Tutbury Priory

Tutbury was another house which had always had aristocratic connections, and its history had been influenced by its proximity to Tutbury Castle, one of the great houses of the Dukes of Lancaster. Its dependence on St. Peter-sur-Dive was ended in consequence of the French Wars, though Lancaster had some difficulty to enforce his authority.

On a vacancy occurring in 1337 in the headship of the Priory Henry Earl of Lancaster claimed the presentation, alleging that the Prior who had just resigned had been appointed on his nomination. The monks claimed the right of election, and asserted that the last Prior, though he had been nominated by Lancaster, had been rejected and another elected, whose election, however, had been set aside by the Abbot of the parent house of St. Peter-super-Divam. Against this exercise of authority on the part of the parent house they had appealed to Rome. The suit was still pending, and they alleged that the Prior had only resigned through conviction that judgment would be given against him. But they could not deny that Lancaster was patron of the house, and he won his case, and his nominee was ordered to be admitted by the Bishop.[114]

The new authority was not more effective than the foreign had been, and Bishop Norbury found at Tutbury general disorder, incontinency, addiction to hunting, and even a military spirit. It is to be feared that the Kings valued the control they had acquired over the houses with foreign connections mainly for its financial advantage. Henry IV gave his Queen Joan charges on the revenues of Tutbury and we have already seen that the claim to nominate to a corrody there was enforced as late as 1532.[115]

In 1535 the Prior was Arthur Meverell. He had only just been appointed. His predecessor had died in the January of the very year the Commissioners visited the Priory, and the Earl of Shrewsbury had immediately written to Cromwell begging the preferment for the Sub-Prior, “Dn. Arthur Meverell.” Even before the late Prior was dead, a recommendation of Meverell for the post soon to be vacant had been sent in, and an unknown hand has endorsed it: “He was my godfather, and I knew him a comely grave man.”[116] The Bishop wrote to Cromwell on May 7th: “I beg you will not be displeased in the matter of the Prior of Tutbury. I have your letters wherein you desired me not to meddle therein. But now your pleasure known the bond shall be substantially made and the penalty sent to you with all diligence”; and on May 28th: “I sent to the Prior of Tutbury to repair to you.”[117] Dn. Arthur Meverell was, apparently, to judge from his later history, one of the “divers abbottes that could be perswaded or were ... for the purpose placed ... [and who subsequently] made surrender of their houses and conveied them to the Kinge by order of lawe, and had competent pencions.”[118]

The summary of Tutbury is arranged in counties; firstly, the temporal income from Derbyshire, then that from Staffordshire; then comes the spiritual income: annual “pensions” from various counties grouped together (£25 11s. 4d.), and tithes arranged in counties. The outgoings are arranged under the headings of “pensions,” fixed rents, annual fees, and alms.

The temporal income from Derbyshire was £141 14s. 3d. and from Staffordshire, £29 4s. 1d.; £38 11s. 5d. from Doveridge and £8 from the demesne lands called Doveridge Holt there; demesne lands (£5) at West Broughton, and Tutbury (“Chapel Yard,” £3 16s. 10d., and “Prior’s Holmes,” £2 6s. 8d.); perquisites of the Courts at Doveridge, Matherfield, Kirkbroughton, and Marston, 16s. 8d.; lands, etc., at Somersall, Osmaston, and Edulneston, Wotton, Ednaston, and Holington, Kirkbroughton, Duffield (John Prince), Norbury (called “the lands of the demesne”), Fenton, Brailsford, Overton, and Matherfield. At Mulneston is a mill worth (with lands) £2 0s. 9d.

The temporal outgoings included £2 0s. 8d. in fixed rents and £18 13s. 4d. in annual fees. The former comprised 5s. “Sheriff’s Geld” for Wetton; 2s. 4d., chief rents in Tutbury; 3s. 4d., “Palfrey Money” in the Hundred of Apultre, and £1 10s. to the Keepers of Needwood Forest at the Feast of the Purification. All except the last item went to the King.[119]

Annual fees comprised £3 6s. 8d. to the Chief Steward, George, Earl of Shrewsbury; £1 6s. 8d. to Henry Pole, Clerk of the Manor Courts; £2 to Francis Basset, Auditor, and £2 to Humfry Meverell, receiver of the bailiffs, Roland Heth (the franchises of Tutbury and West Broughton) paid £2, and the others £1 6s. 8d. each as follows: William Hyll (Wetton), Ralf Wodcoke (Matherfield), Richard Lane (Edlaston and Osmonston), William Wetton (Adnaston and Hollington), Thomas Wyllot (Marston and Duffield), Henry Mylward (Doveridge).

The spiritual outgoings comprised 13s. 4d. to the Bishop for the appropriated church of Broughton; £6 13s. 4d. to the Dean and Chapter for the church of Matherfield; £8 2s. 2d. to the Archdeacon of Derby (Richard Strete) for Kirkbroughton and Marston (procurations and synodals); £5 to Thurston Courtnay, Vicar of Tutbury; £6 13s. 4d. to Robert Gaunt, Vicar of Kirkbroughton; and 15s. to the Archdeacon of Stafford for procurations for Matherfield and Tutbury.

The alms were £2 given to the poor at Corpus Christi, by ancient foundation, and £1 given on the anniversary of the death of the founder.

The valuation subsequent to the Dissolution, as given in Monasticon (iii, 399), is impossible to compare with that of Valor Ecclesiasticus, the items and allotments being so grouped and apportioned that they do not correspond with the earlier arrangement in the great majority of cases. New rents appear at Doveridge to the amount of nearly £48, and the demesne there has risen from £8 to £25 7s. Doveridge Rectory is increased exactly £2. At Wetton, demesne is given worth £8 16s., rents £36 16s. 10¾d., and the Rectory, £8 6s. 8d. Matherfield Rectory was only worth £4 10s. in tithes. The tithe at Sudbury is called “St. Mary’s Tithe,” and appears at only half its former value. Sales of wood and perquisites of the Court are mentioned at Churchbroughton, Edelston, Calton, Wetton, Shirley, Hollington, Esteleke (Leics.), Hatton, Tutbury, Langley, and Doveridge, but in every instance the amount is stated as nulla. Redditus mobiles are mentioned at Wetton (£4 4s.), and Doveridge (13s. 6d.). At Hollington £15 13s. 4d. is given as “payment in lieu of pigs” (Pens’ sive Porc’) and at Wymondham the tithes of pigs appear as having been leased at a rent of £1 9s. 8d. [Firm’ Porc Xmae ad Firm’ dimiss’). The total valuation was £358 2s. 0¾d.

It will be noticed that no friaries have been mentioned: the Diocesan Returns of Valor Ecclesiasticus entirely omit them. The reason is possibly to be found in the remark which is made under the heading of “House of the Friars Minors at Coventry”[120]: “Brother John Stafford being examined upon oath, says that they have no lands or tenements nor any other possessions or revenues spiritual or temporal of any annual value, but only the licensed alms of the neighbourhood and the uncertain charity of the people.” That no attempt was made to estimate the worth of such “alms and charity” may be taken as indicating a certain amount of sympathetic regard for the friars.

We know, however, that the Black Friars at Newcastle-under-Lyme received rents to the amount of £2 per year. At Stafford the Austin Friars had rents bringing in £2 11s. 8d. and the Grey Friars £1 6s. 8d. The latter had some timber and growing corn, six “lands” in the common fields, a close and an orchard, and a meadow which had been given them recently by Robert Quytgrave, gent., for a yearly obit. Half of it was let at 20s. annual rent. At the Dissolution Quytgrave asked for the return of the gift as, he alleged, the bargain had not been kept.

There are other omissions which are more surprising. Woods were extensive in Staffordshire yet they are unmentioned in Valor Ecclesiasticus in all the Staffordshire houses with the single exception of Burton-on-Trent. Even in the post-Dissolution valuation of Tutbury Priory woods are only mentioned in order to record that they produce no revenue. Yet the earlier history of the houses shows that they possessed large tracts of woodland which should have yielded a profitable income. The Black Friars at Newcastle, we learn from Bishop Ingworth, had a “proper wood,” leased to Master Broke. The value of mills, whether water-mills for grinding corn, or fulling-mills, for fulling or milling cloth by beating it with wooden mallets and cleaning it with soap or Fuller’s earth, is often small, and there is no mention of any revenue from tolls or markets. A recent Act of Parliament (21 Henry VIII, c. 13) had forbidden the monks to engage in trade, and they appear to have complied with its behests. The revenue from salt-pans is small: perhaps for the same reason. Water-mills are mentioned at Burton (2), Bromley Hurst, Derby (belonging to Burton Abbey); Alton, Cauldon, and Ellaston (belonging to Croxden); Hulton, Normacot, and More (belonging to Hulton Abbey); Ronton; Drayton (belonging to St. Thomas’s, Stafford); Stone; Trentham (2), and Chaldon (belonging to Trentham Priory; and at Mulneston belonging to Tutbury Priory. The three at Hulton were only worth in all £1 5s. 8d. a year, and that at Ronton was only worth 18s. 9d. a year. The three belonging to Croxden produced at most £6 6s. 8d. a year, and the one at Tutbury £2 0s. 9d. On the other hand, the one at Stone was worth £4 a year, and the two at Burton were worth no less than £12 a year.

Fulling-mills are only found at Rocester and Stone, and their annual value in each case is small, £2 6s. 8d. and £1 6s. 8d. respectively, so that in Staffordshire at any rate it could not be said that the monasteries competed to any large extent with lay industries. Salt-pans are only mentioned in the case of Dieulacres (£3) and Ronton (£1 11s.). It is strange that no mention is made of the Pottery Works at Hulton Abbey, and the Tannery which the same house had possessed at the time of Pope Nicholas IV’s Taxatio (1288) had also disappeared. In the Taxatio four mills had been taken into account in the valuation of Burton Abbey, one each in those of Croxden, Dieulacres, and Stone, and two each in those of Hulton, Ronton, St. Thomas’s Priory, and Tutbury.

The revenue from Courts is also small. It is as follows:

£s.d.
Burton Abbey368
Dieulacres Abbey400
Hulton Abbey120
Rocester Abbey68(in post-Dissolution Valuation).
St. Thomas’s Priory32
Stone Priory134(£1 6s. 8d. in post-Dissolution Valuation).
Trentham Priory120
Tutbury Priory168(nulla in post-Dissolution Valuation).

It is difficult to account for the smallness of these figures. It is idle to say the monks withheld all the information they possessed when we find the Valuers after the Dissolution deliberately stating that the revenue from all the Courts which had belonged to Tutbury was nothing. Perhaps the Court profits were in many cases included in other items, but more probably the explanation is to be found in the feeling of insecurity which must have been general throughout the whole period with which we are dealing. The shadow of the impending Dissolution must have been for some time darkening the land, and tenants would not readily take new tenancies, with the accompanying admission fees, in the general uncertainty. It shows that there had been few changes of tenants or of tenures during recent years.

CHAPTER VII
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 lis. xiiid. The Graye Fryeres ther, halfe the quere ledeyd and a chapell, small implementes, no plate but a chales and vi. small sponys, in renttes xxvis. iiiid. 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 xls. 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.

CHAPTER VIII
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 viiili., 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 xls.,” 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]

The following witnesses signed:

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]

The following signed as witnesses:

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 xviiis. 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]

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 Munke-corn.Barley.Peas.Hay.
Arberton Grange3 qrs.11 qrs.40 qrs.10 qrs.20 loads
Berkswick Grange12 „ 4 „ 
St. Thomas’s Priory12 „ 

There were also the following farm implements and horses:

Waggons.Harrows.Ploughs.Cart.Cart Horses.Mares.
Arberton Grange22132
Berkswick Grange222

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 Grange1298607066
Berkswick Grange12809

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.

CHAPTER IX
LOSS AND GAIN

We do not propose to enter into a discussion of the principles which were involved in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, or of the religious and moral loss and gain which ensued. It would be superfluous and profitless. We may, however, attempt to form an idea of the way those who were responsible for the suppression solved the various practical questions which had to be faced in bringing the religious houses to an end, and to estimate the degree of success which attended their efforts. Of course we shall consider only the immediate results: the broader and ultimate religious, constitutional, and economic effects are the province of the historian of the epoch and the nation, not of the student of a brief episode in the history of a single locality.

There were many material interests to be considered, for it must not be forgotten that the monks and nuns, friars and canons, were not the only people affected by the changes we have been considering. The King, the clergy, the tenants, the lay people employed, maintained, and assisted at the monasteries, all had interests more or less important.

We may note at the outset that the necessity for taking into consideration the material interests involved was fully recognised. According to the instructions issued to the suppression officials who dealt with the lesser monasteries, the Superior of each house was to be provided for, but no one else. Accordingly at Trentham we find no record of pensions to any others except the Prior. The rest were to be given the option of receiving “capacities” or of being transferred to other houses. This was following the precedent of earlier dissolutions, and it will be remembered that Dr. David Pole, of Calwich, was ordered to be “translated to some good house of his religion near.”[204] While the work of destruction was yet on a small scale, and its ultimate extension unsuspected, it may have appeared less necessary to conciliate public opinion, by removing occasion for complaints of material and pecuniary loss, than appeared later. As it became evident that the destruction of the monasteries was to become wholesale, and that great numbers of people, not only religious but lay folk, must be affected, it may well have seemed politic and wise to take pains to assure everyone that vested interests would be respected.

Accordingly a different policy was pursued in the later dissolutions. All the religious received payments and most received pensions.

At the suppression of Brewood,[205] Prioress Isabel Launder received a reward of £2 and a pension of £3 6s. 8d.; each of the nuns a reward of £1 and a pension of £1 13s. 4d. At Stafford[206] the payments were as follows:

£s.d.£s.d.
Richard Whytell, “late Prior”600reward,26134pension
Richard Harvey, Sub-Prior200„600„
Sir Christopher Simson200„600„
Sir Thomas Bageley200„568„
Sir William Pykstok200„568„
Sir William Stapulton200„500„
Sir William Boudon100„

No explanation is given as to why William Boudon received a smaller “reward” than the rest, and was awarded no pension; but, as we have already noticed, he had not signed the Deed of Surrender on the previous day and perhaps he had to be punished for his recalcitrancy.

At Dieulacres[207] the arrangements were of a similar nature:

£s.d.£s.d.
Thomas Whitney, Abbot600reward,6000pension
Robert Bageley, Prior2100„6000„
Henry Bennett2100„600„
George Ferny2100„
Brother Rauffe Motesset200„568„
Randall Barnes200„568„
Brother William Crosse200„568„
Brother Robert Cherinton200„568„
Brother Edmond Bolton200„500„
Brother William Prowdluffe200„500„
Thomas Loke200„200„
Brother Richard Gordon200„200„
John Bykerton200„200„

To George Ferny no pension was allotted. Pensions to “late monks” of Croxden, Rocester, Tutbury, and Burton are mentioned in subsequent records. In 1553 the payments to late monks of Tutbury appear as follows: Prior Thomas Meverell, £50; Thomas Moreton, alias Sutton, £7; Richard Arnold, £6 13s. 4d.; Thomas Raynard, £6; Robert Stafford, £6; Roger Hilton, £6.

In the pension lists of 2–3 Philip and Mary, Robert Moore, who had been one of the prebendaries of the collegiate church of Burton-on-Trent, appears in receipt of £6; John Carter, a “late canon,” £6; William Sutton, “minor canon,” £6; and William Hether, epistoller, £5; with Thomas Smith, incumbent of a chantry, £1 5s. 9d.

Monks of Burton who were in receipt of pensions in 1540 were as follows: John Pole, Robert Robynson, Robert Heithcott, William Fyssher, John Goodcole, William Symon, and Humphrey Cotton. Of these the following appear in the list of Mary’s reign above-mentioned: William Fyssher, £6; William Symonds, £5; and Humphrey Cotton, 40s. The following also had pensions then: Robert Brocke, alias Brooke (who succeeded Abbot Edie as Dean), £66 13s. 4d.; John Rudde, £15; Roger Bulle (? Ball) and John Jermy, alias Heron, £6 13s. 4d. There are “annuities” also to twenty-five others, two of £5, one of £4, one of £3 6s. 8d., two of 53s. 4d., one of 50s., and three of 40s., and so on to 20s., but none of the names are the same as appear in Valor Ecclesiasticus, though John Moseley (20s.) may be the son of Richard Mosley, bailiff of Findern and Stapenhill, who received 13s. 4d. in 1535.

Ecclesiastics who proved compliant were often well rewarded, as we have seen in the case of David Pole of Calwich. The Abbot of Burton became the dean of the collegiate church which took the place of the Abbey for a few years. At the suppression of Forde Abbey the Abbot, who had been the royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden and many other Cistercian houses, received “fourtie wayne lodes of fyre wood to be taken yerely during his lyfe owte of suche woods being no parte of demaynes of the said late howse as the officers of the Kings courte of the augmentacions or there deputies for the tyme there shall appoynte and assigne ... lxxxli.”[208]

It would be deeply interesting if we could trace the after history of the rank and file of the ejected monks, nuns, and friars. Unfortunately, the materials are of the scantiest.

If the history of the dissolution of the religious houses in France in our own days in any way reproduces that of the dissolution in England in the sixteenth century, many of the religious were obliged to take up secular employment. Did the friars of Stafford[209] make their purchases with the object of carrying on business? Besides “ii brasse pottes” in the kitchen, they bought out of their brewhouse “iii leads”—i.e., pans, “one to brue [brew] in,” and “ii to kele [cool] in” (i.e., “coolers”); besides “fates” (which Cowell’s Interpreter explains as the vessels, each containing a quarter, used to measure malt), a “bultyng hutch” or sifting tub, and “a knedyng troughe.” The prospect for the nuns must have been terrible.[210] They received very small pensions. They were turned adrift in a world whose moral sense had been shaken by the accusations lately brought against the inmates of the religious houses, and among people whose betters were described by Legh[211] as living “so incontinently having their concubines openly in their houses, with five or six of their children, putting from them their wyfes, that all the contrey therewith be not a littill offendyd, and takithe evyll example of theym.” The last Abbot of Rocester appears to have continued to live near his destroyed house, if the entry in the earliest volume of the Rocester parish registers—“1576, Aug. 14, Willm. Grafton, prs.... sep.”—records his burial. The last Prior of Trentham was Thomas Bradwall, and a “Thos. Bradwall, s. of John B.,” was buried at Trentham on March 13th, 1567.

Thomas Whitney, the last Abbot of Dieulacres, continued to live in the town of Leek, in Milne Street. In 1541 he was one of the witnesses to the Crown sale of Swythamley, etc., to William Traford of Wilmslow.[212] He made his will in 1558[213] and in it expressed a desire to be buried in Westminster Abbey.

Ample provision was also made for the lay officials: the laity, at all events, were to have no grievances. Of course the chief stewards took care to be compensated. The chief steward of Burton Abbey was George, Earl of Huntingdon, and his annual fee was £6 13s. 4d.; in Mary’s reign his successor, Francis, was in receipt of £3 6s. 8d. At the dissolution of Dieulacres “my lord of Darby, Stuard of the Seid monastery,” whose fee had not been allowed by the Commissioners of Valor Ecclesiasticus, received a pension of £2. William Davenport lost £1 6s. 8d. and received £4;[214] John Cordon, 13s. 4d. and £1; Humfry Whitney, £2 and £3 6s. 8d. Besides these, two other bailiffs, a forester and two stewards, and eleven other men, received “fees and annuities.”

At Stafford Lord Ferrers, the High Steward, was pensioned (40s.) with thirteen other lay officials, including Richard Torner, baker. Rewards were given to twenty-nine “servants,” of whom seven were also pensioned. There were four “plough-drivers” who received 1s. 8d. each, and six women. John Coke, the bailiff of Dudley, held his office by an appointment for life, and at the Dissolution the terms of the agreement were carefully respected, for the grant of the priory and its possessions to Sir John Dudley in March, 1541, was expressly charged with the annual payment of John Coke’s fee of £2. In 1541 there are records of the half-yearly payments (on April 20th and October 4th) to Nicholas Whitney, of Dieulacres, and his wife Mary. The payment appears again in 1542.

The lesser “servants,” labourers, “launders and pore bedewomen,” and the like, were paid off with lump sums, and no further responsibility in their case remained.

Of course many of the bailiffs and stewards continued in their old posts under the new owners. The Dissolution was the reverse of a loss to them. But they had to find sureties and guarantees for their honesty. For instance, Humphrey Whitney, of Middlewich, bailiff of “Wycch,” is noted in 1541 as finding sureties to the amount of £120; Roland Heth, of Tutbury, bailiff of Wetton, etc., 100 marks, and of Elkeston, 40 marks; Geoffrey Legh, of Berreston, Salop, bailiff of Great Gate, £120; and William Davenport, bailiff of Abbots Frith, etc., £200. An interesting entry of the same date shows Sampson Erdeswick, of Sandon, becoming sureties for Robert Harcourt, bailiff of lands which had belonged to Ronton Abbey, for 200 marks.[215]

Even if it were intended that the pensions and annuities should be loyally paid the charge was a wise one to incur. It saved appearances by appearing to respect “vested interests”; it effectually prevented agitation against the Government by any who desired to retain their pensions; and it was a charge which would steadily decrease and eventually disappear in the ordinary course of nature.

But it is to be feared that the pensioners were by no means loyally treated as time went on. In a few months a tenth part of all pensions was deducted as a royal subsidy, and two years later a fourth. John Scudamore had the collection of the former sum, and in his “Declaration of Receipts”[216] payments are found from the following: Brewood—Isabel Launder and her three nuns; Croxden—John Orpe and ten others; Dieulacres—Thomas Whitney and others; Hulton—Edward Wilkyns and eight others; Rocester—William Grafton and others; Ronton—Thomas Allen and the curate of Elynhall; Stone—“two curates of Stone”; Trentham—Thomas Bradwall; Tutbury—Roger Hilton and six others. Unfortunately the leaf is mutilated so that the other names in the case of Dieulacres and Rocester are missing.

Moreover, there was unseemly delay in paying the pensions. Receipts dated May, 1541, appear for half-year’s pensions due the previous Lady-Day[217] signed by the following monks of Croxden: Robert Clerke (£10 13s. 4d.), Robert Cade, John Orpe, William Beche, John Thornton, and Richard Meyre. Poor Thomas Whitney, the late Abbot of Dieulacres, had great difficulty in obtaining his pension regularly, and became involved in debt in consequence. We find him writing as follows to Scudamore in December, 1540:[218]

“Upon the letter to my brother to appear before Mr. Auditor and you at Burton-upon-Trent the 13th of this December I prepared to come thither. Coming to Leke on Saturday night I heard you were departed towards Lichfield and Worcestershire, and considering the danger by evil weather and floods I thought best to send my brother after you and spare myself; and I trust you will be good to me for my pension due at Michaelmas last. I had to borrow £8 of my said brother: I beg you to repay him and deliver the rest to my servant, Richard Day. Also I beg you to send by Richard Day the pensions of my poor brethren that are not able to come for them, and let me have letters to the bailiffs to pay my pension regularly.”

Any personal debts which could be fastened on the monks were looked after with relentless persistence: so late as 1542 we find the last Abbot of Hulton being harassed about arrears he still owed.

On the other hand, the debts owing from the monastic estates were slow in finding payment. Dieulacres owed Elizabeth Alenn £22 at its dissolution, and in 1541 and 1542 instalments were still being paid. Such a mode of payment was disastrously slow and unsatisfactory. Henry Hargreaves, of Luddington, to whom Dieulacres owed £29 0s. 4d., and who came first on the list of creditors drawn up by Legh and Cavendish, apparently died without receiving his money, and at the end of 1541 Laurence Hargreaves was glad to compound the old debt for the sum of £20. In the same month Peter Bonye accepted £14 6s. 8d. in discharge of the £20 which was still owing to him from Tutbury Priory. We can well understand that every obstacle would be put in the way of the proving of claims. Richard Corveysor had a patent for £1 6s. 8d. a year granted to him by the Abbot of Dieulacres before the Dissolution, but he did not manage to get it allowed till 1542.[219]

Indeed a keen eye to business was possessed by all the officials concerned, and every care was exercised to make as much as possible out of the monastic property. Just as old debts were often compounded by the acceptance of smaller sums, no doubt in despair caused by long delay, so payments for work done on the estates were often made at less than their proper amount. John Pratye had a lease for two years of Heath Mill (apparently formerly the property of Trentham Priory) and, in 1538, he sent in an account for repairs done, showing payments to various workmen, who are named, amounting to £16 7s. 8d. The bailiff was Robert Whyttworth, and although he passed the account and signed it as correct, John Pratye is found offering to take £10 down in discharge of it. The document affords an interesting illustration of the way the monastic estates were managed when they passed into the hands of the Crown.[220]

There being such difficulty in obtaining the payment of money legally due within anything like reasonable time, it is not surprising to find that speculators arose and did a brisk business. The abuse became so marked that in Edward VI’s reign Parliament had to pass an Act (2–3 Edward VI, Cap. VII) “against the craftie and deceitful buying of Pensions from the late Monasteries,” but without much success in providing a remedy.

Of course the Dissolution entailed a very large material loss to the Church. The gross total income of the monasteries in Staffordshire, as given in Valor Ecclesiasticus, was £1,874 0s. 1½d.—an estimate, as we have seen, which was probably below the mark. If it be said that the monks took but little share in the spiritual life of the people and did but little practical work for the Church, we may at least take into consideration the amount they received from tithes, glebe, and voluntary offerings from parishes. They received, as we have seen, £543 6s. 5d. from this source and paid out £19 7s. 10d. Of the former sum practically nothing reverted to its original use, so that, even if the latter continued to be paid, the Church, though it might be no worse off in the matter of tithes than it was before, was at any rate no better. The benefices decreased in value. Ellaston was valued by Strete before the suppression of Calwich at £13 6s. 8d.;[221] in Valor Ecclesiasticus it stands at £4 9s. 2d.[222] The Bishop of the Diocese lost £94 6s. 8d. in fees and the Archdeacons £10 13s. 4d. The fees paid to the King amounted to £10 9s. 7d., and would, of course, continue under the new owners.

The total amount of wealth brought to the Royal Treasury is quite incalculable. Besides the whole annual income of the monasteries, there was the value of the contents of the houses, plate, furniture, stores, grain, cattle, etc. The former was enormous, but the latter was no despicable figure. We have figures of some of the sales at the Dissolution:

Goods Sold Plate Lead Bells
£ s. d.
Brewood Nunnery 7 6 1
St. Thomas’s Priory 87 9 6 28½oz. £40 £54
Dieulacres Abbey 63 14 10 117oz. £720 £37 10s.
Newcastle--Black Friars 14oz. choir &
cloister
Stafford--Austin Friars 32 6 4 13oz. £8 8s.
  „  Grey Friars 34 3 10 16oz. £45 £10
Lichfield--Grey Friars 68 15 0
Croxden Abbey 9 9 8
Rocester Abbey 11 6
Hulton Abbey £19 16s.
Total (of figures shown) 304 6 9 448½ oz. £805 £129 14s.

Besides the above figures we know of much lead at other places. In 1555 Scudamore was being sued for arrears from the sales of lead from Croxden, Rocester, Dieulacres, Tutbury, St. Thomas’s, and Dudley, amounting to close on £500, so that the figure shown in the above table evidently represents but a small proportion of the total amount received from this source alone. Of course there were considerable deductions for rewards and expenses, but the amount of wealth brought immediately into the Royal Treasury was very large. And a very short time earlier £400 at least had been paid by Staffordshire houses for being allowed to continue.

It is noticeable that nothing is said about the monastic libraries. As a rule, books are almost unmentioned in any of the documents of the Suppression, so that we might suppose the houses were destitute of literature. But the scanty survivals are sufficient to show that the reverse was the fact.

The Annals of Burton are in the British Museum,[223] and so is the Chronicle of Croxden. Various other books from the monastic libraries of Staffordshire have also drifted thither, one of which, a copy of St. Augustine from Burton Abbey, has on the fly-leaf a list of the books in the Library in the thirteenth century.[224] It shows that there were then over sixty volumes, many of which contained several works. These are Commentaries on various books of the Bible, most of the works of the Fathers, sundry books of Sermons and Homilies, Lives of various saints, and several editions of Bede’s History, one of which is in English. There were also copies of the Gospels and of the Psalms in English, an English Hymnary, and an English Homily book. Abbot Geoffrey, the sixth Abbot of Burton, wrote the life and miracles of St. Modwen in a quarto of 167 folios in double columns,[225] and the first Abbot of Croxden himself copied out the greater part of the Bible. A later Abbot of Croxden, in the thirteenth century, bought for the Library an annotated Bible in nine volumes for fifty marks. Abbot William de Over, who was elected in 1297, much enriched the Library. It is evident there were books in considerable numbers in the monasteries, yet they are unmentioned in the records of the dissolution. Very occasionally we find “old books” sold for trivial sums, and one or two Missals are mentioned. At Stafford Robert Dorrington bought two “lots” of “old bokes,” those in the Library at the Grey Friars (with a coffer) for two shillings, and those in the vestry for eightpence; the “old bokes in the quyer” at the Austin Friars sold for sixpence. At Stafford two Missals sold for eightpence and twelvepence each, and at Lichfield one fetched fourpence.

The books and documents that were important as title-deeds were of course looked after. The original Chartulary of Burton Abbey is still in the possession of the Marquis of Anglesey, and that of Dieulacres is possessed by the Earl of Macclesfield. The Chartularies of Stone and Ronton are in the British Museum.[226] But probably the greater part of the books were treated in a manner similar to that in which Dr. Layton treated the books at the Oxford colleges, and no doubt the description he gave of the result of his visit to New College would apply to most of the monasteries: “We fownde all the gret quadrant court full of the leiffes ... the wynde blowing them into evere corner.”[227]

As might be supposed from the character of the agents employed, much of the spoil did not reach the Royal treasure-house without a good deal of trouble. The lead was to be melted into “plokes” and sows, weighed, and marked with the King’s marks, and delivered under indenture to the constables of neighbouring castles, such as Tutbury. But so long afterwards as the reign of Mary, John Scudamore was being called upon for the settlement of his accounts. The following letter was addressed to him from Westminster on the “laste of February,” 1555:[228]

“After our harty comendacyons, theise maye be to advertyse you that we have perused the indentures made betwyxte Mr. Sheldon and you, and accordynge to the tenure of the same have charged the sayed master Sheldon with all the leade, bell metalle, and redy money mencyoned and conteigned in the sayed indenture, which beynge deducted oute of youer charge, yett there dothe remayne to be aunsweryd by you bothe leade and bell metalle as ffollowythe, that ys to saye for leade att ... Rocestre, vi, ff.; Croxden, xiiii, ff. de.; Delacres, iiii, ff.; Tuttberye, vi, ff., i, quarter; nuper prioratus canonicorum de Stafford, xliiii, ff.; ... the celle of Dudley, iiii, ff.; ... ffor the aunswere whereof we requyer you, by the vertue of the kynge and quenes majesties comyssyon to us directed, that wythe as convenyente spede as you may after the receyte hereof sende unto us youre suffycyente deputie to accoumpte byfore us for the same, so as hereuppon their majesties may be satisfyed by you of the dett that shall faul out uppon the same. And bycause we be moche callyd uppon to reporte youer estate and dett herein, we therefore are constrayned the more ernestly to calle uppon you, whome we dought not wylle have such regarde hereunto as bothe their majesties expectacyon herein may be served (as ys mete), as also for the full ende of this charge towardes youer selfe, with which as before the ende ys troublesome and comberous unto you, so will the ende thereof be to youer quyetnes and comforte. Whereof, for that you are ouer oulde ffrende and of oulde acquayntaunce, we thought to advyse you the rather for that commyssyon ys nowe oute for the ende of those causys, of which you nowe may be dyscharged yf the faulte be not in youer selfe. We also advertysse you that Mr. Sheldone wylbe no further charged concernynge the leade and belles within your late circuyte there thenne ys conteyned in the indentures bytwyxte you and hym; and therefore you muste aunswere the reste youer selfe, whereunto we dought not but you wyll have such respecte as we may receyve youer aunswere withe expedycion.”

It is difficult to make any precise estimate of the numbers affected by the Dissolution. In the case of houses the deeds of surrender of which are extant, of course the number of signatories can be definitely stated. The Suppression papers give some further details. Valor Ecclesiasticus gives the stewards and bailiffs, etc., but, as we have seen, cannot be relied upon for completeness. From a comparison of the available data the following table has been compiled:

ReligiousBailiffs etc.ServantsChief StewardOthers
Brewood Nunnery471 chaplain
Burton Abbey11Earl of Huntingdon1 corrodian,
1 scholar
Croxden Abbey137
Dieulacres Abbey13830Lord Derby8 bedeswomen
Dudley Priory2
Hulton Abbey5Sir Philip Draycot
Sir Richard Sutton
Rocester Priory92
Ronton Priory3John Harcourt
St. Thomas’s Priory71316Earl Ferrers
Stone Priory2Sir Edward Aston
Trentham Priory4William Chetwyn1 corrodian
Tutbury Priory910Earl of Shrewsbury

The recurrence of the same surname among the lists of inmates and employees of the religious houses is worth noticing. At Dieulacres the Abbot, Thomas Whitney, had Humfrey Whitney as bailiff of his lordships and manors in Cheshire, John Whitney as chamberlain, and two other servants who bore his name and were of sufficient importance to be pensioned. At St. Thomas’s the Prior, Richard Whitwell, gave employment to another Richard, an Edward, and a Katharine, who all bore his surname; William Stapulton and Thomas Bagley were canons, and Thomas Stapulton and William Bagley were servants. Among the servants three were named Coke, two Turner, two Beche or Bech (besides one named Bache), and three were named Baker.

That there was ordinarily a bailiff at Brewood Nunnery is shown by the existence in the house of a bailiff’s chamber. It was well furnished at the Suppression, and Robert Baker, who received a “reward” of 13s. 4d., may have been the occupant.

At Dieulacres Valor Ecclesiasticus gives three bailiffs, etc., but at the Dissolution seven are mentioned, besides a forester; and eleven other men were pensioned. Lord Derby, “Steward of the Monastery and town of Leek,” received a pension at the Dissolution. At Stafford Valor Ecclesiasticus gives nine stewards: at the Suppression twenty-nine people were rewarded, which appears to mean thirteen officials (besides the High Steward and including the cook), who were also pensioned, and sixteen others, including four ploughmen and six women. At Hulton Sir Philip Draycot was Chief Steward of the Staffordshire Manors, and Sir Richard Sutton of Cambryngham.

From the names of the holders of the office of Chief Steward it may be presumed that the post was mainly an honorary one. Lord Derby and the Earls of Huntingdon and Shrewsbury are not likely to have presided often in the manor courts or to have taken much active part in the work of administration. In many cases it is even mentioned expressly that there was a deputy steward. Probably the office corresponded somewhat to that of patron of an institution, or Chancellor of a modern University: the holder lent the house the prestige of his name, attended on special occasions, and was expected to use his influence when necessity arose. It is to be feared the Chief Stewards did nothing to help the monasteries in their hour of need: many of them only used whatever knowledge they possessed of the monastic affairs to obtain a good share of the spoil. The Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Steward of Tutbury, was also Chief Steward of the Abbeys of Shrewsbury, Buildwas, Lilleshall and Wenlock in the adjoining county of Salop, of Beauchief in Derbyshire, St. Werburgh (Chester), Vale Royal and Combermere in Cheshire, Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, and Wilton in Wiltshire. Thomas Cromwell was steward of five monasteries and of New College, Oxford.

The duties of the bailiff were to supervise the work on the estates. The steward presided in the courts. Sometimes one man was both bailiff and steward. The auditors verified the accounts of the bailiffs and stewards and collectors. The collectors gathered the rents and tithes, and as the latter were often paid in kind, the work was onerous. That so much of the financial and secular work of the monasteries was in lay hands must have immensely simplified the work of dissolution. The extent and value of the property were well known, and as the tenants came into contact with lay administrators much more frequently than with the “religious” owners, the change when laymen supplanted the latter as possessors of the estates came with much less of a shock than would otherwise have been the case. The change, indeed, probably seemed slight to the tenants. They had known little and seen little of the “religious,” especially in places at a distance from the house, and the same bailiff usually continued in his office at the change of ownership.

Rents were probably not much raised. When the allotments of Valor Ecclesiasticus can be definitely identified with those of the post-dissolution valuations the rents are generally unchanged, and in any place where they appear to be larger in the latter, the increase is probably due as much to deliberate suppression of part in the earlier returns, as to increased strictness by the new owners.

For a similar reason the transfer of the tithes to lay hands was easier than would seem to have been likely. Under ordinary circumstances it would have been a bold step to have transferred to laymen payments definitely apportioned for religious purposes. But to the ordinary people the tithe had long ceased to wear an ecclesiastical dress. The vicars who had lost it had been denouncing it roundly for many years. It was regularly received by lay officials—often the collectors of the ordinary secular rents,—for the collecting of it was inevitably a matter of difficulty and much haggling, and needed expert knowledge. The benefits resulting from it appeared nil to the payers, for it was taken away from the parish to the monastery, which was often far distant. Moreover, the tithes were sometimes actually leased to laymen. Thus “the whirligig of time brought in its revenges.” The spiritual character of tithes was lost, and they were transferred to, and remained in, lay hands without difficulty. There was, however, no spiritual gain from the change. The lay owners of livings were found appointing clergy of even lower calibre than the monasteries had placed in their appropriated benefices; they often appointed their servants, men who by habit and training were utterly unfitted for the position, and not seldom on the understanding that much of the endowment should be surrendered.

The information which is available for Staffordshire throws little light on the much-discussed question of monastic charity. All that we know is that eight bedeswomen were maintained at Dieulacres, and that doles were systematically distributed at Burton, Rocester, and Tutbury. The latter were endowed and so were obliged to be recorded by the Commissioners of Valor Ecclesiasticus, but the fact that the women at Dieulacres were not mentioned shows how narrowly the official instructions were interpreted. The single instance is sufficient to show that because Valor Ecclesiasticus is silent in the majority of cases we are not justified in drawing a positive conclusion that in them no charity at all was dispensed. Indeed, one is tempted to go further and to argue that it is incredible that no other endowed alms (which the instructions permitted to be reckoned) existed in the county. At any rate this much may be said: that if the charity of which we have positive proof represents all that was distributed by the Staffordshire houses the strictures which have been so often passed on the monks for excessive and demoralising almsgiving are quite undeserved: the monasteries of Staffordshire, at any rate, were not “nurseries of dishonest mendicancy.”

Probably, however, the truth lies midway between the two extremes. The scanty records no doubt indicate that doles played no important part in the monastic system, and the definite details which are given of the extent and nature of those mentioned seem to show that charity was practised with care and judgment. The cessation of the doles would not be much felt, for they came only on stated days and at long intervals. They had not helped much to solve the problem of poor-relief while they lasted: their abolition did not add greatly to its difficulty. There was no marked increase in the number of the poor in need of relief. The ejected monks and nuns, being usually, as we have seen, pensioned more or less adequately, need not have added to the number of destitute paupers. Lay officials, servants, labourers and the like, doubtless continued, in the great majority of cases, their old occupations under new conditions.

It is probably true that the new owners were harder masters than the monks had been. But the monks seldom came into direct personal contact with their labourers. The bailiffs and stewards had managed the estates for the religious, just as they continued to do under the new owners. But the bailiffs and stewards probably had a much freer hand in the old days than in the new. The whole spirit of the estate was changed. Instead of landlords who had held the property from time immemorial, who could afford to let a bad year be set off against a good, and who were, from the very fact of old possession, indifferent or tender-hearted according to the point of view we take of their conduct, the landlords were now men whose whole conduct shows them to be possessed of keen business instincts and intent on turning their new property to the fullest account. It is impossible to think they would be influenced by any feelings of sentiment or sympathy.

The first Act of Dissolution ordered that the new owners were “to kepe or cause to be kept an honest contynewell hous and houshold in the same cyte or precynct, and to occupye yerely as moche of the same demeanes in plowyng and tyllage of husbondry, that ys to saye as moche of the seid demeanes which hath ben commonly used to be kept in tyllage by the governors, abbottes, or pryours of the same howses, monasteryes, or pryoryes.” But how far this wise and equitable provision was carried, or even intended to be carried, into effect has been seen by the deliberate arrangements which were made with the purchasers of the Friaries at Stafford and Lichfield, to take down, deface, and remove most of the buildings, even though it might be the work of three years. The new owners, indeed, seldom occupied the lands themselves. The greater ones sublet them, and lesser and greater alike speculated briskly with them. Sutcote, the “server of the Kingis Grace Chamber,” who obtained the Cistercian Nunnery at Brewood, just over the Staffordshire border, in a high-handed manner, had no sooner done so than he “offered hyt to dyvers to selle for suche a price that no man will gladly by hit at hys hand.” Trentham was only surrendered in 1536, yet in December, 1538, the Duke of Suffolk obtained by exchange a grant of the rents and reversions reserved upon the Crown leases there, and many cottages, lands, and advowsons; and at the same time procured a license to alienate. He sold it in 1540 to James Leveson, who had been so large a purchaser at the sales of the goods of the houses. The enterprising Leveson, in his turn, had no sooner secured Rushton Grange from the spoils of Hulton Abbey in 1539 than he sold it again to Biddulph of Biddulph. There is ample evidence to show he was a man who did a regular business in buying and selling monastic property of all kinds. It is evident that any inquiry into the original grants of the lands of the religious houses would throw little light upon the permanent results of the transfer of the monastic property. It would indicate at least who were the shrewdest bargainers and the readiest speculators.

But, taking all things into consideration, we may perhaps say that the social effects of the Dissolution were probably not great. Things went on in much the same way as before. Rents and tithes had to be paid to the same collectors and with much the same result. The same bailiffs and stewards generally managed the estates. Even if the new owner desired to raise the rents it would not be easy to make any sudden change in the country districts. In the towns the change would be more marked. Burgage rents could be more easily raised than those of farms and crofts, and the new owners would certainly insist on punctuality much more strictly than the “religious” had done: payments would no longer be allowed to fall into arrear.

But the amount of town property which the monks held was small. In proportion to their whole rent-roll the part which came from the towns was a mere fraction, and except such cases as Burton-on-Trent and Stafford, both of which had “monasteries” at their gates, all the houses were at a distance from the towns. In the towns accordingly it is not probable that the monks and canons were familiar figures. They played no great part in town life. The friars were the religious orders of the towns. But in Staffordshire, and indeed throughout the country, the property the friars possessed was insignificant. As we have seen it was so trifling that the Staffordshire Commissioners in 1535 did not trouble to send in any return of it. The Suppression officials only found £2 rents at Newcastle-under-Lyme, £2 4s. 8d. at the Austin Friars and £1 6s. 8d. at the Grey Friars of Stafford. We are told, also, that the Grey Friars had “in the fields six lands yearly, worth 16d.,” which apparently means six allotments in the Common Fields. They also had a close with an orchard worth 5s. The town property being so small the rent-collectors of the new owners would not find much scope for activity and strictness.

Seldom, indeed, has a great Revolution been accomplished with so little commotion and disturbance. Not only did no foreign complications ensue, but even in England itself there was very little to disturb public serenity. The Pilgrimage of Grace did not awake an echo even in so near a county as Staffordshire:[229] not a single riot is recorded, and for ordinary people the change passed, apparently, almost unnoticed. A few almsfolk and poor bedeswomen suffered, but that seemed to be all.

The reason is, as we have seen, partly because the monks, as such, played a very small part in public life—they were landlords and landlords only; and partly because the change of landlords was managed by the Government with consummate skill and infinite worldly wisdom. They made sure that everyone worth considering should profit by the transaction, and in Tudor times such a policy was sure to succeed.

For the age was one in which expediency had supplanted principle, and worldly prosperity was the one thing that mattered. The Dissolution of the Monasteries was to a very large extent prompted by cupidity. Their wealth was an irresistible attraction to the Government; to emphasise their shortcomings was a useful after-thought, and the question of justice was hardly raised by anyone. In all the correspondence connected with the fall of the Staffordshire houses there is no hint of immorality or even unworthiness. Indeed, the rights and wrongs of the business are never alluded to: the one and only topic is the personal gain for which the petitioners hoped, and the pecuniary inducements they tried to hold out to persons in authority in the hope of gaining their help. But, in the irony of fate, circumstances proved too strong for the Government, whose cupidity was largely disappointed. Begun as a source of new supplies for a prodigal king, as the work progressed it developed into a huge scheme for the wholesale bribery of the classes which had political power.

Thus, the Dissolution of the Monasteries served rather to illustrate the power of the monarchy than materially to increase its wealth. The confiscated possessions were dissipated in innumerable directions, and the royal treasury received but little permanent enrichment. Had anything like the greater proportion of the wealth of which the Church was deprived been retained by the Crown, the throne would have been rendered independent of Parliament and the constitutional victory over the Stuarts might not have been won.

APPENDIX I
EXAMPLE OF A LICENSE TO CONTINUE, GRANTED TO A “LESSER MONASTERY”

Patent Roll (Chancery), 29 Henry VIII, Part 3, Mem. 23 (18)

De renouacione Monasterii de Croxdon

Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Cum per quendam actum in parliamento nostro apud London tercio die Novembris anno regni nostri vicesimo primo inchoato et deinde usque Westmonasterium adiornato et per diversas prorogaciones usque ad et in quartum diem Februarii anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo continuato et tunc ibidem tento inter alia inactitatum existit quod nos haberemus et gauderemus nobis ac heredibus nostris imperpetuum omnia et singula monasteria Prioratus ac alias domos Religiosas Monachorum Canonicorum et Monialium quibuscumque generibus siue diversitatibus habituum Regularum siue ordinum vocarentur siue nominarentur que non habebant terras tenementa redditus decimas porciones et alia hereditamenta ultra clarum annuum valorem ducentarum librarum dicti annualis claris valoris dictorum Monasteriorum ac Prioratuum capiendi ac construendi secundum clarum valorem in Scaccario nostro certificatum. Et simili modo quod haberemus et gauderemus nobis ac heredibus nostris omnes et omnimodi sectas [sic (? scitos)] et circuitus eorundem Religiosarum domorum ac omnia et singula Maneria grangeas mesuagia terras tenementa reversiones redditus servicia decimas penciones porciones advocaciones patronatus ecclesiarum Capellarum annuitates iura intraciones condiciones et alia hereditamenta quecumque eisdem Monasterio Prioratibus siue domibus Religiosis non habentibus ut predicitur terras tenementa vel hereditamenta ultra predictum annuum valorem ducentarum librarum pertinentia siue spectantia adeo plene et integre prout Abbates Priores Abbatisse ac alii gubernatores huiusmodi Monasteriorum Prioratuum et aliarum Religiosarum domorum adtunc habuerunt illa aut habere debuerunt in iure domorum suarum habendum et tenendum omnia et singula premissa cum omnibus suis iuribus proficuis jurisdictionibus et commoditatibus nobis heredibus et successoribus notris imperpetuum ad inde faciendum et utendum nostras proprias voluntates Cumque eciam in actu predicto provideatur quod nos aliquo et quocumque tempore post confeccionem actus illius valeamus et potuissemus ad beneplacitum nostrum ordinare constituere et declarare per literas nostras patentes sub magno sigillo nostro conficiendas quod ille et tales huiusmodi predictarum domorum Religiosarum quas supprimendas et dissoluendas esse noluissemus essent perseurerarent starent continuarent et permanerent in eisdem suis corporibus corporatis ac in eisdem suis essencialibus statu qualitate condicione robore et effectu tam in possessionibus quam aliter prout essent et fuissent ante confeccionem actus predicti absque suppressione siue dissolucione earundem aut alicuius partis inde pretextu et auctoritate eiusdem actus Et quod quilibet talis huiusmodi ordinacio et declaracio per nos sic fienda et ordinanda esset bona secura et effectualis Capitalibus gubernatoribus huiusmodi Religiosarum domorum quas supprimendas et dissoluendas esse noluissemus et successoribus suis iuxta et secundum tenores et effectus literarum patencium inde conficiendarum aliqua re siue aliquibus rebus in actu predicto incontrarium inde facto non obstante prout in actu predicto inter alia plenius continetur. pretextu cuiusquidem actus Monasterium siue Abbacia beate Marie de Croxdon Covent’ et Lich diocesis in Comitatu nostro Staffordie pro eo quod non habet terras tenementa redditus decimas porciones aut hereditamenta ultra dictum clarum annuum valorem ducentarum librarum prout certificatur in dicto Scaccario nostro et ibidem plene liquet in manibus et disposicione nostris iam existit utrum dissolueretur secundum formam et effectus actus predicti an permaneret et continuaret in suo pristino et essentiali statu condicione et qualitate prout ante confeccionem actus predicti fuit. Nos volentes dictum Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predictam pro diuersis causis et consideracionibus nos ad presens specialiter mouentibus in suo pristino essenciali statu corpore condicione et qualitate permanere et continuare prout ante confeccionem actus predicti fuit ac prout esset si actus ille factus non fuisset. Sciatis igitur quod nos ob fauorem quem erga Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predictam quod non extenditur in terris tenementis et aliis hereditamentis suis ad annuum valorem ducentarum librarum in Comitatu predicto ordinis Cistriciensis Couen et [sic] diocesis gerimus et habemus. Et ut Abbas et Religiose persone eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie diuino cultu ibidem celebrando deuocius intendant hospitalitatem ac alia pietatis opera ibidem uberius excerceant de gratia nostra speciali ac ex certa sciencia et mero motu nostris ordinauimus constituimus et declarauimus erigimus et renouamus quod predictum Monasterium siue Abbacia beate Marie de Croxdon predicta imperpetuum continuabit stabit et permanebit in eodem suo corpore corporato ac in eodem suo essenciali statu gradu qualitate et condicione tam in possessionibus quam in omnibus aliis rebus tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus et mixtas [sic] prout fuit tempore confeccionis actus predicti aut aliquo tempore ante confeccionem actus predicti absque suppressione sine dissolucione aliquali eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta aut alicuius partis vel parcelle inde vigore et auctoritate actus predicti. Et ulterius de uberiori gratia nostra speciali concessimus et per presentes concedimus quod Thomas Chawner professor ordinis Cistriciensis sit deinceps Abbas dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac pro Abbate et Capitali gubernatore eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta deinceps habeatur reputetur et acceptetur eisdem modo et forma qualitate gradu condicione dignitate et robore prout dictus Thomas quarto die Februarii anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo aut antea fuit. Et quod omnes alie Religiose persone eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta modo existentes aut que quarto die Februarii dicto Anno vicesimo septimo ibidem fuerunt et iam a dicto Conuentu non separantur sint decetero et deinceps Conuentus eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac pro Conventu eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta deinceps habeantur reputentur et acceptentur eisdem modo et forma qualitate condicione et statu prout dicto quarto die Februarii dicto anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo aut antea fuerunt. Et quod predictus Thomas et Religiose persone predicte et omnes successores sui imperpetuum habeant et habebunt huiusmodi et eandem successionem in omnibus et per omnia prout ante dictum quartum diem Februarii dicto anno vicesimo septimo habuerunt et habere debuerunt ac prout habuissent et habere debuissent valuissent et potuissent si actus predictus factus non fuisset. Et quod predictus Thomas per nomen Abbatis dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et successores sui Abbates dicti monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta sint deinceps persone habiles implacitare et implacitari in omnibus sectis placitis querelis accionibus petiticionibus tam realibus quam personalibus et mixtis et aliis quibuscumque in quibuscumque Curiis et locis ac coram quibuscumque Judicibus siue Justiciariis tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus licet tangat nos heredes aut successores nostros et ad faciendum excercendum et exequendum omnia et singula alia quecumque ut Abbates dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta fecissent et facere potuissent ante confeccionem actus predicti. Ac prout fecissent et facere potuissent si idem actus minime factus et editus fuisset. Et quod predictus Abbas et Religiose persone predicte ut Abbas et Conuentus Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et successores sui Abbates et Conuentus Monasterii siue Abbacie illius habeant gaudeant et teneant ac habere possint et valeant imperpetuum totum predictum Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predicta necnon ecclesiam Campanalia scitum Cimitorium fundum ambitum precinctum et circuitum ecclesie eiusdem ac omnia et singula Maneria terras tenementa redditus reversiones servicia possessiones penciones perpetuitates et hereditamenta nostra quecumque necnon commoditates ornamenta iocalia bona et catalla et alias res quascumque tam spirituales quam temporales eidem Monasterio siue Abbacie quouismodo spectantia siue pertinentia modo et forma prout haberent gauderent et tenerent aut habere gaudere et tenere potuissent et valerent si actus predictus factus et editus non fuisset. Et pro maiore securitate de et in premssiis prefatis Abbati et Conuentui Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et successoribus suis adhibenda Sciatis insuper quod nos de uberiori gratia nostra speciali dedimus et concessimus ac per presentes damus et concedimus prefato Abbati dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et Conuentui eiusdem loci et successoribus suis totum dictum Monasteruim siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predicta necnon totum situm fundum ambitum precinctum et circuitum ecclesiam Campanile et Cimitorium eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac omnia et singula domos Maneria mesuagia terras tenementa boscos subboscos redditus reversiones servicia feoda Militum Warda maritagia relevia escaeta parcos warrenas stagna vivaria piscarias communas Rectorias vicarias advocaciones et patronatus ecclesiarum Capellarum et Cantariarum terras glebas penciones porciones decimas oblaciones Curias letas visus franci plegii libertates jurisdictiones franchesias et alia iura possessiones et hereditamenta quecumque ac omnia bona et catalla Campanas iocalia ornamenta et alia quecumque eidem Monasterio siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta nuper spectantia siue pertinencia. Et que predictus Abbas et Conventus quarto die Februarii dicto anno vicesimo septimo aut antea vel postea in iure Monasterii siue Abbacie illius habuerunt tenuerunt vel gauisi fuerunt. Et que ad manus nostras racione et pretextu actus predicti devenerunt et devenire debuerunt adeo plene et integre et in tam amplis modo et forma prout dicti Abbas et Conuentus dicto quarto die Februarii dicto Anno vicesimo septimo et ante faccionem actus predicti in iure Monasterii siue Abbacie predicte illa habuerunt tenuerunt vel gauisi fuerunt et adeo plene et integre ac in tam amplis modo et forma prout illa racione pretextu vigore et auctoritate actus predicti ad manus nostras devenerunt et devenire debuerunt aut in manibus nostris iam existunt vel existere deberent. Habendum tenendum et gaudendum predictum Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac omnia et singula cetera premissa cum suis iuribus pertinenciis et commoditatibus uniuersis prefato Thome Abbati dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie illius et Conuentui eiusdem loci et successoribus suis in puram et perpetuam elemosinam imperpetuum de nobis et heredibus nostris de fundacione nostra et non aliter. Soluendo et faciendo Capitalibus dominis terrarum et tenementorum predictorum et ceterorum premissorum et cuiuslibet inde parcelle redditus et seruicia inde eis et eorum cuilibet debita et de iure consueta. Prouiso semper quod prefati. Abbas et Conuentus unanimi consensu pro se et successoribus suis per presentes concedant nobis et heredibus nostris quod predicti Abbas et Conuentus et successores sui imperpetuum soluant aut solui faciant nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris omnes decimas et primos fructus quocienscumque euenire contigerint eodem modo et forma atsi dictum Monasterium siue Abbacia suppressum dissolutum siue datum nobis per actum predictum non fuisset. Ac secundum vim formam et effectum cuiusdam actus parliamenti pro decimis et primis fructibus editi et prouisi Et predicti Abbas et Conuentus concedunt per presentes quod ipsi et successores sui imperpetuum bene et fideliter custodiant et obseruabunt omnes et omnimodi regulas ordinaciones et statuta per nos ut supremum caput Anglicane ecclesie siue Ministros nostros et successores nostros bonum regimen dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie et Religiosorum virorum eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie concernencia siue tangencia imposterum prouidenda assignanda et appunctuanda. Eo quod expressa mencio etc. In cuius etc. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium secundo die Julii.

per ipsum Regem et de dato etc.

APPENDIX II
DEED OF SURRENDER OF CROXDEN

[Exchequer Augmentation Office; Deeds of Surrender, No. 66, Crokesden Abbey, Cistercians]

Transcript (extended)

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Nos Thomas Chalner abbas Monasterii siue Abbathie Beate Marie virginis de Crokesden in Comitatu Staff’ Coven’ et Lich’ dioc’ ordinis Cistercien’ et eiusdem loci conventus Salutem in Domino sempiternam Noueritis nos prefatos abbatem et conventum unanimi assensu et concensu nostris, animis deliberatis, certa scientia, et mero motu nostris ex quibusdam causis iustis et racionalibus nos animas et conscientas nostras spiritualiter moventibus ultro et sponte dedisse concessisse, ac per presentes damus, concedimus, reddimus, deliberamus, et confirmamus Illustrissimo et Invictissimo principi et domino nostro Henrico dei gratia Anglie et Francie Regi fidei defensori domino Hibernie ac in terris supremo ecclesie Anglicane sub Christo Capiti totum dictum monasterium siue abbathiam nostram de Crokesden, predict’ ac totum scitum, fundum, circuitum, et precinctum eiusdem monasterii de Crokesden predict’, Nec non omnia et singula maneria, domos, mesuagia, gardina, curtilagia, tofta, terras et tenementa, prata, pascua, pasturas, boscos, redditus, seruicia, molendina, passagia, feoda militum, wardas, maritagia, natiuos, villanos, cum eorum sequelis, communias, libertates, franchesias, iurisdictiones, officia, cur’, let’, hundred’, visus franci pledgii, feria, mercata, parcos, warrennia, viuaria, aquas, piscarias, vias, chimina, vacuos fundos, advocationes ecclesiarum, Hospitalium, et aliorum ecclesiasticorum beneficiorum quorumcunque, Rectorias, vicarias, cantarias, porciones, pensiones, annuitates, decimas, oblaciones, ac omnia et singula emolumenta, proficua, possessiones, hereditamenta et iura nostra quecunque, tam infra dictum Com’ Staff’ quam infra Com’ Darby, Northampton, Lincoln’ Lecestr’ Cestrie, Middlesex’ et alibi infra regnum Anglie, Wallie, Hibernie et marchiarum earundem eidem monasterio siue Abbathie de Crokesden quoquomodo pertinentes spectantes appendentes siue incumbentes ac omnimodas chartas, evidentias, scripta, et munimenta nostra dicto monasterio siue Abbathie ac maneriis, terris, et tenementis ac ceteris premissis cum pertenentiis, seu alicui inde parcelle quoquomodo spectantes siue concernentes Habend’, tenend’ et gaudend’ dictum monasterium siue Abbathiam, scitum, fundum, circuitum, et precinctum de Crokesden predicto, terras, tenementa, ac cetera premissa, cum omnibus et singulis suis pertinentiis prefato Invictissimo Principi et Domino nostro Regi, heredibus et assignatis suis imperpetuum, cui in hac parte ad omnem iuris effectum, qui exinde sequi poterit aut potest nos et dictum monasterium siue Abbathiam de Crokesden predict’, ac omnia iura nobis qualitercumque acquisata (vt decet) subiicimus et submittimus, dantes et concedentes eidem Regie maiestati heredibus et assignatis suis omnem et omnimodam plenam et liberam facultatem, auctoritatem et potestatem nos et dictum monasterium de Crokesden predicto vna cum omnibus et singulis maneriis, terris, tenementis, redditibus, revercionibus, serviciis, et singulis premissis cum suis iuribus et pertinentiis quibuscumque dispondendi ac pro suo libro regio voluntatis libito ad quoscunque vsus maiestati sue placentes alienandi, donandi, couertendi et transferendi, hujusmodi disposiciones alienaciones donaciones conuersiones et translaciones, per maiestatem suam quouismodo fiend’ extunc ratificantes, ratas et gratas ac perpetuo firmas habituros promittimus per presentes et ut premissa omnia et singula suum debitum sortiri valeant effectum electionibus insuper nobis ei successoribus nostris necnon omnibus querelis, provocationibus, appellacionibus, actionibus, litibus, et instanciis aliisque quibuscumque nostris remediis et beneficiis nobis forsan et successoribus nostris in ea parte pretextu disposicionis, alienacionis, translacionis, et convrecionis predictarum et ceterorum premissorum qualitercumque competentibus et competituris omnibusque doli erroris metus ignorancie, vel alterius materie siue disposicionis exceptionibus obiectionibus, et alleggacionibus prorsus semotis et depositis palam publice et expresse ex certa nostra scientia animisque spontaneis renunciamus et redimus et ab eisdem recedimus in hiis scriptis Et nos predict’ abbas et conventus et successores nostri dictum monasterium precinctum scitum mansionem et ecclesiam de Crokesden predicto ac omnia et singula maneria, domos, mesuagia, gardina, cutilagia, tofta, prata, pascua, pasturas, boscos, subboscos, terras et tenementa ac omnia et singula cetera premissa cum suis pertinentiis vniversis prefato domino nostro Regi heredibus et assignatis suis contra omnes gentes warantizabimus imperpetuum per presentes In quorum premissorum fidem et testimonium Nos prefati Abbas et conventus huic scripto sigillum nostrum commune apposuimus et propriis manibus adscripsimus dat’ xviimo die mensis septembris Anno Domini millesimo quigentesimo trigesimo octavo. Anno 30 Henry viii.

[Signatures in the margin.]

[Seal in good condition.]

[On the dorse]

Memorandum quod die et anno infra scripto Abbas et conventus infra nominati in domo capitulari omnes et singuli tunc ibidem congregati et capitulum facientes vnanimi eorum consensu et assensu ex certa eorum scientia animis deliberatis hoc eorum scriptum sigillo suo communi sigillatum et manibus suis propriis ad scriptum continens donationem concessionem alienationem siue sursum reddicionem ut factum suum liberum et voluntarium cognoverunt et recognoverunt ac ut factum suum commune in manibus venerabilis viri magistri Thome Legh legum doctoris commissarii ibidem domini nostri regis ad vsum ipsius illustrissimi domini Regis vltro et sponte tradebant et deliberant ac petierunt instanter ut in curia cancellarie domini nostri regis seu vbicunque aliis ut factum suum hujusmodi ad perpetuam rei memoriam irrotuletur insinuatur et inscribatur et regarunt hos testes subscriptos quatenus tam super eorum facto hujus modi quam sigillacione deliberatione et peticione predict’ testimonium prohiberent.

[Enrolled on the dorse of the Close Rolls the month and year within written.]

APPENDIX III
INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT BREWOOD NUNNERY

(Exchequer Augmentation Office; Miscellaneous Books, Vol. 172)

Note.—The volume from which this and the two following extracts are taken begins as follows:

Herafter Ensueth the names of all and euery suche pson and psons as was by Thomas Ligh Doctor in the lawe and Wyllms Cauendyshe Auditor Commissionours appoynted by the King our soueraigne lorde for the dyssolucion of thes monasteryes foloweng by them Indiferently chosyn and sworne of and for the valuying ratyng and apprisyng of all and singler the gooddes and catelles cummyng and beyng found at the surrenders taken in the same late dyssoluyd Monasteries and priories within sundry sheres or Counties the names as well of the seyd howses as of the psons so sworne foloweng hervnder wryghten in order.

That ys to say

[Then follow the jurors of “Meryvale.”]

Brewode John Broune Jurors Rychard Whyt Jurors John Shyrborne Jurors
William Barnes John Baker Thomas Clarke
Henry Holte William Turner Anthony Palmer
Thomas Willes William Atwill George Wilkyns
Seint
Thomas
bysyde
Staff		 Raffe Mynors Jur. John Hyll Jur. Nycholas Bagshaw Jur.
John Langley John Lyenshaw Rychard Rawson
Roger Alayn Willm. Whitill John Fyssher
George Bowgley Roger Gratwych Willm. Blythe
Delacres William Butler Jurors John Arden Jurors Henry Barber Jurors
Thomas Johnson Hugh Latham Thomas Jacson
Henry Atkyns Rychard Luther William Tanner
John Flynte John Thomson Thomas Morris

[Here follow jurors of Lylleshull and Darley. And on f. 2 jurors of Dale, Repton, Gracedue, Pypwell and Barnwel.]