Having feasted the eye and the mind on the many beautiful and interesting features of the ancient fane, one may rest beneath the aged elm tree in the churchyard, and meditate upon the circumstance that this magnificent edifice is but a third portion of Harold’s minster, and that only a fragment of the old monastery which grew up around it in mediæval times, forming a vast congregation of stately buildings, now remains; that just as the physical characteristics of the Abbey and its minster were vast and important, so were its landed possessions, which stretched out far and wide on all sides; that the immensity of its wealth was such that at the time of the Dissolution the gross revenue amounted to £1,079 12s. 1d., representing about £15,000 at the present day; whilst the potency of the abbots, who were mitred and sat in Parliament, was great, and the splendour of their respective establishments was upon a generous scale. Some of these abbots, of whom there were thirty in all, were great in the best sense of the word, and exercised their potency for the good of the Abbey and the community towards which they stood in the joint relation of spiritual and temporal overlords. A Feudal Abbot. One of these particularly was a man of vigorous character and determined spirit, who, “in asserting the rights and privileges of the monastery during his rule, came into collision with parishioners, neighbours, pope, and king.” First, differences appear to have arisen between the parishioners and the abbot as to the former having right of access to the central tower and bells, which they had enjoyed under Harold’s foundation. The abbot accordingly shut out the people from this and the choir (the monastic part of the church) by erecting a stone screen or wall immediately behind the altar of the parish church (the present nave). This wall is clearly observable from the outside beneath the Rose window at the east end, and in this will be seen traces of two doorways with which it was pierced to allow the dean or parish priest to enter and minister to the people. There would seem to have been reprisals on the part of the parishioners, for a little later they disputed the abbot’s rights of grazing on the marsh, and, resorting to violence, severely assaulted the keepers and killed the abbot’s horses. For this the offenders suffered the double penalty of being heavily fined by the justices of the King’s Bench and excommunicated by the abbot. The latter, however, did not enforce either, and forgave the erring ones. Next Abbot Simon was at war with the lord of the manor of Cheshunt, Peter, Duke of Savoy, who claimed all the land west of the main stream of the Lea—called the King’s stream—whilst the abbot contended that his jurisdiction extended to the smaller stream half a mile further west. The lawsuit which ensued was, as old Fuller says, “as long lived as any in England,” by reason of “the greatness of the clients”; but it was