“Henry, King of England, and Duke of Normandy, and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, to his Justiciars, and Sheriffs, and Barons, and Ministers, and all his faithful of England, greeting. Know ye that I have conceded to my Burgesses of Bruge all their franchises, and customs, and rights, which they, or their ancestors, had in the time of King Henry, my grandfather. Wherefore I will and strictly command that they have them well, and in peace, and honourably, and fully; within the Borough and without, in wood and in field, in meadows and pastures, and in all things, with such comparative fulness and honour, as they held them in the time of King Henry, my grandfather. And I forbid any one to do them injury or insult in regard of their tenements. Witnesses—T. Chancellor, and Henry de Essex Constable, and William Fitz Alan, at Raddemore.”
In the reign of King John a second Charter was granted, January 10, 1215. A few years afterwards this was renewed by King Henry III., who, in a short time, considerably enlarged the privileges of the Burgesses, in the new Charter referred to. It has been generally supposed, that this charter was destroyed along with other documents, in the fire which took place in Bridgnorth during the siege of the Castle. Most of the papers, belonging to the Corporation, were placed in St. Leonard’s Church for safety; but, this having been set fire to, they were all burnt, and this charter, as it was supposed, among them. But I conclude from the following passage in the Blakeway Papers that this is a mistake, and that this original charter, granted by King Henry, may still be in existence. In M.S. Congreve are the following historical particulars of the town, in the reign of James II.:—The following Aldermen subscribed to the running away with the Charter.
“John Lewis and William Hammonds, Bailiffs; Humphrey Braine, George Longnor, William Baker, Thomas Weal, and about forty others.
“Bickerton’s son subscribed for him while he was out of town.
“Silvanus read a recantation afterwards. Bailiff Hammonds took away the Charter which the town had possessed for 450 years (the people of the town pursuing him) contrary to the mind of the old sages of the town.’”
E.
(Page 123.)
SUPPRESSION OF THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES.
Whatever may have been Queen Mary’s private feelings, it is plain that she yielded to the pressure of political expediency in this matter. In order to induce the Parliament to repeal all the statutes made against the See of Rome in the two last reigns, she ratified in the fullest manner the alienation of the property which had belonged to Abbeys, Priories, Chantries, Colleges, &c., and strictly forbade any suits against any one on that score, either by authority from the Pope, or general council, or on pretence of any canon or ecclesiastical constitution whatever. (Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, Vol. vi, Book v, pp. 94-6.)
But there are some facts connected with the subject of the suppression of the Monasteries, and the confiscation of their property, which ought to be better known, in order to shew how little warrant Roman Catholics have for representing the matter, as they commonly do, as a piece of Protestant sacrilege. There is a valuable chapter in Mr. Froude’s recent History of England on this subject, and much important additional matter is brought forward in a review of his work, in the Christian Remembrancer of July last. From these two sources I have drawn the following facts, which are well worthy of attention. The state of the Monasteries and Religious Houses generally was such, in the reign of Henry IV., as to call from the House of Commons an indignant remonstrance, and a petition for their secularization; and in the reign of his successor, Henry V., when Popery was wholly in the ascendant in this country, one hundred Monasteries were suppressed by order of the King. (Froude, Vol. 2, p. 411.) But a still more remarkable fact is the following: that a twelve month after the Act of 1536 for the suppression of smaller Monasteries in England, Pope Paul III. appointed a committee of nine of the most eminent ecclesiastics, to examine into the state of the Church. These persons recommended changes far more extensive than any which the English Parliament had contemplated. So hopeless did they consider the reformation of the monastic bodies, that they united in recommending the total suppression of every Monastery in Europe. One of these nine ecclesiastics was Reginald, afterwards Cardinal Pole; and he, firmly as he was attached to the Church of Rome, not only advised this universal sequestration of all Convents, but did not refuse to share in the spoils of their suppression in this country. On his arrival in England, he received from Queen Mary a grant of lands belonging to the dissolved Priory of Newburgh. (Christian Remembrancer, Vol. xxxii, p. 92) Bishop Fisher also, one of the most zealous Prelates of the Romish party in the Church, previous to the passing of the famous Act for the suppression of Monasteries, seized on the Nunnery of Higham, after a vain attempt at its reformation, and by his own act set the example for subsequent confiscations. “In fact, while the reforming[79] party in the Church were pleading for the preservation of some of the Convents, the opposite party were contending for their utter overthrow.” (Ibid.) Yet notwithstanding these facts, which are attested by existing documents, Roman Catholics still speak as if the suppression of these establishments was exclusively the work of Protestants, to be ascribed to a spirit of impiety and sacrilege which the Reformation has let loose upon the Church. The truth is, that the Monastic and Conventual Establishments had become so totally corrupt, and the moral disorders by which they were affected had been proved to be so incurable, that society could no longer endure them; and the opinion prevalent among Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, was, that the evil had arrived at such a height, that no remedy could be effectual, short of the general suppression of the Religious Houses. Both writers to whom I have referred are warm in their admiration of the original members of the monastic bodies, and of the purposes which such establishments answered at an earlier period of their history. Mr. Froude says, “Originally, and for many hundred years after their foundation, the regular clergy were the finest body of men of which mankind in their chequered history can boast.” (Vol. 2, p. 403) And his Reviewer thus speaks of the Monasteries and Convents: “Great have been the advantages which not only devotion, but political civilization, have received from monastic establishments. In times of disturbance, they were the places of comparative peace—in days of ignorance, retreats of learning—in periods of profligacy, abodes of devotion.” Yet, from the evidence which authentic records supply, the conviction has been forced upon both Mr. Froude and his Reviewer, that scarcely anything could be worse than the moral condition of the inmates of such establishments in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is natural to regret that remedial measures were not resorted to. Possibly, however, if we possessed all the information which was in the hands of the Government and Legislature of the day, we might be convinced that the only safe and wise course was that which they pursued. But at all events, we must bear in mind that this course was advocated by the warmest friends of the Papacy; and that, although the cupidity of courtiers and public men may have hastened forward the confiscation of monastic property, yet that Roman Catholics, and even dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, did not refuse a share of the spoil.
I think it right, in laying before my readers the foregoing statements of Mr. Froude and his Reviewer, to express my great regret that I had not become earlier acquainted with them. Had I possessed the information which I have derived from them somewhat sooner, the language which I have used ([p. 85]) would have been considerably modified.