The dissolution of the monasteries

by Francis Aidan Hibbert

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.