The dissolution of the monasteries

by Francis Aidan Hibbert

Two days afterwards he had succeeded in persuading the monks to leave the nomination of their Abbot to him and Strete. He wrote to Cromwell on June 27th: “I sped the election at Burton, and the compromission is in me and Mr. Strete to nominate one of the Convent before the 1st of August.”[51] He apparently had failed to secure the election of Cromwell’s original nominee, but it may be taken for granted that the man appointed by Lee and Strete would be sufficiently amenable for all practical purposes. The monks made a submission, and chose the third Prior, whose name was William Edie. Before August was out the royal assent had been given to his “election.” It was confirmed on 13th April, 1334.[52] He was subsequently summoned to Parliament, when the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries had to be passed, as will presently be related. Roland Lee was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield on April 19th.

When we find such men as Boston and Edie summoned to the Reformation Parliament, from a house which had not previously supplied mitred Abbots, it is evident that no pains were spared to pack the assembly throughout its existence. It is not surprising, therefore, that it proved compliant and obsequious.

In 1534 the Act of Succession was passed. The Oath of Succession appears to have been taken by all the members of both Houses of Parliament, but it caused the downfall of Sir Thomas More. Dr. Boston, now Abbot of Westminster, was one of the Commissioners appointed to administer the oath of supremacy to Sir Thomas More. On April 13th, 1534, Cranmer pressed the argument of loyalty, and, when More pleaded the claims of conscience, the Abbot of Westminster urged that his conscience should not be set above the opinion of the whole Parliament. More effectively retorted that a general council of Christendom was superior to a council of England, and repeated that he was perfectly willing to respect the succession as ordered by Parliament. As a loyal citizen and as a constitutional statesman he was ready to obey the Parliament in constitutional questions, but could not agree that it had unlimited authority in religion. He could “honour the King,” but at the same time he must “fear God.”

He was committed to the custody of Abbot Boston for four days, probably in the hope that so plausible and compliant an ecclesiastic would succeed in removing his scruples. But his constancy stood firm, and he soon found himself in the Tower, whence he went to the block on June 6th, 1535.

In 1534 further steps were taken to bring the religious houses under royal authority. The royal supremacy was formally established by Act of Parliament, and the King thus took over many of the powers which had been previously claimed by the Pope.

We must be on our guard against attaching too much significance to such legal enactments. It must be borne in mind that a good deal of this kind of lawmaking was not much more than giving statutory expression—often with brutal frankness—to what had long existed in fact. The royal authority had always been what the royal power had been able to make it, little under weak or indifferent kings, strong under masterful ones. The novelties after the period which is called “the Reformation” were in reality much slighter than is generally supposed. Henry VIII, when he exercised authority over the Church by virtue of the Act of Supremacy or in virtue of his title of “Supreme Head,” was not pressing much more hardly on the liberties of his subjects than he had done before the new title had been invented. The history of the Staffordshire monasteries in previous centuries shows abundantly that whenever the King desired he could exercise the most arbitrary control over the religious houses in all sorts of ways. The only effective check before the Reformation was, not “Papal authority,” or “ecclesiastical privileges,” or “religious immunities”—all these could be, and were, overridden and set aside,—but public opinion. Precisely the same check was influential afterwards and to much the same extent as formerly. The skill of Henry VIII and his ministers was shown in the way they won public opinion to their side or crushed it away out of sight. English history, and continental too, has shown again and again that the civil power can never be permanently restrained by “immunities” and “concordats.” The force of circumstances is always liable to be too strong for such artificial arrangements: the power of Parliament must, as a force majeure, be the final arbiter. It may, indeed, be argued that the statutes which seemed to place the English Church beneath the heel of the State, and which for three centuries have given the enemy occasion to blaspheme, gave her in reality a greater measure of freedom than many “unestablished” churches have enjoyed. It may almost be said that modern history has shown that the anxiety of Parliament to assert itself over a non-established church may be greater than over an established church, and that its powers may be exercised in the former case with greater tyranny and offensiveness than in the latter; it has also shown that the powers and titles claimed by King and Parliament in Tudor times were, after all, only “stage properties”: the same authority may be claimed, and the same deeds done, without them.

Henry VIII, having formally taken over the Pope’s authority, was not slow to exercise it. A royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden Abbey and many other Cistercian houses was appointed. This was Thomas Chard, alias Tybbes. He is a typical ecclesiastic of the period. He had been a member of St. Bernard’s, now St. John’s College, Oxford, and received the degree of D.D. in 1505, being styled vir doctrina et virtute clarus. He held a large number of preferments, vicarages, and rectories, as well as priorships. He became Prior of Montacute in 1515 (till 1525) and also Prior of Forde in 1521. The latter he held till the priory was dissolved. Meanwhile he was also a suffragan bishop, being styled Episcopus Solubriensis. He was consecrated in 1508, when he was presented to the vicarage of Torrington Parva.[53] The fresh exercise of power and influence to which we have referred is explained in the following commission:

“Henry the eyethe by the grace of gode kyng of Ingelande and of Fraunce defensor of the fayeth and lorde of Yrelande sende gretynge | For as moche as hytt ys Requysytte and thaweth to be most expedyent thordre and Relygyon of Cystercanes to be visyted and Reformyde by Auctorite hade of vs wyrth in thys or Realme of Ingelande and nott be Auctorite hade from beyende the seys for dyv’se cosyderacons hade in the same We tenderyng the good cotynewaunce and mayntaynyg of all man’ catholique Religyon Firmely pceyvyng the indyfferensy dexterite and goode vertuous qualityes and divine lernyng wyche manyfestely bathe and dothe appere in owre trusty and welbeloyde Fadre in gode Thomas Abbott of Forde wherefore we name institute and ordeyne the sayde Abbott of Forde from hense Forde to be visitor Reformator and inquysitor of that Religion duryng hys naturall lyffe of all thos monasterys whos namys Folowyth Any comyssyon or comyssyons here tofore graunted to the contrary nott wyethstandyng that ys to vnderstande, Forde, Buckefaste, Buckelande, Dunckewell, Newham, Clyve, Byndon, Tarraunte, Bewley, Quarre, Letteley, Wav’ley, Rewley, Stanley, Haylys, Bordeley, Kyngewoode, Flaxley, Stratteford, Boxley, Crokedene, Combremeare, Cockehall, Brewern, Garydon, Bedyllisden, Combe, Stoneley, Merevalle, and Thame | Farther we wyll and straytely comande that no other psone or psons of what Estade degre or dygnite so ev’ he or they be but only the sayde Abbott of Forde or his depute do visett Reforme Inquyre or intermelle in any man’ wyse in any of the sayde monsterys afore Rehersyd nor wt any Religyous psone or psons of the same And ferther we wyll [lined through in original] duryng the natrall lyffe of the sayde Abbott of Forde whon we ordayne and depute visotor Reformator Inquysytor as before rehersid More ov’ we give and graunte and by thes presente we auctorisatt the fore sayde Abbott of Forde to destitute and institute any Abbott or Abbotts fro tyme to tyme wtyn all and ev’y of the Foresayde monsterys as the lawys and Rewlys of the sayde ordre dothe and wyll pymtte | And for hys Farther assystence in all and syngler the p’miss and for executyng of the same we wyll and straytely comaunde by vertew of thes or comyssyon all shreffys Mayrys baylyffys Constablys Justyce and all other or offycers in all and ev’y shere and libertie as far as any of thos Abbeys before namyde doth extende and for the executyng of this or Auctoritye comyttyde and gevyn to the foresayde Abbott of Ford | they and ev’y of them to Assyste the fore sayde Abbott of Forde att all tymys and att any tyme that they or any of them shalbe requyred by the sayd abbott of Forde or his depute in and a boute any of the monstreys before Rehersyde in advoydyng or hyeth dyspleasure. And this or comyssion and graunte we wyll to cotynewe in vigour and strengyth.”[54]

Very few of the monks ventured to follow More’s example in regard to the Oath of Succession, but the friars generally refused.

As they did most of the preaching in the parish churches, for the wholesale appropriation of tithes by the monasteries had so impoverished livings that few educated men held them, it was necessary that they should be silenced. Commissioners were accordingly appointed, to whom Roland Lee was afterwards added, to visit all the friaries, take an inventory of their goods, and examine each inmate separately.[55] In this way most of the friars in the provinces were reduced to submission, though Lee harried to death some honourable exceptions in London.