THE
DISSOLUTION OF
THE
MONASTERIES
AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES
OF STAFFORDSHIRE
BY
FRANCIS AIDAN HIBBERT, M.A.
OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;
THIRLWALL AND SEATONIAN PRIZES IN THE UNIVERSITY;
AUTHOR OF “THE INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ENGLISH GILDS,” “MONASTICISM IN STAFFORDSHIRE,”
ETC.
HEADMASTER OF DENSTONE
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C. 1910
PRINTED BY SIR ISAAC PITMAN
& SONS, LTD., LONDON, BATH
AND NEW YORK 1910
PREFACE
The following study of the Dissolution of the Monasteries will be found
to have the following characteristics: (1) there are few references
to books on the general subject of the Suppression; and (2) it is
concerned with the County of Staffordshire alone.
I hope it will not be inferred that I have learnt nothing from the
scholars who have dealt with the subject, as such is very far from
being the case. But I desired to investigate the history without being
influenced by prepossessions and prejudices, and I have accordingly
tried to work with a perfectly open mind. I have looked first at the
facts, which have been obtained nearly always at first hand, and only
then have I drawn deductions. The reason why I have strictly limited
myself to Staffordshire is explained in my first chapter. I have made
no attempt to fit the Staffordshire history into the general history of
England: if the two do not always run on parallel lines it is all the
more useful that the divergences should appear.
Not seldom my deductions may be wrong, but the facts upon which they
are based are always given very clearly and fully, and I must confess
that in working out my book in my own way I have had cause to modify,
and even to reverse, a good many of my earlier opinions. The history of
the Dissolution of the Staffordshire monasteries gives strong support
to the view that the suppression by Henry VIII and Cromwell was
prompted far less by anti-papal necessities than by sheer cupidity, and
not at all for moral reasons.
Most of the documents which are given in full are printed from the
originals. Some of those in the Appendix have been printed previously,
but none, I think, in books easily accessible to ordinary readers.
Professor Savine’s book on _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appeared while
my own was being written and after most of it was completed. I observe
with some trepidation that my conclusions differ from his in not a few
particulars, some of which are not unimportant. Nevertheless, I venture
with all diffidence to state my opinions: they were independently
formed, and perhaps it is as well that local peculiarities should be
noted for comparison with generalisations for the whole country.
FRANCIS AIDAN HIBBERT.
DENSTONE COLLEGE,
STAFFORDSHIRE.
List of Printed Books to which References are made
(See Preface)
_Annales Monastici_, Vol. I, edited by H. R. Luard, 1864.
Bacon, J., _Liber Regis sen Thesaurus rerum
ecclesiasticarum_, 1786.
Bazin, René, _The Nun_ (a novel).
Burnet, Gilbert, _The History of the Reformation of the
Church of England_. 4 vols., 1839.
_Burton-on-Trent Chartulary_, printed in _Salt
Collections_, Vol. V, Pt. I and _Derbyshire Arch. Soc._,
Vol. II.
_Calendars of the Patent Rolls_--Edward I, 1281–92,
1292–1301, Edward II, 1307–13, 1313–18; Richard II,
1377–81; Henry IV, 1405–8; Henry VI, Vol. II.
_Calendars of State Papers, Domestic_, 1547–80, 1601–1603
(Addenda, 1547–65), 1603–10.
_Collections for a History of Staffordshire_, published by
the William Salt Archæological Society, cited as “_Salt
Collections_.”
Cunningham, William, _The Growth of English History and
Commerce_ (Vol. I), 1896.
_Derbyshire Archæological and Natural History Society,
Journal_ of, Vol. VII, 1885.
_Description of Leicestershire, A_, William Burton, 1622.
_Dictionary of National Biography_, 63 vols., 1885–1900.
_Dieulacres Chartulary_, printed in _Salt Collections_,
Vol. IX, new series.
Dugdale, Sir William, _Monasticon Anglicanum_, 6 vols.,
1830 (cited as _Monasticon_).
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th Edn., 1875–88.
Froude, J. A., _History of England from the Fall of
Wolsey_, 12 vols., 1893.
Gairdner, James, _The English Church in the Sixteenth
Century_, 1904.
Gasquet, Francis Aidan, _Henry VIII and the English
Monasteries_, 1 vol., 1899.
Green, John Richard, _A Short History of the English
People_, 1898.
_Letters and Papers ... of the Reign of Henry VIII_, 18
vols., 1862–1901.
_Monasticism in Staffordshire_, F. A. Hibbert, 1909.
_Monasticon_, see Dugdale.
Morison, J. C., _The Life and Times of Saint Bernard_.
Norbury, Roger [Bishop of Lichfield 1322–59], his Register,
printed in _Salt Collections_, Vol. I.
Rogers, Thorold, _The Economic Interpretation of History_,
1888.
_Salt Collections_, see _Collections for a History of
Staffordshire_.
Sleigh, John, _A History of the Ancient Parish of Leek_,
2nd Edn., 1883.
_State Papers, Henry VIII_, Part I, 1830.
_Statutes at Large_, 1758.
Stretton, Robert [Bishop of Lichfield 1360–85], his _2nd
Register, 1360–85_, printed in _Salt Collections_, Vol.
VIII, new series.
Strype, John, _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, 6 vols., Oxford,
1822.
Stubbs, William, _Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum_, Oxford,
1858.
„ „ _Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern
History_, 1887.
_Valor Ecclesiasticus, temp. Hen. VIII, auctoritate regia
institutus_, 6 vols., 1810–34.
Wright, Thomas, _Letters relating to the Suppression of
Monasteries_, Camden Society, 1843.
CONTENTS
CHAP.
PREFACE v
LIST OF REFERENCES vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PRECEDENTS FOR SUPPRESSION 19
III. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION 30
IV. PRELIMINARIES TO THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION 42
V. THE FINANCES OF BURTON ABBEY 72
VI. MONASTIC BALANCE SHEETS 92
VII. THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: FIRST STAGE 133
VIII. THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: SECOND STAGE 160
IX. LOSS AND GAIN 188
APPENDICES OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
NO.
I. EXAMPLE OF A LICENSE TO CONTINUE GRANTED
TO A “LESSER MONASTERY” (CROXDEN ABBEY) 214
II. DEED OF SURRENDER OF CROXDEN ABBEY 220
III. INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT BREWOOD NUNNERY 224
IV. INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT ST. THOMAS’S
PRIORY, STAFFORD 229
V. INVENTORY OF THE SALE OF DIEULACRES ABBEY 237
VI. SALE OF GOODS AT THE GREY FRIARS, STAFFORD 245
VII. SALE OF GOODS AT THE AUSTIN FRIARS, STAFFORD 249
VIII. SALE OF GOODS OF THE GREY FRIARS, LICHFIELD 252
IX. SALE OF GOODS AT CROXDEN ABBEY 255
X. SALE OF GOODS AT ROCESTER ABBEY 256
XI. SALE OF GOODS AT HULTON ABBEY 257
XII. THE DISSOLUTION OF BURTON “COLLEGE” 258
1. INVENTORY AND VALUATION OF GOODS 258
2. SALE OF GOODS 264
3. PAYMENTS TO DISBANDED HOUSEHOLD, ETC. 268
4. EXPENSES OF ROYAL OFFICIALS 271
5. PENSIONS 277
6. SUMMARY 278
XIII. THE DISSOLUTION OF BURTON COLLEGE:
SCUDAMORE’S RECEIPT FOR GOODS UNSOLD 279
XIV. LIST OF BOOKS AT BURTON ABBEY 281
INDEX 286
SKETCH MAP OF STAFFORDSHIRE _end of book_
The Dissolution of the Monasteries
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In one of the earlier chapters of a brilliantly written history[1]
dealing with the sixteenth century the glory of English hospitality is
enlarged upon. It was a time, we are told, “when every door was opened
to a request for a meal or a night’s lodging,” and among other examples
we are given the instance that “two hundred poor were fed daily at the
house of Thomas Cromwell.” Moreover, we are assured that “there was
little fear of an abuse of such license.” Yet presently we find the
monasteries censured in the severest language for their demoralising
charity, and picturesquely and forcibly condemned as “nurseries of
dishonest mendicancy.” No explanation is vouchsafed as to why the alms
of the monks were more demoralising than those of the nobles.
This is a good illustration of the way the whole subject of the
Dissolution of the Monasteries has been often treated.
Sentiment and prejudice enter largely, and perhaps inevitably, into
the whole subject. Even so prosaic an aspect as the financial one
has given occasion for the most contradictory opinions. The vast
possessions of the monasteries, their enormous wealth, the large
immunities from taxation which they enjoyed, their robbery of the
parish churches, have all been dilated upon for three centuries and a
half. The monastic income, where figures have been given, ranges from
Speed’s £171,300 to Burnet’s £131,607. Abbot Gasquet says the monastic
lands amounted to two million acres. A Jacobite pamphleteer of 1717
asserted that the monks possessed seven-tenths of the whole land: more
sober writers have estimated less extravagantly. J. R. Green said it
was a fifth, and Dr. Gairdner says a third. Writers have often told of
“hordes of idle men and women” in the religious houses. Dr. Gasquet
affirms that the number was 8,081, with “more than ten times that
number of people who were their dependents or otherwise obtained a
living in their service:” the total population of England being some
four millions, this gives a proportion of one in forty-three.
It is obvious that there remains much to be desired in the way of
definiteness and exactness on many points. The following pages are
an attempt to do something in this direction by investigating facts
and by going to the fountain head. All unsupported statements and
mere opinions have been rigorously disregarded: they are generally,
and sometimes obviously, guesswork only. The actual figures of
authoritative documents alone have been dealt with. In this way it is
hoped that some conclusions have been reached which rest upon solid
foundations.
Only the county of Stafford has been considered. If it be objected
that, the work being thus restricted in scope, the results must be of
limited application, it may be pointed out that there are compensating
advantages. The material is comparatively manageable. The details,
bewildering and difficult of explanation though they often are, are
comparatively amenable. Acquaintance with localities may sometimes
render assistance. The results, therefore, may gain in precision
what they lack in range, and though the writer does not suppose he
has succeeded, or nearly succeeded, in solving all or many of the
problems which arise, yet he hopes that he has been able to accomplish
something. Possibly the national aspect of the whole subject must wait
for final treatment until the work of local investigators has been
completed.
Reliable information has been sought on such points as the following:
the amount of the monastic wealth, its sources and burdens, the
relative proportions from temporal and spiritual sources, the extent
to which parish churches were “robbed,” the solvency or otherwise
of the religious houses, the extent of their charity, the amount
of educational work they carried on, their character as landlords,
the part they took in the agricultural changes of the period, the
material effects of their suppression, and other subjects of a kindred
nature. It must be acknowledged at once that the results vary much in
character. The _data_ are often difficult to interpret and are
sometimes too scanty to be of much use in drawing general conclusions
of any value.
In particular it has proved to be quite impossible to attempt any
estimate of the area of monastic lands. The situation and character
of the various possessions can be found, and the income derived from
each, but the acreage is seldom given, and no attempt has been made to
reckon the extent from the value. Such an attempt has been sometimes
made, usually by proposing a ratio between income and acreage. It
is generally supposed that the occupied area of England was about
thirty-two millions of acres. Thorold Rogers states that at the time
of the Dissolution “the rent of agricultural land was from 6d. to
8d. an acre.” It is true that the greater part of the land held by
the monasteries was probably agricultural, so that if we divide some
estimates which have been given of the total monastic income by 7d. we
obtain the following results:
£171,300 (Speed) ÷ 7d. = 5,873,143 acres or about
two-elevenths of the whole.
£131,607 (Burnet) ÷ 7d. = 4,512,240 acres, or more than
one-seventh of the whole.
A similar calculation for Staffordshire (748,433 acres), taking the
figures to be given in Chapter IV, would give the following results:
Gross total monastic income, £1,874 0s. 1½d. ÷ 7d. = 64,251
acres, or more than one-eleventh of the whole county;
Net monastic income, £1,608 5s. 2¾d. ÷ 7d. = 55,140 acres,
or more than one-thirteenth of the whole county.
But all such calculations are really worthless. It is quite impossible
to arrive at any figure which represents the average income per
acre. No doubt Thorold Rogers is correct enough when he gives the
_rent_. But all sorts of deductions and allowances have to be
made from the rent before the net income is obtained. Moreover, the
monastic income was not wholly derived from land, and the land was held
by a great variety of tenures, etc. The only possible way of arriving
at anything like a correct estimate of the total area of monastic
land, failing a complete rent roll and survey for each house, would
be to work carefully through the surveys which were made when the
property came into the hands of the Crown, the “particulars for grants”
which were drawn up on behalf of applicants for grants and leases,
and the grants and leases themselves. Even so the task would be one
of extraordinary difficulty and complexity. More often than not the
monastic lands were not granted in their entirety. They remained in
the hands of the Crown till a good purchaser could be found for all or
part, and a good bargain struck. There was sub-letting to a bewildering
extent. The process went on for years, and all sorts of people obtained
grants and leases of the monastic property, often in quite small
portions. In 1540 John Smythe, a Yeoman of the Guard, obtained a
grant for life of most of the possessions of the Dominican Friars at
Newcastle, while in the following year Francis, Earl of Shrewsbury, is
found negotiating for a single messuage and lands in Rocester which
had belonged to the Abbey there, and at the opposite end of the social
scale we find a butcher of Stone, named William Plante, obtaining lands
in Walton which had belonged to Stone Priory. Again and again lands
are no sooner obtained than they are re-sold. For instance, Trentham
was only surrendered in 1536, yet in 1538 the Duke of Suffolk procured
a license to alienate; James Leveson secured Rushton Grange from the
spoils of Hulton Abbey in 1539, and immediately sold it to Biddulph of
Biddulph; in 1541 Sir John Gifford obtained license to alienate the
rectory and advowson of Milwich, which had belonged to Stone Priory.
In March, 1541, Sir John Dudley obtained a grant in fee of most of
the possessions of Dudley Priory: in a couple of months he received a
license to alienate part. Such examples, a few out of many, illustrate
the appalling complexity of the task to which we have alluded, and show
also that any inquiry into the original grants of the lands of the
religious houses would throw little light upon the permanent results of
the transfer of the monastic property. It would indicate at best who
were the shrewdest bargainers and the readiest speculators.
The merely financial aspects of the problem can be investigated
with better prospect of success. Bishop Stubbs, with characteristic
caution, said that “the income from the monasteries cannot be stated
in reasonable figures”[2] and this is no doubt true if we desire to
estimate the whole extent of the wealth which passed from the Church at
the time of the Dissolution. Full details, especially of the valuables
in the churches and other movables, can never be obtained. But there
is a good deal of material for arriving, approximately at any rate, at
such things as annual income and expenditure, and if we can discover
those we shall obtain figures and facts which will be of great service
in many ways.
Many counties had far wealthier monasteries than Staffordshire.
The richest counties in England in this respect were Yorkshire and
Middlesex, but both of these are exceptional, the former by reason
of its disproportionate area, and the latter because it contains the
City of London and many of its suburbs. Somerset and Lincolnshire were
placed next by their trading centres, and Kent by its position on the
main road between the capital and the Continent. Of the remaining
thirty-four English counties (excluding Monmouthshire), Staffordshire
came twenty-fifth in monastic wealth, the following being poorer:
Durham, Cumberland, Northumberland, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Derby,
Hereford, Westmoreland and Rutland. The last-named possessed only a
single house.
Staffordshire, with a total monastic wealth of some £1,600 annual net
income,[3] comes in a group which includes the following counties:
Shropshire (£1,966), Lancashire (£1,698), Durham (£1,515), Cumberland
(£1,311) and Northumberland (£1,177).[4] It takes its comparatively low
position not because it possessed any houses of exceptional smallness
or poverty at the time the valuation from which the above figures were
taken (1535), but because all the houses were of moderate size without
there being any very wealthy abbeys to inflate exceptionally the total.
The richest house in the county, Burton Abbey, was only rated at £412
5s. net income.[5] On the whole the Staffordshire houses represent
the monasteries of average income, with no great and famous abbeys to
monopolise the attention and interest and to introduce exceptional
elements. The history of the suppression in Staffordshire will
illustrate the suppression of the ordinary religious houses. That of
the great and famous abbeys is well known, but it will be interesting
to see how the ordinary average houses fell.
The Staffordshire monasteries were, however, sufficiently varied in
situation and character to make their history worth studying. They
were by no means all of one type, nor were they all, in the sixteenth
century, similarly circumstanced. They represented the four great
orders of monks: Benedictine, Austin, Cluniac, and Cistercian, and
there were houses of Dominican and Franciscan Friars, as well as of
the later Austin Friars. Burton Abbey was a house large enough to be
involved in national politics; Calwich was so insignificant that the
Government was able to suppress it illegally without protest or remark.
Between these were some dozen houses, small enough to come within
the scope of the Act for the dissolution of the lesser monasteries,
yet nearly all able to purchase exemption from its provisions. Some,
like Stone, stood close to busy highways; some, like Croxden, in its
secluded valley, lay remote from towns and even villages; others stood
near the well-to-do market towns of Stafford, Leek, and Lichfield. They
had originated in various ways. St. Modwen’s Abbey at Burton-on-Trent
was the foundation of Wulfric Spot, patriot and soldier, in 1004;
where the road crossed the Trent he founded and richly endowed the
Benedictine abbey on a site which already had sacred associations.
Beside it grew a flourishing town. In its Scriptorium was compiled
one of the most valuable of the English monastic chronicles. Kings
and prelates lodged within its walls. Burton Abbey played a part in
national history more than once. Another Benedictine house arose
before the Norman Conquest. Burchard, the third son of Algar, whose
other sons were the traitors Edwin and Morcar, accompanied Archbishop
Aldred to Rome when he went to fetch his pallium and to obtain papal
authorization for the privileges of the Confessor’s new abbey at
Westminster. Returning, Burchard fell ill at Rheims, and, dying, was
buried within the precincts of the Abbey of St. Remigius there. In
gratitude Algar gave to St. Remigius the “_villa_” of Lapley in
Staffordshire, and a priory was built there as a cell dependent on
the house at Rheims. In acknowledgment of the help which the Norman
invaders had received from the prayers of the Norman monks, Henry de
Ferrers established near his castle at Tutbury a priory dependent on
the great Abbey of St. Peter-sur-Dive. More worldly motives caused
the erection of other houses. Trentham was founded by Hugh, Earl
of Chester, as a help towards re-establishing the authority and
pre-eminence he had lost in Staffordshire when the Palatine Earldom of
Chester was created. Robert de Stafford re-founded Stone as an Austin
Priory in order to assist in the building up of a great estate in the
district (_c._ 1130). Trentham became an Austin Priory when Earl
Ralf of Chester left, on his death-bed, 100 solidates of Trentham
Manor to restore it. The vicar of the parish, John, who was the Earl’s
Chaplain, became Prior, and for thirty years the endowment continued to
be paid to him alone. Not till 1195 was it transferred to “the Canons.”
Such an arrangement illustrates the distinctive feature of the Austin
Canons. They lived in modified seclusion. They were parish priests
living in community. The rule of St. Augustine represented an attempt
at monastic reform by the method of compromise. Other Austin Priories
were: Rocester, founded in 1146 by Richard Bacon, nephew of the Earl
of Chester; Calwich, given to Kenilworth by Nicholas de Gresley Fitz
Nigel; St. John’s, Lichfield, built by Bishop Roger de Clinton when he
raised strong walls round the Cathedral close in the reign of Stephen;
Ronton, founded by Robert Fitz Noel, who had obtained an estate in
Staffordshire through his marriage to the daughter of Bishop Robert
de Limesey (1086–1117), as a cell to Haughmond; and St. Thomas’s,
Stafford. The origin of the last was particularly interesting. Richard
de Peche, Bishop of the Diocese, was one of the friends of Becket. He
took part in his consecration, and soon after the murder he dedicated
a priory at Stafford to the memory of St. Thomas the Martyr, on land
given by a wealthy burgess. When he felt his own end approaching, soon
after, he resigned the bishopric and retired to the priory, where
shortly after he died and was buried (1182).
The relations between the Austin Canons and the parishes were close,
as we have seen. Portions of their houses were often used as parish
churches. Just as the Vicar at Trentham became the head of the priory
also, so at Stone the priory absorbed the church. At Rocester there was
such doubt in the fourteenth century as to the proper place at which
the parishioners ought to make their Easter Communions that the matter
had to be referred to Bishop Norbury, and he left the matter undecided.
At the dissolution of the Priory the parishioners were able to secure
three bells for their own use on the plea that these had wont to be
rung for parochial services as well as for those of the Canons. When
the bishop cited to his visitations the churchwardens and synodsmen
(“sidesmen”) of the churches served by Austin priories, he wrote to the
Convents. It was often the practice, for instance at Rocester, for the
senior canon, next after the Prior, to hold the vicarage.
The Cluniac Order was a revision of the Benedictine rule. Its object
was to bring reform; but the abolition of the obligation to perform
manual labour, which formed so excellent a feature of the original
Benedictine system, merely increased opportunities for idleness. The
earliest Cluniac house in Staffordshire arose at Canwell, in the reign
of Stephen. It was the foundation, in 1142, of the widow of Justice
Geoffrey Ridel, who had perished twenty years before in the disaster to
the _White Ship_. Another Cluniac house was built at Dudley, as
a cell to Wenlock. It was founded by Gervase Paganel, Baron of Dudley
(1161), in fulfilment of his father’s intentions.
The Cistercian Order was another revision of the Benedictine rule.
Instead of relaxing the strictness of the original rule, the
Cistercians aimed at increased austerity and simplicity. In the
reign of Stephen a small company of recluses fled from the anarchy
and lawlessness around them to Radmore, in the recesses of Cannock
Chase. For some years they lived, men and women, independently of any
of the recognised Orders, but the place was too remote and the state
of the country too disorderly for such a defenceless position. They
soon had to join one of the great Orders. By the advice of the Empress
Matilda they chose the Cistercian and dismissed the women. But food
was difficult to obtain, the foresters made frequent depredations,
life became impossible even for Cistercians, and they had to remove to
Stoneleigh, in Warwickshire.
The Cistercians, whose rule ordered _in civitatibus, castellis,
villis, nulla nostra construenda sunt cenobia, sed in locis a
conversatione hominum semotis_, had to wait another generation
before they could obtain a footing in the county. They must follow, not
precede, order and police. The establishment of a Cistercian house,
therefore, is an evident token that law reigned in the district where
it arose. The Cistercians aimed at being, not scholars and statesmen
such as the Benedictines had become, but farmers, and this feature
commended them to all who desired the cultivation and civilisation of
the waste tracts into which the Benedictines had never penetrated.
The latter had become great landowners, with numerous flourishing
towns belonging to them, and wide estates well cultivated. The land
unoccupied by the Benedictines was wild and rough, but offering
opportunities for pasturage. To pasturage, therefore, the Cistercians
devoted themselves; and the growth of the wool trade, which arose
almost at the same time as they came into favour, made them masters of
the most profitable branch of English industry.
Bertram de Verdun, lord of Alton, occupied a middle position between
the old feudal aristocracy and the new men who were becoming their
rivals. He married Earl Ferrers’ niece, and by his father’s marriage
was connected with Geoffrey de Clinton, Henry I’s Chamberlain. He
himself was one of Henry II’s most trusted and trustworthy officials.
On a visit to his relative, the Constable of Normandy, he was taken to
see the Cistercian house which the Constable’s step-father had founded.
De Verdun was so impressed that he determined to found a similar house
in Staffordshire, where the growth of law and order gave opportunity
for developing his lands. He requested the Abbot of Aunay to send some
of his monks to the site he offered near Alton. Two years later (1180)
they removed to a more suitable spot a few miles distant, where the
beautiful ruins of Croxden Abbey still stand. They well illustrate the
simplicity which characterised Cistercian architecture, though the
church was almost unique among houses of the order in England in having
a semi-circular apse with five radiating chapels, instead of the usual
plain square end.[6] This was copied from the parent house at Aunay,
and it emphasises the peculiarity that Croxden, unlike most of the
Cistercian abbeys in England, was the offshoot of a foreign house.
Farther northwards the Cistercians could not yet penetrate. But the
Earls of Chester were meanwhile engaged in developing the estates
they held there, and early in the thirteenth century Ralf Blundeville,
who played an independent and honourable part in the difficult and
dishonourable times of King John’s reign, was strong enough to take
definite steps. He established a market at Leek in 1208. In 1214, the
very year when the Papal Legate received at Burton Abbey Archbishop
Langton’s spirited protest against his intrusion into the affairs of
the State and Church of England, Ralf Blundeville founded the abbey
at Dieulacres. The site was a little north of Leek. He gave it to
the Cistercians, the skilful farmers and agriculturists, bestowing
upon them wide lands and extensive privileges. They were to be his
agents for the civilisation of the Moorlands, and well they performed
their work. Soon afterwards a third Cistercian house was founded at
Hulton by Henry de Audley, constable of the neighbouring castle of
Newcastle-under-Lyme, who had for some time been engaged in building
up an estate there. Hulton Abbey had, later, a pottery where tiles
and other articles were made. There were nunneries at Brewood, on the
western border of the county, and at Fairwell, near the road between
Lichfield and Rugeley. Both were Benedictine. The friars reached
Staffordshire in the reign of Henry III. There were Grey Friars at
Lichfield and Stafford and Black Friars at Newcastle-under-Lyme. At
Radford, near Stafford, a house of Lepers, with a master and friars
of the Holy Sepulchre, stood for some time. The house of the Austin
Friars, at Stafford, was founded by Ralf, Baron of Stafford, in the
reign of Edward III. At Lees the Priory of Rocester maintained a
chantry, or cell. The Knights Templars had a Preceptory at Keele.
The monasteries and nunneries were usually well endowed, and most
of them became possessed of considerable worldly possessions. The
records of the Dissolution disclose lists of manors, granges,
tenements, water-mills, fulling mills, and salt pans, which produced
large revenues. From appropriated livings, tithes and oblations were
drawn away from the places where they were paid, for the benefit
of the distant monastery. Fees were sometimes paid on admission to
the Community. Did a son obtain ordination through the help of the
monks, how could the father better show his gratitude than by making
them a gift? Lights and masses were endowed. The monks had command
of ready money and were able to lend to those who required cash, it
might be to those overtaken by sudden necessity or to some desirous
of making a pilgrimage. When a verderer of Cannock, in the thirteenth
century, rendered himself liable to the severe penalties of the Forest
Laws, he fled for his life beyond the seas and sold his manor to St.
Thomas’s Priory at Stafford.[7] Corrodies originally were a form of
life assurance.[8] For a lump sum Dieulacres sold a corrody to a Jew,
consisting of food and clothing for life.[9] It was an attractive
though shortsighted method of obtaining money or lands, for the
corrodies sometimes entailed a severe strain, and there are complaints
of the non-fulfilment of the obligations. In 1294 the Prior of Stone
was fined for having wrongfully deprived a man of his corrody, which
consisted of a daily loaf of bread and a gallon of ale, with a canon’s
habit worth a mark yearly, provender for horse and keep for groom, four
cartloads of wood annually, and two candles a night from Hallowmas
to Candlemas.[10] Corrodies led to further difficulties. Founders
and kings claimed the right of nomination. So early as Edward I’s
reign Dieulacres had a contention with the King on the subject. Such
demands often became a grave abuse, and there are numberless instances,
especially in such reigns as those of Edward II and Richard II, of
the quartering on the monasteries of discharged soldiers and worn-out
officials. The Bishop of Lichfield once demanded from Tutbury a corrody
for his cook, but Archbishop Peckham forbade it to be granted. The
practice continued to the very end. Even so late as 1532 we find the
servants of the Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII’s natural son, billeted
in the English monasteries during their master’s absence on the
Continent.[11]
Monastic hospitality was often grievously abused. No doubt when kings
and other great men lodged in the monasteries they usually made some
acknowledgment. But the Priory of Stone complained to Bishop Norbury
(1322–59) that it was impoverished by the many claims which were
made on its hospitality by travellers of every degree in consequence
of its being _juxta viam regiam_, and in 1382 Burton made a
similar complaint to the Pope. In the early years of Henry VI’s reign
Burton was absolutely insolvent and was put into commission for seven
years.[12]
Many houses had the privilege of holding fairs and markets. Croxden,
Dieulacres, Rocester and Burton did a brisk trade with foreign wool
merchants in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and their wool
was almost unexcelled in England. Edward III once exacted 600 sacks of
wool from Staffordshire at a low rate, and the Croxden annalist says
he failed to pay even that. Sometimes the business transactions of the
monks were questionable: In 1457 the Prior of St. Thomas’s, Stafford,
was sued for £10 damages for having sold a horse _sciens equum illum
in varias infirmitates collapsum et ad laborandum impotentem_.[13]
Sometimes, especially in the case of the friars in the towns, strong
opposition was raised. In 1282 the King had to intervene to protect the
friars minors at Stafford, as it appeared that certain regrators put
hindrances in the way of their purchasing even daily victuals, and at
times even snatched out of their hands what they had bought.[14]
But the religious rendered real services to the towns. Burton grew up
beside the Abbey walls, built very largely under the direction of the
abbots through many generations. Abbot Nicholas built the first street
in the twelfth century, and the fifteenth abbot, Thomas de Felde, built
the great hall in the market place. Later still Abbot Beyne founded the
Grammar School.
Of these houses the following remained till the sixteenth century:
Brewood Nunnery, Burton Abbey, Calwich Priory, Canwell Priory, Croxden
Abbey, Dieulacres Abbey, Dudley Priory, Fairwell Nunnery, Hulton Abbey,
Rocester Abbey, Ronton Priory, Sandwell Priory, St. Thomas’s Priory
at Stafford, St. John’s Priory at Lichfield, Stone Priory, Trentham
Priory, and Tutbury Priory; and the friaries at Lichfield, Stafford
and Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is with the dissolution of these that we
shall be concerned. They were not pre-eminent for size, wealth, vice or
virtue; they did not give to the history of the Reformation any famous
names or contribute any striking episodes. They represent, rather, the
ordinary “rank and file” of the religious houses. For that reason they
are, perhaps, the better worth investigation, because they are typical
of the average.
It is the exceptional which attracts attention, but it is the ordinary
which better represents the truth. If, therefore, we can obtain a
correct estimate of the conditions of the Staffordshire houses at the
time of their surrender we may fairly safely accept it as a tolerably
accurate picture of the condition of English monasticism as a whole.
The accounts which the records give of the manner and details of
the suppression in Staffordshire represent in all probability the
ordinary course of that great undertaking everywhere. The results which
followed, the settlements which were made, and the new arrangements
which became necessary in Staffordshire, are probably typical of those
which followed in the great majority of places. By restricting our
scrutiny we may obtain a better view.
CHAPTER II
PRECEDENTS FOR SUPPRESSION
The Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII is popularly
represented as an isolated act, standing alone in the nation’s history.
Except that it was on an exceptionally large scale, such is very far
from being the fact. It was, indeed, only the last stage in a process
which had long been in progress. The Suppression, in 1312, of the
Knights Templars, who had a Preceptory in Staffordshire at Keele, was
the first great destruction of a Religious Order, and it must not be
forgotten that it was the work of the Papacy. A century later Henry V,
for financial and political reasons, suppressed the Alien Priories,
Lapley, in Staffordshire, among them. During the following hundred
years, which intervene before we arrive at the time with which we
are more immediately concerned, such great ecclesiastics as Wykeham,
Chichele, Waynflete, Fisher, and Alcock, had all laid hands on monastic
wealth for educational purposes. Even the great Dissolution of the
sixteenth century was no idea suddenly conceived at the moment. It was
itself, again, the last phase of a movement which naturally developed.
It was one of the Acts of a great drama.
The suppressions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had fatally
weakened the idea that property devoted to religious purposes was
for ever inviolable. The intentions of Founders could no longer be
sacrosanct. The tendency was, not even to ask whether the monasteries
were fulfilling the objects for which they had been founded, but
rather, whether they were needed. The New Learning had little respect
for old foundations, and Staffordshire had an early example of the way
it would deal with endowments.
William Smythe was Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry from 1493 to
1496. As Lord President of the Welsh Marches he was mainly employed
in unepiscopal work, Thomas Fort, Prior of Stone, acting as his
suffragan. He founded Brasenose College, at Oxford, and boldly diverted
monastic endowments into new channels. In 1495 he suppressed the Austin
Priory of St. John at Lichfield, and used the site and property for a
Grammar School and Almshouses. Such action obviously indicates that
at Lichfield, at any rate, there was neglect of charity and education
by the “religious,” otherwise Bishop Smythe would have had no need to
suppress St. John’s Priory.
Bishop Smythe was an early Wolsey, on a small scale. The Cardinal, like
the Bishop, was a politician rather than an ecclesiastic, and he, too,
laid bold hands on monastic endowments for educational purposes.
Of course Wolsey’s work was much more important than Bishop Smythe’s,
and the history of Staffordshire shows in some measure how it was
accomplished. He became Chancellor in 1515 and sought from the Pope
visitatorial powers over the English monasteries. Such authority for
a royal official was little of a novelty. The King had always claimed
to have considerable power in the religious houses, and had often
exercised it. The royal license was necessary before a new Superior
could be elected, and during the vacancy the temporalities were taken
over and administered by royal officials. The election, when made,
required the royal assent. In all sorts of ways the royal power made
itself felt in the religious houses. It was continually interfering
in their internal affairs, as we shall see fully when we approach the
time of the General Dissolution. It was able to bring such considerable
influence to bear in elections that requests were made for headships
just as for other appointments which were properly in the gift of the
Government.[15] The right of nominating to corrodies, always claimed
and constantly exercised, would of itself ensure the presence of
representatives of the King and his opinions in the religious houses.
How widely the right was interpreted in the sixteenth century may be
gathered from the claim made by the Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII’s
illegitimate son, in 1532. In that year he wrote from Calais to the
Prior of Tutbury, informing him that he had been sent on a mission to
France and that the King’s pleasure was that such of his servants as
remained behind in England should be established in religious houses,
“of whom,” the letter says, “Robert Amyas, clerk of my jewel house, is
appointed to abide at your monastery.”[16] Even so recently as 1490
the King had exercised the powers which Wolsey desired, and by papal
authorisation.
Wolsey, therefore, knew he was on safe ground in making his request to
the Pope. After some delay, Leo X granted the desired authority (1518),
and Wolsey issued statutes for the Austin Canons next year.
He soon began his splendid educational schemes. With some difficulty
he obtained the Pope’s consent (April, 1524) to use the revenues of
St. Frideswide’s at Oxford (where Reginald Pole, a Staffordshire man,
while a student at Oxford, had had a pension, though he was of Royal
lineage) towards the endowment of the college he was founding.[17]
This, of course, was quite insufficient for the splendid scheme he
had in mind, and many further negotiations with the Pope resulted in
a series of grudgingly granted Bulls during several years. Meanwhile,
Wolsey proceeded with his work. The single house he had obtained was
by no means all he intended to appropriate, and he had already drawn
up the draft of a license for incorporating for the use of his college
at Oxford twenty-one other houses, including those at Canwell and
Sandwell,[18] in Staffordshire. It is a Latin document of eleven pages,
and is in Wriothesley’s handwriting.
In 1514 there had been but a single inmate at Canwell available for
appointment to the office of Prior. As a Cluniac house it had never
received adequate supervision, and had often been unsatisfactory: long
ago one of its canons had become a murderer.[19] Sandwell had been
on the verge of bankruptcy, with discreditable canons, wasteful and
unbusiness-like management, violent altercations with neighbours and
armed “religious” rivals. Its buildings were in bad repair. Both houses
were ripe for dissolution.
The deed for the dissolution of St. Mary’s, Sandwell, by William
Burbank, LL.D., is dated February, 1524.[20] It is a Latin document of
twenty-three pages, written on vellum, signed by Prior John and sealed
by Burbank. The witnesses are Thomas Cromwell, John Clifton (chaplain),
Roland Rokyn, and John Lupton. The house was not absolutely closed;
provision was made for the religious services to be maintained, and the
servants and inmates who were dismissed were recompensed. The yearly
value was £12 in spiritualities and £26 8s. 7d. in temporalities.[21]
Clement VII’s Bull authorising this did not issue till six months
later. It permitted the suppression of monasteries to the value of
3,000 ducats, and was dated September 11th. It received the royal
assent on October 1st.[22] It included Sandwell and, obviously,
Canwell, though the writing is partly defaced. On the 13th of January,
1526, Letters Patent were signed at Greenwich, and delivered at
Westminster on January 20th, granting to Wolsey the sites, etc.,
of St. Mary’s, Sandwell, and St. Giles’s, Canwell,[23] with lands
in Staffordshire at Sandwell, West Bromwich, Dudley, Tipton, Magna
and Parva Bar, Harborne, Wernell, Coston, Wombourn, Wednesbury,
Feccham, Canwell, Drayton, Hyns, Wyfford, Packington, Bittertone,
Tamworth, Whittington, Elford, and Farysley. Canwell was worth £10 in
spiritualities and £15 0s. 3d. in temporalities. No time was lost.
On February 10th the houses were transferred to John Higden, dean of
Cardinal’s College, the grant being sealed with Wolsey’s seal, which,
enclosed in an iron case at the foot of the vellum, remains to this
day a splendid impression.[24] The records of the estates were put
into excellent order. William Brabazon surveyed the Manor of Canwell,
and has left a full and detailed description of church, manor-house,
ou-buildings, and land, with full details, measurements, rental, amount
of timber, etc. The church was 84 feet long and 23 feet wide, with a
tiled roof. It had a ruinous Lady Chapel on the north side 42 feet long
and 14 feet wide, and bells worth £33 6s. 8d. The manor-house was 69
feet long by 15 feet wide, with one side tiled and the other thatched,
and three rooms above and below, but its timber was in a bad state.
There was a hall and kitchen, the latter also ruinous, a three-roomed
stable, a kiln, bolting house, and chamber for corn, dove-house, and
a large barn 112 feet by 28 feet. We have also a detailed list of the
cottagers by name, with their rents (1d. per annum per cottage), dated
the 13th of March, 1526.[25] A _præcipe_ for a fine relating to
the possessions of Canwell, and a lease and a conveyance of Sandwell,
show that the former had been dissolved by the year 1527.[26] Its
founder, Lord Lisle, had released his title by fine. The latter was
“given” by Edward, Lord Dudley.
The same business-like procedure was followed in making over the
endowments to the College. The estates having been carefully and fully
surveyed, a complete “Register” of all the documents was delivered to
Dr. Higden, under date 21st of June, 1527. The Dean himself was a keen
business man, like all the men who enjoyed Wolsey’s favour, and at once
set about improving the revenues, visiting the estates, and raising the
rents where it was possible to do so.[27]
The suppression of the monasteries formed part of the charges laid
against Wolsey on his impeachment. Dean Higden’s raising of the rents
was charged against the Cardinal, who was also accused of “shamefully
slandering many good religious houses and good virtuous men living in
them,” as well as often forcing suppressions by “crafty persuasions.”
The houses alleged to be so wrongfully suppressed were, however, by
no means restored on his fall. Full details of them were obtained by
Commissions of local gentry: Sir John Gifford, Sir Edward Aston, Edward
Lyttleton, and John Vernon, acted in Staffordshire. Then, whatever
still remained was sold. William Burbank and Thomas Cromwell did this
work at Canwell and Sandwell.[28] The sale at the former reached £8 and
at the latter £21. The bells at Sandwell were worth £33 6s. 8d., and
at Canwell £13 6s. 8d., and debts and rents due at Lady-day amounted
to £189 10s. On the other hand, there were the costs of Burbank and
Cromwell for their journey from Tickford to Sandwell, and for their
five days’ stay at Sandwell and three days’ at Canwell. The fees of
the “Praysors” were 3s. 4d.; and one of the monks at Canwell was paid
£1 in wages, and another 6s. 8d. The Prior’s father and the servants
also received payments. The work was done thoroughly. The establishment
evidently had been leniently dealt with, and indeed to a considerable
extent maintained, so long as Wolsey lived, but now the religious
life, at least, ceased, for we may conclude that the sale of the bells
implies that the churches were closed or put to secular uses.
In the re-arrangement of the endowments of Wolsey’s College, Canwell
was spared for it, and so was Sandwell, but the rectories belonging to
the latter and the manor at the former were assigned to the College
at Windsor. The Prior of Shene also received some of the lands at
Sandwell, and John Voysey, _alias_ Harmon, Bishop of Exeter, made
purchases at Canwell. The “total issues” from the Staffordshire houses
are set down in the Account Book of the College for 1530 as £31 7s.
from Sandwell and £14 6s. from Canwell.[29]
Bishop Geoffrey Blythe was another of the products of the New Learning:
a suspect by reason of his advanced opinions, yet a burner of heretics;
the ordainer of Colet and the rejector as _indoctus et indignus_
of a Canon of Ronton nominated to a vicarage in 1530; the acceptor so
early as 1530 of Henry VIII’s refusal to allow an appeal to Rome which
the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury made against Archbishop
Warham in regard to probate.
While Wolsey was appropriating monastic endowments for the benefit of
learning, Bishop Blythe was engaged in similar work, and he obtained
Wolsey’s help in suppressing the Benedictine Nunnery at Fairwell.
In 1526 the diocese had received a visit from the Cardinal in person.
In March he came to the Cathedral in his capacity of Legate _a
latere_, formally to investigate a complaint of the vicars. It did
not contribute to his popularity, and was met by a protest on the part
of the Great Chapter. However, he examined and ratified the Cathedral
statutes; and probably during the Visitation, which lasted from March
5th to April 4th, Bishop Blythe discussed the condition of Fairwell
with the Cardinal, and received from him advice and encouragement.
Fairwell Nunnery had been founded by Bishop Roger de Clinton
(1129–1148), a few miles from Lichfield. Bishop Norbury, on a
visitation, had found various delinquencies which caused him to issue a
series of detailed injunctions in 1331.[30] They had to be translated
into French as the nuns did not understand Latin. In 1367 Bishop
Stretton again exercised his authority and in the same way. From the
orders he issued[31] we are able to gather the nature of the things
complained of. The laudable practice of going for walks in common was
commended, but none were to go out without two others for company,
and then only by leave of the Prioress. The threefold vow was to be
observed, and also the periods of silence. Such secular women, except
necessary servants, as were living within the nunnery were to obtain
the Bishop’s license or to be dismissed, and the same order was issued
with regard to male children. The accounts were to be laid before the
whole Convent yearly at least, and grants of land were to require the
Bishop’s authorization. There had been too much luxury, and all were
ordered to take their meals in the Guest Hall, where, alone, except in
cases of sickness or other reasonable cause, a fire was permissible.
In March, 1527, a Commission was sealed by Wolsey at Hampton Court
empowering Richard Strete, B.D., Archdeacon of Salop and Canon of
Lichfield, and William Clayborough, LL.D., Canon of York, to complete
the suppression of Fairwell.[32] The nuns and chaplains were to be
translated to other houses, and the goods of the house were to go to
the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield for the support of the choristers.
The formal grant to the Dean and Chapter, of the Nunnery and all its
possessions, was made on August 28th following.[33] In return they
bound themselves to say an annual Obit for the Bishop.
Such work as that which has been described--work on a small scale by
Bishops Smythe and Blythe, and on a larger scale by Wolsey--became
of very great historical importance. It revived the memory of the
destruction of the Knights Templars and the confiscation of the Alien
Priories, and familiarised public opinion in the earlier years of
the sixteenth century with the idea of monastic dissolutions. That
no suspicion of personal cupidity or of self-interest could be laid
against any of the authors was in itself of great value to the men who
afterwards followed in their footsteps with very different motives.
The genuine disinterestedness of purpose which prompted these earlier
“reformers” went far to blind the public to the real objects of the
later. And Wolsey’s dissolutions did much more. They not only supplied
contemporary examples and revived old precedents; they not only gave
practical effect to the tendency of the New Learning to disparage old
forms of religious life; they actually trained up experts in the work
of suppressing religious houses. Thomas Cromwell made, as Wolsey’s
secretary, his first essays in the art which was afterwards to gain for
him the name of the “Hammer of the Monks.” We have seen him busy in
the case of both the Staffordshire houses which were dissolved by the
Cardinal. Richard Strete, too, we shall soon meet again.
Cromwell, even at this early stage of his career, earned a reputation
for unscrupulous harshness, and susceptibility to bribery; but on
the whole it is evident that these suppressions were accomplished
with the least possible friction. The interests of all who were
involved--patrons, monks, servants, tenants, were considered and
recognised. And the general results to learning were undoubtedly good.
CHAPTER III
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION
When the assembly, which has gained for itself the name of the
Reformation Parliament, met, the air was full of rumours of attacks
upon the clergy. The French Ambassador reported: “it is the intention,
when Wolsey is dead or destroyed, to get rid of the Church and spoil
the goods of both.” Parliament assembled on November 3rd, 1530, and
to the Convocation which was called at the same time the heads of the
following religious houses in Staffordshire were summoned: Burton,
Rocester, Dieulacres, Hulton, Croxden, Tutbury, Stone, St. Thomas
(Stafford), Trentham, Ronton, Calwich, and Dudley. Sandwell and Canwell
had, of course, disappeared recently. The Bishop of the diocese was
Geoffrey Blythe. Archdeacon Strete was one of the Proctors for the
clergy.
The Prior of Calwich, who was summoned, died just at this juncture,
and the dispute which arose as to the appointment of a successor
enabled the Crown to assert its supremacy at the expense of all parties
concerned.
Calwich had originally been a hermitage, and had been given by
Nicholas de Gresley Fitz Nigel in the twelfth century to the Priory of
Kenilworth. It had thus become a cell of that house, and came under
the rules of the Austin Canons. A considerable amount of building had
been done at Calwich in the latter part of the fourteenth century:
in 1391 the Pope granted Indulgences to those who visited the place
and made contributions to the fabric on the feast of St. Margaret
and certain other days. The history of Calwich illustrates how the
dependent “cells” were a source of weakness to the monastic system.
Such houses were often unsatisfactory. They were sometimes looked upon
as places of banishment for brethren who deserved punishment: a method
of discipline akin to the later system of penal settlements like Botany
Bay, and as likely to be productive of the very worst results. The very
men who needed supervision would be freed from it, and the remedy would
intensify the evil. In any case, such small communities would easily
become engrossed in secular pursuits: their interests were narrowed,
and their occupation small.
Disputes arose between the dependent cells and the parent house, and
the inmates of the cells often became unpopular with their neighbours.
In 1293 the dependence of Calwich on Kenilworth was made the excuse
for depriving its Prior of pasture rights in the Wootton Woods, it
being asserted that he was removable at the will of the Prior of
Kenilworth. This, indeed, was strikingly shown to be the case in 1334,
when the Prior, although duly instituted, was recalled by the Prior of
Kenilworth. The Prior of Calwich in 1293 denied that he held such a
dependent position, but the local jury, to whom the case was referred,
decided against him. Local feeling was hostile to the Canons, much
as it was afterwards against the Alien Priories, and Calwich had to
forego further rights of gallows and free warren, etc., in the manor
of Ellastone. The parent house did not relax its hold or lessen its
claims at the bidding of a Staffordshire jury. In 1334 the Bishop
inquired into the matter and decided in favour of Kenilworth. This
apparently brought matters to a crisis, for in 1349 the four resident
Canons pleaded that they could no longer endure the uncertainty of
their position and the unpopularity they experienced. They succeeded
in having their house declared independent, under the patronage of the
original founders, who undertook to pay yearly a sum of sixty shillings
to Kenilworth in acknowledgment of its rights.
The house gained nothing by its independence, but rather the reverse.
The Prior found his subjection to the lay-patron involved him in
litigation, without gaining him protection from the jealousy of
neighbours. The house shared in the general decline in wealth and
numbers after the Black Death. In 1384 Bishop Robert de Stretton
appointed the Prior and Canons of Calwich to be the collectors in the
Archdeaconry of Stafford of the Convocation grant, but they petitioned
to be excused on the plea of infirmity, poverty, and smallness of
numbers (there were only two Canons besides the Prior).
It sank lower and lower. In 1438 the Prior was charged with the
forcible detention of ten oxen and eight cows, for which damages to
the amount of £20 were claimed. Twenty years after he was troubled by
neighbours breaking into his close, cutting down his underwood and
letting loose their cattle to graze upon his pastures.
Accordingly, when the Prior died in 1530, the house was a poor place
with a bad record. In accordance with the usual practice, the Priory
was taken into the royal hands during the vacancy; and the subsequent
story affords an interesting illustration of the way in which the
attack on clerical privileges which was carried on in the early years
of the Reformation Parliament, was supported by irregular movements in
detail. It also helps us to see how the great work of the Suppression
of the Monasteries was the independent work of the Government. They
made use of Parliamentary support and sanction when it was convenient
or wise, but the work was in reality their own. The suppression of
Calwich was never referred to Parliament. It aroused no feeling and
evoked no protest from anyone. It was evidently looked upon as quite a
natural exercise of the royal power.
On the Prior’s death there was but one remaining canon, Dr. David
Pole, or Powle;[34] and the representative of the original founder
of the Priory, Ralf Longford, claimed the right of presentation, and
sent an agent, furnished with means, to London to press his claim.
Dr. Roland Lee was one of the King’s Chaplains, and Chancellor of
Lichfield. Richard Strete, the Archdeacon of Salop, Cromwell’s agent
in the district, wrote to Lee in London informing him of the position
of affairs at Calwich, on April 6th, 1530, adding that he could find
no record of such a right as Longford claimed, and arguing that it
should not be allowed. It was convenient now to assert the Bishop’s
right of appointment. Lord Shrewsbury also put forward claims in
virtue of donations to the house by past members of his family. There
were other claimants, and the result was that various persons were
recommended for the preferment. All this helped to play into the hands
of the enemy. Strete’s conclusion was that it would be well to consult
with Cromwell as to what should be done. Later, Strete wrote fully to
Cromwell himself, repeating the same information and giving in detail
an account of the spoil that might be expected from the house.[35]
“My duty done, according to your lettres datyd _penultimo
die Aprilis_, I have ben at Calwich, and takyn an
inventary of the goodes of that house by indenture and
committyd the keping and garding of all thinges ther to
thabbott of Rowceter ij myles thens, and on of his brethren
abidith at Calwich to overse them who hath kept the
sequestre syns the departur of the late prior. The valour
of the goodes and laundes foloith.
_Inprimis_, household very course, as
doith appere by particlars in the
inventary xv_li._ xiij_s._ ij_d._
_Item_, in catall, as oxen, kye, horses,
mares, shepe old and yonge lxxix_li._ xv_s._ iiij_d._
_Item_, in corne, apon the grounde xj_li._ vj_s._ viij_d._
_Item_, stuff for the church, as chales
and vestmentes, etc. x_li._ ix_s._ viij_d._
-----------------------
Summa cxvij_li._ iiij_s._ x_d._
_Item_, the demeanes lyen roundabowt
the house, and ben worth yerely xxiij_li._ xij_s._
_Item_, other tenthes yerely xvij_li._ viij_s._ j_d._ob.
_Item_, the paroch church of Ellaston
to that monastery appropriat, besyde
the Vicar indoment xiij_li._ vj_s._ viiij_d._
“In these is no harde peneworth: the house and other
byldinges be in mean good state of reparacion. I have
dischargyd and put forth such persons as were not mete to
be ther, and laft such as be husbaundes, and I have made
sure the convent saill, and the evidence.
“The first founder ther was Nich. Gresley, in whose title
now claymyth Mr. Longford (as men here report). Ther be
diverse benefactours that hath gyffyn landes to that house,
as it doith appere, viz., my lord Stuard, sir Henrie
Saucheverell, Mr. Oker, and other thair ansetors. And thus
ye may partly perceyve, and what I can do ferther shalbe
redy by God his grace.... Lich. xij^o, Maij.
“Yours,
“RICHARD STRETE, preist.”
Wolsey died on November 29th, 1530. Bishop Blythe soon followed him.
The exact date does not appear in his Act Books, but it was apparently
not long before January 21st, as on that date the Archbishop’s
Commission was issued to the Vicar-General to act during the vacancy.
Archdeacon Strete was appointed in May “to receive the rents and
profits of the same [Bishopric] to the King’s use” during the vacancy.
At the same time he received the following letter from Cromwell:[36]
“Mr. Strete after most hertie commendacions these shalbe to
advertise you that by the berers hereof ye shall receyve
the Kinge’s comission and warraunte gevyng you auctoryte
to Survey the londes of the bisshopriche of Coventre and
Licheld and to receyve the rentes and profites of the same
to the Kinges use. And also ye shall receyve his gracious
letteres directed to the Eschetor of the Countie palentyne
of Chester uppon the sight whereof I doubte not but he will
not onelie Surcease to medle any Ferther with the receipt
of any rentes there, but also in case he have receyved
any, will repay the same unto your handes accordinglie.
Not dowbting but ye will diligentlie, effectuallie, and
trewly put in execucion the teanour and effecte of your
saide Commyssion in suche wise as shalbe most for your
honestie to the Kinges most profite and advantage. And
for your paynes and diligence alredy taken and susteyned
aboute his affayres there his highnes hathe commaunded me
to geve unto you his most hertie thankes. And trustith that
ye will so indevour your self in the receipt of the said
rentes and revenues as before the feaste of the Natyvyte
of Saynt John Baptist next ye will bryng or send up the
hole half-yeres rent or the most parte of the same and that
ye will have good awayte and regarde to his haukes in the
Cauke there wherein ye shall do and admynister unto his
highnes right good and acceptable servyce.
“And as touching the Catell at the pryorie of Calliche the
kinges gracious pleasure is that ye shall suffer the berers
hereof named Fyndern and Curson to have the preferrement in
the byeng of the same uppon suche reasonable prises as they
may convenyently lyve on taking of them som money in hande
and such sufficient bonde and suertie for the residue as
the king may be trewly answered of the same. And so Fare ye
well &c.
“Your mastership.”
An agreement was made between the King and Longford. The Patron
surrendered his claim of presentation, and agreed to the suppression
of the house in 1532. He was to hold the lands in farm from the King,
and the rent was to be fixed by a local jury. Strete recommended the
Abbot of Rocester, Sir William Bassett, Sir John Gifford, and himself,
but the Sheriff refused to “affirm” the panel by reason of its manifest
partiality.[37] Strete’s inclusion was in itself sufficient to condemn
it: in the long letter in which he suggested it he maligned Longford
for “slackness,” and recommended Cromwell to press him for £60 which
was owing on account of Calwich.
Another claimant to the lands, or part of them, was the Earl of
Shrewsbury, and the Sheriff’s panel consisted of the Earl’s tenants.
It was, therefore, as little impartial as Strete’s, but it met with
the approval of Brabazon,[38] one of Cromwell’s emissaries, who was
sent down to Lichfield to help in the business; and evidently no
idea of fairness entered the minds of any of the officials. There
were other claimants, too, apparently Sir Henry Sacheverell and Mr.
Oker (Okeover), but they could be disregarded. Strete and Brabazon
used their powers of persuasion, and the members of the jury, having
served their lord’s ends by deciding in favour of the Earl’s claim to
“a small portion” of the property, were ready to give their decision
as the Crown required. Yet they judged it wiser to save appearances by
a show of hesitation; they insisted on an adjournment, though at the
same time they promised the requisite verdict. This was in the third
week in August, 1532. Of course Strete was able to write to Cromwell in
due course (October 21st, 1532):[39] “The Office of Calwich is passed
for the King.” At that time Longford owed £46 5s. 2d. He had also in
his possession the tithes (£13 3s. 4d.) and the last Michaelmas rents
(£11 16s.). These he undertook to deliver to Cromwell. An escheator was
appointed to receive the dues on the King’s behalf, and on March 11th
of the next year we have a note of Cromwell’s (11th March, 1533) that
£30 had been received from Strete on the Calwich account. By April 26th
the legal formalities were completed, and Strete was able to report
to Cromwell: “The Priory of Calwich, now void, rests in the King’s
pleasure.”[40] This was the year in which the Act was passed giving
to the King the rights of visitation of the religious houses, and, of
course, considerably before any Act was passed for their dissolution.
But all was not plain sailing for Longford. In 1534 among the “bills
to be signed” was still that of “Sir Ralf Longford for the late Priory
of Calwiche.” Moreover, Strete was instructed that Mr. Fitzherbert,
Longford’s father-in-law, was to have the tithes and the growing corn
“at such prices as may be deemed sufficient,” and Findern and Curson,
already mentioned, were repudiated in his favour.
The letter, dated June 14th, 1533, which Cromwell wrote to Archdeacon
Strete is as follows:[41]
“Maister Strete as hertelye as I Can I commend me unto
you, and whereas by my last letteres I wrott unto you in
the Favors of Curson and Fyndern to be prefferyd unto
the Catell and Corn of late belongyng to the priorye
of Colwyche, and Sythyn that tyme I wrotte unto you on
the behalf of Mr. longford for his prefferment unto the
demaynes of the sayd pryorye so hit ys that now the sayd
maister longford by his Fatherinlaw, Mr. Fyzherbert moche
desyryth to have the Tythys and also suche Corn as at thys
tyme ys Sown uppon the demaynes of the sayd late pryorye
for this yere whych tythe and corn sown uppon the demaynes
I require yow that he may haffe at such prysys as ye shall
thinke convenyent and in such wyse as the kynge’s highnes
may be Substauncyallye answeryd of the proftyttes growing
of the same without any Favour to be born to anye othre
partye and wher as I wrott in myn other letter that Curson
and Fyndern shold have the preffermentt of the Catell and
Corn I dyd not wrytt for anye Corne growing on the grownde
ne yet for any tythys which in no wyse ye shall Suffer
them to have but to order hyt as ys afforsayd most to the
kynge’s proffytte advauntage. I well persayve who grauntyth
suchemen an Inche they wyll take an ell. I am Infformyd
they avaunte them selfs to have Commyssyons and graunttes
of the kyng which ys untrew I praye yew advyse them to use
no such Facyons. Syr, the kynges highnes trustyth that
ye with all spede will bryng up the halfyere’s Ferme and
Renttes of the Busshopryche which I praye yow may be here
before his gracyous departyng in progresse, and as to the
Chanon off Colwyche ye may translate hym unto Sum good
howse of that relygyon being nere unto yow and to gyve hym
sumthing after your discrecyon suche as may stand with the
kynges honour and also to his honest Contentacyon, and thus
trustyng in your approvyd wysdom and experyence Commytt all
the premysses unto your discrecyon trustyng ever that ye
wyll have respect to your dew and charge and also that I
may have short answer of thes and other my letteres, and so
Fare ye well at London, the xiiiith daye of June.”
Where Dr. David Pole was placed we are not told, but in 1535 a David
Pole is found as Prebendary of Tachebroke, in receipt of a stipend of
£10 a year.[42]
On February 12th, 1534, Richard Harecourt became the escheator for the
year, and remained till November 18th, when another was appointed, who
proved to lack the necessary property qualification, so Longford had
to pay the King’s dues direct. Next year (November 24th, 1535) Thomas
Skrymsher was appointed.
The King now made one of those “exchanges” which became so frequent
later. The manor of East Molesey was pleasantly situated on the
southern bank of the Thames, in Surrey, and had obvious advantages
over the remote estate in North Staffordshire. It belonged to the old
and historic priory of Merton, where Becket had been educated, where
the Parliament had sat which enacted the statutes of Merton, and
which had provided a refuge for the patriot Hubert de Burgh in his
days of adversity. Its past fame and present wealth seemed to warrant
its inmates in a confident assurance of security, and they agreed to
give the King their riverside manor of East Molesey in exchange for
the distant and forlorn cell of their Order at Calwich. No doubt they
hoped eventually to retrieve its fortunes and to re-establish it as
a religious house, though for the present they had to acquiesce in
the arrangements regarding it which had just been made. The exchange
appears to have been made in 1535–6, and Merton renewed the lease to
Longford for £43, with the obligation to discharge the pension of sixty
shillings to “the late priory of Kelyngworth.”
Almost immediately the process of squeezing the larger houses began,
and Merton Abbey soon succumbed. The date of its surrender, with
Abbot and fourteen monks, is April 16th, 1538. The lease of Calwich
to Longford was renewed in the same year. In 1540 he obtained an
acknowledgment that he had paid all his dues to Cromwell and Gostwick,
and was empowered to receive from the various escheators “tayles”
(tallies, _i.e._, receipts) for them. The Augmentation Book in
1543 has a record of his twenty-one years’ lease, but the reversion was
sold to John Fleetwood.
Longford soon found himself in financial difficulties. In spite of the
grant of Calwich, for which Sir Anthony Fitzherbert wrote to thank
Cromwell on April 18th, 1537, he could not pay the rent due. The royal
escheators were hard taskmasters, exacting the uttermost farthing, and
Fitzherbert’s letter shows Longford had been some time in debt. In
1541 they levied a distraint, and ejected from the estate the tenants
to whom Longford had sublet it. He had to enter into a bond of £200 to
settle the matter, and this only added to his embarrassments. In 1543
he was in the Fleet, the debtors’ prison, writing piteous appeals for
loans wherewith to discharge his indebtedness to the King.
Ralf Longford, his successor in Elizabeth’s reign, on the expiration
of the lease made an effort to retain the property, but without
success, and Calwich passed to the Fleetwoods. The way they treated
the buildings is well known from Erdeswicke’s oft-quoted description.
Writing about 1593, he noted how the new owner “hath made a parlour of
the chancel, a hall of the church, and a kitchen of the steeple.” It is
strange to find the Fleetwoods of Calwich in the lists of Recusants in
later years.[43]
CHAPTER IV
PRELIMINARIES TO THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION
For the sake of following up the story of the downfall of Calwich in a
connected form it has been necessary to omit the mention of much that
meanwhile had been happening. Bishop Blythe’s loyalty would have been
severely strained had he lived a few weeks longer. Before the end of
January (1531) the Convocation of Canterbury had been compelled to vote
the enormous sum of £100,000 in atonement for the fault which had been
committed in acknowledging Wolsey’s legatine authority. The Abbot of
Croxden was too ill to attend the Session. The Northern Convocation
subsequently voted an additional £18,840. The ease with which these
huge amounts were raised was to have unsuspected effects. The clergy
were also compelled to acknowledge the King “their singular protector,
only and supreme lord, and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even
Supreme Head,” though it must be remembered that Henry took pains to
explain that he understood the expression in no blasphemous sense.
Next, it was required that the Convocations should enact no new Canons
without royal license. They made a vain attempt to retain some of
their powers. On May 8th (1532) a deputation was appointed to wait
upon the King to try to induce him to retain clerical immunities. The
constitution of the deputation did not augur well for its success.
It consisted of Roland Lee, already called Bishop of Lichfield,
though he was not consecrated till April 19th next year, the Abbot of
Burton-on-Trent, and four others.
The Abbot of Burton-on-Trent was Dr. William Boston. He had been
originally a monk of Peterborough, and became Abbot of Burton in
1531. He was one of Cromwell’s satellites, and there are many notes
in Cromwell’s “Remembrances” which show that the two were in frequent
consultation. It was probably through Cromwell’s influence, and against
the wishes of the Convent, that Boston was elected Abbot, for at the
next vacancy a strong party still adhered to the monk who ought to
have been previously advanced. Roland Lee is a personage who needs no
introduction, and we shall have sufficient of him before long.[44]
The deputation failed, if it was intended to preserve any semblance of
initiative for Convocation. On May 10th the famous “Submission of the
Clergy” was introduced, and on May 15th it was accepted.
At the same time Henry’s passion for Anne Boleyn was driving him
further and further from the Pope. The Annates Bill, empowering the
King to deprive the Pope of his revenues from England, was passed,
for diplomatic reasons, on March 19th. It was at once a threat and a
bribe to the Papacy, and its object was to secure the annulling of
Katherine’s marriage. A post was sent to Rome “to frighten the Pope
about the Annates,”[45] but it failed in achieving its object. Clement
VII stood firm; but early in 1533, as was afterwards alleged, the King
went through a form of marriage with Anne Boleyn. Among those who were
variously stated to have performed the ceremony was Roland Lee. The
alienation from the Papacy became much more pronounced as the news of
the marriage leaked out, and the passing of the Annates Bill into law
became inevitable. The Royal Letters Patent, which made it effective,
were issued on July 9th.
In the same Session the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome was passed,
springing from the same unsavoury origin, and requiring more management
in Parliament. Exceptional steps were taken to make sure that the
King’s party should be well represented. William Boston had lately
been in frequent consultation with Cromwell: he could be depended
upon to speed the ecclesiastical legislation then in progress, and in
his person the Abbot of Burton for the first time sat in Parliament.
His admission is entered on the Rolls as being “by virtue of a writ
of summons, dated the 30th of April, 24 Henry VIII.”[46] It may be
recalled that meanwhile the house at Calwich was in the last throes of
dissolution. It was on October 21st following that Strete reported:
“the Office of Calwich is passed for the King.”
But Calwich was not the only Staffordshire house which was receiving
Cromwell’s attention at this time. William Boston was speedily rewarded
for his support of the royal policy in Parliament by being promoted
to the high honour of the Abbacy of Westminster.[47] It was part of
Cromwell’s policy to secure the election of complacent nominees to
the headships of the religious houses as vacancies occurred. A writer
of Elizabeth’s reign, who had been cognisant of the whole history of
the period, averred that he deliberately promoted such men as would
afterwards further his schemes of confiscation: “He placed abbottes
and ffriers in divers great housses, divers lerned men, and perswaded
against these superstitiens, _which men were readie to make surrender
of their houses at the kinges commaundement_.”[48]
We have already seen that pressure had been probably brought to bear
upon the community at Burton-on-Trent when Boston had been elected.
The facts about the election of his successor admit of no dispute. The
whole story appears in full in the State papers.
No sooner had William Boston been promoted than Cromwell set about
securing the election of a successor of the same type. He sent to
the Abbey three men like-minded with himself, Roland Lee, Richard
Strete, and Pole. Roland Lee and he had already been companions in
much work of an unsavoury nature, of which the business at Burton was
comparatively innocent. Strete’s character has already been seen in
the matter of the dissolution of Calwich. Pole was Vicar-General. The
three were to secure the election of Cromwell’s nominee. But there was
much opposition. The majority of the brethren desired to elect one whom
ancient custom marked out for the promotion, and it was hoped that
the King or the Queen would save them from interference. Cromwell’s
nominee was strongly objected to. The plausible Lee, however, assured
the monks that in these virtuous days the Court had abjured all undue
interference with the freedom of elections, and easily convinced
them they had nothing to hope in that quarter. That accomplished, he
was confident of success. On June 25th, 1533, he wrote from Burton a
report to Cromwell in these words:[49] “This day, with the assistance
of Mr. Strete and Mr. Pole, I have travailed with the convent of
Burton, but as yet I have no promise, as one part trusts to have from
the King, the Queen, and you, a command contrary to that I have from
you. I had never so much to do about such matters because the beryn (?
bearing--_i.e._, demeanour, fashion) in the Court hath been that
no man durst mell; and those matters were shortly sped. There is one
here that by election should have had the Abbey before, and yet by the
same shall have it according to the ancient order of the law. I beg
you to wait for further knowledge from me. Your furtherance of justice
shall not be undeserved. I beg your favour to Master Dutton, Sir
Piers,[50] whose only trust is in you. It is better for a man to lose
his right arm than sue, but only for your good help, and he will keep
his promise to you.”
Two days afterwards he had succeeded in persuading the monks to leave
the nomination of their Abbot to him and Strete. He wrote to Cromwell
on June 27th: “I sped the election at Burton, and the compromission
is in me and Mr. Strete to nominate one of the Convent before the 1st
of August.”[51] He apparently had failed to secure the election of
Cromwell’s original nominee, but it may be taken for granted that the
man appointed by Lee and Strete would be sufficiently amenable for all
practical purposes. The monks made a submission, and chose the third
Prior, whose name was William Edie. Before August was out the royal
assent had been given to his “election.” It was confirmed on 13th
April, 1334.[52] He was subsequently summoned to Parliament, when the
Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries had to be passed,
as will presently be related. Roland Lee was consecrated Bishop of
Lichfield on April 19th.
When we find such men as Boston and Edie summoned to the Reformation
Parliament, from a house which had not previously supplied mitred
Abbots, it is evident that no pains were spared to pack the assembly
throughout its existence. It is not surprising, therefore, that it
proved compliant and obsequious.
In 1534 the Act of Succession was passed. The Oath of Succession
appears to have been taken by all the members of both Houses of
Parliament, but it caused the downfall of Sir Thomas More. Dr. Boston,
now Abbot of Westminster, was one of the Commissioners appointed to
administer the oath of supremacy to Sir Thomas More. On April 13th,
1534, Cranmer pressed the argument of loyalty, and, when More pleaded
the claims of conscience, the Abbot of Westminster urged that his
conscience should not be set above the opinion of the whole Parliament.
More effectively retorted that a general council of Christendom was
superior to a council of England, and repeated that he was perfectly
willing to respect the succession as ordered by Parliament. As a loyal
citizen and as a constitutional statesman he was ready to obey the
Parliament in constitutional questions, but could not agree that it had
unlimited authority in religion. He could “honour the King,” but at the
same time he must “fear God.”
He was committed to the custody of Abbot Boston for four days, probably
in the hope that so plausible and compliant an ecclesiastic would
succeed in removing his scruples. But his constancy stood firm, and he
soon found himself in the Tower, whence he went to the block on June
6th, 1535.
In 1534 further steps were taken to bring the religious houses under
royal authority. The royal supremacy was formally established by Act of
Parliament, and the King thus took over many of the powers which had
been previously claimed by the Pope.
We must be on our guard against attaching too much significance to
such legal enactments. It must be borne in mind that a good deal
of this kind of lawmaking was not much more than giving statutory
expression--often with brutal frankness--to what had long existed in
fact. The royal authority had always been what the royal power had been
able to make it, little under weak or indifferent kings, strong under
masterful ones. The novelties after the period which is called “the
Reformation” were in reality much slighter than is generally supposed.
Henry VIII, when he exercised authority over the Church by virtue of
the Act of Supremacy or in virtue of his title of “Supreme Head,” was
not pressing much more hardly on the liberties of his subjects than
he had done before the new title had been invented. The history of
the Staffordshire monasteries in previous centuries shows abundantly
that whenever the King desired he could exercise the most arbitrary
control over the religious houses in all sorts of ways. The only
effective check before the Reformation was, not “Papal authority,” or
“ecclesiastical privileges,” or “religious immunities”--all these could
be, and were, overridden and set aside,--but public opinion. Precisely
the same check was influential afterwards and to much the same extent
as formerly. The skill of Henry VIII and his ministers was shown in
the way they won public opinion to their side or crushed it away out
of sight. English history, and continental too, has shown again and
again that the civil power can never be permanently restrained by
“immunities” and “concordats.” The force of circumstances is always
liable to be too strong for such artificial arrangements: the power
of Parliament must, as a _force majeure_, be the final arbiter.
It may, indeed, be argued that the statutes which seemed to place the
English Church beneath the heel of the State, and which for three
centuries have given the enemy occasion to blaspheme, gave her in
reality a greater measure of freedom than many “unestablished” churches
have enjoyed. It may almost be said that modern history has shown that
the anxiety of Parliament to assert itself over a non-established
church may be greater than over an established church, and that its
powers may be exercised in the former case with greater tyranny and
offensiveness than in the latter; it has also shown that the powers
and titles claimed by King and Parliament in Tudor times were, after
all, only “stage properties”: the same authority may be claimed, and
the same deeds done, without them.
Henry VIII, having formally taken over the Pope’s authority, was not
slow to exercise it. A royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden
Abbey and many other Cistercian houses was appointed. This was Thomas
Chard, alias Tybbes. He is a typical ecclesiastic of the period. He had
been a member of St. Bernard’s, now St. John’s College, Oxford, and
received the degree of D.D. in 1505, being styled _vir doctrina et
virtute clarus_. He held a large number of preferments, vicarages,
and rectories, as well as priorships. He became Prior of Montacute
in 1515 (till 1525) and also Prior of Forde in 1521. The latter he
held till the priory was dissolved. Meanwhile he was also a suffragan
bishop, being styled _Episcopus Solubriensis_. He was consecrated
in 1508, when he was presented to the vicarage of Torrington Parva.[53]
The fresh exercise of power and influence to which we have referred is
explained in the following commission:
“Henry the eyethe by the grace of gode kyng of Ingelande
and of Fraunce defensor of the fayeth and lorde of Yrelande
sende gretynge | For as moche as hytt ys Requysytte and
thaweth to be most expedyent thordre and Relygyon of
Cystercanes to be visyted and Reformyde by Auctorite
hade of vs wyrth in thys or Realme of Ingelande and
nott be Auctorite hade from beyende the seys for dyv’se
cosyderacons hade in the same We tenderyng the good
cotynewaunce and mayntaynyg of all man’ catholique Religyon
Firmely pceyvyng the indyfferensy dexterite and goode
vertuous qualityes and divine lernyng wyche manyfestely
bathe and dothe appere in owre trusty and welbeloyde Fadre
in gode Thomas Abbott of Forde wherefore we name institute
and ordeyne the sayde Abbott of Forde from hense Forde
to be visitor Reformator and inquysitor of that Religion
duryng hys naturall lyffe of all thos monasterys whos namys
Folowyth Any comyssyon or comyssyons here tofore graunted
to the contrary nott wyethstandyng that ys to vnderstande,
Forde, Buckefaste, Buckelande, Dunckewell, Newham, Clyve,
Byndon, Tarraunte, Bewley, Quarre, Letteley, Wav’ley,
Rewley, Stanley, Haylys, Bordeley, Kyngewoode, Flaxley,
Stratteford, Boxley, Crokedene, Combremeare, Cockehall,
Brewern, Garydon, Bedyllisden, Combe, Stoneley, Merevalle,
and Thame | Farther we wyll and straytely comande that no
other psone or psons of what Estade degre or dygnite so
ev’ he or they be but only the sayde Abbott of Forde or
his depute do visett Reforme Inquyre or intermelle in any
man’ wyse in any of the sayde monsterys afore Rehersyd nor
wt any Religyous psone or psons of the same And ferther we
wyll [lined through in original] duryng the natrall lyffe
of the sayde Abbott of Forde whon we ordayne and depute
visotor Reformator Inquysytor as before rehersid More ov’
we give and graunte and by thes presente we auctorisatt
the fore sayde Abbott of Forde to destitute and institute
any Abbott or Abbotts fro tyme to tyme wtyn all and ev’y
of the Foresayde monsterys as the lawys and Rewlys of the
sayde ordre dothe and wyll pymtte | And for hys Farther
assystence in all and syngler the p’miss and for executyng
of the same we wyll and straytely comaunde by vertew of
thes or comyssyon all shreffys Mayrys baylyffys Constablys
Justyce and all other or offycers in all and ev’y shere
and libertie as far as any of thos Abbeys before namyde
doth extende and for the executyng of this or Auctoritye
comyttyde and gevyn to the foresayde Abbott of Ford | they
and ev’y of them to Assyste the fore sayde Abbott of Forde
att all tymys and att any tyme that they or any of them
shalbe requyred by the sayd abbott of Forde or his depute
in and a boute any of the monstreys before Rehersyde in
advoydyng or hyeth dyspleasure. And this or comyssion and
graunte we wyll to cotynewe in vigour and strengyth.”[54]
Very few of the monks ventured to follow More’s example in regard to
the Oath of Succession, but the friars generally refused.
As they did most of the preaching in the parish churches, for
the wholesale appropriation of tithes by the monasteries had so
impoverished livings that few educated men held them, it was necessary
that they should be silenced. Commissioners were accordingly
appointed, to whom Roland Lee was afterwards added, to visit all the
friaries, take an inventory of their goods, and examine each inmate
separately.[55] In this way most of the friars in the provinces were
reduced to submission, though Lee harried to death some honourable
exceptions in London.
It is no wonder the monks, as a rule, proved amenable, for already it
was common rumour that a vast scheme of spoliation was being planned,
and they dared not precipitate matters by a bold refusal. The rumour
was justified, for Cromwell was privately proposing to hand over all
monasteries with less than thirteen inmates “for the maintenance of the
royal estate,” though at the same time he publicly assured the monks
that there was no such intention.
But the visitatorial powers in regard to them were now transferred to
the King, and the first fruits and tenths which had been recently taken
from the Pope were also revived as a fresh source of royal revenue.
The statute which enacted the latter was entitled “The Bill for the
First Fruits,[56] with the yearly pension to the King.” It slightly
lessens the offensiveness of the King’s new title, by styling him
“the only Supreme Head on Earth, next, and immediately under God, of
the Church of _England_,” and basing even this on the facts of
history--“as he always, indeed, hath heretofore been.” Every person
nominated to any ecclesiastical preferment, “religious” or “secular,”
was to pay to the King “the first-fruits, revenues, and profits, for
the year,” and also the tenth part annually. Commissioners were to
be appointed to “examine and search for the just and true value of
the said first-fruits and profits,” and first-fruits were allowed to
no one but the King: it appears that in the Diocese of Norwich they
had gone to the Bishop, and in the Archdeaconry of Richmond to the
Archdeacon. Priors of dependent cells were exempted from the payment of
first-fruits, but not of tenths. “And forasmuch as divers Abbots and
Priors been charged to pay great pensions to sundry their Predecessors
yet living, to the great Decay of their Hospitalities and Housekeeping;
be it enacted by Authority aforesaid, That every such Predecessor of
such Abbots or Priors, having any Pensions made sure unto them, or to
any to their use, during their Lives, amounting above the yearly value
of xl^{li.} shall from henceforth be defalked and abated of the moiety
and Halfdeal of every such Pension” (Art. 23). Article 24 expressly
includes “the Lord Prior of Saint John’s of Jerusalem in England, and
his Brethren” within the scope of the Act.[57] Article 28 “allows” the
King to remit what remained as yet unpaid of the _Præmunire_ Fine
“in Consideration that the said yearly Pension and annual Rent shall
be yearly from henceforth duly paid and satisfied.”
Immediate steps were taken to ensure the due and accurate payment of
the new income. In January, 1535, Cromwell procured a Royal Commission
appointing himself Vicar-General and Visitor-General of all churches
and monasteries, with authority to delegate agents. He set to work
in the exercise of his new power with characteristic promptness.
On January 30th commissions were issued for each county, to make
the necessary investigations for discovering the whole amount of
ecclesiastical property for the purpose of levying the tenths. The
Staffordshire Commissioners[58] had Bishop Roland Lee for chairman, but
he was the only ecclesiastic among them.
The others were Sir John Talbot, Sir John Gifford, George Audeley,
John Vernon, Walter Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett,
Edward Lyttleton, Thomas Gifford, Thomas Holte, Walter Blounte, John
Grosvenor, and Thomas Moreton. They are the usual names which appear
among the lists of officials. For example, John Gifford, Edward
Lyttleton, and John Vernon had been the Commissioners appointed to
investigate the matter of Wolsey’s dissolutions; and the Commissioners
for Musters in 1539 included John Gifford, John Vernon, Walter
Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett, Edward Lyttleton, and
Thomas Gifford.[59] John Vernon was Sheriff in the nineteenth,
twenty-fourth, and thirtieth years of the reign; John Gifford in
the twenty-second and the thirty-third; Walter Wrottesley in the
thirty-eighth; George Gresley in the twenty-ninth; William Bassett
in the thirty-fourth; Edward Lyttleton in the thirty-first; Thomas
Gifford in the twenty-first. They were eminently “men of affairs,” well
acquainted with public and official work.
Detailed instructions were given them.[60] Dividing themselves into
sub-commissions, with three members as a quorum, they were to examine
upon oath all persons concerned, and to inspect the necessary books and
documents. Only certain specified deductions were to be allowed, and
names and full details were in all cases to be given.
We know from the Returns of the Commissioners which of them
investigated the Rural Deanery of Lapey and Trysull: Sir John Talbot,
John Gifford, Walter Wrottesley, and John Grosvenor.[61] When the work
had been completed in detail all the Commissioners for each diocese
were to meet together and draw up a General Diocesan Return. The
result of their work has been published by royal authority as _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.[62]
It is a document of very great interest and importance. If the
readiness with which the clergy raised the enormous fine of £100,000
from the Province of Canterbury and £18,840 0s. lOd. from York, for
having acquiesced in Wolsey’s legatine authority, first opened Henry
VIII’s eyes to the financial possibilities of the clergy, as may well
have been the case, it is probable that the data supplied by _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ showed him how to proceed to further supplies from
the same source. To confiscate the whole of the clerical wealth was
out of the question, but the Returns, by giving it in detail, made it
possible to proceed piecemeal. That the Returns did thus suggest the
suppression of monasteries seems to be indicated by the seventh article
of the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries, which points
out that those which came within its scope could be ascertained from
the Returns which had just been made.
In various ways _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ is the most satisfactory
record we have of the economy of the religious houses at the time of
their dissolution, in spite of very serious drawbacks which we shall
mention. It is, as a rule, plain and definite, and it is the only
document we have which professes to give a statement of the monastic
economy with any approach to completeness. In both of these respects
it is superior to other sources of information. The “Particulars for
Grants” relate, of course, only to such portions of the monastic lands
as were desired by the applicant who supplied them, and the _Computi
Ministrorum_ which are printed at the end of the information about
many of the religious houses in _Monasticon_ are also incomplete.
They are the first accounts of the possessions of the several
monasteries as rendered to the Augmentation Office immediately after
the Dissolution by the King’s Ministers and Receivers; but they show
that already some of the property had changed hands. They supplement
the particulars of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, and afford a certain
amount of basis for comparison and criticism, but they are drawn up
on a different plan and with a different object, and so a complete
comparison by means of them is difficult. It is also difficult in some
places to understand the method of reckoning which is adopted in them.
It is easy to point out the deficiencies of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
That the Commissioners did not always succeed in ascertaining the whole
income of the monasteries was by no means the fault of the Government.
They kept in touch with their agents throughout the work; indeed,
constant supervision and stimulus was wise, for the work was difficult
and had to be done in a short time. It was ordered to be accomplished
by the octave of Trinity following the issue of the Commissions, and it
was actually finished soon afterwards. The Staffordshire Commissioners,
under the guidance of the obsequious Bishop Lee, who was well
experienced in official work, were the first, with a single exception,
to send in their returns. Lee wrote to Cromwell on September 22nd
(1535): “Your comfortable letters have made me strong and whole, and
able to return to the King’s service. We delivered by Thomas Moreton,
one of my assistants in the Commission, the taxation of the churches in
Staffordshire in the course of last term, when there was not one except
Kent that so did. The Court of Exchequer was well satisfied.”[63]
To carry out so huge a task in so short a time was to ensure much
superficial work. It is true that the business habits of Englishmen
and the bureaucratic nature of the Tudor administration, and the
large number of lay officials, bailiffs, stewards, collectors, etc.,
in the employ of the monasteries, made the investigation easier than
might otherwise have been the case. But even so there must have been
many difficulties. We find in the returns ample evidence that through
haste but little was done in the way of checking entries and balancing
accounts. In the returns from Rocester Abbey the expenditure is given
in four groups, each with its correct total. But the addition of
the four totals is £1 too little. In the case of Stone Priory the
“spiritual” balance is given as £68, etc., whereas it should be £59,
etc., a difference of £9. But the tithe paid is correct for £119 14s.
11¼d., which is exactly £9 more than the real sum of the temporal and
spiritual balances as these are shown. The official probably intended
to write the spiritual balance as £lviiii, but when he came to make
his final addition he read it as £lxviii, a mistake not difficult to
make. Other mistakes of a similar nature will be noticed. No doubt it
was difficult to compare and check the returns from different dioceses,
as they came in at different times; and the omissions, from the stated
incomes of monasteries, of items which elsewhere are noted as being
paid to them, are probably due rather to deliberate concealment on
the part of the monks than to any grave slackness on the part of the
Commissioners. For instance, £2 3s. is noted in the valuation of the
churches of Berkswick, Bushbury and Weston, as being paid to Stone
Priory, but no trace of it appears in the monastic return. But it is
remarkable that in the valuation of Dudley Priory no mention is made
of the 10s. from Dudley Vicarage, or in that of Trentham Priory of
the 6s. 8d. from Hulton Abbey, a few miles away, and the valuation of
which immediately precedes it. The £4 6s. 8d. given in the valuation of
Rocester Abbey as being paid to a chantry at Lichfield does not appear
in the Cathedral valuation. The remarkable omissions in the Burton
investigation will be dealt with fully later on.
Again, many of the valuations could only be approximations: such
were the returns made of offerings and payments in kind, and of the
demesnes. It is, indeed, distinctly stated, as a rule, that the
value of the demesne is given “according to the valuation of the
Commissioners” or of one of them: Walter Wrottesley estimated the
demesne at Dudley. Sometimes they called in assistance, possibly that
of experts, or perhaps of local men, as happened at Rocester.
The _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, therefore, cannot be regarded as a
complete statement of the monastic income. Its deficiencies as regards
expenditure are still more grave. Only certain disbursements were
allowed to be taken into account--regular pensions, rents, endowed
doles, and fees to bailiffs, collectors of rents, etc., auditors,
and stewards, episcopal visitation fees, synodals and proxies. The
statute had allowed other fees also to be deducted, such as those to
the Chancellor and Judges, but the instructions to the Commissioners
omitted these, and they are usually disallowed. The object of the
investigation being to show as large a net balance of income as
possible, disbursements were reduced to a minimum. Only those which
could not be avoided were shown, and because any particular item of
expenditure is not shown in any particular return we cannot assert with
confidence that it was actually not incurred. Only two corrodies are
recorded in the whole of Staffordshire, and alms at Burton, Rocester
and Tutbury only, yet we know that Dieulacres maintained eight poor
bedeswomen.
The investigation was a contest between the two parties--the
Commissioners, whose primary object was to make the income as large
and the expenditure as small as possible, and the monks who naturally
desired to reverse the proportion. The result was that there were
serious omissions on both sides of the account, and the _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ is, accordingly, a very incomplete statement of
the accounts of the religious houses. The omissions as regards income
are many, but the information as to expenditure can only be described
as altogether inadequate and incomplete. The Commissioners were not
allowed to show much expenditure, even if they wished to do so: it was
easy for them to allow little if they so desired. Under the direction
of Bishop Lee it may safely be assumed that in Staffordshire they
allowed the barest minimum.
The fictitious character of the expenditure side of the account is well
illustrated by the case of Burton-on-Trent. When, as will be described
later,[64] the valuation sent in by the Commissioners was found to be
hopelessly erroneous, and a revised statement was drawn up by the order
of the Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, which increased the revenue from
£356 16s. 3½d. to £501 7s. 0½d., the expenditure was, apparently,
not re-investigated. In face of the enormous increase of income which
had been shown the Chancellor could well afford to spare himself the
trouble of enquiring whether the statement of expenses needed revising:
he treated it with scornful indifference and passed it with the
contemptuous remark at the foot of the more profitable survey: “Mem. to
deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye olde boke.”
Yet, in spite of these deficiencies, the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
may tell us much, if we bear in mind its limitations. The valuations
made after the Dissolution were expressly ordered to be compared with
the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ and, as has been mentioned, they
afford useful data for comparison. It is not surprising that they are
usually higher in amount. The Surveyors had gained experience, and they
had the previous survey for a guide. No source of income previously
recorded would be likely to be overlooked, while those which had been
omitted would now be discovered. The Surveyors, of course, desired
to make their valuation as high as possible in order to ingratiate
themselves with the Government. But, while the income in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ may well be less than is correct, that of the
Dissolution officials could not easily be excessive. If in any case it
were so, the fact would soon be proved by the would-be purchasers.
The Staffordshire Returns in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ are arranged
as follows:[65]
1. Rural Deanery of Lapley and Trysull. This includes Brewood Nunnery
and Dudley Priory. The names of the Commissioners who did the work
for the Rural Deanery are recorded, as we have mentioned, and Walter
Wrottesley is expressly stated to have estimated the value of the
demesne at Dudley. Disbursements are reduced to a vanishing point at
Brewood and to little better at Dudley, only the fees of the steward,
Edward Blount, gent., and the bailiff, John Coke, being allowed.
2. Rural Deanery of Newcastle and Stone. This includes Hulton Abbey,
Trentham Priory, St. Thomas’s Priory at Stafford, Stone Priory and
Ronton Priory. No records of alms or payments for education are shown,
though a corrody is allowed at Trentham.
3. Stafford Archdeaconry.
4. Rural Deanery of Leek and Alton. In this are included Dieulacres,
Rocester and Croxden Abbeys. Payments are shown to the Bishop and the
Dean and Chapter, and at Croxden the unusual item of 13s. 4d. to “the
General Reformator of the Cistercian Order.” But, as we have already
shown, this official was of Royal, not of Papal appointment. The
arrangement of the valuation is alike for all three abbeys, and alms
are only recorded at Rocester.
5. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and the Cathedral at Lichfield.
6. Tutbury Priory and Burton Abbey. Alms are noticed in both cases, and
the Commissioners appear to have been unusually lenient.
7. Tamworth Collegiate Church.
8. Deanery of Tamworth and Tutbury.
A rough calculation of the net income of the Church in Staffordshire,
as shown in the above returns, has been made as follows:
Rural Deaneries--Lapley and Trysull £536 16 2½
Newcastle and Stone 887 4 8-17/24
Leek and Alton 594 12 1½
Deanery--Tamworth and Tutbury 354 15 4
Bishop of Lichfield (Staffs. only) 345 7 3⅛
Lichfield Cathedral--Dean and Chapter 58 14 1
Prebends 272 3 4
Choristers 16 18 10½
Vicars Choral 137 17 6
Priests Vicars 114 9 6
Clerks 51 0 6½
Chantry Priests 6 17 4
Chantries 106 13 2
St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield 8 15 0
Tutbury Priory 199 14 10
Burton Abbey 412 5 0
Tamworth Collegiate Church 66 1 0
-------------
Total £4,170 5 9⅚
-------------
As far as possible the income from Staffordshire only is shown as
regards the bishop, etc., but it was not always easy to separate the
items. No visitation fees are shown, as they could not be apportioned
between the counties: the total was £34 19s.
Of the total shown above, the net income of the religious houses is
given as £1,608 5s. 2¾d., or rather less than two-fifths.
The following table gives the figures relating to the religious houses
_as they appear in Valor Ecclesiasticus_: they must be read in
conjunction with the notes which follow the table:
Part 1 of table
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------||
| TEMPORALITIES. ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | 11 1 6 | | 11 1 6 ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =271 11 3½= | =33 8 8= | =238 2 7½= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 402 15 4½ | ditto | 369 6 8½ ||
Croxden | 94 10 3 | 9 10 10 | 84 19 5 ||
Dieulacres | 174 13 2 | 13 18 0 | 160 15 2 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 15 5 4 | 2 6 8 | 12 18 8 ||
Hulton | 67 0 1½ | 7 3 6 | 59 16 7½ ||
Rocester | 56 9 7 | 5 15 4 | 50 14 3 ||
Ronton | 64 17 9 | 4 3 5½ | 60 14 3½ ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 130 16 5½ | 15 3 11 | 115 12 6½[66] ||
Stone | 54 12 11 | 3 13 5 | 50 19 6 ||
Trentham | 83 19 0[67] | 8 5 10 | 75 14 2[67] ||
Tutbury | 170 18 4 | 20 14 0 | 150 4 4 ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 1326 19 9½ | 124 3 7½ | 1202 17 2 ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
---------------------+----------------+-------------+----------------++
Part 2 of table
---------------------+----------------------------------------||
| SPIRITUALITIES. ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | | | ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =85 5 0=| =55 13 4½= | =29 11 7½= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 98 11 8 | ditto | 42 18 3½ ||
Croxden | 8 16 4 | 3 9 10 | 5 6 6 ||
Dieulacres | 68 10 4 | 2 0 6 | 66 9 10 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 21 2 8 | | 21 2 8 ||
Hulton | 20 10 0 | 3 11 9 | 16 18 3 ||
Rocester | 46 1 6 | 6 12 10½ | 39 8 7½ ||
Ronton | 46 13 10 | 8 5 3 | 38 8 7 ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 50 2 4 | 24 1 8⅔ | 26 0 7⅓ ||
Stone | 75 10 0 | 15 14 6⅔ | 68 15 5¼ ||
Trentham | 37 3 4 | 6 13 7-1/12| 30 9 8½ ||
Tutbury | 73 18 4 | 24 7 10 | 49 10 6 ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 547 0 4 | 150 11 3-5/12|405 9 0½ ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
---------------------+-----------+--------------+-------------++
Part 3 of table
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
| TOTAL.
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | 11 1 6 | | 11 1 6 ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =356 16 3½= | =89 2 0½= | =267 14 3= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 501 7 0½ | ditto | 412 5 0 ||
Croxden | 103 6 7 | 13 0 8 | 90 5 11 ||
Dieulacres | 243 3 6 | 15 18 6 | 227 5 0 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 36 8 0 | 2 6 8 | 34 1 4 ||
Hulton | 87 10 1½ | 10 15 3 | 76 14 0 ||
Rocester | 102 11 1 | 12 8 2½ | 90 2 10¾ ||
Ronton | 111 11 7 | 11 8 8½ | 100 2 10½ ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 180 18 9½ | 39 5 7⅔ | 141 13 2¼[66] ||
Stone | 130 2 11 | 19 7 11⅔ | 119 14 11¼ ||
Trentham | 121 2 4[67] | 14 19 5-1/12| 106 3 9[67] ||
Tutbury | 244 16 8 | 45 1 10 | 199 14 10 ||
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 1874 0 1½ | 273 14 10-11/12|1608 5 2¾ ||
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
---------------------+----------------+---------------+------------------++
Part 4 of table
---------------------+-------------
| TOTAL.
+-------------
|Tithe Paid
Brewood Nunnery | 1 2 2
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =26 15 5=
|
„ „ 2nd| 41 4 6
Croxden | 9 0 7
Dieulacres | 22 14 6
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 3 8 1½
Hulton | 7 13 6
Rocester | 9 0 3½
Ronton | 10 0 3½
Stafford, St. Thomas | 14 3 3½
Stone | 11 19 6
Trentham | 10 12 4½
Tutbury | 19 19 6
+-------------
Total (not including |
Burton 1st) | 160 18 7½
+-------------
---------------------+-------------
[66] and 1 lb. of pepper.
[67] and 4 barbed arrows.
In connection with the above table the following details may be noted
here: other points will be considered when we come to examine the
details.
_Burton-on-Trent._ In the first valuation the details
of the Derbyshire temporalities amount to £73 11s. 2d.,
not £73 6s. 2d. In Roman numerals the shillings appear
as vi^{s.} instead of xi^{s.}.--a mistake easily made.
The total of temporalities appears, therefore, as £271
11s. 3½d. instead of £271 16s. 3½d., and this affects the
calculation throughout. The gross income should be £357 1s.
3½d. and the net income £267 19s. 3d.
In the second valuation the details of the temporalities
amount to £414 14s. 4½d. instead of £402 15s. 4½d. as
given: the spiritualities amount to £99 5s. instead of £98
11s. 8d. The total income (gross) should therefore be £513
19s. 4½d. instead of £501 7s. 0½d., leaving the net balance
£424 17s. 4d. instead of £412 5s.
_Croxden._ See below, page 97.
_Dieulacres._ The gross total income is given as £243
2s. 6d., whereas the totals of the various sections amount
to £243 3s. 6d. As the total of the disbursements to be
deducted is given as £15 18s. 6d. and the net final balance
as £227 5s. (_i.e._, £243 3s. 6d.--£15 18s. 6d.) the
sum first named is probably a misprint in the printed
edition. I have, therefore, given the correct figures of
the gross total income in my table.
_Hulton._ The gross balance as given is 10½d. too
little, but in working out the tenth this appears to have
been remembered. A tenth of £76 14s. is £7 13s. 4¾d. and a
fraction. This added to a tenth of the 10½d. gives £7 13s.
6d. nearly.
_Rocester._ The items of expenditure are arranged in
four groups, and the four totals are correctly given. They
make £12 8s. 8½d. in all, but this is noted below as £11
8s. 8½d., and this is the amount which is deducted from the
gross total income to make the balance of £100 2s. 10½d.
The balance ought to be £99 2s. 10½d.
_Ronton._ In stating the spiritual outgoings the
amounts are given with great minuteness. For instance, the
Bishop’s annual Visitation Fee is set forth as £1 2s. 2½d.
+ ⅓ of ½d. The result is that this small fraction appears
throughout the succeeding calculation, until at last the
gross balance becomes £lxxxx ii^{s.} x^{d.} ob’ ii^{as}
ptes ob’.
_Stafford, St. Thomas_. In the spiritual disbursements
the total is given as £24 1s. 8½d. and ⅓ of ½d., and in the
deduction of the total expenditure from the total income
the last item is put as 2⅓^{d.}, whereas it apparently
should be 1⅝^{d.}
_Stone_. In the spiritualities the balance is printed
in _V.E._ as £68 15s. 5¼d., whereas it should be £59
15s. 5⅓d. The final balance, therefore, should be £110 14s.
11⅓d. instead of as shown in the table.
As the tithe paid (£11 19s. 6d.) is correct for £119 14s.
11¼d. the mistake is probably due to the official: he wrote
£lviiii when he put down the total spiritual income, but
read it as £lxviii when he added the total.
_Trentham_. In temporalities the balance should be £75
13s. 2d. according to the figures given, and this error
of 10d. affects the whole calculation. The final balance,
according to the figures given in _V.E._, should
be £106 2s. 10-11/12d. If the 10d. be added it becomes
practically what _V.E._ makes it, viz., £106 3s.
8-11/12d.
From the table it is evident that the total income of the religious
houses amounted to something like £1,608 5s. 2¾d., at least, so far as
Staffordshire is concerned. Only a small fraction of this was returned
to the Church when the property of the monasteries was confiscated,
and practically nothing of the “moveable” wealth they contained. How
great this latter was is shown by the proceeds of the sales which were
conducted at the Suppression. We shall revert to the subject later.
The extent to which the monasteries had “robbed” the parish churches is
shown by the following figures, taken from _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
The first column gives the tithes received by the monasteries, the
second gives the amounts which came from parish churches in other ways,
such as glebe, offerings, etc. The third gives the payments made by the
monasteries to churches. In all cases the figures are from _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.
-------------------+-----------+------------+----------
|Tithes |Other Income|Payments
|Received |from |to
| |Churches |Churches
+-----------+------------+----------
| £ s. d.| £ s. d. | £ s. d.
Brewood Nunnery | | |
Burton Abbey | 46 6 8 | 52 13 4 | 4 6 8
| | 1 |
Croxden Abbey | 8 15 4 | | 1 3 0
Dieulacres Abbey | 57 19 8 | 10 10 8 | 18 6
Dudley Priory | 18 16 8 | 2 6 0 |
Hulton Abbey | 18 10 0 | 2 0 0 | 5 4
Rocester Priory | 47 13 10 | | 16 8
Ronton Priory | 46 1 6 | | 1 0
St. Thomas’s Priory| 40 2 8 | 9 19 8 | 3 4
Stone Priory | 53 10 0 | 22 0 0 |
Trentham Priory | 14 10 4 | 21 13 4 |
Tutbury Priory | 49 0 4 | 20 16 4 | 11 13 4
| --------- | --------- | --------
|£401 7 0 |£141 19 5 |£19 7 10
-------------------+-----------+------------+---------
In all, the Staffordshire monasteries took £543 6s. 5d. at least from
parishes in tithes, glebe, oblations, Easter dues and the like, and
gave to churches the utterly insignificant sum of £19 7s. 10d. As
Cistercian houses, long ago exempted by the Lateran Council of 1215,
Croxden, Dieulacres, and Hulton, paid no tithe on land in their own
occupation, and many other houses had obtained a similar privilege by
special Bulls. Probably also the Commissioners did not return the tithe
when it was paid to the church belonging to the monastery. In such
cases, the payment of tithe among the disbursements would simply have
cancelled the receipt of the tithe among the receipts. The following
details illustrate the way in which money came from the parish
churches. It is not an exhaustive table:
-----------------------+----------+-----------+---------+---------
| Glebe | Tithes |Easter |Oblations
| | |Dues |
+----------+-----------+---------+---------
| | | |
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. |£ s. d. | £ s. d.
_Hulton Abbey_ | | | |
Audley | 1 0 0 |10 0 0 | |
Byddell | 10 0 | 4 0 0 | |
Cambryngham | | | |
(Linc.) | 10 0 | 4 10 0 | |
_Trentham Priory_ | | | |
Trentham | | 8 13 4 | 3 0 0 | 10 0
Barleston | | 5 17 0 |13 4 | 3 0
_St. Thomas’s Priory, | | | |
Stafford_ | | | |
Stowe | 1 10 8 | 7 0 0 | 2 0 0 |
Bushbury | 6 8 | 6 6 8 | |
Cariswall | | 3 6 8 | |
Weston-on-Trent | 1 17 0 | 2 7 6 | |
Geyton | 5 0 | 3 1 10 | |
Berkswick | 1 0 0 | 2 13 4 | 1 13 4 |
Meyre | | 2 0 0 | |
Aldelem (Chesh.) | 1 7 0 |13 6 8 | |
_Stone Priory_ | | | |
Stone | |19 0 0 | 8 0 0 | 3 0 0
Milwich | | 8 10 0 | |
Tyso (Warw.) | 8 0 0 |16 0 0 | |
_Ronton Priory_ | | | |
Seyghtford | |13 4 6 | |
Grenburgh (Warw.) | |32 17 0 | |
_Dieulacres Abbey_ | | | |
Leek | 1 4 0 |34 3 8 | 6 5 4 | 2 6 8
Sandbach (Chesh.) | 14 8 |23 16 0 | |
Rocester, Waterfall | | | |
and Bradley | |15 7 2 | |
Edensor (Derbysh.) | |11 0 0 | |
Kynston | | 7 0 0 | |
Woodford | | | |
(Northants.) | |13 6 8 | |
_Croxden Abbey_ | | | |
Alton | | 2 5 4 | |
Tokeby (Leics.) | | 4 0 0 | |
Norton „ | | 2 10 0 | |
_Tutbury Priory_ | | | |
Doveridge | | 6 6 8 | |
Church Broughton | |12 0 0 | |
Marston | | 6 0 0 | |
Tutbury | | 7 0 0 | |
Matherfield | |10 0 0 | |
Wymondham and | | | |
Thorpe (Lincs.) | | 13 4 | |
_Burton Abbey_ | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | |23 (£=33=) | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel | | | | 2 0 0
Abbots Bromley | |13 6 8 | |
Ilam |=8 13 8= | | |
Blithfield[1] | | | | 1 0 0
Grindon[1] | | | | 13 4
Leigh[1] | | | | 3 6 8
Hamstall Ridware[68] | | | | 5 0
Cauldon Chapel[68] | | | | =2 6 8=
Mickleover, etc.[68] | | | | 8 13 4
Stapenhill[68] | | | | 10 0
Allestree[68] (Warw.)| | | | 15 0 0
-----------------------+----------+-----------+---------+---------
[68] In these cases it is not stated from what particular source the
amounts are derived.
Voluntary offerings amount to an absolutely insignificant sum, £7 19s.
8d. for the whole county. This is not surprising. It was difficult to
obtain particulars if the monks were reticent on the matter, and, also,
there is no doubt that recent religious events, and the whole trend of
affairs, had seriously affected all forms of charity. It is probable,
therefore, that although the voluntary offerings ought to be larger in
amount than they appear in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, they did not
stand at a very high figure.
Chantries are only mentioned in connection with Burton-on-Trent and
Rocester. At the former, £5 was paid annually to the Chaplain of
the Chantry at Sallow, in Derbyshire, according to the ordinance of
John Stafford, formerly Abbot, and 2s. annually was paid towards
the maintenance of a lamp in the church of Allestree. At Rocester
£4 6s. 8d. is stated as being paid for the maintenance of a chantry
at Lichfield Cathedral, though no trace of it is to be found in the
Cathedral returns.
Here again we cannot accept the evidence as complete, and cannot
understand the motives which actuated the Commissioners and caused
the instructions to be interpreted as they were. Why the incomes
of chantries should be particularly apportioned at cathedrals and
elsewhere, and not at the religious houses, is not evident. Certainly
chantries existed in the religious houses. For instance, in 1517 Sir
John Fitzherbert, of Norbury, had made bequests in his will to “the
Chantries” at Rocester and Calwich.[69] The only payment for a lamp is
the one already mentioned.
Fees in connection with Episcopal Visitations are found at Hulton (6s.
8d.), Trentham (£3 17s. 4d.), Stafford (£3 6s. 8d.), Stone (£3 6s.
8d.), Ronton (£3 6s. 8d.), and Burton (£3 6s. 7½d.). These amounts
shown were paid triennially. The post-Dissolution valuation of Dudley
Priory shows that 2s. a year was paid there also as Bishop’s Visitation
Fees.
The Archdeacon also received annual Visitation Fees, and fees for
procurations, etc. Fees for appropriations were paid in some cases to
the Bishop and in others to the Dean and Chapter. The following shows
the total annual payments, as given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, to
the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and the Archdeacons.
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
|Bishop |Dean & Chapter| Archdeacon
+----------+--------------+-----------
| | |
| £ s. d.| £ s. d. | £ s. d.
Brewood Nunnery | | |
Burton Abbey | 3 9 4½| 6 13 4 | 17 9
Croxden Abbey | | | 1 0 6
Dieulacres Abbey | | | 1 2 0
Dudley Priory | [2] | |
Hulton Abbey | 2 1 10⅔| 3 4 | 5 4
Rocester Priory | | | 1 4 7
Ronton Priory | 1 10 2⅔| |
St. Thomas’s Priory| 3 6 9⅔| 18 10 0 | 1 10 6
Stone Priory | 1 8 6⅔| 2 14 4 | 19 0
Trentham Priory | 1 6 5⅔| | 13 4
Tutbury Priory | 13 4 | 6 13 4 | 2 7 10
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
Total |£13 16 7⅚|£34 14 4 |£10 0 10
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
It is interesting to notice that two of the three Cistercian Abbeys,
although they had not adhered to the earlier rule of their Order to
abstain from the appropriation of benefices, had nevertheless managed
to avoid the payments to either Bishop or Dean and Chapter which such
appropriations usually entailed; and also that they are the only houses
for men which did not pay Visitation Fees to the Bishop. But Ronton
alone could show no payments to the Archdeacon: his all-embracing
activity was evidently not less in the sixteenth century than it
had been in the days of John of Salisbury, who characteristically
propounded the problem _an possit archidiaconus salvus esse?_
CHAPTER V
THE FINANCES OF BURTON ABBEY
Many causes had combined to undermine the stability of the religious
houses. Their pecuniary usefulness to Pope and King tended to make
them the shuttlecock of politics. Their extensive worldly possessions
made them objects of jealousy to their neighbours, while the secular
spirit with which they became infected when they were drawn into the
“full stream of the world” weakened their spiritual influence and made
them at once more susceptible to attacks and less capable of effective
opposition. Events and tendencies beyond their power to control, like
the Black Death, the Hundred Years’ War, the Wars of the Roses, and the
Revival of Learning, in turn exercised a disastrous influence upon them.
Seriously affected in wealth, numbers, and efficiency by the
Black Death and its consequences; sharing in the lawlessness and
demoralisation which accompanied the French War in its later stages,
and the Wars of the Roses; lacking the supervision and guidance which
active bishops had at any rate attempted, and not always ineffectually,
to exercise; in the sixteenth century the religious houses were very
different in character from what they had originally been. Even in
material things they had changed. They had once been leaders in
agricultural development, but their methods were now old-fashioned,
ineffective, and out of date. Their wide domains were no longer the
sources of wealth they formerly had been. New methods and new outlets
for trade had left them behind. Unwise leases only gave temporary
relief, and crippled instead of improving resources. All landowners
were indeed feeling the effects of the economic changes, and a result
was increased claims upon the monasteries by kings and patrons; and the
religious houses were not in a condition to make effective opposition.
They were not worse than their neighbours: their weakness lay in the
fact that they were so little different from them. Up to the present
there had been no definite charges of moral delinquency brought by
authority against the monastic system. Good or bad, they were looked
upon as part of the settled order of things by all except a few
theorists and extremists.
There is no call, therefore, to consider as yet the question of their
moral condition. In these earlier years of the “Reformation” the
subject of interest to the government of the day was their financial
value. With their finances only, therefore, we are as yet concerned.
With _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ to guide us as to the main outlines,
it is possible to form a fairly correct estimate of the material
condition of the Staffordshire houses at the time when the idea of the
Dissolution of the Monasteries was being gradually evolved. We are able
to draw up a balance sheet for each of the houses, and to obtain an
insight into its revenues, possessions, and expenditure.
The largest and most important house in Staffordshire was the
Benedictine Abbey of Burton-on-Trent. It had been of some renown in
the past. Its Chronicle[70] incorporated many historical documents of
first-rate importance. It had done much for the town. It had frequently
given hospitality to kings, prelates, and lords: one of its rooms was
actually still called “the King’s Chamber.” Recently its Abbot, Dr.
William Boston, had made himself acceptable to Cromwell, had been
summoned to Parliament, had been placed in various positions where he
could make himself useful to the Government, and had been promoted
to the headship of the great Abbey of Westminster. His successor at
Burton had been elected directly through the influence of Cromwell’s
representatives and he retained Cromwell’s favour accordingly. It might
have been expected that when the Commissioners visited Burton-on-Trent
they would be received with cordiality and would be able to count on
every assistance.
It is surprising, therefore, to find that Burton Abbey is the only one
in England where we know that an entirely false return was supplied.
Indeed the Return from Burton Abbey which the Commissioners for Tenths
sent in was so entirely erroneous that a second survey had to be made.
There are two valuations of some other monasteries, but in such cases
one is really an abbreviation of the other. The second survey of Burton
is, however, a substitute for the first.
The original Summary in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appears in its
place[71] but is superseded by another which is written on a separate
paper attached to the parchment.[72] The second is made authoritative
by a note appended at the foot of the first survey under the following
circumstances. The gross income having been stated to be £356 16s. 3½d.
and the expenses £89 2s. O½d. (leaving a balance of £267 14s. 3d.), the
tithe would, therefore, be under ordinary circumstances £26 15s. 5d.
But the amount is stated to be £41 4s. 6d., with the explanatory note:
“_Plus oneratur pro xiiii^{li.} ix^{s.} i^{d.} per billam domini
cancellarii_.” On referring to the second survey we find it is
signed by the Chancellor, Thomas Audley, and gives the gross income as
£501 7s. 0½d. It allows the correctness of the expenditure as stated in
the other survey, and when this is deducted from the revised total the
net income becomes £412 5s., the tithe from which is that previously
noted, namely £14 9s. 1d. more than was due according to the first
survey.
The problem raised by the existence of the two surveys is interesting,
and may be compared with a similar one which arises in the early
history of the same Abbey. There is no mention in Domesday Book of
the bulk of the territory of the Manor and Parish of Burton-on-Trent,
some 6,000 acres, which the Abbey possessed and in the midst of which
it stood. Although the land lay in two counties and should have been
surveyed by two distinct sets of Domesday officials, no trace of any
report of either has been found, and the final summary is silent.
Whether the Abbot in the eleventh century procured the suppression by
tampering with both sets of commissioners, or whether he evaded the
survey of both by playing off one against the other, or whether he was
specially exempted by the Crown, cannot be known.
In the case of Henry VIII’s survey there is much the same uncertainty.
External history tells us nothing, and little can be gleaned from the
summaries themselves. The following table is an attempt to exhibit
a comparative analysis of the two surveys. The income, temporal and
spiritual, is arranged according to its sources and character. It must
be borne in mind that here we have to deal with the items as they are
detailed and not with the official totals as those are given, sometimes
wrongly, in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_. The totals shown in the table
do not, therefore, always agree with the figures which appeared in the
table on page 64. (See Notes following that table.)
This was not the first occasion on which Burton had pretended to be
poorer than it actually was. The royal claim to nominate men, disbanded
soldiers or others for whom it was desired to provide at other people’s
expense, to corrodies at the religious houses, was at times a grave
abuse. The Patent Rolls show vast numbers of such nominations. In the
course of a few years we find, as regards Burton only,[73] two men sent
there in 1316 and another sent in 1317; in 1318 John le Treour was
sent on account of his good service to the King and to Queen Isabella
in the place of one who had died; Treour lived till 1323, and on his
death John le Nakerer was immediately substituted. The presence of such
outsiders in what professed to be religious communities must have been
exceedingly embarrassing to any who were trying to live in the spirit
of the rules, and most prejudicial to spirituality and discipline. It
was, however, difficult to oppose the royal commands. Burton tried to
do so in 1310 and failed ignominiously.[74] Thomas de Bannebury, who
had long served Edward II and his father, was sent to the Abbot and
Convent to receive the necessaries of life in food and drink, clothing,
etc., according to his estate. They replied to the royal missive with a
profession of their willingness to acquiesce if they had the power to
do so, but they pleaded that their house was the poorest and smallest
of their Order in England, and was more heavily charged than any in
proportion to its means. They, therefore, asserted their inability to
receive the royal pensioner. For answer, they were told that there was
trustworthy evidence that their assertions were false, and on their
continued efforts to avoid compliance they were summarily ordered to
admit Bannebury, and were told that their excuses were frivolous,
untruthful, and unacceptable.
BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“TEMPORALITIES”)
Part 1 of table
----------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+
| Demesne | Meadows |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
----------------------+-------------+------------+----------+----------+
_Staffordshire:_ | | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | 6 13 4 | =6 13 4= | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | |
Bromley Hurst | 7 6 8 |}=11 13 4= | | |
Bentley Park | |} | | |
(meadow) | 4 0 0 |} | | |
Seney Park | 6 0 0 | =8 0 0= | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 24 0 0[76]| =24 0 0= | 3 0 0 | |
Branstone | | | | |
Hornington and | | | | |
Whitmere | | | | |
Stretton | | | | |
Anslow | | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Field (Thomas | | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | | |
Pillatonhall | | | | |
Darlastone | | | | |
Okeover (Humph. | | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | | |
Weston | | | | |
_Divers pastures near | | | | |
the Trent_ | | | | =4 10 0=|
_Collingwood_ | | | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | | |
Stapenhill } | 13 4 | =13 4= | | |
Winshill } | | | | |
| | | | |
Derby | | | | |
Cauldwell | | | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | | |
Littleover „ | | | | |
Findern „ | | | | |
Ticknall | | | | |
Willington and Pothlac| | | | |
Huncedon | | | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | | | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | | | | |
London | | | | |
+-------------+------------+----------+----------+
1st Total | 48 13 4 | =51 0 0= | 3 0 0 | =4 10 0=|
£271 16s. 3½d. ==================================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
Part 2 of table
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Lands and tenements | Chief Rents |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
----------------------+------------+---------------+-----------+------------+
_Staffordshire:_ | | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | | | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | |
Bromley Hurst | 40 6 8[75]| =40 6 8=[75]| | |
Bentley Park | | | | |
(meadow) | | | | |
Seney Park | | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 21 7 0 | =63 15 4=[76]| 13 0 0 | =13 0 0= |
Branstone | 9 4 0 | =12 14 5= | | |
Hornington and | | | | |
Whitmere | 11 13 0 | =15 5 8= | 3 0 | |
Stretton | 13 2 3 | =19 3 9= | | |
Anslow | | | 13 4 | =13 5 4= |
Abbots Bromley | | =16 10 11= | 4 7 2½ | =7 7 2½=|
Leigh | | | 4 0 0 | =5 0 0= |
Field (Thomas | | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | 1 0 0 | |
Pillatonhall | | | 16 0 | =16 0= |
Darlastone | | | 2 11 0 | =2 11 0= |
Okeover (Humph. | | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | 1 6 8 | =1 6 8= |
Weston | | | 10 0 | =10 0= |
_Divers pastures near | | | | |
the Trent_ | | | | |
_Collingwood_ | | =1 6 8= | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | =8 13 4= | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | | |
Stapenhill } | 7 4 6 | =11 4 6= | 3 0 | |
Winshill } | 8 7 1 | =13 13 2= | | |
| | | | |
Derby | 3 6 8[76]| =3 6 8=[76]| | =1 14 0= |
Cauldwell | 7 2 1 | =9 17 6= | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | 4 0 | |
Littleover „ | | | | |
Findern „ | | | | |
Ticknall | | | 10 0 | =10 0= |
Willington and Pothlac| | | 2 1 8 | =1 16 4= |
Huncedon | 6 0 0 | =6 0 0= | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | 10 10 0 | =17 12 6= | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | 7 3 0 | =10 5 0= | 5 4 | |
London | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= | | |
+------------+---------------+-----------+------------+
1st Total |147 6 3 |=251 16 1= | 31 11 2½ | =47 16 6½= |
£271 16s. 3½d. =======================================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
Part 3 of table
----------------------+---------------------+---------------------
| Court | Manor
| 1 2 |
----------------------+----------+----------+---------+-----------
_Staffordshire:_ | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | |
Bromley Hurst | | | |
Bentley Park | | | |
(meadow) | | | |
Seney Park | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | |
Branstone | | | |
Hornington and | | | |
Whitmere | | | |
Stretton | | | |
Anslow | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | |
Leigh | | | |
Field (Thomas | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | |
Pillatonhall | | | |
Darlastone | | | |
Okeover (Humph. | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | |
Weston | | | |
_Divers pastures near | | | |
the Trent_ | | | |
_Collingwood_ | | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | |
Stapenhill } | | | |
Winshill } | | | |
| | | |
Derby | | | |
Cauldwell | | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | 16 2 2| =24 16 10=
Littleover „ | | | 13 4 4| =17 15 11=
Findern „ | | | 8 12 4| =13 12 4=
Ticknall | | | |
Willington and Pothlac| | | |
Huncedon | | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | | | |
London | | | |
+----------+----------+---------+-----------
1st Total | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | 37 18 10| =56 5 1=
£271 16s. 3½d. ============================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“SPIRITUALITIES”)
Part 1 of table
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tithes | Oblations |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
--------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+
Burton-on-Trent |£23 0 0 |£=33 0 0= | | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | £2 0 0 | £=2 0 0= |
Abbots Bromley | 13 6 8 | =13 6 8= | | |
Ilam | | | | |
Blithfield | | | | |
Grindon | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Hampstall Ridware | | | | |
Cauldon Chapel | | | | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | | | | |
Stapenhill „ | | | | |
Allestree (Warw.) | | | | |
|--------+----------+--------+----------+
1st Total £85 5s. | 36 6 8 | =46 6 8= | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= |
=2nd „ £99 5s.= =======================================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Part 2 of table
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Church and Glebe | Church |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
--------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+
Burton-on-Trent | | | | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | | |
Ilam | £8 0 0 |£=8 13 4= | | |
Blithfield | | | | |
Grindon | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Hampstall Ridware | | | | |
Cauldon Chapel | | =2 6 8= | | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | | | 8 13 4 | =8 13 4=|
Stapenhill „ | | |10 0 0 |=10 0 0=|
Allestree (Warw.) | | |15 0 0 |=16 0 0=|
|--------+----------+--------+----------+
1st Total £85 5s. | 8 0 0 |=11 0 0= |33 13 4 |=34 13 4=|
=2nd „ £99 5s.= ========================================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Part 3 of table
----------------------------------------------------
| Pensions
| 1 2
--------------------------------|--------+----------
Burton-on-Trent | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | |
Abbots Bromley | |
Ilam | |
Blithfield |£1 0 0 | £=1 0 0=
Grindon | 13 4 | =13 4=
Leigh | 3 6 8 | =3 6 8=
Hampstall Ridware | 5 0 | =5 0=
Cauldon Chapel | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | |
Stapenhill „ | |
Allestree (Warw.) | |
|--------+----------
1st Total £85 5s. | 5 5 0 | =5 5 0=
=2nd „ £99 5s.= ===================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Whether the official opinion in this case was just we need not enquire.
We must, however, examine with some care the attempt which, as it
appears, was made to mislead the Commissioners for First Fruits and
Tenths in the reign of Henry VIII.
It will be noticed that by far the largest individual additions
which are made in the second survey come from rents in Burton and
its suburbs. In the first survey no mention at all is made of the
special endowments of the Prior (£2), Almoner (£8), Cook (£8 6s.
8d.), Custodian of St. Mary’s Chapel (£4), and Martyrologist (£14).
The kitchen at Burton had long been well endowed. Abbot Nicholas
(_ob._ 1197) was the first to put it on a business-like footing.
Abbot Nicholas de Wallingford (1216–1222) and Abbot Richard de Insula
(1222–1223) had added to its endowments. No mention is made of the
Chantries of William Branstone (£4), or William Beyne (£8 13s. 4d.).
The former had been Abbot in the fifteenth century and had died in
1474. The latter had been Abbot from 1502 to 1533 and had endowed the
Grammar School. Considerable rents are omitted from “divers pastures
near the Trent,” where fed the sheep which had once made the Abbey wool
famous. In an old list of the English monasteries which supplied wool
to the Florentine markets in 1315 the wool from Burton is described as
_in Torcea_, probably the same as wool _de marisco_, which
was usually classed by itself. _Torcea_ appears to mean a dyke
or embankment, and the Burton sheep probably pastured in these low
fields near the Trent which were secured from inundation by means of
embankments.[77] Rents from Abbots Bromley (£16 10s. 11d.), one of the
oldest of the Abbey’s estates, and Derby are also omitted. Even in the
items which are given in both lists, the second shows a considerable
increase in nearly every instance. The rents from Allestree are raised
by £7 2s. 6d.; the valuation of the Manor of Mickleover is increased by
£8 14s. 8d.; the chief rents from Anslow actually leap from 13s. 4d.
to £13 5s. 4d. The increase in the valuations of the other manors is
also considerable.
“Seney Park,” the valuation of which is increased from £6 to £8, was
to the west of the town, near Shobnall Grange. The Abbey had a house
there, surrounded by a moat, and used as a place of retirement for many
generations. The monks used to go there in the fourteenth century to
recover from the periodical “blood-letting.” Its name is thus explained
by a seventeenth century writer: “The Abbot of Burton-upon-Trent ...
having a vast rough hillie ground about a mile distant from the Abbey,
called it Sinai, for the likeness it had to that rough wilderness of
Sinai where in a mount God appeared unto Moses; which ground to this
day retaineth the Name and is now called Sinai Park.”[78]
The only important items which are left unchanged are the valuations of
the demesnes at Shobnall Grange and at Burton (with the Court Fees),
and the lands on lease (_ad firma_) at Bromley Hurst and this may
suggest a possible explanation of the problem we are considering.
It is quite impossible to understand how it was that William Edie,
the Abbot elected through Cromwell’s influence,[79] allowed the
Commissioners to be misled. We might have expected that his sense of
obligation to his patron would have led him to make a full disclosure,
though we shall hardly blame him for not doing so. But for him to
expect that he could successfully conceal the true state of things from
such an administration as that of Cromwell argues more simplicity
than we should expect to find in one of Cromwell’s nominees. Through
some means, however, the first set of officials was hoodwinked. But
the success of the monks was short-lived. The Chancellor received
information from some source unknown to us, which led him to order
a second investigation. A tradition survived at the Office of
First-Fruits and Tenths that the _Liber Regis_, into which were
copied many of the Returns of the Commissioners, was transcribed by
a monk of Westminster.[80] Dr. Boston was Abbot of Westminster at
the time, and if the tradition represents the truth he may well have
seen the survey of his old Abbey of Burton while it was being written
out. He would at once recognise its incompleteness and we may be sure
would lose no time in giving information to the authorities. Or Dan
Richard Gorton, one of the monks of Burton for whom Cranmer wrote to
Cromwell on August 15th, 1535, begging the Priory of Worcester, may
have given a hint.[81] At any rate, Chancellor Audley ordered a second
valuation to be made. The new officials he sent would, obviously,
endeavour to raise all the figures they possibly could: that was the
object of their mission. That they were not able to do so in the cases
we have mentioned, while they succeeded in doing so in the great
majority of cases, taken in conjunction with the fact that they added a
considerable number of new items, seems to indicate that the monastic
accounts were well kept and the estates well managed; and that probably
the way the second commissioners obtained their higher figures was by
discovering, by help given to them, that many more lands, tenements,
etc., belonged to the Abbey than the first commissioners had been
informed of. The impression is one not of falsified, but of incomplete,
returns.
The difference between the two surveys is not so great as regards
spiritualities, but again the chief increase arises in connection with
Burton-on-Trent, the tithes of which are raised from £23 to £33. The
tithes of Abbots Bromley are correctly given in the first survey, but
the second commissioners discovered £2 6s. 8d. from Cauldon Chapel.
They failed, however, to note that the 13s. 4d. from Grindon should be
14s.,[82] and the 16s. from Repton Priory[83] is overlooked altogether.
The amount left for the Vicar of Abbots Bromley was £5 1s. 8d.[84]
On the demesne at Shobnall Grange the pasture is worth more than
twice the arable land. There are two water-mills worth £12 each at
Burton-on-Trent. The total value of the demesnes is £48 13s. 4d.
in the first survey and £51 10s. in the second. A water-mill stood
at Bromley Hurst and another in the town of Derby. A district of
Burton called “Vico Nativorum” is mentioned, though _Nativi_
are seldom mentioned in the Burton Chartularies of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. The record that Abbot Thomas de Packington
(1281–1305) gave to the Abbey of Polesworth “Henry our native” with
all his belongings, is exceptional. The tenement in London, from which
£2 rent was received, was probably the “Town House” of the Abbey. The
ten _villani_ of Cauldwell in the twelfth century had to provide
between them a horse to London for their lord the Abbot. The Court
perquisites amount to £3 6s. 8d.--over half the total amount for the
county.
The outgoings may be seen from the table on the next page. They
were computed at £33 8s. 8d. temporalities, and £55 13s. 4½d.
spiritualities. When the total of £89 2s. 0½d. is contrasted with the
Chancellor’s enhanced total income of £501 7s. 0½d. (or £513 19s. 4½d.
as it appears it ought to have been) we see that he could well afford
to spare himself the trouble of investigating it and to pass it with
the contemptuous remark at the foot of his more profitable survey,
“Mem. to deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye
olde boke.” That the outgoings apparently were not investigated, or
the “corrected” survey substituted for the one found erroneous, but
merely attached to it, taken in conjunction with the mistakes made in
the reckoning of the totals (both the spiritualities and temporalities
appear to be wrong), suggests that the new valuation was hurriedly made
while the work of summarising and digesting was in progress by the
Exchequer officials.
BURTON-ON-TRENT DISBURSEMENTS
Part 1 of table SPIRITUAL
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------++
| King | | ||
|(Sheriff’s| Corrody |Officials ||
| Aids) | | ||
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------++
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. ||
Church of Burton | | | ||
Manor of Burton | 1 0 0 | | 15 13 4 ||
Town of Burton | | | 3 6 8 ||
Mickleover, etc. | 6 8 | | 2 6 8 ||
Allestree | 6 8 | | 13 4 ||
Anslow | 2 0 | | ||
Bromley Hurst | 6 8 | | 2 0 0 ||
Stapenhill | | | 13 4 ||
Sallow, Chantry Chapel | | | ||
Abbots Bromley | | | 1 0 0 ||
Ilam | | | ||
Abbey of Burton | | 3 6 8 | ||
Branstone, etc | | | 2 0 0 ||
Withington and Pothlac | | | 6 8 ||
| £2 2 0 | £3 6 8 |£28 0 0 ||
===================================