ISLIP IN PUBLIC LIFE.
The personality of the Abbot of Westminster can seldom have been a
matter of indifference to the reigning Sovereign. The mere proximity of
Court and monastery would alone be sufficient to ensure some degree of
friendship or provoke some measure of antagonism, and instances are not
wanting of both. But when it is remembered that the Abbey church was the
place of burial of many and the place of coronation of all the Kings;
that it contained the saintly relics of one and owed its very structure
to another, it is not surprising that at times Abbot and King should be
brought together in intimate contact.
When Islip first became Abbot every circumstance combined to bring such
contact about. Henry VII. was half ready with the plans for his new
chapel and Islip’s enthusiasm as a builder must already have been
obvious. It may be supposed that Islip had already attracted the royal
notice by his share in the matter of the proposed translation of Henry
VI., and the King’s assent to his election would seem to have been given
readily enough if we may judge by the relative lack of delay in issuing
the royal writs that dealt with the Abbot’s temporalities.
One small incident suggests that the new Abbot soon became on intimate
terms with the King. Islip’s cook had evidently a reputation for the
excellence of his marrowbone puddings, for presents of such to the Lord
Chamberlain and others of his friends were not infrequent. Before Islip
had been Abbot for six months we find in his household accounts the
record of the purchase of “ij marybons for ij podyngis for the Kyng.”
The cost was only two pence, but in skilled hands the value was
evidently more. The present of a buck from one to the other would be a
matter of no surprise, but there is a certain intimacy, indefinable
perhaps but none the less real, implied in so trivial a gift as that of
a marrowbone pudding.
A few weeks later the Abbot’s steward notes that “the Kingis grace dyned
at Cheynygate.” The cost of the entertainment was only 17s. 4d. and the
fare provided was by no means elaborate. It was on a Friday so no meat
was served, and the only purchases unusual to the Abbot’s accounts were
wine and strawberries which together cost 3s. 8d., a barrel of ale for
2s. and a “potell of wyne for to Sowse ffysche w^{t.}” for 4d. The
endowment of the King’s new chapel and the services to be performed in
it when finished would have been a topic of interest to both and in
itself have provided sufficient matter for conversation. A further
instance of friendly relations may be found in the royal presents to
Islip of two tuns of wine yearly which began in the year 1501.
Islip’s first entry into public life, so far as can be discovered, must
date from his appointment in 1504 as treasurer of the hospital of the
Savoy, then about to be rebuilt by Henry VII. It does not appear that
the Abbot had any particular share in the work beyond the actual
guardianship of the funds. The money came to him in sealed bags which
were probably deposited in the undercroft of the Chapter House. He might
not deliver them over without the royal warrant in Henry’s lifetime or
an order signed by seven at least of Henry’s executors after his death.
In 1512 he had as much as ten thousand pounds in his keeping, the last
instalment of which he paid over late in the year 1515 when his
connection with the hospital came apparently to an end.
The trust which Henry VII. placed in him was continued by his successor,
and in September, 1513, Islip appears as a member of the Privy Council
of Henry VIII. Thomas Wolsey had been appointed to the Council two years
before. The Abbot and the future Cardinal must, however, have been
acquainted at an earlier date, for in 1505 Wolsey had been appointed a
chaplain to Henry VII. In 1507 the Abbot and Convent had granted to Sir
Richard Empson the parsonage and adjoining gardens of St. Bride’s, Fleet
Street, and when Empson fell the grant was given to Wolsey, who thus
became a tenant of the Abbey. Moreover both Islip and Wolsey were among
the personal friends of Sir Reginald Bray, a favoured adviser of Henry
VII.
Reference has been made elsewhere to Islip’s legal training. This was
doubtless responsible for his appointment in 1510 as a trier of
petitions of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, an office which he
continued to fill in the years that followed. In 1519 Wolsey deputed him
along with others to hear the causes of poor men depending in the Star
Chamber, while in 1512 and subsequent years his name appears on the
Commission of Peace for the County of Middlesex.
Among the minor activities of these years may be included Islip’s work
in 1524 as a Collector for Middlesex on behalf of the loan for the war
with France, and in 1526 as a Commissioner of Sewers from East Greenwich
to Gravesend, work in which he was associated among others with Sir
Thomas More and Lord Cobham. It is interesting to note in the Navy List
for 1513 the Abbot of Westminster as part owner of the ship _Kateryn
Fortileza_, doubtless one of that gallant squadron which swept the
Channel under Sir Edmund Howard and blockaded the port of Brest.
Little record remains of any activity Islip may have displayed in
Parliament. As a mitred abbot he was summoned to the assembly which met
early in 1515, and there is some evidence to shew that in 1523 he was
not a silent member, but his record in this connection is to be sought
in the work of Parliament in general rather than in individual effort.
Elusive references to Islip in public documents are not infrequent in
the second decade of the sixteenth century, but it is not easy to place
them in their historical setting. For instance we find that he had
evidently made a loan of some magnitude to his fellow Privy Councillor,
the Earl of Shrewsbury, but the purpose of the loan cannot be discovered
and we note only the difficulty which Shrewsbury had in making repayment
and the not unusual mode of behaviour on the part of the defaulting
debtor of sending a present of venison in place of an instalment of the
debt.
At this time Islip would seem to have stood just on the outer fringe of
public affairs. He dined with Wolsey in 1516 to meet the ambassadors
from Scotland, and in the summer of 1520, when the mission from France
was being shewn the sights of London, he “enterteigned” the three
gentlemen that composed it with “right goodly chere,” for among those
sights was the King’s new chapel at Westminster, not to mention the
Hospital of the Savoy. So, too, he visited the Princess Mary at
Richmond and is able to report with the rest of the Privy Council that
she “is right merry and in prosperous health and state, daily exercising
herself in virtuous pastimes.” The visit was followed by gifts of
puddings, for the bringing of which the Abbot’s servants were duly
tipped by the Princess. Again, on the occasion of the important visit of
the Emperor Charles V. to England in May, 1522, Islip was summoned along
with his brethren of Bury, Canterbury and Bermondsey, to attend Wolsey
at Dover to meet him, but this must not be interpreted to imply that
Islip had any share in the important matters that were to hand. It would
be but a compliment to his orthodox majesty to be met by representative
Churchmen and to the Churchmen themselves to be asked to meet him.
Among the problems of the earlier Tudor period was one of interest at
the present time. There are no unimpeachable statistics as to the
proportion of English land which was held by the Church but that
proportion was undoubtedly large. Many of the monasteries were landlords
on a large scale and yet were suffering the pinch of severe poverty. The
land was becoming denuded of tenants and rapidly passing from the plough
to pasture. Increasing demands from the royal exchequer upon monastic
houses aggravated the evil and it has been well said that “debt with no
chance of redemption weighed heavily upon all.”
It was a problem that Islip could view both with personal knowledge and
official interest. It was a natural but at the same time an anomalous
appointment which placed Islip in 1516 on a Commission among whose terms
of reference were inquiries as to what towns, hamlets, houses and
buildings had been destroyed since 1489; what and how much land in
cultivation in that year had since been converted into pasture; what
number of parks had since been inclosed, and what land had been added to
existing parks. Islip was concerned in this inquiry with Middlesex only,
but that county included his own Manor of Hendon as well as other
portions of the abbatial property, not to mention manors such as Ashford
which belonged to his Convent.
In 1522 was levied the first of a series of loans designed to defray the
costs of ineffective foreign wars and Islip was associated with Sir
Andrew Wyndsore and Thomas Docwra, the Prior of the Order of St. John,
as a Commissioner for Middlesex. Theirs was the unpopular task of making
a list of all the residents in the county who possessed a yearly income
of twenty pounds in goods or land, of ascertaining the total value of
their property and assessing the tax due from them by way of loan. But
if Islip had thus to deal with others he did not escape himself. His
own contribution was one thousand pounds, equalling that of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, a sum which by now he could ill afford. At the
same time he had to look forward to the payment of his share of an
annual grant levied upon the whole spirituality of the kingdom for the
King’s expenses in France.
In 1525 Islip was sent by Wolsey to inquire into the affairs of the
Abbey of Glastonbury. Abbot Richard Beere had died and considerable
delay had occurred in electing his successor. Finally the forty-seven
monks decided to remit the appointment to Wolsey who selected Richard
Whiting, then Chamberlain of the Abbey, for the vacant office, doubtless
on Islip’s recommendation. It was perhaps well that Islip did not live
to see the tragic fate that was to overtake the new Abbot.
Another side of Islip’s later life is seen in his occasional presence at
the trial of those accused of holding or promulgating heretical
doctrine. It is easy to-day to enlarge upon the bigotry and intolerance
of the judges at such trials, and to make much of the unreliable stories
of men such as Foxe. It is less easy but it is imperative for a proper
understanding to make the necessary effort of imagination and place
oneself in the position of men faced with the spread of opinions which
were subversive of all that they believed true and all that they held
dear, opinions which they thought to be destructive of a social order
which they had long prized. It is foolish to defend them on the ground
that they but found men guilty or not guilty of offences for which the
civil and not the ecclesiastical arm awarded the punishment. They would
have scorned such a plea in their own defence. It is better to try to
understand the point of view which could place men of such gentle
character as Thomas More in the position of apparent persecutors. The
old order was changing, and the phenomena which accompany such changes,
whether ecclesiastical or social, are apt to be the same in every age
though they find expression in different modes of action. It is the form
of expression which characterises the age rather than the phenomena
which produce it.
Islip’s first connection with such matters appears to have been in 1526,
when Wolsey appointed him to search for heretics among the Hanseatic
merchants in London. The search was apparently successful, for he
presided together with the Bishop of Bath and Wells at the trial of one
Hans Ellerdope, the main accusation against whom was the possession of
one of Luther’s prohibited treatises. The trial took place probably in
the Chapter House of the Abbey, for the Prior, the Archdeacon, and
another monk were all present. Ellerdope protested that he could neither
speak nor understand Latin. He had not therefore read a single page of
the book but had refrained from burning it because it was not his own
property. He had found it in the chamber of one of his master’s agents
on whose death he had taken possession of it. The issue of the trial
does not appear but it seems probable that Ellerdope was acquitted.
In 1527 the Chapter House was definitely the scene of a trial. On this
occasion Wolsey, attended by a long array of bishops, lawyers and
others, presided there at the trial of one Thomas Bilney for heretical
pronouncements. Bilney is only of interest as being, according to Foxe,
“a Cambridge man and the first Framer of that University in the
knowledge of Christ.” More interesting would it be to have heard the
talk of the monastery upon the trial which was taking place in its very
centre.
In the last two years of his life Islip was connected with two more such
trials, both of which were held in the Consistory Court in St. Paul’s
Cathedral and were presided over by the Bishop of London. One of these
was that of Richard Bayfield, a renegade monk of Bury, against whom
thirteen articles of offence were alleged. The more important items in
the indictment were the importation of the works of Luther and of divers
other heretics, and the holding of opinions contrary to Holy Church. The
Abbots of Westminster and Waltham together with certain of the nobility
and others assisted the Bishop at the trial. Bayfield was found guilty
and handed over to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London. In due course he
suffered at the stake. The second trial was that of a leather-seller,
John Tewkesbury, who came to the same end, but in this case Islip seems
only to have been present at the first hearing.
But if this aspect of Islip’s public life is little calculated to
attract the sympathies of more tolerant times still less perhaps is the
part which he played in the matter of the King’s divorce. It was but a
minor part, but there can be little doubt as to Islip’s views in the
case. No sadder fate fell to any woman in English history than came to
Katharine of Arragon. Yet sympathy is apt to outrun judgment, and the
easily formed verdict of all but the student dwells on the pathos of her
story, makes much of the King’s sensual inclinations, and is entirely
uninterested in and impatient of the problems and niceties of
ecclesiastical law.
To attempt some defence of Islip’s action is not necessarily to attempt
the same for Henry, though the efforts of the one were enlisted in the
service of the other. To a Churchman such as Islip, though not to the
Statesman such as Wolsey, there was but one point at issue in the matter
and that was the legality of the original dispensation for the marriage
which Pope Julius II. had granted. This can hardly be too strongly
emphasised if strict justice is to be done to men such as he was. In
this connection it is to be noted that eight of the foreign universities
to whom the question was submitted and as to the general impartiality of
whose judgment there can be little question decided that the Pope’s
dispensation was null and void. The verdicts of the English universities
in Henry’s favour and those of the Spanish against him may be neglected
as not uninfluenced by questions of expediency, but it is impossible to
ignore the importance of the decision of the others.
Islip was present on two famous occasions in the year 1529: on May 31st,
when the papal commission was presented to Cardinals Wolsey and
Campeggio by the Bishop of Lincoln and a citation issued for the King
and Queen to appear before their Court, and on June 18th, when the King
appeared by proxies and Katharine attended in person to protest against
the Cardinal’s jurisdiction. In the furtherance of the King’s suit Islip
was employed with others to search for documents among the royal papers
and to report on others in the possession of Garter King of Arms.
On July 13th, 1530, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent a petition to
Clement VII. praying him to grant the divorce “if it can be granted with
justice.” This petition was signed by both Archbishops, by four Bishops
and by twenty-two Abbots of whom Islip was one. The Pope’s difficulties
in the matter are well known and the story of Islip’s connection with
it may be concluded with the mention of the letter which the King wrote
on July 10th, 1531, telling Benet to suggest to the Pope that if he were
afraid of the Emperor Charles, as he undoubtedly was, the Archbishop of
Canterbury might be appointed to judge of the matter. With the
Archbishop might be associated the Abbot of Winchcombe or the Abbot of
Westminster, “a good old father.” This suggestion of course came to
nothing and Islip did not live to see the matter finally determined.
Some time, however, before Henry’s letter Wolsey had died. Before his
fall it had seemed for a moment that others would be involved with him
among whom was Islip. In one of the indictments of Wolsey under the
_Statute of Præmunire_, an undated copy of which is in the archives of
the Abbey, Islip was also charged. After setting forth the accusations
against Wolsey the document may be translated somewhat thus:--
“Nevertheless John, Abbot of the monastery of St. Peter, Westminster,
little weighing the said statute, verily indeed setting it at naught,
scheming and seeking after the said Cardinal in all his evil deeds,
joined himself to him in a fuller and more extravagant use of his said
powers and pretended legatine authority, and took him as his guide and
almost as his tutor and gradually undermined the laws of this realm and
at last almost extinguished the same, with the result that the
aforesaid Cardinal bore himself the more loftily and insolently in his
legatine state and dignity. Upon a day at Westminster the said Abbot
submitted himself to the Cardinal and accepted and approved the several
legatine faculties and professed obedience to the same Cardinal and
promised it by a binding oath. And also he promised him the annates of
his exempt monastery right up to the Feast of the Annunciation, 20 Henr.
VIII., and caused him to be paid in full at Westminster. And so the said
Abbot abetted the said Cardinal in his contempt of the King....”
_Præmunire_ was a convenient weapon in the King’s hands and he was
graciously pleased to pardon Islip with various others against whom
similar indictments had been laid. The pardon in Islip’s case may have
facilitated the acquisition by the King of lands on which he had cast a
covetous eye, the story of which has already been told.
Such is the record of the part played in public affairs by a Westminster
abbot in the later history of the monastery. Scanty as it is and
disconnected, it will yet be seen how that public life from which he
could hardly escape must have severed him from the spiritual duties
which the Rule of his Order enjoined upon him. In justice to him it must
be said that he was the victim of a system which had developed too far
for him to be able to check it.