THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: FIRST STAGE
We have already perceived that the eyes of Henry VIII were being
gradually and steadily opened to the financial possibilities of
the clergy. To confiscate the whole of their wealth at once, as it
was rumoured was the intention, was an impracticable idea, but the
particulars given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ showed how it might be
possible to proceed in detail. In obtaining those particulars a clearer
insight than ever before had been obtained into the circumstances of
all the monasteries in England. Royal agents had penetrated further
within their walls than they had previously gone. Much information
besides what was required for the immediate purpose had been obtained.
Gradually Cromwell was able to proceed in his grander scheme, and
to accumulate materials upon which he might build up a case against
the monasteries. Legislation is often based upon the work of a Royal
Commission, and it was upon the work of a Royal Commission, of the
Tudor type, that the Bill for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries
was based.
More’s execution on June 2nd, 1535, having ended a somewhat
embarrassing difficulty, the way was clear. A new visitation of
the religious houses was set on foot. The visitors whose names are
best known were Doctors Legh and Layton. They were young lawyers in
holy orders, with all the arrogant characteristics of the new age,
determined to do their work thoroughly and to the satisfaction of
their master and patron, and deterred by no qualms of delicacy or
reverence for persons or institutions. They started together from
Lichfield on a tour through the North. Layton himself suggested the
expedition, and also the companionship, not only because of the “faste
and unfaynede servys that we here towardes yowe,” but also because
“ther ys nother monasterie, selle, priorie, nor any other religiouse
howse in the north but other doctor Lee [_sic_] or I have familier
acqwayntance within x or xii mylles of hit, so that no knaverie can
be hyde from us in that contre, nor ther we cannot be over fayssede
nor suffer any maner injurie. We knowe and have experiens bothe of the
fassion off the contre and the rudenes of the pepull, owre frendes
and kynsfookes be dispersyde in those parties in evere place redy to
assyste us if any stoborne or sturdy carle myght perchaunce be fownde a
rebellous.”[121]
Elaborate directions were given to the visitors, the extant draft
of which bears evidence of careful revision, probably by the King
himself as well as by Cromwell. It consists of no less than 86
articles of enquiry and 25 injunctions. The former are as searching
and comprehensive as the latter are severe and intolerable, and, taken
together, they enable us to form a good idea of the procedure.
Richard Layton appears to have suggested many of the articles. When
he wrote begging to be appointed one of the visitors for “the north
contre” he reminded Cromwell of this. “If ye hade leisure to overlooke
the booke of articles that I made for your visitacion this tyme xii
monethes, and to marke evere sondrie interrogatorie therin wryttyn,
dowtles ther is matter sufficient to detecte and opyn all coloryde
sanctitie, all supersticiouse rewlles of pretendyde religion, and other
abusys detestable of all sorttes, hether[to] clokyde and coloryde.”[122]
Full investigation was ordered into the foundation and title-deeds of
each house, and its property, privileges, and benefices; the manner in
which the rules were observed; the conduct of the inmates; the bestowal
of alms; the keeping of the seal and the accounts; the instruction of
the novices; the repair and general management of the property. The
officials were to compare their valuation with the one which had been
recently made for estimating the tenths, and of course the latter would
be an excellent guide and would much simplify their task. It is evident
from the extraordinary details which are suggested for investigation
that not only would an enormous time be necessary for anything like a
proper carrying out of the task, but also that every inducement was
intended to be offered to discontented or time-serving brethren to come
forward with complaints and accusations.
The injunctions which were to be given to the monks are of the same
colour. Not only was the head of every religious house to attack the
Pope’s power and to exalt the King’s in sermon and instruction, but
requirements were made which could only make monastic life intolerable.
No inmate was to leave the precincts. All entrance was severely
restricted and regulated. Other rules followed, some inevitable and
laudable, others laying heavy burdens of expense, all difficult of
exact fulfilment. No inmates under 24 years of age were to be suffered
to remain.
It is impossible to escape the conviction that the object of such
proceedings was not reform, but destruction. For instance, the
confinement to the precincts was not merely intolerable but was
impossible if the estates were to be properly looked after. Even
Cromwell was obliged to own this and to make exceptions.
If it had been hoped that such thorough regulations would make people
think that reformation was intended, all such ideas were dissipated by
the conduct of the visitors. Their behaviour was not only offensive
in itself, but the way they conducted the investigation was such as
to preclude absolutely any lingering hope that their intentions were
sincere. The rapidity with which they proceeded was alone sufficient
to condemn them. For instance, Layton and Legh came to Lichfield on
December 22nd, and the former wrote to Cromwell: “_Crastino divi
Thome_”--“This mornyng we depart towards Lichefelde Churche, and
from thens to certayne abbeys upon Trent syde, and so to pase on to
Sothewelle, and to be at Yorke within a day affter the xiith day, we
intende, and thus to make spede with diligence, and trew knowledge of
everethyng is our intent.”[123] Their “intent” was accomplished, and
the 11th of January saw them “with the Archebushope of Yorke.”[124]
Much alarm was naturally aroused by the appearance of the visitors.
Even the bishops were inclined to resent such intrusion into their
province, but they were reduced to silence by a prohibitory letter
from Cromwell in September forbidding them to interfere in any matter
connected with the religious houses during the progress of the
visitation.[125]
In due course the visitors sent in their reports. Among them, in the
handwriting of Ap Rice, is a “_Compendium compertorum per Doctorem
Layton et Doctorem Legh in visitatione regia in provincia Eboracensi
ac episcopatu Coven. et Lichfelden_.”[126] It was presented within
six weeks from their setting out from Lichfield, during which time they
professed to have investigated the affairs of 88 monasteries. It is
evident that the inquiry must have been of the most superficial nature,
and cannot possibly have been conducted with any care. The only mention
of Staffordshire is of the Cathedral at Lichfield, and the worst they
can say of it is: “Here a pilgrimage is held to St. Chad. Annual rent,
£400. Founder, the King.”
To act upon the evidence of the visitors was among the latest work of
the Reformation Parliament. Its last, and by no means least, important
session began on February 4th, 1536. To this session William Edie,
the recently-elected Abbot of Burton, was summoned[127] in order
to strengthen Cromwell’s party in the House of Lords. No attempt
appears to have been made to sift the evidence alleged against the
monasteries, but it was worked up with appropriate embellishments into
the preamble of an Act which was passed in March, and which transferred
to the King all religious houses of the annual value of less than £200
a year, referring to the Returns which had recently been “certified
unto the King’s Exchequer” as providing the data by which the houses
which were affected were to be ascertained (Article 7). These were
the Returns, known as _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, which have been
already examined in detail. Such evidence of abuses as is extant by
no means allows us to draw such an arbitrary line and to say that the
lesser houses were blameworthy and the greater innocent. Yet that is
what the Act did, making it more emphatic by pointing to the contrast
between the “manifest sin, vicious, carnal, and abominable living” in
the houses to be dissolved, and the character of “divers great and
solemn monasteries of the realm, wherein, thanks be to God, religion
is right well kept and observed.” Indeed, as a matter of fact, the
evidence which remains points rather the other way. Many of the great
monasteries were certainly visited, and it was seldom indeed that
such men as Layton and Legh could not find something scandalous. In
no case in Staffordshire is there any extant evidence of abuses. If
the Staffordshire houses were reported on, either the documents have
perished or they have not yet been brought to light. The houses in
Staffordshire included under the Act were Tutbury, Rocester, Croxden,
Brewood Nunnery, Hulton, Trentham, Stafford (St. Thomas the Martyr),
Stone, and Ronton. With these was classed St. Mary Broke, Rutland, and
the total value is given as £976 5s. 3¾d.[128] The value, according to
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_, was £975 13s. 9¾d.
The Act expressly exempted all monasteries whose annual value exceeded
£200 according to _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, and thus Burton-on-Trent
and Dieulacres escaped. It also exempted “such cells of Religious
Houses, appertaining or belonging to their Monasteries or Priories, in
which cells the Priors or other chief governors thereof be under the
obedience of the Abbots or Priors to whom such Cells belong, as the
Monks or Canons of the Convents of their Monasteries or Priories, and
cannot sue or be sued, by the Laws of this Realm, in or by their own
proper Names, for the Possessions or other Things appertaining to such
Cells whereof they be Priors or Governors, but must sue and be sued in
and by the Names of the Abbots or Priors to whom they be Obediencers,
and to whom such Cells belong; and also be Priors or Governors dative,
and removable from Time to Time, and Accountants of the Profits of such
Cells, at the only Pleasure and Will of the Abbots or Priors to whom
such Cells belong” (Art. 7). Dudley Priory accordingly remained till
its superior house at Wenlock fell in 1540.
The suppression of Calwich, already completed, was legalised by a
clause which gave to the King any religious house “that otherwise hath
been suppressed or dissolved.”
To deal with the treasure which would accrue to the Crown, a special
“Court of Augmentations” was created. It consisted of a chancellor,
treasurer, attorney and solicitor, ten auditors, 17 receivers,
etc., and its business was to take the surrenders and dispose of the
property and movables. The chancellor was Sir Richard Riche, the
Solicitor-General.[129]
The treasurer was Sir Thomas Pope, better known as the founder of
Trinity College, Oxford.[130] Of the auditors, the one most concerned
with Staffordshire was William Cavendish,[131] brother of Wolsey’s
biographer. The receiver who did most work in our neighbourhood was
John Scudamore.
No sooner was the Act passed than a most unseemly scramble for the
spoils began. Petitions flowed in to Cromwell and other people of
influence, begging, often in the most abject way, for favours. The
rights of Patrons and Founders were in theory respected by the Act
(Art. viii), but obviously little could be done for such persons when
the monasteries disappeared. Obviously all religious and spiritual
privileges and benefits vanished, and rights of nomination were
valueless when there was no house to which to nominate. The clause was
an elaborate pretence. How little the moral rights of founders were
regarded is shown in the case of Ronton.
On April 2nd, 1536, Sir Simon Harcourt wrote to Cromwell:[132] “I am
informed that it is enacted in Parliament that certain religious houses
shall be dissolved. There is a little house of canons in Staffordshire,
called Ronton, built and endowed by my ancestors, to the intent they
might be prayed for perpetually, and many of them are buried there.
I would gladly be a suitor for it to the King, but I dare not, as I
know not his pleasure. I beg you will be a mediator to the King for
me, that the same house may continue, and he shall have £100 and you
£100 if you can accomplish it, and £20 fee out of the said house. If
the King is determined to dissolve it, I desire to have it, as it
adjoins such small lands as I have in that county, and I and my heirs
will pay so much as the rent of assize cometh to, and give you 100
marks.” Sir Simon Harcourt evidently realized the state of affairs
thoroughly well, and equally thoroughly understood the sort of man to
whom he was writing. Sincerely as he desired the continuance of the
burial-place of his ancestors, he knew that Cromwell would recognise
no such filial sentiments, so he boldly offered him the large bribe
of £100. But a more powerful suitor was in the field. On April 27th
Henry Lord Stafford wrote urging his claims.[133] “I beg you will use
means with the King that I may have the farm of the Abbey of Rantone
if it be dissolved. It is within four miles of my house, and reaches
my park pale, and I will give as much for it as any man. I heard that
the Queen had moved the King to have me in remembrance for it, and he
was content, saying it was alms to help me, having so many children on
my hands. I heard that George Blunt endeavours to obstruct my suit.”
Next day he wrote to the Earl of Westmoreland begging him to use his
influence with the secretary on his behalf, and, failing Ronton, he
asks for the house of the White Ladies at Brewood, urging “it is only
£40 rent by year, and is in great decay.”[134] Stafford’s suit, thus
supported, found more favour than that of poor Simon Harcourt. Richard
Cromwell, “honeying at the whisper of a lord,” wrote to Lord Stafford
on May 15th[135]: “As to the Abbey you wrote about, my uncle says he
will not fail to obtain it for you when the surveying of the Abbeys
is at an end.” Stafford had not obtained the house in March of the
following year, for Harcourt made a brave fight for it. Later we shall
find Lord Hastings asking for Burton.
But squires and lords were not the only people who interested
themselves in the dividing of the spoils. Bishop Roland Lee was as
forward as any in urging his claims. On April 29th, 1536, he wrote
to Cromwell[136]: “Remember my suit for the Priory of St. Thomas
(Stafford), of which not only the King, but you, shall have a certain
sum. If that cannot be, I trust, as the demesnes came from the Mitre,
I may have the preferment of the house and the demesnes for one of
my kinsfolk.” He failed to obtain the Priory at once, though he made
repeated efforts. On June 27th of this year he wrote[137]: “Though your
suit for the Priory of St. Thomas in my behalf cannot stand, yet as you
mind my preferment to the farm of the demesnes, I thank you. I desire
them only for quietness, not for advantage”; and he wrote again on
April 3rd, 1537.
The Priory of Stone contained many tombs of the Staffords, and Lord
Stafford evidently hoped the house would escape. But the glory of
his family had departed and he had no real influence. The Prior was
William Smith, and he does not appear to have had any suspicion that
his house was soon to come to an end. Even while the Visitors were
making their investigations, if, indeed, any investigation at all was
made in the great majority of cases, he was engaged in the business
of his house. In his financial transactions with his Bishop he found
the latter more worldly-wise than he was himself. Bishop Roland Lee
sold him timber out of Blore Park and received the payment. But, being
better informed of the trend of events, he prevented many of the trees
from being felled and delivered to the dying Priory. On February 19th
William Smith wrote urgently to Lee,[138] “Touching the timber in
Blore Park which I bought and paid for to my lord, 40 trees are still
standing, as the bearer can show. If I have not the said timber I know
not where to be provided for my great work now in hand. I shall intreat
you for your pains.” Several months later, Henry Lord Stafford wrote to
Cromwell telling him “that the Prior of Stone hathe good hope that his
howse schall stand, whereof all the contree is right glad, and praye
fulle hertily for your lordeship therfore.” The Earl of Shrewsbury,
however, had designs on it, and sought the assistance of Scudamore in
obtaining it, bringing himself to address his letter “To my hertly
biloved fellow John Skydmore, oon of the gentylmen vsshers of the
Kynge’s most honourable Chamber.”
In these circumstances there was much uncertainty as to the extent to
which the Act would literally and fully be carried out, and how far
influence might succeed in nullifying it.
In due course another band of royal agents was let loose upon the
land to carry out the work of dissolution. The “Instructions for
the King’s Commissioners” are exceedingly minute. For each county
an Auditor and Receiver was to be appointed, with one of the clerks
of the late visitation, and to these were to be joined “three other
discreet persons to be named by the King.” These were to visit each
condemned house and exhibit the Statute of Dissolution to the head and
his brethren. The inmates were then to be required to make on oath
a full disclosure of the state of their affairs, to surrender their
charters and seal, plate, and other effects. Such of the monks as were
willing to take “capacities” were to be referred to the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, and were to be rewarded for their
complacency; the rest were to be transferred to other houses. Orders
were to be given that the monks were to cease receiving any income
except such as was absolutely necessary, but they were to continue
“to sow and till their grounds as they have done before,” and the
Superior was referred to “the Chancellor of the Augmentation for his
yearly stipend and pension.” But evidently the agents were prepared to
accept favourable offers. Henry Lord Stafford, writing to Cromwell on
March 12th, 1537, says: “The Commissioners will be in Staffordshire on
Sunday next. The Prior of Stone thinks his house shall stand, whereof
the country is glad; so my suit is in vain unless your Lordship help
me to the Priory of Rontone, for which I was first suitor: howbeit Sir
Simon Harcourt makes great labour for it”; and he proceeds again to
plead his poverty and his large family, mentioning that he had twelve
children.[139]
The Commissioners in Staffordshire dissolved three out of the nine
houses which came within the scope of the Act, namely Ronton, Stone,
and Trentham. The majority were spared, some, as we have seen, through
the intervention of powerful or interested friends, but all on payment
of large sums.[140] For instance, Hulton, having paid £66 13s. 4d.,
obtained a grant of exemption on October 1st, 1536, the Abbot being
Edward Wilkyns; Rocester’s grant was made on March 11th, 1537, and its
payment £100; Tutbury, per Arthur Meverell, received its license on
May 3rd; Croxden, per Thomas Chawner, on the 2nd of July, by payment
of £100; St. Thomas’, Stafford, per Richard Whyttewall, on July 4th,
by payment of £133 6s. 8d. On April 3rd, Robert Burgoyn had written
to the Bishop, who so earnestly had desired the Priory: “According to
your desire ... I have forwarded letters from the Chancellor of the
Augmentations to Mr. Scudamore to survey the lead of the late house
of Canons beside Stafford,”[141] which shows how narrowly the house
escaped, even for a time, the clutches of Roland Lee and Cromwell, for
though he spoke of it as “the late house,” it did not surrender till
October, 1538. Lee kept up his persistent begging for it to the end.
The Grant of Exemption obtained by Croxden is given in the Appendix.
It gives the King’s new title, “_Supremum Caput Anglicanae
Ecclesiae_,” in its most offensive form, without the qualifying
words, but it will be noticed that it is couched throughout in general
terms. There is nothing in it which is peculiar to the particular house
concerned. Everything would apply equally well to any other house. It
looks as though the Commissioners went on their circuit provided with
a supply of such general forms, having blanks for the names of houses
and of abbots, which they were prepared to issue whenever they thought
fit, that is, whenever a sufficiently large pecuniary inducement could
be offered. That there was no genuine intention to allow any of the
religious houses to continue permanently was speedily shown.
But for the present the elaborate grants for continuance served their
turn, and allayed public dismay. No echo of the Pilgrimage of Grace
was heard in Staffordshire, although that dangerous rising began
near the north-eastern border of the county. It rolled northwards,
and Lord Stafford was so entirely satisfied that he carried out the
difficult and costly process of transferring his family monuments from
the dissolved Priory at Stone to the Austin Friary at Stafford. He
evidently had no idea that Commissioners would destroy that house, too,
in a few months.
It was, of course, entirely to the interest of the agents of the
Dissolution to conceal the real scope of their intentions, for the
threatened monks naturally tried sometimes to keep back part of their
cherished possessions and to save the sacred vessels and vestments
from the profane uses to which they were likely to be put. The Act of
Dissolution had foreseen the danger and had made all sales and leases
of lands effected “within one year next before the making of this
Act,” “utterly void and of none effect”; while all ornaments, jewels,
goods and chattels which the houses possessed “at the first day of
March in the year of our Lord God 1535 or any time sithen whensoever”
were declared the property of the King. The Prior of Stone and some of
his neighbours, who, as we have seen, resented the suppression of the
house, attempted to save something.
“Articles and instructions” for special commissioners were issued
“concerning the embezzling and taking [away] of certain plate, jewels,
ornaments, goods, and chattels of the late monastery of Stone ...
whereupon as well William Smyth, late Prior of the said house, James
Colyer, James Atkyn, Sampson Greswike, Geoffrey Walkeden, and Hugh
Rathebone, and all such other persons as Thomas Woodall, bringer
hereof, shall name, are to be examined.”[142] The specific charges
are as follows, so far as they can be traced, for the document
unfortunately exists in a fragmentary form only: “Whether Colyer
received a shrine, four standing cups, and two silver salts; whether
Atkyn received certain sheep and cattle since the said fourth day of
February; whether Greswike since the fourth day of February hath of the
said house ...,” and there the paper ends. February 4th was the day on
which the Session of Parliament which had passed the Act of Dissolution
had opened.
In the Augmentation Accounts for 1538 we find “A parcel of £20 due
from James Colyer for the surplus value of a shrine of silver-gilt
mortgaged to him by the Prior of Stone, part of which was paid 5 of
June, 30 Henry VIII, £13 6s. 8d.”[143] The Abbot of Dieulacres secured
blank forms with the Convent seal before it was taken from him, and on
these he subsequently made out ante-dated leases. Bishop Lee reported
to Cromwell that the Prior of St. Thomas at Stafford was making
“unreasonable waste,” which probably means that he had realized the
uselessness of economy in the face of imminent dissolution.
The fines for continuance were exceedingly heavy and must have pressed
very hardly on the houses which were called upon to raise such
large sums. They appear to have been roughly calculated at a year’s
income,[144] and no doubt they account in no small measure for the
indebtedness which subsequently was charged against some of the houses.
Moreover, the officials looked for bribes and presents, and we may
be sure they required to be well entertained when they visited the
monasteries, to judge from their own large expenditure on “cates.”[145]
The houses were impoverished by direct methods as well. Prior Richard,
of St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was ordered to give the lease of a church
at Audlem in Cheshire, belonging to the Priory, to a nominee of
Cromwell’s. He protested against the unfairness, though he was unable
to avoid compliance. “It is,” he says,[146] “in the occupation of five
poor farmers there by lease,” but he had to give Cromwell’s nominee
a fifty years’ lease in reversion, in consideration of Cromwell’s
“goodness,” and the lessee was to pay six shillings and eightpence,
whereas they could have had 40 marks from another. He adds that last
Midsummer he paid Cromwell £60 and now sends £20 more.
The same policy of crippling the Abbeys was pursued even towards
Burton, which did not come under the Act. On August 15th, 1538, the
Abbot of Burton-on-Trent wrote to Cromwell[147]: “On the 12th of
August I received the King’s letters and yours in favour of Mr. Robert
Everest, one of the servers of the Chambers, for the tithe of the
parsonage of Allstrye, Warwickshire. That tithe is so necessary for
our house that we cannot do without it, and was appropriated under
the broad seal of England because we had not corn sufficient for
hospitality. You write that Sir Thomas Gresley, lately deceased, had
it. But that is 34 years ago, and he only had it then because the Abbot
was indebted to him.”
The following letter from the Abbot of Burton is addressed “to the
Ryght Worshipful Maister Holcroft the Kynge comycyoner at Lenton
delyver this:”[148]
“Mayster Holcroft I enterlye recomend me vnto you beseching
God that I may once be able to surrendre vnto you condygne
thanks for thys youre goodness wyche have dymynysshed parte
of the charges wyche by yor (scored through) comyssyon
you myght have put me to, And as touchyng youre request
of this brother and the lame chylde, god wyllyng I shall
so accomplysshe hyt as shall both please yor mastership &
content the partyes beyng not only in this thyng but also
in all other redy at my prynces comandement and to my small
power shew yor mastershippe pleasure pryng you accordyng
to yor w’tyng of good word and lawfull favor Thus oure
lorde have yor mastershippe in his kepyng to his pleasure
and youre comfort from Burton the xviiith day of Maye
“Yors assuryd
“Willm Abbot there.”
The friaries for some time were left to themselves. They were poor
and had few inmates, and their houses were not settled in pleasant
situations, with broad estates reaching “to my lord’s park pale.” They
were, indeed, within or near the walls of the towns, and, consequently,
were of little interest to the aristocracy.
But their poverty was no permanent security. On February 6th, 1538,
Dr. Ingworth, the renegade Prior of the richest house of the Black
Friars in England, and lately made Suffragan Bishop of Dover, was
commissioned to visit all the friaries, and he rapidly carried out his
work. We have very full particulars of his campaign in Staffordshire,
and some remarkable details. On August 7th he was at the house of the
Grey Friars at Lichfield, on August 9th he decided the fate of both
the friaries at Stafford, and next day he was equally effective at
Newcastle-under-Lyme;[149] and this in spite of the fact that he was
obliged to confess that “the Friars in these parts have many favourers,
and great labour is made for their continuance. Divers trust to see
them set up again, and some have gone up to sue for them.” But he
tells Latimer (on August 23rd) that such strong expressions of popular
opinion had had no terrors for him; he had visited 18 places, including
Lichfield, Stafford, and Newcastle, and had only left one house
standing.[150]
The Staffordshire friaries were without exception poor places in every
respect, and the Bishop cleverly made that a strong argument against
them. In spite of poverty, the friars clung to their old homes and
work, although he invariably offered them money payments to depart.
Writing from Lichfield, he told Cromwell that “divers of the Friars are
very loath to forsake their houses, and yet they are not able to live.”
The house at Lichfield, for instance, he says, “is in that taking, and
yet loath to give up.”[151] The day after he had been there he wrote
Cromwell a full account of his visit.[152] He announced that in spite
of their wishes he had induced them all to surrender. The warden was
in a pitiable state of ill-health, with a loathsome disease on his
face. He had been little at home for the past six months, “yet now he
came home and was loath to give up his house, though it is more in
debt than all the stuff that belongs to it will pay, chalice, bells,
and all, by 20 nobles.” The certificate of surrender is dated August
7th.[153] It states that the house was surrendered voluntarily, without
any counsel or constraining, for very poverty--a manifest falsehood, as
the Bishop’s own letters testify. The witnesses of this surrender were
Richard Wetwode, “Master of the Guild there,” and the two constables,
Alexander Grene and Thomas Lont. The Visitor delivered the house and
goods to these three, gave every friar a letter, and departed. An
inventory of the goods so delivered follows, and comprises articles in
kitchen, brewhouse, choir, and sextry. There is also a statement of
the debts owing by the house, which were partly for malt and rye, with
30 shillings which had been borrowed “for byldyng of the quere” and 20
shillings due to the Bishop for five years’ rent. Four days later Dr.
Legh wrote to Cromwell, on his own account and also at the instance of
the Bishop, to both of whom Wetwode had shown “great pleasure,” asking
that Wetwode should have the preferment.[154] It is evident that just
as great lords and enterprising country squires were interested parties
in the suppression of monasteries, so the rising tradesmen in the towns
cast longing eyes on the houses of the friars. This accounts for the
co-operation of the municipal authorities in the work of dissolution.
A very full and detailed account of the Bishop’s procedure in regard to
the friars is given in a memorandum referring to the visitation of the
two houses at Stafford. This most interesting and valuable document is
as follows:[155]
“Mem. This 9 day of August in the 30 year of our most dred
Sovereign lord King Henry VIII., Richard Bishop of Dover,
visitor under the Lord Privy Seal for the King’s Grace,
was in Stafford in the Grey Friars and also in the Austen
Friars, where that the said Visitor said to the heads and
brethren of both places these words: Brethren, where that I
understand ye have had information that I should come, by
the King’s Commission, to suppress your house and put you
out, fear not, for I have no such commission, nor I use no
such fashion in any place. I am sent to reform every man
to a good order and to give injunctions for preservation
of the same. If ye can be content and think yourself
able here to live and to be reformed and to observe such
reasonable injunctions as I shall leave with you, the which
or that I require your answer, ye shall here and see in
writing, then I am and shall be content that ye shall with
the King’s favour continue as before ye have do. If that
ye be not able to live and observe the same then if ye of
your own minds and wills give your houses into the King’s
hands I must receive them. The said injunctions were read
to them which were reasonable. The said heads with all the
brethren with one assent, without any counsel or co-action,
gave their houses into the Visitor’s hands to the King’s
use. The Visitor received the same, and of the houses and
implements made inventories and delivered them to such as
should keep them to the King’s use, and so delivered to
each friar a letter to visit his friends and so departed.
This witnesseth John Savage and Thos. Russell, Bailiffs
of the borough of Stafford; Wm. Stamforde and Ric. Warde,
gentlemen, with divers others.”
The mean trickery as well as absolute perversion of truth in the
Bishop’s conduct and statement could not be better shown than in this
interesting record. The wretched friars were already trembling for
their own safety, as they saw the monks on every side dispossessed
and impoverished, and impoverished themselves at any rate by the
check which the events of recent years must inevitably have given
to bequests and alms to all religious institutions. Disheartened
by long uncertainty, they fell easy victims to the bullying and
falsehoods of the plausible Visitor and his coadjutors, the vulgar
and rich shopkeepers who accompanied him, the latter eager for the
site and buildings, adjoining perhaps their own places of business,
and certainly convenient for warehouses and store-rooms. It was not
till the spring of 1539 that Parliament passed an Act recognising the
_fait accompli_ and giving the King all the religious houses.
The Inventory of the possessions of the Austin Friars at Stafford,
which were placed in charge of William Stamforde, of Rowley, and
Master Richard Warde, of Tylynton, is full of interesting details
throwing much light on the ecclesiastical and domestic arrangements
of the time.[156] In the vestry there was a cross of copper gilt
“with an image silver of parcel gilt,” a copper censer, four “suits”
(_i.e._, sets) of vestments, one black set for requiems, and
one with “images” of the Blessed Virgin, two green copes, one black
“chamlet,” etc. In the choir were two old altar-cloths, two small
candlesticks, a sacring-bell, and a “pair of organs.” There were
two bells in the steeple. In the church were two stained cloths, an
alabaster table, two ladders, and two benches. The contents of hall,
kitchen, recreation-house, etc., are also given. There was little or no
lead, and the yearly rents amounted only to 51s. 8d. The Visitor took
into his own keeping the chalice, which weighed 13 oz., and he ordered
that the servants should be paid ten shillings of their wages at the
next Michaelmas.
The Inventory of the house of the Grey Friars is similarly
detailed.[157] In the sextry there were five “suits” without albs;
a suit for requiems, one each of dun silk, yellow sey, and branched
green silk. There were six copes, two being of linen cloth “stained
with image work.” There were six altar-cloths, a pyx of latten, etc. In
the church were four alabaster tables, a pair of large candlesticks,
a cross, and a censer of latten, two missals, one printed and one
written, “a pair of small organs,” etc. There was much lead, for half
the choir was leaded and one of the chapels. The rents only came to
26s. 8d. Again the chalice was taken by the Visitor, with six spoons:
16 oz. in all.
Next day he was at Newcastle-under-Lyme.[158] He found it owed £14, for
which all its substance was in pledge, yet was insufficient to meet
the debt. The Inventory was again signed by the town officials, John
Lymforde, Mayor, and Thomas Brodsha and Richard Smyth. The Inventory of
the goods showed that in the vestry there were “suits” of blue silk,
of silk with roses, and of green silk. There were eleven chasubles,
five copes, and two old tunicles. In the choir there were two pairs of
candlesticks of copper and latten, one cross of copper and gilt with a
“Mary and John.” “A pair of organs” is mentioned and an alabaster table
on the High Altar. In the steeple were two bells. In the house were
two old feather beds, one old bolster, and five old coverlets, an old
chest, and a green covering of say. The usual articles are mentioned
in kitchen, brewhouse, hall, and buttery. The choir and cloisters
were roofed with lead, and the rents came to 40s. a year. The Bishop
of Dover took possession of the chalice, which was a small one, five
spoons, and “two narrow bands of masers” (14 oz.), but he sent up to
Cromwell three boxes “of evidence,” one of the King’s, one of other
gentlemen’s, and one of the Convent’s.
He wrote from Lichfield an account of his journey to that point,
and supplemented it on August 13th by another letter written at
Shrewsbury.[159] He apologises for not being able to send at once all
the Inventories, but he had no leisure for such work, and, moreover,
his servants were ill. Perhaps they could not stand the rapidity with
which he travelled, “but I trust to se yower lordschype within a veke,
and be that tyme I trust to make an ende in all Walys.” He continues:
“Sumwhat to certyfye yower lordeschype of the state off suche as I have
receyveyd sythe that I wrote to yow towcheynge Stafforde, the Austen
Fryeres ther ys a pore howse, with small implementes, no jwelles but
on lytyll chales, no led in the howse, in rentes by yere li_s._
xiii_d._ The Graye Fryeres ther, halfe the quere ledeyd and
a chapell, small implementes, no plate but a chales and vi. small
sponys, in renttes xxvi_s._ iiii_d._ The Blacke Fryeres
in Newecastell Underlyne, all in ruyne, and a pore howse, the quere
ledeyd and the cloeyster led redy to fall downe, the reste slate and
schyngyll; in fermys by yere xl_s._ On master Broke hathe of
late fownde the menys with the prior to gett of hym the more parte
of they howseys and grownde ther by iii. leseys, and that for lytyll
money; he wolde a gyve me golde to a grantteyd to hys leseys, but I
toke no peny of hym nor of non other, nor non woll. Iff he have thoys
leseys there ys lytyll besyde, for he hathe lyberte allmost in all.
Ther ys a proper wode, but he hathe all in lese. No sylver above xiii.
ounce.” The property had been fully mortgaged to Mr. Broke, possibly,
but not probably--for the general poverty of the house amply accounts
for it--with a view to the threatened visit of Dr. Ingworth. But the
Bishop’s elaborate assertion of his superiority to bribery must have
been amusing reading to Cromwell: he “doth protest too much, methinks.”
He was not chary of sycophancy, however. He proceeds, after describing
the ruined state of the Austin Friars at Shrewsbury: “My synguler good
lorde, I beseche youe pardon me of my rude wrytynge, and yf that I do
not my dewte as I owte to do I beseche youe pardon me, for my hart
and intente ys to do that thynge that shulde specyally plese God, the
kynges grace, and yower lordschype, accordeynge to my dewte.” He then
goes on to “beseche” his Lordship, the son of the drunken brewer,
“that yf before my cumynge there be any order taken for Newecastell
Underlyne, that ye wolde be good lorde to on Master Johan Bothe, a
servant of the kynges graces, the whyche is a grett bylder in theys
partes, that he myght for money have the slate and schyngyll ther; for
ther ys no other to be don with the more parte of that howse, but save
the lede and slate, and take the profete of the grownde. That master
Bothe for yower sake sheuyd me many plesures and gave me venyson;
wherefor I may no lesse do but wryght to yower lordeschype besecheynge
yow to be good lorde to hym, an I ever yower orator to Jhesu, who
preserve yower lordschype.”
In this year Bishop Lee issued a series of injunctions to the clergy
of the diocese.[160] In these he ordered sermons to be preached at
least quarterly in “all monasteries.” There were few remaining by the
end of the year, and only one--Burton-on-Trent, in Staffordshire. No
monks or friars were to have any “cure or servyce,” “except they be
lawfully dispensed withall or licensed by the ordinary.” Confessions to
monks and friars were forbidden, though ordered to be made to parish
priests, before Communion, and the wearing of secular dress was sternly
condemned.
Cromwell also issued injunctions to the clergy, on September 5th,
1538,[161] ordering, among other things, “that such Images as ye know
in any of your cures to be so abused with pilgrimages or offerings of
anything made thereunto ye shall for avoiding of that most detestable
offence of Idolatry furthwith take down and deley ... admonyishng
your parishioners that Images serve for no other purpose but as to be
bookes of unlearned men that can no letters.... And therefor the kinges
highnes graciously tenderyng the weale of his subjectes sowles hath
in parte alredy and more will hereafter travail for the abolishing of
suche Images as might be occasion of so greate an offence to god and
so gret daunger to the sowles of his loving subjectes.” No charge of
superstition had been brought against the image of St. Modwen at Burton
by Layton and Legh at their visitation, but none the less it was pulled
down. Sir William Bassett, of Meynell Langley, a few miles from Burton,
wrote as follows to Cromwell:[162] “Ryght honorabull my inesspeyciall
gud lord, accordyng to my bownden dewte and the teynor of youre
lordschypys lettres lately to me dyrectyd, I have sende unto yowre gud
lordschyp by thys beyrer, my brother, Francis Bassett, the ymages off
sentt Anne off Buxtone and sentt Mudwen of Burtun apon Trentt, the wych
ymages I dyd take frome the place where they dyd stande, and browght
them to my owne howss within xlviiie howres after the contemplation
of yowre seyd lordschypis lettres, in as soober maner as my lyttull
and rude wytt wollde serve me. And ffor that there schullde no more
idollatre and supersticion be there usyd, I dyd nott only deface the
tabernaculles and placis where they dyd stande, butt allso dyd take
away cruchys, schertes, and schetes, with wax offeryd, being thynges
thatt dyd alure and intyse the yngnorantt pepull to the seyd offeryng;
allso gyffyng the kepers of bothe placis admonicion and charge thatt no
more offeryng schulld be made in those placis tyll the kynges plesure
and yowre lordschypis be ffurther knowen in that behallf.... And, my
lord, as concerning the opynion off the pepull and the ffonde trust
that they dyd putt in those ymages and the vanyte of the thynges, thys
beyrer my brother can telle yowre lordschyp much better att large
then I can wryte, for he was with me att the doing of all.” The said
Francis Bassett was in the service of Cranmer, and we shall meet with
him again; “There cam nothyng with theym but the bare imagis.” Bishop
Lee saved from the spoilers the jewels of St. Chad’s Shrine at the
Cathedral for “necessary uses.” Prebendary Arthur Dudley was one of the
authorized commissioners for holding such Church goods as were seized
by the Crown, but he apparently reverenced holy things, and gave the
bones of St. Chad to some female relatives of his. The latter handed
them to two brothers named Hodgetts, and eventually some of them have
been deposited in the Roman Catholic Cathedral at Birmingham. The
shrine disappeared, and as the relics had gone the Cathedral was spared
such sacrilege as was witnessed elsewhere.