b'\n\n\nOo^ \n\n\n\no 0\' \n\n\n\n^ %.^^^\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n%_f\' \\N \n\n\n\n.0^- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\\- \n\n\n\nV \n\n\n\n^ \n\n\n\n* . , \n\n\n\no V \n\n\n\n-:\\ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.%.\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa07^ \n\n\\^ . ^ \'. ,^, \xe2\x96\xa0/ \n\n\n\n\n\n\nO. AV\' \n\n\'\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x80\xa2 \\V \n\n\n\n.v^- .^\' \n\n\n\nA c>- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n,0o. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV- \n\n\nh \n\n\n- \n\n\nx^ \n\n\no^ \n\n\n. \n\n\n^ \n\n\nf \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\no \n\n.5 -;. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n<-\' :^K- %^\' -" -r \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n,-^ \n\n\n\n>^^ \n\n\n\nf^ J \n\n\n\n^0 o. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n;^7%.,\' \n\n\n\no. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nk\'^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n,0 o. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'A \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'O, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n.^\'^\xe2\x96\xa0~ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'.%HM\xc2\xa75^^ \n\n\n\n,0 o. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^^\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n,o \n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n3 N \n\n\n\n^^ A^^\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\nn-\xc2\xb0" v^o ^"^^ \'\xc2\xab\'^^- V^\' .-w \n\n\n\no _ \n\n\n\nsO O, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n/>. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n,/\xe2\x96\xa0% \\ \n\n\n\nCambridge Antiquarian Society. Octavo Publications. No. XXXI. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PEIOEY \n\n\n\nOF \n\n\n\nSAINT EADEaUND \n\n\n\nCAMBEIDGE \n\n\n\nBY \n\n\n\nAETHUR GRAY, M.A. \n\nFELLOW OP JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. \n\n\n\n\nODamtritrgB : \n\nPRINTED FOB THE CAMBRIDGE ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY. \n\nSOLD BY DEIGHTON, BELL & CO. ; and MACMILLAN & BOWES. \nLONDON, GEOEGB BELL AND SONS. \n\n1898 \n\n\n\nPrice Five Shillings. \n\n\n\n/\xe2\x96\xa0(A3 \n\n\n\nTHE PEIOEY \n\n\n\nOF \n\n\n\nSAINT EADEGUND \nOAMBEIDGE \n\n\n\nTHE PRIORY \n\n\n\nOF \n\n\n\nSAINT RADEGUND \n\n\n\nCAMBEIDaE \n\n\n\nBY \n\n\n\nARTHUR GRAY, M.A. \n\n\n\nFELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. \n\n\n\n\n\nOTambrfijge : \n\nPRINTED FOR THE CAMBRIDGE ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY. \n\n30LD BY DEIGHTON, BELL & CO. ; and MACMILLAN & BOWES. \n\nLONDON, GEORGE BELL AND SONS. \n\n1898 \n\n\n\n1^ \n\n\n\n^*&1 \n\n\n\nPBINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, \nAT THE TTNIVEESITY PRESS. \n\n24Ap\'03 \n\n\n\n^ \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nWhen this publication was first projected I had hopes that \nthe portion of it relating to the buildings of the Nunnery \nwould have been, wholly or in part, furnished by my friend, \nMr T, D. Atkinson. Though Mr Atkinson\'s engagements have \nprevented him from taking so large a part in the work as \nwas originally contemplated, I gratefully acknowledge the \nassistance he has throughout given me both in exploration \nof sites and buildings and in placing at my disposal his notes \nand suggestions. \n\nThe extent of my indebtedness to the Architectural History \nis, I hope, apparent in the section dealing with the Nunnery \nbuildings. But my principal obligation to the Registrary is \nnot of the kind that can be acknowledged in a footnote. \nWithout his suggestion this work would never have been \nwritten; without the advantage of his counsel and knowledge \nit would have been much more imperfect than it is. \n\nAmong other friends who have given me valuable help \nare Prof. Maitland, Prof. Skeat, the Rev. J. H. Crosby, Minor \nCanon of Ely, and the Rev. O. Fisher, Honorary Fellow of \nJesus College and Rector of Harlton. \n\nThe Catalogue of Charters here printed includes only such \nas relate to property situated in the town and fields of \nCambridge. I have not deemed it worth while to give \nabstracts of those which are concerned with the scattered \nholdings of the Nuns in other places. The Catalogue remark- \nably supplements the very detailed information about medieval \nCambridge which is supplied by the Hundred Rolls. Com- \nbiningf what is to be learnt from each source it would be no \n\n\n\nVI PREFACE. \n\ndifficult task to make a very complete directory of the town in \nthe last quarter of the 13th century. The witnesses to the \nCharters in most cases were the mayor and four bailiffs with \ntwo or three occupants of property adjoining the tenement \nin question. I have generally given the name of the first \nwitness only. \n\nExtracts of some length from the Account Rolls were given \nin the First Report of the Historical MSS. Commissioners: \nthe accounts in full are here printed for the first time. They \nfurnish some interesting materials for illustrating life in an \nEnglish Nunnery at the close of the middle ages. In the \nearlier and more prosperous years to which they introduce \nus, it is a life wholly untinged by the influences of the \nUniversity. The Nuns were drawn from the families of the \nbetter class burgesses and lesser gentry of the county, and \ntheir habits and education were those of their class. The \ntown and its religious houses still occupied in their outlook \na far larger space than the University. The \' good friendship \' \nof the Chancellor \xe2\x80\x94 in a matter, perhaps, of arbitration with a \nCollege \xe2\x80\x94 was appropriately recompensed in the year 1449 \xe2\x80\x94 \n1450 with a present of a crane, value twelve pence; it is \nset in quaint juxtaposition with the Christmas box to the \nMayor\'s waits, who receive the magnificent sum of 2s. Sd. The \nproportion of the two sums is possibly an indication of the \nrelative consequence in the Nuns\' thoughts of the academic \nand municipal corporations, both of which, it may be observed, \nhad an origin long subsequent to that of their own establish- \nment. \n\nOn the debated subject of the date of the first emergence \nof a University at Cambridge the S. Radegund\'s charters \nthrow no light. Among the variety of tenants mentioned in \nthe deeds of the 12th and loth centuries there is no individual \nor corporation whose name or description suggests connection \nwith an organized community of scholars. The surnames of \nthe tenants previous to 1300 indicate that they were almosi \nexclusively from the neighbourhood of Cambridge. Of migrants \nfrom Oxford or scholars from over sea there is no hint ; the \n\n\n\nPREFACE. Vll \n\nJews were the only strangers to Cambridge with whom the \nNuns had acquaintance in those early days. A solitary \n\' Scolemayster \' (Charters 157, 158), who dwelt hard by the \nsite on which Peterhouse afterwards rose, represents the \nlearning of Cambridge in the first years of the 13th century. \nPossibly he was connected with a monastic school. \n\nBefore taking leave of my subject I should not forget to \nmention two members of my College who have worked in the \nsame field in generations by-gone. John Sherman\'s History \nof Jesus College (written about the year 1666) is introduced \nby a sketch of the History of the Nunnery which he entitles \nReliquiae Sanctae Radegundis sive Fragmenta quaedam His- \ntoriae Prioratus. Sherman had made a faithful study of the \nNunnery muniments. He is generally accurate and, as he may \nhave had before him documents which are not now discoverable, \nit is possible that he is right in some matters about which \nI have supposed him to be mistaken. But I do not think \nthat since his time there has been any noteworthy subtraction \nfrom the Jesus muniments. Well protected from damp, dust \nand insects, they have probably profited by the neglect in \nwhich they have generally lain for 200 years. About the middle \nof last century their repose was disturbed by the careful hands \nof Dr Lynford Caryl, who was Master of Jesus, 1758 \xe2\x80\x94 1780, \nand Registrary of the University from 1751 to 1758. He \narranged and catalogued them in a very exact and methodical \nmanner. Among his merits not the least was that of writing \nin a very clear and beautiful hand. I have discovered some \nfifty charters of Nunnery date which escaped his notice, but \nnone of them are of much importance. When the present \nTreasury was built in 1875 and the documents were transferred \nto it, some of them were misplaced, and for a time I supposed \nthem to be lost. But gradually all, or nearly all, those \nmentioned in Dr Caryl\'s catalogue have found their way back \nto their places. \n\nARTHUR GRAY. \n\nJesus College, \nOctober, 1898. \n\n\n\n\nFig. I. Sf:AL OF THE Pkioky. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 1. Foundation and connection with the See of Ely. \n\nThe establishment, near Cambridge, of the cell of Bene- \ndictine nnns which was later known as the Priory of S. Mary \nand S. Radegund seems to date from the earliest years of the \nreign of King Stephen. There is no evidence to fix the precise \nyear of its institution but it is fairly certain that it falls within \nthe episcopate of Nigellus, who succeeded the first bishop, \nHervey, in the see of Ely in 1133, \n\nThe Priory seems to have had no charter of foundation, nor \nis there any extant record of its first endowment. Such pro- \nperty as it possessed in early days was acquired gradually and \nin comparatively small parcels. Even the endowments which \nit derived from royal benefactors such as the Countess Con- \nstance and Malcolm of Scotland were not so important as to \nentitle the donors to be regarded in any sense as founders or \npatrons. \n\nIt is true that in the letters patent of Henry VII for the \ndissolution of the Nunnery and the erection of the College in \nits room it is asserted \xe2\x80\x94 evidently on the representation of \nBishop Alcock \xe2\x80\x94 that S. Radegund\'s Priory was \' of the founda- \ntion and patronage of the Bishop, as in right of his cathedral \nchurch of Ely.\' This was, I believe, the first and only occasion \non which such a claim was advanced by a bishop of Ely, and, \nhaving regard to the circumstances under which it was made, \nI do not think that much importance should be attached to it. \nIn the charter which the Lady Margaret obtained, a few years \nC. A. S. Octavo Seriea. 1 \n\n\n\n2 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nlater, from Henry VII for the conversion of S. John\'s Hospital \ninto the College of S. John it is similarly stated that the \nHouse or Priory of religious brethren of S. John the Evangelist \nin Cambridge was \' of the foundation and patronage of James \n(Stanley), Bishop of Ely, as in right of his cathedral church.\' \nIn this latter case the statement is historically inaccurate, for \nthe founder of the Hospital was unquestionably Henry Frost, \nburgess of Cambridge, though Bishop Nigellus had been a \nliberal benefactor to it and the Hundred Rolls show that, as \nearly as the reign of Henry III, Bishop Hugh de Norwold \nclaimed, as patron, the right of nominating the master. As \nregards the Nunnery the full details supplied by the Ely \nEpiscopal Registers show that in the election of their Prioress \nthe Nuns exercised a free choice, unfettered by reference to \nthe wishes of a patron and subject only to the approval of the \nBishop of Ely as diocesan. The motive which prompted the \nBishops to assert their questionable claim to the patronage of \neither establishment was perhaps a double one \xe2\x80\x94 to make it \nclear to the King and to the Pope that no private rights of \npatronage were invaded by the dissolution of an ancient \nreligious house, and to acquire for the Bishops of Ely, as \nvisitors of the new foundations, a guiding influence in the \ndevelopment of the University. \n\nThough the Nunnery was not perhaps, in strictness, \nfounded by a bishop of Ely it is clear that its origin and early \ngrowth was intimately connected with the see and particularly \nwith Bishop Nigellus (1133-1169). It was he who endowed it \nwith a portion of the site on which the Nuns\' original \'cell\' \nwas raised ; of the principal benefactions to the newly estab- \nlished house three were protected by his charters and it seems \nlikely that they were procured by his influence. Geoffrey \nRidel, who succeeded Nigellus in the bishopric in 1174, appro- \npriated to the Nuns the rectory of All Saints in the Jewry, \nCambridge, and the connection with the see of Ely was main- \ntained by Bishop Eustace (1197-1220), who gave the Nuns \nadditional lands adjoining the Priory and bestowed on them \nthe rectory of S. Clement\'s. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 3 \n\n\xc2\xa7 2. Early charters. Grant of Bishop Nigellus. \n\nThe earliest in date of the Nuns\' charters now extant in \nthe treasury of Jesus College is probably that of Bishop \nNigellus, addressed \' to all barons and men of S. Etheldrytha, \ncleric or lay, French or English,\' in which for a rent of twelve \npence he grants \'to the Nuns of the cell lately established \nwithout the vill of Cantebruge\' certain land adjoining land \nbelonging to the same cell (Charters, 1), The position of \nthe land given by the Bishop is not specified in the charter, \nbut it is safe to assume that it adjoined the cell and was \nidentical with the four acres which, according to the statement \nof the Hundred Rolls (Vol. 2, p. 358), were given to the Nuns \nby Nigellus and were next the ten acres given them by King \nMalcolm as a site for their church. It is likely that the rent \nreserved by the Bishop represented the full letting- value of \nthe land, since for the adjoining ten acres Malcolm stipulated \nin his first charter for a rent of two shillings. At some later \ndate, Nigellus, like Malcolm, acquitted the Nuns of payment \nof rent, for the Hundred Rolls state that the Bishop gave them \nthe land in pure and perpetual alms and show that they paid \nno rent for any of the land which they occupied in the Priory \nprecincts. \n\nThere is nothing in this charter of Nigellus which would \nwarrant any definite conclusions as to its date. As the Bishop \ndid not die until 1169 it is of course possible that it is of later \ndate than Malcolm\'s grant, and that the land mentioned by the \nBishop as adjoining that which he gave to the Nuns and as \nalready in their tenure was in fact no other than Malcolm\'s ten \nacre plot. The evidence of the Hundred Rolls might be held \nto countenance this view, for they mention Malcolm\'s grant \nbefore that of Nigellus and in such a way as seems to imply \nthat the jurors supposed the King\'s grant to be the earlier in \ndate \'. On the other hand the vagueness of the description of \n\n1 H. R. Vol. ri. p. 358. \' Item predicte Priorissa et Moniales tenent qnatuor \nacras terre iacentes iuxta terram predictam (i.e. the ten acres given by King \n\n1\xe2\x80\x942 \n\n\n\n4 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nthe Nunnery as a \' cell lately instituted \' is more consistent \nwith the view that the establishment was in an inchoate stage \nand had received no distinctive title or dedication. In the \ncharters in which he confirms the endowments given by \nWilliam le Moyne and Stephen de Scalers Nigellus gives the \nNunnery the style, which after Malcolm\'s gift was the usual \none, of \' the Church and Nuns of S. Mary and S. Radegund.\' \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 3. Oi^ant of William le Moyne and Confirmation \nby King Stephen. \n\nThe earliest of the Nuns\' charters which can be dated with \nany precision is one given them by King Stephen confirming \nto \'the Church and Nuns of S. Mary of Cantebr. the grant \nmade to them by William Monachus, aurifaher, of two virgates \nof land and six acres of meadow with four cottars (cotariis) \nwith their holding in Shelford, in alms, for the soul of King \nHenry and for the faithful in God \' (Charters, 2a). This \ncharter is tested by William Martel, the King\'s dapifer, who \nplayed so prominent a part on the King\'s side in the struggle \nwith the Empress, and by Reginald de Warenne. It is un- \ndated, but the circumstance that it was given \' apud Mapertes \nhalam in obsidione \' enables us pretty definitely to assign it to \nthe month of January 1138 and brings to light a historical \nfact, unnoticed by chroniclers, to which attention was first \ndrawn by Mr Hewlett in his edition of the Gesta Stephani for \nthe Rolls Series {Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen &c. Vol. 3). \nMapertes hala is Meppershall, near Shefford, in Bedfordshire. \nKing Stephen, as the anonymous writer of the Gesta Stephani \nrecords, kept the Christmas feast of 1137 at Dunstable, and \nthen \' emensis festivis diebus Dominicae festivitatis \' attacked \n\nMalcolm) quam quidem terram habent de dono Nigelli Elyensis Episcopi qui \nquidem Nigellus dedit eisdem in pura et perpetua elemosina. B. quondam \nPrior Elyensis et Conventus Elyensis Ecelesie dictam donacionem eisdem moni- \nalibus factam concesserunt et confirmaverunt.\' The initial B. is apparently a \nmistake : Bentham\'s list in his History of Ely, i^p. 215 foil., mentions no Prior \nof Ely before the date of the H. R. whose name began with B. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 5 \n\nBedford Castle, held by Milo de Beauchamp, who had refused \nthe King\'s summons to surrender it. Milo\'s obstinate resist- \nance compelled the King to turn the siege into a blockade, but \nthe castle was surrendered apparently about the middle of \nJanuary 1138, for by Feb. 2 the King had reached Northum- \nberland, whither he had been called by an invasion of the \nScotch. \' The chronicles mention no such event as a siege at \nMeppershall ; but there exists at the present day, close to the \nchurch of this small Bedfordshire village, a high mound with a \ndouble line of outer ramparts answering in the clearest way to \nthe type of the hastily-built, stockaded "castles" of this reign. \nStephen, it thus appears, had to capture this outpost, perhaps \nduring the siege of Bedford in 1138 \\\' \n\nThe grant of William Monachus which is confirmed by \nStephen\'s charter may have been made a year or two before \n1138. King Henry I, whose soul it was designed to benefit, \ndied Dec. 1135. The land to which the charter refers is \nsituated in Great Shelford parish ; it is still in the possession of \nJesus College and known as \' the Nuns\' lands.\' The Domesday \nSurvey of Cambridgeshire shows that it formed a portion of a \nlarger estate consisting of three hides and valued at \xc2\xa35 annual \nrent. In the Confessor\'s time it had belonged to \' Herald \nComes,\' afterwards King Harold. After the Conquest it passed \ninto the hands of King William, of whom, at the time of the \nDomesday Survey, it was held ad firmam by Peter de Valongies^ \nwho was apparently a kinsman of William Monachus, or le \nMoyne, as his family was otherwise known ^. From a charter \n\n1 The Meppershall earthworks are marked in the Ordnance Map as \' The \nHills.\' Mr Seebohm, who gives a small plan of them in The English Village \nCommunity, p. 426, supposes them to be of Saxon origin, possibly a \' toot-hill.\' \nMr Hewlett compares this charter of King Stephen with another, dated 1138, \n\' apud Goldintonam in obsidione Bedeford,\' Goldington being a village a few \nmiles from Bedford. \n\n" This Peter de Valongies, or Valoines, is said to have been a nephew of the \nConqueror, and was founder, circa 1104, of Biuham Priory, Norfolk. A Peter \nde Selford was Prior of Binham in 1244. \n\n\'^ H. R. Vol. II. p. 545, \'Dicunt quod dominus Johannes le Moyne, ante- \ncessor dicte Agnetis de Walene\' dedit in puram et perpetuam elemosinam \n\n\n\n6 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nof Nicolas, son of William le Moyne, we gather that the \nShelford land came to his father by free gift of King Henry I. \nApparently it was bestowed on him in recognition of his \nservices and skill as an aurifaher, for he held it by goldsmith\'s \nserjeanty, and at the date of the Hundred Rolls Inquisition \nthe lady Agnes de Valence retained a large portion of the \nsame estate by the singular service of making up and repairing \nthe King\'s crown when required \\ \n\nFrom the designation of the Nuns\' establishment in \nStephen\'s charter as \' Ecclesia et Sanctimoniales Sancte Marie \nde Cantebr.\' it would seem that the original church which \nwas served by the Nunnery during the first twenty years of its \nexistence and either made way for or was incorporated in the \nbuilding which rose on the site given by King Malcolm was \ndedicated to S. Mary only. After the foundation of the new \nchurch the charters use the fuller style of \' Nuns of S. Mary \nand S. Radegund.\' But the church in strictness seems to have \nkept the older single dedication even after Malcolm\'s time, for, \nas late as 1285, a tenement in Radegund {i.e. Jesus) Lane is \ndescribed in a deed as lying \' in the parish of the Blessed Mary \nof the Priory of S. Radegund.\' The Priory apparently took its \nname from a chapel of S. Radegund which is mentioned in an \nearly undated deed and which seems to have been in the \nportion of the church reserved to the use of the Nuns. \nGradually the original dedication came to be forgotten, and in \n\nMonialibus Sancte Eadegundis Ix acras terre ad sustinendum j noneam im- \nperpetuum.\' Antecessor here perhaps means no more than \' predecessor in \nthe title.\' At the time of the Hundred Rolls Inquisition another John le Moyne, \ndistinguished by the local agnomen, Atteasse (i.e. at the Ash), was a free tenant \nof the lady Agnes de Valence at Great Shelford. \n\n^ Red Booh of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), Vol. ii. p. 530, \'Willelmus \nMonachus, iij hidas in Selforde per serjanteriam aurifabriae.\' H. R. Vol. ii. \np. 545, \' Domina Agnes de Walaunc\' tenet j messuagium cum gardino conti- \nnente iij acras et viij"\'\' acras terre et de prato vj acras et tenet de domino Rege \nin capite per sergantiam et non est geldabilis non debet sectam neque auxilium \nVicecomiti nichil aliud reddit set erit ultra (?) Coronam domini Regis quando \ndebet confici vel reparari et habebit totidem ij\'\' ad vadia sua,\' &c. Domesday \naffords several instances of royal grants of land to goldsmiths : see Freeman\'s \nNorman Conquest, Vol. iv. pp. 41, 85, on the subject. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 7 \n\nlater times both parish and Nunnery were commonly called \nS. Radegund\'s, Evidence of the earlier dedication is to be \nseen in the fact recorded in the Hundred Rolls that King \nStephen granted by charter to the Nuns a fair lasting for two \ndays, viz. the vigil and the feast of the Assumption of the \nBlessed Mary. Fairs, as is well known, originated in most \ncases in the gatherings of worshippers or pilgrims about sacred \nplaces, and especially in the neighbourhood of religious houses, \nand were held on the feast-day of the saint to whom the church \nor shrine was dedicated. \n\nThe grant of William Monachus was confirmed to the Nuns \nby Nigellus, but as the Bishop\'s charter (Charters, 2b) desig- \nnates the Nunnery as dedicated to S. Mary and S. Radegund \nit would seem that it was not given until many years after the \noriginal grant. The long interval is accounted for by the \noutbreak of the civil war in 1139. Nigellus, from his active \npartizanship in the cause of the Empress, had little time to \nattend to the affairs of his diocese, from which he was absent \nwith only brief intervals until his reconciliation with Stephen \nin 1144, and until the accession of Henry II he is said to have \nlived in retirement. His charter cannot be of much later date \nthan 1160, in or about which year died William (of Laventon), \nthe first archdeacon of Ely, whose name is among the witnesses, \nand it can scarcely be so early as 1157, the earliest date to \nwhich it is possible to assign Malcolm\'s first charter. \n\nAll the facts which are ascertainable about William \nMonachus show that his relations with the Bishop were of an \nintimate kind and point to the probability that the Bishop\'s \ninfluence contributed to procure his benefaction to the Nuns. \nThe Historia Eliensis ^ reveals him to us as one of a group of \nmen, lay and cleric, who formed a Bishop\'s party in opposition \nto the Ely monks, who favoured Stephen\'s side in the war and \nhad special grounds for complaint against the Bishop for \nappropriating the funds of the convent and the treasures of \nS. Etheldreda\'s shrine to defray the expenses entailed by his \n\n1 This portion of the Historia Eliensis is printed (with abridgment) in \nWharton\'s Anglia Sacra, Vol. i. p. 615 foil. \n\n\n\n8 Ai^NALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nopposition to the King. Richard of Ely, the writer of this \nportion of the Historia Eliensis, took the monastic side of the \nquarrel and dwells with particular satisfaction on the exemplary \nafflictions which overtook the Bishop and his confederates in \nthe spoliation. But William Monachus, we are told, lived to \nmake some amends for the sacrilege which is laid to his charge, \nand the picture of his end is touched with a kindlier hand. \n\' With axes, hammers and every implement of masonry he \nprofanely assailed the shrine and with his own hand robbed it \nof its metal. But he lived to repent it bitterly. He, who had \nonce been extraordinarily rich and had lacked for nothing, was \nreduced to such an extreme of poverty as not even to have the \nnecessaries of life. At last, when he had lost all and knew \nnot whither to turn himself, by urgent entreaty he prevailed \non the Ely brethren to receive him into their order, and there \nwith unceasing lamentation, tears, vigils and prayers deploring \nhis guilt, he ended his days in a sincere penitence.\' He was \nalive in 1153-4 when, along with Nigellus, he witnessed the \ncharter of the Countess Constance. \n\nIn the lifetime of William Monachus, and at his request, \nhis son Nicolas re-granted to the Nuns the land given them \nby his father, which in the deed is stated to consist of \n55 acres, together with 1\\ acre of meadow and one acre \nwhereon to build barns and cattle-sheds ; and he further \npromised five acres, for which they had petitioned, as soon as \nhe could get them. The Nuns however seem not to have \nacquired undisputed possession of their property until Henry \nIII, 31, when John le Moyne, in consequence of an assize \ntrial at Cambridge, assigned to them in perpetual alms a \nportion of the estate consisting of 50 acres. The Hundred \nRolls state that the Nuns\' estate at Shelford consisted of 60 \nacres and was given to them by John le Moyne to maintain \none nun for ever. In this statement from the facts above \ngiven it would appear that there is an error either in the \nChristian name of the donor or in the number of the acres \ngiven. Nor do I know how it is to be reconciled with a \ndeed of Edward I, 29, in which Agnes de Valence, lady of \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 9 \n\nOffaley and BailluelS renounced the claim to place two nuns \nin the Priory, which she exercised in right of lauds held of \nher by the Nuns in Great Shelford. Beyond ten acres held \nby annual service to the Bishops of Ely the only land at \nShelford in the occupation of the Nuns was that derived \noriginally from William Monachus. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 4. Grant of the Countess Constance. \n\nThe next in order of time of the Nunnery charters is that \nof the Countess Constance, widow of King Stephen\'s only son, \nEustace of Boulogne. It grants to the Nuns in perpetual alms \nexemption from hagable and langable for all their lands within \nand without the Borough, whether already acquired or here- \nafter to be acquired, and also gives them all the fishing right \nand water belonging to the Borough as freely as they had been \nheld by her husband and herself. The grant of the Countess \nis for the souls of her husband, Eustace, and Stephen\'s Queen, \nMaud, and for the good estate of King Stephen. Queen Maud \ndied in May, 1152, Eustace in August, 1153, King Stephen in \nOctober, 1154. The charter therefore belongs to the period \nbetween the last two dates. Two undated charters confirm \nthat of the Countess \xe2\x80\x94 the first given by King Stephen \' apud \nCantebrig,\' the other by Bishop Nigellus. In all three charters \nthe Nuns are styled \' Sanctimoniales de Cantebrig,\' without \ndedication. \n\nIndependently of their relation to the history of the Nun- \nnery these charters have a special interest in connection with \nthe subject of the firma hurgi of Cambridge. Hagable, i.e. \nhaga-gafol, a payment for a haiu or messuage in a town, and \nlangable, i.e. land-gafol, payment for land occupied by a \nburgess in the common fields, formed an important part of the \ncustoms {consuetudines) of the town. At the time of the \n\n1 Philip of Valognes, Chamberlain of Scotland, had a grand-daughter, Lora, \nwho married Henry de Balliol, a cousin of King John Balliol. Offaley is OiHey, \nnear Hitchin, a manor which once belonged to the Balliols of Barnard Castle. \nBailleul, near Lille, was a fief of the same family. \n\n\n\n10 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nDomesday Survey the town of Cambridge formed part of the \nroyal demesne and its customs were farmed of the King by the \nsheriff. It is doubtfully asserted by Cooper^ that the farm of \nthe borough was granted to the burgesses, as the King\'s \ntenants in capite, by Henry I, they paying to him the same \nsum as the sheriff had been accustomed to render. If such a \ngrant was actually made it seems to have terminated with the \nlife of that King, and the concession of immunity from hagable \nand langable which Constance made to the Nuns clearly implies \nthat in Stephen\'s reign the fee-farm belonged to her husband \nand herself. The alienation in perpetuity to the Nuns of a \nportion of the customs shows that the fee-farm had been \ngranted to the heirs of Eustace and Constance as well as to \nthemselves. There were however no children of the marriage, \nand in the early years of Henry II the borough was again in \nthe King\'s possession and farmed by the sheriff. In 1185 it \nwas granted to the burgesses at farm by Henry II and con- \ntinued to be farmed by them in the reign of Richard I^. When \nthe fee-farm of the borough was granted to the burgesses in \nperpetuity by King John in 1207 the rights acquired by the \nNuns from Constance seem to have suffered some curtailment. \nThe immunity from hagable for lands \' hereafter to be acquired \' \ncould hardly extend to property acquired subsequently to the \ntransfer of the hagable rental to the burgesses, and it is there- \nfore not surprising to find from the Great Inquisition of \nEdward I in 1278 and the Nuns\' accounts in 1449-50 and \n1481-2 that they were then charged with certain hagable \nrents. Moreover King John\'s charter expressly included among \nthe appurtenances of the Burgus \' mills, pools and waters ^,\' \nand it is certain that at the date of the Hundred Rolls Inquisi- \ntion the Nuns had no exclusive rights in the river waters, for \nthe jurors affirmed that the burgesses then had a common \npiscaria in the common waters belonging to the vill of \nCambridge. Nevertheless the charter of Constance was not \ninoperative, for it is rehearsed and confirmed in a charter of \n\n1 Cooper, Annals, Vol. i. p. 22. \n\n2 Ibid. pp. 28, 29. 3 ma. p. 33. \n\n\n\nANNALS OP THE NUNNERY. 11 \n\nEdward II, dated in the seventh year of his reign (Charters, 8). \nThe fishing rights claimed by the Nuns seem however to have \nbeen limited to a certain portion of the river, beyond the \nlimits of the old borough, which as late as 1505 was known \nas Nunneslake. A sixteenth century list of the Nuns\' muni- \nments describes the charter of Edward II, above mentioned, \nas \'a grant of y\xc2\xae fishinge alonge by Jesus Gieene.\' In 1505 \nit was decided that the fishing in Nunneslake belonged to the \ntown. \n\nIt is probable that the fee-farm of Cambridge was held by \nConstance in right of dower. Cambridge was among the towns \nusually assigned in dower to the Queens of England and other \nladies of the royal family \\ Queen Catharine, consort of \nCharles II, was the last English Queen who held the fee-farm \nof Cambridge. Except in the case of Constance the settlement \nseems always to have been for life. King Stephen had en- \ndeavoured to get his son Eustace crowned in 1152, and, though \nhe failed in this purpose, Constance is said in after times to \nhave borne the title of Queen I The title Venerahilis given to \nher in the charter of Nigellus is probably a quasi-recognition \nof her claim to be regarded as Queen. It was applied to \nFrench kings (v. Ducange, s.v.) and more especially (with the \nvariant Veneranda) to queens of the Norman period : e.g. \nSarum Charters (Rolls Series) p. 17, \'Adelizae venerandae et \nillustris Angliae reginae cancellarius.\' \n\n\n\nI 5. First Charter of King Malcolm IV. The Greneci^oft \n\nsite. \n\nThe first charter of King Malcolm IV, which is the next in \norder of date, is addressed " to all his men cleric and lay of the \nHonour of Huntedon" and gives to the Nuns of Grantebrige ten \nacres of land next Grenecroft in alms and to found (ad fun- \ndendam) thereon their church ; it reserves to the King a rent \n\n^ See Cooper\'s Annals under the years 1235, 1353, 1465, 1495. \n2 Stubbs, Const. Hist. Vol. i. p. 341. \n\n\n\n12 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nof two shillings, which his minister is directed to offer at the \naltar of the same church. The charter is dated \' apud Hunted \' \nand still has attached to it in white wax the royal seal bearing \non the obverse side the figure of a king enthroned, on the \nreverse a mounted warrior. The Honour, or earldom, of \nHuntingdon which included the county of Cambridge was \nconferred on Malcolm in the latter half of 1157. Among the \nwitnesses is Herbert, Bishop of Glasgow, who died 1164. \nSherman in his MS. HistorHa Gollegii Jesu (written tevip. \nCharles II) states that among the College archives he had \nseen a charter of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, con- \nfirming Malcolm\'s grant. No such charter is now extant nor \nis it included in the oldest registers of the Nunnery deeds, \nthough as these early registers (written temp. Queen Elizabeth) \nare by no means complete the fact that it is not contained in \nthem must not be taken as conclusive that it did not then \nexist. Sherman possibly had in mind an inspeximus of Arch- \nbishop Stephen Langton (Charters, 4at here parisches were pore sith J>e pestilence time. \n\n2 From the Bursars\' accounts of Henry VIII, 26 \xe2\x80\x94 27, it appears that the \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 29 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 11. Advowson of Reymerston. \n\nThe advowson of E.eymerstoii Church, co. Norfolk, was con- \nveyed by fine to Letitia, Prioress of S. Radegund\'s in Henry \nIII, 2, by John de Reymerston. A list of the rectors presented \nby the Prioress is given in Blomfield\'s History of Norfolk, Vol. \n10, pp. 241 \xe2\x80\x94 2 (ed. Parkyn). The last presented, in 1401, was \nMr Robert Braunch, LL.Lic, apparently the same who in 1384 \nbecame Master of Trinity Hall. \n\nThe names of several of the Nuns, Craneswick, Harling, \nCressingham, are taken from villages in the neighbourhood of \nReymerston and appear to indicate that the connection with \nthis quarter of Norfolk was maintained after the Nuns parted \nwith the advowson. From the same district probably came \nJohn de Pykenham (now Pickenham), whose tombstone, in the \n\nvicar of S. Clement\'s was allowed an annual sum of 6s. Sd. for rent of a \ndwelling house \' eo quod non est aliqua domus sive mansio dicto vicario \npertinens.\' A few years later the payment disappears from the Bursars\' rolls \nand the vicar, who was a fellow of the College, is stated to be the tenant of a \nchamber in College. The Eev. E. G. de Sails Wood, vicar of S. Clement\'s, \ninforms me that the house traditionally called \' the Vicarage \' is that now \nnumbered 8, Portugal Place, which is still the property of Jesus College. \nLeases of the reign of Elizabeth describe it as abutting on its southern side \non \' the backe side of a place sometime called S\' Clement\'s hostelL\' A deed \nof Edward III, 47 (1373) shows that it was then leased to Sir Eichard Milde, \nvicar of S. Clement\'s, jointly with John de Kelesseye, cooper, and Avisia his \nwife. Another deed of 1377 (Charters, 250 h) gives minute details of the \nrooms which it then contained. In 1616 the southern half of the house was \nused as a stable by the Master of Jesus College. A letter of the Master, \nDr Duport, in that year refers to a dispute between the College and Alderman \nVentris with respect to the northern portion of the house, which the latter \nclaimed, asserting that it had anciently been a banqueting house and did not \nform a part of the College tenement. Ventris also claimed a house called the \nChantry-house, situated outside the churchyard on its N.E. side. Dr Duport \nalleges that this house is not the old Chantry-house, nor on the site of it, but \nis an encroachment on Jesus College land and has been erected within the last \n50 years ; in evidence of which he observes that it is built of sound heart of \noak which apparently was brought ft-om the steeple of the church, which about \nthe time of the erection of the house was much decayed and vanished quite \naway. \n\n\n\n30 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nS.W. angle of the south transept of the Nuns\' church, bears \nthe inscription, \n\nHie jacet frater Johannes de Pykenham magister sacre theologie prior \nhujus loci cujus anime propicietur Deus. \n\nHe was perhaps either capellanus or confessor to the Nuns. \nThe office of prior, warden or magister monialium is one \nfrequently found in nunneries ; e.g. at Grimsby, Stanfeld \n(Lines.), Stamford, Catesby. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 12. List of Prioresses. \n\nThe following is as complete a list of the Prioresses of \nS. Radegund as it is possible to make out. Unless otherwise \nstated the dates given are those of the earliest and latest deeds \nin which the name occurs. The deeds of the 12th and early \n13th century give neither dates nor names of Prioresses. \n\nLetitia was Prioress at the time of Bishop Eustace\'s compo- \nsition respecting All Saints\' Church and S. John\'s Hospital, \nwhich was not later than 1213 : she occurs in Pedes Finium, \n1228. \n\nMilisentia is mentioned in Pedes Finium 1246 and 1249. \n\nDera occurs in 1258. \n\nAgnes Burgeylun, or Burgeillo, in 1274 (in the new Monasti- \ncon wrongly set down aiino 1301). \n\nConstantia and \n\nAmitia de Driffeld occur in undated deeds temp. Edward I, \nthe former in the mayoralty of Roger de Wykes. \n\nAlicia le Chaumberlain was Prioress about 1278; she was \ndaughter of Sir Walter le Chamberlayne, purchaser of the \nmanor of Landbeach. (Clay\'s History of Landheach.) \n\nElena occurs in 1284 and in 1299. \n\nChristiana de Br ay br ok in 1311. \n\nCecilia de Cressingham, in 1315 and 1316, \n\nMabilia Martin in 1330 and 1332. \n\nAlicia in 1347. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 31 \n\nEva Wasteneys in 1359 ; a person of the same name was \nPrioress of the Benedictine house of Swaffham in 1378. \n\nMargaret Glanyle in 1363: she resigned Feb. 1, 1378 (Ely \nRegisters). \n\nAlice Pilet was elected Feb. 20, 1378; occurs in 1398. \n\nIsabella Sudbury in 1402. \n\nMargaret Harlyng was sub-prioress in 1407 ; succeeded as \nPrioress in the same year and occurs in 1408. \n\nAgnes Seyntelowe, or Senclowe, first occurs in 1415; she died \nSept. 8, 1457. \n\nJoan Lancastre was elected Sept. 27, 1457 ; last occurs in \n1466. \n\nIsabella in 1468. \n\nElizabeth Walton occurs in 1468 and 1479 : she had been \nsuccentrix in 1457. \n\nJoan Cambridge was administering the effects of the \nNunnery in 1482-3, apparently in a vacancy of the Priorate ; \nshe was Prioress in 1483 and died 1487 \\ \n\nJoan Fulburn was appointed Oct. 12, 1487 ; her name \noccurs for the last time in 1487. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 13. Finances of the Nunnery. \n\nAt the time of the election of Joan Lancastre in 1457 there \nwere eleven nuns who had the jus eligendi. There are no data \nfor determining their number at an earlier period, but as most \nreligious houses suffered a decline in numbers during the 15th \ncentury it is not unlikely that they had once been more \nnumerous. There seems little reason to doubt that at no time \nduring the existence of the Nunnery were its endowments \nadequate for the maintenance of its inmates or the repairs of \nthe fabric. As early as 1277 their penury \'baud paucis inno- \ntescit\'; in 1340 their poverty was pleaded as an excuse for \n\n1 In a fragmentary Computus of Margaret Eatclyff, Prioress of Swaffham, \nEdw. IV, 22, occurs an entry \' de iiij" de quatuor busellis (mixtilionis) venditis \npr. monial. de Cambrige...de domina Johanna Camhrige cui erat commissa \nadministratio bonorum prioratus predict!.\' \n\n\n\n32 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nexemption from the charges of procuration ; and the evidence \nof Archbishop Wittlesey\'s visitor in 1373 shows the Nunnery \nin deep embarrassment, its buildings dilapidated, and its services \nneglected for want of funds. The flow of benefactions which \nwas maintained up to the end of Edward I\'s reign was arrested \nabout the end of the 13th century, probably because gifts to \npious uses began to be diverted to the various mendicant \norders which had established themselves in Cambridge during \nthe preceding half century. As already stated, after the great \npestilence in 1349 the Nuns received few fresh endowments, \nand those of inconsiderable value. One important source of \nendowment entirely dried up about that time, viz. the grants \nof lands and rents made by the relations of a nun when she \ntook the veil. The nuns of the earlier time seem largely to \nhave been drawn from families of wealth and social standing \nin the town and shire. Among those who brought with \nthem endowments to the Nunnery were Sibil, sister of Fulk \nCrocheman, whose family held a considerable amount of \nproperty in and near the Jewry in All Saints\' parish temp. \nHenry III ; Elizabeth and Isabel, daughters of Sir Thomas de \nCambridge, who died 1361 ; Roda, sister of Hervey Dunning, \nalready mentioned; Margaret, daughter of Hervey de Trumpi- \ntune ; Sabina, daughter of Half Person of Chesterton, temp. \nHenry III; Sibil, daughter of Stephen de Scalariis of Wratting; \nand Margaret, sister of Philip de Cestertune, about 1200. The \naccounts of the Treasuress, Agnes Banastre, for the two years \n1449-50 and 1450-51 probably represent the normal income \nand expenditure of the Nunnery in the middle of the 15th \ncentury. They are written on skin in a neat and minute hand, \nwhich is perhaps that of one of the clergy attached to the \nhouse. On the outer surface are written the accounts of the \nGrangeress, Joan Lancastre. Also on the outer side of the \nearlier roll are copied in a bold but careless handwriting of \nlate 15th century character three Latin prayers addressed to \nS. Etheldreda, to which in another hand have been added two \nbenedictions of the Name of Jesus. The prayers to S. Ethel- \ndreda were clearly intended for use at her shrine at Ely. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa3 \n\n\ns. \n\n\nd. \n\n\n32 \n\n\n12 \n\n\n2 \n\n\n12 \n\n\n14 \n\n\n7i \n\n\n8 \n\n\n16 \n\n\n2 \n\n\n6 \n\n\n13 \n\n\n4 \n\n\n3 \n\n\n6 \n\n\n8 \n\n\n9 \n\n\n19 \n\n\n10 \n\n\n74 \n\n\n2 \n\n\n9i \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. . 33 \n\nThese accounts are kept in an exact and orderly way and \nshow that at the time the Nuns were fairly paying their \nway. In the earlier year the receipts were \xc2\xa377. 85. Q^d. and \nthe expenditure \xc2\xa372. 65. 4f d ; in the later the suras were \nrespectively \xc2\xa374. 2s. 9^d. and \xc2\xa378. 6s. Od.\\ The heads of the \nreceipts were in the later year : \n\nRents in Cambridge \nRents agricultural . \nMiscellaneous : tolls of fair, re- \nceipts from guests, &c. \n\nTithes \n\nPension ..... \nSale of corn, hay, &c. \n\nTotal \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 14. Incidents in the Annals of the Nunnery. \n\nThere is little in the history of the Nunnery between the \ntime of King Malcolm and that of the dissolution which calls \nfor particular mention. Such facts as are recoverable from the \nNuns\' own records it is unnecessary here to detail ; an outline \nof them may be found in the Catalogue of Charters. I will set \ndown here only a few particulars which I have gleaned from \nsuch external sources of information as the Hare MSS and the \nRegisters of Ely and Canterbury. \n\nAmong the Hare MSS (Vol. i. p. 27) is a writ of \nHenry III tested at Ely, March 30, in the 35*^ year of his \nreign {i.e. 1250), directed to the bailiffs of the town of \nCambridge, requiring them not to distrain the Prioress of \nS. Radegund and her tenants for an encroachment (pro \npreprestiira) and for other matters of which inquisition has \n\n1 Sherman gives the total of receipts in these two years as \xc2\xa324. Is. lO^d. \nand \xc2\xa332. 10s. 2d., figures which correspond to no totals in the rolls. He also \nrefers to a third roll of date Henry VI, 39, in which the receipts are stated as \n\xc2\xa374. 2s. 4d. ; this is no longer extant. He does not mention the roll of \nEdward IV, 21\xe2\x80\x9422. \n\nC. A. S. Octavo Series. 3 \n\n\n\n34 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nbeen made by William de Axmuth and William Brito at \nCambridge. This writ is clearly connected with the same \nKing\'s license to the Nuns, tested at Westminster on April 17 \nin the same year, to enclose and keep enclosed for ever a croft \nbelonging to them and lying between their church and the \nfossatmii of Cambridge. (This license is cited in full in King \nEdward II\'s confirmation, Charters, 8.) From the circum- \nstance that the writ was addressed to the town bailiffs it would \nappear that the purpresture of the Nuns consisted of an en- \ncroachment on the common lands of the town, i.e. on Grene- \ncroft. The writ stays the distraint until the quindena of \nEaster, by which time, or at least before April 17, an \narrangement seems to have been arrived at by which the \ntown relinquished its rights in the land annexed. But as \nthe ownership of the soil of the common land belonged not \nto the burgesses but to the King (such at least would be the \nKing\'s view) his sanction was necessary to enable the Nuns \nto acquire and permanently enclose the croft\\ The dispute \nbetween the Nuns and the burgesses seems to have been \nthe outcome of proceedings for encroachment taken by the \nKing against the burgesses : for by a writ, mentioned by \nCooper^ and dated March 5 in this year, the King re- \nquired the sheriff to restore the cattle of the burgesses and \nnot further to distrain them for a trespass, they having paid \nat the royal wardrobe 20 marks. The encroachment for \nwhich the burgesses thus made satisfaction was no doubt \ncommitted on the soil of the fossatum. At the time of the \nHundred Bolls it was one of the complaints of the towns- \nmen that the soil of the fossatum remained void to their \ngreat loss, and several individuals are reported to have made \nencroachments on it by planting trees and otherwise. \n\n1 Pollock and Maitland (History of English Law, Vol. i. p. 635), speaking of \nthe Firma Burcji, \' It may be much doubted whether the walls, ditches, streets \nand open spaces of the borough were held by the burgesses. They were still \nthe king\'s walls, ditches and streets, and he who encroached upon them \ncommitted a purpresture against the king. Nor is it by any means certain \nthat the king parted with the soil over which the burgesses exercised the right \nof pasture.\' 2 ji^nals, Vol. i. p. 46. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 35 \n\nThe Register of Archbishop Wittlesey (fo. 153), at Lambeth \nPalace, gives a full and curious account of a visitation of the \nNunnery in the year 1378, made by mandate of the Archbishop \nduring a vacancy of the See of Ely. The visitor was Thomas \nde Wormenhale, who about the same time visited other religious \nhouses in the diocese, viz. Ely, Chatteris, Anglesey, Swaffham, \nThorney, Barnwell and the Hospital of S. John, Cambridge. \nThe Nunnery of S. Radegund was visited on the Saturday next \nfollowing the feast of S. James the Apostle. The Prioress and \nsisters were separately and privately examined, and the report \nof the visitor exhibited the following comperta. \n\nFirst, it was alleged that the Prioress made the officiariae \nof the Nunnery discharge payments beyond what was required \nby the custom of their offices, and without assigning reason \nfor such payments. The Prioress denied this article, but was \nnevertheless cautioned in future to explain to her officials the \nreasons for all expenditure required of them. \n\nItem, that the Prioress did not, as she was bound to do, \nfind priests to celebrate for various benefactors of the Nunnery. \nThe Prioress made reply that the means of the Nuns were not \nsufficient to sustain the said burdens. She was cautioned to \ndischarge the obligations of the Nunnery in this respect as \nsoon as the fortunes of the household would enable her to do so. \n\nItem, that the Prioress suffered the Refectory to remain \nwithout cover, so that in rainy weather the sisters were not \nable to take their meals there in common, as by rule they were \nbound to do. The Prioress answered that the Nunnery was so \nburdened with debts, subsidies and contributions in these \ntimes that so far she had been unable to carry out repairs, but \nthat she would do so as soon as possible. \n\nItem, that the Prioress did not correct dame Elizabeth de \nCambridge for withdrawing herself from divine service, and \nallowed friars of different orders, as well as scholars, to visit \nher at inopportune times and to converse with her, to the \nscandal of religion. The Prioress replied that she had frequently \ncorrected her. She was charged in future strictly to correct \nand chastise her for the faults alleged. \n\n3\xe2\x80\x942 \n\n\n\n36 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY, \n\nItem, that the Prioress was too easily induced to give \npermission to the Nuns to go outside the cloister. She was \ncautioned not to do so in future. \n\nItem, that dame Elizabeth de Cambridge provoked discord \namong the sisters and often murmured against correction, and \nthat she did not trouble to get up {non curat surgere) to \nattend matins, as she was bound to do. She denied the \nfact, and added that, supposing she had so done, she had been \ncorrected by her Prioress. She was warned to cease from \nmurmuring and provoking discord, and to get up for matins, \nwhenever she coidd {cum potei\'it), under pain of excommunica- \ntion. \n\nThe Prioress mentioned in this report was Margaret Clanyle. \nShe resigned her office in 1878. Bishop Arundel\'s Register at \nEly (fo. 25) contains the following documents relating to this \nevent. \n\nThe Bishop\'s mandate to his Official, Richard le Scrop, to \nreceive the resignation of domina Margaret Clanyle, and to \ncertify to the Bishop what he has done. Downham, Jan. 29, \n1378. \n\nScrop\'s certification to the Bishop that he has admitted, \napproved and authorized the resignation. Cambridge, Feb. 1. \n\nThe Bishop\'s license to the sub-prioress, Johanna de Ely, \nand the convent to elect a successor. Downham, Feb. 6. \n\nProcess of election : \' assumptis sibi quibusdam personis \nsecularibus, vidlt. magistris Thoma de Glocestr\' et Johanne de \nNewton, juris peritis, d"\xc2\xb0 Willelmo Rolf, vicario ecclesie Omnium \nSanctorum in Judaismo et magistro Roberto de Foxton, notario \npublico, pro saniori consilio in hac parte habendo,\' domina Alice \nPylet is unanimously elected. Feb. 17. \n\nThe election is confirmed by the Bishop, Feb. 20, and \npublication of it made \' ad januam manerii de Downham et in \ncapella dicti manerii.\' \n\nOn Dec. 10, 1389, Bishop Fordham of Ely granted indulgence \nof 40 days to all who should help to repair the Nuns\' church \nand cloister and contribute to their maintenance and relief. \n(Fordhams\' Register, fo. 10.) \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 37 \n\nIn the Register of Archbishop Courtenay (fo. 143), under \ndate 1389, is a letter addressed to the same Bishop of Ely, in \nwhich the Archbishop reports that in his recent metropolitical \nvisitation of the diocese of Lincoln he found there \' a sheep \nwandering from the fold among thorns,\' to wit, one Margaret \nCailly, a professed nun of S. Radegund\'s monastery, who had \ncast off the garb of religion and in secular habit was leading a \ndissolute life. \' That her blood be not required at our hands \' \nthe Archbishop sends her with the bearer of the letter to the \nBishop, with an injunction that she should be restored to the \nNunnery and kept there in safe custody. The Bishop in a \nletter to the Prioress (Reg. Fordham, fo. 11) directs that the \napostate nun be committed to the eventus^, there to be kept in \nclose confinement until she shows signs of penitence and con- \ntrition for her \'excesses,\' as the rules of her house and order \nrequire. And the Bishop further enjoins that when the said \nMargaret first enters the chapter-house she shall humbly ask \npardon of the Prioress and all her sisters for her offences, and \nthat she shall undergo salutary penances for her excesses, the \nBishop having privately absolved her from the penalty of \nexcommunication on the ground of her apostasy. \n\nOn Sept. 19, 1401, the Priory was visited by the commis- \nsioners of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel. \nThe sisters were privately and separately questioned but the \nsubstance of their answers is not recorded in the Register. \n(Arundels\' Register, fo. 492.) \n\nThe Register of Bishop Fordham of Ely (Jan. 26, 1407) \ncontains a license to the sub-prioress, Margery Harlyng, for a \nprivate oratory or chapel within the Priory. \n\nOn March 18, 1457, Bishop Gray of Ely issued letters, dated \nfrom Downham, granting 40 days\' indulgence to all who should \nlend a helping hand (\' manus porrexerint adjutrices \') for the \nrepair of the bell-tower of the Nuns\' conventual church and \n\n\n\n^ Possibly this was the conventual prison, which in some monasteries was \nin the gate-house, in others adjoined the Necessarium. The word is not in \nDucange. \n\n\n\n38 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nfor the maintenance of books, vestments and other church \nornaments (Register, fo. 21). \n\nThe Ely Registers (Bp. Gray, fo. 140) supply a full account \nof the election of a Prioress in 1457 in place of Agnes \nSeyntelowe, who died on Sept. 8 in that year. The process of \nelection was per for mam compromissi, and the description, in \noutline, is as follows. Maud Sudbury, as sub-prioress and \npresident, informs the Bishop of the vacancy and obtains his \nlicense for the election of a successor. In the Nuns\' petition \nto the Bishop for leave to elect it is stated that by the canons \na church regular must not be vacant beyond three months \' ne \npro defectu regiminis invadat gregem dominicam lupus rapax.\' \nOn Sept. 23 they elect Joan Lancastre to be sacrist, and then \nadjourn to Sept. 27. On that day, after mass de Sancto \nSpiritu, those who have jus eligendi meet and decant the \n\'ympn,\' Veni Creator, with versicles and collects. Elizabeth \nWalton, succentrix, proclaims notice of the election at the door \nof the Priory and at the door of the chapter-house. Master \nRoger Ratcliffe, LL.D., Robert Bredon, notary public. Master \nThomas Willis, LL.B., Ds Richard Sampson and Ds Henry \nWhitrate, chaplain, are called in as consilia7\'ii and testes. The \nsisters elect as compromissarii Joan Lancastre, Eliz. Walton \nand Katherine Seyntelowe, cellarer, who retire to the east end \nof the chapterhouse with the witnesses aforesaid. E. W. and \nK. S. call upon J. L. to nominate; she nominates E. W.; \nJ. L. and K. S. call upon E. W, to nominate ; she nominates \nJ. L. E. W. and J. L. call upon K. S. to nominate ; she \nnominates J. L. Without any interval the compromissarii \nreturn and call upon the sisters to nominate, beginning with \nMaud Sudbury; she nominates J. L., as do Margaret Metham, \nElena Craneswik, Emma Hore and Joan Kay. Emma Denton \nis nominated by Agnes Daveys, Katherine Seyntelowe by \nEmma Denton, Agnes Daveys by Alice Graunfeld. Eliz. \nWalton counts up the votes and declares that Joan Lancastre \nis elected. After this all the sisters, devoutly chanting Te \nDeum, conducted Joan Lancastre, \' renitentem licet \' to the \nhigh altar of the conventual church and there placed her, \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 39 \n\nprostrate on the ground before the altar. The bell was then \nrung and proclamation of the election was made to the public \nin the vulgar tongue before noon. All the sisters then con- \nducted the Prioress elect to the vestibulum of the church and \nlet her depart. At a meeting in the chapter-house in the \nafternoon it was agreed that Eliz. Walton and Katherine \nSeyntelowe should obtain the assent of Joan Lancastre to the \nprocess of election. She at first asked to be allowed to consider \nthe matter ; \' tandem vero precibus devicta et post multas \nexcusationes,\' she consented to take the oath required of a \nPrioress. Next follows, Sept. 29, the Bishop\'s commission to \nMaster Robert Thwait, S. T. P., to confirm the election, with \nmandate to the Bishop\'s apparitors to summon all persons \nobjecting or otherwise concerned. In the Bishop\'s court \nMaster Edmund Kunnesburgh, decretorum doctor, appears as \nthe Nuns\' counsel and claims that all has been done legally \nand canonically. Against whom Roger Ratclyffe and others \nalleged objections to the form of election. Then Master \nKunnesburgh on the part of the Nuns \' exhibuit quandam \npeticionem summariam,\' begging the Bishop\'s official to proceed \nsummarily and confirm the election, which he does, affirming \nthat nothing has been proved affecting the validity of the \nelection. \n\n\xc2\xa7 15. Decay and Dissolution of the Nunnery. \n\nDoubts have sometimes been suggested as to the truth of \nthe representations made by Bishop Alcock concerning the \nlapsed condition, moral and material, of the Priory when he \npetitioned King Henry VII for license to convert it into a \nCollege; and the fact that the royal license to suppress the \nHospital of S. John describes the decay of that house in \nterms which are almost literally repeated from Alcock\'s \naccount of S. Radegund\'s Nunnery is perhaps calculated to \nthrow suspicion on the credibility of both accounts. As \nregards Bishop Alcock\'s statements there is not the slightest \nfoundation for such a suspicion. The alleged improvidence of \n\n\n\n40 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nthe Nuns is established in the clearest manner on their own \nevidence, and if for the charge of moral shortcomings there is \nlittle evidence except the Bishop\'s it must be allowed that he \nmade the charge in the first instance to them directly and \nmany years before he made up his mind to dissolve their \nhouse. All the testimony of his contemporaries and im- \nmediate successors gives him the character of an exceptionally \nsingle-minded and devout prelate, and he had given pointed \nproof a few years previously that in dealing with the abuses \nof a religious house he was disposed to act in a spirit of for- \nbearance and conservatism. In 1480, when he was Bishop of \nWorcester, he personally visited the Benedictine Priory of \nLittle Malvern, the brethren of which were reported to have \ndissipated their revenues and to be living \'vagabond\' and like \nlaymen. The Bishop ordered the Prior to be removed and sent \nto the Abbey of Battle, where he had been first professed, and \nthe four monks, who were all that remained in the house, to be \ntransferred to Gloucester Abbey until their Priory should be \nreconstituted. Alcock then proceeded to refound the convent; \nhe rebuilt the church, altering its dedication from S. Giles to \nS. John the Evangelist and S. Giles, repaired the monks\' lodg- \ning and discharged their debts. In 1482 the brethren were \nallowed to return and the Priory continued to exist more or \nless prosperously until the general dissolution, at which time it \ncontained seven brethren besides the Prior. After this refor- \nmation of the Priory Bishop Alcock was regarded as its patron \nand founder ; its common seal bore his arms, and his figure was \nportrayed in the windows of the conventual church. \n\nIn the absence of direct testimony an entry in the Register \nof Bishop Gray of Ely in the year 1461 suggests that symptoms \nof moral depravation began to show themselves very soon after \nthe election of the Prioress Joan Lancastre. In that year \nElizabeth Butlier, aged about 16, not having completed four \nyears in the Nunnery and finding that she cannot serve God \nthere with as much devotion as she wishes, obtains leave from \nthe Bishop to transfer herself to the Nunnery of S. Helen\'s, \nLondon. (Register, fo. 157.) \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 41 \n\nThe first evidence of the financial collapse of the Nuns\' \nhousehold appears to be the following indenture of the Prioress \nElizabeth Walton, dated March 13, 1478 ; but if we are to \nbelieve the account given by the Prioress the responsibility for \nsome part of their indebtedness belonged to her predecessors in \noffice : \n\n\'Whereas we and our predecessors, Prioresse and Nunnes of \nthe saide house at dyvers tymes tofore passed whan we ware \ndestitute of money for our pore lyffing had flessche of Richerd \nWodecok of Cambrigge, boucher, into the value of the summe \nof xxj\'\' of lawful money of Englond, which he for our ease \nmany day hath forborn. And now he of his special favour and \nelmesse for hym and his executours hath granted unto us \nlicense for to paie unto him yeerly xix^ to tyme the said summe \nbe fully paied and content, as right and conscience requyre. We \ntherefore considering his benevolence and good wylle anendst \nus in this behalve wol and by this our presen t writyng endented \ngraunt and have graunted unto the said Richerd Wodecok and \nto his executors to have and to receyve of us and our succes- \nsours by his awne hands yearly xix\xc2\xae to be taken of thissues and \nprofites and ferme of a tenement sett and lyeng in the parissh of \nSeynt Andrewe in the Prechour Strete of Cambrygge abuttyng \nupon the Kyngs Dyche and of j other tenement lyeng in Seynt \nEdwards parisshe of Cambrigge abuttyng upon the Chauncell \nof the same chirche. Which tenements the said Richerd \nWodecok hath and holdeth of us to ferme by endenture for the \nterme of yeeres as by severall endentures therof by us unto the \nsame Richerd his executours and assignes made hit appareth \nmore at large To have and to hold the said proufets issues and \nferme to the value of xix\'^ yeerly unto the time that the foresaid \nRicherd by his awne hands be satisfied and content of the said \nxxj^V etc. \n\nThis and another indenture of the following year are the \nlatest of the Nuns\' documents which bear the large seal of \nthe convent figured opposite p. 1. At some time between \n1479 and 1485 the matrix of this seal was apparently lost or \nsold, for to a deed of the latter year (Joan Cambrygg, Prioress) \n\n\n\n42 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nis attached the impression of a very small and poorly executed \nseal, representing S. Radegund crowned and standing with both \narras uplifted between two upright palm branches, which in \nthe deed is said to be the common seal of the Nunnery. \n\nMore direct evidence of the pecuniary straits to which the \nconvent was reduced in the last quarter of the 15th century is \nto be found in the accounts of Joan Key, who was treasurer in \n1481 \xe2\x80\x94 2. Her account roll, written on paper, alike in hand- \nwriting, arithmetic and Latinity is a performance which con- \ntrasts very unfavourably with that of her predecessor, 80 years \nbefore. The details moreover which it gives are very scant. \nBut one thing is patent enough, viz. that the income of the \nNuns had dropped from \xc2\xa374 odd at the earlier date to some- \nthing over \xc2\xa331 at the later. It is true that the accounts of \nJoan Key for some reason extend over three-quarters of the \nyear only, but it is an awkward circumstance that in those \nnine months her disbursements exceeded her receipts by more \nthan \xc2\xa325. Ominous too is the fact that the sale of farm \nproduce had practically ceased to be a source of income and \nthat the Nuns were driven to purchase barley, oats, malt, etc. \nA small trifle is obtained from the sale of hay, and there are a \nfew receipts for \' commons \' of perhendinantes, boarders in the \nguest-house, two of them being daughters of the Nuns\' benevo- \nlent creditor, Richard Wodecok. There is one new source of \nincome, the charitable gifts of individuals, cleric and lay. \n\nBishop Alcock was translated to the see of Ely early in \n1486. The death of the Prioress in the following year gave \nhim an opportunity for decisive interference in the affairs of \nthe Nunnery. He has left a record of his proceedings there \nin his Register (fo. 153) from which the following extracts are \ntranslated. \n\n"On the twelfth day of October, A.D. 1487, the Bishop \nvisited the house or monastery of the Nuns of S. Mary and S. \nRadegund, then destitute of a Prioress and vacant by the \ndeath of the late Prioress, Mistress Joan Cambrigge . . . and \nsitting in the chapter-house of the foresaid monastery, on the \ntribunal, delivered his decree as follows. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 43 \n\n"In the name of God Amen. We, John, by divine per- \nmission Bishop of Ely, on the 12th day of October, visiting in \nour right as ordinary (jure ordinario) the nunnery of S. Mary \nand S. Radegund, Cambridge, destitute of the solace of a \nPrioress, for certain, true, just, notorious and manifest causes \nfind all and singular the Nuns unfit and disqualified to elect \ntheir future Prioress and therefore decree that in such manner \nof election they are justly deprived of voice. Wherefore we \ntake upon ourselves the task of providing from some other like \nreligious place a fit person for the vacancy in the said \nNunnery, the right of electing and providing for the same \nNunnery having devolved canonically upon us, and having \nthe fear of God before our eyes we thus proceed. \n\n"And you. Mistress Joan Fulborne, duly and lawfully pro- \nfessed of the order of S. Benedict and long time laudably \nconversant in the same, for your good religion and integrity^ \nsincere virginity and other merits of prudence and holy con- \nversation credibly reported to us we appoint and provide to \nbe Prioress of the same house.., \n\n" And consequently, by mandate of the Bishop, the \nreverend Master William Robynson, bachelor in either law, \nconducted the same Joan Fulborne to the High Altar, while \nthe Nuns, with others, solemnly chanted Te Deuni, and \nassigned to her the stall in the choir and the place in the \nchapter anciently and of custom appointed to the Prioress, \nand canonically inducted her into the same with all its \nrights and appurtenances." \n\nThe history of the Nunnery from this year onwards to its \ndissolution is almost a blank. The accounts of the town \ntreasurer for the year ending the Nativity of the Virgin, 1491, \ncontain an entry, " In reward given the Lady Prioress of \nS. Radegund of Cambridge for keeping the common bull in \nthe winter time this year, 16^^" The Prioress in question was \nthe Joan Fulborne above-mentioned, whose name occurs in \nseveral indentures of the Nunnery, the latest of which is dated \n\n^ Cooper\'s Annals, Vol. i. p. 240. \n\n\n\n44 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nAug. 6, 1493. Whether she died or retired from the Priory \nbefore the dissolution or was one of the two sisters who were \nthe sole occupants of the Nuns\' house at the time of Bishop \nAlcock\'s second visit does not appear \\ It is certain that she \nwas altogether unsuccessful in rehabilitating the character of \nthe household committed to her charge. \n\nThe Proctors in their accounts for the year 1496 mention a \nsum of 16*^ expended " for wine given the Bishop of Ely at the \nNuns\' house." The letters patent of Henry VIT. for the \nfoundation of Jesus College, dated June 12 in the eleventh \nyear of his reign, i.e. 1496 ^ reveal the condition of affairs \nreported by the Bishop to the King at the time, it would \nseem, of this visit. It is therein stated that the King, as \nwell by the report of the Bishop as by public fame, is in- \nformed that the House or Priory of S. Radegund of the \nfoundation and patronage of the Bishop, as in right of his \nchurch of Ely, together with all its lands, tenements, rents, \npossessions and buildings, and moreover the properties, goods, \njewels and other ecclesiastical ornaments anciently of piety \nand charity given and granted to the same House or Priory, \nby the neglect, improvidence, extravagance and incontinence \nof the Prioresses and women of the said House, by reason \nof their proximity to the University of Cambridge, have \nbeen dilapidated, destroyed, wasted, alienated, diminished and \nsubtracted ; in consequence of which the Nuns are reduced \n\n1 Archbishop Parker, in the History of the University which is appended to \nhis Antiquitates Ecclesiae Britannicae, states that Bishop Alcock \' Alexandre \nsexto papae retulit abbatissam sanctimonialium Eadegondae, ordinis Sancti \nBenedict!, baud pie casteque vixisse ; eaque decedente abbatiam ad ruinam \nparatam et a virginibus ordinem deserentibus desolatam fuisse, anno Domini \n1496.\' Apart from the error in the title of abbess Parker\'s whole account of \nthe Nunnery is so inaccurate that no reliance can be placed on his evidence. \n\n2 In Rymer\'s Foedera the date is given as 1497 ; the same date is given in \nDocuments relating to the University and Toion of Cambridge (where the \ndocument is printed in full), in Caley\'s Monasticon, and by Cooper and most \nmodern authorities. But the original in the College Treasury, with royal seal \nappended, reads beyond question \' anno regni nostri undecimo,^ i.e. 1495 \xe2\x80\x94 6. \nThis accords with Sherman\'s statement that Alcock began to rebuild the fabric, \n\' instaurare f abricam coepit, \' in the eleventh year of Henry VII. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 45 \n\nto such want and poverty that they are unable to maintain \nand support divine services, hospitality and other such works \nof mercy and piety as by the primary foundation and ordin- \nance of their founders are required ; that they are reduced in \nnumber to two only, of whom one is elsewhere professed, the \nother is of ill-fame ^ and that they can in no way provide for \ntheir own sustenance and relief, insomuch that they are fain to \nabandon their House and leave it in a manner desolate, \n\nJohn Mair, or Major, as his name was Latinized, who was \nresident at Christ\'s College for a few months in the early part \nof the 15th century, when the facts connected with the disso- \nlution were within living recollection, says that the suggestion \nof converting the Nunnery into a College originated with \nDr Stubs. The person indicated was no doubt William \nChubbes, S. T. P., the first Master of the College, whose name \noccurs with a variety of spellings in the earliest deeds of the \nCollege. \n\nSherman, in his Latin History of the College, makes the \nstatement, which has since been copied in other books about \nCambridge, that by direction of the Founder the College was \ndedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, S. John the Evangelist \nand the glorious S. Radegund, and took its popular name \nof Jesus College from the conventual church which was \ndedicated to the Name of Jesus. For the latter part of \nthis assertion there is not the slightest evidence. The \ntestimony of the Nuns\' muniments shows conclusively that \nthe Nunnery, the parish and the lane were as late as the \nbeginning of Henry VII\'s reign known simply by their old \ntitle of S. Hadegund\'s, nor is there any ground for supposing \nthat the church itself received a fresh dedication so long as \nthe Nunnery existed. In the preamble to the Statutes which \n\n1 It is scarcely worth while correcting the many errors in Fuller\'s account \nof the Nunnery, hut it deserves to be mentioned that his jest, " Tradition saith \nthat of the two [nuns] remaining one was tvith child, the other but a child," \nis based on the misreading of infmnis in the letters patent as infans. Godwin \nhad made the same mistake before Fuller, and infans is the reading wrongly \ngiven in Documents relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge. \n\n\n\n46 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nBishop Stanley of Ely gave to the College in 1514 it is stated \nthat the church of the College is consecrated to the Name \nof Jesus, and that the College is erected and founded in \nhonour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, S. John the Evangelist \nand S. Radegund, but that it shall be called Jesus College and \nthe Fellows and Scholars shall be called Scholares Jesu^. \n\nA Compotus roll for the year Henry VII, 13 \xe2\x80\x94 14, i.e. \n1497 \xe2\x80\x94 8, apparently the first of the newly founded College, \nexists in the College Treasury. It throws an interesting light \non the financial situation inherited by the College from the \nNuns, though unfortunately it gives no information as to the \ncondition of the conventual buildings. The Nunnery indeed \nis not once alluded to in it, nor is there any express acknow- \nledgement of the fact that the Nuns\' property had passed into \nnew hands. The computant has no arrears to account for; \nin the margin, opposite the heading, \'Collegium Jhu\' occupies \nthe place of \' Prioratus See Radegundis \' ; otherwise there is \nno recognition of the changes which had just occurred. The \ncollector is one William Pykerell, who was a Fellow of the \nCollege soon after its foundation, but against many of the \n\n1 There seems to have been some uncertainty at first as to the formal title \nof the College. In the King\'s letters patent it is described as \' Collegium \nBeatissime Marie Virginis, Sancti Johannis Evangeliste et Gloriose Virginis \nSancte Eadegundis.\' But in an address of the Master, William Chubbes, and \nFellows to the King, of which there is a transcript in the Ely Episcopal \nRegisters (Alcock, fol. 125), belonging apparently to the year 1497, it is called \n\' Collegium Jesu, Beate Marie Virginis et Sancti Johannis Evangeliste.\' \nPopularly the College seems from the first to have been known only as Jesus \nCollege. The name Jesus Lane occurs in the town accounts of 1497 : Jesus \nchurch and Jesus parish are mentioned in documents of the early years of the \n16th century, though, inconsistently enough, there is mention of the parish \nchurch of S. Eadegund in cap. 19 of Bishop Stanley\'s Statutes. The original \nCollege seal, of which an impression exists in the College Treasury attached \nto a deed temp. Henry VIII. , bears the legend, sigillvm collegii ihv : maeie \nET lOHis : EVAG. CANTEBE. In its Upper portion are represented under canopies \nthe Virgin and S. John standing on either side of the Saviour, and the base \ndisplays a shield bearing the Five Wounds. Archbishop Eotherham\'s foundation \nof Jesus College, Eotherham, dates from 1498. Eotherham was Lord \nChancellor conjointly with Alcock, and appointed him executor of his wiU. \nHe was also provost of the collegiate church of Beverley, Alcock\'s native town. \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 47 \n\nentries of receipts is set the name or initial of Griggeson, one \nof the original Fellows, who evidently helped in rent-collecting. \nBeyond payment of quit-rents, fifteenths, &c. and a few inci- \ndental expenses of collection there are no disbursements. \nThere is however mention of certain sums of money, amounting \nin all to \xc2\xa39. 6s. 8d., paid to Henry Lecheman, who was another \nof the original Fellows. The purpose of these payments is not \nstated. They may have been connected with the building \nof the College, but the absence of fabric charges seems \nto show that the costs of adapting the conventual buildings \nto College uses were borne mainly by the Founder or his \nfriends. There are no payments to College officials; neither \nGriggeson nor Lecheman is described as Fellow, and William \nChubbes, who is mentioned, is not styled Master. A sum of \n\xc2\xa343. 8s. 8d. is advanced to John Ware of Fulburn for farm \nstock. An indenture of the same year (Henry VII, 14) shows \nthat in consideration of this advance Ware released to the \nCollege a farm of 21 acres at Fulburn, of which the College \ngave him a lease for 8 years. The remaining balance, amount- \ning to \xc2\xa325. 17s. lOfd, is retained in the hands of Pykerell and \nGriggeson. The entries under the head of rent receipts show \nthat the College receivers found the Nuns\' affairs in a \nsingularly chaotic state which they had not as yet succeeded \nin reducing to order. There is a long list of tenements whose \nrent is held over for the time owing to an uncertainty as to the \nsum, \' eo quod feodum ignoratum est.\' Nine tenements in \nJesus Lane return no rent, as being vacant. The former \noccupants seem to have been servants employed by the Nuns. \n\nAs late as the year 1511 among the inmates of the \nBenedictine Nunnery of Davington, Kent, at the time of \nits visitation by Archbishop Warham, was one Elizabeth \nAwdeley, who had been professed at Cambridge. As she had \nbeen resident at Davington for 20 years she must have been \none of the sisters who abandoned S. Radesfund\'s before its \ndissolution ^ \n\n1 Visitation of Archbishop Warham, by Miss M. Bateson in English Historical \nReview, Vol. vi. p. 27. \n\n\n\n48 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa7 16. Radegund Manor. Oarlick Fair. Radegund Tithes. \n\nThe name and memory of the Nuns\' house were still \nperpetuated at the beginning of the present century in the \nmanor of S. Radegund and the Radegund tithes, and with \nthe former was still associated another survival of Nunnery \ndays, the fair on the festival of the Assumption. The manor \nand the fair have long since passed away : the tithe, attenuated \ninto a formal payment of insignificant amount, still exists. \nAll three institutions in their origin were rooted in the \nbeginnings of the Nunnery, and I have thought it on that \naccount worth while to put together here the few noteworthy \nfacts concerning them which I have been able to discover. \n\nThe manor of S. Radegund consisted of the old demesne \nlands of the Nuns, and generally its boundaries coincided with \nthose of S. Radegund parish, but it did not include the \ndwelling-houses in Jesus Lane. As the Nuns did not let it \nto tenants it was not styled a manor in their time, nor was \nthere on it any dwelling of the nature of a manor-house. The \nold manor-house of S. Radegund, which stood nearly on the \nsite of the present All Saints\' vicarage, was destroyed in 1831. \nIts last tenant was the Rev. Isaac Leathes, a former Fellow of \nthe College, who parted with the remainder of his lease of the \nmanor to the College in Dec. 1830. To his descendant, the \nRev. Prof. Stanley Leathes, now an Honorary Fellow of Jesus \nCollege, I am indebted for the loan of a water-colour sketch of the \nhouse, taken from the north, of which the engraving opposite \nis a reproduction. An aged servant of the College, recently \ndeceased, who well remembered the old manor-house, de- \nscribed it to me as being, just before its demolition, in a \ndilapidated state, and the garden as a wilderness. Near the \nend of the grounds where Manor Street has since been built \nthe same authority told me that there was a handsome \nfountain. The two projecting wings of the house are shown in \nthe sketch to be red brick ; the central portion was apparently \nstuccoed. \n\n\n\n\nc-\xc2\xab^ ,/,;: \n\n\n\n~-h \n\n\n\nM,- \n\n\n\n\n-iV^ i^rr-,, .ssrgffl j :\xc2\xab*:!* \n\n\n\n^^, .b":i l;^:i ;^^^ \n\n\n\nJ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 49 \n\nIn the first College lease book there is a transcript of \na lease of the manor, dated 1555, in which -it is stated that \nthe manor-house had then been newly built by Mr Edmund \nPerpoynte, Master of the College, at his own charge, amounting \nto \xc2\xa3400\\ It took the place of an older house which recently \nhad been \'utterly burnt by casualtie of fire.\' All the \ndominical lands were included in this lease with these ex- \nceptions \xe2\x80\x94 the ground enclosed within mud walls, commonly \ncalled the churchyard, all woods and underwoods, the inner \ncourt, the Master\'s and Fellows\' gardens, and the close at the \nwest side of the school house, i.e. the western part of the \npresent Fellows\' garden. As the ground occupied by the \nentrance court of the College was not excepted it is probable \nthat the farm buildings in the Nuns\' curia were still standing \nand in use, or others in their place. Except the gatehouse \nand school adjoining it no College buildings stood there. \n\nThe fair on the festival of the Assumption of the Virgin \nMary was granted to the Nuns by charter of King Stephen. \nThis charter is not now extant, but the fact is recorded in the \nHundred Rolls I The circumstance that the fair was held on \nthe vigil and feast of the Assumption, i.e. August 14 and 15, \nseems to indicate, as already stated, that the Nunnery church \nwas originally dedicated to S. Mary, but it is to be noted that \nAug. 14 was also the day on which S. Radegund was com- \nmemorated. A third day was added to the duration of the \nfair by charter of Henry VI., dated the sixteenth year of his \nreign (Charters, 9). \n\nThe name Garlick Fair, by which it was generally known in \nits last days, occurs first in an entry in the Bursar\'s accounts for \n1577-8. \n\n1 Bentham, History of Ely, Appendix, p. 46, mentions that in a window of \nthe manor-house, in the year 1744, were blazoned the arms of Bishop Goodrich \nof Ely. Goodrich was Fellow of Jesus in 1510, and Bishop of Ely 1534 \xe2\x80\x94 1554. \n\n2 H. R. II. p. 359, \'Item predicte Priorissa et Moniales habent quan- \ndam feriam ad festum Asnmpcionis Beate Marie Virginis duraturam per duos \ndies, sc. in vigilia Asumpcionis Beate Marie cum die sequent! quam quidem \nferiam habent ex concessioue Stephani quondam Eegis Anglie per cartam quam \nhabent de Rege predicto.\' \n\nC. A. S. Octavo Series. 4 \n\n\n\n50 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\n" for ledding ij payns in the sowth wyndowe there {i.e. in the chapel) \nnext to the garUcke fayre closse, &c., iijs. vjo?." \n\nThe close here referred to and otherwise known as \' the \nchurchyard \' occupied the position of the eastern portion of \nwhat is now the Master\'s garden, on the southern side of the \nchapel. It was entered by gates opening on Jesus Lane. In \nthe Nuns\' accounts for 1449-50 there is a charge of 12d. for a \nlock and key for these gates (\'pro portis vocatis feyregates\'). \nThey stood on the site of the still existing wooden door on the \nwestern side of the iron gates through which the new approach \nfrom Jesus Lane to the Chapel Court is entered. As late as \n1803 this gate was described by the then Bursar as \' Garlic \nFair Gate.\' The churchyard was enclosed with mud walls \ndividing it on one side from the Master\'s garden, on the other \nfrom the \'Master\'s close,\' or \'pond yard.\' Probably the fair \nhad been held there from the first, but after the inclusion of \nthe site in the Master\'s garden it seems to have been trans- \nferred to the western margin of the College close, adjoining the \nKing\'s Ditch, where it gave its name to Garlic Fair Lane, now \nPark Street. \n\nAs a trade mart the fair seems never to have had any \nimportance. Though the Nuns and, after them, the College in \nits earlier days were considerable buyers at both Midsummer \nand Sturbridge fairs, and on occasions even resorted to \nS. Audrey\'s fair at Ely, they seem never to have marketed at \nthe fair which was held in their own grounds. The tolls \nreceived by the Nuns in 1449-50 amounted only to 5s. 2<^., \nand in the following year to 55. In the earlier year the toll \ncollectors received 6d as wage ; a cook hired to help in the \nkitchen at the fair time also received 3d In the 16th and \nearlier part of the l7th century the profits of the fair, including \n\' waifFs and stray thes,\' were regularly included in the lease \nof the manor. After 1635 there appears in the accounts an \nannual entry of \xc2\xa31 received as profits of the fair, which, with \nnot unfrequent omissions in the later years, continues until \n1709, after which it ceases \\ But until 1838, when the manor- \n1 In the College Eegister, July 16, 1642, occurs an entry, \' Eogerus Har- \n\n\n\nANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. 51 \n\nhouse was destroyed and the close thenceforth let on an annual \ntenancy, in every lease of the manor there was a covenant that \nthe College \'shall have liberty to keep a fair within and over \nthe close, or such part thereof as hath been used for that \npurpose, on the feast day of the Assumption of the Blessed \nVirgin Mary yearly, or at such other time or times as it may \nkeep the same.\' The fair seems to have been still in existence \nat the beginning of the present century, about which time \nBowtell writes (MSS. pp. 205\xe2\x80\x9411), \' On the 14th, 15th and 16th \nAugust this Fair is still constantly observed by the Inhabitants \nof Jesus Lane, who claim it as a Privilege belonging peculiarly \nto their Situation and invite Strangers to partake of their \nFestivity in strong ale and cheerless (sic) Frumenty. But \nthese Meetings are now attended with far less Rejoicings than \nthey were formerly, when Minstrels and Musicians were \nengaged to heighten the celebration,\' &c. The New Cambridge \nGuide, published in 1809, speaks ambiguously of its existence \nat that date. \' There was formerly another festival, called \nOarlick Fair, celebrated here; which was granted by Henry VI. \nto the Nuns of St Radegund, and held in Jesus Lane, on the \n14th of August and two following days ; but this is now nearly \nabolished.\' \n\nThe Radegund tithes were commonly leased by the College \nto the tenant of the manor. Like the tithes of all the \nCambridge churches they were drawn from the common fields \nof the town. These fields, tilled by the possessors on the open \nfield system, extended on all sides round the town as far as the \nborough limits. The fields on the north and west sides of the \ntown were collectively known as Cambridge fields, and on their \ninner side were bounded by a watercourse extending from \nQueens\' Green to the Bin Brook, and from thence by the Bin \nBrook to its junction with the river. The fields on the south \nand east sides of the town were anciently known as Barnwell \nfields ; their inner boundary coincided generally with the \ncourse of the King\'s Ditch from the point where it leaves the \n\nrison constitutus est Ballivus noster pro Garlicke faire hoc anno 1642.\' No \nother appointment by the College of a bailiff for the fair is recorded. \n\n4\xe2\x80\x942 \n\n\n\n52 ANNALS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nriver at the King\'s Mill to the place where it rejoins it at the \nangle of Jesus Green. The Cambridge and the Barnwell \nfields were to the last cultivated as distinct, and separate Acts \nof Parliament were required for their enclosure, the former \nin 1802, the latter in 1807. Both Acts contained provisions \nfor making allotments in lieu of tithes, but the great tithes \nbelonging to Jesus College in the Barnwell fields were specially \nretained in the Act of 1807, and, as \' Radegund tithes,\' exist \nat the present day. The tithes of Cambridge fields were \nknown as the tithes of S. Giles and the tithes of S. Rade- \ngund, the former apparently including the parishes of S. \nGiles, S. Peter and All Saints next the Castle, the churches \nof which were appropriated to S. Giles\' Priory, Barnwell, \nwhile the latter would represent the tithes of S. Clement\'s, \nwhich belonged to the almoner of S. Radegund\'s Priory. The \ntithes of Barnwell fields on the other hand belonged exclusively \nto the southern parishes. The old tithe books show that they \nbelonged to the churches of S. Andrew the Great, S. Mary next \nthe Market, S. Mary the Less, S. Bene\'t and the Holy Trinity, \nto the almoner of Barnwell Priory, as impropriator of S. Ed- \nward\'s, S. Sepulchre\'s, S. John\'s and S. Botolph\'s, and to \nS. Radegund\'s Nunnery, in right, no doubt, of All Saints\' Church \nin Jewry. In a printed report of an action (Anderson v. \nBroadbelt) which took place in 1816, with respect to the right \nof Jesus College to the Radegund tithe in Barnwell fields, it is \nstated that \'the Inhabitants of All Saints\' parish in perambu- \nlating their boundaries had uniformly included the fields of \nBarnwell in consequence of their right to the Rates on those \nTithes.\' \n\n\n\n\nENTRANCE \nCOURT \n\n\n\nA. \n\n\nLutriiia. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nK. \n\n\nCamera of Prioress. \n\n\nB. \n\n\nWell. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nL. \n\n\n\'The Entry\'. \n\n\nC. \n\n\n? Novices\' Dortev on up] \n\n\njer \n\n\nfloor. \n\n\nM. \n\n\n? Cheker of Cellaress. \n\n\nD. \n\n\n\'The Cloister end\'. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nN. \n\n\n\'The Cook\'s Chamber\'. \n\n\nE. \n\n\nDark Entry. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n0. \n\n\nFinceriia. \n\n\nF. \n\n\n? Calefactory. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nV. \n\n\nKitchen. \n\n\nG. \n\n\n? Vestry. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nQ- \n\n\n? Guest Hall of Prioress \n\n\nH. \n\n\nSacristan\'s chamber. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nB. \n\n\nOuter Gates. \n\n\nJ. \n\n\nVestibule. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nS. \n\n\n? Almonry. \n\n\n\n\nmtmm \n\n\nExisting \n\n\nWalls \n\n\nand Foundations. \n\n\n\n\nV/M//mA \n\n\nH \n\n\nIJotnetical. \n\n\n\n\n\nFig. III. Plan of the Nunneky Buildings. \n\n\n\nTo face iHuje o3. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 53 \n\n\n\nTHE BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nThe scope of the Arcliitectaral History in the chapters \ndealing with Jesus College, except in the case of the Chapel, \ndoes not include any detailed account of the Nunnery build- \nings. Though such an account was outside the plan adopted \nby the authors in the case of other colleges it is matter for \nmuch regret that Professor Willis left no notes for the treat- \nment of this subject, on which he could have written with the \nauthority of a master. \n\nIn the preamble to the Statutes of Nicholas West, Bishop \nof Ely 1515-1533, the statement is made that the College was \n\' paene ab ipsis fundamentis noviter aedificatura et construc- \ntum \' by the Founder himself Apparently the construction to \nbe put upon the words \' noviter aedificatum \' is that from the \nground-floor upwards Alcock reconstructed the Nuns\' buildings \nin such a way as to give them the appearance of being new ; \nunless the expression is inaccurate it cannot mean that a new \nfabric was raised on the old foundations. The former, at least, \nis the only interpretation which can be reconciled with what \nis known of Alcock\'s operations in the case of the Chapel; it \ncorresponds equally with the facts brought to light b}^ recent \ndiscoveries connected with the domestic buildings occupying \nNunnery sites. It is probable enough, though the fact is \nnot stated in the royal letters patent, that the Nuns left \ntheir dwellings in such a state of disrepair as to be scarcely \nhabitable; that was an incident common to college as well \nas monastic buildings, and as late as the reign of Edward VI. \nthe Bursars\' accounts show that a considerable number of \nchambers were unoccupied \'per defectum reparacionis.\' But \nthe poverty and neglect of a quarter of a century which, \nno doubt, had made havock of thatched roofs and stud-par- \ntitions could have had little effect on the outward walls of \n\n\n\n54 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nsolid clunch, which, under a facing of later brick, still testify \nto the durability of the work of the Nunnery builders, and \nAlcock had too much practical skill to destroy buildings \nwhich could easily be adapted to the needs of a college, and \nharmonized to 15th century fashions in architecture. In the \nRefectory, in the whole of the ranges occupying the eastern \nand western sides of the cloister, and in their prolongations \nnorthwards into the third or kitchen court the walls of the \nNunnery still rise to their original height. Alcock, or the \nbuilders who succeeded him, cased them with brick, and, as a \nthird storey was added to the two in which the Nunnery for \nthe most part was contained, it was necessary to heighten the \nwhole structure with a few feet of brickwork. A fiat roof \nhaving been substituted on the chapel for one of high pitch the \nopportunity was taken of bringing the roofs of all the build- \nings which surround the cloister to a uniform level. In interior \narrangement Alcock worked with a somewhat freer hand, but \nwith some help from documentary evidence it is not difficult \nbeneath his alterations and those of later times to trace the \nplan of the Nunnery and to locate its principal parts. \nThe documents which serve this purpose are : \n\n(1) The accounts of the Nunnery Treasuresses, printed on \npp. 145-178. \n\n(2) The statutes of Bishop Stanley (circa 1514), which \ncontain some interesting details as to the chambers assigned to \nthe various inmates of the College. \n\n(3) The College Bursars\' accounts. \n\nThe earliest volume of the Bursars\' accounts dates from \n1557, from which year they are continued in uninterrupted \nsuccession to the present time. The authors of the Archi- \ntectural History have largely availed themselves of the \nmaterials contained in these volumes. They do not appear \nto have been acquainted with the existence of a series of \nBursars\' Computus rolls, some on vellum, others on paper, \nbeginning with the year 1534-1535, and continuing thence \nto 1548-1549. Unlike the later accounts these rolls are \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 55 \n\nwritten in Latin and contain no details of expenditure on \nrepairs and building. But for our purpose they have a special \nimportance in that they contain a complete "Rental of the \nchambers in the College, specifying their locality and mention- \ning, besides the camerae of the Fellows and students, the \noffices of the College which were not subject to rent. The \napartments which they enumerate are those occupying the \nfour sides of the cloister-court, together with those contained in \nthe building which continues the eastern cloister range at the \neast end of the Hall and into the third court, and the Kitchen \nrange at the west end of the Hall. The chambers allotted to \nthe Master are not stated in detail, and there is no mention \nof any buildings in the entrance court, except on its eastern \nside. \n\nIt is unfortunate that the Nunnery accounts give us hardly \nany information which will help us to realise the appearance, \nor determine the situation, of the various monastic offices. \nBesides the church the only buildings mentioned in them are \nthe Refectory, the Aula (i.e. the Guest or Cellarer\'s Hall), the \nchamber over the outer gates, the Hospicium (a general term \nfor all the buildings external to the cloister \xe2\x80\x94 brewing and \ncandle-making were carried on there), the Latrina, the Kitchen, \nthe Cow-house, the Malt-kiln, the Garner (Orreum) and the \nBarn (Granatorium). The Infirmary and Chapter-house are \nreferred to in several deeds. Of the Dorter, the Parlour, the \nWarming-house, the Sacristy and the Lodging of the Prioress \nthe Nunnery documents make no mention. \n\nBefore proceeding to the buildings grouped about the \ncloister we may in few words say all that is known of the outer \nyard or curia of the Nunnery. With the authors of the \nArchitectural History we may fairly certainly assume that it \noccupied the position of the entrance court of the College. The \naccounts for the year 1449-50 mention certain \' magnas portas \nexteriores\' with a building (domus) adjoining them, which in \nthat year was thatched with sedge. In the following year\'s \naccounts is an item for reeds for the repair of the chamber \n* desuper portas exteriores huius monasterii.\' As there seems \n\n\n\n56 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nto have been only a single chamber above these gates it would \nappear that the entrance was not marked by any tower, and \nresembled the gateways of the older colleges, such as Pembroke \nand Corpus\'. The Gatehouse no doubt occupied the position \nof the present Gate-tower, and was approached from the road \nby the passage which is now known as \'the Chimney^.\' This \npassage served also as an approach to the door at the west end \nof the Nave, which was the entrance to the Church for the \nparishioners. On its east side was the churchyard. \n\nOn the west side of the gate in the earliest College days \nexisted a small building of two storeys (plan, S) which was the \ngrammar-school, founded by the Lady Katherine, widow of Sir \nReginald Bray. Sherman states that the school-house was \nbuilt by the latter ; but as the deeds relating to the foundation \ndo not state the fact it must be regarded as to some extent \ndoubtful. Possibly Sir Reginald Bray merely adapted one of \nthe Nunnery buildings, perhaps the Almonry, for the purpose. \n\nOn the east side of the Gate Tower is a wing of the Lodge, \ncontaining the dining-room on the ground floor (plan, Q). \nThe Statutes of Bishop Stanley show that this wing was \noccupied by the Master in the first years of the existence of \nthe College. During alterations to the Lodge which were \ncarried out in the course of the year 1886 two window arches \nwere discovered on the inner side of the northern wall of the \ndining-room (plan, k, k\'). They were narrow and lofty, the \ncrown reaching two or three feet above the ceiling. Unfor- \ntunately they were covered before any notes or drawings were \nmade of them, but it is sufficiently clear that they must have \nbeen blocked early in the 16th century, as three windows of \nthat date have been inserted in the wall. The loftiness of the \napartment which they lighted shows that it must have been \none of some dignity, and its contiguity to the Lodging of the \nPrioress suggests that it may have been the Guest Hall of the \n\n1 See Arch. Hist. Vol. in. p. 283. \n\n2 If there were any evidence for the antiquity of the name it might be \nconjectured that it was descended from the L.-L. chiminum, a road; but it \ndoes not occur in the Bm\'sars\' books before last century. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 57 \n\nPrioress. At the N.W. corner of this room is a blocked \ndoorway opening on the passage under the Gate-tower. In \nthe Statutes of Bishop West (chap. 10) it is provided that the \nMaster\'s servant shall act as exceptor or janitor. A correspond- \ning arrangement may have existed in the Nunnery : it is at \nleast noteworthy that Jesus is the only Cambridge College in \nwhich the Lodge adjoins the Gate. \n\nThe Bursars\' Rentals already mentioned always begin their \nenumeration of the College chambers with those which are \ndescribed as being in \'le North Corner Claustri desuper le \nCoolehouse.\' Next follow those at the east end of the Hall \nand on the east side of the cloister-court, and then successively \nthose on the south side of the cloister, \' next the west end of \nthe Church,\' and those on its west and north sides. There is \nno mention of staircases, but the rooms are distinguished in \nthe order \' lower,\' \' middle \' and \' upper.\' Each chamber may \nbe readily localized, as there has been practically little altera- \ntion of the internal arrangement of this part of the College \nsince the first half of the 16th century. \n\nThe \' North Corner \' of the cloister mentioned in the \nBursars\' Rolls is manifestly that portion of the range on the E. \nside of the cloister which is continued on the N. side of the \nHall, and is now known as staircase K. At the extremity of \nthis range, next the modern (1822) building which continues \nit northwards, there is a low wooden door on the ground-level, \nwhich opens on a flight of steps descending about 4 ft. 6 in. \nbelow the present ground-surface outside. Descending these \nsteps we find ourselves in what resembles a narrow passage \n(plan, A), flanked on either side by clunch walls about 4 ft. \napart and closed at its further end by the E. wall of the range. \nThe floor of the adjoining rooms on the first floor of staircase \nK is carried across the passage, so that those rooms are larger \nthan those below them by the space contained between the \nwalls. The wall opposite the door of entrance is pierced by a \nvery small aperture at the height of 12 ft. from the ground on \nthe inner side. From the parallel walls spring the remains of \n\xe2\x96\xa0 ancient brick arches which have formerly spanned the vault. \n\n\n\n58 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nIn this hardly altered relic of the Nunnery it is easy to \nrecognise the conventual latrina mentioned in the accounts of \n1450-1451. It continued to be used for the same purpose at \nleast as late as 1567-8. In the accounts of that year it is \ndistinguished as \' the olde privye \' from a new \' howse of \noffice \' which was then being built in the same quarter of the \nCollege \\ \n\nThe floor of the latrina consists of natural gravel, almost \nundisturbed. The channel of which it was the bed was con- \nducted from the fons often mentioned in the Nuns\' accounts. \nThis fo7is, which furnished the water supply of the Nunnery, \nis still represented by a disused pump on the N. side of the \nHall (plan, B), which gave its name to the \' Pump Court,\' as \nthe third court of the College was till recently called. From \nthis fons, which perhaps was an open trough or cistern, an \nopen channel, called in the accounts of 1572-3 \'y\xc2\xae kytching \nsinke ditche,\' or \'the Bog-house ditch\' (1650-1), traversed the \ncourt in the direction of the latrina. In the accounts for \n1708-9 are charges for \'covering in y\xc2\xae drayn from y^ kitchen \nand pump.\' Beyond the latrina the ditch passed into a \'pit\' \nor \' pond.\' \n\nAs the latrina in monasteries adjoined the Dorter it is \nfairly certain that the latter was contained in the range of \nwhich the latrina and the N. transept of the Church are \nthe extremities. Like all monastic dormitories it was on the \nupper floor, and was probably divided in the manner described \nin the Rites of Durham by transverse partitions of wainscote \ninto a double row of chambers, each lighted by a window \nin the wall adjoining. In the staircase in the N.E. angle of \nthe cloister may be seen a wall recess which appears to mark \nthe position of one of these windows, consisting of a single \nnarrow light (plan, a). \n\n1 As there were two distinct sets of shafts descending to the ditch from the \nclosets above, one set in front of the other, Kke those found in medieval \nbuildings of more than two storeys, it would appear that there were two upper \nstoreys of closets, and that consequently the E. range of the cloister to which \nthese closets formed the termination was, in this part at least, arranged in \nthree storeys. The clunch wall at the N. is carried up to the present roof. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 59 \n\nThe Dorter seems to have extended over the Chapter-house, \nbut not so far as to the gable-wall of the N. transept. The \nsurmise of the authors of the Architectural History that the \nNuns had an access from the Dorter to the transept by the \ncircular staircase, or \' vice,\' in the N.E. angle of the latter is \ndevoid of foundation. The unaltered wall on the Dorter side \nof this \' vice \' shows no trace of a doorway, and the narrow \nand dark stair would be a most inconvenient means of entei\'- \ning the church. There is indeed in the N.W. angle of the \ntransept a door, now blocked (plan, b), which may very likely \nhave admitted the Nuns from the Dorter without the neces- \nsity of passing through the cloister. But, as at first designed, \nthe Dorter clearly did not abut on the transept. The cills \nof the triplet of Norman windows in this wall are at such a \nheight as to make it clear that there was no building next \nit on the level of the upper floor. As moreover the \' vice \' \nhas a narrow aperture in the same wall, above the first floor \nlevel, designed to light the stairs, it can only have had a \nground-floor building next it on the N. side. This building \n(plan, G) probably contained a staircase descending from the \nDorter to the transept door\\ \n\nAt its N. end the Nuns\' Dorter must have been closed \nby the wall which extends the line of the N. wall of the \nHall. This is now the only transverse wall of solid masonry \nin the range, and unquestionably is of Nunnery date. But it \nis only on the ground floor that it appears as a continuous \nwall of clunch. On the upper floors the portion of it nearest \nthe Hall, 10 feet in breadth, is merely a stud-partition with a \nthin clunch wall on the ground floor below ; in the eastern \nportion the thicker clunch continues to the full height of \nthe Dorter. Here the Nunnery arrangement seems to be \npractically unaltered. The space next to the E. wall of the \n\n1 The clunch wall of the cloister between the Chapter House and the N. \ntransept was stripped of its plaster in 1894, and was seen to consist of rough \nmaterials of all kinds, including a half-worked Norman capital. It bore no \ntrace of either door or window. But there was nothing to show that the exposed \nface was more than a refacing of post-Nunnery date. \n\n\n\n60 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nRefectory, having no windows to light it, was perhaps not used \nfor sleeping chambers, and served as a passage to the latrina \nand the room next the Dorter on its N. side (plan, C). This \nroom, if the usual monastic arrangement was followed, may \nhave been the Dorter of the Novices. Above it, as already \nshown, there was a room on the second floor. \n\nThe arrangement indicated above remained very little \naltered in the 16th century, as is shown by documentary \nevidence of that date. I shall not apologise for quoting this \nevidence, as in interesting details it illustrates the continuity \nof collegiate with monastic life which was, perhaps is, a feature \ndistinguishing Jesus from other Cambridge colleges. \n\nThe existence of a chamber of more than ordinary im- \nportance, next to the latrina, is indicated by cap. 28 of \nBishop Stanley\'s Statutes. This statute, which gives par- \nticular directions as to the assignment of chambers in the \nCollege, contains the following clause : \n\n"Omnes camerae (exceptis tribus de principalioribus, camera videlicet \nex parte boreali summi Altaris, camera ad occidentalem partem Aulae \nquam modo M"^ Fitzherbert iuhabitat et camera proxima communem \nlatrinam quam modo M^\' Ogle tenet quas volumus pro venerabilioribus \npersonis ad Collegium nostrum praedictum confluentibus custodiri) nisi \nalias magistro placuerit, praefatis sociis, perhendinantibus et scholaribus \nper praefatum magistrum distribuantur." \n\nAs regards the last of the chambers indicated, that, \nnamely, which adjoined the latrina, the directions of tlie \nstatute seem generally to have been observed in the 16th \ncentury. During the years 1544-1550 it was occupied by \na certain Mr Badcocke, who is probably to be identified with \nJohn Badcocke, the last prior of Barnwell, who surrendered \nhis house to the crown in 1538 and was subsequently incum- \nbent of S. Andrew\'s the Less, Barnwell^ In 1572 it was \noccupied by Lord Wharton, and in 1576-9 by Bancroft, after- \nwards Archbishop of Canterbury, who, though distinguished as \na tutor, and, as a continuator of Sherman\'s Historia observes, \n\n^ Cooper, Athenae Cantab., Vol. i. p. 219. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 61 \n\n\' potestate plane magistrali pollens/ was never a Fellow of the \nCollege. The Bursars\' Rentals of 1535-1550 show certain \ncircumstances connected with this guest-chanaber which dis- \ntinguish it from other rooms in the College. As a matter of \nfact it consisted of two chambers, on the middle and upper \nfloor respectively, and the tenant also sometimes rented the \ncoal-house below them. Each of the chambers is called a \n\' half-chamber \' {medietas camerae), but, as the tenant paid \nfor each the same rent as other tenants on the same floors, \nit would seem that the half-chambers were not inferior in \nsize to ordinary College chambers. The explanation of the \ndesignation \' half-chamber \' seems to lie in the fact that a \nportion of the middle and upper floor-space was required for \nthe passage connecting this quarter of the College with the \nrooms in the upper floors of the eastern cloister-range. This \npassage, here about 8 feet wide, is still to be distinguished \nin the gyp-rooms of the four upper chambers at the N. end \nof the range, which, unlike those on the lower floor, are of \nsubstantial masonry. The passage on the second floor was \nentered from the chamber, now a lumber-room, at the E. \nend of the Hall through a wooden doorcase, of 16th century \ndesign, set in the stud-wall already mentioned as continuing \nthe N. wall of the Hall. This stud-wall apparently did not \nexist in the Nunnery or early College days, for in the angle \nnext the oriel of the Hall there was formerly, on each of the \nupper floors a window, the upper one of smaller size, so \nsplayed as to light the dark portion of the passage extend- \ning along the E. wall of the HalP. At the end of this \npassage, on the top floor and over the latrina, there is a very \nsmall chamber, approached through a stone door-case and \nlighted from the third court by a diminutive window. Its \n\n1 These windows now exist only as cupboard recesses on the inner side of \nthe wall. But externally they may be recognized by the brick which has been \nused for blocking them being of a diiferent colour from the rest of the wall. \nIn the highest storey of the building next the W. end of the Hall there is still \na passage which leads from the N. wall of the range, over the kitchen as far as \nthe N.W. angle of the cloister-court, and in the N. and S. ends of the gable \nwall of the Hall there are small windows splayed in the manner above described. \n\n\n\n62 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nposition and dimensions sufficiently prove it to have been a \nnecessarium. \n\nApart from the convenience of a covered approach to the \nlatrina, the passage was rendered necessary by the fact that \nthe gate leading from the Nuns\' cloister to the third court \nwas always locked at night. The frequent mention in the \nBursars\' accounts of purchases of keys and repairs to the lock \nof the " cloisters gate " seems to show that in the earlier \nCollege period no egress was permitted at night beyond the \ncloister-court. \n\nThe description in the Bursars\' Rolls of this quarter of \nthe College as the \' North Corner Claustri \' is an indication \nof the fact, otherwise established by entries in the Audit \nbooks, that a cloister-walk existed here in the 16th century, \nas, no doubt, had been the case in Nunnery times. The \nAudit books call this \'the cloister end,\' and it adjoined \'the \nvvoodyard*,\' It was otherwise described as a \'lane\' or! \n\' gallery V both of which words were once used to denote a \ncloister- walk I This external cloister was an extension of \nthe eastern walk of the cloister-quadrangle, with which it \ncommunicated by a passage under the dais of the Hall (i.e. \nthe Refectory), an arrangement common in monasteries. This \npassage remained in use at least as late as 1648-9, when \nit was known as the \' Dark Entry^,\' the name which was \n\n1 Accounts 1572-3 : \' To Barraker slatinge in the woodyarde over the \ncloister ende going up to my lord Wharton\'s chamber... mending the foundations- \nof the cloisters on the outside towards the inner corte and mending the founda- \ntion of the wall in the entrie going up to my lord Wharton\'s chamber,\' &c. \n\n2 Accounts 1567-8: \'Barnes bill for...underpinninge the walles of the \nlane going to the house of office and for tiling,\' &c. Same year: \'Imprimis \nvij dales before Whitsondaie when Thomas Gallant wrought pulling down the \nslate of the gallerie and the walle goinge to the walle of the olde howse of \noffice,\' &c. In 1576-7 mention occurs of \'y" Layne going down to y\xc2\xae Bo- \ncardes.\' \' Bocardo,\' \'the Bocardes,\' a euphemistic Italianization of the \nvernacular \'bogard,\' occurs often in the accounts. Dr Murray\'s Dictionary \ndoes not recognize the word \' Bocardo \' except in the more familiar sense of \n\'prison.\' But the last passage quoted s. i\\ in Halliwell and Nare\'s Glossary \nmakes the other meaning plain. \n\n^ See Architectural History, Vol. iii. p. 338. \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0* Accounts 1648 \xe2\x80\x94 9 : \' For two lattises for y" window in y\'= dark entry, 6^\' \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 63 \n\ngiven at Canterbury to the covered way which led under the \nDorter from the Great Cloister to the Infirmary. It was \nentered from the cloister quadrangle through a door-case \nwhich now gives access to the staircase in the N.E. angle \nof the court. This staircase is called in the Bursars\' accounts \nof last century \' the Parlour staircase \' from the circumstance \nthat it then gave access to the Combination Room through a \ndoor, now blocked, on the first floor. It is generally known \nin College as \' Cow Lane.\' The latter name was given to a \npassage next the Porter\'s lodge in the Old Court of King\'s \nCollege. Perhaps it was originally applied to the Dark Entry, \nwhich was entered from the cloister through the same door- \nway as the staircase, \'lane\' being, as already stated, one of \nthe names by which the passage to the \'house of ofiice\' was \nknown. A more modern door under the oriel of the Hall \nmarks the exit of the Dark Entry on the outer side. The \nclunch walls flanking the passage still remain in the Buttery \nbeneath the Hall, though the central portion of each has been \nremoved in order to give uninterrupted communication with \nthe cellar beyond, and the passage has been blocked by recent \nwalls at either end. \n\nThe room on the E. side of the Dark Entry (plan, F), now \na cellar, was entered from it by a door of which traces remain \nin the clunch wall. In the early part of the 16th century this \nroom, as well as the Combination Room and garret above it, \nwas occupied as an ordinary college-chamber. The present \nfloor of the cellar is three feet lower than the pavement of the \ncloister walk, but its original level was higher, as is shown by \nthe position in the E. wall of a window, now blocked, and in \nthe N. wall of a fireplace. The latter has a nearly flat arch \nplainly chamfered in the clunch : on its eastern side is a small \nlocker. We may conjecture that this room was the Nuns\' \nCommon House or Calefactory. \n\nOn the inner side of the E. wall of the cloister, directly \nfacing the northern walk, there may be seen a wide and \nplainly chamfered arch of stone (plan, c). Its crown has been \ncut away to make the window looking into the cloister. If \n\n\n\n64 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nthe S. wall of the room which we conjecture to have been \nthe Common House was in line with the S. wall of the \nRefectory, there can only have been space between it and \nthe Chapter House for a passage. It seems probable, there- \nfore, that this archway was the entrance to the passage from \nthe cloister to the Garden and the Cemetery. The burial- \nground of the Nuns was pretty certainly at the N.E. end of \nthe Church, that of the parish at the S.E. end; human remains \nwere dug up on the former site in 1884, and on the latter in \nthe years 1848-50. \n\nThe circumstances which led to the remarkable discovery \nin April 1893 of the beautiful arcade which was the cloister- \nfront of the Chapter House need not here be detailed. Sub- \nsequent excavations carried on in July 1894 brought to light \nthe lower courses of the walls of the eastern portion of the \nChapter House projecting into the Chapel Court. These ex- \ncavations showed that the Chapter House measured 37 feet \nby 25 feet. At the N.E. and S.E. angles there was a pair of \nbuttresses of slight projection which showed that the building \nwas of early 13th century date. Running along the eastern \nwall on its inner side was a stone bench. The whole of the \nwest end was occupied by three arches, the middle one forming \na doorway, and those at the sides containing each a window \nof two lights with a quatrefoil above. The arches and tracery \nspring from rich clusters of detached shafts, most of the capi- \ntals of which are carved with foliage, while a few are moulded. \nTwo capitals in the northernmost pier are remarkable. They \nthemselves are finished, but their design would seem to have \nbeen suggested by an unfinished carved capital. One of the \nannulets which divide the longer shafts broke at some time, \nand a continuous shaft was substituted for the two lengths. \nIt will be noticed that there was no door in the entrance, \nand no shutters or glass in the windows. During the exca- \nvations at the east end there were found a number of frag- \nments of lancet windows divided by small shafts. These are \nof the same period as the other remains of the Chapter House, \nand it is probable that they are parts of the eastern window. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 65 \n\nThey are now preserved on the floor within the entrance. A \nlow stone bench (plan, d) extends along the cloister wall \nfrom the Chapter House towards the north transept. A \ntombstone with floriated cross, possibly not in its original \nposition, lies before the entrance ; the partial excavation of the \nsite brought to light no tombstones within the Chapter House. \n\nThe existing portions of the conventual church have been \nso fully described by Professor Willis^ that it is sufficient here to \nrecord the few facts which have been discovered since he wrote. \n\nThe statute of Bishop Stanley quoted on p. 60 mentions a \nchamber on the northern side of the High Altar which was \nset apart for the use of distinguished guests of the College. In \nthe summer of 1894 the foundations of a small building were \ndiscovered on the north side of the presbytery (plan, H). This \nbuilding was of the same width as the adjoining choir-aisle and \nin length extended from the east end of the latter to the east \nend of the presbytery. Whether it communicated with the \naisle or not it is impossible to say, for the old aisle was de- \nstroyed by Alcock : but it seems to have been entered from \nthe presbytery by a door now blocked (plan, e). The building \nwas clearly of two storeys, for there is a small loop-hole or \nsquint high up in the presbytery wall, which was so directed \nthat the light before the High Altar could be seen from the \nupper storey (plan, /). Probably this upper room was the \nSacristan\'s chamber. It must obviously have blocked up the \nlower parts of the lancet windows in the north wall of the \npresbytery I \n\nThe discovery of a Norman arcade on the western wall of \nthe north transept in the summer of 1882 is briefly alluded to \nin the Appendix to the second volume of the Architectural \nHistory and is more fully detailed in a communication to the \nAntiquarian Society by Mr W. M. Fawcett, M.A.\' \n\n1 Architectural History, ii. pp. 122 \xe2\x80\x94 141. \n\n2 It may here be mentioned that previously to 1828 only four lancet \nwindows were open on the north side of the presbytery, corresponding to the \nfour in the opposite wall. The fifth lancet on the north side, and the blind half- \narch next it, were discovered in that year by the Eev. G. Green, M.A., Dean. \n\n\'^ Communications, xxv. p. Ixxxvi. \n\nG. A. S. Octavo Series. 5 \n\n\n\n66 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY, \n\nThere is good reason for believing that the choir of the \nNuns\' church extended into the nave, and even that the \npresent west wall of the Chapel stands in the position, if it be \nnot the actual structure, of the wall which divided the conven- \ntual from the parochial part of the church. An early deed \n(Charters, 220 c) grants a rent of eight shillings \'for mainte- \nnance of a lamp in the choir of the nuns, wheresoever their \nchoir shall be,\' words which imply that the ritual choir was not \nlimited to the chancel. Alcock\'s screen, on the other hand, if \nwe may judge from the mention in the Audit accounts for \n1560 \xe2\x80\x94 1 of a \'barre at the chansell dore,\' would seem to have \noccupied the position of the present one. The view that the \nNuns\' choir-screen was near the western end of the Chapel \nperhaps derives some support from the fact that in digging for \nthe supports of the new organ gallery in 1888 a large earthen- \nware vessel, 13 inches in height, was discovered a few inches \nbelow the pavement. It was empty and may have served as a \n\'resonator,\' such as in the middle ages were sometimes placed \nunder organs and stalls, e.g. at Fountains Abbey. \n\nThe hope expressed by the authors of the Architectural \nHistory (vol. II, p. 128) that a fine western door might at some \ntime be discovered in the western wall of the old nave received \na fulfilment, unfortunately only partial, in the year 1886, when \nthe lower portion of the northern jamb of this door was dis- \ncovered during alterations to the Master\'s Lodge. The remains \ndisclosed showed that the jambs had been filled with clusters \nof detached shafts of the 13th century, like those in the \nentrance to the Chapter House. At the same time remains of \nsome of the northern piers of the nave were found embedded \nin a wall of Alcock\'s work^ \n\nInspection of the plan will show that the westernmost \npier (plan, g) of the northern arcade of the nave is not, like the \ncorresponding one on the opposite side, placed against the \nwestern wall of the church, but slightly advanced to the east. \n\n1 Mr J. W. Clark has kindly furnished me with a plan (made in 1886) \nshowing these discoveries and the arrangement of the west end of the church. \nThis I have employed in drawing the plan opposite p. 53, \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 67 \n\nBetween this pier (g) and the western wall there seems to have \nbeen a doorway. Previous to the alterations which took place \nin this part of the Master\'s Lodge in 1886 the wall at the N.W. \nangle of the old nave was pierced on the ground-floor by a \ndoor which opened on a rectangular area (plan, J) containing a \nstaircase which ascended to the first-floor rooms. The walls \nenclosing this area were of solid character and were carried to \nthe full height of the building. That on its north side is a \nprolongation of the north aisle wall ; that on the west is \nsimilarly an extension of the exterior wall of the western \ncloister-range and is parallel in direction with the western \nfront of the church. Now the buildings which surround the \ncloister are all disposed in an exactly rectangular fashion ; but \nthe angle which the west cloister range makes with the south \nrange of the entrance-court is not a right angle. It seems not \nimprobable that the Nuns\' gate-house was originally detached \nfrom the cloister-range. The hypothesis that the range con- \nnecting them was erected at a later date accounts for the \nunsymmetrical plan of the dining-room of the Lodge (plan, Q) \nthe east and west walls of which are not parallel. The east \nwall of the dining-room was, on this supposition, once the \nexternal wall of a small tower-like structure projecting from \nthe church at its N.W. angle. Loggan\'s view of the S. front \nshows just such a projection from the wing which contained \nthe old nave. Like that wing it contained three storeys, \nwhereas the wing between it and the gateway has only two. \nFurther proof of the original connection of this quasi-tower \nwith the church is seen in the fact that the battlements over \nthe present nave and the part of the old nave now converted \ninto domestic buildings, as shown by Loggan, are continued \nround the south and west sides of this projection. These \nbattlements, we know, were the work of Sir John Rysley, who \ndied in 1511 \\ Between 1718 and 1720 the wing of the Lodge \nnext the gate was heightened by the addition of another storey, \n\n1 Commemoration Book : " Sir John Eysley covered the Cloisters with \ntimber and lead and completed the Eoof and Battlements at the West End \nof the Church." \n\n5\xe2\x80\x942 \n\n\n\n68 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nwhereby the turret was completely smothered in external \nappearance, and, no doubt, at the same time the battlement \nabove it was removed. \n\nThe ground floor of the structure above described (plan, /) \nobviously served as a vestibule to the church, to which the \nPrioress had access from her lodging in the western cloister- \nrange by the entrance at the N.W. angle of the nave. From \nthe account of the ceremonies attending the installation of a \nPrioress, given on pp. 38-9, we learn that after the publication \nof the election \' coram populo congregate,\' i.e. probably in the \nparochial part of the nave, \' omnes sorores predictam Joannam \nelectam duxerunt ad vestibulum ejusdem ecclesie ibideraque \ndimiserunt,\' i.e. they conducted her to this vestibule and left \nher at the door of the lodging which she was to occupy as \nPrioress. The door was probably the still existing one (plan, h) \nby which the Hall of the Lodge is entered. On the first floor \nimmediately above this door, and communicating with the room \nabove this Hall, is another ancient door which, no doubt, was \nreached by a staircase ascending from the vestibule. \n\nA common arrangement in monasteries of which the Head \ndid not reside in a detached building was to place the Lodge \nof the Prior in the west side of the cloister next the Church. \nOn the ground floor was placed his camera, or private chamber, \nabove it his solar with an oratory adjoining. At Jesus the \nrooms in this quarter of the College, as shown by the Bursars\' \nRentals, were allotted from a very early period to the Master, \nand they lend themselves so exactly to the uses above-mentioned \nthat it is highly probable that Alcock assigned to the Master \nof the College the dwelling which had formerly belonged to the \nPrioress. The large room on the ground floor next the vesti- \nbule (plan, K) is called in the Bursars\' Rentals the camera \nMagistri. Since the publication of the Architectural History \nit has been restored very much to the dimensions and appear- \nance which belonged to it in Alcock\'s time. The wooden \npartitions which divided it before the alterations of 1886 have \nbeen removed, the ceiling taken down and the joists of the \nfloor above it exposed. These joists are coloured with ver- \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 69 \n\nmilion and adorned with repetitions of the monogram IHS. \nOn its north side this room is bounded by the passage (plan, L) \nwhich until last century was the approach from the entrance \ncourt to the cloister \\ In the Bursars\' Rentals this passage is \nsimply called \'le Entre.\' The handsome wainscoted room above \nthe Master\'s chamber goes by various names in the Audit \nBooks \xe2\x80\x94 the Conference Chamber, the Audit Room, the coena- \nculitni Magistri and the Founder\'s Chamber. Probably the \nlast name indicates that Alcock designed it for the use of \nhimself and his successors in the see of Ely. It was probably \nthe Solar or Guest Chamber of the Prioress. Next to it on the \nnorth side is a narrow chamber contained within the walls \nwhich flank the \' Entry \' below, and approached by a door at \nthe east end of the Conference Chamber. Though it is only \neight feet in width this room is lighted by a large eastern \nwindow of three lights. This was clearly the Oratory of the \nPrioress. Sherman tells us in his Historia that Dr Reston, \nwho was Master 1546 \xe2\x80\x94 1549, converted this chamber into his \nprivate Oratory, and it continued to be used as the Mastei-\'s \nOratory as late as 1635^ In another passage Sherman informs \nus that the \' insignia \' (? arms painted on glass) of Sir Reginald \nBray (d. 1503) were in his time still to be seen in this \nOratory. \n\nThe rest of the ground-floor of the western cloister-range \nis stated in the Bursars\' Rentals to be occupied by two chambers \nlet to students of the College, and a room beyond them to the \nnorth which was occupied by the Cook. The purposes which \nthe two former chambers served in the Nunnery it is not easy \nto determine. One of them may perhaps have been the Parlour \n{Locutorium) where the Nuns were allowed to converse with \nvisitors, or with servants and tradesmen on the business of the \nNunnery ; the other was not improbably the Cheker, or office \nof the Cellaress. The room in which the College Cook lived \n(plan, N) from the fact that there was no chamber over it \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe space being occupied, as it still is, by the Library staircase \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1 See Architectural History, ii. p. 122. \n\n2 See the extract quoted in Architectural History, ii. p. 169, note. \n\n\n\n70 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nis easily identified with tlie passage by which at the present \nday the cloister is entered from the first court. \n\nAn interesting feature in this chamber is a low aperture \n(plan, j) in its north wall, opening into the room marked in \nthe plan and now serving as the Kitchen Office, but in early \nCollege days used as the pincerna or Buttery. This aperture \nis 16 in. wide and its apex is not more than 4 feet above the \npavement of the passage, but the floor of the Buttery cellar \non which it opens is 2 ft. lower than this pavement, though \nformerly, no doubt, level with it. On the side next the passage \nit is widely splayed, and a single hinge exists on which a \nshutter seems to have been hung. It is quite evident that \nthis opening was not a window looking into an external court, \nfor the walls of the old Buttery are of massive clunch and \nevidently Nuns\' work of an early date. Moreover on the side \nof the cellar the aperture is flush with the wall surface, and \nshows no kind of recess nor any window jambs. West of the \nopening on this cellar side the wall has been plugged with lead \nas though for fixing some object of wood or iron. \n\nIn this singular opening we may recognise a contrivance \nlike the Rota or Turn, which is thus described in Prof. \nWillis\' History of the Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, \n(p. 39, note). \n\n" The Turn or Rota is a contrivance employed in Nunneries, Foundling \nHospitals, and elsewhere, and consists of an upright cylindrical box \nturning on an upright axis, and having an opening on one side only. \nIt is fixed within or in front of an opening in a partition wall, so that \na person on one side placing an object in the Turn can, by twisting \nthe box half round, bring the object within the grasp of a second \nperson on the other side, without either party seeing the other." \n\nProf. Willis gives a description of a cellar wall-hole of this \nkind at Christ Church Monastery, which, with a few differences, \nmight be applied to that in the Cook\'s Chamber. The Cellarer, \nhe says, \n\n"was lodged at the end of the Refectory buildings, and in contact \nwith the court of the Guesten-hall....Two doors in the western alley [of the \ncloister] lead to his territory, the one at the north end, opposite to the \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 71 \n\nnorthern alley, the other near the south end. The first is remarkable for \nhaving at the left side a singular octagonal opening of sixteen inches \ndiameter through the thickness of the wall, in the form of a horizontal \nspout, the middle of which is about four feet from the ground. It pierces \nthe wall, narrowing to a circular form a foot in diameter at the back, where \nit appears to have opened into one of the Cellarer\'s offices. \n\n" Milner, describing the remains of the conventual buildings at Win- \nchester, mentions a small ornamented arch in a wall, which communicated \nwith the buttery and the cellarage, and remarks, \' It is not improbable that \nhere was what is called a Turn, by which the brethren who were exhausted \nwith fatigue and thirst, might, with the leave of their superior, at certain \ntimes call for a cup of beer of the cellarer.\' Our spout may have been a \ncontrivance to carry out this indulgence. The opening from the cellarage \nat the back being contrived at right angles with the present opening, it is \nplain that the cup would be placed by the Cellarer\'s man within reach of \nthe applicant and returned without mutual recognition. But at present \nthere are no traces of the form of its termination inwards," &c. \n\nThe room called in the Bursars\' Rentals the \' pincerna \' \n(plan, 0) served as the Buttery until the year 1579-1580 \nwhen a \' new buttrye \' was constructed, apparently under the \nHall. The accounts of 1563-1564 mention \'a doore betwene \ny^ butleres chamber and y\xc2\xae kechine.\' \n\nIn the upper floors of the part of the western cloister-range \nwhich extends from the Oratory to the wall between the Cook\'s \nchamber and the pincerna there are no partitions of solid \nmasonry. The whole of the highest floor is now occupied by \nthe Library. In its upper portion this room is probably \nAlcock\'s work, as seems to be shown by the use of brick in \nits lateral walls. But there is reason to believe that in this \nquarter of the Nunner}^ there was a large room occupying on \nthe first floor the space which the Library now occupies on the \nfloor above it. The usual monastic arrangement would place \nhere the Guest House, or Lodging of the Cellaress. \n\nIn the Nuns\' accounts for 1449-50 reference is made in \nthe same item to repairs in the Aula (i.e. Hall of the Cellaress) \nand in the Kitchen, and for practical reasons there can be little \ndoubt that these two departments were in close communication. \nThe Aula then most likely occupied the space above the Nuns\' \nButtery. In its N. wall is contained the flue of the Kitchen \n\n\n\n72 BUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. \n\nrange and in its N.W. corner, where the clunch of this wall \nends and a wooden party wall closes the room, there was most \nlikely a wooden staircase descending inside the Kitchen. The \nKitchen, which, except for alterations by Alcock in the door \nand windows, is substantially the Kitchen of the Nuns, has \nalways occupied the height of two storeys. \n\nThe means of access from the entrance- court to the Hall \nand Lodging of the Cellaress have now to be considered. \nThe Nunnery accounts for the year 1450-1451 mention a \n\' Poorche \' or \' Portecus prope Aulam.\' The only side of the \nAula detached from other buildings was the west : on the \nother sides there could not have been any door requiring the \nshelter of a porch. If the Lodging of the Cellaress reached, \nas we must suppose, to the N. wall of the present cloister \nentry, its door must have opened directly into the Guest Hall \nwithout any interposed staircase and landing. The staircase to \nthe Guest Hall was therefore external to the building. We \nnote that the same workman was engaged in 1450-1451 in \nmendino^ with tiles and \' sclate \' the \' Porch \' and the cloister. \nProbably the so-called Porch was of the nature of a pentise, \nascending by a covered stair to the first floor. The splendid \nNorman staircase of the New Hall at Canterbury is a familiar \nexample of such an arrangement. \n\nThe chamber at the west end of the Hall, occupying the \nposition of the old Guest Hall, it may be remembered, was one \nof the three principal chambers which by the statutes of Bishop \nStanley were allotted to distinguished visitors to the College. \n\nThe passage from the cloister to the Kitchen was, in the \nNunnery, as now, under the vestibule of the Refectory or Hall. \nThe Kitchen door (hostium coquine) must have stood where \nAlcock\'s door now stands, and was nearl}\' opposite a newel \nstaircase which opened above on the platform outside the \nscreen^ Above the entrance from the cloister was the small \nroom which until 1875 was the College muniment" "room and \nin the Bursars\' Rentals is called the Treasury (occupatur cum \n\n1 A plan of the west eud of the Hall, previous to the alterations of 1875, \nwhich includes this staircase, is given in the Architectural History, ii. p. 163. \n\n\n\nBUILDINGS OF THE NUNNERY. 73 \n\nThesauro Ecclesie). It may have served the same purpose in \nthe Nunnery. \n\nThe Bursars\' Rentals mention two rooms under the Hall. \nThe first had one door opening S. into the cloister and another \nN. next to the well. It was used for the storage of fuel (focalia). \nThe other had a door opening E. in the \'entre\' {i.e. the Dark \nEntry) and was \' le Storehowse.\' The word staurus was more \nparticularly applied to salted or dry fish. After the rooms \nunder the Hall were converted into the \' new buttrye \' we hear \nof a \' new fish-house/ which was in the Kitchen. It was placed \nover the \' leads,\' i.e. the kitchen coppers, and hence was called \n\'y^ house in y^ leads.\' It was between the outer wall of clunch \non the N. side of the Kitchen and an inner parallel one of brick, \nthe enclosed space being about six feet wide. The fish was \npiled on layers of sedge in a high stack, and to get at it there \nwas a door in the brick wall now visible only on the side \ninterior to the two walls. This door is at about the first floor \nlevel, and was reached from the Kitchen by \' a new ladder for \ny\xc2\xae fish house\' (1584-1585). The Nuns appear to have stacked \ntheir fish in a similar fashion, if we may judge from the fact \nthat several of them travelled by water to Lynn in 1450-1451 \nin order to buy salt fish and at the same time purchased a \n\'piece of timber called " a Maste" required for making a ladder.\' \n\nThe Founder\'s skilful treatment of the Nuns\' Refectory has \ngiven the Hall completely the appearance of a late loth \ncentury building ; but in no part of the College is it clearer \nthat he left the fabric of the Nuns\' building entire, inserting \nonly new windows, heightening the walls and constructing a \nnew roof. The extent to which he raised the walls is best seen \nin the garret over the Combination Room, where the clunch of \nthe Refectory gable is surmounted by a brick addition four or \nfive feet high at its middle part. The entrance to the Hall \nfrom the cloister was until 1875 through a door-arch of \nAlcock\'s time which opened into the space between the west \ngable of the Hall and the screen \\ A flight of steps led thence \nto the vestibule of the Hall. \n\n1 Architectural History, ii. p. 162. \n\n\n\nCHARTERS OF THE PRIORY. \n\nRoyal and Episcopal Charters. \n\n1 Charter of Nigellus, second bishop of Ely (1133 \xe2\x80\x94 1169). \n\nN. Dei gratia Eliensis Ecclesie Episcopus universis baroni- \nbus et hominibus Sancte Etheldrythe tarn clericis quam \n]aicis tam Francis quam Anglis salutem. Notum sit \nvobis omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris me conces- \nsisse et dedisse et carta mea confirmasse quandam terram \nsanctimonialibus cellule extra villam Cantebruge noviter \ninstitute prope terram eiusdem cellule iacentem quietam \net liberam absque omni consuetudine reddendo per \nsingulos annos xij*^. Presentibus testibus istis Rad. Olaf, \nPetro clerico, Gileberto capellano de Hornungesheia. \nValete. \n\n2 a Charter of King Stephen confirming a grant of William \n\nMonachus or le Moyne. \nS. Rex Anglie Episcopo de Eli et Justiciariis et Vice- \ncomitibus et Baronibus et Administris et omnibus \nfidelibus suis de Cantebr. scira salutem. Sciatis me \nconfirmasse et concessisse Ecclesie et Sanctimonialibus \nSancte Marie de Cantebrugia donacionem illam quam \nWills Monachus aurifaber eis fecit de ij virgatis terre \net de vj acris de prato et de iiij cotariis cum teneura \nsua in Schelforda in elemosina pro anima Regis Henrici \net pro Dei fidelibus. Quare volo et precipio quod \nEcclesia ilia et Sanctimoniales terram predictam et \npratum et cotarios cum teneura sua bene et in pace et \nlibere et quiete et in elemosina teneant solutam et \n\n\n\nCHARTERS OF THE PRIOEY. 75 \n\nquietam omni secular! exactione et servicio sicut idem \nWills illam eis dedit et concessit. T., W. Martell et \nRain, de Warenna. Apud Mapertes halam in obsidione. \n\nb Charter of Bishop Nigellus confirming the same grant. \n\nWitnessed by \'Willo Archid., Eic. de Sancto Paulo, Eic. de \nPontecardon, Eic. filio Ilberti, Magistro Ernulfo, Johe de Sancto \nAlbano, Gileberto clerico, Eadulfo Dapifero, Alexandre Pincerna, \nHenrico Peregrino.\' \n\n3 a Charter of the Countess Constance. \n\nConstantia Comitissa N. Eliensi Episcopo et omni clero \net omnibus Baronibus Cantebrigscir et Burgensibus de \nCantebrig tam futuris quam presentibus salutem. Sciatis \nme dedisse et concessisse Sanctimonialibus de Cantebrig \ntotam terram earum infra Burgum et extra tam possi- \ndendam quam possessam quietam de hagabulo et de \nlangabulo et totam piscaturam et aquam que Burgo \npertinet ita libere et quiete et honorifice sicut maritus \nmeus Eustacius et ego liberius et honorificentius ha- \nbuimus pro anima mariti mei Comitis Eustacii et pro \nanima Matilde Regine et Autecessorum meorum necnon \npro salute Regis Stephani in perpetuam elemosinam. \nHis testibus : N. Eliensi Episcopo [ ] cum \n\nRodberto fratre suo, Radulfo Vicecomite, Alexandro \npincerna, Eustacio de Bans, Will. Monaco de Selford, \nRodberto Grim, Gisleberto filio Dunning, Hereberto, \nHerveo filio Warin. \n\nAn ancient exemplification of the above charter of Nunnery \ndate gives the names of the missing witnesses, viz G. de Waltervill, \nEogero le Equaham. The copy is endorsed \' Haygabil.\' \n\nb Confirmation of the above charter by King Stephen. \nStephanus Rex Anglie Episcopo de Eli et Justiciariis et \nVicecomitibus et Baronibus et Ministris et omnibus \nfidelibus suis de Cantebrigscir salutem. Sciatis me \nconcessisse et confirmasse donacionem illam quam \nComitissa Constantia uxor Comitis Eustachii filii mei \nfecit Sanctimonialibus de Cantebrig^ in elemosinam de \n\n\n\n76 CHARTERS OF THE PRIORY, \n\ntota piscatura et aqua que Burgo Cantebr. pertinet et de \nquietancia totius terre sue. Quare volo et precipio quod \nSanctimoniales ille totam terram suam et piscaturam et \naquam bene et in pace et libere et quiete teneant solutam \net quietam ab omni secular! exactione et servicio sicut \npredicta Comitissa Constantia illis dedit et concessit et \ncarta sua confirmavit. T., Fulc. de Oilli et Rob. fil. Unfr., \net Ric. de Bada, et Henr. de Novo Mercato. Apud Cante- \nbrug. \nc Confirmation of the same charter by Bishop Nigellus, \n\n4 a First charter of King Malcolm IV. of Scotland, Earl of \nHuntingdon. \nM, Rex Scotie omnibus hominibus suis tam clericis quam \nlaicis de honore Hunted, salutem. Sciatis me concessisse \net dedisse Deo et monialibus de Grantebrige x acres {sic) \nterre iuxta Grenecroft in elemosinam et ad fundendam \n{sic) ecclesiam suam in ea per duos solidos reddendos et \nprecipio quod minister meus cum eos reciperit {sic) ad \naltare eiusdem ecclesie ofiferat eos. T., Herberto Epis- \ncopo de Glasgu, Walt. Cancellario, Hugone de Morevill, \nFulc. de Lusures, Dd. Olifat, Walt, de Lind. Apud \nHunted. \n\nRoyal seal appended ; see p. 12. \n\nh Second charter of King Malcolm. \nM. Rex Scott, omnibus probis hominibus suis et amicis de \nhonore Huntendunie et Cantebrugie salutem. Sciant \nclerici et laici presentes et posteri me in perpetuam \nelemosinam dedisse et concessisse et hac mea carta con- \nfirmasse Deo et Ecclesie Sancte Marie et Sancte Rade- \nffundis de Cantebruff. et Sanctimonialibus ibidem Deo \nservieutibus decem acras terre iuxta Grenecroft. Quare \nvolo et firmiter precipio ut predicte Sanctimoniales illas \ndecem acras habeant et possideant liberas et quietas ab \nomni servicio et consuetudine et ab omni redditu et ab \nomni seculari exactione et nominatim eas precipio fore \nquietas de illis duobus solidis quos predicte Sanctimoni- \n\n\n\nCHARTERS OF THE PRIORY. 77 \n\nales inde mihi annuatim reddere solebant. T., Engelr. \nCancellario, Nicol. Camerario, Willo. Burdet, Hug. Ridel. \nApud Huntend. \n\nc Confirmation of King Malcolm\'s grant by Archbishop \nBecket. \nThom. Dei gratia Cant. Ecclesie minister hu mills omnibus \nSancte Matris Ecclesie filiis salutem. Noverit universitas \nvestra nos sigilli nostri atestatione corroborasse et con- \nfirmasse Sanctimonialibus de Cantebrug. ibi Deo servi- \nentibus omnes terras et tenuras suas eis rationabiliter \ndatas et cartis donatorum confirmatas et nominatim \ndecem acras terre in Cantebr. quas Rex Scocie eisdem \nSanctimonialibus dedit et carta sua confirmavit. Qua- \npropter volumus et firmiter precipimus quatenus memo- \nrate Sanctimoniales omnes terras et tenuras suas cum \npertinenciis suis in liberam elemosinam teneant et possi- \ndeant sicut carte donatorum eis testantur. Teste Rob. \nArchid. Oxineford, Magistro Philippo de Caun, Magistro \nHerberto de Boseham, Rob. capell. et Willmo capell. et \nWillo de Leigrecest. \n\nd Confirmation by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canter- \nbury, of previous charters of Archbishops Theobald and \nBecket and of Bishop Nigellus. \n\nConfirmation by Bishop Nigellus of a grant of 80 acres of \nland in Wratting made to the Nuns by Stephen and \nJuliana de Scalariis, along with their daughter, Sibil. \n\nWitnessed by Will., archdeacon of Ely, Augustus, Adam and \nWalter, monks, Roger, chaplain, John and Paian, clerks, Martin, \nRalf and Ric, deacons, Ralf, dapifer, Alex., pincerna, Stephen and \nGeoffrey de Scalariis, &c. \n\nBull of Pope Innocent IV. directed to the Prior of Linton \nrespecting a dispute between the Nuns and the Vicar of \nSt Clement\'s. \n\nFor the subject see p. 27. \n\nDated \' Lugdun., 18 Kal. Mali nostri [blmik space] anno sexto,\' \ni.e. 1248-9, Bulla appended. \n\n\n\n78 CHARTEES OF THE PRIORY. \n\n7 a Charter of John de Fontibus, Bp of Ely (1220\xe2\x80\x941225). \n\nConfirms a charter of Bp E[ustace] of Ely, granting to the \nNuns all the land which Bp E. had between the monastery and \nGrenecroft. No date. \n\nb Charter of Hugh Northwold, Bp of Ely (1229\xe2\x80\x941254). \n\nConfirms the charters of Bishops Eustace and John de Fontibus. \nNo date. \n\n8 Inspeximus charter of Edward II. \n\nDated \'apud Westm. quintodecimo die Octobr. Anno regni \nnostri septimo. Per ipsum regeni. Examinatum per A[dam] de \nBrom.\' Seal attached. It recites and confirms the charters of \nKing Stephen, 2 (a) and 3 (h) ; also the following charter of \nHenry III. \'Henricus Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis quod concessimus \npro nobis et heredibus nostris priorisse et monialibus Sancte \nRadegundis quod claudere possint et clausam tenere imperpetuum \nquamdam croftam suam quae iacet inter ecclesiam ipsarum \npriorisse et monialium et fossatum de Cantebr. ex parte occidentali \nsalvo nobis in omnibus et per omnia fossato nostro. In cuius rei \ntestimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me \nipso apud Westm. decimo septimo die April, anno regni nostri \ntricesimo quinto.\' It also confirms the charter of the Countess \nConstance, 3 (a), various grants of land principally at West \nWratting, and a confirmation by Ely convent of the first charter of \nBp Nigellus. \n\n9 Charter of King Henry VI. \n\nDated \' Apud Dertford quintodecimo die Marcii Anno regni \nnostri sextodecimo.\' Seal attached. Grants to the Nuns \'quod \nipse et successores sue imperpetuum habeant singulis annis unam \nferiam in villa predicta per tres dies duraturam videlt. in vigilia in \ndie et in crastino Assumptionis Beate Marie cum omnibus libertati- \nbus et liberis consuetudinibus ad huiusmodi feriam pertinentibus.\' \nIt also grants the Nuns exemption from tenths or other quotas on \ntheir spiritual and ecclesiastical possessions. \n\n10 License of Mortmain of Henry VI. \n\nDated Westminster, Dec. 5, in 27th regnal year. Seal attached. \nGenerally empowers the Nuns to acquire lands, &c., to the value of \n\xc2\xa35 ; also exempts them from the requisitions of provisores, emptores \nand captores victualium for the King and Queen and their successors \nand others their Magnates. \n\n\n\nCHARTERS OF THE PRIORY. 79 \n\n\n\nIndulgences. Briefs. \n\n(These are printed in full in the Architectui\'al History, vol. ii, \npp. 183\xe2\x80\x94186.) \n\n11 Walter de Suffield, Bp of Norwich, grants relaxation of \n\npenance for 25 days to persons contributing to the aid of \nthe Nuns. Dated Can tebrig.,. Ides of August, 1254. \n\n12 Letter from Ric. de Gravesend, Bp of Lincoln, to the Arch- \n\ndeacons of , Northampton and Huntingdon orderino- \ncollections to be made in the churches of their Archidia- \nconates in behalf of the Nuns. Dated Huntino-don, 12 \nKal. Junii, 10th year of pontificate (1268). \n\n13 Letter of Roger de Skerning, Bp of Norwich, orderino- \n\ncollections to be made in his diocese for the repair of the \nChurch of S. Rad., injured by the fall of the Bell-tower. \nDated Hoxne, 5 Kal. Mali, 1277. \n\n14 Letter of the Official of the Archdeacon of Ely to the \n\nparochial clergy of the diocese recommending the Nuns \nto them as objects of charity, having lost their house and \nall their substance by fire. Dated Herdwyk, 4 Kal. \nSept. 1313. \n\n15 John de Ketone, Bp of Ely, confirms certain grants of in- \n\ndulgence made by his brother Bps in favour of persons \ncontributing to the relief of the Nuns and the rebuildino- \nof their house destroyed by fire. Dated Hatfeld, 4 Kal. \nJuly, 1314. \n\n16 Thomas Arundel, Bp of Ely, grants indulgence of 40 days \n\nto all who contribute to the relief of the Nuns on the \noccasion of the destruction of their dwellings by fire. \nDated Dodyngton, 2 April, 1376. \n\n17 William Courtenay, Archbp of Canterbury, grants indul- \n\ngence of 40 days to persons contributing to the relief of \nthe Nuns whose buildings have been ruined by violent \nstorms. Dated Croydon, 6 April, 1390, \n\n\n\n80 CHARTERS OF THE PRIORY. \n\n\n\nMiscellaneous Deeds and Documents. \n\n18 Ric. Wastinel grants to Nuns a rent of 2 pence (nummos) \n\nof the service of Everad de Batford. \n\n19 Will, fitz Rob. fitz Walter gives to Nuns a rent of half a \n\nmark. Witn. Seher de Quinci, Gilbert fitz Dunning &c. \n\n20 Acquittance of Simon Blakeboane, sergeant at arms, to the \n\nPrioress, Agnes Seyntelowe, and Ric. Broune, vicar of All \nSaints\'. Henry V. 7. \n\n21 Acquittance of the Nuns to Ric. Pyghttesley for a year\'s \n\nrent of Tylydhostelle, viz. 2^ 3^ 1437. \n\nArch. Hist, ii., 426. \n\n22 Walter fitz Walter de Scalariis confirms his father\'s grant \n\nof 20\xc2\xae per arm. for the maintenance of three lamps in the \nch. of S. Rad. Witn. Will, de Abington, miles. \n\n23 Simon de Turre gives to Nuns one acre of meadow land in \n\nHunimade and ^ an acre in Chabligwelle. Witn., Roger \nde Caudecote. \n\n24 Simon, Camerarius of E[ustace], Bp of Ely, gives to Nuns a \n\nrent of 2\'\' paid by Hervey fitz Eustace of Cantebrige. \nWitn. Hugh de Bodegesham, official. \n\n25 Ric. de Histon, capellanus, holds of the Nuns (Pr. Letitia) \n\na portion of their land in Tornechroft ; rent two shillings \nand two capons. Witn. Hervey fitz Eustace. \n\n26 Walt, fitz Segar, capellanus, holds of the Nuns (Pr. Letitia) \n\nland formerly held by his father: rent l-i** and two \ncapons. \n\n27 a Bond of Will. Spaldyng for \xc2\xa310. Jan. 6, Henry VI. 10. \n\n\'The condycion of this obligacion is y* mastyr William \nSpaldyng, clerk, of Cambrigge, with inne wretyn shall not entre in \nhese owyn persone the several crofts and closures of the Prioresse \nand y\'= convent of seint Kadegundis in y^ toune of Cambrigge \nadiugnant to y* said Priorie ne destroye ne soyle corne gresse \narboris ne closures of y^ seyd Prioresse and convent growyng or \nbeyng upon the seyd closures with outyn licens of y^ seyde Prioresse \ny" same time beyng.\' \n\n\n\nCHARTERS OF THE PRIORY, 81 \n\nb The Master and Brethren of St John\'s Hospital grant to \nKing Henry VI. a close lying within the fossatum of the \nNuns to the W. of the Nunnery, now in the tenure of \nWill. Spaldyng, clerk. Thos. Clerk, mayor. Henry VI. \n26. \n\nc The King gives the same to Nuns. Dated Westminster, \nHenry VI. 26. \n\n28 The Nuns are discharged from payment of procurations \n\nto the Archdeacon. Date 1313. Document imperfect. \n\n29 Will of Roger Mason of S. Rad. parish. July 5, 1392. (In \n\nLatin.) \n\nBody to be buried among Friars Minor ; to said Friars 10^ ; to \nhigh altar of S. Ead. 5^ for was ; cottage in S. Had. lane to be sold \nto discharge debts. Kesidue to wife Felice ; she to make disposal \nfor his soul. \n\nSeal attached (seemingly ad causas seal of Nunnery) : S. Ead. \ncrowned and veiled, standing in a niche, in right hand a wand : \nunder trefoiled arch below a nun kneeling prays with upraised \nhands : a small crescent L. of the praying figure. Traces of \nlegend, STE RADEGVNDIS CONV. \n\n30 Will of John Grenelane : dated Feb. 1, 1431, proved in the \n\nGild Hall, Cambridge, before the Mayor, Thos. Jacob, \nand bailiffs, Monday next before S. Barnabas day. Hen. \nVI. 10. \n\nAmong the items : to the high altar of S. Andrew\'s ch. where \nhis body is to be buried before the cross, 10^ ; for his burial there \n20^ : for new bells to the same ch. 100^ ; for new leading the bell \ntower 20^ : to each priest assisting at his funeral 12 \'> \n\nEt in pane, cervisia, carne bovina, porcina, ovina, \nvitulina, porcellina, gallina, puUina, ovis, butiro, et piscibus recensibus \net marinis emptis per dietam ad hospicium infra tempus compoti, ut \nparticulariter in uno libro papiri super hunc compotum examinato plenius \npatet, xj\'i vijs iiij"! ob. \n\nEt in una vacca empta de Thoma Carrawey ad hospicium, vi^ viij\'^. \n\nSumma xiij^^ viij^ viij*^ ob. \nEt datum iiij""" preconibus maioris Cantebr. pro eorum oblacione ad \n,\xe2\x80\x9e , , festum Nativitatis Domini infra tempus compoti, pro eorum \n\n[Donoj data ^ . . \n\nserviciis domine Priorisse et conventui impensis et im- \nposterum impendendis, ij^ iij*^. \n\nEt in aliis donis (iij^), cum iij^ iiij\'^ datis Thome Key (xx*^) et Johanne \nGranngyer (xx<^), et cum ij^ vj*^ distributis inter pauperes die cene Domini, \nnecnon cum les ernest penys (iiij*^) diversis personis datis que cum v^ ix\'^ \ncertis tenentibus et servientibus domine ad diversa anni tempora per con- \nsideracionem domine Priorisse, ut parcellatim in papiro istius computan- \ntis annotatur, xiij^ xj\'l \n\nEt in uno grue empto et dato Cancellario Universitatis ville Cantebr. \npro bona amicitia sua in diversis materiis domine ad utilitatem con- \nventus, xij\'J. \n\nEt datum ii\'\'"^ laborariis pro cariagio turbarum una vice, una cum iiij^i \ndatis Johanni Nyxon ad tonsuram bidentium suorum et ij"* expenditis \napvid domum Johannis Ansty senioris et cum vj\'^ datis Ricardo Baker de \nBernewell et Ricardo West, pandoxatori, pro tolueto colligendo et reci- \npiendo tempore nundinarum ibidem, xiiij \nJohanne Graungyer (v^) [ ] Brewer, Johanni Eversdon, (iiij\'^), Agneti \n\nMarche (ij"^), Roberto Page (j"^), Johanni Knyght (j\'^), Johanni Slybre (j^), \nDionisie, yerdwomman, (j"^), Enime Tayllor, nuper malstar, Q^), Johanni \nWyllyamesson, bercario, Ricardo Sexteyn (x\'\'), Avisie Basset (j\'^), Ernme \nKyng, cum x\'\' datis certis pauperibus nuper in gwerris domini Regis \nlaborantibus, iij*\' xj\'^. \n\nEt datum Thome Burgoyn ut in precio v caponum emptorum in foro, \nxx\'i ob. \n\nEt in veste linea empta pro donis erga festum Nativitatis Domini, ij**. \n\nEt datum custodi ecclesie Omnium Sanctorum ad fabricam unius \nfenestre vitree, iiij\'^. \n\nEt datum Florencie Power et sorori sue (viij"^*), uni carucariorum (ij\'^), \naliis certis personis (xvj*^) pro mandato domine et servienti Johannis \nPresot (iiij \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0" \n\n\n\nOO \n\n\n\n\n\n\n,0 o \n\n\n\n-^^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n4 - <> "o^ \n\n^. \' u , >. -* \n\n\n\n\n'