Part 2 (2/2)

[Ill.u.s.tration: ABBOT COLCHESTER'S SEAL.]

In 1393 he was commissioned by the Pope to join the Bishop of Salisbury and the Abbot of Waltham in an inquiry into the statutes and customs of the Collegiate Chapter of the Chapel in Windsor Castle, and to correct and reform these, where they seemed to need it.[78] John de Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, and our Abbot were there a.s.sociated not for the first time or the last. Two years later the Bishop died, and was buried by Richard's desire in the Confessor's Chapel. Waltham was a successful favourite, without claim to royal sepulture, and we may a.s.sume that Colchester and the Convent were among the many who protested. It is, perhaps, not unfair to a.s.sert that ”the Abbey was well considered for this,” or that the monks' ”scruples were overborne by gifts of money and vestments.”[79] Yet it is a fact that, whereas the Bishop was buried in 1395, the indenture tripart.i.te,[80] which dealt with the use to be made of the gifts, was not drawn up till July 15, 1412. It recites that the Bishop, who had served the Kings of England from his boyhood in their Chancery and in other and higher offices, was buried among the tombs of the Kings;[81] that at the sight of his bier--we must, no doubt, think of Abbot Colchester as standing by--Richard II. had given to the Abbey a rich ”Jesse” vestment valued at 1000 marks, and that the executors had added another vestment valued at 40 and 500 marks in money. Colchester and the Convent covenanted to observe the Bishop's obit--September 18--which we know they did to the last. They also admitted into their company one of the Bishop's executors, Ralph Selby, Archdeacon of Buckingham, giving him precedence next to the Prior with corresponding privileges, and granting him, in 1402-3, a yearly pension of 4. This does not support the notion of the Convent's hostility to John de Waltham; at the same time it occurs too late to be reckoned as a bargain entered into for the purpose of securing to the Bishop a posthumous honour which they were unwilling to accord, even when Richard II. asked for it.

I pa.s.s by Colchester's part, if he took any, in Richard's journey to Ireland in 1399;[82] for our records throw no light on what did not concern the Convent. There appears to be no doubt that he was confederate with the Earls of Rutland, Huntingdon, Kent, and Salisbury, who were at first confided to his safe-keeping by Henry IV.; that he took part on December 17, 1399, in a secret gathering of the conspirators within the Abbey; that he was arrested, and sent first to Reigate and then, January 25, 1400, to the Tower; and that he was released, after a trial there held on February 4.[83] He had, of course, received Henry IV. when he made his progress to Westminster on October 12, 1399, and had taken part in the coronation on the following day.[84]

But inside the Convent there was an evident desire to eschew partisans.h.i.+ps, as any one can realize who reads Roger Cretton's bare and impartial record in the _Liber Niger_.[85] I therefore pa.s.s from public questions and take up an otherwise undated letter[86] of the Abbot, written from Cologne on October 10, to two important Westminster monks whom we have already had before us, Peter Coumbe and John Borewell.

It reveals Colchester's close interest in Abbey affairs, however far away he might be, and it is even somewhat peremptory in tone. For he had referred to them some detail of monastic business, and says that he is daily awaiting their answer, in order that he may take action accordingly. The Convent, he adds, is to receive with due honour a relation of the Bishop of Lincoln, remembering that his lords.h.i.+p has always been gracious to them in matters of conventual concern.

We must try to fix the date of this journey through Cologne, and some things can be soon settled. It must be before 1409-10, when John Borewell died.[87] He was in office as Granger, Kitchener, Cellarer, and Gardener almost till his death, and he had been in partners.h.i.+p with Peter Coumbe, as manager of the funds provided for Queen Anne's anniversary,[88]

from 1394 to 1399. But who is the Bishop of Lincoln? It is tempting to think of the princely Henry Beaufort, the most potent holder of the see at this period; if so, the journey would fall at some time before 1404, when Beaufort was translated to Winchester, and thus it might even be got just within the limits of the partners.h.i.+p above-mentioned, for he was appointed to Lincoln in 1398. But we have evidence pointing to 1407 and 1408 as the time with which the visit to Cologne must be connected, and bringing Henry Beaufort's help and Abbot Colchester's travels into further a.s.sociation. It is a tattered paper doc.u.ment[89] which states that when Colchester was in foreign parts in 1407,[90] the collector of Romescot for the county of Surrey doubled his demand upon the chapels of Pyrford and Horsell from 12-1/2_d._ each to 25_d._ each, and laid them under interdict when payment was refused. But the Bishop of Winchester issued a special mandate to the collector to desist from the exaction. Beaufort was therefore not abroad at the time with Colchester, but was defending his interests at home. But both Colchester and Philip Repingdon, Bishop of Lincoln, were in Italy in 1408. Colchester was at Lucca and Pisa in May, supporting the Cardinals who were struggling with Gregory XII.,[91] and his old friend, Bishop Merke, was with him. At Siena, on September 18, Gregory created ten new Cardinals, and one of these was Philip Repingdon.[92] It would be natural that he and Colchester should then meet, possibly travelling homeward together, and being in Cologne on October 10.

[Ill.u.s.tration: CORONATION OF HENRY V.]

The matter of the augmented Romescot was brought to an end at Guildford, says the doc.u.ment, after the Abbot's return to England, July 22, 1412. This must not be interpreted to mean a continuous absence of five years, 1407-12, for we have seen the Abbot on his homeward way in 1408, and know that in July, 1411, he presided alone over the General Chapter of Benedictines at Northampton.[93] His absence in 1412, which is also substantiated by his bailiffs' payments to a subst.i.tute, was due to one more journey to Rome; for the account of the ”Novum Opus” for 1412-3 enters payment, by consent of the Prior and the Seniors, of the large sum of 33 to the Abbot for the acceleration of certain concerns of the church in the Roman Court. It is possible that this journey took place in the autumn; for great events at home, in which the Abbot had some share, marked the months which followed. Early in 1413[94] Henry IV. had a seizure while at his devotions in the Abbey, and we should like to know whether the Abbot was in town and gave his instructions for the King's removal to the n.o.blest apartment in the abbatial residence, Jerusalem Chamber, where he died on March 20. It does not appear that Colchester took any part in the royal obsequies, but there is no doubt that he a.s.sisted at the coronation of Henry V. in the Abbey church on that snowy Pa.s.sion Sunday, April 9, 1413. For when the King's chantry was built, about twenty years after Colchester's death, its famous sculptures included two Coronation groups--perhaps, the acclamation and the homage[95]--in each of which the Abbot is represented as standing, in cope and mitre, on the King's left hand, Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, being on the King's right hand. We may also a.s.sume that Colchester was at Westminster to receive Henry, when he attended divine service in the church on Ascension Day and Whitsunday of that year.[96]

The new King's devotion to the Abbey was beyond question, and his zeal for the immediate resumption of the New Work in the nave would tend to keep the Abbot at hand. Operations began on July 7, one thousand marks a year being granted by the Crown;[97] and Colchester would see things well in train under the hands of Richard Whitington and Brother Richard Harwden, before he left the precincts once more.

Possibly he had a rest from travel in the year 1413-4; at least we have nothing more serious to notice than his Receiver's payment of 8_d._ for boat hire ”when my lord dined with the Archbishop at Lambhyth.” But the autumn of 1414 saw him once more setting out for foreign parts; for Henry chose him as one of the English delegates to the great Council of Constance.[98] People spoke of the greatness of his train as he journeyed. Dr. Wylie remarks that he ”was looked upon by the foreigners as a prince.”[99] Perhaps he himself thought sometimes of the very different circ.u.mstances in which he and his man Gerard had crossed the Channel in fear and trembling, seven and thirty years earlier. He had been already engaged, as collector of the triennial contribution of 1/2_d._ in the mark imposed on English Benedictine houses, in paying out loans for their journey to the Abbot of St. Edmundsbury and the Prior of Worcester, who were the delegates from the Order to the same Council, and in sending fees to the various counsel who were retained by the Order at Constance. We have his triennial accounts as collector for 1417 and 1420,[100] which show that the business of the Council hung about him for the rest of his days; even in the latter, made up long after Constance had seen the last of its visitors, he was still reckoning the cost of a monk of Worcester's journey to Constance and back.

How long he remained at Constance, and what part he took in the tortuous proceedings, we do not know. The spring and summer of 1415 were anxious times in England, and Henry V. would be glad to have so shrewd an adviser within reach. The Abbot was now about seventy-seven years of age, and the l.u.s.t of travel must have long since ceased. The King's writ went forth in May for the ”Array and Munitioning of the Clergy” by July 16,[101]

and the head of our House would be concerned to see that Westminster did its duty, _per alios_ if not _per se_. Our Treasurers' roll for 1414-5 shows how Abbot and Convent performed their several parts:--

”For one new chariot with six horses in the same, over and above one [chariot] provided by the lord Abbot, and with a complete set of harness for the said chariot and for the horses pertaining thereto--the whole being bought and given to our lord the King on the occasion of his expedition to France, together with the wages of a valet, a groom, and a page for the said chariot, and cloth bought for their livery, besides the maintenance of the men and the horses aforesaid for three weeks, pending the King's departure for France this year. x.x.xiii. li. xii. d.”

If we may take it that the Abbot's expenditure on his chariot was of the same extent, we have a total outlay of 66, or about 1000 of our money.

Colchester's generally good health began to fail in 1416, and his apothecary was called in to apply various remedies at a fee of 16_s._ 8_d._[102] At home he could still find interest in watching the progress of the New Work, for the north aisle of the nave was being proceeded with and the pillars of the triforium above it were being put in their place.[103] If Henry's gifts for the purpose failed to reach Henry's expectations and the Convent's, that is only another way of saying that Colchester's aged thoughts were often occupied with the expedition to France and the scenes that he knew so familiarly. He may have taken part in the rejoicings over the victory of Agincourt; he certainly received a special message about the capture of Rouen in 1418.[104]

He died in 1420 at a good old age, probably fourscore and two, and in the 34th year of his Abbacy. The exact day is not recorded. We know that there was much mortality in the Convent during 1419-20. When the Wardens of Queen Alianore's Manors made up their accounts to Michaelmas (they did so generally about November), they wrote at the end a sorrowful list of twelve names with a note that ”all these died this year together with the lord Abbot and Brother Thomas Peuerel.” Thus in strictness we might put his death before September 29. But the rolls were by no means precise in the matter, and often included those who died at any time before the day on which the accounts were balanced. Moreover, we have the royal licence to the Convent to elect a successor,[105] which is dated November 12, 1420. We may therefore suppose that Colchester died late in October or early in November. He was buried in the Chapel of St. John Baptist, where his much battered free-stone image lies on an altar-tomb. His initials still remain, but the heraldry has long since perished, and his mitre and gloves have lost the jewels that once adorned them. It adds insult to this injury that his countenance should be described as ”stern and ill-favoured.”[106]

But the character behind the countenance is not difficult to sum up.

In his own day he was reckoned to be a man of shrewd judgment and wide experience; we have noted the far-travelled uses that were made of him by the Convent and by the Crown, and we can conclude that his judgment increased in shrewdness as his experience extended in width. Indeed, he retained this quality to the last. We have seen that there is still extant an account of his official disburs.e.m.e.nts in behalf of the General Chapter of the Benedictines at Northampton for the last year of his life, 1420.[107] It includes payments made, for special services rendered, to two Westminster monks, who had been bidden to attend the conference.

They were Richard Harwden and Edmund Kirton, and each was appointed Abbot of Westminster in his turn. It is not every man of eighty-two who is shrewd enough to pick out his successors for the next forty years, and at the same time large-hearted enough to give them every encouragement to fit themselves for the office which he holds. Indeed, his was the kind of character to which justice can only be done after a lapse of time. It is necessary to look back at the men who, noting his shrewdness, came to a conviction that he was also just and trustworthy--Richard II., who opposed his election as Abbot, but lived to prove his friends.h.i.+p; Henry IV., who knew his friends.h.i.+p for Richard, and at first treated him accordingly, but afterwards found no reason to regret the clemency shown to him; Henry V., who appreciated his devotion to Richard, and did not honour him the less because of Henry IV.'s early suspicions; and the Cardinals and others who met him in the tortuous paths by which ecclesiastical diplomacy was trying to make its way towards the peace of the distracted Church. We may leave on William Colchester's memorial an inscription taken from a letter addressed to him by Thomas Merke, Bishop of Carlisle, who was conveying to the Abbot a request that he would use his influence at the Roman Court on behalf of Merton Hall, Oxford. We shall admit that Merke was his intimate friend, and shall remember that Colchester showed his own affection for Merke by arranging that the Bishop should be commemorated at Hurley Priory along with the Abbot's parents.[108] Merke's witness, however, may still be true.

”Men like,” he wrote, ”to know your Paternity's views on these matters, for they observe your solidity, which is a rare virtue in these days, and they give you their confidence all the more.”[109] No other Abbot ruled our House as long as he; nor could any man of his line desire a more satisfying verdict on his character.

<script>