We find indications of this both in the statutes and in the action of the burgesses. Almost at the same time that the statute of 1388 ordered beggars to remain in their own neighbourhood, another statute of Richard II. was passed which regulated the revenues of the Church in the interests of the poor. A portion of the tithe had been commonly distributed by the resident rector to the poor[13], but, when a living became part of the possessions of a monastery, the poor parishioners were often forgotten. In order therefore that the parishioners might not be injured, this enactment provided that when the revenues of a living were appropriated by a monastery, a portion of the revenue should be assigned to the poor, so that they might not lose the alms formerly distributed by the rectors[14]. Under Henry IV. this statute was re-enacted, and it was ordered that appropriations made since the 15 Rich. II. should be reformed[15]. The earlier statute had thus probably not been well observed: the second was apparently more successful, for in _The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors_, written in 1542, it is stated that "if the personage were improperd, the monkes were bound to deale almesse to the poore and to kepe hospitalyte as the writings of the gyftes of such personages and landes do playnly declare[16]." In any case this legislation indicates a desire on the part of the state to interfere, in order to reform the administration of ecclesiastical revenues in the interest of the poor. [13] The following incident in the reign of Edward II. shows us the bishop interfering in order to enforce the distribution to the poor of part of the revenue of a church. Richard, Bishop of Durham, in the course of the visitation of his diocese, came to the parish of Wessington. The people there complained that hospitality was not shown by the Church and that alms were not given to the poor. The bishop therefore ordered that a portion of the revenue should be given to the poor, and especially set aside the tithes of the new assarts of Sir Walter de Wessington for this purpose. _Hist. Man. Com._, MSS. of J. R. Ormsby, Esq., 1020 B. The statutes of Richard II. and Henry IV. seem to have aimed at doing exactly what the Bishop did at Wessington, whenever a living was impropriated by a monastery. [14] 15 Rich. II. c. 6. [15] 4 Hen. IV. c. 12. [16] _The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors_, E. E. T. S., p. 33. [Sidenote: 4. Control of charitable endowments by the town.]