THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: SECOND STAGE
Meanwhile the harrying of the houses continued, and the feeling of
uncertainty deepened. It became more and more evident that the whole
monastic edifice was falling. The dissolution of the lesser monasteries
and the sharing of their spoils had served the useful purpose of
creating an appetite for more. On February 20th, 1538, Francis Lord
Hastings wrote to Cromwell begging the Abbey of Burton, apologizing
for not having written sooner, and explaining that he should have
done so but that he had been suffering from measles.[163] On August
23rd, Cranmer wrote urging on Cromwell the suppression of Tutbury, and
desiring that Commissions should be sent to Rocester and Croxden.[164]
The three had paid large sums for their continuance only a year before,
but Cranmer was interested in obtaining them, or one of them, for his
servant, Francis Bassett. Again, on December 14th, he wrote begging for
Croxden to be given to Bassett.[165]
Bishop Roland Lee had continued his pleading for the Priory at
Stafford, and when time went by without seeming to bring him nearer
obtaining it he began to suspect Legh of playing him false. The latter,
however, assured him he was as interested as the Bishop himself in
the matter, though he advised an application direct to Cromwell. “I
have spoken,” he wrote,[166] “to Mr. Strete for the suppression of St.
Thomas’s, but I would your lordship should write to my Lord Privy Seal
(Cromwell) for your own matter, and to thank him, for he told me he
would move the King for you and your heirs to have St. Thomas’s, and no
doubt the King will be content, and, indeed, it is all one. Remember
to write to my lord to put away sinister suspicion, and be not light
of credit against me: mistrust without cause is very unpleasant.” Thus
encouraged, Lee returned to the charge, adding fresh inducements. He
suggests that the longer the matter is delayed the less there will be
to confiscate, “as the Prior makes unreasonable waste.” He asks that
the Priory may be let to him “at an easy rent, that the poor boys,
my nephews, may have some relief thereby”; and he begs that Cromwell
will write to the surveyors that he may buy what things belonging to
the house he desires.[167] The latter request he obtained. Again,
on December 13th, he wrote to Cromwell on the same subject. He even
ventured to apply direct to the King, both in person and by letter.
There is a letter of his written to the King on December 26th, which
says: “Where at my being with your Majesty, I moved the same for the
late Priory of St. Thomas, I was minded to pay a certain sum as your
Grace should determine. I am so much bound to your Majesty that I
can crave no more; but, being charged with eight poor children of
my sister’s, now fatherless and motherless, I am forced to show the
truth.”[168]
Other petitions had flowed in, and gradually matters were arranged.
Some houses were granted as they stood, sites, buildings, furniture and
other contents, stores, animals, farm implements, etc., to a single
recipient in return for a single money payment. No doubt influential
petitioners like Bishop Roland Lee and Lord Derby (who obtained
Dieulacres) met with less rivalry than more obscure suitors who made
efforts for the smaller houses. There appears to have been keen
competition for the little nunnery at Brewood.
When the houses and belongings were to be sold _en bloc_, Dr.
Legh, with whom went William Cavendish as auditor, appears to have had
the management, while Scudamore conducted the business where other
arrangements had been made, and the contents of the houses were sold by
public auction.
The religious houses found that their attempts to secure a further
lease of life for themselves by authorized payments to the Royal
Treasury, or by irregular bribes to Cromwell and his friends, had all
failed. The large fines recently paid served to prolong the houses for
a twelvemonth only, and as the autumn of 1538 drew on the news probably
reached all the houses that they were doomed.
The harvest having been safely gathered in by the monks, in accordance
with the royal injunctions, the royal agents began to close round them
once more, and the last agony began.
John Scudamore was appointed “Receiver-General unto the King’s Majesty
of the dissolved possessions” in Staffordshire and elsewhere. He
received his authorization on August 23rd, 1538, from Sir Richard
Riche, the Solicitor-General and Chancellor of Augmentations. His
instructions were to survey all the lands of surrendered houses and to
make a return of their yearly value, with such pensions and corrodies,
etc., as they might be burdened with. The bells and superfluous houses
were to be sold, and the lead melted into “plokes” and sows and marked
with the Royal mark, and delivered under indenture to the constables of
neighbouring castles.[169] On September 27th, the goods of both houses
at Stafford were sold, on October 4th the friary at Lichfield, on the
15th Scudamore was at Croxden, and next day at Rocester; on the 21st he
was at Hulton. The details of all these sales are extant and are full
of interest.
The sales were evidently conducted in a most wasteful way, as Robert
Burgoyne, who acted as auditor at the sales at Stafford, testified. He
told Scudamore, “I have sold in some ffrire houses all the buyldynges,
the cause was for that they were so spoyled and torne by suche as sold
the goodes, that in manner they were downe, and yff they shuld nott
have ben sold, the kyng shuld have hadd nothyng theroff.”[170]
Although there had been loud discontent at the threatened dissolutions
of the friaries at Stafford, the townspeople did not hesitate to
profit by the sales any more than the country people did in the case
of the monasteries. They knew that the end of the alms and easy rents
had come, and it was only human nature to make the best of the sorry
business. The town bought the stone wall of the Grey Friars and a pair
of candlesticks at Stafford; and the churchwardens a Corporas.[171]
The “warden of the sayd [Grey] Fryers” bought two brass pots for eight
shillings and six plates for 2s.; the under-bailiff and the late warden
of the friars bought “iii leads, one to brue in, and ii to kele in,
fates, iiii tubbes, a bulting hutche, and a knedyng troughe” for 14s.
7d. Friar Wood bought a vestment of blue fustian and one of white
diaper for 6d., and the Prior of the Austin Friars bought a vestment
of white bustion for 8d. The friars were determined to make the best
of things. Robert Whytgreve bought books. The great purchaser was
James Luson or Leveson, from Wolverhampton, who followed the sales.
At the sale of the Grey Friars in Stafford he purchased “a table of
alabaster standyng in the church” for 2s. 8d., and “all the churche and
quyer, with all edyfyengs and buyldynges within the precinct of the
Fryers Minours surrendryd, with all the stone, tymber, tyle, glasse,
and iron in the same, ledd and belles only exceptyd, and also exceptyd
and reservyd the stone wall next unto the towne of Stafford,” for £29
1s. 8d. At the Austin Friars he bought a vestment and two tunacles “of
bawdekyn with images of our lady” for 18d., two copes, “greene and
yelowe partye colouryd and rewyd,” for 22d., and, with Thomas Picto
and Richard Warde, “all the tyle, shyngle, tymber, stone, glass, and
iron, one marble gravestone, the pavementes of the church, quyer, and
chapelles, with rode lofte, the pyctures of Cryst, Mary, and Johan,
beyng in the church and chauncell of the Austen Fryers, besydes the
towne of Stafford, surrendryd with all other superfluos edyfyes and
buyldynges within the precynct of the seyd Fryers, to be takyn down,
defaycd, and caryed away by the seyd Loveson, Picto, and Ward, at
there owne proper costes and charges,” for £28 8s. 4d. The two bells
at the former house, one a Sanctus bell and one “by estimation Xcth,”
were also placed in his custody. Sir Richard Riche wrote to Scudamore
“to assingne and apoynct unto my ffrende James Lewson the five bellis
remaynyng at the late monasterie of Wenlocke.”[172] Robert Dorynton
was another dealer. At the Austin Friars at Stafford he purchased “a
table in the inner hall with ii trestylles and iii formes,” and at the
Grey Friars, Stafford, he bought a “gret basen” from the buttery, 3
altar cloths, the seats in St. Francis Chapel, books in library and
vestry, a coffer in the former, four pennyworth of “old wexe,” and a
lamp. Robert Wetwode, the Master of the Guild, bought “the table at the
hyeghe deske” in the hall for 8d. The whole contents of the kitchen
sold for 22s. 2d., of the church, 55s. 8d., of the brewhouse, 15s.,
and of the hall, 3s. 4d. The total sales of goods and buildings at the
Grey Friars fetched £34 3s. 10d. The lead upon choir and chapel, 45
feet broad “of bothe sydes” by 43 feet long, was left in the custody
of the town bailiffs. The contents of the Austin Friars fetched 79s.,
and Robert Burgoyne, the auditor, kept “one playne crosse of copper
with a lytle image of Cryst sylver apon hyt,” estimated to be worth 3s.
4d., John Scudamore kept “one lytle woodden crosse,” which is noted as
being “platyd over verry thyn with sylver,” and as being worth only
12d. “Ther remaynyth in the steple one belle, by estimation Xcth in
the custody of Thomas Picto, worth by estimation viii_li._, and
a lytle bell worth 8s. The total sales of goods and buildings at the
Austin Friars produced £32 6s. 4d.
The Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield was sold on October 4th. The
“_prisors jurati_,” or sworn valuers, were Robert Ryve, William
Colman, Marke Wyrley, and Thomas Fanne. Mr. Strete made a great
purchase of “all the copes, vestments, and tynakles in gros for
xl_s._,” also two candlesticks of latten, for 8d., the paving
tiles in the cloisters for 40s., and of the choir for 13s. 4d. Thomas
Fanne, above-mentioned, bought “the bryck wall at the churche ende” for
2s.; Marke Wyrley, “a fryer’s masse boke” for 4d., and William Colman
“the glasse that ys lewse in the newe loggyng” for 3s. The Warden of
the Guild bought a vestry press, “the cundyt of ledd in the cloyster,”
“all the kechyn stuff,” and “ii. standert candelstyckes.” Mr. Lytleton
bought “the cesterne of ledd standyng in the porche at the Tenys Court
ende,” and “a lytle porche standyng by the dwellyng house.” The whole
of the buildings were sold to a “ring” of eight purchasers for £42
13s. 4d., “except and reserved ledd, belles, pavement, and gravestones
within all the seyd buyldynges, save only the pavement of the seyd
churche, whyche ys parcell of the seyd bargayne ... and hath day to
deface the steple, cloyster, and quyer forth [with], wyth the churche,
onles they obteyne lycens otherwyse of the kyng, and hys councell,
athyssyde the feast of the Purification of our Lady next commyng, and
for all the residewe of the buyldynges iii. yeres day to pull downe
and carye awey, and to have egresse and regresse for the same.” These
careful stipulations that the buildings should be defaced and destroyed
show that the ruin of the monastic buildings is not to be attributed to
the ravages of time alone, but also to wilful and deliberate vandalism.
Meanwhile Legh and Cavendish began to go on their circuit. They were at
Tutbury in the middle of September. No record exists of the procedure
or of the means Legh used; but his progress was an unqualified triumph
and the surrenders of the monasteries one after another were formally
received. The Deed of Surrender was signed at Tutbury on September
14th.[173] It bears the following signatures:[174]
p me Arthurum priorem de Tuttbury
p me Thomam Norton
p me Thomam Smith
p me Thomam Shele
p me Rob’tum Stafford
p me Nycholas Broly
p me Rogerum Hylton
p me Thomam Renez
p Richardum Arnold
From Tutbury they proceeded, along the road by the banks of the swift
and winsome Dove, to Rocester. There the canons, who seem to have been
living simple, harmless lives among neighbours who respected them, were
speedily forced to sign the Deed of Surrender. It is dated September
16th, and the seal, except for a fracture at the base, is still in good
condition. The signatures are as follows:[175]
per me Wylliamum Grafton
„ Georgium Dave
„ Johannem Snape
„ Ricardum Heith
„ Johannem Brykylbake
„ Radulphum Corke
„ Williamum Bond
„ Georgium Graftu
„ Johannem Dayne
The following witnesses signed:
Mr. [magister] Williamus Bassett, miles
Thomas Fizharberd, armiger
William Bassett, armiger
Johannes Fizharberd, generosus
Hurrying away up the secluded valley to the west, Legh came in an hour
to the Abbey of Croxden. Its surrender was signed next day, and the
seal is in good condition:[176]
per me Thomam Chalner Abbatem de Crokesden
„ Thomam Rollesto[n]
„ Robertum Clarke
„ Thomam Kelynge
„ Johannem Thornto[n]
„ Johannem Orpe
„ Johannem Almo
„ Wylliamus Beche
„ Henricum Rothwell
„ Robertum Keydr.
„ Johannem Standlaw
„ Rycardum Meyre
„ Thomam Hendon
The following signed as witnesses:
Mr. Georgius Vernam, armiger
Ranoldus Corbett, armiger
Walterus Orton, generosus
Dominus Edmundus Stretaye
Archbishop Cranmer’s desire was thus accomplished, and the three
Staffordshire houses of Tutbury, Rocester, and Croxden, owe their
destruction directly to him.
Scudamore followed and held his public auctions. The sale at Croxden
took place on October 15th. Mr. Bassett, who looked to have the place
by Cranmer’s good offices, purchased the “lytle gatehouse on the north
syde of the comyn wey,” the loft under the organ, “the lytle smythes
forge,” and the roof of the dormitory. He paid for the latter only.
The whole sale only produced £9 9s. 8d. The sale at Rocester next day
was short and speedy, as nothing was sold save St. Michael’s Chapel.
John Forman bought “the glasse and iron in the wyndowes” for 3s. 4d.;
William Loghtonhouse the timber of the same chapel for 7s. 6d.; and
William Bagnall “the shyngle” for 8d., the total proceeds being 11s.
6d. The parishioners obtained the three bells because they had been
rung for their services as well as for those of the canons.[177] At
Hulton, on October 21st, the only item was the unusual one of the
bells. With the lead they were generally sent to London, but here the
three were sold to Stephen Bagott, gentleman, for £19 16s., “after the
rate of xviii_s._ the hundredd.”
By this time the fate of St. Thomas’s Priory and of Dieulacres Abbey
had been settled. Bishop Roland Lee’s desires were to be gratified,
and the Earl of Derby was to have Dieulacres. Legh and Cavendish
accordingly proceeded towards these houses. Their first business when
they arrived at such houses as were to be disposed of according to
arrangements already made, was to empanel the jury for the valuation.
This is explained in the Account Book of Dr. Legh,[178] which gives
exceedingly full details of everything such houses possessed at the
time of their final suppression. Vestments and church furniture,
domestic utensils, farm implements, animals and stores, all were made
over alike to the purchasers, only such things as the more valuable
church plate, lead, and bells, being usually held back. In spite of
efforts at prevention it is obvious from the inventories that a good
deal had disappeared recently. No doubt the religious themselves had
made away with something, though this was a dangerous thing to attempt;
and probably there had been a good deal of “picking and stealing,”
regular and irregular, during recent months.
It is somewhat surprising to find that so many of the monks and nuns
had remained after knowing that their fate was sealed. Some, of course,
had nowhere else to go: some stayed doubtless through indifference:
some waited for the promised pensions. All who remained were “rewarded”
and most were given pensions.
The final arrangement at St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was made on October
18th, and at Dieulacres on October 21st, at the same time as Scudamore
was holding his auctions at Rocester and Hulton. Legh’s inventories are
given in full in the Appendix.[179]
On October 11th Dr. Legh received a letter from Sir Thomas Hennege[180]
informing him that the house of Benedictine Nuns at Brewood was to be
given by the King’s orders to Sir Thos. Gifford, a Gentleman Usher
of the Chamber, who had been begging for it for over a year, and
continuing, “At your now being there you shall put him in possession,
and he may at leisure apply to the Chancellor of Augmentations for the
lease.” Legh was on his way to Brewood at the time. When he arrived at
the house he found himself in a difficulty. There was a rival claimant.
He wisely referred the matter to Cromwell, enclosing Hennege’s letter
and saying, “There was Mr. Littleton also who said the King was
pleased he should have it, as he perceived by your lordship when he
was last in London.” The cautious Legh did not care to run the risk
of offending anyone, so he solved the difficulty in a characteristic
way, as he explains: “Wherfore I and Mr. Candisshe have put them both
in possession, and sold the stuff to them both till they may know the
King’s pleasure.”[181] Legh’s inventory describes the sale as having
been made to Sir Thomas Gifford. Gifford certainly obtained the place
in the end.
The Black Nuns of Brewood surrendered on October 16th.[182] None
of them signed the document. The house was too poor to afford
accommodation suitable for Dr. Legh, and he went on the same day to
Lilleshall Abbey, which he gave to Cavendish, who had accompanied him
as auditor, as he explains to Cromwell: “Now being at Lilleshall, I
intend to put Mr. Candisshe in possession of the farm of the house who
prays you that in his absence he be not in this behalf supplanted.”
Legh himself went on to Stafford next day. Bishop Roland Lee’s
solicitations at last had their desired effect, and on October 17th
the Priory of St. Thomas surrendered. The Deed bore the following
signatures:[183]
p me Ricardum Whittall, p’iorem
p me Ricardum Harve
p me Thomam Baguley
p me Will’m pipstoke
p me Guilihelmum Stapletone
+ p me Christtoferum Symson
There was at least one other canon, William Boudon, and when the
affairs of the house were wound up next day he received no pension.
No doubt this was his punishment for refusing to sign the Deed of
Surrender. The whole was sold to Bishop Roland Lee.
From Stafford a long journey was made northwards as far as Leek. There
stood the imposing Cistercian house of Dieulacres,[184] with its fine
church, with a timbered roof and a screen bearing twelve candles, a
glazed cloister with carrells, a dormitory and fratry, an infirmary,
hall and buttery, larder and kitchen, and outhouses of various kinds.
Dr. Legh’s eyes must have glistened as they came in sight of the wealth
of lead which covered the roofs, and which he subsequently computed
to be worth no less a sum than the enormous amount of £720. There was
also a fine peal of bells. Sheep and cattle, horses and pigs, were in
the fields, stores of grain were in the granary, and abundance of hay
was on the site. So large a house gave employment to a large number of
servants. The monks numbered thirteen, under Thomas Whitney, the Abbot.
The King’s Commissioners did not know how their visit had been prepared
for. The _personnel_ at Dieulacres comprised a useful proportion
of members of the Abbot’s family. Besides himself there were four other
men of the name of Whitney--Humphrey, who was bailiff of the Cheshire
Manors, John, who was Chamberlain, and two other lay members of the
household. Under these circumstances it was not difficult to devise
a scheme which should to some extent defeat the plan for wholesale
confiscation. William Davenport, steward of the courts and collector
of the rents in the Frith and elsewhere, who acted as Abbot Whitney’s
secretary, prepared blank forms which were duly sealed with the Convent
seal while it was still in the Abbot’s keeping. On these forms various
leases were subsequently made out, when Legh and Cavendish were safely
out of the way, one of which was the lease and reversion of the Manor
of Poulton for a tenure of sixty-one years.
All this was carefully concealed from the Commissioners when they
arrived. The seal having been used for the last time on the Deed of
Dissolution on October 20th,[185] was duly handed over, and it was not
till Elizabeth had reigned for some years that John Whitney turned
Queen’s evidence and divulged the whole story.[186]
There is no reason for supposing that John Whitney’s confession
was untrue. It was by no means improbable in itself, and no doubt
represented action which was often attempted. But there appears to
have been considerable hesitation in believing it and in acting upon
it. It was made in the seventh year of Elizabeth’s reign, and so long
afterwards as fourteen years later one of the alleged ante-dated leases
was cancelled by the Master of the Rolls and the Solicitor-General.
There had evidently also been much selling of stock here as elsewhere.
Legh only found sixty sheep, six oxen, three horses and thirteen pigs,
all of inferior quality. These represented but a small proportion of
the farm-stock which had formerly made Dieulacres rich and prosperous,
and obviously would give but little occupation to the thirty
men-servants who applied for “rewards.” Abbot Whitney had evidently
played a bold though dangerous game, and it is impossible not to feel
considerable satisfaction in the knowledge that it succeeded so well.
On October 21st the whole was sold to Edward, Earl of Derby.
As the agents went about their work, they lived well and spent large
sums on their own entertainment. Even at Brewood they spent on
themselves nearly as much as they gave in rewards to the Prioress
and her nuns. At Stafford they spent £8 19s. 10d. on themselves,
and at Dieulacres £10 17s. They looked to be well treated by all
who desired their favour. Their path was strewn with bribes and
gifts from prospective makers of easy bargains. Robert Burgoyne, who
had acted as auditor at Stafford, sent Scudamore a buck: “good Mr.
Giffard kylled yt for you yesterdaye.”[187] Another time he is told a
hostess “hadd provyded a ffat swane for you.”[188] Master Bothe, the
“grett bylder,” who hoped for a good bargain in regard to the Friary
at Newcastle-under-Lyme, was careful to “show Bishop Ingworth many
pleasures.” On August 13th Bishop Ingworth wrote to Cromwell asking
“that yf before my cumyng ther 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 ys a grett bylder in
theys partes, that he myghte 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 the slate, and take the profete of the
grownde. That master Bothe for yower sake scheuyd me many plesures,
and gave me venyson; wherefor I may no lesse do but wryght to yower
lordeschype.”[189] Fault was found with William Cavendish, who had
accompanied Legh to Brewood, for having given higher “rewards and
wages” than he had divulged. These were probably intended as bribes,
for while riding back from Merivale in Warwickshire they learnt
that the Abbot had not sold some plate as he said he had done. They
accordingly despatched a messenger back to fetch it, and the Abbot
sent it by way of bribe to them “to be good masters unto him and his
brethren.” Both Cavendish and Legh confessed that the whole story was
true.[190]
In 1541 the sum of £3 10s. was paid by warrant of the council to sundry
witnesses, including some of the servants of the late Priory of St.
Thomas’s, Stafford, for “coming up to the Court of Augmentations to
give evidence for the King against William Cavendish.”[191]
Archbishop Cranmer maintained his paltry petitions for his friends
right through the whole period. As long ago as 1535 he had begged for
the Priory of Worcester to be given to one of the monks of Burton.[192]
On December 14th, 1538, he wrote to Cromwell to accomplish his suit
for his servant the bearer, Francis Bassett, who had carried the
image of St. Modwen up to London, for the Monastery of Croxden.[193]
Among Cromwell’s notes there is “A remembrance to speak to the King
for Francis Bassett, servant to my lord of Canterbury”: “The ferme
of Musden Grawnge, appertaining to the Abbey of Crocksden, within
the county of Stafford, being of the yearly value of 20 marks by the
year.”[194]
After Burton Abbey was dissolved it was made into a collegiate church,
with Abbot Edie as Dean; he was soon succeeded by Dr. Brocke. The
Patent is dated July 27th, 1540. The Chapels of Shene, Cauldon, and
Okeover, were allotted to the new foundation, and the possessions of
the late Abbey were to be held of the Crown by a yearly rent of £62
2s. 4d., in lieu of first-fruits and tenths, and burdened with various
pensions, stipends, and fees. A pretence was made that one of the
objects of the transformation was that some of the wealth should go
towards poor-relief and repair of roads. Some of the monks remained
as Canons or Prebendaries; there was a Gospeller and an Epistoller,
with five singing men, six choristers, two deacons, a parish priest,
a schoolmaster, and four bedesmen. Among the “common servants” were a
barber, parish clerk, bridgemaster, laundress, “turnbroche” or turnspit
and apparitor. Robert Bradshawe, gent., was Porter of the Gate, and
Nicholas Burwey, gent., was under-steward and clerk of the courts.
It does not appear how much of the contents of the Abbey--vestments,
plate, etc.--was removed when the change was made in its constitution,
but a considerable amount remained at the final dissolution, which took
place in 1545, when the place was given to Sir William Paget. Scudamore
again did most of the work, associated now with Richard Goodrich.
They rode in comfort and by easy stages from London to Burton, living
sumptuously and extravagantly, and spent four days at Burton in the
performance of their task. Again the best of the goods were not sold
but carried up to London, wrapped in ten yards of canvas and borne on
a horse specially hired for the purpose at a cost of £1 6s. 8d.[195]
From the inventories and surrenders, supplementing _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_, we are able to form some idea as to the mode of
living in the monasteries, and the standard of comfort which was
reached. Doubtless the obligation to perform manual work had in most
cases been forgotten, otherwise the large number of servants and
labourers cannot well be accounted for. At Dieulacres[196] there were
thirteen monks, six stewards and bailiffs (excluding “my lord of
Derby,” whose office was a sinecure), a forester, and eleven others
who had to be pensioned, besides thirty servants and “the launders and
pore bedewomen.” The last-named probably did the Abbey washing. The
“household” is a large one in comparison with the number of monks,
even when we take into account the sheep-runs of the Abbey. Still more
excessive is the staff of twenty-nine servants at Stafford for the
seven canons; for the Priory of St. Thomas, though it had scattered
possessions, employed in 1535 nine or ten stewards and bailiffs. Their
baker was a person of sufficient importance to receive a pension of
10s. a year. The four nuns at Brewood had eight servants, although
their house and income were alike small. They must have had an idle
time, and when they were ejected with small pensions of £3 6s. 8d.
to the Prioress, and half that amount to each of the three nuns, the
change in their style of living must have been very marked and painful.
Payments to lay officials, such as stewards, bailiffs, rent-collectors,
and auditors, appear in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ as follows: Brewood
Nunnery (4), _nil_; Burton-on-Trent, £28; Croxden (13), £7;
Dieulacres (13), £5 6s. 8d.; Dudley, £2 6s. 8d.; Hulton, £6; Rocester
(9), £2 13s. 4d.; Ronton, £4 6s. 8d.; St. Thomas’s (7), £11 13s. 4d.;
Stone, £3 6s. 8d.; Trentham, £5; Tutbury (9), £18 13s. 4d.: Total, £94
6s. 8d. The figures in brackets show the number of religious, where
these can be ascertained. At Dudley and Trentham these must have been
very few, yet at the latter the expenditure on administration was
£5. Tutbury also spent large sums on management. On the other hand,
Rocester, with nine canons and two stewards, and a small expenditure on
management, appears in a favourable light. The canons at Rocester were
on good terms with their neighbours, and the house was almost unique
among the smaller houses in Staffordshire in the matter of charity. The
general impression of the canons of Rocester is that they were living
quiet, simple lives, working hard themselves, and held in respect.
The Nunnery at Brewood[197] possessed a hall, parlour, kitchen,
buttery, and larder, with a large bedroom (in which they all slept
on two bedsteads) and a bailiff’s chamber. Of outhouses there were
brewhouse and cooling house, bolting house for kneading bread,
cheeseloft, and a “kylhouse,” all of which were more or less adequately
furnished. There were hangings of painted cloth in the parlour. In
the hall there were two tables but only one form. The nuns’ bedroom
contained a feather bed and one tester of white linen cloth, two
coverlets and a blanket described as old, one bolster, two pillows and
four pairs of sheets. The bailiff slept on a mattress on the floor,
with a coverlet and blanket. His axe remained in his bedroom when the
house was sold. A table-cloth and two latten candlesticks, a bushel and
a half of salt, four pewter porringers, four platters, and two saucers,
which are mentioned, also throw light on the standard of living. Of
grain they had a quarter of wheat (6s. 2d.), a quarter of “munke-corne”
(8s.), a quarter of oats (1s. 8d.), and a quarter of peas (2s. 8d.).
The bread they made was of good quality: rye is not even mentioned.
Their one horse was sold for 4s., the wain and dung-cart for 16d. They
had ten loads of hay (15s.).
With this we may compare the abbey and out-buildings at
Dieulacres.[198] In the cloister was a lavatory. No beds or bedding
are mentioned in the dorter or dormitory, which the monks had forsaken
for more comfortable quarters in smaller bedrooms, of which there were
several. The corner chamber was luxuriously provided with a mattress,
feather bed, bolster, and two pillows, a blanket and coverlet, a tester
of “dorney,” a hanging of sey (silk), etc. In the inner chamber also
was a mattress. In the ryder’s chamber were two bedsteads, a hanging
of painted cloth, etc. In the butler’s chamber were a mattress and
feather bed and four coverlets, a bolster and two pillows. In the
buttery were five napkins, three pewter salts, eight hogsheads, six
candlesticks, etc.; in the larder, a salting vat; in the kitchen, five
great brass pots, four small pans, a cauldron, three spits, a frying
pan, a gridiron, thirty-eight plates, dishes, and saucers, a grater,
two chafing dishes, a brass “skimmer,” etc. There was a brewhouse,
bolting-house and labourers’ chamber (with two mattresses and two
coverlets).
Their live stock consisted of six oxen (sold for £4 5s.), sixty ewes
and lambs (£3 6s. 8d.), three horses (£1), and twelve swine (13s. 4d.).
Of grain they had 159 bushels of oats (£11 19s.), and rye worth £1 1s.,
with twenty-nine loads of hay which sold for £3.
At St. Thomas’s, Stafford,[199] the seven religious and twenty-nine
“servants” had stores as follows:
Wheat. Rye and Barley. Peas. Hay.
Munke-corn.
Arberton Grange 3 qrs. 11 qrs. 40 qrs. 10 qrs. 20 loads
Berkswick Grange 12 „ 4 „
St. Thomas’s Priory 12 „
There were also the following farm implements and horses:
Waggons. Harrows. Ploughs. Cart. Cart Mares.
Horses.
Arberton Grange 2 2 1 3 2
Berkswick Grange 2 2 2
Some of the waggons were “ironbound” and some “unbound,” and all, with
the ploughs and harrows, and the cart, appear to have been complete
“with yokes and teams to them belonging.”
The live stock was as follows:
Oxen. Cows. Calves. Wethers. Ewes. Lambs. Swine. Winter
Beasts.
Arberton Grange 12 9 8 60 70 6 6
Berkswick Grange 12 80 9
In the house the dormitory had “cells” or cubicles, but the absence of
beds and bedding there indicates that more comfortable quarters were
occupied. The court had a conduit for the supply of water. The Prior’s
parlour was hung with linen, and had a folding or trestle table, two
forms and four chairs. There were six bedrooms furnished as follows:
the water chamber had bedsteads with painted hangings, two feather
beds, two bolsters, two pillows and four coverlets. The great chamber
had a bedstead with a feather bed, a coverlet, two fustian blankets
and a bolster. The two “inner chambers” had a bedstead each, furnished
with a bolster apiece and four old coverlets between them. The chamber
over the chapel had a bedstead with feather bed, coverlet, a pair of
blankets and sheets, and a cupboard, form, chair and hangings of linen
cloth. The carter’s chamber had a bedstead with a mattress, a pair of
sheets and three old coverlets.
In the buttery were napkins and cloths, a washing towel, tubs, two
pewter salts, two costrells or wine jugs; in the kitchen, four brass
pots, a broche or spit, two brass pans, a brass mortar, two cupboards,
a mustard quern, a kemnell or tub, a skimmer, a flesh hook and two
pairs of pothooks, seven platters, a voider or basket for clearing away
the relics of meals, three dishes, four saucers, four porringers, etc.
The brewhouse and bakehouse was well furnished with leads, vats, pans,
etc., and attached to it was a bedroom, which Richard Torner doubtless
occupied, and which was well supplied with bed and bedding. St.
Thomas’s Priory was well and comfortably furnished, and the standard
of comfort there was considerably higher than at either of the other
smaller Staffordshire houses of which we have details.
In the houses of the friars[200] there were few signs of anything
approaching domestic comfort. The kitchens had various necessary
utensils, more, apparently, than the communities would require for
their own cooking, and pointing probably to considerable dispensation
of charity and poor relief. There was a considerable amount of church
furniture--vestments, candlesticks, etc.,--but practically nothing at
all in the way of bedding or linen.
The records by no means show that the religious, either monks, nuns,
or friars, were living a life more luxurious than the generality of
people. If we are to take the prices at which their live stock was
sold it must have been of inferior breed. The sales being “compulsory”
tended to lower the prices realized, but the monks had, in all
probability, sold as much as they could and dared as the imminence
of dissolution became more threatening, and of course their better
animals would find the readiest sale. As regards the furniture of the
houses, the inventories of the sales may well be compared with other
contemporary lists of a similar nature, such as the “Inventory of
the Goods and Catales of Richd. Master, Clerk, Parson of Aldington”
[Kent], in 1534, which is given by Froude.[201] If Dieulacres really
had only sixty sheep in the sixteenth century it had sadly declined
from its earlier wealth in that branch of industry, and there was
little occupation for the servants. But, probably, as we have said,
the number represents the remainder which had not been sold. All sales
so made were by law _ipso facto_ void if they became known, so
that no extraordinary number could have been parted with. The inference
therefore is that their sheep-farming had declined, and the monks of
Dieulacres, at any rate, had not taken the part in the conversion of
arable into pasture of which the monasteries have often been accused.
Ronton Priory had enclosed all its demesne, but there is no evidence
that it was for the purpose of forming large sheep-runs--it may have
been merely in order to facilitate “convertible husbandry”--a very
different matter.
As we have already pointed out, none of the graver charges which were
alleged against many of the religious at the time of the Dissolution,
and have been so generally magnified since, were even hinted at in
connection with Staffordshire. On the other hand, there are many signs
that they were respected by their neighbours. Indeed the only definite
fault which could be found with them was an occasional charge of
insolvency, and even that is sometimes so vague as to be practically
worthless. Bishop Ingworth enlarged upon the bankrupt condition of
the friars. The house at Lichfield was “more in debt than all the
stuff that belongs to it will pay, by twenty nobles.” The house at
Newcastle-under-Lyme, he says, had mortgaged all its substances and was
bankrupt, with its buildings in a ruinous condition. The Grey Friars
at Stafford owed £4. Dieulacres was £171 10s. 5d. in debt, and St.
Thomas’s Priory, Stafford, £235 19s. 7d.
Fortunately we have details of some of these debts, so that it is
possible to see how they had been incurred. The Lichfield friars owed
thirty shillings which had been raised on loan for building purposes,
and twenty shillings to the Bishop for five years’ rent; the rest
of the debt was for malt and rye. At Dieulacres and St. Thomas’s
Priory[202] the items of indebtedness appear to be usually fees to
various officials, such as the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and the
Archdeacon, wages to stewards and bailiffs, stipends to vicars, and
tradesmen’s small bills. Among them there is only one other instance
of borrowing, besides that already mentioned at Lichfield, though
St. Thomas’s Priory had raised £43 by mortgaging some of its plate,
including a silver censer and a cross of silver plate.
The total amount of indebtedness, as well as the nature of the debts,
hardly bears out the charge of general insolvency which has been
brought against the religious houses.
No doubt their days of undimmed prosperity had passed. Economic changes
had pressed hard on all landlords, and recent religious movements had
seriously affected all forms of charity. The friars in particular
must have felt the effects of the latter, and their buildings had
evidently fallen steadily into disrepair. Yet even they can hardly be
said with justice to have been hopelessly insolvent. They had assets
of considerable value:[203] those which were sold at Stafford amounted
to £32 6s. 4d. at the Austin Friars (besides 13 oz. of plate and bells
worth £8 8s.), and £34 3s. 10d. at the Grey Friars (besides 16 oz. of
plate, £45 worth of lead, and bells worth £10. The sale of the effects
at the Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield produced £68 15s. The small
debt of the Grey Friars at Stafford was discharged by the sale of
timber and growing corn.
The indebtedness of the “monasteries” is in all probability to be
accounted for, to no small extent, by the very large sums which most of
them had been recently called upon to pay under the pretence that they
were to be allowed to continue. The amount seems to have been roughly
calculated at a year’s net income, as will be seen from the following
table. The first column of figures gives the net income of the house as
returned in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ (1535), and the second the fine
paid for being allowed to continue (1536–7).
Net Income. Fine.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Croxden Abbey 90 5 11 100 0 0
Hulton Abbey 76 14 0 66 13 4
Rocester Priory 100 2 10½ 100 0 0
St. Thomas’s, Stafford 141 13 2¼ 133 6 8
To enable themselves to pay such very large sums in ready money the
monks would have to leave many small creditors unpaid for a time. The
fact that they were able to do this is of itself sufficient to show
that in the popular estimation they were considered thoroughly solvent.
They had abundance of assets, as is shown by the amounts raised at the
sales of the furniture, etc., at the Suppression. Dieulacres (which
had not been called upon to pay a fine for continuance), proved to
have lead alone worth £720, besides 117 oz. of plate, and bells worth
£37 10s. The actual goods sold produced £63 14s. 10d., and would
have doubtless realized a much higher sum if they had been disposed
of under other conditions. Besides, the net income of the Abbey was
returned in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ as £227 5s., so that a debt of
£171 10s. 5d. cannot be considered, under the circumstances, entirely
unreasonable.
The financial condition of St. Thomas’s Priory, the other house
which we are told was heavily in debt, was rather worse than that of
Dieulacres, but it had recently paid the heavy fine of £133 6s. 8d. It
owed £235 19s. 7d., in addition to the mortgage of £43 6s. 8d., which
was covered by the plate mentioned. Yet even this large sum is not much
more than half as much again as a year’s net income; and if, as we have
surmised, it had been partially incurred by the payment of the Fine
for Continuance, it was considerably less. At the sale of the effects
of the Priory, £87 9s. 6d. was realized, besides £40 worth of lead,
bells worth £54, plate, etc. Here, again, we cannot fairly say that the
position was one of hopeless bankruptcy.
The allegation of insolvency against the houses appears, therefore,
to have little basis in fact. The monks had felt the adverse effects
of recent tendencies, both economic and religious, and their finances
had quite recently been subjected to a severe and exceptional strain.
But in spite of this they appear to have been in a fairly sound
financial position. Their normal debts represent only the casual credit
of ordinary life. Their alleged insolvency was merely temporary and
mainly fictitious. In the ordinary course of events it would have been
discharged in due course.