A HISTORY OF NORFOLK quartered upon them by royal authority. Thus William Dautre, an old servant of the king and his father, who had obtained life lodgement at Pentney in 1318, was transferred to Holm in 1 32 1, there to receive the necessaries of life in the place of Roger Ussher, deceased.^ The result of all these onerous burdens and losses through acts of oppression is seen in 1344 when the abbot and convent successfully petitioned Clement VI for the appropriation of the church of North Walsham, value 62 marks, signifying that they had by lay power lost their appro- priated church of Scottow, and that their possessions were greatly reduced by floods, op- pressions, and the duties of hospitality.^ It was probably on similar grounds that Boniface IX, in 1 40 1, sanctioned the appropriation of the church of Ashby, in this diocese, to the mensa of the monks of Holm.' The most notable instance of violence, how- ever, from which the abbey suffered was in 1381 when the revolted peasantry attacked it in the hope of capturing the bishop of Norwich, whom they believed to be within its walls.* Although unsuccessful in this object they were able to compel the abbot to surrender his court rolls, which they burnt in company with those of the priories of Norwich and Carrow. When the rising had been suppressed the abbot set about making a fresh series of rolls, and it is much to his credit that he did not take advantage of his defeated tenants to increase their services, but allowed them to remain exactly as they were before the insurrection.' In the autumn of the following year, 1382, a fresh rising was planned in Norfolk, of which the chief feature was the design of seizing the abbey of St. Benet and occupying it as a fortress, for which its strength made it very suitable ; the plot, however, leaked out, and the scheme was nipped in the bud.* Among the Norwich city muniments are many fifteenth-century documents relative to the prolonged disputes between the abbot of Holm and the mayor as to the alleged damage done to the abbot by new mills on the River Wensum. An award of the Earl of Suffolk was given against the citizens in 1442, ordering them to sign a bond of ;^ioo to the abbot in default of obedience. The city refused and rose in rebellion, the mayor was arrested and imprisoned in the Fleet, and the abbot's party destroyed the mills. The city liberties were forfeited for four years, and during that time a bond of ;^iOO was signed. The mills were rebuilt in the reign of Edward IV, c. 1482, and the abbot sued the ' Close, 14 Edw. II, m. ^d. ' Cal. Papal Pet. i, 36 ; Cal. Papal Reg. iii, 116, 176. ' Cal. Papal Reg. v, 415.
- Powell, The Rising in East Angl'ia, 33.
- Antiquarj, xxix, 215.
' Chron. Anglia (Rolls Ser.), 354. city for damages, but the decision was against the abbey, on the grounds of the illegality of the bond, which had been signed when the mayor was in prison.' Licence was granted by Henry VI on 25 October, 1470, during his brief resumption of royal power, for the prior and convent to elect to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Abbot John Keling. On 16 November the king signified to the bishop his assent to the election of Thomas Pakefield, cellarer of Holm and professor of theology, and the temporalities in Norfolk and Suffolk were restored to him on the 26th.* In December, 1 47 1, Edward IV confirmed this election and pardoned the tres- passes alleged by accepting the licence and assent of Henry VI.^ Bishop Goldwell visited the abbey on 15 July, 1494, when Robert Cubitt, the abbot, John Bay, the prior, and twenty-two monks were severally and privately examined. The report shows that there was considerable laxity of discipline ; the door of the dorter was left open and seculars entered by day and night, and often there was no light there ; silence was not well observed in quire ; the monks were overburdened with recitals of the psalms, hymns, and canticles, and no time was left for study, according to the rule of St. Benedict and the local statutes ; there was no clock in the monastery ; the younger brethren were impudent to their elders and the servants insolent ; there was no school- master for the novices ; many of the abbey jewels were in pawn ; the late abbot had given the vicarage of St. Peter's, Hoveton, to a relative of his own ; the present abbot had too many servants ; the steward had the abbey evidences in his own house ; and the court rolls were not^ entered on parchment.^" Bishop Nicke visited Holm in July, 15 14,. when twenty-three monks were examined.^ Eleven of the number reported ' omnia bene ' ; but John Rising testified that there was a conspiracy among many of the monks to report nothing. John Tacolston, prior, said that the abbot returned no accounts. Robert Cowper, sub- prior, said that during the vacancy of the monas- tery he had lost two pieces of silver plate and two masers. The prior was accused by several of not rising for mattins, and he was suspected of incontinency. The abbot retained such offices as cellarer, sacrist, and almoner in his own hands. There were no lights in the dorter and no seats in the cloister. The bishop enjoined that the- abbot should for the future present his accounts to the convent on St. Clement's Day, and that ' The whole case is set forth in great length ia the Liber Albus, 66-91, and printed in Hudson and Tingey, Rec. of City o/Nortu. i, 348.
- Pat. 49 Hen. VI, m. 20, 19, 18.
' Ibid. II £dw. IV, pt. ii, m. 21. '" Jessopp, None. Visit. (Camd. Soc), 60-3. s 334
