[103] Already in 1528 Wolsey had suppressed a number of the smaller monasteries, among them the nunnery of St. Mary de Prez (on the ground that the inmates did not preserve good discipline) and the cell of Pembroke.
[104] Adding ‘It were well to suppress the nunnery of Sopwell as you may see by the comperts’ (Letters and Papers, 1535, No. 661). The state of affairs would thus really seem to have been worse in the smaller houses than at St. Albans; but of Binham, on the other hand, there is direct evidence that, except that its numbers had grown smaller, it was in good condition (Letters and Papers, 1534, No. 574).
[105] Letters and Papers, 1535, No. 1155.
[106] Letters and Papers, 1536, No. 642.
[107] Letters and Papers, 1536, No. 354.
[108] Letters and Papers, 1537, No. 1209.
[109] Monasticon II, p. 207.
[110] From one of his letters to Cromwell it would appear that as early as January, 1536, Catton felt his position insecure owing to the complaints of his own monks. ‘Trusts greatly to Cromwell his position here being so intrikyd with extreme penury ... and most of all encumbered with an uncourteous flock of brethren.’ (Letters and Papers, 1536, No. 152).
[111] The average decline in numbers has been calculated by Savine as one-fifth; so the proportion at St. Albans was high.
[112] The three greater were: Canterbury (£2,423); Westminster (£2,409); and Glastonbury (£3,311) (Savine Appendix, p. 270–288).