270 REVIEWS OF BOOKS April He can have drawn little comfort from his inspection. One famoiLs house, Crowland, was in a creditable state. It had thirty-one monks, and the inquiry, while it drew out a number of small complaints, elicited only one serious fault. The prior of the cell of Freiston, with nine monks, was an absentee, holding an important oflfice at Crowland, with detriment to the discipHne of his proper charge. But the great Augustinian abbey of Leicester was in bad order. The canons neglected their rule, and were at daggers drawn with their abbot. They had once numbered forty, they were now eighteen ; they complained of the reduction, and said that the abbot refused to accept recruits. The attendance in choir was small. Not more than two or three were present beyond those who were on duty. As in many other cases, there had come to be an agreed rotation by which a certain number should attend each service, and the minimum had naturally become a maximum. Similarly at Huntingdon Alnwick found the custom that three should be present at the saying of the hours, while at Canons' Ashby four out of eleven attended choir. Mr. Thompson seems to interpret this as meaning that four were good and seven bad, constantly absent while the minority did their duty. It is, however, clearly a case of rotation. With this neglect of worship there went other breaches of the rule. The canons of Leicester practised the sin of having property of their own ; no doubt the * great multitude of useless dogs ' which infested the house was a part of this. What their manner of life may have been we do not know ; they were so busy in attacking their abbot that they were silent about each other, and the abbot did not retaliate. It is clear from the bishop's injunctions that Abbot Sadyngton was a hard and autocratic man, keeping the business of the house in his own hands or those of a few nominees of his own, refusing to render accounts, holding as little communication as possible with the canons and treating them without courtesy. But the bishop entirely disbelieved the specific charges brought against him ; they are ignored in the injunctions which closed the visitation. The abbot was charged with alchemy, magic, and personal immorality, and with misappropriating the revenues. His defiance of the rule in concealing his transactions and his solitary life excited suspicions, which show, at any rate, what credulity and malice could thrive in a monastery. But there were grave faults in his administra- tion. The almonry boys had been twenty-four, and even more ; in 1440 there were six. The abbey was bound to keep a master for their instruction and that of boys of the town. No master was kept, and the almonry boys, instead of being taught, ran errands for the canons. In two cases small sums had been accepted from parents, against the rule, for the admission of their sons to the doubtful benefit of this foundation. Nor was instruction provided for the younger canons, as it should have been. The practical evils are met by Alnwick's injunctions. The abbot is to go more often to church — it was alleged that he never went to choir except he were himself to officiate — and to meet his canons more often in chapter. He is to be gracious to them and exercise a real supervision. He is to lay his accountR regularly before the society, and the administration is to be carried out by officers appointed according to the rule. The numbers are to be increased to thirty canons and sixteen boys, one motive for the latter
