The earliest written Charter was granted to the Borough in the reign of
Henry II., A.D., 1157, and is as follows:—
“Henry, King of England, and Duke of Normandy, and Aquitaine, and Earl
of Anjou, to his Justiciars, and Sheriffs, and Barons, and Ministers,
and all his faithful of England, greeting. Know ye that I have
conceded to my Burgesses of Bruge all their franchises, and customs,
and rights, which they, or their ancestors, had in the time of King
Henry, my grandfather. Wherefore I will and strictly command that they
have them well, and in peace, and honourably, and fully; within the
Borough and without, in wood and in field, in meadows and pastures, and
in all things, with such comparative fulness and honour, as they held
them in the time of King Henry, my grandfather. And I forbid any one
to do them injury or insult in regard of their tenements. Witnesses—T.
Chancellor, and Henry de Essex Constable, and William Fitz Alan, at
Raddemore.”
In the reign of King John a second Charter was granted, January 10,
1215. A few years afterwards this was renewed by King Henry III., who,
in a short time, considerably enlarged the privileges of the Burgesses,
in the new Charter referred to. It has been generally supposed, that
this charter was destroyed along with other documents, in the fire
which took place in Bridgnorth during the siege of the Castle. Most of
the papers, belonging to the Corporation, were placed in St. Leonard’s
Church for safety; but, this having been set fire to, they were all
burnt, and this charter, as it was supposed, among them. But I conclude
from the following passage in the Blakeway Papers that this is a
mistake, and that this original charter, granted by King Henry, may
still be in existence. In M.S. Congreve are the following historical
particulars of the town, in the reign of James II.:—The following
Aldermen subscribed to the running away with the Charter.
“John Lewis and William Hammonds, Bailiffs; Humphrey Braine, George
Longnor, William Baker, Thomas Weal, and about forty others.
“Bickerton’s son subscribed for him while he was out of town.
“Silvanus read a recantation afterwards. Bailiff Hammonds took away the
Charter which the town had possessed for 450 years (the people of the
town pursuing him) contrary to the mind of the old sages of the town.’”
E. (_Page 123._) SUPPRESSION OF THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES.
Whatever may have been Queen Mary’s private feelings, it is plain that
she yielded to the pressure of political expediency in this matter.
In order to induce the Parliament to repeal all the statutes made
against the See of Rome in the two last reigns, she ratified in the
fullest manner the alienation of the property which had belonged to
Abbeys, Priories, Chantries, Colleges, &c., and strictly forbade any
suits against any one on that score, either by authority from the Pope,
or general council, or on pretence of any canon or ecclesiastical
constitution whatever. (_Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, Vol._ VI,
_Book_ V, _pp. 94-6._)
But there are some facts connected with the subject of the suppression
of the Monasteries, and the confiscation of their property, which
ought to be better known, in order to shew how little warrant Roman
Catholics have for representing the matter, as they commonly do, as
a piece of Protestant sacrilege. There is a valuable chapter in Mr.
Froude’s recent History of England on this subject, and much important
additional matter is brought forward in a review of his work, in the
_Christian Remembrancer_ of July last. From these two sources I have
drawn the following facts, which are well worthy of attention. The
state of the Monasteries and Religious Houses generally was such,
in the reign of Henry IV., as to call from the House of Commons an
indignant remonstrance, and a petition for their secularization; and
in the reign of his successor, Henry V., when Popery was wholly in the
ascendant in this country, one hundred Monasteries were suppressed
by order of the King. (_Froude, Vol. 2, p. 411._) But a still more
remarkable fact is the following: that a twelve month after the Act of
1536 for the suppression of smaller Monasteries in England, Pope Paul
III. appointed a committee of nine of the most eminent ecclesiastics,
to examine into the state of the Church. These persons recommended
changes far more extensive than any which the English Parliament had
contemplated. So hopeless did they consider the reformation of the
monastic bodies, that they united in recommending the total suppression
of every Monastery in Europe. One of these nine ecclesiastics was
Reginald, afterwards Cardinal Pole; and he, firmly as he was attached
to the Church of Rome, not only advised this universal sequestration
of all Convents, but did not refuse to share in the spoils of their
suppression in this country. On his arrival in England, he received
from Queen Mary a grant of lands belonging to the dissolved Priory of
Newburgh. (_Christian Remembrancer_, _Vol._ XXXII, _p. 92_) Bishop
Fisher also, one of the most zealous Prelates of the Romish party
in the Church, previous to the passing of the famous Act for the
suppression of Monasteries, seized on the Nunnery of Higham, after a
vain attempt at its reformation, and by his own act set the example
for subsequent confiscations. “In fact, while the reforming[79]
party in the Church were pleading for the preservation of some of
the Convents, the opposite party were contending for their utter
overthrow.” (_Ibid._) Yet notwithstanding these facts, which are
attested by existing documents, Roman Catholics still speak as if
the suppression of these establishments was exclusively the work of
Protestants, to be ascribed to a spirit of impiety and sacrilege which
the Reformation has let loose upon the Church. The truth is, that the
Monastic and Conventual Establishments had become so totally corrupt,
and the moral disorders by which they were affected had been proved
to be so incurable, that society could no longer endure them; and the
opinion prevalent among Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, was,
that the evil had arrived at such a height, that no remedy could be
effectual, short of the general suppression of the Religious Houses.
Both writers to whom I have referred are warm in their admiration of
the original members of the monastic bodies, and of the purposes which
such establishments answered at an earlier period of their history.
Mr. Froude says, “Originally, and for many hundred years after their
foundation, the regular clergy were the finest body of men of which
mankind in their chequered history can boast.” (_Vol. 2, p. 403_)
And his Reviewer thus speaks of the Monasteries and Convents: “Great
have been the advantages which not only devotion, but political
civilization, have received from monastic establishments. In times
of disturbance, they were the places of comparative peace—in days
of ignorance, retreats of learning—in periods of profligacy, abodes
of devotion.” Yet, from the evidence which authentic records supply,
the conviction has been forced upon both Mr. Froude and his Reviewer,
that scarcely anything could be worse than the moral condition of
the inmates of such establishments in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. It is natural to regret that remedial measures were not
resorted to. Possibly, however, if we possessed all the information
which was in the hands of the Government and Legislature of the day, we
might be convinced that the only safe and wise course was that which
they pursued. But at all events, we must bear in mind that this course
was advocated by the warmest friends of the Papacy; and that, although
the cupidity of courtiers and public men may have hastened forward the
confiscation of monastic property, yet that Roman Catholics, and even
dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, did not refuse a share of the
spoil.
I think it right, in laying before my readers the foregoing statements
of Mr. Froude and his Reviewer, to express my great regret that I
had not become earlier acquainted with them. Had I possessed the
information which I have derived from them somewhat sooner, the
language which I have used (p. 85) would have been considerably
modified.
A friend has kindly furnished me with the following passages, relating
to the Monastic orders, in the document which was presented to Paul
III., by Cardinal Pole and the other Divines. The document itself is
entitled, “Concilium delectorum Cardinalium, & aliorum Prælatorum, de
emendanda Ecclesia, S. D. N. D. Paulo III. ipso jubente conscriptum, et
exhibitum, Anno M.D. XXXVIII.”