received
there so honourably as before; on which account we wonder not a
little," he continues, "and are troubled the more because so far you
have not informed us" of these things. He appoints January 21, 1353,
for the beginning of the inquiry, and in a second document names
three priests, including a canon of the diocese of Sarum and the
rector of Froyle, in Hampshire, to hold it.[341]
Shortly after this, on January 14, 1353, Bishop Edyndon ordered a
similar inquiry to be made as to the state of Christchurch priory,
which was also heavily in debt.[342] That the house had been
seriously diminished in members seems more than probable in view of
the fact that from the date of the plague till the beginning of 1366
no subject of the house was ordained priest.
The hospital of Sandown, in Surrey, was left, as before said, without
a single inmate. On June 1, 1349, the Bishop, in giving it into the
care of a priest named William de [p185] Coleton, says: "Since all
and everyone of the brethren of the Hospital of the blessed Mary
Magdalene of Sandown, in our diocese, to whom on a vacancy of the
office of Prior, or guardian, the election belonged, are dead in
the mortality of men raging in the kingdom of England, none of the
brethren being left, the said hospital is destitute both of head and
members."[343]
The same state of financial ruin is known to have existed in the case
of Shireborne priory. On 8th June, 1350, Bishop Edyndon wrote to the
abbot and convent of St. Vigor of Cérisy saying that Shireborne,
which was said to be a dependency of the abbey, was fallen into great
poverty. "The oblations of sacrifices had ceased, and from very
hunger the devotion of priests was grown tepid; the buildings were
falling to ruins, and its fruitful fields, now that the labourers
were carried off, were barren." The priory could not hope, he
considered, to recover "in their days," and so, with the consent of
the patron, he requested the abbot to recall four of the monks to the
abbey, the priory then containing the superior and seven religious.
The same day a letter was sent to the prior of Shireborne directing
that this should be at once carried out.[344]
One fact will be sufficient to show the state to which the diocese
was reduced after the plague had passed. On the 9th of April, 1350,
the Bishop issued a general admonition to his clergy as to residence
on their cures. It had been reported to him, he says, that some
priests, to whom the cure of souls had been committed, "neglecting,
with danger to many souls," this charge, "have most shamefully
absented themselves for their churches," so that "even the divine
sacrifices," for which these churches had been built and adorned,
"had been left off." The sacred buildings were, he says, "left to
birds and beasts," and they neither kept the church in repair nor
repaired what was falling to ruins, "on which account the general
state of the churches is one [p186] of ruin." He consequently orders
all priests to return to their cures within a month, or to get proper
and fitting substitutes.[345]
In the June of the same year (1350) a special monition was issued
to William Elyot, rector of a church near Basingstoke, at once to
return to his living, as the church had been left without service. A
month later, on the 10th of July, 1350, the Bishop published a joint
letter of the Archbishop and Bishops ordering priests to serve the
churches at the previous stipends, and he adds that every parish
church must be contented with one chaplain only, "until those parish
and prebendal churches and chapels which are now, or may hereafter
be, unserved, be properly supplied with chaplains."[346]
There are many indications of the misery and suffering to which the
people generally were reduced in these parts. Thus, for example, the
King, whose compassion and tenderness, by the way, are very rarely
manifested, remits the tax of the 15th due to him in the case of his
tenants in the Isle of Wight. This he does, "taking into account the
divers burdens which" these tenants have borne, "for the men and
tenants of our manors now dead and whose lands and tenements by their
deaths have come into our hands."[347] A glance at the institutions
to benefices in the island will show that at one time or another
during the prevalence of the plague nearly every living became
vacant, and some more than once.
The town of Portsmouth, also, was forced to plead poverty, and ask
the remission of a tax of £12 12s. 2d., because "by the attacks
of our enemies the French, fires, and other adverse chances the
inhabitants were very much depressed."[348] That the "other adverse
chances" refers to the desolation caused by the pestilence appears
[p187] from another grant, of relief for eight years, made to the
town the previous year, because it was so impoverished "both by the
pestilence and by the burning and destruction of the place by our
enemies."[349]
The neighbouring island of Hayling was in even a worse plight after
the pestilence. "The inhabitants of Stoke, Eaststoke, Northwood,
Southwood, Mengham, Weston, and Hayling, in the island of Hayling,
have shown to us," says the King, in 1352, "that they are greatly
impoverished by expenses and burdens for the defence of the said
island against the attacks of the French, and by the great wasting
of their lands by inroad of the sea, as well as by the abandonment
of the island by some who were wont to bear the burdens of the said
island. Those consequently who are left would have to pay more than
double the usual tax were it now levied. Moreover since the greatest
part of the said population died whilst the plague was raging, now,
through the dearth of servants and labourers, the inhabitants are
oppressed and daily are falling most miserably into greater poverty.
Taking into account all this, the King orders the collector of taxes
for Southampton not to require the old amount, but to be content with
only £6 15s. 7-1/4d.[350] Three years later Hayling priory, which as
one of the alien houses then in the King's hands had been paying a
large rent into the royal exchequer in place of sending it over to
their foreign mother house, was relieved by the King of the payment
of £57, as it was "much oppressed in these days."[351]
Even in Winchester difficulties as to taxation, at this time, led to
many people leaving the city. Citizens, as the document relating to
it declares, who have long lived there, "because of the taxation and
other burdens now pressing on them, are leaving the said city with
the property they have made in the place, so as not to contribute
[p188] to the said taxes. And they, betaking themselves to other
localities in the county, are leaving the said city desolate and
without inhabitants to our (_i.e._, the King's) great hurt."[352]
An _Inquisitio post mortem_ for a Hampshire manor, taken in 1350,
shows the fall in prices of lands and produce after the mortality.
Eighty acres of arable land, which in normal times had been let for
two marks (13s. 4d.), now produced only 6s. 8d., or just one-half,
being at the rent of 1d. per acre in place of two pence. The same
fall is to be seen in the rent of meadow land, which let now at 6d.
instead of a shilling, and in the value of woods, 20 acres fetching
only 20d., in the place of double that amount, which it used to
produce.[353]
In Surrey it is the same story. In the inquiry made as to the lands
of William de Hastings, on the 12th March, 1349, it is declared that
the tenements let on the manor produce only thirty-six shillings
because all the tenants but ten are dead, "and the other houses
stand and remain empty for want of tenants, and so are of no value
this year." In another case a watermill is held by the jury to be
worthless because "all the tenants who used it were dead." It had
remained empty and no one could be found to rent it. Of the land 300
acres cannot be let. The court of the manor produced nothing, because
all are dead, and there are no receipts from the free tenants, which
used to amount to £6 a year, "because almost all the tenants on the
said manor are dead, and their tenements remain empty for want of
some to rent them."[354]
In the absence of any definite information about the institutions
of clergy in the county of Gloucester, it may be roughly estimated,
from the number of benefices, that between 160 and 170 beneficed
clergy in this district perished in the epidemic. Like other
religious houses, the [p189] abbey of Winchcombe was impoverished
by the consequences of the great mortality, and some years after
it was unable to support its community and meet its liabilities.
"By defect in past administration," as the document puts it, "it is
burdened with great debt, and its state, from various causes, is so
miserably impoverished that it is necessary to place the custody of
the temporalities in the hands of a commission" appointed by the
crown.[355]
That this is no exaggerated view of the difficulties which beset the
landed proprietors at the time, and that the origin of the misery
must be sought for in the great pestilence, a passage in Smyth's
_Lives of the Berkeleys_ may help to show:—"In the 23rd of this
King," he writes, "so great was the plague within this lord's manor
of Hame (in Gloucestershire) that so many workfolks as amounted to
1,144 days' work were hired to gather in the corn of that manor
alone, as by their deaths fell into the lord's hands, or else were
forsaken by them."[356]
The priory of Lanthony, near Gloucester, was brought to such straits
that the community were forced to apply to the Bishop of Hereford
to grant them one of the benefices in his diocese. They have been,
they say, so situated on the high road as to be obliged to give great
hospitality at all times to rich and poor. Their property, in great
part, was in Ireland, and it had been much diminished in value by the
state of the country. The house was at this time, October 15th, 1351,
so impoverished by this and by a great fire that, without aid, they
could not keep up their charity. For "the rents of the priory and the
services, which the tenants and natives, or serfs of the said house
living on their domain, have been wont yearly, and even daily, to pay
and perform for the religious serving God there, now, through the
pestilence and unwonted mortality by which the people of the kingdom
of England have been [p190] afflicted, and, as is known, almost
blotted out, are for the greater part irreparably lost."[357]
Some few years after the plague had passed an inquisition held at
Gloucester as to the state of the priory of Horsleigh reveals the
fact that a great number of the tenants on the estate had died.
Horsleigh was at the period a cell of the priory of Bruton, in
Somerset, and the question before the jury at this inquiry was as to
the dilapidations caused by the prior or minister of the dependent
cell. They first found that all revenues from the estates at
Horsleigh, after a reasonable amount had been allowed for the support
of the prior and his brethren living in the cell, should be paid to
the head house of Bruton. This the then prior, one Henry de Lyle,
had not done. He had, moreover, dissipated the goods of his house by
cutting down timber and underwood and selling cattle. Amongst the
rest he is declared to have sold "eighty oxen and cows which had come
to the house as mortuaries or heriots of tenants who had died in the
great pestilence."[358]
Dugdale, in his history of the county, prints some 175 lists of
incumbents of Warwickshire livings. In 76 cases there is noted a
change at this period, and in several instances more than once is a
new incumbent appointed to a living within a short period, so that in
all there are some 93 institutions recorded.
A glimpse of the state to which the county generally was reduced
is afforded by some _Inquisitiones post mortem_. As soon after the
plague as 1350, at Wappenbury in Warwickshire, three houses, three
cottages, and 20 acres of land are described as valueless and lying
vacant, because of the pestilence late past. At Alcester, on the
estate of a man who died June 20th, 1349, rents are not received and
tenements are in hand, "for the most [p191] part, through the death
of the holders." Again, at Wilmacott, an inquiry was held as to the
property of Elizabeth, daughter of John de Wyncote, who died 10th
August, 1349. It is declared that the mother died on 10th June, and
the daughter two months later, whilst the great part of the land is
in the hand of the owner "by the death of the tenants in this present
pestilence."[359]
On the estate of one who died in December, 1350, it is certified that
there used to be nine villains, each farming half a virgate of land,
for which they paid eight shillings a year. Five of these had died,
and their land since had been lying idle and uncultivated. On another
portion of the same two out of four tenants, who had six acres of
land each, have been carried off.
On the manor of Whitchurch, owned by Margaret de la Beche, who died
in the October of the plague year, 1349, it is noted that there are
no court fees, as all the tenements are in hand. And in May, 1351,
of another Oxfordshire estate it is said that eight claimants out
of eighteen were dead, and no one was forthcoming to take the land;
whilst on the same, out of six native tenants, who had each paid
14 shillings, three are gone, and their land has since remained
untilled.[360]
One or two examples may be given of the difficulties subsequently
experienced by the religious houses. The year after the plague
had passed the Cistercian abbey of Bruerne was forced to seek the
King's protection against the royal provisors and the quartering of
royal servants upon them. This Edward granted, "because it was in
such a bad state, that otherwise in a short time there would follow
the total destruction of the said abbey, and the dispersal of the
monks."[361] Even this protection, however, did not entirely mend
matters, for three years later, "to [p192] avoid total ruin," the
custody of the abbey was handed over to three commissioners."[362]
St. Frideswide's, Oxford, was in much the same case. In May, 1349,
as we may suppose from the death of the superior during the time of
the epidemic at Oxford, the plague had visited the monastery, and
had, in all probability, carried off many of its inmates. The deaths
of many of its tenants, moreover, must have gravely affected its
financial condition, and three years later it was found necessary
to put the temporalities in the hands of a commission. "By want of
good government," it is said, "and through casual misfortunes, coming
upon the said priory, both because of the debts by which it is much
embarrassed, and for other causes," it is reduced to such a state
that it might easily lead to the dispersal of the canons and the
total destruction of the house.[363]
Of the tenants of one manor belonging to a religious house in the
county of Oxford, it is said "that in the time of the mortality of
men or the pestilence, which was in the year 1349, there hardly
remained two tenants on the said manor. These would have left had
not brother Nicholas de Lipton, then abbot, made new agreements with
these and other incoming tenants."[364]
To take but two instances more in other parts of England.
The year after the plague was over, in 1351, the abbey of Barlings
had to plead poverty and to beg for the remission of a tax. It is
true, they urge the building of their new church, but likewise
declare that they have been "impoverished by many other causes." An
_Inquisitio post mortem_ gives the same picture. Two carucates of
land, for example, brought in only forty shillings, on account of
the pestilence and general poverty and deaths of the tenants. "For a
similar reason," a mill, [p193] which used to produce £2 in rent,
now yields nothing; and so on throughout every particular of the
large estate.
In this part of the country, too, the King's officer experienced the
greatest difficulties in getting his dues, and the Escheator pleads,
in mitigation of a small return, that during the whole of 1350
tenements have been standing empty, in Gayton, near Towcester, in
Weedon, in Weston, and in Morton, ten miles from Brackley, as tenants
cannot be found "by reason of the mortality." He further excuses
himself for not levying on the lands and goods of the people "on
account of the pestilence."[365]
FOOTNOTES:
[303] B. Mus. Harl. MS. 6979, f. 64.
[304] _Institutiones clericorum in Comitatu Wiltoniæ_, ed. Sir J.
Phillipps.
[305] Originalia Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 37.
[306] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 20.
[307] R. O., Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III. (1st numbers), No. 77.
[308] _Ibid._, No. 78.
[309] _Ibid._, No. 74.
[310] _Ibid._, No. 87.
[311] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, File 95.
[312] _Ibid._
[313] Records of the Manor of Gillingham, which I was permitted to
examine by the kindness of the present Steward of the Manor, R.
Freame, Esq., of Gillingham.
[314] B. Mus. Add. Roll 24, 335.
[315] B. Mus. Add. Rolls 15961-6. Perhaps the Richard Hammond
_capellanus_ who had a mill and six acres, and who is reported as
among the dead, may have been the scribe.
[316] Rot. Pat., 28 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 20 (16th January, 1354).
[317] Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 4 (October 5th, 1355).
[318] R. O., Escheator's Accts., 828/20.
[319] R. O., Duchy of Lancaster Mins. Accts., No. 817.
[320] _Ibid._
[321] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 28 Ed. III. (Trinity Term).
[322] Judging by the ordination lists in the London Registers, the
proportion of non-beneficed clergy was very large. In the twelve
years, from 1362 to 1374, Bishop Sudbury ordained to the priesthood
456 regulars and 809 non-beneficed clergy, against 237 beneficed
priests. According to this proportion, the non-beneficed would be six
times as numerous as the beneficed.
[323] R. O., Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i., file 165. Also
_ibid._, file 166. Esch. Accts., 838/23; 846/31. _Cf._ also, Exch. Q.
R. Mins. Accts., Bundle 869, No. 9.
[324] T. Cromwell, _History of Colchester_, i., p. 75.
[325] R. O., Originalia Roll, 25 Ed. III., m. 10.
[326] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, File 165.
[327] Rot. Pat., 25 Ed. III., Pars 3, m. 4.
[328] B. Mus. Cole MS., 5824, fol. 86. _Cf._ Dr. Cunningham, _Growth
of English Industry and Commerce_, p. 305.
[329] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 27 Ed. III. (Hilary term), m. 7.
[330] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 7.
[331] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Fifth Report_, p. 444. These lands were
apparently the Appledore Marshes, which subsequently cost the
monastery £350 to reclaim.
[332] _Sussex Archæological Society_, Vol. xxi, pp. 44, _seqq._
[333] Reg. Pontissera, fol. 143.
[334] This may be considered the number in the previous century from
the _Annales de Wintonia_.
[335] Reg. Wykeham, ii, fol. 226.
[336] The following are the number of monks belonging to Winchester
Cathedral Priory at the annexed dates:—
Date. Occasion. Number.
A.D. 1260 Episcopal Election 62
A.D. 1325 Living in the Priory on
October 9th 64
A.D. 1404 Episcopal Election 42
A.D. 1416-17 On Chamberlain's Rolls 39 and 2 juniors at
schools.
A.D. 1422-3 On Chamberlain's Rolls 29 to 32 and 8 juniors
at schools.
A.D. 1427-8 On Chamberlain's Rolls 35 to 36.
A.D. 1447 Episcopal Election on the
death of Cardinal Beaufort 39
A.D. 1450 Election of Prior 35
A.D. 1468 Episcopal Election 30 and 2 or 3 at Oxford.
A.D. 1498 Election of Prior 31
A.D. 1524 Election of Prior 30 (none below sub-deacons
named).
[337] Harl. MS., 1761, f. 20.
[338] Rot. Claus., 28 Ed. III., m. 3d (dated February 6th, 1353).
[339] _Ibid._, m. 6 (July 8th).
[340] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 13.
[341] Reg. Edyndon, ii, ff. 27b, 28.
[342] _Ibid._, fol. 28.
[343] Reg. Edyndon, i, fol. 49b.
[344] _Ibid._, ii, fol. 23b.
[345] _Ibid._, fol. 22b.
[346] _Ibid._, fol. 23b.
[347] Rot. Claus., 27 Ed. III., m. 19.
[348] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 12.
[349] _Ibid._, 25 Ed. III., m. 21.
[350] Originalia Roll, 29 Ed. III., m. 8.
[351] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 19. _Cf._ Patent Roll, 26 Ed.
III., pars 1, m. 6.
[352] Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 28d.
[353] Escheator's Inq. p. m., series i, file 90.
[354] Escheator's Inq. p. m., 22-23 Ed. III., series i, file 64.
[355] Rot. Pat., 27 Ed. III., m. 17.
[356] Ed. _Bristol and Gloucester Archæological Society_, i, 307.
[357] Reg. Heref. Trileck., fol. 102.
[358] Bruton Chartulary f. 121b. Prior Henry appears to have spent
the money thus raised in the expenses of a journey to Rome and Venice
and back. The inquiry was held in June, 29 Ed. III.
[359] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, file 240.
[360] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, file 103.
[361] Rot. Pat., 25 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 16.
[362] _Ibid._, 28 Ed. III., m. 10.
[363] _Ibid._, m. 3.
[364] Quoted in _Saturday Review_, Jan. 16, 1886, "The Manor."
[365] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 25 Ed. III.
[p194]