YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Demy %vo, 12s. net.
HENRY III AND THE CHURCH
A Study of his Ecclesiastical Policy and of the
Relations between England and Rome.
"It is written with no desire to defend the Papacy from the
charges which were made even by the faithful at the time, and it
may fairly claim to represent an unbiassed survey of the evidence.
He has gone carefully through a large body of evidence which English
historians have too much neglected. His book will be indispensable
to the student of the reign of Henry III." — Times.
" This substantial book is beyond doubt a valuable study of the
ecclesiastical policy of Henry III and his admirers, and of the
relations between England and Rome. The whole of the chapters
on this exceptionally interesting half-century of English history,
when the relationships of Church and State were sorely tried, are
written in a spirit of admirable calmness and fairness of citation,
nothing apparently of importance being kept back on one side or
the other of the questions that come under discussion. . . . A trust
worthy contribution to the story of this long reign on the very points
upon which most historians are either silent or provokingly brief."—
Athenaum. Fourth Edition, Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
THE EVE OF THE REFORMATION
Studies in the Religious Life and Thought of the
English People in the period preceding the
Rejection of the Roman Jurisdiction
by Henry VIII
''We can only rejoice that this cheap reissue of one of the most
valuable contributions (as common consent has proclaimed it) to the
history of the great religious change in the sixteenth centurv will
spread the light among numerous readers to whom it has hitherto
been unknown. Of such historians as Abbot Gasquet the cause of
historic truth can never have too many."— Pall Mall Gazette.
LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS.

HENRY VIII

AND THE

ENGLISH MONASTERIES

LONDON : GEORGE BELL AND SONS
PORTUGAL ST. LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.
CAMBRIDGE : DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.
NEW YORK : THE M'ACMILLAN CO.
BOMBAY : A. H. WHEELER & CO.

HENRY VIII

AND THE

ENGLISH MONASTERIES

BY

ABBOT GASOJJET, D.D., O.S.B.
ADTHOR OF "HENRY III AND THE CHURCH,"

LONDON
GEORGE BELL AND SONS
1906

First volume, three editions

. . 1888

Second volume, three editions

. . 1889

Illustrated (fourth) edition .

. . 1892

Revised popular edition . .

• • 1899

Cheaper ditto 

. . 1906

German translation .

1891

French translation .

1894

M h j 6Z

G2.I4

PREFACE
It is satisfactory to find that another edition of Henry
VIII and the English Monasteries is required. So far as
the book itself is concerned the present issue is a reprint
of the Volume published in 1 899, in which the old references
of previous editions to documents etc. not calendered at
the time the work was written, were altered to accord with
the numbers assigned them in Dr. Gairdner's monumental
Calendar of Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign
of Henry VIII. Beyond this I have availed myself of the
opinions expressed by this exceptional authority on the
documents of this period in the prefaces to the volumes of
his Calendar which have appeared since the first publication
of this work. Dr. Gairdner's conclusions, which naturally
carry great weight, will be found to be in substantial agree
ment with the views I had previously expressed as to the
main incidents in the drama of the suppression of the
English monastic houses.
One or two assertions lately made in the pages of Maga
zines and Journals seem to point to the fact that some
at least have misunderstood the argument I have tried to
expose in the pages of this book, and it may not be without
its use if I devote a small amount of space to set in the
forefront of this enquiry the main features of what, in my
opinion, has been established by it, as to the moral state of
the religious houses at the time of their dissolution.
I do not, and indeed have never contended that in
v

vi Preface
/"regard to discipline the monasteries of the sixteenth cen
tury were all that could be desired. Very possibly abuses,
and even grave abuses did exist here and there; but this
is not the question to be considered. The point is, were
the English monks and nuns generally in the reign of
Henry VIII the profligate, hypocrites which they were
subsequently represented to be by those whose interest it
was to defame the religious state or to defend the whole
sale destruction of the religious houses. I readily admit
that the reports of Henry's visitors were bad enough,
although even they do not bear out the charges of whole
sale corruption; but there are elements of the greatest
suspicion on the face of these documents, which would
certainly cause them to be rejected as proof in any other
case, whilst if the characters of the accusers are con
sidered, no man of honour would dream of " hanging a
dog " upon their word alone.
It has of late been pointed out that other " Visitation
Records " contain instances of abuses and scandals, and
that this is a strong corroboration of the correctness of the
scandalous reports of Henry's visitors. It is hard to see
how this can be so; the only evidence afforded by such/
documents is, what no one would deny, that men did not
leave their human faults and failings behind them when
they entered the cloister; and that the Church, so far from
tolerating any abuses of this kind, sternly repressed them
by legislation and punishment. To make this clear I may
perhaps be permitted to repeat what I have elsewhere'
written on the subject of Visitations: That Visitations
were not mere formalities, is obvious on the face of the
records: they were made at regular intervals; and, con
sidering the distances which had to be covered between the
1 Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, ii. Introd. xviii.

Preface

vii

houses, they were carried out at great inconvenience to the
bishop and with no little physical labour. After the formal
opening of the inquiry in the chapter-house of the abbey
the visitor made an address, explaining the meaning of a
visitation, the intention of the Church in instituting them,
and declaring the strict obligation which was incumbent on
all, of making known to him anything, which might appear
to them in any way to call for his correction. The visitor
then assumed during the time of his visit all the authority
of the local superior, and one by one the members of the
community were called to him and separately questioned
as to the state of the house, as to their own lives, and as to
what they knew about the religious observance of the
community at large. Notes of what had subsequently to
be considered and if necessary corrected, were kept for the
personal guidance of the visitor, and, these were generally
known as the Comperta or Comperts of the inquiry. In the
case of any serious charge a formal and legal inquiry was
held; the verdict of what was practically a jury, composed
of the brethren of the religious incriminated, was taken and
judgment was given b)' the visitor in accordance with the
finding. Then followed the publication ofthe decrees of the
visitation and their record in the register of the visitor.
The inquiry was concluded, if necessary, by the punishment
of those who might have been found guilty of any offence
against good discipline or the statutes of the Order.
So much with regard to the formal part of the regular
visitations. On the face of the documents recorded in the
Episcopal Registers and elsewhere, it is impossible even for
the most prejudiced mind not to admit that wrong-doing
was never tolerated by the authorities, and that the punish
ments meted out were sufficiently drastic to prove their
honesty of purpose. If wrong-doing existed, as unfortun-

viii Preface
ately was the case in some instances, it took place in con
sequence of the degradation of human nature, which was as
possible in monk and canon as in secular priest and layman,
and in spite of the strengthening assistance given in the
religious life, and of all the checks furnished by rules and
visitations. If religious fell, as sometimes they did, it was
because they were human and were carried away by their
passions, notwithstanding the helps and safeguards of the
cloister, just as a priest might make shipwreck, notwith
standing the grace of his ordination, or a layman in spite
of the Christian Sacraments.
At the same time, it must always be remembered that
the whole purpose of such visits was to detect and correct
what was amiss, and not to record or praise the daily round
of service according to rule. Hence ordinarily only that
which was irregular and blameworthy found place in visita
tion documents, and the rest, if it were normal and godlike,
was passed over in silence. To estimate the general state of
any religious house by the " Injunctions " of a visitation,
without taking anything else into consideration, is hardly
less absurd than estimating the morality of the world
by the existence of the Ten Commandments.
By those who know anything whatever about the matter
it will be readily admitted, that it does not require much
art or knowledge on the part of any would-be literary
chiffonier, routing among the records of the past, to fill up
his basket with the soiled rags of frail humanity. But no
one, who did not find a pecular delight in bending over
such garbage and so obscuring his mental vision, could
suppose that such a collection was history. As well might
we measure the morality of the present day by the police
cases and the annals of the divorce court, without other con
siderations which would certainly mitigate the severity of

Preface ix
the judgment we might perhaps be inclined to pass, if we
were to look only at the sordid details of modern life as
revealed to us in the columns of the daily press.
It is now time to turn to the Visitation of Monasteries
commanded by Henry VIII prior to the attack upon the
smaller religious houses in the Parliament of 1536, and
when some measure of dissolution had been already de
termined upon between Thomas Crumwell and his master,
the King. Here I give the barest outline; the details will
all be found in the pages of this volume. The Visitation
opened in the summer of 1535, although the visitatorial
powers of the bishops were not suspended till the 1 8th of
September following, and preachers were commissioned to
go over the country to educate public opinion against the
monks. These were of three sorts apparently : ( 1 ) " railers "
who orated against them as " hypocrites, sorcerers, and idle
drones, etc."; (2) preachers who said the monks " made the
land unprofitable"; and (3) those who told the people that,
"if the abbeys went down, the King would never want any
taxes again." This last was a favourite argument of
Cranmer at Paul's Cross.
The men employed by Crumwell — the instruments for
getting up the required evidence — were chiefly four: Lay-
ton, Legh, Ap Rice and London. They were well fitted for
their work, and the charges brought against the good name
of some at least of the monasteries by these chosen
emissaries of Crumwell are, it must be confessed, sufficiently
dreadful, although, be it always remembered, even they
do not bear out the modern popular notion of wholesale
corruption. The Visitation seems to have passed through three
pretty clearly defined stages. During the summer the
houses in the West of England were subjected to examina-

x Preface
tion; and this portion of the work came to an end in
September when Layton and Legh arrived at Oxford and
Cambridge respectively. In October and November the
visitors changed the field of their labours to the Eastern
and South-Eastern districts, and in December we find
Layton advancing through the midland counties to Lich
field, where he met Legh, who had finished Huntingdon
and Lincolnshire. Thence they proceeded together to the
North, and York was reached on nth, January, 1536. But
with all their haste, to which they were urged by Crumwell,
they had not got very far forward in their northern work
before the meeting of Parliament.
From time to time whilst on their work of inspection,
the visitors, and principally London and Legh, sent brief
written reports to their employer. Practically all the
accusations made against the good name of the monks and
nuns are contained in the letters sent in this way, and in
the document or documents known as the Comperta
Monastica, drawn up at the time by the same visitors and
forwarded with their letters to their chief, Crumwell. No
other evidence as to the state of the monasteries is forth
coming, and the inquirer is driven back ultimately upon the
worth of these visitors' words. It is easy, I know, to
dismiss inconvenient witnesses as being unworthy of credit,
but in this case a study of these letters and documents will
be quite sufficient, I believe, to cast considerable doubt upon
their testimony; and an examination into their subsequent!
careers will more than justify the rejection of their testimony
as wholly unworthy of belief.
The general method of procedure was probably much
the same in each case. The visitors were furnished with
eighty -six articles of inquiry and with five-and-twenty
injunctions, to which they had power to add much at their

Preface xi
discretion. The inquiries were searching and suggestive;
the injunctions minute, irritating and exacting. Framed
in the spirit of three centuries before, unworkable in practice
and enforced by agents such as London and his fellows, it
is easy to understand, even were there no written evidence
of the fact, that they must have been galling in the extreme,
and even unbearable to the helpless inmates of the monas
teries ; whilst it is hardly rash to conjecture that those who
had framed them had intended that they should be so, in
order that the religious might be driven into rebellion and
subsequent surrender.
The method followed by the visitors may perhaps best
be understood by the account given by Dr. James Gairdner
in the Preface to one of the volumes of his monumental
Calendar of the State papers of this period. " The mode
of procedure of Layton and his fellows," he writes, " is well
illustrated in the case of Leicester. There neither the abbot
(whom Layton himself believed to be an honest man), nor
his canons would confess anything. Layton, consequently,
as he tells Crumwell, intends to accuse some of the latter,
first, of the grossest vices, and then of less heinous crimes,
by degrees, until he has extorted something of a confes
sion. If this may be taken as a sample of the proceedings,"
pertinently asks Dr. Gairdner, " how much might be con
sidered as a confession by Layton, sufficient against a
name? The old scandals," he adds, " universally discredited
at the time, and believed in by a later generation only
through prejudice and ignorance, are now dispelled for
ever, and no candid writer will ever dream of resuscitating
them." To this estimate ofthe worth ofthe visitors' word, I may
be allowed to add the judgment of Dr. Jessopp: "When
the Inquisitors of Henry VIII and his Vicar-General,

1

xii Preface
Crumwell," he writes, " went on their tours of visitation,
they were men who had no experience of the ordinary ¦<
forms of inquiry which had hitherto been in use. They
called themselves visitors; they were, in effect, mere hired
detectives of the very vilest stamp, who came to levy
blackmail, and, if possible, to find some excuse for their
robberies by vilifying their victims. In all the Comperta \
which have come down to us there is not, if I remember
rightly, a single instance of any report or complaint having
been made to the visitors from any one outside. The'
enormities set down against the poor people accused of
them, are said to have been confessed by themselves \
against themselves. In other words, the Coinperta [oi_i 5.3^-
1536 can only be received as the horrible inventions ofthe
miserable men who wrote them down upon theirjjagerj, \
well knowing that, as in no case could the charges be_§up-
ported, so, on the other hand, in no case could they be met,
nor were the accused even intended to be put upon their
trial." The details of the Visitation may be read in this volume,
and I pass to the second step in the dissolution of the
monasteries. Parliament met on 4th February, 1 536, and
the chief business it was called upon to transact- was the
scheme of suppressing the smaller religious houses. What
happened to induce it to consent to the measure is well
known: or rather the account to be found in most of our
history books is well known. The fact is that this tale has
so often been told and retold that there is probably no in
cident in our history so universally accepted: even, I may
perhaps be allowed to add, as there is none that rests
upon so slender a basis of fact. The story, for example,
as told in Green's History of the English People, may
be taken as a fairly accurate statement of what is com-

JrTetace xm
monly believed to be true. " Two Royal Commissioners,"
he writes, " were dispatched on a general visitation of the
religious houses, and their reports formed a ' black-book,'
which was laid before Parliament in 1536. It was acknow
ledged that about a third of the houses, including the bulk
of the larger abbeys, were fairly and decently conducted.
The rest were charged with drunkenness, with simony,
and with the foulest and most revolting crimes."
I believe I am right in taking this account as presenting
a version — and a fairly moderate version — of the reasons
which induced the nation to consent to perhaps the greatest
piece of confiscation the world has ever seen. Yet how far
does this version represent the truth — the whole truth, or
any part ofthe truth? We have now the means of judging
with certainty as to the facts, and we can say that in these
sample statements, brief though they be, there are some
assertions that are absolutely false, some incapable of
proof and unlikely, and some distinctly misleading. It is
quite certain, for instance, that before the meeting of Par
liament more than two Commissioners were employed in
the work of visiting the monasteries. It is quite certain,
moreover, that the Commissioners never reported to Parlia
ment at all, and even in the reports (or Comperta} forwarded
to Crumwell, his agents do not assert that " two-thirds of
the monks were leading vicious lives under cover of their
cowls and hoods," nor again that Parliament declared that
" about a third " of the monasteries " were fairly and decently
conducted." Lastly, there is no evidence of any kind that
the celebrated " black-book " ever had any existence outside
the minds of writers of a later date ; and distinct testimony
makes it highly improbable that any such book was " laid
before Parliament in 1536."
Further than this: bad as the charges made by Henry's

XIV

Preface

visitors were, " drunkenness and simony " were not among ;
them, neither, do I think, that any one who has studied the
available documents could possibly assert that two-thirdsA
 or anything approaching two-thirds — are charged in
them with being guilty of " the foulest and most revolting^
of crimes." Probably the only item of Mr. Green's account/
which has any sure foundation in fact, is the remark ap
pended to the account just given: — "that the character of
the visitors, the sweeping nature of their report, and the
long debate that followed on its reception, leave little
doubt that the charges were grossly exaggerated."
Let me state what we know for certain about this mat-i
ter. We know that the proposal to suppress the smaller t
religious houses gave rise to a long debate, and that Parlia
ment passed the measure with great reluctance. Indeed/;
so unwilling was the assembly to vote for the measure, that
according to Sir Henry Spelman, who gave the traditional
account of the event — an account which bears the stamp
of substantial truth — when " the Bill had stuck so long
in the Lower House," Henry sent for the Commons and
declared that if they did not pass it he would " have some
of their heads." Acting under such threats as these, which
they had ample reason to know were no idle form of words,
and seeing that public opinion was turned against the
monks by public orations, and in favour of a measure which;
was destined to relieve taxation by devoting the confis
cated monastic revenues to public purposes, the faithful
Commons consented to the King's bill. It is remarkable,
however, that in the Act itself Parliament is careful to
throw the entire responsibility for the measure upon the
King himself, and to declare, if words mean anything at
all, that they took the truth of the charges against the
good name of the religious, solely upon the King's " declar-

Preface xv
ation " that he knew the facts to be so. It must be remem
bered, too, that one fact proves that the actual accusations
or Co-mperts — whether in the form of the visitors' notes or
of the mythical "Black-book" — could never have been
placed before Parliament for its consideration in detail.
We have the Comperta documents — the findings of the
visitors, whatever they may be worth, whilst on their
rounds — and we can see for ourselves that no distinction is
made between the greater and lesser houses. All are
"tarred with the same brush": all, that is, are equally
besmirched by Layton and Legh, by London and Ap
Rice. " The idea that the smaller monasteries rather than
the larger were particular abodes of vice," writes Dr.
Gairdner, "is not borne out by the Comperta" Yet the
preamble of the very Act suppressing the smaller monas
teries because of their vicious living declares positively
that " in the great and solemn monasteries of the realm "
religion was well observed, and God well served. Can
anybody imagine for a moment that this assertion could
have found its way into the Act, had the reports of the
visitors been laid, for the inspection of the members, upon
the table of the House of Commons? We are consequently
compelled to accept the account of the matter given in
the preamble of the Act: namely, that the measure was
passed on the strength ofthe King's "declaration" that
the charges against the smaller houses were true.
In its final shape the measure enacted that all religious
houses not possessed of an income of more than £200 a
year should be given to the crown, the heads of such houses
receiving pensions, and the religious, despite their alleged
depravity, were to be admitted to the larger and more:
observant monasteries, or licensed to act as secular priests.
The measure of turpitude fixed by the Act was thus a
b

xvi Preface j
pecuniary one, and all monastic establishments which fell
below the £200 a year standard of "good living" were to
be given to the King to be dealt with at his " pleasure, to
the honour of God and the wealth of the realm." This
money limit at once rendered it necessary, as a first step
in the direction of dissolution, to ascertain which houses
came within the operation of the Act, and as early as April,
1536 (less than a month from the passing of the measure),
we find mixed commissions of officials and country gentle
men appointed to make surveys of the religious,_and
instructions issued for their guidance^
The returns made by these commissioners are of the
highest importance in "determining what the moral state of
the religious houses was, at the time of their dissolution.
It is now beyond dispute that the accusations of Crumwell's
visitors were made prior to the passing of the Act of Sup
pression of 1536, and consequently before, not after (as
most writers have erroneously supposed) the mixed com
missions of gentry and officials. The commissioners were
to be six in number for each district: three were to be
officials, namely, an auditor, the receiver for each county,
and a clerk, whilst the remaining three were to be nom
inated by the Crown from "discreet persons" of the
neigbourhood. The main purpose for which these Com
missioners were nominated was of course to find out
what houses possessed an income of less than £200 a year,
and to take these over, in the King's name, as now
belonging to His Majesty. They were, however, instructed
to find out and report upon " the conversation of the lives "
of the religious, or in other words, to examine into the
moral state of the houses visited. Unfortunately, compar
atively few of the returns of these mixed commissions are
now known to exist, although some have turned up, which

Preface xvii
were unknown to Dr. Gairdner when he made his Calendar
ofthe documents of 1536. Luckily, however, the extant
reports deal expressly with some of the very houses against
which Layton and Legh had breathed forth their pesti
lential suggestions. Now that the suppression was resolved
upon it mattered not to Henry or Crumwell that the
inmates should be described as "evil livers," and so the
new commissioners returned the inmates of these same
houses as being " of good and virtuous conversation," and s
this not in the case of one house or district, but, as Dr.
Gairdner remarks, in these reports " the characters given
of the inmates are almost uniformly good."
Such is the briefest of outlines of the circumstances
which led up to the first dissolutions of the English
monasteries. I have set it out here in the Introduction in
the hope that by so doing I may induce at least some of
my readers to study the details which are given in the
pages that follow. The words Comperta Monastica, and the
story about the doings of Parliament in 1536 in regard to
the monks, and, in fact, the very destruction decreed against
them appears to present a black enough case against their
reputation. My belief is that most men of unbiassed opin
ions who will read what I may call the evidence I have
collected, rather than what I have written, will come in the
end to my conclusions. That I may claim the greatest
living authority on this period, Dr. James Gairdner, as one
with me in this matter, is, I think, certain from the words
he used on first reviewing this book. " The old scandals,"
he writes, " universally discredited at the time, and believed
in by a later generation only through prejudice and ignor
ance, are now dispelled for ever, and no candid Protestant
will ever think of reviving them."
Francis A. Gasquet.
February ^th, 1906.

INTRODUCTION

MONASTIC ENGLAND
The ruined abbeys of England are evidences of a past
which, however diversely it may be judged in other respects,
all will agree was great. To some the crumbling wall or
broken arch speaks eloquently of the rapacity of an English
king and indicates the completeness of his spoliation. Alas !
it is to be feared that to the minds of most Englishmen the
desecrated sanctuary calls up one thought above all else —
the thought of wasted, wanton or vicious lives, and of the
sad necessity which compelled King Henry to proceed to
drastic measures of reform. The oft-repeated story pro
verbially gains in strength ; and for many generations anec
dotes about the wickedness of monk and nun have been
listened to and accepted as simple truth ; whilst even well-
wishers to the monastic institute have thought it best friend
liness to observe or counsel silence.
Undoubtedly it is no inviting task to attack a tradition
so long implanted. A horror of monk and monastery has
been imparted with early knowledge at many an English
mother's knee, — the teaching first imbibed and latest lost.
It would almost seem that in this regard the national
character of honesty and fairness had been permanently
warped. Englishmen have been wont to extend considera
tion even to a fallen enemy. In this case, they appear to
have had neither mercy nor pity for those who were among
the most honoured and cherished of their own household for
many centuries. The truth is, that Henry's scheme for

xx Introduction
lowering monks in the popular estimation, though it did not
impose on a people who knew them by experience, has
served its purpose with subsequent generations. " All that
men of the stamp of John Bale," says a modern writer,
" could do in the way of defiling the memory of caenobites
in general has been done, and though Bale is a discredited
man, he and others like him have completed a work which
can now scarcely be undone, and the memory of those who
indubitably preserved religion and increased learning in the
land is almost hopelessly besmirched." 1
That the state of religious life in England, as described
in the letters and reports of Henry's chosen visitors, was
bad, is true. But even these reports do not by any means
bear out the popular impression. The real question, more
over, that needs consideration is : what is the worth of the
visitors' word ? Edmund Burke speaks in accord with the
dictates of mere common sense when he writes : — " I rather
suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated when profit is
looked for in the punishment. An enemy is a bad witness,
a robber is a worse." 2
For three centuries the only voices raised in defence of
the English monasteries have been those of antiquaries, who
might be supposed to have a natural sympathy for a great,
a romantic past. And even these, from Camden downwards,
have found it well to make excuse for their weakness, and
have not failed to add the general sentence of condem
nation, however incongruously it might run with the context.
Burnet fixed, so far as history is concerned, what it had to
say on the subject, and the "History of the Reformation"
was deemed sufficient to dispense with all need for further
inquiry. In the last resort the utterance of the words
Comperta and Black Book was enough to warn the curious
or the adventurous off dangerous ground. It is only of late
1 Mon. Franciscana, ii. Pref., p. xxx.
3 Reflections on the French Revolution.

Monastic England xxi
years that the subject has come within the scope of ordi
nary historical investigation, and some earnest and truthful
writers have paved the way for a juster estimate of the case.
Among these, stands pre-eminent Canon Dixon, who justly
claims — strange as the claim may seem in regard to a
subject about which so much has been written — "to have
laid before the student of history for the first time a con
nected and particular account of the suppression of the
English monasteries." The present work is an attempt to
carry the investigation yet a step farther forward; and,
utilising the mass of scattered material " still unpublished
and unconsulted," to treat the suppression not as an
episode of a greater subject, but as an object of special
inquiry. That the monasteries in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries were all that could be desired in discipline and
vigour would be maintained by no one who has studied the
subject. The circumstances of the troubled times in many
instances no doubt exerted a baneful influence on the
interior spirit of the cloister, as it did on the Church at
large. It must be remembered, however, that denunciations as
to laxity of life, even when made about the monasteries of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, rest, as a rule, on a
comparison with primitive fervour. /Whatever may be said
as to the lives of the monks at this period, it must be con
fessed that the common and ordinary routine of their houses
raised them immeasurably above the level of life around them.
The Episcopal visitations of religious houses prove con
clusively that, whatever failings, or even graver delinquencies
required censure and correction in the case of individuals,
the method of life for the community remained the same, and
that in no sense could it with truth be called a life of ease
and sloth.
In the chronicles and memorials of the various abbeys

xxii Introduction
we still possess, very little information can be gleaned about
the interior and domestic life of the inmates. The reason for
this is obvious. To the chronicler, as he wrote his volume
in the cloister of his monastery, the daily course of the mon
astic life was so even, uneventful and well known, that it
must have appeared useless and unnecessary to enter any
description of it in his pages. The saying, " Happy is the
nation that has no history," applies to monasteries. Troubles,
difficulties, quarrels and even scandals find a place on the
parchment record of an abbey or convent, while the days
, and years of peaceful unobtrusive labour would pass un
noticed by the monastic scribe.

In one of his suggestive lectures Mr. Ruskin bids his
hearers note well the dates A.D. 421 and A.D. 481, for they
are the years of the beginning of Venetian power and of the
crowning of Clovis : " Not for dark Rialto's dukedom nor for
fair France's kingdom only," he adds, " are these two years
to be remembered of all others in the wild fifth century, but
because they are also the birth years of a great lady, and
a greater lord of all future Christendom, St. Genevieve and
St. Benedict." 1 If St. Benedict could claim any country as
his own it is England. There is no need to dwell here on
the evangelisation of our land, on the messengers he sent
hence to Germany and to the North to preach the gospel,
on the schools in which he gathered his disciples, and whence
issued the revival of letters in the darkest days of the Middle
Ages, on the slow patient labour by which his sons reclaimed
the soil, nor on the men through whom our very polity and
law seem to have gained their temper and moderation from
his spirit of discretion. All this is acknowledged though so
easily forgotten. All was done so quietly, so orderly, so
naturally, that a world which has entered on the fruits of
1 Our fathers have told us, ii. p. 42.

Monastic England xxiii
the labour may almost be excused if it does not recognise
the hand that dug the soil and planted the tree.1
The benefits conferred by the monastic order were great.
Those who experienced them had no doubt on that score,
and were not behindhand in full and ample expression of
their gratitude. And though the religious bodies were not
as rich as they were represented to be, their wealth was
undoubtedly immense. Various orders shared it, but the
Benedictines, including in their ranks, besides the Black
monks, the Cistercian, the Cluniac, the Grandmontain and
others, had incomparably the greater part. Independently of
their wealth, what gave the Benedictines further dignity was
the possession of eight or nine cathedrals, including those of
the specially dignified sees of Winchester, Durham and
Canterbury. This placed the election of the bishops of
these dioceses in the hands of the convent. At Canterbury,
in particular, the jurisdiction of the great metropolitical
church fell, during a vacancy, into the hands of the prior
and convent. In their name ran all licenses for the conse
cration of bishops ; they held all the archiepiscopal powers
of visitation ; they could nominate the consecrating prelate
and the prelate to preside at Convocation. It may be readily
understood that these powers were not always viewed with
favour by the college of bishops ; but after the thirteenth
century, with a prudent use of acknowledged rights on the
one side and benevolence on the other, they managed
to avoid disagreement. Although holding the cathedral
churches, the monks did not interfere with diocesan ad
ministration. The bishop's officials were commonly chosen
from the secular clergy, even when he himself happened to
be a monk. It is almost a commonplace, however, to dwell
on the rivalry between the clergy and the monasteries as if it
1 See Cardinal Newman, Historical Sketches, ed. 1873, iii. p. 365, et
seq.; J. S. Brewer, Giraldus Camb., iv., Pref. xv-xvii xxx.-xxxvi., and J.
M. Kemble, Codex, i. , Pref. v.-vii.

xxiv Introduction
were intensified in the later ages. Unquestionably there
were lawsuits about property and other rights between
them, and misunderstandings such as will happen between
men of all classes; but their relations seem to have been
generally good and even, and exempt from any systematic
bickering. The privileged ecclesiastical position of the monastic f„
orders found its counterpart in parliament. Abbots formed
the bulk of the spiritual peerage, which in those times was
both individually more influential and corporately much
larger than at present. The position held by them through
out every part of the country gave yet a further weight to
their great position as noblemen and local magnates. As
such they went pari passu with baron or earl of the noblest
lineage. On the blazoned Roll of the Lords, the Lord
Richard Whiting and the Lord Hugh Faringdon went hand in
hand with a Howard and a Talbot. This individual ennoble
ment indicated by the form of title is striking. Whiting and
Farringdon do not walk merely as the abbot of Glaston and
the abbot of Reading, but in the r61e of English peers they
still hold the name by which they were known when playing
as children in the country manor-house or poor man's cottage.
In the letter books of Durham priory the chiefs of the Cliffords
and the Nevilles address the prior as their equal in no mere
words of empty form. If on occasion the layman strikes a
higher tone, to which the monk responds in gentleness, it
does not affect the ring of trusty and sincere friendship which
is caught throughout the whole correspondence. Nor is
there anything surprising in this when the character of the
monastic life is realised. The monk of Durham from his
earliest years combined simplicity of life with surroundings
of palatial grandeur and a state and ceremony equal to that
of courts, and yet more measured. As time passed on, he
grew from obedience to command, and naturally, without ':
perceiving it, the peasant's son became the equal ofthe peer-

Monastic England xxv
And all this was done without appeal to principles of demo
cratic levelling. The heralds' " visitations " commence at the
moment when the doom ofthe monasteries was already fixed.
Up to that time the art of sifting out the " gentleman " from
the " no-gentleman," which under the Tudors and first Stuarts
grew to a pitch of perfection, was not yet evolved ; and it
may be safe to say that the monasteries, in ages which, if any,
might seem fatal to it, kept up the idea of personal nobility.
The organisation of the various orders helped to qualify
the most prominent of their members for taking part in the
chief council of the realm. Besides their presence in con
vocation, the Benedictines and Augustinians had each a
quadriennial chapter, composed of the abbots and conventual
priors of the whole country, and numbering for the Benedic
tines as many as two or three hundred persons. On these
occasions even individual monks, who might be deputed by
their superior, could learn the practice of great delibera
tive assemblies, and how to deal with affairs of far-reaching
consequence. It was thus not merely by honorific dis
tinction that we find the commissions of the peace generally
headed by some principal abbot or prior of each county.
They had the practice of business, and they were in touch
with men of all ranks — the country gentleman, the yeoman,
the artisan, the peasant and the poor. It is no mere figure
of speech when monasteries are called the common hostelries
for people of all sorts and conditions, the general refuge
of the poor. The daily life of the heads and officers of
every monastic house must have brought them in constant
and natural contact with all classes of society. The monks
were not merely anchorites enclosed in narrow walls, but
were affected by all the movements of public life. They
were not men of war, but, like the knight and the baron,
they had to provide men for the musters. As great land
owners they, more than the yeoman, were concerned in the
crops and the* weather. They resided on the land in the

xxvi Introduction
midst of their people, and the barns, farmhouses and cottages
were no less objects of their care than the roof which covered
their own heads. Beyond this, they were more than land
owners to those round about them. The advisers and
teachers of all, they fulfilled the duties now undertaken by
the guardian, the relieving officer, the parish doctor and
the schoolmaster. Their charity did not flow from public
sources, yet all men expected them, as an incident of their
profession, to provide for those in want, and they were well
acquainted with the circumstances of those they helped.
These conditions combined to ease many of the difficulties
which attend the relief of the poor. " The myth of the ' fine
old English gentleman,' who had a large estate, and provided
every day for the poor at his gate, was realised in the case
ofthe monks, and in their case only."1
Art is a finer and truer expression of the inmost mind
than even words can be. Of arts, architecture is not the
least in power to reveal the soul of man. " Can the same
stream send forth waters both sweet and bitter ? " says the
writer just quoted. "Are the higher realisations of artistic
beauty . . . compatible with the disordering, vulgar, and
noisy pursuits of an unscrupulous avarice or ambition?
Will men that gather meanly scatter nobly? Will any
magic convert the sum total of sordid actions into greatness
of any kind ? 2
Though the architecture of the fifteenth century has not
the type of Cistercian beauty, the builders of the tower of
Canterbury, of the Lady chapel of Gloucester and the church
of Bath, the re-fashioners of Winchester, Chester and Sher
borne, with a host of other monastic churches, could not
have been men devoid either of the sense of beauty or gran
deur. It seems in this matter as though, with the close of
the civil wars, men had taken fresh heart, and the half
century preceding the destruction of the monasteries, so far
1 J. S. Brewer, Giraldus Camb., iv., Pref. xxxvi. * Ibid., p. xxx.

Monastic England xxvii
from being a time of apathy and listlessness, witnessed a
great revival of architectural activity. This would have
been impossible had the monastic system been commonly in
a state of undue relaxation or degradation. The individual
sense of ownership in the common goods is singularly slight
in monastic communities. It is altogether inadequate as a
spur to keep things in a proper condition. Where the
general level of discipline is low, the tendency is to shift off the
trouble of the day to the morrow. Each man is glad to bear
his own burden at the lightest, and that which is the common
concern is left to take its course to the verge of ruin. A
mere feeling of personal pride or spurt of personal effort is
not sufficient, so strong is the tendency to avoid trouble.
The only corrective is that which is of the essence of the
monastic state, a strong and vigorous community life. This
can only exist where at least a reasonable amount of order
and discipline prevails. Hence the activity in building pre
vailing in the early sixteenth century has a lesson of its
own to tell to those who have the power to read it. How
ever wealthy these great foundations may have been, they
could not have undertaken works of such magnitude had not
the monastic tone been healthy and vigorous.
Nor was their work achieved, as is so often implied,
at the expense of the parish churches. Though instances
might be multiplied, one will suffice. Within a stone's
throw of the cathedral of Coventry stands the church of the
Holy Trinity; within a stone's throw of that, again, stands
the church of St. Michael — two of the noblest ecclesiastical
buildings in the kingdom. Both were in the patronage of
the cathedral priory. Had the monks chosen to indulge in
unworthy jealousy, the erection of these noble edifices might
easily have been prevented. In these cases, it will be
understood, the buildings were not for themselves. The
Augustinian canons not infrequently served the churches in
their own patronage ; the monks as a matter of the rarest

xxviii Introduction
exception only. If it be asserted that, by acting in so many
instances merely as vicars for the monastic houses, a portion
of the secular clergy seemed thereby placed in a position of
inferiority and dependence, it must be remembered that to
the monastery they often owed their enrolment in the ranks
of the clergy at all. Putting aside the education they com
monly received in the monastic free schools, it is striking to
find in the episcopal registers how large a proportion of the
secular clergy were ordained to the " title " given them by
some monastery or convent. This fact is emphasised by the
extraordinary diminution of candidates for the priesthood
immediately subsequent to the destruction of the monasteries,
which accounts for the dearth of parochial clergy so often
complained of a few years later.1
The only specimen of a monastic chronicle of the times
of the civil wars2 — that of Croyland, a place remote from
1 From the archiepiscopal registers of the diocese of York it appears that
between 1501 and 1539 there were 6190 priests ordained. Of these 1415
were religious, 4698 were seculars presented for ordination to a title, furnished
by some monastery or convent, and 77 to a title given by a college, or ratione
beneficii. The yearly average of ordinations to the priesthood in the diocese
of York during the 39 years was over 158. The register of Archbishop
Edward Lee shows that in 1536, 92 were ordained priests ; in 1537 no ordina
tions were recorded ; in 1538 only 20 ; and in 1539 the ordinations had
dwindled down to 8. Of these, one, in the first part of 1539, received his title
from a religious house, and another in the. second half of the year was made
priest "to the title of £\ granted him by the king from the monastery of
Worksop." After 1539 among the few ordinations are some who present
" titles " founded on the promises of some nobleman or gentleman.
8 The dearth of late monastic chronicles is very remarkable. It is, how
ever, capable of a simple explanation. In the first place, the generation which
produced a Commines, a Machiavelli and a Marin Sanudo were hardly fitted for
the composition of chronicles such as those of Matthew Paris and William of
Malmesbury. Secondly, there is every probability that many such monastic
records were destroyed at the dissolution. The little fragment of the monk of
St. Augustine's, Canterbury, shows that the cloister annalists were still at work.
This is not likely to have been a solitary case. Chronicles of this kind, how
ever, would not be like the great folios of the St. Alban's Scriptorium ; written
on paper, looking mean and poor, and above all having nothing to do with
property and estates, they would have been little regarded by the spoilers of
the religious houses, and thus lost or destroyed. Thirdly,, the rule of the first

Monastic England xxix
the scenes of trouble — gives us a glimpse of continued
activity. Besides the free school, the choral necessities re
quired a school of music and singing. Architecture, paint
ing, sculpture, organ-building, bell-founding, and that which
English skill had raised to the dignity of an art — embroidery
— all were as actively promoted at Croyland as ever. The
monks too were not so wedded to old-fashioned ways, but
what they were ready to greet the latest discoveries. It
must not be forgotten that in England (though not in
England only) the first printing presses were set up in the
monasteries. The great religious houses, moreover, afforded to the
country population a sight of those splendours now confined
to the great centres of population. The rich vestments and
costly plate in the monastic treasure-house were no mere
personal possession. The enjoyment of them belonged to
the people as a whole. As feast day succeeded feast day
the treasures were brought forth to delight the hearts of all
who took part in the rejoicings. Thus the monasteries sent
a ray of light and gladness through the lives of the great
mass of the people, whose lot at best is full of hardness,
dulness and sorrow.

All that is here insisted on is, that in the sixteenth
century the monasteries formed an element in English social
life both popular and beneficent. For the purpose of thisV
argument it matters little whether the Comperta or Black
Book be true or false. If they were true, the case would be
stronger still, for it is only an overpowering sense of the
benefits which the monasteries generally diffused over the
Tudors was of such a cast, that a Matthew Paris, or even a William of
Newbury, that is, men disposed to tell the truth, could hardly hope to end their
days in their convent. No man can be expected to make a hero of himself merely
to gratify the curiosity of posterity. It is little wonder, therefore, if the later
monks neglected their annals and turned in preference to other occupations.

xxx Introduction
country that, in the presence of such a catalogue of iniquity,
could have prevented their fall amid general execration.
But what is the case ? 'On the part of the secular clergy,
who might be supposed to be their natural rivals, the voice
of Bishop Fisher, pre-eminent amongst them all for a love
of sound learning and for piety, was raised as spokesman in
their defence. Of the nobility, who afterwards shared in
the plunder, many a one before the event put in a plea for
the preservation of the house in which he himself was
interested. The popular voice was expressed in the risings
in the east and north, and at a later date in the west. It is
only now, when the documentary history of the time is being
revealed, that we begin to understand how narrowly these
movements escaped a success, which would have changed
the course of English history. The voices raised against
the monks were those of Crumwell's agents, of the cliques^
of the new men and of his hireling scribes, who formed a
crew of as truculent and filthy libellers as ever disgraced a
revolutionary cause. The later centuries have taken their
tale in good faith, but time is showing that the monasteries,;:
up to the day of their fall, had forfeited neither the goodwill*
the veneration, nor the affection ofthe English people.

CONTENTS

PAGE
Preface  v
Introduction— Monastic England  xix

CHAPTER I
THE DAWN OF DIFFICULTIES
Disastrous effects of the "Black Death" on the Church in
England — The country not recovered by sixteenth century —
Infiuence of the " Wars of the Roses " — Destruction of the
power of nobility — Increased power of the crown — Rise of
the new men — The royal " official " — Condition of the people
in sixteenth century — The state of the Church — The bishops
— The monastic orders — Influence of the times upon the
cloister — Royal and other demands upon the monasteries
— Attacks upon the monks by Simon Fish and others —
Moral state of the monastic orders — Authentic testimony of
Episcopal registers  i-n

CHAPTER II
CARDINAL WOLSEY AND THE MONASTERIES
Rise of Wolsey — His immense power — Exceptional powers in
ecclesiastical affairs as legate — He obtains faculties -for
visiting monasteries — Statuta for the Augustinian canons
— Wolsey disliked by the clergy generally — His scheme for
founding a college at Oxford — Permission obtained from
Clement VII. by pressure — Wolsey asks to be made abbot
in commendam of St. Albans — Permission asked from Rome
for further suppression for the Oxford college — The people
c

xxxii Contents PAGE
"object to the dissolutions — Bad repute of Wolsey's agents,
Dr. Allen and Thomas Crumwell — The King finds fault with
Wolsey's action towards the monasteries — Further suppres
sions asked from the Holy See — The Cardinal's design to
found a college at Ipswich — Further complaints — Henry
acts on the precedent established by Wolsey, and asks the
Pope's permission to suppress monasteries for the foundation
of new cathedrals — The difficulties of Clement VII. in the
matter — The articles of impeachment against Wolsey which
relate to the monasteries . . .... 12-34

CHAPTER III
THE HOLY MAID OF KENT
Early history of Elizabeth Barton — Her great reputation for
sanctity — Bishop Fisher forms a good opinion of her— The
special value of his judgment — The account of his dealings
with the nun — Archbishop Warham's belief in her holiness
— Her opposition to the divorce makes her arrest neces
sary — Her confessor, Dr. Bocking, monk of Christchurch,
Canterbury, and others also arrested — Endeavour on the
part of Crumwell to prove a conspiracy against the state —
The examinations of the accused — Refusal of the judges to
convict — Public penance of the nun and her companions at
St. Paul's Cross — The nun's confession and its real signifi
cance — Its evidence in favour of the other accused — No
conspiracy against the state intended — Endeavour of Crum
well to include Sir Thomas More in the charges against
the nun— The crown proceeds by bill of attainder — The
execution of Elizabeth Barton and her companions . 35-44

CHAPTER IV
THE FRIARS OBSERVANT AND THE CARTHUSIANS
Parliament renounces the papal supremacy — The check on
pulpit utterances at this time— The friars difficult to deal
with— Particular boldness of the Observants — High char
acter of the Greenwich convent — These friars staunch sup-

Contents xxxiii PACE
porters of Queen Catherine — Friar Peto's sermon and its
sequel — The Observants suspected of intercourse with the
fallen Queen — Friar Forest — Friar Pocock's sermon at
Winchester — Henry appoints a superior over the friars —
Their convents are visited and the oath of supremacy pro
posed — Commencement of a "reign of terror" in the mon
astic houses — Franciscan Observants staunch to their old
opinions — Efforts to change them — Henry foiled in his
design — Dispersion of the Observants — Imprisonment and
death of a great number — Friar Forest's martyrdom — Retired
life of Charterhouse monks — Maurice Chauncy's account of
Prior Houghton — Henry's agents endeavour to obtain the
signatures of the religious to the oath of succession — The
prior and procurator committed to the Tower and are per
suaded to take the oath — Further attempts to obtain an
unqualified submission — The three Carthusian priors sent
to the Tower — Their trial and execution for rejecting the
royal supremacy — Further difficulties and the execution of
three more fathers of the London Charterhouse — The com
munity placed under lay governors — Their treatment — Some
sent to the North of England — Ten fathers imprisoned in
Newgate — Their heroism and slow death — Two more exe
cuted at York — The rest resign their house to the king . 45-74 v

CHAPTER V
THE VISITATION OF MONASTERIES IN 1535-36
Henry's difficulties in 1535 — Royal treasury empty — The oath of
supremacy proposed to the monastic houses — Intolerable
nature of the oath — Necessity of subduing the monasteries,
which were special supports of the papal supremacy —
" Greed of great men " a second motive for the suppression
of the monasteries — Their servile dependence on Crumwell
— Injunctions impossible to keep and intended to drive the
religious to rebellion or surrender — The visitors complain of
each other — Their treatment of the religious, and especially
of the nuns — Effects of the visitation on the interior life'and
numbers — Difficulties of religious superiors in governing >
their houses at all — Cqimwell appoints lecturers in some
monasteries . . ".'"*. . . . . . 75-94 /

xxxiv Contents

CHAPTER VI
THE PARLIAMENT OF 1536 AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
LESSER MONASTERIES PAGB
Henry's agents preparing for the attack on the monasteries —
Rapidity of the visitation of Layton and Legh— Usual
account of the passing of the Act— Character of the Parlia
ments of Henry VIII. — House of Commons not a repre
sentative body at all — Systematic packing of the Houses —
The instance of Bishop Tunstall of Durham — Methods for
passing Acts through the House — The existence of the
"Black Book" extremely doubtful — The preamble of the
Act of Suppression — The action of the abbots in the House
of Lords — Education of public opinion by Henry and Crum
well — Pulpit attacks on the monasteries — How far the sup- •
pression was justified by the law of property . . . 95-112 1;

CHAPTER VII
THE " COMPERTA MONASTICA " AND OTHER CHARGES AGAINST
THE MONKS
The Comperta documents — The portion preserved in the writings
of Bale — In reality the notes of the visitors — Value to be
attached to the charges contained in them — Meaning of
Comperta in episcopal visitations — Date of the document —
Comparatively few religious charged with crime — Accusations
vague, and the result probably of malice and idle rumour —
Examples of the manufacture of these reports — Comperta
certainly not the confessions of conscience-stricken monks
and nuns — Accusations often deceptive — Visitors' reports
compared with those of episcopal visitations — Their charges
contradicted by other royal visitors — Story of the Prior of
Crutched Friars, and that of the Abbot of Langdon examined
— Evil reports as to Dover and Folkestone contradicted by
subsequent evidence — Charges against the Abbot of Wigmore
— Origin of many of the tales against monks and nuns —
Negative testimony in favour of the monasteries — Draft peti
tion from the Lords and Commons to the King, begging him
to stay any further suppressions  113— T35 v

Contents xxxv

CHAPTER VIII
THOMAS CRUMWELL, THE KING'S VICAR-GENERAL PAGS
Crumwell's early history — Employed by Wolsey in the work of
suppression — Crumwell on Wolsey's disgrace — Rapid rise —
His autocratic power in England — Places spies everywhere
— Instances of the reign of terror — No pretence of justice or
fair dealing — Arbitrary action of Crumwell even in private
life — Large sums of money coming to him as bribes and
presents — Lavish in his expenditure — The patron of the
ribald writers — Crumwell's fall and execution — Letters
and the spoils of the monastic houses found at his
house  136-157

CHAPTER IX
THE CHIEF ACCUSERS OF THE MONKS, LAYTON, LEGH,
AP RICE, AND LONDON
The visitors well understood the royal purpose — Layton's origin —
His complete understanding with Crumwell — Visits with jn-
tention of making out a case against the monasteries — His
manufacture of Comperta — Understood Crumwell's weak
ness for money transactions — Offers bribes to his master —
His filthy mind revealed in his letters — He becomes Dean of
York and pawns the Cathedral plate— Legh, as a visitor,
described by his fellow, Ap Rice — His large fees shared by
Crumwell — His violence dreaded — Grave charges made
against his morality — The punishment of Layton and Legh
demanded by the " Pilgrims of Grace" — Legh made Master
of Sherburn Hospital, and makes away with the property of
the poor — Ap Rice had previously been in serious trouble —
His money transactions with Crumwell — London chiefly
occupied as a spoiler— Was possibly in Crumwell's power,
— His work of destruction — Treatment of the Abbess of
Godstow — His public penance for incontinence — His re
putation at Oxford — Imprisoned for perjury, and there
dies  - . 158-175

xxxvi Contents
CHAPTER X
THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LESSER MONASTERIES
PAGS
State of affairs in the spring of 1536 — Obstacles to Henry's
return to obedience of Rome — Establishment of Court of
Augmentation — Instructions for commencement of dissolu
tion — General method of procedure — Monasteries refounded
by Henry — Fines paid for license to continue — Number of
religious expelled on dissolution of lesser monasteries —
i Petitions for preservation of monasteries — Re-establishment
of Bisham by the King — Progress of the work of destruction j
— Resistance of the Hexham canons . . . 176-197'

CHAPTER XI
THE RISING IN LINCOLNSHIRE
Outbreak of the rising — Causes of popular discontent — The
resistance at Louth — People rose in defence of the faith —
Feeling against Crumwell and some of the bishops — Statute
of Uses — Story of the rising — Destruction of the registrar's
books in Louth — Murder of the bishop of Lincoln's chancel
lor — The " articles " of popular discontent — Henry's answer
to the demands — Royal anxiety as to the result and the
effect of the news in foreign countries — Collapse of the
movement — Part taken by the monks . . . 198-219

CHAPTER XII
THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE
Popular sympathy with the insurgents — Severe measures taken
by Henry— Causes of the Yorkshire discontent— Aske's de
claration and examinations — Story of the rising — Religious
replaced in their houses— Henry's instructions to Norfolk—
His "politic device"— Insurgent envoys to the King-
Assembly at Pomfret — The settlement at Doncaster 220-240^

Contents xxxvii

CHAPTER XIII
THE SECOND NORTHERN RISING PAGE
Dispersion of the insurgents — Henry's attitude with regard to
the promises made to them — Proclamation of the royal
pardon — Instructions to the officials as to the reinstated
religious — Aske's endeavour to restrain the people — His
belief in the King's honour — The new rising and its failure-
Part taken by the religious in the popular movement, and
especially those of Watton, Jervaulx, Wballey, and Bridling
ton — The quondam Abbot of Fountains — Trials and execu
tions  241-264

CHAPTER XIV
DISSOLUTION BY ATTAINDER
The royal vengeance — Attainder of a religious superior advan
tageous to the king — Fate of Whalley, Barlings, &c. —
Abbot and monks of Furness forced to surrender — Holm
Cultram — Lenton Priory — • Story of the fall of Woburn
— Abbot Hobbes — His examinations in the Tower — His
views as to papal supremacy — His anguish of mind — His
death  265-290

CHAPTER XV
THE SUPPRESSION OF CONVENTS
Hard case of disbanded nuns — Number of convents— Good re
pute of the English nuns— Some convents purchased a
temporary respite from destruction — Many reduced to a
state of destitution — Injunctions for Synningthwaite convent
in 1534 — Conventual life — The good done by religious
ladies — Testimony of royal commissioners — Importance to
the King of surrenders and royal instructions on the point —
Failure as regards convents — Final suppressions — Number
of nuns .  291-309^

xxxviii Contents
CHAPTER XVI
^•i FALL OF THE FRIARS
PAGB
Fundamental principle of the mendicant orders — Numbers in
England on suppression — Their troubles — Bishop Ingworth's
work in dissolving the friaries — The Dominican prior of l
Newcastle-on-Tyne — Opposition to the royal policy — Friar
Anthony Brown — Progress of the dissolution — Friar Stone
 Doctor London and the friars — The .surrenders — Small
value of the spoils — Sites of the friaries much sought after
— Special hardships to which the disbanded friars were
exposed  310-330I'
CHAPTER XVII
PROGRESS OF THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION
Value of surrenders — Policy of Henry in hiding the scheme of
total suppression — Religious anticipate the work of spolia
tion in some instances — Second suppression of Bisham —
Destruction of Lewes — Suppression of Abingdon — Example
of Vale Royal — Royal pressure to secure surrender at
Hinton Charterhouse and Athelney — Abbots appointed for
the purpose of surrendering their houses — Deprivation of
the Abbot of St. Albans, and forced resignation of Abbot of
Evesham — Romsey Abbey — Dr. Hilly ard and the monks —
Account of the dissolution of Roche — Total number of
ejected religious  331-361
CHAPTER XVIII
THE THREE BENEDICTINE ABBOTS
Pre-eminence of Glastonbury— High position of Abbot Whiting —
The oath of supremacy — Royal visitation of Glastonbury —
Last glimpse of Abbot Whiting at Glastonbury — Greater
monasteries not legally dissolved — Whiting removed to
London — The abbey dismantled in his absence — Examina
tions in the Tower— Crumwell's notes — Whiting removed

Contents xxxix, PAGB
into Somerset "to be executed" — The final scene — Abbot
Cook of Reading — His friendship with the King — His atti
tude to the men of "the new learning" — His adherence
to papal supremacy — First troubles — Examinations in the
Tower — Abbot Cook's execution at Reading — Abbot Mar
shall of Colchester — Early troubles — Views of the abbot as
to the deaths of More and Fisher — Examination of witnesses
against Abbot Marshall — His execution . . . 362-396

CHAPTER XIX
THE MONASTIC SPOILS
Estimate of total value — Amount received by the crown smaller
than usually stated— The general scramble for monastic
lands — Work of gathering in the spoils — Private purses
made by his agents — Monastic plate — Irreverence shown to
relics — Demolition of shrines — Winchester, Canterbury,
Durham — Feeling of the people at the work — Total value
of the plate — Ecclesiastical vestments taken for the king or
sold — Destruction of books and manuscripts — "Defacing"
of churches — Lead and bells — Destruction of the buildings,
&c  397-427

CHAPTER XX
THE SPENDING OF THE SPOILS
Royal promises not fulfilled — Act of Parliament in 1539 dealing
with the great monasteries — How Henry spent the property
— Proportion spent on national purposes . . . 428-434
CHAPTER XXI
THE EJECTED MONKS AND THEIR PENSIONS
Pensions of the ejected monks — Only a portion of the monks
pensioned — Voluntary surrender a condition for receiving
anything — Amount of pensions — Reasons for granting large
sums in a few cases — Deductions from the sum allowed —
d

xl Contents

Marly patents for pensions sold — What became of the
disbanded religious — Wills of some Winchester nuns —
Restoration of some monasteries in Mary's reign — Last .
records of disbanded religious  435-459"'

CHAPTER XXII
SOME RESULTS OF THE SUPPRESSION
Popular prejudice against monastic bodies — A subsequent growth ;
— The effect of the dissolution on the poor — Associated
labour and prayer the fundamental idea of conventual exist
ence — Caricature drawn by novelists — Various kinds of
regulars — What the great monastic houses did for the poor —
How the poor were robbed in their dissolution — Consump
tion of the sources of charity — Thrift of the old monastic
owners — Rack-renting by new lay owners — Contemporary
account of the state of the country — Vagrant laws — Effect of
the dissolution on education — Possibility of monasteries ,
taking part in revival of letters — Conclusion . . 460-477/

APPENDIX
Accounts of the Augmentation Office, &c. . 478-480

GENERAL INDEX

¦'*j

HENRY VIII.

AND

THE ENGLISH MONASTERIES
CHAPTER I
The Dawn of Difficulties
No just appreciation of the great social and religious revo
lution of the sixteenth century is possible without some
knowledge of the causes which produced it. " The history
of the Reformation in England," writes Lord Macaulay, " is
full of strange problems." * That the nation, at the bidding
of the sovereign and in furtherance of his whims, should
acquiesce in the rejection of papal supremacy over the
Church, should substitute the doctrine of the spiritual
headship of the king, and should tolerate the national
upheaval and disregard of the rights of property implied
in the dissolution of monasteries and confiscation of their
lands and goods, are " problems " to be solved only by an
acquaintance with the events preceding and accompanying
them. Circumstances combined to collect in the political and
social atmosphere of England in the time of Henry VIII.
elements fraught with dangerous and destructive power
against the Church. In the first place, it would seem to be
certain that the country had not fully recovered from that
terrible visitation, known as the "Black Death," which
devastated Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century.
Although a hundred and fifty years had elapsed before
1 Essay on Lord Burleigh.

2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Henry VIII. mounted the throne, so great had been the
ravages of the scourge, and so unsettled had been the in
terval, that the nation was still suffering from the effects
of the great sickness.
To the Church the scourge of 1349 must have been
especially disastrous. Apart from the poverty and distress
occasioned by the unoccupied lands and the consequent
diminution of tithes, the sudden removal of the great majo- ;
rity of the clergy must have broken the continuity of the
best traditions of ecclesiastical usage and teaching. The
monastic houses also suffered, not only in the destruction
of their chief source of income by the depreciated value of
their lands and the want of cultivation consequent upon the
impossibility of finding labourers in place of the tenants
swept off , by the pestilence, but more than all by reason of
the great diminution of their numbers, which rendered the
proper performance of their religious duties, and the diligent
discharge of their obligations as regards monastic discipline,
difficult, and often almost impossible.
The long and bitter feud between the Houses of York
and Lancaster must likewise be regarded as an important
element in the chain of events which rendered possible the
political and social changes of Henry's reign. The inse
curity and instability of well-nigh half a century, as well
as the ferocity of that contest, must have stamped a peculiar
character upon the men of the early Tudor period.1 When
Henry VIII. succeeded his father, every man of thirty must
have had within his own personal recollection some know
ledge of the terrible war, whilst his parents must have lived
through the whole of it.
The obvious result of a knowledge of the danger and
troubles of this long civil war, whether derived from personal
experience or the relation of parents, was a willingness to
hazard everything rather than recur to such a period of
distress and bloodshed. Periods of revolution inspire pecu
liar prudence, and protracted war a determination at all costs
to cling "to peace and pursue it." Hence the population
generally throughout England in the days of Henry had
1 Those who may wish to understand this more fully would do well to
read an Essay by H. W. Wilberforce on " Events Preparatory to the English
Reformation," in Essays on Religion and Literature. Second series. Long
mans, 1867.

The Dawn of Difficulties 3
been rendered by circumstances long-suffering, and ready to
endure the dictates of his whims and desires rather than to
imperil their peace by resistance.
Another indirect and still more important effect of the
conflict of the " Roses " upon the times of the Tudors was
the destruction of the power of the nobility. The civil war
completed the work begun by the pestilences of the four
teenth century, and finally broke the power of the great
nobles. The " Black Death," by altering the conditions of
land tenure, and thus depriving the territorial lords of their
hold upon the service and lives of their retainers, gradu
ally sapped the strength of the ancient nobility, whilst the
war swept away all the pride and flower of the great noble
families. It was the deliberate policy of Warwick, the
" King-maker," to cut off the chiefs of the opposite party,
and thus to the aristocracy especially the war was fatal.
"The indirect and silent operation of these conflicts,"
writes Mr. Brewer, "was much more remarkable. It reft
into fragments the confederated ranks of a powerful terri
torial aristocracy, which had hitherto bid defiance to the
king, however popular, however energetic." *
When Henry VIII. succeeded, although every sign of
growing power was eagerly watched and speedily and
effectually checked, there was little that the crown had to
fear from the hitherto powerful nobility. Thus the position
and authority of the Tudor monarchs was altogether diffe
rent from that of their predecessors, and the Royal Supre
macy passed from a theory into a fact.2
As a consequence, the stability which the traditions and
prudent counsels of the ancient nobility gave to the ship of
state was gone, when it was most needed to weather the
rising storm of revolutionary ideas. The new peers, who
were created in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to take
the place of the old aristocracy, had no sympathy either by
birth or inclination with the best traditions of the past.
Nor was the age favourable to the production of high-
minded and fearless counsellors so much as to the growth
of men of quick and active talents.
1 Calendar, i. preface lxxv. References will be made to the Letters and
Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII., by Brewer and
Gairdner, by this word only.
2 Calendar, i. preface lxxv.

4 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The Tudor policy of government created also the
"official," who was by nature restless and discontented.
Working for the most inadequate of salaries, such a man
was ever on the look-out for some lucky chance of supple
menting his pay. Success and worldly prosperity depended
on his being able to attract to himself the notice of his royal
master. " It was his interest to compete for extraordinary
grants in return for his work."1 One with the other they
strove who should best work their way into his favour by
anticipating his wishes, satisfying his whims, and pandering
to his desires, " their promotion being wholly dependent
on his good- will."
As a result of the inadequate salaries, the administration
of the law appears, with honourable exceptions, to have
been partial and corrupt. Complaints were frequent against
the lawyers of the period. Suits were kept on from year to
year unless money was forthcoming to induce the authorities
to make an end of the litigation. It even passed into a
proverb that "the law was ended as a man was friended,"
and contemporary writers declaim against the mischief which
men suffered "from the facility with which an accusation
could be lodged against an innocent person." 2
The same contemporary authority speaks of the miserable
state of those who were unfortunate enough to be thrown
into prison. There, he says, they "are lodged like hogs
and fed like dogs." Moreover they were allowed to lie in
these wretched prison-houses for years without any trial,
and if they had no money were left to starve. If they, or
their friends, could afford to pay for their food, they were
allowed in some prisons to "pay for themselves four times
as much as at any best inn." By all means, says Brinklow,
" if a man offend the law let him have the law," but " to
imprison a man and starve him is murder." s
In the midst of the throes of a great social crisis much
depended upon the Church. There can be little doubt that
the clergy of the time were ill-fitted to cope with the forces
1 P. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, i. p. 27.
a Complaint of Roderyck Mors, E. Eng. Text Soc. ed., Introduction, p. 25.
In Starkey's Dialogue between Card. Pole and Lupset the same charges are
made, and the same proverb is made use of by Starkey in the " Dialogue,"
which was afterwards quoted by Henry Brinklow in the " Complaint." Both
these authors were contemporaries of the events about which they write.
3 Ibid., p. 27.

The Dawn of Difficulties 5
of revolutibn, to calm the restless spirit of the age, or resist
the rising tide of novelties. Their very character was in
itself out of joint with the times. In the days when might
was right, and force of arms the ruling power of the world,
the occupation of peace, to which the clergy were bound by
their sacred calling, naturally roused hostile and violent
opposition , from the party rising into power. The bishops
were, with some honourable exceptions, mere court officials
pensioned out of ecclesiastical revenues. Holding their
high offices by royal favour rather than on account of
special aptitude to look after the spiritual welfare of their
dioceses, they appear, perhaps not unnaturally, to have had
little heart in their work.
Too often, also, the bishop of an important see would
be occupied in the management of the secular affairs of
state. Perhaps, even, he was paid for these services by
the emoluments of his ecclesiastical office. To the king all
looked for hope of reward, and to royalty all clung as long
as there remained any prospect of success. The Church
had few favours to give except at the wish and by the
"hands of the king. "Even cardinal's hats were bestowed
only on royal recommendation." 1 The episcopal see was,
moreover, not infrequently looked upon as a property con
ferred for political services and out of which the most, in
a temporal point of view, was to be made.
The practice followed in more than one instance of
rewarding foreigners by nominating them to vacant sees and
benefices in return for services rendered, or as an induce
ment to help on some royal scheme, was also most obviously
detrimental to the well-being of the Church. At one time
the tliree bishoprics of Salisbury, Worcester, and Llandaff
were all held in this way, by those whose only interest in
the dioceses appears to have been the fees they obtained
out of them. The bishop of Worcester lived and died in
Rome, and his predecessor and successor in the see were
also foreigners.
No less detrimental to the well-being of the Church in
England at this time was the crying abuse and scandal of
pluralities. Some priests were proved to have as many as
ten or twelve benefices, and very possibly resident on none,
1 Friedmann, i. p. 137.

6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
while there were " plenty of learned men in the univer
sities " 1 for whom no preferment could be found. Cardinal
Wolsey himself set the example. He held not only a
plurality of livings, but was bishop of more than one see,
whilst he farmed others. He also obtained the abbey of
St. Albans in commendam. Although the Parliament of
1529 especially legislated against this abuse, the exceptions
were so numerous as to make the Act ridiculous and nuga
tory. At this time also benefices were bestowed upon youths
of good family, who had sufficient influence to secure these
preferments. Thus, for example, Reginald Pole, the future
cardinal, when only seventeen was nominated to the pre-
bendal stall of Roscombe, and two years later to Gatcombe
Secunda, both in the Salisbury diocese. At eighteen he
received the deanery of Wimborne Minster.2
The non-residence of bishops in their dioceses was a
fruitful source of evil. The episcopal functions were very
generally relegated to suffragans, who, instead of being
assistants, became practically substitutes for their principals
in all the spiritual work of a diocese. Not unfrequently
these suffragans were bishops of Irish sees, who resided in
England to the neglect of their own cure, and undertook
the supervision of more than one diocese. Upon such
auxiliaries rectories or other ecclesiastical preferments were
bestowed in lieu of payment for their services, and these
in turn were left to the care of ill-paid curates.
The occupation of the bishops in affairs of state, besides
its disastrous effect on the clergy, had another result. By
it a jealous opposition to ecclesiastics was created in the
minds of the new nobility. The lay lords and hungry
officials not unnaturally looked with dislike upon this em
ployment of ecclesiastics in secular concerns. The occupa
tion of clerics in all the intrigues of party politics, and in
the wiles of foreign and domestic diplomacy, conduced to
keep them out of coveted preferment. Hence when occa
sion offered they did not need much inducement to turn
against the clergy and enable Henry to carry out his coer
cive legislation against the Church.
This state of affairs was doubtlessly reflected in the mon-
1 Complaints against Clergy in Pari., 1529, No. 6.
2 Calendar, ii. No. 3943-— Starkey's Dialogue between Pole and Lupset,
E. Eng. Text Soc, Preface cxiii.— 21 Hen. VIII., t. 13.

The Dawn of Difficulties 7
astic orders of England. The events of the previous century
and a half must necessarily have done much to lower the
tone of the religious houses and rob them of their primitive
fervour. Before they could recover from the effects of the
great plagues of the fourteenth century the civil disturbances
of the fifteenth century intensified the evils from which they
were suffering, and became to them " specially disastrous." 1
The financial state of the monasteries at the commence
ment of the sixteenth century was undoubtedly deplorable.
Although many of them were possessed of considerable
estates, which in itself was regarded as a matter of reproach,
they were yet suffering from acute poverty. Denuded of
their tenants, the monastic lands became neglected and
unproductive. " Debt with no chance of redemption weighed
heavily upon all."2 Claims, however, upon their charity,
and the exactions of royal and other founders; increased
rather than diminished, till the burden was more than the
crippled resources of the religious could bear. The State
papers of Henry VIII.'s reign contain abundant proof of
the increasing demands made by king and courtier upon
monastery and convent. Farm after farm, manor after
manor, benefice after benefice, office after office were yielded
up, in compliance with requests that were in reality com
mands. Pensions in ever-increasing numbers were charged
on monastic lands at the asking of those it was impossible
to refuse. " In some cases," writes Mr. Brewer, " the abbots
were bound to give endowments to scholars of the king's
nomination8 or provide them with competent benefices;
pensions and corrodies were granted under the privy seal
to yeomen ushers of the wardrobe and the chamber, to
clerks of the kitchen sewers, secretaries and gentlemen of
the chapel royal;* and these were strictly enforced, what
ever might be the other encumbrances of the house." 6
The royal munificence was liberally exercised in grants
of pensions and perquisites when others had to satisfy the
1 Brewer, Henry VIII, i. p. 50.
2 Ibid., p. 50.
3 Calendar,!. 1235, 1360. Mr. Brewer adds : "One of the most interest
ing of these cases is that of a pension paid by the Prior of St. Frideswide's,
Oxford, to Reginald Pole, then a student at the University of Oxford, after
wards cardinal." Note, p. 50.
4 Calendar, i. 49, 60, 106, 615, 920, &c.
6 Brewer, Henry VIII., i. p. 50.

8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
recipients of the royal generosity. By established custom
every bishop, every superior of a religious house, on entering
upon the emoluments of his see was bound, " ratione novce
creationis" to allow a fitting pension to any clerk recom
mended by the crown until such time as he had provided
a suitable benefice for him. So, in the same way, founders
and their descendants claimed and exercised the right of
billeting poor relations or needy dependents for maintenance,
and often for lodging, on the religious houses of which they
were patrons.
In their endeavour to meet the demands upon their
revenue, the abbots and superiors of the religious houses
endeavoured to accommodate their farming arrangements to
the requirements of the time. Like the nobles and other
landowners, they tried to turn their estates to the most pro
fitable account by forming large enclosures, and devoting
land hitherto cultivated to the pasture of sheep. This was
regarded with great disfavour by the people, who were no
longer required in the same numbers as before to make
the monastic estates profitable to their owners. In the
parliament of 1529 this, and the fact that the religious kept
"tan houses and sold wool and cloth," &c, were causes
of complaint against them by the Commons.
It is difficult for the popular mind to resist the influence
of attractive pictures presented to it. The advantages to
be derived from a redistribution of the worldly wealth of
the Church, and in particular of the religious bodies in
England, were constantly insisted upon. And the poison
instilled into the people by scurrilous tales and descriptions
of clerical and monastic life, circulated by their authors for
the purpose of bringing discredit upon the Church, was
no doubt insidious. These generally were not indigenous,!
but imported, venerable stories, Eastern in their origin and
adapted from Mahometan life to suit the Christian charac
ter; but even they could not deprive the religious bodies of
popular respect.
The most celebrated and perhaps most dangerous attack
against the religious orders made in the early sixteenth
century was in the " Supplication of Beggars," written by
one Simon Fish. It was answered by Sir Thomas More,
step by step, in his "Supplication of Poor Souls;" but,
like all such stories, the answer probably reached only a

The Dawn of Difficulties 9
few of those who had accepted the wild statements of Fish's
fables. Although aimed chiefly against the mendicant friars,
the " Supplication of Beggars " involved in one sweeping
condemnation the whole of the spirituality, described as
"bishops, abbots, priors, deacons, archdeacons, suffragans,
priests, monks, canons, friars, pardoners, and summoners."
Still, even these and similar falsehoods, although appeal
ing to the cupidity of the people, do not seem to have alien
ated from the monks the affections of the general population.
The insurrections in their favour furnish some indication
of the opinion of the people, in spite of all that had been
said and written. Henry Brinklow, a mendicant friar who
had thrown off his frock, and was therefore on two accounts
little likely to favour the monasteries, bears testimony to
the way in which they discharged their duties to the people.
" And when they," he writes, " had gifts of any (churches)
not impropriated, they gave them unto their friends, of
which always some were learned ; for the monks found of
their friends children at school. And though they were not
learned, yet they kept hospitality, and helped their poor
friends. And if the parsonages were impropriated, the
monks were bound to deal alms to the poor, and to keep
hospitality, as the writings of the gifts of such parsonages
and lands do plainly declare, in these words : ' in puram
eleemosinam.' And as touching the alms that they dealt,
and the hospitality that they kept, every man knoweth that
many thousands were well relieved of them, and might have
been better if they had not had so many great men's horses
to feed, and had not been overcharged with such idle gentle
men 1 as were never out of the abbeys. And if they had
any vicarage in their hands, they set in sometimes some
sufficient vicar (though it were but seldom) to preach and to
teach." 2 He goes on to say that the land was given to the
monastic houses for education, hospitality, and to give alms
to the poor, and that they were pulled down on the "pre
tence " of amending what was amiss. " But see," he con-
1 A curious illustration of this may be seen in a letter from the son of the
Duke of Buckingham to Henry VIII. It is evidence of the services rendered
by the monasteries to honourable families in reduced circumstances. " And
because," the writer says, "he hath no dwelling-place meet for him to inhabit,
(he was) fain to live poorly at board in an Abbey this four years day, with his
wife and seven children."
2 Complaint of Roderyck Mors, E. Eng. Text. Soc. ed., p. 33.

10 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
tinues, "how much that was amiss is amended, for all the
godly pretence. It is amended, even as the devil amended
his dame's leg (as it is in the proverb) : when he should
have set it right he broke it quite in pieces. The monks
gave too little alms, but now, where £20 was given yearly
to the poor in more than a hundred places in England, is
not one meal's meat given. This is fair amendment."
It will be necessary to examine more particularly the
general state of moral discipline to be found within the
monasteries of England at the beginning of the sixteenth
century in considering the charges brought against them by
those who thus sought to justify their dissolution. It may
be here stated, however, that the most authentic evidence
upon the subject is to be found in the episcopal registers of
the various dioceses. These contain records, more or less
minute, of the visitations made by the bishops to the
monasteries within the limits of their special jurisdiction^;
Their injunctions and other acts prove the care with which
the duty of supervision was exercised. Many monasteries,
and even orders, were, of course, altogether exempted from
episcopal control ; but such exemptions were by no means
as common as is generally stated. There is no reason
whatever to suppose that the condition of the exempt reli
gious was in any way worse than the rest. On the contrary,
they were, as a rule, the larger monastic houses1 which
enjoyed the privilege, and in these, as the preamble of the
Act of Parliament which suppressed the lesser houses ex
pressly declares, "thanks be to God religion is right well
kept." It is not too much, therefore, to regard the evidence
furnished in the pages of these episcopal registers as giving .
a faithful picture of the state of the religious houses.
( It would be affectation to suggest that the vast regular
body in England was altogether free from grosser faults and
immoralities. But it is unjust to regard them as existing to
any but a very limited extent. Human nature in all ages of
the world is the same. The religious habit, though a safe-
1 This will hold good of Cistercians and Cluniacs, with some others. But
in regard to the Benedictines, who held nearly all the monasteries of the first
rank, absolute exemption in practice must not be too easily assumed. To
say nothing of the wealthy cathedral priories, such monasteries as Glastonbury,
in the south, and St. Mary's, York, in the north, seem from the bishops'
registers to have been subject to little less than ordinary episcopal visitation.
These are cited as instances only.

The Dawn of Difficulties 1 1
guard, gives no absolute immunity from the taint of fallen
nature. The religious of the sixteenth century had passed
through many difficulties dangerous to their spiritual no less
than to their temporal welfare. Yet, while their moral tone
had probably been lowered by the influence of the spirit
of the times, the graver falls were certainly confined to
individual cases. Anything like general immorality was
altogether unknown among the religious of England. This
much is clearly proved by the testimony of the acts of
episcopal visitations, as well as by the absence of any such
sweeping charge till it became necessary for Henry and his
agents to blast the fair name of the monastic houses in order
the more easily to gain possession of their property. ^
The reports of Crumwell's visitors no doubt represented
the religious houses as being in the worst possible state
of moral degradation. Subsequent authors have improved
upon the picture, and have drawn to a great extent upon
their imagination. It is to be hoped that a better knowledge
of the methods employed by Henry's agents to blacken the
character of those they were about to despoil may lead to
a truer appreciation of the value to be attached to their
testimony.

CHAPTER II
Cardinal "Wolsey and the Monasteries
ENGLAND, during some fourteen years of the reign of
Henry VIII., was ruled by the counsels of Wolsey. On
the king's accession, in 1509, the future lord cardinal of
York had already made his way to the dignity of dean of
Lincoln. Six years later pope Leo X. yielded to the earnest
demands of the English king and the polite but persistent!
pressure of Wolsey's agents in Rome, and created him
cardinal. He had already become archbishop of York,
and had gained an ever-increasing influence over the mind
of his royal master. On December 24, 1515, one year later,
he took the oaths of office as chancellor of England, in
succession to the saintly and venerable Warham. He then
appeared to have reached the summit of a subject's lawful
ambition. As the highest judicial officer of the realm — the " keeper
of the king's conscience " — Wolsey's power in matters tem
poral was then practically unlimited.
" He is in very great repute," writes a foreign ambas
sador in England, " seven times more so than if he were
pope. He is the person who rules both the king and the
entire kingdom. On my (the ambassador's) first arrival
in England he used to say, ' His Majesty will do so and so.'
Subsequently, by degrees, he went on forgetting himself, and
commenced saying, ' We shall do so and so.' At present he
has reached such a pitch that he says, ' T shall do so and so.' "
In addition to this almost regal authority in temporal
matters, the cardinal desired great and exceptional powers
in ecclesiastical concerns. For a while his appointment to
a place in the august College of Cardinals seemed doubtful.
He consequently directed the English agent in Rome to
hint that the pope's hesitation was damaging to papal
influence over Henry, and that refusal would be really dan-

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 1 3
gerous. " If the king forsakes the pope," he added, " he
will be in greater danger on this day two years than
ever was Pope Julius." 1 A few days later he again wrote
to Silvester de Gigliis, the bishop of Worcester and the
king's ambassador to the pope. In this despatch he enclosed
a communication, which was not to be handed to the pope
till his nomination as cardinal was secure. The note thus
sent made a further demand on the Holy See ; it was that
the Holy Father should appoint him legate as well as
create him cardinal. Should this demand be refused, the
agent's instructions were to press for special faculties em
powering Wolsey to visit all monasteries in England ; powers
which were to apply even to such as were by law exempt
from all except papal authority. If this last request were
skilfully put, Wolsey considered that the pope could not
refuse it. No pope, he added, ever had a better friend than
Henry "if he comply with his desires?' The letter con
cluded by saying that the cardinal was sending his agent
10,000 ducats propter liberalia, and with promises of great
generosity to whomsoever brought him the cardinal's hat.2
Leo X., however, was not to be coerced. He refused either
to appoint the newly-created cardinal his legate in England,
or to bestow upon him the extensive spiritual jurisdiction
he desired.3 Two years later, in March 1518, the subject of the
coveted legateship was revived. The king's secretary,
Pace, informed Wolsey that his master had received a
communication from the pope. To ask aid against the
Turk four legates had been appointed to the European
powers, and Cardinal Campeggio was accredited for that
purpose to England. To this communication no reply was
given for a long time. The English agent wrote to say that
the pope was annoyed and astonished, and asked him " ten
times a day " when he might expect an answer to his letters.
At length Wolsey, after consultation with Henry, wrote to
de Gigliis in an imperious tone. It was not customary in
England, he said, to admit any foreign cardinal to exercise
legatine powers in the country ; still the king was willing,
under two conditions, to receive Campeggio as papal envoy.
Of these two conditions the first was that all the ordinary
1 Calendar, ii. No. 763. 2 Ibid., No. 780, Aug. 1.
3 Ibid., Nos. 967-8. \

14 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
faculties exercised by papal legates de jure should, in this ''
case, be suspended, and that Campeggio should be confined
to the special purpose for which he had been appointed.
The second condition, coming from Wolsey himself, is
even more astonishing. It was simply that the pope should ?
associate him with Campeggio in the business and should
bestow upon him equal legatine faculties. The despatch
then proceeded to state that unless these conditions were
complied with "the king will in no wise allow Campeggio
to enter England." 1
Leo X. surrendered to the undisguised threats of Henry
and Wolsey. On May 17, 1518, the latter was nominated,
legate with Campeggio, who had been previously appointed.
In a very short time Wolsey contrived to assume the first
place, leaving the subordinate one to the Italian cardinal.*;;*
The latter arrived in England only after many delays pur
posely interposed by the king and his minister. He was
at once made to feel his dependent position, for Henry and
the English cardinal kept the real business in their own
hands, and did not conceal their desire to get rid of the
unwelcome foreign visitor.
Wolsey's diplomacy or threats, probably both, scored
another triumph. He obtained not only the office of legate,
but also the exceptional powers of visitation which had
been previously asked for and refused. On August 27,
1 5 18, Silvester de Gigliis wrote from Rome that he had
been industrious in obtaining from the pope the deprivation^
of Cardinal Hadrian de Castello from the see of Bath anijf
Wells, and had secured the custody of the diocese for his
master. In fact, at the agent's suggestion, until this was
secured, Campeggio had not been allowed to cross into
England. The deprivation appears to have been obtained^
on account of the pope's desire for the success of his legate's
' mission* De Gigliis also informed Wolsey that he had "
secured for him a bull for the visitation of monasteries in
the same tenor " as that obtained by the bishop of Luxem
burg for France." He added that he had often been struck
with the necessity of reforming the monasteries, and espe
cially the convents of women ; but he thought that the cardinal
"would find those of his own diocese (Worcester) complain."3
1 Calendar, ii. No. 4073. » md., No. 4179. « md., No. 4399.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 15
Never before in England, or probably in Christendom,
had similar powers been vested in any single individual.
The high office of chancellor and the dominant influence
Wolsey possessed over his royal master gave him the control
of all secular authority. His legatine faculties, increased by
the additional powers of visitation he had extorted from the
pope, made him no less supreme in matters ecclesiastical.
In the hand of one man were grasped the two swords of
Church and State. One mind directed the policy of secular
and ecclesiastical administration in England. Had that man
been a saint, the danger of such a combination would have
been considerable, but when he was a worldly and ambi
tious man like Wolsey, it was fatal.
No sooner had Wolsey obtained the powers of visitation
so long sought than he proceeded to put them in force. On
March 19, 15 19, he issued statuta to be observed by the
order of Canons Regular of St. Augustin, which were to
remain in force till the feast of Holy Trinity, 1 52 1.1 The
ordinances thus enacted are valuable evidence as to the
state of the great Augustinian order at that time in Eng
land. They point to a severity of discipline and a morti
fied mode of life altogether incompatible with that general
laxity since attributed to them in common with the other
great bodies of regular clergy. The mere enactments of
the primary principles of the monastic life or declarations of
the unlawfulness of certain evil customs must never be con
sidered in such injunctions as proof of the existence of evil.
As well might the vigorous denunciations of sin from the
pulpit, or the constant reassertion of the Ten Commandments,
be held as evidence that God's law was uniformly violated
by those to whom such words are addressed. The tendency
of human nature is ever to fall away from any standard of
excellence. Hence the necessity of unwearied iteration in
setting out the ideal to be aimed at, and this is sufficient to
explain why constitutions and statutes of religious orders
inveigh against abuses.
It is impossible not to approve the spirit which dictated
constitutions such as these. And it would have been well
had Wolsey continued in the same way the work he thus
begun, and by watchful care endeavoured to recall the reli-
1 Wilkins, Concilia, iii. p. 613.

1 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries 7;
gious orders to greater fervour. Unfortunately his ambitious;
schemes soon involved him in a conflict with them. Those
who might tolerate criticism, and even welcome wholesome
correction, could hardly be expected to look with approval,-
or even indifference, on total extinction.
At the close of 1523 the cardinal had determined to
rival other great churchmen as a founder of an Oxford
college. The example of Waynfleet and Wykeham, and
the more recent establishment at Cambridge, through the
exertions of the venerable Bishop Fisher, impelled him to
add the glory of " founder " to the titles he already possessed.
At this time he was engaged on the erection of magnificent
palaces, and he had as much difficulty in supplying funds for
these ambitious undertakings as in keeping his master, the
king, from constant beggary.
To the other emoluments, ecclesiastical and lay, which
Wolsey possessed, and in addition to the pensions he re
ceived from foreign countries in 1521, he added the revenues
of the abbatial office of St. Albans. He was away from
England when Abbot Ramridge died in November. On
the 1 2th of that month the monks appeared before the king
at Windsor to request permission to proceed to the election
of a successor. Henry made them a speech, about which,
on account of " its princely and godly motion," Secretary
Pace wrote to Wolsey the following day. Whilst actually
engaged on this letter a communication was brought to him
from the cardinal " touching the monastery of St. Albans^" ,
"And after I had perused," writes Pace, "and diligently^
debated with myself the contents of the same, I went straight
to the king's grace, with your grace's letters, to him directed,
in the same matter. And I found him ready to go out a
shooting; and yet, that notwithstanding, his grace happily
commanded me to go down with him by his secret way into
the park; whereby I had as good commodity as I could
desire to advance your grace's petition as much as the case
required. And the king read your grace's letters himself,'/
and made me privy to the contents of the same. And the
few words his Highness spoke to me in this cause were
these : ' By God ! my lord cardinal hath sustained many
charges in this his voyage and expended ;£io,ooo,' which I
did affirm and show his grace of good congruence, he oweth
you some recompence. Whereunto his grace answered

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 17
'that he would rather give unto your grace the abbey of
St. Albans than to any monk.'"1 Thus at the cardinal's
petition the revenues of the premier abbey were given in
reward for secular services.
At the commencement of the year 1524, Clerk, the cardi
nal's agent in Rome, wrote that he was " almost at a point
with the pope about Wolsey's matters." Clement VII. was
"contented to confirm the legateship," he said, "with all
faculties for life, which was never heard before." Further,
that "the ordering of Frideswide's in Oxford was also at
Wolsey's pleasure." 2
Later on the agents report further attempts to obtain
extended powers from Clement VII. The pope appeared
willing, but said, " what a business other men made " about
it. They conclude their communication by a significant
hint to their master. It would be well, they think, for him
to secure a pension out of the revenues of the bishopric of
Worcester for one of the pope's officers who has been " good
to him." 8 By this time, however, Wolsey had obtained the
bull which enabled him to dissolve the monastery of St.
Frideswide's at Oxford and apply its property to the founda
tion of his college.* The document had been sent off from
Rome by the end of April. It had been procured at the
earnest request of the cardinal's agents, yet they made it
appear to be the result of Clement's own desire. It was not
exactly such a faculty as they had wished to obtain. Still,
it contained, as they said, "the clause motus proprii," and
they trusted that it might be made more advantageous. In
fact, Clerk altered the document in this sense without asking
the pope ; but at the last moment he found that the enlarged
faculties would not be granted. The agent again concluded
his communication by saying that Ghiberto, one of the pope's
officials, "openly will not be known," but he has done his
best, and he thinks that he is waiting to see whether he
gets the pension from the See of Worcester. This Clerk
advises Wolsey not to refuse, " as he may be useful."
For the next few months great pressure was put upon
the Holy Father to grant permission for further suppressions
in order to help out the cardinal's design at Oxford. The
1 Calendar, iii. No. 1759.
2 Ibid., iv. No. 15, Jan. 9, 1524. s Ibid., No. 252.
4 The king's "inspeximus" is dated May 10, and the bull April 3, 1524.
B

1 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
pope appeared favourable, but Cardinal Sanctorum Quatuor
was " unbeatable." He apparently influenced Clement VII.
against the scheme. In August 1524, Clerk wrote that the
Holy Father made hardly any objection to his demands for
Wolsey, " except the extinction of the monasteries and the
collectorship."1 They had been told in Rome (as the bull
subsequently obtained asserts) that the need for increased
facilities of study in England was at this time most pressing,;,
and that the Oxford university "seemed likely to come to
an end by reason of its slender revenues." 2 Further, that
the position of St. Frideswide's in the city of Oxford was
admirably adapted for the purpose of a college, and that,
owing to the objection of the English people to allowing
land to be held for such purposes, it was impossible to
buy or procure it. Lastly, they were told that there were
many religious houses in England where the numbers had
diminished to five or six, and where, on this account, the
divine service could not be fittingly carried out.
Urged by these motives, the pope at first granted the
cardinal of York the amplified faculties, for visitation so
long and diligently sought. Subsequently he consented to
another bull for increasing the revenues of the Oxford
college by further suppressions. He warned Wolsey's
agent, however, "for God's sake to use mercy with those
friars," as to the matter of visitation, adding, according to
Clerk (what sounds much more like the agent's sentiment
than the pope's) "that they were desperate beasts, past
shame, that can lose nothing by clamour." s The bull
allowing Wolsey to suppress monasteries to the value of
3000 ducats a year for the purpose of adding to the funds
of his college, left Rome on September 12, 1524.* It pro
vided that the king and the various founders should give
their sanction, and that the religious persons should go to
other monasteries.6
Power having been thus obtained from Rome, the
cardinal commenced early in the following year, 1525, to
possess himself of the revenues of various monasteries
1 Calendar, Nos. 511, 568. «p
2 Rymer, Fadera, xiv. p. 23: "Et quod Universitas sludii general®
Oxoniensis ob penuriam reddituum propemodum extinctum iri videbatur." Xl
8 Calendar, iv. No. 610. The bull granting the additional faculties of
visitation is in Rymer, xiv. p. 18.
4 Calendar, iv. No. 652. « Rymer, xiv. p. 23.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 1 9
besides those of St. Frideswide's in Oxford. The papal
bull was ratified by the king on March 15th, and several
parish churches, formerly belonging to the suppressed reli
gious houses, were appropriated by letters patent to the new
foundation.1 But both the time and the agents Wolsey
employed to effect the dissolutions conduced to render the
matter most unpopular. Just at this period Henry was en
deavouring to raise a large loan from his people "against
the time the king should pass the sea." The amount asked
was no less than " the sixth part of every man's substance,"
and that it "should without delay be paid in money or
plate to the king for the furniture of his war." 2 Wareham
warned Wolsey in the. spring of the year how unpopular
this " amicable grant " was in Kent.8 The work of suppres
sion was undoubtedly disliked by both clergy and laity.
In the July of 1525 the archbishop again wrote to the
cardinal about the difficulties his policy was creating in the
southern parts of England. The inhabitants of Tunbridge
strongly objected to the dissolution of a monastery of Austin
canons from which they had derived many advantages.
Warham was commissioned to go there and endeavour to
persuade them that it was much better to have "forty
children of that country educated and after sent to Oxford "
than to have six or seven canons living amongst them ; but
the people did not think so. After discussing the matter for
five or six days they again met Warham, and gave him a list
of those who desired the continuance of their ancient priory.
The inhabitants of the neighbourhood no less than of the
town " would rather have the said place not suppressed,"
wrote the archbishop, "if it might- stand with the king's
pleasure." The murmurs about the matter were very diffi
cult to repress, and this he told Wolsey, who had a " suspi
cion that the bruit " was against himself.4
1 Rot. Pat. 18 Hen. VIII. p. I, mm. 21, 22.
2 Hall, Union ofthe Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, ed. 1548, foL I38d.
3 Ellis, Original Letters, ist Series, iii. p. 367.
4 Calendar, iii. 1470-1. Warham to Wolsey, July 2nd and 3rd, 1525.
Hall, ut sup., fol. 137, gives the following account of these suppressions: —
The cardinal " suddenly entered by his commissioners into the said houses,
and put out the religious and took all their goods, moveables, and scarcely
gave to the poor wretches anything except it were to the heads of the house.
And then he caused the escheator to sit and find the houses void, as relin
quished, and found the king founder where other men were founders, and with
these lands withall he endowed his colleges."

20 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
In the neighbouring county of Sussex the agitation
against Wolsey's dissolution of monasteries was more serious
and led to a riot. Beigham Abbey, " the which was very
commodious to the country,"1 was a monastery of Pre-
monstratensians, and Wolsey had commissioned the bishop
of Chichester to visit and inquire into certain alleged
scandals there.2 The religious, however, evidently main
tained a hold on the affections of their neighbours, and on
the cardinal's proceeding to dissolve the house, under the
powers of Pope Clement's bull, the people assembled in
" a riotous company, disguised and unknown, with painted
faces" and masked. They turned out the agents engaged
on the suppression and reinstated the canons. Before
separating they begged the religious, if they were again
molested, to ring their bell, and they pledged themselves to
come in force to their assistance.3
Rumour, apparently, attributed to the cardinal even
larger schemes of confiscation than were at the time con
templated. No sooner was the bull of Clement VII. put
into force than petitions against the exercise of Wolsey's
legatine powers were presented to the pope, especially by
the Grey Friars and the Franciscan Observants. The latter
were very powerful in Rome, and, as the cardinal's agent
wrote, the pope may perhaps "give them some brief," but
not one derogatory to Wolsey's honour.4 The cardinal of
York himself had also representations made to him against the
work in which he was engaged. The Duke of Suffolk, for
example, wrote to him in favour of the priory of Conished^
in Lancashire, which by common report had been doomed
to extinction. The monastery, he said, was "a great help
to the people," and " the prior of good and virtuous dis
position." 6
Complaints were also carried to the king of the harsh
and unjust way in which Wolsey's agents, Dr. Allen and
Thomas Crumwell, were conducting the suppressions and
the visitations of the religious houses upon which they
were then engaged. Early in 1525 the cardinal had been
informed by Sir Thomas More that complaints had been
made to Henry, "touching certain misorders supposed to
1 Hall, ut sup., fol. 143. 2 Calendar, iii. 1252.
8 Hall, utsup. ; Ellis, Orig. Lett., 2nd Ser., iii. p. 57.
4 Calendar, iii. No. 1521. 5 md., j^Q_ i2jj_

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 21
be used by Dr. Allen and other my officers in the suppres
sion of certain exile and small monasteries wherein neither
God is served nor religion kept. These, with your gracious
aid and assistance, converting the same to a far better use,
I purpose," writes Wolsey to the king, " to annex unto your
intended college of Oxford." He further assures Henry
that he can disprove any such reports, saying, "I have not
meant, intended, or gone about, nor also have willed mine
officers to do anything concerning the said suppressions,
but under such form and manner as is, and hath largely
been, to the full satisfaction, recompense, and joyous con-
tentation of any person, which hath had, or could pretend to
have, right or interest in the same." x
Whatever may have been Wolsey's belief, at the time,
in the integrity of his agents, there is little doubt that the
reports about them were well founded. Subsequently,
indeed, the cardinal practically admitted the truth of the
charges suggested against those he employed in dealing
with the religious. Fiddes in the " Life of Wolsey " says :
1*1 The revenues of the cardinal, from the privileges of his
visitatorial power, of making abbots, of proving wills, grant
ing faculties, licenses, and dispensations from his pensions
and preferments, and other visible advantages, were thought
by this time to be equal to the revenues of the crown. But
in the methods of enriching him under the first article no
one contributed so much as his chaplain, John Allen, LL.D.,
who, accompanied with a great train, and riding in a kind
of perpetual progress from one religious house to another,
is said to have drawn very large sums for his master's
service from them."2
This Dr. Allen was, apparently, the object of great dread
and intense dislike. He was an astute, hard man, and, like
his fellow, Crumwell, had evidently been trained up in
business habits to the detriment of his humanity or even
honesty. He was afterwards made archbishop of Dublin,
"where his imperiousness and rapacity brought him to a
violent end." 3
The courtesy and consideration which the monks were
likely to receive at the hands of Crumwell may be best
1 State Papers, i. p. 154.
2 Fiddes, Life of Wolsey, p. 351 ; Hall, ut sup., fol. 143.
1 Brewer, Henry VIII., vol. ii. p. 270.

22 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
understood by his subsequent dealings with them. "Of
Crumwell," writes Mr. Brewer, "it is enough to say that
even at this early period of his career his accessibility to
bribes and presents in the disposal of monastic leases was
notorious."1 For some years before the cardinal's fall,
report had spoken badly of Thomas Crumwell. " Loud
outcries reached the king's ears of the exactions and pecula
tions of Wolsey's officers, in which the name of Crumwell^
was most frequently repeated, and more than once the king
had to express his grave displeasure at the conduct of a
man who soon after was destined to occupy the highest
place in his favour." z
"In 1527, when Wolsey was at Amiens and proposed
to send Dr. Allen to England with a message to the king,
Knight, who was afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, ;
wrote to warn the cardinal against his selection. "And,
sir," he said, "in case Mr. Allen be not departed hither-
wards on your message, or may be in time revoked, your
grace might use better any about you for your message
unto the king than him. I have heard the king and noble
men speak things incredible of the acts of Mr. Allen and
Crumwell."3 In subsequent times the superiors of religious houses
endeavoured to buy off the threatened dissolution by
presents and bribes or by readily acceding to requests
which were tantamount to demands. Under Wolsey they?1
tried to purchase favour by offers of gifts to the cardinafef
college. The bishop of Lincoln, who greatly aided this
foundation in more ways than one, put great pressure on
the abbot of Peterborough to resign, or to bestow the large
sum of 2000 marks on the undertaking. He tried much
the same system of blackmail on the prior of Spalding. »|
The prior, however, would not resign, "though all legal ;
means were tried."4 There are also many indications of
distinct bribes offered for various offices. One man promises '
SOO marks and other considerable presents to the college, if
the cardinal will make him under-treasurer.6 When the
prior of St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield, was sick of the
plague and likely to die, the friends of "William Finch,
cellarer of the same," offer Wolsey " £300 to your college
' Brewer, ut supra. 2 Ibid., p. 394. 3 Stale Papers, i. p. 261.
Calendar, iv. Nos. 2378, 4708. « Bid., No. 4452, also 4483.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 23
at Oxford for your favour towards his preferment."1
Lastly, to allow him to illegally imprison some one who has
offended him, Henry, earl of Northumberland, offers to give
the cardinal " the chapel books of his late father," which he
has been asked to bestow on the college. To induce him
to make the bargain, the earl says he will let him have four
antiphonals and graduate, " such as were not seen a great
while," £200 in money, and a benefice of £100 for his
college.2 At length, on the eve of the lord cardinal's fall, the king
writes strongly as to the methods employed by Wolsey's
agents and his own condemnation of them. The letters
were called forth by a difference between Henry and his
minister as to the appointment of an abbess to Wilton.
The king had determined to favour the election, or what
might be more truly called the appointment, of Dame Elinor
Carey. She was supported by powerful friends, amongst
whom was reckoned Anne Boleyn herself. The cardinal,
probably with quite sufficient reason, and in distinct opposi
tion to the royal wishes, approved of the choice of the for
mer prioress, Dame Isabell Jordayn. Wolsey wrote to offer
humble apologies on being informed of Henry's displeasure,
and, in accepting the explanation, the king wrote: "As
touching the help of religious houses to the building of your
colleges, I would it were more, so it were lawfully ; for my
intent is none but that it should appear so to all the world,
and the occasion of all their mumbling might be secluded
and put away. For surely there is great murmuring of it
throughout all the realm, both good and bad. They say
not that all that is ill-gotten is bestowed on the college, but
that the college is the cloak for covering all mischiefs.
This grieveth me, I assure you, to hear it spoken of him
whom I so entirely love. Wherefore methought I could do
no less than thus friendly to admonish you. One thing
more I perceive by your letter, which a little, methinks,
toucheth conscience, and that is that you have received
money of the exempts for having their old visitors. Surely
this can hardly be with good conscience. For if they were
good, why should you take money ? and if they were ill, it
were a sinful act. Howbeit, your legateship herein might
1 Calendar, No. 3334. 2 Ibid., No. 4603.

24 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
peradventure apud homines be a cloak, but not apud
Deum." 1
In his reply the cardinal thanks his master "for the
great zeal that (he) had for the purity and cleanness of my
poor conscience, coveting and desiring that nothing should
be by me committed or done, by the colour of my intended
college or otherwise, that should not stand with God's
pleasure and good conscience, or that thereby any just
occasion might be given to any person to speak or judge
ill of my doings. And albeit, as is contained in my other
letters, I have acknowledged to have received of divers, my
old lovers and friends, and other exempt religious persons,
right loving and favourable aids towards the edifying of my
said college, yet your majesty may be well assured that the
same extendeth not to such a sum as some men doth untruly
bruit and report, or that any part thereof, to my knowledge,
thought, or judgment hath been corruptly or contrary to
law taken or given." He then declares that henceforth he
will take nothing " from any religious person being exempt
or not exempt, so that thereby I trust, nor by any other
thing hereafter unlawfully taken, your poor cardinal's con
science shall not be spotted, encumbered, or entangled."2
Notwithstanding Wolsey's excuses, Henry seems to
have had just grounds for his suspicion that the cardinal
had made use of his legatine authority to serve his own
purposes. Popular report had spoken of immunities pur
chased by presents to the cardinal's colleges which were
adverse to the king's interests, and which ought not to have
been granted. The archbishop of Canterbury complained |
that, in raising the loan known as the " amicable grant," he
had no power at all over the religious houses in his district.
1 Lord Herbert, Henry VIII, p. 164; Fiddes, Wolsey, p. 379. Fuller,
Church Hist., iii. p. 357, ed. 1845, says: "God's exemplary hand ought to
be heeded in the signal fatality of such as by the cardinal were employed in
this service. Five they were in number, two whereof challenging the field of
each other, one was slain and the other hanged for it. A third throwing him
self headlong into a well, perished wilfully. A fourth, formerly wealthy, grew
so poor that he begged his bread. The fifth, Dr. Allen, one of especial note, '
afterwardsarchbishop of Dublin, was slain in Ireland. What became of the
cardinal himself is notoriously known, and as for his two colleges, that in
Ipswich (the emblem of its builder, soon up, soon down) presently vanished
into private houses ; whilst the other, Christchurch in Oxford, was fain to
disclaim its founder."
2 State Papers, i. p. 317.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 25
"They must be left," he writes, "to your grace (Wolsey),
and unless they contribute to the loan according to the
value of their benefices the clergy will complain. Had the
religious houses not been exempted, but appeared before
me, the loan derived from my diocese would be much
greater."1 The king likewise complains with much bitter
ness that among the religious are found the most strenuous
and successful opponents of this enforced benevolence.
" These same religious houses," he writes to the cardinal,
" would not grant to their sovereign in his necessity, not by
a great deal so much as they have to you for the building of
your college. These things bear shrewd appearance, for,
except they were accustomed to have some benefit, they,
and no other I ever heard of, have used to show that kind
ness, tam enim est aliena ab eis ipsa humanitas." He
concludes by urgently requiring Wolsey to look well into
the conduct of those to whom he has entrusted this " med
dling with religious houses." 2
By 1527 Wolsey had conceived a desire to further emu
late the example of Bishop Wykeham and establish a school,
which should feed his foundation at Oxford, as that at
Winchester had fed New College. For this purpose further
funds were imperatively necessary. The success of his
previous scheme having been secured by the dissolution
of various monasteries, his agents, who had gone to Rome
on the divorce question, were instructed to seek additional
powers in the same direction. The cardinal at this time
appears to have hesitated at nothing to carry out his designs.
In the summer of this year, 1527, he had been in France,
where he made three treaties with the king. It was agreed
that, during the captivity of the pope, no bull or brief should
be received in either country; that, with the consent of
Henry, the cardinal of York should have control of all
ecclesiastical affairs in England, and that Francis I. should
take the like power in his dominions. Wolsey also proposed
to ask Clement VII. to make him his vicar-general, as long
as he was a prisoner, and to entrust him with supreme
authority. In fact, according to the tenor of the bull,
written ready for the pope's seal and signature, the cardinal
1 Calendar, iv. p. 2010.
2 Brewer, Henry VIII, ii. p. 283 ; Fiddes, Collect., p. 139.

26 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
proposed to obtain power of dispensing even from the
divine law.1
What is more extraordinary still is, that Wolsey, before
leaving France, acted as if he had obtained these full and
unheard-of powers. He even ordered the chancellor of
France to assume the dignity and dress of cardinal, which
Clement had promised but had not bestowed.2
In December 1527, the pope escaped from Rome to
Orvieto, and thither Gardiner and Foxe, Wolsey's agents,
followed him. The Holy Father was powerless, and at
the mercy of any who chose to exert pressure upon him.
On March 23, 1528/ Foxe wrote describing the miserable
state in which they had found the pope on their arrival at
Orvieto. He had taken up his quarters in the bishop's
ruined palace. Three small chambers, " all naked and un
hanged," with the ceiling fallen, and about thirty persons
of the " riff-raff" standing about " for a garnishment," led to
the pope's private apartment. The furniture of this, " bed
and all," was not worth "twenty nobles."3
In the midst of this perplexity and difficulty a further
demand was made on Wolsey's behalf. Powers were asked
to suppress the priory of St. Peter's, Ipswich, and other
monasteries to obtain funds for the foundation of a college
at Ipswich. The pope gave way; nor could he well have
refused any demand which conscience would have enabled
him to grant. In the middle of May 1528 the necessary
bulls were dispatched to Wolsey. Gardiner appears to
have acted as unscrupulously in this matter as in the
divorce question. The pope, on the first suggestion of fur
ther suppressions, had asked from the agents particulars
about the cardinal's colleges. He was pleased with the
account given him, and told the cardinals de Monte and
Sanctorum Quatuor "what a good" work it was. "In
particular it rejoiced the pope," writes Strype, " when they
told him that Wolsey had taken order that, in letting the
farms belonging to his college, no man should have them
but such as would dwell upon them and maintain hospi
tality . . . and he (the pope) justified and maintained the
1 Pocock, Records of the Reformation, i. p. 19: " Etiamsi ad divine ligis
relaxationem." See Lewis, Sanders' Schism, Introd., p. liii. &c.
2 Lewis, Introd. Iv. ; Pocock, ut supra, ii. p. 88.
s Calendar, iv. No. 4090.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 27
commutation and alteration of those religious places, whereof
only did arise the scandal of religion as he spoke. For the
cardinal, for the endowing of his college, had lately obtained
of the pope a bull for the dissolving of divers monasteries
wherein much vice and wickedness was harboured, as he
informed the pope, to incline him thereby the easier to
grant his request." x
In this way the convent of Pre, near St. Albans, was
dissolved and united to that great abbey. The pope was
told that the nuns did not keep a good rule of life, and that
religious discipline was much relaxed. The revenues, there
fore, were transferred to St. Alban's Abbey in order that an
increased number of monks might be supported for the better
celebration of the divine office.2 It may be that the nuns
of Pre merited the bad character for laxity of life given
to them in the papal bull. In view, however, of Wolsey's
motive in giving a bad character to monasteries whose
possessions he desired, the mere fact of the statement by
the pope is not proof positive. Neither does the fact that
the convent was united to the abbey of St. Albans show
that Wolsey had no motive in the suppression. To this
arrangement the cardinal really objected, and authorised
his agent to obtain another bull from Clement uniting Pre
to Cardinal College, Oxford. At the same time he wished
that the impropriation of a living, also obtained for St.
Albans, should be changed in favour of the college at
Ipswich.3 In the various suppressions which followed complaints
were again made of the high-handed action of Wolsey's
servants. The abbot of Beaulieu, who was also bishop
of Bangor, wrote to the cardinal of the unjust seizure
of certain lands in the parish of St. Keverans, Cornwall,
belonging to his abbey. He represented that Beaulieu
had possessed the property for 400 years, and that now
two servants had taken it. And one "gentleman hath
written to me," he said, "that the benefice there, which
is impropriated to Beaulieu, he mindeth to give to the
finding of scholars, and feigneth that some time there was
a cell of monks there." 4
1 Strype, Eccl. Mems., i. p. 168 ; Calendar, iv. No. 4120.
2 Rymer, xiv. p. 240. 3 Calendar, iv. No. 5714.
4 Ellis, Orig. Lett., Ser. 2, iii. p. 60.

28 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The abbot of York also complains of Wolsey's seizure
of Romburgh Priory, in Suffolk, which was a cell of St.
Mary's Abbey. He says, that on the nth of September
1528, certain officers of the cardinal came to the priory,
read the authority of the pope and king, "entered into the
same priory, and that done, took away as well the goods
moveable of the said priory . . . and also certain muniments,
evidences, and specialities touching and appertaining unto
our monastery, which we had lately sent unto our said
prior and brethren there." The cell, he says, had been
given to them by Alan Niger, earl of Richmond, 400 years
before, and the abbey was burdened, by reason of" the
gift, with masses, suffrages, and alms. Further, as the
revenues of the priory do not amount to more than £30,
the abbot offers " towards your special, honourable, <and
laudable purpose concerning the erection and foundation of
the said college and school . . . 300 marks sterling, which
shall be delivered" at once, if the monastery is spared.1
The representation was of no avail, and Romburgh was
annexed to the Ipswich college.
The papal permissions to alienate monastic property
thus obtained only served to increase Wolsey's desire for
further dissolutions. In October 1528, Clement VII. was
being worried and bullied by the cardinal's agents in the
matter of the divorce. In turn they were threatening, ex
horting, and beseeching the pope to comply with Henry's
royal will, and even if necessary permit him to have two
wives 2 at once. Wolsey also instructed his agents to make
further overtures to allow him to take monastic property.
On behalf of the king they presented a petition that certain
religious houses might be given over to support the king's
colleges at Windsor and at Cambridge. These two establish
ments the agents represented as having been founded by
the grandparents of the English king, for education and for
the support in old age of court officials. The pope was
informed that the foundations were now reduced to poverty,
and that Henry could not finish the work through want of
means. Clement VII. was, no doubt, only too willing at
this critical time to give way in any possible matter to
the English king. Hence, " because of all that Henry had
1 Wright, Suppression of Monasteries (Camden Soc), p. 1.
3 Calendar, iv. 4897. See Lewis, Schism, Introd., p. cxxvi. &c.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 29
done against heresy and for the Holy See," he granted
him permission to suppress monasteries to the value of
8000 ducats, provided that there were not six religious in
them and that the inmates found homes in other religious
houses.1 At the same time also the king and cardinal told their
agent, Casali, to suggest a measure of wholesale suppres
sion, so that more cathedrals might be established with the
monastic property. The question was mooted in the con
sistory, and, according to the agent, all present seemed
ready to assent to the king's desire. " As it is a matter,
however," he writes, " of the greatest importance, it should
be granted with greater authority than could be done then.
Power might be asked for the legates to decide which
monasteries were best fitted to be erected into cathedrals,
to arrange the revenues, &c, and then the whole referred
to the pope for confirmation. Cardinal S. Quatuor and
De Monte advise this, thinking it too important to be finally
settled except in consistory, the pope being present, lest it
should be thought that the legates were influenced by
private interest." He concludes by asking to be informed
of the exact nature of the king's requests.2
At the same time the writer of the above letter to the
king sends another to the cardinal. He tells his master
that he has "showed his Holiness the integrity of his in
tentions towards the Church." He has also pointed out
the need of reformation in the English monasteries, "and
the suitableness of the present time, when a legate had
gone to England," so that Wolsey might not be suspected
of acting for his own advantage. Casali thought that the
pope was persuaded of the necessity of the erection of new
cathedrals and the reform of monasteries; but "he con
sidered for some time the alleged necessity of suppressing
monasteries of any order." The writer added : "lam sure
the matter will be managed with dexterity."8 What this
kind of "dexterity" was likely to be can be understood
from a letter of Gregorio Casali, the brother of the former
writer. In this he says that he "has told his brother the
protonotary and Vincent (his nephew) that importunity is
the only way to get anything from the pope." 4
1 Rymer, xiv. p. 249. 2 Calendar, iv. No.
8 Ibid., No. 4900. * Ibid., No. 4956.

30 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The result of the " importunity " soon appeared. Two
bulls were issued by Clement VII. on November 14, 1528.
In the first it is stated that the king had presented a petition
showing that in England there were many monasteries " in
which the proper number (i.e. twelve monks or nuns) were
not to be found and which had no proper income for their
support. Hence regular discipline was not kept up and
the divine office not properly performed. By laxity of
restraint the rule of good life was not kept by the monks
and nuns therein." The petition further suggested, that
if these were united to other religious houses, where the
day and night office was properly performed and in which
good discipline was maintained, it would be better for
religion. Acting on this information and in accordance
with this petition, the pope by bull granted Wolsey faculties
for the suggested union.1
The second bull had reference to the question of the
proposed cathedrals. Henry represented to Clement that
monasteries had previously been suppressed in England for
the purpose of establishing cathedrals. He suggested that
the revenues of several more should now be granted for this
purpose, and that each cathedral, so erected, should have
an income of 10,000 ducats from the monastic lands. The
pope, having consulted with his cardinals, desired further
information, which he directed Wolsey to furnish. First,
he wished to know whether any and what monasteries had
previously been suppressed for such a purpose ; secondly^
whether there was any need of increasing the number of
cathedrals; thirdly, how many monasteries would be re
quired for the purpose, and whether the monks were to
remain in the cathedrals as canons, bound by their monas
tic vows, but taking the dress of seculars. Lastly, he asked
what would be the position of the bishop, whether he would
be a suffragan of the archbishop, or immediately dependent
on the Holy See. Wolsey was directed by the brief to
examine witnesses as to these matters, and to send their
evidence attested by oath to the pope.2
Even yet, the cardinal of York was not satisfied. He
again asked to be allowed to suppress a few more monasteries
to obtain money for his colleges. These had apparently
1 Rymer, xiv. p. 272. a Ibid., xiv. 273.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 3 1
already been dissolved on his own authority. " The cardinal
further demands," writes Jacobo Salviati to Campeggio, " the
union to his college of three monasteries, which are not
mentioned in the other bulls. This, too, shall be granted,
although his Holiness could have wished that it had not
been requested of him. But as it is his most reverend
lordship who makes the demand, and for such a purpose,
he cannot refuse him, as the elect (bishop) of Bellun is to
write to him at greater length, the elect being here and
soliciting this ' expedition ' with much importunity." x
In the beginning of the following year, 1529, Pope
Clement VII. fell ill. It was reported, and for the time be
lieved, that he was dead. Upon this the king determined
once more to further, as far as he possibly could, the elec
tion of Wolsey to the popedom.2 In this design he directed
his agent to bribe the cardinals, and in his efforts he was
seconded by Wolsey himself. The latter writes to Gardiner,
his old secretary, on February 7th : " When all things be
well considered — absit verbumjactantice — there shall be none
found that can and will set remedy in the aforesaid things,
but only the Cardinal Ebor." He adds, that he wishes his
agent to spare no expense in this matter, but to use all his
power, promises, and labour to bring it to pass.8 It is
certain also from the king's instructions that it was seriously
contemplated, in the event of the electors refusing the
cardinal of York, to set up an anti-pope and create a schism.4
The emperor foresaw this, and when expressing his regret
at the illness of Clement, added: "His death might create
a schism in Christendom." 6
The pope recovered. Henry and Wolsey were thus
again disappointed in their plans. The bulls which had
been obtained in the autumn of the previous year, through
the persistent importunity of the English agents, had not
been altogether according to Wolsey's liking. He desired
the removal of the clause " de consensu quorum interest"
in the ^permission for the union of various monasteries.
The agent had deliberately, and on his own authority,
changed " less than twelve monasteries " into " less or more
1 Calendar, iv. No. 4920. 2 Ibid., No. 5270. 3 Ibid., No. 5272.
4 Pocock, Records, ii. p. 598. See Lewis, ut supra, Introd., p. cxxxv.
et sea. 6 Calendar, iv. No. 5301.

32 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
than twelve monasteries," which had displeased the Cardinal
S. Quatuor, and delayed the transmission of the bulls to
England. The cardinal of York had neglected also to for
ward, as requested, copies of the bulls by which, as was
asserted, monasteries had previously been turned into
bishoprics.1 At the beginning of June 1529, the question was still
being discussed. Wolsey wrote to Sir Gregory Casali that
he wanted certain clauses amplified in bulls he had received.
As to the union of monasteries, he desired to have the
power of uniting small monasteries as well as annexing
them to greater. The bull for erecting cathedrals only
allowed him to inquire and report, but the king and he
desired powers to act. He promised that there should be
no loss of fees to the court of Rome. He desired the omis
sion of the clause "de consensu omnium quorum interest"
not because he thought such interests ought to be neglected,
but to prevent factious and malicious opposition. No such
clause, he urged, was inserted in his former bulls for the
suppression of monasteries.2
On the 4th June 1529, the final bull, to allow Wolsey
to act on the king's petition for the erection of additional
cathedrals, was signed by Clement VII. It was of exactly
the same nature as the previous brief, but allowed the
king's suggestion to be carried into effect and put the
burden of the matter upon the cardinal's conscience.3 On
the 31st of the following August the second bull for the
union of monasteries, in the required form, received the
pope's seal and signature. The fall of Wolsey, however,
prevented any further action under the powers thus granted
him. Among the articles of impeachment which, according to
the authority of Lord Herbert, were exhibited in the House
of Lords against the cardinal, several relate to his action
against the monasteries. These articles, forty-four in number,
*-were signed by Sir Thomas More and many others. The
i3th runs thus: "And where good hospitality hath been
used to be kept in houses and places of religion of this realm,
and many poor people thereby relieved, the said hospitality
and relief is now decayed and not used. And it is commonly
1 Calendar, iv. No. 5226. ' Ibid., No. 5639.
8 Rymer, xiv. p. 291.

Cardinal Wolsey and the Monasteries 33
reported that the occasion thereof is, because the said Lord
Cardinal hath taken such impositions of the rulers of the
said houses, as well for his favour in making of abbots and
priors as for his visitation by his authority legatine, and yet,
nevertheless, taketh yearly of such religious houses such
yearly and continual charges, as they be not able to keep
hospitality as they were used to do, which is a great cause
that there be so many vagabonds, beggars, and thieves."
The 14th article charges the cardinal with having raised
the rents of the lands he received through the suppressions,
and made it impossible for the tenants to farm them with
profit. The 19th says: "Also the said Lord Cardinal hath
not only, by his untrue suggestion to the Pope, shamefully
slandered many good religious houses and good virtuous
men dwelling in them, but also suppressed, by reason there
of, above thirty houses of religion. And where, by the
authority of his bull, he should not suppress any house that
had more men of religion in number above the number of
six or seven, he hath suppressed divers houses that had
above the number, and thereupon hath caused divers offices
to be found by verdict, untruly, that the religious persons
so suppressed had voluntarily forsaken their said houses,
which was untrue, and so hath caused open perjury to be
committed, to the high displeasure of Almighty God."
In the 24th it is stated : "Also the same Lord Cardinal
at many times, when any houses of religion hath been void,
hath sent his officers thither, and with crafty persuasions
hath induced them to ' compromit ' their election in him, and
before he named or confirmed any of them, he and his
servants received so much great goods of them, that in a
manner it hath been to the undoing of the house."
Lastly, the 25th says : "Also, by his authority legatine,
the same Lord Cardinal hath visited the most part of the
religious houses and colleges of this realm, and hath taken
from them the twenty-fifth part of their livelihood, to the
great extortion of your subjects and derogation of your
laws and prerogative, and no law hath been to bear him
so to do."1
" Here," says Lord Herbert, " certainly began the taste
1 Fiddes, Collect, p. 172 et seq.

34 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
that our king took of governing in chief the clergy, of
which, therefore, as well as the dissolution of monasteries/'!
it seems the first arguments and impressions were derived
from the cardinal."1 It is difficult to read the record of
Wolsey's arbitrary action as regards the religious houses
and the account of his methods in dealing with the pope
without endorsing this opinion.
1 Henry VIII., p. 209.

CHAPTER III
The Holy Maid of Kent
THE story of Elizabeth Barton, known as the " holy maid
of Kent," must form a part of any detailed account of
Henry's dealings with the English monasteries.
In 1525 Elizabeth Barton1 was a domestic servant with
one Thomas Cobb, a farmer of known respectability. She
lived in the parish of Aldington, some twelve miles from
Canterbury. About Easter time of that year, when she
would have been about eighteen years of age, she was seized
with a severe illness. During the progress of the sickness,
which continued for seven months and more, she appeared
to have frequent ecstasies, or trances. Whilst in one of
these and apparently unconscious of all around her she
spoke of things taking place at a distance and foretold
coming events. At a subsequent date it was declared, by
those who condemned her to death, that "she was brought
in such debility and weakness of brain because she could
not eat nor drink for a long space, that in the violence of
her infirmities she seemed to be in trances and spoke and
uttered many foolish and idle words." 2 But at this period,
and for years after, no such suggestion was made. Cer
tainly those who knew her best did not look upon her
sayings as "foolish and idle." Amongst other things, she
is said to have foretold the death of one of her master's
children, who was ill, and the event followed shortly after
her prediction. In one of her trances she declared that
the Blessed Virgin had directed her to go to the chapel at
1 This account is from W. Lambard's Perambulation of Kent, written in
the year 1570. The author says he took the facts from a little pamphlet
" containing four-and-twenty leaves," which was written by Edward Thwaites
in 1527. It was called "A miraculous work at Court of Street, in Kent,
published to devout people of this time for their spiritual consolation." As
all books connected with Elizabeth Barton were destroyed under a provision
in the act of her attainder, the pamphlet is known only in Lambard's book.
2 Rot. Pari., 25 Hen. VIII. (No. 142). 35

36 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Court of Street, where she would be cured of her sickness.
On her first visit to the shrine, according to the account
given of her, she did not receive her health. That, how
ever, did not discourage her, and she professed perfect
confidence that what had been promised would in good
time be granted. Meanwhile her reputation became noised
abroad. Either through the parish priest of Aldington,
Richard Masters, or by some other means, the rumour
reached the ears of the venerable Warham, archbishop
of Canterbury. He "directed thither Dr. Booking, with
masters Hadleigh and Barnes, three monks of Christ
Church, Canterbury, Father Lewis and his fellow (two
Observants), his official of Canterbury and the parson of
Aldington, with a commission to examine the matter and
to inform him of the truth." Their report was favourable.
They declared to the archbishop that " they found her sound
therein." So that when next she went to our Lady at Court
of Street, "she entered the chapel with the 'Ave Regina
Ccelorum' in prick-song, accompanied with these commis
sioners, many ladies, gentlewomen and gentlemen of the
best degree and three thousand persons besides of the
common sort of people."
During the mass, which was celebrated at the shrine,
Elizabeth Barton fell into one of her usual trances and was
restored to health. She afterwards declared that our Lady
desired the shrine of Court of Street to be honoured more
faithfully and supported with greater generosity, and that
she herself should enter some convent. Acting on this
declaration, archbishop Warham obtained her reception into
the Benedictine convent of St. Sepulchre's, near Canter
bury. There she subsequently became a nun and continued
to preserve a universal reputation for holiness. From time
to time, during the seven years of her religious life, she was
to all appearance wrapt in ecstasy.1
Little is known of the life which Elizabeth Barton led
in the convent. But in this period she spoke strongly and
uncompromisingly against sin, and exhorted to penance
1 The account given on the Parliament Roll in the act of attainder agrees
with the main facts of the story as related above, which is taken from Lam
bard's account of Thwaites' pamphlet. The attainder, however, declares, as
will be subsequently related, that the whole matter was a deception arranged
by the two priests, Richard Masters and Dr. Edward Booking.

The Holy Maid of Kent 37
when chance afforded her an opportunity. If she was
moved by an evil spirit, as her enemies afterwards pre
tended, there never was a clearer case of Satan's kingdom
divided against itself. She blamed the general laxity of
the age and the " corruption of manners and evil life " to be
found then in England. She exhorted people to approach
the sacraments, and in particular to frequent confession and
other good Catholic practices.1 Her influence over the
minds and hearts of those she came in contact with, as far
as is known, was a powerful incentive to their leading a
better life. Henry Man, for example, a Carthusian monk
and procurator of their house at Sheen, writes early in 1533
to Dr. Booking, the confessor of the nun, in enthusiastic
terms of her. "Let us praise God," he says, "who has
raised up this holy virgin, a mother, indeed, to me and a
daughter to thee for our salvation. She has raised a fire in
some hearts that you would think like unto the operation of
the Holy Spirit in the primitive Church if you saw with
what frequent tears some bewailed their transgressions."2
At a subsequent date the same monk writes, that it is only
"of late it has pleased God to give me some knowledge of
His secret and wonderful works, which He works daily in
His special spiritual daughter. This 'accends' my heart
in the love of God." I beg you, he continues in his letter
to Dr. Booking, "to accept me as your spiritual son, and
ask the prayers of Elizabeth Barton to obtain grace to
mortify myself and live only for Christ." 3 Another monk
of the same monastery writes to the nun asking her prayers
for himself, as he finds as yet but little profit to his soul by
his leaving the world.4 His letter shows what an exalted
idea he had formed of her holiness of life.
Without doubt, however, the most important testimony
as to the character of the " holy maid " is the opinion as to
her virtues entertained by the venerable bishop Fisher. It
1 Lambard, p. 148. The act of attainder seems to admit her reputation for
sanctity and her influence for good. Richard Morison, the uncompromising
supporter of Henry's policy, in a work printed so soon after the execution
of the " Holy Maid " as 1537, admits the general opinion of her sanctity.
" Tandem comparata sanctimoniae fama, cospit mirum in modum non plebem,
non vulgus imperitum, sed magnates alioqui viros, multos preterea doctores,
abbates aliquot, Warramum ipsum archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, atque adeo
legatos apostolicos, deludere." — Apomaxis Calumniarwn, fol. 72 (1537).
2 Calendar, vi. No. 835. 3 Ibid., No. 1 149.
4 Ibid., No. 1468.

38 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
must be remembered that the bishop -of Rochester was no
ordinary man. He was an ecclesiastic of extraordinary
ability and learning; and, unlike so many other bishops of
his age, he had not spent his life, and thus perhaps blunted
his judgment as to spiritual matters, in attendance at court
or by occupation in affairs of state. He was justly esteemed
the most learned bishop in England, and at one time Henry
thought there was no ecclesiastic equal to him in Christen
dom.1 Of advanced age and possessed of practical prudence,
his judgment balanced by vast and varied experience, he
was hardly likely to be at fault in reading the characters
of Elizabeth Barton and of her adviser and confessor, Dr.
Bock ing.
By the middle of 1533 Henry appears to have arranged
with Crumwell to take some steps to prevent any public
condemnation of his marriage with Anne, resulting from
the denunciations of the royal policy which had been made
by the then much respected Elizabeth Barton. Even
before the death of archbishop Warham, according to
Harpsfield,2 Crumwell had contemplated the advisability
of taking vigorous measures against the nun and those
that believed in her. She had declared, more or less
openly, that in her trances God had commissioned her to
bear testimony to His displeasure at the king's proceedings.
She was known to have had interviews with Wolsey and;
Warham, to have spoken to the legates of the pope and to
have written to his holiness himself. It is hardly likely,
however, that her influence had much to do with the final
attitude of the archbishop or the cardinal towards the
divorce. Neither is it probable that it confirmed the bishop
of Rochester and the friars Observant in their persistent
opposition to it; nor, still less, that it deterred the pope
from giving sentence in Henry's favour. But such things
were said,8 and perhaps believed, by Henry's adherents.
The position of affairs in England at midsummer, 1533,
was critical. It became, therefore, vital to the designs qf
1 " Quid quod tanta virtus viri, tanta integritas, tanta fama fuit per inimi-
corum ora eruperit. Nam Henricus ipse octavus (ut reverendissimus Polus
Cardinalis scriptum reliquit), eum in Europse totius theologos primas tenere
multus audientibus fassus est." — B. Mus. Arund. MS., 152, f. 238 b. ; MS.
Life of bishop Fisher.
8 The Pretended Divorce (Camd. Soc), p. 178.
3 Calendar, vii. No. 72 (1) and (3).

The Holy Maid of Kent 39
minister and master, and indispensable to Anne Boleyn,
who now reigned supreme over the heart of Henry, that
any symptom of popular discontent should be instantly
repressed. Anything that might tend to stir up the latent
feeling of hostility to their triple alliance must at all costs
be prevented. Hence, as regards the " holy maid of Kent,"
so universally revered and respected, it seemed necessary
to fix the stigma of hypocrisy and deceit upon her.
Cranmer consequently, acting on the orders of Crumwell,
about the middle of July, 1533, ordered the prioress of St.
Sepulchre's to bring Elizabeth Barton to him at Otford in
order that he might examine her.1 At this interview the
archbishop was apparently unable to convict the nun of
anything more than a firm belief in the reality of her visions
and revelations.
A month later Dr. Booking, "cellarer of Christchurch,
Canterbury, and Hadley, one of the penitentiaries there,"
were arrested by the attorney-general, Christopher Hales,
"as secretly as possible." At the same time a promise
was sent by Hales to Crumwell that he should have the
parson of Aldington and the official of Canterbury within a
few days.2 The nun herself had been in the minister's
power and subjected to his examinations since her visit to
Cranmer. It is worthy of note that from this time all that
is known of her recantations and confessions emanate from
Crumwell or his agents, who had already determined to
make her out to be a " hypocrite nun."
As to the connection of the monks of Christchurch,
Canterbury, with the cause of Elizabeth Barton, a good deal
is to be learnt from a letter which at this time Thomas
Gold well, the prior, wrote to Crumwell on the matter. " As
concerning the knowledge of such things as Elizabeth
Barton, nun, has spoken," he writes, "which as she said
she had knowledge of in trances and revelations, these be
the things that I have heard and have knowledge of. At
the beginning thereof, the which was about seven or eight
years past, as I think, my lord Warham, then being arch
bishop of Canterbury, sent his comptroller, called Thomas
Walle, of Canterbury, and caused me to send two of my
brethren, which were the cellarer, Dr. Booking, and Dom
1 Calendar, vi. No. 869.
2 Ibid., No. 1 149. Christ. Hales to Crumwell, Sept. 25.

40 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
William Hadley, bachelor of divinity, to a place called Court
of Street, to see this woman and to see what trances she
had. They went there at the beginning, as I suppose,
somewhat against their minds and also against my mind
except the obedience that I do owe unto my lord of Canter
bury ; and (if) he had not been, I would not have sent them
thither. After this he caused and gave license to the cellarer
to be this woman's ghostly father."
About the month of October Elizabeth Barton and her
companions underwent a strict examination in the Star
Chamber, and almost simultaneously it became noised abroad
that she had confessed herself an impostor. On the 16th of
November John Capon, abbot of Hyde, and at that time
bishop-elect of Bangor, wrote to a friend that "our holy
nun of Kent " had admitted " treason against God and the
king ; " that is, he explained, she is " not only a traitress but
a heretic." She and her accomplices are "like to suffer
death."1 Lady Rutland, also writing the following day to
Sir W. Paston, says she hears that the "holy woman of
Kent " has been examined by the Council, " which is," she
concludes, "one of the most abominablest matters that ever
I heard of in my life, as shall be published to all people
within three or four days at the furthest." 2
A singular spectacle was shortly afterwards witnessed
in London. On Sunday, November 23, 1533, the nun and
her companions, Dr. Edward Booking and John Dering, both
benedictine monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, Hugh
Rich and Richard Risby, two friars Observant, with two
secular priests, Richard Masters, parson of Aldington and
Henry Gold, of Aldermary, London, together with a gende-
man named Edward Thwaites, were placed on a high scaffold
at St. Paul's Cross to do public penance. The pulpit, over
against them, was occupied by Dr. Capon, the bishop-elect
of Bangor, who, as Chapuys relates, "for their vituperation
repeated all the chancellor had said ag...nst them, further
affirming that the nun, by her feigned superstition, had pre
vented the cardinal of York from proceeding to give sentence
for the divorce."8 To the companions of the nun in this
public humiliation the preacher attributed "levity and super
stition " in believing these revelations, and " disloyalty " for
1 Calendar, vi. No. 1433. 2 Ibid., No. 1438.
8 Ibid., No. 1460. Chapuys to Chas. V., Nov. 24.

The Holy Maid of Kent 41
not revealing them. He specially blamed the two Observant
friars, " that under the shadow of the said superstition they
had suborned and seduced their companions to maintain the
false opinion and wicked quarrel of the queen against the
king."1 From this public penance, which was performed in "as
great a presence as was seen there (at the Cross) this forty
winters,"2 the nun and her companions were again con
ducted "unto the Tower of London, and much people (were
gathered) through all the streets of London " 3 to witness
the sight. Before leaving the platform over against the
preacher's pulpit, the nun was required to hand a form of
confession to Dr. Capon, who read it to the people.
A great deal was subsequently made of this so-called
confession of hypocrisy and deceit. It requires, however,
very little knowledge of these times to see that, after all, it
proves exceedingly little. On the face of the document it is
not her own; but was written for her by those in whose
power she had been for the four months previously, and its
terms are exceedingly vague and general.
The fact is that some acknowledgment that Elizabeth
Barton had been for years wilfully deceitful was at the time
a matter of vital necessity, and, with Crumwell to manage
the affair, that confession would not be difficult to procure.
In fact, the draft of a letter exists, with corrections in
Crumwell's own hand, by which the Marchioness of Exeter
is made to ask pardon of Henry VIII. for putting such belief
"in the most unworthy and deceivable woman called the
holy maid of Kent."4 What he did in this case he may,
with better reason, have used every effort to do in regard to
the nun herself. According to the act of attainder, indeed,
the poor woman is said to have confessed her duplicity
and falsehood before "divers of the king's counsel." Such
evidence, however, may reasonably be suspected, more espe
cially when it was noised abroad that the confession attri
buted to her was a calumny,6 and extreme measures were
taken to prevent the spread of such an unwelcome report.
1 Calendar, vii. No. 72. 2 Ibid., No. 72.
s Grey Friars Chronicle, Camd. Soc, p. 37.
4 Calendar, vi. No. 1464.
6 Burnet, ed. Pocock, i. p. 251, says: "It is very probable that the
reports that went abroad of her being forced or cheated into a confession
made the king think it necessary to proceed more severely against her."

42 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The day following the public penance of the nun and
her companions Chapuys again refers to the difficulty ex
perienced by the king and Crumwell to obtain a conviction
for treason. "The king," he tells his master, "has not yet
prevailed on the judges to make the oration against those
who have practised against him with the said nun in the form
that I last wrote. He is going to have the affair discussed
with them on Friday (November 28, 1533), and although
some of the principal judges would sooner die than make
the said declaration, yet when the king comes to dispute,
there is no one who will dare to contradict him unless he
wishes to be reputed stupid or disloyal. So that it seems
as if he had made a total divorce, not only from his wife,
but from good conscience, humanity and gentleness, which
he used to have." 1
The trial, however, ended without a sentence. In the
face of the opposition manifested by the judges to the
course proposed by Crumwell, it may have been deemed
more prudent to proceed by the surer method of attainder
by act of parliament. It seems at one time, early in January,
1534, to have been contemplated to try the issue of a new
trial. Crumwell notes, " to cause indictments to be drawn
for the offenders in treason and misprision concerning the
nun of Canterbury." 2 Shortly afterwards he abandoned this
plan, however, and notes that he has to "know what the
king will have done " in the matter. Finally, it was deter
mined to present a bill of attainder to parliament, and for
Crumwell this was already tantamount to a condemnation to
death. Hence he notes that " Elizabeth Barton, nun, Edward
Bocking, John Dering, Richard Masters, Henry Gold, Hugh
Rich, and Richard Risby, these by act shall be attainted of
high treason and suffer death." 3
There are many indications that, although the existence
of the bill and the general tenour of its provisions were
known, the names of those implicated and against whom
proceedings were to be taken were purposely concealed.
"The consequence was," says an historian of this period,
"that everybody who ever encouraged the nun was in no
little anxiety, and, fearing that his name might be on the
terrible list, was anxious to please the king. In this way
1 Calendar, No. 1460, Nov. 24.
2 Ibid., vii. No. 48. 3 Ibid., No. 70.

The Holy Maid of Kent 43
the government bridled the opposition, and, as nearly as they
could, ensured the passing of the bills of succession." x By
this concealment also, money was wrung from those who
had been associated with the nun in any way. For this
both master and minister were always ready. Richard
Masters, the parish priest of Aldington, who was subse
quently executed, sends Crumwell two gold crowns for
having expedited his pardon.2
The Canterbury monks also professed themselves very
ready to serve the king in any way, if he would only pass
over their connection with the " Maid of Kent." They even
were willing, as Cranmer, then on his visitation there,
writes, to offer some substantial sum of money. "Only a
few," he says, "consented to these revelations, almost all
being Dr. Booking's novices." The prior, a man of no
malice, "has been touched by this matter. They desire my
mediation, and I think they will offer ^200 or ^300 for their
pardon. The monastery," he adds, " is not ' aforehand,' but
in debt, except the church ornaments and plate." 3 Edward
Thwaites, whose guilt consisted in his belief in the nun and
in having printed a small volume with an account of her
early life, purchased "his pardon for 1000 marks,"4 and
subsequently Bishop Fisher had to pay ^300 for his share
in the matter.
On Saturday, February 21, 1534, the bill of attainder
"concerning the condign punishment of Elizabeth Barton,
the hypocrite nun, commonly called the holy maid of Kent,"
was brought into the Lords and read the first time.6 At
this sitting, and throughout the proceedings during the
passage of the bill, the lay lords far outnumbered the lords
spiritual. The various steps were taken between the date
of its introduction and the 12th of March, when it was read
for the fourth time and accepted by the house. The accused
had apparently been condemned unheard, since on March
6th, at the third reading of the attainder, the lords " thought
proper to inquire whether it would accord with the king's
wishes (cum Regio animo quadrare potest) that Sir Thomas
1 P. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, vol. i. p. 273.
2 Calendar, vi. No. 1666. 3 Ibid., No. 1519.
4 "Which was one whole year's revenue of his bishoprick." B. Mus.
Arund. MS., 152, f. 49.
B " Lords' Journals," p. 68.

44 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
More and the others named in the said bill (except the
bishop of Rochester, now very ill, whose answer is known
through his letters) should be summoned before the lords to
the Star chamber in order to say what they can for them
selves." It has been said that the parties attainted " were not able
to disprove a single article of the act." For such a state
ment there is no warrant. It is by no means easy to say
what they could have done had they been allowed. " They
were all attainted of high treason, and condemned without
any answer making for themselves," as an old writer asserts.1
And in this statement, history bears him out
The nun and her companions were condemned by a
tribunal which had not heard them in their defence. In the
very bill reference is made for the truth of the facts to
examinations not before the parliament, but before the king's
council. The books and writings had been "seen and
examined by the king's most honourable council," and the
matters " confessed plainly before the king's most honour
able council," as the bill of attainder declared. The tribunal
that decided the case was not that which had examined, and
the attainted persons, though at hand, were not heard for
themselves. On April 20, 1534, Elizabeth Barton and her compan
ions were executed under this act of attainder, at Tyburn.
Father Thomas Bourchier, an English Franciscan Obser
vant, declares that the lives of his two brethren, Fathers
Risby and Rich, were twice offered to them if they would
accept Henry as supreme head of the English Church.!
What was done to the Franciscans would in all probability
have been done in the case of those who suffered with them,
Dr. Booking and Father Dering, the two monks of the Bene
dictine monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, and the
two secular priests, Richard Masters and Henry Gold. It
is needless to say that the offer was rejected. The character
of their deaths may be estimated accordingly.
1 B. Mus. Arund. MS., 152, f. 49.
2 '| Hist. Ecc. de Martyrio FF. Ord. Min.," 1583. Bourchier is an
authority. He took the Franciscan habit at Greenwich about 1557 upon the
restoration of the order by queen Mary. He would thus have known some
of the old Franciscan brethren of Fathers Rich and Risby.

CHAPTER IV
The Friars Observant and the Carthusians
THE session of Parliament which commenced in January,
1534, was chiefly occupied in framing measures against the
exercise of papal authority in England. The Imperial am
bassador, Chapuys, always well informed as to the acts and
intentions of Henry, writing the following month to Charles
V. says that the commons had taken away all authority from
the Holy See, and given to the crown power to nominate
to vacant bishoprics. He adds that " the king is very
covetous of the goods of the church, which he already con
siders as his patrimony."1 Before Easter he again writes
that the lords, " to the great regret of good men, who were
in a minority," had been obliged, " owing to the threats and
practices of the king," to ratify these enactments of the
lower house.2
Amongst other provisions made in this parliament for
cutting off England from the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdic
tion of Rome, was the transfer of papal authority over the
religious houses to the crown. The power of archbishops
and bishops to visit and control the monasteries and con
vents situated within the limits of their individual dioceses,
had long been a subject of debate. Its exercise had often
given rise to difficulties and dissensions, which were settled
only by recourse to the supreme authority of the Holy See.
At all times, however, except in the case of the comparatively
few exempt monasteries and of the various orders of friars
and others associated in congregations extending beyond
the limits ofthe country and directed by foreign superiors,
the episcopal power of visitation was exercised at regular
1 Calendar, vii. No. 171, Feb. II, 1534.
2 Ibid., No. 373. In speaking of the Parliament of 1536 it will be neces
sary to show what these " threats and practices " were. We may here note
that Bishop Tunstal of Durham was prevented attending Parliament by
positive orders from Crumwell and the King.
45

46 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
periods. The bishop or his officers also directed the canoni
cal elections. At the time of this Parliament the pulpit was strictly
guarded, and the Easter sermons of 1534, were directed as
far as could be against the pope and his authority.1 The
definite sentence of the Holy See against the divorce finally
forced the king, although, as it appears, most reluctantly, to
widen the breach between England and Rome. He had
to make his choice between dutiful submission and active
retaliation. There were some who refused to follow the king blindly
in his revolt against the Holy See. Of the whole body of
the clergy, none withstood the policy of Henry with greater
fearlessness and pertinacity of purpose than the Franciscan
Observants.2 Two of these friars were implicated with the
"Holy maid of Kent," and, as associated in her sentence,
were executed at Tyburn. Death, however, had seemingly
no terrors for men who had fled from the pleasures of life
as they had. " Secluded from the commerce and pleasures
of the world," writes the historian Lingard, " they felt fewer
temptations to sacrifice their conscience to the commands of
their sovereign, and seemed more eager to court the crown
than to flee from the pains of martyrdom."8
There were six monasteries of these Franciscan Obser
vants in England. Of these, none bore a higher character
for discipline and regularity than that of Greenwich. ¦'• In
1 5 13 Henry VIII. himself had written more than once to
the pope, Leo. X., in their favour. He declares that towards
them he has the most deep, devoted affection. So much
does he admire their holiness of life that he finds it quite
impossible to describe their merits as they deserve. They
present an ideal of Christian poverty, sincerity and charity;
their lives are devoted to fasting, watching, prayer ; and they
are occupied in " hard toil by night and day " to win sinners
1 Calendar, vii. No. 464.
2 Sanders, Schism (Lewis' trans.), p. 112. The Observant friars were a
reformed branch of the great Franciscan order. They were instituted about
1400 by St. Bernardine of Sienna, and confirmed by the Council of Constance
in 1414, and afterwards by Eugenius IV. and other popes. King Edward IV.
is said to have brought them to England. Tanner, however, says, "I find no
account of their being here till king Henry VII. built two or three houses
for them." Vide Monasticon, vi. p. 1504.
3 Lingard, History of England, vi. p. 285.

The Friars and the Carthusians 47
back to God.1 The convent had been placed by Henry VII.
at Greenwich, near to the court, and Queen Catherine had
chosen one of the brethren, the fearless and saintly friar
Forest, as her confessor.2
These friars of Greenwich were not easily silenced.
"They, indeed," writes Sanders, "both in public disputa
tions and in their sermons, most earnestly maintained that
the marriage of Catherine was good and lawful." Yet even
here, among so many good, there were not wanting some to
go with the stream. Here, as in so many religious houses
at this period, Crumwell found a spy to report to him the
dispositions and intentions entertained in the cloister. In
this case a lay brother, Richard Lyst, afterwards rewarded
for his services by a place at Cambridge,8 was Crumwell's
agent, and he kept him informed as to the feelings and
doings of his brethren. Early in February, 1533, he writes
to his employer that he considers the discipline of his
monastery altogether too severe. The religious are cor
rected and "punished for nothing," and many of their
fathers show themselves much against the king. Of these,
the chief and leading spirits are Fathers Peto, Elstow, and
Forest. Above the rest he thinks friar Forest most to
be blamed in the matter, because the king had always
shown him special kindness. Only the day before (Monday,
February 3) Henry had conversed with him in private for
more than half an hour, and had " sent him some beef from
his own table."4
The informing lay brother quite thought that "the sus
pect death of brother Raynscroftys " would prevent " ours
preaching against the king." B Early in May, however,
friar Peto, a man "of good house and family," and one
specially accused by Lyst of taking a leading part against
the king's designs, had to preach before Henry.6 He did
not hesitate to speak his mind boldly.
1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Series, i. p. 165. Henry VIII. to Leo X.,
March 12, 1513. From B. Mus. Vatic. Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. f. 17.
2 Queen Catherine, when the court was at Greenwich, is said to have
risen always at midnight to be present at the friars' matins. Colleclio Anglo-
Minoretica, p. 216.
3 Calendar, vi. No. 1264. 4 Ibid., vi. No. 116.
6 Ibid., No. 168.
6 N. Harpsfield, The Pretended Divorce (Camden Soc), p. 203; Stow,
Annals (ed. 1615), p. 561.

48 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The historian Stow relates the sequel of this bold de
nunciation. "The king," he says, "being thus reproved,
endured it patiently and did no violence to Peto, but the
next Sunday, being the 8th 1 of May, Dr. Curwin 2 preached
in the same place, who sharply reprehended Peto and his
preaching, and called him dog, slanderer, base, beggarly friar,
closeman, rebel, and traitor, saying that no subject should
speak so audaciously to princes. ... He then, supposing to
have utterly suppressed Peto and his partakers, lifted up his
voice and said : ' I speak to thee, Peto, who makest thyself
Micheas, that thou mayest speak evil of kings, but now thou
art not to be found, being fled for fear and shame, as being
unable to answer my arguments.' And whilst he thus spoke
there was one Elstow, a fellow friar to Peto, standing in the
rood loft, who, with a bold voice, said to Dr. Curwin : ' Good
sir, you know that father Peto, as he was commanded, is
now gone to a provincial council held at Canterbury, and not
fled for fear of you, for to-morrow he will return again. In
the meantime I am here as another Micheas, and will lay
down my life to prove all those things true which he hath
taught out of the holy scripture. And to this combat I
challenge you before God and all equal judges. Even unto
thee, Curwin, I speak, who art one of the four hundred pro
phets into whom the spirit of lying is entered, and seekest
by adultery to establish succession, betraying the king unto
endless perdition, more for thy own vain glory and hope of
promotion than for discharge of your clogged conscience and
the king's salvation.'"
The scene can be better imagined than described. Henry
himself had attended again at the church of the Greenwich
Observants to witness the discomfiture of the bold preacher
of the previous Sunday. In the absence of Friar Peto, Dr.
Curwin calculated to carry his audience with him by means
of his vigorous denunciations. The tables were turned
1 Stow, p. 559, says the sermon was on May 28. Probably both dates
are wrong, as neither the 8th nor 28th was a Sunday in any year about this
time. May 18th, however, was a Sunday in 1533.
2 Curwin, or as he is called in the episcopal registers of the diocese of
Hereford, " Mgr. Hugo Coren, LL.D.," was a canon of Hereford. On the
death of bishop Fox he was appointed by Cranmer to administer the diocese
sede vacante (vide his register). Bonner, as elect of Hereford, appointed him
his commissary. Under Fox, he had held the post of Vicar-general. He was
made dean of Hereford in 1541, archbishop of Dublin in 1555, andin 1567
translated by Elizabeth to the See of Oxford.

The Friars and the Carthusians 49
when another of the Greenwich brethren leaned over from
the rood, and not alone defended his absent brother, but
vehemently accused Curwin himself of acting as he did
through hopes of preferment. " This Elstow," continues the
chronicler, "waxed hot1 and spake very earnestly, so that
they could not make him cease his speech until the king
himself bade him hold his peace." 2
The following day, as the king had directed, the two
friars Peto and Elstow were brought before the council,
when Elstow again boldly replied to the threats of Henry
Bourchier, earl of Essex. After the lords had "rebuked
them, the E. of Essex told them, that they had deserved to
be put into a sack and cast into the Thames. Whereunto
Elstow, smiling, said, 'Threaten these things to rich and
dainty folk who are clothed in purple, fare delicately, and
have their chiefest hope in this world, for we esteem them
not, but are joyful that for the discharge of our duties we
are driven hence. With thanks to God we know the way to
heaven, to be as ready by water as by land, and, therefore,
we care not which way we go.' " 3 The two friars, Peto and
Elstow, apparently escaped with a reprimand and the punish
ment of exile from England.
By the spring of 1534 events had progressed rapidly.
Parliament, under the skilful management of Crumwell, had
proved itself so pliant to Henry's will that the king could
contemplate a final move against the unbending Greenwich
friars. Already, according to one authority,4 friar Forest,
1 After relating Elstow's answer to " this great Golias bragge," Harpsfield
(ut sup., p. 204) says : "Many other things he would have then spoken, and
much ado there was to stay him. At the hearing of this the king was cast
into a great choler, and in a great heat commanded that these friars should be
conveyed thither where he should never hear more of them." The author
says he heard the whole account from Elstow himself.
2 Harpsfield (ut sup.) gives much the same account. He says that Dr.
Curwin preached on Palm Sunday, "the next Sunday," by the king's order.
" But lord," he continues, " what a stir that Currante made against that poor
friar, being absent, and what nicknames he gave him ! At length, as though
he had now full conquered him, he began to triumph and insult upon him,
crying out ' Where is miser and micher Micheas ? Where doth he now
micher ? He is run away, for that he would not hear what should be said
unto him. Belike he is somewhat lurking and musing with himself by what
means he may honestly recant.' "
3 Stow, ut supra.
4 Bourchier, Hist. Eccl. de Mart. Fratrum, 1583. Mr. Gairdner places friar
Forest's letters in his Calendar, vol. vii. Nos. 129 to 134, but notes that there
is no sign of Forest's imprisonment at this date, although the " complaints of
D

50 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
who five years later died a martyr's death, was lodged in
prison, although not so closely watched as to be unable to
communicate by letter with Catherine and others. To the
queen he wrote begging her prayers, and telling her not to
grieve for his fate. At the age of sixty-four he hoped to be
constant, and as he believed he had only three days to live
he sent her his rosary.1 Again, in answer to a note from
one of Catherine's ladies, who expressed the distress the
queen felt for the treatment her old confessor was experi
encing in prison, he begged her to tell Catherine that this
want of fortitude was not what he had tried to teach her.
As for himself, he said he had only to break his faith to
save his life, and he concluded by urging her to accept
her sufferings for Christ's sake.2 Besides friar Forest,
there were in prison at this time two other Observants, friar
Rich, the warden of Richmond, and friar Risby, the warden
of Canterbury, both charged in connection with the Maid
of Kent. The Greenwich Franciscan house was not the only one,
which at this time produced men with the courage of their
convictions. On Passion Sunday, March 22, 1534, a certain
Robert Cooke, of Rye, was ordered to abjure publicly, in
the cathedral church of Winchester, certain heresies he had
maintained about the Blessed Sacrament. On that occasion
friar Pecock, warden of the Observant convent of Franciscan
friars at Southampton, was the preacher. He seized the
opportunity to speak earnestly of this and " other dampned
heresies." He eloquently exhorted the people to stand
steadfast even to death in their ancient faith and practice.
He then lamented the diversity of opinions that existed in
England, especially as regarded the pope. Some, he said,
declared that St. Peter had no more power given him by God
than the other apostles, and others that the pope had no
more power than a bishop of any other diocese, whilst others
friar Lyst (vol. vi. Nos. 168, 334, 512) may have led to his imprisonment."
Stowe in his Chronicle (ed. 1580) says, 1532, " The 28th of May friar Forest
was put in prison for contrarying the preacher before the king. In the list
of Observants published in Mr. Gairdner's Calendar, vol. vii. No. 1607, is
"John Foreste is there (London) in prison." Perhaps the most conclusive
proof that he was probably in prison at this time is that we hear no more
about him. Crumwell's "remembrances" are silent about this formidable
opponent. 1 Calendar, vii. No. 130. 2 Ibid., No. 132.

The Friars and the Carthusians 51
again taught that as a bishop was no more than a simple
priest, " so, consequently, the pope had no more power than
a simple curate." To prove this, he continued, people
bought all kinds of books that were not to be believed.
Then, taking up a volume which was beside him in the
pulpit, he read to his audience five or six authorities on
the Primacy of St. Peter and translated the passages into
English.1 The better to carry out his wishes in regard to the
various orders of friars, Henry conceived the ingenious plan
of appointing over them a general superior upon whose faith
ful subservience to himself he could depend. And as by
1534 his quarrel with the pope had reached its height, and
the severance of the Church in England from its ancient de
pendence on Rome was complete, there remained no further
obstacle to prevent his dealing according to his royal pleasure
with the friars. As a first step, Crumwell and his master
selected two worthy instruments : John Hilsey, a Dominican
friar, afterwards successor to the saintly John Fisher in
the see of Rochester, and Dr. George Browne, a prior of
the Augustinian hermits, and subsequently, for his ser
vices to the king and his minister, created archbishop of
Dublin. 2
The two "grand visitors" were despatched with a full
commission3 to the various orders of friars in the spring
of 1534. Their instructions were precise and intended to
gauge the feeling of the friars very thoroughly. The
members of every convent or friary in England were to be
assembled in their chapter-houses and examined separately
concerning their faith and obedience to Henry. The oath
of allegiance to Anne Boleyn was to be administered to
them, and they were to be bound to swear solemnly that
they would preach and persuade the people, to accept the
royal supremacy, to confess that the bishop of Rome had no
more power than any other bishop and to call him Pope no
1 Calendar, vii. No. 449.
2 "On Sunday last," says Chapuys (1535), "an Augustinian friar (Dr.
George Brown), who has been appointed by the king general of all the men
dicant orders in reward for having married the king and the Lady Anne,
preached. . . . The language is so abominable that it is clear it must have
been prompted by the king or Crumwell, who makes the said monk his right
hand man in all things unlawful."
3 Calendar, vii. No. 587 (18).

$2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
longer. Further, the sermons of each preacher were to be
carefully examined, and if not orthodox they were to be
burned. Every friar was to be strictly enjoined to commend
the king as head of the Church, the queen, the archbishop
of Canterbury and the clergy to the prayers of the faithful.
Lastly, each house was "to be obliged to show its gold,
silver, and other moveable goods, and deliver an inventory
of them," and to take a common oath, sealed with the con
vent seal, to observe the above orders.1
From the 17th to the 20th of April, Hilsey and Brown
were occupied at the various friaries of London and the
neighbourhood. They then proceeded to visit others in the
southern parts of England. Dr. Hilsey was occupied in
visiting the friaries of the south and west of England till
midsummer. On June 2 ist he wrote from Exeter to say
that none of those he had so far visited had refused the'
oath to "be obedient, true, and agreeable to the king's high
pleasure and will." He added, " I have found some, how
ever, that have sworn with an evil will and slenderly have
taken the oath to be obedient." Of these he promised Crum
well he would have more to say on his return.2 His atten
tion was specially taken up with watching the proceedings of
certain Franciscan Observants. At the commencement of
July, he was in pursuit of two of these friars who were
endeavouring to escape to the Continent from the persecu
tion which had already begun in England. Hilsey followed
them through Bristol, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, and
at last overtook them at Cardiff, where they were already in
prison. One of these two friars was a certain Hugh Payn, who
not long before had been arrested and put in prison for
having visited the dethroned queen Catherine at her house
at Bugden. The other was a friar named Thomas Hayfield,
and both belonged to the house of Newark. They narrowly
escaped capture in Somerset, to the sheriff of which county
the king had sent a special commission for their seizure. At
Cardiff, after almost succeeding in eluding the keen pursuit,
they were taken whilst on the point of embarking in a
Breton ship, disguised in secular dress.3
1 Calendar, vii. 590. 2 Ibid., No. 869.
3 Ibid., No. 1020.

The Friars and the Carthusians 53
The State papers of this period contain various complaints
made to Crumwell about the teaching and preaching of these
valiant friars. They evidently remained as firmly attached to
the ancient faith and practices as they were to the cause of
Catherine. One or two of their number no doubt gave way
under the pressure of the threats and the seductive nature of
the promises addressed to them. By becoming the accusers
of their brethren they may have hoped to purchase the royal
favour by their treachery. Such renegades were, however,
the exceptions ; as a body the friars remained staunch and
fearless in their opposition to the unlawful will of the king
and his minister. An instance, recorded in a document of
this time, reveals to us how commonly the people applauded
this attitude, and condemned the weakness of those that
yielded. Friar John George of Cambridge was apparently
one of the latter sort. His mother, however, was made of
sterner stuff, and rated him right roundly for having given
in to the influence of the times. She is grieved indeed, she
writes to him, to find her son a heretic. It was not for this
that he had received his education from the good nuns of
Dartford. "And," she continues, "you send me word that
you will come over to me this summer, but come not unless
you change your condition, or you shall be as welcome ' as
water into the sheep.' You shall have God's curse and
mine and never a penny. I had rather give all my goods
to the poor than keep you in heresy." a
Above all the rest, the Observants of Greenwich and
Richmond were the objects of the special solicitude of Henry
and his agents. Rowland Lee, one of the king's chaplains,
and of late made bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, was
selected, together with Thomas Bedyll, clerk of the council,
to make the final attempts to influence them. Friar Rich,
the warden of the Richmond friars and his companion, friar
Risby of Canterbury, had been executed at Tyburn with
the holy maid of Kent on the 20th April 1534, and very
shortly afterwards the two commissioners reported their first
move in the matter to their employer, Crumwell. They had
induced the prior and convent of the Carthusians of Sheen
to take the required oath, and the prior and procurator, they
wrote, had been doing their best to win the consent of their
1 Calendar, vii. No. 939.

54 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
neighbours, the Observants of Richmond ; earnestly exhort
ing them to bend their minds to the king's wishes. Both the
bishop and his coadjutor had also been busy at the same
work, holding various conferences with the friars ; but, as
they are obliged to confess, without any sign of success.
In fact, they had been in despair of effecting their purpose,
but, with the Sheen influence at work, they had some slight
shadow of hope that they might finally win the Franciscans
to what the king required.1
The next few weeks were occupied in equally fruitless
efforts to obtain the consent of the Carthusians to the oath.
It was not, therefore, till Saturday, June 15th, that Lee and
Bedyll followed up their attacks upon the Richmond friars.
On that day Dr. George Browne, or, as Lee calls him, " the
provincial of the Austin friars," delivered to the bishop
and his fellow-commissioner Crumwell's orders to proceed
at once to conclusions. Armed with these letters, they betook
themselves directly to Richmond, which they reached " be
tween ten and eleven o'clock at night." " In the following
morning," as they report to Crumwell, " we had first com
munication with the warden and one of the seniors, named
Sebastian, and after that with the whole convent." At first,
although they made use of "all the means and policies"
they could devise to obtain the oath and the signatures and
convent seal to the " articles " sent by Dr. George Browne,
the warden and his faithful friars absolutely refused, "and
showed themselves very untoward in that behalf."
They then fell back on another plan. After some argu
ment, they finally persuaded the convent, as a body, to trust
the settlement of the matter to the discretion of four of their
senior members, "otherwise called discretes," who were to
be given full power to act in their behalf. Having secured
this much, the commissioners arranged that the four friars,
to whom the community had intrusted their honour and
conscience, should meet them at the house of the Greenwich
Observants, and should bring with them the convent seal,
on Monday, June 17th. "And so they did."
The two commissioners, Lee and Bedyll, arrived at
Greenwich somewhat elated at the success of their diplo
macy at Richmond. They fortified themselves with the
1 Calendar, vii. No. 622, May 7.

The Friars and the Carthusians 55
hope that here also they might prevail upon the friars to
walk into the same trap. If they were only pliable and
would commit the matter to the judgment of some few of
the brethren, it would, in their opinion, serve a double
purpose. It would be the means of " avoiding superfluous
words and idle reasonings," and in case the "discretes"
chosen should refuse their consent to the proposed articles,
" it were better after our minds," they say, " to strain a few
than a multitude." Their plans came to nothing, for their
advice was rejected. The Greenwich Observants absolutely
refused to leave a matter of this kind to be settled by a few
deputies, saying, "that as it concerned particularly every
one of their souls, they would answer particularly every
man for himself."
The commissioners were thus driven unwillingly to
discuss the whole matter in public. After a long debate,
and after each friar had been privately examined as to his
readiness to accept the royal desires, they found that one
and all steadily refused to subscribe any rejection of Papal
authority and jurisdiction. The friars declared that the
proposed article "was clearly against their profession and
the rule of St. Francis."1 And from this position all the
arguments of Bedyll and the bishop were unable to move
them. They represented that the two archbishops and
most of the bishops of the country, with prelates and
learned priests, had subscribed to the declaration that the
pope had no authority according to the scriptures (ex sacris
Uteris) in England. They urged that it was obvious pre
sumption for them to persist in a refusal which virtually
condemned what so many good and well-instructed ecclesi
astics had done. This argument, no doubt, had been used
with fatal effect to secure the adhesion of many who in
their own hearts condemned the doctrine of royal supremacy
as contrary to Catholic faith ; but with the friars Observant
it failed, as it subsequently failed with More and Fisher.
The baffled visitors write to their master, " All this notwith-
1 The words of the rule which the friars pointed out to Lee are : "Ad
hsec per obedientiam injungo ministris ut petant a domino Papa unum de
SancUe Romanaa Ecclesise Cardinalibus, qui sit gubernator, protector et
corrector istius fraternitatis, ut semper subditi et subjecti pedibus Sanctae
Ecclesise ejusdem stabiles in fide Catholica paupertatem et humilitatem et
secundum Evangelium Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, quod firmiter promisimus
observemus."

$6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
standing, their conclusion was they had professed St. Francis'
religion, and in the observance thereof they would live and
die." " Sorry we be," they conclude, " we cannot bring them
to no better frame and order in this behalf, as our faith
ful minds was to do for the accomplishment of the king's
pleasure." x
Henry, thus foiled in his designs, determined to strike
quickly and effectually. As yet, however, there was no law
by which these bold and unbending friars, who set his
wishes at defiance, could be made to feel the weight of his
royal displeasure. Neither was it illegal for them to refuse,
however obstinately, their adherence to articles proposed to
them even with the royal authority. Still the question of
legality was never allowed to bar the way against the royal
will, and the suppression of the entire order of Observants
followed quickly upon their positive refusal to be bound by
the articles proposed to them by Lee and Bedyll. " Within.
a few days," writes the great authority on the history of
this period, " two carts of friars were seen passing through
the city to the Tower."2 These were the staunch Fran
ciscans of Observance. By the beginning of August, Chapuys .
wrote to tell his master that " of the seven 3 houses of Ob
servants, four have been already emptied of friars because
they have refused to swear to the statutes made against the
Pope. Those in the other two expect to be expelled."4
Three weeks later their expectation had been fulfilled, as the
Imperial ambassador again wrote "that all the Observants
of the kingdom have been driven from their monasteries
for refusing the oath against the Holy See, and have been
distributed in several monasteries, where they were locked
up in chains, and worse treated than they could be in
prison." About two hundred of the Observant friars were thus
cast without trial into prison. The convents from which
they were expelled were temporarily occupied by friars of
1 Wright, Supp. of Monast., pp. 41-44.
2 Mr. Gairdner, vii. Preface, xxviii.
3 These convents were said to be "houses of the foundation of Henry
VII." (" Prevarication of the Church's Liberties," ch. iv., Eyston MS.,
quoted in Lewis' Sanders' Schism, p. m). Most of them, however, existed
as monasteries before, and Henry VII. only made them Observants. See
Dugdale, vi. p. 1504.
4 Calendar, vii. No. 1057, August 7th.

The Friars and the Carthusians 57
the Augustinian order. 1 Fifty of the Observants died from
the hardships of their prison life ; several, through the in
fluence of Wriothesley, their secret friend and admirer,
obtained leave to retire into France and Scotland,2 and
others possibly passed into Ireland with the permission of
Crumwell, who was glad to get rid of them on any terms.
To this may refer the note entered in the minister's " Re
membrances : " — " Item to remember the friars of Greenwich
to have licence to go into Ireland."8
No account of the suppression of the Observant friars
would be complete without some reference to the story of
their most renowned member, the saintly John Forest. He
was some sixty-four years of age when he was imprisoned
in 1534, and of these forty-three he had spent in religion.
He had been warden of Greenwich and provincial of all
the Observant friars in England, as well as the constant
friend and confessor of Queen Catherine.
Bishop Latimer seems to have thought the treatment
friar Forest received in prison too gentle. " Forest, as I
hear," he writes to Crumwell, " is not duly accompanied in
Newgate for his amendment with the white friars of Don
caster and the monks of the Charterhouse, in a fit chamber
more like to indurate than to mollify, whether through the
fault of the sheriff or of the gaoler or both, no man could
sooner discern than your lordship. Some think he is rather
comforted in his way than discouraged ; some think he is
allowed both to hear mass and also to receive the Sacra
ment; which, if it be so, it is enough to confirm him in his
obstinacy." *
The depositions against Forest are clear and decisive of
his real sentiments as to the matters at issue between the
king and Rome, and it may be taken as certain that he died
for his belief in the necessity of the Papal supremacy, and
that even in the agony of his fearful death he remained
constant and true to this his faith.
Like More, Fisher, and the rest who were martyred in
defence of the Papal primacy, Forest fell under the law of
1 Editor of Sanders' Schism (1587), probably on Bourchier's authority, who
gives the same. Hist, de Mart. FF. Ord. Min., 1583.
2 Lingard, Hist., vi. p. 268.
3 Calendar, vii. No. 49.
4 Latimer's Remains (Parker Soc), p. 392.

58 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
treason, but for him alone was reserved the additional dis
tinction of suffering for heresy also. Collier says he "was
condemned for heresy and high treason, though by what law
they could stretch his crime to heresy is hard to discover,
for he was tried only for dissuading his penitents in confes
sion from owning the king's supremacy."1 The commission
which tried the friar was presided over, most probably, by
Cranmer in person. He at least writes to make arrange
ments with Crumwell for the examination. " The bishop of
Worcester" (Hugh Latimer), he says, "and I will be to
morrow with your lordship to know your pleasure concerning
friar Forest. For if we should proceed against him accord
ing to the order of the law, there must be articles devised
beforehand which must be ministered unto him; and there
fore it will be very well done that one draw them up against
our meeting." 2 The result of the meeting was that Forest
was condemned to die by fire in Smithfield on the 22nd
May, 1538.
On the day appointed for the execution preparations
were made in Smithfield for it. A pair of new gallows were
placed over the faggots for a fire, from which friar Forest
could be suspended in a "cradle of chains." The billets of
wood were to a large extent composed of the chips of a
desecrated image, called Darvel Gadarn, which had been
held in high honour by the people of North Wales8 and
which had been removed from its ancient shrine shortly
before. 1 Eccl. Hist., ed. 17 14, ii. p. 149. Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, xiii. (i), pre
face, xviii.) says that the execution of friar Forest for "heresy" was a cleat
indication to the country generally " that there was to be no abatement in the
exercise of that spiritual supremacy claimed by the crown. The idea was still
a novelty, and notwithstanding the severities with which it was at first enforced
might not have sunk deep into the popular mind if it had been further exem
plified only by such things as a royal proclamation at the beginning of March
(1538), permitting faithful subjects to eat white meat, that is to say, eggs and
milk food, in Lent." . . . There were many, we may be sure, even among the
laity, who declined to take advantage of it j while abroad the exercise of such
a dispensing power appeared simply a thing to laugh at. " The King of Eng
land, said Francis I., "gives dispensations like his Holiness, and I believe
will soon want to sing Mass." Still the king's subjects were not allowed to
go beyond the limits of the royal dispensations. ' ' To transgress the old rules
of the Church, except by royal license, was as dangerous as ever."
2 Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), vol. i. p. 239.
3 Ellis Price to Crumwell, B. Mus. Cott. MS., Cleop. E. iv. f. 556. It
was held as a tradition, says Hall, that the image should set a Forest on fire.
Perhaps this suggested the manner of death awarded to Forest.

The Friars and the Carthusians 59
We can easily imagine the kind of sermon that fell from
the lips of Bishop Latimer, the preacher. " It was of the
usual kind," writes Froude, "the passionate language of
passionate conviction," as he "confuted the friar's errors
and moved him to repentance."1 But Latimer's eloquence
and vigorous denunciation of the Pope and his followers
proved of no avail, for " in the end, when the bishop asked
him what state he would die in, the friar with a loud voice
answered and said that if an angel should come down from
Heaven and teach him any other doctrine than he had re
ceived and believed from his youth, he would not now believe
him. And that if his body should be cut joint after joint,
or member after member burnt, hanged, or what pain soever
might be done to his body, he would never turn from his
old profession. Moreover, he told the bishop that seven
years before he dared not have made such a sermon for
his life."2Delay was useless ; no argument was likely to shake the
constancy of the friar, and, with Crumwell and the rest
looking on, Forest was slung from the gallows with chains
"byithe middle and armholes all quick over the flames."3
In hik mortal agony he clutched at the steps of the ladder to
sway pimself out of the blaze ; and the pitiless chronicler
who records the scene could only see in this last weakness
an evidence of guilt. " So impatiently," says Hall, " he took
his death as never any man that put his trust in God."4
Before the final dispersion of the Franciscan Observants,
Crumwell had, as we have seen, commenced his conflict with
the fathers of the Charterhouse. Unlike the friars, the
secluded religious of St. Bruno's order had taken no active
part in opposing the union of Henry and Anne Boleyn.
Neither had they appeared conspicuously as the champions
of queen Catherine; and although it was known that the
" Holy maid of Kent " had visited them at their London
house, there was nothing in the evidence collected against
her to mark them out as her advisers or abettors. Still,
their general influence, at this time very considerable owing
to the exceptional sanctity of their lives, was exercised in
opposition to the king's revolt from the holy see. Rumour
even spoke of the prior of the London Charterhouse, John
1 Stow, Annates, p. 569. 2 Ibid., p. 569.
' Hall, ed. 1548, f. 233. 4 Froude, Hist., vol. iii. p. 296.

60 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Houghton, as privately exhorting his penitents to remain
firm in refusing to abjure the Papal supremacy.1
The Charterhouse ofthe " Salutation, of the most blessed
Mother of God" in London was a model of religious ob
servance. According to Maurice Chauncy, one of the few
religious of the convent who purchased their lives by com
pliance with the king's wishes, all were leading the most
holy lives. In the language of his penitence he alone, " the
spotted and diseased sheep " of the flock, deserved " to be
cast out of the fold," and to lose the crown of martyrdom.2
Twenty of the community were not yet thirty-eight years
of age, and they vied one with the other in the fervour of
their observance. Even the lay brethren were remarkable
for their perfect lives, and were true " conversi" from the
world and its ways. Two of their number, brothers Roger
and John, had often been seen by Chauncy raised in ecstasy
from the ground whilst praying.3
A worthy superior presided over this saintly community.
Blessed John Houghton had sprung from a good Essex
family, and had gone early in life to the University of
Cambridge in preparation for the honourable career in the
world to which the intentions of his parents had destined
him. Maurice Chauncy draws a charming picture of him
as prior. In person " he was short, with a graceful figure
and dignified appearance; his actions modest, his voice
gentle, chaste in body, in heart humble, he was admired
and sought after by all, and by his community was most
beloved and esteemed. One and all revered him, and none
were ever known to speak a word against him."4
In 1533 certain portents and wonders occurred which
were thought to warn the community of impending danger.
Without doubt, notwithstanding the seclusion of their lives,
rumours of the gathering storm must have reached them
in their cells. The thorny questions which surrounded the
great matter of Henry's divorce must have been suggested
to their minds, and were doubtless thought over and prayed
over in their solitude. The royal agents would thus have
found the simple monks of the Charterhouse not unprepared
for them, and resolutely resolved to meet their demands for
1 Strype, Eccl. Mems., i. p. 305.
Historia aliquot nostri saculi martyrum, 1583, p. 41.
3 Ibid., p. 47. 4 mdf p 4D_

The Friars and the Carthusians 61
a surrender of their consciences by that refusal which has
made their names respected even by those who cannot
appreciate their motives.
Early in April, 1534, the convent was visited by Lee and
Bedyll, under a commission from the king, to obtain the
signatures of the religious to the oath of succession. The
royal agents first saw the prior, but could make nothing of
him. To all their arguments he replied, that " it pertained
not to his vocation and calling nor to that of his subjects to
meddle in or discuss the king's business, neither could they
or ought they to do so, and that it did not concern him
whom the king wished to divorce or marry, so long as
he was not asked for any opinion."1 The visitors were
not satisfied with this reply and insisted on meeting the
brethren in chapter. To this demand the prior was forced
to agree, but the situation only obliged him to speak more
plainly in the presence of his brethren. For his part, he
said, "he could not understand how it was possible that a
marriage ratified by the Church and so long unquestioned
should now be undone," and to this view the whole com
munity adhered.
Such plain speaking on the part of Prior Houghton
was sufficient for the commissioners. His committal to
the Tower, together with the procurator of the convent,
Humphrey Middlemore, quickly followed. They remained
there a month, suffering, as the historian of these troubles
relates, from the dirt and pestilential atmosphere of the
dungeon in which they were confined, as well as from
absolute want of food.
Stokesley, the bishop of London, and Lee, archbishop of
York, were sent to visit Houghton and Middlemore in the
Tower. They persuaded them that the question of the
succession was not a cause in which to sacrifice their lives
for conscience sake. After a month's space, therefore, the
prior and his companion promised to comply with the king's
desires and returned home to their brethren. Meeting his
subjects in the chapter-house, Houghton informed them
of his submission, but added that he was convinced this
yielding would not avail to save them for long from the
destruction he foresaw. "Our hour, dear brethren," he
1 Chauncy, Commentariolus de vita ratione et martyrio Cartusianorum,
ed. Gandavi, 1608, p. 46.

62 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
continued, "is not yet come. In the same night in which
we were set free I had a dream that I should not escape
thus. Within a year I shall be brought again to that place,
and then I shall finish my course."1 Influenced by this
prediction, the monks at first resolved not to abide by the
prior's promised submission, but again to refuse compli
ance with the royal demands. For a time they were reso
lute. When, however, the commissioners returned, in com
pany with the lord mayor and his officers and threatened
them with immediate imprisonment, they yielded, taking the
oath under the condition "so far as it was lawful." The
swearing occupied two days. On the first occasion, May
29, 1534, the commissioners were Lee and Bedyll, and
fourteen subscribed, amongst whom were Houghton and
Middlemore; and on the second day, June 6th, the re
mainder of the community conformed, in the presence of
Lee and another visitor, Thomas Kytson.2
From the hour of their compliance the community knew
but little peace. Even among the brethren of the Charter
house some were restless under the restraints of monastic
discipline, and saw in the difficulties which beset their
house a possible means of escape from the bonds which
kept them to the cloister. But about the real spirit of the
community as a body, during the months that passed before
the martyrdom of the prior and his companions, there can
be no doubt. Archdeacon Bedyll, at the end of August,
1534, wrote to Crumwell about them and the religious
of Sion. "I am right sorry to see the foolishness and
obstinacy of diverse religious men so addicted to the bishop
of Rome and his usurped power, that they contemn all
counsel and likewise jeopardy their bodies and souls and
the suppression of their houses as careless men and willing
to die." 3 Every effort was made throughout the year to bring
the Charterhouse monks into real compliance with the royal
will. The prior of the Brigittines of Sion, who was some
times known under the title of "father confessor," was
apparently looked upon by Crumwell as zealous in Henry's
service. To him, therefore, by direction of the minister,
several of the Carthusian religious were sent for advice, in
1 Chauncy, in Froude, Hist., ii. 347.
2 Calendar, vii. No. 728 ; Rymer, xiv. 491.
State Papers, i. 423.

The Friars and the Carthusians 63
the hopes that his influence would tend to remove their
scruples and take away the sting of their remorse. Two of
these, both priests and professed monks, named William
Broke and Bartholomew Burgoyn, surrendered their con
sciences after a long argument with the prior at Sion.
Writing to him later they speak ofthe "great pains" he has
taken to win over two other religious of their convent, and
express their hopes that he will succeed in inducing them
to trust their souls to his guidance.1 Maurice Chauncy
probably owes the loss of his martyr's crown, which he so
much bewails, to the perverting influence of this Brigittine
friar. In company with another religious of the Charter
house, John Foxe, he was sent to Sion at the end of August,
1534. The letter which they took with them begged the
prior to argue with them, and " show charity to them as you
have done to others." They are scrupulous, the writer
says, "about the bishop of Rome," but are not "obstinate,"
and each of them has a " book of authorities " which must
be answered.2 By the beginning of 1535 any doubts which might be
entertained as to the full intentions of Henry were at an
end. On January 15th the new title of "Supreme Head"
was incorporated in the king's style by decree of council.
The rupture with Rome and the causes which led to it were
unquestionably deeply distasteful to the nation at large.
"On no other subject," writes Mr. Gairdner, "during the
whole reign have we such overt and repeated expressions of
dissatisfaction with the king and his proceedings."3 Many
of the influential persons of the realm were even anxiously
looking for some external intervention to stop the course
upon which Henry had embarked. Chapuys asserts, that
Lord Darcy's physician had assured him "that the whole
realm was so indignant at the oppressions and enormities
now practised, that if the emperor would make the smallest
effort the king would be ruined."4 The act of supremacy
had, indeed, added greatly to the royal power, as well as to
the kingly style, and there was no pretence that it was
framed with any scrupulous concern for civil liberty. With
an authority " to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct,
1 Calendar, vii. No. 1093. 2 Ibid., No. 11 50.
3 Ibid., viii. Preface on Nos. 589, 736-738, &c.
4 Ibid., No. 1.

64 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
restrain, and amend heresies, errors, abuses, offences, con
tempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be," to the same
extent as his compliant judges might hold lawful to any
spiritual authority, what might not an unscrupulous king
like Henry attempt when urged on by such a minister
as Crumwell ! No wonder the people of England looked for
ward with dread to the possible development of a power
which had added the spiritual to the temporal authority.
No wonder if they distrusted a monarch who, according to
the quaint but significant expression of "an old writer,"
was constituted " a king with a pope in his belly." 1
To the fathers of the Charterhouse the act of supremacy
meant destruction. By the end of 15 34 it would have been
abundantly clear to Crumwell, that whatever the few weaker
spirits among the community, who had been seduced by
promise or specious argument, might do, the Carthusians
as a body would resist even to death any further demand
of Henry for their rejection of papal authority. Their doom
was known to be certain when it became publicly under
stood that those suspected of hostility or even of half-hearted-
ness in the king's cause, and of lukewarmness or secret
dislike of Henry's divorce, might be submitted to questioning
on this new kingly prerogative of spiritual supremacy. The
prior, no longer doubting that the end of their suspense was
at hand, told his subjects to prepare for the worst.
"With unobtrusive nobleness," writes Froude, "did
these poor men prepare themselves for their end ; not less
beautiful in their resolution, not less deserving the everlast
ing remembrance of mankind than those three hundred who,
in the summer morning, sat combing their golden hair in the
passes of Thermopylae. We will not regret their cause;
there is no cause for which any man can more nobly suffer
than to witness that it is better for him to die than to speak
words which he does not mean. Nor, in this their hour of
trial, were they left without higher comfort." 2
When the danger seemed imminent, Robert Laurence,
the prior of the Charterhouse of Beauvale in Nottingham
shire, and Augustine Webster, prior of Axholme in Lincoln
shire, came to visit and consult with their brethren of the
London house. The first of these had been a member of
1 Amos, Statutes of Henry VIII, p. 283.
2 History, ii. p. 350.

The Friars and the Carthusians 65
this monastery; but five years before, he had been called
to succeed John Houghton in the priorship of Beauvale,
when the latter was summoned to London. The second,
Augustine Webster, had gone to Axholme from Shene
Charterhouse in Surrey. The three priors, after consulta
tion, determined to anticipate the coming of the king's
commissioners. By a personal interview with Crumwell
himself, they hoped to obtain some mitigation of the
expected royal demands. Perhaps, in accordance with
Houghton's determination, they desired to offer themselves
in behalf of their brethren. Crumwell, on learning the
purpose of their visit, refused to listen to them, and sent
them forthwith from his house to the Tower as rebels and
would-be traitors.1 A week later, on April 20, 1535, the
minister held an examination of Webster and Laurence at
his house in the "Rolls." There were present a number
of the council as witnesses. The notary, John Ap-Rice,
records, that when asked whether they would take the oath
of supremacy and reject the authority of any other but the
king, over the Ecclesia Anglicana, they both stoutly re
fused.2 In prison the three fathers had been joined by Father
Richard Reynolds, a Brigittine monk of Sion, who had been
committed to ward for the same cause.3 The depositions
record the opinions of each of the accused in much the same
language. Houghton's view about the supremacy was clear
and decided. Laurence and Webster both declared that
they could " not take our sovereign lord to be supreme head
of the Church, but him that is by God the head of the
Church, that is the bishop of Rome, as Ambrose, Jerome,
and Augustine teach." Richard Reynolds declared, that
though "he would spend his blood for the king, still that
the pope is head of the Church, that hath been these three
hundred years, and not the king;" and he also said "that
he doth, as a thousand thousand that are dead " had done
before in this matter.4 As nothing was likely to change
1 Chauncy, Commentariolus, p. 76.
2 Calendar, viii. No. 565 (1).
• Reynolds was a member of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He
took his B.D. degree in 1512, and immediately after became, with a college
companion, a brother of the Sion Monastery. He was the same year elected
one of the University preachers. (Camb. Reg. Grace Book, B. p. 305.)
4 Ibid., No. 566, also No. 565 (2). E

66 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the constancy of these fathers, a special commission was
appointed to try them for treason under the Act of Succession.
On April 24th the grand jury panel was returned, and the
trial appointed for Wednesday, the 28th of the same month.
Two days before, they underwent an examination in the
Tower by Crumwell and a committee of the privy council.
Their refusal to accept the oath of supremacy on this
occasion formed the substance of the charge against them.
Before the jury, on the 28th, they were indicted, in common
with Father Reynolds, on the charge that they "did, on
26 April, 27 Henry VIII., at the Tower of London, in the
county of Middlesex, openly declare and say, ' the king, our
sovereign lord, is not supreme head in earth of the Church
of England.'" They all four pleaded not guilty to this
novel charge of verbal treason. The verdict of the jury was
deferred till the following day.1
" The jury," as an old account of the trial says, " could
not agree to condemn these four religious persons, because
their consciences proved them they did not it maliciously.
The judges hereupon resolved them, that whosoever denied
the supremacy denied it maliciously, and the expressing of
the word maliciously in the act was a void limit and restraint
of the construction of the words and intention of the offence.
The jury, for all this, could not agree to condemn them,
whereupon Crumwell, in a rage, went unto the jury and
threatened them if they condemned them not. And so being
overcome by his threats, they found them guilty, and had
great thanks, but they were afterwards ashamed to show
their faces, and some of them took great (harm) for it." 2
The verdict of " guilty " was followed by a sentence of
death on all the four, to be carried out according to the form
usual in cases of high treason, and they were then conducted
back to the Tower to prepare for their end. Meanwhile,
when Houghton lay in prison, Crumwell's agents were busy
amongst his community endeavouring to win them over to
compliance with the king's orders. One of these commis-
1 Deputy Keeper, Rept. iii. App. ii. 238.
2 B. Mus. Arund. MS., 152, f. 308. A similar account is given by Chauncy.
See also Strype, Eccl. Mems., i. 305. Mr. Froude (ii. 357 note) says that
it is impossible Crumwell could have threatened the jury, because the verdict
was given the same day as the petty jury were empanelled. The jury were
returned on the 28th, whilst their verdict was given the following day. It does
not seem clear whether the pleadings and verdict were on the same day.

The Friars and the Carthusians 67
sioners, John Whalley, who appears to have been specially
appointed to guard the Charterhouse at this time, writes to
Crumwell his views as to the methods most likely to succeed.
"It is of no use," he says, "for one Mr. Rastall to come
there. He pleads, indeed, that you (Crumwell) wished him
daily to resort hither," but the monks " laugh and jest at all
things he speaketh. No question of it," he continues, " they
be exceedingly superstitious, ceremonious, and pharisaical,
and wonderfully addict to their old mumpsimus ; neverthe
less, better and more charitable it were to convert them
than to put them to the extremity of the law." 1
The three Carthusian priors, Houghton, Webster, and
Lawrence, together with the Brigittine, Father Reynolds, and
his neighbour, John Hale, vicar of Isleworth, were executed
at Tyburn on May 4th. The details of the execution were
of a nature more horrible than usual, even in the terrible and
barbarous punishment of death for treason. The fact that
the religious were drawn to the place of execution in their
habits made a great impression upon the people, and the
whole was no doubt arranged in order to afford to religious
and ecclesiastics a terrible example of Henry's power. To
each, as he mounted the scaffold, a pardon was offered if he
would obey the king and parliament. Each in turn rejected
the offer of life at the price of a guilty conscience.
" It is altogether a new thing," writes Chapuys to the
Emperor the following day (May 5th), " that the dukes of
Richmond and Norfolk, the earl of Wiltshire, his son, and
other lords and courtiers were present at the said execution,
quite near the sufferers. People say that the king himself
would have liked to see the butchery, which is very pro
bable, seeing that nearly all the court, even those ofthe privy
chamber, were there — his principal chamberlain, Norres,
bringing with him 40 horses ; and it is thought that he (the
king) was of the number of five who came thither accoutred
and mounted like borderers, who were armed secretly, with
vizors before their faces, of which that of the duke of
Norfolk's brother got detached, which has caused a great
stir, together with the fact that while the five thus habited
were speaking all those of the court dislodged." 2
1 Calendar, viii. No. 600.
* Ibid., No. 666. On 23rd May Chapuys wrote to Granvelle to say : " The
king was not present at the execution of the Carthusians. He (the king)

68 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Houghton was the first to die. As he mounted beneath
the gibbet, in compliance with the usual custom, he spoke
briefly to the people. "I call Almighty God tb witness,"
he said, " and all good people, and I beseech you all here
present to bear witness for me in the day of judgment, that
being here to die, I declare that it is from no obstinate re
bellious spirit that I do not obey the king, but because I
fear to offend the majesty of God. Our holy mother the
Church has decreed otherwise than the king and the parlia
ment have decreed, and therefore, rather than disobey the
Church I am ready to suffer. Pray for me and have mercy
on my brethren, of whom I have been the unworthy prior."
Then, kneeling down, he recited a few verses of the 31st
Psalm and calmly resigned himself to the hands of the
executioner. The rope used was stout and heavy, in order
that the martyrs might not be strangled before the rest of
the barbarous butchery could be performed. It is almost
impossible to credit the frenzy of diabolical cruelty which
is said to have been perpetrated on this occasion in the
presence of the court and, as the people believed, of the
king himself. Whilst still living they were ripped up in
each other's presence, their bodies dishonoured, their limbs
torn off, and their hearts 'cut out and rubbed into their
mouths and faces.' " 1
" The faces of these men," writes Mr. Froude, " did not
grow pale ; their voices did not shake ; they declared them
selves liege subjects of the king, and obedient children of
the Church ; ' giving God thanks that they were held worthy
to suffer for the truth.' All died without a murmur. The
stern work was ended with quartering the bodies ; and the
arm of Houghton was hung up as a bloody sign over the
archway of the Charterhouse to awe the remaining brothers
into submission."2
In this there was found more difficulty than had been
anticipated. Two days after the execution, the faithful
Bedyll wrote to Crumwell about three of the fathers, of
whom he could make nothing. On the very day of the
was very angry with Norfolk and Wiltshire for not answering one of them';;
(Prior Houghton) when he preached a remarkably fine sermon." — Spanish).
State Papers, v. 166.
1 Calendar, No. 726, Bishop of Faenza to M. Ambrogio.
2 History, ii. p. 359.

The Friars and the Carthusians 69
martyrdom of their prior he had apparently gone to the
Charterhouse, "and," he says, "had with me divers books
and annotations both of mine own and others against the
primacy of the bishop of Rome and also of St. Peter,
declaring evidently the equality of the apostles by the law
of God. And after long communication of more than an
hour and a half with the vicar and procurator of the house,
1 left those books and annotations with them, that they
should see the Holy Scriptures and doctors thereupon con
cerning the said matters, and thereupon conform themselves
accordingly. And yesterday they sent me the said books
and annotations again home to my house by a servant of
theirs without any word or writing. Wherefore, I sent to
the procurator to come and speak with me, seeing I kept
my bed by reason of sickness and could not come to him ;
and at his coming I demanded of him whether he and the
vicar and other of the seniors had seen or heard the said
annotations, or perused the titles of the books making most
for the said matters. And he answered that the vicar and
he and Newdigate had spent the time upon them till nine or
ten of the clock at night, and that they saw nothing in them
whereby they were moved to alter their opinion. I then
declared to him the danger of his opinion, which was like
to be the destruction of them and their house for ever ; . . .
I also demanded of the procurator whether the rest of his
-brethren were of like opinion, and he answered he was not
sure, but he thought they were all of one mind."1 In three
weeks the fathers here complained of, Humphrey Middlemore,
William Exmew, and Sebastian Newdigate, were lodged
in prison. On June 8, 1535, the bishop of Faenza writes
" that the Carthusians, whom the king himself tried to per
suade to recognise him as the head of the Church, are in
prison with chains round their necks, and will certainly be
put to death, but perhaps not so publicly for fear of the
displeasure of the people, which was shown at the death of
the others."2 And Chapuys shortly before mentions that
there were " three more Carthusians " in prison, whilst the
rest were strictly guarded in their convents by the king's
servants, " in whose custody are all the goods of the monas
teries of the order." " It is thought," he adds, " that the
1 Wright, ut supra, p. 40. 2 Calendar, vol. viii. No. 846.

7© Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
king will suppress them, as they are rich, and there is no
hope of making the religious change their opinion." 1
The fact of their being chained in prison cannot now be
questioned. A memorandum in the writing of John Stow,
the historian, leaves no doubt as to this particular form of
cruelty having been practised upon these religious whilst in
the Tower and Newgate. " Three of them (the Carthusian
fathers), that is to say, Humphrey (Middlemore), William
(Exmew), and Sebastian (Newdigate), first stood. in prison
upright, chained from the neck to the arms, and their legs
fettered with locks and chains, by the space of thirteen
days."2 Two years later a similar cruelty was practised
upon a number of their brethren, and under this prolonged
punishment many died.
At the trial of these three fathers of the Charterhouse,
before the same special commission of Oyer and Terminer
appointed to try Bishop Fisher, they were charged with the
same offence as that for which their prior had already suffered
death. It was declared that on May 25th, at Stepney,
each of them did say in conversation together, " I cannot
nor will consent to be obedient to the king's highness as a
true, lawful, and obedient subject to take and repute him to
be supreme head in earth of the Church of England under
Christ." 8 They pleaded " not guilty," but were condemned
on June nth, and executed at Tyburn on the 19th of the
same month.
For two years no more of the Carthusians were put in
prison. They were left, in the hope that arguments and
restrictions as to liberty and diet would break the spirit of
constancy which they displayed. A body of laymen were
appointed as the governors of their house, which to all
intents was thus turned into a prison. From the letters of
Jasper Fyllol, one of these gaolers, to Crumwell we are
afforded one or two glimpses of the state of subjection under
which the monks lived during this period.
Meantime a new prior had been placed over the convent
1 Calendar, viii. No. 751.
2 Ibid., No. 895. Sanders gives the same account of the inhuman treat
ment of these three fathers. "They had been," he writes, "for fourteen days
before they were put to death, forced to stand upright without the possibility
of stirring for any purpose whatever, held fast by iron collars on their necks,
arms, and thighs." — Lewis, Trans., p. 119.
• Deputy Keeper, Rept, iii. App. ii. 239.

The Friars and the Carthusians 71
in the room of the martyred Houghton. His name was
William Trafford, and he had been a monk of Beauvale. In
the beginning of the troubles he had been bold enough in
his declarations of constancy, and had even been placed under
the custody of the sheriff. " In a friendly conversation (he,
the sheriff, had) showed them that the king was of right
spiritual head." Upon this the procurator, William Trafford,
said, "I believe firmly that the pope of Rome is supreme
head of the Church Catholic." When the commissioners
asked whether he would abide by his words, he replied,
" usque ad mortem? Moreover, he wrote his words down
and Sir John Markham carried the paper away and placed the
monk in safe custody.1 What happened to change the heart
of this religious does not appear, but the fact of his appoint
ment, and that Bedyll praises him, would be sufficient to
prove the surrender of his conscience to the king, to whom
he subsequently resigned his monastery. The religious
never knew him as a father and adviser. Of the period of
his administration Chauncy says : " Being deprived of a
prior exterior to ourselves, every man's conscience was his
prior." During this period of general probation for the martyr's,
crown, Chauncy relates that every pressure that could be
imagined was brought to bear upon them in the hopes their
resolution might be shaken. Privy councillors would come
and harangue them in their chapter-house on their blindness
and perversity. Sometimes these visits would be extended
so long that they were prevented chaunting their vespers or
their matins. One Sunday four of them, who were thought
to be the most obstinate, and the leaders of the rest, were
taken by force to St. Paul's to listen to a sermon against the
pope. Indeed, had Hilsey (the unworthy successor of the
martyred Fisher in the see of Rochester) obtained his desires,
all the religious of the Charterhouse would have been mar
shalled at the cross weekly to listen to the sermons.2
At length, on May 4, 1536, the anniversary of Houghton's
death, four, who had been regarded as the leaders in the
opposition to the king's designs, were sent tc the North of
England and placed in houses, the temper of which was
thought to be true to Henry. Of the rest, eight were trans-
1 Calendar, viii. No. 566. 2 Ibid., ix. No. 989.

72 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
ferred to the Brigittine convent of Sion, to which a new prior
of zealous loyalty had been appointed upon whose efforts
to shake their constancy Crumwell counted. A year passed
by before it was deemed prudent to again demand the oath.
Hardship, argument, and pressure of every kind kept up for
two years had sifted the chaff from the grain. The trial
had proved the true metal, had prepared the strong for
victory and left the weak at last in the power of an enemy
who had pursued them so relentlessly. On May 18, 1537,
the royal commissioners attended in the chapter-house and
received the required oath from the prior and twenty of
the brethren. Ten still resolutely refused, and William
Say, the public notary, having summoned them, testified to
their continued obstinacy.1
Their fate was quickly decided. On the 29th of May,
eleven days after their refusal, they were removed to New
gate. Their number consisted of three priests, D. Richard
Bere,2 D. Thomas Johnson, and D. John Green, one deacon,
John Davy, and six lay brothers, William Greenwood,
Thomas Scryven, Robert Salt, Walter Peerson, Thomas
Reding, and William Home. Their treatment in prison was
similar to that of the three fathers of their house two years
previously. A pious lady named Clement, afterwardsmother
Margaret Clement, has left it on record that she bribed the
gaolers to allow her to visit these heroic monks in their
prison. Disguised as a milkmaid, she went to them and
"fed them, putting meat in their mouths, they being tied
and not able to stir nor help themselves." She was thus
for some days able to preserve their lives, and perform other
Christian acts of charity for them. After this time the king,
finding they were not yet starved to death, commanded a
stricter watch to be kept over them.
After they had been in prison only sixteen days, Bedyll
wrote to his master concerning them : " the monks of the
Charterhouse here at London, be almost dispatched by the
hand of God, as it may appear to you by tnis bill enclosed,
whereof, considering their behaviour and the whole matter,
1 Rymer, xiv. p. 588.
2 Richard Bere was born about the year 1508. He was a nephew of
Abbot Bere of Glastonbury, and was educated first in the school in that abbey
and afterwards sent by his uncle to Oxford. (See Downside Review, vol. ix.
pp. 158-163.)

The Friars and the Carthusians 73
I am not sorry, but would that all such as love not the
king's highness and his worldly honour were in like case." x
The list of Carthusians which archdeacon Bedyll says
he forwards to Crumwell is not printed by Wright, although
it is in the same collection in the British Museum from
which he published the letter itself. It is of great interest,
as showing that five of the ten had already died from their
prison hardships. It runs thus :—
1 537. June 14.
There are departed,
Brother William Greenwood.
Dan. John Davy.
Brother Robert Salt.
Brother Walter Peerson.
Dan. Thomas Green.
There are even at the point of death.
Brother Thomas Scryven.
Brother Thomas Reding.
There are sick,
Dan. Thomas Johnson.
Brother William Home.
One is healed,
Dan. (Richard) Bird (Bere).2
In a very short time the list of the " departed " included
all but one. "Furthermore, the other nine," writes the
historian Stow, "died in prison with stink and miserably
smothered."3 The one who survived the horrors of that
Newgate dungeon with its slow tortures of starvation
and suffocation was not the monk reported by Bedyll as
" healed," but Brother William Home. He lingered in
prison till 1540, when, on Wednesday, August 4, he was
hung at Tyburn. 1 Wright, p. 162 ; from London, June 14, 1537.
2 B. Mus. Cott. MS., Cleop. E. iv. f. 256 b.
* B. Mus. Harl. MS., 530, f. 54.

74 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Of the four monks who had been sent to the North of
England in 1536, after all the efforts of Crumwell and his
agents had failed to shake their constancy, two received the
martyr's palm. They had been placed in the Charterhouse
at Hull, and complaints having reached Crumwell that they
showed no inclination to conform, in 1537 power was
granted to the royal officers of the district to enforce the
decrees of parliament. The two fathers were consequently A
seized and brought to York, where they were condemned to
death by the Duke of Norfolk. The sentence was carried
out in the same city, and their bodies left to hang in chains.
"Item. Two of these eighteen," writes Stow, "did remain
hanging, the which were John Rochester and James Wal-
wercke." 1
When archdeacon Bedyll wrote his letter on June 14,
1537, the monastery of the London Charterhouse had ceased
to exist. By means of the threats, or, as he calls them, the
"sore" words of Crumwell, and his own persuasions and
promises, the remnant of the community had been induced
to surrender their house and property to the king. This
was done on June 10, and according to the terms, doubtless, *
dictated by Crumwell's agent.2
For this compliance with what was thus represented tffa
them as the king's desires, the religious were rewarded, but
hardly as liberally as Bedyll appears to have led them to
expect. A paper among the Augmentation Office records,
headed " Monks to have pensions," and signed T. Crumwell,
shows that .£20 a year was promised to Trafford, and to
fourteen of his religious .£5 each. The last name on the
list is that of Maurice Chauncy, to whom we are indebted
for so much of our knowledge about the troubles of the
Carthusian fathers at this period, and who himself so
narrowly missed the crown of martyrdom gained by his
braver brethren.3 1 Stow, ut supra.
2 Rot. Claus. 29 Hen. VIII., pars. I. 16.
* R. O. Augmentation Office, Miscell. Books, No. 245, f. 83.

CHAPTER V
The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36
ON the 22nd of June, 1535, the feast of England's promartyr,
St Alban, the saintly and venerable bishop Fisher died for
his faith. Four days before, the Carthusian fathers had
preceded him to their common reward. A fortnight later,
on Tuesday the octave day of St. Peter, and (as he himself
remarked) the eve of the translation of St. Thomas of
Canterbury, the learned Sir Thomas More laid down his
life for the same cause. Thus by the close of the first week
in July the axe at Tower Hill and the gallows at Tyburn
had rid Henry VIII. of the foremost opponents of his
concubinage with Anne Boleyn, and of his assumed ecclesi
astical supremacy. There was, however, hardly any period
of his reign when the king and his counsellors were more
harassed than during the latter half of this year. The
foreign relations of the country were becoming strained.
The people at home were restless and disheartened. The
longest memory could not recall a summer more unfavour
able to agriculture. The corn harvest was well nigh a
complete failure, the yield being scarcely more than the third
part of an average crop.1 It had rained, so said the people,
ever since the execution of the Carthusians,2 and they looked
upon this as a mark of divine anger at the misdeeds of
Henry.8 In determining to strike a blow at the monastic bodies,
Crumwell had a double object — to overthrow the papal
system in its strongholds,4 and to finger some of the riches
with which the piety of ten centuries had endowed them.
1 Bib. Nat. MSS. Dupuy, vol. 547 ; quoted by P. Friedmann, Ann Boleyn,
vol. ii. p. 120.
2 Ibid., June 18, 1535. 8 Calendar, ix. No. 594.
4 Lord Herbert, Life of Henry VIII., p. 395, says: "They (the monas
teries) were looked upon as a body of reserve for the pope, and always ready
to appear in his quarrels." 75

76 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
By the middle of the year 1534 commissioners were busily
journeying through England to tender the oath of supremacy
to the religious. As no special form had been prescribed
by parliament, Crumwell took advantage of the omission.
He made his agents tender to the monks a much more
stringent and explicit renunciation of the papal supremacy
and jurisdiction than that rejected by More and Fisher, and
already subscribed to by many of the secular clergy. The
commissioners appear to have met with only partial suc
cess. The intolerable nature of the oath demanded seems
to suggest that the intention of its framer was to drive the
religious to refuse, and thus to create a pretext for falling
upon and destroying their houses.1 If the new system of
religion was to prevail, it was impossible to allow large
bodies of men and women to remain opposed at heart, if not
openly, to the policy of Henry's undisguised defiance of
papal authority. The royal supremacy was the touchstone
of loyalty and religion in the minds of king and minister. A
"strong coercion" had already done much to beat down
opposition, and remorseless executions had made further
individual resistance to the despotic will of the king and
machiavellian policy of Thomas Crumwell all but impossible.
Union, moreover, might be expected to give strength and
tenacity of purpose to the monks and friars. Their direct
dependence, besides, on the Holy See caused them to be
regarded in a special way as the " spies of the pope." 2 The
popular veneration in which they were held 3 must in these
circumstances have made them particularly obnoxious, and,
as far as Crumwell and his policy was concerned, dangerous.
1 Canon Dixon, Hist, of Church of England, vol. i. p. 213, says that "the
oath was taken in almost every chapter-house where it was tendered." This
is generally stated as a fact, but as far as is known there is no proof of it. The
list of " acknowledgments of royal supremacy," printed in the 7th report of
the Deputy Keeper, App. II., contains all the known documents as to the
religious bodies. They number only 105, a very small fraction of the whole.
Of these Mr. F. Devon, the assistant keeper of public records, in making the
list remarks : " I believe it contains all the original acknowledgments of
supremacy deposited in the branch public record office at the chapter-house.
The signatures are in my opinion not all autographs, but frequently in the '
same handwriting, and my impression is that the writer of the deed often
added many of the names.
2 R. O. Crum. Cor., vol. xv No. 7.
s See Harpsfield, Treatise on the Divorce (Camd. Soc), pp. 296-301. The
records of the Pilgrimage of Grace afford ample evidence of this popular
esteem.

The Visitation of Monasteries m 1535-36 77
It was the opinion of more than one foreigner in England
at the time that any movement of the emperor or pope against
Henry would have made the nation rise against their rulers.1
John Ap-Rice and Thomas Legh, afterwards two of the
royal visitors of the monasteries, who had been throughout
England on the king's business, and so had means of forming
a judgment, declared that even the bishops "would refer
their jurisdiction to some one else than the king if they
dared.""1 Hence the immediate necessity of subduing the
monastic bodies, which Crumwell regarded as so many
strongholds of papal power scattered throughout the country.
" As many of the great men of the state and church thought,"
writes Von Ranke, " so thought also the pious members of
the monasteries and cloistered convents. They opposed the
supremacy, not, as they said, from inclination to disobedience,
but because Holy Mother Church ordered otherwise than
king and parliament ordained. The apology merely served
to condemn them. ... In the new order of things there
was absolutely no place for the monastic system. It was
necessarily sacrificed to the unity of the country, and at the
same time to the greed of great men." 3
This " greed of great men," and in the first place of the
king and Crumwell, was the second motive which prompted
the suppression of the religious houses. It is difficult for
us to estimate at its true value the prize which Henry hoped
to obtain in the estates of the religious bodies. Nearly all
the wealth of the country at this time consisted of real
property : the amount of personal property being compara
tively insignificant; Of the whole area of England, the part
owned by the monasteries was indeed large, although their
wealth has been greatly exaggerated.4 Still the prize was
more than regal, and by this time Henry's appetite had been
sharpened by his appropriation, as supreme ecclesiastical
authority, of first fruits and other church revenues.
1 Calendar, vol. ix. Nos. 435, &c. 2 Ibid., No. 424.
8 Hist, of England, vol. i. p. 158 (ed. 1875).
4 The revenue of the king at this time has been estimated at about £140,000
a year. Hume calculates the whole rental of the nation at £3,000,000, of
which from £140,000 to £170,000 belonged to the religious bodies. (Cf.
Lingard, Note E. vol. vi.) Besides this, Henry obtained vast sums of
money from the Church plate and jewels of the monasteries, so that, taking all
into account, and putting the value of the money at twelve times the present
value, the property confiscated must have been worth some £50,000,000 of
our money. (Cf. Blunt, Reformation, p. 371.)

78 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Even now the breach with Rome was by no means re
garded as definitive. There was still some slight hope that
peace might be made. Chapuys, the imperial ambassador,
told Crumwell that at all events the statutes already passed,
" by which the king received inestimable profit from church
men,1 might be confirmed to some extent." The suggestion,
however, was calculated to arouse Crumwell's fears for
himself, as it opened up a possibility of the ruin of Anne
Boleyn and her party, which would involve his own fall.
To get rid of the religious houses would make it almost
impossible to turn back along the path that had been
entered on. It would, moreover, strike at the very heart
of the pope's power in England, and most effectually dash
the hopes entertained of its renewal.
Two years before, a parliament had transferred the right
of visitation from the pope to the king.2 Henry was em
powered to issue commissions for visiting "monasteries,
priories, houses, and places religious exempt." In the
methods of visitation Crumwell, as commissioner for
Wolsey, had been well instructed. He had gone round the
country for that purpose, and gained himself a reputation
"for accessibility to, bribes and presents in the disposal of
monastic leases."3 Lord Herbert states that the scheme
for the dissolution of monasteries was discussed at a
meeting of the council, where it met with considerable
opposition. From this disapproval of the measure the
king saw it would be necessary to carry out his designs
by degrees.4 The royal commissioners first visited the Charterhouse
monks and the Observants of Richmond and Greenwich.
Shortly after they got to work, they found their paths
crossed by the bishops. The king's letter of September
1 8th to Cranmer suspended all episcopal authority during
the progress of the commission. The bishops did not relish
1 The Act of Parliament giving to the king " first fruits " and " tenths."
2 20th clause of an act, 1533, "Concerning Peter's pence and dispen
sations." 8 Brewer's Hen. VIII., vol. ii. p. 268.
4 Life of Hen. VIII, p. 424. As the council books of this period are not
forthcoming, it is impossible to verify this statement. It is, however, very
probable. We may note here the extraordinary gaps which exist in the
journal books of the houses of lords and commons as well as in the council
books at the most critical period of this reign.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 79
this interference, and it was not till a fortnight later
(October 2) that the archbishop of Canterbury issued the
king's inhibition to his suffragans.1 Almost at the same
time, two of the commissioners, Legh and Ap-Rice,
"supposing the bishops would be in hand with you again
touching the inhibitions,"2 furnished Crumwell with their
reasons for thus getting the bishops suspended from using
their jurisdiction.
The commissioners, the chief of whom, with Legh and
Layton, were Ap-Rice, Dr. London, and Bedyll, entered on
their task armed with the most complete authority. They
really, however, continued to be in the most servile de
pendence on the chief inquisitor, Crumwell. " Having
experience not long ago in myself," as Ap-Rice puts it in
a letter to his master, " how grievous, yea and deadly, it is
for any man to have the displeasure of such a man as you
are, ... I would not wish my most enemy so great a dis
pleasure." s
Layton also, in an abject letter to Crumwell, begged that
he might be sent to visit the north part of England. He
promised that no one else, "of what degree soever he be,
shall do the king's highness so good service in this matter
for those parts, doing all things so diligently for your
purpose and discharge. Our desire is, therefore," he said,
"now to declare unto you our true hearts and faithful
minds, our fast and unfeigned service that we bear towards
you and owe unto you, as ye have of right bound us."4
It was not till later in the year, however, that Layton had
his wish granted. Meantime he and the others were busy
enough. They were furnished with a set of eighty-six
articles of inquiry6 and with twenty-five injunctions, to
which they had power to add much at their discretion.
The articles of inquiry were searching, the injunctions
minute, irritating, and exacting. Framed in the spirit of
three centuries earlier, unworkable in practice and enforced
by such agents, it is easy to understand, even were there
no written evidence of the fact, that they were galling and
unbearable to the helpless inmates of the monasteries. We
1 Calendar, ix. No. 517. 2 Ibid., No. 424. 8 Ibid., No. 630.
4 Wright, p. 156. The editor puts this letter in 1537, but both internal
evidence and the date, " Friday, June 4th," show that it was written in 1536.
6 Printed together with the injunctions in Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 786.

80 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
may give a passing notice to one or two of these regula
tions, as they show the spirit which actuated those who
framed them. All religious under twenty-four years of
age, or who had been professed under twenty, were to, be
dismissed from the religious life. Those who were left
became practically prisoners in their monasteries. No one
was allowed to leave the precincts (which, even in the
larger monasteries, were very confined as to limit) or to
visit there. In many instances porters, who were in reality
gaolers, were appointed to see that this impossible regulation
was kept. What was simply destructive of all discipline
and order in the monasteries was an injunction that every
religious who wished to complain of anything done by his
superior or any of his brethren was to have a right at any
time to appeal to Crumwell. To facilitate this, the superior
was ordered to find any subject the money and means for
prosecuting such an appeal in person, if he so desired.
Injunctions such as these could only have been intended
to invite disobedience, and thus to give the king number
less opportunities of interference with the internal economy
of the monasteries. His object, apparently, was to harass
the monks into giving up a bootless struggle and into aban
doning their houses. The visitor Ap-Rice, not so deeply
in Crumwell's counsels as some of his colleagues, wrote
that his companion Legh was pushing matters too fast.
He remarked that it was impossible for the religious to
be kept as prisoners, and that even the Carthusians had
found it absolutely necessary to allow their priors to go
abroad on business of their monastery.1 Legh, however,
discloses the truth as to the secret policy pursued by
Crumwell. In a letter from the abbey of Denny a month
or so later he writes: "By this ye may see that they
shall not need to be put forth, but that they will make
instance themselves, so that their doing shall be imputed
to themselves and to no other." To this letter Ap-Rice
adds a postscript, showing that he too now understood the
object of the royal injunctions. "Although I reckon it well
done that all were out," he says, " yet I think it were best
that at their own instant suit they might be dismissed, to
avoid calumniation and envy. And so compelling them to
1 Calendar, ix. No. 139.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 8 1
observe these injunctions ye shall have them all to do
shortly. And the people shall know it the better that it
cometh upon their suit, if they be not discharged straight
while we be here, for then the people would say that we
went for nothing else, even though the truth were con
trary." J
Mere petty vexations, however, were not the chief means
for carrying out the great work of destruction. Layton,
Crumwell's right-hand man in this matter, saw in the supre
macy question a screw to torture consciences. By inducing
a cowardice resulting from actions against conviction, he
prepared his victims for the final surrender of their personal
rights. " I should advise you," he says, in a letter containing
his first suggestion as to the visitation of the province of
York, "to set forth the king's authority as supreme head
by all possible means. There can be no better way to
beat the king's authority into the heads of the rude people
of the north than to show them that the king intends re
formation and correction of religious. They are more super
stitious than virtuous, long accustomed to frantic fantasies
and ceremonies, which they regard more than either God or
their prince.
" The Book of Articles is clear written, in the custody
of Bartlett your clerk, and a commission is ready for the
same. You will never know," he adds significantly, " what
I can do till you try me." 2
No sooner were the commissioners at their work than
difficulties rose up amongst them. The letters in which
they refer their quarrels to Crumwell are instructive, in
regard as well to the character as to the methods of these
chosen instruments of reform. Legh complains to Crumwell
of Layton, and he in his turn is complained of by his com
panion Ap-Rice. Layton is inclined to be too easy in keeping
the unfortunate religious strict prisoners. " He has left it
more at the discretion of the head," writes Legh ; "I have
not, in order that they might the more know the king's
supreme ecclesiastical power."3 Moreover, he has not
always dismissed those under twenty-four years of age.
In reply Layton writes : " And as touching the injunctions
which your mastership do take to be very slender, it may
1 Calendar, xi. No. 708. 2 Ibid., viii. No. 955.
8 md., ix. No. 621 F

82 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
please you to understand that they be not given for in
junctions, but only for summary monitions and rules to be
observed until the injunctions shall hereafter come to every
place under the king's seal. . . . And by your better advice
I think it in no wise expedient to give injunctions forthwith,
but viva voce, or else by some note in writing, somewhat
to do for a rule and order until the injunctions shall come.
Over this, when your mastership writeth that the king's
grace's pleasure is that the injunctions should be absolute,
it shall be I dare say well," adds the wily agent, " that when
ye have known my conceit in the rules and injunctions, and
what I have there done in every condition, the king shall
have no less expectation of your affairs than his grace had
heretofore. Praying God that rather I may be buried quick
than to be the occasion why the king's highness should
diminish any part of the ' affiance,' confidence, or the expec
tation of your assured and proved mind towards his grace."1
This would seem to mean that Layton had schemes of his
own for harrying the religious, which he did not think fit
to communicate, by letter at least, even to Crumwell. The
nature of his " conceit " may be gathered sufficiently from
his later letters.
John Ap-Rice was not better pleased with his companion,
Dr. Legh, than the latter had been with Layton. He writes
to Crumwell : " I see you are not pleased because I have
not told you of Dr. Legh's demeanour. I often thought
I ought to have revealed certain abuses and excesses, but
first, I saw how little the complaint of others, like the abbot
of Bruton,2 where he used himself, methought, very inso
lently, did succeed. And thinking that his demeanour at
Bradstock, Stanley, and Edington, where he made no less
ruffling with the heads than he did at Bruton, should of all
likelihood come likewise to your knowledge, and saw nothing
said unto him therefore : and also supposing that you, con-
1 Calendar, viii. No. 1127
2 This abbot had been visited by Layton about the middle of August, who
complained that there "and Glastonbury . . . the brethren be so straight kept
that they cannot offend " (Wright, p. 59), when on the 23rd of the same month
Legh arrived, and claimed the power to visit again. No wonder " the abbot,
little regarding the authority committed to him, with sharp and quick answers,"
said : if he " would visit them anew it should be the very undoing of all abbots
and monasteries, and otherwise showed himself very haughty and obstinate"
(Calendar, ix. No. 159). What Legh said and how he treated the abbot may
be gathered from Ap-Rice's letter.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 83
sidering how he was one of them that depraved me here
tofore with your mastership, for no just cause, but for
displeasure which he have towards me for certain causes
which I will declare unto you more at leisure ... I called
some of my servants at London to come with me and see
all his proceedings, gestures, and manner of going thence
at Westminster and St. Paul's. I did not want to go with
him lest he, with his bold excuse, wherein he is, I advise you,
ever ready, would have overcome me, being but of small
audacity, especially in accusations. ... I am not eloquent
in accusations, as some men be.
"First, in his going he is too insolent and 'pompatique,'
which, because he went so in London in the face of all the
world, I thought you would have known. . . . Then he
handleth the fathers where he cometh very roughly, and
many times for small causes, as the abbots of Bruton and
Stanley, and the master of Edington for not meeting of him
at the door, when they had no warning of his coming.
Also, I require more modesty and affability, which would
purchase him more reverence than his own setting forth and
' satrapike ' countenance.
" The man is young and of intolerable elation of mind.
As concerning his taking, I think it excessive in many
things. First, for the election of the prior of Coventry he
took £15 j1 for the election lately at Bevall, the Charter
house, ^20, besides his costs, £6, and his reward unknown
to me. . . . And surely he asketh no less for every election
than ^20 as of duty, which in my opinion is too much, and
above any duty that was ever taken heretofore.
"Also in his visitations he refuseth many times his
reward, though it be competent, for that they offer him so
little and maketh them to send after him such rewards as
may please him, for surely religious men were never afraid
so much of Dr. Allen as they be of him, he useth such rough
fashion with them."
After saying that Legh always went about attended by
twelve men in livery besides his brother, Ap-Rice adds a
word about himself, which shows us that he had evidently
been complained of. "And as for mine own dealing and
1 This would be equal to some £180 of our money. Other sums men
tioned in the letter are : " Vale Royal £15, and costs £6 ; Tarrent £20, and
costs £4."

84 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
behaviour, I trust ye shall have no wise cause of complaint
against me; one thing humbly desiring your mastership,
that ye give no light credence till the matter be proved and
my defence. As to the defence in the other matter, I was
so abashed that I had not those things in my remembrance
that was for a defence."1
The following day Ap-Rice seems to have become
alarmed at the possible consequences of his confidences to
Crumwell, and wrote again : " I have certified to you certain
things touching Mr. Doctor Legh. Although they be all true,
I in haste did not make use of moderation. First, having
experience in myself not long ago how grievous, yea and
deadly, it is for any man to have the displeasure of such a
man as you are, specially having your favour before and
having only of you, and what desperation or other incon
venience may ensue thereupon to the same, so that I would
not wish my most enemy so great a displeasure; and also
considering for your part how ye cannot suddenly and
violently use any extremity towards the said Mr. Doctor,
but ye shall thereby give occasion to some to reckon that ye
were so quick in choosing such a one to that room as ye
would so soon after disallow and reprove. Also it would be
thought by some other that all his doings and proceedings
in such places as he was at were reproved by you, and he
for the same so handled. ... It would be well, first, gently
to admonish him to amendment, and not utterly discourage
him and strike him under foot."
He concludes in words the significance of which it is
impossible to mistake. "And forasmuch as the said Mr.
Doctor is of such acquaintance and familiarity with many
rufflers and serving-men, if he knew this matter to have
proceeded of me, though it be but at your commandment,
I having commonly no great assistance with me when I go
abroad, might take perchance irrecoverable harm of him or
his ere I were aware. Please keep secret what I have
said."2 Personal violence, and even murder, was, in the
opinion of his colleague, the treatment Legh would mete out
to one of the king's agents. How can it be expected that
the scurrilous tongue, "eloquent in accusations," should
spare and slay not the reputations of the monks and nuns
1 Calendar, ix. No. 622. 2 md., No. 63a

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 85
whose destruction was his special errand. " Quia exacuit ut
gladium linguam suam, intendit rem amaram ut sagittet in
occulto immaculatum."
These extracts give some idea of the instruments by
which Crumwell hoped to effect the ruin of the monasteries.
To those who have studied the history of these times, it is
a matter of no surprise to find that these men were allowed
free and unrestrained license in dealing with their un
fortunate victims. Legh was written to, apparently, as to
his harshness, and his reply is instructive, and no doubt
was conclusive from Crumwell's point of view. " Where I
have in all places that I have been at, according to mine
instructions and to the king's grace's pleasure and yours,
restrained as well the heads and masters of the same places
as the brethren from going forth of the precincts of the said
places, which I assure you grieveth the said heads not a
little, as ye shall perceive by the instant suites that they
shall make to the king's grace and to you." x
He had acknowledged in a letter previously quoted that
the injunctions in this matter were impossible to keep, but
would teach the monks the power of the king. The per
missions for mitigation, for which there will be "instant
suites," may, he hints, be a source of profit also for Crumwell
himself.2 The latter no doubt considered this point, and
left the victims under the torture.
Over the sad lot of the poor nuns left to the tender
mercies of such ruffians, history has, perhaps wisely, drawn
a veil. Here and there we may, however, still catch a
glimpse of the dreadful reality. Dr. Ortiz, writing to the
empress what is reported in Rome as to the visitation of
English monasteries, which in common with so many he
attributes to the influence of Anne Boleyn, who hated the
religious as most opposed to her union with Henry, says :
"In England, Anne removed from some monasteries the
most able persons and left the infirm with so little to main
tain themselves that they are constrained to relinquish the
state of religion. They took out of the monastery all the
nuns of less than twenty-five years of age, and one of the
commissioners who went for this purpose spoke immodestly
to the nuns, who rebuked him, saying that their apostolic
1 Wright, p. 56. 2 Calendar, ix. Preface xx.

86 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
privileges were being violated. The commissary replied that
he held more power from the king than there was in the
whole apostolic see, and referring the nuns' complaint to
Master Crumwell, who is the secretary of the king, by whom
comes the ordering of all these evils, told her this was only
the beginning of the end." 1 Sanders, almost a contempo
rary, states that " Lee (Legh) indeed, in order to discharge
correctly the duties laid upon him, tempted the religious to
sin, and he was more ready to inquire into and speak about
uncleanness of living than anything else."2
"The papists," writes the historian Fuller, "do heavily
complain (how justly God alone knoweth) that a third sort
of agents were employed to practice on the chastity of the
nuns, so to surprise them into wantonness. Some young
gallants were on design sent to some convents, with fair
faces, flattering tongues, store of gold and good clothes,
youth, wit, wantonness, and what else might work on the
weaker sex."8 He then goes on to relate a story which
bears out what he has said, of two young men who went to a
convent near Cambridge, and who gave out that they were
able to seduce the nuns at their will, although the very con
trary was the case. One of these confessed the same to Sir
William Stanley, who told it to a noble catholic who was
alive when Fuller wrote. Of this story a modern protestant
authority writes: "The story has too much vraisemblance
to be set aside . . . and in addition to this, the tone of Layton's
letters to Crumwell are of such a kind as to make one fear
that some nuns were indeed thus wickedly seduced, and
others not less wickedly accused falsely. Those, however,
who duly appreciate the character of their countrywomen,
will believe that among these evil-intreated ' innocents ' there
were not a few who passed through the scorching fire of
temptation scatheless under the protection of their heavenly
bridegroom, for the English daughters of the nineteenth
century whom we see around us are sisters to the English
nuns of the sixteenth, of whom we know only by vague
tradition."4 No words of description can give so lively a picture of
1 Calendar, ix. No. 873.
2 Anglican Schism, Lewis' trans., p. 129.
3 Church Hist., ii. p. 216 (ed. 1837).
4 The Reformation of Church of England, Rev. J. H. Blunt,' 6th ed., 1885,
vol. i. p. 316.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 8 7
the abject poverty to which many of the religious houses
were reduced under the constant exactions of the king and
Crumwell during the past years, as the letters of Layton
himself. These will also serve to show the rapidity with
which the commissioners got over their work. They will
likewise help us to appreciate at their true worth charges
made in a reckless and wholesale manner, and without the
possibility of even a shadow of investigation.
The following is a letter regarding Layton's Sussex visi
tation in October 1535: "On Friday at night I came into
Sussex to an abbey called Durford. It might better be
called Dirtyford ; the poorest abbey that I have seen, as this
bearer, the abbot thereof, can tell: far in debt and great
decay. This young man for his time hath done right well,
whom I have licensed to repair unto you and to declare unto
you his mind concerning license and liberty of himself and
other his brethren.
" An abbey or a priory of minors and a priory of canons
nigh together lay towards Chichester, and because of their
poverty not able to lodge us, we were compelled to ride out
of our way to an abbey of Cistercians called Waverly, there
to lodge on Saturday at night. . . . These two poor priories
we will dispatch on Monday by the way, and so on Monday
at night we shall be at Chichester cathedral church." 1
Apparently the doctor did not enjoy his stay at Waverly
abbey, as the following tells us. It also shows how, through
the tyranny of the crown in forcing lay servants upon the
abbeys, the monks were by this time powerless in their own
homes. " I have licensed this bringer, the abbot of Waverly, to
repair unto you for liberty to survey his husbandry, where
upon consisteth the wealth of his monastery. The man is
honest, but none of the children of Solomon. Every monk
within his house is his fellow, and every servant his master
Mr. Treasurer and other more gentlemen hath put servants
unto him, whom the poor man dare neither command nor
displease. Yesterday, early in the morning, sitting in my
chamber in examination, I could neither get bread, drink,
nor fire of these knaves, till I was fretished,2 and the abbot
durst not speak to them. I called them all before me, and
1 Calendar, ix. No. 444. 2 i.e. numbed with cold.

88 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
forgot (sic) their names, and took from every man his keys
of his office, and made new offices for my time here, per
chance as stark knaves as the other. It shall be expedient
for you to give him a lesson and tell the poor fool what he
should do amongst the monks." 1
The kind of treatment which the religious were likely to
meet with at the hands of this visitor sent to lead them to
a better life may be also gathered from his letters. In a
letter from Bath, Layton speaks of his visit to a cell of
Lewes Priory, near that city, called Farley, where he had
got information as to the sub-prior from " a fair young man,
a priest late sent from Lewes," and adds, " I have matter
sufficient here found (as I suppose) to bring the prior of
Lewes into great danger."2 The information, whatever it
might be, thus obtained, was kept ready for the visitation
of Lewes some months later. Layton thus describes it:
"At Lewes," he says, " I found the monks morally bad and
traitors. The sub-prior confessed unto me treason in his
preaching, I have caused him to subscribe his name to the
same, submitting himself to the king's mercy. I have also
made him confess that the prior knew the same and coun
selled it, and the sub-prior subscribed his name to this said
confession against the prior." Upon this, the doctor sum
moned a chapter, and put the unfortunate prior on his knees
in the middle, and " I laid unto him the concealment of the
treason, and called him heinous traitor, with the worst
words I could devise, he all the time kneeling upon his
knees, and making intercession unto me not to utter to you
the premises. I listened to him, but ordered him to appear
before you to answer on All Hallows eve in court, and
perhaps before the king himself, and to bring his sub-prior.
You will be able to do what you like with him." 3 It does
not require much imagination to see what the visitor means
by Crumwell having the poor man in his power, to do what
he " likes with him."
From Lewes, Layton goes to Battle Abbey, to which he
gives as bad a character as he had given to Lewes. He
ordered the abbot, with whom he appears to have had
some disagreement, into court. He also bespeaks Crum
well's attention to his case by the following description of the
1 Calendar, ix. No. 452. 2 Ibid., No. 42. 3 Ibid., No. 632.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 89
culprit : " The abbot of Battle is the varaste hayne bette
and buserde, and the arants chorle that ever I see. In all
other places whereat I come, specially the black sort of
devilish monks, I am sorry to know as I do. Surely I
thynke they be paste amendement, and that God hath
utterly wtdrawn his grace from them."
The anxiety displayed by Layton for the safety of the
magnificent shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury, endangered
by a fire which occurred during his visitation, or rather for
the precious stones with which it was adorned, is a mani
festation of another phase of the visitation of 1535. The
commissioners first endeavoured to find out at each monas
tery all there was of value. They next tried to get posses
sion of it, just as the king had appropriated the jewelled
cross of the church of Winchester. "I have crosses of
silver and gold," writes the indefatigable Layton, "some
of which I send you not now, because I have more that
shall be delivered me this night by the prior of Maiden
Bradley himself. To-morrow early in the morning I shall
bring you the rest, when I have received all, and perchance
I shall find something here" (St. Augustine's, Bristol).1
There are reasons for suspecting a deeper meaning in this
illegal spoliation of churches and monasteries. Their move
able property gone ; their right to lease and sell their own
put under restraint; impoverished by demands from king
and courtier that it was impossible or impolitic to refuse;
their resources drained by blackmail levied upon them by
Crumwell and his creatures, many houses were brought
face to face with the alternative of starvation or surrender.
For years many of the religious houses had been on the
verge of ruin. To the requests of king and minister they
had replied, by humbly begging to be allowed to keep
some farm or some manor demanded of them, as
necessary to support themselves and the poor who
depended on them. The seizure of their treasures by
Crumwell's agents and the heavy fees which these visitors
charged for insulting and robbing them must, in the case
1 Wright, p. 59, Aug. 24, 1535. It is worthy of note that the preamble
of the act passed for the dissolution of the smaller monasteries in Feb. 1536
charges them with wasting the " ornaments of their churches. " We may see
by the above how the ornaments were wasted ; the charge was made, doubt
lessly, to account for their disappearance.

90 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
of many, have completed their ruin and forced them to
surrender.1 The visitation also had a most disastrous effect upon the
internal life of the monasteries. No greater blow could have
been struck at the whole theory of the religious life than
the interference with the vows contained in the order to
dismiss those who were under twenty-four years of age, or
who had been professed under the age of twenty. The
visitors, it is clear, had no scruple about their power to dis
pense with the solemn obligations of the monastic profession.
They freely extended it to any who would go, in the idea
that the more they could induce to leave their convents the
better pleased both the king and Crumwell would be. The
order was ambiguous and led to disputes and difficulties.
Legh complained of Layton " that he had not dismissed all
those under the age of twenty-four," as he believed Crumwell
intended. But Ap-Rice, on account of his quarrel with
Legh, had a scruple as to whether the practice of the latter
in the matter was right. " I thought," he writes, " that you
ordered that all who were between twenty-two and twenty-
four should have leave to go from the religious life if they
wished, but he only applies this to men," and also he setteth
a clause in his injunctions that they that will, of what age
soever they be, may go abroad, which I heard not of your
instructions." 2 The religious could not understand that
the object aimed at was the destruction of their houses.
Their simplicity excites a smile sometimes, as when "Jane
Gowring, Frances Somer, Mary Pilbeam, Barbara Larke
and Bridget Stravye, aged 23 \, 22, 21 and 15, the first
three professed, but all put out of religion," beg that they
may be allowed to stay in their beloved convent, and if this
would not be allowed, at least to wait in the " cloose howse "
till they were above the age of 24, when they would be pro
fessed again.8
1 These facts are amply borne out by many letters of melancholy interest
in the fifty-two volumes of Crumwell Correspondence in the Record Office
and other MSS. of the period. It has been stated, with what amount of
truth we are not prepared to say, that only 123 of the monasteries doomed
for destruction were able to hold out until the act of suppression. Cf. Blunt,
Reformation of Church of England, i. p. 301.
3 Calendar, ix. No. 622.
_ _3 Ibid., No. 1075. It is very remarkable how few are represented in the
visitors' reports as desirous of leaving the religious life. Of their personal
petitions, quite as many are to stay, as to leave.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 9 1
One immediate effect, therefore, of this visitation was to
thin the monasteries of their inmates. In some instances
only the old and infirm were left to keep up the practices of
the religious life. Poor Margaret Vernon, prioress of Little
Marlow, had her house almost emptied. "Your visitors,"
she writes to Crumwell, "have been here of late, who hath
discharged three of my sisters. The one is Dame Catherine,
the other two are the young women that were last pro
fessed, which is not a little to my discomfort. ... I most
humbly beseech you to be so special good master unto me,
your poor bedewoman, as to give me your best advertise
ment and counsel, what way shall be best for me to take,
seeing there shall be none left here but myself and this
poor maiden."1 Crumwell's advice appears to have been
what might be expected from him. At any rate, she soon
gave up her house. She is next found in London, trying to
get an interview with Crumwell at the " Rolls, " in order to
make him keep his promise to provide for her. His servants
will not allow her to see their master, and " the multitude of
suitors" is so great that she cannot get a hearing. The
king, she complains, has granted away the lease of her farm
at Marlow, and she is in great "trouble and unquietness." 2
Crumwell generously offers to lend her ^40 to defray her
expenses at Stepney, provided she gives him good security.
In the end she becomes governess to his son Gregory, of
whom she writes: "Your son is in good health, and is a
very good scholar, and can construe his Pater noster, Ave,
and Credo." The lot of the prioress of Little Marlow, hard
though it was, must have been far easier than that of the
multitude of poor nuns who were turned out into the world
without support or friends.8
There are' many examples in the papers and letters of
this period, of the difficulties religious superiors experienced
in governing their houses at all, during these troubled days.
They not only found the restrictions hard, and even im
possible to bear, but there was every inducement to their
subordinates to rebel against an authority they had sworn
1 Wright, p. 55.
2 R. O. Crumwell, Corr., vol. xiv. Nos. 43, 44, 45, 49.
3 It is quite untrue that all religious were pensioned, small though that
pension might have been. It can be shown from the " pension books " that
only a small number ever had pensions at all. The young received none : the
condition of the grant being " tempore dissolutionis et diu antea."

92 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
to respect. Monks were encouraged and urged to turn
informers against their brethren and superiors; malicious
information, sedulously fostered, became the seed of discord
and unhappiness, which disturbed the peace of the cloister.
Dan Peter, a monk of Winchcombe, wrote a letter of
complaint about his abbot, the gist of which is that his
superior wanted to maintain discipline and he did not. He
also hinted that the abbot was a staunch supporter of the
ancient faith.1 Once before, one Andrew Saunders, curate
at Winchcombe, had complained that this abbot was no
friend to the new order of things. He had stopped payment
to the schoolmaster of the grammar-school, and would not
allow him to help him in the church.2 The same abbot
was troubled by another of his subjects, John Horwoode,
otherwise Dan Placidus. This young man was very anxious
"for the conversion of the people from papistical ways."
He would like to see the chapter of Saint Paul ad Romanos,
in which he says " non est potestas nisi a Deo" written on
every monk's head. And he suggests that Crumwell should
compel his brethren more to uphold the king's supremacy.
We are not surprised to find that he asks something for
himself in return: "Thanks," he says, "for excusing my
getting up for matins at midnight. The abbot says this has
given cause to some murmurs and grudging among the con
vent. The truth is, I do not like the burdens and straight-
ness of religion, such as their accustomed abstinence, the
'frayter,'3 and other observances ofthe rule."4
" From specimens like these," writes the best authority
on the public records of the time now living, " few as the
cases may be that have come to light, we may form some
estimate of the discord and demoralisation created within
the walls of monasteries by the proceedings of Crumwell's
visitors. The wonder indeed is that the recorded cases are
so few, and that, in spite of all the inducements offered under
the new regime to appeal to the king's vicegerent or the
visitors, there are not more frequent instances of such
appeal being actually made — a fact which, duly considered,
seems to imply that the rule in most houses was far more
wholesome and more willingly submitted to than many have
been hitherto disposed to believe. Only here and there
1 Calendar, ix. No. 314. 2 md., viii. No. 171.
8 i.e. the community recreations. 4 Calendar, ix. Nos. 321-2.

The Visitation of Monasteries in 1535-36 93
within the walls of some great abbey did some one or two
of the more audacious monks brave the displeasure of their
heads and the ill-will of their brethren by malicious tale
bearing, though undoubtedly there were many refractory
members, such as there must be in all large communities,
who did not love the discipline imposed upon them." 1
Another method adopted at this time by Crumwell to
worry the monks, was the appointment of teachers or
divinity lecturers in the monasteries. One of these un
welcome intruders, Anthony Saunder, writes to his master
in November : " Whereas you have appointed me to read
the pure and sincere Word of God to the monks of Winch
combe. ... I have small favour and assistance amongst these
Pharisaical papists. The abbot of Hailes, a valiant soldier
under Antichrist's banner, resists much, fighting with all
his might to keep Christ in the sepulchre. He has hired
a great Goliath, a subtle Duns man, yea a great clerk, as
he saith a Bachelor of Divinity of Oxford, to catch me
in my sermons." The writer further desires Crumwell to
appoint a convenient hour in the forenoon of each day for
him to deliver his lectures to the monks, who manifest a
greater love for their choir duties than he, Anthony Saunder,
admires. " They will not come in due time ; they set so
much store by their popish services." 2
We have scanty information as to the misery and depth
of anxiety, which must have prevailed in the cloisters of
England during this period. Their forebodings and com
munings with themselves on the events that were taking
place around them, must have been sad enough. It requires
little stretch of the imagination to picture the dismay and
consternation with which the religious must have listened to
the reports of violence and injustice, which were carried to
them as the visitors proceeded with their work. For years
they had endeavoured to buy off the fatal day of doom by
plentiful bribes to Crumwell and his master. On what was
left to them, they with difficulty supported their own exist
ence and maintained the hospitality and relief of the poor
which their traditional obligations required.
The visitation of Henry's royal commissioners lasted till
the meeting of Parliament in February 1536. The state-
1 Mr. J. Gairdner, ibid., Preface, p. xxiii.
1 Calendar, ix. No. 747.

94 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
ments they furnished to Crumwell whilst on their journey
seem to show that by no means all the religious houses were
inspected and reported upon. Sufficient, however, had been
done to serve the king's purpose. True or false, the tales
the agents had to tell were used to induce the Parliament to
confiscate the property of the lesser monasteries. How this
was accomplished, what the charges were which the visitors
made against the monks, how far they can be relied upon,
and what the characters of the accusers were, will be dis
cussed in subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER VI
The Parliament of 1536 and the Suppression of the
Lesser Monasteries
The year 1536 opened with the death of the unfortunate
Queen Catherine. She had been poisoned, at least so thought
Chapuys and others, if not at the instigation, at least with
the connivance of Anne Boleyn.1 The latter was not left
long to enjoy the position which had cost her and the nation
so much. Already she had in great measure lost her hold
over the affections of Henry, and for purposes of public or
private policy Crumwell was secretly plotting her overthrow.2
And thus, only four months after the grave had closed on
the remains of her rival, Anne Boleyn was led out to the
block on Tower Hill. Meantime Henry and his agents had
been making preparations since the middle of the previous
year for their first attack on the monasteries. This was
delivered in the session of parliament which commenced on
the 4th day of February 1536.
Layton and Legh had hurried from house to house in the
North of England, and had supplied their master, Crumwell,
with their reports as to the religious and their property.
Meeting at Lichfield on the 22nd of December, the colleagues
took their way " to certain abbeys upon Trent side. And so,"
as they write, " to Southwell, and to be at York within a
day after the 12th day we intend, and thus to make speed
with diligence and true knowledge of everything, is our
intent."3 On the nth of January, Thomas Legh informed
Crumwell that they had reached York and visited the arch
bishop.4 They had ordered that prelate, he wrote, to appear
before the vicar-general with all the documents of his office,
1 Friedmann's Anne Boleyn, vol. ii. cap. 14.
2 Ibid., p. 242. On a letter from Chapuys, June 6, 1536: "II se meist a
fantaise et conspira le diet affaire."
3 Layton to Crumwell, Wright, p. 94. 4 Dr. Edward Lee.
95

96 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
adding, " I do not doubt when you have read them, but that
you shall see and read many things worthy reformation, by
the knowledge whereof I suppose the king's highness and
you will be glad."1
To have reached York from Lichfield in little more than
a fortnight, and to have visited and examined the conventual
establishments, which lay on their route, as to possessions
and morals, must, indeed, have required all their "speed
with diligence." Their visitation, however, had to be finished
and their report sent in to Crumwell in preparation for par
liament within a period of six weeks from their starting on
the tour. In this brief time they had to journey over the
diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, as well as through the
entire province of York.2 Hence dispatch was absolutely
necessary. As their chief object, however, was to find, as in
the case of the archbishop of York, " many things worthy
reformation," so, to please Crumwell and his royal master,
they had no need of very lengthy examinations.
The rapidity of their tour, however, as rendering inves
tigation impossible, makes their comperts or reports utterly
valueless as pieces of evidence. They prove, however, were
proof needed, that these commissioners were ready to bring
any accusation against the monks, and that the fair name of
many, who possibly never heard anything of the matter, was
blackened by mere reckless assertions. Just as Layton in
the southern monasteries " expected to find " all that his evil
imagination pictured, so from Yorkshire he wrote to Crum
well: "We find corruption amongst persons religious even
like as we did in the south . . and worse, if worse may be,
in kinds of knavery." He then proceeds to accuse them
generally of the most revolting kind of immorality.3 The
sting of this condemnation is certainly somewhat destroyed
by the knowledge that the accuser could not possibly have
made any inquiry worthy of the name. By his own admis
sion he finds only what he came to seek. " This day," he
says, " we begin with St. Mary's Abbey,4 whereat we suppose
to find much evil disposition, both in the abbot and the con-
1 Legh to Crumwell, Wright, 96.
2 Comprising altogether eight counties. That this visitation was really
made may be seen by the epitome of reports called " Comperta." Some
eighty-eight monasteries are reported on within the fortnight.
3 Layton to Crumwell, Wright, 97, January 13, 1536. * York.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 97
vent, whereof, God willing, I shall certify you in my next
letter" The parliament, which had been adjourned from the
previous November, met at Westminster on the 4th of
February, 1536. The chief matter of business it had to
transact, in this its last session, was the passing of an act to
legalise the spoliation of monastic property, which had been
already commenced in the previous autumn. The operation
of this act of suppression was to be left to the interpreta
tion of the conscience of Henry, and its provisions were
to be carried out by Crumwell and his agents. By it, the re
venues of abbeys and convents and the untold riches of their
churches and shrines together with the patrimony of the poor
passed, within the space of four years, into the posses
sion of king and noble and were used as their own private
property. What is even more important is, that the act robbed the
monasteries of England of their good name and affixed to
them the stigma of evil repute. The transactions of this
memorable session of parliament have been often appealed
to, during the subsequent three and a half centuries, as proof
positive that the religious houses of England had forfeited all
right to protection against tyranny and spoliation, by the
infamous character of the lives of their inmates. English
writers have accepted, unquestioned, the story of what was
done in the old Chapter house of the abbey of Westminster
in the spring of 1536, at the passing of the act by which the
lesser monasteries were suppressed. Like most unsavoury
stories, moreover, this one has not lost in the telling. Eng
lishmen, notwithstanding their native love of honesty and
fair dealing, believe implicitly and without examination the
common narrative of the events that led to the dissolution
of the religious houses, and even point to the fact of the de
struction of the monasteries as sufficient indication of the
cause. The story, as for instance told in the pages of Green's
"History of the English People," may be taken as a fair
sample of what is generally accepted as true. " Two royal
commissioners," he writes, " were despatched on a general
visitation of the religious houses, and their reports formed a
'black book,' which was laid before Parliament in 1536. It
was acknowledged that about a third of the houses, including G

98 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the bulk of the larger abbeys, were fairly and decently con
ducted. The rest were charged with drunkenness, with
simony, and with the foulest and most revolting crimes.
The character of the visitors, the sweeping nature of
their report, and the long debate that followed on its recep
tion, leaves little doubt that these charges were grossly
exaggerated." A book of another kind, intended for the use of the
young, gives much the same version. " The popular com
plaints," says professor Seebohm, "against them [the
monasteries] were not found to be baseless. Scandal had
long been busy about the morals of the monks. The
commissioners found them on inquiry worse even than
scandal had whispered, and reported to parliament that
two-thirds of the monks were leading vicious lives under
cover of their cowls and hoods." x
The account, quoted above from the pages of Mr. Green's
admirable history, may be taken as a very fair sample of
what is believed on all hands to be a moderate version of
the reasons, which led to the greatest confiscation of property
the world has ever seen. Yet in these lines, few as they
are, there are some statements which are incapable of proof
and others which are distinctly false and misleading. It is
quite certain, for example, that more than two commissioners
were employed in the work of visitation previous to the
meeting of parliament. The records that exist make it at
least improbable, that " on the table ofthe Chapter house was
placed the famous ' black book,' which sealed the fate of all the
monasteries of England and sent a thrill of horror through
the house of commons when they heard it" 2 Moreover, it is
quite certain that the commissioners never " reported to par
liament that two-thirds of the monks were leading vicious
lives under cover of their cowls and hoods," and that parlia
ment never declared, that " about a third " of the monasteries
" were fairly and decently conducted."
No better picture can be given of the obsequiousness and
venality of the lords and commons in Henry's reign than
the words of Hallam convey. " Both houses of parliament,"
he writes, "yielded to every mandate of Henry's imperial
1 Epochs of History ; Era of Prot. Revolution, 1877, P- '86.
2 Stanley, Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, p. 425. Froude, Hist.,
iv. 520.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 99
will ; they bent with every breath of his capricious humour ;
they were responsible for the illegal trials, for the iniquitous
attainders, for the sanguinary statutes, for the tyranny which
they sanctioned by law, and for that which they permitted
without law. Nor was this selfish and pusillanimous subser
viency more characteristic of the minions of Henry's favour
— the Crumwells, the Ryders, the Pagets, the Russells, and
the Pauletts. The representatives of ancient and honourable
names, such as the Norfolks, the Arundels, the Shrewsburys,
were the supporters of the king's policy. We trace these
noble statesmen concurring in all the inconsistencies of the
reign and supporting all the changes of religion, constant
only in the rapacious acquisition of estates and honours
from whatever source and in adherence to the present
power.1 Henry VIII. hated all Parliaments just as much
as Charles I. and his minister, Lord Strafford. The Tudor
tyrant carried out his plans by a code of pains and penalties
so horrible as to affright every class of society, and when
the nation became reduced to this abject and cowardly con
dition the king imbrued his hands in the best blood of the
land, and he plundered his subjects on a scale never before
known in any civilized country." 2
The parliament, carefully selected for the king's purposes
in 1529, met to deal with the monasteries in their last
session on February 4th, 1536. The early days of the
session having been occupied with other business, the bill
for the suppression of the smaller monasteries was brought
up to the house about the beginning of March. Unfortun
ately the journals of both houses of parliament for this and
the next year are missing, and we have little to rely upon,
for the history of this session, but the preamble of the act
itself. This is to be the more deplored, as preambles are
1 Henry VIII. employed towards the nobility a different policy to his
father, who had depressed them. The streams of royal favour under Henry
VIII. swept countless favours to those who gained his attention, such as
wealthy marriages, gifts out of royal domains or confiscated properties, and,
after the monasteries were suppressed, a share in the spoils. Not the least
curious of these grants to courtiers were annuities out of episcopal sees or
monastic revenues. Instances of the latter are numerous ; of the former an
act, which confirmed to the duke of Norfolk and six others, annuities out of
the see of Winchester is a well-known example. By another act, the duke of
Suffolk, the earl of Sussex, and lord Fitzwalter had grants confirmed out of
the see of Norwich. See Amos, " Statutes of H. VIII.," p. 4.
2 Constitutional Hist, of Eng., vol. i. p. 51.

ioo Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
not entirely to be trusted.1 That the bill was a government
measure is not to be doubted. In all probability it was
brought up to the house by the king in person, for such
bills were frequently forwarded a stage by the personal
interference of the king. It is not unlikely that the fol
lowing extract from a letter written at this period refers
to the royal visit. " On Saturday in Ember week the king's
grace came in among the burgesses of the parliament, and
delivered them a bill and bade them look upon it and weigh
it in conscience. He would not, he said, have them pass
it, nor any other thing, because his grace giveth in the
bill, but they to see it if it be for the commonweal to his
subjects and have an eye thitherward. And on Wednesday *
next he will be there again to hear their minds." s
The preamble of the act proves beyond doubt that the
king did pay a visit to the House on the introduction of
this "bill." It says, that the discussion was preceded by
what is called a " declaration " by the king, as to the
meaning and necessity of the proposed measure. It asserts
that, " In consideration of (the evil lives of those in the
smaller monasteries) the king's most royal majesty . . .
having knowledge that the premises be true as well by the
compertes* of his late visitation as by sundry credible
informations, considering also that divers and great solemn
monasteries of this realm, wherein, thanks be to God,
religion is right well kept and observed, be destitute of
such full numbers of religious persons as they ought and
may keep, hath thought good that a plain declaration
1 " If preambles to acts of parliament were to be accepted as trustworthy
evidence as to facts they recite, English history would be a very strange tale-
even stranger than it appears in Mr. Froude's pages." — Friedmann's Anne
Boleyn, ii. p. 352.
2 In 1536 Easter fell on April 16th, and Ember Saturday on March nth.
3 Wright, p. 36. Thomas Dorset, curate of St. Margaret's, Lothbury,
to the mayor and others of Plymouth, March 13. The Greek traveller,
Nicander Nucius, who was in England about the year 1545, gives what
purports to be Henry's speech to this session of parliament, made for the
purpose of securing the destruction of the religious houses. The speech is,
of course, the Greek's own composition; but it is evidence of the story by
which the king and his courtiers desired to account for the suppression of the
monasteries and the seizure of their property. The bad lives of all, and in
particular of the nuns, is much insisted on in this composition, as well as the
great public advantages to be gained by the appropriation of the monastic
revenues to almshouses, hospitals, schools, and the like. (The Travels of
Nicander Nucius, Camden Soc, p. 57 sqq.)
* Printed in Wright, p. 107.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 101
should be made of the premises as well to the lords spiritual
and temporal as to other his loving subjects the commons
in this present parliament assembled. Whereupon the
said lords and commons by a great deliberation finally be
resolved, that it is and shall be much more to the pleasure
of Almighty God" that the property of these religious
" should be converted to better uses, and the unthrifty
persons so spending the same be compelled to reform their
lives."1 And therefore they pray the king to take all the
property of monasteries having an income under ^200 a
year. From this preamble (which, it must be remembered, is
practically all that is known about the measure) it would
seem that parliament had no written documents placed
before it, upon which to form any independent judgment
as to the justice of the act they were asked to pass. The
king, we are told, made a "full declaration" of what he
knew to be true from the reports of the visitors and other
sources. Upon this, after "a great deliberation," the
members acted. Whether the report of the visitors in any
shape was also submitted to their examination will probably
never be ascertained with certainty. Sanders, it is true,
speaks of the "publication of the enormities,"2 but this
might only refer to the king's "declaration." Bishop
Latimer, who was possibly present in the house of lords,
also says : — " When their enormities were first read in the
parliament house, they were so great and abominable that
there was nothing but down with them, but within a while
after the same abbots were made bishops, for the saving of
their pensions."8 This is about the only authority for the
statement that any such document as the famous "Black
Book" was ever presented to parliament. The first men
tion of the name " Black book " occurs in a document called
a declaration of the "mode of dissolving the abbeys."
It is supposed to have been made for the information of
Queen Elizabeth. "This appeared in writing," the author
asserts, "with the names of the parties and their facts.
This was showed in parliament and the villanies made
1 H. VIII., cap. 28. The word used on the parliamentary roll, is
" compertes" which were the visitors' reports.
2 Schism, Lewis' translation, p. 129.
8 Two Sermons before Edward VI. (Parker Society), vol. i. p. 123.

102 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
known and abhorred"1 The villanies "made known and
abhorred " (at least as to murders and forging of deeds and
the number of those implicated) are certainly not borne out
by any known letters or reports of the visitors, of which
a great many are still in existence. It may be justly asked
what reliance can be placed upon this account as a history
of the event. It moreover professes to be no more than
a recollection of what took place, and does not distinguish
between the two acts of suppression by which the lesser and
greater monasteries were destroyed.
If this " Black book " was presented to parliament, as is
so constantly asserted, nothing has since been seen of it.
To explain the disappearance of this most important docu
ment, a theory started, as far as can be ascertained, by the
ingenious Burnet explains that the catholics destroyed this
dreadful indictment against the monks during the reign of
queen Mary. Their object was to get rid of this damning
evidence of the corruption of the monastic system. Burnet
bases his assertion2 on a commission issued in the fourth
year of Mary's reign to Bonner bishop of London, Henry
Cole dean of St. Paul's and others, to examine into the
documents " compertes, bokes, scroles, &c," and also into
"sundry and divers infamous scrutinies taken in abbeys
and other religious houses tending rather to subvert and
overthrow all good religion and religious houses than for
any truth contained therein." The commissioners are
ordered to get these documents together, " that the said
writings and other the said premises be brought to knowledge,
i B. Mus. Cot. MSS. Titus, F. iii. fol. 266, printed by Wright, p. 114.
The "vile lives and abominable facts in murders of their brethren," in
unnatural sins, "in destroying of children, in forging of deeds and other
infinite horrors of life, in so much that dividing all the religious persons in
England into three parts two of these parts at least" were guilty of sins
against nature. As this is the most important document on which is based
the venerable tradition that the Black Book was laid before parliament it may
be well to observe, in addition to what is said in the text: (1) that from an
expression at the beginning it is clear the writer does not make his state
ment on inspection of records (he imagines that Wolsey's suppressions may
have had the pope's approval, but is quite ignorant of the fact) : (2) he
clearly does not speak from personal knowledge of what passed in parliament :
(3) as to the date of the document, all that Mr. Wright can say is that "it
appears to have been written in the time of queen Elizabeth." This nameless,
dateless production has not therefore even the value of sub- contemporary
evidence; and in itself, apart from the use made of it, is not worth even
the trouble of this note.
2 History ofthe Reformation (ed. Pocock), ii. p. 547.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 103
whereby they may be considered, read and ordered accord
ing to our will and pleasure." *¦ They are further com
manded to make their report to cardinal Pole. It is obvious
that this commission is one of inquiry. There is not one
word in the document to justify the assertion that it was
one of destruction. Nevertheless, Burnet says he " soon
knew which way so many writings had gone," when he saw
the commission. The authority of the late Mr. Brewer may
be given for the assertion that there is no trace among the
records of this period of any such systematic destruction.2
If the book ever existed, its loss, whether destroyed
on purpose or by accident, is greatly to be deplored. It is,
however, obvious that the cause of the monasteries would be
ill-served by the destruction. On the other hand, when un
corroborated charges had been made to serve their purpose
against the monastic houses, when the spoils of sacred
shrines and consecrated cloisters had been allowed to
minister to the vices of the monarch or to replenish the
empty purses of his corrupt courtiers, the sooner the
evidence, upon which such destruction and spoliation had
been wrought was destroyed, the better for the reputation
of those who had profited by it. A modern Church of
England authority writes : — " If I could visit the island of
Glubbdubdrib, and wanted to know what became of this
' declaration ' or ' black book,' I should call up the ghost
of Crumwell to tell me : that is supposing such a document
ever existed." 8
For three centuries and a half the imaginations of
writers hostile to the monastic institutions have supplied
the details of the missing document. Even the most honest
historians have neglected to distinguish between what is
mere conjecture and what is certain. Dr. Lingard, for
example, states "that from their (the visitors') reports a
statement was compiled and laid before parliament, which,
while it allotted the praise of regularity to the greater
monasteries, described the less opulent as abandoned to
1 Dec. 29, 1556, Rot. Pat., 3 and 4 Phil, and Mary. Pars. 12 m. (21), 30 d.,
printed in Burnet, Records, ii. No. 28.
2 Dixon's History of Church of England, vol. i. p. 342. "Mr. Froude,
with his usual disregard of facts, says ' The report itself is no longer extant.
Bonner was directed by Queen Mary to destroy all discoverable copies of it, and
his work was fatally well executed '" ! ! !
¦ Ibid., note.

104 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
sloth and immorality."1 It is, however, by no means
certain that any " statement was compiled" from the reports
of the visitors, still less that it was laid before parliament.
On the other hand, it is expressly stated that the king's
information was based on other "credible informations"
besides the " accounts of his late visitation." And certainly
from what we know of the royal agents and their methods,
it is most unlikely that they would give the "praise of
regularity " even to the greater monasteries.
From the records of this event it would seem therefore
to be tolerably certain, that the visitors made their reports
to Crumwell and in no sense to the houses of parliament.
That Crumwell had an abstract of these reports prepared
from time to time is more than probable,2 and that they
were gathered together into one book not unlikely. That
they formed, however, a volume called the " Black book "
and were in this way laid before the parliament cannot be
proved, and on the evidence of the "preamble" of the act
- itself would appear unlikely. One thing seems to be certain :
there was no attempt made to inquire into the truth of the
charges suggested in the king's declaration. They were
accepted on his authority, who had "knowledge that the
premises were true."
The preamble8 of the act of suppression commences by
stating, that " manifest sin, vicious, carnal and abominable
living is daily used and committed commonly " in religious
houses of less than twelve in number, "whereby the governors
of such religious houses and their convent spoil, destroy,
consume, and utterly waste " their property " as well as the
ornaments of their churches" and other goods. On the
face of it, it is absurd to suppose that the serious charges
here brought against the monasteries could be confined to
1 History, vol. vi. (3rd ed.), p. 298.
2 Ap Rice, one of the visitors, says he made this " Breve docket."
8 Amos, Statutes of H. V1IL, p. 9 notes. "With regard to the facts
detailed in preambles, their veracity will derive no support from a coincidence
with State papers, such as confessions, depositions, verdicts, judgments,
reports, provided both the preambles and such documents should appear to
be the productions of the same laboratory, the handiwork of the same crafts
men. Such a coincidence might be anticipated if the king, by his subservient
agents, stretched racks, examined prisoners, transcribed and read evidence,
empannelled and reformed the pannels of juries, directed and terrified the
twelve, pronounced criminal and ecclesiastical judgments, wove the tissue
of vilifying reports, and afterwards, summed up the results in preambles."

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 105
those houses, which had less than twelve inmates. The
limit was very probably suggested to the framers of the
measure by the terms of the papal bull of 1528, authorizing
cardinal Wolsey to suppress certain houses for the establish
ment of his colleges. This bull provided, that the religious
in these monasteries be less in number than twelve and be
transferred to the larger monasteries. Such a limit, how
ever, is made ridiculous, when it is set as the line of demar
cation between virtue and vice.1
The records of the visitation, which was the forerunner
of this act, show who were the real "spoilers and destroyers"
of the monastic treasuries. Those who, like Layton, " had
packed up the stuff as the monks had," and the "crosses
of silver and gold," intending to "bring you (Crumwell)
the rest when I have received all," or the king who had
taken a fancy to possess himself of the jewelled cross from
the cathedral priory of Winchester, were best able to know
that the religious houses were being spoiled of their " orna
ments." The clause, as it stands in the preamble, seems
to have no other object than to cover the fact of the disap
pearance from the monastic treasuries of valuables, which
had already found their way into the king's possession
through the hand of his visitors, or had been appropriated
to their own private purposes.2
The professed desire of the king to reform the inmates
of the smaller monasteries by sending 8 them to the greater
1 Vide Amos, ibid., p. 301. The number 12 was probably introduced ad
captandum. It is never again referred to in the enacting clauses. It may have
been thought that numbers could not be diminished so plausibly as values.
2 Ibid., p. 309, Amos says : — " It would appear that, with regard to their
(the monastic) personal property, and such of their possessions as were capable
of rapine or destruction, a great part of the damage they received was done
them, under colour of the visitations, before any dissolution act had passed."
8 This provision is also taken from the bull of 1528. How anxious Henry
really was for the religious reformation of the monasteries may be judged from
a letter written by Chapuys to the Emperor, on July 31, 1531. "At the
request of the abbots of this country," he writes, "and by the advice and
order of the General Chapter of the Order of Cisteau, there has come to this
city an abbot of Chalon, (sic) a very learned and virtuous monk, for the pur
pose of visiting the monasteries of his order in this country, which are in great
need of inspection. But notwithstanding the manifold juridical reasons and
the right he had to undertake the said visit, as he himself told the nuncio and
me when dining at my hotel, the king has never allowed him to make the said
visitation, alleging that no one had a right to interfere in the affairs of his
kingdom, saying that he was at once King, Emperor (and if I recollect right)
Pope also in his dominions." — Spanish State Papers, iv. No. 775.

106 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
houses, "where they may be compelled to live religiously
for the reformation of their lives," was not carried out in
practice. Wholesale dispensations from the solemn obliga
tions of the religious vows had already been granted. A
priest's or layman's gown, with forty shillings out of the
plunder of their own property, on being turned out into the
world to live as best they might, was the usual form of
" reformation " adopted to get rid of the monks from their
homes and to get possession of their coveted property.
Nevertheless, the same professed desire for perfect religious
life and the spiritual welfare of the monastic establishments
is repeated in another part of the preamble, where it is
suggested that the ejected religious would go to raise the
numbers in the "great, solemn monasteries wherein (thanks
be to God) religion is right well kept and observed."
It is, moreover, well to note the only kind of reformation
attempted by the king or his agents during the' six months
which preceded the passing of this act. It was the forcible
suppression of several small monasteries, the seizure of
their possessions, and the violent laying of hands on the
treasures of others. In the enacting clauses of the bill, also,
the number of the religious to be found in the monasteries
is not laid down as the limit to mark them for dissolution
or preservation, but a money value of under ^200 a year.
The monasteries were, moreover, given to the king and his
heirs only in " as ample a manner " as they were possessed
by the religious superiors. These were trustees for common
purposes and never regarded their property in any other
light than as held for the support of religion and the poor.
Further, the purpose, for which the monastic property was
diverted by this act from its possessors and given to the
king, is stated to be "that his highness may lawfully give," '
grant, and dispose them, or any of them, at his will and
pleasure to the honour of God and the wealth of this realm"
However uncertain and vague the terms of this grant
may appear, they can hardly be supposed to comprehend
those purposes, private, secular and even vicious upon which
Henry squandered the property thus obtained. It was
ordered, also, that the king should provide occupation and
pensions for the monks not transferred to other monasteries.
It was further enacted, that on the site of every dissolved
religious house the new possessor should be bound under

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 107
heavy penalties to provide hospitality and service for the
poor, such as had been given them previously by the re
ligious foundations. By this provision not only is the patri
mony of the poor recognised as being merged in the property
of the monasteries, but a testimony is afforded as to the
way the religious had hitherto discharged their obligations
in this respect. The repudiation of these rights of the
needy, by those who became possessed of the confiscated
property, is one of the greatest blots on our national history.
It has rightly caused the spoliation of monastery and convent
to be regarded as the rising of the rich against the poor.
In the commons, there are some signs of opposition to
the act of suppression, which made legal, but by no means
just, this plunder of monastic property. The "preamble"
of the act speaks of a " great deliberation " which preceded
the final vote, and Sir Henry Spelman, who no doubt gave
the traditional account of the matter, says : — " It is true the
parliament gave them to him, but so unwillingly (as I have
heard) that when the bill had stuck long in the lower house
and could get no passage, he commanded the commons to
attend him in the forenoon in his gallery, where he let them
wait till late in the afternoon, and then coming out of his
chamber, walking a turn or two among them, and looking
angrily on them, first on the one side and then on the other
at last, ' I hear ' (saith he) ' that my bill will not pass, but I
will have it pass, or I will have some of your heads,' and
without other rhetoric or persuasion returned to his chamber.
Enough was said, the bill passed, and all was given him as
he desired." 1
It has always been stated that the abbots of the greater
monasteries, who sat in parliament, to save their own abbeys
did not hesitate to vote for the suppression of the less
powerful houses. Hall in his Chronicle says, that "in this
time was given unto the king, by the consent of the great,
fat abbots, all religious houses that were of the value of 300
marks and under, in hope that their great monasteries should
have continued still. But even at the time one said in the
parliament house that these were the thorns, but the great
abbots were the putrified old oaks, and they must follow.
And so will others do in Christendom, quoth Dr. Stokesley,
1 Hist, of Sacrilege (ed. 1853), p. 206. Spelman was born in 1562, less
than thirty years after the event.

108 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
bishop of London, or many years be passed." 1 There does
not, however, appear to have ever been any actual voting in
the upper house. Consequently all that the mitred abbots
would have done, was to have been present during the
passing of the bill. Probably those that were there had no
choice in the matter. It is, moreover, certain that the king
had grave fears that the opposition of these parliamentary
abbots would defeat his intended spoliation, and that to
prevent them "parrying the blow in store for them" and
"complaining of the innovations introduced in their con
vents," he had prepared to exclude them from parliament
altogether.2 Henry and his minister Crumwell appear to have been
the first English rulers who realised the immense power
of public opinion, and who endeavoured by definite and
elaborate measures to educate it. Every effort was made
to influence the people, by means of preachers selected for
their known adherence to the policy of the king, and by
stage plays and interludes, often acted in the very churches.
These represented the "immoralities and disorders ofthe
clergy" and "the pageantry of their worship," by which
they " encouraged them all they could " to adopt their free
dom of thought and contempt of religion.3
In the June of the previous year (1535) Chapuys had
described the personal interest the king took in these plays.
Henry, he says, had gone thirty miles, walking ten of the
distance at two o'clock in the morning, in order to be present
at a representation of a chapter of the Apocalypse. He had
taken up his position in a house from which he could
observe everything, "but was so pleased to see himself
represented as cutting off the heads of the clergy, that in
order to laugh at his ease, and encourage the people he dis
covered himself." 4
The pulpit had been already used for the purpose of
attacking the papal supremacy and instructing the people in
the principles of revolt against authority.5 Cranmer, whom
1 Union (ed. 1548), fol. 227A 2 Spanish State Papers, vol. v. No. 221.
8 See Blunt, Reformation, p. 273, note. " The horrible coarseness of such
representations ; the immorality and blasphemy of parodizing the H. Eucharist
in the very house of God itself seem not to have struck these writers " (i.e.,
Foxe and Burnet).
4 Calendar, viii. No. 949.
6 Privy Council Memoranda, anno 1533, State Papers, vol. i. 411.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 109
Chapuys considered a kind of antipope J set up by Henry,
usecT his short-lived supreme spiritual authority to revoke
the licences of the preaching clergy. He granted his per
mission only to those whom he could trust to speak against
the authority of the see of Rome.2 For the purpose of more
easily controlling the teaching of the people, all sermons
and instructions in the ordinary parish churches were for
bidden to be given after nine o'clock in the morning. At
that time the services were to be finished, so " that then the
curates, with the parishes, might come to Paul's cross and
hear the preachers." These sermons were specially named
as occasions when there was to be set forth the doctrine
directed by the Privy Council. Moreover, a minute of the
council strictly commands the mayor, aldermen and common
council of London "liberally to speak at their boards" on
this matter, and instruct their servants in the same, while
provincial officers and the gentry are to see that their families
" bruit the same in all places where they shall come." 3
At a time when no individual was allowed to have an
opinion of his own on the policy of the government, or,
indeed, even on the faith of his forefathers, the influence of
public preaching was necessarily most powerful in directing
popular feeling and sympathy. No sooner, therefore, was
the suppression of the monasteries determined upon, and the
arrangements for effecting it complete, than the machinery
of the public pulpits was set in motion to endeavour to fore
stall popular discontent. Coarse invective and unscrupulous
insinuation, it was hoped, might alienate the affection of
the people from the monks. In pursuance of this object
Crumwell sent forth three kinds of preachers to attack the
monastic institutions. " One sort must be railers against
religious men, calling them hypocrites, sorcerers, crooked
necks, slowbellies, idle drones, abbey lubbers, plants which
the Heavenly Father never planted, mumblers of praises in
the night, which God heard not, creatures of the pope's
making." "Another sort," like Cranmer, must needs tune their
instruments on another string, " saying that they made the
1 Calendar, vol. vii. No. 14.
2 Ibid., No. 463.
8 Reminiscences of John Louthe, printed in Narratives of the Days of the
Reformation (Camden Soc), p. 23.

no Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
land unprofitable," whilst a third told the people that the
king would never want their money again. " This part was
well discharged by Cranmer at Paul's cross." So much so
"that, although wise men saw there was no truth in it,"
still they allowed themselves to be influenced by the specious
promises.1 The fact is, that the people were groaning under the
weight of an almost insupportable taxation. They were
only too ready therefore to listen to any voice promising
them immunity in the future — more especially when this was
to be purchased by sacrificing the property of others.
" After his denial of papal obedience," writes Marillac, the
French ambassador, in 1 5 40, "Henry employed preachers
and ministers who went about to preach and persuade the
people that he could employ the ecclesiastical revenues in
hospitals, colleges, and other foundations for the public
good, which would be a much better use than that they
should support lazy and useless monks." 2
Cranmer, at Paul's cross, tried to stifle the natural feelings
of dismay and opposition to the proposed suppression, by
vague but captivating promises of future exemption from
taxation. Nicholas Harpsfield, who was present, says8: —
"This prelate (Cranmer) when the king went about to
suppress the monasteries, was his chief instrument and
worker, and, to bring the people asleep and cause them to
have better contentation that (as it was doubted) would not
patiently and quietly bear the suppression (as it proved
afterwards by the rebellion of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire)
came and preached at Paul's cross, and to sweet the people's
ears with pleasant words told them, amongst other things,
that they had no cause to be grieved with the evertion
of the abbeys, but should rather be glad thereof, for the
singular benefit ' that should redound to the whole realm
thereby . . .' and that the king should, by the suppression of
the abbeys, gather such an infinite treasure that from that
time he should have no need, nor would not, put the people
to any manner of payment or charge for his, or the realm's
1 B. Mus. Sloane MS., 2495.
2 Inventaire Analytique, No. 242. Marillac au Connetable, Aug. 6, 1540.
8 Nicholas Harpsfield, The Pretended Divorce, ed. N. Pocock (Camd.
Society), 1878, p. 292. The learned editor, in his preface, declares that he
considers Harpsfield to be absolutely trustworthy.

Parliament and the Lesser Monasteries 1 1 1
affairs. This sermon, as no wise man did believe, so myself,
that chanced to be there present," have known how false
was the promise. " His said sermon was in effect nothing
else but a plain invective against all monasteries as places
and dens of all error and superstition." "The bishop of
Canterbury," writes another of the audience, " saith that the
king's grace is at a full point for friars and chauntry priests,
that they shall away all that, saving those that can preach.
Then one said to the bishop, that they had good trust that
they should serve forth their life time, and he said they
should serve it out at the cart then, for any other service
they should have by that." 1
Aided by much rough rhetoric, by the undisguised
threats of the king's vengeance if " his bill " did not pass,
and doubtless by the arrogance of Crumwell, who six months
before had threatened an English jury unless they convic
ted the Carthusian fathers, the act was passed through the
house of commons. Parliament acts for the commonweal.
Just as it cannot without injustice take the property of the
individual and bestow it without compensation at its caprice,
so without sacrilege and robbery it cannot appropriate the
wealth, which pious benefactors have bestowed on religion
and the poor. More especially is this so, when the property
thus taken is not made to serve any public purpose or to
mitigate some of the miseries of poverty, but as a sop to the
greedy appetite of a vicious and avaricious monarch and
his needy favourites. Vice is a ground for reformation, not
destruction. "Henry," it has been well said, "was ever
prone to reformation when there was anything to gain
by it." Here there was more to be gained by destruction.
In charging the religious houses with being steeped in vice
and immorality, the king did them, moreover, a greater wrong
than in the mere robbery of their valuables. In asserting
that the reports of his visitors bore him out in this accusa
tion, Henry was but repeating a tale which they were sent
by him to tell.
Sir James Mackintosh, in treating of this act of dis
solution, thus summarises the uses for which the rights of
property have been instituted. ¦ " Property," he remarks,
"which is generally deemed to be the incentive to industry,
1 Wright, p. 38.

ii2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the guardian of order, the preserver of internal quiet, the
channel of friendly intercourse between men and nations,
and, in a higher point of view, as affording leisure for the
pursuit of knowledge, means for the exercise of generosity,
occasions for the returns of gratitude, as being one of the
ties that bind succeeding generations, strengthening domestic
discipline, and keeping up the affections of kindred; above
all, because it is the principle to which all men adapt their
plans of life, and on the faith of whose permanency every
human action is performed, is an institution of so high and
transcendent a nature that every government which does not
protect it, nay, that does not rigorously punish its infraction,
must be guilty of a violation of the first duties of rulers.
The common feelings of human nature have applied to it the
epithets of sacred and inviolable." From this consideration
the attention of the reader is invited to an examination of
the charges which the king "knew to be true from the
report of his visitors," and upon which royal knowledge
parliament justified the suppression of the Lesser Monastic
houses.

CHAPTER VII
The "Comperta Monastica" and other Charges against
the Monks
PARLIAMENT suppressed the lesser monasteries on the
faith of the king's " declaration " that vice was prevalent in
them. This is certain from the terms of the preamble to
the act. It is therein also declared that Henry himself
knew "the premisses" to be true, by the "comperts of his
late visitation as by sundry credible informations." It
becomes therefore necessary to examine into the charges
made against the monks by the royal inquisitors, so far as
they can be learnt from their letters and reports.
It is hardly necessary to remark, how easy it is to make
accusations of this nature and how difficult to disprove
them. More especially must this be so, when these charges
were made more than three centuries ago, and when many
documents, which might have thrown much light on the
matter, must have perished, and when the assertions, vitu
perations and insinuations of subsequent ages have been
accepted as the testimony of contemporaries. These more
over have often been collected and embellished by the fertile
imaginations of authors hostile to the monastic institute.
Putting aside whatever has been written against the
English monks, by those who have endorsed the charges
against them without weighing the grounds of the accusa
tion, the reader's attention is invited to the original docu
mentary evidence still remaining. In the first place, there
are many letters from the visitors themselves, written whilst
engaged on their task of inspection. A selection of these
was published by the Camden Society from a volume in the
Cotton manuscripts in the British museum.1 Many others
1 The Suppression ofthe Monasteries, edited by Mr. Wright. The volume
is almost entirely taken from the Cotton MS. Cleop. E. iv., which evidently
originally formed a part of the " Crumwell correspondence " in the Record
"3 H

114 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
hitherto little known are to be found in the public Record
Office. Besides these letters there is a document known as
the " Comperta" 1 This is merely an abstract of the letters
or reports made to Crumwell by his agents. The greater
part of the document is taken up with a report on the
monasteries in the northern province of York and in the
diocese of Coventry . and Lichfield. The rest consists of
two portions of a similar account of the diocese of Norwich,
written by John Ap Rice. This visitor had joined with Dr.
Legh in a request to Crumwell for the suspension of all
episcopal powers during the progress of their visitation.2
Ap Rice was occupied with Legh in this part of England,
after the latter had finished his examination of the University
of Cambridge, and before his meeting with Layton at Lich
field in December 1535, for their northern tour of inspection.
Besides the manuscript "comperta," another document
of the same nature has been preserved in the pages of
"foul-mouthed Bale"8 which refers to some fourteen ofthe
southern monasteries. These "comperta," "comperts," or
accounts were furnished to Crumwell by his visitors whilst
on their rounds. For instance, in October 1535, Ap Rice
Office. The letters in both collections are endorsed in the same handwriting,
which is probably that of Mr. R. Starkey, who lived in the beginning of the
seventeenth century, when the Cotton collection was formed.
1 The original in the Record Office is in the handwriting of one of the
visitors, John Ap Rice. The two copies in the Museum are evidently taken
from this document. There is, however, in the R. O. a fragment of a similar
report not transcribed in the Cotton or Lansdowne MSS. It is in all proba
bility a leaf from the abstract of the reports sent by the writer, John Ap Rice,
as to the monasteries of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, &c Calendar, vol. x.
No. 364.
2 A letter from Ap Rice (Wright, 85), written from Bury St. Edmund's,
shows he was engaged in the diocese of Norwich. Also two joint letters,
Calendar, ix. No. 808, from him and Legh as to West Derham show that they
were engaged in this part of England in November 1535. The date of the
"comperta" is important and is dealt with below. Canon Dixon (p. 352)
thinks they are a report of a subsequent visitation. Mr. Gairdner (vol. x.
No. 364) refers them to the visit of 1535-36.
3 Pageant of Popes. A portion of this is to be found in the third ed. of
Speed's " History," and probably not inserted by him, which was copied from
Henri Estienne (called Henry Steven). This author in his Apologie pour
Hirodote (ed. 1565) says his extract is "tire' d'un livre Anglois. As Bale's
book was published in 1555 it is probably the work from which it was copied.
The literary history of the extract in Speed (3rd ed.) is interesting, and
accounts for some strange mistakes. For instance, Bale, probably not knowing
the name of the prior of Bermondsey, calls him " Blank (his real name being
Richard Gill). Estienne gives the name as " Blanc," and the editor of Speed
retranslates him into " White."

The Charges against the Monks 115
writes from Cambridge to say that " herewith you have the
abridgement of the compertes in such places as we have
been at since we came from London." In the same communi
cation he goes on to say of Walden abbey : — " Ye may see
by the comperta of this house how they live, all the sort of
them that professeth chastity." This house had a good
name, and yet is " as some of the other where we have no
comperte." "Here they declared the truth, because their
superior always exhorted them so to do;1 and in other
houses they do not so because of considerations made
between them to the contrary, as at St. Albans, where we
found little, although there were much to be found."2
A month later the same visitor and Dr. Legh write from
Westacre a joint letter, saying they had dispatched Crum
well another " abridgement of the ' comperts ' from the last
ye had unto Crabhouse."3 At the same time they regret
they cannot send more to him, for " at the greatest houses
that we come to commonly they be so confederate, by reason
of their heads being mere pharisees, that we can get little
or no comperte there. And albeit that of the others, ye
. may soon guess what the rest be, yet if it shall please you
hereafter to send a commission to certain houses, ad melius
inquirendum, and give them that shall go somewhat more
leisure, we doubt not but ye shall find them all naught." *
Again, on September 27th, 1535, Dr. Legh writes to
Crumwell and encloses the " compertes " of Chertsey abbey,
which is headed "compendium compertorum apud Chertsey."6
This document is in precisely the same form and under the
same heading as the other comperta, and leaves no doubt
whatever that the documents are the actual reports for
warded to the visitor general by his instruments, during
the progress of their work.
That the chief motive of the visitation and the special
desire of the visitors was to discover evil, the letters them-
1 Ap Rice had already said that this superior was "teaching in his
daily lectures, that there was no virtue in monachatu," and was himself a
fallen man.
2 Calendar, ix. No. 661.
3 "Evidently," writes Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, x. Pref. xiii.), "the third
paper in No. 364 of the present volume."
i Calendar, ix. No. 808. Note the confession of the rapidity of their
examination, and the expectation of finding all they wished against the
religious. 8 Ibid., No. 472.

1 1 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
selves do not allow us to doubt. "We have no reason,
indeed," writes Mr. Gairdner, " to think highly of the
character of Crumwell's visitors ; and the letters of Layton
show that he really gloated over the obscenities that he
unearthed." x
Individual members of the religious houses, who were
tired of the restraints of monastic discipline or who were
bad at heart, may perhaps have welcomed the chance of
release afforded them in this visitation. From such, Layton,
Ap Rice and Legh may have learned some of the stories,
which they entered as charges against members of the
various religious communities they visited. That there was
even a shadow or semblance of investigation into a single
one of the accusations, does not appear by any letter or
paper in existence. The very rapidity with which the
visitors executed their commission, and the eagerness with
which, as their letters prove, they welcomed every indication
of evil, would seem to render such an examination impossible
and undesirable. From the monks, as a body, it is most
unlikely that the inquisitors derived much knowledge or
assistance. It is probable that most of their charges were
the result of ill-natured gossip, magnified by their own ready
imaginations. They found only what they hoped and ex
pected, and in all probability those, whose reputations were
at stake, were left in entire ignorance of the whole matter.
" It is not to be supposed," says Mr. Gairdner, "that
abbots and convents generally submitted quietly to a new
authority, intent on promoting offensive investigations as a
pretext for their own destruction. Many of the principal
nouses, it is clear, would have nothing to say to the visitors ;
and it is quite possible that the monks in many cases re
fused even to exculpate themselves before men for whose
character and commission they had very little respect. Con
sidering the rapidity with which the work was done the investi
gations could hardly have been very judicially conducted."8
The date of the document, known as the comperta, is of
considerable importance. Parliament passed the act of sup
pression on the faith of the king's " declaration " that the
monks were immoral. This he knew to be the case by the
compertes of his late visitations. Are the extant compertes
1 Calendar, x. Pref. xliii. 2 Ibid., x. Pref. xiii.

The Charges against the Monks 1 1 7
those upon which Henry based his declaration ? There is
no reasonable doubt that these are the documents forwarded
at this time to Crumwell, for Henry to use in pushing his
measure of suppression through the parliament. They are,
moreover, in the same form as they were originally de
spatched by the inquisitors as they progressed with their
mission. This may be judged from the comperte of the
great abbey of Chertsey, which document was written in
1535 during the royal visitation.1 The larger comperta of
Layton and Legh are the result of the northern tour of these
two worthies, and agree with their letters written during
this same visitation. The document commences with Lich
field, where it is certain they met on December 22nd, 1535.2
It includes reports of the cathedral church of York, St.
Mary's abbey and Fountains, where they were in 1536, on
January nth, the 13th, and before the 20th respectively.8
The last letter, moreover, which describes their visitation of
Fountains, corresponds with the compertes of this abbey.
The other manuscript comperta also, certainly relate to
the same period, previous to the meeting of parliament in
the spring of 1536,* and the portion ofa similar document
preserved by Bale undoubtedly refers to the inquisitions of
Layton at the monasteries of Kent and Sussex made during
the summer of 1535.5 We may consequently conclude that
all the documents of this nature were intended to serve, and
did actually serve as the basis of the king's " declaration "
to parliament in 1536. They are the compertes of his "late
visitation." The singular want of honesty in this assurance to parlia
ment is apparent. Henry professed to go by the evidence
of his visitors. Their comperta included the greater monas-
1 Calendar, ix. No. 472. This document was sent with a letter to " The
Right Hon. Mr. Thos. Crumwell, Chief Sect, to the King's Highness." It is,
like the letter, in the handwriting of John Ap Rice, and is in form similar to
the other comperta which Ap Rice copied from the originals.
2 Wright, 91. Letter of Layton to Crumwell.
8 Wright, pp. 95, 97, 100.
4 The compertes for the abbey of Bury St. Edmund are founded entirely on
Ap Rice's letter of November 11, 1535 (Wright, 85), and are almost certainly
in his handwriting. Legh and Ap Rice can be also traced at work in the
diocese of Norwich by other letters, e.g., Wright, 82, 83 ; R. 0. Crum. Corr.,
xxii., Nos. 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, &c.
6 See letters, Wright, 58, 75. R. O. Crum. Corr., xx. Nos. 10, 13, 18, 19,
20, &c.

1 1 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
teries with the lesser in wholesale condemnation. The
preamble of the act, passed on the strength of the royal
assurance, however, declares that in the larger monasteries
" thanks be to God religion is right well kept and observed."
The fact that the greater monasteries are not spared in these
reports, makes it impossible to believe that they were really
submitted to the inspection of parliament. The expressio
falsi in the preamble of the act, which (in the face of the
comperta of Crumwell's agents) expressly declared that "in the
great and solemn monasteries of the realm " religion was well
conducted, demonstrates the dishonest purpose which actuated
the framers of the measure. It is proof positive of the fraud
by which parliament was induced to sanction the appropria
tion of the corporate property of the lesser monasteries.
It is well here to note in passing that, with very trifling
exceptions, no accusations of the same nature are suggested
after the bill had been forced through parliament. This fact,
when duly considered, seems to show, that such charges of
immorality and incontinence were brought against the re
ligious for the distinct object of disarming opposition and
securing the passing of the measure. In subsequent letters
and reports there is hardly anything that can be construed
into a charge of the gross nature, with which Layton, Legh,
and Ap Rice delight to blacken the reputation of monastery
and convent during their first tour of inspection.
There is no need to admit that both the letters and
reports ofthe visitors at this period, if they are to be believed,
are very damaging to the characters of the monastic houses.
Still, even accepting their estimate, the proportion of the
well conducted, or, at least, of those against whom no charge
is suggested, is very much in excess of what is generally
believed. "There were many monasteries named in these
reports," writes Mr. Gairdner, "against which nothing is
said ; and there were more in the dioceses reported on
which are not named at all. So that it may be presumed,
in the opinion of the visitors themselves, not a few of the
monastic houses were pure and well governed."1 So far,
1 Calendar, x. Pref. xiv. Of the 155 monasteries given in the comperta
(No. 364), there are 4.3 against which nothing worse is alleged than the pos
session of certain relics, which is supposed to argue "superstition." "To
judge," says Mr. Gairdner (note), " by the proportion in Yorkshire, the visitors
examined only about/<wr out often houses.

The Charges against the Monks 119
therefore, from two-thirds of the religious being represented
as hopelessly sunk in vice and immorality, even the visitors'
ex parte reports really charge only a very small minority
with vice of any kind.
In several instances, moreover, it is quite clear from the
comperta itself, that mere idle rumour must have been the
foundation of the charge. Malicious reports, also, fostered
if not suggested by the visitors, ever anxious to further
Crumwell's intentions, were evidently the sole basis of
grave accusations. This is seen more clearly in the comperta
of Legh and Ap Rice than in those of Layton and Legh.
Ap Rice, for example, writes to Crumwell with regard to
the visitation of Bury St. Edmund, which in conjunction
with Legh he made in November 1535 : — "Please it your
mastership, forasmuch as I suppose you will have suit made
unto you touching Bury, ere we return, I thought convenient
to advertise you of our proceedings there and also of the
compertes of the same."1 He then proceeds to say, that
they could find nothing against the abbot's character, except
that he was much at his country house, was fond of dice
and cards and did not preach. "Also he seemeth to be
addict to the maintaining of such superstitious ceremonies,
as hath been used heretofore." As " touching the convent,
we could get little or no reports among them, although we „
did use much diligence in our examinations, with some other
arguments gathered of their examinations." And they,
therefore, conclude "that they had confederated and com
pacted before our coming that they should disclose nothing."
" And yet it is confessed and proved that there was here,
such frequence of women coming and resorting to this
monastery as to no place more. . . . Here depart of them that
be under age upon eight, and of them that be above age
upon five would depart if they might, and they be of the
best sort in the house and of best learning and judgment.
The whole number of the convent before we came was 60
saving one and besides, three that were at Oxford."
The compertes, which these visitors sent their master
after acknowledging that they could " get little or no reports,
although using much diligence in their examinations," fortu
nately exist. They are in the handwriting of Ap Rice him-
1 Wright, 85.

120 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
self. The abbot is charged with being fond of cards and
dice and not doing his duty in preaching. It is added, that
he delights in frequenting the houses of women, &C.1 Ap
Rice confessed in the very letter, with which these compertes,
written in his own hand, were sent, that there was nothing
but vague report against Abbot Melford's character. After
this, it is not surprising that nine of his religious are
bracketed together, as "defamed of incontinence from too
great intercourse with women," and three others "are re
ported " (fatentur) guilty of other faults. Finally, the com
perta adds : " There is a grave suspicion that the abbot and
convent had agreed together not to tell anything against
themselves, for though report says the monks here live
licentiously, still there never was less confessed to." 2
From this instance, and others that could be given, it
must be allowed that the compertes are merely a collection
of reports, tales or malicious informations. They cannot
seriously be considered as any evidence of the moral state
of the monastic houses. It is a curious revelation of the
bias of Crumwell's agents that they suspect all monks against
whom they could learn no ill of having agreed together to
conceal everything.8 This determination to see nothing but
evil should surely throw discredit on the ex parte reports
contained in the comperta documents. The same spirit is
evinced in the letters the visitors addressed to Crumwell at
various stages in their progress and which were doubtless
sent with their reports or comperta, which we no longer
possess. Layton, for instance, on his way to meet Legh
at Lichfield, visits a Gilbertine convent at Chiksand, in
Bedfordshire.4 Here " they would not in any wise have
admitted me as visitor," he writes, " but I would not be so
answered, and visited them." From none of the sisters was
he able to find out anything amiss, but on the report of
" one old beldame " he accused two of the eighteen nuns of
incontinence. In the same letter, Leicester abbey is de
clared to be " confederate and nothing will confess." " The
abbot," Layton says, "is an honest man, and doeth very
1 " Gaudet mulierum contubernio." 2 Calendar, x. No. 364.
3 Ibid., e.g., Thetford: " Etiam hie colligitur suspicio confederationis quum
essent 17 numero." Iklesworth: "Et illic subolet etiam suspicio vehemens
confederationis nam quum essset 18 numero, nihil tamen confessum."
* Wright, 91.

The Charges against the Monks 1 2 1
well, but he hath here the most obstinate and factious
canons that ever I knew." " This morning," he continues,
"I will object against divers of them the 'grossest of crime,'
et sic specialiter descendere, which I have learned of others
(but none of them). What I shall find I cannot tell." " If
this method were put in practice generally," says Mr.
Gairdner, " how much would have been taken for confession ?
Perhaps silence in some cases." x Certainly it would only
have been reasonable to expect, that Doctor Layton would
have taken some time to inquire into the particular charges
of so grave a nature against the character of the Austin
canons, who strenuously denied them. He expressly states,
however, in the letter, that he was starting the same morn
ing for Lichfield.2
A wide opinion has prevailed in the past, that confes
sions of conscience-stricken monks and nuns exist in
abundance. Upon these, it has been thought, the chief
part of the commissioners' reports are based. This notion
is altogether false. As far as can be ascertained,, no such
confessions or self-accusations are in existence.8 It is true
that the king declared to the Lincolnshire rebels that " there
be no houses suppressed where God was well served, but
where vice, mischief, and abomination of living was used,
and that doth well appear by their own confession, subscribed
with their own hands, in the time of their visitations."4
There is absolutely no record of any such self-accusations
subscribed by the offenders. Moreover, the letters of the
visitors and their compertes prove incontestably that they did
not base their charges upon any such confessions.
There are, it is true, one or two so-called " confessions "
existing. But these belong to a subsequent period, and
were made when the religious were being compelled to
1 Calendar, x. Pref. xliv.
2 Wright, 93 : " This morning we depart towards Lichfield church," &c,
"and from thence," &c. For other examples of the rapidity of the visitors'
progress, see Wright, 72, and Layton's letters as to Sussex, Somerset, &c, in
R. O. Crum. Corr., vol. xx.
8 Wright, in his preface to the Camden Society Volume, p. vi., says, " I
think that even the various lists of the confessions of the monks and nuns of
the several religious houses, entitled comperta, and preserved in manuscript,
ought to be made public." To call the comperta by the name of confessions is
to convey an entirely false and misleading idea to the readers of Mr. Wright's
preface. 4 Hall, " Union," &c. (written 1542), f. 229.

122 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
surrender their houses into the king's hands. Even these
contain only general and vague self-accusations of " volup
tuous living." They were evidently drawn up, not by the
religious, but by the royal commissioners, who also appear
not to have hesitated to sign the document with the names
of the monks. Of these so-called confessions, the best
known is that of the monks of St. Andrew's, Northampton.1
On the face of it, this lengthy document was composed, not
by the conscience-stricken monks, but by those who came
to turn them out of their home and take possession of their
property. When compared with another similar document
from Westacre, it is seen to be merely one of a general
type made use of by the commissioners.
It is well here to note, that in 1535 Layton had written
from Northampton, where he was on his visitation : — " the
prior now is a bachelor of divinity, a great husbond and a
good clerk, and pity it is that ever he came there. If he
were promoted to a better thing, and the king's grace would
take it into his hands, so might he recover all the lands
again which the prior shall never. In my return out of
the North, I will attempt him so to do if it be your
pleasure." Apparently the attempt was not made till later,
when the so-called confession2 was extracted from him
and his community. What was thought of its real purport
may be judged from the fact that pensions were arranged
for all the religious. The prior, after having been pen
sioned,8 was made first dean of the newly-created see of
Peterborough. The history of this so-called " confession,"
in reality the concoction of Crumwell's agents, will speak
for itself. It has often been quoted as one of the most
damning pieces of evidence against the monastic institutions,
and its reproduction has generally been accompanied with
the insinuation that there are more of the same kind. As
1 First printed by Weaver, pp. 106-110. It is a most verbose document,
made in the presence of Legh and Layton. Fuller, "Church Hist.," ed.
1845, p. 398, gives the choice passages. It has been well dealt with by
Canon Dixon.
2 The "confession" (Calendar, xiii. (i.) No. 396) is dated March 1. We
may note, however, that this is only a copy made apparently in the early part
of the 17th century. The body and signatures are in the same handwriting.
It may be added that the real surrender, as it appears enrolled on the Close
Roll (Rot. Claus. 29 H. VIII., pars 2, m. 7), is a totally different document;
being a surrender in the general form.
3 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bks., 232, f. 17.

The Charges against the Monks 123
far, however, as is known at present, this and its proto
type of Westacre, composed and adapted to altered circum
stances by the ingenuity of the same royal commissioners,
are the only documents of the kind.
The comperta documents, therefore, cannot be con
sidered as representing "confessions" of vicious life on
the part of the monks. They are in reality only the
biassed and, probably in many instances, baseless judg
ments of men who came to report evil. By far the larger
number of charges contained in the "reports" are con
cerned with secret and personal vice, which could not have
been easily matter of examination. The other accusations,
in the comperta and letters of the king's visitors, refer some
few to drunkenness, one or two to supposed theft, an in
significant number to unnatural crime, and the remainder
to incontinence. Under this latter head, the total number
of religious charged in all the known letters or reports bears
a very small proportion to the entire body of religious at
that time in England. In the comperta and letters, which
report as to the monasteries of a considerable portion of
England, scarcely 250 monks and nuns are named as
guilty of incontinence.1 In the same districts the religious
must have numbered many thousands. Of these 250, more
than a third part can be identified as having subsequently
received pensions upon the dissolution of their houses, a
fact which even Burnet would consider as disproving the
charge in their regard.2 Of the entire number of convents
of women visited and reported upon by Layton and Legh
in the North, they are able to relate very little amiss.
Only some twenty-seven nuns in all are charged with vice,
and of these, seventeen are known to have been afterwards
pensioned. Further, in their whole visitation, extending
over thirteen counties, they only report that some fifty
men and two women are anxious to abandon the religious
life, even under the restrictions imposed by Crumwell's
injunctions. This latter fact would seem to show that in
1 This number includes those named in the various MSS. comperta, Bale's
printed portion, and the letters of the visitors.
2 The difficulty of identifying the religious at this time is very considerable.
They are variously described by their Christian, religious, or surnames, and
often also by the name of their birthplace. Hence there is no doubt that a
great number more really received pensions, but not under the same name as
that by which they are entered in the comperta.

1 24 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
truth the monks and nuns were well content with their
life and were not so desirous of freeing themselves from
their obligations as is generally believed.
In the spring of 1536, or only a few months after the
comperta were composed by Crumwell's agents, commissions
were issued to re-examine the monasteries, with a view to
the suppression of such as were under the annual value
of £200. Besides this, the visitors were to report upon
" the number of monks, and their lives and conversations."
" Returns of the commissioners," writes Mr. Gairdner, " for
a certain number of the monasteries in five several counties,
are given in this volume, and it is remarkable that in these
the characters given to the inmates are almost uniformly
good. More remarkable still, in the return for Leicester
shire, we find the inmates of Garendon and Gracedieu — two
of the houses against which some of the worst compertes
were found — reported to be of good and virtuous conversa
tion. The country gentlemen who sat on the commission
somehow came to a very different conclusion from that of
Drs. Layton and Legh."1 These country gentlemen, be it
remarked, were " some of the leading men in each county."
How the king appreciated this good report may be under
stood by the letter of one of the commissioners, George
Gyffard, written on 19th June 1536, from the monastery
of Garendon, whilst on this very tour of inspection. " And,
sir," he says to Crumwell, "forasmuch as of late my fellows
and I did write unto Mr. Chancellor of the Augmentations
in favour of the abbey of St. James, and the nunnery of
Catesby, in Northamptonshire, which letter he showed unto
the king's highness in the favour of those houses, where the
king's highness was displeased, as he said to my servant,
Thomas Harper, saying that it was like that we had received,
rewards which caused us to write as we did, which might
put me in fear to write. Notwithstanding, the sure know
ledge that I have had always in your indifference, giveth
me boldness to write to you in the favour of the house of
1 Calendar, x. Pref. xiv. Since the publication of Mr. Gairdner's volume
I was fortunate enough to discover several more reports of these commissioners
in the Record Office. As they had been placed wrongly among the Chantry
Certificates they had escaped the editor's notice altogether. It is sufficient here
to say that they entirely bear out Mr. Gairdner's remarks upon the other
documents he had before him as to the uniformly good character that is given
to the religious in the houses visited.

The Charges against the Monks 125
Walstroppe. The governor thereof is a very good husbond
for the house and well-beloved of all the inhabitants there
unto adjoining, a right honest man, having eight religious
persons, being priests of right good conversation and living
religiously, having such qualities of virtue, as we have not
found the like in any place; for there is not one religious
person there but that they can and do use either embroider
ing, writing books with very fair hand, making their own
garments, carving, painting, or graving. The house without
any scandal or evil fame, and stands in a waste ground,
very solitary, keeping such hospitality that except by singular
good provision it could not be maintained with half as much
land more, as they may spend, such a number of the poor
inhabitants nigh thereunto, daily relieved that we have not
seen the like, having no more lands than they have. God
be even my judge, that I write unto you the truth, and no
otherwise to my knowledge, which very pity alone causes
me to write." *
It has been pointed out that, besides the charges
contained in the comperta of the visitors, the letters of
Crumwell's agents also contain a variety of accusations
against religious persons and houses. Some of these choice
stories, reflecting on the character of the monastic establish
ments, have been told and retold by hostile writers, as
typical illustrations of the natural tendency of the religious
mode of life. One or two of the best known may now be
examined. At the outset we may note that, like the rest of
such charges, no evidence is offered in substantiation of
their truth. No inquiry was apparently made, and no
depositions of witnesses are forthcoming. As a rule,
therefore, the stories have to be tested on their own
merits, and usually they will be found to depend entirely
on the ingenuity of the narrator.
An example very often given, which is supposed to be
typical of the depravity prevailing among the monks, is that
of the prior of the Crossed friars in London. This religious,
"at the dissolution, the watchful emissaries of Crumwell
caught in flagranti delicto, and down at once went the
king's hammer upon the corrupt little brotherhood."2
1 Wright, 136.
2 Thornbury, Old and New London, vol. ii. p. 253. The story is also
given in Burnet, ed. Pocock, i. p. 385.

126 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
This oft-told story is founded on a letter of one John
Bartelot, to Thomas Crumwell.1 The writer certainly says
that he so caught the prior. In the first place, however, the
circumstances are unlikely. The time, when the offence
against good morals was said to have been committed, was
eleven o'clock in the day on a Friday, in Lent. Then
Bartelot himself admits that to keep him quiet the prior
gave him .£30, and promised him more " by his bill obliga
tory." This, as Mr. Wright concedes, " is not greatly " to
the witness's credit.
Luckily however, the prior did not pay, and Bartelot
summoned him before the Lord Chancellor. This judge,
having heard the case, not only decided against the accuser,
"making the premisses to be heinous robbery," but told
him he deserved to be hanged. He further ordered him to
refund the black-mail which he had already levied upon the
unfortunate prior. This is absolutely all the evidence in
existence, upon which so-called history has founded its
accusation against the character of the prior of the London
Crossed friars. As far as the facts speak for themselves,
they are decidedly against the accuser. This judgment of the
matter is somewhat sustained by the fact that the prior of
this house "was reported by the visitors of the religious
houses to lord Crumwell as a man of inoffensive life." 2
Another story constantly repeated, and which has certainly
not been allowed to suffer loss by repetition, affects the good
name of the Premonstratensian abbey of Langdon in Kent.
This accusation is also connected in some measure
with Crumwell's servant, John Bartelot, who was told by
Chancellor Audley, that for his part in regard to the prior
of the Crutched friars "he was worthy to be hanged."
Layton, ever " so eloquent in accusations " according to his
fellow-commissioner Legh, tells the story.8 Froude de
clares, without the slightest grounds, that it was " the more
ordinary experiences of the commissioners."4 The letter
describes how Layton skilfully caught that "dangerous,
1 Wright, 59. The editor says : " His (Bartelot's) transaction with the
prior is not greatly to his credit, and the chancellor appears to have formed
no very unjust opinion of him."
2 Monasticon, vi. p. 1586. Edmund Stretham was the name of the prior
who, on April 17, 1534, subscribed to the royal supremacy.
3 Wright, 75. Mr. Wright finds the story "singularly ludicrous."
4 History, vol. ii. p. 425.

The Charges against the Monks 127
desperate, and hardy knave," the abbot of Langdon. The
man Bartelot and other servants were left to watch the outer
gates of the abbey house while Layton went to the door of
the abbot's lodging. Not getting any answer to his knocking
" saving the abbot's little dog that, within his door fast
locked, bayed and barked," he broke it open with a pole-
axe, found quite handy. He entered alone, but with his
pole-axe, for fear of the abbot. Bartelot, guarding the out
lets, caught a woman running away and took her to Layton,
who, having examined her, sent her under her captor's charge
to Dover. Layton does not say that the abbot was at his
lodgings at all, but his letter adds : "I brought the holy
father abbot to Canterbury, and here at Christchurch I will
leave him in prison." A woman's dress was found, at least
Layton says so, in the abbot's chest, which fact has been
ingeniously rendered by Burnet, to serve his purpose, as:
"in the abbot's coffer there was a habit for her, for she
went for a young brother." *
Accepting the facts of the letter as they stand, what are
they apart from insinuations, pleasantry and dressing up ?
That a woman was caught running away.2 Also, if Layton
is worthy of credit, that a female's dress was found in the
"abbot's chest." The fact that some of Crumwell's own
servants were actually in the house at the time, and yet
" marvelled what fellow " it was who thus broke into it, looks
suspicious. Moreover, both Dr. Layton and Crumwell had
a motive in trying to defame the character of the religious,
which appears at the close of this very letter. "Now,"
says the zealous visitor, "it shall appear to gentlemen of
this country, and other the commons that ye shall not
deprive or visit but upon substantial grounds. Surely I
,~U aS a D.
1 Burnet, i. p. 307. Layton in his letter^/^' kept concubifit * found
jr^S^'^parel in the abbot's coffer." This eU i- -Sn passed
( Woff is Burnet's own. "*e .was veT mahciT" v
" * 2 " But for a conclusion his . . . gentlewdnSth Or doth in Aps towards
her starting holes and there Bartlett, watching tn.wh0 na(J if the tender
damoisel, and after I had examined her, to Dover thei . , flnayor to set
her in some cage or prison for viij days." This is all the 4^" Ration vouch
safed. Layton is very circumstantial on accessories, very Vajer or reticent
on the main point ; he does not even say that the woman ran out of the
"abbottes logeyng." Neither here nor hereafter does he so much as hint at
what the examination elicited. The sequel of the story is told in the text ;
how far it agrees with the beginning as narrated in Layton's lightest, merriest
vein, the reader can judge for himself.

128 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
suppose God himself put it in my mind thus suddenly to
make a search at the beginning, because no canon appeared
in my sight."
In a letter written the same night (October 23, 1535)
from Canterbury, Layton, after describing the fire which
took place at Christchurch on the night of his arrival, pro
ceeds to speaks very ill of Dover, Folkestone, and Langdon.
Although he gives the worst possible character to the abbot
of the last-named monastery, nothing is said of the story
of his capture, which he had reported shortly before. In
place of this, another accusation is substituted against
William Dare, the abbot who is called "the drunkenest
knave living." The whole community are, in fact, included
in one of Layton's sweeping charges of immorality. It is
strange that there is not the least reference, even jocose, to
the doctor's achievement the day previous, about which he
had been so proud. Was it that, on reflection, he saw after
all he had found out absolutely nothing upon which to found
an accusation against the abbot ? Did he hence desire to
substitute another and a more hearsay charge against his
character? At any rate his motive was the same, for he
expressly warns his master to be "quick in taking the fruits"
of the doomed abbey.1
A fortnight later, November 16, 1535, three commis
sioners attended at the chapter-house of Langdon to receive
the surrender. These king's officers, although reporting
badly of the abbot's administration, bring no graver charges
against him. On the contrary, they recommend this man,
whom Layton had described as most immoral and "the
drunkenest knave living," for a pension.2 This reward was
granted him by the court of Augmentation for life, or until
such timber '"S reived a "fitting ecclesiastical benefice."8
If, r^^sljfnimissioner Ltgyere true the abbot could have been
go^tv0^ \thout the slightest and without the scandal of pro
pose ^e^^cperiences of^nan in cure of souls. This fact, if
fairljicc^ Show Lay-^uld suffice to disprove Layton's insinua
tions tf^Vjl vlSh the stock story founded on them.
AncS°/5|?>;harge against the character of a monk has
been ofteir repeated on the authority of the same Dr. Layton.
This visitor, who could write the vilest accusations against
1 Calendar, ix. No. 669. 2 Wright, 89.
8 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bks., 232, f. 57.

The Charges against the Monks 129
a religious man and then add " it were too long to declare
all things of him that I have heard, which I suppose are
true," l declares that the prior of Maiden Bradley, in Somer
set, had six childrea Further, that his sons were "tall
men waiting on him," and that " the pope, considering his
fragility, had given him license in writing sub plumbo" to
discharge his conscience.2 This story, so utterly improbable
in itself, rests on no authority whatever, but the ipse dixit
of the unblushing Layton. It is disposed of by the fact that
the prior Richard Jennings was pensioned by the advice of
the chancellor and court of Augmentation,8 and subsequently
became rector of Shipton Moyne, in Gloucestershire.
Something must be said in reference to accusations
against the abbot of Wigmore, an abbey eight miles from
Ludlow in Herefordshire. Of the long document in which
the charges are made, Mr. Froude says : — " It is so singular
that we print it as it is found — a genuine antique, fished up
in perfect preservation out of the wreck of the old world." 4
The same author has made choice of this story as one of
two specimens, which he believes completely justify Henry's
measures against the monasteries. He goes into rhapso
dies about this " flagrant case," which he declares to be " a
choice specimen out of many " of an abbot " able to purchase
with jewels stolen from his own convent a faculty to confer
holy orders, though there is no evidence that he had been
consecrated bishop," and to make .£1000 by selling the
exercise of his privilege. The charges are to be found in
a letter to Crumwell from one of the canons of Wigmore,
named John Lee. The articles are 29 in number, and give
the worst possible character to the abbot. He had sold the
jewels of the monastery to pay for the fees for his consecra
tion. He took fees for ordination and acted as a bishop, on
the strength of the papal bulls. He kept concubines and
squandered money upon them. He was very malicious and
wrathful, " not regarding what he saith or doth in his fury."
He had murdered a man and his wife, who had purchased
a corrody from the abbey, and had consented to another
murder committed by his chaplain. This chaplain, it is
added, is allowed to do what he likes, " to carry cross-bows,
1 Wright, p. 48. 2 Bid., p. 58.
3 R. O. Aug. Office Mis. Bks., 244, No. 143. Original of grants.
4 Short Studies, i. " Dissolution of Monasteries." I

130 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and to go fishing and hunting in the king's forests, parks
and chases, but little or nothing serving the choir as other
brethren do, neither corrected of the said abbot for any
trespass he doth commit." Further, the abbot had not kept
the injunctions given by Dr. Core from the king, and would
have put the brother who denounced him into prison, had
he not been prevented by the chapter. The writer of this
strange document " will not name now " many acts of incon
tinence on the part of the abbot, " least it would offend your
good lordship to read or hear the same." In a postscript he
adds, " My good lord, there is in the said abbey, a cross of
fine gold and precious stones, whereof one diamond was
esteemed by Dr. Booth, of Hereford bishop, to be worth a
hundred marks." In this is a piece of the true cross, which
is used to be brought down to the church with lights and
much reverence. " I fear least the abbot upon Sunday next,
when he may come to the treasury will take away the said
cross and break it and turn it to his use and many other
precious jewels that be there." In conclusion John Lee
declares that his articles are " true in substance," and that
he is ready to prove them. He winds up by the suggestion,
that Crumwell should appoint him, "or any man that will
be indifferent and not corrupt, to sit at the said abbey " as
his commissioner.
Much of this long document, and notably the accusation
of murder, is absurd on the face of it and may be dismissed.
For the rest, as no other evidence is forthcoming, it is
necessary to fall back upon what is otherwise known of
Wigmore and its abbot. The monastery had been regularly
visited by the bishops of Hereford before its dissolution, and
in the year 1518, the community placed the nomination of
their superior in the hands of cardinal Wolsey. After due
consideration, the cardinal made choice of a canon regular of
Bristol for the post. This was John Smarte, against whom
these grave charges were afterwards brought by his subject,
John Lee. At this date, he was declared as publicly known
to possess the qualities necessary for a worthy superior.1
Smarte was a scholar of Oxford and a bachelor of divinity at
that university.2 After his election he was much esteemed
Reg. Booth, Ep. Heref., f. 24.
2 Boase, Reg. Univ. Oxon., i. p. 53. " Smarte or Smerte, John, Reg. Can.,"
B.A. 1508, B.D. 1515.

The Charges against the Monks 131
by the bishop of Hereford, Charles Booth, who wrote to the
pope asking that the abbot might be made his suffragan.1
This request was granted. He became titular bishop of
Pavada, and acted as coadjutor of Hereford from 1526 to
1535. During the first six years of this period, he also
performed the same office for the diocese of Worcester.2
In this capacity, as suffragan bishop, abbot John Smarte
held the usual diocesan ordinations, some of which (notably
that in the first year of his office, 1526) were very large.
The fact that the bishop of the diocese had asked for this
abbot's nomination as his suffragan, disposes of the insinua
tions which Mr. Froude makes, as to his having purchased
a " faculty " to ordain, " though there is no evidence that he
had been consecrated bishop."
The accusations brought against his character by the
letter of John Lee are more difficult to meet. His appoint
ment by Wolsey as abbot, and the good opinion certainly
formed of him by bishop Booth, are considerable evidence
that Lee's charge was malicious and false. Fortunately,
however, a visitation of Wigmore was ordered by bishop
Edward Fox in the autumn of 1536, and his injunctions
were issued on 26th March of the following year.8 As these
orders follow closely the lines of the charges in Lee's letter,
it is difficult to resist the conclusion that this exceptional
visitation was ordered, in consequence of the canon's com
plaints.4 Whether this be so or not, we have in the in
junctions for Wigmore, entered in the register of bishop
Fox, issued in the spring of 1537, an independent judgment
about the state of the abbey and the character of its superior.
As to the charges of incontinence against him, Dr. Hugh
Coren or Curwen, the vicar general, who held the visita
tion, appears to have reported mere imprudence on his part.
The bishop only enjoins him to avoid being too much with
women. That no case had been proved against him, how
ever, appears tolerably certain from the insertion of the
clause " if there be any " (si qua sint) into the body of this
injunction. He is ordered to let the brethren know " whether
he has redeemed the jewels which he has pledged," and to
restore them to the monastery. The usual regulations are
1 Reg. Booth, f. q ,. 2 Stubbs, Registrum, p. 147.
8 Reg. Fox, Ep. Heref., f. 21.
4 Ibid., f. 8, says the king had directed these visitations by his letters.

132 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
made for the yearly accounts and for the custody of the
monastic deeds. The abbot is warned to correct his subjects
with mildness and not too roughly, and the subjects on their
part are warned to be obedient in all things to their abbot,
and to look upon the virtue of chastity as the gem of the
religious life. Finally the abbot's chaplain, Richard Cubley,
about whom Lee had complained in his letter, is ordered
to attend the choir like the rest of the canons and to desist
from hunting and other unmonastic occupations. Thus,
after a careful examination, little appears against the char
acter of Wigmore and its abbot, John Smarte. The visita
tion really discredits the charges and base insinuations of
John Lee. If this examination followed upon his complaints
to Crumwell, as we have every reason to suppose, then the
injunctions must fairly be considered as a verdict in favour
of the abbot In any case, we have in this record a picture
of the state of the monastery and a judgment on the char
acter of its superior altogether at variance with that presented
in the letter of the discontented canon.
In concluding this brief examination of the grave accu
sations made against the monasteries, it may be useful to
point out how strong is the negative evidence, as it may be
called, in favour of the general moral tone of these establish
ments, as against the biassed accounts of Henry's royal
commissioners. The historian Strype says, that special
injunctions were sent to the bishops by Crumwell to watch
narrowly into the conduct of "the abbeys and religious
houses that especially stuck to the pope and kept as much
as they could to the old superstitions." 1 In spite, however,
of these special instructions, although we have numerous
letters2 from the bishops of the time, there is hardly an
expression that can be construed into a condemnation of the
moral lives of the monks. This negative testimony is all
the more important, as many of these ecclesiastics were
known opponents of this method of life. The old and
contemporary chroniclers — Hall, Stow, Grafton, Holinshed
and Fabian — are also singularly silent as to the pretended
vicious lives practised in the cloisters of England. And
Wriothesley, although clearly in favour of the cause of the
1 Eccl. Mems., i. 1, p. 333 (ed. 1822).
2 An immense number of letters are in existence from Cranmer, Stokesley,
Latimer, Rowland Lee, and others.

The Charges against the Monks 133
reformers, makes no mention whatever of these charges in
his chronicle. He says that in 15 35 the lesser monasteries
were granted to the king, "to the augmentation of the
crown," and adds : " It was pity the great lamentation that
the poor people made for them, for there was great hospi
tality kept amongst them, and, as it was reported, ten
thousand persons had lost their living by the putting down
of them, which was great pity." 1
Lord Herbert declares that bishop Latimer was anxious
to preserve some of the monasteries — at least two or three
in each diocese. In bishop Latimer's arguments with king
Henry VIII. against purgatory, he concludes thus: — "The
founding of monasteries argueth purgatory to be, so the
putting them down argueth it not to be. What uncharit-
ableness and cruelty seemeth it to be to destroy monasteries
if purgatory be ? Now, it seemeth not convenient the act
to preach one thing, and the pulpit another clear contrary." 2
This reference must have been to the act for the suppression
of lesser monasteries (1535), because, at the date of the fall
of the greater houses, Latimer was not in such circumstances
as would allow him to controvert with Henry.
Cranmer also, who with others narrowly watched the
monks of Christchurch, Canterbury, admitted that there was
nothing whatever against their moral character. Many of
these same monks became the first secular canons of the
cathedral, although they were amongst those most seriously
accused by the visitors. Moreover, Richard, the suffragan
of Dover, who was much employed on the work of sup
pression and has left many letters, particularly as to the
friars, makes no charge of so serious a nature as those
brought by Layton, Legh and Ap Rice. This may be
accounted for, possibly, because his mission was rather to
suppress than to find motives for the work. As he was
occupied in this, after parliament had given over the smaller
1 Wriothesleys Chronicle (Camd. Soc). This is a contemporary London
chronicle, and its negative evidence is very valuable. Had there been much
talk about the immoral lives of the monks, it is reasonable to suppose the
author would have made some note of it. He had every means of knowing,
as he had an official position among the heralds, having become Windsor
herald on Christmas day, 1534. He was attached chiefly to the person of
chancellor Audley. See editor's remarks, p. 274. It is also very remarkable
that no mention of the great outcry against the monasteries is to be found in
the letters of the well-informed Chapuys or of other writers at this time.
2 Printed by Strype, Eccl. Mems., i. p. 388.

134 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
houses to the king, there was no need for furnishing such
evidence. In fact, there is very little evidence that the gross in
sinuations against the character of monks and nuns in
general, and special charges such as were brought against
a small proportion, by such men as Layton, Legh and Ap
Rice, were either made or believed in by others. There is, on
the other hand, most positive evidence, to which subsequent
reference will be made, of the esteem and respect in which
many religious houses were held by those who had best reason
to know their true character. If we add to this the singu
lar silence as to such charges, maintained by contemporary
chroniclers, we are led to the conclusion that these terrible
accusations were not much insisted upon, even in the parlia
ment which passed the bill of suppression. More than one
authority clearly states that the chief motive, which actuated
the servile parliament in passing the measure, was the hope
that the property thus appropriated from the church and
poor, would be a means of freeing them for some time from
the constant and importunate exactions of the king. It was
hoped that the people would thus be indirectly benefited.
This conclusion is much strengthened by the fact that within
a very short time after the first dissolutions it was proposed
to present to the king a petition from the lords and commons,
asking him to stay any further suppressions. The ground
for this request was, that so far from the destruction of the
religious houses doing good to the country, as had been
promised, the measure had proved an unmitigated evil.
" And albeit," this remarkable document runs, " most dread
sovereign lord, at the making of the said act it was thought
that we might full well thereby have advanced the revenues
of your noble crown without prejudice or hurt of any your
poor subjects, or of the commonwealth of this your realm ;
yet nevertheless they perceive those houses already sup
pressed showeth plainly unto us, that a great hurt and
decay is thereby come and hereafter shall come to this your
realm, and great impoverishing of many your poor obedient
subjects for lack of hospitality and good householding, which
was wont in them to be kept to the great relief of the poor
people of all the country adjoining to the said monasteries,
besides the maintenance of many servants, husbandmen
and labourers that daily were kept, in the said religious

The Charges against the Monks 135
houses." Then, after some suggested regulations for the
property of monasteries already suppressed, the proposed
petition asks that all monasteries, of whatever kind they
were beyond the Trent, and which, although falling under
the act, had not as yet been suppressed, " shall stand still
and abide in their own strength and foundation, and the
act aforesaid of suppression of religious houses that were
not above the yearly value of ^200 lands, to be frustrate
as concerning them and of no effect." J
Such a petition would be impossible, if the chief cause
of the suppression had been the hopeless state of immorality
in which the monasteries were sunk. The truth is, that
money was the object which Henry and his minister had in
view. This is emphasized by the fact that many monasteries
were allowed to purchase temporary continuance by heavy
payments to the royal exchequer. As for the charges
brought by Layton and his fellows, they are unsupported
by any other evidence but their bare assertions. They are
worth so much and no more.
1 B. Mus. Cott. MS. Cleop., E. iv. f. 215 (182).

CHAPTER VIII
Thomas Crumwell, the King's Vicar General
FIRST and chief among the accusers of the monks must be
reckoned Thomas Crumwell. His was the mind which first
conceived the idea of attacking the papal power in its strong
holds and procuring thereby the wealth to gratify the covetous-
ness of the king. Perhaps no actor on the stage of history
has ever possessed greater powers, personal and political.
Certainly, no single minister in England ever exercised such
extensive authority, none ever rose so rapidly, and no one
has left behind him a name covered with greater infamy and
disgrace. Thomas Crumwell, so far as his early history is known,
was born of parents in poor circumstances. His father is
said to have been a blacksmith at Putney, and Thomas in
his youth seems to have been apprenticed to a fuller named
Wix.1 He was not contented, however, to remain long in
this humble state. As the gossip in the day of his power
went, he had in youth been thrown into prison for some
offence, and had been subsequently obliged to leave the
country.2 At an early period, we find him, or some one of
his name, in the service of the Marchioness of Dorset, and
all accounts agree in saying, that he passed a portion of his
youth as a common soldier in Italy. He once told Cranmer
that he had been at one time a " ruffian," and some autho
rities seem to think it not improbable that he was present
1 B. Mus., Sloane MS., 2495, f. 8.
2 Calendar, ix. No. 862. Chapuys to Granvelle, London, Nov. 21, 1535
(printed in Mr. Froude's ed. of "Thomas' Pilgrim," p. 106). "Sir Master
Crumwell, of whose origin and antecedents your secretary, Antoine, tells me
you desire to be informed, is the son of a poor blacksmith, who lived in a small
village four miles from this place, and is buried in a common grave in the
parish churchyard. His uncle whom he has enriched was cook to the late
archbishop of Canterbury (Warham). The said Crumwell in his youth was
an ill-conditioned scapegrace. For some offence he was thrown into prison,
and was obliged afterwards to leave the country."
136

Thomas Crumwell 137
when Rome was assaulted and taken in May 1527, by the
imperial army, under the Duke of Bourbon. Among those
who took part in the sack of the city there is said to have
been1 "an Englishman of low, vicious habits and infidel
principles, who afterwards became of terrific importance to
the church of England." This is thought by some to have
been Thomas Crumwell.2
From his own letters he appears to have been settled
as a merchant at Middelborough in 1512, for in that year he
employs a correspondent, in Antwerp, to buy an iron chest
of considerable size, in which presumably to keep his money.
Before 1520, Crumwell had added the occupation of scrivener
to his other avocations, and was also engaged in accommo
dating members of the aristocracy with loans of consider
able amount. This money-lending business appears to have
always possessed special attractions for him, as he is found
lending large sums of money, even when at the very height
of his power.8 In 1523, Crumwell entered parliament; and
though, apparently, he did not take any very prominent
part in the debates, it is possible that he was of service to
Wolsey in obtaining the parliamentary grant of a very large
subsidy voted in that year. In 1525 he was living near
Austin Friars, in London, and engaged as a merchant,
lawyer and money lender.4 Amongst those who were obliged
to have recourse to him in this latter capacity, was lord
Henry Percy, then attached to the court of the cardinal of
York — a court hardly less magnificent and costly than that
of the king himself. By this client Crumwell may well have
been introduced to the notice of Wolsey.
Whilst in the cardinal's service,6 Crumwell was chiefly
employed in the work of suppressing the monasteries, which
had been doomed to extinction for the purpose of endowing
the cardinal's colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. In this occu
pation he acquired a knowledge of the monastic houses, and
of the methods useful to employ in seizing the property of
1 Maitland, The Reformation, p. 228. The author thinks that if Crumwell
was present it probably was in the service of Wolsey, and not at this time as a
soldier. 2 Lord Herbert, in Foss, Judges of England, vol. v. p. 147.
8 R. O. Chapter House Books, B£.
4 Calendar, iv. Nos. 1385, 1586, 1620, &c.
6 Cardinal Pole says, that when Crumwell was in the service of Wolsey,
he strongly recommended to him (Pole) the works and principles of Machiavelli,
especially those contained in " II Principe." Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Series,
iii. 278.

138 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the monks.1 This work may very possibly have suggested
to his mind the subsequent wholesale confiscations. It
certainly gave him opportunities, of which he was not slow
to profit, to promote his own advancement and interests.
Cardinal Pole declares that these violent suppressions,
carried out under cover of authority from the pope, obtained
by the masterful influence and diplomacy of Wolsey, proved
a fortune to Crumwell. From this time his worldly pros
pects, as Pole says, were secured. " He (Crumwell) was
certainly born," he adds, "with an aptitude for ruin and
destruction."2 On Wolsey's disgrace, Crumwell's first thought was
how to save himself from being involved in his master's
ruin. He had reason to fear the consequences of acts
which, although perpetrated in the cardinal's service and
under cover of his authority, had placed him within reach
of the law. Now that the strong arm which had shielded
him was paralyzed, the popular resentment against him
did not fear to make itself heard. In defending his patron
in parliament it is possible that he may have been actuated
by sincere motives of gratitude, but in defeating the bill of
attainder, he was in reality only making the best possible
defence for himself. To have allowed the bill to pass,
would practically have been to acquiesce in his own ruin.
The charges against the cardinal were founded, at least
partially, on the grave injustice done in the work of sup
pressing certain monasteries. And it was on this very
work that Crumwell had been specially employed and had
earned for himself unenviable notoriety. His own, as well
as his master's, safety consequently demanded the defeat
of the attainder. " I have read," says dean Hook, " with
attention the letters addressed to Crumwell by Wolsey,
and I think that any one who does so will come to the
conclusion that Wolsey had no confidence in Crumwell's
sincerity ; and that Crumwell did not treat his fallen master
with consideration and kindness. He was obliged to defend
him, for he had no other course to pursue." s
1 R. O. Exchequer Q. R. Treasury of Receipt, {£. The sales by T.
Crumwell of Begham Priory, Kent, at this time. It might well be taken for
an account of a suppression ten years later.
2 " Apologia," Epist. collectio, vol. i. p. 127.
8 Lives of Archbishops, vi. p. 128.

Thomas Crumwell 139
Moreover, the very fact of Crumwell's attitude towards
the measure, at a time when no opposition to the king's
wishes and intentions would be tolerated, shows that some
secret understanding had been arrived at between the
monarch and his future adviser.1 The account given by
Cavendish of the way Crumwell left the cardinal, proves
that the former knew he was in great danger, and that he
had the intention of trying to escape from the difficulties
which beset him, by treating at once with the court. In
no other way can the scene described by Cavendish be
explained. Thomas Crumwell evidently thought it high
time he should look to his own affairs. More especially
was this necessary as there seems to have been a report
current which affected him most seriously. When Wolsey's
case was settled, the people said, then would come Crum
well's turn for punishment. In fact, the popular voice had
already consigned him to the gallows. Cardinal Pole, who
was in London at the time, asserts that he himself heard
the expression of popular exultation over the expected
punishment of one considered so well deserving of death.
He declares also, that it was asserted Crumwell had already
been arrested and cast into prison."2
It is not difficult to imagine what means Thomas
Crumwell took to defeat the popular clamour for his
punishment, and to change the king's views regarding
him. Henry no doubt saw in him one who was likely to
be a useful instrument in his hands. Something more,
however, was needed to alter the king's known contempt
and distrust into immediate reliance on his services, and
to establish a secret understanding between them. It has
appeared probable to some that Crumwell, at his interview
with Henry, suggested a solution of the king's difficulties
with the pope. It was nothing less than the entire with
drawal of England from spiritual allegiance to the Holy
1 Dr. Pegge says, " The rejection of the bill may be justly ascribed to the
relentment of the king, for Crumwell would not have dared to oppose it, nor
the commons to reject it, had they not received an intimation that such was
the royal will. — Singer, Cavendish, i. p. 209 note.
2 "Apologia Reg. Poli. ad Carolum V. Csesarem," Epist, Colleciio, Brixiae,
1744, vol. i. p. 126. "Ipse (Crumwell) omnium voce, qui aliquid de eo
inteliexerant ad supplicium posceretur. Hoc enim affirmare possum, qui
Londini turn adfui et voces audivi, adeo etiam ut per civitatem universam
rumor circumferretur, eum in carcerem fuisse detrusum, et propediem pro-
ductum iri ad supplicium."

H<* Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
See, and the declaration that the king was henceforth to
be considered the head of the Church in England. Others
have imagined that he captivated the king by showing
him how easily he might lay his hand on the riches of
the Church and the broad lands of the monastic bodies.
Whatever the motive or the inducement, it seems certain
that at this interview Crumwell obtained the king's approval
to the defeat of the " bill of attainder " and to the policy
of proceeding against the cardinal under the statute of
"praemunire." Lj this way the king would still possess
himself of the"fffllen minister's property. Indeed, by this
method Henry would be the gainer. For not only could
the cardinal be brought under the law for acting as legate
of the pope, but the entire body of clergy also. In fact,
all who had admitted these legatine powers were involved
in the meshes of the legal statute and were in danger of
forfeiting goods and chattels to the king's majesty.
That Henry had granted his royal license for the
cardinal to act as he had done, is unquestioned. The
obvious way, therefore, of meeting the charge was by the
production of the royal permission under the great seal.
When the commissioners came to ask him what answer he
could make to the indictment, Wolsey replied : " The King's
highness knoweth right well whether I have offended his
majesty and his laws or no, in using of my prerogative
legatine for the which ye have indicted me. Notwithstand
ing, I have the king's license in my coffers, under his hand
and broad seal, for exercising and using the authority there
of in the largest wise within his majesty's dominions, the
which remaineth now in the hands of my enemies."1 Not
having the document, Wolsey threw himself on the king's
mercy. By what means did this license under the great
seal find its way " into the hands " of the cardinal's enemies ?
Was it the peace-offering of Crumwell to Henry? An
early account of the transaction, which clearly took place
between the king and the servant of the fallen cardinal,
declares that the price paid by Crumwell to secure his own
safety and the king's favour, was the theft of this document
from the private papers of his master, to which he had
access. "And so like an unfaithful and traitorous servant
1 Singer, Cavendish, i. p. 209.

Thomas Crumwell 1^1

the said Crumwell stole from his master and delivered to the
king."1 Crumwell's rise after this was rapid and unchecked as
long as he served Henry's purpose. "It more resembled,"
writes Lord Campbell, " that of a slave at once constituted
grand vizier in an Eastern despotism than of a minister of
state promoted in a constitutional government where law,
usage, and public opinion check the capricious humours of
the sovereign."2 He became successively master of the
king's jewels, chancellor of the Exchequer for life, master of
the Rolls, and secretary of state, the king's vicar general in
matters ecclesiastical, lord privy seal, dean of Wells, and
great chamberlain.8 In 1533 he was knighted, and three
years later became a peer of the realm under the title of Earl
of Essex. By virtue of his commission as vicar general of
the king, who had according to act of parliament taken on
himself " all spiritual and temporal jurisdiction in the Church
of England," he had power to "exercise all spiritual juris
diction belonging to the king for the due administration of
justice in all cases touching ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
godly reformation, and redress of errors, heresies, and abuses
in the said church."
The position occupied by Thomas Crumwell during the
years of his power is unique in English history. As vice
gerent and vicar general he was placed above the arch
bishops and bishops, even in convocation and other strictly
ecclesiastical assemblies.4 Hardly was the venerable Fisher
1 B. Mus. Arundel MS., 152, f. 426.
2 Lives ofthe English Chancellors, i. p. 600 ; Ibid. , p. 230 et seq.
s Master of king's jewels, 1532 ; chancellor of Exchequer and knighted,
1533 ; master of Rolls, vicar general and secretary of state, 1534 ; lord privy
seal and a peer of the realm, July, 1536 ; vicegerent in ecclesiastical causes,
1536; dean of Wells, 1537 ; great chamberlain, 1539.
4 In a curious little volume by Alexander Alane, Scot., Of the auctorite of
the word of God agaynst ihe Bisshop of London (1542), the author gives an
account of one of the meetings which Crumwell held as vicar general. The
following quotation will be of interest. The writer says : " I did mete bi
chance in the streate the right excellent Lord Crumwell, going unto the par
liament howse, in the yeare 1537. He when he sawe me, called me unto him
and toke me with him to the parliament howse to Westmynster, where we
fownd all the bisshops gathered together. Unto whom as he went and toke
me with him, all the bisshops and prelates did rise up and did obeisance unto
him as to their Vicar General, and after he had saluted them he sate him down
in the highest place, and right against hym sate the archbishop of Cantorbery,
after hym the archbisshop of Yorke and then London, Lincoln, &c. . . . Than the
Lord Crumwell, being Vicar General of the realme, Lord of the Prevy Seale

142 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
executed, than he was elected his successor as chancellor of
the University of Cambridge.1 Though a layman, he did
not scruple to hold the deanery of Wells and other ecclesi
astical benefices.2 In parliament, he took precedence of the
nobility of every rank by virtue of his ecclesiastical title of
king's vicar general.
Armed, as he was, with supreme and absolute power,
both civil and spiritual, he succeeded in establishing and
maintaining a complete reign of terror in England. How
he used his authority for the appointment of other agents
of destruction the foregoing pages have partly told. How
they together accomplished their work, every ruined abbey
and every desecrated shrine in England proclaims. Every
pauper is made to feel, by the cold charity extended to him
in the poorhouses of the country, how cruelly he was robbed
of his inheritance, by the destruction and spoliation of the
monastic houses of the land.
It is by no means easy to realise the completeness of
the autocratic power which was placed by the king in Crum
well's hands at this time, and which he used unscrupulously
to crush all opposition to his schemes, for the overthrow of
the Church and the seizure of its revenues. His agents and
spies were everywhere, and the most secret conversations
were reported to him. The abbot in the midst of his com
munity could not reckon upon his word being safe from
the prying ears of the minister's agents. The sayings of a
religious in the " shaving house " or the " frater " might be,
and often were, repeated and distorted to his injury. The
preacher had his sermons commented upon, and the conver
sations of noblemen at table were often carried to Crumwell.
The mass of his correspondence that still remains, and the
private notes for his "remembrances," prove conclusively
that nothing was too trivial for him to inquire into. He was
ever anxiously watching, in order to guard against any pos
sible interference with his plans, and to entrap others whom
he had reason to fear.
Dean Hook gives a picture of the times when he writes,
and chefe secret counceler unto the king, turned himself to the bisshops and
sayd, 'Right Reverend fathers in Christ,' "&c. &c. (Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd
Ser., iii. p. 196).
1 Calendar, ix. No. 208 (Aug. 30, 1535).
2 Record Off., Chapter H. Books, B. \, eg., April 2nd, 30 H. VIII. " Item.
Mr. Gostwyke for the first fruits of my lord's divers benefices." Ibid. "29th.
The tenths for deanery of Wells."

Thomas Crumwell 143
that " in every county and village, almost in every homestead,
he had a secret force of informers and spies. They depended
on the patronage of the vicegerent, who, generous and des
potic, could give as well as take away. In the enthusiasm
of their selfish loyalty they were on the watch for traitors,
and in the well-paid piety of their hearts they had a terrible
dread' of superstition."1 Every modern notion of justice, or
of the certainty of fair and honest trials, must be altogether
laid aside in regard to the charges and convictions of this
period of our national history. Crumwell was on some
occasions " prosecutor, judge and jury." For a word of dis
approval about the king or his minister, for a jest or slighting
remark at their expense, the offender might find himself sum
moned before the magistrates to answer for his offence. The
accused and his accusers probably never met face to face.
Cases of serious import, often of life and death, were decided
on the depositions of men whose interest it was to obtain
convictions. Words spoken against Crumwell, or in condem
nation of a tyranny subversive of the first principles of free
dom, were construed into treason against the king and the
state. Even suspected persons, against whom no case could
be made out, might be summoned to have the oath of supre
macy tendered to them. Their houses could be ransacked
for evidence of disaffection, and they themselves brought
before the council in London, to be transferred untried or
unconvicted, if thought to be obstinate or otherwise ob
noxious, to the Marshalsea, the Tower, or Newgate.
Among the letters to Crumwell there is one from lord
William Howard, who writes to his master, saying, " I hear
it is your pleasure that I should go into the country to
hearken if there be any ill-disposed people in those parts
that would talk or be busy any way." 2 Another correspon
dent recommends for the service of Crumwell an informer
against religious persons.8
The libraries of monasteries were ransacked for evidence
of opposition to the new state of affairs, and even the
cherished store of pious books belonging to the country
priest — his service books and his very manuals of piety —
were overhauled to search out proofs of his clinging to the
faith and practice of his fathers. From Bath abbey, for
1 Lives of Archbishops, vi. p. 98. 2 Calendar, xi. No. 599.
» B. Mus. Cott. MS. Cleop., E. iv. 127 (106).

144 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
example, the zealous doctor Layton writes: "Ye shall here
with receive a book of Our Lady's miracles well able to
match the Canterbury tales. Such a book of dreams as
ye never saw, which I found in the library." 1 Another of
Crumwell's agents, a certain " Ralph Lane, junior," reports
that according to his master's commands he went after "the
books of one Sir Thomas Cantwell, parson of Hardwick . . .
which had been brought to a poor man's house in Whit
church." Having examined them, he selected and forwarded
to his employer five volumes " belonging to the said parson,
whereof three are entitled Homeliari fohis Echii, being all
three dated A.D. 1438 ; one book of the life of St. Thomas
Becket, and a missal wherein is the word papa ' throughoutly
uncorrected.' " 2
Another informer of a different class, William Walde-
grave, writes : " There is a chaplain of my lady Waldegrave,
my grandam, which is a papist and causes (those) here to
hold off from the truth, hath in his mass book daily this
Thomas Beckett's name with all his pestiferious collects."8
So also the curate of Wrington, Somerset, " will not abro
gate the name of Thomas Becket." This was taken in all
cases as a certain sign of wrong-headed obstinacy, and an
intention to resist the king's changes. The monks of Christ
church, Canterbury, got into trouble for singing the old
damnum apostolicum in their litanies, and the priest who
sang rngh mass was reported for keeping the pope's name
in the Canon.
All classes of society throughout the country were made
to feel, that they were subjected to the omnipotent will of
Thomas Crumwell and to the petty tyranny of those, who
thought to win his favour by proving that his power was
above all law and justice.4 When the chapel of Our Lady of
1 Calendar, ix. No. 42.
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xix. No. 20. See also 21, where the library of Dr.
Lussh, the vicar of Aylesbury, is searched. Also xliv. 35, where the prior of
Twynham is ordered to search for certain books.
3 Calendar, xiii. No. 1179.
4 Foxe, v. p. 896, ed. 1846, gives an instance of this. "Hereunto also
pertaineth the example of friar Bartley, who wearing still his friar's cowl after
the suppression of religious houses, Crumwell, coming into Paul's churchyard
and espying him in Rheines shop, 'Yea,' said he, 'will not that cowl of yours
be left off yet ? And, if I hear by one o'clock that this apparel be not changed,
thou shalt be hanged immediately for example of all others.' " Mr. Gairdner
(Calendar, xiii. (ii) preface, p. viii.) points out that this " friar Bartley " was in

Thomas Crumwell 145
Walsingham had been despoiled by the king's commissioners
and the image taken away, a report got noised abroad of
some grace or favour granted at the old shrine. Sir Roger
Townsend went there to find out the author of the report,
which might remind the people of their old attachment to
this place of pilgrimage, and so beget trouble. In a letter
written to Crumwell on January 20th he thus describes the
result of his visit : —
" There was a poor woman of Wells beside Walsingham
that imagined a false tale. . . And upon the trial thereof by
my examination from one person to another to the number
of six persons, and at last came to her that she was the re
porter thereof, and to be the very author of the same as far
as my conscience and perceiving could lead me. I committed
her, therefore, to the ward of the constables of Walsingham.
The next day after, being market day there, I caused her to
be set in the stocks in the morning,1 and about nine of the
clock, when the said market was fullest of people, with a
paper set about her head, written with these words upon the
same, 'a reporter qf false tales} was set in a cart and so
carried about the marketsted and other streets of the town,
staying in divers places where most people assembled, young
people and boys of the town casting snowballs at her. This
done and executed, she was brought to the stocks again, and
there set till the market was ended. This was her penance,
for I knew no law otherwise to punish her but my discretion,
trusting it shall be a warning to other light persons in such
wise to order themselves. Howbeit I cannot but perceive
that the said image is not yet out of some of their heads." 2
A Worcester man named Thomas Emans, servant to
Mr. Evans, got into difficulties for blaming the spoliation
of the shrine of Our Lady of Worcester. He was tried by
a mixed commission, headed by Latimer, the bishop of the
city. It was proved against him that he had come to the
church, and leaning on the shoulder of one Roger Cromps,
reality the celebrated Alexander Barclay, the poet and translator of Sebastian
Brandt's Ship of Fools. It is probable that the incident here referred to took
place in August or September 1 538. Barclay was hostile to the royal theology,
and is complained of as one who "doth much hurt in Cornwall and Devon
shire both with open preaching and private communications."
1 Note that it was in the depth of winter and snow on the ground, as will
be seen. 2 Ellis, Orig. Lett., 3rd Ser. iii. p. 162. K

146 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
had said : — " ' Lady, art thou stript now ; I have seen the day
that as clean men hath been stript at a pair of gallows,
as were they that stript thee.' Then he entered into the
chapel " and " knelt down, saying his Pater and Ave, and
kissed the image and turned to the people and said ' though
Our Lady's coat and her Jewells be taken away from her,
the similitude is no worse to pray unto having sorrow, than
it was before.' " The depositions carry on the story of this
bold and turbulent fellow, who confessed to the charge made
against him, no further than his committal to safe custody.1
It is impossible to peruse the records of these years of
Crumwell's supremacy without feeling deeply, that even a
pretence of justice and fair dealing was little thought of,
that prisoners were left to languish untried in the gaols of
the country, and to die in numbers from pestilence,2 which
was dignified on the public rolls into " a visitation of divine
providence." The long lists of those who were each term
called upon to find security for their good behaviour or con
victed of assembling for riotous purposes, are sufficient
proofs of the efforts made to extinguish the last remnants of
a struggle for freedom from the masterful rule of Crumwell
and his creatures.
We may judge, from an instance recorded by the historian
Stow, that at the height of his fame the all-powerful minister
was not less arbitrary as a man, than as the agent of a des
potic king's will. In his " Survey of London " Stow says : —
"On the south side and at thewestend of this church"(Augus-
tine friars in London) "many fair houses are builded, namely,
in Throgmorton Street one very large and spacious, builded
in the place of old and small tenements by Thomas Cromwell,
master of the rolls, &c. . . This house being finished, and
having some reasonable plot of ground left for a garden, he
caused the pales of the garden adjoining to the north part
thereof on a sudden to be taken down, twenty-two foot to be
measured forth right into the north of every man's ground,
a line there to be drawn, a trench to be cast, a foundation
laid and a high brick wall to be builded. My father had a
1 Calendar, xii. No. 587. The offence was committed on the eve of the
feast of the Assumption, 1537. The examination took place on the 19th
of August. 2 See the lists, twelve and twenty at a time, on the "Controlment Rolls"
for these years.

Thomas Crumwell 147
garden there, and a house standing close to his south pale,
this house they loosed from the ground and bare upon rollers
into my father's garden twenty-two foot, ere my father heard
thereof, no warning was given him, nor other answer, when
he spake to the surveyors of that work, but that their master
Sir Thomas commanded them so to do ; no man durst go to
argue the matter, but each man lost his ground. My father
paid his whole rent, which was six shillings and eight pence,
for that half which was left. Thus much of mine own know
ledge have I thought good to note, that the sudden rising of
some men causeth them to forget themselves. The company
of the drapers in London bought this house, and now the
same is their common hall."1
It is impossible to read the numerous letters addressed
to Thomas Crumwell and his instructions to his agents during
the period of the suppression ofthe monasteries, and to credit
him with even honesty in regard to his dealings with them.
Although their destruction was a foregone conclusion, and
the royal commissioners were fully instructed in their master's
purpose, he bids them expressly repudiate any such intention
on the part of the king. Doctor Layton writes from Norfolk
to his master, that he has done his best to stop the rumour
that the monasteries are all to go down ; that he has told the
monks and their neighbours that such a report is a slander
on the king's majesty, and adds that he " now understands
that your commandment therefore given me in your gallery
was much more weighty, than I at the time judged or sup
posed or would have believed if I had not seen the very
experience thereof." 2 The commandment was evidently in
tended to prevent the loss of plate or valuables got rid of by
the monks, in view of the threatened seizure of their property,
by falsely declaring that the king had no such designs of
destruction.8 During the eight years that Crumwell ruled England the
plunder he amassed by public and private spoliation was
*- Stow, Survey of London, ed. 1602, p. 180. Foxe has recorded other in
stances of Crumwell's arbitrary mode of acting.
2 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 102.
8 The same declaration that the king had no intention of suppressing the
monasteries that remained, and that he ' ' would not in any wise interrupt you
in your state and kind of living," is made in the draft of a letter from the king
to reassure the monasteries, probably in Crumwell's handwriting. B. Mus
Cleop. E. iv. fol. 86.

148 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
immense. The only policy possible for the monastic bodies
was one of attempted conciliation. By liberal donations,
presents and bribes to their supreme governor, they hoped
to buy off the evil day. Demands for leases, grants and
pensions, were made on the monasteries by Crumwell, or in
his name, without hesitation or consideration. Generally
what was asked was at once granted. The monks had no
option, except the prospect of involving their houses in
greater difficulties by refusal. Sometimes they pleaded
earnestly to be allowed to say no, when some farm or
pension was asked, that was necessary to support their
very existence or to maintain the poor who depended on
them. The account book1 of Crumwell's steward, Thomas
Avery, shows that large sums of money came to him by
way of presents from all manner of persons, ecclesiastical
and lay. Gifts of ^10 and ^20, for the new year, frequently
appear in its pages. Archbishops, bishops, abbots, and
priors, nobles and commoners, officials and unknown lay
men, towns, colleges and cathedral chapters, all sent in their
fees and new year donations, to propitiate the favour of the
great man. Some of the amounts are startling. On the
ist January, 1539, for instance, the account book records
money presents for the new year of ^800 (more than ^9000
of our present money). Fees of sums from ^10 to ^5°i
flow in for visitations of monasteries and dioceses and for
installation to ecclesiastical and civil offices. In the year
1 538, more than ^300 was paid, by the prior of St. Swithin's,
Winchester, into the private purse of Crumwell. At one
time the prior of Rochester pays ^100, at another the abbot
of Evesham £266. The agents he has employed in the
visitation of the monasteries, Layton, Legh, Ap Rice and
Petre, pay large sums in discharge of debts, as their master's
share in the visitation fees and as presents.
Cranmer, who certainly feared and distrusted his power
ful ecclesiastical superior, thought it necessary to secure to
him ^40 a year " as a memorial of his friendship." 2 From
Rowland Lee, the bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, Crum
well demands ^100 in return for the grant of some priory
secured to him, but this demand the bishop was bold enough
1 R. O. Chapter House Books, BJ.
2 More than ^400 a year of our money.

Thomas Crumwell 149
to refuse, saying that he had never promised it, and could
not spare it.1
Bribes of all kinds, unmistakable in their purposes, were
offered to him by those who had best reason to know the
secret of gaining what they desired. Layton, the most un
scrupulous of his tools, is frequently the channel by which
money of this kind is offered. For the elections at Fountains,
Gisborough, Whitby and many other places, large bribes
are offered to Crumwell in return for a nomination. If he
will make a certain monk abbot of Vale Royal " he will be
contented," writes Sir Piers Dutton, " to give your master
ship a ;£ioo in hand, and further to do you as large pleasure
as any man shall."2 From a certain John Parkyns there
are two offers of £ 100 for some coveted office "and faithful
service during my natural life." 8
Reports of the coming suppression produced many
tempting bribes offered to the all-powerful minister to
spare the doomed houses. The abbot of Pipwell will " do
all that a poor man can to gratify your lordship . . . with
^200." 4 If Peterborough 6 may be allowed to stand, Crum
well will find it worth his while; and to avert the fate of
dissolution from Colchester he is offered as much as ^2000
(£24,000 of our money). In fact, in the matter of bribes,
the character of Crumwell had been rightly judged by the
religious. For them, it was the last chance to purchase
further existence by liberal donations. The prior of Durham,
in a solemn letter, proposes to increase the annuity of £5
the monastery of S. Cuthbert had hitherto given him, to
;£io.6 The prioress of Catesby will give him a hundred
marks to buy a gelding, and the prayers of the convent for
life, if he can persuade the king to accept the 2000 marks
she has offered through the queen, as ransom for her house.7
Richard, the abbot of Leicester, sends £40, as he under
stands "it should be your pleasure,"8 and his successor,
the abbot John, who had to pay a yearly tax of £240, and
was deeply in debt, sends a present in kind, of "a brace
of fat oxen and a score of fat wethers."
As for presents, they come pouring in upon him on
all sides, fish from Croyland, apples from Kingslangley,
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxv. No. II. 2 Ibid., ix. fol. ioo.
3 Ibid., xxxii. 15, 16. 4 Ibid., xxxi. No. 51. 5 Wright, 179.
6 Ellis, Orig. Lett., 3rd Ser. iii. p. 44. 7 Ibid., p. 50. 8 Ibid., ii. p. 313.

1 50 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
partridges and pheasants from Harrow, Irish hawks from
Bath, geldings from Tewkesbury — these are but samples
of the endless variety and number of his presents, not the
least curious of which is £40 from one John Hunter
" towards furnishing of your cellar with wine, in recom
pense " for Crumwell's part in a law case relating to the
property of the writer's wife. His accounts reveal that con
siderable sums were received in a way to leave little doubt
that they were really " secret service " money. For example,
"in a purse," "in a white leather purse," "in a crimson
satteen purse," "in a handkerchief," "in a glove," "atArundel
in a glove," "in a pair of gloves under a cushion, in the
middle window of the gallery." Some of the other items
of receipt are hardly less suspicious ; for example, " a chain
which melted acquired for my lord £482 " (more than £5000
of our money). "Trapes, the goldsmith, in full payment,
£1348, 15s. 2d.," and "Bowes for 144 oz. of gold,
£274, us. od."1
x Crumwell's share of the monastic spoils has yet to be
calculated. A great deal came into his hands by way of
grant from the crown,2 and much more by private arrange
ment with those to whom, perhaps through his instrumen
tality, it had been given. His accounts show, that during
the years of suppression he was expending large sums in
the purchasing of estates. In the last two years of his life
he must have spent some £10,000 in this way, a very large
sum in those days, and equal to about £120,000 of our
money. Large amounts of money pass between him and his
agents, which have a suspicious look. Sir Thomas Elliot 3
promises him the first year's fruits from any lands of sup
pressed monasteries granted to him by his intervention, and
his "remembrances" are full of suggestive hints on this
matter.4 " Item," he notes, " to remember Warren for one
1 R. O. Chapter H. Books, B. i, fol. 25, &c.
2 Amongst these must be enumerated Lewes priory, in Sussex, with its cell
at Melton-Mowbray, in Leicestershire ; the priories of Mickelham, in Sussex ;
Modenham, in Kent; St. Osithe's, in Essex ; Alcester, in Warwick ; Yarmouth,
in Norfolk; and Laund, in Leicestershire. His nephew, Sir Richard, the
great-grandfather of the Protector, had Ramsey abbey, Hinchinbrooke, Sawtry,
St. Neot's, Neath abbey, St. Helen's, London, and other property of monas
teries he helped to suppress as a royal commissioner.
8 Strype, Eccl. Mems., i. 1, 399, 407.
4 B. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus, B. 1, fols. 446-459,

Thomas Crumwell 151
monastery, Mr. Gostwyke1 for a monastery, John Freeman
for Spalding, Mr. Kingsmill for Wherwell, myself for Laund.2
Item, to remember John Godsalve for something, for he hath
need," and " Item, to remember to know the true value of
the goods of Castleacre for my part thereof." Whether he
got these goods does not appear, but those of the priory
of Lewes came into his possession and were sold by him,
as appears from his account book. "May 19th, Thomas
Busshope, for the sale of divers goods and cattle at Lewes
in part payment of a more sum, £467, 13s. o£d." Other
items of the sale produced nearly .£1200, a large total from
the spoils of one monastery for his private purse, represent
ing some .£17,000 of our money.8 Crumwell also received
a grant of the priory of Lewes, and having made some
alterations and removed superfluous buildings, the record of
which appears in his expenses, he allowed his son Gregory,
then lately married, to go there with his wife to occupy
the monastery from whence the monks had been expelled.
Gregory writes to his father to say Mrs. Crumwell found the
buildings "very commodious."*
In his expenditure Crumwell appears to have been
lavish. His household cost him, for some time at least,
more than ^iooa month, and he indulged considerably his
taste for building. In former days he had warned his
master, Wolsey, to beware of this very attractive but dan
gerously fascinating and expensive taste, but when in the
height of his power, he himself had buildings in progress
at the "Rolls," Austin Friars, Hackney, Mortlake and at
Ewhurst. He purchased estates 6 as he could get the oppor-
1 There were large money transactions between Gostwyke and Crumwell
at this period. The former, in one month, pays "on his bills obligatory " more
than ^3000, and, on the other hand, Crumwell pays by " way of present " at
one time ;£iooo, and eighteen months later £2000.
2 Illustrating this " remembrance " of "Laund for himself" there is a letter
from Thomas Frysby, a canon of the house, accompanying a present of cheese
to Crumwell. In it he says that his good master need not thank the abbot
for the gift, and concludes : " Pleaseth it your good mastership to call to your
remembrance when ye lay here with us at Launde abbey some time, ye would
take pains to talk with me or my brethren about our business." He made
himself, so it seems, well acquainted with the property. See Blunt, i. p. 377.
8 Chapter House Books, B. $, fol. 70.
'S.O. Crum. Corr., vii. fol. 171.
8 As examples, in his account book we find : — "Lord Latimer, the pur
chase of land, ^280; the chancellor of augmentations, ditto, j£8oo; Sir
Gregory Somerset, purchase of his house at Kew, ^200; Lord Clynton,

152 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
tunity, some the spoils of dissolved monasteries, some the
hereditary lands of the old nobles, sold to meet their liabili
ties. No doubt, with Crumwell's eye for his own interests,
many of them were as great bargains as the annuity of
£84 a year seems to have been, which he purchased of Sir
William Gascoyne for £333.
Crumwell also indulged considerably in a taste for gold
smith's and jeweller's work. Cups, eWers, and trenchers of
gold ; platters, dishes and saucers of silver by the dozen,
are expenses incurred to " Mr. Trappes of London," John of
Antwerp, and Bastian the jeweller; while we would gladly
know something more of some of the items of account, such
as " the cross of gold of Saint Albans," for which he paid
.£106 to "Aston the auditor," and "the diamond and ruby"
sold by "Jenyns the jeweller" to him, for the enormous
price of ^2000.
On his amusements Crumwell spent his money freely.
At bowls, cards and dice he appears to have lost sums
varying from twenty shillings to ^30. He was, moreover,
liberal in treating the king and court to masks, shows and
other spectacles, and minstrels, hobby-horses and players all
come in for a share of the plunder of monastery and con
vent. More than the yearly pension of many a monk and
nun went "for trimming of Divine Providence when she
played before the king," and for " the collar of velvet for the
strange beast my lord gave to the king."
It remains to speak of the ending to his career, which
took place in well-merited infamy. By a nemesis of fate he
passed to the scaffold suddenly, almost untried, and certainly
unheard in his own defence, and this was possibly by virtue
of an act he had devised and obtained, to get rid of incon
venient rivals and others bold enough to oppose his lawless
policy or thwart his schemes. Rumours had not been
wanting that the minister's influence over Henry had not
been so paramount, for some time before his final disgrace.
The king, to whom Wolsey had "kneeled the space some
times of three hours to persuade from his will and appetite,"
but without success, did not become more easy to lead in
purchase of manors at Golston, Folkeston, and Walton, £2374 ; the prior
of Folkeston, £263, is. 3d. ; Sir John Dudley, manor of Holden, Sec,
£3490 ; Sir Thomas Pope, manor of Dunford by Wandsworth, £266, 13s.
4d.," &c, &c.

Thomas Crumwell 153
Crumwell's time. Report spoke of scenes in the audience
chamber, when the royal wilfulness developed such an ex
treme of passion as to result in the boxing of Lord Crum
well's ears right soundly. Castillon, the French ambassador,
had heard his majesty read a lesson to the lord privy seal,
and tell him " he might be fit to look after household duties
but not to manage the business of kings." 1
On 1 ith June, 1540, Marillac, who had succeeded
Castillon as ambassador of France, wrote that he had
heard, an hour before sending his despatch, that Crumwell
had been sent to the Tower. He added that it is impossible
to foretell how this arrest might change the whole public
policy of the king, " even as regards innovations in religious
matters, in which Crumwell had been the prime mover."2
Henry was anxious that Marillac should understand fully the
reason of the minister's downfall, and at once sent, asking
him to suspend his judgment till their next interview, when
he would explain everything. In the meantime he was to
believe that it was because Crumwell had been found to be
a heretic at heart, and had supported false German teaching
in spite of the king's wishes, boasting that he was powerful
enough to do what he liked.8
Oh the 23d June, the ambassador received a full account
of what had taken place, and wrote the substance of his in
formation to the Constable of France. From this letter4 it
appears that Crumwell was altogether unprepared for his
downfall. When the lieutenant of the Tower entered the
council chamber at Westminster and informed him that he
was ordered to take him prisoner, Crumwell, moved with
indignation, threw his hat on the floor, and declared that he
had never done anything but for the king and in his service.
Some of the council called out that he was a traitor, and
must be judged "by the laws he had himself made, and
which," as Marillac explains, "were so sanguinary that a
few words, often perhaps spoken inadvertently or in good
faith, could be construed into the crime of high treason."
The duke of Norfolk tore the order of St. George from his
neck, and the Garter was also taken from him. Before the
news spread, Crumwell had already been lodged in the
1 Inventaire Analytique des Archives, &>c, ed. Kaulek, No. 62, May 14,
I538- 2 md., No. 226. 3 Bid., No. 189. 4 md., No. 231.

1 54 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Tower, and the people obtained their first knowledge of
the arrest by seeing the king's officers, attended by a large
retinue of archers, enter the fallen minister's house for the
purpose of searching it.
Lord Crumwell had few friends and many enemies.
The duke of Norfolk assured Marillac that he was to die
"by the most ignoble punishment then in use,"1 and, as
the ambassador considered, his only staunch friend was
Cranmer, "who dared not speak a word in his favour."2
The day following the arrest, Henry began to distribute his
fallen favourite's offices, and sent through the streets of
London to proclaim " that henceforth no one should call him
'Lord Privy Seal' or by any other title or dignity, but
simply ' Thomas Crumwell, cloth carder,' and that the king
had taken from him every privilege and title of nobility
which he had ever granted him." 8
The record of his attainder4 gives more information
about the charges brought against him than can be learnt
about many of his victims. After stating how much the
king had done for him, the bill continues: "Yet never
theless" it has been proved that he has been "a false and
corrupt traitor," setting at liberty those he thought fit,
and selling " for many-fold sums of money " various grants,
even to foreigners and aliens.
Further, he hath of his own will granted passports, and
being a " detestable heretic," has sent over England a great
number of false and erroneous books, leading people to a
disbelief " in the most holy and Blessed Sacrament of the
altar and other articles of the christian religion." And after
these books were translated, he declared the "material heresy
so translated good," and also declared "that it was lawful
for every christian man to be a minister of the said sacra
ment as well as a priest."
As vicegerent under the great seal, he "licensed divers
persons detected and suspected of heresy, openly to
preach and teach," saying "that he would fight even
against the king to maintain these heresies. . . . And then
and there most traitorously pulled out his dagger and held it
up on high saying these words : Or else this dagger thrust
me to the heart if I would not die in that quarrel against
1 Inventaire Analytique, No. 197. 2 Ibid., No. 227. 3 Ibid., No. 231.
4 Parliament Roll, 32 Henry VIII., m. 60.

Thomas Crumwell 155
them all, and I trust if I live a year or two, it shall not lie
in the king's power to resist or let it if he would."
Furthermore the said Thomas Crumwell " hath acquired
and obtained into his possession by oppression, bribery, ex
torted power and false promises " immense sums of money
and treasure.
Posterity may be grateful that the avenging hand came
upon him so suddenly. His arrest, unexpected by all, gave
him no time to destroy the papers which had accumulated
in the course of his administration, and which we may well
believe he would have been unwilling for other eyes than
his own to see. On the morning of the 10th of June, 1540,
he was supreme in England,1 the evening saw him a prisoner
in the Tower, and his fate practically sealed. After begging
in the most servile terms that his life might be spared, he
was brought out to the scaffold on Tower hill, on the 28th
of June. John Stow, the chronicler, records the following
speech. " I am come hither to die, and not to purge myself,
as some think peradventure, that I will. For if I should do
so I were a very wretch and miser. I am by the law con
demned to die, and thank my lord God that hath appointed
me this death for mine offences. For since the time that I
have had years of discretion I have lived a sinner, and
offended my lord God, for which I ask him heartily forgive
ness. And it is not unknown to many of you that I have
been a great traveller in this world, and, being but of base
degree, I was called to high estate, and since the time I
came thereunto, I have offended my prince, for which I ask
him heartily forgiveness; and I beseech you all to pray to
God with me, that he will forgive me. And now I pray you
1 In a letter to Bullinger from Rich. Hilles (Zurich Letts., Parker Soc,
105) the following account is given: — " Not long before the death of Crom
well, the king advanced him, and granted him large houses and riches, and
more public offices, together with very extensive and lucrative domains ; and
in the same way he also endowed queen Anne a short time before he beheaded
her. But some persons now suspect that this was all an artifice, to make
people conclude that he must have been a most wicked traitor. . . It was
from a like artifice, as some think, that the king conferred upon Cromwell's
son Gregory, who was almost a fool, his father's title and many of his domains,
while he was yet living in prison, that he might more readily confess his
offences against the king at the time of execution. . . There are, moreover,
other parties who assert, with what truth God knows, that Cromwell was
threatened to be burned at the stake and not to die by the axe, unless at the
time of the execution he would acknowledge his crimes against the king, and
that he then said, ' I am altogether a miserable sinner ! ' "

156 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
that be here to bear me record, I die in the catholic faith,
not doubting in any article of my faith ; no, nor doubting in
any sacrament of the church. Many have slandered me
and reported that I have been a hearer of such as have
maintained evil opinions, which is untrue. But I confess,
that like as God, by his holy spirit, doth instruct us in truth
— so the devil is ready to seduce us — and I have been
seduced." Thus died unwept and unpitied the man for whose
punishment the people had clamoured three years before,
in their struggles for freedom from his tyranny. John
Gostwyke, his trusted secretary, to whom he had lent con
siderable sums of money, and whom he had " remembered
to a monastery," writes to the king : — " May it please your
most excellent majesty to be advertised that I your most
humble servant John Gostwyke have in my hands, which I
treasured from time to time unknown to the earl of Essex,
which if I had declared unto him he would have caused me
to disburse by commandment without warrant as hitherto
I have done, £10,000." x
A few days before the execution, the French ambassador
wrote, that "Crumwell's effects appear, by inventory, to be
less valuable than was expected, though enough and too much
for a man of such base origin. He had in money £7000
sterling, which is equal to 28,000 crowns of our coinage.
The silver vessels, including many crosses, chalices, mitres,
vases, and other spoils of the Church, might amount to
rather more than that sum.2 All these were carried in the
night to the royal treasury, a sign that the king has already
no intention of restoring them. . . . The following day many
letters were found."8
"Thomas Crumwell, the cloth carder" (to give him
the style ordered by Henry VIII.), was regretted by very
few in England, fie had plundered defenceless men and
women ; he had endeavoured to rob the religious of their
reputations as he had of their property ; he had defrauded
1 B. Mus. Cott. MS., Appendix xxviii. fol. 125.
2 Considering the large sums that Crumwell had spent on the purchase
of real property, building, &c, £7000 in money and about the same in Church
spoils is a very great amount. To this must be added the ^10,000 in Gost-
wyke's hands, making in all about ,£24,000, or more than a quarter of a
million of our money 1
8 Inventaire, &c, ut sup., No. 231.

Thomas Crumwell 157
the people of their rights, and had seized upon the patri
mony of the poor; he had deprived the sick and aged of
their hospitals and places of refuge ; he had driven monks
and nuns from their cloisters, to wander homeless in poverty
and disgrace. But his day of reckoning came at last, and
in merited ignominy his career closed.

CHAPTER IX
The Chief Accusers of the Monks, Layton, Legh,
Ap Rice and London
THE instruments selected by Crumwell to carry out his
designs in regard to the monasteries were from his point
of view well fitted for the work. They were not troubled
with scruples of conscience or unnerved by tenderness in
effecting the end their master had in view. "The in
quisitors," remarks Fuller, the historian, "were men who
well understood the message they were sent on, and would
not come back without a satisfactory answer to him who
sent them, knowing themselves to be no losers thereby."1
They were, and professed themselves to be, completely
dependent on Crumwell. That they would not hesitate to
serve him and their own interests, even at the expense of
their honesty, is made clear from their own letters.
" Seldom in the world's history has a tyrant found baser
instruments for his basest designs than Henry found for
carrying out the visitation of the English monasteries. . . .
That any monastery in England contained half-a-dozen such
wretches as the more prominent of the visitors who came
to despoil them is almost inconceivable. It is a sickening
story. The reader ... is in danger of disbelieving everything
that these men report in his indignation at the audacious
and manifest lying which characterises their reports." 2
"Legh and Layton," writes Mr. Froude, "were accused
subsequently of having borne themselves with overbearing
insolence; they were said also to have taken bribes, and
where bribes were not offered to have extorted them from
the houses which they spared. That they went through
their business roughly is exceedingly probable, whether
needlessly so must not be concluded from the report of
1 History, ii. p. 214. Dean Hook adopts Fuller's estimate of these tools
of Crumwell. 2 Athenaiim, on Mr. Gairdner's Letters and Papers, ix. Nov. 27, 1886.
158

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 159
persons to whom their entire occupation was sacrilege.
That they received money is evident from their own reports
to the government, but it is evident also that they did not
attempt to conceal that they received it."1
At various times between 1535 and 1538, a considerable
number of commissioners appear to have been sent to visit
the monasteries, to receive theu- surrender, or superintend
their spoliation and destructions?!/ The chief of the inquisi
tors, however, were Doctor Richard Layton, Thomas Legh,
Doctor John London, and John Ap Rice. Two others,
Richard Yngworth, suffragan bishop of Dover, and William
Petre were engaged principally in the subsequent work of
dissolution. Upon the authority of the first four, and chiefly,
if not entirely, on that of Layton, Legh and Ap Rice, rest
the charges made against the monasteries. No inquiry was
ever instituted (as far as can be ascertained) into the truth
of their reports. They gathered them from the gossip of ill-
disposed and malicious persons, and it becomes, therefore,
of importance to understand who they were that made
themselves responsible for these charges. " It is not im
possible," writes a modern author, " that even such bad men
may have told the truth in this matter : but the character
of witnesses must always form an important element in
estimating the value of their testimony, and the character of
such obscene, profligate, and perjured witnesses as Layton
and London could not well be worse. These men were
not 'just Lots vexed with the filthy conversation of the
wicked,' but 'filthy dreamers,' who defiled the flesh, despised
ecclesiastical dominion, and spake evil of dignities in the
very spirit ofthe evil one."3
, The more the letters and reports of these royal agents
are examined, the less worthy of credit does their testimony
appear. The word of men of their stamp would be accepted
in no matter of serious import. However hopeless, there
fore, it may be, after this lapse of time, to disprove the
charges made by them, the very fact that they rest only on
such testimony should be enough to discredit them. For,
as Mr. Gairdner says: "We have no reason, indeed, to
think highly of the character of Crumwell's visitors." 4 It is
i 1 History, iii. p. 97.
©The names of thirty-eight are given by Oldmixon. History, p. 107.
8 Blunt, Reformation, i. p. 359. 4 Calendar, x. Pref. xliii.

160 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
absolutely upon the word of such men, unsupported by other
evidence, that the monks have been condemned.
Dr. Richard Layton may be considered the most important
of the four monastic inquisitors. He was without doubt the
most active and zealous of the servants of Thomas Crumwell.
His letters, which are the most numerous and most full of
detail, abound in the most filthy accusations, general and
particular. They manifest the prurient imagination of one
who was familiar with vice in its worst forms. On the face
of them, they are the outpourings of a thoroughly brutal and
depraved nature; even still, they actually seem to soil the
hand that touches them. He tells his stories in a way to
allow of no doubt that evil has for him a zest, and that
he believes his master will appreciate and approve his foul
suggestions. The origin of this unworthy priest was humble. In one
of his letters to Crumwell he^ says that but for him, he would
have been a basket-bearer jS/yet he obtained considerable
ecclesiastical preferments. He had the sinecure rectory of
Stepney, the living of St. Faith's and that of Harrow on
the Hill; was prebendary of Kentish Town, dean of the
collegiate church of Chester le Street, archdeacon of Buck
ingham, and finally dean of York.
His letters to Crumwell show that a complete under
standing existed between them as to the object of his mission.
From the outset, when he petitioned for the employment, he
professed to have a desire to serve his master's interests in
every way. In return, he is constantly requesting some
office or other reward, for himself or friends. In the late
summer of 1535, he writes his excuses for having somewhat
mistaken Crumwell's intentions, and then proceeds to make
explanations as to the injunctions which he had given to
houses already visited. On the representation of some of
the other zealous visitors, Crumwell had blamed these orders
"as very slender," and not pleasing to the king. Layton
replied with all the confidence of conscious genius, " I dare
say well that when you have known my conceit in the rules
and injunctions premised, and what I have there done in
every condition, the king shall have no less expectation of
your affairs than his grace hath had heretofore. Praying
\
„' -1 Cooper, Athena Cantab., i. p. 530.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 161
God right effectuously that rather I may be buried quick
than be the occasion why the king's highness should diminish
any part of the confidence or expectation of your assured
and proved mind towards his grace." * But confident as he
was, Layton was made to see that his power and accepta
bility to his employers lay in one direction only.
In this same visitation Layton makes another mistake in
praising the great abbey of Glastonbury. For this he was
taken to task by Crumwell, who evidently told him he had
not been sent on his round for the purpose of approving.
He replies, "Whereas I understand by Mr. Pollard you much
marvel why I would so greatly praise to the king's majesty
at the time of visitation, the abbot of Glaston, who appeareth
not, neither then nor now, to have known God, nor his prince,
nor any part of a good Christian man's religion. So that my
excessive and indiscrete praise that time unadvisedly made
to my sovereign lord must needs now redound to my great
folly and untruth, and cannot be well redubbed, but much
diminish my credit towards his majesty, and even so to your
lordship; whom I most humbly beseech to consider that I
am a man and may err, and cannot be sure of my judgment
to know the inward thoughts of a monk, being fair in words
and outward appearance and inwardly cankered as now
by your discreet inquisition appeareth. And although they
be all false, feigned, flattering hypocritical knaves, as un
doubtedly there is none other of that sort. I must therefore
now at this my necessity, most humbly beseech your lordship
to pardon me for that my folly then committed, as you have
done many times heretofore; and of your goodness to mitigate
the king's highness majesty in the premisses. And from
henceforth I shall be more circumspect whom I shall com
mend either to his grace or to your lordship." 2
Layton's letters show that he was on all occasions the
mere subservient tool of Henry VIII. and his more imme
diate master, Crumwell. As Anthony Wood puts it, " He did
much to please the unlimited desires of the king." Henry
and his minister had determined to make out a case against
the monasteries, and Layton was just the man to assist them.
He did not hesitate to promise to be a very " alter ego " to
Crumwell, who could " trust him even as well as your own-
1 Calendar, ix. No. 7. 2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xx. No. 14.
L

1 62 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
self." Both he and Dr. Legh, he says, have to depend en
tirely on Crumwell as their "Mtzcenatem et unicum patronum,"
and their only desire, therefore, is to declare their "true
hearts and faithful mind," and the "fast and unfeigned ser
vice " they bear him.1
If Layton's ingenuity, aided by promises or threats, failed
(even from an "old beldame," upon whose gossipings two
Gilbertine nuns are charged with grave crime) to extract any
accusation against a house, the place is " confederated." In
fact, the first principle with this visitor, in regard to monks
and nuns, is, as he expresses it, that "they be all false, feigned,
flattering hypocritical knaves." 2 If they are not, they must
be made to appear so, and are treated as such. If they do
not declare themselves to be vile, they must have agreed to
gether to conceal their evil deeds. If, as in the case of the
canons of the abbey of Leicester, for instance, he can bring
no definite charges, still, " to divers of them " he intends " to
object" the foulest accusations, which he "has learned of
other (but not of any of them)." 8
Dr. Layton's money transactions with Crumwell were
considerable. There is abundant evidence to prove, that he
knew when to tender a bribe and when to determine a special
course of action by the suggestion of its pecuniary possibili
ties. He did what he promised to do, and kept his eyes
open for his master's advantage. As Legh, his companion,
writes : " Layton is now at Fountains to do your wishes." *
In this instance these were, to get a large bribe for the
appointment of a new abbot.
That he fully understood Crumwell's weakness for pro
fitable transactions and accessibility to bribes cannot be
questioned. In one of his letters, he points out that the
injunctions to the bishops " shall be much profitable ... to
your mastership." Shortly after, he offers in behalf of
Marmaduke Bradley, a large bribe for the office of abbot of
Fountains.6 There is something about Doctor Layton's obsequi
ous servility to his master which is particularly repulsive.
Nothing could be more exaggerated in sentiment than one
expression he used, when he invited Crumwell down to his
rectory at Harrow and said: — "Surely Simeon was never
1 Wright, 157. Layton to Crumwell. a Calendar,i\. p. 157.
8 Ibid., p. 93. 4 Ibid., xxii. 19. B Ibid., p. 101.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 163
so glad to see Christ his master, as I shall be to see your
lordship." a At one period of his career, Layton was anxious
to get the office of chancellor to the diocese of Salisbury.
For this, he did not hesitate to offer Crumwell a large bribe.
"For your travail therein taken," he writes, "I will give
you .£100." 2 Subsequently he was made dean of York.
To judge from his letter written to Crumwell in the January
of 1536, he was on the look out for the office, even on his
first tour of monastic inspection and three years before he
got the coveted post. When at last he did obtain it through
"the good mind " of Crumwell, he showed his old partiality
for ecclesiastical plate by pawning what belonged to the
Minster. After his death it had to be redeemed by the
chapter.8 Layton does not, however, appear to have been contented
with his deanery in the north, and probably desired more
active employment. He wanted to come up to Convocation,
but writes to his master, " I dare not without your leave."
He concludes by reminding him that he had often said
he would "get him placed beyond the seas."4 Crumwell
aparently kept his promise and found him occupation abroad.
This appears likely, as Layton's death occurred at Brussels
in 1545. Thomas Legh, a doctor of civil law, was the companion
of Doctor Layton on more than one of his visitation tours.
He had been a member of King's College, Cambridge,
and visited that university as Crumwell's deputy in 1535.
Shortly after, whilst engaged during the autumn with Ap
Rice in visiting various monasteries, the latter gives Crum
well an account of the character of the man the king's vicar
general had selected for this work. He describes him, as
"a young man of intolerable elation," who went about with
a retinue of twelve servants in livery. He dressed himself,
John Ap Rice says, in a most costly fashion, and did not
hesitate to browbeat and ill-treat the abbots and superiors
1 Quoted in Home and Foreign Review, 1864, p. 181.
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., vol. xx. 38.
8 B. Mus. Harl. MS., 6971. Excerpts from York Registers. " Mem.
March 27, 1 544. Several Jewells and plate appertaining to the Church of
York, pawned by Richard Layton late dean, for a certain term of years, are
now, by consent of the prebends, ordered to be redeemed with money extracted
out ofthe chest of divident."
4 R. O. Crum. Corr., xx. No. 27.

164 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
of the houses he came to visit, in an overbearing and insolent
fashion. He had abused right roundly the abbots of Bruton
and Stanley, the prior of Bradstock and others, for not being
at the doors of their monasteries to meet him, although they
had received no warning of his visit, and could not possibly
have known what he expected from them.
Ap Rice, moreover, shows disinclination to be associated
with him, " lest he with his bold excuses, wherein he is, I
advise you, very ready, would have overcome me, being but
of small audacity specially in accusations, for I am not
eloquent in accusations as some men be." Even Ap Rice is
thus unwilling to endorse the charges Legh was ever un
scrupulously ready to prefer against the monasteries, the
inmates of which he treated "in his insolent and pompa-
tique " manner.
As to the fees and bribes Legh demanded from the
monks, Ap Rice's letter, quoted above, tells us enough.
" He asketh," he writes, " no less than £20 as of due for
every election, which, in my opinion, is too much, and above
any duty that was ever taken before." If the unfortunate
victims of his tyranny did not tender him what he pleased
to consider the value of his services, he refused their gift.
They were then forced to send after him whatever sum he
wished to get. "Surely," adds Ap Rice, "religious men
were never so afraid of Dr. Allen as they be of him, he
useth such rough fashion with them." 1
These fees were, no doubt, shared by Crumwell, for
considerable sums of money for elections and visitations
certainly passed into the visitor general's private accounts.
Sometimes, it is clear, that Dr. Legh did a good stroke of
business for his master, as when he obtained from William
Basing, on his election as prior of St. Swithin's, Winchester,
a promise of ^500 "under his writing obligatory."2 The
payments of this sum appear in Crumwell's account books.
From the same prior of Winchester, Legh obtained for his
master a patent for an annuity of £20, to be continued also
to his master's son Gregory Crumwell.
It has already been pointed out that Ap Rice told
Crumwell that he apprehended nothing less than murder,—
1 Calendar, ix. No. 622.
2 Ibid., x. No. 485. A large sum in those days, and equal to nearly
£6000 of our money.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 165
" irrecoverable harm," as he puts it, — from Legh's familiar
"rufflers and serving-men" did he, Legh, come to know
that his conduct had been animadverted on to the minister
by his fellow-visitor. Yet by the reports of such a man,
as described by his own companion, has the character of the
religious houses been judged. Nearly every unfavourable
account given of the monasteries can be traced to the author
ship of either Layton or Legh, or is a joint production of
these two creatures of Crumwell.
Legh, notwithstanding the complaints made against him,
was not recalled, but, on the contrary, was employed more
constantly than ever in the work of visitation. A letter of
admonition, however, was sent. Legh returned a penitent
reply, and promised to give up his velvet gown and to
discharge some of his servants.1 Very possibly Crumwell
recognised by Ap Rice's description of Legh's excesses and
unscrupulous violence, that he was a fit instrument for the
special work of driving the religious in very despair to
surrender their houses and themselves to the king's tender
mercies. The explanation Legh gave of the necessity of
strong coercive measures at first, in order that petitions for
mitigation which would flow in might be a source 2 of gain
to his master, would, no doubt, have great weight with
Crumwell, and counterbalance the opinion of Ap Rice that
it was not politic to press matters on the religious as hardly
as Legh was doing.
,„. The views Dr. Legh propounded as to the utility of united
* action on the part of the visitors, show that he clearly under
stood the object of the king and Crumwell in instituting the
visitation. Dr. Layton did not, in his opinion, press matters
forward in the way of enforcing impossible injunctions with
proper vigour and determination. Although he admitted
that the regulations were in reality unworkable in practice,
still he thought that the religious should be compelled to
observe them, in order that they might be brought all the
sooner to abandon the useless struggle.8
It is with evident relish, that Legh also relates any story
adverse to the reputation of monk or nun. It is impossible
not to suspect that many of them spring from his own fer
tile imagination, without even the foundation of encouraged
1 Calendar, ix. No. 651. 2 Ibid., No. 265. -
3 Cf. Mr. Gairdner's Preface, p. xx., to Calendar, vol. ix. *\
v-

1 66 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
malicious suggestion. Of the prioress of Sopham he reports
that she has bestowed a benefice on a certain friar, whom
"they say she love well," and adds, "to make you laugh" I
send you a letter which is supposed to have come to her
from some lady, but " as is conjectured " was sent by the
friar.1 He well knows what Crumwell wants. Just as
Layton thought his master would look upon the tale of the
abbot of Langdon as a "comedy," so Legh thinks he will
not fail to enjoy his scandalous " conjecture." On the same
principle, when he "does not doubt" but that his master
will find " many things worthy of reformation," he adds, " by
the knowledge whereof I suppose the king's highness and
you will be glad." And, not the less, for this reason, that
" it shall be much profitable " to you.2
So notorious did the two visitors, Legh and Layton,
become throughout the country, that against them and their
master, Crumwell, the anger of the insurgents in Lincoln
shire and the North was chiefly directed. "The chief
commissioner, Dr. Legh," writes Chapuys to the queen
regent, " who was specially obnoxious to the people, as the
summoner of your aunt (queen Catherine) now in glory,
before the archbishop of Canterbury, contrived to escape,
but his cook was taken, and as a beginning the people
hanged him. A gentleman belonging to the lord privy seal,
who is called master Crumwell, tried to stop them, and he too
was immediately laid hands on, wrapped in the hide of a
newly killed calf and worried and devoured by dogs, the
mob swearing they would do the same for his master."3
The Yorkshire " Pilgrims of Grace " also demanded
" that Dr. Legh and Dr. Layton may have condign punish
ment for their extortions in time of visitation, in bribes of
some religious houses .£10 and £20 and other sums, besides
horses, advowsons, leases under convent seals by them
taken, and other abominable acts by them committed and
done."4 Mr. Froude even, admits "these two men bore
themselves with overwhelming insolence, and to have taken
bribes, and when bribes were not offered to have extorted
them from the houses which he spared." 6
Thomas Legh was given the mastership of Sherburn
1 Calendar, ix. No. 708. L _) 2 Wright, p. 96.
3 Quoted by Froude, Thomas Pilgrim.
4 Speed, p. 1022, " Ex originale MS." 5 History, iii. p. 97.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 1 67
hospital, in the county of Durham, in September 1535. He
took possession of his office and wrote his thanks to his
master early in the following year.1 By the statutes of this
institution, the master was charged with the maintenance
of thirteen poor brethren and two lepers, but Legh treated
the goods of the poor as if they had been his own. " The
delinquencies of former masters were but a type of his." 2
He leased the property of the hospital to his own relations,
and granted away the patronage of many good livings.
Moreover, he contracted with those who farmed the pro
perty, for the maintenance of only eight poor men and
women. Although the leases he granted required the
consent of the inmates, he sent the documents for their
signatures already sealed with the common seal, and they
set their names "for fear of master Legh's displeasure."
During the whole of his office he never required the assent
of the brethren to any of his improvident grants. Altogether
in this office of trust he acted " to the utter disinheritance,
decay and destruction of the ancient and godly foundation
ofthe same house."3
The third of the names chiefly associated with the visita
tion and suppression of the monasteries is that of John Ap
Rice. During the autumn of 1535 he was occupied as
companion to Legh, and conjointly with him brought serious
accusations against many of the religious houses they visited.
He had been employed as scribe in the examination of
prisoners and witnesses in the Tower, and had written out
the blank forms of acknowledgment of the king's supremacy,
which had been sent for signature to the various religious
houses. For these services he asked Crumwell to obtain
him some reward, and especially "as he made a breve
1 Calendar, x. No. 288. 2 Surtees' Durham, i. 140.
8 Depositions in 1557 before a Commission of Inquiry. Surtees' Durham,
i. 130. That Henry himself distrusted Legh seems clear from an inquiry he
ordered as to the sums of money he had received at the dissolution of various
religious houses. Sir John Daunce, who made the inquisition, notes : —
" Memorandum as touching the plate that was supposed to be sold by the
late abbot of Merivale, to George Warren, goldsmith of London, to the value
of ;£i8, whereof information was given to Dr. Legh and William Cavendish
after they had dissolved the said monastery, riding by the way, the same Dr.
Legh* and W. Cavendish sent unto the said late abbot for the said ,£18. This
£\% they confess that the late abbot sent to them by one of their servants by
the way (begging) to be good masters unto him and his brethren. And (this)
the said Cavendish doth affirm by his answer. Also by the said Doctor Legh
confessing the same. Daunce." — Exch. Q. R. Miscell. Suppress. Papers ^.

1 68 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
docket" for the king "out of all his highness' late visitation,
compendiously touching the name, the order, the state,
the number and the dates of every religious house in the
realm."1 We have seen how Ap Rice reported the conduct of his
companion Legh, of whom he had a wholesome dread, and
how he had besought Crumwell that it might never be known
from whom the accusation came. He not unnaturally sup
posed that his master would set some one to spy upon him,
as he had been made to do on Legh ; consequently he says :
— "For my own dealing and behaviour I trust you shall
have no cause of complaint against me. One thing humbly
desiring your mastership that you give no light credence till
the matter be proved and my defence heard."2 That he had
been previously in serious trouble is evident from the fact
that he feared to report about Legh, because Crumwell
might then have thought he had done so in retaliation.
" Supposing that you, considering how he was one of them
that depraved me heretofore with your mastership, for no
just cause, but for displeasure which he have towards me
for certain causes, which I will declare unto you more at
leisure." 3
What the accusations were, which Legh had made against
him, do not appear. They were, however, apparently of a
nature discreditable enough, under ordinary circumstances,
to have rendered his employment, as a visitor of monasteries,
especially convents of ladies, most undesirable and un
warrantable. This may be gathered from his explaining
that he could not at the time make any defence, because
"I was so abashed, that I had not those things in my
remembrance that were for my defence." Indeed, this would
seem in some measure to bear out a statement made of him,
that he was a priest who had been unfrocked for misconduct.
He does not, moreover, appear to have received any spiritual
promotions in reward for his services, like London and
Layton. And it is obvious that he must have been in dis
grace since he could write, " I had experience in myself not
long ago how grievous yea and deadly it is for any man
to have the displeasure of such a man as you are." His
dependence on Crumwell was like that of the others, abject.
i R. O. Crum. Corr., xxxv. 39, 40. 2 Ibid., 38. 8 Ibid.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 169
In return for Ap Rice's services, Crumwell appears to
have desired to appoint him to some office in the cathedral
church of Salisbury. Against this the dean and chapter
protested in several vigorous letters,1 and the appointment
was not made. In his reports of the monasteries Ap Rice
proves how little reliance can be placed in the truth of the
charges he brings in conjunction with Legh.
If he could discover nothing against the good name of a
monastery, it was to him a sign that the religious had agreed
together to conceal their iniquities, as at St. Albans, where
he found nothing, "although there was much to be found."2
It is characteristic of Ap Rice, with the other chief visitors,
to speak commendably of persons, who are at the same time
stated to be men of dubious or evil conduct, but compliant
to the will of the ruling powers. In the same letter Ap
Rice told his master that he had been visiting the abbey of
Walden. The abbot Robert, " a man of good learning and
right sincere judgment," he said, had confessed to him "an
awful secret." This was, that he had privately married and
would like to abandon the religious habit and give up his
monastery " to your hands." Crumwell advised the unfor
tunate man to go on as he has done, to use caution and
avoid scandal.3 It hardly seems possible, that such a secret
as the abbot's marriage could have been concealed very
long. The whole story looks like an invention. One thing,
however, is clear, Ap Rice knew quite well what Crumwell
desired, since he added: "You may have the house soon
de-relinquished if you like."
Doctor London, the last of the four principal visitors and
destroyers of the monasteries, is no more reliable a witness
against them than his fellows. He had considerable prefer
ments in the Church, being canon of Windsor, dean of
Osney, dean of the collegiate church of Wallingford, and,
from 1526 to 1542, warden of New College, Oxford. His
letters do not reveal any particular animosity against the
monks. His zeal in Crumwell's service was principally
displayed in collecting for him the plate and jewels of the
monastic churches, and in defacing those sacred buildings.
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxxvii.
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxxvii. 36. Compare the letter of Legh and Petre
to Crumwell in Wright, p. 250. T ,- * % ~\
8 Rid., xiv. 10. *- "' V

170 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
In none of his many letters does he endorse distinctly any
charge made by the other visitors, or suggest any but vague
accusations on his own authority. He reports generally,
that he finds many of the monks and canons " young lusty
men, always fat fed," by no means " learned nor apt to the
same," and he says he has advised them " to turn some of their
ceremonies of idleness into some bodily exercise, and not
sit all day lurking in the cloister idly."1 But he does not
appear to have gone beyond these general accusations,
although evidently not biassed in favour of the religious.
In fact, there is some reason to believe, that Dr. London
was induced to throw himself into the schemes of Crumwell
and Henry, rather by motives of self-interest than conviction.
He had most certainly been amongst those who considered
the break with Rome a mere temporary phase of the quarrel
about the king's divorce. He had even gone out of his way
to prevent his nephew committing himself to any violent
language or action against the pope. It is, moreover, quite
possible that the doctor's interference upon this occasion,
brought, as it certainly was, to the notice of Crumwell by
the examination and confession of the nephew, may have
been the means of placing him in the minister's power. It
may have been this circumstance which afforded Crumwell
a subservient tool to be used in the furtherance of his sup
pression schemes.2
In the work of devastation, Doctor London was certainly
the most terrible of all the monastic spoilers. He writes,
for instance, that he has pulled down the silver image of
our lady of Caversham and will send it by the next barge
from Reading. He has defaced the chapel, and thinks the
lead had better be pulled off the roof. The lodgings of
the priest from Noteley abbey, who served this place of
pilgrimage, "with its large garden and orchard," he has
kept, because, as he tells Crumwell, "it will do well for
any friend of yours." s At the friar's houses in Reading *
the people somewhat anticipated his work ,of destruction,
1 Wright, p. 215.
2 Calendar, viii. No. 146. The "confession" was made apparently about
1534, just after the final rupture with the pope, and we know that Bishop
Gardiner, of Winchester, was in the April of this year in great danger of being
sent to the Tower (Calendar, vii. No. 522). A like danger would probably
have threatened London.
8 Wright, p. 222. 4 Ibid.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 171
much to his disgust, helping themselves, "to the very
clappers of the bells." However, he did not stay his hand
on this account, but a few weeks later informs his master,
" I did only deface the church (at Reading), all the windows
being full of friars, and left the roof and walls whole for the
king's use. I sold the ornaments and the cells in their
dorter."1 At the Grey Friars, in the same town, he did
much the same barbarous work of destruction. "The
inward part of the church," he writes, " thoroughly decked
with Grey Friars, as well in the windows as otherwise,
I have defaced."2 In fact, the record of his work, as
contained in his letters, tells everywhere the same tale of
wholesale destruction. In this he had, as he informs
Crumwell, the object of preventing the friars from again
taking possession of their property. From Coventry he
writes that he has partly destroyed the house of the Grey
Friars " because the poor people lay so sore upon it." At
Warwick he had defaced the windows of the friars' church,
and as usual pulled down so much of the house as to pre
vent its being used again.8
Sometimes even this iconoclast appears to pause in his
work of destruction, and to regret the havoc he is causing.
" At Stamford," he says, " I have left as yet visibly at the
Grey Friars a goodly image of copper gilt, and the said
(image) laid upon marble made for dame Blanche of Lan
caster. It is very beautiful, and I resolved to know of the
king's grace concerning it."4 The monument, which the
aged countess of Salisbury, cardinal Pole's mother, had
prepared for herself in the priory of Christchurch, Twyn-
ham, did not meet with the same sparing hand on his visit
there. "In this church," he writes, "we found a chapel
and monument curiously made of Caen stone, prepared by
the late mother of Reginald Pole for her burial, which we
have caused to be defaced and all the arms and badges
clearly to be deleted." 5
Dr. London's treatment of the abbess of Godstow is well
known. He had been opposed to her appointment, and had
" ever since," as she writes to Crumwell, " borne me great
malice and grudge, like my mortal enemy." To him was
1 Calendar, xiii. (ii) No. 719. 2 Ibid., No. 346.
8 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxiii. No. 81.
* R. O. Chapter House Books, A. A, fol. 64. 6 Wright, p. 232.

172 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
committed the task of suppression. As Katherine Bulkeley,
the abbess, reports, he " suddenly came unto me with a great
rout with him, and here doth threaten me and my sisters,
saying he hath the king's commission to suppress the
house spite of my teeth. And when he saw that I was con
tent that he should do all things according to his commission,
and showed him plain that I would never surrender to his
hands, being my ancient enemy, now he begins to entreat me,
and to inveigle my sisters one by one, otherwise than ever I
heard tell of the king's subjects hath been handled, and here
tarrieth and continueth to my great costs and charge. . . . And
notwithstanding that Doctor London, like an untrue man,
hath informed your lordship that I am a spoiler and a waster
. . . the contrary is true, for I have not alienated one halporth
of the goods of this monastery, moveable or unmoveable, but
have rather encreased the same." 1
" I have seen complaints of Dr. London's soliciting nuns,"
writes bishop Burnet, "yet I do not find Doctor Lee com
plained of." London's subsequent history makes it seem not
at all unlikely that he would have availed himself of excep
tional opportunities for entrapping the nuns in so diabolical a
manner. Archdeacon South, writing about other matters
than his connection with this visitation, gives him the follow
ing character : " But to what open shame Doctor London was
afterwards put, with open penance, with two smocks on his
shoulders, for Mrs. Thykked and Mrs. Jennynges, the mother
and the daughter, and how he was taken with one of them
by Henry Plankney in his gallery, being his sister's son — as
it was then known to a number in Oxford and elsewhere, so
I think that some yet living hath it in remembrance, as well
as the penner of this history." 2
By this, Doctor London nearly lost the favour of Crum
well and his office as warden of New College, Oxford. Thomas
Bedyll writes to Crumwell that " Master London, warden of
the new college in Oxford is informed (I wot not by whom)
that your lordship is sore amoved from him in the benevo
lence and favour which your lordship bore him, and you
intend to put him forth of his college." I would beg you to
remember, he adds, that he "hath done more good to the
reformation of ignorance and superstition than all the other
1 Wright, p. 230. 2 Narratives of Reformation (Camd. Soc), p. 35.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 173
visitors." He retained his office at this time, but only to be
involved in deeper disgrace after Crumwell's execution.
Whilst London was warden of New College, the antiquary,
Leland, applied to him for some information as to William
of Wykeham. At his dictation were written some memoranda,
giving a discreditable and wholly false account of that prelate.
This was not only devoid of foundation, but must have been
known to be so ; an act of baseness and ingratitude on Lon
don's part, as he had not only been warden of Wykeham's
college in Oxford, but, as bishop Lowth 1 remarks, " he owed
his subsistence to Wykeham's bounty," having been educated
at his school in Winchester.2 " His history," the bishop con
siders, "is sufficient to show his want of credit "8
After Crumwell's fall, London paid his court to Gardiner,
bishop of Winchester, and insinuated himself into his good
graces as dexterously as he had before done, on Warham's
death, into those of Crumwell. By this prelate he was used
as an instrument to endeavour to ruin Cranmer, and to
chastise the would-be reformers with the "whip of the six
strings." Between Cranmer and Doctor London there was
no love lost, and the archbishop calls him " a stout and filthy
prebendary of Windsor."4
At this period of his life he is described as being rough
and brutal in his determination to punish those who re
jected the six articles. At Oxford " he was one of the three
that prosecuted most rigorously the good students in the
Cardinal's college, when by imprisonment and hard usage
several of them died."6 One of these students describes his
demeanour when he learnt that the chief light among the
opponents of the articles had escaped from Oxford. It was
at Vespers in St. Friswide's that the news was brought to
the dean and commissary, who, as the Magnificat was being
sung, left the choir. And " about the middle of the church
met them, doctor London, puffing blustering and blowing
1 Life of William of Wykeham, 3rd ed., p. 288. The paper referred to is
now in the Bodleian, and consists of 13 notes written on the cover of an old
letter. 2 London was admitted to New College 1505, took his LL.B. 1512, and
LL.D. 15 18. He was canon of York and Lincoln, and domestic chaplain to
archbishop Warham.
3 Life of Wykeham, p. 289.
4 Extract from MS. Benet. Coll. Camb., " accusatio Cranmeri." Mem. in
the archbishop's own hand, quoted in Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i. p. 158.
5 Strype, ibid., p. 156.

1 74 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
like a hungry and greedy lion seeking his prey." At a
subsequent examination, the narrator says, " doctor London
and the dean threatened me, that if I would not tell the
truth . . I should surely be sent into the Tower of London
and there be racked and put into little- ease" 1
What Dr. London was at this time, he no doubt was a
year or two before as visitor of monasteries and convents of
nuns. One can well imagine the indignation of the abbess
of Godstow at the unmannerly conduct of this strange kind
of visitor, and one shudders to picture the lot of helpless
ladies in the convents of England exposed to the rude
questionings and intemperate threats of this immoral and
unscrupulous man.
By means of informations and evidence collected by
London and presented to the council by bishop Gardiner,
several people suffered death under the " six articles." " He
and one Symons a lawyer, and Ockham, that set traps for
others," says Strype, "were catched at length themselves.
They were men that busied themselves in framing indict
ments upon the six articles against great numbers of those
that favoured or professed the Gospel, and in sending them
to court to Winchester, who was to prefer the complaints to
the council. The king being more and more informed of
their base conspiracy, and disliking their bloody dispositions,
commanded that the council should search into the matter,
and so London, &c, being examined before the council, were
in the end found to be perjured in denying upon their oaths
what they had indeed done, and was proved manifestly to
their faces. Hereupon they were adjudged perjured persons,
and appointed to ride through Windsor, Reading and New
bury,"2 their faces to the tails of their horses, and to stand
in the pillory in each of these towns on a market day, with
a paper on their heads proclaiming their offence. This done,
they were committed to the Fleet prison, where London died
miserably in 1 543. Strangely enough it was Thomas Legh,
another visitor, who was the chief instrument in proving
London's guilt and obtaining his punishment.
"A dean," writes Mr. Blunt, "twice detected in im
morality and put to open penance for it, and afterwards
1 Anthony Delaber's account of Thomas Garret, printed in Foxe, Acts,
v. p. 421.
2 Mems. of Cranmer, i. p. 175.

The Chief Accusers of the Monks 175
convicted of perjury, is not the stuff of which credible,
witnesses are made." x - —
Probably, however, the fact that the avowed object of the
visitors was plunder, and that the charges made against the
religious were only means to attain that end, will be to most
minds the most conclusive evidence of the untrustworthiness
of their testimony. Whatever may be thought of monasteries
and monks, it is unjust to convict them of shameless irregu
larities on the word of those who had a motive in endeavour
ing to blacken their good name. The words of Edmund
Burke-may iiere jonce more oe recorded. "It is not with
much credulity," he writes, "that I listen to aiiy-when they
speak ill of those whom they are going to plunder. * rather
suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated when profit ''s
looked for in the punishment. An enemy is a bad witness
— a robber is a worse." 2
The character of the men! upon whose word the monas
teries have been defamed would in these days be defended
by no honest historian. No other evidence is forthcoming,
and it may fairly be asked, in the name of common sense no
less than of sacred justice, that the religious houses may not
be condemned on the unsupported word of such miserable
wretches as Layton, Legh, Ap Rice and London.
1 Reformation, i. p. 350.
2 Reflections on the French Revolution.

CHAPTER X
The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries
By the spring of the-yesx 1336 Henry had -partially suc
ceeded in VAs designs against the monasteries. The parlia
ment^ acting according to his royal will and pleasure, had
iIi"lMarch granted him power to deal with the possessions
of every religious house, the income of which did not exceed
£200 a year. The time was marked by events of import
ance both to the church and the nation at large. Death
had ended the troubles of the unfortunate queen Catherine
in January. And the sudden fall and execution of Anne
Boleyn four months later seemed to offer a favourable occa
sion for the reconciliation of Henry with the pope. The
king of France had shown the English ambassadors, im
mediately upon the news of Anne's degradation, that there
could not be " a better opportunity of wiping out the stains
on Henry's character, and making himself the most glorious
king in the world . . . that every one should do his duty,
and that they would find in the pope that true piety and
goodness which ought now to be known to all the world.''
The ambassador and the bishop of Winchester had with
tears in their eyes assured the French monarch " that this
was their only desire, and that they would do their part."1
The English people, on their side, manifested a general
joy at the disgrace and execution of the king's mistress,
which was occasioned as well by the possibility of the
breach with Rome being now healed, as by their belief
that, as Cranmer had declared the marriage of Anne null
and void, and the consequent illegitimacy of her daughter
Elizabeth, the cruel injustice hitherto done to the princess
Mary would be redressed.2
The entire freedom of the king at this moment from
1 Calendar, vol. x. No. 956. 2 Ibid., pp. 377-429.
176

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 177
matrimonial difficulties was looked upon abroad as a ground
for hoping that he would now return to the communion
of the church, from which he had only withdrawn by his
determination to maintain at all costs his unlawful union
with Anne.1 Even the pope, if Sir Gregory Casale is to
be believed, was only too anxious to smooth the way for
Henry's return to obedience, and was merely waiting for
some slight sign of the king's desire for reconciliation to
welcome him back to the bosom of the church. He had
spoken, so wrote Sir Gregory to the king himself, in the
highest terms of his excellent natural qualities and ability,
and of his former love for the faith. He was praying that
at this favourable opportunity divine providence might effect
this return, and reminded Casale how as cardinal he had
used his influence with his predecessor, Clement VII., to
further Henry's desires as far as possible.2
Unfortunately, however, for the accomplishment of this
happy return of England to the unity of the faith, other
matters besides the divorce of Katherine were now destined
to keep the king and pope apart. Henry's title to royal
supremacy might have been abandoned without much loss
of dignity, for although all the terrors of the block and
scaffold had enforced the royal pretension to spiritual juris
diction over the consciences of his subjects, they were still
at heart against it, and any alteration of the royal policy in
this regard would have been welcomed by all but a small
minority of very ardent innovators. A more real obstacle,
however, was to be found in the fact, that the king had
already seized upon a considerable amount of church pro
perty, and was at the moment occupied with schemes for
further wholesale alienation of the goods of monk, priest,
and poor. However much, therefore, the past might have
been obliterated by a sincere though tardy return to duty,
and former spoliation condoned by a profession of repent
ance, such a retrograde step in the royal policy must have
infallibly stayed Henry's hand just in the hour when it
was prepared to close upon the spoils of monastery and
convent, which a subservient parliament had placed within
his reach. Reconciliation would obliterate the visions of
untold wealth conjured up in the royal imagination by pre-
1 Calendar, x. Nos. 838, 956, &c. 2 Ibid., No. 977.
M

178 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
vious plunderings : — dreams which could only be realised
by perseverance in the course of destruction upon which he
had now embarked.
It is of course impossible now to say what finally deter
mined Henry to maintain his attitude of hostility to the
Holy See and to pursue his course of reckless spoliation.
One event, however, at this time must have had its influence
in checking the growth of the better feelings in Henry's
heart. From the best of intentions, when not coupled with
discretion and when zeal gives full play to angry feelings,
the worst consequences often spring. Such must have
been the result of the book "de Unitate Ecclesiastica," which
Pole published at this time and addressed to the king.1
Henry was the last man to be driven along the right path
by whips, or coerced into doing his duty by denunciations or
strong language. And Pole's book, however true its facts
and cogent its arguments, was couched in language suffi
ciently vehement, for the time at least, to turn the king from
his purpose. Too often, unfortunately, in the world's history
has solid good been sacrificed to the vaiinglory of style and
to the power of penning a caustic sentence and turning with
a bitter remark an elegant or striking period, and the work
"de Unitate Ecclesiastica" is overflowing with a rhetoric
which would have stung many a milder man than Henry
Tudor into rebellion, or turned him from purposes of amend
ment. To be told that he, the English king, was worse than the
Turk, and to be reminded that, whilst Charles V. was
engaged in his glorious expedition to Africa, he, " bearing
most untruly the name of defender of the faith, did not
merely kill, but tore to pieces all the true defenders of the
old religion in a more inhuman fashion than the Turk," was
hardly the kind of argument to convince him of the errors of
1 Gregorio Cortesi, writing to Cardinal Contarini, from Venice, 6 July,
1536, says that he was with Pole at Verona when the messenger, sent into
England to convey the de Unitate Ecclesiastica to Henry VIII., returned. He
had brought back a mild message and an invitation from the king to Pole to
return to England. Cortesi, who suspected the truth, strongly urged Pole not
to venture into Henry's power, and asks the cardinal to second his efforts to
prevent his going, as he was more than half inclined to do. So far the book
has been carefully suppressed in England, since the king " fears that were it
published it would lead to a rising of the people, which he fears more than
anything else." (G. Cortesii, Monachi Casinatis . . . Omnia Scripta. Patavii,
1774, p. 110.)

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 179
his ways. The unmistakable hints, moreover, which the
author throws out as to a probable rebellion of his subjects,
were quite sufficient to determine the imperious will of
Henry to follow in its old course.1 Nor was the language
of the " instructions " forwarded by the author to England,
explaining the purport of the work, calculated to soften the
bitter feelings awakened in the king's heart by the attack.
Indeed, in many ways, the letter must undoubtedly have
added poison to the wound already inflicted.
Whatever the cause, the hopes reasonably entertained
of reconciliation between England and Rome, or more truly
between Henry and Paul, were disappointed. The king's
good dispositions vanished, and he embarked seriously upon
the work of realising the goods of the lesser monasteries,
which parliament by its act had dissolved. Provision had
already been made for carrying out the business arrange
ments necessitated by the transfer to the crown of so vast
an amount of real property, from the corporations to which
it had hitherto belonged. Almost the last measure passed
through parliament at this time, previous to its dissolution,
was the creation of a "Court of Augmentations." This
body was established to deal with all lands and moveables
coming into the king's possession through the suppression
or surrender of the religious houses. It consisted of a
chancellor, a treasurer, two legal officers — attorney and
solicitor — ten auditors, seventeen particular receivers, a
clerk of the court, with an usher and messenger.2 The
careful organisation of this office has been regarded by
historians as an indication that, at the time of the dissolu
tion of the lesser monasteries, the king contemplated further
and more extensive measures in regard to ecclesiastical
property than the first act of suppression intended. The
officers of the " Court of Augmentations " were to receive
and account to the king for all rents, tithes or proceeds of
sales ; to examine all leases, to take all surrenders and issue
all grants, gifts or releases at their discretion. One singular
reservation is made in the act, by which it is made clear
that already Henry had in contemplation the refoundation
or preservation of such monasteries as he willed to keep.
"Except always are reserved," runs the act, "such and as
1 Calendar, *. No. 975. 2 Rot. Pari. 27 Hen. VIII., 61.

1 80 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
many of the same monasteries, priories, and houses, with
all their hereditaments and possessions, goods and catties,
which the king's majesty by his letters patent and under
his great seal shall declare and limit to continue and be in
their essential estate and to persevere in the body and cor
poration as they were before the making of the said act." x
The court forthwith commenced its functions. Its officers
were appointed on the 24th of April, 1536, Sir Thomas
Pope being made treasurer. From the rolls of his accounts
and those of his successors in that office we are enabled to
form a very fair estimate of the progress of the spoliation,
to gather the totals of the sums of money received, and to
understand in some measure the mysterious manner in which
these vast sums appear to have melted away. The chan
cellor of the court, Richard Rich, received a salary of ^750
a year, some £7500 or .£8000 of our money, and the
treasurer, for whose accounts posterity should be grateful,
half that sum. If minute receipts are not recorded, almost
scrupulous exactness is manifested in the disbursements.
The first payments are for the necessary equipment of the
office, such as "green cloth called counterboard cloths,"
scales and weights, large and small iron safes and bags to
hold the looked-for money, jewels, and plate. The official
character of the court is manifested by the purchase of " a
book called a 'jury-book' with a silver crucifix fastened
upon it," to be used in the court sessions, and of the seals
of office, great and small, for which a long price is paid,
and to which the sum of I2d. is added for wax bought to
show the king the first impressions of these new seals.2
Preparations for extensive dissolutions having been made
by the creation of this court, Henry proceeded to carry out
his intentions with regard to the lesser monasteries. As
the parliament had granted him only such houses as pos
sessed an income of less than ^200 a year, it became
necessary to determine which monasteries were unfortunate
enough to fall within this pecuniary limit. For this pur
pose the royal commission was issued to some of the leading
men in each county to make a new survey of the houses
1 R. O. Aug. Office Misc. Bk. 2.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Office, Treas. Roll, i ; m. iod. For a knowledge of
the existence of these " Rolls," as well as for much other information, I am
indebted to the late W. D. Selby, Esq., of the Record Office.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 1 8 1
within certain appointed districts. As early as April 24th,
the very day upon which the court of Augmentations was
finally organised by the appointment of its officers, instruc
tions were issued for the guidance of these surveyors.
They were to form a body of six visitors ; the auditor, the
particular receiver appointed for the county, and a clerk
were to be the royal officials, and they were to be accom
panied by " three other discreet persons to be named by the
king in every county." On their arrival at any monastery,
they were ordered to summon the superior and show him
the " act of dissolution " and their special commission. Next
they were to make the officials of the house swear to answer
truly the questions they put them. Having done this, they
had to proceed with their examination into the state of the
establishment and were to report the result of their inquiry.
They were specially directed to state the number of the
religious " and the conversation of their lives ; " how many
were priests and how many were willing to go to other
houses, or would take "capacities," and what servants or
other dependents were attached to the establishment.
Having obtained this information, the royal commissioners
were to call for the convent seal and all muniments of the
house, and to make an inventory " by indenture " with the
superior, of all plate, jewels and other goods "and property,
which belonged to the establishment on the 1st March of
this year, 1536. They were then to issue their commands
to the superior not to receive any rents nor to spend any
money except for necessary expenses until the king's final
pleasure was known. At the same time they were to enjoin
him to continue his care over the lands, and to "sow and
till" as before, till such time as the king's farmer should
relieve him of this duty. As for the community, the officer
was " to send those that will remain in the religion to other
houses, with letters to the governors, and those that wish
to go to the world to my lord of Canterbury and the lord
chancellor for capacities." To the latter " some reasonable
reward," according to the distance of the place appointed,
was to be given. The superior alone was to have any
pension assigned to him, and he was to go to the chancellor
of the Augmentations for it.1
1 Calendar, x. 721.

1 82 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
These instructions will afford the reader an idea of the
methods employed by the king's officers to gather into the
treasury of the court of Augmentations the revenues, pro
ceeds of sales and precious plate and jewels from the houses
and churches of the lesser monasteries. The system was
the same in all cases, and the history of one dissolution is
that of all. What the arrival of the six royal commissioners
with their retinue of servants at monastery and convent
must have been to the inmates can be well imagined. The
act of dissolution, it is true, saved them from the necessity
of surrender, to which many of their more powerful brethren
were subsequently constrained. Still their position was
pathetic. The homes, which pious benefactors had built
generations before, and in which for centuries men and
women of their order had served God and aided their
neighbours, were passing away from them for ever, and the
demand for and defacing of their convent seal was the out
ward sign of the ending of their corporate life. Henceforth
they were to pass the remainder of their days as strangers
in a larger house, or as wanderers in a world which many
had left years before and to which they could never again
belong. The desecration of their churches, in which they
and their forefathers in religion before them had gathered
by night and by day for the service of God ; the seizure for
the king's use of their altar plate, in itself perhaps often so
poor, to them always so precious by association with the
past ; the rude appraising of their bells and the lead which
covered the roofs over their heads ; the hurried sales of the
mean furniture of their cells, and of the contents of church,
cloister and frater, were all so many heartrending evidences
of the passing away of all that for which in this life most of
the monks and nuns really cared.
The work was of course a process of time, but through
out England it was begun very shortly after the commissions
were issued, and by Michaelmas of the year 1 5 36, or in six
months from the passing of the act of dissolution, large
sums had been paid into the treasury of the court of Aug
mentations, and a considerable number of monasteries had
been desolated. In many instances the actual process of
suppression occupied many weeks. Thus, at Clementhorpe
convent, in the city of York, the commissioners first arrived
on June 13th, and it was not till August 31st that the final

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 183
steps were taken, and the nuns turned out of their house.
During that period Isabel Ward, the prioress, had been
obliged to provide for her household, consisting of nine
nuns, an equal number of servants and a lady, Alice Tocotts,
who, with her servant, had a corrody in the house. Besides
this, here, no doubt, as elsewhere, provision had to be found
for the servants of the commissioners who were left to carry
out the work. To meet these expenses the prioress was
forced to sell a silver chalice and cup, together with some
reliquaries.1 In the same way Isabel Savage, the prioress of St.
Michael's convent, Stamford, was obliged to sell various
pieces of plate to keep up the hospitality of the convent
and to support the nuns from May 31, when the dissolution
commenced, to July 18, when the work was completed.2
And, from numerous examples which might be cited from
the " Ministers' Accounts," it is probable that from six to
ten weeks were usually occupied in the work of dissolving
these religious houses. To many of the religious thus
rendered homeless the hardship must have been more than
would readily be believed. Many were of great age, or
suffering from disease. Thus, to Elizabeth Johnson, a nun
of Arden, a small pittance is allowed for her support, " be
cause she is helpless and deaf and is said to be over eighty
years of age."3 In the same way to William Coventry, a
religious of Wombridge Priory, the sum of £6, 8s. 4d. is
given, upon his being turned out of his home, "because
he is sick and decrepid," i but such consideration was appa
rently only on rare occasions extended to the inmates of
the dissolved houses. Of Esholt, a convent in Yorkshire
marked out for dissolution at this time, it is said that two
nuns, disabled by infirmities, were passed on to their friends.
" Dame Elizabeth Pudsey prioress," the entry runs, " aged
seventy years, infirm and unable to ride or walk — gone to
her friends." Also, " Dame Johanna Hallynrakes, aged fifty-
four years, decrepid ; she is not able to be carried for she is
lame ; (to) continue in her habit and be with her friends." 6
The returns made by the mixed royal commissions at
this time are of great interest and importance. The different
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Acct. 27-28 Henry VIII., No. 178, m. 14A
2 Ibid., No. 173, m. 5. 3 Ibid., 178, m. I4d.
4 Ibid, 165, m. 3. 6 R. O. Exch. Q. R. Suppress. Papers, "ft*.

1 84 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
estimate these gentlemen formed of the state of the religious
houses in England, to that pictured in the comperta of
Layton, Legh and their fellow-inquisitors, has already
been pointed out, and it is unfortunate that comparatively
few of these documents are known to exist.1 As an
example of the interesting particulars found in these
returns, the first in the report of the commissioners for
Warwickshire may be here given. The abbey of Polles-
worth is stated to be a convent of "Black nuns of St.
Benedict's Order." The valuation made at the last visita
tion of their clear annual income was £%7, 16s. 3d., and
the visitors now assess it at ^110, 6s. 2d.2 The nuns are
stated to have been fourteen in number, "with an abbess
and one ' ancress,' of a very religious sort, one close upon
a hundred years old ; all desire to ' keep out ' their religion
there or be transferred to other houses." The number of
servants and others attached to the abbey was thirty-eight,
namely, three priests, eight yeomen, seventeen hinds, nine
women servants, and of " persons having living by promise
one very old and impotent creature sometime cook of the
house." The lead, bells and buildings were estimated to
produce £$2 when sold, and the house was declared to be
" in good repair." The value of all moveable goods, stocks,
stores, and debts owing to the house was calculated at
£127, 13s. 8d., besides which there were 108 acres planted
with trees, "whereof great woods about the age of 100
years" were priced at £114, 10s., and a great common
with sixty acres of wood.3
In dealing with the lesser religious houses, those which
claimed to be cells or dependencies of the greater monas
teries, proved a difficulty. This had been foreseen, and the
1 See Calendar, x. pp. 495-500. Reference has been made in a previous
note to other reports not known to Mr. Gairdner when he published this
volume of the Calendar. They may be found printed in an article entitled
" Overlooked Testimonies to the Character of the English Monasteries," in
The Dublin Review, April, 1894. They deal with the houses in Norfolk,
Suffolk, Hampshire, Wilts, Gloucester, and in the city of Bristol. So far as
concerns the moral state of these monasteries and convents, these reports of the
country gentry are wholly different from those of Crumwell's visitors. Whilst
the latter defame, the former are found to praise, and in the notes appended to
the later reports there is evidence that this discrepancy was remarked upon
by the official into whose hands the report came.
2 It is curious to find that in almost every instance the new valuation was
higher than that returned by the commissioners for the Valor Ecclesiasticus
the year before. 3 Calendar, x. No. 1191 (2).

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 185
commissioners were instructed in the case of a cell "to
deliver a privy seal to the governor, to appear before the
chancellor and council of the Augmentations and not meddle
with the same cell till the king's pleasure be known."1
Accordingly, in Warwickshire, the royal visitors gave privy
seals to the prior of Avecourte, Warwick, who alleged his
house to be a cell of Great Malvern, and to Charles
Bradewaye, prior of Alcester, who claimed exemption from
the act of dissolution, as a dependent of the abbey of
Evesham, ordering them to appear before the court in
London within fifteen days. Into these cases strict inquiry
was made. In the case of Malpas, for example, which
claimed to be a cell of Montacute, in Somerset, a com
mission was ordered to sit at that priory on November 27,
1536, and to require all deeds and evidences of the claim,
and to examine the prior and John Montague, prior of
Malpas.2 As might be expected, these claims for exemp
tion from the operation of the act of dissolution appear to
have failed. In the three cases given above, the priors of
the cells seem to have returned to their monasteries, where
two years later they are found in the list of those pensioned
on the final dissolution of the mother houses.8
One curious fact about the dissolution of these smaller
monasteries deserves special notice. No sooner had the
king obtained possession of them than he commenced to
refound some in perpetuity under a new charter. In this
way no fewer than fifty-two4 religious houses in various
1 Calendar, x. No. 721 2 Monasticon, v. p. 173.
3 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk. 245, ff. 72, 102, 187.
4 Canon Dixon says (vol. i. p. 365): "Three hundred and seventy-six
of the smaller monasteries came under the new act, and were dissolved. Out
of which thirty-one were refounded for ever in August of this year, and con
tinued a year or two longer. " In this he follows Burnet so far as the number
is concerned, who states that there were "in all thirty-one houses" thus
restored. The names of the fifty-four are known. The treasurer of the court
of Augmentations acknowledges sums of money received as "fines" from
thirty-three houses, and twenty-one more, not including Bisham, are enrolled
on the Patent Rolls. The dates of the grants will show that they were not
all refounded in August. Stevens has, moreover (Monasticon, ii. Appendix
17-19), published an original document containing the names of the lesser
monasteries which escaped immediate destruction, specifying the individuals
to whom the king had previously granted, and distinguishing those houses
which had been actually refounded when the paper was drawn up From this
it appears that the whole number respited was 123. Forty-six had already
been refounded, five were still doubtful ; and of these fifty-one no less than
thirty-three had been previously promised to different private persons.

1 86 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
parts of England gained a temporary respite from extinction.
The cost, however, was considerable to themselves, and
likewise to their friends, as they were finally suppressed
before they were able to repay the sums borrowed to pur
chase this favour of their royal founder. In hard cash
the treasurer of the court of Augmentations acknowledges
having received " in part payment of the various sums of
money due to the king for fines or compositions, for the
toleration and continuance " of thirty-three of these monas
teries some ^5948, 6s. 8d., or about .£60,000 of our money.
The same Sir Thomas Pope ingenuously adds; that he has
not counted the arrears due to the office under this head,
" since all and each of the said monasteries before the close
of the account have by surrender come into the king's hands,
or by the authority of parliament have been added to the
augmentation of the royal revenue. For this reason there
fore the king has remitted all sums of money still due to
him as the residue of their fines for his royal toleration." 1
The sums paid by the re-established houses vary from
^400, given by the two houses of Polleshoe, in Devon, and
Albaland, in the diocese of St. David's, to the ^20 furnished
by the Carthusians of St. Anne's, Coventry, the two first
paying nearly three times their annual revenue as a fine to
the king for a grant under the great seal, enrolled on the
Patent roll, of establishment "in perpetuity."2 Besides
these pecuniary payments, Henry had in some cases helped
himself well to the monastic manors, and having lessened
the income of houses already suffering from poverty, allowed
them to be re-established for a perpetuity commensurate with
his royal whims. Thus the convent of St. Mary's, Winchester,
which according to the Valor possessed a clear income of
£179, 7s. 2d., not only paid a fine of ^333, 6s. 8d., but was
re-established with the loss of some of its richest possessions.
It is well to note that several of the monasteries and
convents thus re-established were among the number of
those gravely defamed by Layton and Legh in their com
perta, and in more than one case a superior incriminated by
them was reappointed in the new foundation. Besides the
sums paid to the king by the religious for the privilege of
1 R. O. Augt. Off. Treasur. Rolls I., mm. 4d. 5.
2 See "Rot. Pat.," 28 Henry VIII., pars i., ii., iv., v., and 29 Henry
VIII., i., ii., iv., v.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 187
continuance, there is hardly any doubt that in days when
influence was to be purchased, other bribes were exacted
from the houses so refounded, by Henry's hungry officials.1
One example of the straits to which these exactions reduced
many of the religious houses may be given. The convent
of nuns at Stixwold, in Lincolnshire, wrote to Heneage, the
king's visitor, to beg his good offices in their regard. "Right
worshipful sir," they say, " as your poor and daily beads
women, we humbly commend us unto you, advertising you
that by the goodness of my lord privy seal and by his only
means and suit to the king's majesty, our house doth stand,
paying to his highness nine hundred marks fine2 besides
our first-fruits, which is .£150, and also a pension of .£34 by
the year for ever. Good Mr. Heneage, we most humbly
pray and desire you, in the way of charity and for God's
sake, to be mean to my lord privy seal that he will of his
goodness be suitor to the king's majesty for to remit and
forgive the said pension of ^34 a year, or else we shall
never be able to live and pay the king the aforesaid money.
" We be eighteen nuns and a sister in our house besides
officers and servants to the number of fifty persons in all,
and our stock and cattle being delivered up this year past ;
which was our chief hope and living. And if by my lord
privy seal's goodness and yours we may obtain redemption
of the said yearly pension we shall take pains to live poorly
and serve God and pray daily for the king's majesty, my
lord privy seal, and you during our lives. And if at your
contemplation we cannot obtain grace of the said pension we
shall upon necessity, for that we shall not be able to pay
and perform all such payments as we be bound, give up the
house into the king's highness' hand : which were great pity,
if it pleased God and the king otherwise.
" From Stixwold the 8th day of January
" By your poor bedes-women
"The whole convent of Stixwold." 8
1 Bumet says, " It is not unlikely that some presents to the commissioners
or to Crumwell, made these houses outlive this ruin : for I find great trading
in bribes at this time, which is not to be wondered at, when there was so much
to be shared."
2 The treasurer of the augmentation office only acknowledged having
received ,£21, 13s. 4d.
8 Strype, Eccl. Mems. (ed. 1822), p. 395. The patent for the continuance
of Stixwold is dated 9th July, a0 29 Hen. VIII. (1537). " Rot. Pat.," 29 Hen.

1 88 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
It is difficult to estimate correctly the number of houses
which passed into the king's power by the operation of this
act of dissolution. Various numbers have been stated, but
the authority of Stowe is usually relied upon, that "the
number of the houses then suppressed was 376, the value
of their lands then .£32,000 and more by year." As these
suppressions were not all carried out at the same time, but
occupied the royal commissioners many months, the number
can only refer to all the houses of religion with an income
of £200 or under. This number is apparently fairly correct.
In the contemporary "list of monasteries in England of a
less yearly value than £200 " the number stated is 362,1 but
in this are included " cells " belonging to the greater houses
and several of the places are entered twice over in different
counties.2 Of the various counties affected, Yorkshire, in
cluding Richmond, had the most, numbering in all twenty
convents of women, twenty-five houses of men and eight
cells dependent on the greater abbeys. Lincolnshire con
tained within its borders thirty-seven houses which came
within the operation of this act of dissolution.
In respect to the annual value of the property which
passed to the king by these suppressions, the estimate given
by Stowe and others is probably fairly correct. The total
stated in the contemporary list above referred to is ^28,858,
19s. iofd.,3 and the difference is perhaps accounted for by
the values of other monasteries which before the passing
of the act, or subsequently by surrender or otherwise, had
about this time passed into the king's possession. Indeed,
lord Herbert puts the value at " about £30,000 or £32,000," i
the former figure not differing materially from the estimate
given above. Of this sum, a very large proportion, no less
VIII., Part i. m. 29. The letter is evidence that much more was required by
the royal founder than the sum acknowledged as received in the roll of the
treasurer of the augmentation office.
1 Calendar, x. No. 1238.
2 The actual number of monasteries accounted for by the receivers from
Michaelmas, 1535, to Michaelmas, 1537, is 243 (Exch. Augt. Office Mins.
Accts., ann. 27-28 Hen. VIII., and ann. 28-29 Hen. VIII. ). The first accounts
of some are missing, but in this number are included others which had fallen
into the king's hands by surrender, like Abingdon, or by attainder, like
Whalley and Barlings. This number, 243, together with the 123 stated in
the original document published by Stevens (Monast., ii. Append, pp. 17-19)
to have been respited, comes sufficiently near to the number above stated.
3 It is added Up in a later hand incorrectly ^29,041, os. 3jd.
4 Ed., 1683, p. 441.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 189
than £3460, ns. id., came from the lands of the Yorkshire
monasteries, and the almost equal amount of £3062, 8s. ojd.
from those in Lincolnshire. It will be seen subsequently
how the promises of large annual receipts from the con
fiscated estates proved illusory, and, in spite of the rack-
renting of the crown farmers, the monastic acres furnished
less money for the royal purse than they did under the
thrifty management and personal supervision of their former
owners. As for the spoils of the religious houses, consisting of
money, plate and jewels, which were sent in kind into the
king's treasury, and the proceeds of the sales of lead, bells,
stock, furniture, and even buildings, it is clear that lord
Herbert, following Stowe's estimate of these " Robin Hood's
pennyworth's," has placed the amount received at too high
a figure. It is, of course, undeniable that these goods were
worth much more than the .£100,000 at which they were
estimated ; but, as will be seen later, nothing like that sum
was received by the royal treasury, or at least acknow
ledged by Sir Thomas Pope as having been obtained from
the sales of the moveables belonging to the lesser monas
teries. Corruption, without doubt, existed everywhere, from
the lowest attendant of the visiting commissioner to the
highest official in the court of Augmentation, whose high
salary might be supposed to have raised him above a
suspicion of dishonesty; but allowing for the numberless
ways in which the royal revenue could be robbed, it seems,
judging by the paltry sums realised by the sales of monastic
effects, that an average of ^260 or ^270 for each house
would be altogether too high.
Previous to the passing of the act which authorised this
wholesale suppression, some few houses had already come
into the king's hands. Few though they were, it was yet
clearly thought necessary to cover the illegality of these
suppressions by a retrospective clause in the act. Three
houses, those of Langdon, Folkstone and Dover, had been
appropriated as early as the November of the previous year,
1535, and the cause of the surrenders as stated on the Close
roll is, that they were burdened with debt,1 and were thus
unable to continue any longer, whilst on their northern
1 "Rot. Claus.," 27 Hen. VIII., Pars i., 27, 28, 29.

190 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
visitation in February, Layton and Legh procured the sur
render of two houses, Marton, a priory of Austin canons
near York, and the priory of Hornby, in Lancashire. This
last was a poor place, and had even to borrow a seal from
a neighbouring abbey with which to seal its doom.1 Two
other monasteries in the south of England, Bilsington in
Kent, and Tiltey in Essex, both much in debt, complete the
list of houses which had fallen into Henry's hands before
the dissolution was made legal by the parliament.
It is difficult to form any proper estimate of the number
of persons affected by the dissolution of the lesser monas
teries. Besides the monks and nuns that were turned out
of their houses and lost their support, and the number of
servants, farm labourers and others, to whom these houses
gave employment and means of subsistence, there must have
been a vast number of men and women whose means of
livelihood were more or less dependent upon the religious
houses. Putting the latter class altogether on one side, it is
possible that the calculation given by Stowe, that " 10,000
people, masters and servants, had lost their livings by the
putting down of these houses at that time," is not too high
an estimate. From the particulars given in the returns of
the royal commissioners it is known, that in the twenty-one
religious houses for which their certificates exist, there was
an average number of at least eight members in each monas
tery and convent, and that every house had besides some
twenty-seven people directly dependent upon it. Taking
the number of the lesser monasteries at only 350, and the
average number of religious inmates at only six, it will be
seen that over two thousand monks and nuns were at this
time dispossessed. By the same method of calculation, it
will appear that between nine and ten thousand people were
direct dependents of the monasteries dissolved.
Of course the work, was not accomplished without some
earnest protests and some strenuous endeavours to deter the
king from continuing his work of destruction and desolation.
Thus no sooner was the passing of the act made known than
Crumwell received letters from persons of all sorts begging
his good offices with Henry for the preservation of houses
in which the writers were specially interested. Sir Piers
1 Rot. Claus.," 27 Hen. VIII., Pars i. 38.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 1 9 1
Edgecombe, for example, writes that "here is much com
munication and bruits that all abbeys, priories, and nunneries
under the clear value of ^200 shall be suppressed, notwith
standing it is not as yet in these parts openly known the
occasion of suppression, nor who shall take most benefit
thereby, nor to what use it shall rest at length." He then
goes on to say, that he is the founder of the priory of
Totnes and the convent of Cornworthy, in Devonshire, both
under £200 a year, and as the prior of Totnes is a man of
"virtuous conversation and a good viander," he thinks it
right to tell the king's secretary.1 In the same way lord de
la Ware begs for Boxgrave, and trusts it may be spared, as
many of his ancestors and his wife's mother lie there. The
parish church is under the roof of the church of the monas
tery, and there, he adds, I have made " a poor chapel to be
buried in." 2
Nor did the monasteries themselves quietly wait for the
royal commissioners to dispossess them of their effects.
There are many indications of goods and even plate being
turned into money, often no doubt with a view of obtaining
the means of subsistence. Thus as early as March 27th,
shortly after the passing of the act, it is reported to Crum
well that the house of Marham nunnery, in Norfolk, had
been stripped of all the lead and left uncovered and bare.
Richard Southwell, the writer, says that the convents of
" Blackborough, Shouldham and Crabhouse also make away
with all they can, and make such pennyworths as they are
not able to pay any part of their debts, so that all the goods
will be dispersed." The writer concludes by a petition for
Pentney: "We beseech your favour," he writes, "for the
prior of Pentney,8 assuring you that he relieves those
quarters wondrously where he dwells, and it would be a
pity not to spare a house that feeds so many indigent poor,
which is in a good state, maintains good service, and does
so many charitable deeds. We hear that great labour will
be made unto the king for the same and large offers, the
rather because the house is new made throughout and no
house in the shire stands so commodiously. If you will
prevent it, your labour will not be without remembrance." *
1 Wright, p. 117. 2 Ibid., 119.
3 He was one of the monks defamed by Layton and Legh in the comperta.
4 Calendar, x. No. 563.

192 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
One other document addressed to the king, giving reasons
for the continuance of Carmarthen priory, may be here given
as possessing considerable interest. It is urged that "at
the first survey for the tenth " the yearly value was returned
as £209, and it was by the fault of _ the commissioners that
it was "presented as being under £200. 2. Beside the
twelve canons, whereof four died but lately, there are daily
and commonly found by the said priory about eighty persons.
3. The house is well built and in good repair. 4. As to the
behaviour of the brethren, they refer to the report of the
country and the commissioners. 5. The priory stands in
Carmarthen, a notable market-town and common thorough
fare, and a great number of people have their meat and
drink in the said house. 6. As there is but little good
lodging for noblemen resorting to these parts on the king's
or other business, the house is an open lodging for all such.
7. Hospitality is daily kept for poor and rich, which is a
great relief to the country, being poor and bare. 8. Weekly
alms are given to eighty poor people, which, if the house
were suppressed, they would want. These charges are
maintained more by good husbandry and provision of the
house than by its revenues, which stand mostly in spiri
tualities. 9. When Henry VII. came to this country the
prior made a new lodging for him, which is meet for the
king or the prince if they happen to come to those parts.
10. Strangers and merchantmen resorting to those parts
are honestly received and entertained, whereby they are the
gladder to bring their commodities to that country. The
king of Portugal thanked the house under his great seal
for entertaining his merchants." a
In the middle of the year 1537 the king refounded one
or two monasteries which had been suppressed. This was
a different and more solemn act than the permission which
had been accorded to some to continue undissolved, and
to which reference has been made. On the 9th July, for
example, he granted a charter of foundation to a convent of
Premonstratensian nuns, to which he had given the site of
the convent of Stixwold. It was ordered to be called " the
new monastery of King Henry VIII.," and a grant in mort
main was made to Mary Missenden, who was appointed
1 Calendar, x. No. 1246.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 193
prioress " of the ground and site of the church, bell tower,
church-yard, bells, ornaments, etc.," of the monastery of
Stixwold, to be held at a rent to the crown of £1$, 5s.,
" which is the true tenth." x
In the same way, on December 18th of this same year,
Henry united several monasteries in one foundation at
Bisham. William Barlow, bishop of St. David's and com
mendatory prior of Bisham, had surrendered that house to
the king in July, 1536. A year later the abbey of Chertsey
passed into the royal power by the act of the abbot and
monks, and six months after, the abbot, " in consideration
that the said John Cordrey, late abbot, and convent of
Chertsey, had granted their possessions and monastery to
the king," received a charter incorporating that house with
a monastery the king desired to found at Bisham. It was
to consist of an abbot and thirteen Benedictine monks, who
were to pray for the king and queen Jane, and was to be
called " King Henry VIII. new monastery of Holy Trinity,
Bisham." The king also granted to Cordrey his royal
permission "to wear a mitre like any other abbot of that
order with large possessions in England." 2
It is touching to see how some of the monks plead for
permission to continue their religious life. To take but one
example: on the 9th of June, 1536, the abbot of Waverley
writes to Crumwell : " Pleaseth your mastership I received
your letters of the 7th day of this present month, and have
endeavoured myself to accomplish the contents of them, and
have sent your mastership the true extent, value and account
of our said monastery. Beseeching your good mastership,
for the love of Christ's passion, to help me in the preservation
of this poor monastery, that we your beadsmen may remain
in the service of God with the meanest living that any poor
men may live with in this world. So to continue in the
service of Almighty Jesus, and to pray for the estate of our
prince and your mastership. In no vain hope I write this
to your mastership, forasmuch you put me in such bold
ness full gently, when I was in suit to you last year at
Winchester, saying, ' Repair to me for such business as ye
shall have from time to time.' Therefore, instantly praying
you, and my poor brethren with weeping, yes ! — desire you
1 " Rot. Pat.," 29 Henry VIII., Pars. i. 29.
2 Ibid., Pars. iv. m. 12. N

194 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
to help them ; in this world no creatures in more trouble,
and so we remain depending upon the comfort that shall
come to us from you — serving God daily at Waverley."1
Meantime the progress qf the dissolution went on apace.
From the 12th May, 1536, when Calwich, in Staffordshire,
a cell of the Augustinian monastery of Kenilworth, was
taken by the commissioners as the first-fruits of the coming
harvest, the work of destruction did not cease. On June
ist John Freeman wrote to Crumwell that he hoped to
" bring a profitable inventory to the king worth £1000 in
one shire, not reckoning Gilbertines nor cells which are ten
houses. Of these," he continues, " I reckon a great part
in lead and bells, not including woods. For other moveables
they have left their houses meetly bare, nor can we make
them bring all things to light." 2
So quickly was the work accomplished that by July 8th
Chapuys was able to write : — " It is a lamentable thing to
see a legion of monks and nuns, who have been chased from
their monasteries, wandering miserably hither and thither
seeking means to live; and several honest men have told
me that, what with monks, nuns and persons dependent on
the monasteries suppressed, there were over 20,000 who
knew not how to live." 8
Everywhere throughout the country the same scenes
were being enacted. The thoroughness of Henry's policy
was brought home to the people by the same sickening
story of destruction, wanton waste, pilfering, pillage and
mock auctions worse than plain pilfering, going on up and
down the land. As for the ejected monks and nuns them
selves, to use Mr. Gairdner's words, "The full degree of
hardship arising out of the king's proceedings was perhaps
difficult even in that day to estimate — impossible in ours."4
Some of the religious, however, did not take the spolia
tion of their houses as quietly as the abbot of Waverley.
Even before the general rising in Lincolnshire the canons of
Hexham absolutely refused to be suppressed by the king's
officers. They had apparently a good cause, for archbishop
1 Calendar, x. No. 1097. 2 Ibid., No. 1026.
3 Ibid., xi. No. 42. Mr. Gairdner upon this (Preface xii.) says: — "The
estimate may possibly have referred to the ultimate effects of the act, though
the previous statement shows that the results were painful enough already.
For as yet not half the work could have been done."
4 Ibid., Pref. xiv.

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 195
Lee had begged that their house might be spared, and it
seems his request was granted, since, as will appear, they
received a grant under the great seal to continue. Their
bold Northumbrian spirit could not submit calmly to what
they must have regarded as most unjust resolutions of a
parliament composed of Henry's creatures. The story of
their successful resistance is of great interest.1 It is found
in a report upon " the misdemeanours of the religious per
sons of Hexham in the county of Northumberland. First,"
runs this valuable record, "whereas Lionel Gray, Robert
Collingwood, William Green, and James Rokeby, commis
sioners for the dissolution of the monasteries within the
county aforesaid, the 28th day of the month of September,
in the 28th year of the reign of our sovereign lord king
Henry VIII. (1536), associated with their ordinary company,
were riding towards the said monastery of Hexham, there
to execute the king's most dread commandment of dissolu
tion. Being in their journey at Delston, 3 miles from the
same monastery (they) were credibly informed that the said
religious persons had prepared them with guns and artillery
meet for war, with people in the same house and to defend
and keep the same with force." (Upon this report they)
"assented that the said Lionel Gray and Robert Collingwood
should with a few persons repair to the same monastery, as
well to view and see the number of persons keeping the
same house as to desire the subprior and convent of the
same thankfully and obediently to receive the king's com
missioners, coming near at hand to enter into their house,
with due entertainment, there to execute and use the effect
of their duties of dissolution, according to the king's most
dread commandment. The said Lionel and Robert accord
ingly did enter into the said town of Hexham. Riding
towards the said monastery (they) did see many persons as
sembled with bills, halberts, and other defenceable weapons,
ready standing in the street, like men ready to defend a town
of war. And in their passing by the street, the common
bell of the town was rung, and straight after the sound of
it the great bell in the monastery was likewise rung, whereby
the people forceably assembled towards the monastery where ,
1 Calendar, xi. No. 504. Printed in Raine, Priory of Hexham (Surtees'
Society), Appendix, p. cxxvii., &c, from the MS. collections of the Rev. John
Hodgson. The story is well told in the excellent preface to that volume.

196 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the said Lionel and Robert found the gates and doors fast
shut. And a canon, called the master of Ovingham, belong
ing to the same house, being in harness, with a bow bent
with arrows, accompanied with divers other persons, all
standing upon the leads and walls of the house and steeple.
This master of Ovingham answered these words hereunder
written : ' We be 20 brethren in this house and we shall die
all, or that ye shall have the house.'
" The said Lionel and Robert answered with a request,
and said : ' Advise you well and speak with your brethren,
and show unto them this our request and declaration of the
king's gracious writings, and then give us answer finally.'
And so the master departed into the house. After his de
parture did come into the same place five or six of the
canons of the house with divers other persons, like men of
war in harness with swords girt about them, having bows
and arrows and other weapons, and stood upon the steeple
head and leads in the defence of their house, the said Lionel
and Robert being without. About whom did come and con
gregate many people, both men with weapons and many
women, and stood there a great space, assured by the said
master of Ovingham that they should remain peaceably
there until their answer were made and so to depart without
bodily hurt.
"The said master of Ovingham being in harness with
the subprior, being in his canon's apparel, not long after did
repair again to the said Lionel and Robert, bringing with them
a writing under the king's broad seal, and said these words
hereafter written, by the mouth of the subprior : ' We do
not doubt but ye bring with you the king's seal of authority
for this house, albeit ye shall see here the king's confirma
tion of our house under the great seal of king Henry VIII.
God save his grace ! We think it not the king's honour to
give forth one seal contrary to another, and before any
either of our lands, goods or house be taken from us we
shall all die ; and that is our full answer.' And so the said
Lionel and Robert returned and met the rest of the commis
sioners approaching near the town. And so all together
recoiled back to Corbridge, where they lay all that night."
Next day they learnt " that immediately after the com
missioners departed the town, the canons being all in
harness, associated with a great company of tenants and

The Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries 197
servants belonging to the said monastery to the number of
60 persons and more, did issue forth of the monastery in
defenceable array, by two together, all in harness, and so
did walk from the monastery to a place called the green,
towards where the commissioners did meet, and there stood
in array with their weapons in their hands until the com
missioners were past out of sight of the monastery. And
so returned into the monastery again."
It would seem that from the 28th of September, when
the royal commissioners were driven away, till the 15 th of
October, the canons held the monastery by force of arms.
After that they wavered in their determination, and said
" that the abbey should be delivered to the king's commis
sioners to be ordered at their pleasure, so that they might
there serve God and remain, though they begged for their
livings." Their message of submission, however, was not
taken to the king, and Hexham remained untouched till, on
the final suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace, they could
be dealt with. Probably many of the canons suffered for
their temerity in resisting the royal will, for Hexham is
mentioned by name in Henry's letter to the duke of Norfolk,
as one of the places where the monks " are to be tied up
without further delay or ceremony."1 Prior Jay, who is
not named in the account of the resistance offered to the
suppression, was possibly, like so many superiors at this
time, a crown nominee. He alone received the grant of a
pension when Hexham finally fell into the hands of Henry
in March, 1537.2
1 Lemon, State Papers, i. 537.'
2 Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 28-29 Hen. VIII., 200 m. 4d. The
grant is dated 10 March, anno 28. Canon Raine says that tradition has it he
was hanged at the gate of his monastery. This possibly was the subprior.
It could not have been prior Jay.

CHAPTER XI
The Rising in Lincolnshire
THE resistance offered to the royal commissioners at Hexham
was an indication of the popular disapproval of Henry's
measures. Before punishment could be dealt out to the
hardy northerners, and indeed even within a few days of
the affair at Hexham, the smouldering flame of discontent
had burst into the full blaze of open defiance in Lincolnshire.
No part of England had a worse reputation for disorder, and
the crown records for a long period previously afford ample
proof of the bold and turbulent spirit of the inhabitants of
the fen lands and the adjacent districts. They were the last
people in England to see changes which they could not
approve taking place in their midst without making an en
deavour to stay the course of events by an appeal to arms.
Only one other county had been so greatly affected by
the late act of parliament which had dissolved the lesser
monasteries. By this measure some seven-and-thirty reli
gious houses in Lincolnshire passed into the king's possession,
and a rental of more than £3000 a year, which had hitherto
been spent in the county and, in a great measure at least,
for the good of the people, was transferred to the royal purse
for the vague purpose of augmenting the crown revenues.
The full meaning of this change must have come home
in a practical way to almost every class in the county.
Not only were a large number of monks and nuns ren
dered homeless, and a still greater number of their de
pendents, deprived of their means of livelihood, become
outcasts and beggars, but the clergy, who were vicars of
livings appropriated to the dissolved monasteries, must have
been uncertain whether they could continue to count upon
their stipends, now that the greater tithes had passed into
the hands of the royal officials and other laymen. The
poor, also, long dependent in great measure on the charity
198

The Rising in Lincolnshire 199
and assistance of the religious, must have regarded the
movement with feelings akin to despair, whilst even those
who had been accustomed to relief left them by dead bene
factors, and of which the monks had been the careful
guardians, would have known that their trusts had likewise
been swept away into the capacious purse of Henry.
In no part of England, moreover, was the ugly business
of gathering in the spoils pushed on with greater vigour
than in Lincolnshire. By the feast of St. Michael, 1536,
or in six months from the passing of the act of dissolution,
John Freeman, the royal receiver for the district, was able
to account for a large sum to the treasurer of the court of
augmentation. His receipts from the sales of the religious
houses, including buildings, furniture, lead, bells, with
stocks and moveables of all kinds, had reached the high total
of ^7484, os. 4fd., or, in round figures, some £75,000 of
our present money, to which a further sum of nearly £200
was to be added for " pictures, clocks," and other precious
articles sold subsequently. ' Altogether, with rents and other
items of receipts, John Freeman admitted having obtained
for the king in the first six months no less a sum than
^8756, us. 9fd., of which about one fourth part had been
paid away in the process of dissolution.1
It is, of course, impossible that the people could have wit
nessed the desecration of the monastic churches, the sales of
the sacred vestments, the carrying away of the altar plate
to the royal treasure-house, and the expulsion of the reli
gious from monastery and convent without deep and angry
feelings. They argued, rightly, as the event proved, that
a power which could proceed to such extremities against
ecclesiastical rights would not stop here, and that gradually
the treasuries of parish churches would be searched and
emptied to satisfy a greed which would only be whetted
by the spoils already obtained from the monastic houses.
Other causes of discontent were likewise at work on the
popular mind. The religious changes, and in particular the
renunciation of papal authority at the royal pleasure, were
eminently distasteful to the nation at large. The ecclesiasti
cal appointments made by Henry, especially those of bishops
regarded by the Catholic instincts of the people as heretics
1 Exch. Augt. Office Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., No. 166.

200 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and false pastors, had stirred up feelings of resentment
ready to burst out on the slightest provocation; and the
late enactments of Henry's parliament about property ap
peared to attack a long-established right as to the free
disposal of acquired estates and to destroy the possibility
of making provision by will for the support of the younger
members of a family.
Just at this time three commissions were issued by the
crown which singly might have tried the temper of a nation,
but which combined were irritating beyond the limits of
popular self-control. In the autumn of 1534 a subsidy or
tax of two and a half per cent, on all incomes of more than
£20 a year had been voted by the parliament. The first
part had been paid, and the second now being due, the
royal officials were endeavouring to enforce the payment and
to push their inquisitorial demands for the correct returns
of income. At the same time other commissioners were busy con
ducting the work of suppressing the lesser monasteries.
With bands of retainers and workmen imported from distant
places, they were carrying on the forced sales, dismantling
the conventual churches and other buildings, and dispatching
convoys with plate and muniments to London, or with the
lead of church roofs and gutters melted into fodders and
pigs, and the metal of broken bells to some place where they
were to be stored for use or sale.
Simultaneously a third set of royal agents were busy
carrying round certain injunctions, which Crumwell, as
vicar-general in spirituals, had made for the clergy at large.
Their powers were extensive, and were intensely disliked by
those whom they most concerned. They were directed to
call before them every individual parish priest, to inquire
into his character, habits and reputation, to examine into his
qualifications and learning, and to dismiss from their cures
those they considered unfit.
As might be expected, rumours were busily circulated
which served to inflame the popular mind. According to
the declaration of the abbot of Barlings, for about a month
or six weeks before Michaelmas day, 1536, reports were
going about the country " that two or three parish churches
should be put in one." Also "that about the same time,
it was likewise bruited that all chalices, crosses and other

The Rising in Lincolnshire 201
jewels of the church should be taken away from the same
churches, and chalices of tin should be given to the said
churches in lieu of them ; " also " that all manner of gold,
coined and uncoined, should be brought to the Tower of
London to be touched." 1 According to another witness, it
was commonly said at this time that the churches were to
be destroyed, " that all the abbeys of England should be
suppressed save only the monastery of Westminster. And
further. . . that all the jewels of the church, that is to say
crosses, chalices, censers, should be taken away from the
churches, and chalices, crosses and censers of tin put in their
places." 2
The first outbreak of the storm took place at Louth.8
By the close of September the monastery of Louth-park had
been dissolved, and the people had witnessed the sales of
the ornaments and vestments of the church, which, together
with the other effects of the place, realised close upon the
large sum of a thousand pounds.* At the feast of St.
Michael the process of dissolution was going on at the
convent of Legbourne, just outside the town, and two of
Crumwell's servants, Millicent and John Bellow, had been
left by the commissioners to complete the work.
On Saturday, the last day of September, Dr. Raynes,
chancellor of the bishop of Lincoln, held a court of examina
tion at Bolingbroke, and the priests of the district had been
much exercised by his inquiries. According to the declara
tion of a former monk of Louth-park, it was the chancellor's
scribe, Peter, who fanned the spark into flame by " recom
mending the priests to study up their books, for they should
have straight examination taken of them shortly." 6 One was
heard to say : " They will deprive us of our benefices be
cause they would have the first-fruits^" 6 Another declared
that " they would not be ordered nor yet examined of their
ability in learning or otherwise in keeping of cure of souls." '
1 Chapter House Bk., A. &, p. 12.
2 Ibid., p. 25. In this declaration, as to the popular belief that Henry
coveted the treasures of the parish churches, all the numerous witnesses exa
mined as to the rising agree.
8 Only a slight sketch of both the Lincolnshire rising and the Pilgrimage
of Grace is here attempted, in so far as they bear upon the question of the
dissolution of monasteries.
4 Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 81, m. 43.
6 Chapter House Bk., A. A» P- »43- * •»** 7 JHd-> A- A. P- 8.

202 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
And the parson of Farforthe, Simon Maltby, "returned home
to his parish and reported amongst his neighbours that the
church goods should be taken from them." He also said that
" there were divers chalices made of tin which should be de
livered to them in exchange for their silver chalices, and the
said silver chalices to be had to the king's use. And further
the said Sir Simon said, that he with other priests were deter
mined that if the said chancellor did sit any more they would
strike him down, trusting that their neighbours would take
their parts in that behalf."1
The report that the king was going to take possession of
all church plate was fully believed on all sides. "One William
Man that singeth bass in the choir at Louth and parson
Sotbye going to board with Thomas Manby at Louth," just
before the rising, said, that " the common fame was that the
inhabitants of the town of Hull had sold the church stuff to
prevent the king's commissioners."2 And whilst dining at
Grimsby, a sailor, " a very tall man having a tall woman for
his wife," was heard to say: "We hear at Hull that ye
should have a visitation here shortly, and therefore we have
taken all our church plate and jewels and sold them and
paved our town withal. And so, if ye be wise, will ye do too
and mend your town, which is foul withal." 8
There were, however, other matters which moved the
people more deeply than any question about their church
plate. Kendal, the vicar of Louth, declared that there was
much grumbling about the supremacy question, although he
could not give the names of those who "murmured that the
king's highness should be head of the church." And also
that "all men with whom he had any communication did
grudge and murmur at the new opinions touching our Lady
and Purgatory, and himself also did grudge at the same.
Item," runs the record of the vicar's examination in the
Tower, "he saith it was reported that the sacrament was
irreverently taken down at Hagneby by the king's officers
at the time of the suppression and dissolution of the same
house." 4
It is impossible to inspect the depositions of witnesses
and examinations of prisoners on this matter, without a
conviction that the men of Lincolnshire rose in arms in
1 Chapter House Bk., A. ^-, p. 7. 2 Ibid., A. fa p. 3. 8 Ibid., p. 144.
4 Ibid., p. 3.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 203
defence of what they held to be matters of both Christian
faith and practice. The vicar of Louth advised them most
strongly " in no wise to meddle with the king's highness,
but only for the repression of heresies and maintenance of
the faith of Christ." * They regarded Crumwell and some
of the bishops as banded together to destroy the Catholic
faith, and they were loud in their demands for their punish
ment. " Item," said one witness, " they intended if they
might have prospered in their journey to have slain the
lord Crumwell, four or five of the bishops, the master of the
Rolls, and the chancellor of the Augmentations." Also —
and to this part of the examination an ominous hand with
a finger pointing is placed in the margin with the remark,
"Note this specially" — the gentlemen "demanded of the
commons whether they would have the lord Crumwell and
others before named, saying to them : " The lord Crumwell
was a false traitor, and that he and the same bishops and
master of the Rolls and the chancellor of Augmentations —
calling them two false pen-clerks — were the very imaginers
and devisers of all the false laws.' " 2
Against Crumwell in particular, the feeling of the priests
and people was extremely bitter. One priest is accused of
saying that "the king's most noble counsel were false
harlots in devising of false laws for spoiling the goods of
the spirituality, and named the procurement thereof to be
the lord Crumwell," s and many threats of personal violence
are recorded as being uttered against him. Altogether there
can be no doubt that the people, as one witness has it,
"called my lord privy seal most vilipendiously at their
pleasure."4 Besides the religious questions there were also social
matters which irritated the people at this time. Parliament,
in the last session but one, had passed the celebrated
" Statute of Uses." 5 Up to this time, land had not been
subject to disposition by will, but this bar to the free dis
posal of real property had been practically removed by a
system of "uses " or "trusts," under cover of which it had
been the practice to make provision for younger children,
for the payment of debts and for other charges, which were
often tantamount to a transfer of such property. The king's
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 6. 2 md., p. 28. 3 Ibid., A. fa p. 5.
4 Ibid., A. fa, p. 169. 6 27 Hen. VIII., Cap. 10.

204 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
anxiety in the passing of the "Statute of Uses" was to
prevent the failure of his feudal dues. Some three years
before the measure passed into law, he had endeavoured
to effect what he wanted by a measure relating to " ward
ships." The populace were thus at this time thoroughly roused
by the temporal and spiritual innovations which they were
compelled to witness. In Lincolnshire also the extensive
suppressions of religious houses coming at this time, in
conjunction with the constant reports of yet further destruc
tion and desecration of churches, and of the greater seizure
of ecclesiastical property meditated by Henry, determined
the people to have recourse to arms for the preservation of
the rights of church and nation.
The story of the rising may be best told in the words
of those who were present, and which are preserved in the
depositions of witnesses and the examination of prisoners
after the close of the rebellion. "Sir William Moreland,
priest, late monk of Louth-park," deposed 1 that he was a
monk in the abbey up to the 8th of September, 1536, and
that on " Holy Rood day (14th September) next following "
he had received his capacity, "and ever since then hath
gone in secular habit, saving at such time as he was at
Pomfret with Sir Robert Constable, when he did wear their
white jacket and a scapulary." After leaving his monastery,
he had lodged at the house " of one Thomas Wrightson of
Kedington," a little village about a quarter of a mile from
his old religious home, and had only been away twice, when
he went to a house in Louth " to meet two or three of his
late brethren."
"About three weeks before Michaelmas," this exiled
monk declares, " a great rumour was busily spoken (speci
ally after the commissary's visitation kept at Louth church,
in Saint Peter's choir, by one Master Peter, then scribe
to the commissary of Lincoln) that the chalices of parish
churches should be taken away, and that there should be
but one parish church within six or seven miles compass.
Also, that every parson and vicar should be examined and
tried by their learning whether they were able and sufficient
of their learning to have and take upon themselves the cure
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 91 to 129.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 205
of souls or not. Wherewith this deponent was right glad,
and thought to himself that it might perchance be his fortune
to succeed some of such unlettered parsons or vicars in
some of their rooms.
" And the Monday (2nd October) next after Michaelmas
day, as this deponent remembereth, the said inquiry and
visitation should have been kept at Louth aforesaid. And
the same Sunday (1st October) when the insurrection
first began at Louth, he rode forth by four o'clock in the
morning on a bay gelding, which he borrowed of one Dane
Thomas Lilborne, late subprior of Louth-park, and so rode
on to Markby and Hagneby to deliver there certain ' capaci
ties ' to the number of ten, into divers of the brethren of the
monasteries there also late suppressed. And the same after
noon about three o'clock he came home again to Kedington.
And then he heard say that the vicar of Louth, called
Kendall, had made a certain collation 1 that same Sunday
unto his parishioners, in which, amongst other things, he
advised them to go together and to look well on such things
as should be inquired of on the next morrow at the visitation.
And the same Sunday at evensong (as this deponent heard
say, for he was not thereat), the parishioners ' commoning '
amongst themselves of the premises, the head men of the
parish and the poor men all together, or the most part of
them, at last fell at such diversity of sundry opinions amongst
themselves that in conclusion, the poor men took the keys
ofthe church from the rich men and churchwardens there,
and said they would keep the keys themselves. And that
night, he heard say, that the parishioners did put into the
church to keep the same ten or twelve of their neighbours."
On the Monday morning, Moreland, after having " said
matins," hearing of the disturbance of the night before, went
into Louth to make inquiries. "And then," he continues,
"this deponent would have gone into the church to hear
mass, but such of the parishioners as kept the church would
not suffer him nor none other to enter into the same, but
only such as they liked." Not being able to hear his mass,
he retired " from the church unto the house of one William
Hert, a butcher," where, amongst others, he met one of his
old brethren of Louth-park, "Robert Hert." They, of
1 i.e., sermon or address.

206 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
course, discussed the events of the previous evening, " and
as they sat together there at breakfast with puddings,
suddenly the common bell was rung by such as were within
the said church."
At the sound of the alarm the people rushed towards
the church, where its meaning was soon discovered, by the
appearance of John Heneage, "the proctor," who riding into
the town had been seized by the excited populace, who
would have killed him. Some of the better disposed, how
ever, hurried him to the church, where they managed to get
him into the choir, " and to lock the door between him and
the commons." He was, however, forced to take the oath to
be true to God and the people. Nicholas Melton, "whom
afterwards they named captain Cobler," was the chief leader
of the people at this time.
This excitement had somewhat subsided when, as the
people were turning home, "suddenly, at the coming into
the town of one master John Franke, the registrar of the
bishop of Lincoln, the common bell was rung again, and
then all the commons in like manner with weapons, 'as
they did before, ran again unto the house of one William
Goldsmith, where the said registrar was alighted, and there
they took all his books from him. And one John Taylor, of
Louth, 'webstar,' brought out of the said house a great
brand of fire, and by the commoners the said books were
conveyed to the market-place."
The witness declares that he did his best to prevent this
destruction of the registers, but could not. "And then
they by force carried this deponent under the high cross
there, and said that he, with others to the number of six,
being there of the same opinion should look in the books
to know what was in them." He commenced to read the
king's commission in order to declare its meaning to the
people, when the others, frightened by the noises of the
mob, " ' flang ' all the books down unto them beneath the
cross, and then every man that was beneath got a piece of
them and hurled them into the fire."
Whilst this scene was being enacted at the market-cross,
some of the crowd went and brought the registrar to the
square, "and caused him, by a ladder, to climb up to the
altitude of a half-part of the cross. And when he came up,
he said unto this deponent, 'For the passion of Christ,

The Rising in Lincolnshire 207
priest, if canst, save my life. And as for the books that be
already burnt, I pass not of them ; ' so as a little book of his
reckoning of such money as he had laid out might be saved,
and also the king's commission, which to be saved this
deponent promised as much as in him was." Meantime the
mob clamoured for the registrar to come down from the
cross and burn his own books, which he was forced to do.
The monk of Louth-park tried to save the small book of
accounts, but as he was carrying it off " they all drew about
him, and demanded of him what book was that which he
had in his hands." He told them that it was a book of
reckonings. But they would not believe him, "and carried
him with strength the breadth of the market-stead, unto a
shop window of one Thomas Grantham, tailor, and then he
read unto them some parts of the contents of the book." At
length they permitted him to keep the volume, but as he was
carrying it to the registrar he was surrounded again by three
or four hundred people, who "took it out of his sleeve."
He informed the king's officer of the loss, who, however, for
his good service " paid for his dinner," and promised him
"his letters of orders." In the afternoon the registrar was
conveyed out of danger.
"Whilst this deponent," he continues, "was thus at
dinner with the said registrar, the commons of the said
town went unto the monastery of Legbourn, a mile and a
half from Louth, and from thence they fetched and brought
to Louth with them one Millicent and John Bellow, servants
unto my lord privy seal, and put them in great fear and
jeopardy of their lives." In the evening they put these two
men and another, George Parker, into prison.
Thus passed the first day of the rising. Early on the
morning of the following day, Tuesday, the common bell at
Louth was again set ringing. The king's commissioners
were reported to be at Caistor; and Melton, otherwise Captain
Cobbler, harangued the mob and gave order, that at the
" next ringing of the bell " all should set out for that neigh
bouring town. Four priests and four laymen were appointed
to speak with the commissioners, and of these "Dane
William Borowby alias Moreland," the chief informant, was
one. They set out on foot till they came to Irford, a
convent of Premonstratensian nuns, where they " borrowed
for this deponent, of the prioress there, a white trotting

208 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
gelding, ready bridled and saddled." On their way they
were met by contingents from the neighbouring villages,
and at Caistor hill they found about a thousand men,
unarmed, waiting for them. Seeing the commissioners,
Borowby, with some eighteen or twenty others, rode on to
speak with them, " and with his cap in his hand desired them,
in the name of the said company of commoners, to return and
speak with them." This, most of them consented to do,
and they were forced to take the oath to aid the commons.
Lord Borough, however, who was with the gentry when they
were overtaken by the people, set spurs to his horse and
escaped. The rioters thought that his servant Nicholas had
aided him in his flight, and angry at not having secured the
master, they turned upon the servant. "And," continues
the witness, " so great a number of them striking at him, as
I never saw man escape such danger as he was in, having
so many strokes and wounds as he had. And at last when
he had fled evermore backward from them almost a quarter
of a mile, saving himself always amongst the horsemen, he
was stricken down by the footmen of Louth and Louth-Esk.
And then, when he was stricken down they cried for a priest
for him. And at last with much pain this deponent came
unto him, and so at length he caused him to be conveyed
unto the town and then confessed him, and sent two surgeons
unto him from Louth." 1
On the same day, Tuesday, October 3rd, the country
round about Horncastle rose with even greater unanimity
than at Louth. Some of the townsmen discovered that Dr.
Raynes, the chancellor of the bishop of Lincoln, was still at
Killingbroke, and unable to move from sickness. Upon
this information they came thither " with a great company
to take the chancellor, and did ring the common bell. And
then the commons did cry, ' Kill him ! ' and would have
drawn him out of his bed " had they not been dissuaded
by others from violence.2 The people of Killingbroke
promised, however, to come to a great muster on Ancaster
heath near to Horncastle, and thither they brought with
them Dr. Raynes, the chancellor of Lincoln, "being very
sick." The following day the gentry of the county were
1 The whole of the above narrative is taken from the depositions of
Moreland, alias Borowby, the Louth-park monk. A. fa, pp. 91-129.
2 Ibid., A. fa, p. 3.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 209
present, with the sheriff, Mr. Dymmoke, at their head, who
" gave divers of the rebels, being poor men, money for their
costs." As the chancellor rode into the field with his captors the
passions of the mob were stirred, and there occurred one of
the two acts of violence, which alone in this or the subsequent
Yorkshire rising, disgraced the movement.1 "At his coming
into the field," declares one witness named Brian Staines,
"the rebels, whereof were many parsons and vicars, cried
out with a loud voice, 'Kill him, kill him.' And upon
that one William Hutchinson, of Horncastle, and William
Balderstone, by the procurement of the said parsons and
vicars, pulled him violently off his horse, kneeling upon his
knees, and with their staves they slew him. And being
dead, this deponent saith the priests continually crying
' Kill him, kill him,' he also struck the said chancellor upon
the arm with a staff." 2
As the body of the murdered chancellor lay upon the
ground in the midst of the mob, "his apparel was divided
amongst them, and his purse brought to the sheriff, who
afterwards distributed the money that was in the same to
the poor men that were amongst the rebels." And the
1 Canon Dixon (vol. i. p. 457, note) rightly says : " It (the ' Great Insurrec
tion ') was throughout more of a demonstration than a civil war, and with the
exception of the murder of the chancellor and of a serving-man, the behaviour
of the so-called rebels was wonderfully temperate and orderly. On the other
hand, the bloody perfidy of the strangely chosen hero of Mr. Froude comes
out more conspicuously in his excited narrative than in any of the histories."
2 Chapter House Bk. , A. fa pp. 24-25. The deposition of this witness,
Brian Staines, is the authority for supposing that the priests were the chief
instigators of this crime. Mr. Froude accepts the statement without question,
and exclaims: "These, we presume, were Pole's seven thousand children
of light who hid not bowed the knee to Baal — the noble army of saints
who were to flock to Charles' banners." Canon Dixon (vol. i. p. 457) has
followed his guidance, and stated that the chancellor "was killed at the
instigation of the clergy." The authority of the witness is, however, not alto
gether beyond suspicion. To judge from the depositions in this matter, those
implicated were generally ready to excuse themselves by casting the blame on
others. In fact, Staines himself was accused of perpetrating the deed ; and
this seems to have been considered the true version. For in the notes which
were intended to sum up the evidence, the following is entered: "Brian
Staines was he which killed the chancellor " (Ibid., A. fa, p. 3). There is no
reason to suppose, as would be natural from Mr. Froude's and Canon Dixon's
narratives, that Dr. Mackarel, the abbot of Barlings, and "all his fraternity"
were present at the murder of the chancellor ; in fact, it appears that the
abbot was not with them till some days afterwards (Ibid., A. fa p. 13), and
knew nothing of the insurrection till the day after the murder. O

210 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
priests and vicars then advised them strongly to proceed on
their journey, saying " they should lack neither gold nor
silver." Banners were made and carried at the head of the
detachments. A tenant of the abbot of Barlings " tied a
white towel on the top of a banner and pinned a picture of
the Trinity painted in parchment on the same towel, and
caused his son to bear it." 1 And another, called Dymmoke's
banner, was thus described by the man who carried it.
"Item, the said Trotter saith the meaning of the plough
borne in the banner was to encourage the husbandmen.
The meaning of the chalice and the host was borne in
remembrance that chalices, cross and jewels of the church
would be taken away. The meaning of the five wounds
was to ' couraging ' of the people to fight in Christ's cause.
The meaning of the horn was borne in taking of horn
cattle."2 Before, however, the assembly broke up at Horncastle
they devised certain articles of grievance which were to be
forwarded to the king. They were drawn up by the gentry,
including the sheriff Dymmoke and his brother, who held
their discussion a mile or so from the body of the people,
and were written out by one of their number "on the field
upon his saddle-bow." When they were finished, Dymmoke
and the rest rode up to the mob, and in a loud voice pro
claimed the articles, saying: "Masters, ye see that in all the
time we have been absent from you we have not been idle.
How like you these articles ? If they please you, say yea.
If not, ye shall have them mended." And then the commons
held up their hands, with a loud voice, saying: "We like
them very well." 3
The demands thus made to the king were six in number.
They complained, (i) of the dissolution of the religious
houses and of the consequent destitution of " the poorealty
of the realm ; " (2) of the restraints imposed on the dis
tribution of property by "the statute of uses;" (3) of
the grant to the king of the tenths and first-fruits of
spiritual benefices; (4) of the payment of the subsidy de
manded of them; (5) of the introduction into the king's
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 7.
2 /bid., p. 37. It was reported that the king was going to levy a tax on
all cattle. 3 Ibid., A. fa, p. 31.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 2 1 1
council of Crumwell, Rich, and other " such personages as
be of low birth and small reputation ; " and (6) of the pro
motion of the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, and
the bishops of Rochester, St. David's, and others, who, in
their opinion, had clearly "subverted the faith of Christ."1
These articles were dispatched at once to the king at
Windsor, and Heneage, the royal commissioner, was allowed
to accompany2 the messenger.
At Lincoln itself there had been a rising of the people
also. The town was occupied by armed insurgents, and
bishop Longland's palace had been broken into and sacked,
the people doing there " as much hurt as they could."
For the first week the course of the insurgents was
unchecked. They armed themselves as best they might,
and did not hesitate to seize upon weapons and armour
wherever they could be found.3 They set beacons blazing
and alarm-bells ringing throughout the county, but the
-movement lacked a leader of ability, and it collapsed almost
as suddenly as it had come into existence.
The messengers from the meeting at Horncastle were
detained by the king for a short time, while preparations
were hurried on to collect forces and forward munitions of
war to the north. In a week from the first commencement
of the movement Sir John Russell, with the advance guard,
was at Stamford, and the duke of Suffolk, to whom the
supreme command had been given, was coming up in his
rear. On Wednesday, October nth, just ten days after the
outbreak, the king's herald arrived in Lincoln with the royal
answer to the articles. It was couched in angry and
vigorous language. " Concerning choosing of counsellors,"
the king wrote, " I never have read, heard nor known, that
1 Canon Dixon, vol. i. p. 457, on the authority of Speed's account of the
Lincolnshire articles, says that the insurgents acknowledged the king " to be
by inheritance the supreme head of the Church of England." There is no
indication of this as far as can be known. In the original depositions rather
the opposite would appear, both in their case and that of the "Pilgrims of
Grace," who subsequently adopted the same articles.
2 " Perhaps to save him from being murdered by the priests ! ! " is Mr.
Froude's remark on this permission accorded to Heneage.
b An interesting example of this may be given. "Philip Trotter, of
Horncastle, is accused by Edward Dymmoke, saying he took the coat armour
of Sir Lyon Dymmoke out of Horncastle church, where he was buried, and
wore it upon his back." — Ibid., A. fa, p. 13.

212 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
princes' counsellors and prelates should be appointed by
rude and ignorant common people; nor that they were
persons meet or of ability to discern and choose meet and
sufficient counsellors for a prince. How presumptuous then
are ye, the rude commons of one shire, and that one of the
most brute and beastly of the whole realm, and of least
experience, to find fault with your prince for the electing
of his counsellors and prelates, and to take upon you,
contrary to God's law and man's law, to rule your prince
whom ye are bound to obey and serve with both your lives,
lands, and goods, and for no worldly cause to withstand.
"As to the suppression of houses and monasteries,"
they were granted to us by the parliament, "and not set
forth by any counsellor or counsellors upon their mere will
and fantasy, as you, full falsely, would persuade our realm
to believe. And where ye alledge that the service of God
is much thereby diminished, the truth thereof is contrary; for
there are no houses suppressed where God was well served,
but where most vice, mischief, and abomination of living
was used : and that doth well appear by their own confes
sions, subscribed with their own hands, in the time of our
visitations. And yet were suffered a great many of them,
more than we by the act needed, to stand ; wherein if they
amend not their living, we fear we have more to answer for
than for the suppression of all the rest. And as for their
hospitality, for the relief of poor people, we wonder ye be
not ashamed to affirm that they have been a great relief to
our people, when a great many, or the most part, hath not
past four or five religious persons in them and divers but
one, which spent the substance of the goods of their house
in nourishing vice and abominable living. Now, what un-
kindness and unnaturality may we impute to you and all our
subjects that be of that mind that had rather such an un
thrifty sort of vicious persons should enjoy such possessions,
profits and emoluments as grow ofthe said houses to the main
tenance of their unthrifty life, than we, your natural prince,
sovereign lord and king, who doth and hath spent more
in your defences of his own than six times they be worth."
The king's proclamation dismisses the " act of uses " as
a subject which they cannot comprehend, and coming to
speak of their demand to be relieved of the subsidy imposed
upon them, he upbraids them for "so unkindly and un-

The Rising in Lincolnshire 213
truly " dealing with him, who has done so much for them
"without any cause or occasion."
Lastly, as to the "first-fruits}1 Henry declared that the
people ought to be glad for him to have them, to enable
him to bear "the great and excessive charges for the main
tenance " of the commonwealth. " Wherefore," he concludes,
"we charge you, eftsoon, upon the aforesaid bonds and
pains, that ye withdraw yourselves to your own houses,
every man ; and no more to assemble, contrary to the laws
and your allegiances ; and to cause the provokers of you to
this mischief to be delivered to our lieutenant's hands or
ours, and you yourselves to submit to such condign punish
ment as we and our nobles shall think you worthy."1
On Thursday, October 12, the people were ordered to
be at the Castle-garth, in Lincoln, to hear the king's answer
to their petition. Difficulties had by this time arisen
between the gentlemen and the common people. They
mutually distrusted each other, and at the reading of the
royal letter the dissensions became apparent. "We the
gentlemen," says one of them, when the letters came,
" thought to read them secretly among ourselves, but as we
were reading them the commons present cried that they
would hear them read or else pull them from us. And, there
fore, I read the letters openly; and because there was a
little clause there, which we feared would stir the commons,
I did leave that clause unread, which was perceived by a
canon there, and he said openly the letter was falsely read,
by reason whereof I was like to be slain. " 2
From that hour agreement was impossible, and on the
following morning, Friday, October 13, the Lincolnshire
resistance to Henry's measures was at an end. The gentry
went forward to Stamford to meet the duke of Suffolk, and
in their company he, with Russell and Richard Crumwell,
rode through Lincoln, the streets of which were crowded
with a sullen and disheartened populace. On that same
day, Friday, October 13, the royal proclamation was read at
the cross in the market-place at Louth, and by Sunday,
Henry had received at Windsor the news of the complete
collapse of what threatened to be a formidable popular
protest against his policy and government.
1 State Papers, i. p. 463.
2 "Confession of Thomas Mayne," quoted by Froude, iii. p. 117.

214 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The king saw at once how prejudicial to his position
abroad was this overt expression of popular dissatisfaction
with his domestic policy. He did not even wait for the
news of the suppression of the rising, but on October 1 3th,
even before Suffolk had entered Lincoln, he had written to
his ambassadors at the court of France, bishop Gardiner
and Sir John Wallop, to counteract any evil which might
arise from the news of the rebellion. "You shall under
stand," he says, "that, by the blowing abroad of certain
false tales — that is to say, that we should intend to take all
the ornaments, plate, and jewels of all the parish churches
within our realm into our hands and convert the same
totally to our own use ; and that we should also therewith
intend to tax all our commons, as the like thereof was never
heard of in any Christian religion, when we assure you
there was never word spoken, or thing thought, by us or
any of our council touching such matters; which certain
traitors (whereof two be already executed, and we have
more of the authors ready to suffer like punishment) devised
and invented, being they otherwise in the danger of our
laws, and thinking, in this tombeling to fly and escape —
certain of our subjects, with a number of boys and beggars,
assembled themselves together in our county of Lincoln.
And for as much as the matter of this insurrection may be
there noted a greater thing than it is and so spoken to our
dishonour, we thought meet to advertise you, as of the cause
and the state of the thing we have done already." He
concludes by saying that Suffolk, " who is now there, with
a great force," will, without doubt, "give the traitors the
reward of their traitorous attempt very shortly." And he
adds that in six days he has " levied and conveyed " to
Ampthill " an army of" 80,000 tried men, which he hopes
his ambassadors "may declare it" to the king of France,
"and to all others whatsoever shall be bruited ofthe same,
and that we can at all times return every man home again
to his house or dwelling-place, in as short space, without
tumult or any manner of inconvenience." 1
1 Tierney, Dodd's Church Hist, of England, vol. i. App. xiii., "from the
original, in my possession." No such army as the king speaks of was in
existence. Eleven days later the privy council ask the duke of Norfolk's
advice whether it was "expedient that his grace should levy an army."
(Hardwicke State Papers, i. p. 26.)

The Rising in Lincolnshire 215
Upon the submission of the men of Lincolnshire, Henry
issued another proclamation giving them his pardon and
extolling his own generosity in so doing. They were
ordered to "leave all their harness and all other weapons
in the market-place of our city of Lincoln," and to depart
peacefully to their homes. "And if," the document con
cludes, "you will not take this most gracious and merciful
clemency at this present time, but continue one whole day
longer after the receipt hereof, we shall execute all extremity
against you, your wives and children without mercy ; to the
most terrible and fearful example of all others, whilst the
world shall endure hereafter."1
It is well to enter more in detail into the part taken by
the monks in the insurrection. They must doubtless have
given their best wishes to a movement which was initiated
in their defence, but beyond this and the fact that they had
given food, and perhaps money, to the mob, and that some
few were violently compelled to go with it, there is nothing
that can be construed into a proof of complicity. The first
with whose name the Lincolnshire rising is especially
associated is Dr. Mackarel, abbot of Barlings.2 He and his
brethren, who were of the Premonstratensian order, are
accused not only of taking an active part in fomenting the
disturbance, but the abbot is made by Mr. Froude and those
who follow him the head of the rising.
In his own examination, taken in the Tower of London
on January 12th, 1537, abbot Mackarel declares that:
"By command of Mr. Dymmocke, the sheriff, he brought
a cartload of victuals to the rebels. And at his coming
amongst them, for fear of his life and for safeguard of his
house, and to the intent they should not spoil his said
household, he said to the sheriff these words, or like in
effect following : ' Mr. Sheriff, I beseech you to be good
master unto me and save my house from spoiling, and I
will help you with such victual and goods as I have."
Further, after declaring that he knew nothing about the
insurrection till the Wednesday (October 4th), and ex-
1 State Papers, i. p. 468.
2 He was titular bishop of Chalcedon and suffragan of Lincoln. As
chosen agent of so prudent and experienced a. prelate as Longland in the
administration of his diocese, it is to be presumed he was not naturally of the
temper of a brawler, or disposed to rush to the head of a rabble.

216 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
plaining what he considered to be the causes which led
to the rising, he asserts that the sheriff Willoughby, " with
great bragging and menacing words commanded him to
bring victuals," and denies utterly that "he did at any time
persuade the people by sermon or oration or any kind of
persuasion." "Item," the record runs, "he saith that upon Friday
after the commencement of the insurrection (October 6th),
when he had sure knowledge that the rebels would come
into his monastery — and at that time there were in his
house a hundred of the same rebels — he then weeping
declared to his brethren and some of his servants these
words, or like in effect following: 'Brethren and servants,
I perceive that these rebels will have both you and me with
them, and what shall become of us God knoweth ; but this
ye shall understand, that their cause is nought, and surely
God and man must of justice take vengeance on them.'
" Item he saith, that he would have fled at the beginning
of the insurrection, saving he feared the burning of his
house and the utter destruction of the same and spoiling
of all his goods."
"Be it remembered," continues the document, "that
a canon of the abbot of Barlings, now prisoner in the
Tower of London, being examined what words the said
abbot had to his canons, servants and the rebels, at their
being in his house as is aforesaid, declared that the abbot,
being by them required to send his canons to the rest of
their company, answered, it was against the laws of God
and man that any religious person should go to battle and
specially against their prince. And said further, that the
said abbot was so sorrowful that he could not, in a great
while after their departure from his house, say any part
of his divine service for weeping." x
In a subsequent examination on March 23rd, 1537,
before Legh, Layton and Ap Rice, abbot Mackarel made
certain admissions about the way in which he viewed the
work of suppression. He says that when they were
prisoners in Lincoln gaol the cellarer was admitted to bail
by Sir William Parr in order that he might collect the
rents due to the abbey, and of these Sir William got £20.
1 Chapter. House Bk., A. fa, pp. 11-13.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 217
He also confessed that " he was in much fear of deprivation
(at the) time of the king's late visitation. And the visitor
Mr. Bedyll came so suddenly on him that he had no leisure
or deliberation to tell the money which he delivered in a
purse to ' one Thomas Osegarby.' Also he says," continues
the record, "that when Freeman and Wiseman, the king's
surveyors, were suppressing the lesser abbeys in Lincoln
shire, the report was common, that they should return to
resolve the greater, and he then gathered his brethren
together and said to them thus: 'Brethren, ye hear how
other religious men be treated and how they have but forty
shillings given to each of them and so let go ; but they that
have played the wise men among them have provided
beforehand for themselves and sold away divers things,
wherewith they may help themselves hereafter. And ye
hear also this rumour that goeth abroad as well as I,
namely, how that the greater abbeys should go down also.
Wherefore by your advice, this shall be my counsel, that
we do take such plate as we have and certain of the best
vestments and set them aside and sell them if need be, and
divide the money coming thereof among us, when the house
is first suppressed. And I promise you, on my faith and
conscience, ye shall have your part thereof and of every
penny that I have during my life. And thereupon the said
brethren agreed thereto.' " Upon this, concludes the abbot,
" I sent plate worth ;£ioo and some of the best vestments to
one 'Thomas Bruer.'"1
The only real witness against the abbot of Barlings was
one Bernard Fletcher. He deposed " that the rebels being
within a flight shot of the said abbot's pastures, the same
abbot brought them 80 wethers, 6 oxen, and a wain laden
with bread and drink." Further on in his examination he
declared that when the abbot " brought his said victual to
the rebels, he there openly declared unto them these words,
or like in effect following : ' Masters, I have brought you
here certain victuals. Go forward and stick to this matter.
I have a lordship at Sweton, and I will prepare for you as
much more victual and bring the same to you to Ancaster
heath.'" But " be it remembered," runs the record, " that after
1 Brit. Mus. Cleop., E. iv. f. 245.

218 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the examination of this deponent named Bernard Fletcher,
the same deponent and the abbot of Barlings were brought
face to face. And there the abbot denied utterly that he
brought any sheep to the rebels, and further said that there
came no sheep in his company. Whereupon this deponent
being asked the question whether he did or no, saith that
he cannot perfectly tell whether the 80 sheep expressed in
his examination were the same abbot's or no, or to whom
they did belong or appertain."
"The same abbot also denieth that he said to the said
rebels at his repair to them : ' Go forward and stick to this
matter, etc' . . . But saith that, being amazed and fearing
lest they would have killed him, forasmuch as a great many
of them were his mortal enemies, said unto them : ' Masters
I have according to your commandment brought you victuals,
beseeching you to be good unto me and preserve my house
from spoil. And if ye will let me have a passport, I will
go to a lordship of mine called Sweton, where against your
coming to Ancaster heath I will prepare for you as much
more victual.' And the same abbot being asked why he
spake these words, said he intended if he might have had
his passport to have stolen from them clean and gone his
way, for without he should use such policy it was not
possible."1 The depositions of Thomas Bradley, subprior of Barlings,
and other canons of the house agree with their abbot's in
the main facts. Compelled by the insurgents, six of the
brethren appear to have borne arms for some days and gone
along with the host. From the evidence, it certainly does
not appear that the abbot and all his canons " rode at the
head of the host in full armour," or that he and one of his
brethren were justly executed for having " been concerned
in the murder of the chancellor." 2
As to Bardney and Kirksted, the evidence of complicity
is even more meagre. Seven monks of the first monastery
were examined in November, and confessed that four or
five of their number went for a short time with the rebels,
" by command of William Wright." 8 Some other witnesses
confessed having seen them in the ranks, and one "heard
say that the said traitors " had help from the abbey.4
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 19-22. 2 Froude, iii. p. 212.
8 Calendar, xi. No. 828. 4 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 116.

The Rising in Lincolnshire 219
The Kirksted monks acknowledged their part in the
rising when questioned. Under threats that, " if they came
not forth to the host, (they) should be (burnt in) their own
house "... about four o'clock in the evening, the abbot,
cellarer, bursar and all the monks able to go, 17 in all, went
to the outer gate, where they met a servant of the abbey,
who told them they could wait till the next day. At eleven
o'clock the following morning all except the abbot departed,
"the cellarer and bursar horsed and with battle-axes, the
rest unhorsed." Two days before, a band of sixty of the
insurgents had carried away all the servants of the abbey to
the muster. The abbot, " as being sick," was excused, but
he gave the bursar 20s. and a horse laden with victual. The
day upon which the monks arrived at the head-quarters of
the insurgents two of them returned home sick, four went
the following day (Friday), and four more on Saturday;
the rest remained "till Tuesday morning." As for the
abbot, he " was glad of their return, and thanked God there
was no business." l
The punishment meted out to the insurgents was terrible.
About a hundred are said to have been carried away to
London, and lodged in the Tower. The following year
they were tried by Sir William Parr and a special com
mission sitting at Lincoln on Tuesday in the third week
of Lent, March 6th. The jury was apparently in their
favour. Thomas Moigne, a gentleman of the county and
one of the accused, spoke skilfully for a long time in their
behalf, and "but for the diligence of the king's serjeant"
they would have been acquitted. As it was, they were con
demned, although sixty-three were immediately respited.
The other three-and-thirty, including the abbot of Kirksted
and three of his monks, six monks of Bardney, four canons
of Barlings, and seven secular priests, were ordered for
immediate execution. Towards the end of March the abbot
of Barlings, William Moreland, monk of Louth-park, Thomas
Kendal, vicar of Louth, with two other priests and twelve
laymen, were tried in London before chancellor Audeley,
found guilty, and condemned to death.
1 Calendar, xi. No. 828.

CHAPTER XII
The Pilgrimage of Grace
THE sudden termination of the Lincolnshire rising did not
by any means relieve Henry from his domestic difficulties.
Popular protests against his policy and active interference
with his agents in carrying out his orders were not confined
to the fen district and its immediate neighbourhood. " Alarm
ing reports came in of the temper of the north-midland and
eastern counties. The disposition of the people between
Lincoln and London was said to be as bad as possible." A
servant of Sir William Hussey reported, that "in every
place by the way as his master and he came, he hath heard
as well old people as young pray God speed the rebellious
persons in Lincolnshire, and wish themselves with them,
saying that if they came that way that they shall lack
nothing that they can help them unto. And the said Hugh
(the servant) being asked what persons they were which so
reported," replied "all"1 Another witness declared that
" he heard some say in the south parts (as he rode towards
London, between Stamford and London) that the commons
of those parts were in one mind with ' the northerners,' and
wished they had come forward an end, for then they should
have had more to take their parts." And also when in
London, a shopman said to him: " Because you are a northern
man you shall pay but sixpence for your shoes, for ye have
done very well of late, and would to God you had come an
end, for we were in the same mind that you were." 2 But
the inquisitorial severity of the king and his advisers visited
with the extremity of punishment even the slightest approval
of the popular movement. The English terror had now
fully set in. "The ninth of October," writes Stowe, "a
priest and a butcher were hanged at Windsor, by martial
1 Sir W. Fitzwilliam to Crumwell, quoted by Froude, iii. p. 1 12.
2 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 66

The Pilgrimage of Grace 221
law, for words spoken in the behalf of the Lincolnshire
men. The butcher wished the good fellows (as he termed
them) in Lincolnshire to have the flesh on his stall rather
than to sell it at such a price as he was offered. The priest
standing by likewise wished them to have it, for he said
they had need of it. Also James Mallet, doctor of law, late
chaplain to Queen Catherine, for like words was executed at
Chelmsford."1 Simultaneously with the movement in Lincolnshire the
king experienced opposition to his schemes of suppression
in Cheshire, which but for the prompt action of Sir Piers
Dutton, the sheriff, might have proved serious. The abbey
of Norton, in that county, did not come strictly within the
act for suppressing monasteries under ^200 a year, its
income having been returned at ^258, us. 8d. Still, as
early as August, 1536, it had by some means or other fallen
into the king's power. On the third of that month Sir Piers
informed Crumwell that he had "taken the bodies of the
abbot of Norton, Robert Jamyns and the stranger, a cunning
smith, two of the said abbot's servants, also Randal Brere-
ton,2 baron of the king's exchequer of Chester, and John
Hall, of Chester, merchant, and have them in my custody
and keeping."8 Shortly after Anne Boleyn's disgrace, the
bishop of Salisbury had interceded with Crumwell for " the
poor abbot of Norton" and the religious of "that house,
for the poor people" of that neighbourhood were much
" refreshed there." 4 But by October the abbey was in the
hands of the king's receiver, John Byrkhed, who in his
Michaelmas account acknowledges that he has received nearly
^350 from the rents and sales of the abbey moveables, and
has already remitted about ;£ioo to the king. The greater
part of the rest had been given to Thomas Byrkhed, the then
called abbot, to keep up the house till the final dissolution.5
1 Stowe, ed. 1615, p. 572. Hall places this circumstance in the Yorkshire
rising. Wriothesley, however, gives the date "9th October." The nephew of
the imperial ambassador (Calendar, xi. No. 714) refers to the fact, but calls
the man " a shoemaker."
2 Brereton is supposed to have been uncle to Sir William Brereton, who had
been beheaded in May preceding for his alleged connection with Anne Boleyn.
(Ormerod, Cheshire, i. p. 502, note.)
3 Wright, p. 52. " * Calendar, x. No. 942.
5 Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 80, M. 3. It would
hence appear that a relation of the receiver Byrkhed had been appointed to
the office of abbot. Robert Hall was the last regular abbot (Monasticon,

222 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
By this time Robert Hall, the true abbot, had been re
leased or had escaped from prison, and apparently arrived
at his monastery as the royal commissioners were packing
up the valuables previous to removing them. " Pleaseth
your good lordship," writes Dutton to Crumwell on October
12th, "to be advertised that Mr. Combes and Mr. Balles,
the king's commissioners within the county of Chester, were
lately at Norton, within the county of Chester, for the
suppressing of the abbey there. And when they had
packed up such jewels and stuff as they had there, and
thought upon the morrow after to depart thence, the abbot
gathered a great company together, to the number of two or
three hundred persons, so that the said commissioners were
in fear of their lives, and were fain to take (to) a tower
there, and thereupon send a letter to me ascertaining me
what danger they were in, and desired me to come and
assist them or else they were never like to come thence.
" Which letter came to me about 9 o'clock in the night
upon Sunday last (October 8th), and about two o'clock in
the same night I came thither with such of my lovers and
tenants as I had near about me, and found divers fires made
as well within the gates as without. And the said abbot
had caused an ox and other victuals to be killed and pre
pared for such of his company as he had then there. And
it was thought on the morrow after he had comfort to have
had a great number more.
" Notwithstanding, I used some policy, and came suddenly
upon them, so that the company that were there fled. And
some of them took to poles and the waters, and it was so
dark that I could not find them. And it was thought if the
matter had not been quickly handled it would have grown
to further inconvenience, to what danger God knoweth.
"Howbeit, I took the abbot and three of his canons, and
brought them to the king's castle of Halton, and there
committed them to ward to the constable, to be kept as the
king's rebels upon pain of ^1000, and afterwards saw the
same commissioners and their stuff conveyed thence, and
William Parker, the king's servant, who is appointed to be
the king's farmer there, restored to his possession."1
vi. p. 313). Thomas Byrkhed received a pension of £24 (Aug. Off. Mins.
Bk. , 249, f. 22), while the real abbot was condemned to death, as will be seen.
1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Series, iii. p. 42.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 223
On receipt of this letter Henry sent to thank Sir Piers
Dutton for his great service. In reply to the sheriffs implied
question as to the punishment of the abbot and his three
canons, the king wrote: "For answer whereunto ye shall
understand that for as much as it appeareth that the said
late abbot and canons have most traitorously used them
selves against us and our realm, our pleasure and command
ment is, that if this shall fully appear to you to be true, that
then you shall immediately upon the sight hereof without
any manner further delay cause them to be hanged as most
arrant traitors in such sundry places as you shall think
requisite, for the terrible example of all others hereafter.
And herein fail ye not . . . Travail with such dexterity as
this matter may be finished with all possible diligence." 2
The execution was not carried out immediately, because,
as Dutton explains a month later (30th November), before
there was time he learnt from the earl of Derby that the
Pilgrimage of Grace was at an end, and concluded to wait
till the king's "further pleasure were made known." He
tells Crumwell that he writes for instructions, as his fellow
commissioner, Sir William Brereton, refuses to follow this
course, and he adds that he has "the said evildoers and
offenders in straight endurance of imprisonment within his
castle of Chester, there surely to be kept to abide his grace's
pleasure."2 The final fate of the abbot and his companions,
like that of so many others at this time, remains uncertain,
but no record appears of their pardon.
The most formidable opposition which Henry experienced
at this time was without doubt the popular movement known
as the " Pilgrimage of Grace." In the numbers who joined
the agitation, in the high position of their leaders, and in
the extent of the disaffection, the king and his counsellors
had reason for the utmost alarm, especially as they felt the
southern population could not be relied upon to support a
policy which they detested; and from over the seas were
floating rumours of foreign combinations to aid the English
people in their struggle for the rights of the church, their
ancient faith, and their own temporal good. In five counties,
from the borders of Scotland to the Lune and the Humber,
the agitation remained for a short time unchecked.
1 Ormerod, Cheshire, i. p. 502. 2 Ibid.

224 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
As in Lincolnshire, so in the more northerly parts the
effect of the late act of suppression had been patent to all.
In Yorkshire, with the archdeaconry of Richmond and the
bishopric of Durham, including the cells of larger monasteries,
some forty-seven houses of men and twenty-three convents
of women came within the pecuniary limit for dissolution,
and a yearly income of £4384, 8s. 8d. had been transferred
from the district to the king's purse.1 By the feast of St.
Michael of this year, 1536, Hugh Fuller, the royal receiver
for the county of Yorkshire, reported that he had gathered
in for the king's use from the half-yearly rents, the sales of
goods and the estimated value of plate, bells and lead, above
£4500. Five hundred and three ounces of gilt plate, 657
ounces of parcel gilt, and 321 ounces of silver — in all 148 1
ounces of plate, valued at £224, 7s. 6d. — had besides this
sum been already forwarded to Henry's treasure-house, and
133 fodders of lead, worth £440, with thirty-seven bells,
valued at an average of ,£3 each, the spoils from the church
roofs and belfries of the district, were stored up for subse
quent sale.2
That the people were stirred most deeply by these auctions
of monastic effects and by the fear of even more extensive
desecration of consecrated churches and seizure of ecclesi
astical property in the near future does not admit of doubt.
The causes which led to the armed protest were fully and
boldly declared by the leader of the movement, Robert Aske,
when he wrote to the lords holding Pomfret Castle urging
them to deliver up their charge and join the popular move
ment. "And in the same letter the said Aske rehearsed
1 Vide list, Calendar, x. No. 1233
2 Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., No. 178, mm. 5d. l8d.
One or two instances of hardships in particular monasteries and convents of
this district have been already referred to. We may here add a few more.
One monastery, Warter, which supported a prior and twelve canons, with
fifty dependents and boys, was sold with all its goods to the earl of Rutland
for ;£8oo (Ibid., 178, m. 5). At Nunburnholme, a small convent, there
were twelve dependents and "many poor living there" (Ibid., m. 15). At
Molseby, a. convent of eight nuns, a certain Elizabeth Ward had received a
corrody, and on August 4th, when the nuns were dismissed, in consideration
of £3, 6s. 8d. paid by the commissioners, she renounced all further right. She
was "impotens et surda," and in consideration of her debility and poverty the
commissioners gave the sum to a man of trust, who promised to keep the
poor lady during her life (Ibid., m. 15). At Drax there were thirty-nine
"dependents and boys," besides other poor people (Ibid., 146.). At Ferriby
thirty-four servants with boys and poor supported in the house (Ibid., m. 15).

The Pilgrimage of Grace 225
how the said commons were gnawn in the conscience with
spreading of heretics, suppression of houses of religion and
other matters touching the commonwealth." In his subse
quent interview he "declared to the said lords, as well
spiritual as temporal, the griefs of the commons. And how
first, that the lords spiritual had not done their duties in
that they had not been plain with the king's highness for
the speedy remedy and quenching of the said heretics and
the preachers thereof and for the suffering of the same;
and for the ornaments of the churches and abbeys suppressed
and the violating of relics by the suppressors, with the
irreverent demeanour of the doers thereof, with abuse of the
visitors and their impositions taken extraordinary. . . . And
to the lords temporal the said Aske declared they had misused
themselves in that they likewise had . . . not declared to his
said highness the poverty of his realm and that part specially;
in so much as in the north parts much of the relief of the
commons was by succour of the abbeys, and . . . now the
profits of abbeys suppressed, tenths and first-fruits went out
of those parts." By reason of this " within short space of
years there should be no money nor treasure in those parts ;
neither the tenant to have (money) to pay his rents to his
lord, nor the lord to have money to do the king's service
withal."1 At the close of his narrative to the king, Aske again
insists upon the same points. " In all parts of the realm,"
he says, " men's hearts much grudged with the suppression
of abbeys, and the first-fruits, by reason the same would be
the destruction of the whole religion in England. And their
especial great grudge is against the lord Crumwell, being
reputed the destroyer of the commonwealth, as well amongst
most part of the lords as all other the worshipful commons.
And surely, if he continue in favour and presence with your
grace it will danger the occasion of new commotions which
will be very dangerous to your grace's person ; for as far as
the said Aske can perceive, there is no earthly man so evil
believed as the said lord Crumwell is with the commoners. . . .
And also the said Aske saith that the most part of all the
realm greatly impugneth against certain bishops of the new
learning, reputing them and their folks as heretics and the
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 53. Aske's narrative to the king.P

226 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
great causes of. this late commotion: and also against the
lord chancellor for so general granting of injunctions and
for playing of ' ambi-dexter' in granting and dissolving of
injunctions." x
But if the popular leader was bold in his declaration to
the king, he is more explicit still as to the nature of the
popular desires when examined in the Tower. Asked as to
whether he considered that false reports " were not one of
the greatest causes of the" insurrection,2 he replies "that
he thinks those bruits were one of the greatest causes, but
the suppression of abbeys was the greatest cause of the
said insurrection which the hearts of the commons most
grudged at." And further he adds "that he thinks that
only the suppression of the abbeys and 'dimission' of
preachers had caused an insurrection though the said bruits
had not been spoken of at all." 8
Another fragment of his examination goes more particu
larly into the reasons which actuated the people in this
movement. "To the 23rd article," runs this record, "the
said Aske saith : First, to the statute of suppressions, he
did grudge against the same, and so did all the whole country,
because the abbeys in the north parts gave great alms to
poor men and laudably served God. In which parts of late
days they had but small comfort by ghostly teaching ; and
by occasion of the said suppression the divine service of
Almighty God is much diminished, great number of masses
unsaid, and the blessed consecration of the Sacrament now
not used and showed in those places, to the distress of the
faith and spiritual comfort to man's soul. The temple of
God (is now) razed and pulled down, the ornaments and
relics of the church of God unreverently used ; the tombs
and sepulchres of honourable and noble men pulled down
and sold. No hospitality (is) now, in those places, kept,
but the farmers for the most part let and tavern* out the
farms of the same houses to other farmers for lucre and
advantage to themselves. And the profits of these abbeys
yearly go out of the country to the king's highness, so that
in short space little money, by occasion of the said yearly

1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 64.
2 md., p. 87. " Interrogatories " signed by " T. Crumwell."
» Ibid., A. fa, pp. 198-199. 4 "Underlet."

The Pilgrimage of Grace 227
rents, tenths and first-fruits, should be left in the said country,
in consideration of the absence of the king's highness in
those parts, want of his laws and the frequentation of mer
chandise. "Also divers and many of the said abbeys were in the
mountains and desert places where the people are rude of
condition and not well taught of the law of God. And when
the said abbeys stood, the said people not only had worldly
refreshing in their beds, but also spiritual refuge both by
the ghostly living of them, and also by spiritual information
and preaching. And many their tenants, whether feod1
servants to them or serving-men, (were) well succoured by
abbeys. And now not only these tenants and servants want
refreshing there both of meat, cloth, and wages, and know
not now where to have any living, but also strangers and
baggers of corn (who) betwixt Yorkshire, Lancashire, Kendal,
and Westmoreland, and the bishoprick (were) greatly helped
both horse and men by the said abbeys ; for never was in
these parts denied either horsemeat or man's meat, so that
the people were greatly refreshed by the said abbeys, where
now they have no such succour. Wherefore the said statute
of suppression was greatly to the decay of the common
wealth of that country; and all its parts of all degrees
greatly grudged against the same, and yet doth, their duty
of allegiance always saved.
"Also the abbeys were one of the beauties of this realm
to all men and strangers passing through the same. Also
all gentlemen (were) much succoured in their needs, with
many their young sons there assisted, and in nunneries their
daughters brought up in virtue, and also their evidences (i.e.,
title-deeds) and money left to the use of infants in abbeys'
hands — always sure there.2 And such abbeys as were near
the danger of sea-banks, were great maintainers of sea-walls
1 i.e., holding leases.
2 As examples see the wills in Testamenta Eboracensia (Surtees Soc.).,
vol. iii. pp. 203-205; vol. v. pp. 189-191, 222; in Archaeological Journal,
vol. xxv. p. 72, see the provision of Sir John Stanley on his becoming a
monk of Westminster, whereby his young son and heir is to be brought up
until twelve years old by the abbess of Barking, and from that age until man
hood under the care and guardianship of the abbot of Westminster. When in
1503 Margaret of Richmond, with the advice of Bishop Fisher, finally settled
her Divinity lectureship at Cambridge, the abbey of Westminster was made
trustee of the estates with which it was endowed, and charged with the pay
ment of the salaries.

228 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and dykes, maintainers and builders of bridges and highways
(and) such other things for the commonwealth." x
Aske then goes on to state his reasons for objecting
to the statute by which the princess Mary was declared
illegitimate. "Also it was thought," he concludes, "that
the divorce made by the bishop of Canterbury, hearing that
appeal, was not lawful. Yea! and then men doubted the
authority of his consecration, having not his pall as his
predecessor had."
Passing on to speak of the statute of " first-fruits," Aske
calls attention to the way in which houses still standing
were hampered by the new legislation; "it was thought
good that the statute should be annulled because it would
be the destruction of the state of religion, which was and is
profitable for the commonwealth both in soul and body, as
before rehearsed. For it may chance so that in some year
by death, deprivation or resignation the king's highness may
be entitled thereunto two or three times, or more. And for
the pain of the same, worshipful men and friends must be
bound, and so they to be in danger and the house not able
to pay the same. For now, in manner, what with the king's
money granted by them and the tenths yearly by them paid,
all or most part of their plate is gone and cattle also and
their houses in debt. So that, either they must minish their
household and hospitality and, enforced, keep fewer monks
than their foundation; or else surrender their abbeys into
the king's hands as forced (to do) for need, and the money
thereof always coming out of that country to the great
detriment of the commonwealth there. Whereby all the
riches and treasures of religion was and is esteemed the
king's treasure, as ready at his commandment. Also because
they had plenty of riches they adorned the temple of God
and always succoured their neighbour in their need with
part of the same — their money for the most part current
amongst their people.2
When questioned about the statutes of the "royal
supremacy" Aske replied, "that then all men much mur
mured at the same and said it could not stand with God's
law. And divers reasons thereof (were) made, whereof he
delivered one to the archbishop of York in Latin, containing
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 209-210. 2 Ibid., p. 211.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 229
a whole sheet of paper or more. . . . But the great bruit
in all men's mouths then was, that never king of England
since the faith came within the same realm claimed any such
authority. And it would be found to be an increase of a
division from the unity of the Catholic Church, if men might
without fear, and by the king's favour declare their learning
without his grace's displeasure."
With regard to the " statute of words that be treason,"
he declared that except in relation to the supremacy question
"he heard few men grudge thereat." But on that matter
"every man is fearful to show his learning or to labour for
the same intent to show their learning, because there is a
temporal law whereby they should incur the danger, or else
the displeasure of their prince. And if the cause touch the
health of man's soul, then it were a gracious deed that the
king's highness would annul that statute and that learned
men in divinity might show their learning either in convoca
tion or preaching." 1
Examined as to the popular opinion about the bishops
and the griefs of the commons on that score, Aske said that
they declared them to be heretics, "because they were so
noted in the petitions of Lincolnshire and because they were
reputed to be of the new learning and (holding) many tenets
of Luther and Tyndal. And to the bishop of Worcester
(Latimer), because it was said, either he was before abjured
or else should have borne a faggot for his preaching. And
that the archbishop of Canterbury was the first that ever
was archbishop of that see that had not his pall from a
spiritual man or from the see of Rome. And because he
took upon him to make the divorce betwixt the king's high
ness and the lady Catherine dowager, where it was appealed
to the Church, and for other his opinions, which the said
Aske much noted, not because they were so openly bruited
with all men. And as to the other two bishops,2 surely they
be marvellously evil spoken of, to be maintainers of the new
learning and preachers of the same; and that because of
their information religion was not favoured and the statute
of suppression taken place, for they preached as it was said
against the benefit of habits in religion and such like, and
against the common orders and rules before used in the
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 215.
2 Hilsey of Rochester and Allen of Dublin.

230 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
universal Church. This was the common voice of all
men." . . . And also "because they varied from the old
usages and sermons of the Church, and because they preached
contrary to the same, therefore they were bruited so to be
schismatics." 1
As Aske the leader thought, so thought the rest who
followed him. Lord Darcy, speaking to him of the supre
macy question, assured him "he had in the parliament
chamber declared before the lords his whole mind touching
any matter there to be argued touching their faith."2 At
another time the same lord in regard to the preaching of the
new bishops said "that he would be no heretic."8 Others
deposed that they demanded the deprivation of the bishops
" because they were supposed to be occasion of the breach
. of the unity of the Church."
Thus in the " Pilgrimage of Grace " the causes of the
armed resistance to the royal policy appear to have been
chiefly ecclesiastical. The suppression of the abbeys was
felt to be a blow to religion in those parts no less than a
hardship to the poor, and a detriment to the country at
large. The royal supremacy was looked upon as founded
only on Henry's whim and as a pretension without precedent
in history, while the renunciation of papal authority was
held to be subversive of the principle of unity in the Christian
Church, and the first step towards diversity of doctrine and
practice.
* The story of the actual rising is well known. The
sketch that it is needful to give here may be best taken
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 227-228.
2 Ibid., p. 233. Lord Darcy's account of the method followed in parlia
ment is of interest. " Before this last parliament," he said, "it was accustomed
amongst the lords, the first matter they always discussed after the mass of the
Holy Ghost ... to affirm and allow the first clause of Magna Charta touch
ing the rights and liberties of the Church, and it was not now so." Also, " that
in any matter which touched the prerogative of the king's crown or any matter
that touched the prejudice of the same, the custom of the lords' house was
they should have upon their request a copy of the bill of the same," to examine
it and get counsel about it. But ' ' that they could now have no such copy
upon their suit, or at the least so readily as they were wont to have in parlia
ment before. And to his remembrance he thought default in those of the
chancery, in their use of their office amongst the lords, and in the hasty reading
of the bills and request of the speed of the same." The statute which gave
the king generally all monasteries under £200 both Aske and lord Darcy
considered " little better than void," as the particular houses were not stated.
8 Ibid., 241.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 231
chiefly from the account given of it by Robert Aske himself.
At the beginning of October in the year 1536, Robert with
his two brothers, John and Christopher, met at the house of
their brother-in-law, William Ellerkar, for a hunting party.
On the father's side the Askes were Yorkshire gentry of
good descent. Their mother was a Clifford, daughter of
John lord Clifford, the stout Lancastrian who was killed
on Towton field; and aunt of the first Clifford, earl of
Cumberland. John, the eldest of the three brothers, had
the family estate of Aughton; Christopher possessed a
property at Marshland, and Robert himself, with a manor in
Yorkshire, was a barrister in good practice at Westminster.
The latter was on his way back to London, when, crossing
over the Humber in the Barton ferry, he learnt from the
boatman for the first time " that the commons on the Lincoln
shire side were up."
On landing at Barton, on the Lincolnshire side of the
river, he proceeded to the house of a brother-in-law at
Sawcliffe. When two miles on his road he was met by a
band of mounted insurgents, who forced him to take the
oath to be true to the commons, and then conducted him to
his destination. A few nights after, he and his three nephews
were taken out of their beds by the people, but the three
youths were allowed to go over to Yorkshire, " because two
of them were heirs apparent." Robert Aske himself was
forced to become the leader of the insurgents in this part,
who were in number some 4000. He appears to have
accepted the position thus forced upon him and for some
days endeavoured to organise the movement.
Leaving the southern side of the Humber after a short
time, he crossed back into Yorkshire, where the rumour that
he had been a leader in Lincolnshire had already preceded
him. Almost immediately he prepared to return, but before
he could do so he learnt the complete failure of the popu
lar movement, and was obliged to fly. That night (October
13th), as he crossed the Trent, he saw the beacons blaze
out over the waters and heard the clash of the alarm-bells
calling upon the northern counties to rise in defence of their
rights. The people of the north country had adopted the
demands of the commons of Lincolnshire, and as the
spark was stamped out in the fen districts, the flame
burst forth again in all the country from the Humber to

232 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the Scotch marches and from the Irish sea to the German
ocean. Aske turned back, and passing once more over the Ouse
into Howdenshire, found all the country far and wide astir.
In places the " cross of the church " was with the villagers
as their standard, and everywhere they " enforced gentlemen
and heirs apparent to come unto them." x
To most the "Pilgrimage of Grace" was undoubtedly
a rising in defence of religion and Catholic practice, and the
actors bound themselves by an oath to fight " for the pre
servation of Christ's church, of the realm, and of the king."
Aske at once fell into his place as leader, and with 9000 men
or more he marched on York. In a letter to the mayor he
urged him to give free access to the host, and as the city
was fortified "neither with artillery nor gunpowder," this
was conceded. The chiefs published an address in which
the causes of the " assembly or pilgrimage " are stated, and
an invitation is given to all to join in the work.2 -In the
two days that the insurgents then remained at York, Aske
"took order for religious houses suppressed, because the
commons would need put them in again. Which order was
set on the minster door at York, to the intent all the houses
suppressed should resort there and know how they should
use themselves."
Acting on this, many of the monks and nuns who had
been ejected from their houses returned. "Work is done
rapidly by willing hands in the midst of a willing people.
In the week which followed, by a common impulse, the king's
tenants were universally expelled. The vacant dormitories
were again peopled; the refectories were again filled with
exulting faces."8 "Though it were never so late when
they returned," the monks "sang matins the same night."4
The Abbey of Sawley, which had been vacant since the
14th of May, and which had been, with all its moveables,
sold to lord Darcy for close upon ^400, was again occupied
by the abbot and his twenty-one brethren,6 and " being the
charitable relief of those parts, and standing in a mountain
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 47-51.
2 State Papers, i. p. 466.
8 Earl of Oxford to Crumwell, quoted by Froude, iii. 133.
4 Calendar, xi. No. 1319.
6 Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., No. 178, m. 5.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 233
country and among three forests," the men of Craven, Kendal,
Furness, and the districts, bound themselves together to
resist any attempt to take it from the monks a second time.1
It was on Sunday, October 15, that Aske and his
followers entered York. The people of Richmondshire and
Durham had by this time also risen in arms, had seized the
persons of lord Lumley, the earl of Westmoreland, and lord
Latimer, and by Tuesday, the 17th, Aske had information
that they were coming to join him. Pomfret castle, held
by lord Darcy, was surrounded by the insurgents, and the
garrison was known to incline to the popular movement.
On Thursday Aske summoned lord Darcy to surrender, and
the following morning, October 20th, after a long parley,
Aske was allowed to take possession of the stronghold, and
Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, the archbishop of York and
the others who had sheltered within its walls, took the oath
of the " Pilgrimage of Grace."
Of all the Yorkshire strongholds, Skipton and Scarborough
alone held out for the king. The people daily flocked to the
banner, and the host increased to an alarming size. " Lords
Nevill, Latimer, and Lumley and 10,000 men, with the
banner and arms of St. Cuthbert," and the men of Pickering
and Blackmore, "with knights and gentlemen about 5000,"
came to the support of Aske. So great grew the multitude
that when he moved forward on Doncaster he was followed
by between thirty and forty thousand men "well tried on
horseback." They marched under the banner of the pilgrims,
which was practically that which the Lincoln men had
adopted, and each wore on his arm a badge either with the
"five wounds" worked upon it, or with a cross and I.H.S.,
which was used especially by those who marched under
" Saint Cuthbert's banner."
The earl of Shrewsbury was now at Doncaster with his
armed tenantry, together with the duke of Norfolk and some
5000 men. The river Don separated the opposing forces,
and had battle been given, there is little doubt that victory
would have been on the side of the people. The duke of
Norfolk, on his side, had received the king's special com
mandment, "above all things, never to give stroke . . .
unless you shall think yourself to have great and notable
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 57.

234 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
advantage for the same." And particularly if he found the
rebels too strong for hini, or if he thought "any of the
company" with the earl of Shrewsbury "evil willing," he
was to retire, and not hazard a fight. How he was to do
this he left to the judgment of Norfolk himself, only recom
mending him his own "politic device," and warning him as
to his "promises, to be made to the rebels for the stay of
them, till your forces shall be come and joined with the
others. Albeit we certainly know," the royal letter con
cludes, "that you will pretermit no occasion wherein,' by
policy or otherwise, you may damage our enemies ; yet we
doubt not again, but in all your proceedings you will have
such temperance, as our honour, specially shall remain
untouched and yours rather increased than, by the certain
promise of that which you cannot certainly promise, appear
anything defaced."1
On their side the insurgents appear to have been by
no means anxious to shed the blood of their countrymen.
Some, indeed, of the younger lords and gentry were eager
to proceed to extremities at once; but their leader, Aske,
reminded them that "it was no dishonour," and that "their
whole duty was to declare their griefs to their sovereign
lord, to the intent that evil counsellors about his grace might
be known and have punished." 2
Actuated by such motives — the one side by what Henry
called a "politic device . . . wherein you may damage our
enemies," and the other apparently by a sincere desire to
obtain their demands without bloodshed — the leaders of the
two forces agreed to a conference. The desires of the
"pilgrims" were, at the request of the duke, drawn up in
a set of articles, and at a second meeting on Doncaster
bridge it was agreed that Norfolk should accompany two of
the northern leaders to the king to present their demands ;
that the king's forces should retire from Doncaster, and the
" pilgrim " army return to Pomfret.
A fortnight passed in suspense. Many of Aske's followers
returned to their homes, weary of waiting, and he himself
was fully occupied in his endeavours to keep the remain
der from active aggression pending the royal reply. From
Craven came the news one morning that the earl of Derby
1 State Papers, i. p. 494.
a Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 55. (Note Lord Darcy "playing the fool.")

The Pilgrimage of Grace 235
was marching with a force to expel the reinstated monks
of Sawley Abbey, and that the people of the district were
gathering to resist. Through the earl of Shrewsbury, Aske
managed to stop the movement of lord Derby, and sent
messages to the commons, "who had already attained
Whalley Abbey," to "withdraw them to the mountains"
again. The next day the leader had to be in York to quiet the
people there ; and then again the following morning he was
off fourteen miles away, at Watton Priory of the order of
Sempringham, on the same errand — "to stay the commons
there who would have chosen a new prior because the said
prior was fled to the lord Crumwell, being one of his pro
motion, and had left behind him brethren and sisters of the
same house, nigh sixty or eighty and not forty shillings to
succour them." Aske managed to pacify the people, and
"deputed the sub-prior for the time to order the same
house," as the prior was yet absent.
Again, the day following, Aske was at Hull, to see Sir
Robert Constable, who held the town for the commons, and
to examine the fortifications made against the duke of
Suffolk, who was " directly against the town." That town
had fallen into the possession of William Stapleton, one of
the insurgent leaders, about the middle of October.
Meantime, whilst Aske was fully occupied in his en
deavour to keep the people quiet in the hopes that their
petitions to Henry would be accepted, the royal agents were
busy over two futile plots to secure the leader's removal
by assassination or betrayal. "Alas, my lord!" wrote lord
Darcy to Norfolk, " that you, being a man of so great honour,
should advise or choose me to betray any living man, French
man, Scot, yea, or even Turk. To win for me or for mine heirs
the best duke's lands that be in France, I would not do it to
no living person." 1
In the middle of November the two insurgent envoys,
Ellerkar and Bowes, were sent back to the north "with
general instructions of comfort," and with the information
that the duke of Norfolk, with other commissioners, would
follow after them with the royal reply. Henry had essayed
several answers to the Yorkshire articles, but in each draft,
1 Quoted by Froude, iii. p. 169.

236 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
annexed to the general pardon, was a reservation of certain
persons to be excluded from it, and it was only finally, in
deference to the advice of the duke of Norfolk, that he could
be induced even to undertake to forego his royal vengeance
entirely. On November the 21st the insurgent leaders met at York
to consider their future action. They had been invited to
meet the king's commissioners at Doncaster, but they " de
bated long whether they should do so or not, because of a
letter sent by Lord Crumwell to Sir Ralph Evers. Wherein
were these threats or such like: 'Except the commons of
those parts soon would be pacified, there should be such
vengeance taken upon them that the whole world should
speak thereof and take example by them." x
It was agreed finally, however, to meet the duke at
Doncaster with 300 persons, and "letters were sent to the
clergy to stand for the articles profitable for the faith of the
Church and liberties of the same." " But," writes Aske to
Henry, "by reason of the same letters, and also for the
extreme punishment of the great jury of Yorkshire, for
Wickliff's cause and for the extreme assessment of their
fines, the lord Crumwell was and yet (at the close of the
first rising) is in such horror and hatred with the people in
those parts that in a manner they would eat him, and esteem
their griefs only to arise by him and his counsel, as the said
commons there declared their minds to the herald Lancaster
nigh Hampall in Yorkshire, who can recount their words to
your highness."2
Before the meeting at York broke up it was settled that
two days before the meeting at Doncaster the lords should
assemble at Pomfret. As the royal commissioners approached
the borders of Yorkshire, towards the close of the month of
November, the beacons were lighted, and " bells rung back
ward," again recalling the scattered forces of the insurgents
to the banner of their "pilgrimage." Norfolk sent letters
back to the king " in such extreme and desperate sort, as
though the world should be in a manner turned upside down,
unless we," as Henry writes, "would in certain points
condescend to the petition of the rebels." s The forces which

1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 59. 2 Ibid., p. 60.
8 State Papers, i. p. 512.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 237
the king had been able to get together during the delay were
considered by his lieutenant altogether inadequate to face
the 20,000 insurgents ready to meet them and hear the
king's answer to their complaints. Henry again enjoined
Norfolk " not indeed to meet with them but in such sort as
shall be for your perfect surety." Still, he was to try and
get them peacefully to accept the pardon he was instructed
to offer. If, however, they refused to entertain such an
offer, unless the pardon was "general and without excep
tion," or demanded a parliament or proposed any other
article, Norfolk was to say that his commission did not
contemplate " the granting of any of those things," but that
such was his love for them, and his fear lest they should
act against the king foolishly, that he would himself go to
the king, and, writes Henry, "join with them as humble
suitors and petitioners unto us."
Further, if the duke found that the people only demanded
a free and general pardon and a parliament, then the king
instructed him to pretend to go away for six or seven days
as if for the purpose of going to him, " and when that time
shall be expired, at the day to be prefixed, declare unto
them that, with great dint, you had obtained their petitions,
and so present unto them the general pardon." In fact, so
far did this diplomacy of Henry go that Sir John Russell
already had in his possession the general pardon, with in
structions not to let any one know of its existence.1 It is
obvious that for the purpose of obtaining delay, Henry, as
he himself puts it, " therein waded, as far as possible, with
our honour." As for Norfolk himself, he wrote to the king
"all desperately," but, as the latter reminds him, "in the
end you said you would esteem no promise that you should
make to the rebels, nor think your honour touched in the
breach and violation ofthe same."2
On Monday, November 27, the leaders of the insurgents
met at Pomfret. The assembly comprised five peers, more
than thirty knights, and, as Aske afterwards declared, " all
or most part of the esquires of the said shire and gentlemen
also." 8 They agreed to certain articles and conditions upon
which they would lay down their arms. Simultaneously the
clergy who were in the town, with archbishop Lee at their
1 State Papers, p. 511. 2 Bid., p. 51. » Chapter House Bk., A fa, p. 60.

238 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
head, met in the church to consider their answer to a set of
ten articles proposed to them, or, as one witness described
it, the archbishop took "certain clerks to discuss their
griefs." And, "as it was amongst them that were in his
company, the archbishop of York held the same opinion "
(that the movement was "good and gracious") "at the
beginning, but now at the last meeting he preached to the
contrary."1 Still, as Aske afterwards declares, the people
"would have the clergy's opinions touching the articles
concerning our faith, to the intent they should make their
articles to the lords at Doncaster certain." And, he added,
" if the clergy did declare their minds contrary to the laws
of God it was a double iniquity." 2
The assembly of clergy, in spite of the sermon of arch
bishop Lee, drew up a brief set of articles which rejected
as unlawful all that Henry had done in his ecclesiastical
legislation. Convocation, they declared, should condemn
preaching against purgatory, pilgrimages, saints, and images,
and also all books against the same teaching should be con
demned ; the pains and punishment of heretics decreed by
Henry IV. ought to be executed. Holidays, bidding of
bedes, and preaching should be observed according to the
ancient custom of the Church. " No temporal man might be
supreme head of the Church, or exercise any jurisdiction or
power spiritual therein ; no temporal man had authority by
the laws of God to claim the tenths or first-fruits of any
spiritual promotion." Lands given to God, to the Church,
or religion might not be taken away and put to profane
uses. The pope of Rome ought to be taken for the head of
the Church. Clerks now in prison or fled the country for
withstanding the king's superiority in the Church should
be set at liberty and restored ; apostates from religion, not
dispensed by the pope, should be obliged to return to their
houses.8 The articles, of which the above are the most
important, were presented to the leaders of the movement,
who sent forward to Doncaster for a safe conduct from the
duke. And on Wednesday Aske and 300 followers crossed
the bridge over the Don into the town. They were lodged
at the Grey Friars, and on Thursday, the last day of
November, they made choice of "twenty knights, squires
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 232. 2 Ibid., A. fa, pp. 91-93.
3 Dixon, History, i. p. 473.

The Pilgrimage of Grace 239
and commons," with Aske as their spokesman, to proceed to
" the White Friars to the duke and earls." Entering into
Norfolk's presence, "and all making their low obeisance
and kneeling on their knees," they asked for the king's
pardon, and Norfolk appears to have satisfied the leader
of the king's intention in respect to their demands, and
chiefly as regards the general pardon and the parliament
to be held within the year in some place appointed by
the king.
Aske retired first to the Grey Friars, where he told his
followers what had happened, and then to Pomfret to the
main body of the host. Early the following morning he
sent the " bellman " round the town ordering the commons
to come to the " market-cross " to receive the king's pardon,
telling them they were to receive it under the great seal.
The people " gave a great shout of joy " at the news, and
the whole body of the insurgents moved onward with their
leader. "And incontinent," continues Aske's narrative,
"came there a letter from the lord Lumley how the said
commons would not be satisfied except they saw the king's
most merciful pardon under seal, and that the abbots new
put in of houses suppressed should not void their posses
sions to the parliament time," adding that " the parliament
should be at York or else they would burn beacons and
raise the whole country."
But Aske himself was satisfied with the assurances of
Norfolk and trusted to the honour of Henry, and so re
turned at once to Pomfret, where he persuaded the people
who were assembled there, to the number of some 3000, to
accept the pardon. His reasoning prevailed, and the royal
herald arriving the same night with the document, early
the following morning they all assembled on " St. Thomas'
Hill," outside Pomfret, and receiving the pardon, at once
departed to their homes.
Once more Aske returned to Doncaster, and, in the
presence of the duke of Norfolk and the earls, he and his
followers tore off the " badges and crosses with five wounds "
as a token that their " pilgrimage " was at an end, exclaim
ing : " We will wear no badge nor figure but the badge of
our sovereign lord." x
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 63.

240 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Thus ended the first act of the " Pilgrimage of Grace."
The sequel of the story, the part borne in the movement
by the monks and the punishment meted out to the van
quished, will be briefly related in the next chapter.1
1 As to the position of affairs at the close of the year 1536 Mr. Gairdner
writes : — " It was a new experience to Henry VIII. that he had been, even
for a time, completely checkmated by his own subjects. But this was the
state of matters at the end of the year 1536. He had not been able to bring
the North of England back into subjection without entrusting Norfolk with a
large authority to make concessions, and Norfolk had been obliged ... (to
dispense) the pardons without even the reservation of a few notable offenders
to satisfy the king's vengeance. With what feelings Henry endured such a
rebuff, the events of the next six months enable us to judge without misgiving.
But at present he could not afford to give ready vent to his anger." (Calendar,
xii. (i.) preface, p. i. )

CHAPTER XIII
The Second Northern Rising
INFLUENCED by Aske's advice, the northern bands quickly
dispersed to their homes. The leader himself trusted im
plicitly to the royal promises made through the duke of
Norfolk, and unhesitatingly performed his part in the com
pact. That the king's government had been in the greatest
danger of overthrow cannot be questioned, and the per
sistency and earnestness with which the fidelity of the few
troops Henry had collected to oppose the forward movement
of the insurgents is asserted, leads to a suspicion of even
their loyalty to his cause. As early as the beginning of
November, the king had been anxious to discount the effect
of the news of this fresh rising at the foreign courts. For
this reason, as he had done in the case of the Lincolnshire
disturbances, Henry wrote to his ambassadors in France the
account he wished circulated abroad. So that, as he tells
them, "you may boldly affirm the same to be true to all men
and in all presences where you shall have any occasion,
cause or opportunity to speak thereof." Judged by the
documents, the king's account of the movement is far from
being correct in any particular. The whole insurrection, he
declares, was planned by those who wished to obtain plunder
during the tumult, an intention which is conspicuously absent
during the entire affair. He says further that when the
people learnt they had been deceived by their leaders, they
"much lamented their offences therein committed," and
humbly " desired pardon for the same." " And as concern
ing the Yorkshire men," he continues, "they do already,
being thus retired, lament their traitorous attempt and make
great suit and labour for their pardon ; so that we have no
doubt but we shall in time dispose of them as we will and
bring them to like submission, as is already made by them
of Lincolnshire. . . . And yet do both shires remain wholly
=4i Q

242 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
at our commandment, neither having our pardon, nor any
certain promise of the same. And therefore you may be
bold not only to declare the premises, as they be before
specified, but also to affirm that, against every of the insur
rections of those shires (being one attempted after another,
and yet chiefly by one principal actor) we had in readiness,
and that within six days for every of them, such two armies
as we think would first have devoured the said rebels and
yet have remained right able, every of them, after to have
given battle to the greatest prince christened. And surely
we be as much bound to God as ever was prince, both for
that we found our subjects so forward, so willing, and so
ready to have fought against the rebels, that we were rather
enforced to keep them back and to cause great numbers to
retire home to their countries, than, by any manner of
allurements, to prick them forward. . . . We have them
again in so good quiet, without effusion of blood or the
striking of any stroke by either party, which is somewhat
strange, and, peradventure, hath not been often seen — they
(the insurgents), being, as is said, such a multitude, as,
doubt you not, had been able, well furnished with artillery,
ordnance, and good captains, to have overthrown the better
of either the emperor's or French king's army."1 The
manifest contradictions and falsehoods contained in this
royal letter need not be pointed out ; but the document is of
interest as showing the worth of the king's word, upon the
faith of which the insurgents had laid down their arms.
But notwithstanding the king's round assertions the
truth had been understood. On the 24th of December
Crumwell wrote to the same ambassadors, Gardiner, bishop
of Winchester, and Sir John Wallop, with respect to rumours
which had been circulated as to the methods employed in
staying the insurrection, and the need in which the king
stood which compelled him to come to terms. It was alto
gether false, he says, that the " commons assembled for the
king's part, were so faint and unwilling that they would not
have done their duties if it had come to extremity." Still
he admits that it was so reported in the country, but states
" that the most part of the king's retinue in manner wept
when they were commanded to return, considering the
1 Tierney, Dodds Church Hist, of England, i. p. 430. Quoted from " the
original in my possession."

The Second Northern Rising 243
rebels were not more extremely punished."1 However this
may be, it is certain that the duke of Norfolk had no con
fidence in the forces at his disposal. Both he and Henry
were unwilling to " adventure the king's honour in battle,"
and the king left the matter to his discretion, although the
council told the duke of their " regret to receive so many
desperate letters, and, in the same, to hear no mention of
the remedies." 2
With regard to the promises made to the rebels, the
conclusion of Crumwell's letter, written a few weeks after
the duke of Norfolk had made them in the king's name,
shows how little Henry regarded them as obligatory on his
part. " It is reported," the letter runs, " that the matter
should be taken up with conditions and articles. It is true
that, at the beginning, the rebels made petition to have
obtained certain articles ; but in the end they went from all,
and remitted all to the king's highness pleasure, only in
most humble and reverent sort desiring their pardon, with
the greatest repentance that could be devised ; insomuch as
in their chief article, which, next their pardon, was for a
parliament, for that they might have their pardon therein
confirmed, they remitted the appointment of the same wholly
to the king's majesty, without the naming of time, place, or
any other thing touching that matter: and this discourse
may you declare to all men for truth ; for no man with truth
can impugn the same."3
If the people were deceived, they had at the time no
notion of any such deception, neither did they in any way
abandon their demands, as Crumwell in the foregoing letter
implies. Aske, in his narrative to the king, speaks of " the
articles now concluded at Doncaster, which were drawn,
read, argued and agreed among the lords and esquires" at
Pomfret, and whether Norfolk exceeded his power or not in
treating with Aske and his followers, a distinct agreement
was made and signed.
From the meeting at Doncaster Aske had gone to the
abbeys of Haltemprice and Ferriby, into which the expelled
religious had been again brought by the "pilgrims," and
pending the decision of the expected northern parliament
he arranged that the king's farmers should be reinstated in
1 Tierney, ut sup., i. p. 432. 2 Hardwicke State Papers, i. 28.
8 Tierney, i. p. 433.

244 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
their charges.1 The resumption by the religious of their
old houses and lands during the few weeks of the insurrec
tion and the consequent expulsion of the royal officials had
been a bold step. It is probable that, however willing the
monks had been to regain possession of their monasteries,
they had no part in the actual work of dispossessing the
king's receivers. From Aske's narrative it is clear that the
people had determined not only to put a stop to future sup
pressions, but to demand the restoration of those houses
which had already passed into the hands of Henry.
After the meeting at Doncaster and the dispersal of the
people to their homes, the king's heralds were sent round
about the northern counties to proclaim the royal pardon. In
so doing the envoy was directed to note well the demeanour
of the people and to find out whether they had settled down
to their occupations or were still disturbed. If he thought
well, he should declare the king's sorrow that, after twenty-
eight years, during which he had "ever tendered them in
all things rather like his natural children than like his sub
jects," they should listen to false tales about him. What the
king had done had the approval of the parliament and the
clergy. Then " with gentle words" the envoy should declare
" how the king having a main army of 50,000 men besides that
force which was addressed against them," still on account of
his affection for them, directly he heard they had retired, de- .
termined not to advance and punish them as they deserved.
Having said this much, the herald was to read the proclamation,-
and have it fixed to the Market Cross or other public place,
which shall be strictly watched to see whether anyone tear
it down. " And finally," the officer " shall in all his journey,
diligently, secretly and substantially ensearch what monks,
canons, nuns or other religious persons, of any religious
houses, within the limitation of the act of suppression, having
been discharged by his grace's commissioners, be again
restored by any of the rebels to the possessions of their said
houses ; how they use themselves in the same ; and of what
inclination the people is for their continuance." 2
An instance of the way in which the directions issued by
the king for the proclamation of his pardon were observed,'
is given in the examination of William Colyns, the bailiff of
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa p. 63. 2 State Papers, i. 473.

The Second Northern Rising 245
the town of Kendal. " And on the morrow after our Lady's
day before Christmas," runs the record, " they received the
king's gracious pardon at Pomfret, which they have to show
in Kendal town under the king's broad seal at this exami-
nat's house, brought by Clarencieux the herald about four
teen days before our said Lady's day. Which herald made
proclamation in Kendal town the said fourteenth day of
the king's said pardon. And because certain farmers of
priories about sent to him showing him how divers brethren
took away their corn from them, and therefore like to have
been murder between them about the same, therefore the
said herald gave commandment openly in the king's name,
upon pain of high treason, that no man should disturb any
man about the possession of lands and tithes; but they
should be in like manner as they were at the last meeting at
Doncaster, and so continue till the duke of Norfolk came
again to the country, which should be about the twentieth
day after Christmas. Which done, as the herald was departing
away, came two of the brethren of the late priory of Cartmell,
and desired the herald to write unto them the same order
that they might show it to their neighbours. And he said
he could not tarry so to do, but desired this examinat to
write them a word or two of the effect of the said orden
And thereupon this examinat at his request and to the
intent to have the said brethren to keep them out of danger
of the king's statutes, wrote unto them the said order of
this effect : ' Neighbours of Cartmell, so it is that the king's
herald has made proclamation here that every man (under)
pain of high treason should suffer everything, as farms,
tithes and such other to be in like stay and order concerning
possession, as they were in the time of the last meeting at
Doncaster, except you will of your charity help the brethren
there somewhat towards their board.'"1
As he " showed me," says a witness, " that all the canons
of Cartmell had entered the house except the foolish prior,
who would not go to them," I wrote to him. As far as I
remember " it was to this effect : Forasmuch as all religious
persons in the north parts had entered their houses by
putting in of commons, and I am informed that you, meaning
the prior of Cartmell, being required so to enter, do withdraw
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 250.

246 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
yourself, I think you may safely enter and do as others do,
keeping yourself quiet for the season and praying for the
king. And at the next parliament then to do as shall be
determined, and I have no doubt but so doing you may
continue in the same with the grace of God who keep you."
The letter was written from York on the ninth of December,
and the writer declared that he sent it, because it was openly
said at the time both at Pomfret and York that the abbey
should continue " in such manner as they were put in, unto
the next parliament." For this same reason, and because
he "understood that such was the promise made at Don
caster," he spoke in the same way to prior Coke of St.
Agatha's.1 The letter to Cartmell probably confirmed the brethren
there in their determination to hold to their old home.
Their trust in thus relying on the herald's word was terribly
expiated, for as Colyns, the bailiff of Kendal, declared in
his examination : " After this, four of the brethren of the
said house of Cartmell and eight yeomen were put to execu
tion for withstanding the king's farmer Mr. Holcrofte and
stirring up a new commotion about eight weeks after (the
letters) without the knowledge of this examinat or any other
man of Kendal to his witting." 2
It does not seem open to doubt that Aske endeavoured
to restrain the people and prevent any further attempt at
insurrection, in the expectation that Henry would redeem
his promises made at Doncaster. A fortnight after the
people had dispersed to their homes the king wrote to him
pressing him to come and see him. " We have conceived,"
he says, "a great desire to speak with you and to hear of
your mouth the whole circumstance and beginning of that
matter," and he promises that he will " accomplish towards
you and all others our general and free pardon, already
granted unto you." 8
In obedience to this summons Aske travelled to the
south and remained some time with the king. At his wish
he wrote out a full and complete history of his connection
with the rising and a straightforward and honest declaration
of the various causes which led to the disturbance. It is
from this invaluable document that many of the details of
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 345.
2 Idid., A. fa, p. 250. 3 State Papers, i. p. 523.

The Second Northern Rising 247
the rising are known, and that it is known how keenly the
people of the North felt the destruction of the religious
houses and the various ecclesiastical innovations introduced
by Henry.1 Aske was then sent back to the North with fresh assur
ances of the king's intention of abiding by the pledges given
by Norfolk. But meantime the people were becoming dis
heartened by the long delay and doubtful of the royal inten
tion. The fact that Crumwell remained apparently as secure
as ever in Henry's favour in spite of all the objections
they had urged against him; that rumour had spoken of
the massing of royal troops round about the disaffected
counties, and of the strengthening of the defences of Hull
and elsewhere, seemed to suggest that Henry had no real
intention of keeping faith with them. On his return to
Yorkshire Aske saw the danger and immediately wrote to
inform the king of the agitation. " I do perceive," he said>
" a marvellous conjecture in the hearts of the people, which
is, they do think they shall not have the parliament in
convenient time ; secondly, that your grace hath by your
letters written for the most part of the honourable and
worshipful of the shires to come to you, whereby they fear
not only danger to them, but also to their ownselves ; thirdly,
they be in doubt of your grace's pardon by reason of a late
book answering their first articles, now in print, which is
a great rumour amongst them ; fourthly, they fear the danger
of fortifying holds, and especially because it is said that the
duke of Suffolk would be at Hull and to remain there;
fifthly, they think your grace intendeth not to accomplish
their reasonable petitions by reason now the tenths is in
demand ; sixthly, they say the report is my lord privy seal
(Crumwell) is in as great favour with your grace as ever
he was, against whom they most specially do complain ;
finally, I could not [but] perceive in all the shires, as I came
from your grace homewards, that your grace's subjects be
wildly minded in their hearts towards commotions or assist
ance thereof, by whose abetment yet I know not ; wherefore,
1 It is significant that whilst the filthy scribbles of Layton and his com
peers have been printed and reprinted and their reports dinned into people's
ears forthe last two centuries, such a weighty document as Aske's "expostu-
latory narrative to the king," drawn up at Henry's express request, has never
yet seen the light.

248 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
sir, I beseech your grace to pardon me in this my rude letter
and plainness of the same, for I do utter my poor heart to
your grace to the intent your highness may perceive the
danger that may ensue ; for on my faith I do greatly fear
the end to be only by battle." x
It would appear that Aske was loyal to the king in his
implicit belief that the promises made at Doncaster would
be adhered to. The letter given above, together with his
narrative of the events, hardly admit of a doubt that he was
honest in his endeavour to restrain the people from any
further aggressive measures. John Hallom, one of those
most deeply compromised by the second rising, declared at
his examination that Aske had done what he could to
prevent it,2 and in this opinion he was borne out by most
of the witnesses. Lord Darcy also joined Aske in this
attempt to preserve the peace. He, like the leader, had
been invited to journey to Windsor to see the king, but
although he had excused himself on the plea of such ill-
health that " he was more like to die than to recover there
of,"8 he wrote several letters advising the people to trust
to the king's promises and to his looking to their grievances.*
He also declared to the lord admiral, in a letter written on
the 20th of January, 1537, that Aske, Babthorp, Ellerker,
Constable and he himself were doing their best to quiet the
restless humour of the people. " And Sir Richard Tempest,"
he adds, " is sent home . . . with good comfortable words
of the parliament for spiritual and temporal men, and of the
king's free and mere pardon of his own benign grace granted,
and that true justice shall have place against all that was
in the bill of article." And if the duke of Norfolk only come
to promise this, he concludes, " he will accomplish more than
40,000 men could." 6
On the eve of Sir Francis Bigod's rising, letters were
sent to him and the commons with him urging them to
pause. With these Sir Robert Constable, on January 18th,
sent a paper saying that " the king's highness hath declared
by his own mouth unto Robert Aske that we shall have our
parliament at York frankly and freely for the ordering and
reforming of all causes for the commonwealth of this realm ;
1 Froude, iii. p. 182. s Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 48.
8 Ibid., B. fa, p. 40. * Ibid., pp. 1, 3, 7.
5 Ibid., p. 21.

The Second Northern Rising 249
and also his frank and free convocation for the good stay
and ordering ofthe faith and other spiritual causes."1
Bigod, however, had no belief in the honesty of the royal
promises. "You are deceived," he said in a speech to his
followers, "by a colour of a pardon, which is but a pro
clamation. It is as if I should say the king will give you a
pardon, and I bade you go to the Chancery for it. You are
there (in the pardon) called rebels, and. if you accept it you
will acknowledge yourselves to have acted against the king.
A parliament, too, is promised, but neither place nor time
appointed; and the king claims to have cure both of your
bodies and souls, which is against the Gospel."2
But Aske and others had no suspicion of double dealing ;
and in fact it was this very confidence in the royal honesty
which was afterwards construed into high treason, and for
which lord Darcy, Aske and many others were executed.
In the notes upon the evidence against them it is stated that
a letter from Darcy to Aske, written on January 21st, de
clared that the duke of Norfolk was to come into the North
"to proclaim a free parliament to be kept there, and also
free liberty to the spirituality to utter their learning ; " also
that in this parliament all grievances were to be considered.
This shows, the author of the "note" rightly infers, that
lord Darcy still looked for reform, "which," he continues,
"is high treason." Moreover, in a letter to the duke of
Suffolk, he asked that " the appointments made at Doncaster
on the king's part should be observed," and this again, says
the annotator, proves that he is a " traitor " still. The same
deductions are made from the letters and actions of Robert
Aske subsequent to the pardon, whereby the very reliance
he placed upon the plighted word of Henry is counted as
proof of a traitorous disposition.8
In March Norfolk wrote to Crumwell that he had suc
cessfully lured Robert Aske into his toils. Whilst affect
ing to treat him with perfect confidence the Duke was in
reality setting traps to catch him for the king. He wrote
to Crumwell that he had induced the late popular leader
to go to London, giving him letters of recommendation, to
which, however, the all-powerful minister was to attach no
importance, as they were " only intended to lull the bearer
1 Chapter House Bk., B. fa p. 131. 2 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 369.
3 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 241-247.

250 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
into false security." At the same timej" he recommended the
king to pursue the same policy, affecting to repose great
trust in him till he had wormed out all his secrets " x and
had him in his power. " It was rather superfluous work,"
writes Mr. Gairdner, " to teach Henry double-dealing. From
the time of his previous conference with Aske he had been
constantly studying how to get both him and all the other
leaders entirely within his power, and have them judicially
convicted of offences committed since the pardon, or such as
the pardon did not cover."2
It is unnecessary to follow the history of the several
sporadic risings, by which the people endeavoured to force
attention to their disappointed hopes. Sir Francis Bigod
and others endeavoured to seize Hull and Beverley in the
beginning of January, and were captured in the attempt.
The leaders of the first rising lost no time in repudiating
the new movement, and Aske received a letter from the
king, thanking him for his services in endeavouring to put
an end to it.8 Various commotions followed in the northern
parts, which , culminated in an attack upon Carlisle by some
eight thousand men of Westmoreland. They failed in their
attempt, and only afforded the duke of Norfolk a pretext for
advancing into the disturbed districts with an army upon
which he could rely. Martial law was proclaimed and
remorseless executions finally broke the resistance of the
people. These- ill-judged and hopeless disturbances afforded the
king an excuse for breaking off the convention of Doncaster.
Even those who, in reliance upon the royal promises, had
done their best to restrain the impatience of the people,
found themselves involved in the consequences of their for
mer acts although they had sued and obtained pardon for
them. Aske, whose good offices in keeping the people quiet
had been acknowledged by Henry, and lord Darcy, who had
certainly taken no part in such risings, found themselves
prisoners in the royal power.
Before speaking of the final act in the drama of the
Pilgrimage of Grace — the trials and executions of those
implicated in the movement — the special attention of the
reader must be directed to the part taken in it by the
1 Calendar, xii. (i), Nos. 710, 712. 2 Ibid., preface, p. xxix.
3 State Papers, i. 529.

The Second Northern Rising 251
religious. The king, in his letter just quoted, declared that
"all these troubles have ensued by the solicitation and
traitorous conspiracies of the monks and canons of those
parts." It will be of interest to see how far such an asser
tion, borne out apparently by the numerous executions of
abbots and monks, is confirmed by the depositions and
examinations of witnesses and prisoners, on which alone,
if justice had had its course, their condemnation or acquittal
should have rested.
Speaking of the beginning of the insurrection, one witness,
William Stapleton, accuses an Observant friar of being im
plicated in the movement. He was staying, he says, at the
Grey Friars, Beverley, with his elder brother Christopher,
" a very weak, crazed and impotent man," who had been ill
for some sixteen years and was at that time at the Friars
"for change of air," as he "had been the summer before
from May till after midsummer." William, who was on his
way to London, did not leave as he intended on October 4th,
because he heard that the "commons of Lincolnshire" had
risen, and so he remained on from day to day, till Sunday,
the 8th, when the people about Beverley joined in the move
ment. William Stapleton tried to keep his people indoors,
but his brother's wife would not be controlled, and went to
the hedge, crying out, "God's blessing have ye and speed
ye well in your good purpose." The people asked where
her people were, " and she replied, ' They be in the Friars.
Go pull them out by the heads.' " For this she was blamed
by both brothers, but she replied "that it was certainly
God's quarrel." At this time, as Stapleton declared, there
was with the people "one Sir Thomas Johnson, otherwise
called Bonaventure, an Observant friar, who was sworn, and
had been much with the said Christopher both at his house
at Wighill and at Beverley, and before that time was assigned
to the said house of Beverley by Doctor Vavasour, warden
of the Grey Friars at York. And the said Bonaventure
supervised much the rising, and was very busy going betwixt
the wife of Sir Christopher and the said wild people, oft
laying scriptures to maintain their purpose." x
It was apparently at the suggestion of the same friar
that William Stapleton was forced to become the leader of
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa p. 150.

252 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the people, and subsequently, as he says, "the Observant
offered himself to go into the quarrel in harness to the field,
and so did to the first stay." The same witness accuses
" Sir Robert, a friar of St. Robert's of Knaresborough," 1 of
working hard to stir up the people to join the movement,
and these two are about the only individual names mentioned
as connected with the rising and not belonging to abbeys
well known in history as attainted for their supposed part
in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
In the second rising, the Gilbertine priory of Watton,
on which a new prior had been imposed against the wish
of the community by Crumwell, was said to be mixed up
with the movement. The story is best told in the words of
one William Horsekey when examined as to his knowledge
of the matter. " Upon Monday was a fortnight," he says,
" which was plough-day after that (Christmas day) the said
Hallam, Hugh Langdale and this examinat had a drinking
together at one John Bell's in Watton with many other of
the parishioners, being there together in great number as
the manner is there of plough-days, and every man departed
homeward. The said Hallam, Hugh Langdale and this
examinat, with the vicar of Watton, as they passed by the
church of Watton turned in the same to say a pater noster,
and there being, the said Hallam called this examinat and
the said Langdale to an altar, called our Lady's altar, and
said unto them : ' Sirs, I fear me lest Hull do deceive us
the commons, for there is ordnance daily received there by
ships.' " He then went on to declare that the king was not
going to keep his promises and that they must look to them
selves. Aske, as the witness declared, did all he could to
prevent the second rising, which was " for the pulling down
abbeys" and the payment "of tenths."
" Also he saith," continues the document, " that the sub-
prior, the confessor of the nuns, and the vicar of Watton . . .
1 The king personally examined all the evidence against those accused,
and in regard to this " friar of Knaresborough " Mr. Gairdner thus characterises
Henry's action. He acted generally "in the spirit of a detective policeman,
and writing marginal comments (on the evidence) for the instruction of Norfolk.
As a. specimen of these it may be worth while to note the observation made
upon the first information about the friar of Knaresborough : — ' This Knave is
to be taken, and, well examined, to suffer ; ' the fate of the victim, it will be
observed, being quite decided by the king himself before any judicial investi
gation. How to satisfy his thirst for blood and save appearances as regards
the law might sometimes be a problem." (Calendar, xii. (i), preface, p. xxix.)

The Second Northern Rising 253
are great favourers and setters forth of this matter of sedition,
for he heard them and every of them since Christmas last,
at sundry times say that it would never be well as long as
the king's grace should be the supreme head of the Church,
and that the same would not be reformed without the people
did set forward again with a new insurrection. And upon
his conscience he thinketh that there is never a good one
of all the canons ofthe said house of Watton, but that every
one of them is glad to set forward this business. And he
saith that they all great(ly) grudge their prior and would
fain have a new one." 1
In the examinations of the religious of Watton them
selves much the same evidence was elicited. The subprior,
" D. Harry Gill," says they were asked by the insurgents
for money and horses. They gave only ^10 and a gelding,
and " also Master Aske had one spice plate of silver, which
was a pledge of the earl of Northumberland," and if it had
not been given the house would have been " spoiled." He
declared that the archbishop of York sent a letter "to all
curates and religious that they should go a procession every
day and send their minds out of Holy Scripture and the
four doctors touching the commons' petition." From their
house two replies were sent, one from a " Dr. Swinburne "
and another " from a young man of our habit called Thomas
Asheton" . . . "and they were both one as touching the
Supreme Head."
With regard to the election of a prior in place of the
one appointed over them by Crumwell, who had fled on the
first sign of the rising, the subprior deposed that at the time
of the first insurrection Hallam came " with a great number
of his soldiers after him into the infirmary of Watton where
the brethren were bound to dinner, and there in the presence
of the prior of Ellerton and the prior of St. Andrew's, York,
charged the brethren to elect them a new prior. And they
said it was against their order and statutes of their religion,
their prior being alive, and not lawfully removed. Then he
said if they did not, he would spoil their house, and would
nominate one himself. And he said : ' Methinks this man '
— pointing to the prior of Ellerton — 'is meet to be your
prior.' Then for fear of spoiling of their goods, as they
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 41-45.

354 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
say, they met together and did nominate the said prior of
Ellerton to be their prior." He, however, would not take the
office, " nor they receive him for such indeed, but to have
him to bear the name only through fear of the commons." x
Lastly, examined as to the crucial question 'of the
"Supreme Headship" of the king, the subprior declared
that for himself "he had no learning to discuss the matter;
but as he saith it was in every man's mouth that if that
were not laid down 2 it should not be well."
The answers of two other religious of Watton 8 do not
add anything material to the declaration of the subprior,
although they confirm its accuracy in every particular. It
may, therefore, be supposed that in these various informa
tions and examinations the various ways in which alone the
priory of Watton was implicated in the rising are stated.
None of the canons took any active part in the movement,
their contributions were small, and even these were extorted
by force. As for the matter of the election, however much
they disliked the superior appointed by Crumwell, and what
ever cause they had to endeavour to get rid of him, they
appear to have acted loyally to him, except in so far as they
were compelled to give way to force.
Beyond the foregoing isolated instances, none of the
numerous depositions and relations furnish any accusation
against monastery or monk of active co-operation with the
insurgents, with the exception of the abbeys of Jervaulx
and Whalley, the priory of Bridlington and the individual
connection of the quondam abbot of Fountains with the
movement. These cases must now be considered.
With respect to Jervaulx, the chief witness against the
monks is one Ninian Staveley, himself one of the leaders
of the movement and a representative of the swashbuckler
element among the insurgents. He engaged in the move
ment as an adventurer rather than as a "pilgrim," and
having compromised himself, endeavoured to save his own
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 77-80. It will be remembered that Aske
declared he had gone at this time to Watton to prevent this new election from
taking effect.
2 i.e., if the king did not put aside the title of Supreme Head which he
had assumed.
8 That of "J. D. Thomas Lather, cellarer and granator," is prefaced by
the expressions, "Jesus sit in adjutorio," "Jesu adjuva me" and " Deus in
adju/orium."

The Second Northern Rising 255
neck by incriminating others. By his deposition it would
appear that the abbot during the second rising had promised
to join the insurgents "with all his brethren;" and had
sent a messenger to Sir Thomas Percy " to have him come
forward," and also a servant into Lincolnshire to find out
the state of the country, and to let them know whether the
duke of Norfolk was advancing " with arms or no." J • These
form the chief points of the abbot's offending, and they
may be considered best in the light of his own examina
tion in the Tower on 27th of April, 1537. "Adam Sedbar,
abbot of the monastery of Jervaulx, ' sworn and examined,'
said that during the first rising, about Michaelmas day, there
'came to the garth or court of the abbey of Jervaulx,' some
two or three hundred men. He knew nothing about it at
that time, but hearing that their captains, Middleton and
Staveley, were asking for him, ' he conveyed himself by a
back door ' to a place ' called Wilton Fell.' He only had
a boy with him, and ' bade his other servants get them every
man to his house and save their cattle and goods.' He
remained thus concealed for four days, only coming home
at night," and during all those days the said commons
wandered about the said house in the country about. "At
the last, hearing say that this examinat had said that there
should no servant of his ever after do him service, nor
tenant dwell on no land of his that should go with them,
they therefore turned back to Jervaulx and inquired for this
examinat, and they were answered that this examinat was
not at home. And then said they: 'We charge you brethren
to go and choose you a new abbot.' Whereupon the brethren
rang the chapter bell and went towards making of a new
election. And certain among them would in no wise agree
to make any new abbot. Then the commons gave them
half an hour's respite to choose one ; and if they did choose
none in that space they would burn their house over their
heads. Then the brethren sent several ways about to seek
this examinat, and at last one William Nelson came where
this examinat was upon Wilton Fell in a great crag, and
showed him that the commons would burn the house except
he should come home, and all the brethren cried ' Woe
be (us).' * Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 117—118.

256 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
" Then for saving of the house this examinat came home
(and) about the outer gate he was torn (from his horse) and
almost killed, they crying ' Down with that traitor.' At last
by means of some of his friends he was carried in from them,
and when he came to the hall entry Leonard Burgh, one ofthe
ringleaders, drew his dagger and would have killed him, but
for them that stood by. Then he came further where one
William Asleby, chief captain of these parts, was, and he
said to this examinat : ' Horeson traitor, where has thou
been ? ' and said : ' Get me a block to strike off his head
upon,' and there this examinat was commanded to take the
oath, which he took, the said Burgh ministering the same to
him. And so took this examinat with them forthwith and
gave him no respite, but caused him to ride with them upon
a brown horse, which he rode upon his coming into them."
He was forced to remain with them for some days, but
at last, through the intercession of one of the leaders, was
allowed to return home. During this time, letters were
sent to Jervaulx from the "commons" of the district, to
receive which and forward to their destination, certain of the
insurgents were quartered on the monks. This continued
till the settlement at Doncaster, when the strangers left.
In answer to an inquiry as to what aid he had given the
insurgents, the abbot replied " that the commons took all his
servants with them . . . but (that) he never gave one of them
one penny of wages." Further, " he saith," continues the
record, " he never sent victuals unto them, and that the
commons took with them two of this examinat's brethren J
among them, against this examinat's mind and will, who
returned again with this examinat."
Further examined, the abbot said that "there came to
this examinat's chamber immediately after breakfast" one
day in the winter Staveley and Middleton, " and his son and
heir, and many more were in the hall." Staveley told the
abbot that formerly he had deceived the people, "and
therefore bade him come with them and half a dozen
of his brethren forthwith. .And this examinat desired
them to forbear and said they were his neighbours and
should be his friends and were his enemies. . . . And
1 From the notes on this examination (Chapter House Bk., B. fa, p. 140)
it appears that the names of these two were Roger Hartlepool and John
Stanton.

The Second Northern Rising 257
partly by his importunity and refusal and partly by the
entreaty of one Beckwith that came with them, they let this
examinat and his brethren alone. But they took against
this examinat's will certain of his friends with them."
The following day the abbot fled to Bolton Castle to
Lord Scrope, where he remained until the insurgents were
" broken at Richmond," when he returned home. " Since
that time," he says, " he heard nothing of the matter. And
other comfort, aid or assistance he gave not them by word
deed or writing, by the virtue of his oath and upon his
allegiance." Lastly, as to the special points upon which Staveley
accused him, he denied " utterly that ever he sent or caused
to be sent, nor that he was privy that any messenger should
be sent to Sir Thomas Percy, or that he put his servants
and tenants with Staveley or gave them any aid or comfort,
or that he sent any man to lie in Lincolnshire to consider
the state of the country there, but saith that the cellarer of
the house sent one Jackson to Lincolnshire at the latter
end of the Christmas holidays to gather their rents, and
for no other purpose to this examinat's knowledge as he
saith." 1
The quondam abbot of Fountains, William Thirsk, was
implicated in the movement,2 together with the abbot of
Jervaulx. Thirsk had been deprived of his office at Foun
tains by Crumwell's visitors in the beginning of the year
1536. Layton and Legh had written to Crumwell about his
having made away with the plate and jewels of the abbey,
and of their success in getting him to "resign privately
into their hands."8 On the appointment of his successor,
Marmaduke Bradley, who had offered Crumwell six hun
dred marks, and the king .£1000 as " first-fruits " if he could
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 259 to 263.
2 Ibid., B. fa, p. 101.
8 Layton and Legh, the king's commissaries, accepted the resignation of
William Thirsk in " The Church Chamber," at the monastery of St. Mary's
Fountains, 19 January, 1536. They granted him a pension of 100 marks a
year (Calend. x. No. 131). In a letter written by his successor on March 6th,
it appears that there were considerable difficulties about the money arrange
ments. The pension of ^40 was objected to as excessive, and Thirsk is
said to want to keep all the house goods above the value of ^1000
(No. 424), and according to archbishop Lee he had not resigned by the
end of March, as he wished to be made secure as to his proper and promised
pension (No. 521). R

258 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
obtain the office, abbot Thirsk retired first to London and
afterwards to Jervaulx. How far he had any part in the
insurrection for which he was executed must be judged
from his examination, as there is little else known about
him. On April the 24th doctors Layton and Legh, his old
enemies, had him before them in the Tower, and, being
sworn, he said : " About the beginning of the last Lent
(IS37)> as ^is examinat was in his chamber at Jervaulx
abbey, came to him one of the servants of the house, called
James Thwaites, desiring this examinat in the abbot of
Jervaulx's name to deliver to Middleton that came with him
forty pence: one Staveley being there also. And he said
he would, and with that took out an angel noble and bade
them change it. And Staveley took the same in his hands
and said it was cracked. Then this examinat took out
another angel and bade them change that. And the said
Staveley took both and put them up, saying, 'Ye churle
monks ye have too much and we have nothing. Neither of
these thou gettest again.' Then this examinat said again,
' Ye shall not have my money so. If ye be true men ye
will not take my money away. Ye should have but forty
pence of me.' Middleton, however, promised to repay the
money if Staveley did not, ' and so they departed without
any more words.' "
About a week after this " the said Middleton and Staveley
in harness came to the said abbot of Jervaulx as he and this
examinat were in his chamber, and bade the said abbot and
this examinat upon pain of death, and all their brethren and
servants go with them forthwith. And many other of the
commons were in the hall and about the house. And he
desired them instantly to suffer him and his brethren to be
still, seeing it was not meet that religious men should go
about any such business. And so this examinat desired
them also to let him likewise alone, for he was old and feeble
and nothing meet for such business. Nevertheless, as this
examinat heard say, they took with them the servants of the
house, but whether it were by the abbot's command or not
he cannot tell."
Further he denied absolutely that he had ever desired
Staveley or any other " if there should be any new insurrec
tion ... 'to help to put him in his room again.'" And
he declared he knew nothing of the first rising, "being in

The Second Northern Rising 259
London all the time," and never heard of any message being
sent to Sir Thomas Percy.1
If the abbots of Jervaulx and Fountains do not appear
to have afforded active assistance to the insurgents, the part
played by the abbot of Whalley was of a still less com
promising nature. William Rede, a baker of Oxford, said
that he had carried letters from the abbot " to his scholars
being in Oxford," and also " another to the abbot of Hayles."
The abbot had told him to recommend him specially " to the
abbot of Hayles, and tell him that I am sore stopped and
acrazed. And pray him to send me word when he purposeth
to come over to this country, for I would be glad to see him
once ere I depart out of this world, seeing I brought him up
here from a child." The baker on his way received a packet
of letters from a schoolmaster to give to " Philip, his son, at
Oriel college." And when he came to Wotton, having told
the constable there what he was carrying, he found himself
taken prisoner and conveyed to Kenilworth castle. The
letters were examined, and, as far as can be judged from
the document, only implicated the schoolmaster and not the
abbot.2 One witness, indeed, declared that the abbot of Whalley
had lent a horse to Nicholas Tempest, of Brashall. But
Tempest's account of the matter is very different. He says
that he went to the abbey " with three or four hundred
men," and after " being kept out about two hours, were at
last let in for fear of burning their barns and houses. And
there this examinat swore the abbot and about eight of his
religion according to Aske's oath."8 So that according to
Nicholas Tempest even the oath of the pilgrims was extorted
from the monks by threats of violence. The only other
matter which appears to tell against the abbey of Whalley
is that lord Darcy had some communication with the abbey.
" Memorandum," it is noted, " also that lord Darcy this Lent
last past sent a copy of a letter which my lord of Norfolk
wrote to him unto the prior of Whalley who is now attainted
of high treason, whereby appeareth that the lord Darcy
favoured the said prior, being a traitor." *
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa pp. 257-258.
2 md., p. 134.
3 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1014.
4 Chapter House Bk., A. fa p. 247, i.e. the lord Darcy being the traitor.

260 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Lastly, as to Bridlington the only item of information is
obtained in a note possibly in Crumwell's hand. " Item,"
it runs, "the prior of Bridlington and Dr. Pickering, the
friar, had been great setters forth of both the first and last
insurrections. And the said Dr. Pickering, a great writer
of letters, to move and stir as well the first as the last. And
also the prior of Bridlington had in readiness as well all his
household servants as also divers his tenants in harness, for
to have given assistance to Bigod and Lumley in the last
insurrection." 1 In a list of those implicated, the names of
"Nicholas Tempest, Hammerton and Pickering, friar," are
associated with that of "the abbot of Bridlington." These
four names have been subsequently erased. Against the
names of Hammerton and Tempest is the note: "The
petition made to Thomas Percy by the abbot of Sawley,
wherein is no apparent matter against them but before the
pardon.2 And even as to this, Nicholas Tempest denied
upon oath that he knew anything about that " supplication,"
and declared that his connection with Sawley abbey was
confined to advising the abbot's chaplain to lay their cause
before the meeting at Pomfret, and "when the commons
had put in the abbots and monks," to giving "them a fat
ox, one mutton, and two or three geese."3 In like manner
Sir Stephen Hammerton denied having had anything to do
in the matter. His declaration is of interest, as it shows
that it was for the crime of taking possession of their old
home that the abbot of Sawley, and doubtless some of his
brethren, perished on the scaffold. "And he saith," runs
the record of Hammerton's examination, " that the abbot of
Sawley, as he was condemned to die, sent divers persons to
this examinat to desire his forgiveness for that he had named
this examinat in the said letters . . . and he took it upon
his death that neither this examinat nor no other gent or
other person of the county was counsel to the making or
devising of the said supplication but only he himself and the
said Estgate (his chaplain), and two of his said brethren
called Bradford and Parish." *
1 Chapter House Bk., B. fa, p. 143. a Ibid., p. 101.
8 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1014.
* Chapter House Bk., A. fa, p. 30. The Monasticon, v. p. 511, says that
William Trafford, last abbot of Salley, was hanged at Lancaster for opposition
to the crown in H38. The declaration of Hammerton, made in 1537, states
that he was condemned to deitb, and it would seem to imply that he had

The Second Northern Rising 261
The punishment meted out to the insurgents now that
the last resistance was at an end was, as might be expected,
not wanting in severity. (
"Norfolk," writes Mr. Gairdner, "had really little to do
except to arrange for some further butcheries and terrify all
the other malcontents into the most abject submission. The
wretched country people — ' poor caitiffs ' — as he himself said
they might well be called, having lost their horses, harness
and everything in their flight — flocked into Carlisle to submit
to the King's mercy. The Duke's answer was to select
seventy-four of the chief insurgents and lock them up in
prison till they should be sentenced by martial law and
hanged, letting the rest go home without any promise of
pardon. ' Dreadful execution ' was the one great object
with Norfolk. It had been insinuated that some old feeling
of regard for those monastic establishments now being re
morselessly overturned would make him less zealous in the
execution of the King's orders ; and he was anxious to clear
himself of any such imputation. His only regret was that
he could not find iron chains enough in the country to hang
the prisoners in ; ropes must serve for some. He flattered
himself, however, that so great a number put to death at a
time had never been heard of." J
The chief prisoners were first tried by a commission in
York.2 In forcing friends and even relations of the prisoners
to take part as jurors in this trial, Norfolk perpetrated a
already been executed. Walcott says his execution was at Lancaster on March
10th, 1537, and this is the year assigned by Stowe (ed. 1615, p. 573), who
says that "one Astlebe, a monk of Jervaulx," was executed with him.
1 Calendar, xii. (i), preface, p. xxvi.
2 It is well to understand the kind of pressure which was exerted upon the
northern juries to find verdicts of guilty. On March 23rd and 24th, 1537, one
William Levenyng was tried at York for complicity in Bigod's rebellion. The
majority of the jury were for an acquittal, believing that the only witness was
actuated by malice, " having had a promise of his lands from the king." The
jury were locked up from nine on Friday morning until Saturday night, and
as " a more effectual way of promoting unanimity, they were deprived of all
warmth." In the end they acquitted the prisoner. Norfolk was dissatisfied,
and further examined Levenyng, and even proposed sending him up to
Crumwell. "A few days later," writes Mr. Gairdner, "we find the Duke
promising to ascertain for Crumwell the names of the grand juries who found
indictments in Yorkshire, and who apparently had disappointed expectations
by finding so few, but he cannot help suggesting that if they were sent for to
appear before the Council, it would lead to rumour ' that men should be com
pelled to pass otherwise than their consciences should lead them.' " (Calendar,
iii. (i), preface, p. xxxi.)

262 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
cruelty which could hardly have been believed as intentional
were it not for the testimony of his own letter to Crumwell.
After telling him that the king's commission had arrived
" with two books of indictments and two schedules ; the one
of such as should be indicted and the other of gentlemen
to be impanelled," he goes on to say : " I doubt not to have
the greatest appearance that was seen at York of many
years, on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning (May 9th,
IS37). I will sit upon those that be named in the schedule
on Wednesday by nine o'clock, and also upon two monks of
the Charterhouse for not knowing of the king to be supreme
head of the Church, unless they do openly recant from their
false opinion, which I think they will not do." J
The duke then goes on to say that, as he presumes
Crumwell intends, he thinks it well to have "two divers
inquests ; for they being so kept that one of them shall not
know what another doth shall make them the more quick to
find the matter. And I have so provided that we shall lack
no number if I would have four inquests. And I am at this
time of such acquaintance with the gentlemen that I dare
well adventure to put divers on the quests (of whom) some
hath married with the lord Darcy's daughters and some
with Sir Robert Constable's.2 And I will put John Aske
thereupon, who is eldest brother to Robert Aske. Doubt
ye not, my lord, but the matter shall be found according to,
the king's pleasure."
Continuing, he says he hopes to have the evidence before
Thursday, which " is no day to sit, considering as it shall
be Ascension day," and if so, "Crumwell shall have the
result and be able to proceed with the London arraignments
on Monday or Tuesday. My good lord," he goes on, "I
will not spare to put the best friends these men have upon
one of the inquests, to prove their affection whether they
1 The names of these two were "John Rochester and James Walwercke,"
two of the heroic members of the London Charterhouse. They were hanged
in chains at York. Vide p. 74, ante.
2 Raine, Hexham Priory (Surtees Soc), i. App. clxii., note, says : "These
were Brian Stapleton, of Carlton ; Henry Babington, of Dethick ; Sir William
Fairfax, of Gilling ; Sir Thomas Dawney, of Cowick ; and Sir Thomas
Metham. Sir Thomas Metham was a grand juror.
Sir Robert Constable's daughters married into the houses of St. Quintin,
Gower, Pudsey, Cholmeley, and Husee : Sir Roger Cholmeley and Sir Edward
Gower were on the York grand jury.

The Second Northern Rising 263
will rather serve his majesty truly and frankly in this matter,
or else to favour their friends, and if they will not find, then
they may have thanks according to their cankered hearts.
And, as for the other inquest, I will appoint such that I
shall no more doubt of than of myself." x
The commission was held at York Castle on " Wednes
day, the vigil of the Ascension, May 9th," before the Duke
of Norfolk, Sir Thomas Tempest and others. The jury,
amongst whom was John Aske, the brother of Robert,
found the prisoners guilty of conspiring with lord Darcy
on the loth of October " to deprive the king of his dignity,
title, name, and royal state, namely, of being on earth the
supreme head of the English Church." Also they found
them guilty of endeavouring to compel the king " to summon
and hold a parliament and convocation, and other divers
high treasons." Further, that having been pardoned, they
repeated these treasons in January.
A week later they were brought up before chancellor
Audeley at Westminster, and pleading not guilty, May 24th
was appointed for the trial. On that day all the prisoners
except Ralph Bulmer 2 were condemned to death.8
There can be no doubt that the abbots and monks now
tried and put to death fell victims to Henry's cupidity and
sanguinary vengeance, and that they did not suffer for their
own misdeeds, or for any real connection with the insurrec
tions. Among the rest the following religious were ordered
to be executed : Adam Sedbar, abbot of Jervaulx ; William
Thirsk, quondam abbot of Fountains ; William Wood, prior
of Bridlington; James Cockerel, prior of Gisborough and
rector of Lythe ; and John Pickering, late of Bridlington,
and a friar of the Dominican Order. Lord Darcy was
executed on Tower Hill. The abbots, with Percy, Bigod,
John Bulmer, Hammerton, Lumley, and Tempest, were
hanged and quartered at Tyburn, while Constable and Aske
were hanged in chains at Hull and York. The fate of those
who had withstood the royal will and appealed even to arms
to save the ancient abbeys of England from spoliation and
1 Raine, ut sup., i. App. clxi.
2 Coram Rege. Roll, 33 Hen. VIII., Easter, M.F9. Ralph, son of Sir John
Bulmer, by a letter dated 29 Jan., A0 32 Hen. VTII., was pardoned and
discharged. 8 Ibid., and Baga de Secretis, in iii. Rept. Dept. Keeper, App. ii.

264 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
to protest against the changes in religious faith and practice
imposed upon an unwilling nation, struck terror into the
hearts of the English people. The collapse of the rising
removed every restraint upon the autocratic power of the
crown and opened the way for further seizures of monastic
and church property.

CHAPTER XIV
Dissolution by Attainder
THE Northern disturbances, in the autumn of 1536 and the
spring of the following year, acted as a check upon the
suppression schemes of Henry. From Michaelmas of the
former year to the same feast in the latter, according to
the accounts of his ministers, very few religious houses
passed into his possession. In Yorkshire and the adjoining
counties during the spring months of 1537 the royal officers
were occupied in once more ejecting the monks and nuns
who had been reinstated by the insurgents in their old
homes. The king's instructions to the duke of Norfolk on
this point were precise. He was immediately after the
execution of Constable and Aske to restore the keeping of
the monasteries formerly suppressed to the royal farmers,
" and aid such commissioners as his majesty shall appoint
to dissolve the other monasteries within the limit of the said
act not yet dissolved." Further, the instructions run, "the
said duke shall cause all the religious persons that were or
be in any of the said houses either to take their livings in
such other monasteries of their religion as they shall be
assigned to, or else if they shall refuse so to do, he shall
punish them as vagabonds and enemies of the common
wealth, so as no one of that sort remain at large in that
country." Norfolk and the earl of Sussex had, indeed, in behalf of
the king, made large promises at the meeting of Doncaster
that the restored religious should be left undisturbed until
the Northern parliament had finally settled the question of
the dissolution. But the king evidently did not consider
himself bound by the acts of his plenipotentiaries. "And
forasmuch," his instructions continue, "as the said duke
of Norfolk and the lord admiral at their late being at Don
caster promised to be suitors to the king's majesty that the
265

266 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
monks, canons, and nuns of such religious houses suppressed
should have victum and vestitum of the goods of the monas
teries they were of, till further determination should be taken
touching that matter, by reason whereof some ringleaders
may perchance make some argument for the continuance
of the said monks, nuns and canons with such sustentation
at their liberties, the said duke in such case shall make a
discourse to all men appearing so much affectionate towards
them, of their essential wilful poverty, chastity and obedi
ence, and dilate how far they vary from good religious men,
from them that will be wilfully poor : yea, from true subjects
that would direct their prince and sovereign lord ; that will
not live but as they list themselves, and therewith declare
how the king's majesty is by his laws rightfully entitled to
those monasteries, and that those that will so direct his
majesty therein be not esteemed for his great true subjects,
but to be punished as his traitors and rebels." 1
In a previous letter, written by Henry at the time when
the duke had proclaimed martial law, the commander had
been praised for the way he had "discreetly, plainly and
truly," painted and set forth to the people in their, true colours
"those persons that call themselves religious." "And we
doubt not," continues the king, " but the further you shall
wade in the investigation of their behaviours, the more ye
shall detect the great number of them and the less esteem
the punishment of such, as you shall find, in will or deed,
culpable in things that may touch us or the common quiet of
our realm. ..."
" Thirdly," the letter continues, " we do right well ap
prove and allow your proceedings in the displaying of our
banner. And forasmuch as the same is now spread and
displayed, by reason whereof, till the same shall be closed
again, the course of our laws must give place to the ordi
nances and estates martial, our pleasure is, that, before you
shall close up our said banner again, you shall in any wise
cause such dreadful execution to be done upon a good
number of the inhabitants of every town, village and hamlet,
that have offended in this rebellion, as well by the hanging
of them up in trees, as by the quartering of them and the
setting of their heads and quarters in every town, great and
1 Chapter House Bk., A. fa, pp. 367 et seq.

Dissolution by Attainder 267
small, and in all such other places, as they may be a
fearful spectacle to all other hereafter that would practice
any like matter : which we require you to do, without pity or
respect, according to our former letters ; remembering that
it shall be much better, that these traitors should perish in
their wilful, unkind and traitorous follies, than that so slen
der punishment should be done upon them, as the dread
thereof should not be a warning to others." Further, Henry
expressed his desire that after " such execution" had been
done by the summary processes of martial law, the ordinary
legal forms of " ordinary justice " should, at the duke's dis
cretion, complete the work of punishment.
" Finally," the letter concludes, " forasmuch as all these
troubles have ensued by the solicitation and traitorous
conspiracies of the monks and canons of those parts; we
desire and pray you, at your repair to Sawley,1 Hexham,2
Newminster,8 Lanercost,4 Saint Agatha's,6 and all such other
places as have made any manner of resistance, or in any
wise conspired or kept their houses with any force since
the appointment at Doncaster, you shall without pity or
circumstance, now that our banner is displayed, cause all
the monks and canons that be in any wise faulty to be tied
up without further delay or ceremony to the terrible example
of others."6 The rigours of martial law are only by chance recorded,
and it is now impossible to calculate the numbers of religious,
and of the people who rose to defend them, that perished
during the months when legal trial was suspended in the
North, and Sussex and Norfolk acted upon the royal com
mand " to cause all the monks and canons that be in any
wise faulty to be tied up without further delay or ceremony."
And even when Sussex stayed his hand in compassion,
Henry would hear of no pleading for those who had offended
against his majesty. "Concerning the old man," he writes,
" whom you wrote you had respited, upon the lamentation
he made at the bar and the allegation of his service thrice
heretofore against the Scots and otherwise done unto us;
albeit we cannot but take your stay of him in good part, yet,
considering he hath so often received our wages and would
1 In Craven, West Riding. 2 In Northumberland.
8 In the same county. 4 In Cumberland.
• At Richmond, Yorks. 6 State Papers, i. 537.

268 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
nevertheless at the last be thus corrupted against us, we
think him for an example more worthy to suffer than the
rest that before had not experience of our princely puissance,
nor had received any benefit of us ; and so remit him unto
you to be executed according to his judgment." 1
Under the terror of the royal vengeance and with the
example of these remorseless punishments inflicted on all
who came within reach of the royal arm, the commissioners
do not appear to have experienced much difficulty in re
gaining possession of the confiscated monasteries. At the
beginning of February, Norfolk had anticipated a very
different result, and declared that, although the nobles and
gentry had promised " to put the king's farmers in possession
of the religious houses," no one would dare to do so.2 But
a couple of months later, what with the paralyzing effect of
the executions actually carried out, and the dread each one
had of being involved in the same fate, resistance was at an
end.8 A correspondent writing to reassure Dr. Legh, the
royal visitor whose punishment had been demanded by the
Pilgrims of Grace, says on April 24th : " Loving to God, the
country is quiet enough, saving that every malefactor dreads
himself. . . . And as concerning any complaint against you
or other for the visitation, there is nothing spoken of that
matter. I dare well say there is no religious man that will
avow any grief for that matter."*
According to the directions given by the king to his
generals, the monasteries of Sawley, Hexham, Newminster,
Lanercost and St. Agatha's were quickly retaken from the
monks. Newminster was finally suppressed on August 20th,
after the commissioners had been there from July 1st. The
value of the moveables was counted at close upon a thousand
pounds; more than one-half of which was represented by
the lead and the worth of 660 ounces of plate. Pensions
were promised to the community, consisting of seventeen
1 State Papers, i. p. 541. 2 Ibid., i. 534.
8 At heart, there can be no doubt, the people remained as opposed as
before to the king's ecclesiastical policy generally, and in particular to his
assumption of the supreme headship of the Church of England. Two years
later, in the opinion of Mr. James Gairdner (Calendar, xiii. (i), preface ii), " We
have ample evidences at this time of ill-concealed disaffection " towards the
king in these matters.
4 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1025.

Dissolution by Attainder 269
priests, three junior monks, as well as to four choir boys;1
but the following year only the abbot, Edward Tirry,
and a former abbot, Edward Dunfield, received anything.2
The suppression of St. Agatha's, Richmond, followed
about the same time; one only, Robert Brampton, re
ceiving any pension. The goods and plate were valued
at close upon £1000, and some rich vestments from St.
Agatha's and Calder were handed to Sir Thomas Pope
for the king's use. Much of the property was, however,
seized by the insurgents during the northern rising, as
it still remained in the possession of the receiver, and
some was not recovered8 for the royal purse. Sawley,
Hexham and Lanercost had already been dealt with in the
same fashion.
Several of the larger monasteries, moreover, fell into the
royal power at this time by the attainder of their abbots.
In the statute for the settlement of the royal succession (25
Hen. VIII., c. 22), under the ambiguous terms "estate of
inheritance" and "successors," were introduced two great
changes into English law. By the first, estates tail were
made liable to forfeit for treason, and by the second — " other
than such persons as shall have been so convict, their heirs
and successors " — may have been intended, as is suggested by
Sir Matthew Hale, to fasten upon lands held in the right
of a corporation, as by a bishop or abbot. The king had a
personal concern in all property so confiscated, and it was
to his interest to make the meaning of the act as wide as
possible. Hitherto the attainder of a bishop or abbot would
not affect the property of the diocese or abbey over which
the attainted superior ruled. It was left to Henry to include
the forfeiture of possessions of a corporation in the punish
ment awarded to its head for supposed or real treasonable
practices. Even Burnet argues that such a proceeding was
unjustifiable. " How justly soever these abbots were at
tainted," he writes, " the seizing on their abbey lands, pur
suant to those attainders, was thought a great stretch of
law, since the offence of an ecclesiastical incumbent is a
personal thing, and cannot prejudice the church; no more
than a secular man, being in office, does by being attainted
1 Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 200, m. 4d.
2 Ibid., 29-30 Hen. VIII., No. 204, m. id.
3 Ibid., No. 169, m. 5.

270 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
bring any diminution of the rights of the office on his
successors." 1
Upon this novel interpretation of the law of treason,
however, Henry now determined to act, and the supposed
complicity of some of the abbots in the Pilgrimage of Grace
gave him the opportunity of laying hands upon the posses
sions of their houses. The part taken by John Paslew,
abbot of Whalley, has already been remarked upon. Ac
cording to the evidence, there was very little, if indeed
anything, which could be construed into active co-operation
with the insurgents. Still he was tried, probably by martial
law, at Lancaster, together with two of his monks, John
Eastgate and William Hay dock, and the abbot of Sawley.
William Trafford, the abbot of Sawley, was hanged at
Lancaster on March 10th, and the abbot of Whalley, with
Eastgate, two days later at Whalley. Haydock, the other
monk of Whalley, suffered the same punishment the follow
ing day, March 13th, in a field a few miles from his monastery,
where his body was left hanging for some time.2
Writing to the earl of Sussex about this time, Henry
conveys his thanks for the punishment inflicted upon those
who had offended him. "And whereas," he continues,
"upon the execution of the abbot of Whalley, you have
taken order for the good direction of the house, and the safe
keeping of the goods without embezzlement, till further
knowledge of our pleasure; approving much your good
foresight thereof, we have thought convenient to signify
unto you, that forasmuch as it appeareth that the house of
Whalley hath been so sore corrupt amongst others, that it
should seem there remaineth very few therein that were
meet to remain and continue in such a corporation, we think
it shall be meet that some order be taken for the remotion
of the monks now being in the same. And that (it is proper)
we should take the whole house into our own hands ; as, by
our laws, we be justly, by the attainder of the said late abbot
entitled unto it ; and so devise for such a new establishment
thereof, as shall be thought meet for the honour of God, our
1 Hist, of Reformation (ed. 1679), Bk. iii. p. 240.
2 WhiAaker, Hist, of Whalley, p. 123. The actual date seems uncertain.
From the king's letter to Sussex it would seem that the abbot of Whalley was
dead before Sussex wrote letters which Henry speaks of receiving on March
nth. (State Papers, i. p. 540.)

Dissolution by Attainder 271
surety and the benefit of the country. Wherefore our
pleasure is, that you shall, with good dexterity, lay unto
the charges of all the monks there their grievous offences
towards us and our commonwealth, and therewith assay their
minds, whether they will conform themselves gladly." They
may either go to other houses or "receive secular habit,"
but Sussex is enjoined to endeavour to get them to go to
some other monastery, as, says the king, "it cannot be
wholesome for our commonwealth to permit them to wander
abroad."1 The directions of Henry were acted upon, and by Michael
mas, 1537, John Kechin, the receiver, had sold goods and
got in rents to the value of £9$7, us. 7d. from the abbey
of Whalley, and had sent up to Brian Tuke, the king's
treasurer, some ;£500.2 Thus in a few months the king
had apparently given up all idea of "devising the new
establishment" which was to be more "meet for the honour
of God and the benefit of the country " than the old monas
tery of Whalley. Perhaps, however, he considered that by
filling the royal purse he was but carrying out his original
idea of " honouring God " and benefiting the country.
In the same way the abbeys of Barlings, Jervaulx and
Kirksted, and the priory of Bridlington, came at this time
under the law of attainder. Bishop Mackarel, the abbot of
Barlings, was executed in March. His supposed offences
have already been spoken of, and his monastery shared the
fate of Whalley. The minster church, 300 feet in length,
was defaced, the lead on the buildings, both here and at
Kirksted, being torn from the roofs and melted down at the
special direction of Crumwell.8
Bridlington, an important priory of Austin canons in
Yorkshire, possessing an income of £547 a year, likewise
came to Henry by the attainder and execution of the prior.
The previous year Crumwell had pressed the house to
recognize the king as founder, a request which the com
munity refused.* By Michaelmas, 1537, public sales of the
monastic property had been conducted by Tristram Teshe,
the royal receiver for the district, and had realized more
than ;£8oo. The canons had been ejected some months
1 State Papers, i. p. 540.
' Exch. A. O. Rec. Gen. Accts., 28-29 Hen. VIII., No. 211.
8 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 676. * Wright, 80.

272 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
before, and in May, Crumwell had written to the duke of
Norfolk of the king's intention to look after the interests
of the poor people round about Jervaulx and Bridlington. '
He thought of trying to get " some substantial person meet
and necessary to stay the country and keep hospitality, to
dwell in the principal part of the monastery," and thus in
some measure to. keep up the traditions of the place.1 The
Bridlington people had petitioned that the church, "which
is the parish church for 1500 houseling people," and the
shrine of St. John of Bridlington, might be kept and not
defaced.2 The early English choir of five bays had an east
end like those of Whitby and Rievaulx. The altar possessed
a magnificent reredos, and between it and a chapel aisle
with five altars stood the shrine of the saint 3 from appro
priating which the people begged the king would restrain
his hand. But Henry had a scruple. " As for the shrine,"
Crumwell says in the letter to Norfolk already quoted, " the
king's highness, to the intent that his people should not be
seduced in the offering of their money, his grace would have
taken down, which and all other jewels and plate apper
taining to his highness, except such as you desire to have
for your money," are to be sent to him. The vestments,
he adds, and other goods not fit for the royal use are to
be sold.* The actual demolition, however, did not take
place till a few months later. Richard Bellasis, who had
been engaged in this work for the king, wrote in November
that he would delay the destruction till March "because the
days now are so short." But, he added, " from such time
as I begin I trust shortly to dispatch it, after such fashion,
that when all is finished, I trust your lordship shall think
that I have been no evil husband in all such things as your
lordship hath appointed me to do."5 The nave of ten bays
with its aisles, which alone remain to this day, indicates the
faithful way in which this agent of destruction kept his
promise to Crumwell.
The people of the neighbourhood might well petition for
the safety ofthe priory, for the poor of the district annually
received in alms from the benefactions left in trust to the
religious more than ^250 of our money. The four vicars
1 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1257. 2 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1307.
8 Walcott, Eng. Minsters, ii. p. 77. 4 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1257.
• Wright, p. 165.

Dissolution by Attainder 273
and four deacons who served the parish church of Scar
borough received a yearly stipend from the funds of the
monastery,1 while more than one aged priest found an
asylum within its walls.
The neighbouring abbey of Jervaulx, situated in the vale
of the Ure, fell likewise a prey to the royal rapacity in
consequence of the insurrection. Adam Sedbar, the abbot,
was hanged, and his brethren soon found themselves turned
out of their monastery. " The house of Jervaulx," wrote
the king with keen prevision, to the earl of Sussex, shortly
after the death of the abbot, " is in some danger of suppres
sion by like offence as hath been committed at Whalley," 2
and the danger was not long delayed. At the beginning
of June, Sir Arthur Darcy informed Crumwell that he had
been "at the suppression. . . . The houses within the
gate," he says, " are covered wholly with lead, and there
is one of the fairest churches that I have seen." In fact,
he was so delighted with the place, that he suggested it
would make a good stable for the royal "stud of mares,"
which were so costly to the king, " at Thornbury and other
places."8 By the middle of November, what Darcy declared to be
" one of the fairest churches " he had ever seen had been
desecrated and demolished through the energetic action of
Richard Bellasis. Crumwell had ordered the lead to be
taken from the roof, and this zealous officer soon wrote to
say that " all the lead of Jervaulx " was melted down into
pieces of half fodders, amounting to the number of eighteen
score and five fodders, with thirty-four fodders and a half
that were there before. "The said lead," he continues,
" cannot be conveyed nor carried until the next summer, for
the ways in that country are so foul and deep that no
carriage can pass in winter. And as concerning the razing
and taking down the house, if it be your lordship's pleasure,
I am minded to let it stand to the spring of the year,
because the days are now so short, it would be double
charges to do it now." As to the bells, " I can," he says,
" get only fifteen shillings a hundredweight " for them, and
would gladly know whether I shall take the price " or send
them up to London."*
1 Valor Eccl, p. 120. 2 State Papers, i. 542.
8 Wright, 158. 4 Ibid., 164. S

274 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
By Michaelmas, 1537, the king's officer was able to
account for receipts from the attainted monastery of Jervaulx
exceeding £600, op more than ^6000 of our money. The
following year the same property brought to the exchequer
£764, 13s. 8d.
The great abbey of Furness, in Lancashire, was also
now induced to surrender to Henry. Roger Pyle, the abbot,
and some of his monks, were thought to be incriminated with
the northern insurgents. The members of the community,
" with the tenants and servants, were successfully examined
in private."1 The result was summed up in a bill of accusa
tions against some members of the abbey. The abbot had
been guilty of "falsehood at the time of the visitation in
causing his monks to be forsworn." The monks of Sawley,
on the suppression of that monastery, had been sent to
Furness, and the abbot had induced them to go back to their
monastery during the rebellion. "The abbot concealed the
treason of Henry Sawley, monk, who said no secular knave
should be head of the Church ; which abbot also made suit
to his brethren to hold with him in all things that should be
laid to his charge, promising to be for the same good unto
them." These were the accusations of a friar named Robert
Legat. A priest named Roger Pele, vicar of Dalton, said
that the abbot did not keep the king's injunctions ; and one
of his monks, John Broughton, added that he knew of the
prophecies of the Holy Maid of Kent and others. One of
the abbey bailiffs said that the abbot had told the brethren
to be of good heart, " for he was sure on both sides both for
the king and the commons." And a tenant said that he had
ordered the monks to do the best for the commons ; but this,
runs the document, "the abbot in his confession doth flat
deny." As regards the monks, the prior, Brian Garner, and one
of the seniors, John Groyn, were reported as assembling
their tenants on "All Hallows" Eve, when the latter said
that " the king should make no more abbots there, but they
would choose them themselves." Another monk had spoken
against the king as rightful possessor of the crown of
England, while others had said that "the bishop of Rome
was unjustly put down."2
1 Lingard, History, vi. 339. 2 West, Antiq. of Furness, 165.

Dissolution by Attainder 275
The result of the examinations at Furness was commu
nicated to Henry by the earl of Sussex. Sufficient matter
had been reported against the abbot to have secured his
sharing the fate of the abbots of Whalley and Sawley, and
the passing of the monastery to the king by his attainder.
Sussex, however, hit upon another plan. " By such exami
nations as you have sent us," wrote the king to him, "it
appeareth that the abbot of Furness and divers of his monks
have not been of that truth towards us that to their duties
appertained. We desire and pray you (therefore) with all
the dexterity you can, to devise and excogitate to use all the
means to you possible, to ensearch and try out the very truth
of their proceedings, and with whom they, or any of them,
have had any intelligence. We think verily, that you shall
find thereby such matter as shall show the light of many
things yet unknown. And our pleasure is, that you shall,
upon a further examination, commit the said abbot and such
of his monks as you shall suspect to have been offenders to
ward; there to remain till you shall, upon the signification
unto us of such other things as by your wisdom you shall
try out, know further our pleasure."1
In reply to this communication Sussex wrote on the 6th
of April that he had in his previous examination at Furness
used " the said abbot and his brethren in such wise as . . .
it was impossible to get any more than was had before " out
of them. He told the king that he " had committed to ward
and sure custody in the castle of Lancaster two of the same
monks,2 which was all we could find faulty." Seeing, there
fore, it was not likely that any "material thing" done "after
the pardon" would be discovered by further examination
against the abbot and his monks "that would serve for the
purpose," the earl now exposed his plan for obtaining the
rich possessions of the abbey for the king. "I, the said
earl," he says, " devising with myself, if one way would not
serve, how and by what other means, the said monks might
be rid from the said abbey, and consequently how the same
might be at your gracious pleasure, caused the said abbot to
be sent for to Whalley, and thereupon, after we had examined
him, and indeed could not perceive that it was possible for
1 State Papers, i. 541.
2 Henry Sawley was apparently one of these, as his name does not appear
on the deed of surrender.

276 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
us to have any other matter, I, the same earl, as before by
the advice of other of your council, determined to essay him
as of myself, whether he would be contented to surrender,
give and grant, unto your heirs and assigns the said
monastery." 1
With the fate of his brother abbots brought so clearly
before his mind, and with the bodies of abbot Paslew and
his companion still perhaps swinging before the gate of
Whalley, where this examination was conducted, it is scarcely
a matter of surprise that Sussex carried his point. It was
a choice between death or surrender.2 In either case the
royal hand would seize the coveted possessions, and, as
Sussex so clearly said, " the monks would be rid from the
abbey, and the same be at " the king's gracious pleasure.
The abbot chose the course most in accord with the weak
ness of human nature. He saved his life, but at the cost
of his honour and his house. On the 5th of April, 1537,
in the presence of Sussex and others, he signed a paper
surrendering the monastery to the king on account of the
" misorder and evil lives, both unto God and our prince,
of the brethren of the said monastery." 8 He did not doubt,
the earl continues, " but that we and he together shall easily
obtain the ratification of the same gift of the convent, under
their convent seal, as shall be requested."
1 West, Antiquities of Furness, p. 166.
2 Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, xiii. (i), preface xxviii.) says: "How easy it
was to entangle heads of houses in such charges may be seen by the case of
an abbot who, under rather trying circumstances, contrived not to commit
himself very seriously. At Pershore, a groom of the King's Privy Chamber
took advantage of that free hospitality which all monasteries offered to the
wayfarer to listen to the conversation at the abbot's table and report it to the
king." A neighbour, one Ralph Sheldon, having commended the King for
throwing off the "usurpation of the Church of Rome," the abbot blamed him
for what he said, and declared that for his part he hoped to die a child of
Rome, and added that any one was accursed who resisted "a power " ordained
by God. Harrison, the groom, wished to continue the conversation, but the
abbot only "scornfully smiled and made no answer." He purposely turned
the conversation ; but it was no use. A remark about the great mortality
about Pdrshore at the time made by a man from the North, led the abbot to
say, " You died fast enough in the North last year " (alluding of course to the
savage executions on the suppression of the rebellion) ; " and as for us in this
country, we be smitten with the plagues of David for David's offences."
Harrison understood the allusion, and the words were taken to the King. " If
this conversation was truly reported," says Mr. Gairdner, "it is strange that
the abbot, notwithstanding his discreet reticence on some points, escaped
examination and indictment."
8 Wright, 153.

Dissolution by Attainder 277
Immediately this document had been obtained from
the abbot of Furness three knights were dispatched from
Whalley " to take into their hands the rule and governance
of the said house to the use of your highness, and to see
that the monks and servants of the same be kept in due
order and nothing to be embezzled." Sussex was evidently
pleased with what he had done, and, as he informed the
king, Fitzherbert, to whom he unfolded his plan, " liked the
same very well, saying, that he thought it was the most
convenient way that could be to conduct that monastery
to your grace's hands, and that now they may be ousted."
It was Fitzherbert who drew up the deed of surrender
ready for the monks' signatures, which the earl proposed to
demand a few days later.1
On the following Monday, therefore, April 9th, when
the commissioners arrived with the abbot, and the deed
prepared by Anthony Fitzherbert had been read to the
community in their chapter-house, they took the only
possible course left for them and ratified the act of their
superior. Thirty monks, out of the thirty-three named as
the community by Sussex, signed away their rights; two
were in prison ; only one apparently did not affix his name
to the instrument.2
None of the monks, it seems, received any pension in
return for the surrender of their monastery, which was
worth, free of all charge, more than ;£8oo a year. All they
received on being turned out into the world was forty
shillings each; three of the thirty-one, "being sick and
impotent," were given three pounds.8 Abbot Roger, a year
later, was provided for by the grant for life of the profits of
the rectory of Dalton, which were then valued at ^33, 6s. 8d.
a year.* Apparently he lived in the parsonage, for he was
subsequently directed by Crumwell to give it up to "John
Bothe, one of the king's servants." In his reply, which he
dates from Furness, he pleads that he has "nothing else
to live upon," and adds, " but for your displeasure I should
be there now." To propitiate the all-powerful minister he
sends him forty shillings in gold, and promises to send as
much more at Easter.5
1 West, ut sup. a Eighth Rep. Dep. Keep. App., ii. 21.
8 Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 29-30 Hen. VIII., No. 187, mm. 13-14.
4 West, p. 190. B R. O. Crum. Corr., viii. f. 18.

278 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
"The vast and magnificent edifice of Furness was for
saken," writes Canon Dixon, " the lamp of the altar of St.
Mary went out for ever, and in the deserted cloisters no
sound was heard but the axe and hammer of those who
came to cut away the lead, dash down the bells, hew away
the rafters, and break in pieces the arches and pillars. Thus
dismantled, the ruin was left as a common quarry for the
convenience of every countryman who could cart away the
sculptured stones for building a pigsty or a byre." 1
Here as elsewhere the suppression was felt most keenly
by the poor. From " time immemorial " on Maunday Thurs
day alms had been liberally bestowed on the poor at the
abbey gate, while a hundred poor boys in the cloister
each received a sum equal to more than a shilling of our
money. Yearly on the feast of St. Crispin, according to the
will of the founder, five oxen were given to the poor of the
neighbourhood with a request for prayers for his soul.
" Each week eight widows " had their bread and beer at the
monastic kitchen, while from the foundation of the abbey to
the day of dissolution thirteen poor people had been entirely
maintained within its walls. Thus the regular charities
alone, for which the monks of Furness were the trustees,
amounted to a yearly sum of nearly ^"500 of our money.2
This loss to the poor of the neighbourhood, even if no
account is taken of the numerous other services done to
them under no strict obligation of justice, may be well
imagined. The money to furnish bread and alms, which
pious benefactors had left to the needy of the district, passed
away from them for ever into the king's purse or the pockets
of his courtiers. The thirteen "poor almsmen who had
their living" within the old monastic walls, were, through
the generosity of the royal commissioners, enriched by the
gift of one mark each on being turned out into the world to
beg for their living.8 What the commonwealth at large
lost by the destruction may be gathered from the fact that
four hundred horsemen and twice that number of foot are
said to have formed the monastic contingent at Flodden
field.* Another great Cistercian house, at no great distance from
Furness, passed into Henry's hands by surrender. The
1 Dixon's Hist, of Ch. of Engl., vol. i. 496. 2 Valor Eccl., v. 270.
8 Exch. Augt. Off., ut sup. 4 Walcott, English Minsters, ii. p. 124.

Dissolution by Attainder 279
abbey of Holm Cultram was situated on the coast, and looked
over the waters of the Solway Firth towards Scotland. At
the time of the dissolution it possessed an income of ^"535,
3s. 7d. It was a royal foundation, and among its annual
expenses were pensions for priests who at the " Jesu altar "
in the church offered the daily mass for the soul of Henry
II. and the good estate of Henry VIII. Every year on
Maunday Thursday alms were distributed equal in value to
more than £$0 of our money to the " boys brought up in
the cloister " and " to the poor at the abbey gate," that they
might remember to pray for the king, while five poor people
received their support in the house for the same purpose.
At the expense of the monks likewise were maintained the
sea-dykes and walls by which alone the waters of the
Solway Firth were prevented from devastating the adjacent
country.1 At the time when Layton and Legh visited the
northern monasteries, in the beginning of 1536, Thomas
Carter held the office of abbot, and his community consisted
of five-and-twenty religious. He and several of his monks
received a bad character from the royal commissioners,
which may or may not have been deserved.2
But whatever desire the king might have had for the
reformation of monks, nothing was apparently done until,
the northern insurrection breaking out, Thomas Carter was
involved in the suspicion of treason in aiding the rebels.
Before the outbreak of the Lincolnshire rising he had been
summoned to London, "to answer before the king and
council such things as " should be objected against him, and
on October 1st he replied to the order asking to be allowed
to appear by "a friend."8 The insurrection had already
broken out, and Crumwell was obliged to delay his dealing
with the refractory abbot until the rising had been quelled
in the spring of 1537. A commission was then appointed
to consider the matter, and it sat in the abbey church.
"The articles against the abbot of Holm Cultram for high
treason " were presented and signed by a religious, Thomas
Graham; and two other monks gave evidence. The gist
of the accusation is, that at the first rising abbot Carter
forced his tenants, "upon pain of hanging," to join the
commons : that he had contributed forty shillings to the
1 Valor Eccl., v. p. 282. 2 Calendar, x. No. 364.
8 R. O. Crum. Corr., xvii.

280 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
expenses of the insurgents : that he was one of the com
missioners from the people to Carlisle, and rode near to
demand that the city should be delivered up to them : and
finally, that at the last rising when the people laid siege to
Carlisle he had said "almighty God prosper them, for if
they speed not this abbey is lost," and upon the saying,
" he sent for his subprior and commanded him to cause the
brethren to go daily with procession to speed the commons'
journey." Beyond the above, the abbot was accused of violating
the injunctions of the king's visitors. It was said that he
had admitted women to dine and sup within the precincts
of the abbey: that he had sold the monastic plate to the
value of ;£ioo or more: that he had given out leases and
" convent seals : " and that he had given the abbot of Byland
" for helping him to his promotion, a salt of gold and silver
worth twenty shillings."1 The commission was, however,
never concluded.
The abbot appears to have died on the loth of August,
and thus to have anticipated his fate.2 Writing from Carlisle
on August 17th (1537), Sir Thomas Wharton, one of the
commissioners, states that he has attended the assizes at
Carlisle and desires to plead the cause of the abbot's chief
accuser, the monk Graham, who had given his late superior
grave cause for anxiety by the irregularity of his life. " It
may further please your lordship," he writes to Crumwell,
" to know that, since the death of the late abbot of Holm,
there were labours made unto me to sue for one Graham,
monk of that monastery, who would besides his first fruits
to be paid to the king's highness bestow for his preferment
to be abbot there 400 marks."8
Graham was unsuccessful, for Crumwell had another
worthy candidate for the appointment. Gawin Borodale
about five years before had been for some months in prison
at Furness Abbey on the charge of having caused the death
of his abbot, Thomas Carter's predecessor, " in poisonning
him." In a letter to Crumwell he had declared his innocency,
and had asked to be tried " according to the statutes of the
holy " Cistercian religion.4 Dr. Legh, at the request of the
abbots of Furness and Byland, " the visitors and reformators
1 Raine, Hexham Priory, i. App. cliv. 2 Calendar, xi. No. 276.
8 Ibid., 319. • R. O. Crum. Corr., iv. f. 118.

Dissolution by Attainder 281
of the Cistercians," had begged Crumwell's favour for him,
as "he had well served the king in his house," and was
" kept out of his monastery through the sinister information
of some evil-disposed persons." 1 It was this Gawin Boro-
dale who received the office of abbot of Holm Cultram in
the autumn of 1537, and who, in the March following, re
signed the abbey into the king's hands. As in the cases
of Jervaulx, Whalley, Kirksted and other monasteries, the
superiors of which had been executed for treason, so Holm
Cultram would no doubt have come into the royal power by
attainder if other arrangements had not been made.
On February 18th, 1538, the king issued a special com
mission to Thomas Legh, William Blithman, and James
Rokeby to repair to the abbey. The commission states that
" whereas the abbot and convent of our monastery of Holm
Cultram . . . freely and willingly be determined and con
cluded to surrender all the title and interest of the monastery
and of the goods and possessions thereunto belonging into
our hands and disposition," the king appoints the above to
obtain from the abbot and convent " such sufficient writing
under their convent seal as shall be expedient." Further,
that at the dissolution they shall promise the abbot and
monks " such things as shall be necessary for them and his
living according to their discretion ; shall make an inventory
and survey of the goods and lands, and conduct the sales of
the monastic effects." 2
Acting upon these instructions, the commissioners at
tended at the monastery upon March 6th, 1538, and at
once dispatched James Rokeby to London "to declare the
surrender." In their account at the following Michaelmas
they acknowledge having sold 802 ounces of plate for ^147,
us. 4d., and 146 fodders of lead worth ^486, while they
have left the covering on the church roof for the further
"pleasure of the king, because it was the parish church."
The monks on being dispatched had various sums given to
them, varying from £6 to Robert Langton, the prior, to £2
to each of the three novices.8 Gawin Borodale secured for
himself a pension of £ 100 a year, a house and stables, and
all the tithes as rector of Holm Cultram.* Most of the
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxii. No. 9 (Aug. 16, 25 Hen. VIII.).
2 Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 28-29 Hen. VIII., No. 165.
8 Ibid. 4 Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 232, f. 43.

282 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
community were pensioned at the same time.1 To Thomas
Graham, the chief accuser of abbot Carter, Dr. Legh, as royal
commissioner, made the special grant of "a chapel called
Saint Thomas chapel to make him a chamber of there."2
The dissolution of two other houses may be here noted,
not that their fate had any apparent connection with the
northern rising, but that they were brought by some means
or other under the law of attainder. These were the
Cluniac priory of Lenton, in Nottinghamshire, and the
Cistercian abbey of Woburn, in Bedfordshire. The former
house, like so many others, had been much disturbed by
the action of Crumwell's visitors. One of the monks, Dan
Hamlet Pencriche, had brought an accusation against the
prior before the council, and finally fled from his monastery,
as he had twice before done, carrying away goods belonging
to the house.3 He was, however, subsequently lodged in
the Fleet prison by order of the Chancellor,* and although
Nicholas Hethe, the prior, had originally been promoted to
his post by the good-will of Crumwell himself, he soon
discovered that his duty to his house forced him to break
with his patron. As early as April, 1536, apparently not
long after coming to his office, Hethe wrote to say that his
predecessor had left the house much in debt, and that
although he had promised Crumwell, through his nephew
Richard, ;£ioo, he was then only able to pay ;£6o; he
hoped that the rest might stand over to Martinmas, or
otherwise he would have to borrow money "in London of
some merchant" to "keep up hospitality." He concludes
by asking that the rule banishing all young men from the
cloistered life may be relaxed for Lenton. " I beseech," he
says, " I may have your favour concerning two young men
in our religion at Lenton. All my brethren, except four or
five, are very impotent and of great age, and request your
favour that they may continue in their religion."5
On the 29th of June the same year, 1536, the prior is
said to have committed some act of treason against the
king.6 What the treason was does not appear, unless it be
1 Aug. Off. Misc., Bk. 233, ff. 2, 170. 2 Exch. Q. R. V. N°- 5-
3 Calendar, a. No. 655. 4 R O. Crum. Corr., xxxii. No. 38.
• Calendar, x. No. 1234.
8 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 313*, f. 8, a curious list of the dates
of the treasons of those attainted.

Dissolution by Attainder 283
the sale of some of the plate of the monastery, disposed of
doubtless to relieve the needs of his community, and for
which Godbery, a London goldsmith, who had purchased
it, was subsequently forced by Crumwell to refund nearly
.£20 to his private purse.1 Whatever his act may have
been, the prior was seized and thrown into prison in
February, 1538, where he remained till the middle of the
following month,2 when he, together with eight of his monks
and four labourers of Lenton, were indicted for treason at
Nottingham.3 In the Crumwell's " Remembrances " at this
time is entered the following note: — "The suppression of
Lenton and the execution of the prior," * and on the " Con-
trolment Roll " is found the record of the conviction of
" Nicholas Hethe, prior of Lenton, William Gylham, monk
of Lenton," four labourers and a priest for high treason,
after whose names are entered the ominous " T et S," " to
be drawn and hanged," as the sentence passed upon them.
What became of the rest of the monks is not known. None
of them obtained any pension from the king, nor apparently
did the five poor men kept by the monastery alms 5 receive
any compensation upon being deprived of their inheritance.
A clear revenue of upwards of ^329 a year passed into
Henry's hands by the attainder of the monastery, and more
than ^252 were obtained by the sales of the monastic
goods.8 The story of the destruction of Woburn and the fate of
the abbot is rendered even more pathetic by the touching
details which have been preserved. By it the veil is lifted
and a glimpse is afforded of the fears, hopes and despair
which filled the souls of the religious in the short time
during which the sword of destruction hung over their
heads. Their hearts appear chilled by the uncertain fate
which awaited them, their actions paralyzed by the masterful
policy of Crumwell, and the very fountain of religious life
dried up by injunctions conceived with the deliberate purpose
1 R. O. Chapter House Bk., B. |, f. 40.
2 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 29-30 Hen. VIII., 181.
8 R. O. Control. Roll, 30 Hen. VIII., m. 39. The names of the monks
were : Ralph Swenson, Richard Bower, Richard Atkinson, Christopher
Browne, John Trewnam, John Adelenton, William Bery, William Gylham.
4 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS., Titus B. i. f. tf&d.
6 Valor Eccl. , v. 149.
6 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Acct., 29-30 Hen. VIII., 181.

284 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
of making the cloister unbearable and compelling rebellion
or surrender. Richard Hobbes had been abbot of Woburn for many
years, and, together with his monks, had given in to the
royal demands and sworn to the king's "headship." It was
clearly against his better judgment and that of many at
least of his monks, that the oath was taken, and they were
troubled in conscience at their weakness in not standing
out for what they believed to be the only truth. Dan Ralph,
the subprior, subsequently acknowledged his scruples and
begged Henry's pardon for his "erroneous estimation of
Mr. More and the bishop of Rochester, whose death he a
great while thought meritorious, wishing he had died with
them." In fact, he asserted that it was the abbot himself
who, " by counsel and menaces," persuaded him to take the
required oath of supremacy. Another of the community,
Dan Laurence, the sexton, declared that when he was first
sworn he could not touch the book on account of the num
bers, and so he considered his conscience was free, although
he had signed " the carte of profession." x
Even at the beginning of the year 1536 rumours were
circulated about the probable fate of the abbey, and it was
said that " it and other more should go down ere Twelfth-
tide." 2 But it was really not until the spring of the year 1538
that any steps were taken against it. The final catastrophe
was hastened through the malicious informations of discon
tented monks, who, here as in many monasteries of England
at this time, served Crumwell as spies upon the acts and
words of their superiors and brethren.
On the 12th of May, 1538, abbot Hobbes and certain of
his monks were examined in the Tower. The subprior and
some others deposed that at the time when the Carthusians
were put to death the abbot had called them together and
said these words : — " Brethren, this is a perilous time ; such
a scourge was never heard since Christ's passion. Ye hear
how good men do suffer death. Brethren, this is undoubtedly
for our offences. Ye read, so long as the children of Israel
kept the commandments of God, so long their enemies had
no power over them, but God took vengeance on their
enemies; but when they broke God's commandments, then
1 Calendar, x. No. 1239. 2 Ibid., No. 5.

Dissolution by Attainder 285
they were subdued by their enemies, and so be we. There
fore, let us be sorry for our offences and undoubtedly he
will take vengeance on our enemies ; I mean these heretics
that cause so many good men to suffer thus. Alas ! it is
a piteous case that so much Christian blood should be shed.
Therefore, good Christian brethren, for the reverence of God,
every one of you devoutly pray and say this psalm — Deus
venerunt gentes through, and say this versicle — Exurgat
Deus et dissipentur inimici. This foresaid psalm to be said
every Friday, immediately after the litany, prostrate, when
ye lie before the high altar, and undoubtedly God will cease
this extreme storm."
This injunction the monks faithfully carried out, although
some murmured at the command, and when at the begin
ning of 1536 parliament passed the act by which the lesser
monasteries were suppressed, the abbot again spoke to his
monks. "The abbot," says the deposition of four of the
monks, "with such like exhortation in the said chapter
house, with lamentable mournings for the dissolving of
them, enjoined us to sing, ' Salvator mundi salva nos omnes '
every day after Lauds. And we murmured at it, and were
not content to sing it for such cause. And so we did omit
it divers times, for which the abbot came unto the chapter
and did in manner rebuke us, and said we were bound to
obey his commands by our profession. And so he did com
mand us to sing it again with versicles: 'Exurgat Deus,'
etc., and enjoined us to say at every mass that every priest
did sing, a collect: 'Deus qui contritorum,' etc. And he
said if we did thus with good and pure devotion, God would
handle the matter so that it should be to the comfort of all
England, and so show us mercy as he showed unto the
children of Israel. And surely brethren, he said, there will
come over us a good man that will re-edify these monasteries
again that are now suppressed, 'quia potens est Deus de
lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae.' " 1
Meantime during the period of waiting for the final doom
there arose excitement and contentions among the monks,
and cross-accusations of one party against the other. In
the " shaving house " Dan John Croxton was openly accused
by a brother, Laurence Blonham, of being one of the " new
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 981.

286 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
world." Dan John replied with bitter words, saying that
such ideas would get them into trouble, but Blonham
answered: "Neither thou nor yet any of us all shall do
well as long as we forsake our head of the Church, the
pope." Croxton retorted that if Blonham really thought
this, he was "a false, perjured knave to his prince," and
upon his saying that "he never was sworn to forsake the
pope as head, and never would be," said, " Thou shalt be
sworn spite of thy heart one day, or I will know why nay." x
Another monk, called Crowe, complained that, having spoken
against the bread supplied to them, the abbot told him " to
go further and fare worse."
These and such like tales, duly carried to the ears of
Crumwell, brought the abbot under suspicion. He was
arrested and conveyed together with other of his monks to
the Tower. He with his monks had tried, it seems, to antici
pate the event by a joint letter handing over themselves and
their monastery to the king's mercy. They indeed acknow
ledged Henry " to be supreme head " and their " comfort and
joy," and declared that they were innocent of the charges
brought against them, including "high treason."2 But the
submission, ample and humble as it was, either came too late,
or the king had determined to discourage disobedience in
other monasteries by another example of an abbot ending
an honoured life on the scaffold.
In his examination Richard Hobbes practically allowed
all that had been advanced against him. With regard to the
pope, he does not hesitate to admit that in " much preaching "
he has not declared the king "supreme head;" not out of
malice, as he says, " but only for a scrupulous conscience he
then had touching the continuance of the bishop of Rome."
He had got Dan William Hampton, his secretary, to tran
scribe a book written by John Mylward, priest of Todington,
called " De potestate Petri." He will not allow that he spoke
of England as an heretical country, for not joining in the
general council; nor that he neglected to give up all the
" papistical bulls " he could find to " Mr. doctor Petre " at
the visitation ; nor that he neglected to have the pope's name
erased out of the " calendars and other books, as mass books,
grayles and other usual books of the choir." He commanded
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 981. 2 Wright, 145.

Dissolution by Attainder 287
the cantor, Dan Robert Neve, and others to obey the king's
order in this matter, and himself put the name out of " such
books as he had to say his service."
On the other hand, he confesses that, when the papal
bulls were sent up to doctor Petre, he got Dan Robert Salford
" to write the principal bulls in a fair hand," and the junior
monks not priests to transcribe the others in a running hand,
so that when the quarrel between the king and pope was
settled he might have evidence of his old privileges and
exemptions. These copies, he said, "remained yet in my
chamber at my coming away."
He fully admitted his sermons to his brethren, and even
himself says he likened Henry to Nebuchodonosor taking
away the sacred vessels of the Temple. Also on several
occasions he had spoken to young men, " commensals " of
the house, as "Mr. Morice, Mr. Carye and Mr. Hervy,"
whose schoolmaster was very earnest against the " new
learning," in the same strain. "And I the said abbot," he
says, " confess that in all audiences from time to time I have
stood stiffly in my opinions of the old trade unto this present
day, maintaining the part of the bishop of Rome, so far as I
durst, thinking that it was the true way, and the contrary of
the king's part but usurpation desiderated by flattery and
adulation." x
As abbot Hobbes had spoken to his brethren and those
living in his house, so he had declared for the old faith to
his friends outside. To lord Grey of Wilton he had been
explicit as to his opinions, and also to Dan Augustin, " the
quondam " of Wardon, who was staying at Woburn. Most
plainly of all had he opened his mind to Sir Francis Brian,
and throughout his examinations he manifests a fear lest his
friendship with Sir Francis should be considered detrimental
to that gentleman's interests. He had often been at Ampt-
hill with him, and always took care to extol the teaching of
the "old fathers Catholic," and specially condemned the
preaching of Latimer " as touching our Lady and the saints."
On one occasion in particular, after the Lent of 1538, he was
with a large company at Sir Francis's house at Ampthill.
He went, "after loving cheer and disports," with Brian to
his bedroom, where he saw a " goodly book," which proved
1 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS., Cleop. E. iv. f. 108.

288 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
to be the new English translation of the Bible. He took
advantage of the chance to speak about it. " It is a fair
book," he said, " but in my opinion not well interpreted in
many places, which hereafter may be the cause of much
error." Sir Francis opened the volume and turned to the
place in St. Luke which speaks of the " consecration of the
blessed Body and Blood." Having read it, he asked the
abbot what he thought about it. He confessed that it was
good, but took occasion to say again that there were many
false translations in the volume.1
The abbot admitted that he had wished he had died with
the Carthusians, More and Fisher. He was ill at the time,
a few weeks before his imprisonment, and, as the accuser
says, " Dan Ralph Woburn, subprior, reported in his own
chamber to one Dan William Hampton, in the presence of
this examinat, that the abbot from whom he came a little
before said to him (after he had asked him how he did) that
he wished himself to have died with the good men that died
for holding with the pope, and said that his conscience doth
grudge him daily for it. Whereunto this examinat," says
the accuser, " answered, ' If he be disposed to die for that
matter, he may die as soon as he will.' " 2
" And finally," says abbot Hobbes in his confession, " as
touching acts of the archbishop of Canterbury in ordaining
and consecration of bishops, dispensations of matrimony,
capacities given to religious men, I have thought he had no
authority so to do without power of the bishop of Rome,
and in likewise all such things done by him, not lawfully
exercised by those that have received such dignities and
dispensations from him."
This ample confession, which was evidently made by the
advice of Crumwell, pitifully reveals mind and soul and heart
in all their perplexities. But the abbot had also vividly
before him the horrors of imprisonment and the thought of a
terrible death. Under stress of this fear, before his exami
nation is concluded, he, in accents more pitiful still, admits
that he may have been mistaken after all, and prays for
pardon. This is but a picture of the anguish of conscience and
the sinking of heart in dread of an uncertain end which must
1 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS., Cleop. E. iv. f. 109.
' State Papers, Dom. 1538, ut sup.

Dissolution by Attainder 289
have been the experience of thousands in that terrible time.
The storm burst first and most heavily, as usual, not on the
practised theologian and skilled dialectician, but on men who
mostly lived by authority and tradition. By instinct they
knew what was right. Their conscience " was scrupulous
touching the continuance of the bishop of Rome." They
maintained his part " as far as they durst, thinking it was
the true way," and regarding with equal distrust and fear
the ecclesiastical policy of Henry and the acts of Cranmer,
believing that the archbishop " had no authority to do as he
did without power of the bishop of Rome." The expectation
was general that the " quarrel," as it was esteemed, between
the king and the pope would be made up again, and that at no
very distant time. To men wise after the event, such an expec
tation may seem to betoken a simplicity bordering on foolish
ness, but to men in those days it was a sheet-anchor of hope.
To those in the position of the abbot of Woburn the
immediate interests were pressing, involving both the wel
fare of brethren, servants, dependents, friends, and the fate
of a home they loved. Such considerations must have
added a moral weight to suggestions prompted by personal
fears, and perchance may have helped them even to deceive
themselves. Like prior Houghton of the Carthusians, they
might come to believe that they were making themselves
anathema for the sake of their brethren, and even "the
daily grudge of conscience" would appear to men of this
stamp but part of the sore burden to be borne in their
Master's service, so subtle is the mind in finding the highest
motives to avert an evil before which the flesh quails and
the heart sinks. All that could be done for the moment was
to hold out and gain time.
But such a surrender of convictions as that to which
abbot Hobbes had brought himself was all in vain. His
prayer for pardon was denied ; he was not allowed to live.
Henry had passed beyond the stage of compassion for any
human weakness, of pity for any living soul. The abbot
was apparently tried at Lincoln, together with Laurence
Blonham or Peck, and Richard Woburn or Barnes, two
monks of the abbey, and all three being found guilty, were
ordered to be drawn, hanged and quartered.1 Of the two
1 R. O. Control. Roll, 30 Hen. VIII., m. 6d.

290 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
monks thus condemned, one, Laurence Blonham, was he
who in the "shaving house" had declared he never would
"be sworn to forsake the pope." The other, Richard, or
as he is otherwise called, " Ralph," Woburn or Barnes, was
the subprior of whom abbot Hobbes has left it on record,
that he " always held the strongest views and expressed
them " on the matter of the pope's authority.1
The abbot, together with the vicar of Puddington and
others, was hanged before the gate of Woburn abbey, and
tradition as late as the beginning of this century pointed to
an old oak tree in front of the monastery as the gallows upon
which the monks were executed.2
The possessions of the abbey, producing a clear income
of nearly ^400 a year,8 thus passed into the royal hands by
the new interpretation of the law of attainder on the 20th of
June, 1538. By the 29th of September the royal receiver
for attainted lands acknowledged from sales of the monastic
goods the sum of £266, 12s.4 A few years later this property
was granted, together with many other broad acres belonging
to the Church and the poor, to Sir John Russell.
1 Cleop. E. iv. f. io6d.
2 Brit. Mus. Add. MS- 27,402, p. 47, gives only one monk — " the prior"
executed with the abbot. The parson of Puddington's name was John
Henmersh. Cont. Roll., 31 Hen. VIII. ; Dodd's Woburn, 1818, p. 38.
3 Valor Eccl., iv. p. 213.
* R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 29-30 Hen. VIII., 181, m. 3.

CHAPTER XV
The Suppression of Convents
SEVERAL circumstances relating to the destruction of English
nunneries render some particular account of them advisable.
Many things combined to render the dissolution of con
ventual establishments of women and the disbanding the
inmates more terrible to nuns than to monks. A woman
compelled to exchange the secluded life of a cloister, with all1
its aids to piety, for an existence in the world, to which she
could never rightly belong, would be obviously in a more
dangerous and unbearable position than a man. To the
monk, who was also a priest, there was always a possible
future in the exercise of his sacred calling, and however
remote his chance of obtaining a cure of souls or other
sacerdotal employment, when the tendency of Henry's policy
was on every hand to destroy the influence and diminish
the occupation of the clergy, still the bare possibility must
have rendered expulsion from home less hopeless in its
outlook. The nun's lot, however, had no such ray of
consolation. Even had the circumstances attending her
dismissal from conventual life been more fortunate, or had
it been the result of her own act and choice, her future
must have been dark and uncertain, since the vows which
bound her heart and conscience must keep her always apart
from the secular surroundings in which she was compelled
to exist. The cleric, even although his monk's garb were
torn from him, and he was forced to trudge the world in
poverty, could not be deprived of the sacred character of
the clerical state ; but the nun, driven from the dismantled
walls of her convent, and the veil of her profession denied
to her, could not but suffer the pains of daily martyrdom in
the rough surroundings of an uncongenial world.
At the time of the dissolution there were in England .
some hundred and forty convents of women. Of these,

292 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
rather more than half belonged to the Benedictine order.
They were scattered over the face of the country ; Yorkshire
containing a greater proportion than any other county.
The majority were not possessed of a yearly income suffi
cient to exempt them from the operation of the act by which
the lesser houses passed into the king's hands. In York
shire alone, more than half the convents were suppressed
under cover of this act of dissolution.
With regard to the regularity and order which prevailed
in the English nunneries at the time of their destruction, it
will be sufficient here to indicate that even Layton and Legh
in their celebrated "comperta" are able to bring compara
tively few charges against their good name. It will be
remembered that the reports of these worthy emissaries of
Crumwell embraced some thirteen counties, and only twenty-
seven nuns in all the convents they visited are charged
with vice of any kind. Even of these seven-and-twenty
all but ten can be identified as subsequently receiving the
grant of a pension. It is, moreover, most remarkable that
even Layton and his fellow-visitor can only name two nuns,
out of all the convents visited, who are anxious to cast off
the restraints of religious life ; and this even after the im
position of vexatious injunctions, the very acknowledged
purpose of which was to render the practice of religious life
unendurable. In the subsequent reports of the mixed commissions of
gentry and officials, the character given to the convents is
uniformly most excellent. Thus the White nuns of Grace
Dieu in Leicestershire, the only convent of the order in
England, are declared to be " of good and virtuous conver
sation and living, and all desirous to continue their religion
there, and none willing to have capacities " to return to a
life in the world. They were fifteen in number, and their
convent, situated in the wilds of Charnwood forest, was a
blessing to the neighbourhood. Although their whole avail
able income was under ;£loo a year, they yet gave em
ployment to thirty-six dependents, and twelve people, nine
of whom were absolute paupers, were supported in the
convent.1 Besides this, out of their scanty income they
had to distribute on the anniversary of the death of their
1 Calendar, x. p. 497.

The Suppression of Convents 293
foundress a sum equal to -£20 of our money, to obtain the
prayers of the poor for the repose of her soul.1
A few months before this report the previous royal
visitors had accused two of the nuns of the worst offences,2
who are now declared to be " of good and virtuous conver
sation." The house came, of course, within the pecuniary
limit appointed by the act dissolving the lesser houses of
religion, but on August 17th the prioress, Agnes Litherland,
received the king's licence to continue. For " divers causes
and considerations," the convent was allowed to be re-estab
lished "in perpetuity," and the prioress was continued in
her office.8 On October 21st, 1538, however, the house
was suppressed by Dr. Legh, who promised Cecily Bagnald,
then apparently the prioress, a pension of ^40 a year.* On
the 20th of the following December, fifteen other nuns,
amongst whom were the two so grievously incriminated by
doctors Layton and Legh, were also granted pensions.
In the same way the poor priory of Black Benedictine
nuns at Langley, in the same county, received an equally
good character from the mixed commissioners. There were
six nuns besides the prioress, "who is," says the report,
"of great age and impotent; all are of good and virtuous
living and conversation ; one is sister to the late Sir Richard
Saccheverell, almost 80 years old; 'one other is in regard
a fool.' All are desirous to continue in religion."5 They
had a chaplain, fourteen dependents, and two people living
in the house to whom they had granted a perpetual corrody.
Of a thirtieth part of their small revenue they were only the
trustees, being bound by their founder to distribute corn
and money, worth in these days some ;£io, every year, on
the Wednesday in Holy Week, to twelve widows, that they
might pray for the repose of his soul.6 On the 24th of
June, 1536, the royal commissioners descended upon the
priory, and the process of dissolution took them exactly
three months. The plate and jewels belonging to the churcn
and house, including a silver vessel weighing 108 ounces,
and a "pix" for the blessed Sacrament of 16 ounces, were
estimated to be worth nearly ^£60, and were forthwith
1 Valor Eccl., iv. 175. 2 Calendar, x. p. 183.
» RoL Pat., 28 Hen. VIII., Pars ii. m. (£f).
* R. O. AugL Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 225.
6 Calendar, x. p. 247. 6 Valor Eccl., iv. 176.

294 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
dispatched to the royal treasury. The prioress, Dulcosa
Bothe, was obliged during these months of weary waiting
to sell a silver salver and eleven spoons in order to keep up
the hospitality and almsgiving of the house.1 The vest
ments and moveables of the convent were sold for more
than £81; while the lead on the roofs and gutters, together
with two small bells, were appraised at ^34 more. When
all arrangements had been made, on September 24th, the
nuns were expelled, and thirty-six shillings and eightpence
was distributed amongst them.2 There were no pensions,
apparently, granted to any of the nuns. Very probably the
prioress, to whom, according to the rule followed in most
of the early dissolutions, some small allowance would have
been made, did not long survive her expulsion, since she
was "of great age and impotent" at the time. In Mary's
reign, one nun only, Isabel Seton, appears on the pension
list of the survivors of the dissolved monasteries.8
Among the religious houses, which ought to have been
suppressed under the act for the dissolution of the lesser
monasteries, but which purchased from the king a royal
grant to continue, were twenty-one convents of women.
The nuns who thus obtained a temporary respite were some
273, and their dependents may be considered to have
equalled four or five times that number. The price they
paid to the king's treasury as purchase-money for their own
convents and for leave to continue in the cloister was, in
almost every case where payment had been made before the
final catastrophe, greatly in excess of their annual revenue.
About half the number, however, chiefly those situated in
the northern counties, had apparently paid nothing when
their property was again seized by Henry. The others,
although the treasurer of the Augmentation Office is careful
to note that the sums entered were only "part payment,"
and that the arrears due had been forgiven them as they
had come into the king's hand before the settlement of the
debt, paid dearly for their continuance. Thus Lacock, a
convent of eighteen nuns in Wiltshire, actually paid £300,
1 Besides this, she accounted for ,£47, 4s. 2jd., received from rents, as
spent on the support of the house. Exch. A. O. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen.
VIII., 90, m. 28.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 168, m. 4.
8 Brit. Mus. Add. MS.. 8102, Co. Leicester.

The Suppression of Convents 295
its annual income being onl^;6i68; and St. Mary's, Chester,
which maintained its thirteen nuns> upon the slender income
of £66 a year, was compelled to purchase exemption by a
payment of £160. 1
If these sums are largie, thene can be little doubt that
many other payments were also made, either as bribes to
induce the king's officials to interest themselves in the pre
servation of various houses, or to obtain the royal favour
by money offered personally to him. Thus the prioress of
Catesby wrote to Crumwell that " the queen had moved the
king for me, and offered him 2000 marks for the house of
Catesby, but has not yet a perfect answer." She begs the
all-powerful minister in her " great sorrow " to get the king
to allow the house to stand, "and," she adds, "get me years
of payment for the 2000 marks. You shall have IOO marks
of me to buy a gelding, and my prayers during my life, and
all my sisters during their lives." She concludes by re
minding Crumwell of the good report the commissioners had
sent of her house, and although, as she hears, a grant has
already been made of the convent to some royal favourite,
still she trusts to the queen's efforts and his that its destruc
tion may be averted.2
On May 12th the commissioners themselves anticipated
their report of the visitation in Northamptonshire to try and
save the convent. The "house of Catesby," they say, "we
found in very perfect order, the prioress a pure, wise,
discreet and very religious woman with nine nuns under
her obedience, as religious and devout, and with as good
obedience as we have in time past seen or belike shall see.
The said house standeth in such a quarter much to the relief
of the king's people, and his grace's poor subjects there
likewise much relieved, as by the report of divers worshipful
(men) near thereunto adjoining, as of all other that is to us
openly declared. Wherefore if it should please the king's
highness to have any remorse that any such religious house
shall stand, we think his grace cannot appoint any house
more meet to show his most gracious charity and pity
to than to the said house of Catesby." They praise the
"discreet entertainment" the prioress showed to the com
missioners, and write thus, " lest peradventure there may be
1 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Treasurer's Roll, i. m. 4d.
2 Calendar, x. No. 383.

296 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
labour made to her detriment and utter undoing, before
knowledge should come to his highness and to you from
us," and that the king " may stay the grant " of the house.1
This petition on behalf of the nuns of Catesby, from the
very commissioners who had been sent to conduct the
dissolution of their convent, perhaps did harm to the cause
they wished to serve. The chancellor of the Augmentation
Office showed Henry the letter, and subsequently declared
that "the king's highness was displeased, as he said to my
servant Thomas Harper, saying that it was like that we had
received rewards, which caused us to write as we did."2
George Gyffard, the writer of the above letters, informed
Crumwell on the 27th of June that by order of "Mr.
Chancellor and Mr. Attorney of the Augmentation," the
commissioners had returned to Catesby "to begin our sup
pression." Even then, however, they were loath to execute
the decree of expulsion, and asked whether the order from
the Augmentation Office was "a sufficient warrant."8
Crumwell's reply was, no doubt, an order to proceed
with the unwelcome work, for the suppression was immedi
ately commenced. The establishment consisted of nine nuns
besides the prioress, twenty-six dependents, the vicar of
Catesby, two assistant chaplains and one parish clerk paid
by the convent. The royal officers seized plate to the value
of £29, 4s., sold the furniture of the house, with the vest
ments and other ornaments of the church, for more than
£400, and estimated that the lead, which had been torn from
the roof and melted, would bring in £1 10 more, besides £3
for the broken metal of two handbells.*
The work of dissolution took some time, and it was not
till after September 27th that the nuns were finally turned
adrift. John Tregonwell, one of Crumwell's emissaries,
gave them a good character to the last. "The prioress
there," he says, "is a right sad matron; the sisters also
there now being by the space of twenty years hath been (by as
much as I can learn) without suspicion of incontinent living." s
Joyce Bykeley, the prioress, was granted by letters patent
a pension of £20 a year from July 2nd, 1 536.' The payment
1 Wright, 129. 2 Ibid., 136. 8 Calendar, a. No. 1215.
¦ R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 173, m. 2.
0 R. O. Crum. Corr. xliii. No. 59.
« Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 244, f. 32, "Orig. of Grants."

The Suppression of Convents 297
for this sum was made to her, as appears in the "Minis
ter's Accounts," until Michaelmas, 1541, when no charge is
entered on her behalf and the pension apparently ceased.
The fines paid to the king for the continuance of the
convents reduced some of them, as already pointed out in
the case of Stixwold, to a state of absolute beggary. It was
made a plea by the commissioners for an increase of pension
in some instances when the final doom came upon them.
Thus Dr. London, writing to the chancellor Rich on the
final dissolution of the convent of Pollesworth, says : —
"The convent to the great charge of the friends lately
purchased again of the king, in your high court, the house
to continue." And, as " the abbess hath always been re
puted a virtuous woman and a good housewife," he strongly
advocates giving her a pension of £26 13s. 4d. a year.1 In
the same way Alice Baldwin, the abbess of Burnham, is
recommended for a small annual allowance " in considera
tion that she redeemed her house ;" 2 and, to give but one
more example, the same royal commissioner writes that he
and Dr. Baskerfield had dissolved the Cistercian house of
Delapray, although the nuns had purchased " the same of
the king that it should continue." They have consequently
promised, he says, £4.0 a year to the abbess, for " she is
very sickly and an aged woman, and hath been abbess there
about thirty years, and hath lived always like a virtuous
woman, and her house in like manner was well ordered." 3
The convents of England were mostly small as regards
numbers and poor in their resources. In fact, had not the
king been persuaded to hold his hand for a time, the act
dissolving monasteries and convents under ^200 a year
would have swept away all but eighteen of the houses of
religious women. Only twelve out ofthe eighty-four convents
of the Benedictine order were possessed of revenues greater
than the pecuniary limit assigned by the act. Of the twenty-
six Cistercian houses, one only, that of Tarrant, in Dorset
shire, was exempted from the operation of the act ; whilst of
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 15. The reason here assigned
for granting the prioress a good pension is also urged in other cases.
2 Ibid., f. 29. The grant for this convent to continue is enrolled on Rot.
Pat., 29 Hen. VIII., Pars. v. m. 17. The account of the treasurer does not
mention any money.
3 Ibid., f. 38.

298 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the rest, only one Augustinian, the Bridgettines of Sion, the
ladies of St. John of Jerusalem at Buckland, and two houses
of nuns of the order of St. Gilbert, were rich enough to
escape suppression in the year 1536. Special legislation
was apparently made for the latter order, and one-and-twenty
ofthe smaller convents purchased a temporary existence from
the king ; but, with all the exceptions, there could not have
been fifty convents throughout England spared when once
the process of destruction commenced in 1536.
The method of life in one convent must have been much
what it was in every other throughout the land. The nuns
in many cases came from the highest families, and mixed
with their neighbours in kindly intercourse, and were by
them well known and loved. Rigid enclosure was then almost
unknown. The sisters, as has been well said, " were indeed
not of the world, but they were in it, actively and intelli
gently to do a good work to it — to elevate, to console, to
purify and to bless." 1
It is unnecessary to speak of the many blessings which
must have accrued to a neighbourhood by the presence of
a convent of cultivated English ladies. Their gentle teaching
was the first experience of the youthful poor; from them
they derived their early knowledge of the elements of religion
and of Catholic practice ; to them they went in the troubles
and cfcres of life as to a source of good advice ; theirs was
the most potent civilising influence in the rough days of
the Middle Ages; and theirs was the task of tending the
sick and smoothing the passage of the Christian soul to
eternity. To the bounty of these religious ladies, as the " titles "
to ordination in the episcopal registers show, a large
number of the secular clergy of England owed their eccle
siastical position, while there is abundant evidence that the
ranks of the regular orders received many recruits through
their generosity and self-sacrifice. In the convents the
female portion of the population found their only teachers,
1 The portrait pf the prioress given in Chaucer, who
" Was so charitable and so pitous,
And al was conscience and tender herte,"
will recur to many when considering the pre-reformation conventual life of
England.

The Suppression of Convents 299
the rich as well as the poor,1 and the destruction of these
religious houses by Henry was the absolute extinction of
any systematic education for women during a long period.
Thus at Winchester convent, the list of the ladies being
educated within the walls at the time of the suppression
shows that these Benedictine nuns were training the children
of the first families in the county.2 Carrow, in Norfolk,
for centuries gave instruction to the daughters of the
neighbouring gentry, and as early as A.D. 1273 a papal
prohibition was obtained from pope Gregory X. restraining
the nobility from crowding this monastery with more sisters
than its income could support.3 And according to the
evidence of Robert Aske, the people of Yorkshire objected
strongly to the suppression scheme, because " in nunneries
their daughters (were) brought up in virtue."
The declaration made by the royal commissioners as to
the good done by the convent of PoUesworth in Warwickshire
is worthy of being here given in its entirety. It may be
premised that these Benedictine nuns possessed an income
of only -£87 a year, and previous to this letter had paid
some -£50 for the king's permission to remain in religion,
which money, as before noted, they had borrowed from their
friends. " After our duties of humble recommendation unto your
good lordship made," Crumwell's agents write to him, "it
may please the same to be advertised that we have surveyed
the monastery or nunnery of PoUesworth in the county of
Warwick. Therein is an abbess named dame Alice Fitz
herbert, of the age of 60 years, a very sad, discreet and
religious woman, and hath been head and governor there
twenty-seven years. And in the same house, under her
rule are twelve virtuous and religious nuns and of good
conversation, as far as we can hear or perceive, as well by
our examinations as by the open fame and report of all the
1 In the "Canterbury Tales" the miller of Trompington is described as
both well to do and well married : —
" A wyf he hadde, come of noble kyn ;
Sche was i-fostryd in a nonnerye . . .
Ther durste no wight clepe hir but Madame
What for hir kindred and hir nortelrye
That sche had lerned in the nonnerye."
Reeve's Tale, 11. 3940, &c.
' Monasticon, ii. p. 452. 3 Taylor, Index Monasticus, viii.

300 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
country. And never one of the nuns there will leave nor
forsake their habit and religion. Wherefore in our opinions,
if it might so stand with your lordship's pleasure, ye might
do a right good and meritorious deed to be a mediator to
the king's highness for the said house to stand and remain
unsuppressed ; for as we think ye shall not speak in the
preferment of a better nunnery nor of better women.
"And in the town of PoUesworth are 44 tenements, and
never a plough but one, the residue be artificers, labourers
and victualers, and live in effect by the said house. And
the repair and resort there is made to the gentlemen's
children and sojourners that there do live to the number
sometimes of thirty and sometimes of forty and more, that
there be right virtuously brought up. And the town and
nunnery standeth in a hard soil and barren ground, and to
our estimation if the nunnery be suppressed the town will
shortly after fall to ruin and decay, and the people therein,
to the number of six or seven score persons, are not unlike
to wander and to seek their living as our Lord God best
knoweth." x
The general occupations of the nuns in their cloisters
were the same as those described by an eye-witness at a
Wiltshire convent. There, says John Aubrey, " the young
maids were brought up (not at Hakney Sarum Schools, &c,
to learn pride and wantonness, but) at the nunneries, where
they had examples of piety, and humility, and modesty, and
obedience to imitate and to practise. Here they learned
needlework, the art of confectionery, surgery (for anciently
. there were no apothecaries or surgeons — the gentlewomen
did cure their poor neighbours: their hands are now too
fine), physic, writing, drawing, &c. Old Jacques could see
from his house the nuns of the priory (St. Mary's near
Kington St. Michael) come forth into the nymph-hay 2 with
their rocks8 and wheels to spin: and with their sewing
work. He would say that he had told threescore and ten :
but of nuns there were not so many, but in all, with lay-
sisters, as widows, old maids and young girls there might
be such a number. This," concludes the author, "was a
1 Wright, 139.
2 A meadow " on the east side of the house, with a delightful prospect on
the south-east."
3 i.e. distaff.

The Suppression of Convents 301
fine way of breeding up young women, who are led more
by example than precept ; and a good retirement for widows
and grave single women to a civil, virtuous and holy life."1
It is impossible to reflect on the trials and difficulties to
which the nuns were exposed during the few years which
elapsed before their final dispersion without a sense of
horror. To be subjected to the questionings of such men
as Layton, Legh and London in their visitation must have
been an experience for ladies happily unique in the annals
of England. Dr. Ortez, writing at the time, charges one of
the commissioners with speaking "immodestly to the nuns,"
while Sander has mentioned Legh as "tempting the reli
gious to sin," and as " more ready to inquire into and speak
about uncleanness of living than anything else."2
When the final doom of all monastic houses was decided
on, only some fifty convents of women were left to seize.
It was important that the surrender of the greater houses,
by which means alone the king could legally become pos
sessed of their property, should appear to be voluntary,
and every pressure was brought to bear upon the monks
and nuns to induce them to resign their charges into Henry's
hands. The methods pursued in this matter can best be
understood by the precise instructions issued for the guid
ance of those engaged in the work. These agents are
ordered to take "the consent of the head and convent by
way of their fair surrender under their convent seal to the
same. If they shall willingly consent and agree, the said
commissioners shall appoint unto the said head and every
of their convent pensions for term of their lives, and also
give unto them by way of reward such sums of money for
the change of their apparel, and likewise such portions of the
household stuff," as they think proper.
" And if they shall find any of the said heads and con-
1 Aubrey's Collections (Wilts Archaeological Society), p. 12. The last
prioress of the convent of Kington was Mary Dennys. She "lived," says the
same authority, "a great while after the Reformation, and died within the
memory of man in Somersetshire. (From my grandfather Lyte)." The editor
notes that "she died 1593 at Bristol, and was buried in the church of the
Gaunts on the green."
2 Anglican Schism, Lewis' transl., p. 129. Those who wish to see this
most repulsive side of a sad record may turn to the pages of Fuller, where it
is drawn out in sufficient detail. It is evident that the blood of the old Puritan
was stirred within him, and he must have felt that the disgraceful relations
made to him were only too true. Church Hist. (ed. 1 837), ii. 216.

302 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
vents, so appointed to be dissolved, so wilful and obstinate
that they will in no wise submit themselves to the king's
majesty in manner and form aforesaid ; in that case the said
commissioners shall take possession of the house and lands,
the jewels, plate, cattle, stuff and all other things belonging
to them, to the king's majesty's use by force of the last act
made for the alteration of all spiritual tenures at his majesty's
pleasure. "And in that case," if they will not resign at the king's
wish, the commissioners "shall cause the brethren or
sisters" to change their religious dress and give them
money for the purpose, but they shall neither give pensions
nor any part of their household goods to " such obstinate
and wilful persons, till they shall know further of the king's
pleasure." "And if they shall find any of them so indurate that
they will not yield thereunto according to their bounden
duties, they shall commit such persons to such place or
keeping for their punishment as for the time and oppor
tunity their wisdom shall think convenient."
Further, as regards the property, the royal officers are
ordered to retain all plate, jewels and ornaments " meet for
the king's use," and compare what they find with previous
inventories, that they may see that the property has been
" well administered." Also they are to examine well what
plate or other valuables are missing, " to the great damage
of the king's majesty." 1
It would be natural to suppose that when pressure of a
nature disclosed in these secret instructions to the royal
agents was brought to bear upon convents, the ladies would
readily acquiesce in Henry's designs. The two methods
adopted to secure a voluntary surrender — the one a promise
of a pension and other substantial advantages, the other the
threatened deprivation of even a scanty means of subsistence,
and perhaps further punishment — were calculated to allure
or alarm the helpless inmates of monastic houses, and in
particular the nuns, to compliance. But the design was
only very partially successful as regards the convents, and
even this success was marked by some extraordinary draw
backs. It is true, that of the fifty convents which survived
1 R. O. Chapt. House Bk., A. fa f. i. seqq.

The Suppression of Convents 303
the first dissolution the surrenders of some three-and-thirty
are enrolled on the Close Rolls. But the original documents
preserved in the Record Office prove that, for some reason
or other, in the majority of cases, numbering no less than
twenty-eight, the papers drawn up in blank form by the
commissioners never received the signatures of the nuns
at all. Of the remaining five, one, the surrender of the
great abbey of Shaftesbury, a convent of fifty-six nuns, and
at the dissolution of which Crumwell himself assisted, is
signed only by Elizabeth Zouche, the abbess.
A second document, that of Tarrant, although having
twenty signatures, is worthless, as all are written in the
same hand.1 Of the whole number of convents, therefore,
only three signed surrenders exist. In the case of Nuneaton
convent the document is dated the 1 2th of December, 1539,
and has no names, but twenty-seven crosses appended to
it.2 Nesham, the surrender of which, without signatures,
is dated December 9th, was suppressed by four commis
sioners on the 2 1st of the same month.8 And the
Benedictine nuns of Newcastle, the surrender of which to
Dr. Layton, also unsigned, is said to have been made on
January 3rd, 1540, was already suppressed by Dr. Legh
and three others on December 31st, 1539.* Other evidence
exists besides the absence of surrender deeds to show that
the nuns of England resisted, in a heroic manner, the tempt
ing offers to resign their trusts and abandon the religious
life itself at the bidding of the king. At the end of March,
1539, three royal commissioners, Tregonwell, Petre and
Smyth, came to the Benedictine convent of Ambresbury,
in Wiltshire. They had received the surrenders of both
Shaftesbury and Wilton, and no doubt expected to work
their will at Ambresbury without difficulty. But they were
soon undeceived. "We yesterday came," they say, "and
communed with the abbess 5 for the accomplishment of the
king's highness' commission in like sort. And albeit we
have used as many ways with her as our poor wits could
attain, yet in the end we could not by any persuasions bring
her to any conformity. At all times she rested and so
remaineth in these terms : ' If the king's highness command
1 Eighth Rep. of Dep. Keeper, App. ii. p. 43. 2 Ibid., p. 35.
8 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 246, f. 9. 4 Ibid., f. 7.
5 A mistake for " prioress." Ambresbury was not an abbey.

304 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
me to go from this house I will gladly go, though I beg my
bread ; and as for pension, I care for none.' In these terms
she was in all her conversation, praying us many times to
trouble her no further herein, for she had declared her full
mind, in the which we might plainly gather of her words
she was fully fixed before our coming."1
Some months went by, during which it is more than
probable that pressure of every kind was brought to bear
upon Florence Bonnewe, the staunch and fearless prioress.
At the end of that time she announced to Crumwell her
resignation " at the king's bidding."2 In December, 1539,
Dr. London, John Ap Rice and others arrived at the convent
and suppressed it.8 The successor of the intrepid Florence
Bonnewe received a pension of ;£lOO a year, one of the
largest granted to any nun, and 33 of her sisters were also
promised a pittance.4 The name of the former prioress does
not appear. No doubt she kept her word to go forth,
" though I beg my bread." "As for pension," she had said,
" I care for none," and none she received.5
One other example of the same pressure put upon a
convent to secure its compliance with the king's wishes is
furnished by the abbey of Godstow. This convent, in
Oxfordshire, is well known as the place where fair Rosamond
Clifford, the mistress of Henry II., passed her last years in
penitence. The royal visitors had given it an excellent
character ; " where there was great strictness of life, and
to which were most of the young gentlewomen ofthe county
sent to be bred ; so that the gentry of the country desired
the king would spare the house."8
1 Calendar, xiv. (i), No. 629. 2 Ibid., ii. No. 27.
3 Speaking of Dr. London's employment in the task of suppressing the
religious houses of women, Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, xiv. (ii.) preface xxviii.)
writes : " When we think of the shame in which Dr. London ended his days,
a few years later, committed to the Fleet for perjury, not to mention other
stories against him ; and when we consider that Crumwell himself, the year
before this, had been obliged to pay some regard to the abbess of Godstow's
remonstrance against his conduct towards her and her companions, it might
seem strange that the task of suppressing nunneries should have been more
specially committed to him than to any other. But perhaps indelicacy was
rather a recommendation for the kind of work that was to be done."
4 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, 1. 98.
5 It may be of interest to note about Ambresbury that upon its surrender
" rewards " were given to 33 nuns, 4 priests, and 33 servants. Pensions were
granted to 35 nuns. Ibid., Bk. 494, f. 31.
8 Burnet (ist ed.), i. p. 238.

The Suppression of Convents 305
On Tuesday, November 4th, 1539, that valiant visitor,
Dr. London, appeared at the abbey to dismiss the nuns and
take possession for the king. The following day Kathe
rine Bulkeley, the abbess, wrote to Crumwell begging his
protection. She had, as she says, "been appointed to
her office through his influence, and up to that time had
never been moved nor desired by any creature ... to
surrender and give up the house." She will do as the king
commands, but she says, " I trust to God that I have never
offended God's laws nor the king's, whereby this poor
monastery ought to be suppressed. This notwithstanding,
my lord, so it is that doctor London, which, as your lord
ship doth well know, was against my promotion, and hath
ever since borne against me great malice and grudge, like
my mortal enemy, is suddenly come unto me with a great
rout with him, and here doth threaten me and my sisters,
saying that he hath the king's commission to suppress the
house, spite of my teeth. And when he saw that I was
content that he should do all things according to his
commission, and showed him plainly that I would never
surrender to his hand, being my ancient enemy, now he
begins to entreat me, and to inveigle my sisters one by one
otherwise than ever I heard tell that any of the king's
subjects hath been handled. And he here tarrieth and
continueth to my great cost and charge, and will not take
my answer, that I will not surrender till I know the king's
gracious commandment or your good lordship's." She adds
that she will do what the king wants, but that it is not true
that she has wasted the property of her house, as Dr. London
told Crumwell.1
London's letter, written the following day, after saying
that the abbess takes his coming "something pensively,"
adds that, while waiting for an answer, he intends to
"something ripe" himself "in knowledge of the state of
the house." And if the king insist on dissolving the house
" notwithstanding her desire (to have a statement of) such
considerations as mOveth his grace, for the reformation of
such abuses, to take the house by surrender," he begs that
the nuns may be allowed suitable pensions. The abbess
has had to borrow the money for payment of her "first-
1 Wright, 229. U

3°6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
fruits," many of the nuns are old, and "few of the others
have any friends." x
Crumwell sent his orders to let the house alone for a
while. Then on November 26th, 1538, the abbess wrote
her thanks " for the stay of doctor London, who was here
ready to suppress this poor house against my will and all
my sisters, and had done it indeed if you had not sent so
speedily contrary commandments." She adds that according
to further orders she has handed over the "domains and
stock " to " master doctor Owen," and that she is ready to
go any lengths if the house may be spared. In fact, she
assures her master that " there is neither pope nor purgatory,
image nor pilgrimage, nor praying to dead saints used or
regarded amongst" them, and that they do not too much
cling to "this garment and fashion of life."2
A year after Katherine Bulkeley had penned this miser
able surrender of her faith and principles, on November 17th,
1539, she surrendered her trust.8 Sir John Williams and
others were sent down to effect the transfer of the convent
property to the king, in place of her " old enemy " London,
and they forwarded to Henry the deed of surrender, which,
however, was signed by none of the nuns. The abbess and
fifteen nuns were promised pensions ; three of them for the
somewhat strange reason " because they cannot marry." *
Besides the trials incidental to the uncertainty of the fate
which awaited them, the nuns, at this time deprived of the
aid and direction of their spiritual superiors in the episcopate,
must have suffered extremely. This the prioress of Wilton,
Joan Gybbart, writes in so many words to Crumwell. " We
stand and have done long," she says, "for lack of a head in
great unquietness and danger, as God knoweth not only in
the decay, lack and disturbance of the service of God accord
ing to our religion, but also of the destruction and desolation
of our monastery. We are so threatened by our ordinary,
master doctor Hylley, that we know not what to do. He
cometh to us many times, and among us as he says he does
but order us after the law; but as God knoweth we are
unlearned, and not wont to such law as he doth exercise
1 Wright, 227. 2 Ellis, Historical Letters, 3d Series, iii. 233.
3 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 539. There are no signatures to the deed of
surrender. 4 R. O. Exch. Augt. Office Misc. Bk., 245, f. 157.

The Suppression of Convents 307
amongst us. And because that we differ such matters as
he would that we should consent to, the which as we suppose
and think are not lawful, nor yet profitable to us or our
house, he does sore and grievously threaten us. And he
hath heretofore put us to great vexation and trouble, and
yet mindeth so to do and continue. He hath admitted to
bear rule with us, in this our vacation,1 one Christopher
Willoughby and another. This Christopher, for his subtle,
crafty and false demeanour has been expelled first by dame
Cecily Willoughby, the abbess, and then after, his service
was utterly refused by Isabel Jordan, our last abbess." 2
Over the community at Stratford a superioress, or, as
they preferred to call her, a "supposed prioress," named
Sibilla Kirke, had been appointed, who was the cause of
great trouble in the community. " As soon as we speak to
have anything remedied," they say, "she bids us go to
Crumwell and let him help us. And the old lady, who is
prioress in right, is like to die for lack of sustenance and
good keeping, for she can get neither meat, drink, nor money
to help herself." The chancellor of the bishop of London,
they complain, told them that the intruder should continue
" in spite of our deaths and of their deaths that say nay to
it. He commanded her to look to us and to punish us, that
all others may beware by us." ..." Sir," they continue in
their appeal to Crumwell, " it is not possible for us to con
tinue in the manner that we be in now. Sir, the chancellor
rebuked us, and said that we had got a temporal man over
us for our ordinary and that he spake by you. But our
learned counsel, who we had before we put our matter to
the king's grace, told us it was not lawful for him to be a
chancellor, for he is not a priest, and hath no power to hear
confession, nor yet to give absolution as he doth." 3
Very few of the convents were rich enough to bring any
great amount of spoil to the king. The spoil, however,
from Barking, the home of so many saints, the most ancient
and venerable, and almost the richest nunnery in England,
which came into the royal hands in November, 1 5 39, proved
1 Vacancy of the office of abbess.
2 Calendar, vi. No. 285. Dame Cecily Willoughby, the abbess, died in
1528, and was succeeded by Dame Isabel Jordan, who died in 1533. Her
successor was Cecilia Bodenham, who surrendered the abbey to the king.
8 Ibid., vol. xii. Nos. 2, 4.

3°8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
a valuable prize. The plate consisted of over 3000 ounces,
the greater part being parcel gilt, besides what was found
to be only copper gilt when broken. There was discovered
here " a monstrance " weighing 65 ounces, enriched with a
beryll ; and numbers of copes and other vestments of cloth
of gold and tissue were reserved for the king's use. Besides
this, the goods of the abbey sold for nearly ^200; x so small
a sum in so wealthy a house shows the poverty actually
observed by the religious.
One circumstance with regard to the suppression of the
Bridgettine house of Syon is worth recording. In one of
Crumwell's interesting remembrances is the following item :
" Touching the monastery of Syon, the king may dissolve it
by premunire as he will." 2 This power possessed by Henry
over the convent arose from a singular circumstance. On
May 29th, 1538, the attorney-general, in behalf of the king,
had presented a bill of complaint against John Stokesley,
bishop of London, who was brought up from the Marshalsea,
where he had been in prison. The charge was, that on
February 5th, 1537, he had, in the ceremony of professing
Thomas Knotton, a brother of Syon, and Godfrey, a lay
brother, under the obedience of John Copinger, the father
confessor, made use of the form of profession approved of
by pope Paul II. In acting thus, he publicly proclaimed
the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, and made use of
" papistical rites, cultus and ceremonies ; " and by any one
upholding the authority of the bishop of Rome after 31st
July, 1536, as well as all aiders and abettors, the penalties
of premunire had been incurred. Moreover, he had acted
in the same way on two later occasions, and it was con
tended that both the bishop, Agnes Jordan, the abbess of
Syon, and others had thus forfeited their property to the
king. Stokesley confessed the bill, and was bound over
to appear under a bail of 10,000 marks and the surety of
several London merchants.8 And although Henry subse
quently pardoned all concerned, his hand already fingered
the thread by which the sword of destruction hung suspended
over the community. In December, 1539, the convent
passed, apparently without surrender, into his possession.
1 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 31-32 Hen. VIII., 257, m. 5.
2 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 424.
8 Coram Rege, 30 Hen. VIII. Easter, Rex. Roll, m. 20.

The Suppression of Convents 309
One word must be said as to the number of nuns who
were turned adrift into the world on the destruction of their
homes. Hooper, in a letter written in 1546 to BuUinger
from Strasburg, says : — " He (the king) has caused all their
(the monastic) possessions to be transferred into his ex
chequer ; and yet they are bound, even the frail female sex,
by the king's command to perpetual chastity. England has
at this time at least 10,000 nuns, not one of whom is allowed
to marry."1 Such an estimate is obviously much exagge
rated. The fact is, that allowing for the four or five con
vents about which some uncertainty exists, there do not
appear to' have been more than some 1560 religious women
in England at the time of the dissolution. Of these, more
than one-half, or some 850, belonged to the Benedictine
Order. 1 Original Letters, Parker Society, No. 21.

CHAPTER XVI
Fall of the Friars
THE autumn of 1538 witnessed the destruction of the
English friaries. From the thirteenth century the mendicant
orders had taken an important part in the religious life of
the country. They were actuated by a different fundamental
principle from that which was the mainspring of the monastic
state. In the latter, whatever may have been the work the
members of the great religious orders were at times called
upon to undertake, the basis upon which they rested was
conventual life and seclusion from the cares of even parochial
matters, in order that their lives might be given up to the
calmer service of the cloister. The principle that inspired
the friars, on the other hand, was devotion to the external
needs of the Church. In its primary conception, the ideal
of a friar's life was to be found in the performance of active
religious duties among the people. Untrammelled, on the
one hand, by the stricter traditions of the old monastic
observance, and on the other by the petty exigencies of
parochial management, they could devote their energies to
the duties of preaching and teaching. Their houses were
built in or near great towns ; but to the friar the convent
was a very different place to what it was to the monk. To
the latter, from the day of his profession the monastery
became his home, and the brethren gathered within its walls
his family; to the former, the convent cell afforded but a
temporary shelter in which to recruit his powers, physical
and mental, for new labours in the cause of religion. He
had no home, properly so called, as the monk had in his
monastery, and no special place could claim his services.
His profession bound him to the general body of his
brethren, not to any particular family. The friars were
itinerant preachers, living to a great extent among the
people, and endeavouring to influence their religious views
310

Fall of the Friars 3 1 1
and practices by every means at their command, and in the
early days of their mission they achieved great and strik
ing successes. The whole history of the Church does not
present a parallel to the enthusiastic reception given by the
people to the reforms they preached, and their popularity in
England, almost down to the day of their suppression, is
evinced by numerous gifts and testamentary dispositions in
their favour.
In the sixteenth century the friaries throughout the
country numbered some two hundred. Of these, the fol
lowers of St. Francis had sixty, the Dominicans about fifty-
three, the Austin friars forty-two, and the Carmelites six-
and-thirty. The rest were held by the Trinitarians and other
less important bodies of men. Of the four great orders of
mendicant friars, looking at them so far as England is con
cerned, the Dominicans or ' Black Friars,' small though some
of their churches may have been in country towns, ever
preserved a certain dignity, and, so to speak, an aristocratic
character. It would appear as though,? whilst retaining the
canon's dress first worn by St. Dominic in the cathedral of
Osma, they bore with it something of the pre-eminence
which naturally attaches to the clergy, The Franciscans or
' Grey Friars' were the most popular, in the widest sense of
the word, with high and low. The Carmelites or 'White
Friars' were simple, homely, and spread through the country
as if an order of native origin.
The two or three greatest houses of Franciscans, as
London or York, might vie whether in buildings or quantity
of plate and richness of vestments with a Benedictine abbey
of all but the first rank. The Carmelite houses and churches
form a striking contrast. The church of so important a
convent as Cambridge, for example, was furnished with a
poverty which among these friars was not incongruous with
their profession, but of which the smallest parish church
would have been ashamed. It is remarkable how prolific
the English Carmelites were in writers, although it is not
impossible that their number was not really greater than
those of the Franciscans or Dominicans. These latter orders,
however, lacked a Bale; — for even Bale has a redeem
ing point in his literary character. Whilst it was yet pos
sible, he gathered up with scrupulous care the memorials
of his order in England, and thus showed, in spite of vio-

312 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
lence and virulence of speech and pen, that there was some
where in his heart a tenderness for the men of his old habit.1
The total number of friars is somewhat difficult to esti
mate, and can only be stated in general terms. From the
list of names given in the "surrenders" and other docu
ments, it would appear that the average number of inmates
in each Dominican friary was about nine, in each Fran
ciscan about eleven, in each Augustinian about eight, and
in each Carmelite about nine. Taking these averages as
approximately correct, it would appear that the total number
of friars in England at the time of their dispersion was
about eighteen hundred. Richard Ingworth, the suffragan
bishop of Dover, writing to Crumwell on April ist, 1539,
says that in the North of England he has received for the
king twenty-six houses. In these there were " nine score
friars ; " but he adds that these were " the poorest houses
that ever " he went to, and that the best houses had been
undertaken by other visitors.2 The average of seven, there
fore, for the smaller houses given up to the bishop would
seem to show that the estimate of eighteen hundred is not
excessive. For some reason or other, the various orders of friars
had not been included in the dissolutions which had been
carried out under the act for suppressing houses of less
than £200 a year.8 It is probable that as, in accordance
with their several constitutions, they were possessed of very
little real property, it did not suit the king's purpose to risk
the unpopularity of attacking them when so little was to be
gained by so doing. When, however, the royal policy of
plunder had been firmly established, and the complete over
throw of the northern rising had rendered resistance almost
impossible, Henry could contemplate the seizure of the
friaries and the absorption of their trifling possessions into
the regal revenues without fear of the consequences. Small
as their belongings really were, still some few manors, farms
and houses were to be got out of their wholesale destruction.
Each convent, however poor, had the site upon which it
1 It is to be regretted that Bale's Carmelite collections in the Harleian
MSS. at the British Museum (Nos. 3838, 7031, &c.) have not been printed.
2 Calendar, xiv. (i), No. 661.
8 It is curious to note the mistakes into which some authors have fallen
upon this point. More than one writer could be cited who state that these
*' lesser monasteries " were chiefly the houses of friars.

Fall of the Friars 313
stood; and even' if the plate in the sacrist's keeping was
generally worth but a trifling sum, the lead on the roof and
gutters of the church would add a few pounds to the grand
total of these ecclesiastical spoils.
In the work of suppressing the friaries Crumwell found
an energetic lieutenant in Richard Ingworth, formerly prior
of the Dominican house of King's Langley, the richest
possessed by the Black Friars, having an income of £125 a
year. On December 9th, 1537, Ingworth was consecrated
suffragan bishop of Dover,1 and much about the same time
he received two commissions " to visit and vex " his brother
friars. In the first, power was bestowed upon him to
depose or suspend incriminated superiors, and to appoint
others in their places. In the second, he is directed to visit
their convents, to take possession of their keys, to sequestrate
goods, and make indentures and inventories.2 No mention
is made of suppression, and such a work was apparently
entirely beyond the powers granted either to him or other
visitors,8 although their instructions quoted in the last chap
ter leave on the mind no doubt as to the royal intention.
In the time that elapsed from 1534, when the troubles
began, to the autumn of 1538, when the active suppression
of the friars commenced, a considerable number of these
religious evidently succeeded in leaving the country. Thus,
rather than take the oath to hold Henry as head of the
Church, the Franciscan Observants and others in the island
of Guernsey had given up their convent in September, 1537.
" I have called unto me," writes a correspondent to Crum
well, " all the Friars Observant strangers which were left in
the convent of the Friars Observant of Saint Francis within
the Isle of Guernsey," and ordered them immediately to
take the required oath. They refused, and asked to be
allowed to cross over " to Normandy, their natural country,"
saying " they would rather forsake their convent and country
1 Stubbs, Episcopal Succession, p. 78.
2 Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 829, 835.
3 Dixon, History of Church of England, ii. p. 37, says : "This was well
contrived. If the visitors suppressed a house quietly, they were not complained
of, though they exceeded their commission : the king pocketed the money.
But if (which never happened) there had been a disturbance, the king and
Crumwell were safe : they would have said that the visitors had exceeded their
commission, and would have punished them exemplarily if public feeling had
required a victim."

3*4 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
than make" such an oath. The writer adds that he sent
them over in a boat and took possession of their goods, an
inventory of which he encloses.1
The way in which the number of friars was diminished
before the final suppression of their convents may be illus
trated by the house of Dominicans at Derby. Previous to
1534 the community consisted of about thirty religious.
When Dr. London visited it in the January of 1539 he only
obtained the signatures of some half-a-dozen. It is said1
on the highest authority that "a great part of the friar
preachers of England in 15 34-3 5 withdrew from the
country into Ireland, Scotland and Flanders," 2 rather than
conform, and in consequence of the poverty to which they
were reduced.
At this time numerous charges were preferred against
priests and others for their hostility to the royal supremacy
and the general policy of Henry in ecclesiastical matters.
In April, 1537, the popular discontent manifested itself in
a serious way in Norfolk. Men met in the streets of
Walsingham and "condemned the suppression of so many
religious houses in which God was well served and many
good deeds of charity done." One man said, "See how
these abbeys go down and our living goeth away with them.
For within a while Burnham shall be put down and also
Walsingham, and all other abbeys in this country. And
further he said that the gentlemen there had all the farms
and all the cattle in the country in their hands, so that poor
men could have no living by them. And therefore, quoth
(he), when these men shall come to put down the abbeys
some men must step to and resist them." " I hear say,"
said another, " that all the abbeys in the country shall go
down." " More pity if it pleased God," cried a third.8
The late experience of the northern rebellion had taught
the king the necessity of prompt action. Some thirty or
forty men of the district were seized and tried. They were
charged with saying "that if they could get any company
they would make an insurrection as well for the staying of
1 Ellis, Orig. Letts., 2nd Series, ii. p. 91.
2 Rev. C. R. F. Palmer, O.P., in the Reliquary, vol. xviii. p. 71. The
volumes of this valuable periodical contain many communications from Father
Palmer's pen on the English Dominican Convents.
8 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1056.

Fall of the Friars 3 1 5
the abbeys putting down as for reformation of gentlemen
for taking of farms." Their object was to take Lynn and
to seize and fortify Thetford and Brandon bridges. A
special commission sitting at Norwich Castle on May 22,
1537, tried and found them guilty.1 Amongst them were
John Grigby, rector of the church of Langham, two Augus
tinian canons of Walsingham, Nicolas Myleham and Richard
Vowell, a cleric of Walsingham, William Younger, and two
Carmelite friars of Burnham Norton, William Gybson and
John Pecock. Friar Gybson was condemned to perpetual
imprisonment,2 together with another cleric, John Punte,
rector of the parish church of Waterlow. This latter was
specially charged with having approved the action of the
others by saying, " Peradventure what they did was for the
commonwealth." 3
Of the rest, twelve were executed at different towns in
Norfolk. Amongst these were George Gysborough, Ralph
Rogerson and William Gysborough, whose avowed con
demnation of the destruction of the religious houses has
been quoted above, and two religious: the Augustinian
canon Mileham, executed at Walsingham on Wednesday,
May 30th, and the Carmelite friar Pecock, who suffered at
Lynn on Friday,, June ist, 1537.* The terror inspired by
the constant accusations, trials, convictions and cruel exe
cutions of those guilty only of verbal treason, or of ex
pressing disapproval of the king and his actions, bore down
all opposition. None was safe. As one man who was
accused and examined expressed it, " If two or three good
fellows be walking together, the constables come to them
and will know what communication they have or else they
shall be stocked." 5
The case of another friar, Anthony Brown, who was
condemned to death in the summer of 1538 for his belief
in the old doctrine of papal supremacy, may be here briefly
referred to, before passing on to relate the circumstances
of the general dissolution of the friaries. The duke of
Norfolk, writing to Crumwell on August 4th, 1538, told
1 Coram Rege, 29 Hen. VIII., Hilary, m. 2.
2 Controlment Roll, 29 Hen. VIII., m. 33d.
3 Coram Rege, ut sup. These two were afterwards pardoned (Rot. Pat.,
29 Hen. VIII. Pars. i. m. 9).
4 Calendar, xii. (i), No. 1300.
6 Ibid., No. 1212. Confession of Richard Bishop, of Bungay.

316 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
him that the justices of assize lately sitting at Norwich
had before them "one called Anthony Brown, some time
a Friar Observant of Greenwich, and of late taking upon
him as a hermit." He wrote out " his own confession
with his hand, which," says the duke, "you shall receive
with this." The friar was found guilty, "giving respite to
the sheriff for his execution ten days following, which they
showed me the said duke, they did for this consideration,
which was they thought it convenient that a sermon should
be made by the bishop of Norwich, as was by the bishop
of Worcester at the execution of Forest."
The views of the bishop of Norwich were apparently
considered doubtful, and it was thought well that the duke
of Norfolk should thus make trial of both the friar and him.
" And because," continues the duke, " Mr. Townsend is the
only one of the king's council in these parts, I sent in like
wise for him to be present at all the examinations. And
this afternoon we so handled the said friar that we brought
him to this point, that he would not stick upon the authority
of the bishop of Rome to be supreme head of the Church,
but in no wise could we bring him from the opinion that
the king ought not to be supreme head of the Church,
saying that no temporal prince was capax of that name and
authority." Neither " Dr. Call, a Grey friar," who was pre
sent and took the king's part, nor the bishop of Norwich,
who argued well on the point, could move the friar. And
so "we have delivered him," continues Norfolk, "to the ,
sheriff to be carried to the gaol and there to suffer according
to his foolish doings upon Friday next. Before his death
the said bishop shall make such a sermon as we trust shall
be to the king's highness contentation and apparent to the
people (who, we think, will be there in great number) that
this unhappy foolish friar is well worthy to suffer and that
his opinions be false and untrue. My lord, the cause of
the sending of this man in so great haste unto you is
because that if the king's majesty and you shall think it
convenient to have him to be brought to the Tower, there
to be more straightly examined and to be put to torture,
you may despatch this bearer or some other with command
to the sheriff accordingly, so that the same may be with him
_at Norwich by Friday at ten o'clock."
!: — " After writing " this much, the bishop of Norwich tried

Fall of the Friars 3 1 7
once more to induce the friar to change his opinions, but
without success. As the duke expresses it, " yet finally he
persisted in his errors," 1 and though an actual record of the
execution has not been found, there can be little doubt that
the sentence of death was carried out on Friday, August
9th, 1538.
The various dissolutions of religious houses and desecra
tion of churches, which had been witnessed in all parts of
England from the spring of 1536, had a disastrous but
natural effect on the friaries. These religious were almost
entirely dependent upon the alms of the faithful for their
support, and one immediate result of the royal seizure of
ecclesiastical property was to dry up the spring of charity
given for religious purposes. It could hardly be supposed
that donations would be given for objects marked out for
destruction, and which would only go to swell the total
amount of the royal plunder.
There were exceptions, of course, to the general rule,
and there are instances of donations being given to the
friars on the very eve of their dispersion.2 Thus, on
October 9th, 1537, just fifteen months before the surrender,
Robert Davell, archdeacon of Northumberland, made an in
teresting covenant with friar Roland Harding, the successor
of Richard Marshall at the Black Friars, Newcastle. The
Dominican brethren promised that "between six and nine
o'clock in the morning daily, before the picture of our Lord,
called the crucifix, which was between the cloisters and the -
outer door of the choir within the church, the friars kneeling,
would sing devoutly the anthem of the cross, beginning
'O crux,' with the versicle Adoramus te Christe fesu Fill
Dei vivi, etc., and the collect of the same, Domine fesu,
etc. And after then (they were) devoutly to say, for the
souls of William Davell and John Brigham, late of New
castle, merchant, their wives and children, with their bene
factors and all Christian souls, the De profundis with the
preces belonging, ending with the oratio Absolve. In return
of all which Robert Davell gave the friars £6, 8s. in their
1 Ellis, Orig. Letts., Ist Series, ii. p. 86.
2 Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, xiii. (i) preface xxiv.) says that at this time
the friars clung " no doubt to the fond hope entertained by so many, that the
royal supremacy would not last very long, and that much of the old order
would be restored, when the Pope was able to bring the King to reason."

3 1 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
great need. And the friars agree that if the anthem and
prayers were not sung for two days, they would sing a
solemn dirge with mass of requiem by note, sending the
bellman round the town to notify the same in order that
the people might come to the friars and make an offering
for the souls. And if none of the premises were observed,
truly and without delay the £6, 8s. should be refunded." x
The very terms of this contract would show, were there
not ample evidence of the fact, that by this time the friars
had been reduced to a state of extreme poverty. In fact, it
is impossible to read the letters of bishop Ingworth and
doctor London to CrumWell whilst they were engaged in
the work of suppressing the friaries without seeing that
their poverty left them no alternative but surrender.
" Since that I last was with you," writes the former, " I
have received to the king's use twelve houses of friars:
that is, one in Huntingdon, four in Boston, four in Lincoln,
one in Grantham, one in Newark and now one in Grimsby.
They all were in poverty, and little left, scarce to pay the
debts and in some places not so much as £3 or (so). In
these houses the king's grace shall have but the lead, which
I think in all twelve houses shall be, as I can judge it,
about twelve score fodders or more and twenty-four bells,
such as they be ; and of every house a chalice of six to ten
ounces apiece, in some places more. These chalices I bear
with me, and other silver if I find it." 2 So, too, according
to the same authority the three houses of friars at Canter
bury were all in debt. The Austin friars, for example, owed
/40, while all their belongings, exclusive of plate, which
the bishop estimated at eighty-five ounces, would not fetch
£6.s In the twenty-six houses of friars in the north which
he dissolved in the first months of 1539, he obtained little
except the worth of the sacred vessels.* It is the same
story wherever this episcopal commissioner goes. At Dun
stable, Ware, Walsingham and innumerable other houses
the goods are reported as "some sold, some stolen and
some pledged," so that little was left either in plate, lead or
other valuables,6 while at Scarborough the three houses
1 Brand, History of Newcastle, quoted by Fr. Palmer. Reliquary, vol.
xviii. p. 164.
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., viii. f. 112.
8 Ibid., 114. 4 Ibid., 115. 8 Ibid, 117.

Fall of the Friars 319
were so impoverished as to be obliged to sell the very stalls
and the screenwork from their church, " so that nothing is
left but stone and glass," and all that the king can expect
to get is the lead off the roof and "very poor chalices."1
The testimony of the redoubtable Dr. London, to whom
much of the work of dispatching the friars was committed,
is to the same effect. At Northampton the Carmelites were
so much in debt that all they had would not pay it off.
The friars of Aylesbury were in the same plight. Dr.
London thought their ornaments "very coarse," and sold
them all with "the glass windows and their utensils."2
Thus, with few exceptions, if any, the friars throughout
England had fallen into a state of poverty which rendered
their continuance almost an impossibility.
The chief object of bishop Ingworth, Dr. London and
other royal agents was to force the alternative of submission
upon the unwilling friars. "Good my lord," writes the
bishop to his master, "I beseech you think not that I am
any feigner to you, for I assure you I am not, but am and
will be as true and as secret to you as any servant that you
have. ... I would do all things with so much quiet and
without any clamour so near as I know; if I knew your
pleasure, there shall be no part left undone so near as I
may. My commission giveth me no authority to put any
out, without they give up their houses, but if I knew your
pleasure, I may find causes sufficient to put them out of
many places for their misliving and for disobeying the
instructions and the king's acts."8 "Divers of the friars,"
he writes again, "are very loath to forsake their houses,
and yet they are not able to live," as their debts are so
great all they have will not pay them.*
At Gloucester, as the memorandum of the mayor records,
Ingworth gave the friars their choice either to " continue in
their houses and keep their religion and injunctions accord
ing to the same," which, be it remembered, were framed for
the purpose of making religious life impossible, " or else to
give their houses unto the king's hands." The mayor con
sidered the injunctions "reasonable," and even the friars
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., viii. f. 120. The letters of the bishop, printed by
Wright, pp. 1 91 -200, tell the same tale as to the poverty of the friars at this time.
2 Ibid., xxiii. 81. See also London's letters, printed by Wright.
8 Wright, 200. 4 R. O. Crum. Corr., viii. f. 127.

320 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
confessed "that they were according to their rules, yet as
the world is now they were not able to keep them and live
in their houses, wherefore voluntarily they gave their houses
into the visitor's hands to the king's use." The visitor said
to them, continues the declaration, "Think not, nor hereafter
report not, that you are suppressed, for I have no such
authority to suppress you, but only to reform you, wherefore
if ye will be reformed according to good order ye may
continue," as far as I am concerned. They, however, con
fessed that they could not remain on the terms offered them,
and so " the visitor took their houses and charitably delivered
them, and gave them letters to visit their friends and so to
go to other houses with which they were content." 1
The fact is that the methods adopted were admirably
conceived to force compliance to the royal will. When the
chief source of their revenue, the charity of the faithful, had
been cut off, the only means left to the friars to secure
sufficient to live upon were sales of their effects or leases of
the little property they possessed. For both, the free use
of their corporate seal was required, and the first design of
the visitor was to secure possession of this, and thus cut
them off from any possibility of raising money. " In every
place," says the bishop of Dover, "is jewels selling and
other shift by leases. But in all these places I have set
stay by making indentures and sequestering the common
seals, so that now they have no shift to make." By this
means " I think before the year is out there shall be very
few houses able to live, but (they) will be glad to give up
their houses and provide for themselves otherwise, for there
they shall have no living." He then goes on to speak of
the same two houses in Gloucester, from which he wrote,
and the surrender of which has been recorded above. Of"
these he says, " I think there be two houses that will give
up, for they have no living." 2
In some of the houses, however, bishop Ingworth did
not have it all his own way. He thus relates his experience
at the house of Austin friars at Canterbury : " Being there
1 Wright, 202.
2 Wright, 193. In another communication he says that in "all places"
he has been to he has "sealed up the common seals, so that they shall sell or
alienate no more of their jewels nor other stuff, wherefore I am sure that
within a year the more part shall be fain to give up their houses for poverty."
— Ibid., p. 202.

Fall of the Friars 321
the 14th day of December (1538), one friar there very
rudely and traitorously used him before all the company,
as by a bill here enclosed ye shall perceive. I seeing his
demeanour, straight sequestered him so that none spake with
him. I sent for the mayor, and before he came I examined
him before master Spylman and also afterwards before the
mayor and master Spylman, and at all times he still held
and still desired to die for it, that the king may not be head
of the Church of England, but that it must be a spiritual
father appointed by God. Wherefore I required of master
mayor to have horses and men to send him to you, charging
both the men that no man should speak with him." x
At the Austin friars at Droitwich, bishop Ingworth
found in the prior's coffer "eleven bulls of the bishops of
Rome and above a hundred letters of pardons, and in all the
books in the choir the bishop of Rome still standing as he
did twenty years past." The prior had been only a year in
the office when the bishop arrived, but he had already
" felled and sold seven score good elms, a chalice of gilt of
90 ounces, a censer of twenty-six ounces, two great brass
pots each able to seeth a whole ox, as men say, spits, pans
and other things, so that in the house is not left a bed, a
sheet, a platter or dish." For all this, the writer adds, " I
have charged the bailiffs that he shall be forthcoming." 2
' Ellis, 3rd Ser. iii. 181. This was probably friar Stone, who was executed
at Canterbury about this time. The following account of the expenses incurred
by the city in carrying out the sentence may be here quoted from the city
records : —
"a.d. 1538-9. — Paid for half a ton of timber to make a pair of gallaces
(gallows) to hang Friar Stone. For a carpenter for making the same gallows
and the dray. For a labourer who digged the holes. To four men that helped
set up the gallows. For drink to them. For carriage of the timber from
stable gate (Staplegate) to the dungeon (now Dane John). For a hurdle. For
a load of wood, and for a horse to draw him to the dungeon. For two men
who set the kettle and parboiled him. To two men who carried his quarters
to the gate and set them up. For a halter to hang him. For two halfpenny
halters. For sandwich cord. For straw. To the woman that scoured the
kettle. To him that did execution, 4s. 4d." — (Hist. MSS. Comm., 9th Rept.,
Append. , p. 1 53, " City of Canterbury Records. ") It has been thought by some
that the ' Friar Stone ' of this account was really Dom John Stone, a monk of
Christchurch, Canterbury. It is however clear from A. Cope, Dialogi Sex, p.
373, that the John Stone put to death was an Austin friar. The Christchurch
monk, although in trouble at this time, appears subsequently on the pension
lists. 2 Wright, 195. Other friars at this time got into difficulties. Sir Peter
Egerton, for example, wrote to Crumwell that he had sent to Launceston gaol
a " priest secular and two late friars priests." The secular, "Andrew Furlong,
X

322 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
But with all his activity, bishop Ingworth was hardly the
kind of man that the king's work required. Although he
evidently from the first appreciated that the purpose of his
commission was to drive the friars to surrender or abandon
their houses, still he seems to have thought that some of
them might be spared. He hesitated to desecrate the church
of the friars at Droitwich, and appointed one of the religious
to continue to say mass there, even although Sir John
Russell wanted the place, and two other magnates of the
county were making suit to the king and Crumwell for
it.1 The latter wrote him a sharp rebuke, and in his
humble reply Ingworth says he shall act now that he knows
his master's mind. " And where it hath pleased your lord
ship," he says, " to write to me, as ye judge, that though I
have changed my habit I have not changed my friar's heart,
good my lord, judge me not so. For God shall be my judge,
my friar's heart was gone two years before my habit, saving
only my living. But the favour I have shown has not been
for my friar's heart, but to bring all things with the most
quiet to pass. And also till now that your letter came to
me I never could perceive anything of your pleasure, but
ever feared that if I were too quick, that I should offend
your lordship." He then goes on to edify Crumwell with
some general accusations, which he thinks "would not a
little have moved" his lordship,2 and which are well-nigh
the only suggestion of evil living the bishop makes against
the friars in the whole of his many letters.
He quickly amended his method of dealing with the
religious, and although he had previously given leave to his
brother of St. Dominic's order, the prior of the Black friars,
Winchester, " to say mass " in his old church till further
notice, on the receipt of Crumwell's letter he wrote "to
avoid him thence." At the end of his career as a royal
priest and schoolmaster at Saltash, Co. Cornwall, was sent by me to gaol," he
says ... "for this cause, there was a Bible of his found in his chamber. In
the beginning thereof were three or four leaves cancelled and blotted out in
such a manner that no man could read the same." Also "John Hunt and
Robert Ellis, late Grey friars of Plymouth, by the confession and handwriting
of the said Hunt, said to one that questioned them when they were put out of
the Grey friars whether they would buy them new habits or not, and they
both said that they would not for a year or two, and by that time perchance
there would be another change." For this they were sent to gaol (R O.
Crum. Corr. , x. f. 26).
1 Wright, 195. 2 Ibid., 199.

Fall of the Friars 323
visitor, in August, 1539, he wrote, however, to beg that a
house of his own order in Shrewsbury might be allowed
to continue. But on August 27th, he again sent to beg
Crumwell not to grant his former request, for although he
" could find no great cause in them to cause them to give
up," a still he thought their " standing " would perhaps give
him greater " business in divers places than (he) should
have." He was specially thinking of the Franciscans and
the Austin friars of Bristol, who " are stiff and bear them
selves sore by (the) great favour " in which they are.2 The
following day he returned to the subject. "I have left,"
he says, " but one convent standing, and that is (the) Black
friars of Shrewsbury. For this there will be great suit
made to you to have it stand still, and that specially by one
of the bailiffs, master Adam a Mytton, who, as he saith, is
much bound to your lordship. For your sake he made me
great cheer. Yet for all that, I would that he had some
pleasure, but not that pleasure." 8 Before Michaelmas the
friars, who had been left in their house by the bishop, were
dispossessed. The suppression was, of course, not carried to a conclu
sion without some severe handling of the friars. Instances
of such measures have been noticed. No record, doubtless,
was kept of much of the suffering endured by the religious
before they were finally dispersed, but the glimpse that is
afforded in the papers of this period is sufficient to show
that the most extreme measures were often resorted to.
Robert Buckenham, a member of the Dominican Order, was
attainted of high treason and condemned to death for pro
mulgating the "venomous serpent, the bishop of Rome, to
be supreme head of the Church." * He, however, escaped
out of Henry's power. Another friar, William Storme, was
kept in the Fleet prison for "honouring images and main
taining the use of pilgrimages,"6 and Robert Southwell,
writing to Crumwell, informs him of the condemnation of a
Franciscan for maintaining, or remaining staunch to, the old
Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. " Pleaseth it your
1 Wright, 204. 2 md., 211. 3 Ibid., 210.
4 R. O. Rot. Pari., Hen. VIII., 147, No. 15.
6 R. O. Crum. Corr., xl. 67. Dr. London writes about a "Black friar"
who had been put in prison at Northampton at " All-Hallowes," and was there
still on January 27. His offence was " certain words."

324 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
good lordship to understand that William Dickinson, clerk
and priested in Rome, with William Petty, sometime a friar
minor in Jersey, were yesterday attainted of high treason
upon their several denying the king's supremacy. In this
they stuck as arrogantly as any traitors that I have much
seen in my life, and more would have done if they might
have been permitted thereto. Surely, sir," he continues,
" they were and yet be two weeds not meet to grow in our
garden, nor none of their seed that they have sown, whereof
we can as yet learn nothing by their confession. Dickinson
was apprehended by the seaside in Sussex in journey
towards Rome if he had not been stayed. Petty is subtly
witted as he is ingenious, and hath as pleasant an instru
ment for the utterance of his cankered heart as I have
heard." The writer concludes by desiring to know "the
king's pleasure concerning the time of the execution of
these two traitors that be attainted." *¦
The character of doctor London was more fitted than
that of his fellow, bishop Ingworth, for the rough work they
were called upon to do in the suppression of the friars'
houses. His letters give ample evidence that he did not
scruple to perform any act of vandalism necessary to com
plete the wrecking of friaries built up by generations of
pious benefactors, or for the desecration of churches which
had for centuries been dedicated to the service of God. At
Reading he says, " I did only deface the church, all the
windows being full of friars, and left the roof and walls
whole for the king's use. I sold the ornaments and the
cells in their dormitory." ... At Aylesbury "I only did
deface the church ; " and so too at Bedford and Stamford.
At Coventry he partly razed the Franciscan house, " because
the poor people lay so sore upon it." At Warwick he only
smashed in the windows of " the friars' church," and added
in his account to Crumwell, " I never pulled down any house
entirely, but so defaced them that they could not be used
again." Of the friars themselves we hear but little from this
valiant destroyer. That little, as may be expected, is not
complimentary in its character. The prior of the Austin
friars at2 Northampton is untruthful, "like a very friar;"
1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Ser. iii. 95. 2 Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 719.

Fall of the Friars 325
but when all is over he has to confess that the town of this
same Northampton and the villages round about are falling
into decay, a good deal of which is popularly attributed to
the destruction of the friaries. The warden of the Grey
friars at Reading, London says, is " a friend of mine," which
probably will not now be accounted much to his credit. This
friar " also desired me," the doctor writes, " to be a humble
suitor for him and his brethren that they may, with your
lordship's favour, also change their garments with their
papistical manner of living. The most part of them are very
aged men, and not of strength to go much abroad for their
livings, wherefore their desire is that it may please your
lordship to be a mediator unto the king's grace for them that
they might during their lives enjoy their chambers and
orchard."1 A fortnight later, however, (September 14th,
1538) the doctor says that he has got the surrender, "and
this day they all shall change their grey coats. Of friars,"
he adds, "they be noted here honest men." And after a
description of the house and grounds he says, " the inward
part of the church, thoroughly decked with Grey friars, as
well in the windows as otherwise, I have defaced."2
Of the friars' houses at Oxford London gives some special
information. The commission to visit them consisted of the
mayor, "master aldermen," and the doctor himself. They
first went to the Carmelites. Here he found that the friars,
in anticipation of their dissolution, had sold an annuity of
£3 their house had from the abbot of Evesham, for £40 and
divided the money. They were on the point of disposing
of a similar annuity paid from the abbey of Westminster.8
Moreover, the land, small as it was which this friary possessed,
was all let on a thirty years' lease. Their ornaments, " as
copes and vestments," Dr. London considered "pretty," and
these he took. The rest of their belongings he thought not
worth ;£s the lot At the Augustinian friary all the trees had
been felled. The Franciscans had good lands, woods and
a " pretty garden." The house, however, was large and
ruinous, and the religious had been obliged to pawn most of
their plate. Even the lead pipes of their conduit had been
lately dug up " and cast into 68 sows," twelve of which had
1 Wright, 217. 2 Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 346.
8 These instances are interesting as showing how the great abbeys helped
the poorer friaries.

326 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
been sold to pay the expenses of taking up," but the inde
fatigable doctor secured the rest and " put into safe custody."
He adds that the wind had lately blown down many of the
trees, and, worse than all, the "house is roofed with slate
and not with lead." In the case of the Dominicans they
were more fortunate. " They have behind their house," he
reports, "divers islands well-wooded," and although their
convent was only covered with slate, the choir, " which was
lately built, was covered with lead." The plate also was
valuable, especially a great " chalice of gold set with jewels,
worth more than a hundred marks." x
After what has been so far said about the state to which
the friaries had been reduced by the middle of 1538 there
is litde need to dwell upon the surrenders which were ex
tracted from them. The chief object of a formal document
was to secure to the crown the legal possession of the
property belonging to the religious corporation, and for this
purpose the deed was, as a rule, carefully entered on the
" Close Roll." As the friars possessed real property so slight
in amount, the "surrender" was of comparatively minor im
portance, and out of the two hundred convents of friars only
some forty- five official deeds are known to exist. Of these,
more than a fourth are not found enrolled, several have
not been dated, and some not legalised by the convent seal.
In the case of one, that of the Franciscans of Aylesbury,
although the convent apparently consisted of fifteen members,
the signatures of only seven are attached to the document.
Besides these forty-five, a book of surrenders made to
bishop Ingworth seems to contain the signed resignations of
some five-and-twenty more, none of which are sealed docu
ments or have been enrolled.
The form of surrender employed in many cases is
curious. After stating that the act was altogether voluntary,
the document proceeds to say that the house is resigned
into the king's hands under the conviction that the religious
who sign it have been guilty of crimes and vices. The
same form is made use of in a great many instances,2 and
chiefly where doctor London was engaged in the work.
And although the document has often been pointed to as
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 1335, 1342.
2 e.g., Stamford, Franciscans and Carmelites ; Bedford and Aylesbury,
Coventry, &c.

Fall of the Friars 327
proof that the religious themselves confessed the iniqOity of
their lives, no reasonable man can doubt that, like other so-
called " confessions," this was a ready-made document.
Were there any doubts left on the mind as to the
authorship of such documents, after examining their terms,
they can be removed by the knowledge that there exists a
draft of a surrender couched in a similar form, written in
the hand of doctor London, and intended for the Carmelite
friars of Oxford.1
How far this was to be a voluntary act may be under
stood from a letter written by the doctor on July 7th, 1538 :
"We find," he says, "the White friars (these Carmelites)
and the Augustins to be most out of order and brought into
such poverty, that if they do not forsake their houses, their
houses will forsake them, wherefore we are well onward in
such order with them as they shall put themselves and their
houses in the king's hands." At the end of this commu
nication he says : " If Mr. Fryer, now newly come from
London, had not said in the Blackfriars that he heard say
in London that the four orders in Oxford and Cambridge
should stand, the Black had made their submission yester
day. The Grey and Augustins have done it already under
their writings and seals."2 It was thus, according to
London's own admission, only when the friars were given
plainly to understand that they must go, that their voluntary
submission was executed. Even a rumour that they might
be allowed to remain caused them to hesitate and draw
back. The spoils obtained for the royal treasury by the sup
pression of the friars were in the first instance very small.
Beyond the plate seized for the king, which was seldom
more than the sacred vessels, often only one chalice, a few
shillings, or at most a few pounds, represented the amount
credited to the king after the expenses of the commissioners
had been paid. Thus at Pontefract the goods sold amounted,
in the Dominican friary, to only 1 10s. 4d., all the furniture
of " the cells " fetching but eight shillings. Prior Day was
given thirteen shillings and fourpence and each priest five
shillings. Sixty-two shillings was the balance obtained by
the king, besides a small amount of lead, two bells, "a
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 1335 (2). 2 Ibid.

328 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
conduit and a brass ' hallywalter fatt ' " left in the keeping
of the mayor.1
At Newcastle, to take but one instance more, bishop
Ingworth sold the vestments and other moveables in the
Black friars' house and church for less than £5 > the mayor
bought the tiles of the roof and everything in the dormitory
for ten shillings ; two chalices, weighing 38 ounces, were
sent to the royal treasure-house ; the lead was melted into
18 fodders, and the episcopal visitor went away with thirty
shillings as the price obtained by all the desecration and
ruthless destruction. As for the community, six shillings
and eightpence was given to the prior, five shillings to two
other priests, to two lay brothers three and fourpence each,
and to another, Robert Burrall, who did not sign the
surrender, as much as ten shillings. The bishop "gave
them a few hours' grace to quit their convent," and turned
them out in the depth of winter without any other pro
vision.2 As to the sites and buildings, the crown, no doubt, made
some profits by the sales of these. Situated in the heart
of great towns, the space, and even the actual buildings,
were much sought after. Thus, "in Lincoln," writes the
bishop of Dover, " in the Grey friars is a goodly conduit,
for which the mayor and the aldermen were with me to
make suit to have the conduit into the city." 8 So, too, the
mayor and aldermen of Grimsby wanted to beg half the
friars' church " to make of it a common house for ordnance
and other necessaries for the defence of the king's enemies
if need be." It " stands very well for the purpose," writes
John Freeman, who had conducted the dissolution, "near
the water and open on the sea." And the thing asked he
believes is "very necessary for the common wealth."* In
Reading also the town wished for the church of the Grey
friars to make a town-hall, and in several places the buildings
were purchased by the cities in which they were situated.
Thus in December, 1539, the king sold to the inhabitants
of Worcester the sites, lands, churches, belfries and bells,
churchyards and other belongings of the convents of the
Black and Grey friars there for ^"541^ 10s.,6 and this was
1 Fr. Palmer in The Reliquary, xx. p. 73. 2 Ibid., xviii. 165.
3 Wright, 192. 4 Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 567.
6 Rot. Pat., 31 Hen. VIII., p. I, m. 28.

Fall of the Friars 329
after the superfluous buildings had been sold to private
wreckers by men who took four days over the job at a cost
of seventy-eight shillings and eightpence.
It is necessary to say a few words about the lot of
the disbanded friars. Only one or two individuals were
granted any pension for their support. As a rule, a few
shillings (on an average apparently abtiut five shillings)
was delivered to each one on being turned out into the\
world to find his own living as best he might. Even when
they secured what is known as a " capacity " — that is, per
mission to act as one of the secular clergy — employment
was by no means easy to be obtained. The bishops were
no lovers of the wandering friars, and the great destruction
of churches diminished the possibility of obtaining any cure
of souls, even had the ordinaries been willing to employ
them. This is evident in many letters of the period. " I
beg your lordship," wrote Ingworth to Crumwell, "to be
good lord for the poor friars' capacities. They are very
poor and can have little service without their capacities.
The bishops and curates are very hard to them without
they have their capacities." x In another letter he says,
" I pray you be good lord to me, that the warrants for their
habits may be had according to my promise, for they (the
friars) may not be suffered to say mass abroad in churches
till they have their exemptions. I have written to divers
of the bishops, and with divers I have spoken to license
them till after Michaelmas, and at that time I have promised
to send their license to certain places where they shall have
them free, for the most part of them have no penny to pay
for the charge of them." 2
Lastly, to give but one more instance of the hardship to
which the expelled friars were exposed, another letter of the
same bishop Ingworth, who was the chief instrument in
producing such misery, may be quoted. " Further my good
lord," he writes, " in these parts within the diocese of York
the poor men (the disbanded friars) that surrender their
houses are hardly ordered by the bishop's officers at the
bishop's commandment. They cannot be suffered to sing
nor say in any parish church without they show the letters
of their orders, my letters or their capacities notwithstanding.
1 Wright, 193. 2 Ibid., 210.

33° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
And, the charge for these letters of their orders be so great,
that the poor men be not able to bear it. Some must go
a hundred miles to seek them. And when they come there
the charge of searching the register is so great that they are
not able to pay it, and so they come home again confounded.
I have been with my lord of York and showed him your
lordship's letter, that your commandment is that they who
have surrendered their houses should be suffered without
interruption to sing and say in any church. The bishop
made many objections and said that it must be known
whether they were priests or not. And I certified him that
we who received the houses made due search which were
priests and which were not, and so made certificate to your
lordship and your lordship to the king's grace. So that by
that means (only) their capacities were granted. Wherefore
I desired him to accept their capacities from the king's
grace with as much favour as the bishop of Rome's capaci
ties had been before received, for which there never was any
search made." Still, Ingworth does not think archbishop
Lee was satisfied, and he begs that Crumwell will write his
directions that these men may " sing and say " mass without
having to show " any proof of orders."1
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., viii. 120.

CHAPTER XVII
Progress of the General Suppression
THE story of one dissolution, at least as to the general
circumstances attending the work, is practically the history
of all. The steps of the royal commissioners engaged in
disbanding monks, in destroying what were accounted super
fluous buildings, and in sweeping the spoils into the king's
treasure-house, have been so closely followed by Canon
Dixon,1 that little need be said here as to the mere sequence
of events which culminated in the total extinction of the
monastic body in England.
For a year after the " Pilgrimage of Grace " few dissolu
tions, except of some of the lesser monasteries previously
doomed by act of parliament, are recorded. The only ex
ceptions were those houses seized by Henry on account of
the attainder of their superiors for their supposed connection
with the northern rising. From Michaelmas, 1537, to the
same date in the following year, the work of destruction
was pushed on very vigorously. Besides the houses of
friars, and the monasteries of Woburn and Lenton, which
in this year fell under the law of attainder, many other of
the larger monasteries either surrendered or in some other
way came into the king's hands before the feast of St.
Michael, 1538. The circumstances attending the destruction
of one or two of these may be taken as a sample of the
methods employed in the work.
The need of voluntary surrenders for the legal posses
sion of the monasteries not included by parliament in the
pecuniary limit assigned for suppression has already been
pointed out. The instructions given to the royal agents
were, by all methods known to them to get the religious
"willingly to consent and agree" to their own extinction.
1 In the second volume of his History ofthe Church of England.
331

332 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
And it was only when they found "any of the said heads
and convents so appointed to be dissolved so wilful and
obstinate that they would in no wise" agree to sign and
seal their own death warrant that the commissioners were
authorised to " take the possession of the house " and pro
perty by force.1 For many months, in fact, since the first
wholesale dissolution of the lesser monasteries commenced,
popular rumour had spoken of the total destruction of the
abbeys of England, and the seizure of their lands and wealth,
as the ultimate goal to which the royal intentions aimed.
The religious themselves, whilst hoping against hope that
some change of regal whim might bring again union with
Rome and the dismissal of the then all-powerful, and, as
they regarded them, evil counsellors, could have had little
expectation that, under existing circumstances, their lot
would ultimately prove more fortunate than that of their
poorer brethren. Against such a notion it was to the king's
interest to protest. A belief that within a brief period, to
be measured, probably, by weeks or months, their property
would pass into the royal power would naturally tend to
make the monks not alone careless in the supervision of
buildings and lands, but anxious to save something for
themselves, if possible, from the general spoliation. Hence
the visitors frequently in their letters urge rapidity of action
when once the resolution is taken to deal with a particular
abbey or convent. Hence, also, the care with which Henry
and his agents endeavoured to dissemble the royal intention
of suppressing the monastic body throughout the country.2
Thus the unscrupulous doctor Layton, in a letter written
in the middle of January, 1538, describes his efforts to
prevent the spread of reports detrimental to the king's
interests. "On my coming to Barnwell priory on the 12th
day in the evening," he says, " it was immediately bruited
in Cambridge that the priory should be even then sup
pressed,8 and that I would go from thence to Ely and to
Bury and suppress wheresoever I came : and that the king's
1 R. O. Chapter House Bk., A. fa, f. I, et seq.
2 Mr. Gairdner (Calendar, xiii. (i), preface vi) says: "In spite of Dr.
Layton's denial — in spite even of the king's own denial conveyed to some
monasteries by Cromwell — it is impossible not to suspect that the complete
suppression of monastic houses had already been resolved on."
3 The house was surrendered on the 8th November following, to Dr. Legh
(App. ii. to 8th Rept. Dep. Keeper, p. 9).

Progress of the General Suppression 333
highness was fully determined to suppress all monasteries :
and that Mr. Southwell and I were sent into Norfolk only
for that purpose. Which bruit to stop, and to satisfy the
people, I went with expedition to the abbeys and priories,
calling unto me all such gentlemen and honest men as were
nigh inhabitants there. I (then) openly in the chapter
house commanded and charged the abbots and priors with
their convents in the king's behalf that they should not in
any wise, for fear of any such bruit or vain babbling of the
people, waste, destroy or spoil their woods, nor sell their
plate or jewels of their church, nor mortgage or pledge any
part or parcels of the same for any such intent : nor let out
their granges, pastures or glebe, ever retained in their hands
for the maintenance of their house and hospitality, nor to
make excessive fines for renewing any manor's lease for a
hundred years . . . nor to sell or alienate their lands and
revenues nor diminish their rents; nor sell any manor,
portion, pension, quit-rent or any such like appertaining to
their monastery. And finally (I ordered them) to keep
everything in the same state as they have done always
heretofore, and as they of right are bound, and not to give
any credit to the vain babbling of the people. And what
soever they were that persuaded them to make any such
alienation or sale, alleging that the king would suppress
them and all other religious houses, and that it would be
better for them to make their hands betimes than too late,
no matter of what condition the people who said this were,"
the doctor continues, "in this they utterly slandered the
king their natural sovereign lord." He told them not to
believe such reports, and " commanded the abbots and priors
to set" those who related such things "in the stocks,"
unless they were gentlemen, when they were to acquaint
Crumwell. "This digression," Layton concludes, "hath somewhat
hindered us for Westacre, which if I should not have sped
before the dissolution of the same, the rumour would have
so greatly increased in the heads of the common people, that
surely all abbots and priors would have made foul shifts
before we could have made full expedition and all finished
at Westacre. Your (i.e. Crumwell's) commandment there
fore given me in your gallery in that behalf was much
more weighty than I at that time judged or supposed or

334 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
would have believed if I had not seen the very experience
thereof."1 That the far-seeing minister had been fully alive to the
danger is evident from the draft of a letter sent to various
monasteries to assure them that no intention of suppressing
them existed. " Albeit," this letter of Crumwell's runs, " I
doubt not but, having not long since received the king's
highness's letters wherein his majesty signified to you that,
using yourselves like his good and faithful subjects, his
grace would not in any wise interrupt you in your state and
kind of living; and that his pleasure therefore was that in
case any man should declare anything to the contrary, you
should cause him to be apprehended and kept in sure
custody till further knowledge of his grace's pleasure, — you
would so firmly repose yourself in the tenour of the said
letters as no man's words nor any voluntary surrender made
by any governor or company of any religious house since
that time, shall put you in any doubt or fear of suppression
or change of your kind of life and policy." The king,
however, feels that there are people who "upon any volun
tary and frank surrender would persuade and blow abroad
a general and violent suppression." And because some
houses have lately been surrendered, the king commands me
to say " that unless there had been overtures made by the
said houses that have resigned, his grace would never have
received the same. And his majesty intendeth not in any
wise to trouble you or to devise for the suppression of any
house that standeth, except they shall either desire of them
selves with one whole consent to resign and forsake the
same or else misuse themselves contrary to their allegiance."
In this last case, the document concludes, they shall lose
" more than their houses and possessions, that is, the loss
also of their lives." Wherefore take care of your houses
and beware of spoiling them like some have done " who
imagined they were going to be dissolved." 2
The royal fears that the work of spoliation might be
anticipated by the monks themselves if they were allowed
to suspect his designs were not altogether groundless.
Numerous examinations held some years later as to sales
and leases of lands, gifts of annuities and pledging of plate
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 102. 2 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Cleop., E. iv. f. 86.

Progress of the General Suppression 335
and jewels, prove that even a suspicion of the coming
destruction was enough to make the monks anticipate it.
Thus, to take an example of the many that might be cited.
The priory of Launde (of which Crumwell notes : " Item,
to remember Launde for my part thereof,") affords an
interesting instance of the way in which some of the coveted
plate and other valuables disappeared on the eve of the
catastrophe. A gentleman of the county of Leicester, some
years after the dissolution of this priory, informed the
chancellor of the court of Augmentation that, shortly before
the suppression, when he was "riding from Sower by to Sir
John Villiers, he met with a cart laden at Old Thorpe.
With this cart there rode a canon and three servants of the
prior of Launde." He asked them what was in the cart,
"because the cart-horse swetted very fast." One of the
servants replied, " ' It is some of the shortest stuff of Launde
priory,' and so went his way smiling." Also the same
informer had been told that a basket of plate had been
carried from the priory to a house at Sowerby, and remained
there for six weeks after the dissolution, when it was taken
to the late prior at " Frisby parsonage."
Other witnesses deposed that "three geldings and a
mare " belonging to the priory were brought to a neighbour's
stable shortly before the suppression, whence they were
taken to the parsonage of Frisby; that "three suits of vest
ments," formerly belonging to the monastery, were saved
from the sale of the effects by the same means, and that in
the same place were hidden in a chest several pieces of
plate — goblets, spoons and other silver articles — for a year
or more after the dissolution.1
In the same way a curious story is told about some
plate that belonged to the abbey of Croyland. The person
examined had been one of the monks, and, when the exiled
abbot, John Briggs, was dying shortly after, " was his con
fessor and one of his executors." He had heard that the
late abbot had some plate given him by the king's commis
sioners. And " the said deponent," continues the record of
the examination, " saith that he required of the said abbot
on his death-bed to know where his plate was, and he said
that after his death it should be found in his chamber . . .
1 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc., Bk. 133, ff. 32-33.

336 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
in a spruce coffer by his bedside." Besides this box there
was another chest "bound with iron," which contained
several pieces of plate. And "this deponent saith that
about eight weeks before the surrender he went by the
command of the abbot to one John Mereshouse at Croyland
and there opened a long chest," in which there was some of
the silver plate found on the abbot's death, "and a stand
ing piece which was after given to the earl of Essex that
then was."1
Instances such as these could be multiplied, but the
above are sufficient to show that the monasteries were often
not inclined to wait calmly for the coming of the spoiler.
Examples of leases made conditionally upon the suppression
are very frequently met with, and more than one in which,
for a similar purpose, a lease made on the eve of the dis
solution was antedated. Frequently the monks were no
doubt moved by the desire or need to meet the liabilities of
their convent, which were in all cases great, in some posi
tively overwhelming. In most instances, however, their in
tention in thus anticipating the royal seizure was probably
the outcome of a natural desire to save something from the
general ruin.
As to the " surrenders " themselves, little need be said.
About 150 monasteries of men appear to have signed away
their property, and by the formal deed to have handed over
all rights to the king. Their act, however, can hardly with
justice be called free and voluntary. With Henry's hand
upon their throats it was a question between life and pos
sessions. Even staunch resistance to the royal will would
not save the property of which they were the guardians,
from the covetous designs of king and minister. Refusal
to resign at their bidding meant certain loss of the pittance
generally allotted to those who acquiesced in the spoliation,
and possible death for such temerity. It is not given to all
to offer life for honour when no real advantage is purchased
by the sacrifice. However much, therefore, the compliance
of the monks is to be regretted, it must be confessed that
the heroism of refusal could hardly be looked for in many.
Moreover, Henry had carefully prepared the way for his
design by the removal of refractory abbots, the substitution
1 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., f. 42.

Progress of the General Suppression 337
of others more pliable, and by other methods calculated to
ensure success, to which reference will be made hereafter.
It is well, also, to bear in mind that the idea of any general
attack on monasticism was not only kept in the background,
but actually repudiated by both king and agents. The
monasteries stood alone. Singly they were attempted, and
singly they fell.
It was in the years 1538 and 1539 that most of the
" surrenders " were made. Some three or four houses only
had come into the king's possession in this way during the
latter half of 1537. The convent ofthe London Carthusians
is the earliest recorded instance ; but the document has no
signatures appended to it, and the surrender of the Benedic
tine abbey of Chertsey may be regarded as the first legal
document of this kind. It was signed by John Cordrey,
the abbot, and fourteen of his monks, who, however, were
not disbanded, but transferred to Bisham, which had been
"dissolved and granted to the king by William Barlow
bishop of St. David's and late commendatory prior," on the
5th of July, 1536. Here, on December 18th, 1537, the old
community of Chertsey were established by royal charter,
as "King Henry's new monastery of the Holy Trinity,"
" in consideration that the said John Cordrey, the late abbot,
and convent granted their monastery and possessions to the
king." x This royal foundation, however, although endowed
with lands to the value of nearly £700 a year, was very
short lived, for on the 17th of June, 1538, or just six months
after its establishment, it was resigned, or surrendered, into
the king's hands.2
Doctor Layton, who was engaged in this work of sup
pression, wrote on June 22nd to Crumwell : — " We have
taken the assurance for the king. The abbot a very simple
man, the monks of small learning and much less discretion.
Plate very little, household stuff none but the abbot's bed
and one mattress for two of his servants. I caused a bed
to be borrowed in the town and brought into the abbey for
Dr. Came and myself. In lieu of hangings bare walls
throughout the house; cattle none, but bought this day
and to-morrow to the larder, saving a few milch kine not
twelve in number. In the garners not one bushel of wheat,
1 Rot. Pat., 29 Hen. VIII., Pars. iv. m. 12.
2 Eighth Rept. Dep. Keeper, App. ii. p. 13.

33 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
malt or other grains. Vestments small store and not one
good, for the abbot hath made money of all the best and
sold them in London and even so the church plate." He
then goes on to attribute this to the abbot's fondness for
" white wine, sugar and burage," and says he has been
obliged to raise money out " of the rotten copes and bells "
to " dispatch " the monks. On the other hand, this visitor
gives a good account of the state of the crops growing on
the land, and concludes thus: — "This day we dispatched
the monks, for they be much desirous to be gone, for yester
day when we were making sale of the old vestments within
the chapter-house, then the monks made a new mart in the
cloister, every man bringing his cowl cast upon his neck to
be sold, and sold them indeed."1
On the 1 6th November, 1537, William Petre visited and
received the surrender of Lewes priory,2 together with its
rights over the cell of Castleacre, which resignation was
confirmed at Castleacre before the same royal commissioner
six days later.8 The prior of the latter place had tried to
propitiate Crumwell with " four marks as a token of my love "
and a patent for the same amount each year, but he had
been finally forced to send up the deeds of " foundation "
and other things demanded of him, together with a fruitless
prayer for "pity on me and mine."* By March 24, 1538,
with the lengthening days, the work of destruction had
commenced at Lewes. " I advertised your lordship," writes
Crumwell's agent to him, "of the length and greatness of
this church, and how we had to pull the whole down to the
ground and what manner and fashion they used in pulling
it down. I told your lordship of a vault on the right side
1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Ser. iii. p. 265. The house was endowed with
lands of the late dissolved abbey of Chertsey, and with the possessions of the
priories of Cardigan, Bethkelert, Ankerwyke, Little Marlow, &c. On the
present letter Ellis notes : — " From its contents we must conclude that the
re-endowment by Henry VIII. could only have been promised ... the
poverty of the house is little reconcileable with the increased endowment."
As the foundation only lasted from December 18, 1537, to July 19, 1538, it is
more than probable no revenues were received. The goods of Bisham had
already been sold on the first dissolution.
2 Rot. Claus., 29 Hen. VIII., Pars. i. m. 9.
3 Ibid., m. 10. The original surrender, without any seal, but signed in
the margin by Prior Thomas and ten monks, is in the Brit. Museum (Add.
Charter, 15,495)-
4 R. O. Crum. Corr., iv. 178. No pension was apparently granted to any
monks of either place.

Progress of the General Suppression 339
of the high altar, that was borne up by four great pillars
having about five chapels which are compassed in with
walls " 210 feet in length. " All this is down on Thursday
and Friday last. Now we are plucking down a higher vault
borne up by four thick pillars 14 feet from side to side (and)
45 feet in circumference. These shall down for our second
work. As it goeth forward I will advise your lordship from
time to time and that your lordship may know with how
many men we have done this, we brought from London
17 persons, three carpenters, two smiths, two plumbers,
and one that keepeth the furnace. Every one of these
attendeth to his own office. Ten of them hewed the walls
about, among which there were three carpenters ; these
made props to underset where the others cut away, the
others broke and cut the walls. These are men exercised
much better than the men we find here in the country." He
then requests more men and concludes : " On Tuesday they
began to cast the lead, and it shall be done with such dili
gence and saving as may be." At the close of the letter,
the dimensions of the church which they were calmly
engaged in destroying are given. It was a hundred and
fifty feet long and sixty-three high.1 Its walls were five
feet thick and the walls of the steeple, which was ninety
feet high, were ten thick. There were two-and-thirty pillars
which carried the groined roof, which over the high altar
rose to the height of eighty-three feet from the ground.2
Such was one of those magnificent creations of English
architectural skill which at this time in almost every part
of the country the government were occupied in wrecking.
The first monastery to surrender in the year 1538 was
the abbey of Westacre. The history of this transaction
has already been referred to. The actual resignation of
the monastery could hardly have been freely made, since a
month before, on December 16 (1537), Sir Roger Townsend
wrote to say that, " as directed " by Crumwell's letters, he
and others had repaired to the priory, " sequestered all the
property " and taken inventories 8 of their possessions. As
to the surrender itself, two documents exist, one dated on
1 The church, from other dimensions given in the letter and from recent
excavations, must have been 400 feet long. The 150 feet refers to the eastern
limb only. The letter says the circumference of the church was 1558 feet.
2 Wright, 180. 3 Calendar, xii. (ii), No. 1219.

34° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the 14th January, 1538, and the other the following day. '
The first is a confession of maladministration and other
general self-accusations in much the same form as the
Northampton document. The second is the surrender
proper, and apparently neither have been enrolled upon
the Close Roll. Even had all been regular, the surrender
could hardly have meant much more than the " confession,"
as the property of the priory was already in the hands of
Crumwell's commissioners. What makes it somewhat more
strange is, that Layton, on the 1 8th of January, wrote, in a
letter already quoted, implying that the suppression was
not an accomplished fact at that date. The work of putting
a stop to the rumours of the coming suppressions had
"hindered" him, he says, at "Westacre," and he adds: —
"What untruth and dissimulation we find in the prior!
What falsehood in false knaves amongst the convent!
What bribery, spoil and ruin with crafty colours of bargains
contrived by the inhabitants it were too long to write ; but
for a conclusion all their wrenches, wiles and guiles shall
nothing prevail them, and so God willing we shall serve the
king truly." x
The surrender of Abingdon on the 9th of February
of this same year, 1538, presents one or two remarkable
features worth recording. Like many of the monasteries,
the financial state of this great abbey does not appear to
have been very flourishing. There had been difficulties with
tenants, implying costly lawsuits and compromises detri
mental to the interests of the house. Internally the discipline
of the cloister had suffered by the interference of the king
and his vicar-general. Shaxton, the bishop of Salisbury,
had safe in prison a monk of the house, who, when by the
royal orders two of his brethren " were scraping out the
bishop of Rome's name," came and told them that they
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 102. When the commissioners reached Westacre
on January 18th, 1538, they found that they had been anticipated in their inten
tion of securing the property before the rumours of the intended suppression
had got about. Not only had much of the land been let on long leases, but
as early as the beginning of the previous December, the convent had been
visited by one Charles Wyngfield, who had declared to the members that it
was the royal pleasure they should sell their house to him and his heirs. This
they had accordingly done, granting him a deed " to hold good only if the
king's pleasure were such as he declared " (Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 101). This
transaction gave Layton and his companion some anxiety and considerable
trouble.

Progress of the General Suppression 341
" who set knife and pen to the book were cursed." J More
than this : the exactions and demands of Crumwell hampered
the abbot in the administration of his house. " Your letters,"
writes the abbot to him, demand that I give the office of
"chamberer" to one Richard Birrall, "a monk of this my
monastery, by convent seal for the rest of his life. It hath
not been seen in time past that any monk hath ever had a
convent seal of any office. For if he had it, I think it were
my duty to take it from him. Also it is against his religion
and standeth not with his profession. Wherefore seeing that
it standeth neither with the good custom of the house nor
doth agree with the good order of religion, I therefore
beseech your good mastership with all my heart to be good
master unto me that I may order a monk as he ought to be
ordered according to the good rule of religion, and that no
such precedent may be had." a
The good order of the abbey, however, mattered little to
Crumwell, who in the year 1537 enters among his notes, to
gether with other similar matters to be held in memory:
" Item, the suppression of Abingdon." 8 How this was ac
complished may be judged from one circumstance. On the
7th of February, 1538, a sum of ;£6oo, more than ^6000 of
our money, was paid by royal warrant to doctors Tregonwell
and Petre, "to be spent by them on bringing about the
dissolution of the monastery of Abingdon."* The monas
tery surrendered two days later. Thomas Pentecost, alias
Rowland, the abbot, obtained the grant of a pension of
^200 a year and a house to live in, and each of the monks
a suitable sum for their lives. On February the 22nd, Sir
Richard Ryche wrote his report of the royal prize. The
buildings he found in a great state of decay. The abbot's
house was unfit for habitation, and would require a large
amount of money to make it fit for the king. The ground
was not fit to make a park, for if the fields on the south side
ofthe Thames were taken for the purpose, the writer believes
that the town of Abingdon, which was very populous, " will
decay." He concluded by asking " what part of the church,
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxxviii. 52.
2 Ibid., i. 9. It is curious to note the peculiar form in which Richard
Birrall signs the deed of surrender, "concedo et ego Richardus Birrall."
3 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus, B. i. f. 468d.
4 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 28 Hen. VIII., 1 Edw. VI. 155.
This sum is also entered as paid on Treasurer's Roll, I. m. I2d.

342 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
cloister, dorter, chapter-house and frater shall be defaced.
I think," he adds, "a great part thereof may be defaced and
sufficient left to the king's contentation." x
The spoils were gathered into the royal treasure-house.
Two mitres were purchased by Sir Thomas Pope, the
treasurer of the Court of Augmentations, and three ponti
fical rings with precious stones with a silver gilt cross were
saved from the common melting-pot for the royal use. In
the latter, set in a piece of gold, was a portion of the holy
cross called "an esse."2
The dissolution of the abbey of Vale Royal affords an
interesting insight into the methods employed to force com
pliance, and a criterion by which to estimate the value of
the surrenders. Here, as elsewhere, the demands upon the
resources of the abbey had been met until it became im
possible with further exactions to keep up the house. " My
lord," writes the abbot to Crumwell in answer to a repeated
demand, "I most humbly beseech your good lordship, for
the love of God and our Blessed Lady and for the main
tenance of good service and poor hospitality to be kept in
the house, to pardon our refusal."
On the 22nd of August, 1538, one of the most energetic
of the king's commissioners, Thomas Legh, was at the abbey,
and on the 7th of September a surrender is said to have
been made by the abbot and convent. It was entered in
due course on the Close Roll as a valid document, but was
repudiated by the abbot. At Lichfield, on his way to
London, he wrote his protest against the surrender which
Holcroft, the subsequent grantee,8 was evidently the chief
agent in extorting, if not in forging. The commissioners,
so said John Harwood, the abbot, had brought the royal
demand that we should " clearly of our own consents sur
render . . . our monastery." "My good lord," he writes
to Crumwell, "the truth is, I nor my said brethren have
never consented to surrender our monastery, nor yet do, nor
never will do by our good wills, unless it. shall please the
king's grace to give us commandment so to do, which I can
not perceive in the commission of master Holcroft. And if
any information be given unto his majesty or your lordship,
1 Calendar, xiii. (i), No. 332. 2 Aug. Off. Treas. Roll, I. m. 3.
8 He paid ^450, 10s. 6d., with an annual fee of ,£3, 5s. 8d., for the
property.

Progress of the General Suppression 343
that we should consent to surrender as is above said, I
assure your good lordship upon my fidelity and truth, there
was never any such consent made by me or my brethren,
and no person or persons had authority so to do in our
names.'-' He adds a prayer that the king may spare the
monastery, and forwards " a bill indented made by me and
my brethren " which the commissioner had refused.1
Abbot Harwood's journey failed in its purpose. Still
the king could neither force the unwilling monks to surrender
nor, at this date, was he apparently desirous of seizing the
property without some pretence of justice. Mr. Ormerod
remarks that the difficulty was overcome in this instance
by bringing a capital indictment against the abbot. " The
jurisdiction of the abbey courts," he writes, " afforded an easy
opportunity of gratifying the royal wishes, and lord Crum
well, the seneschal of the abbey, presided in person at a
court held at Vale Royal on the Monday after the feast of
the Annunciation, 1539, in which fourteen jurors found a
bill against the late abbot and others for the following
offences : —
" That John Harwood, late abbot of the monastery of O.
B. Lady of Vale Royal, consented to the slaying of Hugh
Chaliner, his monk; and that the day before the said
monk's throat was cut, the said monk said unto a child,
being his brother's son of twelve years of age or there
abouts, that he the said monk would be with his brother at
Chester before the Assumption, or else he should suffer
death if he tarried any longer in the said monastery."
The jury further found that the abbot threatened a
tenant of his that he would have nothing more to do with
him if he fought against the northern men in the general
rising. Also that the abbot's brother approved of the
northern men, and one of his vicars refused to marry a
couple upon a license obtained from the king as supreme
head.2 A true bill being found against the abbot on these charges
his life was in grievous peril. In fact, the Cheshire tradition
1 Wright, 244.
2 Ormerod, Cheshire, i. 503. See also Monasticon, vi. 701, note. The
document is said to be a transcript of the Original Inquisition, and addressed
"to Thomas Holcroft be these directed with speed." For the Inquisition, see
Calendar, xiv. (i), No. 639.

344 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
is said to be that he was executed.1 This, however, was
not the case, as in the year 1 542 " John Harwood, late abbot
of Vale Royal, was in receipt of a pension,2 which he con
tinued to receive till the first year of Edward VI.8 The
effect of the condemnation was, however, sufficient doubt
less to place the abbot in the royal power, and thus to over
come his opposition to surrender his charge, of which John
Harwood had given such unmistakable proofs.
Of course by the middle of the year 1538 it became
obvious to all that the king intended nothing less than the
total destruction of the monastic orders. Rumours sprang
up that not only the friars but monks generally would soon
be expected to abandon their religious habits, and Prior
Goldstone of Christchurch, Canterbury, wrote to Crumwell
earnestly begging that such a measure might not be applied
to himself and his brethren. Crumwell, he says, had sent
him word that they should never be constrained to do this
against their wills, and he assures him that they will never
voluntarily break the profession they have made to serve
God in their monastic dress, or give up a mode of life which
had been led by the sons of St. Benedict at Canterbury for
more than nine hundred years.* His entreaty was naturally
of no avail. Crumwell, who happened to be at Canterbury
with the king early in September, 1538, "intimated to the
monks in the chapter-house that the change was actually
resolved on, and Dr. Richard Thornden, warden of the
cathedral manors, who was accustomed to provide new
apparel for them yearly at All Hallows' day, wrote to ask
when it was to take place." 6
The pressure put upon the monks to resign their property
may be further illustrated by two letters relating to houses
in the county of Somerset — the one from the prior of the
Charterhouse of Hinton, the other from a priest employed to
bring about the surrender of Athelney Abbey. " In the
Lord Jesus shall be your salutation," writes prior Horde to
his brother Alan, a barrister of the Middle Temple. " And
where ye marvel that I and my brethren do not freely and
voluntarily give and surrender up our house at the motion
of the king's commissioners, but stand stiffly, and as you
1 Ibid. 2 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 248, 41.
3 R. O. Aug. Off. Treasurer's Roll, III. m. 106.
4 Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 139. 6 Ibid., preface, viii.

Progress of the General Suppression 345
think obstinately, in our opinion; truly, brother, I marvel
greatly that you think so, but rather that you would have
thought us light and hasty in giving up that thing which is
not ours to give, but dedicate to Almighty God for service to
be done to His honour continually, with other many good
deeds of charity which daily be done in this house to our
Christian neighbours. And considering that there is no
cause given by us why the house shall be put down, but
that the service of God, religious conversation of the
brethren, hospitality, alms-deeds, with all other our duties,
be as well observed in this poor house as in any religious
house in this realm or in France; which we have trusted
that the king's grace would consider. But because that ye
write of the king's high displeasure and my lord privy seal's,
who ever hath been my especial good lord, and I trust yet
will be, I will endeavour myself, as much as I may, to
persuade my brethren to a conformity in this matter ; so
that the king's highness nor my said good lord shall have
any cause to be displeased with us, trusting that my poor
brethren who know not where to have their living, shall
be charitably looked upon." l
After dissolving the abbey of Keynsham, John Tregon-
well and William Petre, the two royal commissioners,
arrived at Hinton on January 25th, 1539, for the same
purpose. "Immediately after our coming," they write to
Crumwell, "we entered conversation with the prior there
about the cause of our coming, and used such means and
persuasions unto him for the purpose as we thought most
meet and might best take place in him. His answer in
effect was, that if the king's majesty would take his house,
so (that) it proceeded not of his voluntary surrender, he was
contented to obey; but otherwise he said his conscience
would not suffer him willingly to give over the same. In
the end, after long conversation, he desired delay to make
us answer until this morning. At this time, we often
using like diligence in persuading him as we did before,
he declared himself to be of the same mind he was ' yester-
1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd Ser. ii. p. 130. "Of pressure being applied we
have express evidence — as at the Carthusian priory of Hinton. . . . The abbot
of Winchcombe also wrote in August to Cromwell, saying he hoped that he
had not done anything against the laws of God or the King to merit the sup
pression of the Monastery " ( Calendar, xiv. (ii), preface, xxix).

346 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
night,' or rather more stiff in the same. In conversation
with the convent we perceived them to be of the same
mind the prior was, and had much like answer of them as
we had from the prior (three only excepted who were
conformable). And amongst the rest one Nicholas Balland,
monk there, being incidentally examined bf the king's high
ness' title of supremacy, expressly denied the same, affirming
the bishop of Rome to be the vicar of Christ, and that he is
and ought to be taken for supreme head of the Church." x
Crumwell had long had his eye upon this house. Lord
Stourton had written to him about a vision the prior was
said to have had, which appeared to forecast the execution
of one of Henry's queens/ and he had entered on his " re
membrances " " of the Charterhouse at Hinton." 8 And so,
by March 31st, 1539, the opposition to the king's demands
was broken down, and the surrender signed by prior Horde
and fourteen monks. Two others, one of whom was Nicholas
Balland, apparently did not sign the document.* The house
was sold by Tregonwell to Sir Walter Hungerford, but
although he paid his money, he complains three months
later that Sir Thomas Arundel had on a royal grant sold
and " despoiled and quite carried away a great part of the
church and other superfluous buildings next." 6
In much the same way evidently the surrender of the
abbey of Athelney was procured by pressure. On November
2nd, 1538, the parson of Holford writes an account of his
visit to the abbot at the instigation of Crumwell and chan
cellor Audley. " I found," he says, " the said abbot in the
church coming from mass at the hour of ten o'clock before
noon. And, as reverently as I could, I delivered the said
my lord and master's letters, and showed him that my lord
Audeley recommended him to him. And the said abbot
answered : ' I am glad to hear of my lord's welfare.' And
1 Calendar, xiv. (i), No. 145. In a letter written on the 24th June, Sir
W. Hungerford says he "kept in his house till I know your pleasure " this
Nicholas Balland, who publicly declared he would die for the belief that the
pope was the only head ofthe Church" (md., No. 1154).
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xl. 71.
8 Calendar, ix. No. 498.
4 Eighth Rept. Dep. Keeper, App. ii. p. 23.
6 R. O. Crum. Corr., xviii. 11. On April 4th, 1540, grants of pensions
were made to the prior and 22 monks, including Nicholas Balland (R. O.
Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 233, f. 242). For payment see A. O. Mins. Acct.,
30-31 Hen. VIII., 224, m. 8d.

Progress of the General Suppression 347
so he read his letter and said : ' Go with me to my chamber
and you shall know my mind.' And I followed the said
abbot, and suddenly he stopped and said : ' What, is my
lord Audeley a man of the new set or after the old sort ? '
' My lord,' said I, ' he is after the best sort, and like a kind-
hearted subject to the king's grace and a good Englishman
that loveth all the realm.' 'Well,' said the abbot, 'do you
think he doth not judge there will be another world shortly ? '
' My lord,' said I, ' there will be another world when we be
out of this world, but in this I think there was never so
gracious a prince as the king's grace is, for he loveth virtue
and will punish vice.' Wherewith the said abbot shook
his head and said : ' Hear you no new tidings of this great
council beyond the sea?' 'No, my lord,' said I, 'there is
no matter to be passed upon in their council, for the king
will provide surely for all such matters.' And therewith I
was in a study, for I wist not what that matter meant. And
the abbot said again : ' Well, if I wist what would come of
these matters I would soon be at a point with my lord.'
With that the abbot went forth and said : ' I will write a
letter to my lord and ye shall learn my mind.' And then
he went to his chamber, where he called me in secret to
him and said : ' Is it not my lord's mind to have me resign
my house to him ? ' ' No, my lord,' said I, ' but it may
fortune upon good considerations and causes that he would
have you resign your house into the king's hands.' And
then said he : ' Our house would be destroyed and all the
country undone by that means, as it is about Muchelney.'
' No, my lord,' said I ; ' my lord master will come and
dwell here, and I think he will be a petitioner to the king's
highness to have some part of the order here, as it is at
Saint Mary's Altar ' (?). This I said, somewhat to satisfy
the abbot's mind. 'Why,' said he, 'then what should I
have ? ' ' My lord,' said I, ' I dare undertake, if you will
be advised by my lord, he will get you a hundred marks,
and he will get you some prebend of the bishop of Sarum,
whereby ye shall wear a grey almuce, and all your brothers
shall be provided for and shall have services and promotions
as shall be meet for them.' 'Well,' said the abbot and shook
up his hand, ' if I would have taken a hundred marks I
could have been stayed ere this time, but I will fast three
days on bread and water than take so little.' 'My lord,'

34 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
said I, ' I speak of the least. You will find my lord much
better when you speak with him.' ' Well,' said he again,
' if I wist what should come of it, I would soon be at a
point.' And therewith he sat himself down and eat bread
and butter and made me eat with him." The writer then
tells how the abbot wrote his letter to the chancellor, and
how going to see the steward, he spoke with the community,
and found them willing to take Audley's advice, and resign
their house at the king's bidding.1
The abbey was surrendered to the king on February 8th,
1539, by the abbot and six brethren, who all received
pensions for their compliance with the royal will.2 The
effects of the monastery were sold for £80, of which sum
Audley, who showed such anxiety to obtain the abbot's
resignation, paid £20 for the whole of the buildings.8
The action of Audley was not confined to Athelney. He
says himself that he sent for the abbot of Osyth's " before
the dissolution, and induced him to yield the house to the
king's majesty's good will, and that he should exhort his
convent to conform themselves to the same, who by my
advice and exhortation conformed themselves as humble
subjects without murmur or grudge, wherein I trust that I
have not for my part served the king's highness amiss."
He then goes on to ask Crumwell to obtain him some return,
for "I have no fee nor office of his highness," he says, " but
the chancellorship, and although it be high and honourable,
yet it is cumberous and chargeable." *
In the same way, even Burnet allows that the king pre
pared the way for the suppression by skilfully selecting
men who were likely to resign their houses when called
upon. Thus John Capon or Salcot, abbot of Hyde, although
made bishop of Bangor iri 1534, was allowed to remain
commendatory of his monastery, and upon surrendering it
in 1539 into the king's hands was rewarded with the See of
Salisbury. So, too, Robert Pursglove, the prior of Gisburne,
who was bishop of Hull, as a suffragan of York, not only
surrendered himself, but was active in persuading others to
act in the same way. He obtained a pension of ^200 a
1 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Cleop., E. iv. f. 135.
2 R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 223, f. 105.
8 R. O. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 30-31 Hen. VIII., 224, m. 6d.
4 Wright, 239.

Progress of the General Suppression 349
year.1 Stephen Sagar, abbot of Hayles, having been sent
for to London, made a "privy surrender,"2 and was dis
patched to his convent to obtain the general consent. This
he managed so well that he obtained high praise from the
commissioners, who said he " did surrender his house with
such discreet and frank manner, as we have seen no other
do better in all our journey." 8
"What could not be effected by arguments and fair
promises," writes the learned Diigdale, " was by terror and
severe dealing brought to pass. For under pretence of
dilapidation in the buildings or negligent administration
of their offices, as also for breaking the king's injunctions,
they deprived some abbots and then put others that were
more pliant in their room." Thus Richard Boreman alias
Stevenage, the abbot of St. Alban's, was placed in the
room of abbot Catton in April, 1538.* On the 10th of
December of the previous year, two royal commissioners,
Legh and Petre, had written about Saint Alban's that " by
confession of the abbot himself," there appears to be "just
cause of deprivation, not only for breaking the king's in
junctions, but also for manifest dilapidation, making of shifts,
negligent administration and sundry other causes, yet, by
what means we know not, in all communications or motions
made concerning any surrender he showeth himself so stiff,
that, as he saith, he will choose to beg his bread all the
1 The royal visitors had compelled the predecessor of Pursglove to resign
his office in February, 1537, and had appointed "a friend" of Crumwell.
Pursglove was sent to Whitby in October, 1538, to be present at an election
of the abbot. He tried to force the community to let him " nominate " the
one desired by CrumwelL This they refused. He then endeavoured to get
them to allow his master to have the election ; they again refused, and claimed
the right of free election. This the royal agents would not allow. The prior
started for London to lodge a complaint (Wright, 249). The whole letter
shows clearly how the elections were managed, in the last years of the exist
ence of the monasteries, and many other instances could be given of the
strenuous efforts made by the crown to secure superiors pliant to the royal
will. Whitby was dissolved on December 14th, 1539 ; no legal surrender was
apparently made, but the monks were pensioned, Henry Darell, the abbot,
receiving 100 marks (R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 246, f. 14). For some time
efforts had been made to force the late abbot of Whitby, John Hexham, to
resign. He had refused, and although reports had been spread that he was
willing, he wrote denying them. In the end he gave up his office to W. Petre
in August, 1538 (Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 108).
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xx. 15.
1 Wright, 237.
4 The conge on the "deprivation" of Catton is dated 23rd January, 1538.
Rot. Pat., 29 Hen. VIII., Pars. iii. m. 9.

35° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
days of his life than consent to surrender." The visitors
tried every means to change him, but, as they say, "he
waxeth hourly more obstinate and less conformable." They
asked for instructions. If they deposed him, the house was
in such debt " that no man will take the office of abbot here
upon him, except any do it for that purpose to surrender
the same to the king's hands; and by this means" they
think "this may most easily and with least speech be
brought to the king's highness' purpose." Another method
they suggest is to leave the unfortunate abbot for a time in
suspense "in utter despair of any favour," and perhaps he
will then, expecting "to be deprived," "sue to have his
surrender taken, because he would be assured of some
living."1 But abbot Catton kept his word. Neither pressure
from without nor the burden of difficulties could move him
to do the king's will by surrender or resignation. Depriva
tion soon followed this letter. The last free abbot of St.
Alban's had no pension.
Richard Boreman, who was appointed by Crumwell to
suceeed, had his difficulties as abbot. He failed to pay
his " first-fruits " to the king, and got locked up. " Mr.
Gostwick," he writes to Crumwell, "hath detained me from
my liberty and keepeth me within his gates, so that I can
have no friendly means of him for my liberty. Notwith
standing I have offered him to pay out of hand £300, which
is as much as I have and can make friends for in this short
time, he demandeth of me besides other great sums the first
payment of the first-fruits, which is above all my power to
do. . . . Now this evening I am lilje to be imprisoned in
the compter to my bitter shame and undoing." 2
On December 5th, 1539, abbot Boreman, who, as the
commissioners suggested, had doubtless taken the office for
the purpose, surrendered the abbey into the king's hands.
Not more than half a century before, abbot William of
Wallingford had built the rich and sumptous high altar at a
cost of above £733, and had beautified the church with gifts
worth, as Weaver calculated, more than £8000. This
noble minster was only redeemed from destruction and
sacrilege by the townspeople, who purchased it from the
1 Wright, 250. 2 Calendar, xiii. (i), Nos. 180, 181.

Progress of the General Suppression 351
king for £400. On the 17th December the sacred vessels
and the treasures of St. Alban's shrine were brought into
the royal jewel-house, and formed a rich prize of no less
than 122 ounces of gold, 2990 ounces of gilt plate, and
1 1 44 ounces of parcel gilt and silver. Golden buckles, in
which were set "great agates, cameos and coarse pearles,"
three pontifical mitres, and 400 ounces of copper, formed but
part of the plunder.1
In the same way Clement Litchfield was compelled to
resign the abbey of Evesham to one who would surrender
it to the king. The royal inquisitors had reported this
abbot to be " chaste in his living and to right well overlook
the reparations of his house." He it was who built the
noble gateway which still remains a memorial of him, and,
although he had been obliged to pay £160 for his temporali
ties, with large sums as loan to the king and Wolsey, as
weli as for a whole year to keep four-and-twenty royal
lacqueys and their horses, he still managed to adorn the
choir and to add two chantries to the churches of St.
Lawrence and All Saints.2 To Latimer, the bishop of
Worcester, he was, in the vigorous language employed by
that ecclesiastic, a "bloody abbot," which probably means
that he did not agree with him in his reforming tendencies.
On the 17th of March, 1538, William Petre, the royal
commissioner, wrote to Crumwell: — "According to your
commandment I have been at Evesham and there received
the resignation of the abbot, which he was contented to
make immediately upon the sight of your lordship's letters,
saying that he desired me very instantly that I would not
open the same during ,the time of my being here, because
(as he said) it would be noted that he was compelled to
resign for fear of deprivation." 8 On the 4th of April Philip
Harford succeeded.* Latimer had assured Crumwell that he
1 Monastic Treasures (Abbotsford Club), p. 29. Among these jewels was
doubtless the " lapide preciosum qui constat ex sardonice, calcedonio et onic,"
presented to the church by king Ethelred II. Matthew Paris (Additamenta,
ed. Luard, vi. p. 387) describes how the king " coming one day to Saint
Albans, entered the chapter-house, brought with him the said stone, and kindly
and lovingly offered it to the church, praising it and pointing out its merits.
He asked," says the historian, "that the abbot and convent should lay a
sentence of, excommunication against all who should at any time take away
this his gift." (See too the facsimiles in that volume.)
2 May, History of Evesham, p. 72.
3 Wright, 177. 4 Rot. Pat., 29 Hen. VIII., m. 14.

35 2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
would find him a true friend,"^ and so on January 27, 1540,
the monastery was surrendered, the young abbot getting a
pension of £240 a year as his reward.2
Another example of the personal pressure exerted by
the king's agents to induce the religious to surrender may
be here given. The important convent of Romsey, in
Hampshire, on the eve of its dissolution maintained a com
munity of twenty-five nuns, ruled over by an abbess,
Elizabeth Ryprose. They appear to have been unwilling
to fall in with the royal views or to abandon the religious
life in order that their property might pass into Henry's
possession. Eight nuns, nearly a third of the entire com
munity, had made their rehgious profession on July 28th,
1534, only a few years before their troubles commenced.3
One of these was Catherine, youngest daughter of Sir
Nicholas Wadham, governor of the Isle of Wight, whose
sister Jane had been for some years a professed nun in the
same abbey of Romsey. At this time the convent steward
was a certain John Foster, who lived at Baddesley, near
Romsey, and rented the greater tithes of that place from the
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem.* Foster's position
would have given him accurate information as to the extent
and value of the property, and his intercourse would have
afforded him the means of bringing influence to bear upon
the nuns. It was this man who was apparently selected by
the king's agents for the delicate service of sounding the
nuns as to their disposition to satisfy Henry's desire for
their property. In the report he forwarded to Sir Thomas
Seymour,8 "of the king's Privy Chamber," he says: —
"According to your request, I herein signify and subscribe
unto you the state of the house of Romsey. . . . First you
shall understand that the house is out of debt; also the
plate and jewels are worth £300 and more; six bells are
worth £100 at least; also the church is a great sumptuous
thing, all of free stone and covered with lead, which, as I
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xlix. 42.
a R. O. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 105. There is no deed of surrender
and no enrolment on the Close Roll.
3 For this and much other valuable information I am indebted to F. J.
Baigent, Esq., of Winchester. His cordial co-operation and encouragement
in my work I desire here gratefully to acknowledge.
4 Mr. Baigent's MSS. Collections.
6 Brother of Jane Seymour, one of Henry's wives.

Progress of the General Suppression 353
esteem it, is worth £300 or £400 or rather much better." x
He then goes on to give particulars of the revenue coming
from the abbey lands, on some at least of which Seymour
had set his heart.2 He then concludes : — " And where you
wrote unto me by Mr. Fleming, that I should ascertain you
whether I thought the abbess with the rest of the nuns
would be content to surrender up their house : the truth is
I do perceive throughout the motion that your kinswomen
and other (of) your friends made for you, (that) they will be
cpntent at all times to do you any pleasure they may. But
I perceive they would be loath to trust to the commissioners'
gentleness, for they hear say that other houses have been
straightly handled."8
Attached, to this letter is a list of the nuns in the abbey.
From this it appears that Catherine Wadham, who had only
been four or five years in the convent, had mounted up to
the office of subprioress, while her sister held the next rank.
These, and another nun, Elizabeth Hill, were the kinswomen
of Sir Thomas Seymour, through whose influence John
Foster hoped to accomplish the voluntary destruction of the
convent.* Apparently his design was unsuccessful. There
is no surrender deed of the abbey ; neither are the names of
the abbess and her nuns found in the pension lists.
If there were some who showed themselves ready to
urge the monks to do all that Henry wished and surrender
their houses and goods into his hands, there were not
wanting others who exhorted them to remain staunch to
their religious vocation. Above others, Dr. Richard Hill-
1 This building was afterwards purchased of the king by the inhabitants
for some £100.
2 Tenth Report Deputy Keeper, p. 268. "Particulars for Grants."
8 Brit. Mus. Royal MS., 7, C. xvi. f. 147.
4 Sir Nicholas Wadham, the father of the two nuns of that name, married
twice. His first wife was daughter of Robert Hill, of Antony ; anfl his
second Margaret, daughter of Sir John Seymour, of Wolfhall, Wilts, and
sister to queen Jane Seymour and Sir Thomas Seymour. The high connection
of the Wadhams seems to suggest a reason for the early promotion of Catherine
to a high office in her convent. Of John Foster, of Baddesley, the writer of
the above letter, one who lived at the end of the sixteenth century records a
rhvme popular in the neighbourhood when he went to school as a boy : —
" Mr. Foster of Baddesley was a good man
Before the marriage of priests began,
For he was the first that married a nun,
For which he begat a very rude son."
—(Mr. Baigent's MSS. Collections.)

354 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
yard, the late secretary to bishop Tunstal, of Durham,
endeavoured to instil the spirit of heroic resistance into the
souls of the religious. Fortunately for himself, he escaped
from Henry's hands into Scotland, or he would certainly
have paid for his boldness with his life. As it was, he was
attainted and condemned to death in his absence.1 The
doctor, writes an informer, "says in Edinburgh that he
fled away because he had given counsel to sundry religious
houses, yet unsuppressed, not to render their houses into
the king's hands until they were violently put therefrom."
Another writer informed Sir William Eure " that the said
Hillyard saith himself that he being in company with
certain gentlemen would lament the suppression of the
house of Mountgrace and spake large words in favour of the
same house. Unto which, as the same Hillyard affirmeth,
a gentleman answered : ' that for as small offences as the
said Hillyard did commit by speaking these words at that
time he had seen men taken as traitors to the king's
majesty.' And so the same Hillyard fearing to have been
accused for the said words, did so suddenly convey himself
out of the realm." 2
The only religious mentioned by name as connected
with Hillyard was the prior of Mountgrace. He was sup
posed to have helped him to escape, and Eure gave informa
tion to Crumwell, in order that "further search, as well
touching the prior as his ' conversants and familiars,' might
be made."8 John Wilson, the prior of Mountgrace, was
examined, and confessed having talked to Dr. Hillyard
about the suppressions. He acknowledged that he did not
wish to surrender his house " if it might have stood with
the king's pleasure that he might have kept it." And
"finally, there never was any one that gave unto them con-
1 Rot. Pari., Hen. VIII., 147.
2 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Calig., B. vii. f. 249. The story of the escape of
Hillyard through the help of the prioress of Coldstream is full of interest, but
foreign to the present subject. Henry demanded that Hillyard should be
given up to him by the Scotch king as one who "had laboured to sow in
the realm much sedition." The envoy was to bring him back at once if
possible, "having special watch for the sure conveyance of him, and
specially noting in his return who shall be desirous to talk with him"
(Sadler Papers, i. p. 12). The later editions of Sander, Schism (e.g.
1590, p. 167) give a quotation from his account of the destruction of the
monasteries. 3 Ibid., f. 255.

Progress of the General Suppression 355
trary counsel but doctor Hillyard, who said it was in a
manner selling the house to surrender up their house for
money or pensions."1
Another witness, Nicholas Wilson, a "prisoner in the
Tower," being examined as to his relations with the escaped
doctor Hillyard, wrote : " First I had a conversation with
him touching the putting down of monasteries, which, as I
remember now, began by my asking him to give the prior
of Mountgrace, to the north, one of my friends, advice to
be obedient and conform himself to the king's highness in
giving up his monastery when he should be required. . . .
Upon this motion the said doctor began to doubt, touching
the suppression of monasteries, how it might be done.
Whereunto I answered him, that their deed, who were then
in the houses and had government of them, by their common
consent and seal, must needs be of value in the law. And
that all such things must be under the disposition and
government of the king's highness and his realm as should
be thought most meet for the commonwealth. Which words
of mine and such other, as far as I perceived, did not fully
then satisfy him." In this matter, continues the declaration,
" I have certainly tried to satisfy my own conscience and also
to take away other men's scruples in obeying the act of
suppression. I have told them that the king and his council
did this for the common good, although I and other mean
men did not perceive the whole considerations for it, and
that it was matter for subjects to be under lowly obedience
and think the best of their rulers in all things. And further,
that as monasteries were founded and endowed" by the
licence of princes, so they ought to be able to put them to
other uses if they thought it good for the state.2
1 Calendar, xv. No. 125.
2 Ibid., No. 747. Mountgrace fell into the king's hands on December
18, 1539. John Wilson was the prior who surrendered it (Rot. Claus., 31
Hen. VIII., Pars. iv. m. 3). He obtained a pension of £60 and the house
and chapel called "le Mounte." Sixteen priests, four novices and six lay
brethren were also pensioned (R. O. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 246, f. 13). In a
list of those executed in this reign (Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 27,402, f. 47) occurs
the name of " — Wilson, monk of the Charterhouse, Mountgrace." This
could not have been the prior, and it hardly appears likely that it could have
been his namesake, Nicholas Wilson, who, although "a prisoner in the
Tower," was not a monk of Mountgrace. Dr. Nicholas Wilson was a York
shire man, and educated at Cambridge. He refused to take the oath of
succession, and was sent to the Tower with Sir Thomas More. He finally
took the oath, however, and died June 8, 1548. Hall (838) says that he and

35 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
It has been possible in this chapter to take notice of only
some few points to illustrate the general dissolution of the
monasteries in the years 1538-1539. The methods em
ployed by the agents of the king in suppressing these
houses of religion may be best understood by the account
given of the destruction of Roche abbey by one who was a
boy living in the neighbourhood at the time. " In the pluck
ing down of these houses," he writes, " for the most part,
this order was taken : that the visitors should come suddenly
upon every house unawares ... to the end to take them
' napping,' as the proverb is, lest if they should have had so
much as an inkling of their coming, they would have made
conveyance of some portion of their own goods to help them
selves withal, when they were turned forth of their houses.
And both reason and nature might well have moved them so
to have done, although it may be said all was given to the king
before by act of parliament, and so they had neither goods
nor houses nor possessions.1 And thus they had to give
the king great thanks — yea, pray for him upon their black
beads — that was so gracious a prince to them, to suffer them
to stay so long after all was given from them. And there
fore, if the visitors, being the king's officers and commis
sioners in that behalf, took their dinner with them and then
turned them forth to seek their lodging where they could
get it (at night or ' at the furthest the next day in the
morning), as was done indeed, they did no wrong nor truly
no great right.
"For so soon as the visitors were entered within the
gates they called the abbot and other officers of the house,
and caused them to deliver all the keys and took an inven
tory of all their goods, both within doors and without. For
all such beasts, horses, sheep and such cattle as were abroad
in pasture or grange places, the visitors caused to be brought
into their presence. And when they had done so, (they)
bishop Sampson, with Richard Farmer, a London grocer, were implicated " in
relieving of certain traitorous persons which denied the king's supremacy."
Richard Hilles (Ep. Tigurina, p. 140 ; , Orig. Letters, Parker Soc, No. 105)
says : " The treason they had committed, as I hear, was sending alms to that
papist Abel, then brought down to the lowest misery through his long deten
tion in a most filthy prison, and, as the papists say, almost eaten up by worms,
vermibus fere necatus."
1 It is not, of course, accurate to say that parliament had given all houses
and goods to the king. It can hardly be expected, however, that the writer
should know the niceties of the changing law.

Progress of the General Suppression 357
turned the abbot and all his convent and household forth of
the doors.
" This thing was not a little grief to the convent and all
the servants of the house, departing one from another, and
especially such as with their conscience could not break their
profession. It would have made a heart of flint melt and
weep to have seen the breaking up of the house, the sorrow
ful departing (of the brethren), and the sudden spoil that fell
the same day of their departure from their home. And,
every one had everything good, cheap, except the poor
monks, friars and nuns who had no money to bestow on
anything. This appeared at the suppression of an abbey
hard by me, called Roche abbey x — a house of White monks,
a very fair built house, all of freestone, and every house
vaulted with freestone and covered with lead as the (abbeys
were in England, as the churches are (now)). At the break
ing up of this an uncle of mine was present, being well
acquainted with certain of the monks there. And when
they were put out of the house, one of the monks, his friend;
told him that every one of the convent had given to him his
cell in which he lived, wherein was not anything of price,
but his bed and apparel, which was but simple and of small
price. This monk wished my uncle to buy something of
him, who said, ' I see nothing which is worth money for my
use.' ' No,' said he, ' give me two shillings for my cell door,
which was never made with five shillings.' ' No,' said my
uncle, ' I know not what to do with it ' (for he was a young
man unmarried, and then neither stood in need of houses or
doors). But such persons as afterwards bought their corn
or hay or such like, finding all the doors either open or the
locks and ' shackles ' plucked down, or the door itself taken
away, went in and took what they found and filched it
away. " Some took the service books that lay in the church and
put them upon their wain ' coppes ' to piece them ; some
took windows of the hay-loft and hid them in their hay, and
likewise they did of many other things. Some pulled forth
1 The Cistercian abbey of Roche was surrendered on June 23rd, 1538, by
the abbot and seventeen monks (Eighth Rept. Dep. Keeper, App. ii. p. 39).
The deed has not been entered on the Close Roll. Henry Crundall, the abbot,
was granted a pension of 50 marks, and most of the monks £5 a year (Augt.
Off. Misc. Bk., 232, f. 59). A short inventory of the goods found on the
dissolution of this priory is given in the Monasticon, v. p. 506.

35** Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the iron hooks out of the walls that bought none, when the
yeomen or gentlemen of the county had bought the timber
of the church. The church was the first thing that was put
to spoil and then the abbot's lodging, dorter and frater, with
the cloister and all the buildings thereabout within the abbey
walls. Nothing was spared but the ox-houses and swine-
cots and such other houses of office that stood without the
walls, which had more favour shown them than the very
church itself, which was done by the advice of Crumwell, as
Fox reporteth in his book of Acts. It would have pitied
any heart to see what tearing up of the lead there was,
what plucking up of boards and throwing down of spires.
And when the lead was torn off and cast down into the
church and the tombs in the church all broken (for in most
abbeys were divers noble men and women — yea, in some
abbeys kings whose tombs were regarded no more than the
tombs of inferior persons — for to what end should they stand
when the church over them was not spared for their sakes),
all things of price either spoiled, carried away, or defaced
to the uttermost.
" The persons who cast the lead into fodders plucked
up all the seats in the choir, wherein the monks sat when
they said service, which were like to the seats in minsters,
and burned them and melted the lead therewith, although
there was wood plenty within a flight shot of them, for the
abbey stood among woods and rocks of stone. In these
rocks were found pewter vessels that were conveyed away
and there hidden, so that it seemeth that every person bent
himself to filch and spoil what he could. Yea, even such
persons were content to spoil them that seemed not two
days before to allow their religion and do great worship
and reverence at their matins, masses and other services
and all other of their doings. This is a strange thing to
consider that they who could this day think it to be the
house of God, the next (did hold it as) the house of the
devil ; or else they would not have been so ready to have
spoiled it. ... I demanded, thirty years after the sup
pression, of my father, who had bought part of the timber
of the church, and all the timber of the steeple with the
bell frame, with others partners therein — (in the steeple
hung eight — yea nine — bells, whereof the least but one
could not be bought at this day for £20, and which bells

Progress of the General Suppression 359
I myself did see hang there more than a year after the
suppression) — whether he thought well of the religious
persons and of the religion then used. And he told me
' Yea, for,' said he, ' I saw no cause to the contrary.'
' Well,' said I, ' then how came it to pass you were so
ready to destroy and spoil what you thought so well of?'
' Might I not as well as others have some profit from the
spoil of the abbey ? ' said he. ' For I saw all would away,
and therefore I did as others did.' . . .
" No doubt there have been millions and millions that
have repented the thing since, but all too late. And thus
much, upon my knowledge, touching the fall of Roche abbey,
which had stood about 300 years, for the church was dedi
cated by one Ada, bishop of Coventry (a.D. 1244). By the
fall of this it may be well known how all the rest were
used."1 It is, of course, somewhat difficult to estimate the number
of monasteries and of religious that were affected by the
final suppression. Judged by the lists of surrenders, the
grants of pensions and other sources of information, the
abbeys and priories, exclusive of convents of women and
friaries, which have already been spoken of in previous
chapters, as being swept away between the years 1538 and
1540, numbered some two hundred and two. From the
same source of information, it would appear that there were
living in these houses at the date of suppression about 3221
monks and regular canons. If to these be added 1560
the estimated number of the nuns, 1800 that of the friars,
and excluding the nuns, 1 500, religious who were turned out
of their homes under the act dissolving the lesser houses,
it will be seen that as a rough estimate there were in the
monasteries some 6521 monks, regular canons and friars,
and some 1560 nuns of various orders at the date of the
suppression. In round numbers eight thousand religious
persons were expelled from their homes at this time, be
sides probably more than ten times that number of people
1 Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 5813 (Cole xii.). It is said by Cole to be a copy
of an old MS. written about the year 1591, which he had from Thomas Porter,
of Nottinghamshire and Cambridge. Ellis, Orig. Letters, iii., Series iii.,
pp. 31-36, has printed the more interesting portions. The editor remarks
that the " extracts probably exhibit what was at that time the genuine as well
as general feeling of the English public." This document will be again referred
to in the concluding chapter.

360 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
who were their dependents or otherwise obtained a living
in their service.1
It would be easy to multiply the incidents, often so
significant and touching, which occur in the correspondence
of the time in regard to the suppression of this or that great
house, the name of which is still held in honour by English
men ; to relate how prior Goldstone of Christchurch, Canter
bury, pleaded to be left to die in his old rooms ; how the "
ruin of St. Edmundsbury broke the heart of abbot Melford ;
how abbot Malvern, of St. Peter's, Gloucester, unable to
avert the doom of his house, could never be brought, to sign
the fatal surrender. Who shall tell the sorrow that filled
the hearts of thousands and thousands of lay people, when
they saw the shrines they honoured, the houses of God
which had been to them a rest and a delight, profaned,
despoiled and brought to destruction ?
This chapter in the tale of ruin may be fitly closed in
the words of one who deeply felt its sadness and its mean
ing. What he says of the abbey of St. Peter's, Gloucester,
holds good of many another home of piety and religion
swept away by the tyrant who, if any, deserves the name
" the Ruthless." " Having existed for more than eight
centuries under different forms, in poverty and in wealth, in
meanness and in magnificence, in misfortune and in success,
it finally succumbed to the royal will; the day came, and
that a drear winter day, when its last mass was sung, its
last censer waved, its last congregation bent in rapt and
lowly adoration before the altar there, and doubtless as the
1 The number of monasteries suppressed or surrendered between 1538 and
1540 is thus obtained : —
Benedictine ... 54 houses and 1.300 monks.

Cluniac . . .
Cistercian . .
Carthusian . .
Austin Canons .
PremonstratensianGilbertine . .

8 houses and 108 monks.
40 (including attainted houses) and 596 monks.
9 houses and 134 monks.
59 houses and 773 canons.
12 houses and 159 canons.
20 houses and 151 religious.

Houses . 202 Monks and Canons 3,221
Friars according to estimate  1,800
Monks and canons in lesser monasteries . . . 1,500
Nuns according to estimate  1,560
Total . 8,081

Progress of the General Suppression 361
last tones of that day's evensong died away in the vaulted
roof, there were not wanting those who lingered in the
solemn stillness of the old massive pile, and who, as the
lights disappeared one by one, felt that for them there was
now a void which could never be filled, because their old
abbey, with its beautiful services, its frequent means ofj
grace, its hospitality to strangers and its loving care for
God's poor, had passed away like an early morning dream,
and was gone for ever." x
1 Hist.et Cart. Mon. S. Petri Gloucestrice (Chronicles and Mem.), edited
by the late W. H. Hart, iii., Introduction, xlix.

CHAPTER XVIII
The Three Benedictine Abbots
THE circumstances attending the fall of Glastonbury,
Reading and Colchester are deserving of special record.
By the autumn of 1539 Henry's designs upon the monastic
property had so far succeeded that comparatively few
houses still remained in the possession of their religious
owners. County after county was laid desolate by the
royal commissioners, and the monks and nuns turned from
their homes. Every expedient was resorted to in order
to obtain the so-called voluntary surrenders J of houses and
property into the king's hand, and few, indeed, were found
bold enough to withstand the royal methods of persuasion.
Where resistance was offered, the ready process of attainder,
with its accompanying confiscation of the common goods
of a monastic corporation, which, " against every principle
of received law,"2 was held to follow upon the treason,
supposed or real, of the superior came to effect what the
threats or promises of the royal officials had been unable
to accomplish. Some examples of the working of the
mysterious law of attainder in bringing about the desired
end have been already given. The execution of the three
mitred abbots of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester, and
the seizure of the great possessions of these abbeys by
virtue of their attainder for treason, are instances of the
working of Henry's laws which cannot be passed over.
Few spots in England were counted more sacred than
Glastonbury. To the people of pre-reformation days it
was a " Roma secunda." The scene, according to mediaeval
legend, of the burial of St. Joseph of Arimathea and the
home of the earliest followers of Christ in this land of
1 " A step of very questionable legality."— Hallam, Constitutional Hist.
(loth ed.), i. p. 72.
8 Ibid. 362

The Three Benedictine Abbots 363
Britain, Avalon or Glastonbury had become recognised as
the principal sanctuary of the island. Almost alone among
the churches of Britain it was spared by the destroying
hands of the invaders, and when St. Augustine came from
pope St. Gregory to plant the faith, it was already associated
with the names of St. Patrick and St. David. For a period
St. Paulinus is said to have been at this renowned sanctuary
before setting out for the scene of his apostolate in northern
England. Rendered more renowned in later times by the
fame and virtues of St. Dunstan, the abbey of Glastonbury
was the centre of the monastic revival which marked the
reign of Edgar the Pacific. With varying fortune but with
unbroken life the monastery continued to flourish till, at
the close of the year 1539, the venerable Richard Whiting,
the last of a long line of abbots, was hanged as a traitor
to Henry VIII., and its possessions thus passed into the
royal power.
It is, perhaps, difficult to understand fully why abbot
Whiting was singled out as an example of the royal
severity. It was "probably," writes an historian, "to
show forcibly the overpowering character of the royal will
by destroying an ecclesiastic of immense moral weight and
territorial influence. To adopt the language used ten years
before respecting his friend Wolsey, the abbot of Glaston
bury was probably considered to be the 'bell-wether' of
the mitred abbots, and when he had fallen the others would
be without hope and an easy prey." J
The position of an abbot of Glastonbury was one of
great dignity. The house was one of the largest and richest
monasteries in the kingdom, and the church in length was
exceeded in England only by that of old St. Paul's. The
abbot was a great local magnate, a peer of parliament, and
the master of vast estates. Four parks teeming with game,
domains and manors of great extent and number, bringing
to the monastery an income of more than ^3000 a year,
or ten times that amount in our money, gave him an
influence of the highest importance in the west, and even
throughout all England.
What the monastic buildings themselves were can be
well imagined. "The house is great, goodly and so princely
1 J. H." Blunt, History of the Reformation, p. 345.

364 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
as we have not seen the like," x write those sent to seize
the possessions for Henry. The library filled Leland with
amazement. It was second to none in the land, and he had
scarcely passed the threshold when the very sight bf so
many treasures of antiquity struck him with such awe that
for a moment he hesitated to enter. He spent days making
a list of the most valuable manuscripts.2
The rule of abbot Whiting over the vast establishment
at Glastonbury had to be exercised in very difficult times.
Within a few months of his election Sir Thomas Boleyn
was created by Henry viscount Rochfort, and this marked
the first step in the king's illicit affection for the new peer's
daughter, Anne, and the beginning of the troubles of Church
and State. Four years of wavering counsels on the great
matter ofthe desired divorce led in 1529 to the humiliation
and fall of the hitherto all-powerful cardinal of York.
The sequel is well known. The clergy, caught in the
cunningly-contrived snare of premunire, were at the king's
mercy. With his hands upon their throats Henry de
manded, what in the quarrel with Rome was at the time
a retaliation upon the pope for his refusal to accede to the
royal wishes, the acknowledgment of the king as supreme
head of the Church in England. Few among the English
churchmen were found bold enough to resist this direct
demand, or who even, perhaps, recognised how they were
rejecting papal supremacy in matters spiritual. As a rule,
the required oath of royal supremacy was apparently taken
wherever it was tendered, and the abbots and monks of
Colchester, of Glastonbury, and probably also of Reading,
were no exception, and on September 19, 1534, abbot
Whiting and his community attached their names to the
required declaration.
It is easy, after this lapse of time, and in the light of
subsequent events, to be loud in reprobation of such com-
1 Slate Papers, i. p. 620.
2 Cf. Walcott's Engl. Minsters, ii. 129. The antiquary spoke of abbot
Whiting as "homo sane candidissimus et. amicus meus singularis," "and
though," says Warner (Hist, of Glastonbury, p. 219) "the too cautious
antiquary in after times passed his pen through this language of praise and
kindness, lest it should be offensive to his contemporaries, yet happily for
the abbot's fame the tribute is still legible and will remain for ages a
sufficient evidence of the sacrifice of a guileless victim to the tyranny of a
second Ahab." j

The Three Benedictine Abbots 365
pliance ; to wonder how throughout England bishop Fisher,
Sir Thomas More, and the Observants, almost alone, should
have been found from the beginning neither to hesitate nor
waver. It is easy to make light of the shrinking of flesh
and blood, easy to extol the palm of martyrdom. But
neither is it difficult to see how to abbot Whiting, no less
than to blessed John Houghton and his other holy com
panions of the Charter House, reasons suggested themselves
for temporising. To most men at that date the possibility
of the final separation of England from Rome must have
seemed incredible. They remembered Henry in his earlier
days, when he was never so immersed in business or in
pleasure that he did not hear his daily mass ; they did not
know him as Wolsey and Crumwell, or as More and Fisher
knew him ; the project must have seemed but a momentary
aberration, under the influence of evil passions or of evil
counsellors. The king had at bottom a zeal for the faith,
and would return by-and-by to a better mind, a truer self,
and would then come to terms with the pope. Meantime
the oath was susceptible of lenient interpretation. The idea
of the headship was not absolutely new : it had in a measure
been conceded some years before, without, so far as appears,
exciting remonstrance from Rome. Beyond this, to many
the oath of royal supremacy of the Church of England
was never understood as derogatory to the see of Rome;
while even those who had taken this oath were in many
instances surprised that it should be construed into any such
hostility.1 1 Calendar, viii. Nos. 277, 387, &c, are instances of the temper of mind
described above. No. 387 especially is very significant as showing the gloss
men put on their supremacy oath, distinguishing tacitly between Church of
England and Catholic Church, and "in temporalibus " and "in spiritualibus."
It is usually stated that, however unwillingly, Convocation of 1531, in acknow
ledging the king as Supreme Head, allowed him "absolute spiritual jurisdic
tion and legislative power." A comparison of what Henry demanded from the
clergy, and what after a long deliberation in two-and-thirty sessions Convoca
tion granted, makes it absolutely clear that any direct acknowledgment of
"spiritual jurisdiction" was avoided by the final vote of the Convocation.
Warham in his protest (Wilkins, Concilia, iii. p. 746) makes the attitude of the
clergy certain, as he maintains that the title Supremum Caput had reference to
temporal matters only, and must not be twisted in " derogation of the Roman
Pontiff or the Apostolic See." Moreover, the very last act of Warham's life
was to draft an elaborate exposition to be delivered in the House of Lords of
the impossibility of the king having spiritual jurisdiction, from the very con
stitution of the Church of Christ. The supreme spiritual jurisdiction, he

366 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
However strained this temper of mind may appear to us
at this time, it undoubtedly existed. One example may be
here cited. Among the State Papers in the Record Office
for the year 1539 is a long harangue on the execution of the
three Benedictine abbots in which the writer refers to such
a view : —
"I cannot think the contrary [he writes], but the old
bishop of London [Stokesley], when he was on live, used
the pretty medicine that his fellow, friar Forest, was wont
to use, and to work with an inward man and an outward
man ; that is to say, to speak one thing with their mouth
and then another thing with their heart. Surely a very
pretty medicine for popish hearts. But it worked madly for
some of their parts. Gentle Hugh Cook by his own confes
sion used not the self-same medicine that friar Forest used,
but another much like unto it, which was this : what time
as the spiritualty were sworn to take the king's grace for
the supreme head, immediately next under God of this
Church of England, Hugh Cook receiving the same oath
added prettily in his own conscience these words following :
' of the temporal church,' saith he, ' but not of the spiritual
church.1 ' "
Nor from another point of view is this want of apprecia
tion as to the true foundation of the papal primacy a subject
for unmixed astonishment. During the last half-century
the popes had reigned in a court of unexampled splendour,
but a splendour essentially mundane. It was a dazzling
sight, but all this outward show made it difficult to recognize
the divinely ordered spiritual prerogatives which are the
enduring heritage of the successors of St. Peter. The
dignified titles expressing those prerogatives might pass
unquestioned in the schools and in common speech in the
world, but from this there is a wide step to the apprehension
of the living truths they express, and a yet further step to
that intense personal realization which makes those truths
dearer to a man than life.2
argues, must of necessity rest with the Pope (see Mrs. Hope's First Divorce of
Henry VIII., Introduction, pp. viii-xiv. (where this point is treated fully). Even
the later renunciations of the Pope's "usurped jurisdiction" were certainly
understood by many to have reference to questions of temporals only.
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 613.
2 The words of Cardinal Manning on this point may be here quoted : —
" It must not be forgotten that at this time the minds of men had been so

The Three Benedictine Abbots 367
To some that' realization came sooner, to some later ;
some men there are who seize at once the point at issue
and its full import. They are ready with their answer
without seeking or faltering. Others answer to the call at
the third, maybe the eleventh hour ; the cause is the same,
and so is the reward, though to the late comer the respite
may perhaps have been only a prolongation of the agony.
The royal visitation of Glastonbury was conducted by
Layton. He came to the abbey on Saturday, August 2 ist,
1535 ; and from St. Augustine's, Bristol, whither he departed
on the following Monday, he wrote to Crumwell a letter
showing that even he, chief among a crew who " could ask
unmoved such questions as no other human being could
have imagined or known how to put, who could extract
guilt from a stammer, a tremble or a blush, or even from
indignant silence as surely as from open confession"1 —
even Layton retired baffled from Glastonbury under the
venerable abbot Whiting's rule, though he covered his
defeat with impudence unabashed. "At Bruton and Glaston
bury," he explains, "there is nothing notable, the brethren
be so straight kept that they cannot offend : but fain they
would if they might, as they confess, and so the fault is not
with them."2
distracted by the great western schism, by the frequent subtraction of obedi
ence, by the doubtful election of popes, and the simultaneous existence of two
or even three claimants to the holy see, that the supreme pontifical authority
had become a matter of academical discussion hinc inde. Nothing but such
preludes could have instigated even Gerson to write on the thesis de Auferi-
bilitate Papa. This throws much light on the singular fact attested by Sir
Thomas More in speaking to the jury and the judge by whom he was con
demned, when the verdict of death was brought in against him : ' I have, by
the grace of God, been always a Catholic, never out of communion with the
Roman Pontiff; but I have heard it said at times that the authority of the
Roman Pontiff was certainly lawful and to be respected, but still an authority
derived from human law, and not standing upon a divine prescription. Then,
when I observed that public affairs were so ordered that the sources of the
power of the Roman Pontiff would necessarily be examined, I gave myself up
to a most diligent examination of that question for the space of seven years,
and found that the authority of the Roman Pontiff, which you rashly — I will
not use stronger language — have set aside, is not only lawful, to be respected,
and necessary, but also grounded on the divine law and prescription. That is
my opinion ; that is the belief in which, by the grace of God, I shall die.' " —
Dublin Rev., Jan. 1888, p. 245.
1 Dixon, History, i. p. 357.
2 Wright, p. 59. Godwin, the Protestant bishop of Hereford, says that
the monks, "following the example of the ancient fathers, lived apart from
the world religiously and in peace, eschewing worldly employments, and

368 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
At this period it would seem that Richard Layton even
spoke to the king in praise of abbot Whiting. For this
error of judgment, when some time later Crumwell had
assured himself of the abbot's temper, he was forced to sue
for pardon from both king and minister. " I must therefore,"
he writes, " now in this my necessity most humbly beseech—^
your lordship to pardon me for that my folly then committed,
as ye have done many times before, and of your goodness
to instigate the king's highness majesty in the premises." x
The letters of abbot Whiting which still exist, for the
most part, answers to applications for benefices or offices in
his gift, are marked by a courteous readiness to comply in
everything up to the limits of the possible. It is evident,
moreover, that he had an intimate concern in all the details
of the complex administration of a monastery of such extent
and importance, no less than a determining personal influence
on the religious character of his community ; and that public
calls were never allowed to come between him and the
primary and immediate duties of the abbot. He is most at
home in his own country, among his Somersetshire neigh
bours, and in the " straight " charge of his spiritual children.
Confident too in the affection with which he was regarded
by the population, he had no scruples, whatever may have
been his mind in subscribing to the Supremacy declaration
of 1534, in securing for his monks and his townsfolk in his
own abbey church the preaching ofa doctrine wholly opposed
to the royal theories and wishes on the subject. Thus on
a Sunday in the middle of February, 1536, a friar called
John Brynstan, preaching in the abbatial church at Glaston
bury to the people of the neighbourhood, did not hesitate to
declare that " he would be one of them that should convert
the new fangles and new men, otherwise he would die in
the quarrel." 2
Knowing doubtless what would be the nature of its
wholly given to study and contemplation;" and Sander, writing when the
memory of the life led at Glastonbury was still fresh in men's minds, says
that the religious were noted for their maintenance of common life, choral
observance and enclosure.
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 185.
2 Calendar, x. No. 318. That the royal supremacy was unpopular does
not admit of doubt. Even in 1540 Mr. Gairdner says "it was evidently a
trying question for the conscience — a thing opposed by many in principle and
disliked by others in its operation, even when the principle was conceded."
(Calendar, xv., preface, p. xiv.)

The Three Benedictine Abbots 369
business, abbot Whiting, excusing himself on the plea of
age and ill-health, did not attend the parliament of 1539,
which so far as it could do, sealed the fate of the monasteries
as yet unsuppressed. He awaited the end on his own
ground and in the midst of his own people. He was still as
solicitous about the smallest details of his care as if the
glorious abbey were to last in cevum. Thus an interesting
account of abbot Whiting at Glastonbury is given in an
examination about a debt, held some years after the abbot's
execution. John Watts, "late monk and chaplain to the
abbot," said that John Lyte, the supposed debtor, had paid
the money "in manner and form following. That is to
say, he paid £\o of the said £40 to the said abbot in the
little parlour upon the right hand within the great hall, the
Friday after New Year's Day before the said abbot was
attainted. The said payment was made in gold " in presence
of the witness and only one other : " for it was immediately
after the said abbot had dined, so that the abbot's gentle
men and other servants were in the hall at dinner." . . .
Also, " upon St. Peter's day at midsummer, being a Sunday,
in the garden of the said abbot at Glastonbury, whilst high
mass was singing," the debtor "made payment" of the rest.
" And at that time the abbot asked of the said master Lyte
whether he would set up the said abbot's arms in his new
buildings that he had made. And the said, master Lyte
answered the said abbot that he would ; and so at that time
the said abbot gave unto the said Mr. Lyte eight angels
nobles. . . .
"And at the payment of the £^30 there was in the
garden at that time the lord Stourton. ... I suppose,"
continues the witness, " that the said lord Stourton saw not
the payment made to the abbot, for the abbot got him into
an arbour of bay in the said garden and there received his
money. And very glad he was at that time that it was paid
in gold for the short telling, as also he would not, by his
will, have it seen at that time."1 Thus too almost the last
glimpse afforded of the last abbot of Glastonbury in his
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., xxii., Nos. 13-18. In view of the
circumstance of the time, it seems likely that the witness was anxious to ward
off any possibility of lord Stourton being mixed up in the affair. This anxiety
to save friends from embarrassing examinations is a very common feature in
documents of this date.
2 A

37° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
time-honoured home shows him in friendly converse with
his near neighbour, lord Stourton, the head of an ancient
race which popular tradition had justly linked for centuries
with the Benedictine order, and which even in the darkest
days of modern English Catholicity proved itself a firm and
hereditary friend.1
To understand the closing acts of the venerable abbot's
life it is necessary to premise a few words on suppression
in its legal aspect. Many writers have assumed that the
monasteries were really dissolved by parliament, and that
accordingly an unwillingness to surrender, however morally
justifiable as a refusal to betray a trust, and even heroic
when resistance entailed the last penalty, was an act in
defiance of the law of the land. And in this particular case
of Glastonbury, it has been suggested that in insisting on
its surrender the king was only requiring that to be given
up into his hands which parliament had already conferred
on him. However common the impression, it is not accurate.
What the act (27 Hen. VIII., cap. 28) of February, 1536,
did, was to give to the king and his heirs only such monas
teries as wefe under the yearly value of ^200, or such as
should within a "year next after the making of" the act
"be given or granted to his majesty by any abbot," &c.
So far, therefore, from giving to the king the goods of all
the monasteries, the act distinctly recognises, at least in the
case of all save the lesser ones, the rights of their present
owners, and contemplates their passing to the king's hands
only by the voluntary cession of the actual possessors. How
these surrenders were to be brought about was left to the
king and Crumwell, and the minions on whose devices there
is no further need to dwell. Before a recalcitrant superior,
who would yield neither to blandishment bribery nor threats,
the king, so far as the act would help him, was powerless.
For this case, however, provision was made, though but
indirectly, in the act of April, 1539 (31 Hen. VIII., cap. 13).
This measure, which included a retrospective clause covering
the illegal suppression of the greater monasteries, grants to
him all monasteries, &c, &c, which shall hereafter happen
to be dissolved, suppressed, renounced, relinquished, for-
1 For the first may be seen Hoare's Modern Wiltshire. The evidence
of the second is written in the domestic annals of my own house of St.
Gregory's.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 371
feited, given up or come into the king's highness. These
terms seem wide enough, but there is an ominous parenthesis
referring to such others as "shall happen to come to the
king's highness by attainder or attainders of treason." The
clause did not find its way into the act unawares. We
shall see it was Crumwell's care how and in whose case it
was to become operative. And with just so much of counte
nance as is thus given by parliament with the monasteries
of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester, from which no
surrender could be obtained, " were, against every principle
of received law, held to fall by the attainder of their abbots
for high treason." 2
The very existence of the clause is, moreover, evidence
that by this time Crumwell knew that among the superiors
of the few monasteries yet standing there were men with
whom, if the king was not to be baulked of his intent, the
last conclusions would have to be tried. To him the neces
sity would have been paramount, by every means in his
power, to sweep away what he rightly regarded as the
strongholds of the papal power in the country, and to get
rid of these "spies of the pope."2 Such unnatural enemies
of their prince and gracious lord would fittingly be singled
out first, that their fate might serve as a warning to other
intending evil-doers. Perhaps, too, Whiting's repute for
blamelessness of life, the discipline which he was known to
maintain in his monastery and his great territorial influence
may all have gone to point him out as an eminently proper
subject to proceed against, as showing that where the crime
of resistance to the king's will was concerned there could be
no such thing as an extenuating circumstance, no considera
tion which could mitigate the penalty.
In the story of what follows we are continually hampered
by the singularly defective nature of the various records
relating to the closing years of Crumwell's administration.
This holds good in particular with regard to the three
Benedictine abbots who suffered in 1539. We are, there
fore, frequently left to supply links by conjectures, but con
jectures in which, from the broad facts of the case, and such
documentary evidence as remains, there is sufficient assur
ance of being in the main correct.
1 Hallam, Constit. Hist., i. 72. • R. O. Crum. Corr., xv. No. 7.

37 2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
It was in the autumn that final steps began to be taken
in regard to the monastery of Glastonbury and its venerable
abbot. Among Crumwell's "remembrances" of things to
do, or to speak to the king about, still extant in his own
handwriting, occurs the following about the beginning of
September this year: "Item. For proceeding against the
abbots of Reading, Glaston and the other in their countries."1
From this it is clear that some time between the passing of
the act in April, and September, these abbots must have
been sounded, and it had been found that compliance was
not to be expected.2 By the sixteenth of this latter month
Crumwell's design had been communicated to his familiar
Layton, and had elicited from him a reply in which he
abjectly asks pardon for having praised the abbot at the
time of the visitation. "The abbot of Glastonbury," he
adds, " appeareth neither then nor now to have known God,
nor his prince nor any part of a good Christian man's
religion." 8 Three days later, on Friday, September 19, the
royal commissioners, Layton, Pollard and Moyle, suddenly
arrived at Glastonbury about ten o'clock in the morning.
The abbot had not been warned of their intended visit, and
was then at his grange of Sharpham, about a mile from the
monastery. Thither they hurried "without delay," and
after telling him their purpose, at once examined him " upon
certain articles, and for that his answer was not then to our
purpose, we advised him to call to his remembrance that
which he had forgotten, and so declare the truth."* They
at once took him back to the abbey, and when night came
1 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus, B. i. f. 446a.
2 At this time Glastonbury, in common with other churches in England,
was relieved of what it pleased the king to consider "superfluous plate."
Pollard, Tregonwell and Petre on May 2nd, 1539, handed to Sir John Williams,
the keeper of the royal treasure-house, 493 ounces of gold, 16,000 ounces of
gilt plate, and 28,700 ounces of parcel gilt and silver plate taken from the
monasteries in the west of England. In this amount was included the super
fluous plate of Glastonbury. Besides this weight of gold and silver there was
placed in the treasury "two collets of gold wherein standeth two coarse
emeralds ; a cross of silver gilt, garnished with a great coarse emerald two
' balaces ' and two sapphires lacking a knob at one of the ends of the same
cross ; a superaltar garnished with silver gilt and part gold called the great
sapphire of Glastonbury ; a great piece of unicorn's horn, a piece of mother of
pearl like a shell, eight branches of coral " (Monastic Treasures, Abbotsford
Club, p. 24).
3 The whole of this account is from the letter of the commissioners to
Crumwell, in Wright, p. 255.
4 Wright, p. 255.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 373
on proceeded to search his papers, and ransack his apart
ments "for letters and books, and found in his study,
secretly laid, as well a written book of arguments against
the divorce of the king's majesty and the lady dowager,
which we take to be a great matter, as also divers pardons,
copies of bulls, and the counterfeit life of Thomas Becket in
print; but we could not find any letter that was material."
Furnished with these pieces of evidence as to the
tendency of Whiting's opinions, the inquisitors proceeded
further to examine him concerning the "articles we received
from your lordship " (Crumwell). In his answers appeared,
as they considered, "his cankered and traitorous mind
against the king's majesty and his succession." To these
replies he signed his name, " and so with as fair words as "
they could, " being but a very weak man and sickly," they
forthwith sent him up to London to the Tower, that Crum
well might examine him again.
A week later, on September 28,1 they again write to
Crumwell that they " have daily found and tried out both
money and plate," hidden in secret places in the abbey, and
conveyed for safety to the country. They could not tell
him how much they had so far discovered, but it was
sufficient, they thought, to have " begun a new abbey," and
they conclude by asking what the king will have done in
respect to the two monks who were the treasurers of the
church, and the two lay clerks of the sacristy, who were
chiefly to be held responsible for the hidden plate.
Again on the 2nd of October the inquisitors write to
their master to say that they have come to the knowledge
of "divers and sundry treasons" committed by abbot
Whiting, "the certainty whereof shall appear unto your
lordship in a book herein enclosed, with the accusers'
names put to the same, which we think to be very high
and rank treasons." The original letter, preserved in the
Record Office, clearly shows by the creases in the soiled
yellow paper that some small book or folded papers have
been enclosed. Whatever it was, it is no longer forthcom
ing, and, as far as can be ascertained, is lost or destroyed.
Just at the critical moment we are deprived, therefore, of
the most interesting source of information. In view, how-
1 Wright, p. 257.

374 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
ever, of the common sufferings of these abbots, who were
dealt with together, their common cause, the common fate
which befell them, and the common reason assigned by
contemporary writers for their death — viz., their attainder
" of high treason for denying the king to be supreme head
of the Church," as Hall, the contemporary London lawyer,
phrases it, there can be little doubt that these depositions
were much of the same nature as those made against Thomas
Marshall, abbot of Colchester, to which subsequent reference
will be made. It is quite certain that with abbot Whiting
in the Tower and with Crumwell's commissioners engaged
in "dispatching" the monks "with as much celerity" as
possible, Glastonbury was already regarded as part of the
royal possessions. Even before any condemnation whatso
ever the matter is taken as settled, and on October 24th,
1539, Pollard handed over to the royal treasurer the riches
still left at the abbey as among the possessions of " attainted
persons and places." x
Whilst Layton and his fellows were rummaging at
Glastonbury, abbot Whiting was safely lodged in the Tower
of London. There he was subjected to searching examina
tions. A note in Crumwell's own hand, entered in his
" remembrances," says : " Item. Certain persons to be sent
to the Tower for the further examination of the abbot of
Glaston." 2
It is more than strange that the ordinary procedure was
in this case never carried out. According to all law,
Whiting and the abbots of Reading and Colchester should
have been arraigned for treason before parliament, as they
were members of the House of Peers, but no such " bill of
attainder " was ever presented, and in fact the execution had
taken place before the parliament came together.8
1 Monastic Treasures, (Abbotsford Club), p. 38. These consisted of 71
ozs. of gold with stones, 7214 ozs. of gilt plate, and 6387 ozs. of silver.
2 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus, B. i. f. 441 a.
3 According to Wriothesley's Chronicle, they were arraigned in the
"Counter." "Also in this month [November] the abbates of Glastonburie,
Reding and Colchester were arrayned in the Counter." Mr. Gairdner
(Calendar, xiv. (ii), preface, p. xxxii) says : — The "account or 'book' of his
treasons unfortunately seems to be lost, and the nature of the charges on
which Abbot Whiting was condemned can only be a matter of speculation.
The book found in his study against the king's divorce and the printed life of
Becket had been, of course, the justification of his committal to the Tower. But
at first it was supposed that he was to be tried in Parliament, which had been

The Three Benedictine Abbots 375
The truth is, that Whiting and the other abbots were
condemned to death as the result of the secret inquisitions
in the Tower. Crumwell, acting as "prosecutor, judge and
jury,"1 had arranged for their execution before they left their
prison. What happened in the case of Whiting at Wells,
and of Cook at Reading, was a ghastly mockery of justice,
enacted merely to cover the illegal and iniquitous proceed
ings which had practically condemned them untried. This
Crumwell has written down with his own hand. He notes
in his "remembrances:" —
" Item. Councillors to give evidence against the abbot of
Glaston, Richard Pollard, Lewis Forstell and Thomas Moyle.
Item. To see that the evidence be well sorted and the indict
ments well drawn against the said abbots and their accom
plices. Item. How the king's learned counsel shall be with
me all this day,2 for the full conclusion of the indictments."
prorogued in June to 3rd November. It was known, however, to the French
ambassador, on the 25th October, that there would be a further prorogation
till after the arrival of Anne of Cleves — in fact, till the 14th January — and the
trial of the abbot, as he very naturally presumed, would not take place till then.
The King and Cromwell, however, had more summary proceedings in view."
1 Froude, Hist., iii. p. 432.
2 In curious agreement with the care of Crumwell in devoting the whole of
one of his precious days to the final settlement of the indictment against the
abbots, is the solicitude of his panegyrist Burnet (from whom, be it said, in fact
though unwittingly, even Catholics have derived their ideas of so many men
and events of the Reformation period) to " discover the impudence of Sanders "
in his relation in the matter of the abbots' suffering for denying the king's
supremacy, and to prove that they did not. It would take up too much space
here to expose the mingled " impudence " and fraud of his own account of the
matter. It may suffice to quote Collier on this point : " What the particulars
were (of the abbots' attainder) our learned Church historian (Bumet) confesses
' he can't tell ; for the record of their attainders is lost.' But, as he goes on,
' some of our own writers (Hall, Grafton) deserve a severe censure, who write
it was for denying, &c, the king's supremacy. Whereas if they had not under
taken to write the history without any information at all, they must have seen
that the whole clergy, and especially the abbots, had over and over again ac
knowledged the king's supremacy.' But how does it appear our historians are
mistaken ? Has this gentleman seen the abbot of Colchester's indictment or
perused his record of attainder ? He confesses no. How then is his censure
made good? He offers no argument beyond conjecture. He concludes the
abbot of Colchester had formerly acknowledged the king's supremacy, and
from thence infers he could not suffer now for denying it. But do not people's
opinions alter sometimes, and conscience and courage improve? Did not
bishop Fisher and cardinal Pool, at least as this author represents them, ac
knowledge the king's supremacy at first ? and yet 'tis certain they afterwards
showed themselves of another mind to a very remarkable degree. . . . Farther,
does not himself tell us that many of the Carthusians were executed for their
open denying the king's supremacy [which it may be added they had pre
viously admitted], and why then might not some of the abbots have the same

376 Henry VIII. and the English Monasters
And then, to sum up all : —
" Item. The abbot of Glaston to be tried at Glaston, and
also executed there." x
But amidst these cares Crumwell never forgot the king's
business, the "great matter," the end which this iniquity was
to compass. With the prize now fairly within his grasp, he
notes : —
"The plate of Glastonbury, 11,000 ounces and over,
besides golden. The furniture of the house of Glaston. In
ready money from Glaston, ;£noo and over. The rich
copes from Glaston. The whole year's revenue of Glaston.
The debts of Glaston, £2000 and above." 2
The circumstances of Whiting's last journey homeward
must now be told. In face of documentary evidence of
unquestionable authenticity it is impossible to credit many
of the oft-repeated statements in the second and subsequent
editions of Sander's Schism? They seem to be of a tradi
tionary character, to embody the gossip of the country
side current half a century later; in some points running
near enough to the truth, in others partaking of legend ; such
as the sensational scene, wanting alike in sense and proba
bility, in the hall of the palace on the abbot's arrival at
Wells; the assembly prepared to receive him, his pro
ceeding to take the place of honour among the first, the
unexpected summons to stand down and answer to the charge
of treason, the old man's wondering inquiry what this meant,
the whispered assurance that it was all a matter of form to
belief and fortitude with others of their fraternity?" — Eccl. Hist., ii. 173.
Hence, counter to Burnet's method of making abbot Whiting suffer for
"burglary" and imaginary treasonable connection with the Pilgrimage of
Grace, Collier asserts " neither bribery nor terror nor any other dishonourable
motives could prevail " with the abbots of Colchester, Reading and Glaston
bury. " To reach them, therefore, another way, the oath of supremacy was
offered them, and upon their refusal they were condemned for high treason "
(p. 164). A letter written to BuUinger early in 1540 says : " The two abbots of
Glastonbury and Reading have been condemned for treason and quartered,
and each of them is now rotting on a gibbet near his abbey gate " (Orig. Letters,
Parker Soc, 627). A second letter from Oxford at this same time (Ibid., 614)
says the three abbots were executed because they " had secreted property and
conspired to restore popery."
1 Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus B. i. f. 441. 2 Ibid., f. 446 a.
8 The original edition of Sander simply says that the three abbots and the
two priests, Rugg and Onion, " ob negatam Henrici pontificiam potestatem
martyrii coronam adepti sunt." In the second and later editions this is cut
out, another reason is assigned for their death, and an obviously legendary
narrative about Whiting is inserted in the text.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 377
strike terror — into whom or wherefore the story does not
tell. If it is hard to believe that Henry and Crumwell could
amuse themselves by ordering the enactment of such a farce,
it is more difficult still to conceive of Whiting as the un
suspecting victim of it. As we have seen under Crumwell's
hand, his fate was already settled before he left the Tower.
In the interrogatories, preliminary but decisive, he had there
undergone, the abbot had come face to face with the bare
duty imposed on him by conscience at last. He must him
self have known to what end the way through the Tower
had, from the time of More and Fisher to his own hour, led
those who had no other satisfaction to give the king than
that which he could offer. It is not impossible, however,
that hopes may have been held out to him that in his extreme
old age and weakness of body he might be spared extremities ;
this supposition seems to be countenanced by the account
given below. Is the suggestion too horrible that Henry may
have remembered Wolsey's x end, and have reflected that the
death of the abbot in similar circumstances, before the last
penalty was paid to his law, would render useless the pains
taken to make a terrible example ?
Some two months after the venerable abbot had been
conveyed to London, he was brought back on his homeward
journey. He reached Wells on November 14, where there
awaited him (Russell is warranty for the fact) " as worshipful
a jury as was charged here these many years. And there
was never seen in these parts so great an appearance as
were here at this present time, and never better willing to
serve the king."2 Besides the care taken over the indict
ments, every caution had been evidently adopted to make
all secure on the spot. The duty of the jury at Wells was
marked out in their charge; they might refuse to take the
part assigned to them at their peril. No words are wasted
over the sentence. Russell, in his report to Crumwell, does
not so much as even mention it : " The abbot of Glastonbury
was arraigned, and the next day put to execution, with
1 Wolsey died in the end of fright. Dr. Brewer writes : " His despondency
and waning health anticipated the sword of the executioner, and disappointed
the malice of his enemies" (Introd. Cal. Letters and Papers, vol. iv. p. 613).
2 Russell to Crumwell, Wright, p. 260. The similarity of the language
here used by Russell and that of Norfolk about the northern jury should be
noted.

37 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
two other of his monks, for the robbing of Glastonbury
church."1 On this "next day" (November 15, 15 39) the aged abbot
was taken in his horse-litter to Glastonbury.2 In his case
there was no mercy, no pity. The venerable man, who in
a long life had passed through obedience and through
honours alike blameless, now bowed under the weight of
eighty years, was tied on a hurdle like a common felon and
dragged to the top of Tor hill, where, with John Thorn and
Roger James, two of his monks, he was handed over to the
executioner. Even here he was not allowed to die in peace. With the
ghastly apparatus around — the gallows, the boiling cauldron,
the butcher's knife — Pollard pestered him yet once more
with " divers articles and interrogatories ; " but " he could
accuse no man but himself of any offence against the king's
highness, nor he would confess no more gold nor silver, nor
any other thing more than he did before your lordship in
the Tower." Then " he asked God mercy and the king for
his great offences towards his highness. And thereupon
took his death very patiently and his head and body (are)
bestowed in like manner as I certified your lordship in my
last letter."8
" One quarter standeth at Wells," writes Russell on the
following day, November 16, 1539, "another at Bath, and
at Ilchester and Bridgewater the rest ; and his head upon
the abbey gate at Glaston " — an example, as a scribbler in
Henry's service has put it, "of the rewards and ends of
traitors, whereby subjects and servants might learn to know
their faithful obedience unto their most dread sovereign lord
the king's highness." *
The history of the fall of Reading abbey and the execu-
1 Hearne, the antiquary, stated of Whiting that " to reach him the oath
was offered to him at Wells," and that refusing it, he had the "courage to
maintain his conscience and run the last extremity" (Hist, of Glast., p. 50).
These are the words of Collier, ii. p. 164. The ' ' offering " the oath at Wells
is probably a misunderstanding on the part of Hearne.
2 The editor of Sander, consistent throughout, writes : " Glasconiam di-
missus est, nihil minus tamen cogitans quam tam celerem sibi vitae exitum."
A priest approaches to hear his confession ; he prays to be spared for a day
or two to prepare for death, and to be allowed to say good-bye to his monks ;
he sheds tears, &c. The authentic report of Pollard is here followed in pre
ference to his narrative.
3 Wright, p. 261. 4 Ibid., p. 260.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 379
tion of Hugh Cook or Faringdon, the abbot, is in its main
features but a repetition of the story of Glastonbury and
abbot Whiting. If we may credit the account of his origin
given by a contemporary, abbot Cook appears to have been
born in humble circumstances. He thus apostrophises the
abbot after his fall : " Ah Hugh Cook, Hugh Cook ! nay
Hugh Scullion rather I may him call that would be so un
thankful to so merciful a prince, so unkind to so loving a
king and so traitorous to so true an emperor. The king's
highness of his charity took Hugh Cook out of his cankerous
cloister and made him, being at that time the most vilest,
the most untowardest and the most miserablest monk that
was in the monastery of Reading, born to nought else but
to an old pair of beggarly boots, and made him, I say ruler
and governor of three thousand marks by the year." x But
the testimony of the writer on a point of fact such as this
cannot be rated high.
It is probable that abbot Cook belonged to that class
from which the English monastic houses were so largely
recruited, " the devouter and younger children of our nobility
and gentry, who here had their education and livelihood." 2
His election to the office of abbot took place in 1520, and
although Grafton and Hall in their chronicles, and some
other writers of the Reformation, give him the character of
an illiterate person, " the contrary will appear to such as
will consult his Epistles to the University of Oxford remain
ing in the register of that university, or shall have an oppor
tunity of perusing a book entitled The art or craft of
Rhetorick, written by Leonard Cox, schoolmaster of Reading.
'Twas printed in the year 1524, and is dedicated by the
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 613. This long harangue seems to have been
prepared for delivery or publication soon after the execution of the three
abbots. Its purport is first to justify their condemnation on the ground that
by their loyalty to the Holy See they had been guilty of treason, and secondly
to bring them and their fellow-sufferers by all means into contempt. As it is
the chief document about the abbots, and in particular about the abbot of
Reading, which is known to exist, considerable use is here made of it. It is
clearly the composition of some tool of Crumwell, probably of some anti-
papal preacher.
2 Bodleian MS. Wood, B. vi. Woodhope's "Book of Obits." It has
been considered doubtful whether the name of the last abbot of Reading was
Cook or Faringdon. He is sometimes called by one, sometimes by the other
name. In the entry of his conviction for treason upon the Controlment Roll,
usually very exact, he is called only by the name of " Cooke."

380 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
author to this abbot. ... He speaks very worthily and
honourably of Faringdon on account of his learning."1
According to the writer of the contemporary document
before quoted, abbot Cook " could not abide " the preachers
of the new-fangled doctrines then in vogue, and "called
them heretics and knaves of the new learning." He was
also "ever a great student and setter forth of St. Benet's,
St. Francis', St. Dominic's and St. Augustine's rules, and
said they were rules right holy and of great perfeetness."
In fact, "these doughty deacons," as the writer calls the
abbots and their companions, " thought it both heresy and
treason to God to leave matins unsaid, to speak loud in the
cloisters and to eat eggs on the Friday."2
On the question of the royal supremacy abbot Cook was
equally clear. "He thought to shoot at the king's supremacy,"
as the contemporary witness has put it, and he was appar
ently charged with saying " that he would pray for the pope's
holiness as long as he lived and would once a week say
mass for him, trusting that by such good prayers the pope
should rise again and have the king's highness with all the
whole realm in subjection as he hath had in time past. And
upon a bon voyage would call him pope as long as he lived." 3
It would appear, however, probable that abbot Cook did
not refuse to take the oath of royal supremacy,* although
1 Browne Willis, Mitred Abbeys, i. 161. For Leonard Cox consult Diet.
of National Biography, xii. 136. Among the abbots, priests, monks and nuns
whose names appear on the roll of the Palmers' Guild of Ludlow is that of
" Hugh Farington, monk, now abbot of Reading." — Shrewsbury Archaological
Soc, vii. p. 97. 2 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 613.
3 Ibid. After a page of abuse, the writer continues : " I cannot tell how
this prayer will be allowed among St. Benet's rules, but this I am certain and
sure of, that it standeth flatly against our Master, Christ's, rule. . . . What
other thing should the abbat pray for here (as methinketh), but even first and
foremost for the high dishonouring of Almighty God, for the confusion of our
most dread sovereign lord, king Henry VIII., with his royal successors, and
also for the utter destruction of this most noble realm of England. Well, I
say no more, but I pray God heartily that the mass be not abused in the like
sort of a great many more in England which bear as fair faces under their
black cowls and bald crowns as ever did the abbat of Reading, or any of the
other traitors. I wiss neither the abbat of Reading, the abbat of Glassenbury,
nor the prior [sic] of Colchester, Dr. Holyman, nor Roger London, John
Rugg, nor Bachelor Giles, blind Moore, nor Master Manchester, the warden
of the friars ; no, nor yet John Oynyon, the abbat's chief councillor, was able
to prove with all their sophistical arguments that the mass was ordained for
any such intent or purpose as the abbat of Reading used it."
4 No actual record exists of this oath, as in the case of Glastonbury,
Colchester, &c.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 381
there can be little doubt that in so doing he did not intend
to separate himself from the traditional teaching of the
Catholic Church on the question of papal authority. " I fear
me," writes the authority so often quoted, " Hugh Cook was
master Cook to a great many of that blackguard (I mean
black monks), and taught them to dress such gross dishes
as he was always wont to dress, that is to say, treason;
but let them all take heed." *¦
At the time of the great northern rising, the abbey of
Reading, together with those of Glastonbury and Colchester,
is found on the list of contributors to the king's expenses
in defeating the rebel forces. Reading itself appears to
have had some communication with Robert Aske1, for copies
of a letter written by him, and apparently also his proclama
tion, were circulated in the town. Amongst others who
were supposed to be privy to the intentions of the insurgent
chief was John Eynon, a priest of the church of St. Giles',
Reading, and a special friend of abbot Cook. Three years
later this priest was executed with the abbot, but at the
time it is clear that there was no suggestion of any complicity
on the part of Cook, as he presided at the examinations held
in December, 1536, as to this matter.2
The first sign of any serious trouble appears about the
close of 1537. The king's proceedings, which were dis
tasteful to the nation at large, naturally gave rise to much
criticism and murmuring. Every overt expression of dis
approbation was eagerly watched for and diligently inquired
into by the royal officials. The numerous records of
examinations as to words spoken in conversation or in
sermons are evidence of the extreme care taken by the
government to crush out the first sparks of popular dis-
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 6 1 3. The following bears on the same point:
" But like as of late by God's purveyance a great part of their religious hoods
be already meetly well ripped from their crafty coats, even so I hope the residue
of the like religion shall in like sort not long remain unripped, for truly so long
as they be let run at riot thus still in religion they think verily that they may
play the traitors by authority. . . . But now his grace seeth well enough that
all was not gold that glistered, neither all his true subjects that called him lord
and master, namely, of Balaam's asses, with the bald crowns. But I would now
heartily wish that as many as be of that traitorous religion [i.e., order] that
those abbats were of, at the next [assizes?] have their bald crowns as well
shaven as theirs were." This testimony to the steadfastness of the Benedictines
to the Holy See fully corroborates Collier's statement given above.
2 Calendar, xi. 1231.

382 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
content. Rumours as to the king's bad health, or, still
more, reports as to his death, were construed into indica
tions of a treasonable disposition. In December, 1537, a
report that Henry was dead reached Reading, and abbot
Cook wrote to some of his neighbours to teli them what
was said. This act, so natural in itself, was laid to his
charge, and Henry acquired a cheap reputation for magna
nimity and clemency by pardoning " his own abbot " for what,
at the very worst, at all times save during this reign of
terror, would have been but a trifling act of indiscretion.1
Circumstances had brought abbot Cook into communi
cation with both the abbots whose fate was subsequently
linked with his own. In the triennial general chapters of
the Benedictines, in parliament, in convocation, they had
frequently met; and when the more active measures of
persecution devised by Crumwell made personal intercourse
impossible, a trusty agent was found in the person of a
blind harper named Moore, whose affliction and musical
skill had even brought him under the kindly notice of the
king. This staunch friend of the papal party, whose blind
ness rendered his mission unsuspected, apparently travelled
about from one abbey to another, encouraging the imprisoned
monks, bearing letters from house to house, and, doubtless,
finding a safe way of sending off to Rome the letters which
they had written to the pope and cardinals.
" But now amongst them all let us talk a word or two of
William Moor, the blind harper. Who would have thought
that he would have consented or concealed any treason
against the king's majesty ? or who could have thought
that he had had any power thereto ? Who can muse or
marvel enough to see a blind man for lack of sight to grope
after treason ? Oh ! Moor, Moor, hadst thou so great a
delight and desire to play the traitor? Is this the mark
that blind men trust to hit perchance ? Hast thou not
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 613. This paper thus treats the incident: —
" For think ye that the abbat of Reading deserved any less than to be hanged,
what time as he wrote letters of the king's death unto divers gentlemen in
Berkshire, considering in what a queasy case the realm stood in at that same
season? For the insurrection that was in the north country was scarcely
yet thoroughly quieted ; thus began he to stir the coals a novo and to make
a fresh roasting fire, and did enough, if God had not stretched forth his
helping hand, to set the realm in as great an uproar as ever it was, and yet
the king's majesty, of his royal clemency, forgave him. This had been enough
to have made this traitor a true man if there had been any grace in him."

The Three Benedictine Abbots 383
heard how the blind eateth many a fly ? Couldst not
thou beware and have kept thy mouth close together for
fear of gnats ? Hath God endued thee with the excel
lency of harping and with other good qualities to put unto
such a vile use ? Couldst thou have passed the time with
none other song but with the harping upon the string of
treason ? Couldst thou not have considered that the king's
grace called thee from the wallet and the staff to the state
of a gentleman ? Wast thou also learned, and couldst
thou not consider that the end of treason is eternal damna
tion? Couldst thou not be contented truly to serve thy
sovereign lord king Henry VIII., whom thou before a
great many oughtest and wast most bound truly to serve ?
Couldst not thou at least for all the benefits received at
his grace's hand, bear towards him thy good will ? Hadst
thou nought else to do but to become a traitorous messenger
between abbat and abbat ? Had not the traitorous abbats
picked out a pretty mad messenger of such a blind buzzard
as thou art ? Could I blazon thine arms sufficiently although
I would say more than I have said? Could a man paint
thee out in thy colours any otherwise than traitors ought
to be painted ? Shall I call thee William Moor, the blind
harper? Nay, verily, thou shalt be called William Moor,
the blind traitor. Now, surely, in my judgment, God did a
gracious deed what time He put out both thine eyes, for
what a traitor by all likelihood wouldst thou have been if
God had lent thee thy sight, seeing thou wast so willing to
grope blindfolded after treason ! When thou becamest a
traitorous messenger between the traitorous abbats, and
when thou tookest in hand to lead traitors in the trade of
treason, then was verified the sentence of our Master, Christ,
which sayeth, When the blind lead the blind both shall fall
into the ditch. Thou wast blind in thine eyes, and they
were blind in their consciences. Wherefore ye be all fallen
into the ditch, that is to say, into the high displeasure of
God and the king. I wiss, Moor, thou wrestest thine harp-
strings clean out of tune and settest thine harp a note too
high when thou thoughtest to set the bawdy bishop of Rome
above the king's majesty." x
1 Calendar, p. 25. " William Moore " appears in a list of prisoners in the
Tower, 20th November, 1539 (Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Titus, B. i. f. 133). The
list, as far as Reading names are concerned, runs : — " Roger London, monk

384 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Abbot Cook, like Whiting of Glastonbury, underwent
examination and practical condemnation in the Tower before
being sent down to his " country to be tried and executed."
What was the head and chief of his offence we may take
from the testimony of the same hostile witness so freely
invoked in this chapter.
"It will make many beware to put their fingers in the
fire any more," he says, "either for the honour of Peter
and Paul or for the right of the Roman Church. No, not
for the pardon of the . . . pope himself, though he would
grant more pardon than all the popes that ever were have
granted. I think, verily, our mother, holy Church of Rome,
hath not so great a jewel of her own darling Reynold Poole
as she should have had of these abbats if they could have
conveyed all things cleanly. Could not our English abbats
be contented with English forked caps but must look after
Romish cardinal hats also? Could they not be contented
with the plain fashion of England but must counterfeit the
crafty cardinality of Reynold Poole? Surely they should
have worn their cardinal hats with as much shame as that
papistical traitor, Reynold Poole. . . . Could not our popish
abbats beware of Reynold Poole, of that bottomless whirl
pool, I say, which is never satiate of treason ? "
From such scanty evidence as may be gathered from
these passages, one or two things are made clear. First,
that the abbots of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester
were singled out for execution because of their loyalty to
the Holy See and their influence with their brethren;
secondly, that the venerable Hugh Cook was conspicuous
for his devotion to the vicar of Christ, and, spite of Henry's
favour and spite of his threats, would never in his heart
accept the king's supremacy, but week by week would offer
the holy sacrifice on behalf of the bishop of Rome, and call
him pope till his dying day.
of Reading ; Peter Lawrence, who was warden of (the) Grey friars, Reading ;
Gyles Coventry, who was a friar of the same house ; George Constantine ;
Richard Manchester ; William Moor, the blind harper." In one of Crum
well's "remembrances " at this time we have " Item to proceed against the
abbots of Reading, Glaston, Rugg, Bachyler, London, the Grey friars and
Heron " (R. O. State Papers, Dom., 1539, ^fr). Perhaps Moor is the same
person mentioned by Stowe (ed. 1614, p. 582): "The 1 of July (1540) a
Weichman, a minstrel, was hanged and quartered for singing of songs which
were interpreted to be prophecying against the king."

The Three Benedictine Abbots 385
When carried down to Reading for the mockery of
justice called a trial, the abbot did not waver in his deter
mination. " When these traitors were arraigned at the bar,
although they had confessed before and written it with their
own hands that they had committed high treason against
the king's majesty, yet they found all the means they could
to go about to try themselves true men, which was impos
sible to bring to pass."
On November 15 th, the same day upon which abbot
Whiting suffered at Glastonbury,1 the abbot of Reading and
two priests were brought out to suffer the death of traitors.
Abbot Cook, standing in the space before the gateway of
his abbey, spoke to the people, who, in great numbers, had
gathered to witness the strange spectacle of the execution of
a lord abbot of the great and powerful monastery of Reading.
He told them of the cause for which he and his companions
were to die, not fearing openly to profess that which Henry's
laws made it treason to hold — fidelity to the see of Rome,
which he declared was but the common faith of those who
had the best right to know what was the true teaching of
the English Church. " The abbot of Reading," says the old
authority, " at the day of his death, lamenting the miserable
end that he was come unto, confessed before a great sight of
people, and said that he might thank these four privy traitors
before named of his sore fall, as who should say that those
three bishops and the vicar of Croydon had committed no
less treason than he had done. Now, good Lord for his
Passion, who would have thought that these four holy
men would have wrought in their lifetime such detestable
treason ? " And later on, speaking of the three abbots :
" God caused, I say, not only their treason to be disclosed
and come abroad in such a wonderful sort as never was
heard of, which were too long to recite at this time, but also
dead men's treason that long lay hidden under the ground ;
that is to say, the treason of the old bishop of Canterbury
[Warham], the treason of the old bishop of St. Asaph
1 Some give November 14th as the date of the execution. Browne-Willis
says : " Hugh Faringdon, opposing the surrender of this abbey at the dissolu
tion, an. 1539, and also refusing to attest the king's supremacy, became
attainted of high treason," and was executed " at Reading, November 14, 1539,
at which time two of his monks, Rugg and Onion, suffered with him." Vide
also Monasticon, vol. iv. ; Holinshed (ed. 1586), iii. p. 948. Some authorities
make abbot Whiting's execution the 14th (Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 27,402, f. 47).
2 B

386 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
[Standish], the treason of the old vicar of Croydon, and the
treason of the old bishop of London [Stokesley], which four
traitors had concealed as much treason by their live's time
as any of these traitors that were put to death. There was
never a barrel better herring to choose [among] them all, as
it right well appeared by the abbat of Reading's confession
made at the day of [execution], who I daresay accused none
of them for malice nor hatred. For the abbot as heartily
loved those holy fathers as ever he loved any men in his
life." The abbot's " chief counsellor," John Eynon or Oynyon,1
who had been particularly vehement in his protestations
of innocence, also spoke, admitting his so-called treason,
begging the prayers of the bystanders for his soul, and
craving the king's forgiveness if in aught he had offended.2
This over, the sentence of hanging with its barbarous ac
cessories was carried out upon abbot Cook and the two
priests, John Eynon and John Rugg.8
1 The usual spelling of this name has been Onyon or Oynyon, but it really
was Eynon. It is so spelt in the document already referred to (Calendar, xi.
No. 1231), and also in the accurate entry of the conviction to be found on the
Controlment Roll, 31 Hen. VIII., m. 28 d. ; "Recordum attinctionis, &c,
Hugonis abbatis monasterii de Redyng in diet com. Berks, alias dicti Hugonis
Cooke, nuper de Redyng in eodem com. Berks, clerici ; Johannis Eynon nuper
de Redyng in com. pred. clerici ; Johannis Rugge nuper de Redyng in com.
Berks, clerici alias diet. Johannis Rugge nuper de Redyng capellani pro qui-
busdam altis proditionibus unde eorum quilibet p. se. indict, fuit. T. et S."
2 Of John Eynon the hostile witness writes that he not only denied the
charge of treason, " but also stoutly and stubbornly withstood it even to the
utmost, evermore finding great fault with justice, and oftentimes casting his
arms abroad, said : ' Alas, is this justice to destroy a man guiltless ? I take
it between God and my soul that I am as clear in this matter as the child
that was this night born.' Thus he prated and made a work as though he had
not known what the matter had meant, thinking to have faced it out with a
card of ten. And in this sort he held on even from the time of the arraignment
till he came to the gallows. Marry then, when he saw none other way but one,
his heart began somewhat to relent. Then both he and his companions, with
their ropes about their necks, confessed before all the people that were present
that they had committed high treason against the king's most noble person, but
namely Oynyon, for he said that he had offended the king's grace in such sort
of treason that it was not expedient to tell thereof. Wherefore he besought the
people not only to pray unto God for him, but also desired them, or some of
them at the least, to desire the king's grace of his merciful goodness to forgive
his soul, for else he was sure, as he said, to be damned. And yet not an hour
before a man that had heard him speak would have thought verily that he had
been guiltless of treason."
3 Eynon was, as before stated, a priest attached to the church of St. Giles,
Reading. John Rugg had formerly held a prebend at Chichester, but had
apparently retired to Reading. In December, 1531 (Calendar, v.), Rugg

The Three Benedictine Abbots 387
The attainder of the abbot, according to the royal inter
pretation of the law, placed the abbey of Reading and its
lands and possessions .at Henry's disposal. In fact, as in
the case of Glastonbury, on the removal of the abbot to the
Tower in September, 1539, before either trial or condemna
tion, the pillage of the abbey had been commenced. As
early as September 8th, Thomas Moyle wrote from Reading
that he, " master Vachell and Mr. Dean of York " (Layton),
had "been through the inventory of the plate, &c, at the
residence" there. "In the house," he said, "there is a
chamber hanged with three pieces of metely good tapestry.
It will serve well for hanging a mean little chamber in the
king's majesty's house." This is all they think worth keep
ing for the royal use. "There is also," the writer adds, "a
chamber hung with six pieces of verdure with fountains,
but it is old, and at the ends of some of them very foul and
greasy." He notes several beds with silk hangings, and
in the church eight pieces of tapestry, "very goodly" but
small, and concludes by saying that he and his fellows think
that the sum of ,£200 a year "will serve for pensions for
the monks."1
On September 15th another commissioner, Richard
Pollard, wrote from Reading that he had dispatched certain
goods according to Crumwell's direction, "and part of the
stuff reserved for the king's majesty's use." "The whole
house and church " are, he says, still " undefaced," and " as
for the plate,2 vestments, copes and hangings, which we
writes for his books to be sent to Reading from Chichester. Another letter,
dated Feb. 3, 1532, from "your abbey-lover Jo. Rugg" shows that the writer
had obtained dispensation for non-residence at Chichester. Coates (History
of Reading, p. 261), on the authority of Croke, says that John Rugg was
indicted for saying "the king's highness cannot be Supreme Head of the
Church of England." On being asked, "what did you for saving your
conscience when you were sworn to take the king for Supreme Head ?" Rugg
replied, ' ' I added this condition in my mind, to take him for Supreme Head
in temporal things, but not in spiritual things."
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 136. In the " Corporation diary," quoted in Coates'
Reading, p. 261, is tie entry "before which said nineteenth of September
(1539), the monastery is suppressed and the abbot is deprived, and after this
suppression all things remain in the king's hands." Mr. Gairdner (Calendar,
xiv. (ii), preface, p. xxx) says: — "The abbot, in all probability declined to
give up his monastery. Just a year before . . . Dr. London . . . gave it
distinctly as his opinion that while both the abbot and monks professed to be
entirely at the King's command, they would be very loth to surrender."
2 In Pollard's account of the plate of "attainted persons and places"
(Monastic Treasures, Abbotsford Club, p. 38) Reading is credited with 19^

388 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
have reserved also to the use of the king's majesty," they
are left in good custody and are to be conveyed to London.
"Thanks be to God," he adds, "everything is well finished,
and every man well contented and giveth humble thanks to
the king's grace." l
The abbot of St. John's, Colchester, Thomas Marshall,2
writes Browne Willis, " was one of the three mitred parlia
mentary abbots . . . that had courage enough to maintain
his conscience and run the last extremity, being neither to
be prevailed upon by bribery, terror or any dishonourable
motives to come into a surrender, or subscribe to the king's
supremacy ; on which account, being attainted of high trea
son, he suffered death."
Thomas Marshall succeeded abbot Barton in June, 1533,
and entered upon the cares of office at a time when religious
life was becoming almost impossible. At the outset he had
apparently considerable difficulty in obtaining possession of
the temporalities of his abbey. " I, with the whole consent
of my brethren," he writes to Crumwell, "have sealed four
several obligations for the payment of ^200 to the king's
ozs. of gold, 377 ozs. of gilt plate and 2660 of silver. It is also stated that
the abbot put "to gage to Sir W. Luke three gilt bowls of 152 ozs. and six
silver bowls of 246 ozs."
1 Wright, 220. Mr. Wright thinks this letter "must refer to the priory
and not to the abbey." A letter from William Penison, to whom Pollard
says he committed the charge " by indenture," says that on September 1 ith
he " received possession of Mr. Pollard and other commissioners here (Reading,
September 21) of the abbey of Reading and all the domains which the late
abbot had in his hands at his late going away " (Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 202).
This leaves no doubt that the letter printed by Wright refers to the abbey, and
that the property was seized early in September. According to Penison's
information, abbot Cook was "late" abbot — in other words, had ceased to
hold the office when he was taken to the Tower for the so-called examination.
Penison, it may be added, made Crumwell a rich present to obtain the office
of receiver, and had informed him that abbot Cook was getting rid of the
monastic property.
2 It has already been pointed out that Thomas Marshall was also called
Beche. It may be worth while, as some confusion has existed as to the last
abbot of Colchester, to give here the evidence of the Controlment Roll, 31
Hen. VIII., m. 36d., which leaves no room to doubt that Beche and Marshall
are aliases for the same individual. " Recordum attinctionis Thomae Beche
nuper de West Donylands, in com. Essex, clerici, alias dicti Thomae Marshall
nuper de eisdem villa et comit, clerici, alias Thomae Beche nuper abbatis
nuper monasterii S. Johannis Bapt. juxta Colcestr., in com. pred. jam dissolut,
alias dicti Thomae Marshall nuper abb. nuper mon. S. Johis. Colcestr. in com.
pred. pro quibusdam altis proditionibus." West Donylands was a manor
belonging to the abbot, and the name occurs in exchanges made by the abbot
with chancellor Audley in 1536 (see Calendar, xi. Nos. 385, 519).

The Three Benedictine Abbots 389
use . . . trusting now by your especial favour to have
restitution of my temporalities with all other things pertain
ing to the same. . . . Unless I have your especial favour
and aid in recovering such rents and dues as are withdrawn
from the monastery of late, and I not able to recover them
by the law, I cannot tell how I shall live in the world,
saving my truth and promises." x
Of the earlier career of Thomas Marshall httle is known
except that he, like the majority of his order in England,
who were selected by their superiors for a university course,
was sent to Oxford, where he resided for several years, and
passed through the schools with credit to himself and his
order. During this period he was probably an inmate of St.
Benedict's or Gloucester Hall, the largest of the three estab
lishments which the Benedictines possessed in Oxford, and
to which the younger religious of most of the English abbeys
were sent to pursue their higher studies.2
Very shortly after abbot Marshall's election his troubles
commenced. At Colchester, as elsewhere in the country at
this period, there were to be found some only too anxious
to win favour to themselves by carrying reports of the
doings and sayings of their brethren to Crumwell or the king.
In April, 1534, a monk of St. John's complained of the
"slanderous and presumptious " sayings of the subprior,
"D. John Francis." This latter monk, according to Crum
well's informer, had " declared our sovereign lord the king
and his most honourable council, on the occasion of a new
book of articles, to be all heretics, whereas before he said
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., vi. f. 145. The temporalities were restored on Jan.
23) J534> and on March 30th of this same year the new abbot took his seat
in the House of Lords. It has been thought that Marshall is the same
Thomas Marshall who ruled the abbey of Chester until 1530, and is counted
as the 26th abbot of that house (Monasticon, iv., Browne Willis, &c).
Whether, on his retirement from Chester in favour of the reinstated abbot,
John Birchenshaw, he went to Colchester, is uncertain. If he had been long
at this latter monastery it is somewhat strange that the witnesses against him
in 1539 should have professed to be unacquainted with him until his election.
2 St. Benedict's is now represented by Worcester College ; Canterbury
Hall, destined for the monks of the metropolitan church, is now merged in
Christ Church ; and Trinity College has succeeded to St. Cuthbert's Hall, the
learned home of the monks of Durham. D. Thomas Marshall, O.S.B.,
supplicated for B.D. January 24, i5of; disputed 3rd June, 1511 ; admitted
to oppose 19th Oct.; received the degree of S.T.B. 10th Dec. ; sued for
D.D. and disputed 20th April, 1515. (Boase, Register of the University of
Oxford, p. 63.)

39° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
, they were but schismatics." These and other remarks were
quite sufficient to have brought both the bold monk himself
and his abbot into trouble at a time when the gossip of the
frater or shaving-house was picked up by eavesdroppers
and carried to court to regale the ears of the lord Privy
Seal. In this case, however, the report came on the eve of
the administration to the monks of Colchester of what was
to be henceforth considered the touchstone of loyalty, the
oath of supremacy. On the 7th of July, 1534, the oath was
offered to the monks in the chapter-house of St. John's, and
taken by abbot Marshall and sixteen monks, including this
John Francis, the subprior complained of to Crumwell.
Very little indeed is known about Colchester or the
doings of the abbot from this time till his arrest in 1539.
At the time of the northern rising, whilst the commissioners
for gaol delivery sat at Colchester, they were invited to dine
at the abbey with the abbot of St. John's. When they
were at dinner, as Crumwell's informant writes to him, one
Marmaduke Nevell and others came into the hall. I asked
him, says the writer, " How do the traitors in the north ? "
"No traitors, for if ye call us traitors we will call you
heretics." Nevell then went on to say that the king had
pardoned them, or they had not been at Colchester. They
were, he declared, 30,000 well-horsed, and " I am sure," he
said, " my lord abbot will make me good cheer ; " and asked
why, said, "Marry, for all the abbeys in England be be
holden to us, for we have set up all the abbeys again in our
country, and though it were never so late they sang mattins
the same night." He added that in the north they were
"plain fellows," and southern men, though they "thought
as much, durst not utter it." J
About the time of the arrest of the abbots of Reading
and Glastonbury, in September, 1539, reports were spread
as to the approaching dissolution of St. John's, Colchester.
Sir Thomas Audley, the chancellor, endeavoured to avert
what he thought would be an evil thing for the county. He
had heard the rumours about the destruction of the two
abbeys of St. John's, Colchester, and St. Osyth's, and,
writing to Crumwell, he begs they may continue, " not, as
they be, religious ; but that the king's majesty of his good-
1 Calendar, xi. No. 1 3 19.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 391
ness to translate them into colleges. . . . For the which, as
I said to you before, his grace may have of either of 'them
£1000, that is for both ^"2000, and the gift of the deans
and prebendaries at his own pleasure. The cause I move
this is, first, I consider that St. John's standeth in his
grace's own town at Colchester, wherein dwell many poor
people, who have daily relief of the house. Another cause,
both these houses be in the end of the shire of Essex, where
little hospitality will be kept if these be dissolved. For as
for St. John's, it lacketh water, and St. Osith's standeth in
the marshes, not very wholesome, so that few of reputation,
as I think, will keep continual houses in any of them unless
it be a congregation as there is now. There are also twenty
houses, great and small, dissolved in the shire of Essex
already." Audley then goes on to protest that he only asks
for the common good, and can get no advantage himself by
the houses being allowed to continue, and concludes by
offering Crumwell £200 for himself if he can persuade the
king to grant his request.1
The circumstances attending abbot Marshall's arrest are
unknown, but by the beginning of November, 1539, he was
certainly in the Tower. On the ist of that month Edmund
Trowman, who had been his servant ever since he had been
abbot, was under examination. All that was apparently
extracted from this witness was that, a year before, the
abbot had given him certain plate to take care of and "^40
in a coser." 2
The abbot's chaplain was also interrogated as to any
words he had heard the abbot speak against the king at any
time, but little information was elicited from him. The most
important piece of evidence is a document which, as it con
tains declarations as to abbot Marshall's opinions upon
several important matters, and as it is almost the only
record of the examinations of witnesses against any of the
three abbots, may here be given as nearly as possible in the
original form.
1 Wright, p. 246.
2 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 439. In a curious list, giving apparently the dates
of the supposed acts of treason committed by various people, is the entry :
"Thos. Marshall abbas de Colchester. 17 die Septembris anno. 300"
(1538). The date of abbot Whiting's treason is given as "4th August a0
270" (1535). and abbot Cook's as " 1 March anno. 270" (1536). See R O.
Exch. Augt.' Off. Misc. Bk., 313 b, f. 8.

392 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
" Interrogatories ministered unto Robert Rowse, mercer,
of Colchester, 4'° Novembris anno regni Henrici octavi
tricesimo primo (1539). Ad primam, the said Rowse sworne
upon the Evangel, and sayeth that he hath known the abbat
of Colchester the space of six years at midsummer last past or
thereabout, about which time the said  was elected abbat.1
And within a sennight after or thereabout this examinant
sent unto the said abbat a dish of bass (baces) and a pottle
of wine to the welcome. Upon the which present the said
abbat did send for the examinant to dine with him upon a
Friday, at which time they were first acquainted, and since
was divers times in his company and familiar with him unto
a fortnight before the feast of All Hallows was two years
past. — Robert Rowse.
" 2. Ad secundam, he sayeth that the principal cause why
that he did leave the company of the said abbat was because
Supremacy t'iat abbat was divers times communing and re-
spuing against the king's majesty's supremacy
and such ordinances as were passed by the act of parliament
concerning the extinguishment ofthe bishop of Rome's usurped
The whole authority, saying that the whole authority was
authority given by Christ unto Peter and to his successors,
£° pmitrted bishops of Rome, to bind and to loose, and to grant
pardons for sin, and to be chief and supreme head
of the Church throughout all Christian realms immediate and
next unto Christ, and that it was against God's commandment
Against the and His laws that any temporal prince should
supremacy. be head of the Church. And also he said that
the king's highness had evil counsel that moved him to take •
on hand to be chief head of the Church of England, and to
pull down these houses of religion which were founded by his
grace's progenitors and many noble men for the service and
honour of God, the commonwealth, and relief of poor folk,
Against man's an(^ that the same was both against God's law
law and God's and man's law ; and, furthermore, he said that
law- by means of the premises (?) the king and his
council were drawn into such an inordinate covetousness that
Covetous. **" ^ the water in the Thames were flowing
A vengeance. S0^ and S1'ver l4 were not able to slake their
covetousness, and said a vengeance of all such
councillors. — ROBERT ROWSE.
1 D. Thomas Marshall or Beche was elected June 10, 1533.

The Three Benedictine Abbots 393
" 3. Ad tertiam, he sayeth that he is not well remembered
of the year nor of the days that the said abbat had the fore
said communications, because he spoke at divers times, and
specially at such times as he heard that any such matters
were had in use ; and furthermore of this he is well remem
bered of that at such time as the monks of Sion, the bishop
of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More were put to execution,
the said abbat would say that he marvelled ~
... tyranny.
greatly of such tyranny as was used by the king
and his council to put such holy men to death, and further
the abbat said that in his opinion they died holy Died
martyrs and in the right of Christ's Church. —
Robert Rowse.
" 4. Ad quartam, he sayeth that the last time that ever he
heard the said abbat have any communication of such matters
was immediately after that he heard of the insurrection in the
north parts, he sent for this examinant to come to sup with
him, and in the mean time that supper was making ready the
abbat and the examinant were walking between the hall and
the garden in a little gallery off the ground, and then and
there the abbat axed of this examinant what news he heard
of the coast ? and this examinant said that he heard none.
Then the abbat said : ' Dost you not hear of the insurrection
in the North ? ' and this examinant said ' no.' Northern
' The northern lads be up and they begin to take men-
pip in the webe (sic) and say plainly that they will have no
more abbeys suppressed in their country ; ' and he said to
this examinant that the northern men were as true subjects
unto the king as anywhere within his realm, and that they
desired nothing of the king but that they might have de
livered unto their hands the archbishop of Canterbury, the
lord chancellor, and the lord privy seal; and the That these
abbat said 'would to God that the northern lords might
men had them, for then (he said) we should to the northern
have a merry world, for they were three arch- men-
heretics,' which term this examinant never Arcfi-heret'cs-
heard before ; and so then they went to supper, and since
this time, which was as this examinant doth remember a
fortnight or three weeks before the feast of All Saints was
two years. — ROBERT ROWSE." x
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 458. The marginal notes, copied from the original
document, indicate the chief points on which the examination turned.

394 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The evidence of Thomas Nuthake, a "physition," of
Colchester, is to the like effect. He had not, he said, to
his knowledge seen or known abbot Thomas before his
election, although he had divers times repaired to the abbey
before that time. In reply to the third question, this doctor
" sayeth that concerning the marriage of queen Anne this
examinant remembers he hath heard the said abbat say that
the reason why the king's highness did forsake the bishop
of Rome was to the intent that his majesty might be divorced
from the lady dowager and wed queen Anne, and therefore
his grace refused to take the bishop of Rome for the supreme
head of the Church, and made himself the supreme head." x
Another of the witnesses against the abbot of Colchester
was a cleric, John Seyn, who deposed that when he had
informed him of the abbot of St. Osyth's surrender of his
monastery to the king, answered " I will not say the king
shall never have my house, but it will be against my will
and against my heart, for I know by my learning that he
cannot take it by right and law, wherefore in my conscience
I cannot be content, nor he shall never have it with my heart
and will." Whereunto John Seyn, clerk, answered in this
wise : " Beware of such learning as ye learned at Oxenford
when ye were young. Ye would be hanged and ye are worthy.
I will advise you to conform yourself as a true subject, or
else you shall hinder your brethren and also yourself."2
Little more is known of abbot Marshall's last days but
the fact of his execution on December ist, 1539. The
story of his sudden arrest and instant execution, as told by
the Colchester historian, looks improbable.3 Even if true,
the abbot's journey to London, his examinations, his im
prisonment in the Tower,4 and the various measures taken
with his servants5 must have quite prepared him for the
1 Calendar, xiv.(ii), No. 454. 2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xxxviii. No. 41.
3 Monasticon, iv. 605. " Morant says there was a tradition in his time in
the town of Colchester that the magistrates invited abbot Beche to a feast and
then showed him the warrant, and went and hanged him without further
warrant or ceremony. "
4 His name appears in the list of prisoners, Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Tit., B.
i. f. 133-
6 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 416, is "an account of money paid by Dr.
Belassis unto the late servants of the abbat of St. John's besides Colchester,
as well for their charges and horsemeat since they came to London, as for
the arrearages of their wages and the king's majesty's reward bestowed upon
them."

The Three Benedictine Abbots 395
fate awaiting those who resisted the will of Henry. Under
the stress of imprisonment in the Tower, and the examina
tions to which he was there subjected, abbot Marshall's
courage appears somewhat to have failed him for a time.
His replies to interrogatories addressed to him were mainly
directed to explain away the accusations which, as we have
seen, had been made against him and to turn away if possible
the royal wrath. x His excuses, however, as we know, were
made in vain, and in the end he, like the abbots of Glaston
bury and Reading, laid down his life for conscience sake.
As in the case of Glastonbury and Reading, the abbot's
imprisonment was the signal for commencing the pillage of
church and monastery. By November 19th, 1539, the plate,
consisting of 15 ounces of gold, 672 of silver gilt, and 1557
ounces of parcel gilt or silver had been sent by the king's
receivers into the royal treasury, together with a couple of
mitres and "a crozier staff" of gilt plate and iron.2 Within
six weeks of the execution of the abbot, the monastic build
ings of St. John's with the abbey church, which had been
consecrated nearly 450 years before, were dismantled. It
took four men under the charge of one who designates him
self " Francis Jobson, gentleman," eight days to strip the
lead from the roof and melt it into pigs. The account of the
expenses incurred in the process proves that they lived on
the fat of the land whilst engaged on this work of desolation.
At the end of the week the broken bell metal was packed
in barrels and carted away to be sold.3
The landed property of the abbey was granted to Thomas,
lord Darcy, whose family became extinct in the fourth
generation. In the first two centuries no fewer than nine
families and fifteen individuals had become the possessors
of the abbey spoils by inheritance or purchase. History
does not relate what became of the " many poor people "
who dwelt " at Colchester," of whom chancellor Audley wrote
that they "had daily relief of the house."
It is necessary to revert once more to the singular
mystery which surrounds the fate of these abbots. Suddenly
the Baga de secretis, which affords information as to earlier
"treasons," fails. In vain has search been made through
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 459.
2 Monastic Treasures (Abbotsford Club), p. 27.
8 R. O. Exch. Q. R. Suppression Papers, ¦$&

396 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
books, rolls of legal proceedings and detached papers of the
date of their execution and subsequent years. The records
in the country do not begin at such an early date, and saving
the possibility of further revelations from the archives at
Woburn, this chapter contains all that can be found on the
subject. From these gleanings the reader may form his own
conclusion. The execution of these three powerful abbots was well-
nigh the last act in the drama of the Suppression. " Each
of them now rotting on a gibbet near his abbey gate," as a
contemporary wrote to a friend abroad, no doubt echoed
the terror inspired by the fate of those who had dared to
stand out against the royal will. So, as Mr. Gairdner
writes : — " Of course, these examples did not encourage
resistance, and surrenders of monasteries now came with
a rush."1 And before the year 1539 came to a close, with
the exception of Westminster and one or two houses in the
country, not a single monastery had been left " undefaced."
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), preface, p. xxxvii.

CHAPTER XIX
The Monastic Spoils
It is by no means easy to determine with anything like
accuracy the value of the property which passed into the
royal possession by Henry's ecclesiastical depredations.
The annual revenue of the various houses, including lands
and the proceeds from the spiritual benefices held by them,
is reckoned by Speed at £171,312, 4s. 3^d. Other valua
tions place it at a somewhat higher figure, so that a modern
calculation of £200,000, in round numbers, as the annual
receipts of the confiscated property does not appear to be
excessive.1 Hence the fall of the monasteries transferred
an income of more than two million pounds sterhng a year
of the present money value from the Church and poor to
the royal purse.
It is well, however, to state at once that Henry did not
derive by any means so large a benefit as this from his
policy of spoliation. Gratuitous grants, sales of lands at
nominal prices, and other ways whereby the capital value
of the prize was diminished, prevented the income actually
received by the royal treasury from reaching at any time
the sum at which the revenue of the monastic houses was
computed. In fact, the entire amount paid by the royal
receivers into the Court of Augmentation as representing
the revenue derived from the confiscated estates was only
£415,005, 6s. iojd. for the eleven years between Michaelmas,
1536, and the same date in 1547. That is to say, merely
an average yearly income of £37,000 was secured to the
king by the seizure of Church property which had formerly
produced at least five times that sum. Further, in no single
year did the income exceed £45,000, although for five years,
from 1539 to 1544, the average approached that figure. In
1 Blunt, History, p. 369.
397

39 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
other words, the king actually obtained by his confiscations
an average yearly revenue only slightly exceeding the esti
mated income of the smaller houses.1
During this period, however, the crown obtained a large
sum by the sale of the monastic lands, ecclesiastical benefices
and other property from which the religious houses derived
their income. The papers of the period contain ample
evidence of the eagerness with which the hungry courtiers
sought to profit by the destruction of the time-honoured
monastic corporations. Much of the property, no doubt,
the crown officials parted with unwillingly. But it was
necessary to make the strong ones of the nation sharers of
the plunder, that thus committed to the policy, they might
resist any future cry for restitution. Other lands were
quickly exchanged with noble landowners and even church
men for the same reason, and much was sold to lords,
merchant venturers and speculators at good prices. " Thus,"
says an old writer, " was the Church pared and pruned and
made a prey, every bird being desirous to beautify herself
with her fair feathers."
A veritable scramble followed the dissolution, and very
rapidly a vast amount of land changed hands. Many
obtained grants or purchased the Church property only to
exchange or sell it again at an enhanced price. Some
special supporters of Henry's policy secured large shares
for themselves and their families through their own or
Crumwell's influence. Thus, to take but one or two
examples, lord Audley obtained as his part of the plunder
the possessions of more than nine religious foundations;

1 The figures are taken from the accounts of the treasurer of the Court of
Augmentation (R. O. Aug. Off. Treas. Rolls, i. to iv.). As the yearly receipts
from the confiscated lands may be of interest they are here given : —
£ s. d.
From April 24th, 1536, to September 29th, 1538,
including certain receipts for goods sold which
cannot be ascertained and deducted . . . 27,732 2 9}
From 1538 to 1539 ..;... 24,223 7 2|
From 1539 to 1543  177,806 7 3I
From 1543 to 1544  44.945 2 n£
From 1544 to 1547  140,298 6 6f
Total for 11 years  ^415,005 6 10J

The Monastic Spoils 399
Edward, lord Clinton, secured twelve, including the rich lands
of the Benedictine abbey of Barking; the duke of Northum
berland became master of eighteen, while Suffolk was the
successful spoiler of no less than thirty monastic properties.
The net result to the royal exchequer of Henry's traffic in
these Church lands was after all only £855,751, 18s. 5d.x
This sum, equivalent to more than eight and a half millions
sterling of the present money, although large in itself, can
by no means represent the real value of the property dis
posed of by the king. There are certain indications that for
some of the lands fair prices, equal to twenty years' purchase
of the rents, were given to the king. Thus Sir Richard
Gresham, father of the more celebrated Sir Thomas, wrote
to Crumwell, "to be advertised" that he had "moved the
king's majesty to purchase of his grace certain lands belong
ing to the house of Fountains, to the value of £350 by year,
after the rate of twenty years' purchase. The sum of
money," he adds, "amounteth to ^7000." 2 This amount
apparently he subsequently paid, as at one time he is
credited with ^11,137, us. 8d. in discharge of what was
owing for the lands of Fountains, together with those of the
two Benedictine nunneries of Swine and Nunkeling.8
Other purchasers, however, must certainly have obtained
their share of the plunder at very much lower rates. Thus
Crumwell's nephew, Richard Williams, apparently paid under
£5000 for Ramsey abbey and its entire property, which was
sold to him on March 4th, 1540, while the income of the
monastery was returned at more than £1700 a year. Lord
Crumwell himself, to take but one more instance, paid but
£1446, 1 os. for Launde priory with its revenue of £400 a
1 The largest sales of lands took place in the year from Michaelmas, 1544,
to Michaelmas, 1545, when the sum of ^164,495, is. 5d. was realized. The
sales include certain lands of attainted persons, such as the countess of Salisbury,
Sir Stephen Hammerton, &c. In this year John Ap Rice bought the priory
of St. Guthlac's, Hereford, for £1570, is. gd. (R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas.
Rolls, ii., mm. 8d. to 28d.).
2 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Ser. iii. 270. On this basis Blunt (p. 371)
calculates the capital value of the income which came into the king's hands at
,£48,000,000. For a very considerable proportion, however, as the actual
figures prove, Henry really only obtained about a sixth part of that sum.
3 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Treas. Roll., ii. m. iood. Whether the sum was
actually paid in cash seems somewhat doubtful. The king had large transac
tions with Gresham. At one time he owed him for silks nearly ^800, and a
note in the accounts makes it appear probable that this and other debts were
set off against Fountains Abbey.

4°o Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
year.1 But notwithstanding the easy terms upon which
much of monastic land was granted, the royal agents experi
enced considerable difficulty in obtaining the promised pay
ments. No less a sum than £76,141, 8s. 3d. was due to
the crown x>n this account when Henry died.
It would be impossible within the limits of an ordinary
book to follow in detail the dispersion of the Church lands
among the band of royal retainers, who all hungered and
clamoured for a share in the booty. Little by little the
broad acres and ecclesiastical benefices, upon the revenues
of which not only had the religious themselves subsisted,
but which had served to assist the poor, the aged and the
sick of the country, and to further other public and national
purposes, passed into private hands. Without the confisca
tion having contributed in any substantial way to the advan
tage of the country or crown, the property passed from the
control of the State unburdened by any condition of service
to the commonwealth or the particular district, which had
hitherto characterised its tenure. Compared with the revenue
derived by the religious establishments from their endow
ments and with the capital value of their property as esti
mated from that income, the net result of the suppression of
the monasteries to the nation at large was from a financial
point of view cruelly disappointing. For a brief period the
royal revenue was augmented; but the income derived by
the king from the confiscated lands at no time approached
what the same estates produced under the thrifty manage
ment of their monastic owners. The sale of the acres
obtained a large sum of money for the royal purse, but even
this was small when compared with their intrinsic worth,
or with what their real value was to the nation at large.
Those who reaped advantage from the work of desola
tion, from the overthrow of so many architectural monuments
and destruction of almost countless works of art, from the
seizure of lands bestowed upon the monks for purposes
ecclesiastical and patriotic, were the " new men." To them
good came from the hardships and misery inflicted upon
hundreds of religious men and women and their retainers.
They mounted into power and place upon the ruins of the
old monastic houses, and laid the foundation of their family
1 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Treas. Roll, ii. m. 11.

The Monastic Spoils 401
fortunes upon wealth filched in the name of the law from
the patrimony of the poor.
From the consideration of the value of the monastic
lands, which thus came into the royal possession, it is
necessary to turn to the work of the royal agents in effect
ing the transfer of the estates and other property from the
religious to the king. The story of the dismantling and
destruction of so many sanctuaries and houses of religion in
every part of the kingdom presents many points of pathetic
interest. Some of these have been touched upon in previous
chapters, and the present pages must be occupied principally
with cold calculations about pecuniary results.
The method adopted by Henry to realize the moveables
and other saleable effects of the monasteries was apparently
much the same in every case. In each of eleven monasteries
included in one commission, for example, a district jury
was impanelled to witness the valuation, and a retinue of
" strangers " from London travelled with the chief commis
sioner.1 The costs of these men engaged upon the work of
gathering in the spoils were considerable, and include such
items as "minstrels 4d." and evening " wine and sugar 2s."
It is pleasing to find in the accounts indications that the
people of a neighbourhood were not too ready to assist in the
work of demolition. In the above account twenty pence had
to be paid for "a guide from Repton to Gracediew," while
the demand for help in the case of the destruction of the
church at Lewes, previously noticed, would seem to show
that it was at any rate sometimes necessary to bring hardened
ruffians from London to accomplish such work.2
As was almost inevitable in a work of this nature, the
king by no means received the value of things sold or
seized. From Crumwell downwards the officials appear to
have looked well after their own interest 8 at this time. To
1 R. O. Exch. Augt Off. Misc. Bk., 172. Printed by Mackenzie E. Walcott,
Archaologia, vol. xliii. pp. 201-249.
2 Stow relates (Survey of London, p. 58) that "the church and steeple"
of the priory of Holy Trinity, in the ward of Aldgate, " were proffered to whom
soever would take it down and carry it from the ground, but no man would under
take the offer." Stukeley, speaking of Glastonbury (Itinerarium Curiosum,
ed. 1776, Iter, vi.), says, " I observed frequent instances of the townsmen being
generally afraid to make such purchases (of stone from the ruins), as thinking an
unlucky fate attends the family where these materials are used, and they told
me many stories and particular instances of it."
8 For an indication of Crumwell's share in this general scramble, see ante.
2 C

4°2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
adopt the expression, used by Dr. London whilst engaged
in the work of taking over plate and jewels and expelling
monks and nuns, it was indeed " a pretty bank," 1 not only
to the king, but to all lucky enough to be employed in such
a service. Even such a man as Rich, chancellor of the
Court of Augmentation, was not free from suspicion. An
early writer states that had Henry lived a day or two longer
he would certainly have brought this minister to justice ; 2
and there is documentary evidence to prove that the king
charged this official with allowing him to be cheated out of
£570 a year in the exchanges of land made with the duke of
Suffolk, as well as with having received money for the sales
of lands and lead without accounting for it.3
Sir Ralph Sadler, to give but another instance, was
gravely compromised in the same way. " At his first com
ing from Scotland of the insurrection of Yorkshire," runs
the record of a subsequent examination, one Oswald Sisson,
"perceiving then that many abbeys in Yorkshire would be
surrendered, willed and procured the said Sir Ralph to ask
of the king's majesty the preferment of the monastery of
Selby . . . before the surrender thereof and promised to
give to the said Sir Ralph Sadler for a fine for a lease of 21
years £100 in money and a horse, which he afterwards
did." Sadler took the money and horse and granted the
lease before the surrender of the monastery and before ob
taining the grant from the king. Subsequently, when he
had got the monastery from Henry, he offered it to Sisson
at a profit of £1 10 more than he had agreed to pay. Sisson
paid the money, and in his turn went into Yorkshire, where
he "marked certain woods," intending to pay Sadler with
the proceeds and to make more by the granting of other
leases. Falling ill, he sold the lands of Selby to the royal
receiver of the district, Leonard Beckwith, for ^1240.*
1 Wright, p. 235.
2 Brit. Mus. Arund. MS. 152, in the contemporary collections for the lives of
Fisher and More.
3 R. O. Exch. Q. R Ancient Misc., |f .
* R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 113, No. 31. In two other docu
ments (Nos. 86 and 99) of the same volume a series of charges are laid against
this Leonard Beckwith. He had sold lead and other things to his relations
at less than their value. He had returned a false survey of the woods at
Selby, making them less than half their real extent. Before the dissolution of
monasteries he had endeavoured to get annuities from them, promising "if
the houses did stand that he would not take so much as they did grant" In

The Monastic Spoils 403
" By the frauds of the officials of the Court of Augmentation,
to whom was committed the gathering in of the great spoils,"
writes a contemporary, " the king was robbed. This much
is certain, that a great number of men who when appointed
to the office were possessed only of inkhorn and pen, were
after two years able to rank in wealth and estates with ' the
highest in the land.'"1
What was done in the case of lands and false surveys
was more easily accomplished with regard to the plate and
other precious moveables of the dissolved monasteries. An
interesting example of the private purses made by the com
missioners is afforded in the case of Thomas Bedyll.2 He
died apparently early in September, 1537, and thus before
he had such opportunities of obtaining plunder as others
had. Still he had apparently not neglected his chances;
and Crumwell's nephew, Richard, who had been sent to
seize what he could find, wrote : " Before my coming to
Mr. Bedyll's house in Aldersgate Street, London, his
woman had sent thither two of his servants . . . who had
ransacked and conveyed this night, so that nothing but
bedding, books and such other there remain." Having
heard, however, that he was acquainted with Raynes,8 " I
came to the said John Raynes and declared to him that my
coming was to see such money, plate and jewels as Mr.
Bedyll had left in his custody. He forthwith confessed that
he had a ' gardiviance ' (ambry) of his, and brought out the
same to me, wherein is such plate and gold as your lordship
by a bill of particulars herein enclosed may perceive." It is
now, the writer adds, in the custody of "Williamson at
your place by friar Augustines." *
this way he procured no less than 23 patents from the religious, all dated in
1538 or 1539. These and other charges were examined into, and many were
acknowledged by Beckwith himself.
1 Brit. Mus. Arund. MS., 151, f. 386 (written about 1557).
2 An account of Bedyll is to be found in Wood's Athena, vol. ii. He
was one of those appointed to examine the "Holy Maid of Kent," and
employed to get the Charterhouse monks to conform. As clerk of the council,
he and Richard Layton examined blessed John Fisher. He was one of the
commissioners for visiting religious houses previous to their dissolution.
"This appointment," says Ellis, "probably made lord Crumwell anxious to
get possession of his papers and effects."
* John Raynes was a well-known bookseller of the day in St. Paul's
Churchyard. 4 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Ser. iii. p. 104. Speaking of Sir Thomas Pope,
his biographer writes : " His prodigious property was accumulated in conse-

404 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
The plate of the doomed houses, principally, indeed, the
chalices and other sacred vessels of the altar, were the first
solicitude of the royal spoilers. It is impossible even to
guess at the worth of this portion of the king's booty.
During centuries of undisturbed possession the monasteries
of England must have been enriched by what would to-day
be accounted priceless works of art in silver and gold. To
the agents of Henry they represented merely so many
ounces of metal, and as such only is there any record what
ever of the precious contents of the monastic treasure-
houses. Only in very few instances do the spoilers add to the
record of weight any detail of the precious work, frequently
enriched with jewels, or enamelled , bosses, or richly chased
and beaten into artistic form by the hammer of the cunning
smith, before it is swept into the bag of plunder to be
" dispoiled " at the mint, and ultimately to find its way into
the royal melting-pot, from which it issued forth as the
debased money by which Henry cheated his subjects in
his later years. Thus, to take one or two examples, from
Westminster the record notes specially "a cup called the
'maser belle, or saint Edward's maser,' " a "cross of beryl"
and " a dish or basin of precious stone called agate, orna
mented with gold, precious stones and pearls."1 From
Canterbury, too, there was taken " a crozier of silver orna
mented, called Thomas Beckett's staff," besides the mass of
gold and silver and precious stones. And in rare instances
particular inventories have been preserved of the precious
church ornaments and plate found at some monastery and
carried off to the royal treasury.
A very large amount of spoil was obtained through the
royal crusade against relics, and, without weighing Henry's
motives, it would have been more easy to believe in his good
intentions had he not enriched himself so considerably by
his attack upon the honour shown to the tombs and remains
of holy men. As the noble author of his life remarks,
" Henry promoted no other reformation but only that which
quence of the destruction of the religious houses, and the lucky opportunity of
raising an estate from this grand harvest of riches which now lay open before
him seems to have diverted his thoughts from making a fortune by law."
Wharton, Life of Pope (ed. 1780), p. 23.
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, ii. m. iogd.

The Monastic Spoils 405
would turn the penny and increase the exchequer." And,
whatever view may be taken as to the good or evil resulting
to the Church by this action, the actual dishonour shown
to the remains of the saints by the royal agents must on all
hands be condemned. Even if it be allowed that some of
the venerated relics had in fact little title to be what they
claimed, still by far the greater number had a history which
alone should have shielded them from positive disrespect,
whilst many of them were undoubtedly the mortal remains
of men and women whose names were written in no less
honour on the pages of English history than on the diptychs
of the Church. They were, to adopt Mr. Froude's language,
" the peculiar treasures of the great abbeys and cathedrals
— the mortal remains of the holy men in whose memories
they had been founded, who by martyr's deaths, or lives
of superhuman loftiness, had earned the veneration of later
ages. The bodies of the saints had been gathered into
costly shrines which a beautiful piety had decorated with
choicest offerings. In an age which believed, without doubt
or pretence, that the body of a holy man was incorporated
into the body of Christ, that the seeming dust . . . would
form again the living home of the spirit which had gone
away but for a while, such dust, was looked upon with awe
and pious fear."
Although no general seizure of the shrines of the saints
was attempted by Henry till the year 1538, as early as May,
1537, the duke of Norfolk was directed to remove that
of St. John at Bridlington. " As for the shrine," the letter
runs, "the king's highness, to the intent that his people
should not be seduced in the offering of their money, would
have it taken down. This and all other jewels and plate
appertaining to his highness, except such as you desire to
have for your money," are to be dispatched to London.1
About the middle of the year 1538 general orders were
apparently dispatched to the officers of various counties,
directing them to repair to the several churches within the
limits of their jurisdiction and effect the demolition of every
noted shrine. Under cover of a pretended zeal against
superstition, they were directed to take away the "shrine
and bones with all the ornaments of the said shrine
1 Calendar, xii. (ii), No. 34.

406 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
belonging, and all other relics, silver, gold and all jewels be
longing to the said shrine, and . . . see them safely and
surely conveyed unto our Tower of London." Further, they
were ordered "to see that both the shrine and the place
where it was kept be destroyed even to the ground." x
The circumstances attending the destruction of one or
two of these precious monuments may be here recorded as
examples. Pollard, one of the royal agents, in a letter to
Crumwell describes the desecration of St. Swithin's at
Winchester. It was " about three o'clock in the morning,"
he writes, that " we made an end of the shrine here." The
prior and convent "were very conformable," he says, and
he was assisted in his work, which lasted on through the
night, by "the mayor with eight or nine of his brethren,
the bishop's chancellor, Mr. doctor Crawford, with a good
appearance of honest personages besides." The scene pre
sented by that varied crowd who through the darkness of
an autumn night watched from among the shadows of the
venerable cathedral, whilst Pollard and his barbarous crew
hacked and tore down the shrine which for centuries had
been the glory of Winchester, may be easily pictured to the
imagination. By the dim light of a candle the commissioner,
who knew so well what he came for, must have eagerly
scanned the metal as it was torn from the stones of the
structure, and noted that " there was in it no piece of gold,
nor one ring or true stone, but all great counterfeits," but
that " the silver alone " would " amount near to two thousand
marks." On that same night, too, he says, he "took pos
session of the cross of emeralds, the cross called ' Hieru-
salem,' another cross of gold, two chalices of gold with some
1 The order for the destruction of the shrine of St. Richard of Chichester
is given in Wilkins, iii. 840. This commission to take down and convey to the
Tower of London the bones, shrine, &c, now in Chichester Cathedral of "a
certain bishop of the same which they call Saint Richard," dated 14th
December, is in the Record Office (Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 1049). On the 20th
December Sir William Goring, the commissioner, returned an account of 118
ounces of gold, "with stones, enamel and agate," 5255 ounces of silver gilt,
162 ounces of parcel gilt, one mitre, four copes and one vestment, as the result
of this crusade against St. Richard (Monastic Treasures), p. 43. The details
are given in Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 1 103. In a ship coffer 55 images of silver
and gilt. In a long coffin, wherein bishop Richard's bones were, 57 pieces of
silver and gilt. Three other coffers full of broken silver. " A cover with three
locks . . . with relics and other jewels, parcel of the said shrine." In a little
box 31 rings with stones and three other jewels. In a casket 51 jewels set
with stones and pearls.

The Monastic Spoils 407
silver plate."1 And on the Sunday morning, when the
shrine had been disposed of, "going to bed-ward," they
went round into the choir and stood with their lights before
the magnificent reredos. There, he writes, " we viewed the
altar, which we purpose to bring with us. It will be worth
the taking down and nothing thereof seen; but such a
piece of work it is, that we think we shall not rid it, doing
our best before Monday night or Tuesday morning. This
done," he adds, " we intend both at Hyde and Saint Mary's
to sweep away all the rotten bones that be called relics ;
which we may not omit lest it should be thought we care
more for the treasure than for avoiding of the abomination
of idolatry." 2 The result of the work, so far as the main
point was concerned, was 1035 \ ounces of gold, 13,886
ounces of silver gilt, 300 ounces of silver and parcel gilt,
and one mitre received by the treasurer of the royal jewel-
house.8 No mention whatever is made of the reception
of the magnificent jewels spoken of by Pollard in his
letter. Probably no shrine in the world could compare with
the riches of that St. Thomas at Canterbury. For three
centuries treasures of every kind had been bestowed upon
the tomb of the martyred archbishop from every part of the
Christian world. Even at the beginning of the fourteenth
century the inventory of jewels belonging to the shrine
presents a goodly list of precious and artistic treasures.4
According to Erasmus, "the least valuable portion was
gold ; every part glistened, shone and sparkled with rare
and very large jewels, some of them exceeding the size of a
goose's egg. . . . The principal of them were offerings sent
by sovereign princes." 5 So, too, Madame de Montreuil, who
saw it just prior to its destruction when on her return from
Scotland to France, "marvelled at the great riches thereof,
saying it to be innumerable, and that if she had not seen it,
1 These precious objects were probably gifts of Bishop Henry de Blois.
The " cross of emeralds " is doubtless the " alia crux aurea cum xxxiiii
smaragdis," No. 6 of the inventory printed in Downside Review, vol. iii. p.
41. " Hierusalem " is probably No. 1 of the inventory, and the two golden
chalices Nos. 9 and 10.
2 Wright, p. 218.
8 Monastic Treasures (Abbotsford Club), p. 40.
* See Erasmus Pilgrimages, by J. Gough Nichols (2nd ed.), p. 191.
6 Ibid., p. 49.

408 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
all the men in the world could never have made her
believe it." x
In the autumn of 1538 St. Thomas was declared a
traitor, and it was enjoined that henceforth " his images and
pictures through the whole realm shall be put down and
avoided out of all churches, chapels and other places ; and
that from henceforth the days used to be festival in his
name shall not be observed, nor the service office, antiphons,
collects and prayers in his name read, but rased and put
out of all the books . . . upon pain of his majesty's indig
nation and imprisonment at his grace's pleasure." a
As a necessary consequence of this condemnation of the
saint came the spoliation of his tomb. Sander suggests that
"the offence for which the most holy martyr was thus
severely punished was nothing else but the wealth lavished
upon his tomb and the necessity of finding some excuse for
the pillage." 8 Even if this was not the case, the result was
the same ; and the process of casting down the shrine, col-
1 State Papers (ed. 1830), Part ii. p. 583. Polydore Vergil, Relation
(Camden Society, 30), contains the account of a Venetian who visited the
shrine about the year 1500. " The tomb of St. Thomas the martyr, arch
bishop of Canterbury," he says, "exceeds all belief. Notwithstanding its
great size, it is wholly covered with plates of pure gold ; yet the gold is scarcely
seen because it is covered with various precious stones, as sapphires, balasses,
diamonds, rubies and emeralds ; and wherever the eye turns something more
beautiful than the rest is observed. Nor, in addition to these natural beauties,
is the skill of art wanting, for in the midst of the gold are the most beautiful
sculptured gems both small and large, as well such as are in relief as agates,
onyxes, cornelians and cameos ; and some cameos are of such size that I am
afraid to name it ; but everything is far surpassed by a ruby, not larger than a
thumbnail, which is fixed at the right of the altar. The church is somewhat
dark, and particularly in the spot where the shrine is placed, and when we
went to see it the sun was near setting and the weather was cloudy ; never
theless I saw the ruby as if I had it in my hand. They say it was given by a
king of France." This jewel was no doubt the "Regal of France," of which
subsequent mention will be made. It seems, however, to have been a diamond.
2 Burnet, Records (ed. Pocock), vi. 220. It is difficult to conceive that
the so-called citation, trial and condemnation of the saint by a court sitting
at Westminster can have taken place. The story passed current on the
Continent, and is given by Pollini. Lingard thinks that the Bull "Cum
Redemptor" of Paul III., dated Dec. 17, 1538, confirms the story. Canon
Dixon (ii. p. 72 note) has shown that it does not necessarily do so.
• Lewis' transl., p. 142. In this Marillac, the French ambassador, agrees.
After declaring that Henry was so avaricious and covetous," that all the wealth
of the world would not be enough to satisfy and content his ambition . . .
from which has come the ruin of the abbeys and the spoiling of every church
in which there was anything to take," he then adds : "St. Thomas is declared
a traitor because his relics and bones were adorned with gold and stones "
(Inventaire Analytique, ed. Kaulek, p. 211).

The Monastic Spoils 409
lecting the plate and jewels as already described in the case
of Winchester, was repeated at Canterbury. Here, how
ever, the relics, which had been venerated for many genera
tions, were apparently treated with special indignity, and
torn from the sheltered tomb were committed to the flames.1
The plate was carried away to London. From the de
scriptions quoted above it is evident that the prize was worth
having. "All above the stone work was first of wood,
jewels of gold set with stone . . . wrought upon with gold
wire," says the account from which Stowe derived his in
formation. "Then again with jewels of gold, as broch[es
images of angels and rings] ten or twelve together, cramped
with gold into the ground of gold. The [spoils of which
filled two] chests, such as six or eight men could but con
vey out of the church. At [one side was a stone with] an
angel of gold pointing thereunto, offered by the king of France:
[which king Henry put] into a ring and wore it on his thumb." 2
In the Treasurer's Roll the weight of the plate obtained
is thus recorded : The gold (including 2f ounces fine gold
of coins) was no less than 4994! ounces; the gilt plate
weighed 4425 ; the parcel gilt 840 ; and the plain silver
5286.8 At a subsequent date twenty-six ounces of gold
1 The Relics of St. Thomas, by Rev. J. Morris, S.J. Fr. Morris shows that
it is almost certain that the relics were burnt. In The Travels of Nicander
Nucius (Camden Soc), p. 75, the Greek gives the account of this burning
current in England when he was there about 1545. The bones of the saint,
he says, after being " treated with every indignity, were committed to the fire
in the middle of the city, and reduced to ashes ; and having put the ashes into
a cannon, they discharged them into the air."
2 Nichols, ut sup., p. 190, from Cott. MS. Tib., e. viii. f. 269. The
history of this great jewel is interesting. In 1 179 Louis VII. of France came
to visit the shrine in company with king Henry. He offered at the tomb his
golden cup and a rent of a hundred measures of wine yearly. Having passed
the night in prayer before the saint's relics, he in the morning asked and re
ceived the "fraternity" in the chapter-house. Amongst his offerings is sup
posed to have been the great glory of the shrine, " that renowned precious
stone that is called the Regal of France." From the thumb-ring, for which
Henry VIII. used the jewel, it was apparently transferred to a collar. In the
inventory of precious stones delivered to queen Mary the 10th of March,
1553-4, was " a collar of golde set with sixteen faire diamountes, whereof the
Regal of Fraunce is one, and fourtene knottes or perles, in every knotte four
perles" (Brit. Mus. Harl. MS., 611, 22). See Nichols, Introd., Ixxxvi.
3 Monastic Treasures, p. 40. Sander says (Lewis' trans., p. 143) : "The
king's receiver confessed that the, gold and silver and precious stones and
sacred vestments taken away from the shrine filled six-and-twenty carts. We
may judge from this," he adds, " how great must have been the wealth of which
the king robbed the other shrines, churches and monasteries."

4To Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
with 4090 of silver gilt or plain were added to the spoils
from Christ Church, Canterbury. Besides this wealth of
precious metal, and the jewels of which there is no record,
there were carried away to London four precious mitres,
" two of silver gilt over-worked with pearls and precious
stones;" a wooden throne covered at the parts called
pommels with crimson velvet, and the handles of silver gilt ;
and a crozier ornamented with silver, called "Thomas
Becket's staff."1 Further, besides a number of fastenings
for copes of gold and precious stones, nine pontifical rings
and " a golden shell adorned with divers precious stones,"
there were taken for the king " eleven copes of gold cloth
called ' gold Bawdekin.' Of these ten were white, with the
arms of . . . Morton, formerly archbishop, and the eleventh
was ornamented with red roses." Also, "one covering for
the upper part of an altar of white and red velvet splendidly
worked."2 These, with other things, formed the plunder
which Henry gathered into his treasure-house "from the
goods of the late monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury."
In a similar way to that in which the shrine of St.
Thomas was demolished other sanctuaries were invaded and
pillaged. Throughout the length and breadth of England
the same hands which were levelling the monasteries and
the same spirit which was at work on them were engaged
in the war against the departed saints and in appropriating
the gifts with which generations of pious Englishmen had
honoured their tombs. It was the same story everywhere,
with the place and actors alone changed.
1 In the inventory made in 1 315, the pastoral staff of St. Thomas is thus
described : — " Item. Baculus Sancti Thomae de pyro, cum capite de nigro
comu." It was thus made of pear -wood with a crook of black horn. Erasmus
says : " There (in the sacristy) we saw the pastoral staff of Saint Thomas. It
appeared to be a cane covered with silver plate ; it was of very little weight
and no workmanship, nor stood higher than to the waist " (Nichols, p. 44, and
note, p. 175).
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, i. m. no. Speaking of the
treasures of Canterbury, Erasmus says : " Good God I what a display was
there of silken vestments, what an array of golden candlesticks." The inven
tory (13 1 5) before referred to, which may be seen printed in the Appendix to
Dart's History of the Church, pp. iv.-xviii., must be consulted fully to
understand the amazing treasures which have perished. There were 65
" copes of profession " given by suffragan bishops and abbots, besides many
more. The list of crosses, chalices and church furniture is very lengthy.
Among the chasubles belonging to the shrine was one given by Sir John
Plukenet, knight, of purple cloth with golden pine-apples, and a. large orfrey
before and behind. (See Nichols, p. 192.)

The Monastic Spoils 411
It is not to be supposed that this rough treatment of
the relics of saints hitherto so much venerated was approved
of by the people. Indications are not wanting that they
saw with sorrow what they were powerless to prevent, for,
as Marillac, the French ambassador, informed his master
about this time, " the people were much more attached to
the old religion than to the new opinions." 1 One of Crum
well's numerous spies reported the opinions of the servant
of bishop Tunstal, of Durham, on this matter. The docu
ment is of considerable length, but portions of it are of very
great interest. "I would gladly," he writes, "have found
an occasion that the servant should declare his mind in the
evidence of others, and so at supper and in the presence of
the goodman of the Taberd, at Royston ... as we talked
of the suppression of houses of religion, by his own occasion,
(he) show(ed) us, that before he came to Huntingdon he
overtook certain men that came from the commissions, and
brought with them in their males (trunks) behind them copes
and other abbey gear. He showed us that the prior of
Mountgrace was fully minded not to give up his house, and
that he answered the servant of a friend of his, who had
sent to him for very friendliness that he should meet Mr.
Henley, coming towards his house to suppress it, three or
four miles from the house and present him with a gelding of
the price of five marks, and desire him to be a good master
to him, which would serve his purpose well. Unto which
messenger he said, he thanked his master for his good will,
but he had no gelding of such a price, and in case he had,
he neither intended to meet him, nor give him a hair of the
tail to be good to him. . . . 'Lord,' quoth I, 'what manner
of man is that prior ? Is he a man of any discretion ? '
' Yea, marry he is,' quoth he, ' and a great learned man, and
so be all his brethren, and they be like-minded all to him.'
' How doth the country favour him ? ' quoth I. ' Marry,'
quoth he, ' wondrously well, and they lament and bewail his
cause very sore in their hearts.'
"And after that he told us another tale; how he was
with the visitors one time when they handled relics very
irreverently and spoiled them of the gold and silver that was
about them, and cast them away when they had done, and
1 Inventaire Analytique des Archives, ed. Kaulek, No. 119.

412 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
gave unto him certain bones garnished with silver, and bade
him pluck off the silver and garnish his dagger withal.
(These) he took at their hands and keepeth them yet and
other bones likewise, which the visitors had cast away and
he gathered up afterwards. And, he added, he had rather
go a begging than he would take the silver from them." x
From the spoiling of shrines and relics, and from the
pillage of cathedral and monastic treasuries, Henry amassed
a booty of immense value. Putting on one side the actual
jewels, which were undoubtedly worth considerable sums of
money, and the amount of plate appropriated by the royal
commissioners and other agents engaged on the work of
gathering the harvest, the mass of ecclesiastical plate which
reached the treasure-house was very considerable. Besides
the adornments torn from the tombs of saints and the re
liquaries from out of which their bones had been cast, the
plunder comprised miscellaneous church ornaments of all
sorts : sacred chalices and patens, monstrances for exposing
the Blessed Sacrament and vessels for reserving it, crosses
and candlesticks for the altar, processional and pastoral
staves, pontifical mitres, rings and gloves, cruets, censers
and silver dishes of every kind, and even jewelled clasps
torn from missals and other service books were conveyed
to London to the king.2 The sacred character of the
greater number of the articles was no protection against
1 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 750.
2 Besides the weight of plate, a miscellaneous variety of ecclesiastical
ornaments were brought to the treasure-house. For example : " A monstrance
having a great beryl in the midst and set with divers counterfeit stones," from
Ramsey ; a silver crown, mitres without number, " a pair of beryl candlesticks
garnished with silver gilt," "great agates, cameos, coarse pearls" set in gold,
from St. Albans; a monstrance from Gloucester; a mitre "garnished with
flowers of silver and silver bells with counterfeit stones " from Canterbury ;
"a table of silver gilt with two leaves, the inside set with sapphires and other
stones" from Ely; "a gospel book plated upon with a crucifix, Mary and
John, of silver, and a text of a gospel book plated," &c, &c. (Monastic
Treasures). Curious deductions are made from the accounts, thus : The king took the
use of a "Gospeller," ornamented with silver and precious stones, and 60s. is
allowed for its price ; £1% 12s. id. was deducted for lead, wax and paper in a
parcel of plate which had been priced as silver, and 40s. 5d. because a silver
gilt image of St. John from Abingdon proved lighter than was estimated"
(Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, i. m. 13d.).
In the accounts of the keeper of the jewel-house, 7101J ounces of plate
are said to be lost in the melting by wax, lead, &c. (Monastic Treasures, pp.
54-63).

The Monastic Spoils 413
profanation, just as artistic value and costly workmanship
did not save them from the royal melting-pot. The worth
of the plunder was calculated by its weight, and this, as
entered upon the roll of the treasurer, may be stated as
follows: — Pure gold, 14,531! ounces; silver gilt, 129,520
ounces; parcel gilt, 73,774|; and silver, 6l7,6oo\.1 This
vast collection was estimated by Sir John Williams, at the
melting price, to be worth in money of that date ^63,531,
15s. id. To this, however, certain additions must be made.
The keeper received in money for plate and other ornaments
sold at the dissolution ^15,550, is. 3^d.2 and nearly £7000
worth of plate was forwarded to the Augmentation Office in
the earlier years of the dissolutions.3 Hence the money
value of the gold and silver spoils actually received by the
king, and estimated only at the weighing price, was more
than .£85,000, or very nearly a million sterling of the
present money.4
From the ecclesiastical plate thus appropriated by Henry
to the sacred vestments the transition is natural. Ancient
inventories show that there were in the monastic sacristies
copes, chasubles, and much other altar furniture, of gold
and silver cloth, of silver richly and artfully embroidered
with the needle, of brocades and stuffs of Eastern origin,
which would have been esteemed priceless works of art in
this age. Much must have perished in the wanton destruc-
1 Monastic Treasures (Abbotsford Club), p. 53, et seq.
2 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
» R O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, i. m. 4d.
4 For the full account of the amount of plate and what became of it see
the Appendix. A good deal was expended for "new trimming images of
gold," e.g., an image of Our Lady. Plate and money to the value of no less
than £46,636, IS. ijd. was given "to the proper hand of the king" (Monastic
Treasures, p. 92), and ^810 was spent in the expenses of offices and collecting,
nearly £jo being for the carriage of plate "as well by boats as carts to West
minster and Greenwich " (p. 93). As an example of the way the plate was
relegated to the melting-pot may be given a few items from an account of
"plate molten by order of the king's council," 1 July, 1557 (Ed. VI.). In
this there are " gold coming from defacing 3 books, a mitre, two gloves ; "
"glass garnished with gold from three books ;" "two candlesticks, 2 cruetts,
2 chalices ; " "a ship of mother of pearl and silver ; " " silver from a ' glass of
berryl ' ; " "three mitres, 2 gold crosses and an ' ark ' ; " "a ring of gold called
a pontifical having an eagle and in her breast a small ruby ; " "a plate of gold
being of a monstrance;" "3 cross stars all gilt;" "4 rings of silver called
pontificals, 2 having stones therein and the third a pearl." It is noted that
the stones coming from the mitres, rings, &c, defaced are still in hand (R. O.
Audit Office, Bundle 1533, Roll. 1).

4T4 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
tion that characterised the work of the royal commissioners
at the time of the suppressions. The skilfully-wrought
metal work of shrine and reliquary, more precious for the
art of the workman than for the worth of the material, when
torn from its place by the tools of despoilers became but a
mass of broken metal fit only for the melting. So, in like
manner, the triumphs of loom and crewel, amid the desola
tion of places where they had been prized and cared for,
were too often regarded as pieces of useless lumber.
Vestments, altar frontals, and the like, which had been
looked on " as objects of joy and beauty '" by generations
of religious, who knew the history of each, and who would
recall with gratitude the memory of the various donors, were
looked upon merely as things upon which a little money
was to be raised to pay the expenses of the commissioners
or the wages of their servants. " Money to dispatch the
household and monks," writes the indefatigable Dr. Layton,
of Bisham abbey, " we must make of the rotten copes and
bells ; " and he further says that they had already " made
sale of the old vestments within the chapter-house." J The
accounts of such auctions show that a few shillings, or in
many instances only a few pence, represented the sums
which the sacred vestments fetched.2
Scores of copes and chasubles, chiefly of cloth of gold
and silver, of tissue, or worked in pearls, were preserved
for the king's use. Thus, a set of "cloth of gold with
ornaments of blue velvet" and three altar frontals from
Beaulieu, another of " cloth of silver worked with fleur-de-
lys and angels " from Canons Ashby,3 were saved from the
general sales4 and sent up to London. So, from St
Swithin's, Winchester, "six copes of blue tissue and one
1 R. O. Crum. Corr., xx. No. n.
2 See Scudamore's account. Wright, p. 266, &c.
3 These vestments have a history of their own. Richard Colles, the prior,
ordered them from "Thomas Typlady, citizen and broderer of London," and a
" cope and two tunicles," for which the convent promised to pay ^39 ; they
were brought to Stourbridge fair and delivered to the servants of the abbey
only a short time before the dissolution (Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 120, f. 215).
£29 was still due to Typlady when the vestments were taken for the king and
handed to Sir Thomas Pope, the treasurer of the Court of Augmentations.
This sum Typlady claimed from the king (Ibid., Bk. 404, f. 220), and he was
ultimately paid in full (Ibid., Treas. Roll, i. m. 1 2d).
4 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Treasurer's Roll, i. These are merely haphazard
examples of many such entries.

The Monastic Spoils 415
piece of arras, with the image of the Passion ; " from St.
Augustine's, Bristol, "certain garnishing of vestments of
silver gilt, enamelled, and fret with small pearls;" from
Cirencester, " a cope embroidered with the story of Jesse,
with cloth of gold upon crimson velvet and two copes of
cloth of gold ; " from St. Peter's, Gloucester, " three copes
of silver tissue, two of gold and one of blue " J were reserved
for royal service.2
The vestments purchased at the various sales, which
took place in every part of England, were dispersed through
out the country, and large numbers even were shipped to
foreign lands. In many instances the auctions were attended
by merchants who followed the footsteps of the royal com
missioners and purchased largely for speculative purposes.
Thus, one Hugh Payne appears to have purchased the vest
ments of St. Martin's-le-Grand ; John Blackewall, a cleric,
" divers capes of Worcester ; " 8 Joan Mynne, three copes
of silk and four of bawdekin of Westminster, and Edward
Elrington obtained other copes and ornaments of the same
place for £102.* A market was found in places beyond the
seas for the ecclesiastical ornaments and vestments thus
discarded, and not only were the sentiments of the nation
at large outraged by the pillage of churches, and at the sight
of the royal visitors riding along the roads with "copes and
other abbey gear" as their chief luggage, but the seaport
towns of the Continent were astonished at the desecration.
" The lord of Barrow," wrote an English priest from Holland
in 1540, "showed me that there were brought to his town
1 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 494.
2 The portion of ecclesiastical spoils so reserved from Westminster is rich.
Of altar furniture there is specially noted : "A basin or dish of a precious stone
named agate, ornamented with gold, precious stones and pearls, and weighing
38 ounces. Two altar hangings, called frontals, of cloth of gold worked with
lions, fleur-de-lys and the arms of the late — Islip, formerly abbot of the
monastery." " Five copes of needlework (one called St. Peter's cope, one
the cope with angels of pearl and three others called Jesses) with two tunicles,
one chasuble and seven silver gilt buttons, together with albs, stoles and
maniples of the same work." "Sixteen copes of cloth of gold of various
colours : one of blue with a. chasuble, two tunicles, an alb, stole and maniple
belonging to the same ; another cope of cloth of gold with the orpheries
splendidly worked with ' Islips ' and adorned with golden images : 14 other
copes of cloth of gold of velvet and golden portcullises worked on them."
These and other altar furniture were taken for the king's use (Treasurer's
Roll, i. m. I09d).
8 Ibid., Roll, ii. m. 9d. * Ibid., m. io6d.

416 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and Antwerp so many rich and goodly copes out of England
to sell these years past that it caused them all no less to
marvel than in a manner to mourn to see them come to a
sale that were prepared to the service of God. Whereupon
rose rumours that we had no masses in the realm (of
England)." *
A large proportion also of the Church spoils were
without doubt scattered over England, and possibly used
by many for secular purposes. " Nothing more is said
about the abbeys," wrote the Venetian ambassador at the
time ; " they are all suppressed and their revenues annexed
to the crown, some being given and usurped by the nobility,
who convert them into palaces, furnishing them with the
church ornaments (when there are any) and rendering them
heirlooms in their families." 2 A learned historian, speaking
of what followed upon the pillage of churches under Edward
VI., draws a picture which must equally have represented
the results of ecclesiastical spoliation under his father.
"Although," he says, "some profit was hereby raised to
the king's exchequer, yet the far greatest part of the prey
came to other hands: Insomuch that many private men's
parlours were hung with altar-cloths, their tables and beds
covered with copes, instead of carpets and coverlids; and
many made carousing cups of the sacred chalices, as once
Balshazzar celebrated his drunken feast in the sanctified
vessels of the Temple. It was a sorry house, and not worth
the naming, which had not somewhat of this furniture in it,
though it were only a fair large cushion made of a cope or
altar-cloth, to adorn their windows, or make their chairs
appear to have somewhat in them of a chair of state. Yet
how contemptible were these trappings in comparison of
those vast sums of money which were made of jewels, plate
and cloth of tissue, either conveyed beyond the seas or sold
at home."3 It is unnecessary to dwell further upon the sales which
preceded and accompanied the destruction of the religious
houses, and at which the furniture of the churches and
effects of the convents were disposed of to the highest bidder,
often at ridiculously small sums. Altars and images, the
1 R. O. State Papers, Dom., 1540, ^£5.
2 Venetian State Papers, v. p. 347.
* Heylin, Eccl. Restaurata, ed. 1670, p. 134.

The Monastic Spoils 417
wood of choir stalls and chapel screens, candlesticks and
lamps, tables and forms, tombs, gravestones, pavement,
timber, iron and glass — in fact, everything which would add
a penny to the total of the plunder came to the hammer.
In some cases the grant of an entire building with all its
effects, in others the purchase of the goods as a whole, did
away with the necessity of a public auction ; but these were
comparatively few in number, and, as a general rule, a sale,
conducted in the chapter-house, church or cloister, was the
method by which a monastery was cleared out as a prepara
tory step to dealing with the building itself.
Wanton waste was, of course, inseparable from such
wholesale destruction, but it is impossible to suppress the
word of grief at what the world has in this way lost beyond
recovery. No other instance is needed to rouse in all feelings
stronger than regret than the loss of the precious manu
scripts and other contents of the monastic libraries which
disappeared in the general havoc. How little such things
were cared for may be gathered by the contemptuous refer
ences which occur in the account of the sales which took
place. " Old books in the choir, 6d. ; " " old books in the
vestry sold to Robert Dorington, 8d. ; " " old books and a
cofer in the library, 2s. -,"1 "a flat chest with five books in
it, 8d. ; " "a mass book with its desk, 8d. ; " " fourteen great
books in the choir, 14s., " 2 are samples of the sales of manu
scripts which would now be of immense value.
"The English monks," says Fuller, "were bookish them
selves, and much inclined to hoard up monuments of learn
ing." John Bale has left on record his experience as to the way
in which the treasures described by Leland disappeared upon
the destruction of the monasteries. The purchasers of the
houses used the manuscripts for every vile and common
necessity. " Grocers and soap-sellers " bought them for their
business purposes, and " whole ships full " were sent " over
the sea to the bookbinders." While one merchant bought
" the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings' price,"
and " this stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper," adds
the author, " by the space of more than these ten years : and
yet he hath store enough for as many years to come."
Nothing illustrates this wholesale and wanton destruction
1 Scudamore accounts. Wright, p. 269, &c.
2 R. O. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 408, f. 74, &c. 2 D

4i 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
better than the dearth of English Church service and music
books, so much lamented in these days. That the choral
schools of the country produced good results in the way of
music, and that they were in full swing at the time of the
destruction of the monastic houses, cannot be doubted.
And yet practically nothing is known of the compositions of
later English musicians or^ their works, so complete has been
the destruction of this manuscript music.1 In the same way
how very few copies of the various service books, such as
Antiphonals, Graduals, Ordinals, Missals, &c, does the pre
sent age possess. And yet many thousands — in fact, not
fewer than a quarter of a million, according to the highest
authority upon the matter — must have been in actual use at
the various churches at this period.2
1 Erasmus speaks of the English love of choral song. " It is," he says, " so
agreeable to the monks, especially in England, that youths, boys, &c, every
morning sing to the organ the mass of the Virgin Mary, with the most har
monious modulations of voice " (Owen and Blakeway, Shrewsbury, ii. 50, note).
As a sample of the music which must have existed in every monastery, a por
tion of a much-mutilated inventory of Worcester may be given. It will be
found printed in Green, Worcester, App. vii. A glance at the original (Brit.
Mus. Ilarl., 604) will show what a small fragment it is. " The maister of the
chapell." " Item, a surples for the maister of the children and 6 surpliesses
for the children : A masse bocke of — with prycksonge wheryn is 5 parts and 4
parts. Four prycksonge mass books of paper. Two other books — one with
anthems and salves in him. Four little prycksong books of masses. Five mass
books of 5 parts. Five books — with Salve Festa Dies and scrolls belonging to the
2 paper books. In them be the 5 parts of other songs — a singing note book
' burdyde ' — a parchment book of Salves ' burdyde,' 2 masses of 5 parts in
parchment scrolls — a paper book of 4 parts — a paper book with the ' invitatories,'
Benedictus, Te Deum in prickynge. There be 3 or 4 anthems in scroll."
2 Speaking of the destruction of service books, Mr. Maskell (Monumenta
Ritualia, 3rd ed., i. p. cxcvii.) says : " Of each (i.e. the eight or nine books
previously named) not only must there have been almost countless copies in
manuscript in the year 1530, but there had been many large editions of several
of them printed. Yet now, in about three hundred years, we may say of them
that as a class they have all but totally disappeared. Examples of any one,
missal or breviary or manual, it matters not, are of extraordinary rarity. Of
some none are extant, and by far the greater part of those we do possess are
mutilated and imperfect." The learned author calculates that when the old
ritual ceased at least two-thirds of the copies must have been good, since the
greatest care was taken of them. "Every church and chantry and chapel
was supplied." At St. John the Baptist's, Glastonbury, in 1421, there
were " 3 missals, 3 graduals, 1 psalter, 3 antiphonals, 1 legend, 2 collects
and 1 processional " (Warner, App. xcix.). " Monasteries had hundreds."
At Ramsey there were " 70 breviaries, 100 psalters, 4 hymnals, 32 graduals,
39 processionals " (Brit. Mus. Cott. Roll, xi. 16). And altogether, Mr. Maskell
calculates (p. ccii.) that there could have been " not less that 250,000 volumes
in actual use, besides those which might have been laid up and treasured in the
Archives." He further adds that they must have been purposely destroyed to
prevent men "worshipping any longer after the manner of their forefathers."

The Monastic Spoils 419
After a monastery had been dismantled, and the churches,
to use Dr. London's expression, " defaced," then came the
process of realizing the value of the materials of the building
itself. The chief source of profit was the lead with which
the monasteries were mostly covered. It was stripped from
the roof of the finest church without hesitation, and melted
at a fire made probably with the wood of the stalls, screen-
work or rood. Orders were sent, in what appears at this date
the most cold-blooded manner, to wreck the roof and " pull "
the lead off some of the most glorious architectural monu
ments which England then contained. Bands of workmen
went about from place to place throughout the country, lit
their fires in the naves or chancels of abbey churches, and
occupied themselves for days, and even in some cases weeks,
in melting the coverings of roofs, and the gutters, spouts
and pipes from the building into pigs and fodders, the sale
of which might add a few pounds to the royal plunder. The
same story was repeated in every place. Like a swarm of
locusts the royal wreckers went forth over the land, and
what they found fair and comely they blackened with their
smelting fires and left useless ruins. For eleven weeks,
as an example, the commissioners wandered about Somerset,
" defacing, destroying and prostrating the churches, cloisters,
belfreys, and other buildings of the late monasteries." At
Keynsham -£12 was paid to one Richard Walker for melting
the lead on church, cloister and steeple. At Hinton Charter
house, Witham, Montacute, Bruton, Athelney and Buckland
the work was repeated, and at Bath half-a-crown was paid
for the casting of each of 156 fodders, the result of the
process at the priory church, when the metal from the roofs
of the church and other monastic buildings passed into the
melting-pot.1 At Wigmore abbey, to quote but one more
example, it took James Reynolds, the royal metal melter in
those parts, more than eight days to tear down the lead and
cast it into pigs. Day and night the process was watched,
" for fear some " of the royal spoil " should be stolen by
the people." 2
The casting completed, other workmen arrived to con
vey the fodders to a place of safety, where they might remain
till purchased or used. Along the roads teams of horses
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 30-31 Hen. VIII., 224, m. 17.
2 Ibid., 230, m. 26d.

420 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
dragged waggons weighted with the lead, and down the
navigable rivers barges carried it to the sea-coast. The metal
from Wigmore, for example, was carried into the castle, and
thither also was brought in waggons the stuffs from Bordesley
and LylleshuU; while from the latter house a caravan of
ninety-three carts took a portion of it to a royal manor some
twenty miles distant.1 The lead from off the great cathedral
church of Coventry, estimated to be worth £647, was stacked,
together with that from other churches in the town, within
the desecrated building,2 while that from the church and
monastery of Bury St. Edmunds, " now pulled off," as the
account has it, and worth, according to the estimate, ^3302,
remained on the site. Many of the royal castles, as, for
instance, those of Worcester and Tutbury, were turned into
storehouses. Round the cathedral of Lincoln the metal
melted from the roofs of the monastic churches of the district
was piled for use, and thousands of tons were floated down
the Severn to Bristol to be sold for export.3
What has been said of the lead is equally true of the
bells found in the monasteries. They were a source of
great profit to the king, as the metal was valuable for the
making of guns, and was readily purchased by the London
merchants, if they were not saved from destruction by the
immediate payment of their estimated value by the people
ofthe neighbourhood for their parish church. Thus ^832
worth of metal, from the broken bells of Lincolnshire, was
given, in 1 542, to Sir Charles Morris, under royal warrant,
to make guns and other engines of war. At the same time
it was noted that 68 bells still remained unsold4 in that
district. Of purchases by private adventurers there were
many examples. Thus Henry Over, a grocer of Coventry,
purchased many of the bells in that town ; William Gerard,
a London haberdasher, and Thomas Walker, a vintner,
speculated jointly in 80,000 lbs. weight of broken metal,
for which they paid £800 ; Sir Richard Gresham paid ^3 1
for the bells of Blakeney and Burnham, in Norfolk, and
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., m.m. 27-27d. 2 Ibid., 226, m. nd.
s R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 472. Grant " to one John Smith of
Bristol for his ship ready to sail, in consideration of ,£200, two hundred fodders
of lead out of such our store as there remaineth, good weight." The Scuda-
more papers show what vast quantities went down the Severn. Brit. Mus. Add.
MS., 11,041, ff. 93, etseq.
4 Ibid., Mins. Accts., 34-35 Hen. VIII., 220.

The Monastic Spoils 421
John Core, a grocer, of London, who bought very largely
at one time, took 144,500 lbs. ofthe metal for £i345.J
The accounts for the delivery of part of this large order
are extant. They include the expenses for dismantling
belfreys and pulling down bells; for carriage of the metal
to London to the " king's weighouse," where they were to
be delivered to Core the grocer; for the wages of labourers
engaged in breaking up; and " I4d. paid to each man riding
to Gracedieu and Leicester to look at the bells." Also
charges were made for "hammers, iron wedges, crowes of
iron, chisels and other instruments bought and used at
different times for breaking " them up, as well as for sundry
barrels bought at different times and places in which to pack
the broken metal. In this work of destruction the labourers
were employed for seventy-five days.2
Some, however, of the bells were sold unbroken to
merchants, who carried them abroad. Thus, in a letter
written in the year 1539 to one of Thomas Crumwell's
gentlemen, an Englishman complains of the treatment he
had received from the Spanish Inquisition. "The causes
of the persecution," he says, " were refusal to acknowledge
Henry VIII. a heretic and alleged approval of the destruc
tion of monasteries and selling church bells." The whole
matter arose from Thomas Edwards, a London merchant,
bringing in a ship "a brazen bell, which might weigh two
kintals." A priest, who passed and saw it, said, in the hear
ing of the writer of the complaint, " What a good Christian
is your king of England to put down the monasteries and
to take away the bells ! " The Englishman defended his
sovereign, and thus involved himself in difficulties with the
authorities of the Inquisition.8
In some few instances the monastery bells were saved
from destruction by being purchased by the inhabitants of
neighbouring parishes. Thus those of Buckfastleigh, in
Devon, paid £33, 15s. to Sir Thomas Arundel for the five
bells of the old abbey;4 at the dissolution of Ford the people
bought five bells for their parish, and those of Churchstoke
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, ii. m. 9.
2 Ibid., Mins. Accts., 31-32 Hen. VIII., 236, m. 37. This portion of the
144,500 lbs. bought by Core came from Leicestershire. The bells broken up
numbered 56, and weighed 48,000 lbs. (m. 7d).
8 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd Ser. ii. p. 139.
4 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Mins. Accts., 30-31 Hen. VIII., 223, m. 12.

422 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
collected £26, 1 3s. 4d. to save the bells of Newnham x from
destruction. Out of the two hundred bells collected by
Sir John Scudamore from the monasteries of Hereford,
Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcester, the inhabitants of
Roucester claimed three as belonging to their parish church,
since they had been rung for their services as well as for
the choral offices of the canons.2 In the same way the
people of Abergavenny laid claim to three bells of the
dissolved priory upon the ground that their ancestors had
collected money for them, and they had been always regarded
as the property of the people.3
Something must now be said about the destruction of
the buildings themselves. In some instances the entire
structure was disposed of by the king. Thus, for example,
the city of Worcester paid £$41 for the two convents of the
Black and Grey friars,4 and chancellor Audeley purchased
the buildings of Athelney abbey for £20.6 As a rule, how
ever, the buildings were sold piecemeal. Thus, to take one
or two examples, at Bath one Anthony Payne bought " all
the iron and glass of the monastery for £30. Another,
Robert Cocks, purchased the entire ' dorter ' for £ 10, a third,
Walter Dennys, obtained the 'fratry' for £6, and Henry
Bewchyn 'the cloisters' for £8."6 At Walsingham the
"windows, doors, stone called freestone, glass, iron, slate
and tiles" were disposed of in lots for a total of £5 5, 15s. nd.T
At the destruction of Dover priory one "Adrian the brewer "
paid £7 for the tiles and timber; another, Thomas Portway,
1 R. O. Exch. Off. Mins. Accts., m. 26. 2 Ibid., 230, m. 6.
8 Ibid., Misc. Bk., 117, f. 18. The reasons assigned are curious. 1.
Thomas Ap Letham, aged 66 years, deposed at the inquiry " That one called
Jenkyn Ap Letham, of Abergavenny, his father, being a smith, did work of
his own proper costs and charges to the setting up of the said bells in the late
, priory, and also besides paid his part to the being of the said bells, how much
he cannot tell." 2. John Ap Poll Ap John, aged 80 years, deposed that " One
John Ap Vaughan, of Abergavenny, his father-in-law, did pay 20s. for his part,
and his father-in-law's brother 13s. 4d. to the being ofthe said bells. Further
more he saith that the parish of Abergavenny should ring and did ring the
same bells if any of their servants died without license or restraint of the prior
or convent, and so did use to do till the suppression of the said late priory.
And also the said parish did find all manner of costs and charges belonging to
the said bells. Also further, he saith that he was one of them with Jenkyn
Ap Letham" and others "that went into the country with games and plays to
gather money to pay for the aforesaid bells."
4 Ibid., Mins. Accts., 30-31 Hen, VIII. 230, m. 5.
6 Ibid., 224, m. 6d.
• Ibid., m. 5d. 7 Ibid., 31-32 Hen. VIII., 255, m. iod.

The Monastic Spoils 423
obtained " the roof of the Lady chapel " for thirteen shillings
and fourpence, and the " grave stones and altar stones " for
twelve shillings, and the commissioner admits having taken
twenty tons of " rotten timber " for his own use.1
That there was, throughout the whole process of destruc
tion, great waste, that in comparison with the original cost
of the buildings the paltry sums received were altogether
inadequate, and that the crown actually only obtained a tithe
of the real value of the confiscated property, does not admit
of doubt. As an example of this, the dissolution of the
abbey of Pipwell may be cited. At the first coming of the
commissioners, Sir William Parr obtained as a gift the paving
of the dormitory, and carried some of it away at once.
Then followed apparently a general scramble of the people
in the neighbourhood, and a great deal of glass, iron and
lead was stolen. One man carried off the two doors of the
brewhouse, and another, a tinker, caught in the act of
appropriating some lead, was hanged at Northampton. Sir
William Parr helped himself to the fish out of the east and
west ponds and " stored " them. Each monk carried away
the contents of his chamber. Shortly after the suppression
"a strong press in the dormitory," which contained the title
deeds, was broken open, and it was impossible to determine
what had been abstracted. The floor of the steeple was
pulled down when the commissioners dismounted the bells,
"and at the same time the desks in the choir and all the
windows in the infirmary were broken up and sold by the
servants " of the royal officials.2
In the work of wrecking the finest monuments and most
costly buildings, which took place all over the country,
there does not appear to have been any hesitation on the
part of Henry or his servants. There was never any ques
tion of sparing anything which could not be used for farm
or other purposes, or by the demolition of which a few
pounds might be added to the sum total of the plunder.
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 109, Nos. 22, 26.
2 Ibid., No. 29. Numerous examples of the destruction of buildings for
the sake of the lead might be given. The roofing of the magnificent minster of
Sherborne, with that of the bell tower and dormitory, was purchased for ,£230.
The stone, iron, &c, of the Friars in Fleet Street, London, for ^125. The
lead on the church of St. Elphege, Cripplegate, fetched £60; that on St.
Mary's Abbey, York, ^800 ; that on Evesham, ^260, &c, &c. (Ibid., Trea&
Roll, iii. m. I7d.)

424 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Thus in every case, as at St. Mary's, Winchester, the super
fluous buildings were declared to be church, chapter-house,
dormitory, frater; and those allowed to stand were the
superior's " lodging with offices." x The " superfluous build
ings" were demolished without any scruple. Thus John
Freeman, one of those engaged in the work, wrote that he
was to pull down all monastic buildings except what might
be of use for farm purposes. In Lincolnshire, where he
was then occupied, there were more great houses than in
any other part of England. The walls were thick and there
were few to buy. "To pull them down," he says, "will
cost the king a good deal," and so it is best to get the bells
and lead, " which will rise well." And " this done, to pull
down the roofs, battlements and stairs, and let the walls
stand, and charge some with them as a quarry of stone to
make sales of as they that have need will fetch." 2
All this destruction, however, was not accomplished
without an attempt being made to stay the king's hand in
some cases. Thus Roland Lee, the bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield, and the mayor and aldermen of Coventry vainly
tried to induce Henry to spare the cathedral church of that
city. The bishop begged Crumwell most earnestly for this
favour. " My good lord," he says, " help me and the city
both in this, that the church may stand, whereby I may keep
my name and the city have commodity and ease to their
desire." 3 The mayor also declared that " the lack and decay
of it will be not only a great defacing of the said city, but
also a great hurt and inconvenience to all the inhabitants
there in time of plagues; the friars' churches there being
already suppressed and no place for the infected people and
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 494, f. 11.
2 R. O. Crum. Corr., xii. 64. In the same way Crumwell is informed
from Boston that as there was very little stone in those parts the building
would be most useful (Ibid., xxxii. 27). The mayor and aldermen of Worcester
also asked for the friars' houses there, which they afterwards purchased, to
repair the walls, roads and bridges (Ibid., 1. 13). The buildings of St. Augus
tine's, Canterbury, were used in the same way. On portions of the old
monastery considerable sums were spent to adapt it to the requirements of a
royal residence, the rest became the city quarry. Thus in 1542-3 "St.
Michael's gate (Burgate) was extensively repaired. Nine loads of stone were
obtained from the recently dissolved monastery of St. Augustine's. Nothing
was paid for the material, but a man received I3id. for carriage and two
labourers were paid for the destructive work, which lasted four days " (Hist.
MSS. Comm. 9th Rept., App. p. 153 ; City of Canterbury Records).
8 Wright, p. 238.

The Monastic Spoils 425
others, who are no small number in plague time, to resort to,
but only to the parish churches having but two in all the
city." Wherefore the city begs that letters may be sent to
Dr. London " to stay and give sparing to the defacement of
the said church." x These appeals, however, were unheeded.
The cathedral church was dismantled, unroofed, and, al
though a magnificent example of English architecture with
three spires, was pulled to pieces for the sake of its materials.
Its fate is only a sample of what befell hundreds of monastic
churches at this period. Some churches, or in several in
stances portions of the entire buildings, were saved by the
prompt action of the people, who by an offer of ready money
redeemed them from destruction. Thus the parishioners of
Crowland paid £26 " for the south aisle of their church "
and £30 for two of the old abbey bells.2 Those of Romsey
saved the fine convent church from destruction with ^ioo.3
Richard Berdes and the inhabitants of Malvern purchased
the church, bell-tower, dormitory, refectory and great barn
of the monastery for ^20,4 and the people of Atherstone
bought the priory church and two bells for £sS-6 In the
same way the church of Southwark was obtained from the
king by the inhabitants of the borough, " Dr. Gardiner,
bishop of Winchester, putting to his helping hand."6 The
townspeople of St. Alban's gave ^400 for the great abbatial
church, and those of Crediton ^200 for the collegiate build
ing in that place.7
1 Calendar, xiv. (i), No. 34.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 30-31 Hen, VIII., 217, m. 5.
As a matter of fact the north aisle was the one saved.
8 Mr. Baigent's MSS. collections. The deed, dated 20 Feb. , 35 Hen. VIII.
(1545), shows that only ;£loo was expended by the inhabitants. This is much
below John Foster's valuation (ante), and very possibly the building had been
despoiled and neglected during the interval. A portion also of the church
belonged to the inhabitants, and served as their parish church.
* Ibid., 210, m. 6.
5 Ibid., 226, m. I2d. These are only given as samples, and could be
multiplied to almost any extent.
6 Stow, ed. 1615, p. 579.
7 Blomefield (Hist, of Norfolk, i. pp. 733-4) relates that the inhabitants
ofWymondham claimed partof the church there and petitioned Henry for
certain other parts, paying him for the bells, lead, &c, according to their
value. They wanted to save the steeple with its bells, the vestry with all the
" right up aisle " to the transept, with " the monks' lodgings builded on the
south aisle," the chapel of St. Margaret, " the choir and our lady's chapel,
with all the whole work as it standeth." Also " the whole chapel of Becket,
standing in the midst of the town, with two little bells there hanging to give

426 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
In concluding this brief account of the spoils which
Henry gathered into the royal purse by the overthrow of the
monastic system and the destruction and sacking of the
abbeys and convents of England, it is well to state, as far
as it is possible to do so, the total amount of ecclesiastical
plunder actually received by him. It is necessary, however,
to bear in mind that many sums of money were disbursed,
as well as royal grants of lands and possessions made, which
do not enter into the ordinary accounts,1 and that the figures
as stated here represent only the actual receipts of the
treasurer of the Court of Augmentation and those of the
keeper of the royal jewels. The amount received from rents
coming from the confiscated lands and from the sale of them
has already been stated, as well as the value of the gold and
silver plate taken by the royal commissioners during Henry's
reign. The only other regular item of receipt which calls
for notice here is that which represents the proceeds of the
various sales of vestments, lead, bells, furniture, glass and
building material of every kind, and from all of these only
.£26,502, Is. ojd. is acknowledged by the Court of Augmen
tation. It is possible that the proceeds of some of the sales
are entered under the heading of revenue by the particular
receiver of a county ; but even were the sum double, it would
be but a paltry amount to represent the result of such whole
sale pillage and destruction and as a set-off against all the
misery inflicted upon the religious and the poor.
In round figures, the money received by Henry from the
entire work, from 1536 till his death, was ^1,338,500. To
warning to the people of every chance of fire or other sudden business happen
ing." Although the people had paid the king, their good intention was
frustrated. The lead was torn off and the stone carried away from the south
aisle and lady chapel. "The choir being demolished, the inhabitants were
obliged to pull the whole down and new built the present south aisle."
1 One or two instances of this may be given here. From the priory of
Bridlington the duke of Norfolk took everything, plate, vestments, cattle, &c,
and none of these are in the accounts (R. 0. Crum. Corr., xxxiii. 39). In one
year the receiver of Yorkshire, Leonard Beckwith, paid ^8200 coming from
the dissolved monasteries for the fortifications of Berwick. This large sum
does not come into the Augmentation Office accounts (R O. Exch. Augt. Off.
Treas. Roll, ii. m. 7). Other sums paid for the same purpose at another time
are ,£666, 13s. 4d. (Ibid., Mins. Accts., 32-33 Hen. VIII., 211, m. 8) and £570
(Ibid., 239). From the receipts of the Somerset dissolved monasteiies in the
same year ^1200 was "paid to the master of the works at Portland and
Weymouth for the mole, fortifications and other new works" (Ibid., 219,
m. l6d).

The Monastic Spoils 427
this must be added .£85,000, the melting value of the plate,
as before stated, so that ^1,423,500, or between fourteen and
fifteen millions sterling of the present money, was the actual
cash value of the work of dissolution to the king. Besides
this, of course, there was the worth of the vestments and
other ecclesiastical furniture reserved for the king's use, and
what Crumwell seemed to take more account of than even
of the plate itself, the countless precious stones and jewels
from all the churches in England." x What the money value
of these was it is of course impossible to guess. What be
came of the sums Henry actually obtained will be briefly
told in the next chapter.
1 It is much to be desired that the magnificent inventories of the plate,
jewels and household stuff in the royal palaces and treasure-house at the date
of Henry's death should appear in print. It is true the MSS. (now among
the Harleian collection and at the Society of Antiquaries) are voluminous ;
but a French society has been found to print sumptuously the not less exten
sive " Mobilier de la Couronne sous Louis XIV.," and a zealous'editor has not
been wanting. Our English documents are of vastly greater interest, historical,
artistic, antiquarian, social ; and in view of the character of more than one
series of thick volumes of mediocre and restricted interest issued of late by our
publishing societies, the regret is all the more keen that some one of them has
not summoned up courage to print a piece of such capital importance, the
value of which is now generally acknowledged.

CHAPTER XX
The Spending of the Spoils
THE wealth amassed by the plunder of churches, monasteries,
colleges and hospitals was quickly dissipated. It would
serve no purpose to inquire too minutely into the history of
its disappearance, or to explore with any very scrupulous
care the various channels by which the riches, which for
some years came pouring into the royal exchequer, were as
quickly disposed of, leaving the king as needy and as great
a burden upon his subjects as before.1 Much of the spoil,
indeed, melted away so quickly that it would be impossible
to account for its disappearance. One thing is, however,
quite clear from the accounts of the Augmentation Office,
that although large sums were spent upon coast-defences
and in preparation for possible foreign wars, the greater
portion passed out of the royal possession without serving
any public purpose whatever. Lord Coke, in his fourth
Institute, lays stress upon the fact that "ad faciendum
populum," the lesser monasteries were granted to Henry
to use according "to the pleasure of Almighty God and
the honour and profit of the realm," and noticing the two
statutes legalising monastic suppressions, he observes that,
amongst other promises, " the members of both Houses had
been informed in parliament " that the " monasteries should
never in time to come be converted to private use, and the
subject never again be charged with subsidies, fifteenths,
loans or other common aids." How utterly this was ignored
it is needless to point out, for, says the same high autho-
1 It has been pointed out as singular that Henry's attacks upon ecclesi-
astical property occurred in regular intervals of about five years. In 1530 he
imposed an enormous fine on the clergy; in 1535 he commenced to dissolve
the lesser monasteries; in 1540 he completed the dissolution of the larger
houses; and in 1545 he attacked the universities and chantry chapels. (See
Blunt, Hist, of Reformation, p. 293, note.) 428

The Spending of the Spoils 429
rity, "since the dissolution of the monasteries" the king
"has exacted divers loans and received the same against
law." Before stating briefly the chief ways in which the
monastic property disappeared, one word must be said as to
the second act of parliament dealing with it. It has been
before pointed out that the action of the royal agents in
regard to the greater monasteries was not strictly legal, and
that when all opposition to Henry's policy had been defeated,
a measure was introduced by which all the devastation,
desecration and plundering of the previous years was
legalised.1 The object of the act, passed in the parliament
which commenced on April 28th, 1539, was not to dis
solve monasteries, but to secure to the king the property
of those which "by any means had come into his hands
by supersession, dissolution or surrender since the 4th of
February," 1536. The bill was introduced by the chan
cellor on the 13th May. On Friday, the 16th, the house
having adjourned over the feast of the Ascension, the bill
was read the second time, in the presence of twenty
abbots, and the following Monday, May 19th, it passed
into law.2 Unlike the act of 1536, this one does not
allege any reasons for its action, but simply states that
"sundry abbots, priors, abbesses, prioresses and other
ecclesiastical governors and governesses of divers monas
teries ... of their own free and voluntary minds, good
wills and assents, without constraint, co-action or com
pulsion of any manner of person or persons," having re
signed their houses into Henry's hands, the king and his
heirs are to hold them for ever. And furthermore this
permission was to extend to all houses afterwards to be
surrendered or dissolved.
Although in the words of the act itself there do not
appear any considerations urged upon the parliament to
induce them to grant what the king desired, it would seem
quite clear that many inducements were really placed be
fore them. " And now," writes Dugdale in his " History of
1 31 Hen. VIII., c. 13.
2 Lords' Journals (Brit. Mus. Cott. MS., Tib. D. i. f. 58). In the parliament
which assembled for its second session on April 12th, 1540, a. note says, "No
abbots present."

43° Henry VIIL and the English Monasteries
Warwickshire," "when all this (i.e. the dissolution) was
effected, to the end it might not be thought that these things
were done with a high hand, the king having protested that
he would suppress none without the consent of his parlia
ment (it being called April 28, 1539, to confirm the sur
renders so made), there wanted not plausible insinuations to
both houses for drawing on their consent with all smooth
ness thereunto : the nobility being promised large shares in
the spoil, either by free gift from the king, easy purchases,
or most advantageous exchanges ; and many of the active
gentry advancement to honours, with increase of their
estates: all which we see happened to them accordingly.
And the better to satisfy the vulgar, it was represented to
them that by this deluge of wealth the kingdom would be
strengthened with an army of forty thousand men, and that
for the future they should never be charged with subsidies,
fifteenths, loans or common aids. By which means the
parliament ratifying the above surrenders, the work became
completed." x
That some promises of this nature were actually made is
more than probable. A document exists which is apparently
the preamble of a projected act drawn up at this time, and
having direct reference to the dissolution of the great monas
teries. It is written and corrected by Henry himself, and
proposes to take the revenues of the monasteries to establish
schools, almshouses and new bishops' sees. It was with
drawn, as Tanner believed, " when the bill for the suppres
sion was actually passed." 2
1 Within a year a loan was again asked and granted. "In a parlia
ment which began the 18th of April (1540) was granted to the king a
subsidy of 2S. the pound lands and 1 2d. goods and four fifteens towards
the king's great charges in building of block-houses " (Stow, Flores Histori-
arum, 974).
2 The projected act in Henry's writing is in the Cotton MSS. Cleop. E.
iv. f. 305. The following portion is printed in Wright, p. 262 : — " Forasmuch
as it is not unknown the slothful and ungodly life which hath been used
amongst all sort which have borne the name of religious folk, and to the
intent that henceforth many of them might be turned to better use (as here
after shall follow), whereby God's word might the better be set forth, children
brought up in learning, clerics nourished in the universities, old servants
decayed have livings, almshouses for poor folk to be sustained in, readers of
Greek, Hebrew and Latin to have good stipends, daily alms to be ministered,
mending of highways, exhibitions for ministers of the Church, it is thought
therefore unto the king's highness most expedient and necessary that more
bishopricks, collegiate and cathedral churches should be established instead

The Spending of the Spoils 431
Some portion of the confiscated property, although only
a very small portion, found its way back to the Church. Six
new bishoprics were created out of the ruins of the monastic
houses at Westminster, Oxford, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol,
and Peterborough, and the endowments made for the bishops
and chapters amounted to about -£100,000 of modern money.1
Besides this, some small sums were allotted to educational
purposes at Oxford and Cambridge, but beyond these com
paratively insignificant amounts the whole sum realized by
of these aforesaid religious houses, within the foundation whereof other titles
before rehearsed shall be established."
On a second sheet of paper is another document written by the king, but
apparently incomplete : —
" Bishopricks to be new made."
Essex .... Waltham.
Hertford .... St. Albans.
{Dunstable, Newenham, Elnestowe.
Oxford and Berks . . Osney and Thame.
Northampton and Huntingdon Peterbro'.
Middlesex . . . Westminster.
Leicester and Rutland . Leicester.
Gloucestershire ... St. Peter's (Gloucester).
Lancashire . . . Fountains and Archdeaconry of Richmond.
Suffolk .... Bury.
Stafford and Salop . . Shrewsbury.
Notts and Derby . . Welbeck, Worksop and Thurgarton.
Cornwall .... Launceston, Bodmin with another.
" Places to be altered according to our device which have sees in them."
Christ Church in Canterbury.
St. Swithin's (Winchester).
Ely, Durham, Rochester.
Worcester and all others having the same.
" Places to be altered into colleges and schools only."
Burton super Trent.
1 In 1 54 1, John Chambers, last abbot of Peterborough, was made first
bishop. About the same time Thomas Thirlby became first and only bishop
of Westminster, and Robert King, late abbot of Osney, was made bishop of
Oxfordshire, with Osney abbey church as his cathedral. Shortly after the see
was moved to Christchurch, Oxford. Paul Bush became first bishop of Bristol,
John Wakeman of Gloucester and Richard Sampson of Chester, all about the
same time. Seven other cathedrals hitherto served by Benedictines were
occupied by secular canons, many of the monks, however, obtaining stalls in
the new foundation. These were Canterbury, Durham, Winchester, Ely,
Carlisle, Norwich and Worcester.

43 2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the dissolutions was spent upon secular and private purposes,
and even the tithes of parishes, which had been appropriated
to the religious houses, passed away by grant or purchase
from the royal appropriator to lay owners, to be henceforth
used by them as part of their general revenue." 1
The way in which a great deal of the monastic property
was got rid of by the king is notorious. Fuller describes
how "not only cooks, but the meanest turn-broach in the
king's kitchen did lick his fingers," and he gives on good
authority instances of Henry's prodigality with the abbey
lands. Estates of considerable value were parted with
readily as gifts to those who won his favour. "I could
add," says the historian, "how he gave a religious house
of some value to mistress  for presenting him with a
dish of puddings which pleased his palate."2
In the same way Fuller states that Henry lost a great
deal by play. " Once, being at dice," he writes, "he played
Sir Miles Partridge (staking a hundred pounds against
them) for Jesus' bells, hanging in a steeple not far from St.
Paul's in London, and as great and tunable as any in the
city, and lost them at a cast." 3
1 With regard to Henry's gifts to Oxford and Cambridge the following is
of interest : —
Money appointed to be paid towards the dotation and erection of colleges at
Oxford and Cambridge from 25 March anno 36° to Michaelmas anno 38°
The revenues of Osney to ")
Oxford  ,£702 9 i,%\Oxford . . . £3102 9 4I
By warrant to Treasurer . . 2400 o o J
To Cambridge revenues of \
King's Hall and Michael- I „ , . , r . 0
house  329 15 8 \Cambndge . £2329 iS 8
By warrant  ^2000 o o J
After paying the ordinary " wages and stipend " there remained for build
ing purposes at Oxford £1617, 18s. ifd., and at Cambridge ^971, 7s. (R. O.
Exch. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 415, f. 108).
The last year of Henry's reign, however, the revenues were not paid, and
the college of Christchurch, Oxford, was in debt. Edward VI., to meet this,
paid Dr. Coxe, the dean, ^2400 (Ibid., Treas. Roll, iii. m. 201).
2 Much the same story is told by a writer of about the year 1557 (Brit Mus.
Arund. MS., 151, f. 387). In this version a cook who pleased the king with a
well-cooked sucking pig had as his reward " the college of St. Edmund, Salis
bury, with certain rectories," and thus, says the old writer, was given to a
layman to whom it could not belong " the cure of souls."
8 This story is also given (Ibid.), but with a slight change. Miles Partridge
is represented as a gambler who had lost everything, and Henry gave him the
belfry bells and lead to retrieve his fortune with. The writer adds that
Partridge was afterwards hanged.

The Spending of the Spoils 433
The manner in which the king was robbed by all con
nected with the work of spoliation has frequently been
illustrated in these pages. The inquiry made by queen
Elizabeth, and the information presented to her, evidently
by an authority on the matter, leaves no doubt that the king
was cheated out of a very large portion of the plunder by
the officials he employed.
How the rest went is shown on the rolls of the
Treasurer of the Augmentation or the accounts of the
keeper of the royal jewels.1 It is only fair, however, to
point out that some proportion of the plunder went for
national purposes. To fortify the coasts, to establish a
fleet, to support Henry's foreign policy, and to collect and
maintain his armies, the ecclesiastical spoils were freely
used. Thus, of the £1,338,500 actually acknowledged as
received by the Augmentation Office from the beginning of
the work of suppression till Henry's death, about £64,500
went to coast fortifications, £28,000 for naval matters,
£137,000 for purposes of foreign war, including the defence
of Calais and other towns on the Continent. Very nearly
half-a-million of money was also spent upon the general
military affairs of the nation, about one-half that sum being
expended on the purchase and manufacture of guns, to
which also the metal of a large number of the monastery
bells was devoted. It may therefore be allowed that more
than half the money received by the Augmentation Office
from the plunder was disbursed for public purposes.
Of the rest, a large sum was expended upon the royal
palaces at Westminster, Hampton Court, Chelsea, Hackney,
St James' and elsewhere, as well as upon enclosing the
king's parks and adapting some of the old abbey buildings
to the royal requirements. Nearly £52,000 was spent upon
the purchase of lands, £23,000 on the household expenses
of the young prince Edward, and £274,086, 19s. 8fd. was
either paid to the king in cash or went to support his
household. Such are the chief channels which quickly
carried off the wealth obtained from the destruction of the
monastic houses.
The accounts of the keeper of the royal jewels show that
1 It would be impossible to give full details without copious notes. The
general sources of expenditure found in the Appendix are taken from the
Treasurer's Rolls.
2 E

434 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
about £10,000 was spent on coast fortifications, and nearly
the same sum was sent, for the king's purposes, to Ireland.
Of the plate itself, a great deal was either handed to Henry
for his use, or other gold and silver articles were purchased
for him with the proceeds. In this account and on the
Treasurer's Rolls no less than £30,860 was entered under
this heading, as well as more than half the entire value of
the plate obtained by the spoilers, that is, £46,636, is. i£d.,
was given over " to the proper hand " of the king.1
1 Monastic Treasures (Abbotsford Club), p. 93. For further particulars
see Appendix.

CHAPTER XXI
The Ejected Monks and theif Pensions
SOMETHING must now be said about the pensions which
were paid to the disbanded monks and nuns out of the funds
coming into the king's possession on the dissolution of their
houses. At the outset it is well to state that there is every
reason to suppose that the promised annuities were fairly
well and punctually paid, at least during the reign of Henry
VIII. Still, it is necessary to bear in mind that by no means
all the religious who were deprived of their homes and turned
out into the world to begin life afresh were provided with
any pittance whatever to secure them against poverty, or
even, in many cases, it is to be feared, absolute starvation.
In the first place, upon the dissolution of the monasteries
which possessed an income of under £200 a year, the
superiors only were granted a pension. By the terms of
the act of parliament passed in February, 1536, the king's
"majesty is pleased and contented, of his most excellent
charity, to provide to every chief head and governor of every
such religious house" a yearly pension for life. As for the
community, "his majesty will ordain and provide that the
convents of every such religious house shall have their
capacities, if they will, to live honestly and virtuously abroad,
and some convenient charity disposed to them toward their
living, or else shall be committed to such honourable great
monasteries of this realm wherein good religion is observed,
as shall be limited by his highness there to live religiously
during their lives." x
But although many of the monks and nuns thus dis
banded found homes for a time in other houses of their order,
it is probable that the majority were forced to take the alter
native offered them and accept Henry's dispensation to seek
1 27 Hen. VIII., cap. 28.
435

43 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
their living in the world. Thus, as an example, William
Morland, a monk of Louth Park, whose name is connected
with the Lincolnshire rising, declares that when he went to
Bourne abbey to obtain his " capacities," " a late canon of
Bourne, then also suppressed," gave him six-and-twenty
other dispensations to distribute J to his fellow-monks.
To those who thus went out into the world it may be
taken as certain that the king never extended the promised
"convenient charity disposed to them toward their living."
In most instances only the abbot or superior received any
thing. In a small number of cases the religious obtained a
few pounds, or generally shillings, on quitting their cloisters.
Thus at Louth Park the abbot, George Walker, was granted
a pension of £20 a year, but apparently none of his ten
monks received anything whatever.2 At Bourne in the same
way John Small, the abbot, was allowed £24 a year, but
none of his ten canons received anything on the dissolution
of their house.8 Other communities were somewhat more
fortunate. Thus the five nuns of Cannington convent, in
Somerset, received twenty shillings each on their dismissal,
and Cecilia Verney, their prioress, was pensioned.4 The
seven Cistercians of Buildwas, in Shropshire, had fifty-five
shillings divided between them.6 And, to take but one more
example, at Cleeve abbey, in Somerset, the aUbot was pen
sioned, the prior had a present of £4, 3s. iod., and each
of the thirteen other monks went out of their cloister with
twenty-six and eightpence in their purses.6
In no known instance among the early dissolutions was
any entire community pensioned, and, with only one or
two exceptions, no provision was made for any one but the
superior. In fact, the list of grants during the period of
these suppressions shows that not above 204 monks, canons
and nuns, out of the entire number of those dismissed, had
any pension assigned to them.7 As this number amounted
to at least 2000, it is obvious that a very small fraction only
1 R. O. Chapt. H. Bk., A. fa, p. 96.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Mins. Accts., 27-28 Hen. VIII., 81.
3 Ibid., 166. 4 Ibid., 169, m. 2. 6 Ibid., 165, m. 2.
6 Ibid., 169, m. 2d.
7 R. O. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 244, "Original of Grants ; '' also Ibid., Bk. 232,
" Enrolment of Grants." The pension was only paid to those who had a
" patent " from the king, and many instances can be given of payment being
refused when the letters patent were not forthcoming.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 437
of those whose property was confiscated continued to be
chargeable upon it or to interfere with Henry's full enjoy
ment or free disposal of the Church lands so obtained.
Even the case of those religious who elected, under the
provisions of the act of dissolution, to be transferred to
other monasteries, was scarcely more fortunate. For a
year or two they were, perhaps, spared the hard fate of
their brethren who had passed at once into the world, but
in the end the same lot befell them. The conditions upon
which general pensions were subsequently granted to the
members of a community would seem to exclude these new
comers from participation in the benefit. Each individual
grant provided that the recipient of the royal favour must .
have been for a considerable time (diu anted) before the
dissolution an inmate of the monastery. While a comparison
of the pension list of a monastery with any previous records
of the names of the community x will certainly bear out the
view that, as a general rule, only professed members of a
house were made chargeable upon its revenues.2
1 e.g., thelists of monks contained in the Augmentation Office Book, 245, with
the acknowledgments of royal supremacy printed in Dep. Keeper's Rept, vii.
2 Under the act dissolving the lesser monasteries more than two-thirds of
the Cistercian houses were suppressed. The inmates were, as a rule, trans
ferred to other greater houses i_.f the Order (Mr. Baigent's "Abbey of
Waverley," p. 46). On the dissolution of Netley in February, 1537, all the
monks went back to their mother house at Beaulieu. In the early part of
March, 1536, John Browning, the abbot of Beaulieu, died, and Thomas
Stephens, then abbot of Netley, was elected his successor. This was no
sooner done than Netley was suppressed and all the Netley monks accom
panied their abbot to Beaulieu. On April 2, 1538, this abbot and 20 monks
signed the surrender of Beaulieu. In February, 1540, abbot Stephens was
instituted to the rectory of Bentworth, near Alton, vacant at that time by
reason of the deprivation of John Palmes. This latter was most unwilling to
submit, and on March ist (1540) wrote a letter of complaint to Crumwell
saying that "his cousin Cooke, with gentlemen and farmers of Sir John
Wallop's tenants, assembled upon St. Mathias' even (February 23) last past
and inducted as parson of Bentworth the abbot quondam of Beaulieu, and
with great violence and blows given entered into the parsonage and sealed up
the bam doors, and hired men, with money, to gangle and ring the bells
above all measure and custom of a charitable induction, whereof great
clamour and wonder is of men in the whole shire, so that my name and
estimation is clean gone and destroyed in all this disturbance at Bentworth."
In 1548 Thomas Stephens was collated to the treasurership of Salisbury
Cathedral and died in 1550 holding both these preferments (Mr. Baigent's
MSS. Collections). It may be here noted that indications of disbanded
religious obtaining livings are only by chance lighted upon. In the registers
abbot Stephens, for example, is called "T. Stephens, capellanus," and in
1548 he is "Mr. Thomas Stephyns, in/lrmus." This is an instance of the
difficulty experienced in tracing the expelled religious.

43 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
' Even in the later suppressions, by no means all the dis
banded religious were provided with pensions. The friars,
as a class, received no yearly allowance. Only in the case
of one or two individuals does there appear any exception.
Thus the superiors of some of the London friaries obtained
small grants, as £10 to John Gibbs, prior of the Carmelites;
£13, 6s. 8d. to Thomas Chapman, prior of the Franciscans;
£60 to John Hilsey, bishop of Rochester and commendatory
superior of the Dominicans, and five marks to Ralph Tumor,
of Crutched friars.1 These, with the superiors of the Fran
ciscan and Dominican convents in York, were very nearly
the only members of the four orders of friars who were
granted any pensions whatever. The rest were dismissed
from their houses with some small gratuity, generally only
a few shillings, and left to provide for themselves. Thus,
when the Carmelites of North Allerton were disbanded, two
days before the feast of Christmas, 1538, William Humfrey,
the prior, was given six shillings and eightpence, four of his
brethren five shillings, and six of the younger members
three and fourpence apiece, and this, as the record has it,
was paid by the special "consideration ofthe commissioner."2
In the same way, when, on November 21st, 1538, the
Franciscans of Doncaster were dismissed, sixty shillings
was distributed amongst them " out of the abundant benevo
lence of the lord king," who, at the same time, relieved them
of their house, the vestments and other ornaments of their
church, as well as three chalices and two cruets of silver.
It was calculated also by his agent that there were 44 fodders
of lead upon the roofs of the monastic buildings and four
bells which would be worth some £200 to sell.8 Even these
were more fortunate than some others, who, like the Trini
tarians of Newcastle, were ejected without any "reward,"
and the prior left to pay the convent's debts with what he
could collect out of money due to the house.*
As a rule, therefore, it may be taken for granted that no
pension whatever was allotted to any of the friars. The
whole number, at the lowest estimate some eighteen hun
dred, were cast adrift in the world and left to find a living
1 R. O. Exch. Aug. Off. Misc. Bk., 233, " Enrolments of Grants, annis
30°-3i°," ff. 161, 163, 146.
2 Ibid., Mins. Accts., 29-30 Hen. VIII., 197, m. I2d.
* Ibid., mm. 2d. 3. 4 Ibid., m. 15.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 439
as best they might. Even those who were priests experi
enced great difficulties in obtaining clerical employment,
as has been before stated. The lot of those not in sacred
orders must have been harder still.
With respect to the rest of the great body of monks and
nuns who were pensioned, their grants were no doubt chiefly
obtained by compliance with the king's wishes. Those that
resigned their houses at the royal invitation were promised
annuities. Those that resisted every suggestion of " volun
tary surrender " not only got nothing, but acquired for them
selves the deadly animosity of a king who would take no
contradiction. " If they," runs the instructions to the royal
commissioners, shall willingly consent and agree "to the
proposed suppression," the said commissioners shall appoint
unto the said head and every of their convent pensions for
(the) term of their lives. But " if they shall find any of the
said heads and convents so appointed to be dissolved so
wilful and obstinate that they will in no wise submit them
selves to the king's majesty," then they shall take possession
of everything by force. " But they shall in no wise assign
any pensions ... to any such obstinate and wilful persons
till they shall know further of the king's pleasure." 1
To many of the monks, no doubt, the alternative here
expressed in the royal instructions was clear, and they
elected to go out with a pension rather than be turned out
with nothing to secure them against absolute starvation.
Others, however, preferred even death to the dishonour of
betraying a trust which they had for the Church and the
poor; and, to use Dr. Hillyard's words to the prior of
Mountgrace, they held " that it was a manner of selling the
house to surrender up their house for money or pensions." 2
The resistance of the prioress of Ambresbury to the sugges
tions of the king's agents has already been related. She
preferred to go out and beg her bread rather than take a
pension for a surrender. Her successor, Joan Darrell, put
into the office for the purpose of giving up the convent,
obtained £100 a year for her compliance. The name of
the brave Florence Bonnewe does not appear upon the
pension roll of the house, and she was, no doubt, left to
1 R. O. Chapter House Bk., A. fa. This document has been quoted
more at length in a previous chapter.
2 Calendar, xiv. (ii), No. 750.

44° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
carry out her design of begging for her support. It would
be difficult to suppose that there were not many others in
the English houses at the time possessed of a similar spirit,
whilst the recorded pensions prove that of the entire number
s of religious at that time in England not one half were given
: any annuity whatever.1
A large number of those not pensioned have already
been accounted for, and to these must be added the members
of all houses which were made to fall into the king's hands
by the attainder of the superior. Thus no monk at monas
teries such as Kirksted, Jervaulx or Whalley in the northern
parts, and Glastonbury, Reading, Colchester or Woburn in
the south, obtained anything. Moreover, even a surrender
does not appear to have furnished an absolute title to such
a reward. Thus, to give one example, Furness abbey, the
surrender of which has been related, was dissolved apparently
without the monks having any promise of pension, and no
grant is found enrolled in the Augmentation Court. On
dismissal, each of them received only forty shillings except
three, "who were sick and impotent," to whom an extra
twenty shillings was granted. The following year, however,
the abbot was provided with the profits of the rectory of
Dalton, valued at £33, 6s. 8d. per annum, which may have
been given him in lieu of pension, but, as far as is known,
none of the thirty monks who composed his community
obtained anything for their compliance with the royal
demands. The amount of the pensions varied considerably. Some
of the abbots appear to have had large payments for those
days. Thus John Lawrence de Wardeboys, the last abbot
of Ramsey, had a grant of £266, 13s. 4d. a year with a
house, woods and swans for life.2 Abbot Wardeboys, how
ever, who had been appointed to the office in 1507, was a
very old man at the time of the surrender and was not likely
1 The total number of patents for religious pensions enrolled in the Aug
mentation Office books is under 4000. Without this patent no pension was
paid, and it may, therefore, be presumed that this number is fairly correct.
According to a previous estimate there were some 8081 religious of all orders
at the time of the suppression in England. The enrolled grants found in the
Record Office Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., No. 232, Part I., contains those
granted anno 28° ; Part II. , those in 29° and 30° ; No. 233, those in so"-^!" ;
and Nos. 234-5, those in 3i°-32°.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 64.

The Ejepted Monks and their Pensions 441
to draw the pension very long, and he had not only readily
resigned his trust when called upon, but had been, it is said,
busy in persuading other abbots to follow his example.
Even larger was the pension given to the late abbot of
Bermondsey, Robert Wharton, who since 1536 had been
bishop of St. Asaph's, a sum of £333, 6s. 8d. being assigned
him out of the revenues of the monastery. Some other
bishops, who were commendatory abbots, also received
large sums, as the bishop of Down in Ireland, by royal
letters patent abbot of Thorney ; John Draper, a suffragan
and prior of Twynham, Christchurch, and several others.
The ordinary pension, however, for the superior of one
ofthe large monasteries appears to have been about £100 a
year, and the average grant to each religious between £5
and £6. In the case of smaller houses the pension was
proportionally less, and in some cases the superior did not
receive more than £15 or even £10. Of the convents,
Syon was the most highly paid. Agnes Jordan, the abbess,
received no less a sum than £200 a year, while none of her
sisters had less than £6, and several more than that sum.
Very few of the nuns, however, had anything like that
amount ; £40 being the ordinary pension for an abbess and
£3 or £4, and very often less, for a nun. In some places
lay sisters and novices were not allowed to be entered on
the pension list, possibly because they could have had no
part in resigning the house.
Sometimes, as in the case of the abbot of Ramsey just
quoted, besides the actual grant of money the pensioner was
allowed certain houses, lands or privileges. Thus the abbot
of Ford had the use of a house and grounds, the prior of
Bath had "appointed to him for his dwelling-house one
tenement set and lying in Stall street within the Southgate
of Bath,"1 and the abbot of Winchcombe was allowed to cut
yearly forty loads of firewood out of " Deepwood " thicket.
To others, members of old monastic churches or cathedrals,
an office in the new establishment, over and above a small
pension, was often given. Thus, at Rochester, Thomas
Grey had forty shillings a year "besides the office of
Gospeller" and Thomas Cope the same amount and "the
office of Epistoler." 2 At Ely, in the same way, three monks,
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 109. "Wherein one Jeffry
Stainer lately dwelled, being of the yearly rent of 20/." 2 md., f. 76.

442 Henry VIII. and the English^ Monasteries
noted to be "good choir men," received an cffice as well as
a pension of £8 a year.1 In certain other cases a living or
cure of souls was granted in lieu of a pension. Thus, to
give one or two examples, at Missenden, in Buckingham
shire, Thomas Barnard obtained the vicarage of the abbey,
and another, John Slythurst, became curate of Lee with a
pension of £8; at Pulton, in Wiltshire, John Hogge was
appointed by Petre, the royal commissioner, "to serve the
curethere, and for his wages "to have io6s.8d., "andif hewere
unable to serve, then forty shillings." 2 One other example
from the neighbouring county of Dorset is worth recording :
at Bindon, one ofthe monks obtained " the cure " of the place,
and for his services he was to get yearly £6, 13s. 4d., "and
the king to have all manner of tithes and oblations."3
If some of the promised pensions appear somewhat high,
there was a reason for this, especially in the beginning of
the work of suppression. From Coventry, Dr. London in
writing about the Benedictine cathedral priory there gives
the reason clearly. "The prior," he says, "is a sad honest
priest, as his neighbours do report him, and (he) is a
bachelor of divinity. He gave his house unto the king's
grace willingly and so in like manner did all his brethren."
After declaring what pensions he had promised, the com
missioner concludes : " Beseeching your good mastership to
confirm and authorize the same by your high authority, and
thereby others perceiving that these men be liberally handled
will with better will, not only surrender their houses, but
also leave the same in the better state to the king's use." *
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 61. 2 Ibid., f. 122.
3 Ibid., f. 145. Instances of cures being served by religious prior to the
dissolution are sometimes met with. Thus the abbot of Quare, William
Repon, was instituted to the vicarage of Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight, in 1533.
On 24th February, 1536, on the dissolution of the abbey, he was called
capellanus, and instituted to the vicarage of Newchurch on the presentation
of Sir Richard Lyster, Kt. He resigned this the following year, and was suc
ceeded by John Austen, canon of Tichfield, then dissolved, on the presentation
of the abbot of Beaulieu (Mr. Baigent's MSS. Collections). This instance
would seem to show that the larger monasteries gave livings to the disbanded
inmates of the smaller houses. One or two more examples may be added.
In 1520 Thomas London, abbot of Quare, was vicar of Carisbrooke, and one
of his monks was serving curate at Binsted. In 1532 Lainston, near Win
chester, was served by a Carmelite friar. Littleton was always served by a
monk of St. Swithin's priory, and the proceeds of the cure went to purchase
books for the choir of this monastic church (Ibid.).
4 R. O. Exch. Q. R. Miscellanea, *£, No. 15. Thomas Camswell, the
prior, was granted ^133, 6s. 8d. a year (Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 233, f. 118).

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 443
The same reason prompted Dr. London in the case of
Combe abbey. Robert Bate had been made abbot only
"the same day twelve months" before he was invited to
resign. He had, it appeared, already " paid part of his first-
fruits and tenths." Dr. London assigned him £80 and
hoped that Crumwell would ratify the grant, "as your
mastership so doing," he writes, "will give occasion to
others the more rather to make like surrender."1 The
same visitor also thought large pensions were deserved by
those who so short a time previously had redeemed their
houses by large money payments to the king, who had
under his great seal granted that they should. continue for
ever. Thus he urges that the Carthusians of Coventry,
the nuns of Delapre, the Austin canons of Ulvescroft and
others who had " lately obtained the king's grace's charter
for the continuance of the same to their and their friends
great charge," 2 might reasonably hope for good pensions.
Not every royal commissioner, however, cared to plead
for generous pensions. It was naturally to the interest of
the king's officials to . reduce obligations on the received
estates as much as possible, and much bargaining, no doubt,
was resorted to to make the conditions upon which surrender
would be made as easy as possible. Thus Robert Southwell,
one of these officials, writing to Crumwell of St. James's
abbey, Northampton, says : " We have practised with the
poor men for their pensions as easily to the king's charge
and as much to his grace's honour as we could devise." 3
It has already been stated that the promised pensions
were, as far as can be ascertained, fairly well paid. The
disbanded religious received their annuities either directly
from the Court of • Augmentation in London, or from
the royal receiver, appointed to administer the estates
coming from the religious houses in any particular county.
It is difficult to understand the reason of the distinction,
especially when some members of a house were paid by the
office in London and others by the particular receiver of the
county. Some religious, especially in the earlier dissolutions,
were especially directed to receive their annuities in London,4
1 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 42.
2 Ibid., ff. 36, 38, 39. " Wright, p. 173.
4 Thus at Fosse, in Lincolnshire, Dr. London promised the nuns a pension,
and added, "All are to come to London for them" (R. O. Exch. Augt. Off.

444 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and as in process of time the various lands diminished by
royal grants or sales, and receipts from them dwindled in
proportion, the number of monks and nuns paid by the
general treasurer in London increased.
Thus, in the first two years after the creation of the
Augmentation Office only seventeen individuals drew their
annuities directly from the treasurer in London, and in the
last years of Henry's reign more than 200 monks and nuns
were paid by him.1 The great bulk of the pensioners, how
ever, continued to draw their allowances from the king's
officers in the different counties in which their monasteries
had been situated.2
In the process of paying the money considerable abuses
crept in. Many of the pensioned monks and nuns, either
from age, infirmities or other causes, were unable to attend
and receive their annuities personally, and were consequently
forced to employ agents. Thus at one time a certain Anthony
Emery, servant to Richard Pollard, was sent to obtain the
pensions of some fifty or sixty monks and nuns of the west
country. Another agent journeyed to London to fetch the
money due to the abbess of Canonleigh and seventeen of her
nuns, and a third acted in a like capacity for the prior of
Plympton and his canons.3 The necessity of sending long
distances, with the " reasonable costs " of the requisite
agents, considerably reduced the pittances, already small
enough ; but the various charges made by the officials con
cerned in the disbursement of the royal bounty still further
diminished the sums awarded. For each quarterly payment
the official was entitled to a fee of fourpence, but in practice
there is little doubt that much more was demanded.4
Misc. Bk., 245, f. 23). They were, however, paid subsequently by the
Lincolnshire receiver.
1 Payments made by the office are entered on the Rolls of the Treasurer
of the Court of Augmentation. The Miscellaneous Books of that Office (Nos.
246, 249, 250, 256) are the ledger books of these payments during Henry
VIII.'s reign.
2 These payments appear in the Ministers' Accounts, and are shown as
deducted from the receipts accounted for to the Treasurer in London.
8 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, ii. m. 2od.
4 As an example, the case of the nuns of Limbroke, in Herefordshire,
may be given. They had fallen under the act for the suppression of the lesser
monasteries, having an income of only £22 a year, but had purchased from
Henry the perpetual continuance of their convent by a payment of ^53, 6s. 8d.,
more than double their annual income (Aug. Off. Treas. Roll, i. m. 4d.). At
the close of 1539, however, they were called upon to surrender to the king,

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 445
Further reductions were made in the pensions promised
by the amounts being subjected to deduction on account of
every subsidy granted by parliament to the king. Thus in
the first year after the general dissolution a tenth part of the
payment was withheld as "the first subsidy due to our
sovereign lord the king."1 Two years afterwards "one-
fourth part of the pensions of all the late religious persons
. . . having £20 and upward " was deducted " by way of
loan " to Henry, and when the half year was due, on March
25th, 1543, the religious only received one quarter of the
annual payment.2 By these two methods Henry retained
from the promised pensions a sum of £9443, 15s. 6d. for
himself.3 Beyond this, he received in 1544 from the clergy,
and amongst them from many of the pensioned religious, the
sum of £12,870, 16s. 8d. as a war contribution, but a portion
of this sum was subsequently repaid.4
Necessity compelled some at least of the disbanded
religious to part with their patents, and speculators were
ready enough to purchase the annuity " for little or no money,
or other thing given to the said pensioners, supplanting them
to their utter undoing." It was, therefore, found necessary
in the third year of the reign of Edward VI. for parliament
and the five nuns were promised pensions ; the prioress £6, and each of the
others 53s. 4d. In all they were to have £16, 13s. 4d. a year. The following
are the charges made for obtaining that sum for them : —
William Thomas to John Scudamore, enclosing a. bill for getting the
pensions for the "poor nuns of Limbroke."
£ s. d.
" First to write Mr. Chancellor's clerk for making the war
rant and getting it signed  068
" Item to Mr. Duke's clerk for writing out the pensions .068
" Item paid to Glascocke to dispatch them from the seal .050
" Item my lord Privy Seal's fee for the head of the house .100
"Item Mr. Chancellor's and Mr. Duke's fees of every 'pen-
tionaiy ' at lis  2 15 o
" Item for mine owne labour . ¦  100
Summa . . . 5 13 4"
—(Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 11,041, f. 60.)
1 Bib. Bod. Tanner MS., 343, f. 1, et seq., contains the Scudamore accounts
for four counties showing this deduction.
2 Brit. Mus. Harl. MS., 604, f. 108.
8 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Treas. Roll, ii. mm. 45-48.
4 Ibid., Roll, ii. m. 32. Amongst the names of those contributing are :
The late abbot of York, .£100; ditto of Evesham, ,£66, 13s. 4d. ; ditto of
Hayles, £66, 13s. 4d., and others.

446 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
to apply some remedy to this state of things. An act was
consequently passed ordering all persons who had obtained
pension patents in any fraudulent manner to restore them
within six months. They were to receive back whatever
they had originally paid, and if they failed to deliver the
grant it was to be forfeited and all future payment made to
the original owner. At the same time the officers and re
ceivers were commanded to pay all pensions upon reasonable
request under a penalty of £5, and if they demanded more
then their legal fee they were to forfeit ten times the amount
taken.1 A subsequent examination was made by a commission
appointed to inquire into the pensions paid in each county.
From the report of the officials, which still exists for some
counties, many interesting particulars are learnt about the
monks' pensions.2 Many of the religious did not appear to
claim their annuity. Many were proved to have died, and
others had not been paid for the past year or so. Of a great
many, who ought to have been in receipt of a pension, no
tidings could be learnt, and in a good number of instances
the original owner had long before parted with the grant.
Thus, to give one or two examples of these sales, Laurence
Sterkbone, a religious of Worksop, took £10, 13 s. 4d. for
his annuity of £5, 6s. 8d. from the bailiff of the town, who
nine months later sold it again to one William Bolles for
£16. The original pensioner, Laurence Sterkbone, had
only received his annuity for a couple of years when he
sold it at little more than two years' purchase. Another
canon of the same monastery had got rid of his grant of £4
on somewhat better terms — for £i2.s
Of Bury St. Edmunds the commissioners mention that
one "Thomas Cole, about eight or nine years ago, did
give and assign over his annuity to Ambrose Jermyn, Esq.,
upon condition that the said Ambrose did procure and obtain
for him the benefice of Flempton, in Suffolk, of the gift of
one Thomas Lucas, Esq." Another former monk, " Thomas
Rowte, upon his oath saith and thereupon showeth an in
denture bearing date the 1st day of March, in the thirty-
sixth year of Henry VIII., declaring that he then sold and
1 2 and 3 Ed. VI., cap. 7.
2 R. O. Chapter House Box, 154, Nos. 2, 15, 25, 54, 61, 63, 64.
8 Ibid., No. 25.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 447
assigned over his letters patent to one Ralph Cockerell for
the sum of £26, 13s. 4d., whereof he saith he never received
but only £19." 2
These instances of the sales of pensions are only
examples of others to be found in the same report, and
they would almost certainly have been found to be much
more numerous had it not been for the act of parliament
passed a year or two before, which made the possession
of purchased grants illegal. As it was, the receivers had
been ordered to refuse payment to all but the original
owners. A brief answer must now be given to a question so often
asked : " What became of the ejected religious ? " At the
outset it must be confessed that the information available on
this point is so meagre that no satisfactory reply can be
given. Turned out of their houses, the monks and nuns,
especially those to whom no pensions were assigned, must
have endured great suffering and undergone many privations
in their endeavours to gain a livelihood. This much can be
certainly said without in any way exaggerating the hardship
of their lot. But hardly any detail of the subsequent lives
of those ejected from the dismantled cloisters of England is
known to exist. The muse of history has perhaps mercifully
spared the world what would have been a picture of deep
distress and misery.
Some of those who were priests (and most of the monks,
canons and friars appear to have been in sacred orders)
would no doubt have been provided with livings. It was
obviously to the advantage of the crown that a pensioned
priest should be presented to a living as quickly as might be,
since every annuity was granted only until some ecclesiastical
benefice of suitable money value should be found for the
holder. Still, the pension lists do not show that this was
carried out to any very great extent, and the fact that the royal
policy in religious matters tended considerably to diminish
the call for priests, would render it more difficult to obtain
any preferment of this kind for the disbanded monks. The
great falling off in candidates for sacred orders at this time
would have been more than counterbalanced by the diminu
tion of possible cures. Some small proportion, however, of
' R. O. Chap. H. Box, 154, No. 15.

448 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
the monks and friars clearly found occupation and a .liveli
hood in congenial clerical occupations.1 i
Even to obtain a living, however, formalities had to lie
gone through which must often have been impossible, and
frequently have debarred an exiled religious from undertaking
the task. The peculiar hardship of a friar's position in this
respect has been remarked upon in a previous chapter. And
although it is impossible to blame a bishop's care in prevent
ing the chance of profanation from pretended orders, it is no
less difficult to contemplate without shame the miserable
spectacle of educated Englishmen, by episcopal consecration
ordained for the service of the sanctuary, driven by want to
beg that they might be put " into one of the priest's offices
for a piece of bread."
The eagerness with which a " capacity," or permission to
take a living or other cure, was sought after is illustrated
in a curious way. In the ordinary course it was necessary
first to prove the reception of orders, next to obtain a dis
pensation from the archbishop of Canterbury to leave the
cloister, to put off the religious habit, and to undertake the
care of souls, and thirdly, to obtain the king's confirmation
of this dispensation.2 Whether this was always required is
1 A few of the most compliant abbots were provided with bishoprics during
the schism. Thus Salcot, of Hyde, became bishop of Bangor and subsequently
of Salisbury. Thomas Spark, a monk of Durham, was given the see of
Berwick ; Wharton, of Bermondsey, had St. Asaph's ; Rugg, of Hulme,
Norwich ; Holbeach, prior of Worcester, the new see of Bristol ; abbot
Chambers, the new see of Peterborough; Kitchen, that of Llandaff; Wake
man, of Tewkesbury, became first bishop of Gloucester, and John Salisbury,
prior of St. Faith's, was made the new suffragan of Thetford.
2 The archbishop's dispensation and king Henry's confirmation in the case
of the abbot of Feversham are printed by Southouse, Monasticon Favers-
hamiense, pp. 136-7. The Archceologia Cantiana (viii. pp. 50-58) prints
several documents of great interest on this matter. A monk of Battle, one
Thomas Bede Twysden, received a dispensation from Cranmer and a confirma
tion from Henry. He was only in deacon's orders and on being turned out of
his monastery lived in the world, and, amongst other things, acted as executor
to the will and guardian to the children of his brother. In 1556 he obtained
a dispensation and absolution for thus acting from Cardinal Pole. The follow
ing year Thomas Bede Twysden petitioned for pardon for having put on a
secular dress without permission of the pope, for living out of his monastery,
and for dealing with property by permission only of the parliament. His
petition was granted by David Pole, the cardinal's vicar-general in 1557. He
was allowed to receive ordination and to live in a secular priest's dress out of
a monastery, " donee regularia loca restaurata fuerint," on condition that
whatever money came into his hands more than sufficient for his necessities
should be devoted to pious uses or the poor, and that "bona prefata post

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 449
not certain, and probably the comedy was not kept up in the
final suppressions. But at the time of the expulsion of the
friars from their houses it appears to have been the rule. In
the ordinary course, therefore, a Franciscan friar named John
Young obtained from archbishop Cranmer his capacity and
the " letters of dispensation " from the king to enable him
to get a living when chance offered. Another friar minor,
Richard Sharpe, who apparently had some difficulty in
obtaining similar documents for himself, borrowed the parch
ments from Young, and forged a like "capacity" and "dis
pensation " in his own name. The forgery was discovered.
Sharpe was tried at Norwich in April, 1539, and condemned
to be hanged, drawn and quartered. The sentence, however,
was not carried out, and he was subsequently pardoned.1
In the case of monks belonging to the old monastic
cathedrals or to those of foundations such as Gloucester and
Peterborough, which were upon the dissolution created into
new sees, several obtained positions in the reconstituted
establishments. The abbot or prior in several cases became
the dean, and some of the monks continued to occupy their
old stalls as secular canons. A conservative spirit which
prompted them to cling to the old spot, sacred with every
association of their lives, and a reluctance to turn out in old
age into an unknown world, is really the key to this strange
want of principle which must be deplored in so many of the
monks ofthe old foundations. An instance of this is afforded
by Thomas Goldwell, cathedral prior ofthe great Metropolitan
church of Canterbury. When first the coming changes were
reported at the monastery, prior Goldwell wrote to Crumwell :
" There is a common speaking here about us that religious
men shall leave or forsake their habits and go as secular
priests do. Whether they mind of some certain religious
or of all I know not. As concerning this matter your lord
ship has been so good unto me that you have sent me word
before this time that I and my brethren should not be con
strained so to do. And as for my part I will never desire
to forsake my habit as long as I live, for divers considerations
that move me to the same. One is because religious men
mortem tuam prsefato monasterio de Battell, vel religioni, etc., arbitrio ordi-
narii tui pro tempore existentis applicentur." Thomas Twysden died at Wye.
near Battle, in 1584.
1 R. O. Coram Rege, 33 Hen. VIII., Trinity Rex Roll, 5.
2 F

45° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
have been and continued in this our church these 900 years
and more also. I made my profession to serve God in a
religious habit as much as lay in me so to do. Also if we
that be religious men do forsake our habits and go about the
world, we shall have many more occasions to offend God
and to commit sin than we have now. For this and other
considerations which your lordship knoweth better than I,
I beseech your lordship to continue good lord to us, me and
my brethren, that we may keep our habits of religion still.
And if any motion be made to the contrary that it may
please you to be our helper and defender therein." x
It is impossible not to admire the honourable sentiments
expressed in this letter, and the love Thomas Goldwell de
clares both he and his brethren had for their religious habit.
But when it came to the point his resolve gave way. He
was, as six years before he had told Crumwell, " somewhat
in age and weak and much disposed to a palsy," and he could
not contemplate the idea of having to surrender his old rooms
in Christchurch monastery. He wrote an earnest letter to
the all-powerful minister begging him to remain his friend,
" specially now in the change ofthe religion of this cathedral
church of Canterbury from prior and convent into dean and
canons. For I am informed," he continues, " that such as be
or shall be assigned and appointed by the king's majesty
to be commissioners and visitors for the said change of the
said church of Canterbury shall be at the same church with
in a little time. And of the which commission my lord of
Canterbury, as I hear, shall be the chief (who is not so good
lord unto me, as I would he were). Wherefore without your
especial lordship I suppose my lord of Canterbury will put
me to as much hindrance as he can, and also I have heard
of late that my brother the warden of the manors, Dr.
Thornden,is called in my lord of Canterbury's house, 'Dean
of Christchurch in Canterbury.' This office of dean by the
favour of your good lordship I trusted to have had, and as
yet trust to have. I have been prior of the said church above
22 years, wherefore it would be much displeasure to me
in my age to be put from my chamber and lodging which
I have had all these 22 years.
" It hath also been shown unto me that my lord of Canter-
1 Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 139.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 451
bury at his coming to the said church will take from me the
keys of my chamber, and if he do, I doubt whether I shall have
the same keys or chamber again or not. I have or can have
none other comfort or help in this matter but only by your
lordship. And where it pleased your good mind towards me
to write unto me of late, by your letters, that I should have
my said chamber with all commodities of the same as I have
had in times past, the which your said writing to me was
and is much to my comfort. And with the favour of your
lordship I trust so to have for the term of my life, which term
of my life by course of nature cannot be long, for I am above
the age of 62 years." x
Prior Goldwell, however, was doomed to disappointment.
Dr. Thornden became first dean of Christchurch, and the
old superior of twenty- two years' standing had to content
himself with a pension of £80 a year and one of the pre-
bendal stalls in the new foundation.
Many of the exiled monks probably found their way
abroad and into Scotland, both on the suppression and
after queen Mary's premature death had destroyed every
hope of a monastic revival. An old monk of Westminster,
named Henry Stils, who had been born blind, after wander
ing on the Continent, came to the abbey of Saint Ghislain,2
in the Low Countries. On May 18th, 1579, he had visited
the new seminary at Doway, in company with Dr. Allen, its
president and founder,8 and on October 17th, 1588, he died
at Saint Ghislain, " where," as the annals relate, " he had a
long time before taken refuge from the religious troubles in
England and the persecutions of Catholics, and above all of
the religious, a great number of whom came to seek an asylum
in the Low Countries." He had been brought over from
London by a youth who remained with him till his death.*
The Syon nuns are said to have always kept together.
Many of them upon the suppression of their house retired
to the Continent, where they continued to lead a conventual
life. They were residing in a convent of their order at
Dermond, in Flanders, when Cardinal Pole brought them
1 R O. Crum. Corr., v. f. 82.
2 A celebrated Benedictine abbey in Hainaut, near Mons.
8 Records of Eng. Caths., Douay Diaries, p. 153.
4 Annates de l'Abbaye de Saint Ghislain, in Reiffenberg's Monuments
pour servir a tHistoire des Provinces de Hainaut, Namur, &'c. (Bruxelles,
1848), t. viii. p. 800.

45 2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
back to England in Mary's reign.1 On their expulsion from
England by Elizabeth, these nuns did not cease to keep up
regular conventual life, which has been continued until the
present day. The house of Syon is now settled near
Chudleigh in Devonshire, and is (perhaps with one excep
tion) the most ancient existing of the order of St. Bridget of
Sweden. In the same way there is little doubt that some of the
disbanded religious managed to reunite and for a long time
live a kind of conventual existence. Thus Dame Isabel
Sackville, the last prioress of Clerkenwell, is reported to
have kept one or two of her nuns near her for a long time.
Dame Elizabeth Shelley, last abbess of St. Mary's, Win
chester, also lived for some years, with a few of the nuns, in
the neighbourhood of her dismantled convent. Her last
will and those of several of her nuns are yet preserved, and
afford some interesting particulars of the way in which these
devout women clung to their religious profession. Thus in
1556, Agnes Badgecroft, who was subprioress of St. Mary's
Abbey at the dissolution, died. She was living close to her
old home and desired to be buried in the neighbouring
church of St. Peter, Colebrook. "Also I bequeath," she
says in her will, " my professed ring to the Blessed Sacra
ment, to be sold and to buy therewith a canopy for the
Sacrament." 2
In the same way the will of Jane Wayte, "lately a
religious woman within the walls of Winchester," makes
bequests to four of her " sisters " in religion ; it is witnessed
by Richard Woodlock, formerly a monk of Hyde, and
Thomas Cooke, also a Benedictine.3 The abbess herself,
Dame Elizabeth Shelley, died in March, 1547. She left
1 Aungier, History of Syon, p. 97.
2 Mr. Baigent's MS. Collections. In the inventory of her goods taken on
Oct. 5, 1556, are mentioned her monastic veils, her psalter, pair of beads and
four altar cloths. " Item received for her pension 31s. 6d."
8 Ibid. Another nun of the abbey, Edburga Stratford, whose will is dated
March 18, 1552, leaves a legacy to "John Erie, rector of Empton, formerly
monk of Winchester." In 1555 James Clayton, curate of the parish of St.
Peter, Colebrook, leaves a legacy to one of the disbanded nuns, "Agnes
Badgecroft," and to Sir Thomas Cooke, named above, "all my books to dis
tribute as he shall think fit." The will of Morpheta Kyngsmill, last abbess of
Wherwell, made 31st March, 1569, leaves bequests to seven of her old com
munity, who were apparently living with her at her death (Mr. Baigent's MS.
Collections).

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 453
twenty shillings to each of seven nuns named, and "to
every sister of the sistern house, near to St. Mary's (abbey)
1 2d." John White, the warden of Winchester college, was
her executor, and she was buried by him in the college
chapel. The reverence in which this abbess was held is
evinced by a direction found in the will of Thomas Bassett,
priest, and fellow of Winchester college, who died in June
1554 His last wish is, that he be buried "in the college
chapel, by the side of the grave of Mrs. Shelley." x
Besides what the last abbess of Winchester bequeathed
in her will, she disposed of several things by indenture.
" Dame Shelley," writes Bishop Milner, " continued to reside
in this city (of Winchester), and it appears she had not lost
all hopes of seeing her convent once more established, as
she made the present of a silver chalice, which she had
probably saved from the sacrilegious wreck, to the college
of this city, on the express condition that it should be given
to St. Mary's abbey in case it was ever restored." 2
On the other hand, some of the monks and nuns cast
out into the world appear to have accommodated themselves
to the circumstances of the times and fallen away from their
religious obligations. Still, from such returns as exist it
does not appear that this was, at least in the case of the
nuns, an ordinary matter. A certain proportion, no doubt,
in the process of time would have married, but in the returns
made by the commissioners sent by Edward VI. to inquire
into the state of the religious pensioners, although there are
a considerable number reported on, only two nuns are named
as married. These two are "Elizabeth Grimston, of the
age of 26," married to " one Pyckerd of Welbeck," and
" Elizabeth Tyas, who lives at Tykhill, and now married to
1 Mr. Baigent's MS. Collections.
2 Milner, Winchester, ii. 193. Some few scattered memorials of the dis
banded nuns are to be found. Thus at Isleworth in Middlesex was a small
brass commemorative of Margaret Dely, "a sister professed in Sion," formerly
treasurer of the house, who died in 1561 (Haines, Manual of Brasses, p. xxxix.
In the second edition this brass is said to be "now on a pew door"). At
Denham, Bucks, is the well-known brass of Agnes Jordan, last abbess of Sion,
who died apparently in 1545 (Waller, Brasses, plate xiii.). An entry in a 17th
century description of Yorkshire speaks of a nun of Esholt. " Mr. Baildon,
1619, saith," it runs, "that Dame Margaret Martiall, sometime a nun of
Esholt, lived at Fawether, adjoining (her old convent), and had a pension of
;£4 or £5 a year during her life, and died some 12 years since and was a good
churchwoman" (Brit. Mus. Harl. MS., 804, f. 14).

454 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
one John Swyno, gentleman." a Both were young nuns of
Swine convent, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and very
possibly were never professed at all.
It is certain that out of the large number of disbanded
monks many must have conformed to the religious opinions
and practices of the times. One interesting anecdote of
an old monk, who lived till the beginning of the seventeenth
century, may be allowed to find a place here. His name
was William Littleton, and on the dissolution of Evesham
abbey he was "subsexton," and appears as such on the
pension list.2 The story of the end of his life may be
told in the words of an old writer.3 Speaking of Father
Augustine Bradshaw (prior of the house of St. Gregory's,
Doway), it is related that "at his coming to Henlip in 1603
he was met by chance there by one Lyttleton, who had
formerly been a monk of Evesham, and was now best known
by the nic-name of ' parson tinker.' This man was observed
to cast his eyes much upon Father Augustine, and being not
able to hold, he asked Mr. Thomas Habington what this
gentleman was, who confidently told him that it was a
brother of his. ' A brother of mine ! ' said Mr. Lyttleton, ' I
have not had any living these forty years.' ' I mean,'
replied the gentleman, 'a monk of St. Benedict's Order.'
At these words he seemed to alter countenance and be much
moved, and at length besought Mr. Habington, for the
passion of Christ, that he might speak to him. All being
related to father Austin, a way was made to bring them
together. As soon as Lyttleton came into the room he fell
upon his knees and with floods of tears told what he was
beseeching Fr. Austin to reconcile him, which he, remaining
there a day or two, did. This old man being thus reclaimed
went home and presently fell blind, and so remained almost
two years deprived of his benefice, and had he not been
bed-ridden he had been imprisoned for his conscience,
and so died with great repentance, being near 100 years
old."4 1 R. O. Chapter H. Box, 154, No. 61.
2 Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 105.
8 Fr. Thomas White alias Woodhope.
4 Bib. Bod. Wood. MS. B. 6, f. 16. " Benedictine Obits." Fr. White
mentions that he " had the story from the mouth of the worthy gentleman who
brought them together" (evidently Mr. Habington, of Henlip), and that " Mr.
Hall of the Society assisted this old man at his death."

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 455
When first expelled from their monasteries, Wood relates
that the monks flocked in great numbers to Oxford. Canter
bury college, Gloucester college, Durham, St. Bernard's, St.
Mary's, and other halls were full of them,1 but it is curious
to remark how quickly every trace of many of the monks
and nuns appears to have been lost. Considerable numbers
died off in the first few years after their expulsion. Many
were old and sickly, and the hardships to which they were
, inevitably exposed, and even the change of life itself, would
probably have soon carried off the aged and infirm. In the
" Ministers' Accounts " are to be found numerous entries of
the passing away of these religious. Thus, in the receiver's
account for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, during the
twelve months from Michaelmas, 1540, to the same feast
1 541, which was practically the first year after the general
dissolution, the following are recorded as having died since
the last account: The prioress of Marham, the prior of
Bromholme, the prior of Holy Trinity, Ipswich, the abbot of
Wendling, the prior of Westacre, and his predecessor, three
canons and one nun of the Gilbertine priory of Shuldham,
one canon of Walsingham, and three others who had not
applied for their pensions, one canon of West Derham, and
the abbot of Bury with three of his monks.2
By 1552, or twelve years after the suppressions, very
many no longer appear. The reports of the commission
appointed by Edward VI. to inquire, and to which frequent
reference has been made, show that a great change had
taken place in the lists of pensioners. Out of twenty-two,
for example, who were named on the last list as receiving
annuities as monks of Durham, seven are reported as dead,
two did not appear, but were supposed to be living, the one
at Lytham, the other at Stamford, former cells of Durham.
Only four, apparently, had received their payments.3
Throughout the reports great numbers are noted as
" absent " or " not heard of." Thus at St. Leonard's, York,
more than a third of the religious had disappeared in this
way. At St. Andrew's, York, of the three names mentioned,
two had died recently and one had "not been heard of" by
the commissioners. In the same way, to take one more
1 Fasti, i. p. 61.
2 R. O. Exch. Mins. Accts., 32-33 Hen. VIII., 235.
8 R. O. Chapter H. Box, 154, No. 63.

45 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
example, of the fifteen canons of Welbeck who had been
pensioned, only nine are named in the report of I552-
Three of these nine, including the abbot, Richard Bentley,
who had been granted a pension of £50, are " unheard of,"
and one had sold his pension directly after it had been
granted. In other places it is the same story : at Mathersey,
in Nottinghamshire, out of five two are " unheard of; " at
Wallingwells out of four nuns two are "unheard of," and
the rest "unpaid."1
In the brief re-establishment of some of the monasteries
during Mary's reign a few of the old religious found their
way back to the cloisters. Thus the Bridgettine nuns were
brought back to their old home at Syon, the Dominicans to
Smithfield, the Observants to Greenwich, the Carthusians
to Sheen, and the Benedictines to Westminster.2 At the
latter abbey Dr. Feckenham, previously a monk of Evesham,
was appointed abbot, and he gathered round him a com
munity composed of former members of the Benedictine
order, comprising, amongst others, four of the old Glaston
bury monks.
The restoration of that renowned sanctuary of the west
was also contemplated, and, in fact, the work of repairing
the ruined buildings was begun. So sure were these monks
of the affection of the people of Somerset that they asked
only for the ruins, feeling confident that their old neigh
bours would gladly help to build up the dismantled walls.3
It was intended also to restore St. Albans under its old
superior, Abbot Boreman.
> R. O. Chapter H. Box, 154, No. 2.
2 Mr. Baigent points out that amongst other houses which were restored
in Mary's reign was that of the Franciscan Observants at Southampton. This
is evident from several entries in wills at this time. Thus John Tanner, of
South Stoneham, on 9 Dec, 1558, bequeaths 10s. to the Friars of Hampton.
So, too, in the will of Charles Harrison, physician, of the parish of Holy Rood,
Southampton, dated 5 Oct., 1558, are the following items : — " My body to be
buried in the church of St. Francis in Southampton aforesaid ; " "I give and
bequeath to the brethren of St. Francis' Rule, within the town of Southampton,
40s. ;" "also I give and bequeath all my books of philosophy, divinity and
stories (history) to the friars observant in Southampton, to the intent that
they shall be and always remain in the library of the said friars ; " " I will that
all my books of physic be given to a student of physic at Oxford, who hath
not money to buy books, and that such a. one be inquired after by such as
cometh and goeth to Oxford." It may be added that Charles Harrison must
have been a man of substance as he leaves his wife 256 ounces of plate and
,£60 in ready money.
8 Monasticon, i. 9.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 457
Mary's death put an end to these projects, and West
minster once more passed away from the keeping of the
monks of St. Benedict. The closing scene may be given
in the words of the historian Fuller: — "Queen Elizabeth
coming to the crown, sent for abbot Feckenham to come to
her, whom the messenger found setting of elms in the
orchard (the college green) of Westminster abbey. But he
would not follow the messenger till first he had finished his
plantation, which his friends impute to his being employed
in mystical meditations — that as the trees he then set should
spring and sprout many years after his death, so his new
plantation of Benedictine monks in Westminster should take
root and flourish, in defiance of all opposition." " But how
his trees thrive," he continues, "at this day is to me un
known. Coming afterwards to the queen, what discourse
passed between them they themselves know alone. Some
have confidentlyguessed she proffered him the archbishopric of
Canterbury on condition he would conform to her laws, which
he utterly refused."1 " Sure I am," adds Fuller, " that these
monks long since are extirpated ; " but in this assurance he was
wrong ; the line is continued through Feckenham to this day.
The Carthusians who were gathered together at Sheen
under Prior Maurice Chauncy, when Mary came to the
throne, were the scattered members of the Charterhouses of
England. Many died during the few years of their sojourn
in England and the rest followed their superior into the
Low Countries on the accession of Elizabeth. When they
came to Bruges in 1 568, many members of their community
had received the habit in their English houses. Prior
Chauncy died in Paris, July 12th, 1581, and the last of the
old monks to pass away was Father Roger Thomson, the
vicar, who had been a novice at Mountgrace on the dissolu
tion, and who died on October 20th, 1582.2
After Mary's death little is known of the fate of the
1 Fuller, Church Hist., quoted in Stanley's Memorials of Westminster (5th
ed.), p. 405. The Dean notes that " the elms, or their successors, still remain.
There was, till 1779, a row of trees in the middle of the garden which was
then cut down."
2 As so little is known about the dispersed monks the following may be of
interest. The dates of the deaths are taken from a valuable MS., "History
of the English Carthusians," in the library of J. Blount, Esq., of Mapledurham.
The last death recorded is in 1663, and the MS. was compiled about that
time. Among the old English Carthusians who were at Sheen and died in
Mary's reign are : Fr. Fletcher (either of Mountgrace or Hinton), Robert

45 8 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
surviving monks. Only very trifling items of information
have been preserved to posterity. Thus, in 1576, it appears
that amongst those indicted for being at mass in " the house
of John Pinchin," of Westminster, " sometime of the Middle
Temple, and an attorney at the common law," was " Hugh
Phillips, late monk of Westminster, the priest who said
mass," * and who had before the suppression been a mem
ber of the Ramsey community.2
Three years later there were two septuagenarian monks
in the Marshalsea prison — Thomas Cook and Thomas Rede,3
the latter probably a monk of Hayles, in Gloucestershire,
the former a canon of Christchurch, Twyneham. In 1585
John Almond, a Cistercian of about 76 years of age, died in
the castle of Hull, having been a prisoner there in 1579.4
Two years previously, Thomas Madde, a monk of Jervaulx,
died in the prison of York. Of him it is said that in the
reign of Henry VIII. he " did take away and hide the head
of one of his brethren of the same house, who had suffered
death, for that he would not yield and consent ' to the royal
supremacy.' Afterwards he fled, lest he should offend God
and trouble his conscience by the doing of any unlawful
acts, unto St. Andrew's in Scotland, where he did remain
unto the end of king Edward's reign. He, returning in
queen Mary's reign, did spend his time about Knaresbro' in
serving God according to his vocation, and teaching of
gentlemen's children and others. " 6
One other instance of a like nature and recording the
end of a nun may be added here. Dame Isabel Whitehead
Abel (Mountgrace), Robert Marshall (Mountgrace), Robert Thurlby (Sheen).
Those who followed Prior Chauncy abroad: Maurice Chauncy (London),
ob. 1581, July 12 ; Roger Thomson (novice Mountgrace), ob. 1582, 20 Oct. ;
Tristan Holimans or Hyckmans (Witham), ob. 1575, Dec. 6; Nicholas
Dugmer (Beauvale), ob. 1575, Sept. 10 ; Leonard Hall or Stofs (Mountgrace),
ob. 1575, Oct. 10; Nicholas Bolsand (Hinton), ob. Dec. 5, 1578; William
Holmes (Hinton).
Besides these there were one or two others, probably belonging to ancient
houses, but whom it is difficult to identify on the pension lists. To the above
must be added Br. Hugh Taylor, a lay-brother. Additional MSS. 17,085 (f.
106), and 17,092 (ff. 78, 114, 152, 196), contain obits (year only) of this com
munity from 1662 to 1757. The lists include the good old Catholic names of
Gerard, Constable, Dolman, Brigham, Towneley, Yates. Earlier obits are
scattered in various places through the latter volume.
1 Brit. Mus. Lansd. MS. 19, f. 59.
2 R. O. Exch. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk., 245, f. 64.
8 Brit. Mus. Lansd. MS., 28, f. 96. 4 Ibid.
6 Records of Eng. Prov. S.J., vol. iii. p. 239.

The Ejected Monks and their Pensions 459
was professed at the convent of Arthington, in Yorkshire,
" until it was suppressed. Yet," says the account of her,
"she continued her state as she could, so far as I know."
She lived with "lady Midelton, at Stuborn, or Stokell
(Stockeld), until she died and then wandering up and down,
doing charitable works . . . till she stayed" with a Mrs.
Ardington. There she became ill, and whilst in that state
the house was searched at Michaelmas, 1587, for Catholics.
The officers took Mrs. Ardington and her daughter, and
"also entered the place wherein dame Isabel Whitehead,
a nun, lay sick in her bed. They stood over her with their
naked swords and rapiers, and did threaten to kill her
unless she would tell where David Ingleby and Mr. Winsour
were." She was carried away to York castle, where she
died in the following March, "and was buried under the
castle wall. " 1
1 Records of Eng. Prov. S.J., vol. iii p. 731.

CHAPTER XXII
Some Results of the Suppression
In entire consistency with the infamy heaped upon the
monasteries has been the current estimate of the social con
sequences of their suppression. Grave writers no less than
partisans have treated the matter as though their spoliation
had resulted in great advantage to society at large, inasmuch
as by it the honey was taken from the drones of the hive
and handed over to the working bees. It is difficult to say
which branch of this comparison is the more absolutely false
as to fact. Even supposing that the thousands then living
under vows had led the aimless and dissipated existences
attributed to them by their despoilers, it might be asked,
not without reason, whether any signal amount of private or
public virtue was displayed by the courtiers and creatures
of Henry VIII. If the buildings wherein the monks were
housed and the churches they had raised to the glory of
God were vast in extent and magnificent in design, so that,
to use the words of a contemporary witness, they constituted
"one of the beauties of this realm to all men and stran
gers passing through the same," x what particular advantage
accrued to the state from their desecration and wholesale
destruction ? If the hospitality dispensed to all comers by
the monastic owners was generous and profuse, was the
public interest greatly advanced by the private consumption
of the very sources of that charity amongst a few royal or
noble appropriators ?
Such a line of argument, however, though serving fairly
enough to expose the facility with which some writers, of
cool judgment in other matters, accept transparent fallacies
when dealing with monasticism, so far from covering the
whole case, leaves room for the retort always tacitly implied,
1 R. O. Chapter H. Bk., A. fa, p. 210, Aske's examination.
460

Some Results of the Suppression 461
if not openly expressed, that no matter what evils may come
from the suppression of the religious houses, they could not
equal those which would have resulted from their con
tinuance. Certainly had those institutions been the abodes
of wickedness and strongholds of oppression depicted by
the false witnesses whom our English Ahab commissioned
to slander the Naboth whose fair vineyard he coveted;
had the sole business of the monks consisted in extorting
by spiritual intimidation, and by chicanery and fraudulent
deceits, the means for living in feasting and drunkenness;
had their occupation been that of wallowing in unmentionable
vice, for that in plain English is the picture drawn by their
spoliators — then unquestionably, whatever scars may have
been inflicted by the cautery, they would have been incom
parably more tolerable than the canker.
Nor, it may be here observed, is excuse altogether
wanting for those who at a later day gave credence to the
statements of Henry's commission without examining into
the credibility of the wretched men whom modern research
is denouncing to the world as perjured robbers. If such
a denunciation may appear at first sight strong, even to
violence, it will upon reflection be seen rather to fall short
ofthe truth. For although, in describing the actual events,
the pen may, not without difficulty, be confined to a simple
narration, yet when the mind contemplates the innumerable
miseries entailed upon successive generations by that whole
sale appropriation of the property of the Church and the
poor, it is almost incompatible with any instinct of justice to
refrain from characterising in language only too abundantly
justified those infamous instruments of a ruler who alone
was their rival in infamy. For when we look into the case
in detail and reflect, it is impossible not to see in the spolia
tion and destruction of the monasteries the fount and origin
of many of those appalling sores in the body of the nation
from which at times the veil is torn away. Not in figure
merely, but in grim, literal, earnest truth, the sacred heritage
of the English poor was eaten up by the house of Tudor ;
and to such an extent did extravagance of food, of dress, and
of every kind of living ensue, that not a few of the spoilers
paid in their own ruin the penalty of their transgression. _*
To trace in detail the consequences which this act of
wholesale waste entailed upon society at large would be a

462 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
task beyond the present scope ; partly because such a dis
cussion would evidently be of a magnitude exceeding the
original subject, and partly because the design of the present
work is to deal with direct testimony, whereas any deduc
tions as to the effects of, this lawless act, however clearly
they may be supported by evidence, must of necessity be in
a measure inferential. Still, any description of the events
which led up to and accompanied the suppression of these
institutions, which should take no account of the important
social effects which followed from it, would be imperfect.
Though the service of God was beyond all question the
prime object of monastic life, yet the more closely that life is
examined the more clearly does it exhibit the element of
associated labour. In the popular estimate current at the
present day, and derived in great measure from those kindly
misdescribers, Sir Walter Scott and the author of the " In-
goldsby Legends," it is not unusual to imagine that a monk,
although possibly a pious, was at all events a very indolent
personage, and that the utmost he accomplished was to
mumble — he was always supposed to mumble — a good many
more prayers than other people, and to live on the fat of the
land in return.
In strong contrast with the caricature drawn from the
imagination of novelists, who at best clothe the cloistered
life with a poetic unreality, the description given of it by a
deeply-read writer of modern times may be here quoted.
"The monks," says Mr. Thorold Rogers, "were the men
of letters in the middle ages, the historians, the jurists, the
philosophers, the physicians,, the students of nature, the
¦ founders of schools, authors of chronicles, teachers of agri
culture, fairly indulgent landlords and advocates of genuine
dealing towards the peasantry."
It was the possessions of the monastic houses in par
ticular that, to use the words of an old writer, were
popularly regarded as " oblations to the Lord " and " the
patrimony of the poor, ' to be bestowed accordingly. ' " J
The monks whereof "taught and preached the faith and
good works, and practised the same both in word and deed ;
not only within the monasteries, but also all abroad with-
1 Brit. Mus. Cole MS., xii. Written about the year 1591. A portion of
this document has already been quoted, giving a description of the dissolution
of Roche abbey.

Some Results of the Suppression 463
out." ..." They made such provision daily for the people
that stood in need thereof, as sick, sore, lame or otherwise
impotent that none or very few lacked relief in one place or
another. Yea, many of them, whose revenues were suffi
cient thereto, made hospitals and lodgings within their own
houses, wherein they kept a number of impotent persons
with all necessaries for them, with persons to attend upon
them : besides the great alms they gave daily at their gates
to every one that came for it. Yea, no wayfaring person
could depart without a night's lodging, meat, drink and
money; (it not) being demanded, from whence he or she
came and whither he would go.1
" They taught the unlearned that was put to them to be
taught ; yea, the poor as well as the rich, without demanding
anything for their labour, other than what the rich parents
were willing to give to them of mere devotion.2
"There was no person that came to them heavy or sad
for any cause that went away comfortless. They never
revenged them of any injury, but were contented to forgive
it freely upon submission. And if the price of corn had
begun to start up in the markets, they made thereunto with
wainloads of corn and sold it under the market .price to poor
people, to the end to bring down the price thereof. If the
highways, bridges, or causeways were tedious to the pas
sengers that sought their living by their travel, their great
help lacked not towards the repair and amending thereof : yea,
oftentimes they amended them on their own proper charges.
" If any poor householder had lacked seed to sow his
land or bread or corn or malt, before the harvest and come
to the monastery, either of men or women, he should have
had it until harvest, that he might easily have paid it again.
Yea, if he had made his moan for an ox, horse or cow, he
might have had it upon his credit. And, such was the good
conscience of the borrowers in those days, that the thing
borrowed needed not to have been asked at the day of
payment. "They never raised any rent, or took any incomes or
garsomes of their tenants; nor ever took in or improved
any commons : although the most part and the greatest was
ground belonging to their professions." . . . "All sorts of
1 P. 5. 2 P. 6.

464 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries.
people were helped and succoured by abbeys. Yea, happy
was that person that was tenant to an abbey, for it was a
rare thing to hear that any tenant was removed by taking
his farm over his head. He was not afraid of any re-entry
for non-payment of his rent, if necessity drove him there
unto. And thus they fulfilled all the works of charity in all
the country round about them to the good example of all lay
persons that now have taken forth other lessons, that is
nunc tempus alios postulat mores."
It might be objected that this is a fancy picture drawn
after date; but not merely is it the work of one who well
remembered the ancient days, but it agrees entirely with the
declaration of Robert Aske, written half-a-century before, to
say nothing of so many other contemporary testimonies and
well-ascertained facts. Even if it were granted that in this
or that detail the picture be heightened by an old man's
fancy playing upon early memories, as a whole and in sub
stance it is unquestionably true, and it shows the " common
fame " which the monasteries left after them, a fame wholly
incompatible with the infamies of later repute; for the
works of Christian charity can flow from but a single source,
the love of God, and the love of man in Him.
The same writer points out how by the property ob
tained from the dissolutions the rich mounted up to place
and power, whilst the poor, deprived of their protectors and
inheritance, sank deeper into the slough of poverty. For
the suppressions " made of yeomen and artificers, gentlemen,
and of gentlemen, knights, and so forth upward, and of the
poorest sort, stark beggars."1
And the commons, he says, were robbed not only in
the actual taking away, but in the consequences. For the
owners, who succeeded the monks, always try "to make
the most of everything," which " abbots, abbesses and such
like never did." . . . "Inferior persons made gentlemen,"
always desiring to make a show, are not " content, as other
ancient gentlemen in times past did," and hence are con
stantly compelled to raise their rents.
Moreover, the new owners of the soil everywhere took
1 P. 18. It is worth while to note how singularly the description of this
anonymous writer, speaking with the facts before his eyes, agrees in regard to
the degradation of the English labourer with the results obtained from purely
documentary evidence by Professor Thorold Rogers.

Some Results of the Suppression 465
hold of waste ground and common land. By this practice,
he continues, " the poor cottagers that always before might
have kept a cow for sustaining himself, his wife and children,
and twenty sheep towards their clothing, now is not able
to keep so much as a goose or a hen. Yea, the common
arable fields that were common to all persons dwelling
within the townships (as well the poor as the rich) are
taken in and enclosed. By reason thereof the ground is
worth so much that the poor cottagers, now innumerable
(for in most towns for every cottage [at the time of the
suppression] there are five now, and far more poor persons
in them),1 and other poor husbandmen, can neither have
their common therein as they had before the inclosure, nor
are able to pay for as much as a ' beastgate ' within it, the
rent is so great. Hence only wealthy farmers with money
to buy cattle" can use the land; the poorer class "are
brought to such poverty" that they cannot maintain their
families "and pay their landlords their rents."2
By the enclosure of the commons the artificer in the
town was no longer able to keep a cow for his household
or a horse to carry his wares to market, for the people's
pasturage was gone. Since the fall of the abbeys "great
woods " had been cut down and sold, every one thinking of
himself and " the present gain, " so that the poor had great
difficulty in getting wood for firing and for their various
industries. By the dearth of cattle both leather and wool
had become dearer. The poor, moreover, had less acknow
ledged right to a share of Church revenues. For, on the
one hand, the married clergy supported their families out of
their dues, and little would be left for those in want ; and,
on the other hand, the tithes " which belonged to vicarages
now in temporal men's hands " were very considerable, but
the owners " did not think they were more bound to con
tribute on this account to the poor than others." 3
It is impossible to read, any account of the work done by
the monastic institutions for the poor without perceiving in
how many directions this present generation has been com-
1 In this he is calling attention to the migration of the country population to
the towns, forced on by the increasing difficulty of remaining on the soil. As
there was no corresponding increase in manufacturing industry, it is patent
what an aggravation of poverty must have resulted.
2 P. 35 3 Pp. 36-38.
2 G

466 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
pelled by very necessity to devise some substitute for the
consideration thus exercised. Our modern workhouses, our
burial-clubs, our hospitals and charities, ever crying out for
funds, much of which is swallowed up by paid organization
and management, what are they but awkward and imperfect
agencies for executing a portion of those duties to society
which flowed naturally and unobtrusively from the religious
communities in their ordinary practice of Christian charity ?
That the wholesale uprooting of institutions so organic
and so beneficent must have occasioned incalculable misery
is rarely denied, though its extent is little understood.
Amongst the writers who have treated this subject from the
economic point of view a tolerably general consensus pre
vails that the condition of pauperism, as distinguished from
that of poverty, may be traced distinctly to this event.
Many, however, seem to consider such a condition as a kind
of self-curable, if not self-engendered, disease. Even so just
and usually well-informed a writer as Professor Thorold
Rogers expresses a doubt whether the monks did not create
much of the poverty which they alleviated. Of course, to
those who consider almsgiving universally and essentially
objectionable, no general answer can here be given beyond
observing that they who would maintain this must at least
be prepared to throw over the commands of the gospel,
the example of the apostles, the teaching of the Christian
Church, the instincts of humanity, and the universal practice
of every civilized state. And, as a matter of fact, pauperism,
which immediately after became a rampant evil, was kept
within bounds so long as the monasteries remained un
touched. But many causes were even then at work, which in all
probability would in process of time have rendered the old
monastic methods of dealing with the evil inadequate. Still,
the overthrow of the existing sources of charity, and their
appropriation to quite other uses, was a fertile source of
misery at the time, and up to the present. Nor is it easy to
see how it could be good policy to disband corporations to
whom the disposal of alms, in the spirit of Christian charity,
was not merely a duty, but had become a familiar habit, and
who, open as they were to the great waves of public feeling,
and by tradition not unmindful of the public welfare, would
not in the future have been less thrifty, stewards had the

Some Results of the Suppression 467
need of strenuous effort and modified methods to meet a
growing public evil been brought before them.1 This would
have been easy in view of the influence which the so-called
"founder" could bring to bear in every case. Not only
were the channels through which all relief flowed to the
people destroyed, but the very fountain-head of the accumu
lated charity of previous generations was dried up at its
source when the property of the religious houses was, with
out inquiry or discrimination, swept into the capacious purse
of Henry. Even had the wealth acquired by the spoils of
monasteries, churches, schools and hospitals been entirely
applied to useful and national purposes, it would still be
true that these objects were achieved in great measure at
the expense of the poorer members of the nation. As it
was, a considerable part went to minister to the private
wants of the king, and to enrich his noble and ignoble
courtiers. They grew great, whilst the poor became " stark
beggars." Nor must it be forgotten that the process, which con
sumed the very sources of charity, cast many thousands
upon the world without sufficient means of livelihood. Not
only numbers of monks and nuns, for whom clearly no pro
vision was made in the way of pension, were turned adrift
to swell the ranks of the poor, but far the greater number of
those dependent on the monastic houses were dismissed to
find occupation or living as best they could. At the same
time, the new proprietors of the abbey lands treated the old
tenants, with whom they had no sympathy, most harshly,
and reduced many to a state of destitution. The monks had
the character of being easy landlords, and one of the first
objects of the royal agents was to rackrent the holders of the
monastic farms. Thus, in his first account, John Freeman
boasts that of the houses he has received in Lincolnshire,
and the rental of which had been returned as £8100 a year,
"there hath been more increased by my survey than was
presented . . . yearly by £800. " 2 To give another illustra
tion. On the granges belonging to Fountains abbey, rented
1 It has been pointed out that the incomes of a few modern millionaires
would cover the revenues of all the religious houses. To make the monastic
revenues suffice for all calls on them, it is clear that whatever may have been
the case at this or that date, with this or that particular monastery, their
administration as a whole must have been marked by thrift.
2 R. O. Chapter H. Bk., A. fa, f. 155.

468 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
at £156, 13s. 4d. by the monks, the king's valuers, in 1540,
put a price of £30 a year more ; and thirty-five years after
wards, in 1575, Gresham's rental, without including five of
the granges, was £45, 7s. more than the whole were rented
at in the royal valuation of 1540.1
But beyond this consumption by the " classes " of the
heritage of their poorer brethren at the time of the suppres
sion, an additional and heavy wrong was done them by
branding poverty with the mark of crime. To be poor was
not before regarded as a reproach in itself, but rather upon
every Christian principle poverty was held in honour. To
Henry belongs the singular distinction, which few will be
inclined to dispute with him, of having invented literally no
less than figuratively " the Badj^pfJPoyerty," and of being
the first to dress a " pauper " in a " pauper dress." It may
fairly be doubted whether any single act of monarch or
statesman ever did so much to vulgarize the character of an
entire nation as Henry's when he bestowed ninepence a week
on each of the thirteen poor men, hitherto supported by the
monks of Gloucester, on condition that their caps and cloaks
should bear a badge emblazoned with a token of the royal
munificence.2 How soon the effect of the transfer of land from the old
to the new owners and the desolation it brought in its train
was visible in the country may be learnt from a description
of the state of the land addressed to Henry VIII. himself by
a travelling artisan.3 Speaking of the great increase in the
number of poor people, the writer proceeds to explain what
1 J. R. Walbran, Memorials of Fountains (Surtees Soc). The editor in a
note, p. 254, noticing the above facts, states that it " will show that the monks
were just and merciful landlords ; and that the lament on the fall of the abbeys
in these parts, which old Henry Jenkins lived to report to the Cavaliers and
Roundheads, might have partially arisen from more material reasons than a
change of religion."
2 R. O. Exch. Mins. Accts., 31-32 Hen. VIII., 263 m. 9d. A curious.
instance may bexite'd' of the way the poor and sick simply disappeared when
deprived ofthe care ofthe religious who attended them, and left to the mercy
of thejyeyal officials. The hospital for poor and sick at Bishopsgate, in.
Loncjjim7 was taken by the king on December 1st, 1539. There were at the
tirrfe 34 poor in the establishment attended by six canons and two sisters. The
first week each of these poor people received eightpence. For the next four
weeks there were only 32 paid, then 30, and by March 19th there were only
20. At the end of the month they had been reduced to 16, and by September
to only 8 (R O. Exch. Mins. Accts., 31-32 Hen. VIII., 253, m. 12).
8 A native of Wiltshire, John Bayker. Calendar, xiii. (ii), No. 1229.

Some Results of the Suppression 469
he takes to be the causes. "For where," he says, "that
your grace and your grace's predecessors have given and
put in fee-farm lordships to your rulers and gentlemen of
your realm, whom your grace puts in trust to the intent that
they should aid and defend your poor subjects and commons
in all right and justice. But alas ! I think your poor subjects
had never more need to complain unto your grace in any
matter than they have in this, which if it please your grace
to pardon me your subject I shall shortly show. . . .
" Your grace shall understand that I am a poor artificer
or craftsman who has travelled and gone through the most
part of your realm to get and earn my living. I have been
in the most part of the cities and great towns of England.
I have also gone through many little towns and villages,
but, alas ! it did pity my heart to see in every place so many
monuments where houses and habitations had been, and
now nothing but bare walls standing. . . . Now if it please
your grace to hear what is the cause of such decay and ruin
within your realm, your grace shall understand that in every
place where your grace's majesty hath given in fee-farm any
lordship to any gentleman, or such as be your grace's fee-
farmers, (they) should let them again unto your poor subjects
to inhabit and till, that they, paying their rent truly to their
lords, might have a sufficient and complete living by their
labour. " But alas ! how far are these fee-farmers or rulers wide
in either point. For if so be that any of these fee-farmers
have any tenement or farm in their hands, if a poor man
come unto any of them desiring him to be good unto him
in this tenement or farm that he might have it to inhabit,
paying the rent for it as it hath been before time: he
answers and saith, ' If thou wilt have this tenement of me,
thou must pay me so much money at your coming in for a
fine ; ' so that he raiseth what never was at any fine before
to a great sum of money, and the rent to be paid yearly
besides. The poor (man) then seeing there is no remedy
but either to have it or be destitute of an habitation, sells all
he hath from wife and children to pay the fine. Then the
landlord perceiving the house in decay will not repair it,
although the tenant paid ever so much for his fine, and the
tenant comes to a decayed thing. Then the landlord per
ceiving that the house is ready to fall down, calls the tenant

47° Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
into court and there commands him to build up his house
before a certain day under pain of forfeiting a certain sum
of money. Then the poor man, because he paid so great a
sum of money for the fine, is not able to build up his house
so quickly. Then a second time is he called up again to
the court and there commanded under pain of forfeiting his
tenement to build it, so that the poor man being not able to
repair it, forfeits it again unto the lord."
In later times still the evils here recorded were intensified,
and the poverty of the nation at large could not be disguised.
Everywhere we read of a host of mendicants, of thieves, of
vagabonds, so that for one beggar in the reign of Henry
there were a hundred in the days of Elizabeth.1 Then those
who had seized the inheritance proclaimed the poverty of those
they had robbed a crime. Merciless and monstrous statutes
enacted by the spoliators was the remedy by which it was
sought to reduce the disease, and the rulers of the state did not
shrink from introducing slavery, and inflicting even death for
the crime of poverty, of which they had been the patent origin.
Hundreds of men and women, whose birthright had been
divided amongst the rich and powerful, were cast into prison,
scourged, and reduced to the condition of slaves, or hanged
for the crime of going about the country to seek a livelihood,
or for asking an alms when failing to find employment in the
midst of the general distress and the disorders of national
bankruptcy.2 1 Brit. Mus. Cole MS., xii. p. 41.
2 It is right to state that as early as 22 and 27 Hen. VIII. two statutes
assigned punishments to promiscuous begging, and to " men and women, being
whole and mighty in body," who were found vagrant. These latter were " to
be had to the next market-town, and there to be tied to the end of a cart,
naked, and to be beaten with whips throughout the same town till his body be
bloody by reason of such whipping." These and other severe measures were
found necessary, even before the dissolution of the monasteries. After that
event the evil was augmented. By a statute (1 Edw. VI., c. 3) the vagrant is
styled a " slave." If he was 18 years old, it was ordained that on a second
conviction he should suffer death unless some one would take him into service ¦
for two years. On the third conviction, the sturdy rogue had no escape from
the gallows.
The 14 Elizabeth, c. 5, made it criminal to be a vagrant. Every such
one over 14, male or female, should, on the conviction of so odious an offence,
be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a
hot iron of the compass of an inch, unless some one would take him into
service. The branding was sent clean through the gristle of the ear. The
condition of the convicted in service was that of a slave.
In one year (14-15 Elizabeth) 20 vagrants were so convicted at the Middlesex

Some Results of the Suppression 471
The effect of Henry's policy in dividing the monastic
estates among his courtiers was in reality to create a monopoly
in land. So long as they remained in the hands of their rightful
owners, those corporations, not being subject to demise, dealt
with the tenants according to immemorial custom, and never
aimed at extorting the last penny of profit from the cultivator.
But the new grantees were not actuated by a like considera
tion and rents were everywhere increased.
This was tantamount to nothing less than a revolution
effected by the powerful against the weak. "The further
we look back into history," says Mr. J. S. Mill, speaking
especially in regard to rent, "the more we see all transactions
and engagements under the influence of fixed customs. The
reason is evident. Custom is the most powerful protector of
the weak against the strong ; their sole protector where there
are no laws or government adequate to the purpose. Custom
is a barrier which even in the most oppressed condition of
mankind tyranny is forced in some degree to respect." But
in the revolutionary proceedings of Henry's reign no degree
of respect was paid to custom, and, that protecting barrier
thrown down, the weak were left to the mercy of the
powerful.1 If the effects of the dissolution were felt to operate
prejudicially to the material comfort of the people, the blow
inflicted on higher interests was still more fatal. Of course,
as regards religion itself, the Protestant must be bound to
consider that, however grievously spiritual interests may
have suffered, yet the substitution of Protestantism for
Catholicity outweighs all other considerations. But learning,
sacred and secular, is a more neutral ground, on which both
Sessions. On one occasion, in 1591 (the year referred to in the last note),
71 persons, male and female, aged 14 and upwards, were sentenced to be
whipped and branded, an average of seven a week during that period. — Vide
Middlesex County Records, i., Introd. i.
1 See in Blunt, Reformation, p. 385, the plain words of Latimer on this sub
ject. The absolute change of tenure, and rejection of " custom," is well illustrated
in the Durham Halmote Rolls, published by the Surtees Society. Mr. Booth,
the editor, in his preface speaks in the highest terms of the relations which
existed between the tenants and the old monastic officials. " Notwithstanding
the rents, duties and services, and the fine paid on entering," he writes, " the
inferior tenants of the priors had a beneficial interest in their holdings, which
gave rise to a recognised system of tenant-right, which we may see growing into
a customary right." With the dissolution of the monastery all this came to
an end ; the dean and chapter who succeeded the monks flatly refused to recog
nise a customary estate in their tenants.

47 2 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
Catholic and Protestant may meet. Deterioration was felt
in all grades of education, from the university downwards.
The rise in rents, says Latimer, prevented the yeoman
sending his son to school. Most of the schools at this time
were closed, without any provision being made for a sub
stitute. Moreover, the monasteries and convents had sup
ported scholars at the universities, or provided for young
clerics until their ordination, when they supplied them with
a title. This change was felt immediately. At Cambridge
the scholars in 1545 petitioned King Henry for privileges,
as they feared the destruction of monasteries would alto
gether annihilate learning.1 At Oxford, as is well known,
the result was no less fatal, and for a time these great homes
of learning were threatened with nothing less than ruin. At
the very moment of the suppression the danger was fore
seen, and to meet the case it was enjoined that every clergy
man beneficed to the amount of £100 a year or more should
find " an exhibition to maintain one scholar or more, either
at grammar schools or at one of the universities." It is,
however, clear that this injunction had no more effect than
that laid on the new owners of monastic lands to keep up the
hospitality always maintained by their predecessors.
Looking back from the days of Edward VI. to the times
before the suppression, Bishop Latimer exclaimed : " In
those days what did they when they helped the scholars ?
Marry! they maintained and gave them livings that were
very papists and professed the pope's doctrine; and now
that the knowledge of God's word is brought to light, and
many earnestly study and labour to set it forth, now almost
no man helpeth to maintain them."
"Truly," he said, in another sermon, "it is a pitiful
thing to see schools so neglected : every true Christian ought
to lament the same . . . to consider what hath been plucked
from abbeys, colleges and chantries, it is marvel no more to
be bestowed upon this holy office of salvation. It may well
be said by us that the Lord complaineth by His prophet . . .
' My house ye have deserted, and ye run every one to his
own house.' . . . Schools are not maintained ; scholars have
not exhibitions. . . . Very few there be that help poor
scholars. ... It would pity a man's heart to hear that,
' Fuller, Hist, ofthe University of Cambridge.

Some Results of the Suppression 473
that I hear of the state of Cambridge ; what it is in
Oxford I cannot tell. ... I think there be at this day (a.D.
1550) ten thousand students less than were within these
twenty years and fewer preachers." 1
So far as Oxford is concerned, "most of the halls and
hostels," writes Anthony Wood, " were left empty. Arts de
clined and ignorance began to take place again."2
It is vain to speculate on what might have been, but it
is certain that the progress of sound learning represented by
such men as Warham, More, Colet and their friends was
arrested. In view of the monasteries as they actually were,
and the tendencies clearly perceptible among some of the
most important in the last decades of their existence, what
might not have been hoped from them for the promotion of
letters had events been allowed to take their natural course ?
It might be objected, although there is no ground in the
facts to countenance such an objection,8 that the monasteries
could have had no part in this new movement. But objectors
such as these fail to take into account the capacity of the
monastic order to adapt itself to new circumstances, and
that wonderful recuperative power which is one of the most
prominent as it is one of the most interesting features of
monastic history.
One other serious result of the monastic suppression
cannot be passed over without some notice. A large pro
portion of the conventual revenues were derived from
parochial tithes impropriated to monasteries and convents.
However great an abuse it may be considered to transfer
such dues from one object to another, these tithes were
granted in the first instance for charitable and other strictly
ecclesiastical purposes. On the suppression of the religious
houses no distinction was made between monastic revenues
derived from this source and from the ordinary estates.
Tithes were thus granted away and sold like the fee-simple
_of the land to laymen, and converted altogether to secular
purposes. " These impropriations were in no one instance, I
believe," writes Hallam, "restored to the parochial clergy,
1 Quoted by Blunt, p. 387. For the state of affairs in Elizabeth's reign
see W. Harrison's Description of England, written in 1577 (ed. New Shake
speare Society, p. 77, &c).
2 Hist, and Antiquities of University of Oxford (ed. Gutch), ii. p. 67.
8 Compare the remarks of Dr. Jessop, Visitations ofthe Diocese of Norwich
(Camden Society), p. xxviii.

474 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
and have passed either into the hands of laymen, or of
bishops and other ecclesiastical persons who were frequently
compelled by the Tudor princes to take them in exchange
for lands."1Vast sums of money — amounting to millions of pounds
in these days2 — originally belonging as tithes to the parish
priest and the parish poor, found their way into lay hands in
the course of what has been well called " The Great Pillage "
initiated by Henry VIII. in the suppression of the monas
teries. These revenues have been used ever since for secular
purposes wholly alien to those for which they were intended.
In view of the evidence available, it is impossible to deny
that the monastic houses had acted as responsible almoners
of the portion of the tithe which law or custom had assigned
to the support of the needy. " There is no deduction in our
value made for alms," write the royal commissioners for
the survey of the monasteries of Norfolk, " which ought to
be remembered in case the king's highness depart with the
whole possessions of any house." And here, be it remem
bered, they are writing specially about the " parsonages that
are parcel of our value within written." It is hardly neces
sary to say that this plea for some consideration of the claims
of the poor found no response in the heart of the king or his
officials. In the social and religious changes of this period
the needy came unquestionably to have a less acknowledged
right to any share in the Church revenues generally, just as
Individualism, which became the dominant philosophy of
" the new men," denied their claims as members of the one
Christian family.
In this respect it seems quite clear that not only were
the results of the destruction of the religious houses at once
1 Constitutional Hist., ioth ed., i. p. 77. In the diocese of Norwich,
according to Taylor (Index Monasticus, p. xxvi.), there passed into the royal
hands 221 endowments. Of these, only 13 were again invested in the Church,
and 1 1 of them had been previously annexed to the see in exchange for half
its revenues. Out of 96 endowments belonging to colleges, &c. (exclusive of
10 alien priories) 80 were granted to lay proprietors. Out of a total of 256
endowments confiscated by Henry in the diocese, four-fifths, or 184, were sold
or granted to laity. It has been calculated that Henry VIII. "sold or gave
away the tithes of 5000 parishes, together with those belonging to 2374 free
chapels and chantries, no hospitals and 90 colleges," and that at the present
time, while the Church is possessed of tithes to the amount of ,£3,413,697, as
much as £2,404,233 is held, either directly or indirectly, by impropriators.
2 For details the reader is referred to Mr. H. Grove's work Alienated
Tithes.

Some Results of the Suppression 475
manifest, but that the people at the time attributed the effect
to its obvious and natural cause. A paper certainly penned
before the close of the reign of Henry VIII., and, what is
more important, by one who was no laudator temporis acti,
but a firm believer in the new religious movement, makes it
quite clear that at least in the popular opinion the increasing
poverty of the time was ascribed to the suppression of the
old monasteries. " The priests," writes the author, " mark
such universal extremity and increase of misery, poverty,
dearth, beggars, thieves and vagabonds, that it is hardly
now possible to longer bear it." When asked the cause for
all this distress, they reply : "What marvel is it, though we
have no money, how many thousand pounds a year go to
London for the rents of abbey lands, for first-fruits, for
tenths, &c, besides the innumerable treasures that hath
come to the king's highness by the purchase of plate and
implements of the same houses, all of which heretofore was
wont to be spent here in the country for victuals amongst
us. Surely, surely, good neighbours, we have never had a
merry nor wealthy world since abbeys were put down and
this new learning brought in place." 1
To this account of the matter may be added the descrip
tion of the state of London immediately after the dissolution
of the religious houses which Dr. Sharpe's studies of the
city records have enabled him to give. "The sudden closing
of these institutions," he writes, "caused the streets to be
thronged with the sick and poor, and the small parish
churches to be so crowded with those who had been
accustomed to frequent the larger and more commodious
churches of the friars, that there was scarce room left for the
parishioners themselves. The city authorities saw at once
that something would have to be done, if they wished to
keep their streets clear of beggars and of invalids and to in
vite the spread of sickness by allowing infected persons to
wander at large. As a means of affording temporary relief,
collections for the poor were made every Sunday at Paul's
Cross after the sermon, and the proceeds were distributed
weekly among the most necessitous." After petitioning the
king in vain to grant the city some of the dissolved houses
and their revenues, in order that provision might be made
1 Brit. Mus. Royal MS., 17 B. xxxv. f. 9a.

47 6 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries
for the sick and needy, the authorities resolved in 1540 to
make an offer to purchase some of them for 1000 marks,
"yf thei can be gotten no better chepe." Henry only up
braided them for being "pynch pence" or stingy in their
offer, and so nothing was done in the matter for four years.1
Another, although, as it may be thought, indirect effect of
the dissolution of the monastic houses, was the subsequent
seizure of ecclesiastical property of all kinds. The old abbot
who was reported to Crumwell as having said that " all the
water of the Thames would not slake the royal thirst once
the king had tasted the fruits of the monastic spoliation,"
was in the event justified in his forecast. Even had Henry
been able to draw back and once more bridle his spirit of
avarice and lust for plunder, there were plenty of hungry
courtiers on the look out for their share, who were only too
ready to urge him forward in the career of spoliation upon
which he had embarked. So the seizure of all the hospitals,
chantries, schools and parish guilds was next determined
upon. Henry's death alone put a temporary stop to a
measure which was the most direct, deliberate and heartless
robbery of the English poor. It was left to the ministers of
Edward VI. to accomplish this infamy, and to add to it the
seizure of the plate and other rich ornaments with which
generations of Englishmen had adorned their parish churches,
and to cover up the robbery by a general wrecking of the
sacred fabrics themselves. There is evidence to show that
had not the premature death of the boy-king brought the
confiscations to a sudden close, the Church revenues would
have entirely disappeared in the vain attempt to satisfy the
craving of the men in power after the goods of the Church
under the guise of a desire for the purity and simplicity of
the gospel. Before the accession of Mary the temporalities
of the see of Exeter, which on Edward's accession had been
^1566, 14s. 6d., had been reduced to £421 ; and those of
Winchester from £3885, 3s. 3fd. to £1333, 6s. 8d. ; whilst,
as a whole, the richer bishoprics of England were stripped
of two-thirds of their income, the poorer of about a half.
Such are some of the momentous social results of sweep
ing away the monastic houses. They may be summed up
in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to
1 London and the Kingdom, i. p. 404.

Some Results of the Suppression 477
whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime ; the division
of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power,
the poor sinking to lower depths ; destruction of custom as
a check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the
poor of those foundations at schools and universities intended
for their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical
tithes into the hands of lay owners.1
It has become habitual with many persons to regard the
greatness of the Elizabethan era as in some way rendered
possible only by the dissolution of the monasteries. By this
the national energies are vaguely supposed to have now first
obtained a fair field and fair play. That society should
have re-settled itself, and a new and great day should have
dawned is nothing wonderful. . The constitution of human
society appears to be such as never to lose the power of
re-creating itself on a new basis, however desperate the
condition to which it may be for a time reduced. Out of
revolution order once more will surely be evolved, how
ever much may have been irretrievably lost in the cataclysm
which suddenly arrested a natural and normal development.
It is in no spirit of concession to a sentimental and sterile
feeling of regret for a dead past that it is desired to bring \
home the fact that the dissolution of the monasteries did
inflict a terrible blow on the social state and made life harder
for the nation at large. It is always an advantage to know
the truth and to learn how to face it. Besides, the past has
ever its lesson for the present, and to know how grievous
was the deception in the bright promises of national happi
ness and individual prosperity which the distribution of so
noble a prize was to secure, may have its lessons even in
our own day.
1 Regrets are sometimes expressed that at least a distinction was not made
between colleges of secular clergy, the hospitals, chantries and other eleemosy
nary foundations, and the religious houses properly so called. The distinction
between these two classes of institutions seems to be clear to the minds of many
persons in these days, but only because the real state of the case is misappre
hended. In fact, all alike formed parts of one great system ; the religious
house was an eleemosynary foundation, and the hospital a house of prayer. It
was impossible in practice, to those who had the actual working of this system
before their eyes, to make the distinction sought to be instituted in later days.
The voice of such a one as Latimer was as the voice of the solitary crying in
the desert, and only serves to make it more clear how fatal and disastrous was
the nature of the current which swept away all, and could sweep away no less
than all, monasteries, hospitals, churches, colleges, chantries, into one common
vortex of ruin.

APPENDIX
The following is a summary showing approximately the
various sums of money received by the Augmentation Office
from the dissolution of the monastic houses, &c. ; also
roughly how the money thus obtained was spent. To this
is added a summary of the accounts of the treasurer of the
royal jewel chamber, showing the value of the plate of the
religious houses and churches, and the way it was disposed
of by the royal orders. The first part is obtained from the
Rolls of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentation, the
second from the account of Sir John Williams, keeper of the
royal jewels, printed by the Abbotsford Club. The words
"approximately" and "roughly" are used because in the
troublesome task of dealing with the mass of figures on the
Rolls it is possible, even probable, that error may have crept
in here or there; but it is believed that such error is not
considerable enough to detract in any way from the sub
stantial correctness of the subjoined statement.

476

\ Appendix .j. __ ,..4.71.
Account of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentation
From the 24th April, 1536, to Michaelmas, 1547.
Receipts. j- ,
Revenue from monastic lands .... 415,005 6 lo£
Paid by religious for royal license to continue . 5,948 6 8
Sales of monastic lands by king  855,751 18 5
Sales of woods  634 6 6
Fines paid by tenants for new leases . . . 4,529 9 10^
Sales of ornaments, vestments, lead, bells, furni
ture, buildings, &c  26,502 1 o\
Deductions from religious pensions as a forced loan
to the king  9,443 15 6
Loan to king for war purposes from the religious
and clergy  12,870 16 8
Payments by collectors and other officers for royal
leave to be free from military service . . 5,776 7 81
Miscellaneous : Arrears of collectors, &c. . . 1,979 19 nf
Total receipts  1,338,442 9 i\
Disbursements. r ,
77 a As. *
Fees and wages  14,444 3 4i
Annuities  25,°39 6 5I
Pensions to religious  33)°45 5 81
Office expenses  11,067 J9 35
Value of plate handed to king .... n,393 12 ill
Purchase of lands  51,749 9 9%
Payment of debts  12,909 1 9 J
Plate purchased for presents  14,619 12 10J
War expenses : — General  238,078 5 3J
Foreign  136,631 17 6|
Guns and munitions of war . . 171,819 17 11
Naval matters : Ships and provisions . . . 27,922 3 5I
Coast fortifications  64,485 4 35
Spent by king on royal palaces .... 61,014 11 5
Expenses of Prince Edward of Wales in household
matters, &c  23,000 o o
Royal household expenses and money for king's
use  274,086 19 8f
To secure the surrender of the abbey of Abingdon 600 o o
Various expenses, chiefly military and naval . . 57>I35 * 3 2
Total disbursements .... 1,229,042 14 nf
Balance1  109,399 J4 H
1,338,442 9 i\
1 Of this ^109,399, 14s. ajd. no less than ^76,141, 8s. 3d. was still due for
lands which had been sold.

480

Appendix

Account of Sir John Williams for Plate Received in
Royal Jewel House.
Receipts.
Gold plate, 14,531! ounces, worth . . •
Gilt plate, 129,520 ounces, worth . . .
Parcel gilt plate, 73,774| ounces,1 worth
Parcel gilt and white plate, 434 1£ ounces, worth
Silver plate, 67,600! ounces, worth
Total value of plate 2
In money from spoils, &c 

£

s

d.

19,016

2

6

21,258

15

6£

11,942

10

2i

795

17

11

10,518

8

»*

63,531

15

1

15,156

7

2*

393

14

1

Total receipts

79,081 16 4§

Disbursements.

Plate bought for the king .
" New trimming images of gold "
Expenses of Anne of Cleves
Money coined and sent to Ireland
King's parks ....
Purchase of manor of Ashill
Coast fortifications
Office expenses and sundries
Given to the king's. "own hand" in plate and money3
Total disbursements ....
Balance  ,

£

s.

d.

4,849

6

6|

6,015

15

7%

3,°78

7

7

10,285

8

4

441

7

0

1,000

0

0

9,933

6

8

1,023

10

0

41,913

17

io£

78,540 19 7J
540 16 9
79,081 16 4$

1 The value, £69421 10s. ijd., given in the print of the Abbotsford Club is
obviously wrong in this iterm
2 Large deductions are made from the values for the weights of the precious
stones set in the metal, and also for the wax, paper and cement found in the
process of melting.
3 This item is given as £46,636, is. t\&., but the total of £78,540, 19s. 7jd.
makes the account inaccurate, and this item is diminished so as to secure the
total. The treasurer pleads that when the keeper's house in London was burnt
down he lost £2000 at least.

INDEX

Abbots, attitude of, 107
Abingdon, surrender of abbey of, 340
Addington, parish priest of, 36
Agatha's, St., monastery, Yorkshire,
267; suppression of, -269
Alane, Alexander, Scot., cited, 141,
note
Albans, St., convent of Pre annexed
to, 27 ; granted to Wolsey, 6, 16 ;
reports of, 115, 349 ; abbot of, re
placed, 349-350 ; surrender of, 350
Allegiance to Anne Boleyn, oath of,
51
Allen, Dr., complaints of, 20, 22 ;
exactions of, 21, 83
Ambresbury, Wiltshire, convent of,
3°3
"Amicable grant, 19; difficulty in
raising, 24
Andrew's, St., Northampton, confes
sion of monks of, 122
Ap Rice, John, visitor, authority of,
79 ; letters from, 80, 82, 84, 168 ;
reports from, 114, note, 115, 119,
168 ; dependence on Crumwell,
168 ; history of, 167 ; requests re
ward for services, 167 ; abbot
Mackarel examined before, 216
Aristocracy of the revolution, 3
Aske, Robert, leader of the "Pil
grimage of Grace," history of, 231 ;
statement ofthe causes ofthe move
ment, 224-229 ; assumes command,
232; enters York, 232-233 ; letter to
Henry, 236 ; persuades the people
to accept pardon, 239 ; visits the
king, 246 ; report on the people's
impatience for fulfilment of royal
promises, 247 ; Norfolk's attempt
to trap him, 249 ; trial and execu
tion of, 263
Athelney, surrender of abbey of, 346-
348

Attainder, forfeit of property by, 269,
374, 387, 395
Audley, Sir Thomas, chancellor,
pleads for abbeys of St. John's,
Colchester, and St. Osyth's, 3.99
Augmentations, Court of, V79 ;
amounts received by, for houses
refounded, 186; feeling against,
203 ; amount received from sup
pressions, 397 ; accounts of, 426,
428, 433
Avecourte, Warwick, priory of, 185
Avery, Thomas, steward to Crumwell,
148
Axholme, prior of, 64
Aylesbury, friars of, 319, 324, 326

Bale, testimony of, concerning
monks, 114, 117; cited, 311, 312,
note
Barclay, Alexander, 145, note
Bardney, monastery of, 218-219
Barking, abbey of, 307 ; treasures of,
308
Barlings, monastery of, 215-219, 271
Barlow, William, Bishop of St.
David's, 193, 337
Barnes, Master, 36
Barnwell priory, Layton at, 332
Bartlett (alias Bartelot), clerk, 81 ;
letters to Crumwell, 126
Bartley, friar, 144, note
Barton, Elizabeth, see Kent, Maid of
Bath, present of hawks sent to Crum
well from, 150
Battle Abbey, visitation of, 88
Beaulieu, complaint of abbot of, 27 ;
surrender of, 437, note
Beche, Abbot, see Marshall, Thomas
Beckett, see Thomas, St.
Beckwith, Leonard, royal receiver,
402, note
1 2 H

482

Index

Bedyll, Thomas, 53 ; sent to the
Carthusians, 54, 61 ; authority of,
79 ; reports of the Carthusians,
62 ; death of, 403 ; appropriations
of, 403, note
Beigham abbey, 20; sales of, 138,
note
Bellasis, Richard, destruction at Brid
lington and Jervaulx, 272-273
Bells, broken up, 420, 421, note;
claimed by people, 422, note
Belun, bishop of, 31
Benedictines, abbey of nuns at PoUes
worth, 184, 297 ; abbey refounded
at Bisham, 193 ; number of con
vents forwomen, 291-292; revenues
of convents, 297 ; fall of Glaston
bury abbey, 362 et seq., and of
Reading, 378 et seq., and Col
chester, 388 et seq. ; temporary
restoration at Westminster under
Mary, 456
Bere, D. Richard, imprisonment of,
72 ; history of, 72, note
Beverley, Grey Friars at, 251
Bigod, Sir Francis, 248-250
Bilsington, Kent, monastery of, 190
Bisham, priory of, 193 ; abbey founded
at, by Henry, 193, 337, 338, note
Bishops, general character of, 5 ; often
foreigners, 5 ; non-residence of,
6 ; hostility of the nobles to, 6 ;
visitations of, 10, note, 11, 116;
suffragans often Irish, 6 ; attitude
towards Henry, 77 ; suspension of
authority of, 78, 79 ; instructions
from Crumwell to, 132 ; northern
" Pilgrims' " opinion of them, 229 ;
new bishoprics created, 431, note
" Black Book," 97 ; doubt as to its
presentation to Parliament, 101,
102, note, 104, and as to its ever
having existed, 102, note, 104 ;
alleged destruction of, 102, 103, note
" Black Death," terrible visitation of,
I, 2 ; effect on the Church, 2
Bocking, Dr., monk of Christchurch,
Canterbury, 36 ; arrest, 39 ; public
penance, 40 ; execution, 44
Boleyn, Anne, 23 ; hostility to the
"Holy Maid," 39; attitude to
Rome, 78, 85 ; execution, 95, 176
Boleyn, Sir Thomas, created Viscount
Rochfort, 364
Books, service, destruction of, 418,
note

Booth, Dr., bishop of Hereford,
13°
Boreman, Richard, made abbot of
St. Albans, 349-35°
Borodale, Gawin, charge against,
280; receives abbotship of Holm
Cultram, 281 ; pension of, 281
Borough, Lord, escape of, from the
Lincolnshire rioters, 208
Bourchier, Henry, Earl of Essex, 49
Bourchier, Father Thomas, testimony
of, 44, note
Boxgrave, monastery of, 191
Bradewaye, Charles, prior of Alcester,
185
Bradley, Marmaduke, bribe offered
by, for abbotship of Fountains, 162,
257
Bradshaw, Augustine, prior of St.
Gregory's, 454
Bradstock, priory of, 82, 164
Brereton, Randal, 221, note
Brereton, Sir William, 221, note
Bribery, prevalence of, 4, 22 ; pro
bable cause of the refounding of
suppressed houses, 187, note
Bridlington, Yorkshire, priory of, 260,
271 ; destruction of shrine of St.
John of, 405
Brigittines, prior of, 62
Brinklow, Henry, author of "Com
plaint of Roderyck Mors," cited on
the corruptness of the law, 4, note ;
on the prison system, 4; testi
mony to the life of the monks, 9
Broke, William, monk of Charter
house, 63
Brown, Anthony, trial and execution
of, 315-317
Brown, Dr. George, appointed
"grand visitor," 51, note; pro
ceedings against the Richmond
friars, 53
Bruton, Legh's treatment of the abbot
of, 82, 164
Buildings, destruction of, 422, 423,
note
Bulkeley, Katherine, abbess of God-
stow, 171, 172, 305-306
Burgoyn, Bartholomew, monk of
Charterhouse, 63
Burnham, convent of, 297, note
Bury St. Edmunds, visitation of, 119;
report of, 119
Byrkhed, Thomas, appointed abbot
of Norton, 221, note

Index

4^3

Calwich, Staffordshire, cell at, 194
Campeggio, Cardinal, 13
Canons regular, statuta for, 15
Canterbury, connection of the monks
of Christchurch with the "Holy
Maid," 39, 43 ; character of the
monks, 133 ; fire at, 89 ; St.
Thomas's shrine at, 89, 407, 408,
note; convent of St. Sepulchre's
near, 36 ; visitation of Austin friars
at, 320-321 ; execution of Friar
Stone at, 321, note; appeal of
monks of, to be allowed to retain
their habits, 344 ; inventory of
spoils from, 409, note, 410, note
Cantwell, Sir Thomas, 144
" Capacities " of friars, Ingworth's
plea for, 329-330 ; sought after by
expelled monks, 448-449
Capon, John, or Salcot, abbot of
Hyde, 40 ; preaching of, 40 ; re
ceives Elizabeth Barton's form of
confession, 41 ; receives see of
Salisbury for surrender of Hyde,
348
Carey, Dame Elinor, 23
Carmarthen priory, reasons pleaded
for its continuance, 192
Carter, Thomas, abbot of Holm Cul
tram, 279
Carthusians, attitude of those of Sheen
towards the Observants, 53, and
of those ofthe Charterhouse towards
the king, 59, 60 ; religious life of
the Charterhouse monks, 60 ; yield
ing of, to the oath of supremacy,
62, 72 ; influence of the prior of
the Brigittines upon, 62 ; prepara
tion for death, 64 ; imprisonment
and execution of the three priors,
65-68 ; reception of Crumwell's
visitors at the Charterhouse, 66 ;
restrictions exercised at, 70 ; cruel
ties practised upon the monks, 61,
70, 73 ; removed to other houses,
71 ; surrender of, 74; adherence to
old faith, 62 ; pensions granted to,
74 ; refounding of St. Anne's mona
stery at Coventry, 186 ; later his
tory of, 457, note
Cartmell, priory of, 245
Casali, agent of Henry and Wolsey
at Rome, 29 ; letters from, 29
Casali, Gregorio, 29 ; Wolsey's letter
to, 32 ; evidence concerning the
pope's desire for reconciliation, 177

Castello, Cardinal Hadrian de, 14
Catesby, report of convent of, 124 ;
bribe offered by prioress of, 149,
295 ; commissioners' appeal on its
behalf, 295; Crumwell's inflexi
bility, 295-296 ; pension granted
to prioress, 296
Cathedrals, proposed erection of,
3°, 32
Catherine of Arragon, divorce of,
25, 38 ; sentence of the Holy See
against it, 46 ; attitude of the
Observants concerning it, 47 ; her
death, 95, 176
Catton, abbot of, St. Albans, 349-350
Caversham, image of Our Lady at, 1 70
Cells, suppression of those belonging
to foreign houses, 27, 28; method
of dealing with small houses claim
ing to be cells of larger, 183-184
Chapuys, Imperial ambassador, his
letters concerning the "Holy
Maid," 40, 42 ; the parliament of
x534> 45 ! tne Observant friars, 56 ;
the separation from Rome, 63, and
the king's refusal to allow visitation
of houses of the order of Cisteaux,
105, note; anecdote of Henry at a
stage play ridiculing the clergy,
108 ; opinion of Cranmer, 108-189 ;
account of Crumwell, 136, note; on
the number deprived of a living by
suppression, 194
Charterhouse, see Carthusians
Chaucer, cited on the life of the nuns,
298, 299
Chauncy, Maurice, testimony to the
Charterhouse monks, 60; his pen
sion, 74 ; later history of, 457
Chertsey, reports of the abbey of,
115, 117; surrender of, 193, 337
Chichester, destruction of shrine of
St. Richard of, 406, note
Chiksand, visitation of convent at,
120
Choral song, love of, 418, note
Church, effects ofthe " Black Death "
upon, 1, 2 ; appointments made
by the king, 5 ; condition of, prior
to the Reformation, 4-6
Churches, desecration of, 199-201 ;
churches of the friaries, 311 ; pur
chased by the people, 425, note
Cisteaux, the king's refusal to allow
visitation of houses of the order of,
105, note

484

Index

Clement VII., bulls of, 30, 32 ;
coerced by Wolsey, 17, 18, 26;
petitions of the Grey Friars and
Franciscan Observants to, 20;
poverty of, 26 ; Henry's attitude
towards, 28 ; illness of, 31 ; re
covery, 31 ; desire for reconciliation
with Henry, 177
Clement, Mother Margaret, 72
Clementhorpe convent, suppression
of, 182
Clergy, position of, prior to the
Reformation, 4, 5 ; liability of,
under the statute of "praemunire,"
140 ; livings in the gift of monks,
9 ; examination of, by order of
Crumwell, 200 ; articles drawn up
by the Pomfret meeting, 238
Cobb, Thomas, master of the " Holy
Maid," 35
Cockerel, James, prior of Gisborough,
263
Colchester, abbey of St. John's at,
388 ; complaints against monks of,
389—390 ; oath of supremacy taken
by abbot and monks, 390 ; pleaded
for by Audley, 390 ; arrest of abbot,
391, note; execution of abbot, 394 ;
pillage of, 395
Colyns, William, bailiff of Kendal,
244, 246
Combe abbey, 443
Commissioners, royal, work of, 78,
93-94 ; complaints of one another,
81-84; number of, before the
meeting of parliament, 98 ; reports
of, 94, 124 ; articles of inquiry
framed for, 79 ; charges of, 83 ;
motives and characters of, 115-116,
158 et seq. ; commission appointed
for the taking over of the lesser
houses, 180-181 ; different nature
of reports of, to those of previous
visitors, 183-184, note; adventure
of, with the Louth rioters, 207-208 ;
proceedings of, at Chester, 22 1-222 ;
visit of, to Holm Cultram to receive
its surrender, 281 ; suppression of
convents of women, 293 et seq. ;
testimony to good work done by
the convents, 299 ; appointment of,
for visitation of friaries, 313 ;
powers of, 313, note; reports of,
318 et seq.; resumption of work
after northern risings, 331 ; in
structions regarding surrenders,

331-332 ; attempt to check report
of general suppression, 332-334;
various suppressions, 337 et seq. ;
suppression of Glastonbury, 372
et seq., and of Reading, 387, and
Colchester, 395 ; inquiry into me
thods of, 401 et seq. ; self-appro
priations of, 401 el seq.
Commons, House of, servility of, 98,
III; Henry's method of coercing,
107, ill
Commoners, their grievances and
hardships, 225-229
Commonwealth, benefit of the monas
teries to, 227-228, 462-464
Comperta, 100 ; value of, 96, 120 ;
doubt as to their having been laid
before parliament, 101 ; commis
sion of inquiry into, 102 ; docu
mentary evidence for, 1 13-1 14, note;
dishonest use made of, 11 7-1 18;
not to be regarded as confessions,
123 ; comparison of, with reports
of 1536, 124; form of, 115 ; date
of, 116-117
" Confessions," doubt as to the exist
ence of, 121, 122 ; unreliable nature
of those, so-called, obtained by Dr.
London, 326-327
Conished, priory of, 20
Constable, Sir Robert, 233, 235, 248,
262, note, 263
Convents, suppressions of, 293 et
seq. ; number of, before dissolu
tions, 291 ; number of, which pur
chased temporary exemption, 294 ;
revenue of, 297 ; method of life
in, 298 ; instructions to commis
sioners regarding final suppression
of, 301
Cook or Faringdon, Hugh, abbot of
Reading, history of, 379, note;
opinions of, 380, note; charges
against, 381, 382, note ; examined
in the Tower, 384 ; trial and exe
cution of, at Reading, 385-386
Cooke, Robert, friar of Rye, 50
Cordrey, John, abbot of Chertsey,
193. 337
Cornworthy, Devonshire, convent
of, 19'
Cortesi, Gregorio, letter to Cardinal
Contarini, 178, note
Court of Street, chapel of, 35-36
Coventry, reports from, 114, 442;
destruction of Grey Friars' house

Index

485

at, 171 ; vain attempt to save
cathedral at, 424
Coventry, William, religious of Worn-
bridge, 183
Crabhouse, report of nunnery of,
"5
Cranmer, examines the " Holy Maid,"
39; licenses of the preaching clergy
revoked by, 108-109 ; mediates for
the Canterbury monks, 43 ; opinion
of their conduct, 133; yearly pay
ment by him to Crumwell, 148 ;
friendship with Crumwell, 154;
Chapuy's opinion of, 108-109 ! cen"
sure of Dr. London, 173 ; presides
over trial of Friar Forest, 58 ;
opinion of the king's marriage with
Anne Boleyn, 176 ; popular opinion
of his divorcement of Catherine,
228, 229
Crossed Friars, story of the prior's
depravity examined, 125, 126
Croyland abbey, sends a present to
Crumwell, 149 ; story of plate of,
335
Crumwell,Thomas,complaints against,
as Wolsey's visitor, 20, 22, 137-138 ;
defence of Wolsey, 138 ; accessi
bility to bribes, 22, 78, 138, 147-
151 ; reign of terror under, 142,
146 ; policy towards Anne Boleyn,
38-39, 95 ; power of, 141, 144, 151-
1 53 ; history of, 1 36, note, 137 ; wealth
of, 138, 147-152, 156, note; unpopu
larity of, 139, 142-143, 154; infidel
principles of, 137, 154 ; rise in
Henry'sfavour, 1 29-141, note; policy
of, 137-144 ; arbitrary actions of,
146 ; dealings with the religious, 80 ;
persecutions under, 146 ; danger of,
at Wolsey's fall, 138-139 ; expendi
ture of, 1 51-152 ; estates purchased
by, 150, 151, note; fall of, 152-154;
accusations against, I53-I5^; con'
fession of, 155; execution, 156;
testimony to his supremacy over
the prelates as Vicar-General, 141,
note; petitions to, for houses to
be spared, 190, 193 ; bitter feeling
against, 203, 225 ; letter on the
Northern rising, 242-243 ; Norfolk's
letter to, on selection of juries, 262 ;
letter to Norfolk concerning Brid
lington priory, 272 ; dealings with
abbots of Holm Cultram, 279, 280,
and with prior of Lenton, 282-283 ;

abbess of Catesby's plea to, 295 ;
other appeals to, 305, 306, 307;
rebukes Ingworth for leniency,
322 ; reassures monasteries as to
report of general suppression, 334 ;
abbot of Abingdon's remonstrance
with, 341 ; presides at trial of Abbot
Harwood, 343 ; orders abandon
ment of religious habits, 344 ; his
illegal trial of Abbot Whiting, 374
et seq.
Crumwell, Sir Richard, crown grants
to, 150, note; searches Bedyll's
house, 403
Crutched Friars, see Crossed Friars
Cubley, Richard, canon of Wigmore,
132
Curwin, Dr., sermon of, 48, note

Darcy, Lord, 230, note, 233, 235,
248, 263
Darcy, Sir Arthur, 273
Dare, William, abbot of Langdon,
128 ; recommended for a pension,
128
Darvel Gadarn, image, 58, note
Davy, John, imprisonment of, 72
Delapray, Cistercian convent of, 297
De la Ware, Lord, 191
Denny, abbey of, 80
Dennys, Mary, prioress of Kington,
301, note
Derby, Earl of, 234-235
Derby, Dominican house at, 314
Dering, John, public penance of, 40
Dispensations, granted by Henry, 58,
note
Dissolutions, see Suppressions
Dissolution of houses by attainder of
abbots, 269
Doncaster, "Pilgrims of Grace" at,
233
Dover, report of monastery of, 128 ;
report of suffragan of, 1 33 (see Ing
worth) ; illegal suppression of,
covered by the Act, 189
Droitwich, Ingworth's visitation of
friars at, 321 ; attempt to spare
church at, 322
Durford, visitation of abbey of, 87
Durham, bribe offered by prior of,
149
Dutton, Sir Piers, 149, 221-223
Dymmoke, sheriff of Lincolnshire,
209, 210, 215

486

Index

Ecclesiastical appointments of
Henry distasteful to the people, 199,
229-230
Edgecombe, Sir Piers, letter to Crum
well, 190-191
Education of women, existing only in
convents, 298-299 ; effect of disso
lution of monasteries on, 472
Edward VI., progress of spoliation
under, 476 ; death of, 476
Elizabeth, Princess, declared illegiti
mate, 176
Elstow, Friar, reported by Lyst, 47 ;
rebukes Curwin, 49, note; examined
before the council, 49
Emaus, Thomas, of Worcester, 145
Episcopal registers, 10
Erasmus, cited, 418 note
Esholt, convent of, 183
Evesham, abbot of, replaced, 351 ;
surrender of, 352
Exeter, Marchioness of, connection
with the " Holy Maid," 41
Exmew, imprisonment of, 69, 70; exe
cution of, 70
Eynon or Oynyon, John, priest of
Reading, connection of with
northern rebels, 381 ; execution
of, 386, note

Faenza, Bishop, letters of, 69
Faringdon, see Cook, Hugh
Farley, visitation of, 88
Feckenham, Dr., abbot of West
minster, 456
Finch, William, cellarer of St.
Bartholomew's, 22
" First fruits,' statute of, 210, 213, 228
Fish, Simon, author of the Supplica
tion of Beggars, 8
Fisher, Bishop, opinion of the " Holy
Maid's " virtues, 37 ; fine imposed
on him, 43 ; execution, 75
Fletcher, Bernard, evidence of, against
Dr. Mackarel, 217
Folkestone, report of monastery of,
128 ; illegal suppression of, covered
by the Act, 189
Forest, Friar, confessor to Queen
Catherine, 47 ; conduct of, reported
by Lyst, 47 ; imprisonment of,
49, note, 50, 57 ; condemnation of,
57-58 ; martyrdom of, 58, note, 59
Foster, John, steward of Romsey,
352. 353, «ote

Fountains, visitation of abbey of,
117 ; election of abbot of, by
bribery, 162 ; implication of the
quondam abbot in northern risings,
257 ; purchase of lands of, 399,
note
Foxe, Edward, Wolsey's agent, 26 ;
injunctions for the visitation of
Wigmore, 131
Foxe, John, monk of Charterhouse, 63
Franciscan Observants, history of,
46, note, 56, note, 57 ; house of,
at Greenwich, 46, 54; defence of
Queen Catherine, 47 ; petition to
the pope, 20; attitude to Henry,
46 ; house of, at Richmond, 53 ;
steadfastness of, 52, 53, 55; suppres
sion of the order, 56 ; sufferings of,
56, 57 ; dispersal in other countries,
57 ; accusations against in connec
tion with northern rising, 251 ;
house of in Guernsey dispersed,
313-314; temporary restoration of,
at Southampton and Greenwich,
under Mary, 456, note
Franke, John, registrar of the bishop
of Lincoln, 206
Freeman, John, royal receiver, 194,
199
Friars, remonstrance of, concerning
Wolsey's powers, 20 ; Simon Fish's
condemnation of, 8-9 ; popular
affection for, 20; difficulty of
overcoming opposition of, 46 ;
general of mendicant orders ap
pointed by Henry, 51, note; " grand
visitors" commissioned, 51 ; stead
fastness of, to ancient faith, 53, 55 ;
refusal of the Richmond friars to
take the oath, 54 ; important part
taken by, in religious life of the
country, 310; work of, 310-311 ;
popularity of, 311; number of
friaries before the dissolution, 311,
and number of friars, 312; suppres
sion of the friaries, 312 et seq. ; oath
rejected by, 313 ; trials and execu
tions of, 315-316, -i,2\,note; depen
dence of on alms, 317 ; poverty
of, at time of visitation, 318 ;
endeavours to secure surrender of,
319, 327 ; severity of measures em
ployed against, 323 ; London's
charges against, 324-325, 326-327 ;
royal spoils from suppression of,
327-328 ; hardships of, 329-330

Index

487

Frideswide's, St., Oxford, dissolution
of, 17, 18
Froude, historian, cited, 103. note,
126, 129, 209, note, 215, 405
Furness, Lancashire, abbey of, charges
against abbot and monks, 274;
surrender of, 276 ; paltry compensa
tion to the monks of, 277 ; destruc
tion of, 278 ; effect of suppression
of, 278
Fyllol, Jasper, gaoler at Charterhouse,
70

Gardiner, bishop of Winchester,
Wolsey's agent, 26 ; in danger of
being sent to the Tower, 170, note
Garendon, report from, 124
George, Friar John, letter of the
mother of, 53
Ghiberto, pope's official, 17
Gigliis, Silvester >de, Wolsey's letter
to, 13 ; letters from, 14
Gisborough, election at, 149
Glastonbury, episcopal visitation of,
IO, note ; Layton's report of, 161 ;
history of, 362-363 ; Abbot Whit
ing, 363 ; his position, ibid.; takes
oath of supremacy with his monks,
364 ; reasons for subscribing, 365,
note; visited by Layton, 367 ; reasons
for suppression of, 370-372 ; arrival
of royal commissioners, 372 ; their
proceedings, 373 ; trial of abbot,
374 et seq. ; execution of abbot, 378
Gloucester, surrender of friaries at,
319-320
Godstow abbey, Dr. London's treat
ment of abbess of, 171, 305 ; sup
pression of, 306
Gold, Henry, 40 ; execution of, 44
Goldstone, Prior, his plea to Crum
well, 344
Goldwell, Thomas, prior of Christ
Church, Canterbury, 391, 449-451
Gostwyke, John, Crumwell's secre
tary, letter to the king, 156, note ;
money transactions with Crum
well, 151, note
Gracedieu, reports of convent of, 124,
292 ; suppression of, 293 ; pensions
to nuns, 293
Grants of property of suppressed
houses, 398 et seq.
Grants to expelled monks, 436, 438,
440

Gratuities, monks dismissed with
trifling, 438
Green, Dom John, imprisonment of,
72
Greenwich, Observants at, see Fran
ciscans
Greenwood, William, imprisonment
of, 72
Gregory, Crumwell's son, 151 ; en
riched by Henry, 155, note; edu
cation of, 91
Guardianships entrusted to abbots,
227, note
Guernsey, friars of, 313
Gyffard, George, commissioner, 124

Hadleigh or Hadley, monk of Can
terbury Cathedral, 36 ; arrested,
39
Hadrian de Castello, Cardinal, 14
Hailes, abbot of, 93
Hale, John, execution of, 67
Hales, Christopher, attorney-general,
39
Hall, Robert, abbot of Norton, 221-
223
Hall, historian, 58, note
Hallynrakes, Dame Johanna, 183
Harpsfield, Nicholas, account of
Cranmer's preaching, 1 10
Harrison, groom of King's privy
chamber, story of, 276, note
Harwood, John, abbot of Vale Royal,
342 ; denies truth of surrender, 342-
343 ; trial of, 343 ; pension of, 344
Hayfield, Thomas, arrest of, 52
Henry VIII., despotic power of, 3 ;
complaints to, concerning Wolsey,
20 ; condemnation of Wolsey's
visitors, 22, and of Wolsey's
methods, 23, 24, 25 ; opposition
of the friars, 46 ; divorced from
Catherine, 25 ; sentence of the
Holy See against the divorce, 46 ;
severance from Rome, 45, 46, 51 ;
title of ' ' Supreme Head " assumed,
51, 52, 58, note, 63 ; popular feeling
towards, 63, 75, 77 ; bill of, for
suppression of smaller houses, 99 ;
coercion of the Commons, 107, III ;
declaration to the Lincolnshire re
bels, 121 ; dealings with Crumwell,
139 ; policy towards those about to
be condemned, 155, note ; declara
tions with regard to suppression,

488

Index

147 ; avarice of, 45, 77; revenue of,
77 ; granted power by Parliament
to deal with lesser monasteries,
176 ; hopes for his reconciliation
with Rome, 176-177 ; determination
of, not to effect a reconciliation,
178-179; rebuked by Pole, 178, note ;
number and value of lesser houses
taken possession of by, 188, note ;
replies to the demands of the Lin
colnshire rebels, 211 ; orders hang
ing of abbot and canons of Norton,
223 ; letter to Duke of Norfolk
concerning " Pilgrims of Grace,"
233-234 ; dealings with the Pilgrims,
235-236 ; further instructions to
Norfolk, 236-237 ; pardon read to
the insurgents, 239 ; writes to his
ambassadors to discount effect of
Northern rising, 241 ; instructions
to the herald concerning proclaim
ing of the pardon, 244 ; delay in
fulfilling promises, 247 ; endeavours
to trap Northern leaders, 250 ;
breaks from the Doncaster con
vention, 250 ; examines evidence
against accused, 252, note; recom
mences work of suppression, 265 ;
instructions to Norfolk, 265-267 ;
introduces law of confiscation by
attainder, 269 ; letters to Earl of
Sussex, 267, 270, 275 ; trifling
amount gained from suppression
of the friaries, 327-328 ; methods
of obtaining possession of the
houses not granted by Parliament,
331-334 ; denies intention of general
suppression, 332-334; proceeds of
the suppression, 397 et seq. ; pro
ceeds of destruction of shrines and
relics, 409-410, 412-413 ; entire
proceeds from dissolution, 427-427 ;
periods of his attacks on ecclesiasti
cal property, 428 ; method of spend
ing the proceeds of spoils, 432,
note, 433
Herbert, Lord, cited on Wolsey, 33,
and on the spoils of the religious
houses, 189
Hethe, Nicolas, prior of Lenton, 282-
283
Hexham, Northumberland, resistance
of the canons to its suppression, 194
Hillyard, Dr. Richard, 353-355
Hilsey, John, made "grand visitor,"
51 ; report from Exeter, 52

Hinton, Carthusian priory of, 344,
345, note
Hobbes, Richard, abbot of Woburn,
284; charges against, 284-286;
confession, 286 ; execution, 290
Holm Cultram, abbey of, 279;
charges against abbot of, 279-280 ;
surrender of, 281 ; gratuity to
monks of, 281
Hook, Dean, cited on Crumwell,
142-143
Horde, Prior, of Hinton, letter of,
344
Hornby, Lancashire, priory of, 190
Horncastle, rising at, 208-210; de
mands to the king, 210
Home, Brother William, 73
Hospitality ofthe monks, 9, 226-228 ;
cessation of after the suppression,
106-107, 2z6
Houghton, prior of Charterhouse, early
life, 60 ; committed to the Tower,
61 ; imprisonment of, 65 ; exe
cution, 67 ; signing of the act of
supremacy, 62 ; exhorts his peni
tents to refuse to abjure papal
supremacy, 59-60
Howard, William, letter to Crumwell,
143
Hussey, Sir William, 220

Immorality, charges of, against
monks, 96
Income tax, levied by Parliament,
200
Ingworth, Richard, reports of, 159,
312, 318 ; assistance of, to Crumwell,
133 ; consecrated suffragan bishop
of Dover, 313 ; commissioned for
visitation of friaries, 313 ; rebuked
by Crumwell for his leniency, 322 ;
pleads for the expelled friars'
"capacities," 329
Ipswich, suppression of St. Peter's at,
26 ; Wolsey's college at, 26

Jay, prior of Hexham, 197
Jennings, Richard, prior of Maiden
Bradley, 129
Jervaulx, abbey of, 254-257, 271, 273
Johnson, D. Thomas, imprisonment
of, 72
Johnson, Elizabeth, nun of Arden,
183

Index

489

Jordayn, Dame Isabel, 23
Juries, coercion of, 261, note; selec
tion of, by Norfolk, 261-262

Kenilworth, Augustinian monas
tery of, 194
Kent, "Holy Maid" of, 35 ; history
of, 35 ; influence of, 37, note, 38 ;
examined by Cranmer, 39, and by
the Star Chamber, 40 ; public pen
ance of, 40 ; confession of, 41 ;
bill of attainder against, 42, 43 ;
injustice of proceedings against, 44 ;
execution of, 44 ; Fisher's opinion
of, 37
Keveran's, St., Cornwall, 27
King's colleges at Cambridge and
Windsor, endowment of, 28
Kirksted, monastery of, 219, 271
Knight, Bishop, 22

Land, monopoly of, created by
Henry's policy, 471, note
Lane, Ralph, junior, Crumwell's
agent, 144
Langdon, surrender of monastery of,
128; story of the abbot of, 126;
illegal suppression of, covered by
the Act, 189
Langley, priory of Benedictine nuns
at, 298 ; suppression of, 293
Latimer, Bishop, hostility of, to Friar
Forest, 57 ; sermon of, 59; evidence
regarding the comperta, 10 1 ;
endeavours to persuade the king
to save some monasteries, 133 ;
presides at trial of Thomas Emaus,
145 ; denunciation of Clement
Litchfield, 35 1 ; on education after
the dissolution, 472-473
Latimer, Lord, 233
Launde, priory of, 151, note, 335,
399
Laurence, Prior Robert, 64
Layton, commissioner, 79 ; sub
servience to Crumwell, 79, 161 ;
instructions to, and methods of,
79-80, 162 ; visits the North of
England, 95; comperta of, 117;
reports of, to Crumwell, 87, 122,
144, 147, 161, 337, 340 ; character
of, 160; history and preferments
of, 160 ; money transactions with
Crumwell, 162 ; popular opinion

of, 166 ; Abbot Mackarel examined
before, 216 ; efforts to counteract re
port of general suppression, 332-
334 ; visits Glastonbury, 367 ; re
visits Glastonbury for its suppres
sion, 372
Lead, melted down for profit, 419,
420, note
Lee, Dr. Edward, archbishop of
York, visits Houghton and Middle-
more in Tower, 61 ; takes the oath
of the " Pilgrimage," 233 ; con
venes a meeting at Pomfret, 237-
238
Lee, John, canon of Wigmore, 129
Lee, Roland, bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield, 53, 61, 148, 424
Legbourne, convent of, 201
Legh, commissioner, 79 ; subservi
ence to Crumwell, 79 ; instructions
to, and powers of, 79 ; complaints
of, concerning Layton, 81 ; visita
tion in the North of England, 95 ;
reports of, 115; comperta of, 117,
119 ; history and character of,
163-166; made Master of Sherburn
hospital, 166-167 ; complains of
Ap Rice, 168; demand of Yorkshire
"Pilgrims of Grace" concerning,
166 ; Abbot Mackarel examined
before, 216 ; visits abbey of Holm
Cultram, 281 ; suppresses convent
of White nuns of Grace Dieu, 293 ;
charge against, 301 ; employed in
suppression of Vale Royal, 342 ;
visits St. Albans, 349
Leicester Abbey, report on, 120 ; bribe
paid by the abbot, 149
Lenton, priory of, 282
Lewes Priory, visitation of, 88; granted
to Crumwell, 151 ; surrender of,
338, note; destruction of church,
338-339
Lewis, Father, Observant, 36
Libraries, ransacked, 143 ; destruction
of, 417
Lilborne, Thomas, subprior of Louth-
park, 205
Lincolnshire rising, its causes, 198-
201 ; outbreak at Louth, 204-208,
and at Horncastle, 208-210 ; de
mands of the people sent to the
king, 210 ; royal forces collected,
211; the king's reply to the de
mands ofthe people, 21 1-213; read
ing ofthe royal proclamation, 213 ;

49°

Index

surrender of the people, 213 ;
Henry's action to counteract effect
of rising abroad, 214; insurgents
pardoned, 215 ; punishment of
leaders, 219 ; Robert Aske's part
in, 231
Litchfield, Clement, abbot of Eves
ham, 351
Little Marlow, priory of, 91
Livings, granting of, to expelled monks,
442, 447-449
London, Dr., commissioner, 79 ;
history and preferments of, 169 ;
destructive methods of, 170, 324
et seq. ; accusations against, 171-
172 ; his false account of William
of Wykeham, 173 ; relations with
Gardiner and Cranmer, 173; public
penance of, 172; punishment and
death of, 174 ; advocates pensions
for nuns, 297 ; employed in sup
pression of convents, 304, note,
and in visitation of friaries, 319-
324 ; on pensions, 442, 443
Louth, Lincolnshire, rising at, in
consequence of suppressions, 201
et seq.
Louth-park, dissolution of monastery
of, 201
Lumley, Lord, 233
Lyst, Richard, lay brother of Green
wich, 47
Lyttleton, William, of Evesham, 454

Macaulay, cited, 1.
Machiavelli, principles of, recom
mended by Crumwell, 137
Mackarel, Dr., abbot of Barlings,
215, note ; charges against, in con
nection with Lincolnshire rising,
209, note, 215; examined in the
Tower, 215 ; condemned to death,
219 ; executed, 271
Maiden Bradley, prior of, 89, 129
Malpas, priory of, 185
Man, Henry, Carthusian monk, letter
concerning the " Holy Maid," 37
Marham nunnery, Norfolk, 191
Marillac, French ambassador, ac
count of Crumwell's fall, 153 ; on
the people's attachment to old re
ligion, 411
Marshall, Thomas, abbot of St. John's,
Colchester, 388, note; early history
of, 389, note; arrest of, and im

prisonment in Tower, 391, note;
accusations against, 391-394 ; exe
cution of, 394
Marton, York, priory of, 190
Mary's, St., Winchester, convent of,
186; destruction of, 424; last
prioress of, 452, note
Mary, Queen, temporary restoration
of monasteries under, 456 ; death
of, 457
Masters, Richard, priest of Adding-
ton, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44
Melford, Abbot, of Bury St. Edmund,
119-220
Michael's, St., convent at Stamford,
183
Middlemore, Humphrey, 61, 70
Missenden, Mary, new prioress of
Stixwold, 192
Monasteries, dissolution of the lesser,
by Henry, 176 et seq. ; refounding
of some by the king, 185, note ;
Robert Aske's testimony to their
good work and the popular estima
tion for, 226-228 ; return to, during
" Pilgrimage of Grace," 232, 244 ;
severities practised against, on ac
count of Northern risings, 267 ;
dissolution of, on attainder of abbots,
269 ; resumption of suppression of,
after Northern risings, 331
Monks, livings in patronage of, 9 ;
alleged to be responsible for Lin
colnshire rising, 215-219; and for
"Pilgrimage of Grace," 251, 267 ;
bishoprics given to, 448, note
Montague, John, prior of Malpas, 185
Moore, William, blind harper, 382,
383, note
More, Sir Thomas, answer of, to
Simon Fish, 8 ; complains to
Wolsey of visitors, 20; signs im
peachment of Wolsey, 32 ; execu
tion of, 75 ; speech at trial, 367,
note
Moreland, William, monk of Louth-
park, 204 ; condemned, 219
Mountgrace, monastery of, 354, 355,
note, 411
Moyle, Thomas, royal commissioner,
372, 387

Netley Abbey, 437, note
Newcastle, Black Friars of, 317
Newdigate, Sebastian, 69, 70

Index

491

Newminster, suppression of monastery
of, 268
Nobles, destruction of power of, 3;
jealous opposition to ecclesiastics,
6; Henry's favours to, 99, note;
join the "Pilgrimage of Grace,"
233
Norfolk, Duke of, 233, 235, 238-239,
249, 261, note, 263, 265, 315-316
Northampton, confession of monks of
St. Andrew's, 122, note; plea in
favour of monasteries at, 124
Northumberland, Henry, Earl of, 23
Norton, Cheshire, abbey of, suppres
sion of, 221 ; opposition to suppres
sion, 222
Norwich, reports from, 1 14 ; trial of
Walsingham men at, 315
Nucius, Nicander, Greek traveller,
his version of Henry's speech to
Parliament, 100, note
Nuns, sufferings of, 85 ; plead to re
main in their convents, 90 ; visitor's
reports of, 123 ; contrasted with
later commissioner's reports, 192 ;
treatment of, on dissolution of lesser
monasteries, 182-184; terribleness
of dissolution to, 291 ; number of
convents at dissolution, 291—292 ;
regularity of, 292 ; various suppres
sions, 292 et seq. ; the only teachers
of women, 298-299 ; occupations
of, 301 ; number turned adrift after
dissolution, 309

Oath of supremacy, tendered to
religious, 62, 72, 76, 284, 313
Observants, see Franciscans
"Official" class, created by Tudor
policy, 4
Ortiz, Dr., letters concerning the
nuns, 85, 301
Osyth's, St., grant of, 1 50, note
Oxford university, 18 ; Wolsey's
colleges at, 16, 17, 22, 24, 30;
London's visitation of friaries of,
325 ; state of learning at, after dis
solution, 472-473

Parkyns, John, offer of bribe by,
149
ParUament of 1529, 99; session of
1534, 45, 49, and of 1536, 97 ;
obsequiousness of, to Henry, 98-99,

ill, 176-177; grants the lesser
monasteries to the king, 176 ; Act
of 1539 to legalise suppressions
already made, 429
Parochial tithes, converted to secular
purposes at dissolution, 473, 474,
note
Parr, Sir William, 216, 219
Paul's, St., Cross, 40
Payn, Friar Hugh, 52
Pecock, Friar, 50
Pearson, Walter, 72
Pensions to religious, instances of
granting, 91, note, 123, 269, 329,
341, 34°, 348, 355. *f>te, 357, note,
436 ; granted to superiors only, 181,
281,435-436; omitted, 283; granted
to nuns, 293, 296, 297, 304, note,
436, 441 ; probability of fair pay
ment, 435, 443 ; monks commonly
expelled without compensation,
436, 440 ; pensions conditional on
long residence in a house, 437 ;
reasons for granting of, 439 ;
refused by some, 439 ; amount of
pension paid to superiors, 440-441 ;
total number of patents for, 440,
note; houses or privileges added
to pensions, 441 ; livings in lieu
of pensions, 442, note; generous
pensions pleaded for by Dr. Lon
don, 442-443 ; place of payment
of, 443, note, 444 ; abuses in pay
ment of, 444, note; deductions
from for the king, 445 ; com
mission appointed to inquire into,
446 ; sales of, 445-447
Pentney, monastery, plea on behalf
of, 191
Peterborough, abbot of, 22 ; first
dean of, 123 ; bribe offered from,
149
Peto, Friar, 47, 48, 49
Petre, William, royal commissioner,
receives surrender of Lewes priory,
338 ; destruction of, at Lewes, 338-
339 ; dissolves Hinton priory, 345 ;
visits St. Albans, 349 ; replaces
abbot of Evesham, 351
"Pilgrimage of Grace," demand of,
166 ; causes of the rising, 224-230 ;
rapid spread of the outbreak, 231-
233 ; meets the king's forces, 233 ;
demands sent to the king, 234 ;
meeting of leaders at York, 236,
and at Pomfret, 237 ; receives the

492

Index

royal pardon and disperses, 239 ;
measures taken by the king to
discount effect of rising abroad,
241 ; instructions to herald con
cerning proclaiming of royal par
don, 244 ; the second rising, 250 ;
evidence of witnesses, 251-260;
trials and executions, 261-264
Pipwell, bribe offered by abbot of,
149 ; destruction of abbey of, 423
Placidus, Dan, monk of Winchcombe,
92
Plate of the monasteries, 404
Plays, religious, 108
Pole, Cardinal, 7, note, 6, 138, 178,
451-452
Pollard, commissioner, 161, 372, 374,
375, 378, 387, 406
PoUesworth, abbey of, 184, 297, 299
Pomfret Castle, surrenders to the
"Pilgrims," 233
Poor, spoliation of, 107, 134, 468 ;
relief of, by the monks, 32, 226-228,
463 ; effect of suppression on, 464-
467, 475
Pope, Sir Thomas, 180, 186, 189,
269, 342
Praemunire, use of statute of, made by
Henry, 140, 364 » 3 08
Pre, convent of, dissolved, 27
Premonstratensian nuns, site of Stix
wold granted to, 192 ; monks of
the order accused of fomenting
Lincolnshire rising, 215
Prisons, condition of, 4, 61, 146
Property, rights of, III; confiscation
of, on attainder, 269
Public opinion, power of, 108
Pudsey, Elizabeth, prioress of Esholt,
183
Pulpit, use made of, 46, 109
Purchase of monastic lands, 399 et
seq.
Purgatory, doctrine of, 133
Pursglove, Robert, prior of Gisburne,
348, 349, note
Pyle, Roger, abbot of Furness, 274

Quatuor, Sanctorum, cardinal, 26,
29

Rambridge, abbot of St. Albans,
16
Ramsey Abbey, sale of, 399

Rastall, Mr., sent to the Charterhouse,
67
Raynes, Dr., 201 ; murder of, 208,
209, note
Raynes, John, bookseller, 403, note
Raynscroftys, Brother, Observant, 47
Reading, Grey Friars of, 325, 328
Reading Abbey, destruction at, 170-
171 ; connection of with Northern
rebels, 381 ; charges against the
abbot, 381, 382, note; trial and
execution of the abbot at Reading,
385-386 ; forfeiture of, by attainder
of the abbot, 387 ; work of royal
commissioners at, 387, note
Reding, Thomas, imprisonment of, 72
Reformation, causes of, 1
" Reign of Terror," under Crumwell,
142, 146
Relics, royal crusade against, 404-405
Religious, condition of, prior to the
Reformation, 7, 10, 11 ; discipline
of, 92-93 ; charges against, of in
continence, 118-121 ; oath of su
premacy tendered to, 76 ; charges
against, in the " Black Book," 101-
102 ; difficulty of disproving charges,
113 ; relative number accused, 123;
current calumnies concerning, 125-
132; absence of supposed confes
sions of, 121, note; right to appeal
to Crumwell, 80; distress and
poverty of, 89-91 ; bribes offered
by, 22, 93, 148-149 ; number de
sirous to abandon religious life,
123 ; dismissal of young religious,
80, 90, 106 ; popular veneration
for, 76, 134 ; charity of, 9, 463 ;
present opinion concerning, 97 ;
pensions of, 91 ; scattering of, at
dissolution of lesser houses, 181—
182 ; number deprived of a living,
190, 194 ; instances of harsh treat
ment of, 283 ; number expelled
during general suppression, 359,
360, note ; anticipate royal spolia
tion, 334-336; employments of,
after expulsion, 447 et seq. ; bishop
rics given to, 448, note; scattering
of, after dissolution, 45 1 ; confor
mance of, to new religion, 454;
rapid dying out of, 455 ; temporary
restoration of houses under Mary,
456 ; consequence of the suppres
sion of, 460-462; good work of,
462-464

Index

493

Reynolds, Father Richard, imprison
ment of, 65 ; history of, 65, note ;
execution of, 67
Rich, Hugh, of Richmond, 40, 44, 50,
53
Rich, Richard, chancellor of Court of
Augmentations, 180, 402
Richmond, Observants of, 53-54
Risby, Father, 40, 44, 50, 53
Robert, friar of Knaresborough, 252,
note
Rochester, monk of Charterhouse, 74
Roche Abbey, suppression of, 356-
359
Romburgh Priory, seizure of, 28
Rome, separation from, 45, 63, 78 ;
temporary hopes of reconciliation
with, 176-179
Romsey, Hampshire, convent of,
352
Rowse, Robert, examination of, at
trial of Abbot Marshall, 392-393
Russell, Sir John, 211, 290, 322
Rutland, Lady, letter concerning
"Holy Maid, "40

Sagar, Stephen, abbot of Hayles,
349
Salt, Robert, imprisonment of, 72
Salviati, Jacobo, letter to Campeg
gio, 31
Saunder, Anthony, lecturer, 93
Savage, Isabel, prioress of St.
Michael's, Stamford, 183
Sawley, abbey of, 232, 235, 260,
note, 270
Scryven, Thomas, imprisonment of,
237
Sedbar, Adam, abbot of Jervaulx,
255-257, 263
Selby, grant of monastery of, 402
Seymour, Sir Thomas, 352, 353,
note
Sheen, Carthusian house at, 53~54
Shelley, Dame Elizabeth, last abbess
of St. Mary's, Winchester, 452,
note
Shewsbury, Earl of, 233
Shrines, demolition of, 405
Smarte, John, made abbot of Wig
more, 130
Smithfield, priory of St. Bartholo
mew's at, 22
Somerset, destruction of buildings in,
419

Sopham, Layton's report of prioress
of, 166
Southampton, Observant friary at, 50
Southwell, Richard, 191
Spalding, prior of, 22
Spelman, Sir Henry, 107
Spoils of the monasteries, value of,
397 et seq. ; and of ,shrines and
relics, 409-410, 412-413
Spying employed, 142-143
Staines, Brian, account of the murder
of Dr. Raynes, 209, note
Stable, suggested employment of
abbey as, 273
Stamford, destruction at, 171
Stapleton, William, 251
" Statute of Uses," 203
Staveley, Ninian, 254
Stixwold, Lincolnshire, convent of,
petition of, 187
Stokesley, Bishop of London, letter
to Houghton, 61 ; opinion of early
suppression, 107-108 ; imprisoned,
308
Stone, Friar, execution of, at Canter
bury, 321, note
Stratford, convent at, 307
Stretham, Edmund, prior of Crossed
Friars, 125-126, note
Suffolk, Duke of, 20, 211, 235, 247,
249
" Supplication of beggars," 8
" Supplication of Poor Souls," 8
Suppression, by Wolsey, 17-19, 26-
29 ; causes for Henry's suppression,
75-76 ; monasteries suppressed be
fore the passing of the Act, 106 ;
meeting of Parliament of 1536 to
pass the Act of, 97, 99, 104 ; un
popularity of, 20, 78 ; opposition
to the Bill for, 107; passing of
the Act, ill, 176-177; sermons
employed to break down public
opposition to, 109; petition against,
from Parliament, 134; denial of
the king's . intention of, 147, note,
332-334 ; social result of, 9-10 ;
the king's suppression of the lesser
monasteries, 179 et seq.; time oc
cupied in the work, 182 ; number
and value of houses suppressed,
188, note; number of persons who
lost their livings by, 190 ; suppres
sion of Lincolnshire monasteries,
199-201, of Norton abbey, 221, and
of Yorkshire monasteries, 224.

494

Index

note ; grievances and hardships of
the commoners consequent upon,
225-229 ; the work of, resumed on
the conclusion of Northern risings,
265 et seq. ; suppression of convents
of women, 293 et seq., and of
friaries, 312 et seq.; progress of
general suppression, 331 et seq.;
number of houses suppressed from
1538 to 154°, 359! suppression of
Benedictine abbeys of Glastonbury,
Reading, and Colchester, 362 et
seq. ; Act of 1539 to legalise sup
pressions already made, 429 ;
consequences of, 460 et seq.
Supremacy, royal, 45, 51-52, 58, 63-
64, 76, 202, 228, 254, 263, 284,
317, note, 321, 364, 365, note, 387,
note
Supremacy, papal, adherence to, 55,
57-59, 62, 66, 70, 77, 144, 199,
315, 321, 323, 346, 380
Sussex, Earl of, 265, 267, 270, 275
Swithin's, St., payment extorted
from prior of, 164 ; shrine of, at
Winchester, destroyed, 406
Syon, Bridgettine house of, 308, 441,
451, 453, note, 456

Tempest, Nicholas, 259, 260
Thetford, report from priory of, 120,
note
Thomas, St., shrine of, at Canterbury,
testimony to its magnificence, 407,
408, note ; its destruction, 408-410 ;
erasure of the name of, 144, 408
Thirsk, William, quondam abbot of
Fountains, 257, note, 258, 263
Thwaites, Edward, his "Miraculous
Work at Court of Street," 35,
note
Tiltey, Essex, monastery of, 190
Totnes, priory of, 191
Townsend, Sir Roger, Crumwell's
agent, 145, 339
Trafford, William, prior of Charter
house, 71 ; pension of, 74
Trafford, William, last abbot of
Sawley, 260, note, 270
Tregon well, John, royal commissioner,
341,. 345
Tunbridge, objection to dissolution
of monastery at, 19
Tunstal, Bishop, of Durham, 45, note ;
servant of, 411

Twynham, destruction of priory at,
171
Typlady, Thomas, citizen and
broderer of London, 414, note

Vagrants, Acts passed to deal with,
470, note
Vale Royal, bribe offered for abbot-
ship of, 149 ; dissolution of, 342
Verbal treason, severe punishments
for, 315, 321, note, 323, note
Vernon, Margaret, prioress of Little
Marlow, 91 ; becomes governess to
Crumwell's son, 91
Vestments, reserved from spoils for
the king's use, 414, note, 415, note;
sales of, 415 ; used for secular
purposes, 416
Visitations, episcopal, 10 ; powers of
visitation obtained by Wolsey, 14,
.15
Visitors, Wolsey's, 20-24, note, 28
Visitors, royal, see Commissioners
"Voluntary surrenders," so-called,
326". 331, 336

Wadham, Sir Nicholas, 352, 353, note
Waldegrave, William, informer, 144
Walden Abbey, comperta of, 115 ; re-
port-from, 169
Walle, Thomas, of Canterbury, 39
Walsingham, chapel of Our Lady at,
144-145; popular discontent at,
3'4
Walstroppe, report of monastery of,
124-125
Walwercke, James, execution of, 74
Ward, Isabel, prioress of Clemen-
thorpe, 183
Wardeboys, John Lawrence de, abbot
of Ramsey, 440
Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury,
19, 36
Warwick, destruction at, 171
Watton Priory, 235, 252
Waverly, visitation of abbey of, 87 ;
letter of abbot to Crumwell, 193
Webster, Augustine, prior of Axholme,
64-65, 67
Wells, trial and death of Abbot
Whiting at, 377-378
Westminster Abbey, 456, 457
Westacre, reports from, 115, 122, 333 ;
surrender of, 339, 340, note

Index

495

Whalley, abbey of, 259, 270, 271
Whalley, John, commissioner, 67
Wharton, Robert, Abbot of Ber-
mondsey, 441
Whitehead, Dame Isabel, 458-459
Whiting, Richard, abbot of Glaston
bury, position and influence of, 363 ;
difficulties of the times, 364 ; takes
oath of royal supremacy, 364 ;
reasons for subscribing, 365, note,
366, note ; visited by Layton, 367 ;
character of, 368 ; arrival of com
missioners, 372 ; examination of,
373 ; sent to the Tower, 373 ;
illegal trial of, 374 et seq. ; execu
tion of, 378
Wigmore, accusation against abbot
of, 129 ; Bishop Fox's report on, 131
Wilson, John, prior of Mountgrace,
354, 355, note
Wilson, Nicholas, 355, note
Wilton, appointment of abbess to, 23 ;
complaint of prioress of, 306 ;
abbesses of, 307, note
Winchcombe, information against
abbot of, 92; lecturer appointed
at, 93
Winchester, jewelled cross at priory
of, 105 ; amount paid by prior of,
to Crumwell, 148
Woburn Abbey, 283
Wolsey, holding of pluralities by, 6 ;.

rise of, 12 ; dealings of, with Rome,
12-18; suppressions of, 17-19, 26-
29 ; power of, 12, 15, 16; opposition
to, 16, 19 ; given the abbey of St.
Albans, 16-17 ; revenues of, 21 ;
agents of, 20, 22 ; obtains powers
of visitation, 14-15; endows col
leges, 16, 23, 27 ; charges against,
23-24 ; treaties with French king,
25 ; attempt to be elected pope, 31 ;
proposes to be made vicar-general
of the pope, 25 ; court of, 137 ;
impeachment of, 32, 138-140;
death of, 377, note
Wombridge Priory, 183
Wood, William, prior of Bridlington,
260, 263
Worcester, foreign bishop of, 5, 14 ;
sale of property of friars to the
town, 328
Wriothesley, friend of the Observants,
57
Wykeham, William of, Londons
false report on, 173

jfa Yngworth, see Ingworth
York, visitation of, 96, 114; entry
of Robert Aske into, 232-233 ;
meeting of insurgent leaders at, 236;
commission at, for trial of Northern
insurgents, 263

^

THE END

CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 7181