ISLIP AS ABBOT.
Following on his installation as Abbot, Islip was the recipient of
various presents in money from the obedientiaries of the Abbey as well
as of many in kind from friends outside.
The first month of office was spent quietly at Cheynygates and the
earliest record of a visit abroad is contained in his steward’s note
that “this yere my lorde Abbot, the Prior, the monk bayly, and all the
Convent kepe ther Crystemasse w^{t.} my seyd lord Abbott at his maner of
Neyte.” The entertainment was of the most lavish character, in striking
contrast to the relative frugality of the Abbot’s ordinary household
expenses. Two oxen at 13s. 4d. each, seventeen sheep at 1s. 6d. each,
nine pigs at 2s. each, twenty-seven geese, twenty-three capons,--such
were some of the purchases, while what may be called the bill for
dessert came to £2 6s. 8d., the whole amounting to more than eight
pounds.
For a time the new Abbot found leisure to audit his household accounts
and append his signature with its accustomed _rubrica_ thereto, but he
did not long continue the practice, perhaps because he found that he was
being honestly served and more important matters were to hand. His
steward records that the second Christmas was spent at Hendon “and
maister prior and maister monk Bayly to gether at maister prior’s
place.” The latter facts were no business of his, but we are glad of his
gossiping pen and shall have occasion to quote him again.
It is important to notice an innovation in the monastic system which
Islip continued but which was initiated by Estney. The story of the
completion of the building of the nave will be told later, so that it
need not be dwelt on now. In his anxiety for this work Estney on
becoming Abbot in 1474 retained in his hands the two offices of Sacrist
and Warden of the New Work, as bearing directly on the building
operations. This retention was continued by Fascet and Islip in turn.
All of them of course employed deputies to assist them but maintained
control of the funds of the two offices.
Estney was the first Abbot to hold an office in the monastery, and it
must argue well for his personal influence or popularity that he was
allowed to do so. In an earlier century such action would have been
strongly resented, so clearly defined were the relative positions and
functions of ruler and ruled.
It is a matter of no little difficulty to estimate the meaning and
importance of such an innovation. It is possible to read into it a
symptom of the declining vigour of monastic life, more especially in
view of the fact that in the early sixteenth century the tendency was to
unite various offices in one holder and so for many monks never to hold
office at all. But it does not seem necessary to invest Estney’s action
with any such indication of decay in strength on the part of those over
whom he ruled. The work of rebuilding the nave was the greatest
enterprise of its kind which had ever been undertaken by the Abbot and
Convent, and it might well be considered a sign of common sense that the
two offices which were especially _ad hoc_ should have been allowed by
the Convent to be retained by the chief director and inspirer of the
task in hand. Delay and friction may have occurred in the previous years
when there was divided responsibility. But when all is said it must be
admitted that the true significance of the innovation has not been
adequately determined. For the purposes of the present story, however,
there is this advantage that the rolls of the retained offices provide
much additional material for noting Islip’s personal activities.
At the time of Islip’s accession the financial management of the
monastery must have given occasion for anxious thought. The payment of
royal subsidies was shared between the incomes of the different offices
and weighed heavily upon all, amounting roughly as it generally did to a
five per cent. tax upon diminishing receipts. For four years tithes had
decreased in value and in each of them the Sacrist’s roll had shewn a
deficit which in Islip’s first year had fortunately to some extent been
compensated for by an increase in the rents from Westminster property.
An annual payment of fifty shillings from the Royal Exchequer for the
renewal of candles about the tomb of Edward I.--a payment which had been
made for centuries--was discontinued in 1497, and not for seventeen
years did Islip secure its revival and then only for a time. Offerings
at the different altars which in 1496 had amounted to more than
forty-eight pounds had in 1500 shrunk to less than thirty-six.
Until the year 1509 Islip was unable to shew any credit balance in the
Sacrist’s account, though he gradually reduced the deficit. In that
year, however, occasions of special profit arose. The offerings at the
burial of Henry VII. came to more than one hundred and forty-eight
pounds, those at the funeral of the lady Margaret his mother to
twenty-two, and the oblations at the High Altar at the subsequent
coronation of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon to forty-seven.
Islip, however, in the earlier years of his abbacy did not regard the
need for rigid economy as any excuse for the restriction of services. On
the other hand he would seem to have multiplied the number of masses
said in the church, for while in his first year nineteen thousand
“breads” were purchased for this purpose no less than twenty-nine
thousand were required in the second. In 1504 considerable outlay was
made on the repair of vestments, lamps and other ornaments of the
church, and there is in these years every evidence that there was no
slackening at least of the external observances. Small items of
expenditure have their interest. Henry VII. would seem to have had a
private apartment in the church, for in 1491 keys had been bought for
his seat and closet therein, while in 1504 there is a payment of four
pence for “teynterhokys and cordes for the travers of the lord king in
the church,” and a further expenditure of two pence for rosemary bought
for the King.
The Abbey church has been the scene of many a service of striking
splendour in the course of its long history but few of them can have
rivalled in curious impressiveness that which took place in November of
the year 1515. Wolsey had attained the goal of his immediate though not
of his ultimate desires, and on the fifteenth of the month his
cardinal’s hat was brought in solemn procession through London to the
Abbey church, where Islip and eight other Abbots received it and
solemnly laid it upon the High Altar. On Sunday the 18th Wolsey,
attended by nobles and gentlemen, came from York Place to the church,
where mass was solemnly sung by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There were
present the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, the Bishops of Lincoln,
Exeter, Winchester, Ely, Durham, Norwich and Llandaff, beside the Abbots
of Westminster, St. Albans, Bury, Glastonbury, Reading, Gloucester,
Winchcombe, Tewkesbury, and the Prior of Coventry. The sermon was
preached by Colet, Dean of St. Paul’s, who is recorded to have said that
“a cardinal represents the order of seraphim which continually burneth
in the love of the glorious Trinity, and for these considerations a
cardinal is apparelled only in red, which colour only betokeneth
nobleness”--surely adulation enough even for Wolsey’s ambitious spirit!
The final prayers and benediction were pronounced by the Archbishop of
Canterbury over Wolsey’s prostrate form as “he lay grovelling” before
the High Altar, and at last the hat was placed on his head. It is
interesting for those acquainted with Abbey traditions to note that in
the recessional the cross was carried before the new cardinal though he
was not yet a papal legate, while no such distinction was accorded to
the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Abbey of Westminster was proud of its exemption from all but papal
jurisdiction. No bishops made there any disciplinary visitations. Wolsey
became legate in 1518 and Polydore Vergil records that he made a
visitation of the Abbey in that year. Of this the Abbey records shew no
trace though notice was given of such visitation by Wolsey and
Campeggio.
One document (a copy) which still survives and refers to that year
belongs probably to a later occasion. It is a roll on which appears as
title _A Supplicacon of a monk of Westm’ to y^{e} beshop of Rome_. Its
preamble begins:--“Pitteously complaynyth unto your most holly
ffatherhed, well of all remedy, hed and superyor of the spirytuall powr,
your pour suppliant and orator.” The monk remains anonymous, but his
complaint is that in 1518 when Islip was Abbot and William Mane Prior it
fortuned the said Prior to be robbed and spoiled of certain goods by a
servant and kinsman of his own, “so being forth at a place of his called
Belsaes.” When tidings was brought to Mane “he sayd strayth that it was
my arte and dede and put it holy to me that I had Robbed hym of lij lib.
of plate and so incontynet went unto the abbot then lyeng at Hendon ...
uppon the which I was ffet owt of my chamber by Dane John Chorysshe then
beyng his chapelayn which brougt me unto the prior, which prior
commandyd me unto ward in a sertayn chamber where I dyd contynue
withowte bed ... untyll the commnyg hom of the Abbot, at whose commyng
I was examynd and then the prior had nothyng to say unto me but askyd me
wher I had the iiij lib. that I did hend unto marshall of Barmysay wher
as this I declaryd me to have it by the deth of my father ... the prior
comayndyd me ayenn unto the pryson untyll he had made dew prove thereof
and in the meane season thabbot did return unto Hendon and at his
commyng ayenn whan the trowgh began to Appere they beyng asshamed of the
sayd slander the abbot cam unto me and sayd Brother A.B. wyll you put
this matter unto my handis and I promyse yew I shall se yow have a great
mense made, And forbycause I was under his obbedience I was content so
to do but as yet I had never nothyng but toke by that means a great and
greavous sykenesse, at which tym of sycknesse it cam unto my lot to syng
the chapter masse, but I beyng dyseasyd durst not nor could not take it
uppon me but yet w^{t.} compulcion he cawsyd me to do it, so it fortuned
the sayd day at masse at the Gospell tyme by the reason of that sycnesse
so takyn to be so sycke that I sownyd at the Auter where at they were
fayn to cut my gyrdell to revyue me, so that after masse as sone as I
cam in to the revestery I was compelled to vomyt....
“ ... And after that toke a sycnesse which held me iiij yeres. And where
as ther is a howse cawlyd the farmary to kepe syck men in to the which
ther is a lowyd I lib, by the yere to be put to that use wher as every
oon beyng sycke iij d. by the day w^{t.} sertyn fagottis and other
thyngis. your sayd suppliant had nether but lay at his owne cost utterly
to his undoyng and to the poverysshement of his ffriendis.... But uppon
a malyciouse mynd the pryor that now is informyd the abbot so that he
sayd openly at the chapeter that I was a gret dysoymaler and was no more
syck than his horse yet he discharged me there. And so after incontenent
w^{t.} sutche small comfortis as I had and purchased of my ffrendis I
did send for m^{r.} Docter yarkeley doct^{r.} barlet Doct^{r.} ffreman
m^{r.} Grene m^{r.} Pawle which opynly did prove me to be infected with
dyvers sycknesse whereof the lest were able to kyll a Ryht strong man,
the Abot heryng of thys comanydy me to ly in the subchamber and there I
lay iij quarteris of a yere and vj weekis withowt anny succoure of the
howse ... but had utterly peryeshed but for my ffrendis....”
The suppliant goes on to ask that bulls may be issued commanding the
monastery on pain of excommunication to give him the first benefice that
shall happen to be vacant so that it be of the value of twenty pounds
with his portion, monk’s pension, stall in choir and voice in Chapter on
a day of election.
It is unfortunate that the name of the author of this realistic petition
cannot be recovered, but the petition itself alone survives. We have
only one side of the case and it may have been true that he was no more
sick than the Abbot’s horse! It may be that this petition was presented
in 1525 when Wolsey signified his intention of holding a visitation of
the Abbey. Islip wrote a reply to the cardinal promising to be present
with all his monks. He admits the need of such visitations, for abbots,
abbesses, and priors have become lax in their mode of life and
observance of rule, and lukewarm in their examples; while regulars who
ought to be models to the laity in life, in morals and good works, lead
lives little corresponding thereto, to the great scandal of many. The
letter is a disinterested comment on the monasticism of the day but it
would be foolish to draw any sweeping conclusion from it. Islip had
conducted such visitations himself, and in 1516 had seen fit to suspend
a Prior of Malvern. No records of the result of Wolsey’s visit seem to
remain beyond its cost, and doubtless he found little upon which to
comment.
The Benedictine custom of sending certain of their monks to Oxford has
already been mentioned. Towards the close of the thirteenth century
Gloucester College had been established there, to which a few years
later Westminster students began to be admitted. Among those in
residence there in 1522 was Thomas Barton, already a Doctor of Divinity
and about to become Prior of the students of the college. An
interesting document survives in his handwriting which may be allowed to
speak for itself:
“This byll testyfythe y^{t} we V scholars w^{th} other V w^{th} us of
y^{e} brethrens of Gloster colege hathe expendyd yn y^{e} observaunce of
holy sent Edwardis o^{r} patronys servisse kept at yslipe yn hys
chappell & of y^{e} dyryge & massys kept y^{r} yn y^{e} paryshe churche
for y^{e} sowlys of y^{e} parentis of o^{r} most worshypfull spirituall
father y^{n} god y^{e} abotte of Wesminster the summe of x^{s} the yere
of o^{r} lord a mcccccxxij^{ti} the xv^{th} day next after mykyl day
by me rudely wryt
Dan Thomas Barton
monk of Wesmynster”
Immediately upon Barton’s appointment as Prior of the students Islip
made him a present of over four pounds, a typical instance both of his
personal generosity and of the interest which he shewed in the absent
sons of his house.
In Islip’s time the monastery was represented also at Cambridge at the
hostel called Buckingham College, which was founded in 1428 for
Benedictine students drawn from monasteries in the eastern counties. The
connection of Westminster with Cambridge began in practice in 1499, just
about the time when Islip as Prior received the delegation of Abbot
Fascet’s powers. His interest in the Cambridge students is evident from
a letter which he wrote about the year 1524 to John Thaxted, Abbot of
Walden, calling his attention to the condition of their college which
was without a rector, and expressing a wish that John Hastley, a student
from Selby Abbey, might have leave to pursue his legal studies at St.
Nicholas’ Inn. The generosity of the Lady Margaret to the university was
probably not without its influence in strengthening the connection with
Westminster.
Islip, like many of his predecessors, had some unfortunate experiences
in connection with the Gatehouse prison, for the security of which he
was personally responsible. In 1506 one John Calcote, Gentleman of
London, who was in his charge on various accusations of felony, managed
to escape from custody, and Islip was accordingly fined. Two years later
George Wolmer, Yeoman of Lingfield, fled for sanctuary to St. Mary
Overy, Southwark. He was outlawed, but later on was arrested in England.
He pleaded benefit of clergy and was handed over to Islip’s care. On his
subsequent escape a Middlesex jury found a charge of negligent custody
duly proved.
Yet the keeping of the gaol in spite of these and other instances of
resultant trouble would seem to have been profitable, for Islip was
diligent in defending not only the rights of sanctuary but also the
privileges of receiving accused folk whether clerical or lay arrested
within his jurisdiction, a diligence observable in subsequent centuries
in those who took his place, though not his office. He was jealous too
of his position as Abbot of Westminster, with all that that high office
involved. For example, it chanced that he was present at a Chapter of
the Prior and Convent of Greater Malvern in 1529, perhaps on a
visitation, and he took the opportunity of professing certain of their
novices, but he was careful to make it understood that he was in no way
detracting from the old arrangement by which the Malvern monks must make
their profession at Westminster.
The various inventories of the time and the records of the Augmentation
Office and Exchequer bear testimony to his generous gifts of vestments
and ornaments to the Abbey church. The elaboration of his unfinished
mortuary roll witnesses to the esteem in which his Convent held him. He
was the last of the great Abbots of Westminster, a not ignoble line, and
it may confidently be asserted that his rule will bear comparison with
that of any of his predecessors.
It is natural to scan the Abbey records of his time for signs of the
approaching cataclysm and equally natural perhaps to exaggerate the
significance of their presence or absence. Among these records the signs
are few. As long as Islip lived one might suppose from them that
monastic life at Westminster eight years before the dissolution of the
monastery was pursuing the same even and profitable course that it had
pursued half a century earlier when he first entered the monastery, and
indeed that in some respects it was shewing even greater vigour. The
enthusiasm for the internal work of the rebuilding of the nave and the
external stimulus of the foundation of Henry VII. do not point to a
community anticipating any breaking of its bonds.
Yet it must be confessed that the materials for an accurate and
well-considered judgment are lacking. If a verdict must be passed on the
evidence which exists it would be in favour of the supposition just
mentioned. At the same time it must not be supposed that the community
was blind as to the general trend of the times or oblivious to the
possibilities that awaited it.
Two things stand out in the last year of Islip’s life as pointing to the
fact that the Convent was facing forces too strong for it. In 1531 it
was paying an annual bribe to Thomas Cromwell, a payment which was
euphemistically called “a fee granted to him for the term of his natural
life,” the Sacrist’s share of which was £6 13s. 4d. The second
indication lies in the unequal bargain made by Islip with the King in
the exchange of property. After Wolsey’s fall the King had annexed York
Place, ignoring the fact that it was the property of the northern
archbishopric and not that of Wolsey himself. The larger portion of the
residential part of the Palace of Westminster had been destroyed by fire
in 1512 and the King proposed enormous extensions to Whitehall, as his
new palace was now to be called. For these he must acquire the houses on
both sides of the street to the north and south of the existing
buildings. Most of these houses belonged to the Abbey and it can be
easily imagined that Islip would be unable to withhold his assent to the
scheme. He was employed along with Thomas Cromwell to pay compensation
to evicted tenants, and in this way a sum of more than eleven hundred
pounds was disbursed. But the Convent itself received no adequate
compensation. Henry indeed gave it the Priory of Poughley in Berkshire,
one of the smaller houses which Wolsey had dissolved. Poughley had been
founded about 1160 by Ralph de Chaddleworth as a house for Austin Canons
and in theory its revenues amounted to about seventy pounds. In actual
practice the Abbey were worse off by some fifteen pounds a year.
It remains only to note one or two instances of Islip’s activities. When
the ancient college of St. Martin-le-Grand in London came into the
possession of the Abbey at the beginning of the sixteenth century Islip
drew up new statutes for it, and the records of his dealing with this
foundation shew evidence of a shrewd business mind. From time to time
his name occurs in connection with the General Council of Benedictines
of which he was President in 1527. On this occasion he issued a
commission to William, Abbot of Gloucester, to hold a visitation of the
Abbey of Malmesbury where there had been a rebellion of the members of
the house against their Abbot. Towards the end of his life he was one of
the royal chaplains, but the record of his appointment does not appear.
Islip died on Sunday, May 12th, 1532, at his manor house of Neyte, and
was buried four days later in the centre of his own chapel. So great was
the public interest in his funeral that its train is said to have
stretched from Neyte to Tothill Street. The Abbot of Bury officiated at
the interment and pontificated at the mass of requiem on the day
following, the sermon being preached by the Vicar of Croydon. The
references to Islip’s work as a builder which Hacket makes in his life
of Bishop Williams may be very inaccurate, but there is no reason to
question his estimate of Islip’s character as “a devout servant of
Christ and of a wakeful conscience.” The last great Abbot of
Westminster, it may be truly said of him that he was _felix
opportunitate mortis_. His latter days may well have been full of
anxiety, but he did not live to see the storm break or to suffer in the
vast upheavals which were so soon to follow and which assuredly would
have broken his heart. But three days after his death the clergy in
Convocation were forced to consent that they would neither enact nor
enforce new canons without the royal initiative and assent. On the very
day of his burial Sir Thomas More handed back the Great Seal to the
King. Islip’s funeral was “the funeral of the Middle Ages.”