The dissolution of the monasteries

by Francis Aidan Hibbert

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.