Some of the waggons were “ironbound” and some “unbound,” and all, with the ploughs and harrows, and the cart, appear to have been complete “with yokes and teams to them belonging.”
The live stock was as follows:
| Oxen. | Cows. | Calves. | Wethers. | Ewes. | Lambs. | Swine. | Winter Beasts. | |
| Arberton Grange | 12 | 9 | 8 | 60 | 70 | 6 | 6 | |
| Berkswick Grange | 12 | 80 | 9 |
In the house the dormitory had “cells” or cubicles, but the absence of beds and bedding there indicates that more comfortable quarters were occupied. The court had a conduit for the supply of water. The Prior’s parlour was hung with linen, and had a folding or trestle table, two forms and four chairs. There were six bedrooms furnished as follows: the water chamber had bedsteads with painted hangings, two feather beds, two bolsters, two pillows and four coverlets. The great chamber had a bedstead with a feather bed, a coverlet, two fustian blankets and a bolster. The two “inner chambers” had a bedstead each, furnished with a bolster apiece and four old coverlets between them. The chamber over the chapel had a bedstead with feather bed, coverlet, a pair of blankets and sheets, and a cupboard, form, chair and hangings of linen cloth. The carter’s chamber had a bedstead with a mattress, a pair of sheets and three old coverlets.
In the buttery were napkins and cloths, a washing towel, tubs, two pewter salts, two costrells or wine jugs; in the kitchen, four brass pots, a broche or spit, two brass pans, a brass mortar, two cupboards, a mustard quern, a kemnell or tub, a skimmer, a flesh hook and two pairs of pothooks, seven platters, a voider or basket for clearing away the relics of meals, three dishes, four saucers, four porringers, etc. The brewhouse and bakehouse was well furnished with leads, vats, pans, etc., and attached to it was a bedroom, which Richard Torner doubtless occupied, and which was well supplied with bed and bedding. St. Thomas’s Priory was well and comfortably furnished, and the standard of comfort there was considerably higher than at either of the other smaller Staffordshire houses of which we have details.
In the houses of the friars[200] there were few signs of anything approaching domestic comfort. The kitchens had various necessary utensils, more, apparently, than the communities would require for their own cooking, and pointing probably to considerable dispensation of charity and poor relief. There was a considerable amount of church furniture—vestments, candlesticks, etc.,—but practically nothing at all in the way of bedding or linen.
The records by no means show that the religious, either monks, nuns, or friars, were living a life more luxurious than the generality of people. If we are to take the prices at which their live stock was sold it must have been of inferior breed. The sales being “compulsory” tended to lower the prices realized, but the monks had, in all probability, sold as much as they could and dared as the imminence of dissolution became more threatening, and of course their better animals would find the readiest sale. As regards the furniture of the houses, the inventories of the sales may well be compared with other contemporary lists of a similar nature, such as the “Inventory of the Goods and Catales of Richd. Master, Clerk, Parson of Aldington” [Kent], in 1534, which is given by Froude.[201] If Dieulacres really had only sixty sheep in the sixteenth century it had sadly declined from its earlier wealth in that branch of industry, and there was little occupation for the servants. But, probably, as we have said, the number represents the remainder which had not been sold. All sales so made were by law ipso facto void if they became known, so that no extraordinary number could have been parted with. The inference therefore is that their sheep-farming had declined, and the monks of Dieulacres, at any rate, had not taken the part in the conversion of arable into pasture of which the monasteries have often been accused. Ronton Priory had enclosed all its demesne, but there is no evidence that it was for the purpose of forming large sheep-runs—it may have been merely in order to facilitate “convertible husbandry”—a very different matter.
As we have already pointed out, none of the graver charges which were alleged against many of the religious at the time of the Dissolution, and have been so generally magnified since, were even hinted at in connection with Staffordshire. On the other hand, there are many signs that they were respected by their neighbours. Indeed the only definite fault which could be found with them was an occasional charge of insolvency, and even that is sometimes so vague as to be practically worthless. Bishop Ingworth enlarged upon the bankrupt condition of the friars. The house at Lichfield was “more in debt than all the stuff that belongs to it will pay, by twenty nobles.” The house at Newcastle-under-Lyme, he says, had mortgaged all its substances and was bankrupt, with its buildings in a ruinous condition. The Grey Friars at Stafford owed £4. Dieulacres was £171 10s. 5d. in debt, and St. Thomas’s Priory, Stafford, £235 19s. 7d.
Fortunately we have details of some of these debts, so that it is possible to see how they had been incurred. The Lichfield friars owed thirty shillings which had been raised on loan for building purposes, and twenty shillings to the Bishop for five years’ rent; the rest of the debt was for malt and rye. At Dieulacres and St. Thomas’s Priory[202] the items of indebtedness appear to be usually fees to various officials, such as the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and the Archdeacon, wages to stewards and bailiffs, stipends to vicars, and tradesmen’s small bills. Among them there is only one other instance of borrowing, besides that already mentioned at Lichfield, though St. Thomas’s Priory had raised £43 by mortgaging some of its plate, including a silver censer and a cross of silver plate.
The total amount of indebtedness, as well as the nature of the debts, hardly bears out the charge of general insolvency which has been brought against the religious houses.