The Project Gutenberg eBook of The dissolution of the monasteries
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The dissolution of the monasteries
As illustrated by the suppression of the religious houses of Staffordshire
Author: Francis Aidan Hibbert
Release date: April 16, 2024 [eBook #73403]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Sir Isaac Pitman and sons, 1910
Credits: MWS, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES ***
THE
DISSOLUTION OF
THE
MONASTERIES
AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES
OF STAFFORDSHIRE
BY
FRANCIS AIDAN HIBBERT, M.A.
OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;
THIRLWALL AND SEATONIAN PRIZES IN THE UNIVERSITY;
AUTHOR OF “THE INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ENGLISH GILDS,” “MONASTICISM IN STAFFORDSHIRE,”
ETC.
HEADMASTER OF DENSTONE
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD.
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C. 1910
PRINTED BY SIR ISAAC PITMAN
& SONS, LTD., LONDON, BATH
AND NEW YORK 1910
PREFACE
The following study of the Dissolution of the Monasteries will be found
to have the following characteristics: (1) there are few references
to books on the general subject of the Suppression; and (2) it is
concerned with the County of Staffordshire alone.
I hope it will not be inferred that I have learnt nothing from the
scholars who have dealt with the subject, as such is very far from
being the case. But I desired to investigate the history without being
influenced by prepossessions and prejudices, and I have accordingly
tried to work with a perfectly open mind. I have looked first at the
facts, which have been obtained nearly always at first hand, and only
then have I drawn deductions. The reason why I have strictly limited
myself to Staffordshire is explained in my first chapter. I have made
no attempt to fit the Staffordshire history into the general history of
England: if the two do not always run on parallel lines it is all the
more useful that the divergences should appear.
Not seldom my deductions may be wrong, but the facts upon which they
are based are always given very clearly and fully, and I must confess
that in working out my book in my own way I have had cause to modify,
and even to reverse, a good many of my earlier opinions. The history of
the Dissolution of the Staffordshire monasteries gives strong support
to the view that the suppression by Henry VIII and Cromwell was
prompted far less by anti-papal necessities than by sheer cupidity, and
not at all for moral reasons.
Most of the documents which are given in full are printed from the
originals. Some of those in the Appendix have been printed previously,
but none, I think, in books easily accessible to ordinary readers.
Professor Savine’s book on _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appeared while
my own was being written and after most of it was completed. I observe
with some trepidation that my conclusions differ from his in not a few
particulars, some of which are not unimportant. Nevertheless, I venture
with all diffidence to state my opinions: they were independently
formed, and perhaps it is as well that local peculiarities should be
noted for comparison with generalisations for the whole country.
FRANCIS AIDAN HIBBERT.
DENSTONE COLLEGE,
STAFFORDSHIRE.
List of Printed Books to which References are made
(See Preface)
_Annales Monastici_, Vol. I, edited by H. R. Luard, 1864.
Bacon, J., _Liber Regis sen Thesaurus rerum
ecclesiasticarum_, 1786.
Bazin, René, _The Nun_ (a novel).
Burnet, Gilbert, _The History of the Reformation of the
Church of England_. 4 vols., 1839.
_Burton-on-Trent Chartulary_, printed in _Salt
Collections_, Vol. V, Pt. I and _Derbyshire Arch. Soc._,
Vol. II.
_Calendars of the Patent Rolls_--Edward I, 1281–92,
1292–1301, Edward II, 1307–13, 1313–18; Richard II,
1377–81; Henry IV, 1405–8; Henry VI, Vol. II.
_Calendars of State Papers, Domestic_, 1547–80, 1601–1603
(Addenda, 1547–65), 1603–10.
_Collections for a History of Staffordshire_, published by
the William Salt Archæological Society, cited as “_Salt
Collections_.”
Cunningham, William, _The Growth of English History and
Commerce_ (Vol. I), 1896.
_Derbyshire Archæological and Natural History Society,
Journal_ of, Vol. VII, 1885.
_Description of Leicestershire, A_, William Burton, 1622.
_Dictionary of National Biography_, 63 vols., 1885–1900.
_Dieulacres Chartulary_, printed in _Salt Collections_,
Vol. IX, new series.
Dugdale, Sir William, _Monasticon Anglicanum_, 6 vols.,
1830 (cited as _Monasticon_).
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th Edn., 1875–88.
Froude, J. A., _History of England from the Fall of
Wolsey_, 12 vols., 1893.
Gairdner, James, _The English Church in the Sixteenth
Century_, 1904.
Gasquet, Francis Aidan, _Henry VIII and the English
Monasteries_, 1 vol., 1899.
Green, John Richard, _A Short History of the English
People_, 1898.
_Letters and Papers ... of the Reign of Henry VIII_, 18
vols., 1862–1901.
_Monasticism in Staffordshire_, F. A. Hibbert, 1909.
_Monasticon_, see Dugdale.
Morison, J. C., _The Life and Times of Saint Bernard_.
Norbury, Roger [Bishop of Lichfield 1322–59], his Register,
printed in _Salt Collections_, Vol. I.
Rogers, Thorold, _The Economic Interpretation of History_,
1888.
_Salt Collections_, see _Collections for a History of
Staffordshire_.
Sleigh, John, _A History of the Ancient Parish of Leek_,
2nd Edn., 1883.
_State Papers, Henry VIII_, Part I, 1830.
_Statutes at Large_, 1758.
Stretton, Robert [Bishop of Lichfield 1360–85], his _2nd
Register, 1360–85_, printed in _Salt Collections_, Vol.
VIII, new series.
Strype, John, _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, 6 vols., Oxford,
1822.
Stubbs, William, _Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum_, Oxford,
1858.
„ „ _Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern
History_, 1887.
_Valor Ecclesiasticus, temp. Hen. VIII, auctoritate regia
institutus_, 6 vols., 1810–34.
Wright, Thomas, _Letters relating to the Suppression of
Monasteries_, Camden Society, 1843.
CONTENTS
CHAP.
PREFACE v
LIST OF REFERENCES vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PRECEDENTS FOR SUPPRESSION 19
III. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION 30
IV. PRELIMINARIES TO THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION 42
V. THE FINANCES OF BURTON ABBEY 72
VI. MONASTIC BALANCE SHEETS 92
VII. THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: FIRST STAGE 133
VIII. THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: SECOND STAGE 160
IX. LOSS AND GAIN 188
APPENDICES OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
NO.
I. EXAMPLE OF A LICENSE TO CONTINUE GRANTED
TO A “LESSER MONASTERY” (CROXDEN ABBEY) 214
II. DEED OF SURRENDER OF CROXDEN ABBEY 220
III. INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT BREWOOD NUNNERY 224
IV. INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT ST. THOMAS’S
PRIORY, STAFFORD 229
V. INVENTORY OF THE SALE OF DIEULACRES ABBEY 237
VI. SALE OF GOODS AT THE GREY FRIARS, STAFFORD 245
VII. SALE OF GOODS AT THE AUSTIN FRIARS, STAFFORD 249
VIII. SALE OF GOODS OF THE GREY FRIARS, LICHFIELD 252
IX. SALE OF GOODS AT CROXDEN ABBEY 255
X. SALE OF GOODS AT ROCESTER ABBEY 256
XI. SALE OF GOODS AT HULTON ABBEY 257
XII. THE DISSOLUTION OF BURTON “COLLEGE” 258
1. INVENTORY AND VALUATION OF GOODS 258
2. SALE OF GOODS 264
3. PAYMENTS TO DISBANDED HOUSEHOLD, ETC. 268
4. EXPENSES OF ROYAL OFFICIALS 271
5. PENSIONS 277
6. SUMMARY 278
XIII. THE DISSOLUTION OF BURTON COLLEGE:
SCUDAMORE’S RECEIPT FOR GOODS UNSOLD 279
XIV. LIST OF BOOKS AT BURTON ABBEY 281
INDEX 286
SKETCH MAP OF STAFFORDSHIRE _end of book_
The Dissolution of the Monasteries
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In one of the earlier chapters of a brilliantly written history[1]
dealing with the sixteenth century the glory of English hospitality is
enlarged upon. It was a time, we are told, “when every door was opened
to a request for a meal or a night’s lodging,” and among other examples
we are given the instance that “two hundred poor were fed daily at the
house of Thomas Cromwell.” Moreover, we are assured that “there was
little fear of an abuse of such license.” Yet presently we find the
monasteries censured in the severest language for their demoralising
charity, and picturesquely and forcibly condemned as “nurseries of
dishonest mendicancy.” No explanation is vouchsafed as to why the alms
of the monks were more demoralising than those of the nobles.
This is a good illustration of the way the whole subject of the
Dissolution of the Monasteries has been often treated.
Sentiment and prejudice enter largely, and perhaps inevitably, into
the whole subject. Even so prosaic an aspect as the financial one
has given occasion for the most contradictory opinions. The vast
possessions of the monasteries, their enormous wealth, the large
immunities from taxation which they enjoyed, their robbery of the
parish churches, have all been dilated upon for three centuries and a
half. The monastic income, where figures have been given, ranges from
Speed’s £171,300 to Burnet’s £131,607. Abbot Gasquet says the monastic
lands amounted to two million acres. A Jacobite pamphleteer of 1717
asserted that the monks possessed seven-tenths of the whole land: more
sober writers have estimated less extravagantly. J. R. Green said it
was a fifth, and Dr. Gairdner says a third. Writers have often told of
“hordes of idle men and women” in the religious houses. Dr. Gasquet
affirms that the number was 8,081, with “more than ten times that
number of people who were their dependents or otherwise obtained a
living in their service:” the total population of England being some
four millions, this gives a proportion of one in forty-three.
It is obvious that there remains much to be desired in the way of
definiteness and exactness on many points. The following pages are
an attempt to do something in this direction by investigating facts
and by going to the fountain head. All unsupported statements and
mere opinions have been rigorously disregarded: they are generally,
and sometimes obviously, guesswork only. The actual figures of
authoritative documents alone have been dealt with. In this way it is
hoped that some conclusions have been reached which rest upon solid
foundations.
Only the county of Stafford has been considered. If it be objected
that, the work being thus restricted in scope, the results must be of
limited application, it may be pointed out that there are compensating
advantages. The material is comparatively manageable. The details,
bewildering and difficult of explanation though they often are, are
comparatively amenable. Acquaintance with localities may sometimes
render assistance. The results, therefore, may gain in precision
what they lack in range, and though the writer does not suppose he
has succeeded, or nearly succeeded, in solving all or many of the
problems which arise, yet he hopes that he has been able to accomplish
something. Possibly the national aspect of the whole subject must wait
for final treatment until the work of local investigators has been
completed.
Reliable information has been sought on such points as the following:
the amount of the monastic wealth, its sources and burdens, the
relative proportions from temporal and spiritual sources, the extent
to which parish churches were “robbed,” the solvency or otherwise
of the religious houses, the extent of their charity, the amount
of educational work they carried on, their character as landlords,
the part they took in the agricultural changes of the period, the
material effects of their suppression, and other subjects of a kindred
nature. It must be acknowledged at once that the results vary much in
character. The _data_ are often difficult to interpret and are
sometimes too scanty to be of much use in drawing general conclusions
of any value.
In particular it has proved to be quite impossible to attempt any
estimate of the area of monastic lands. The situation and character
of the various possessions can be found, and the income derived from
each, but the acreage is seldom given, and no attempt has been made to
reckon the extent from the value. Such an attempt has been sometimes
made, usually by proposing a ratio between income and acreage. It
is generally supposed that the occupied area of England was about
thirty-two millions of acres. Thorold Rogers states that at the time
of the Dissolution “the rent of agricultural land was from 6d. to
8d. an acre.” It is true that the greater part of the land held by
the monasteries was probably agricultural, so that if we divide some
estimates which have been given of the total monastic income by 7d. we
obtain the following results:
£171,300 (Speed) ÷ 7d. = 5,873,143 acres or about
two-elevenths of the whole.
£131,607 (Burnet) ÷ 7d. = 4,512,240 acres, or more than
one-seventh of the whole.
A similar calculation for Staffordshire (748,433 acres), taking the
figures to be given in Chapter IV, would give the following results:
Gross total monastic income, £1,874 0s. 1½d. ÷ 7d. = 64,251
acres, or more than one-eleventh of the whole county;
Net monastic income, £1,608 5s. 2¾d. ÷ 7d. = 55,140 acres,
or more than one-thirteenth of the whole county.
But all such calculations are really worthless. It is quite impossible
to arrive at any figure which represents the average income per
acre. No doubt Thorold Rogers is correct enough when he gives the
_rent_. But all sorts of deductions and allowances have to be
made from the rent before the net income is obtained. Moreover, the
monastic income was not wholly derived from land, and the land was held
by a great variety of tenures, etc. The only possible way of arriving
at anything like a correct estimate of the total area of monastic
land, failing a complete rent roll and survey for each house, would
be to work carefully through the surveys which were made when the
property came into the hands of the Crown, the “particulars for grants”
which were drawn up on behalf of applicants for grants and leases,
and the grants and leases themselves. Even so the task would be one
of extraordinary difficulty and complexity. More often than not the
monastic lands were not granted in their entirety. They remained in
the hands of the Crown till a good purchaser could be found for all or
part, and a good bargain struck. There was sub-letting to a bewildering
extent. The process went on for years, and all sorts of people obtained
grants and leases of the monastic property, often in quite small
portions. In 1540 John Smythe, a Yeoman of the Guard, obtained a
grant for life of most of the possessions of the Dominican Friars at
Newcastle, while in the following year Francis, Earl of Shrewsbury, is
found negotiating for a single messuage and lands in Rocester which
had belonged to the Abbey there, and at the opposite end of the social
scale we find a butcher of Stone, named William Plante, obtaining lands
in Walton which had belonged to Stone Priory. Again and again lands
are no sooner obtained than they are re-sold. For instance, Trentham
was only surrendered in 1536, yet in 1538 the Duke of Suffolk procured
a license to alienate; James Leveson secured Rushton Grange from the
spoils of Hulton Abbey in 1539, and immediately sold it to Biddulph of
Biddulph; in 1541 Sir John Gifford obtained license to alienate the
rectory and advowson of Milwich, which had belonged to Stone Priory.
In March, 1541, Sir John Dudley obtained a grant in fee of most of
the possessions of Dudley Priory: in a couple of months he received a
license to alienate part. Such examples, a few out of many, illustrate
the appalling complexity of the task to which we have alluded, and show
also that any inquiry into the original grants of the lands of the
religious houses would throw little light upon the permanent results of
the transfer of the monastic property. It would indicate at best who
were the shrewdest bargainers and the readiest speculators.
The merely financial aspects of the problem can be investigated
with better prospect of success. Bishop Stubbs, with characteristic
caution, said that “the income from the monasteries cannot be stated
in reasonable figures”[2] and this is no doubt true if we desire to
estimate the whole extent of the wealth which passed from the Church at
the time of the Dissolution. Full details, especially of the valuables
in the churches and other movables, can never be obtained. But there
is a good deal of material for arriving, approximately at any rate, at
such things as annual income and expenditure, and if we can discover
those we shall obtain figures and facts which will be of great service
in many ways.
Many counties had far wealthier monasteries than Staffordshire.
The richest counties in England in this respect were Yorkshire and
Middlesex, but both of these are exceptional, the former by reason
of its disproportionate area, and the latter because it contains the
City of London and many of its suburbs. Somerset and Lincolnshire were
placed next by their trading centres, and Kent by its position on the
main road between the capital and the Continent. Of the remaining
thirty-four English counties (excluding Monmouthshire), Staffordshire
came twenty-fifth in monastic wealth, the following being poorer:
Durham, Cumberland, Northumberland, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Derby,
Hereford, Westmoreland and Rutland. The last-named possessed only a
single house.
Staffordshire, with a total monastic wealth of some £1,600 annual net
income,[3] comes in a group which includes the following counties:
Shropshire (£1,966), Lancashire (£1,698), Durham (£1,515), Cumberland
(£1,311) and Northumberland (£1,177).[4] It takes its comparatively low
position not because it possessed any houses of exceptional smallness
or poverty at the time the valuation from which the above figures were
taken (1535), but because all the houses were of moderate size without
there being any very wealthy abbeys to inflate exceptionally the total.
The richest house in the county, Burton Abbey, was only rated at £412
5s. net income.[5] On the whole the Staffordshire houses represent
the monasteries of average income, with no great and famous abbeys to
monopolise the attention and interest and to introduce exceptional
elements. The history of the suppression in Staffordshire will
illustrate the suppression of the ordinary religious houses. That of
the great and famous abbeys is well known, but it will be interesting
to see how the ordinary average houses fell.
The Staffordshire monasteries were, however, sufficiently varied in
situation and character to make their history worth studying. They
were by no means all of one type, nor were they all, in the sixteenth
century, similarly circumstanced. They represented the four great
orders of monks: Benedictine, Austin, Cluniac, and Cistercian, and
there were houses of Dominican and Franciscan Friars, as well as of
the later Austin Friars. Burton Abbey was a house large enough to be
involved in national politics; Calwich was so insignificant that the
Government was able to suppress it illegally without protest or remark.
Between these were some dozen houses, small enough to come within
the scope of the Act for the dissolution of the lesser monasteries,
yet nearly all able to purchase exemption from its provisions. Some,
like Stone, stood close to busy highways; some, like Croxden, in its
secluded valley, lay remote from towns and even villages; others stood
near the well-to-do market towns of Stafford, Leek, and Lichfield. They
had originated in various ways. St. Modwen’s Abbey at Burton-on-Trent
was the foundation of Wulfric Spot, patriot and soldier, in 1004;
where the road crossed the Trent he founded and richly endowed the
Benedictine abbey on a site which already had sacred associations.
Beside it grew a flourishing town. In its Scriptorium was compiled
one of the most valuable of the English monastic chronicles. Kings
and prelates lodged within its walls. Burton Abbey played a part in
national history more than once. Another Benedictine house arose
before the Norman Conquest. Burchard, the third son of Algar, whose
other sons were the traitors Edwin and Morcar, accompanied Archbishop
Aldred to Rome when he went to fetch his pallium and to obtain papal
authorization for the privileges of the Confessor’s new abbey at
Westminster. Returning, Burchard fell ill at Rheims, and, dying, was
buried within the precincts of the Abbey of St. Remigius there. In
gratitude Algar gave to St. Remigius the “_villa_” of Lapley in
Staffordshire, and a priory was built there as a cell dependent on
the house at Rheims. In acknowledgment of the help which the Norman
invaders had received from the prayers of the Norman monks, Henry de
Ferrers established near his castle at Tutbury a priory dependent on
the great Abbey of St. Peter-sur-Dive. More worldly motives caused
the erection of other houses. Trentham was founded by Hugh, Earl
of Chester, as a help towards re-establishing the authority and
pre-eminence he had lost in Staffordshire when the Palatine Earldom of
Chester was created. Robert de Stafford re-founded Stone as an Austin
Priory in order to assist in the building up of a great estate in the
district (_c._ 1130). Trentham became an Austin Priory when Earl
Ralf of Chester left, on his death-bed, 100 solidates of Trentham
Manor to restore it. The vicar of the parish, John, who was the Earl’s
Chaplain, became Prior, and for thirty years the endowment continued to
be paid to him alone. Not till 1195 was it transferred to “the Canons.”
Such an arrangement illustrates the distinctive feature of the Austin
Canons. They lived in modified seclusion. They were parish priests
living in community. The rule of St. Augustine represented an attempt
at monastic reform by the method of compromise. Other Austin Priories
were: Rocester, founded in 1146 by Richard Bacon, nephew of the Earl
of Chester; Calwich, given to Kenilworth by Nicholas de Gresley Fitz
Nigel; St. John’s, Lichfield, built by Bishop Roger de Clinton when he
raised strong walls round the Cathedral close in the reign of Stephen;
Ronton, founded by Robert Fitz Noel, who had obtained an estate in
Staffordshire through his marriage to the daughter of Bishop Robert
de Limesey (1086–1117), as a cell to Haughmond; and St. Thomas’s,
Stafford. The origin of the last was particularly interesting. Richard
de Peche, Bishop of the Diocese, was one of the friends of Becket. He
took part in his consecration, and soon after the murder he dedicated
a priory at Stafford to the memory of St. Thomas the Martyr, on land
given by a wealthy burgess. When he felt his own end approaching, soon
after, he resigned the bishopric and retired to the priory, where
shortly after he died and was buried (1182).
The relations between the Austin Canons and the parishes were close,
as we have seen. Portions of their houses were often used as parish
churches. Just as the Vicar at Trentham became the head of the priory
also, so at Stone the priory absorbed the church. At Rocester there was
such doubt in the fourteenth century as to the proper place at which
the parishioners ought to make their Easter Communions that the matter
had to be referred to Bishop Norbury, and he left the matter undecided.
At the dissolution of the Priory the parishioners were able to secure
three bells for their own use on the plea that these had wont to be
rung for parochial services as well as for those of the Canons. When
the bishop cited to his visitations the churchwardens and synodsmen
(“sidesmen”) of the churches served by Austin priories, he wrote to the
Convents. It was often the practice, for instance at Rocester, for the
senior canon, next after the Prior, to hold the vicarage.
The Cluniac Order was a revision of the Benedictine rule. Its object
was to bring reform; but the abolition of the obligation to perform
manual labour, which formed so excellent a feature of the original
Benedictine system, merely increased opportunities for idleness. The
earliest Cluniac house in Staffordshire arose at Canwell, in the reign
of Stephen. It was the foundation, in 1142, of the widow of Justice
Geoffrey Ridel, who had perished twenty years before in the disaster to
the _White Ship_. Another Cluniac house was built at Dudley, as
a cell to Wenlock. It was founded by Gervase Paganel, Baron of Dudley
(1161), in fulfilment of his father’s intentions.
The Cistercian Order was another revision of the Benedictine rule.
Instead of relaxing the strictness of the original rule, the
Cistercians aimed at increased austerity and simplicity. In the
reign of Stephen a small company of recluses fled from the anarchy
and lawlessness around them to Radmore, in the recesses of Cannock
Chase. For some years they lived, men and women, independently of any
of the recognised Orders, but the place was too remote and the state
of the country too disorderly for such a defenceless position. They
soon had to join one of the great Orders. By the advice of the Empress
Matilda they chose the Cistercian and dismissed the women. But food
was difficult to obtain, the foresters made frequent depredations,
life became impossible even for Cistercians, and they had to remove to
Stoneleigh, in Warwickshire.
The Cistercians, whose rule ordered _in civitatibus, castellis,
villis, nulla nostra construenda sunt cenobia, sed in locis a
conversatione hominum semotis_, had to wait another generation
before they could obtain a footing in the county. They must follow, not
precede, order and police. The establishment of a Cistercian house,
therefore, is an evident token that law reigned in the district where
it arose. The Cistercians aimed at being, not scholars and statesmen
such as the Benedictines had become, but farmers, and this feature
commended them to all who desired the cultivation and civilisation of
the waste tracts into which the Benedictines had never penetrated.
The latter had become great landowners, with numerous flourishing
towns belonging to them, and wide estates well cultivated. The land
unoccupied by the Benedictines was wild and rough, but offering
opportunities for pasturage. To pasturage, therefore, the Cistercians
devoted themselves; and the growth of the wool trade, which arose
almost at the same time as they came into favour, made them masters of
the most profitable branch of English industry.
Bertram de Verdun, lord of Alton, occupied a middle position between
the old feudal aristocracy and the new men who were becoming their
rivals. He married Earl Ferrers’ niece, and by his father’s marriage
was connected with Geoffrey de Clinton, Henry I’s Chamberlain. He
himself was one of Henry II’s most trusted and trustworthy officials.
On a visit to his relative, the Constable of Normandy, he was taken to
see the Cistercian house which the Constable’s step-father had founded.
De Verdun was so impressed that he determined to found a similar house
in Staffordshire, where the growth of law and order gave opportunity
for developing his lands. He requested the Abbot of Aunay to send some
of his monks to the site he offered near Alton. Two years later (1180)
they removed to a more suitable spot a few miles distant, where the
beautiful ruins of Croxden Abbey still stand. They well illustrate the
simplicity which characterised Cistercian architecture, though the
church was almost unique among houses of the order in England in having
a semi-circular apse with five radiating chapels, instead of the usual
plain square end.[6] This was copied from the parent house at Aunay,
and it emphasises the peculiarity that Croxden, unlike most of the
Cistercian abbeys in England, was the offshoot of a foreign house.
Farther northwards the Cistercians could not yet penetrate. But the
Earls of Chester were meanwhile engaged in developing the estates
they held there, and early in the thirteenth century Ralf Blundeville,
who played an independent and honourable part in the difficult and
dishonourable times of King John’s reign, was strong enough to take
definite steps. He established a market at Leek in 1208. In 1214, the
very year when the Papal Legate received at Burton Abbey Archbishop
Langton’s spirited protest against his intrusion into the affairs of
the State and Church of England, Ralf Blundeville founded the abbey
at Dieulacres. The site was a little north of Leek. He gave it to
the Cistercians, the skilful farmers and agriculturists, bestowing
upon them wide lands and extensive privileges. They were to be his
agents for the civilisation of the Moorlands, and well they performed
their work. Soon afterwards a third Cistercian house was founded at
Hulton by Henry de Audley, constable of the neighbouring castle of
Newcastle-under-Lyme, who had for some time been engaged in building
up an estate there. Hulton Abbey had, later, a pottery where tiles
and other articles were made. There were nunneries at Brewood, on the
western border of the county, and at Fairwell, near the road between
Lichfield and Rugeley. Both were Benedictine. The friars reached
Staffordshire in the reign of Henry III. There were Grey Friars at
Lichfield and Stafford and Black Friars at Newcastle-under-Lyme. At
Radford, near Stafford, a house of Lepers, with a master and friars
of the Holy Sepulchre, stood for some time. The house of the Austin
Friars, at Stafford, was founded by Ralf, Baron of Stafford, in the
reign of Edward III. At Lees the Priory of Rocester maintained a
chantry, or cell. The Knights Templars had a Preceptory at Keele.
The monasteries and nunneries were usually well endowed, and most
of them became possessed of considerable worldly possessions. The
records of the Dissolution disclose lists of manors, granges,
tenements, water-mills, fulling mills, and salt pans, which produced
large revenues. From appropriated livings, tithes and oblations were
drawn away from the places where they were paid, for the benefit
of the distant monastery. Fees were sometimes paid on admission to
the Community. Did a son obtain ordination through the help of the
monks, how could the father better show his gratitude than by making
them a gift? Lights and masses were endowed. The monks had command
of ready money and were able to lend to those who required cash, it
might be to those overtaken by sudden necessity or to some desirous
of making a pilgrimage. When a verderer of Cannock, in the thirteenth
century, rendered himself liable to the severe penalties of the Forest
Laws, he fled for his life beyond the seas and sold his manor to St.
Thomas’s Priory at Stafford.[7] Corrodies originally were a form of
life assurance.[8] For a lump sum Dieulacres sold a corrody to a Jew,
consisting of food and clothing for life.[9] It was an attractive
though shortsighted method of obtaining money or lands, for the
corrodies sometimes entailed a severe strain, and there are complaints
of the non-fulfilment of the obligations. In 1294 the Prior of Stone
was fined for having wrongfully deprived a man of his corrody, which
consisted of a daily loaf of bread and a gallon of ale, with a canon’s
habit worth a mark yearly, provender for horse and keep for groom, four
cartloads of wood annually, and two candles a night from Hallowmas
to Candlemas.[10] Corrodies led to further difficulties. Founders
and kings claimed the right of nomination. So early as Edward I’s
reign Dieulacres had a contention with the King on the subject. Such
demands often became a grave abuse, and there are numberless instances,
especially in such reigns as those of Edward II and Richard II, of
the quartering on the monasteries of discharged soldiers and worn-out
officials. The Bishop of Lichfield once demanded from Tutbury a corrody
for his cook, but Archbishop Peckham forbade it to be granted. The
practice continued to the very end. Even so late as 1532 we find the
servants of the Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII’s natural son, billeted
in the English monasteries during their master’s absence on the
Continent.[11]
Monastic hospitality was often grievously abused. No doubt when kings
and other great men lodged in the monasteries they usually made some
acknowledgment. But the Priory of Stone complained to Bishop Norbury
(1322–59) that it was impoverished by the many claims which were
made on its hospitality by travellers of every degree in consequence
of its being _juxta viam regiam_, and in 1382 Burton made a
similar complaint to the Pope. In the early years of Henry VI’s reign
Burton was absolutely insolvent and was put into commission for seven
years.[12]
Many houses had the privilege of holding fairs and markets. Croxden,
Dieulacres, Rocester and Burton did a brisk trade with foreign wool
merchants in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and their wool
was almost unexcelled in England. Edward III once exacted 600 sacks of
wool from Staffordshire at a low rate, and the Croxden annalist says
he failed to pay even that. Sometimes the business transactions of the
monks were questionable: In 1457 the Prior of St. Thomas’s, Stafford,
was sued for £10 damages for having sold a horse _sciens equum illum
in varias infirmitates collapsum et ad laborandum impotentem_.[13]
Sometimes, especially in the case of the friars in the towns, strong
opposition was raised. In 1282 the King had to intervene to protect the
friars minors at Stafford, as it appeared that certain regrators put
hindrances in the way of their purchasing even daily victuals, and at
times even snatched out of their hands what they had bought.[14]
But the religious rendered real services to the towns. Burton grew up
beside the Abbey walls, built very largely under the direction of the
abbots through many generations. Abbot Nicholas built the first street
in the twelfth century, and the fifteenth abbot, Thomas de Felde, built
the great hall in the market place. Later still Abbot Beyne founded the
Grammar School.
Of these houses the following remained till the sixteenth century:
Brewood Nunnery, Burton Abbey, Calwich Priory, Canwell Priory, Croxden
Abbey, Dieulacres Abbey, Dudley Priory, Fairwell Nunnery, Hulton Abbey,
Rocester Abbey, Ronton Priory, Sandwell Priory, St. Thomas’s Priory
at Stafford, St. John’s Priory at Lichfield, Stone Priory, Trentham
Priory, and Tutbury Priory; and the friaries at Lichfield, Stafford
and Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is with the dissolution of these that we
shall be concerned. They were not pre-eminent for size, wealth, vice or
virtue; they did not give to the history of the Reformation any famous
names or contribute any striking episodes. They represent, rather, the
ordinary “rank and file” of the religious houses. For that reason they
are, perhaps, the better worth investigation, because they are typical
of the average.
It is the exceptional which attracts attention, but it is the ordinary
which better represents the truth. If, therefore, we can obtain a
correct estimate of the conditions of the Staffordshire houses at the
time of their surrender we may fairly safely accept it as a tolerably
accurate picture of the condition of English monasticism as a whole.
The accounts which the records give of the manner and details of
the suppression in Staffordshire represent in all probability the
ordinary course of that great undertaking everywhere. The results which
followed, the settlements which were made, and the new arrangements
which became necessary in Staffordshire, are probably typical of those
which followed in the great majority of places. By restricting our
scrutiny we may obtain a better view.
CHAPTER II
PRECEDENTS FOR SUPPRESSION
The Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII is popularly
represented as an isolated act, standing alone in the nation’s history.
Except that it was on an exceptionally large scale, such is very far
from being the fact. It was, indeed, only the last stage in a process
which had long been in progress. The Suppression, in 1312, of the
Knights Templars, who had a Preceptory in Staffordshire at Keele, was
the first great destruction of a Religious Order, and it must not be
forgotten that it was the work of the Papacy. A century later Henry V,
for financial and political reasons, suppressed the Alien Priories,
Lapley, in Staffordshire, among them. During the following hundred
years, which intervene before we arrive at the time with which we
are more immediately concerned, such great ecclesiastics as Wykeham,
Chichele, Waynflete, Fisher, and Alcock, had all laid hands on monastic
wealth for educational purposes. Even the great Dissolution of the
sixteenth century was no idea suddenly conceived at the moment. It was
itself, again, the last phase of a movement which naturally developed.
It was one of the Acts of a great drama.
The suppressions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had fatally
weakened the idea that property devoted to religious purposes was
for ever inviolable. The intentions of Founders could no longer be
sacrosanct. The tendency was, not even to ask whether the monasteries
were fulfilling the objects for which they had been founded, but
rather, whether they were needed. The New Learning had little respect
for old foundations, and Staffordshire had an early example of the way
it would deal with endowments.
William Smythe was Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry from 1493 to
1496. As Lord President of the Welsh Marches he was mainly employed
in unepiscopal work, Thomas Fort, Prior of Stone, acting as his
suffragan. He founded Brasenose College, at Oxford, and boldly diverted
monastic endowments into new channels. In 1495 he suppressed the Austin
Priory of St. John at Lichfield, and used the site and property for a
Grammar School and Almshouses. Such action obviously indicates that
at Lichfield, at any rate, there was neglect of charity and education
by the “religious,” otherwise Bishop Smythe would have had no need to
suppress St. John’s Priory.
Bishop Smythe was an early Wolsey, on a small scale. The Cardinal, like
the Bishop, was a politician rather than an ecclesiastic, and he, too,
laid bold hands on monastic endowments for educational purposes.
Of course Wolsey’s work was much more important than Bishop Smythe’s,
and the history of Staffordshire shows in some measure how it was
accomplished. He became Chancellor in 1515 and sought from the Pope
visitatorial powers over the English monasteries. Such authority for
a royal official was little of a novelty. The King had always claimed
to have considerable power in the religious houses, and had often
exercised it. The royal license was necessary before a new Superior
could be elected, and during the vacancy the temporalities were taken
over and administered by royal officials. The election, when made,
required the royal assent. In all sorts of ways the royal power made
itself felt in the religious houses. It was continually interfering
in their internal affairs, as we shall see fully when we approach the
time of the General Dissolution. It was able to bring such considerable
influence to bear in elections that requests were made for headships
just as for other appointments which were properly in the gift of the
Government.[15] The right of nominating to corrodies, always claimed
and constantly exercised, would of itself ensure the presence of
representatives of the King and his opinions in the religious houses.
How widely the right was interpreted in the sixteenth century may be
gathered from the claim made by the Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII’s
illegitimate son, in 1532. In that year he wrote from Calais to the
Prior of Tutbury, informing him that he had been sent on a mission to
France and that the King’s pleasure was that such of his servants as
remained behind in England should be established in religious houses,
“of whom,” the letter says, “Robert Amyas, clerk of my jewel house, is
appointed to abide at your monastery.”[16] Even so recently as 1490
the King had exercised the powers which Wolsey desired, and by papal
authorisation.
Wolsey, therefore, knew he was on safe ground in making his request to
the Pope. After some delay, Leo X granted the desired authority (1518),
and Wolsey issued statutes for the Austin Canons next year.
He soon began his splendid educational schemes. With some difficulty
he obtained the Pope’s consent (April, 1524) to use the revenues of
St. Frideswide’s at Oxford (where Reginald Pole, a Staffordshire man,
while a student at Oxford, had had a pension, though he was of Royal
lineage) towards the endowment of the college he was founding.[17]
This, of course, was quite insufficient for the splendid scheme he
had in mind, and many further negotiations with the Pope resulted in
a series of grudgingly granted Bulls during several years. Meanwhile,
Wolsey proceeded with his work. The single house he had obtained was
by no means all he intended to appropriate, and he had already drawn
up the draft of a license for incorporating for the use of his college
at Oxford twenty-one other houses, including those at Canwell and
Sandwell,[18] in Staffordshire. It is a Latin document of eleven pages,
and is in Wriothesley’s handwriting.
In 1514 there had been but a single inmate at Canwell available for
appointment to the office of Prior. As a Cluniac house it had never
received adequate supervision, and had often been unsatisfactory: long
ago one of its canons had become a murderer.[19] Sandwell had been
on the verge of bankruptcy, with discreditable canons, wasteful and
unbusiness-like management, violent altercations with neighbours and
armed “religious” rivals. Its buildings were in bad repair. Both houses
were ripe for dissolution.
The deed for the dissolution of St. Mary’s, Sandwell, by William
Burbank, LL.D., is dated February, 1524.[20] It is a Latin document of
twenty-three pages, written on vellum, signed by Prior John and sealed
by Burbank. The witnesses are Thomas Cromwell, John Clifton (chaplain),
Roland Rokyn, and John Lupton. The house was not absolutely closed;
provision was made for the religious services to be maintained, and the
servants and inmates who were dismissed were recompensed. The yearly
value was £12 in spiritualities and £26 8s. 7d. in temporalities.[21]
Clement VII’s Bull authorising this did not issue till six months
later. It permitted the suppression of monasteries to the value of
3,000 ducats, and was dated September 11th. It received the royal
assent on October 1st.[22] It included Sandwell and, obviously,
Canwell, though the writing is partly defaced. On the 13th of January,
1526, Letters Patent were signed at Greenwich, and delivered at
Westminster on January 20th, granting to Wolsey the sites, etc.,
of St. Mary’s, Sandwell, and St. Giles’s, Canwell,[23] with lands
in Staffordshire at Sandwell, West Bromwich, Dudley, Tipton, Magna
and Parva Bar, Harborne, Wernell, Coston, Wombourn, Wednesbury,
Feccham, Canwell, Drayton, Hyns, Wyfford, Packington, Bittertone,
Tamworth, Whittington, Elford, and Farysley. Canwell was worth £10 in
spiritualities and £15 0s. 3d. in temporalities. No time was lost.
On February 10th the houses were transferred to John Higden, dean of
Cardinal’s College, the grant being sealed with Wolsey’s seal, which,
enclosed in an iron case at the foot of the vellum, remains to this
day a splendid impression.[24] The records of the estates were put
into excellent order. William Brabazon surveyed the Manor of Canwell,
and has left a full and detailed description of church, manor-house,
ou-buildings, and land, with full details, measurements, rental, amount
of timber, etc. The church was 84 feet long and 23 feet wide, with a
tiled roof. It had a ruinous Lady Chapel on the north side 42 feet long
and 14 feet wide, and bells worth £33 6s. 8d. The manor-house was 69
feet long by 15 feet wide, with one side tiled and the other thatched,
and three rooms above and below, but its timber was in a bad state.
There was a hall and kitchen, the latter also ruinous, a three-roomed
stable, a kiln, bolting house, and chamber for corn, dove-house, and
a large barn 112 feet by 28 feet. We have also a detailed list of the
cottagers by name, with their rents (1d. per annum per cottage), dated
the 13th of March, 1526.[25] A _præcipe_ for a fine relating to
the possessions of Canwell, and a lease and a conveyance of Sandwell,
show that the former had been dissolved by the year 1527.[26] Its
founder, Lord Lisle, had released his title by fine. The latter was
“given” by Edward, Lord Dudley.
The same business-like procedure was followed in making over the
endowments to the College. The estates having been carefully and fully
surveyed, a complete “Register” of all the documents was delivered to
Dr. Higden, under date 21st of June, 1527. The Dean himself was a keen
business man, like all the men who enjoyed Wolsey’s favour, and at once
set about improving the revenues, visiting the estates, and raising the
rents where it was possible to do so.[27]
The suppression of the monasteries formed part of the charges laid
against Wolsey on his impeachment. Dean Higden’s raising of the rents
was charged against the Cardinal, who was also accused of “shamefully
slandering many good religious houses and good virtuous men living in
them,” as well as often forcing suppressions by “crafty persuasions.”
The houses alleged to be so wrongfully suppressed were, however, by
no means restored on his fall. Full details of them were obtained by
Commissions of local gentry: Sir John Gifford, Sir Edward Aston, Edward
Lyttleton, and John Vernon, acted in Staffordshire. Then, whatever
still remained was sold. William Burbank and Thomas Cromwell did this
work at Canwell and Sandwell.[28] The sale at the former reached £8 and
at the latter £21. The bells at Sandwell were worth £33 6s. 8d., and
at Canwell £13 6s. 8d., and debts and rents due at Lady-day amounted
to £189 10s. On the other hand, there were the costs of Burbank and
Cromwell for their journey from Tickford to Sandwell, and for their
five days’ stay at Sandwell and three days’ at Canwell. The fees of
the “Praysors” were 3s. 4d.; and one of the monks at Canwell was paid
£1 in wages, and another 6s. 8d. The Prior’s father and the servants
also received payments. The work was done thoroughly. The establishment
evidently had been leniently dealt with, and indeed to a considerable
extent maintained, so long as Wolsey lived, but now the religious
life, at least, ceased, for we may conclude that the sale of the bells
implies that the churches were closed or put to secular uses.
In the re-arrangement of the endowments of Wolsey’s College, Canwell
was spared for it, and so was Sandwell, but the rectories belonging to
the latter and the manor at the former were assigned to the College
at Windsor. The Prior of Shene also received some of the lands at
Sandwell, and John Voysey, _alias_ Harmon, Bishop of Exeter, made
purchases at Canwell. The “total issues” from the Staffordshire houses
are set down in the Account Book of the College for 1530 as £31 7s.
from Sandwell and £14 6s. from Canwell.[29]
Bishop Geoffrey Blythe was another of the products of the New Learning:
a suspect by reason of his advanced opinions, yet a burner of heretics;
the ordainer of Colet and the rejector as _indoctus et indignus_
of a Canon of Ronton nominated to a vicarage in 1530; the acceptor so
early as 1530 of Henry VIII’s refusal to allow an appeal to Rome which
the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury made against Archbishop
Warham in regard to probate.
While Wolsey was appropriating monastic endowments for the benefit of
learning, Bishop Blythe was engaged in similar work, and he obtained
Wolsey’s help in suppressing the Benedictine Nunnery at Fairwell.
In 1526 the diocese had received a visit from the Cardinal in person.
In March he came to the Cathedral in his capacity of Legate _a
latere_, formally to investigate a complaint of the vicars. It did
not contribute to his popularity, and was met by a protest on the part
of the Great Chapter. However, he examined and ratified the Cathedral
statutes; and probably during the Visitation, which lasted from March
5th to April 4th, Bishop Blythe discussed the condition of Fairwell
with the Cardinal, and received from him advice and encouragement.
Fairwell Nunnery had been founded by Bishop Roger de Clinton
(1129–1148), a few miles from Lichfield. Bishop Norbury, on a
visitation, had found various delinquencies which caused him to issue a
series of detailed injunctions in 1331.[30] They had to be translated
into French as the nuns did not understand Latin. In 1367 Bishop
Stretton again exercised his authority and in the same way. From the
orders he issued[31] we are able to gather the nature of the things
complained of. The laudable practice of going for walks in common was
commended, but none were to go out without two others for company,
and then only by leave of the Prioress. The threefold vow was to be
observed, and also the periods of silence. Such secular women, except
necessary servants, as were living within the nunnery were to obtain
the Bishop’s license or to be dismissed, and the same order was issued
with regard to male children. The accounts were to be laid before the
whole Convent yearly at least, and grants of land were to require the
Bishop’s authorization. There had been too much luxury, and all were
ordered to take their meals in the Guest Hall, where, alone, except in
cases of sickness or other reasonable cause, a fire was permissible.
In March, 1527, a Commission was sealed by Wolsey at Hampton Court
empowering Richard Strete, B.D., Archdeacon of Salop and Canon of
Lichfield, and William Clayborough, LL.D., Canon of York, to complete
the suppression of Fairwell.[32] The nuns and chaplains were to be
translated to other houses, and the goods of the house were to go to
the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield for the support of the choristers.
The formal grant to the Dean and Chapter, of the Nunnery and all its
possessions, was made on August 28th following.[33] In return they
bound themselves to say an annual Obit for the Bishop.
Such work as that which has been described--work on a small scale by
Bishops Smythe and Blythe, and on a larger scale by Wolsey--became
of very great historical importance. It revived the memory of the
destruction of the Knights Templars and the confiscation of the Alien
Priories, and familiarised public opinion in the earlier years of
the sixteenth century with the idea of monastic dissolutions. That
no suspicion of personal cupidity or of self-interest could be laid
against any of the authors was in itself of great value to the men who
afterwards followed in their footsteps with very different motives.
The genuine disinterestedness of purpose which prompted these earlier
“reformers” went far to blind the public to the real objects of the
later. And Wolsey’s dissolutions did much more. They not only supplied
contemporary examples and revived old precedents; they not only gave
practical effect to the tendency of the New Learning to disparage old
forms of religious life; they actually trained up experts in the work
of suppressing religious houses. Thomas Cromwell made, as Wolsey’s
secretary, his first essays in the art which was afterwards to gain for
him the name of the “Hammer of the Monks.” We have seen him busy in
the case of both the Staffordshire houses which were dissolved by the
Cardinal. Richard Strete, too, we shall soon meet again.
Cromwell, even at this early stage of his career, earned a reputation
for unscrupulous harshness, and susceptibility to bribery; but on
the whole it is evident that these suppressions were accomplished
with the least possible friction. The interests of all who were
involved--patrons, monks, servants, tenants, were considered and
recognised. And the general results to learning were undoubtedly good.
CHAPTER III
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION
When the assembly, which has gained for itself the name of the
Reformation Parliament, met, the air was full of rumours of attacks
upon the clergy. The French Ambassador reported: “it is the intention,
when Wolsey is dead or destroyed, to get rid of the Church and spoil
the goods of both.” Parliament assembled on November 3rd, 1530, and
to the Convocation which was called at the same time the heads of the
following religious houses in Staffordshire were summoned: Burton,
Rocester, Dieulacres, Hulton, Croxden, Tutbury, Stone, St. Thomas
(Stafford), Trentham, Ronton, Calwich, and Dudley. Sandwell and Canwell
had, of course, disappeared recently. The Bishop of the diocese was
Geoffrey Blythe. Archdeacon Strete was one of the Proctors for the
clergy.
The Prior of Calwich, who was summoned, died just at this juncture,
and the dispute which arose as to the appointment of a successor
enabled the Crown to assert its supremacy at the expense of all parties
concerned.
Calwich had originally been a hermitage, and had been given by
Nicholas de Gresley Fitz Nigel in the twelfth century to the Priory of
Kenilworth. It had thus become a cell of that house, and came under
the rules of the Austin Canons. A considerable amount of building had
been done at Calwich in the latter part of the fourteenth century:
in 1391 the Pope granted Indulgences to those who visited the place
and made contributions to the fabric on the feast of St. Margaret
and certain other days. The history of Calwich illustrates how the
dependent “cells” were a source of weakness to the monastic system.
Such houses were often unsatisfactory. They were sometimes looked upon
as places of banishment for brethren who deserved punishment: a method
of discipline akin to the later system of penal settlements like Botany
Bay, and as likely to be productive of the very worst results. The very
men who needed supervision would be freed from it, and the remedy would
intensify the evil. In any case, such small communities would easily
become engrossed in secular pursuits: their interests were narrowed,
and their occupation small.
Disputes arose between the dependent cells and the parent house, and
the inmates of the cells often became unpopular with their neighbours.
In 1293 the dependence of Calwich on Kenilworth was made the excuse
for depriving its Prior of pasture rights in the Wootton Woods, it
being asserted that he was removable at the will of the Prior of
Kenilworth. This, indeed, was strikingly shown to be the case in 1334,
when the Prior, although duly instituted, was recalled by the Prior of
Kenilworth. The Prior of Calwich in 1293 denied that he held such a
dependent position, but the local jury, to whom the case was referred,
decided against him. Local feeling was hostile to the Canons, much
as it was afterwards against the Alien Priories, and Calwich had to
forego further rights of gallows and free warren, etc., in the manor
of Ellastone. The parent house did not relax its hold or lessen its
claims at the bidding of a Staffordshire jury. In 1334 the Bishop
inquired into the matter and decided in favour of Kenilworth. This
apparently brought matters to a crisis, for in 1349 the four resident
Canons pleaded that they could no longer endure the uncertainty of
their position and the unpopularity they experienced. They succeeded
in having their house declared independent, under the patronage of the
original founders, who undertook to pay yearly a sum of sixty shillings
to Kenilworth in acknowledgment of its rights.
The house gained nothing by its independence, but rather the reverse.
The Prior found his subjection to the lay-patron involved him in
litigation, without gaining him protection from the jealousy of
neighbours. The house shared in the general decline in wealth and
numbers after the Black Death. In 1384 Bishop Robert de Stretton
appointed the Prior and Canons of Calwich to be the collectors in the
Archdeaconry of Stafford of the Convocation grant, but they petitioned
to be excused on the plea of infirmity, poverty, and smallness of
numbers (there were only two Canons besides the Prior).
It sank lower and lower. In 1438 the Prior was charged with the
forcible detention of ten oxen and eight cows, for which damages to
the amount of £20 were claimed. Twenty years after he was troubled by
neighbours breaking into his close, cutting down his underwood and
letting loose their cattle to graze upon his pastures.
Accordingly, when the Prior died in 1530, the house was a poor place
with a bad record. In accordance with the usual practice, the Priory
was taken into the royal hands during the vacancy; and the subsequent
story affords an interesting illustration of the way in which the
attack on clerical privileges which was carried on in the early years
of the Reformation Parliament, was supported by irregular movements in
detail. It also helps us to see how the great work of the Suppression
of the Monasteries was the independent work of the Government. They
made use of Parliamentary support and sanction when it was convenient
or wise, but the work was in reality their own. The suppression of
Calwich was never referred to Parliament. It aroused no feeling and
evoked no protest from anyone. It was evidently looked upon as quite a
natural exercise of the royal power.
On the Prior’s death there was but one remaining canon, Dr. David
Pole, or Powle;[34] and the representative of the original founder
of the Priory, Ralf Longford, claimed the right of presentation, and
sent an agent, furnished with means, to London to press his claim.
Dr. Roland Lee was one of the King’s Chaplains, and Chancellor of
Lichfield. Richard Strete, the Archdeacon of Salop, Cromwell’s agent
in the district, wrote to Lee in London informing him of the position
of affairs at Calwich, on April 6th, 1530, adding that he could find
no record of such a right as Longford claimed, and arguing that it
should not be allowed. It was convenient now to assert the Bishop’s
right of appointment. Lord Shrewsbury also put forward claims in
virtue of donations to the house by past members of his family. There
were other claimants, and the result was that various persons were
recommended for the preferment. All this helped to play into the hands
of the enemy. Strete’s conclusion was that it would be well to consult
with Cromwell as to what should be done. Later, Strete wrote fully to
Cromwell himself, repeating the same information and giving in detail
an account of the spoil that might be expected from the house.[35]
“My duty done, according to your lettres datyd _penultimo
die Aprilis_, I have ben at Calwich, and takyn an
inventary of the goodes of that house by indenture and
committyd the keping and garding of all thinges ther to
thabbott of Rowceter ij myles thens, and on of his brethren
abidith at Calwich to overse them who hath kept the
sequestre syns the departur of the late prior. The valour
of the goodes and laundes foloith.
_Inprimis_, household very course, as
doith appere by particlars in the
inventary xv_li._ xiij_s._ ij_d._
_Item_, in catall, as oxen, kye, horses,
mares, shepe old and yonge lxxix_li._ xv_s._ iiij_d._
_Item_, in corne, apon the grounde xj_li._ vj_s._ viij_d._
_Item_, stuff for the church, as chales
and vestmentes, etc. x_li._ ix_s._ viij_d._
-----------------------
Summa cxvij_li._ iiij_s._ x_d._
_Item_, the demeanes lyen roundabowt
the house, and ben worth yerely xxiij_li._ xij_s._
_Item_, other tenthes yerely xvij_li._ viij_s._ j_d._ob.
_Item_, the paroch church of Ellaston
to that monastery appropriat, besyde
the Vicar indoment xiij_li._ vj_s._ viiij_d._
“In these is no harde peneworth: the house and other
byldinges be in mean good state of reparacion. I have
dischargyd and put forth such persons as were not mete to
be ther, and laft such as be husbaundes, and I have made
sure the convent saill, and the evidence.
“The first founder ther was Nich. Gresley, in whose title
now claymyth Mr. Longford (as men here report). Ther be
diverse benefactours that hath gyffyn landes to that house,
as it doith appere, viz., my lord Stuard, sir Henrie
Saucheverell, Mr. Oker, and other thair ansetors. And thus
ye may partly perceyve, and what I can do ferther shalbe
redy by God his grace.... Lich. xij^o, Maij.
“Yours,
“RICHARD STRETE, preist.”
Wolsey died on November 29th, 1530. Bishop Blythe soon followed him.
The exact date does not appear in his Act Books, but it was apparently
not long before January 21st, as on that date the Archbishop’s
Commission was issued to the Vicar-General to act during the vacancy.
Archdeacon Strete was appointed in May “to receive the rents and
profits of the same [Bishopric] to the King’s use” during the vacancy.
At the same time he received the following letter from Cromwell:[36]
“Mr. Strete after most hertie commendacions these shalbe to
advertise you that by the berers hereof ye shall receyve
the Kinge’s comission and warraunte gevyng you auctoryte
to Survey the londes of the bisshopriche of Coventre and
Licheld and to receyve the rentes and profites of the same
to the Kinges use. And also ye shall receyve his gracious
letteres directed to the Eschetor of the Countie palentyne
of Chester uppon the sight whereof I doubte not but he will
not onelie Surcease to medle any Ferther with the receipt
of any rentes there, but also in case he have receyved
any, will repay the same unto your handes accordinglie.
Not dowbting but ye will diligentlie, effectuallie, and
trewly put in execucion the teanour and effecte of your
saide Commyssion in suche wise as shalbe most for your
honestie to the Kinges most profite and advantage. And
for your paynes and diligence alredy taken and susteyned
aboute his affayres there his highnes hathe commaunded me
to geve unto you his most hertie thankes. And trustith that
ye will so indevour your self in the receipt of the said
rentes and revenues as before the feaste of the Natyvyte
of Saynt John Baptist next ye will bryng or send up the
hole half-yeres rent or the most parte of the same and that
ye will have good awayte and regarde to his haukes in the
Cauke there wherein ye shall do and admynister unto his
highnes right good and acceptable servyce.
“And as touching the Catell at the pryorie of Calliche the
kinges gracious pleasure is that ye shall suffer the berers
hereof named Fyndern and Curson to have the preferrement in
the byeng of the same uppon suche reasonable prises as they
may convenyently lyve on taking of them som money in hande
and such sufficient bonde and suertie for the residue as
the king may be trewly answered of the same. And so Fare ye
well &c.
“Your mastership.”
An agreement was made between the King and Longford. The Patron
surrendered his claim of presentation, and agreed to the suppression
of the house in 1532. He was to hold the lands in farm from the King,
and the rent was to be fixed by a local jury. Strete recommended the
Abbot of Rocester, Sir William Bassett, Sir John Gifford, and himself,
but the Sheriff refused to “affirm” the panel by reason of its manifest
partiality.[37] Strete’s inclusion was in itself sufficient to condemn
it: in the long letter in which he suggested it he maligned Longford
for “slackness,” and recommended Cromwell to press him for £60 which
was owing on account of Calwich.
Another claimant to the lands, or part of them, was the Earl of
Shrewsbury, and the Sheriff’s panel consisted of the Earl’s tenants.
It was, therefore, as little impartial as Strete’s, but it met with
the approval of Brabazon,[38] one of Cromwell’s emissaries, who was
sent down to Lichfield to help in the business; and evidently no
idea of fairness entered the minds of any of the officials. There
were other claimants, too, apparently Sir Henry Sacheverell and Mr.
Oker (Okeover), but they could be disregarded. Strete and Brabazon
used their powers of persuasion, and the members of the jury, having
served their lord’s ends by deciding in favour of the Earl’s claim to
“a small portion” of the property, were ready to give their decision
as the Crown required. Yet they judged it wiser to save appearances by
a show of hesitation; they insisted on an adjournment, though at the
same time they promised the requisite verdict. This was in the third
week in August, 1532. Of course Strete was able to write to Cromwell in
due course (October 21st, 1532):[39] “The Office of Calwich is passed
for the King.” At that time Longford owed £46 5s. 2d. He had also in
his possession the tithes (£13 3s. 4d.) and the last Michaelmas rents
(£11 16s.). These he undertook to deliver to Cromwell. An escheator was
appointed to receive the dues on the King’s behalf, and on March 11th
of the next year we have a note of Cromwell’s (11th March, 1533) that
£30 had been received from Strete on the Calwich account. By April 26th
the legal formalities were completed, and Strete was able to report
to Cromwell: “The Priory of Calwich, now void, rests in the King’s
pleasure.”[40] This was the year in which the Act was passed giving
to the King the rights of visitation of the religious houses, and, of
course, considerably before any Act was passed for their dissolution.
But all was not plain sailing for Longford. In 1534 among the “bills
to be signed” was still that of “Sir Ralf Longford for the late Priory
of Calwiche.” Moreover, Strete was instructed that Mr. Fitzherbert,
Longford’s father-in-law, was to have the tithes and the growing corn
“at such prices as may be deemed sufficient,” and Findern and Curson,
already mentioned, were repudiated in his favour.
The letter, dated June 14th, 1533, which Cromwell wrote to Archdeacon
Strete is as follows:[41]
“Maister Strete as hertelye as I Can I commend me unto
you, and whereas by my last letteres I wrott unto you in
the Favors of Curson and Fyndern to be prefferyd unto
the Catell and Corn of late belongyng to the priorye
of Colwyche, and Sythyn that tyme I wrotte unto you on
the behalf of Mr. longford for his prefferment unto the
demaynes of the sayd pryorye so hit ys that now the sayd
maister longford by his Fatherinlaw, Mr. Fyzherbert moche
desyryth to have the Tythys and also suche Corn as at thys
tyme ys Sown uppon the demaynes of the sayd late pryorye
for this yere whych tythe and corn sown uppon the demaynes
I require yow that he may haffe at such prysys as ye shall
thinke convenyent and in such wyse as the kynge’s highnes
may be Substauncyallye answeryd of the proftyttes growing
of the same without any Favour to be born to anye othre
partye and wher as I wrott in myn other letter that Curson
and Fyndern shold have the preffermentt of the Catell and
Corn I dyd not wrytt for anye Corne growing on the grownde
ne yet for any tythys which in no wyse ye shall Suffer
them to have but to order hyt as ys afforsayd most to the
kynge’s proffytte advauntage. I well persayve who grauntyth
suchemen an Inche they wyll take an ell. I am Infformyd
they avaunte them selfs to have Commyssyons and graunttes
of the kyng which ys untrew I praye yew advyse them to use
no such Facyons. Syr, the kynges highnes trustyth that
ye with all spede will bryng up the halfyere’s Ferme and
Renttes of the Busshopryche which I praye yow may be here
before his gracyous departyng in progresse, and as to the
Chanon off Colwyche ye may translate hym unto Sum good
howse of that relygyon being nere unto yow and to gyve hym
sumthing after your discrecyon suche as may stand with the
kynges honour and also to his honest Contentacyon, and thus
trustyng in your approvyd wysdom and experyence Commytt all
the premysses unto your discrecyon trustyng ever that ye
wyll have respect to your dew and charge and also that I
may have short answer of thes and other my letteres, and so
Fare ye well at London, the xiiiith daye of June.”
Where Dr. David Pole was placed we are not told, but in 1535 a David
Pole is found as Prebendary of Tachebroke, in receipt of a stipend of
£10 a year.[42]
On February 12th, 1534, Richard Harecourt became the escheator for the
year, and remained till November 18th, when another was appointed, who
proved to lack the necessary property qualification, so Longford had
to pay the King’s dues direct. Next year (November 24th, 1535) Thomas
Skrymsher was appointed.
The King now made one of those “exchanges” which became so frequent
later. The manor of East Molesey was pleasantly situated on the
southern bank of the Thames, in Surrey, and had obvious advantages
over the remote estate in North Staffordshire. It belonged to the old
and historic priory of Merton, where Becket had been educated, where
the Parliament had sat which enacted the statutes of Merton, and
which had provided a refuge for the patriot Hubert de Burgh in his
days of adversity. Its past fame and present wealth seemed to warrant
its inmates in a confident assurance of security, and they agreed to
give the King their riverside manor of East Molesey in exchange for
the distant and forlorn cell of their Order at Calwich. No doubt they
hoped eventually to retrieve its fortunes and to re-establish it as
a religious house, though for the present they had to acquiesce in
the arrangements regarding it which had just been made. The exchange
appears to have been made in 1535–6, and Merton renewed the lease to
Longford for £43, with the obligation to discharge the pension of sixty
shillings to “the late priory of Kelyngworth.”
Almost immediately the process of squeezing the larger houses began,
and Merton Abbey soon succumbed. The date of its surrender, with
Abbot and fourteen monks, is April 16th, 1538. The lease of Calwich
to Longford was renewed in the same year. In 1540 he obtained an
acknowledgment that he had paid all his dues to Cromwell and Gostwick,
and was empowered to receive from the various escheators “tayles”
(tallies, _i.e._, receipts) for them. The Augmentation Book in
1543 has a record of his twenty-one years’ lease, but the reversion was
sold to John Fleetwood.
Longford soon found himself in financial difficulties. In spite of the
grant of Calwich, for which Sir Anthony Fitzherbert wrote to thank
Cromwell on April 18th, 1537, he could not pay the rent due. The royal
escheators were hard taskmasters, exacting the uttermost farthing, and
Fitzherbert’s letter shows Longford had been some time in debt. In
1541 they levied a distraint, and ejected from the estate the tenants
to whom Longford had sublet it. He had to enter into a bond of £200 to
settle the matter, and this only added to his embarrassments. In 1543
he was in the Fleet, the debtors’ prison, writing piteous appeals for
loans wherewith to discharge his indebtedness to the King.
Ralf Longford, his successor in Elizabeth’s reign, on the expiration
of the lease made an effort to retain the property, but without
success, and Calwich passed to the Fleetwoods. The way they treated
the buildings is well known from Erdeswicke’s oft-quoted description.
Writing about 1593, he noted how the new owner “hath made a parlour of
the chancel, a hall of the church, and a kitchen of the steeple.” It is
strange to find the Fleetwoods of Calwich in the lists of Recusants in
later years.[43]
CHAPTER IV
PRELIMINARIES TO THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION
For the sake of following up the story of the downfall of Calwich in a
connected form it has been necessary to omit the mention of much that
meanwhile had been happening. Bishop Blythe’s loyalty would have been
severely strained had he lived a few weeks longer. Before the end of
January (1531) the Convocation of Canterbury had been compelled to vote
the enormous sum of £100,000 in atonement for the fault which had been
committed in acknowledging Wolsey’s legatine authority. The Abbot of
Croxden was too ill to attend the Session. The Northern Convocation
subsequently voted an additional £18,840. The ease with which these
huge amounts were raised was to have unsuspected effects. The clergy
were also compelled to acknowledge the King “their singular protector,
only and supreme lord, and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even
Supreme Head,” though it must be remembered that Henry took pains to
explain that he understood the expression in no blasphemous sense.
Next, it was required that the Convocations should enact no new Canons
without royal license. They made a vain attempt to retain some of
their powers. On May 8th (1532) a deputation was appointed to wait
upon the King to try to induce him to retain clerical immunities. The
constitution of the deputation did not augur well for its success.
It consisted of Roland Lee, already called Bishop of Lichfield,
though he was not consecrated till April 19th next year, the Abbot of
Burton-on-Trent, and four others.
The Abbot of Burton-on-Trent was Dr. William Boston. He had been
originally a monk of Peterborough, and became Abbot of Burton in
1531. He was one of Cromwell’s satellites, and there are many notes
in Cromwell’s “Remembrances” which show that the two were in frequent
consultation. It was probably through Cromwell’s influence, and against
the wishes of the Convent, that Boston was elected Abbot, for at the
next vacancy a strong party still adhered to the monk who ought to
have been previously advanced. Roland Lee is a personage who needs no
introduction, and we shall have sufficient of him before long.[44]
The deputation failed, if it was intended to preserve any semblance of
initiative for Convocation. On May 10th the famous “Submission of the
Clergy” was introduced, and on May 15th it was accepted.
At the same time Henry’s passion for Anne Boleyn was driving him
further and further from the Pope. The Annates Bill, empowering the
King to deprive the Pope of his revenues from England, was passed,
for diplomatic reasons, on March 19th. It was at once a threat and a
bribe to the Papacy, and its object was to secure the annulling of
Katherine’s marriage. A post was sent to Rome “to frighten the Pope
about the Annates,”[45] but it failed in achieving its object. Clement
VII stood firm; but early in 1533, as was afterwards alleged, the King
went through a form of marriage with Anne Boleyn. Among those who were
variously stated to have performed the ceremony was Roland Lee. The
alienation from the Papacy became much more pronounced as the news of
the marriage leaked out, and the passing of the Annates Bill into law
became inevitable. The Royal Letters Patent, which made it effective,
were issued on July 9th.
In the same Session the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome was passed,
springing from the same unsavoury origin, and requiring more management
in Parliament. Exceptional steps were taken to make sure that the
King’s party should be well represented. William Boston had lately
been in frequent consultation with Cromwell: he could be depended
upon to speed the ecclesiastical legislation then in progress, and in
his person the Abbot of Burton for the first time sat in Parliament.
His admission is entered on the Rolls as being “by virtue of a writ
of summons, dated the 30th of April, 24 Henry VIII.”[46] It may be
recalled that meanwhile the house at Calwich was in the last throes of
dissolution. It was on October 21st following that Strete reported:
“the Office of Calwich is passed for the King.”
But Calwich was not the only Staffordshire house which was receiving
Cromwell’s attention at this time. William Boston was speedily rewarded
for his support of the royal policy in Parliament by being promoted
to the high honour of the Abbacy of Westminster.[47] It was part of
Cromwell’s policy to secure the election of complacent nominees to
the headships of the religious houses as vacancies occurred. A writer
of Elizabeth’s reign, who had been cognisant of the whole history of
the period, averred that he deliberately promoted such men as would
afterwards further his schemes of confiscation: “He placed abbottes
and ffriers in divers great housses, divers lerned men, and perswaded
against these superstitiens, _which men were readie to make surrender
of their houses at the kinges commaundement_.”[48]
We have already seen that pressure had been probably brought to bear
upon the community at Burton-on-Trent when Boston had been elected.
The facts about the election of his successor admit of no dispute. The
whole story appears in full in the State papers.
No sooner had William Boston been promoted than Cromwell set about
securing the election of a successor of the same type. He sent to
the Abbey three men like-minded with himself, Roland Lee, Richard
Strete, and Pole. Roland Lee and he had already been companions in
much work of an unsavoury nature, of which the business at Burton was
comparatively innocent. Strete’s character has already been seen in
the matter of the dissolution of Calwich. Pole was Vicar-General. The
three were to secure the election of Cromwell’s nominee. But there was
much opposition. The majority of the brethren desired to elect one whom
ancient custom marked out for the promotion, and it was hoped that
the King or the Queen would save them from interference. Cromwell’s
nominee was strongly objected to. The plausible Lee, however, assured
the monks that in these virtuous days the Court had abjured all undue
interference with the freedom of elections, and easily convinced
them they had nothing to hope in that quarter. That accomplished, he
was confident of success. On June 25th, 1533, he wrote from Burton a
report to Cromwell in these words:[49] “This day, with the assistance
of Mr. Strete and Mr. Pole, I have travailed with the convent of
Burton, but as yet I have no promise, as one part trusts to have from
the King, the Queen, and you, a command contrary to that I have from
you. I had never so much to do about such matters because the beryn (?
bearing--_i.e._, demeanour, fashion) in the Court hath been that
no man durst mell; and those matters were shortly sped. There is one
here that by election should have had the Abbey before, and yet by the
same shall have it according to the ancient order of the law. I beg
you to wait for further knowledge from me. Your furtherance of justice
shall not be undeserved. I beg your favour to Master Dutton, Sir
Piers,[50] whose only trust is in you. It is better for a man to lose
his right arm than sue, but only for your good help, and he will keep
his promise to you.”
Two days afterwards he had succeeded in persuading the monks to leave
the nomination of their Abbot to him and Strete. He wrote to Cromwell
on June 27th: “I sped the election at Burton, and the compromission
is in me and Mr. Strete to nominate one of the Convent before the 1st
of August.”[51] He apparently had failed to secure the election of
Cromwell’s original nominee, but it may be taken for granted that the
man appointed by Lee and Strete would be sufficiently amenable for all
practical purposes. The monks made a submission, and chose the third
Prior, whose name was William Edie. Before August was out the royal
assent had been given to his “election.” It was confirmed on 13th
April, 1334.[52] He was subsequently summoned to Parliament, when the
Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries had to be passed,
as will presently be related. Roland Lee was consecrated Bishop of
Lichfield on April 19th.
When we find such men as Boston and Edie summoned to the Reformation
Parliament, from a house which had not previously supplied mitred
Abbots, it is evident that no pains were spared to pack the assembly
throughout its existence. It is not surprising, therefore, that it
proved compliant and obsequious.
In 1534 the Act of Succession was passed. The Oath of Succession
appears to have been taken by all the members of both Houses of
Parliament, but it caused the downfall of Sir Thomas More. Dr. Boston,
now Abbot of Westminster, was one of the Commissioners appointed to
administer the oath of supremacy to Sir Thomas More. On April 13th,
1534, Cranmer pressed the argument of loyalty, and, when More pleaded
the claims of conscience, the Abbot of Westminster urged that his
conscience should not be set above the opinion of the whole Parliament.
More effectively retorted that a general council of Christendom was
superior to a council of England, and repeated that he was perfectly
willing to respect the succession as ordered by Parliament. As a loyal
citizen and as a constitutional statesman he was ready to obey the
Parliament in constitutional questions, but could not agree that it had
unlimited authority in religion. He could “honour the King,” but at the
same time he must “fear God.”
He was committed to the custody of Abbot Boston for four days, probably
in the hope that so plausible and compliant an ecclesiastic would
succeed in removing his scruples. But his constancy stood firm, and he
soon found himself in the Tower, whence he went to the block on June
6th, 1535.
In 1534 further steps were taken to bring the religious houses under
royal authority. The royal supremacy was formally established by Act of
Parliament, and the King thus took over many of the powers which had
been previously claimed by the Pope.
We must be on our guard against attaching too much significance to
such legal enactments. It must be borne in mind that a good deal
of this kind of lawmaking was not much more than giving statutory
expression--often with brutal frankness--to what had long existed in
fact. The royal authority had always been what the royal power had been
able to make it, little under weak or indifferent kings, strong under
masterful ones. The novelties after the period which is called “the
Reformation” were in reality much slighter than is generally supposed.
Henry VIII, when he exercised authority over the Church by virtue of
the Act of Supremacy or in virtue of his title of “Supreme Head,” was
not pressing much more hardly on the liberties of his subjects than
he had done before the new title had been invented. The history of
the Staffordshire monasteries in previous centuries shows abundantly
that whenever the King desired he could exercise the most arbitrary
control over the religious houses in all sorts of ways. The only
effective check before the Reformation was, not “Papal authority,” or
“ecclesiastical privileges,” or “religious immunities”--all these could
be, and were, overridden and set aside,--but public opinion. Precisely
the same check was influential afterwards and to much the same extent
as formerly. The skill of Henry VIII and his ministers was shown in
the way they won public opinion to their side or crushed it away out
of sight. English history, and continental too, has shown again and
again that the civil power can never be permanently restrained by
“immunities” and “concordats.” The force of circumstances is always
liable to be too strong for such artificial arrangements: the power
of Parliament must, as a _force majeure_, be the final arbiter.
It may, indeed, be argued that the statutes which seemed to place the
English Church beneath the heel of the State, and which for three
centuries have given the enemy occasion to blaspheme, gave her in
reality a greater measure of freedom than many “unestablished” churches
have enjoyed. It may almost be said that modern history has shown that
the anxiety of Parliament to assert itself over a non-established
church may be greater than over an established church, and that its
powers may be exercised in the former case with greater tyranny and
offensiveness than in the latter; it has also shown that the powers
and titles claimed by King and Parliament in Tudor times were, after
all, only “stage properties”: the same authority may be claimed, and
the same deeds done, without them.
Henry VIII, having formally taken over the Pope’s authority, was not
slow to exercise it. A royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden
Abbey and many other Cistercian houses was appointed. This was Thomas
Chard, alias Tybbes. He is a typical ecclesiastic of the period. He had
been a member of St. Bernard’s, now St. John’s College, Oxford, and
received the degree of D.D. in 1505, being styled _vir doctrina et
virtute clarus_. He held a large number of preferments, vicarages,
and rectories, as well as priorships. He became Prior of Montacute
in 1515 (till 1525) and also Prior of Forde in 1521. The latter he
held till the priory was dissolved. Meanwhile he was also a suffragan
bishop, being styled _Episcopus Solubriensis_. He was consecrated
in 1508, when he was presented to the vicarage of Torrington Parva.[53]
The fresh exercise of power and influence to which we have referred is
explained in the following commission:
“Henry the eyethe by the grace of gode kyng of Ingelande
and of Fraunce defensor of the fayeth and lorde of Yrelande
sende gretynge | For as moche as hytt ys Requysytte and
thaweth to be most expedyent thordre and Relygyon of
Cystercanes to be visyted and Reformyde by Auctorite
hade of vs wyrth in thys or Realme of Ingelande and
nott be Auctorite hade from beyende the seys for dyv’se
cosyderacons hade in the same We tenderyng the good
cotynewaunce and mayntaynyg of all man’ catholique Religyon
Firmely pceyvyng the indyfferensy dexterite and goode
vertuous qualityes and divine lernyng wyche manyfestely
bathe and dothe appere in owre trusty and welbeloyde Fadre
in gode Thomas Abbott of Forde wherefore we name institute
and ordeyne the sayde Abbott of Forde from hense Forde
to be visitor Reformator and inquysitor of that Religion
duryng hys naturall lyffe of all thos monasterys whos namys
Folowyth Any comyssyon or comyssyons here tofore graunted
to the contrary nott wyethstandyng that ys to vnderstande,
Forde, Buckefaste, Buckelande, Dunckewell, Newham, Clyve,
Byndon, Tarraunte, Bewley, Quarre, Letteley, Wav’ley,
Rewley, Stanley, Haylys, Bordeley, Kyngewoode, Flaxley,
Stratteford, Boxley, Crokedene, Combremeare, Cockehall,
Brewern, Garydon, Bedyllisden, Combe, Stoneley, Merevalle,
and Thame | Farther we wyll and straytely comande that no
other psone or psons of what Estade degre or dygnite so
ev’ he or they be but only the sayde Abbott of Forde or
his depute do visett Reforme Inquyre or intermelle in any
man’ wyse in any of the sayde monsterys afore Rehersyd nor
wt any Religyous psone or psons of the same And ferther we
wyll [lined through in original] duryng the natrall lyffe
of the sayde Abbott of Forde whon we ordayne and depute
visotor Reformator Inquysytor as before rehersid More ov’
we give and graunte and by thes presente we auctorisatt
the fore sayde Abbott of Forde to destitute and institute
any Abbott or Abbotts fro tyme to tyme wtyn all and ev’y
of the Foresayde monsterys as the lawys and Rewlys of the
sayde ordre dothe and wyll pymtte | And for hys Farther
assystence in all and syngler the p’miss and for executyng
of the same we wyll and straytely comaunde by vertew of
thes or comyssyon all shreffys Mayrys baylyffys Constablys
Justyce and all other or offycers in all and ev’y shere
and libertie as far as any of thos Abbeys before namyde
doth extende and for the executyng of this or Auctoritye
comyttyde and gevyn to the foresayde Abbott of Ford | they
and ev’y of them to Assyste the fore sayde Abbott of Forde
att all tymys and att any tyme that they or any of them
shalbe requyred by the sayd abbott of Forde or his depute
in and a boute any of the monstreys before Rehersyde in
advoydyng or hyeth dyspleasure. And this or comyssion and
graunte we wyll to cotynewe in vigour and strengyth.”[54]
Very few of the monks ventured to follow More’s example in regard to
the Oath of Succession, but the friars generally refused.
As they did most of the preaching in the parish churches, for
the wholesale appropriation of tithes by the monasteries had so
impoverished livings that few educated men held them, it was necessary
that they should be silenced. Commissioners were accordingly
appointed, to whom Roland Lee was afterwards added, to visit all the
friaries, take an inventory of their goods, and examine each inmate
separately.[55] In this way most of the friars in the provinces were
reduced to submission, though Lee harried to death some honourable
exceptions in London.
It is no wonder the monks, as a rule, proved amenable, for already it
was common rumour that a vast scheme of spoliation was being planned,
and they dared not precipitate matters by a bold refusal. The rumour
was justified, for Cromwell was privately proposing to hand over all
monasteries with less than thirteen inmates “for the maintenance of the
royal estate,” though at the same time he publicly assured the monks
that there was no such intention.
But the visitatorial powers in regard to them were now transferred to
the King, and the first fruits and tenths which had been recently taken
from the Pope were also revived as a fresh source of royal revenue.
The statute which enacted the latter was entitled “The Bill for the
First Fruits,[56] with the yearly pension to the King.” It slightly
lessens the offensiveness of the King’s new title, by styling him
“the only Supreme Head on Earth, next, and immediately under God, of
the Church of _England_,” and basing even this on the facts of
history--“as he always, indeed, hath heretofore been.” Every person
nominated to any ecclesiastical preferment, “religious” or “secular,”
was to pay to the King “the first-fruits, revenues, and profits, for
the year,” and also the tenth part annually. Commissioners were to
be appointed to “examine and search for the just and true value of
the said first-fruits and profits,” and first-fruits were allowed to
no one but the King: it appears that in the Diocese of Norwich they
had gone to the Bishop, and in the Archdeaconry of Richmond to the
Archdeacon. Priors of dependent cells were exempted from the payment of
first-fruits, but not of tenths. “And forasmuch as divers Abbots and
Priors been charged to pay great pensions to sundry their Predecessors
yet living, to the great Decay of their Hospitalities and Housekeeping;
be it enacted by Authority aforesaid, That every such Predecessor of
such Abbots or Priors, having any Pensions made sure unto them, or to
any to their use, during their Lives, amounting above the yearly value
of xl^{li.} shall from henceforth be defalked and abated of the moiety
and Halfdeal of every such Pension” (Art. 23). Article 24 expressly
includes “the Lord Prior of Saint John’s of Jerusalem in England, and
his Brethren” within the scope of the Act.[57] Article 28 “allows” the
King to remit what remained as yet unpaid of the _Præmunire_ Fine
“in Consideration that the said yearly Pension and annual Rent shall
be yearly from henceforth duly paid and satisfied.”
Immediate steps were taken to ensure the due and accurate payment of
the new income. In January, 1535, Cromwell procured a Royal Commission
appointing himself Vicar-General and Visitor-General of all churches
and monasteries, with authority to delegate agents. He set to work
in the exercise of his new power with characteristic promptness.
On January 30th commissions were issued for each county, to make
the necessary investigations for discovering the whole amount of
ecclesiastical property for the purpose of levying the tenths. The
Staffordshire Commissioners[58] had Bishop Roland Lee for chairman, but
he was the only ecclesiastic among them.
The others were Sir John Talbot, Sir John Gifford, George Audeley,
John Vernon, Walter Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett,
Edward Lyttleton, Thomas Gifford, Thomas Holte, Walter Blounte, John
Grosvenor, and Thomas Moreton. They are the usual names which appear
among the lists of officials. For example, John Gifford, Edward
Lyttleton, and John Vernon had been the Commissioners appointed to
investigate the matter of Wolsey’s dissolutions; and the Commissioners
for Musters in 1539 included John Gifford, John Vernon, Walter
Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett, Edward Lyttleton, and
Thomas Gifford.[59] John Vernon was Sheriff in the nineteenth,
twenty-fourth, and thirtieth years of the reign; John Gifford in
the twenty-second and the thirty-third; Walter Wrottesley in the
thirty-eighth; George Gresley in the twenty-ninth; William Bassett
in the thirty-fourth; Edward Lyttleton in the thirty-first; Thomas
Gifford in the twenty-first. They were eminently “men of affairs,” well
acquainted with public and official work.
Detailed instructions were given them.[60] Dividing themselves into
sub-commissions, with three members as a quorum, they were to examine
upon oath all persons concerned, and to inspect the necessary books and
documents. Only certain specified deductions were to be allowed, and
names and full details were in all cases to be given.
We know from the Returns of the Commissioners which of them
investigated the Rural Deanery of Lapey and Trysull: Sir John Talbot,
John Gifford, Walter Wrottesley, and John Grosvenor.[61] When the work
had been completed in detail all the Commissioners for each diocese
were to meet together and draw up a General Diocesan Return. The
result of their work has been published by royal authority as _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.[62]
It is a document of very great interest and importance. If the
readiness with which the clergy raised the enormous fine of £100,000
from the Province of Canterbury and £18,840 0s. lOd. from York, for
having acquiesced in Wolsey’s legatine authority, first opened Henry
VIII’s eyes to the financial possibilities of the clergy, as may well
have been the case, it is probable that the data supplied by _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ showed him how to proceed to further supplies from
the same source. To confiscate the whole of the clerical wealth was
out of the question, but the Returns, by giving it in detail, made it
possible to proceed piecemeal. That the Returns did thus suggest the
suppression of monasteries seems to be indicated by the seventh article
of the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries, which points
out that those which came within its scope could be ascertained from
the Returns which had just been made.
In various ways _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ is the most satisfactory
record we have of the economy of the religious houses at the time of
their dissolution, in spite of very serious drawbacks which we shall
mention. It is, as a rule, plain and definite, and it is the only
document we have which professes to give a statement of the monastic
economy with any approach to completeness. In both of these respects
it is superior to other sources of information. The “Particulars for
Grants” relate, of course, only to such portions of the monastic lands
as were desired by the applicant who supplied them, and the _Computi
Ministrorum_ which are printed at the end of the information about
many of the religious houses in _Monasticon_ are also incomplete.
They are the first accounts of the possessions of the several
monasteries as rendered to the Augmentation Office immediately after
the Dissolution by the King’s Ministers and Receivers; but they show
that already some of the property had changed hands. They supplement
the particulars of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, and afford a certain
amount of basis for comparison and criticism, but they are drawn up
on a different plan and with a different object, and so a complete
comparison by means of them is difficult. It is also difficult in some
places to understand the method of reckoning which is adopted in them.
It is easy to point out the deficiencies of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
That the Commissioners did not always succeed in ascertaining the whole
income of the monasteries was by no means the fault of the Government.
They kept in touch with their agents throughout the work; indeed,
constant supervision and stimulus was wise, for the work was difficult
and had to be done in a short time. It was ordered to be accomplished
by the octave of Trinity following the issue of the Commissions, and it
was actually finished soon afterwards. The Staffordshire Commissioners,
under the guidance of the obsequious Bishop Lee, who was well
experienced in official work, were the first, with a single exception,
to send in their returns. Lee wrote to Cromwell on September 22nd
(1535): “Your comfortable letters have made me strong and whole, and
able to return to the King’s service. We delivered by Thomas Moreton,
one of my assistants in the Commission, the taxation of the churches in
Staffordshire in the course of last term, when there was not one except
Kent that so did. The Court of Exchequer was well satisfied.”[63]
To carry out so huge a task in so short a time was to ensure much
superficial work. It is true that the business habits of Englishmen
and the bureaucratic nature of the Tudor administration, and the
large number of lay officials, bailiffs, stewards, collectors, etc.,
in the employ of the monasteries, made the investigation easier than
might otherwise have been the case. But even so there must have been
many difficulties. We find in the returns ample evidence that through
haste but little was done in the way of checking entries and balancing
accounts. In the returns from Rocester Abbey the expenditure is given
in four groups, each with its correct total. But the addition of
the four totals is £1 too little. In the case of Stone Priory the
“spiritual” balance is given as £68, etc., whereas it should be £59,
etc., a difference of £9. But the tithe paid is correct for £119 14s.
11¼d., which is exactly £9 more than the real sum of the temporal and
spiritual balances as these are shown. The official probably intended
to write the spiritual balance as £lviiii, but when he came to make
his final addition he read it as £lxviii, a mistake not difficult to
make. Other mistakes of a similar nature will be noticed. No doubt it
was difficult to compare and check the returns from different dioceses,
as they came in at different times; and the omissions, from the stated
incomes of monasteries, of items which elsewhere are noted as being
paid to them, are probably due rather to deliberate concealment on
the part of the monks than to any grave slackness on the part of the
Commissioners. For instance, £2 3s. is noted in the valuation of the
churches of Berkswick, Bushbury and Weston, as being paid to Stone
Priory, but no trace of it appears in the monastic return. But it is
remarkable that in the valuation of Dudley Priory no mention is made
of the 10s. from Dudley Vicarage, or in that of Trentham Priory of
the 6s. 8d. from Hulton Abbey, a few miles away, and the valuation of
which immediately precedes it. The £4 6s. 8d. given in the valuation of
Rocester Abbey as being paid to a chantry at Lichfield does not appear
in the Cathedral valuation. The remarkable omissions in the Burton
investigation will be dealt with fully later on.
Again, many of the valuations could only be approximations: such
were the returns made of offerings and payments in kind, and of the
demesnes. It is, indeed, distinctly stated, as a rule, that the
value of the demesne is given “according to the valuation of the
Commissioners” or of one of them: Walter Wrottesley estimated the
demesne at Dudley. Sometimes they called in assistance, possibly that
of experts, or perhaps of local men, as happened at Rocester.
The _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, therefore, cannot be regarded as a
complete statement of the monastic income. Its deficiencies as regards
expenditure are still more grave. Only certain disbursements were
allowed to be taken into account--regular pensions, rents, endowed
doles, and fees to bailiffs, collectors of rents, etc., auditors,
and stewards, episcopal visitation fees, synodals and proxies. The
statute had allowed other fees also to be deducted, such as those to
the Chancellor and Judges, but the instructions to the Commissioners
omitted these, and they are usually disallowed. The object of the
investigation being to show as large a net balance of income as
possible, disbursements were reduced to a minimum. Only those which
could not be avoided were shown, and because any particular item of
expenditure is not shown in any particular return we cannot assert with
confidence that it was actually not incurred. Only two corrodies are
recorded in the whole of Staffordshire, and alms at Burton, Rocester
and Tutbury only, yet we know that Dieulacres maintained eight poor
bedeswomen.
The investigation was a contest between the two parties--the
Commissioners, whose primary object was to make the income as large
and the expenditure as small as possible, and the monks who naturally
desired to reverse the proportion. The result was that there were
serious omissions on both sides of the account, and the _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ is, accordingly, a very incomplete statement of
the accounts of the religious houses. The omissions as regards income
are many, but the information as to expenditure can only be described
as altogether inadequate and incomplete. The Commissioners were not
allowed to show much expenditure, even if they wished to do so: it was
easy for them to allow little if they so desired. Under the direction
of Bishop Lee it may safely be assumed that in Staffordshire they
allowed the barest minimum.
The fictitious character of the expenditure side of the account is well
illustrated by the case of Burton-on-Trent. When, as will be described
later,[64] the valuation sent in by the Commissioners was found to be
hopelessly erroneous, and a revised statement was drawn up by the order
of the Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, which increased the revenue from
£356 16s. 3½d. to £501 7s. 0½d., the expenditure was, apparently,
not re-investigated. In face of the enormous increase of income which
had been shown the Chancellor could well afford to spare himself the
trouble of enquiring whether the statement of expenses needed revising:
he treated it with scornful indifference and passed it with the
contemptuous remark at the foot of the more profitable survey: “Mem. to
deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye olde boke.”
Yet, in spite of these deficiencies, the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
may tell us much, if we bear in mind its limitations. The valuations
made after the Dissolution were expressly ordered to be compared with
the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ and, as has been mentioned, they
afford useful data for comparison. It is not surprising that they are
usually higher in amount. The Surveyors had gained experience, and they
had the previous survey for a guide. No source of income previously
recorded would be likely to be overlooked, while those which had been
omitted would now be discovered. The Surveyors, of course, desired
to make their valuation as high as possible in order to ingratiate
themselves with the Government. But, while the income in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ may well be less than is correct, that of the
Dissolution officials could not easily be excessive. If in any case it
were so, the fact would soon be proved by the would-be purchasers.
The Staffordshire Returns in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ are arranged
as follows:[65]
1. Rural Deanery of Lapley and Trysull. This includes Brewood Nunnery
and Dudley Priory. The names of the Commissioners who did the work
for the Rural Deanery are recorded, as we have mentioned, and Walter
Wrottesley is expressly stated to have estimated the value of the
demesne at Dudley. Disbursements are reduced to a vanishing point at
Brewood and to little better at Dudley, only the fees of the steward,
Edward Blount, gent., and the bailiff, John Coke, being allowed.
2. Rural Deanery of Newcastle and Stone. This includes Hulton Abbey,
Trentham Priory, St. Thomas’s Priory at Stafford, Stone Priory and
Ronton Priory. No records of alms or payments for education are shown,
though a corrody is allowed at Trentham.
3. Stafford Archdeaconry.
4. Rural Deanery of Leek and Alton. In this are included Dieulacres,
Rocester and Croxden Abbeys. Payments are shown to the Bishop and the
Dean and Chapter, and at Croxden the unusual item of 13s. 4d. to “the
General Reformator of the Cistercian Order.” But, as we have already
shown, this official was of Royal, not of Papal appointment. The
arrangement of the valuation is alike for all three abbeys, and alms
are only recorded at Rocester.
5. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and the Cathedral at Lichfield.
6. Tutbury Priory and Burton Abbey. Alms are noticed in both cases, and
the Commissioners appear to have been unusually lenient.
7. Tamworth Collegiate Church.
8. Deanery of Tamworth and Tutbury.
A rough calculation of the net income of the Church in Staffordshire,
as shown in the above returns, has been made as follows:
Rural Deaneries--Lapley and Trysull £536 16 2½
Newcastle and Stone 887 4 8-17/24
Leek and Alton 594 12 1½
Deanery--Tamworth and Tutbury 354 15 4
Bishop of Lichfield (Staffs. only) 345 7 3⅛
Lichfield Cathedral--Dean and Chapter 58 14 1
Prebends 272 3 4
Choristers 16 18 10½
Vicars Choral 137 17 6
Priests Vicars 114 9 6
Clerks 51 0 6½
Chantry Priests 6 17 4
Chantries 106 13 2
St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield 8 15 0
Tutbury Priory 199 14 10
Burton Abbey 412 5 0
Tamworth Collegiate Church 66 1 0
-------------
Total £4,170 5 9⅚
-------------
As far as possible the income from Staffordshire only is shown as
regards the bishop, etc., but it was not always easy to separate the
items. No visitation fees are shown, as they could not be apportioned
between the counties: the total was £34 19s.
Of the total shown above, the net income of the religious houses is
given as £1,608 5s. 2¾d., or rather less than two-fifths.
The following table gives the figures relating to the religious houses
_as they appear in Valor Ecclesiasticus_: they must be read in
conjunction with the notes which follow the table:
Part 1 of table
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------||
| TEMPORALITIES. ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | 11 1 6 | | 11 1 6 ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =271 11 3½= | =33 8 8= | =238 2 7½= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 402 15 4½ | ditto | 369 6 8½ ||
Croxden | 94 10 3 | 9 10 10 | 84 19 5 ||
Dieulacres | 174 13 2 | 13 18 0 | 160 15 2 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 15 5 4 | 2 6 8 | 12 18 8 ||
Hulton | 67 0 1½ | 7 3 6 | 59 16 7½ ||
Rocester | 56 9 7 | 5 15 4 | 50 14 3 ||
Ronton | 64 17 9 | 4 3 5½ | 60 14 3½ ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 130 16 5½ | 15 3 11 | 115 12 6½[66] ||
Stone | 54 12 11 | 3 13 5 | 50 19 6 ||
Trentham | 83 19 0[67] | 8 5 10 | 75 14 2[67] ||
Tutbury | 170 18 4 | 20 14 0 | 150 4 4 ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 1326 19 9½ | 124 3 7½ | 1202 17 2 ||
+----------------+-------------+----------------++
---------------------+----------------+-------------+----------------++
Part 2 of table
---------------------+----------------------------------------||
| SPIRITUALITIES. ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | | | ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =85 5 0=| =55 13 4½= | =29 11 7½= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 98 11 8 | ditto | 42 18 3½ ||
Croxden | 8 16 4 | 3 9 10 | 5 6 6 ||
Dieulacres | 68 10 4 | 2 0 6 | 66 9 10 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 21 2 8 | | 21 2 8 ||
Hulton | 20 10 0 | 3 11 9 | 16 18 3 ||
Rocester | 46 1 6 | 6 12 10½ | 39 8 7½ ||
Ronton | 46 13 10 | 8 5 3 | 38 8 7 ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 50 2 4 | 24 1 8⅔ | 26 0 7⅓ ||
Stone | 75 10 0 | 15 14 6⅔ | 68 15 5¼ ||
Trentham | 37 3 4 | 6 13 7-1/12| 30 9 8½ ||
Tutbury | 73 18 4 | 24 7 10 | 49 10 6 ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 547 0 4 | 150 11 3-5/12|405 9 0½ ||
+-----------+--------------+-------------++
---------------------+-----------+--------------+-------------++
Part 3 of table
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
| TOTAL.
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
| Receipts | Expenditure | Balance ||
Brewood Nunnery | 11 1 6 | | 11 1 6 ||
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =356 16 3½= | =89 2 0½= | =267 14 3= ||
| | | ||
„ „ 2nd| 501 7 0½ | ditto | 412 5 0 ||
Croxden | 103 6 7 | 13 0 8 | 90 5 11 ||
Dieulacres | 243 3 6 | 15 18 6 | 227 5 0 ||
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 36 8 0 | 2 6 8 | 34 1 4 ||
Hulton | 87 10 1½ | 10 15 3 | 76 14 0 ||
Rocester | 102 11 1 | 12 8 2½ | 90 2 10¾ ||
Ronton | 111 11 7 | 11 8 8½ | 100 2 10½ ||
Stafford, St. Thomas | 180 18 9½ | 39 5 7⅔ | 141 13 2¼[66] ||
Stone | 130 2 11 | 19 7 11⅔ | 119 14 11¼ ||
Trentham | 121 2 4[67] | 14 19 5-1/12| 106 3 9[67] ||
Tutbury | 244 16 8 | 45 1 10 | 199 14 10 ||
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
Total (not including | | | ||
Burton 1st) | 1874 0 1½ | 273 14 10-11/12|1608 5 2¾ ||
+----------------+---------------+------------------++
---------------------+----------------+---------------+------------------++
Part 4 of table
---------------------+-------------
| TOTAL.
+-------------
|Tithe Paid
Brewood Nunnery | 1 2 2
Burton-on-Trent 1st| =26 15 5=
|
„ „ 2nd| 41 4 6
Croxden | 9 0 7
Dieulacres | 22 14 6
Dudley Priory (Cell) | 3 8 1½
Hulton | 7 13 6
Rocester | 9 0 3½
Ronton | 10 0 3½
Stafford, St. Thomas | 14 3 3½
Stone | 11 19 6
Trentham | 10 12 4½
Tutbury | 19 19 6
+-------------
Total (not including |
Burton 1st) | 160 18 7½
+-------------
---------------------+-------------
[66] and 1 lb. of pepper.
[67] and 4 barbed arrows.
In connection with the above table the following details may be noted
here: other points will be considered when we come to examine the
details.
_Burton-on-Trent._ In the first valuation the details
of the Derbyshire temporalities amount to £73 11s. 2d.,
not £73 6s. 2d. In Roman numerals the shillings appear
as vi^{s.} instead of xi^{s.}.--a mistake easily made.
The total of temporalities appears, therefore, as £271
11s. 3½d. instead of £271 16s. 3½d., and this affects the
calculation throughout. The gross income should be £357 1s.
3½d. and the net income £267 19s. 3d.
In the second valuation the details of the temporalities
amount to £414 14s. 4½d. instead of £402 15s. 4½d. as
given: the spiritualities amount to £99 5s. instead of £98
11s. 8d. The total income (gross) should therefore be £513
19s. 4½d. instead of £501 7s. 0½d., leaving the net balance
£424 17s. 4d. instead of £412 5s.
_Croxden._ See below, page 97.
_Dieulacres._ The gross total income is given as £243
2s. 6d., whereas the totals of the various sections amount
to £243 3s. 6d. As the total of the disbursements to be
deducted is given as £15 18s. 6d. and the net final balance
as £227 5s. (_i.e._, £243 3s. 6d.--£15 18s. 6d.) the
sum first named is probably a misprint in the printed
edition. I have, therefore, given the correct figures of
the gross total income in my table.
_Hulton._ The gross balance as given is 10½d. too
little, but in working out the tenth this appears to have
been remembered. A tenth of £76 14s. is £7 13s. 4¾d. and a
fraction. This added to a tenth of the 10½d. gives £7 13s.
6d. nearly.
_Rocester._ The items of expenditure are arranged in
four groups, and the four totals are correctly given. They
make £12 8s. 8½d. in all, but this is noted below as £11
8s. 8½d., and this is the amount which is deducted from the
gross total income to make the balance of £100 2s. 10½d.
The balance ought to be £99 2s. 10½d.
_Ronton._ In stating the spiritual outgoings the
amounts are given with great minuteness. For instance, the
Bishop’s annual Visitation Fee is set forth as £1 2s. 2½d.
+ ⅓ of ½d. The result is that this small fraction appears
throughout the succeeding calculation, until at last the
gross balance becomes £lxxxx ii^{s.} x^{d.} ob’ ii^{as}
ptes ob’.
_Stafford, St. Thomas_. In the spiritual disbursements
the total is given as £24 1s. 8½d. and ⅓ of ½d., and in the
deduction of the total expenditure from the total income
the last item is put as 2⅓^{d.}, whereas it apparently
should be 1⅝^{d.}
_Stone_. In the spiritualities the balance is printed
in _V.E._ as £68 15s. 5¼d., whereas it should be £59
15s. 5⅓d. The final balance, therefore, should be £110 14s.
11⅓d. instead of as shown in the table.
As the tithe paid (£11 19s. 6d.) is correct for £119 14s.
11¼d. the mistake is probably due to the official: he wrote
£lviiii when he put down the total spiritual income, but
read it as £lxviii when he added the total.
_Trentham_. In temporalities the balance should be £75
13s. 2d. according to the figures given, and this error
of 10d. affects the whole calculation. The final balance,
according to the figures given in _V.E._, should
be £106 2s. 10-11/12d. If the 10d. be added it becomes
practically what _V.E._ makes it, viz., £106 3s.
8-11/12d.
From the table it is evident that the total income of the religious
houses amounted to something like £1,608 5s. 2¾d., at least, so far as
Staffordshire is concerned. Only a small fraction of this was returned
to the Church when the property of the monasteries was confiscated,
and practically nothing of the “moveable” wealth they contained. How
great this latter was is shown by the proceeds of the sales which were
conducted at the Suppression. We shall revert to the subject later.
The extent to which the monasteries had “robbed” the parish churches is
shown by the following figures, taken from _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
The first column gives the tithes received by the monasteries, the
second gives the amounts which came from parish churches in other ways,
such as glebe, offerings, etc. The third gives the payments made by the
monasteries to churches. In all cases the figures are from _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.
-------------------+-----------+------------+----------
|Tithes |Other Income|Payments
|Received |from |to
| |Churches |Churches
+-----------+------------+----------
| £ s. d.| £ s. d. | £ s. d.
Brewood Nunnery | | |
Burton Abbey | 46 6 8 | 52 13 4 | 4 6 8
| | 1 |
Croxden Abbey | 8 15 4 | | 1 3 0
Dieulacres Abbey | 57 19 8 | 10 10 8 | 18 6
Dudley Priory | 18 16 8 | 2 6 0 |
Hulton Abbey | 18 10 0 | 2 0 0 | 5 4
Rocester Priory | 47 13 10 | | 16 8
Ronton Priory | 46 1 6 | | 1 0
St. Thomas’s Priory| 40 2 8 | 9 19 8 | 3 4
Stone Priory | 53 10 0 | 22 0 0 |
Trentham Priory | 14 10 4 | 21 13 4 |
Tutbury Priory | 49 0 4 | 20 16 4 | 11 13 4
| --------- | --------- | --------
|£401 7 0 |£141 19 5 |£19 7 10
-------------------+-----------+------------+---------
In all, the Staffordshire monasteries took £543 6s. 5d. at least from
parishes in tithes, glebe, oblations, Easter dues and the like, and
gave to churches the utterly insignificant sum of £19 7s. 10d. As
Cistercian houses, long ago exempted by the Lateran Council of 1215,
Croxden, Dieulacres, and Hulton, paid no tithe on land in their own
occupation, and many other houses had obtained a similar privilege by
special Bulls. Probably also the Commissioners did not return the tithe
when it was paid to the church belonging to the monastery. In such
cases, the payment of tithe among the disbursements would simply have
cancelled the receipt of the tithe among the receipts. The following
details illustrate the way in which money came from the parish
churches. It is not an exhaustive table:
-----------------------+----------+-----------+---------+---------
| Glebe | Tithes |Easter |Oblations
| | |Dues |
+----------+-----------+---------+---------
| | | |
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. |£ s. d. | £ s. d.
_Hulton Abbey_ | | | |
Audley | 1 0 0 |10 0 0 | |
Byddell | 10 0 | 4 0 0 | |
Cambryngham | | | |
(Linc.) | 10 0 | 4 10 0 | |
_Trentham Priory_ | | | |
Trentham | | 8 13 4 | 3 0 0 | 10 0
Barleston | | 5 17 0 |13 4 | 3 0
_St. Thomas’s Priory, | | | |
Stafford_ | | | |
Stowe | 1 10 8 | 7 0 0 | 2 0 0 |
Bushbury | 6 8 | 6 6 8 | |
Cariswall | | 3 6 8 | |
Weston-on-Trent | 1 17 0 | 2 7 6 | |
Geyton | 5 0 | 3 1 10 | |
Berkswick | 1 0 0 | 2 13 4 | 1 13 4 |
Meyre | | 2 0 0 | |
Aldelem (Chesh.) | 1 7 0 |13 6 8 | |
_Stone Priory_ | | | |
Stone | |19 0 0 | 8 0 0 | 3 0 0
Milwich | | 8 10 0 | |
Tyso (Warw.) | 8 0 0 |16 0 0 | |
_Ronton Priory_ | | | |
Seyghtford | |13 4 6 | |
Grenburgh (Warw.) | |32 17 0 | |
_Dieulacres Abbey_ | | | |
Leek | 1 4 0 |34 3 8 | 6 5 4 | 2 6 8
Sandbach (Chesh.) | 14 8 |23 16 0 | |
Rocester, Waterfall | | | |
and Bradley | |15 7 2 | |
Edensor (Derbysh.) | |11 0 0 | |
Kynston | | 7 0 0 | |
Woodford | | | |
(Northants.) | |13 6 8 | |
_Croxden Abbey_ | | | |
Alton | | 2 5 4 | |
Tokeby (Leics.) | | 4 0 0 | |
Norton „ | | 2 10 0 | |
_Tutbury Priory_ | | | |
Doveridge | | 6 6 8 | |
Church Broughton | |12 0 0 | |
Marston | | 6 0 0 | |
Tutbury | | 7 0 0 | |
Matherfield | |10 0 0 | |
Wymondham and | | | |
Thorpe (Lincs.) | | 13 4 | |
_Burton Abbey_ | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | |23 (£=33=) | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel | | | | 2 0 0
Abbots Bromley | |13 6 8 | |
Ilam |=8 13 8= | | |
Blithfield[1] | | | | 1 0 0
Grindon[1] | | | | 13 4
Leigh[1] | | | | 3 6 8
Hamstall Ridware[68] | | | | 5 0
Cauldon Chapel[68] | | | | =2 6 8=
Mickleover, etc.[68] | | | | 8 13 4
Stapenhill[68] | | | | 10 0
Allestree[68] (Warw.)| | | | 15 0 0
-----------------------+----------+-----------+---------+---------
[68] In these cases it is not stated from what particular source the
amounts are derived.
Voluntary offerings amount to an absolutely insignificant sum, £7 19s.
8d. for the whole county. This is not surprising. It was difficult to
obtain particulars if the monks were reticent on the matter, and, also,
there is no doubt that recent religious events, and the whole trend of
affairs, had seriously affected all forms of charity. It is probable,
therefore, that although the voluntary offerings ought to be larger in
amount than they appear in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, they did not
stand at a very high figure.
Chantries are only mentioned in connection with Burton-on-Trent and
Rocester. At the former, £5 was paid annually to the Chaplain of
the Chantry at Sallow, in Derbyshire, according to the ordinance of
John Stafford, formerly Abbot, and 2s. annually was paid towards
the maintenance of a lamp in the church of Allestree. At Rocester
£4 6s. 8d. is stated as being paid for the maintenance of a chantry
at Lichfield Cathedral, though no trace of it is to be found in the
Cathedral returns.
Here again we cannot accept the evidence as complete, and cannot
understand the motives which actuated the Commissioners and caused
the instructions to be interpreted as they were. Why the incomes
of chantries should be particularly apportioned at cathedrals and
elsewhere, and not at the religious houses, is not evident. Certainly
chantries existed in the religious houses. For instance, in 1517 Sir
John Fitzherbert, of Norbury, had made bequests in his will to “the
Chantries” at Rocester and Calwich.[69] The only payment for a lamp is
the one already mentioned.
Fees in connection with Episcopal Visitations are found at Hulton (6s.
8d.), Trentham (£3 17s. 4d.), Stafford (£3 6s. 8d.), Stone (£3 6s.
8d.), Ronton (£3 6s. 8d.), and Burton (£3 6s. 7½d.). These amounts
shown were paid triennially. The post-Dissolution valuation of Dudley
Priory shows that 2s. a year was paid there also as Bishop’s Visitation
Fees.
The Archdeacon also received annual Visitation Fees, and fees for
procurations, etc. Fees for appropriations were paid in some cases to
the Bishop and in others to the Dean and Chapter. The following shows
the total annual payments, as given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, to
the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and the Archdeacons.
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
|Bishop |Dean & Chapter| Archdeacon
+----------+--------------+-----------
| | |
| £ s. d.| £ s. d. | £ s. d.
Brewood Nunnery | | |
Burton Abbey | 3 9 4½| 6 13 4 | 17 9
Croxden Abbey | | | 1 0 6
Dieulacres Abbey | | | 1 2 0
Dudley Priory | [2] | |
Hulton Abbey | 2 1 10⅔| 3 4 | 5 4
Rocester Priory | | | 1 4 7
Ronton Priory | 1 10 2⅔| |
St. Thomas’s Priory| 3 6 9⅔| 18 10 0 | 1 10 6
Stone Priory | 1 8 6⅔| 2 14 4 | 19 0
Trentham Priory | 1 6 5⅔| | 13 4
Tutbury Priory | 13 4 | 6 13 4 | 2 7 10
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
Total |£13 16 7⅚|£34 14 4 |£10 0 10
-------------------+----------+--------------+-----------
It is interesting to notice that two of the three Cistercian Abbeys,
although they had not adhered to the earlier rule of their Order to
abstain from the appropriation of benefices, had nevertheless managed
to avoid the payments to either Bishop or Dean and Chapter which such
appropriations usually entailed; and also that they are the only houses
for men which did not pay Visitation Fees to the Bishop. But Ronton
alone could show no payments to the Archdeacon: his all-embracing
activity was evidently not less in the sixteenth century than it
had been in the days of John of Salisbury, who characteristically
propounded the problem _an possit archidiaconus salvus esse?_
CHAPTER V
THE FINANCES OF BURTON ABBEY
Many causes had combined to undermine the stability of the religious
houses. Their pecuniary usefulness to Pope and King tended to make
them the shuttlecock of politics. Their extensive worldly possessions
made them objects of jealousy to their neighbours, while the secular
spirit with which they became infected when they were drawn into the
“full stream of the world” weakened their spiritual influence and made
them at once more susceptible to attacks and less capable of effective
opposition. Events and tendencies beyond their power to control, like
the Black Death, the Hundred Years’ War, the Wars of the Roses, and the
Revival of Learning, in turn exercised a disastrous influence upon them.
Seriously affected in wealth, numbers, and efficiency by the
Black Death and its consequences; sharing in the lawlessness and
demoralisation which accompanied the French War in its later stages,
and the Wars of the Roses; lacking the supervision and guidance which
active bishops had at any rate attempted, and not always ineffectually,
to exercise; in the sixteenth century the religious houses were very
different in character from what they had originally been. Even in
material things they had changed. They had once been leaders in
agricultural development, but their methods were now old-fashioned,
ineffective, and out of date. Their wide domains were no longer the
sources of wealth they formerly had been. New methods and new outlets
for trade had left them behind. Unwise leases only gave temporary
relief, and crippled instead of improving resources. All landowners
were indeed feeling the effects of the economic changes, and a result
was increased claims upon the monasteries by kings and patrons; and the
religious houses were not in a condition to make effective opposition.
They were not worse than their neighbours: their weakness lay in the
fact that they were so little different from them. Up to the present
there had been no definite charges of moral delinquency brought by
authority against the monastic system. Good or bad, they were looked
upon as part of the settled order of things by all except a few
theorists and extremists.
There is no call, therefore, to consider as yet the question of their
moral condition. In these earlier years of the “Reformation” the
subject of interest to the government of the day was their financial
value. With their finances only, therefore, we are as yet concerned.
With _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ to guide us as to the main outlines,
it is possible to form a fairly correct estimate of the material
condition of the Staffordshire houses at the time when the idea of the
Dissolution of the Monasteries was being gradually evolved. We are able
to draw up a balance sheet for each of the houses, and to obtain an
insight into its revenues, possessions, and expenditure.
The largest and most important house in Staffordshire was the
Benedictine Abbey of Burton-on-Trent. It had been of some renown in
the past. Its Chronicle[70] incorporated many historical documents of
first-rate importance. It had done much for the town. It had frequently
given hospitality to kings, prelates, and lords: one of its rooms was
actually still called “the King’s Chamber.” Recently its Abbot, Dr.
William Boston, had made himself acceptable to Cromwell, had been
summoned to Parliament, had been placed in various positions where he
could make himself useful to the Government, and had been promoted
to the headship of the great Abbey of Westminster. His successor at
Burton had been elected directly through the influence of Cromwell’s
representatives and he retained Cromwell’s favour accordingly. It might
have been expected that when the Commissioners visited Burton-on-Trent
they would be received with cordiality and would be able to count on
every assistance.
It is surprising, therefore, to find that Burton Abbey is the only one
in England where we know that an entirely false return was supplied.
Indeed the Return from Burton Abbey which the Commissioners for Tenths
sent in was so entirely erroneous that a second survey had to be made.
There are two valuations of some other monasteries, but in such cases
one is really an abbreviation of the other. The second survey of Burton
is, however, a substitute for the first.
The original Summary in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appears in its
place[71] but is superseded by another which is written on a separate
paper attached to the parchment.[72] The second is made authoritative
by a note appended at the foot of the first survey under the following
circumstances. The gross income having been stated to be £356 16s. 3½d.
and the expenses £89 2s. O½d. (leaving a balance of £267 14s. 3d.), the
tithe would, therefore, be under ordinary circumstances £26 15s. 5d.
But the amount is stated to be £41 4s. 6d., with the explanatory note:
“_Plus oneratur pro xiiii^{li.} ix^{s.} i^{d.} per billam domini
cancellarii_.” On referring to the second survey we find it is
signed by the Chancellor, Thomas Audley, and gives the gross income as
£501 7s. 0½d. It allows the correctness of the expenditure as stated in
the other survey, and when this is deducted from the revised total the
net income becomes £412 5s., the tithe from which is that previously
noted, namely £14 9s. 1d. more than was due according to the first
survey.
The problem raised by the existence of the two surveys is interesting,
and may be compared with a similar one which arises in the early
history of the same Abbey. There is no mention in Domesday Book of
the bulk of the territory of the Manor and Parish of Burton-on-Trent,
some 6,000 acres, which the Abbey possessed and in the midst of which
it stood. Although the land lay in two counties and should have been
surveyed by two distinct sets of Domesday officials, no trace of any
report of either has been found, and the final summary is silent.
Whether the Abbot in the eleventh century procured the suppression by
tampering with both sets of commissioners, or whether he evaded the
survey of both by playing off one against the other, or whether he was
specially exempted by the Crown, cannot be known.
In the case of Henry VIII’s survey there is much the same uncertainty.
External history tells us nothing, and little can be gleaned from the
summaries themselves. The following table is an attempt to exhibit
a comparative analysis of the two surveys. The income, temporal and
spiritual, is arranged according to its sources and character. It must
be borne in mind that here we have to deal with the items as they are
detailed and not with the official totals as those are given, sometimes
wrongly, in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_. The totals shown in the table
do not, therefore, always agree with the figures which appeared in the
table on page 64. (See Notes following that table.)
This was not the first occasion on which Burton had pretended to be
poorer than it actually was. The royal claim to nominate men, disbanded
soldiers or others for whom it was desired to provide at other people’s
expense, to corrodies at the religious houses, was at times a grave
abuse. The Patent Rolls show vast numbers of such nominations. In the
course of a few years we find, as regards Burton only,[73] two men sent
there in 1316 and another sent in 1317; in 1318 John le Treour was
sent on account of his good service to the King and to Queen Isabella
in the place of one who had died; Treour lived till 1323, and on his
death John le Nakerer was immediately substituted. The presence of such
outsiders in what professed to be religious communities must have been
exceedingly embarrassing to any who were trying to live in the spirit
of the rules, and most prejudicial to spirituality and discipline. It
was, however, difficult to oppose the royal commands. Burton tried to
do so in 1310 and failed ignominiously.[74] Thomas de Bannebury, who
had long served Edward II and his father, was sent to the Abbot and
Convent to receive the necessaries of life in food and drink, clothing,
etc., according to his estate. They replied to the royal missive with a
profession of their willingness to acquiesce if they had the power to
do so, but they pleaded that their house was the poorest and smallest
of their Order in England, and was more heavily charged than any in
proportion to its means. They, therefore, asserted their inability to
receive the royal pensioner. For answer, they were told that there was
trustworthy evidence that their assertions were false, and on their
continued efforts to avoid compliance they were summarily ordered to
admit Bannebury, and were told that their excuses were frivolous,
untruthful, and unacceptable.
BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“TEMPORALITIES”)
Part 1 of table
----------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+
| Demesne | Meadows |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
----------------------+-------------+------------+----------+----------+
_Staffordshire:_ | | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | 6 13 4 | =6 13 4= | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | |
Bromley Hurst | 7 6 8 |}=11 13 4= | | |
Bentley Park | |} | | |
(meadow) | 4 0 0 |} | | |
Seney Park | 6 0 0 | =8 0 0= | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 24 0 0[76]| =24 0 0= | 3 0 0 | |
Branstone | | | | |
Hornington and | | | | |
Whitmere | | | | |
Stretton | | | | |
Anslow | | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Field (Thomas | | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | | |
Pillatonhall | | | | |
Darlastone | | | | |
Okeover (Humph. | | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | | |
Weston | | | | |
_Divers pastures near | | | | |
the Trent_ | | | | =4 10 0=|
_Collingwood_ | | | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | | |
Stapenhill } | 13 4 | =13 4= | | |
Winshill } | | | | |
| | | | |
Derby | | | | |
Cauldwell | | | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | | |
Littleover „ | | | | |
Findern „ | | | | |
Ticknall | | | | |
Willington and Pothlac| | | | |
Huncedon | | | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | | | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | | | | |
London | | | | |
+-------------+------------+----------+----------+
1st Total | 48 13 4 | =51 0 0= | 3 0 0 | =4 10 0=|
£271 16s. 3½d. ==================================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
Part 2 of table
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Lands and tenements | Chief Rents |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
----------------------+------------+---------------+-----------+------------+
_Staffordshire:_ | | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | | | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | |
Bromley Hurst | 40 6 8[75]| =40 6 8=[75]| | |
Bentley Park | | | | |
(meadow) | | | | |
Seney Park | | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 21 7 0 | =63 15 4=[76]| 13 0 0 | =13 0 0= |
Branstone | 9 4 0 | =12 14 5= | | |
Hornington and | | | | |
Whitmere | 11 13 0 | =15 5 8= | 3 0 | |
Stretton | 13 2 3 | =19 3 9= | | |
Anslow | | | 13 4 | =13 5 4= |
Abbots Bromley | | =16 10 11= | 4 7 2½ | =7 7 2½=|
Leigh | | | 4 0 0 | =5 0 0= |
Field (Thomas | | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | 1 0 0 | |
Pillatonhall | | | 16 0 | =16 0= |
Darlastone | | | 2 11 0 | =2 11 0= |
Okeover (Humph. | | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | 1 6 8 | =1 6 8= |
Weston | | | 10 0 | =10 0= |
_Divers pastures near | | | | |
the Trent_ | | | | |
_Collingwood_ | | =1 6 8= | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | =8 13 4= | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | | |
Stapenhill } | 7 4 6 | =11 4 6= | 3 0 | |
Winshill } | 8 7 1 | =13 13 2= | | |
| | | | |
Derby | 3 6 8[76]| =3 6 8=[76]| | =1 14 0= |
Cauldwell | 7 2 1 | =9 17 6= | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | 4 0 | |
Littleover „ | | | | |
Findern „ | | | | |
Ticknall | | | 10 0 | =10 0= |
Willington and Pothlac| | | 2 1 8 | =1 16 4= |
Huncedon | 6 0 0 | =6 0 0= | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | 10 10 0 | =17 12 6= | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | 7 3 0 | =10 5 0= | 5 4 | |
London | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= | | |
+------------+---------------+-----------+------------+
1st Total |147 6 3 |=251 16 1= | 31 11 2½ | =47 16 6½= |
£271 16s. 3½d. =======================================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
Part 3 of table
----------------------+---------------------+---------------------
| Court | Manor
| 1 2 |
----------------------+----------+----------+---------+-----------
_Staffordshire:_ | | | |
Shobnal Grange-- | | | |
Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | |
Pasture 3 0 0 } | | | |
Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | |
Bromley Hurst | | | |
Bentley Park | | | |
(meadow) | | | |
Seney Park | | | |
Burton-on-Trent | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | |
Branstone | | | |
Hornington and | | | |
Whitmere | | | |
Stretton | | | |
Anslow | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | |
Leigh | | | |
Field (Thomas | | | |
Bagot, Kt) | | | |
Pillatonhall | | | |
Darlastone | | | |
Okeover (Humph. | | | |
Okeover, Kt.) | | | |
Weston | | | |
_Divers pastures near | | | |
the Trent_ | | | |
_Collingwood_ | | | |
_Near Whitmere_ | | | |
_Derbyshire:_ | | | |
Stapenhill } | | | |
Winshill } | | | |
| | | |
Derby | | | |
Cauldwell | | | |
Mickleover Manor | | | 16 2 2| =24 16 10=
Littleover „ | | | 13 4 4| =17 15 11=
Findern „ | | | 8 12 4| =13 12 4=
Ticknall | | | |
Willington and Pothlac| | | |
Huncedon | | | |
Allestree (Warwicks) | | | |
Appleby (Leices.) | | | |
London | | | |
+----------+----------+---------+-----------
1st Total | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | 37 18 10| =56 5 1=
£271 16s. 3½d. ============================================
[given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.]
=2nd Total
£414 14s. 4½d.=
[=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]
[75] with 1 water-mill.
[76] with 2 water-mills.
BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“SPIRITUALITIES”)
Part 1 of table
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tithes | Oblations |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
--------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+
Burton-on-Trent |£23 0 0 |£=33 0 0= | | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | £2 0 0 | £=2 0 0= |
Abbots Bromley | 13 6 8 | =13 6 8= | | |
Ilam | | | | |
Blithfield | | | | |
Grindon | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Hampstall Ridware | | | | |
Cauldon Chapel | | | | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | | | | |
Stapenhill „ | | | | |
Allestree (Warw.) | | | | |
|--------+----------+--------+----------+
1st Total £85 5s. | 36 6 8 | =46 6 8= | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= |
=2nd „ £99 5s.= =======================================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Part 2 of table
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Church and Glebe | Church |
| 1 2 | 1 2 |
--------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+
Burton-on-Trent | | | | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | | |
Abbots Bromley | | | | |
Ilam | £8 0 0 |£=8 13 4= | | |
Blithfield | | | | |
Grindon | | | | |
Leigh | | | | |
Hampstall Ridware | | | | |
Cauldon Chapel | | =2 6 8= | | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | | | 8 13 4 | =8 13 4=|
Stapenhill „ | | |10 0 0 |=10 0 0=|
Allestree (Warw.) | | |15 0 0 |=16 0 0=|
|--------+----------+--------+----------+
1st Total £85 5s. | 8 0 0 |=11 0 0= |33 13 4 |=34 13 4=|
=2nd „ £99 5s.= ========================================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Part 3 of table
----------------------------------------------------
| Pensions
| 1 2
--------------------------------|--------+----------
Burton-on-Trent | |
St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | |
Abbots Bromley | |
Ilam | |
Blithfield |£1 0 0 | £=1 0 0=
Grindon | 13 4 | =13 4=
Leigh | 3 6 8 | =3 6 8=
Hampstall Ridware | 5 0 | =5 0=
Cauldon Chapel | |
Mickleover, Littleover and | |
Findern (Derbyshire) | |
Stapenhill „ | |
Allestree (Warw.) | |
|--------+----------
1st Total £85 5s. | 5 5 0 | =5 5 0=
=2nd „ £99 5s.= ===================
=Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=
Whether the official opinion in this case was just we need not enquire.
We must, however, examine with some care the attempt which, as it
appears, was made to mislead the Commissioners for First Fruits and
Tenths in the reign of Henry VIII.
It will be noticed that by far the largest individual additions
which are made in the second survey come from rents in Burton and
its suburbs. In the first survey no mention at all is made of the
special endowments of the Prior (£2), Almoner (£8), Cook (£8 6s.
8d.), Custodian of St. Mary’s Chapel (£4), and Martyrologist (£14).
The kitchen at Burton had long been well endowed. Abbot Nicholas
(_ob._ 1197) was the first to put it on a business-like footing.
Abbot Nicholas de Wallingford (1216–1222) and Abbot Richard de Insula
(1222–1223) had added to its endowments. No mention is made of the
Chantries of William Branstone (£4), or William Beyne (£8 13s. 4d.).
The former had been Abbot in the fifteenth century and had died in
1474. The latter had been Abbot from 1502 to 1533 and had endowed the
Grammar School. Considerable rents are omitted from “divers pastures
near the Trent,” where fed the sheep which had once made the Abbey wool
famous. In an old list of the English monasteries which supplied wool
to the Florentine markets in 1315 the wool from Burton is described as
_in Torcea_, probably the same as wool _de marisco_, which
was usually classed by itself. _Torcea_ appears to mean a dyke
or embankment, and the Burton sheep probably pastured in these low
fields near the Trent which were secured from inundation by means of
embankments.[77] Rents from Abbots Bromley (£16 10s. 11d.), one of the
oldest of the Abbey’s estates, and Derby are also omitted. Even in the
items which are given in both lists, the second shows a considerable
increase in nearly every instance. The rents from Allestree are raised
by £7 2s. 6d.; the valuation of the Manor of Mickleover is increased by
£8 14s. 8d.; the chief rents from Anslow actually leap from 13s. 4d.
to £13 5s. 4d. The increase in the valuations of the other manors is
also considerable.
“Seney Park,” the valuation of which is increased from £6 to £8, was
to the west of the town, near Shobnall Grange. The Abbey had a house
there, surrounded by a moat, and used as a place of retirement for many
generations. The monks used to go there in the fourteenth century to
recover from the periodical “blood-letting.” Its name is thus explained
by a seventeenth century writer: “The Abbot of Burton-upon-Trent ...
having a vast rough hillie ground about a mile distant from the Abbey,
called it Sinai, for the likeness it had to that rough wilderness of
Sinai where in a mount God appeared unto Moses; which ground to this
day retaineth the Name and is now called Sinai Park.”[78]
The only important items which are left unchanged are the valuations of
the demesnes at Shobnall Grange and at Burton (with the Court Fees),
and the lands on lease (_ad firma_) at Bromley Hurst and this may
suggest a possible explanation of the problem we are considering.
It is quite impossible to understand how it was that William Edie,
the Abbot elected through Cromwell’s influence,[79] allowed the
Commissioners to be misled. We might have expected that his sense of
obligation to his patron would have led him to make a full disclosure,
though we shall hardly blame him for not doing so. But for him to
expect that he could successfully conceal the true state of things from
such an administration as that of Cromwell argues more simplicity
than we should expect to find in one of Cromwell’s nominees. Through
some means, however, the first set of officials was hoodwinked. But
the success of the monks was short-lived. The Chancellor received
information from some source unknown to us, which led him to order
a second investigation. A tradition survived at the Office of
First-Fruits and Tenths that the _Liber Regis_, into which were
copied many of the Returns of the Commissioners, was transcribed by
a monk of Westminster.[80] Dr. Boston was Abbot of Westminster at
the time, and if the tradition represents the truth he may well have
seen the survey of his old Abbey of Burton while it was being written
out. He would at once recognise its incompleteness and we may be sure
would lose no time in giving information to the authorities. Or Dan
Richard Gorton, one of the monks of Burton for whom Cranmer wrote to
Cromwell on August 15th, 1535, begging the Priory of Worcester, may
have given a hint.[81] At any rate, Chancellor Audley ordered a second
valuation to be made. The new officials he sent would, obviously,
endeavour to raise all the figures they possibly could: that was the
object of their mission. That they were not able to do so in the cases
we have mentioned, while they succeeded in doing so in the great
majority of cases, taken in conjunction with the fact that they added a
considerable number of new items, seems to indicate that the monastic
accounts were well kept and the estates well managed; and that probably
the way the second commissioners obtained their higher figures was by
discovering, by help given to them, that many more lands, tenements,
etc., belonged to the Abbey than the first commissioners had been
informed of. The impression is one not of falsified, but of incomplete,
returns.
The difference between the two surveys is not so great as regards
spiritualities, but again the chief increase arises in connection with
Burton-on-Trent, the tithes of which are raised from £23 to £33. The
tithes of Abbots Bromley are correctly given in the first survey, but
the second commissioners discovered £2 6s. 8d. from Cauldon Chapel.
They failed, however, to note that the 13s. 4d. from Grindon should be
14s.,[82] and the 16s. from Repton Priory[83] is overlooked altogether.
The amount left for the Vicar of Abbots Bromley was £5 1s. 8d.[84]
On the demesne at Shobnall Grange the pasture is worth more than
twice the arable land. There are two water-mills worth £12 each at
Burton-on-Trent. The total value of the demesnes is £48 13s. 4d.
in the first survey and £51 10s. in the second. A water-mill stood
at Bromley Hurst and another in the town of Derby. A district of
Burton called “Vico Nativorum” is mentioned, though _Nativi_
are seldom mentioned in the Burton Chartularies of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. The record that Abbot Thomas de Packington
(1281–1305) gave to the Abbey of Polesworth “Henry our native” with
all his belongings, is exceptional. The tenement in London, from which
£2 rent was received, was probably the “Town House” of the Abbey. The
ten _villani_ of Cauldwell in the twelfth century had to provide
between them a horse to London for their lord the Abbot. The Court
perquisites amount to £3 6s. 8d.--over half the total amount for the
county.
The outgoings may be seen from the table on the next page. They
were computed at £33 8s. 8d. temporalities, and £55 13s. 4½d.
spiritualities. When the total of £89 2s. 0½d. is contrasted with the
Chancellor’s enhanced total income of £501 7s. 0½d. (or £513 19s. 4½d.
as it appears it ought to have been) we see that he could well afford
to spare himself the trouble of investigating it and to pass it with
the contemptuous remark at the foot of his more profitable survey,
“Mem. to deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye
olde boke.” That the outgoings apparently were not investigated, or
the “corrected” survey substituted for the one found erroneous, but
merely attached to it, taken in conjunction with the mistakes made in
the reckoning of the totals (both the spiritualities and temporalities
appear to be wrong), suggests that the new valuation was hurriedly made
while the work of summarising and digesting was in progress by the
Exchequer officials.
BURTON-ON-TRENT DISBURSEMENTS
Part 1 of table SPIRITUAL
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------++
| King | | ||
|(Sheriff’s| Corrody |Officials ||
| Aids) | | ||
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------++
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. ||
Church of Burton | | | ||
Manor of Burton | 1 0 0 | | 15 13 4 ||
Town of Burton | | | 3 6 8 ||
Mickleover, etc. | 6 8 | | 2 6 8 ||
Allestree | 6 8 | | 13 4 ||
Anslow | 2 0 | | ||
Bromley Hurst | 6 8 | | 2 0 0 ||
Stapenhill | | | 13 4 ||
Sallow, Chantry Chapel | | | ||
Abbots Bromley | | | 1 0 0 ||
Ilam | | | ||
Abbey of Burton | | 3 6 8 | ||
Branstone, etc | | | 2 0 0 ||
Withington and Pothlac | | | 6 8 ||
| £2 2 0 | £3 6 8 |£28 0 0 ||
===================================
Part 2 of table TEMPORAL
-----------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| | | |
| Bishop’s | Dean and |Archdeacon’s|
| fees | Chapter | fees |
-----------------------+----------+----------+------------+
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. |
Church of Burton | 3 4 | | |
Manor of Burton | | | |
Town of Burton | | | |
Mickleover, etc. | 5 4 | | |
Allestree | 1 3 6 | | 6 8 |
Anslow | | | |
Bromley Hurst | | | |
Stapenhill | 5 0 | | |
Sallow, Chantry Chapel | | | |
Abbots Bromley | 6 8 | 6 13 4 | 11 1 |
Ilam | 3 4 | | |
Abbey of Burton | 1 2 2½| | |
Branstone, etc | | | |
Withington and Pothlac | | | |
| £3 9 4½| £6 13 4 | 17 9 |
====================================
Part 3 of table TEMPORAL
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------
| Churches | and | Alms |Education
| | Chantry | |
-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d.
Church of Burton | | | |
Manor of Burton | | | |
Town of Burton | | | |
Mickleover, etc. | | | |
Allestree | 1 0 0 | 2 0 | 3 4 |
Anslow | | | |
Bromley Hurst | | | |
Stapenhill | 3 6 8 | | |
Sallow, Chantry Chapel | | 5 0 0 | |
Abbots Bromley | | | |
Ilam | | | |
Abbey of Burton | | | 23 0 11 | 12 0 0
Branstone, etc | | | |
Withington and Pothlac | | | |
| £4 6 8 | £5 2 0 |£23 4 3 |£12 0 0
Total temporal expenditure £33 8 8
„ spiritual „ £55 13 4½
---------
Total expenditure £89 2 0½
=========
In the disbursements there are many interesting items. A corrody, worth
£3 6s. 8d., one of the very small number recorded in Staffordshire,
is held by a royal nominee, John Seggewik. £2 is paid annually to
a poor scholar, John Belfeld, appointed also by the King: it was a
permanent arrangement. £10 is paid to Gloucester College, Oxford.
This was the great Benedictine college, and it was suppressed with
the larger monasteries. Its modern representative, Worcester College,
knows nothing of the £10 from Burton Abbey. On the other hand, _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ recorded that Worcester Monastery still received £4
from the King’s College at Oxford _ratione suppressionis prioratus
de Sandwall_.[85] The annual payment to Gloucester College had
been instituted by John Sudbury, one of the most famous of the Abbots
of Burton. He held office from 1400 to 1423. His life had not been
an ideal one, by any means, and he was a typical specimen of his
time. When Convocation in 1404–5 voted the King a large grant he was
appointed one of the collectors, and the grant, being exceptionally
large and being levied with exceptional strictness, was bitterly
resented. Sudbury, finding himself opposed even by his own tenants
of Stapenhill, on the Derbyshire side of the Trent, instigated his
Staffordshire men to retaliate on them, when they crossed the river and
came into Burton to trade, by robbery and violence. The Burton monks
were very disorderly at this time, for just previous to this there had
been a charge against them of robbing a woman of 100 shillings. They
waylaid John Newton, Canon and Chaplain of their hostile neighbour,
Sir Thomas de Gresley, as well as the parson of Rolleston and others.
They stole fish and cows. They assaulted one of the King’s Escheators.
They set at naught not only the Statute of Labourers by paying Thomas
Shepherd and many others 4d. a day, “to the sum of 100 shillings,” but
also morality, for when Abbot Sudbury, in 1407, was driven to obtain
a royal pardon for his manifold offences, we find among them that “of
having, on Wednesday, Christmas, 6 Henry IV, in his chamber at Burton,
ravished Marjory, the wife of Nicholas Taverner.”[86] So powerful was
Abbot Sudbury that he was able to defy his Bishop’s summons to answer
for the many irregularities with which he was charged.
During the rule of Sudbury’s predecessor, the Abbey being in
difficulties, an attempt had been made to obtain the good offices of
“Monsieur John Bagot,” the Sheriff of Staffordshire, by an annual
payment of thirty shillings. It is a typical example of “maintenance.”
Such a policy was double-edged, and the powerful “friend” was often
encouraged to attempt to extort a higher price for his services. This
happened in the present instance. A petition was sent by Sudbury, to
the Bishop of Winchester, the Chancellor, setting forth that: “The said
John, not being content with the xxxs., in order to force a larger sum
from the Abbot, had destroyed his park at Bromley and had taken 20
bucks and 12 does, to the great damage of the said Abbot and to the
prejudice and contempt of the King.” Moreover, although John Bagot held
in chief of the Abbot the vill of Field by homage, fealty, and escuage,
and by the service of twenty shillings annually, he had refused to
perform his homage; his power in the district was so great that remedy
was difficult.[87] Altogether, the situation was one which illustrates
very well the general weakening of public security at the time through
the growing power of great men and the increasing decline of authority.
Just as John de Sudbury set at naught the Bishop and oppressed his
weaker neighbours, so John Bagot, the Sheriff, abused his position
and office to enforce an annual bribe from the Abbey to abstain from
robbery and violence, which he, nevertheless, continued.
But Sudbury was none the less a man of business and not without his
good qualities. When the Rectory of Allestree was appropriated during
his tenure of office he arranged, as _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
records, for a distribution there of 3s. 4d. annually at Michaelmas,
and for £1 to be paid to the deacon who took the place of the absentee
rector. He also provided for the maintenance of a lamp there at an
annual cost of 2s. Other former Abbots who had endowed Poor Doles
were Nicholas Abingdon (1187–1197), John Stafford (1260–1280),
Thomas Field (1474–1494), and William Beyne (1502–1533), the amount
to be distributed in each case being £14 7s. John Stafford arranged
also for the payment of £5 yearly to the Chantry Chapel at Sallow.
There are further doles, said to have been endowed by the founder of
the monastery, as follows: £1 18s. on the anniversary of his death
(Oct. 22nd) for his soul and the souls of King Etheldred and his
royal successors and of Anselm and Archbishop Alfrike, the founder’s
brothers; £1 18s. at Corpus Christi; £4 in twenty-four cloaks on the
anniversary of his death; and 8d. given to the poor each day in the
year in bread, ale and meat (reckoned at £12). The total spent in doles
is £23 4s. 3d. _per annum_.
The officials (with fees) are as follows: George, Earl of Huntingdon,
chief steward, £6 13s. 4d.; Hugh Barley, steward of Abbots Bromley,
£1, and auditor, £5; Thomas Boylston, general receiver, £4; bailiffs
Richard Morley (Findern and Stapenhill, 13s. 4d.), Ralf Manwaryng,
gent. (Mickleover, £1), Nicholas Teyte (Littleover and Caldwell, £1
6s. 8d.), John Lambert (Allestree and Appleby, 13s. 4d.), John Smith
(Branstone, etc., £2), Edward Edensore (Bromley Hurst, £2), Henry
Meynell, gent. (Willington and Pothlac, 6s. 8d.), Walter Charnels
(“bailiff of the town of Burton, who now receives the whole sum of the
perquisites of the Court there by the King’s commandment” £3 6s. 8d.).
The remark about Walter Charnels reminds us that the King had a
considerable interest in the affairs of Burton Abbey. Besides the
bailiff of the town, he nominated a corrodian and a poor scholar, and
he took fees (“Sheriffs’ Aids”) to the extent of £2 2s. a year.
If we are correct in our surmise that the statement of outgoings was
not very strictly scrutinised in the case of Burton, we have, perhaps,
an explanation of the large proportion allotted to alms there in
contrast to the very small amount allowed elsewhere in the whole of
the county. It may be that in other places the amount spent in alms was
not allowed to be deducted, as it was at Burton.
No valuation subsequent to the Dissolution appears in _Monasticon_, so
that we are deprived of the material which might have been afforded
for checking the Chancellor’s (second) valuation. It may, however,
be safely assumed to be fairly correct, and to give us a tolerably
complete account of the revenues of the Abbey during the last years of
its existence.
CHAPTER VI
MONASTIC BALANCE SHEETS
We shall take the remaining houses in alphabetical order, and it
will be our endeavour to ascertain the details of their income and
expenditure.
BREWOOD NUNNERY
The old market town of Brewood stood on the western border of the
county, and for centuries the Bishops of Lichfield had possessed a
manor there. On the Shropshire side of the town, and just beyond the
county boundary, stood a Cistercian nunnery. On the Staffordshire side
stood a Benedictine nunnery.
The latter was a small house containing in the sixteenth century
four sisters only, and the record of its possessions in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_[88] is very brief. It was apparently made by
the same clerk as he who also drew up that of Dudley. The name of
the Prioress was Isabel Launder. It shows income only and gives no
disbursements. The house itself, with the demesne, provided the bulk
of the total, viz., £6 15s. Chief rents in Brome (Staffs.) amount to
£3, and besides these two items there are only small “alms,” amounting
to 8s. 6d., a tenement in Horsebrook[89] (16s.) and a cottage in
Kidderminster (2s.). The “alms” come from the following: William
Woodhouse in Albrighton, John Gifford Kt., in Chillington, Sir --
Vernon in Tong, Roger Corbet Kt., in Dawley, and -- Blakemore in
Bradeley.
When we compare this with the account given by the Commissioners at
the Dissolution, we see at once from the latter that the _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ took no account of stores or stock in hand. When
Thomas Gyfforde bought the place[90] he took over:
s. d.
1 qr. of wheat 6 2
1 „ „ munke-corn 8 0
1 „ „ oats 1 8
1 „ „ peas 2 8
10 loads of hay 15 0
1 horse 4 0
Little can be done to harmonize the two accounts of lands and rents,
but possibly Thomas Pitt who paid 2s. for “a hole yeres rente” at
the Suppression was the tenant of the cottage in Kidderminster, and
John Penford of the tenement in Horsebrook. William Woodhouse, of
Albrighton, appears, as William Wydowes, among those who were in
arrears, as also does the bailiff of Tong, presumably the Vernon who is
named in the _Valor_. In 1538 a grant in fee simple (by exchange)
was made to Charles, Duke of Suffolk, of various Crown leases,
including the Manor of Brome. Its annual value then was given at £3
10s., with 7s. rent.
The valuation made after the Dissolution (_Monasticon_, iv, 501)
is in most respects identical with _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ so far
as the same allotments appear, except that Brewood produces £1 2s. 4d.
only instead of £6 15s. The following additions are given:
Blithebury--lands £3 12 0
Hampton, 1 messuage 13 4
Henyngton „ 8 0
Shardycote „ 6 0
The total valuation amounts to £10 8s. 3½d.
CROXDEN ABBEY
The Cistercian Abbey of Croxden stood in a secluded valley, away from
the high road, about three miles from Rocester. Its history had been
calm and uneventful. Its Chronicle has been preserved but contains
little beyond merely domestic details, such as we should expect in
the history of a house far removed from the noise of the world. It is
an interesting example of the diary of one of the unimportant houses
which never played a prominent part in national history but lived a
humdrum life. It records some events of general interest, such as
various incidents in the struggles in the reign of Henry III, and
some of ecclesiastical interest, such as the adoption in the diocese
in 1250 of the antiphon _salve Regina_ ordered by the Pope in
1239, the appointment of Bishops and Archbishops, and the summoning
of the Cistercian Abbots to the General Chapters of the order at
Citeaux. In 1274 Abbot Howton went to attend the General Chapter, and
died at Dijon, being buried at Citeaux. In 1308 the Abbot refused
to attend, and was deposed. But most of the information is solely
concerned with the private fortunes of the secluded Abbey. We read of
an unusually plentiful harvest in 1288, when sufficient carts could
not be obtained, an earthquake shock in 1301 which terrified the monks
in their refectory, the burning of the Abbey wood at Cheadle in 1303,
a cattle plague in 1319, and a great storm in 1372 which flooded the
church and blew the roof off the dormitory. The church was built by
Abbot John of London, who had been Prior of Stratford in Essex, and was
dedicated in 1253. He also built Chapter House, refectory, kitchen,
dormitory, infirmary, etc. His successor, who was elected in 1268,
built the Abbot’s House, and added to the library a great Bible in nine
volumes. The west wing was built by John de Billysdon in 1288. It fell
down in 1369 and had to be re-built. A London house was purchased by
William de Over, who was elected in 1297, and who much increased the
library. The first bell was hung in 1302. In 1313 the monks engaged
Master Henry Michael de Lichfield to cast another to replace one which
had been cracked. We are told he laboured throughout the summer and
then his casting failed, but he succeeded by All Saints’ Day. From
1331 to 1334 much building, to repair the damage done by a great storm
in December, 1330, is recorded. The Abbey pool was made in 1336, but
ten years later it burst. The burials of the Verduns are carefully
chronicled--John in 1274, Thomas in 1309, Matilda in 1312. On this
latter occasion there was great pomp, and the Earl of Lancaster and
other notables attended. Joanna, the last of the Verduns, was buried
in 1334 before the high altar, the Abbots of Burton, Dieulacres, and
Hulton being present.
Croxden’s prosperous time had been in the years when the wool trade had
flourished. It was one of the houses which supplied the Flemish and
Florentine merchants in the latter part of the thirteenth and the early
part of the fourteenth centuries. When Edward II led his immense army
to Bannockburn, Croxden provided supplies almost as great as Burton
Abbey, and it also “lent” money to Richard II. But when its patronage
left the Verduns it began to experience adversity.
In 1319, Alton Castle and the patronage of Croxden passed to the
Furnivals. The new lord, Thomas de Furnival, levied many exactions on
the Abbey. He insisted on daily distribution of alms, probably in the
same spirit as the justices of Speenhamland in a later century--namely,
to relieve himself of the necessity of maintaining his tenants. He
required that his horses and hounds should be housed at the Abbey, and
that his seven bailiffs should be entertained and fed once a week in
a special room. There was naturally considerable friction, which was
finally ended by a formal written agreement.
The outbreak of the French Wars made the Cistercians unpopular,
and eventually they had to abandon their foreign dependence. Heavy
exactions were levied on them. Corrodians were quartered on them
without remorse. The Black Death added to their difficulties. It is
mentioned in the Annals of Croxden as follows: In 1349 “there was a
great pestilence throughout the whole world,” and in 1361, after almost
a complete blank in the Chronicle, we read that “a second pestilence
took place, and all the children that were born since the first
pestilence took place died.” In 1369 a third visitation is recorded. In
1367 the affairs of Croxden were in such confusion that the Abbot of
the parent house at Aunay had to send a special commissioner to visit
it. He found debts to the extent of 152 marks, 8 shillings, and 11
pence. Bad harvests increased the difficulty, and Croxden had to sell
much of its property. The insolvency which is found threatening so many
of the religious houses at the beginning of the sixteenth century had
evidently already begun.
In the breakdown of rule which accompanied the later years of the
Hundred Years’ War and the Wars of the Roses Croxden shared in the
general disorder. There was trespassing by neighbours on its lands:
there were complaints of trespassing on the lands of others by the
monks and their men.
When the Commissioners for _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ came to Croxden
they found Thomas Chawner was the Abbot. In the survey which was
drawn up[91] the ecclesiastical income comes first and amounts to £8
15s. 4d. It consisted mainly of the tithes of grain and hay from the
parishes of Alton in Staffordshire and of Tokeby in Leicestershire.
These being paid in kind are computed to be annually worth £2 5s. 4d.
and £4 respectively. The ecclesiastical rents also include the tithes
of grain and hay “and other emoluments” from the parish of Norton in
Leicestershire, which are reckoned to average £2 10s.
The fixed rents (_redditus assisus_) follow. These include a
“pension” of 12d. from the parish of Cheadle which we have added to the
former section. The remaining items, amounting to £1 7s. 10d., show
revenue from lands and tenements in Walton, Cheadle, and Calton in
Staffordshire, Ashbourne in Derbyshire, and Misterton in Northampton.
The third group gives the rents from lands and tenements “at will”:
in Alton (£5 4s. 1d.), Glaston[92] (£5 10s.), Cheadle (£8 6s. 4d.),
Leek (“Puttels” and “Whitels”), Uttoxeter, Stafford and Oken (£11 6s.
11d.), in Staffordshire; Hartshorne, Derby, Doveridge (“Downebrige”),
Longford, Langley, Ashbourne and Trusley (£4 6s. 8d.), in Derbyshire;
Tokeby (£8), and Burton Overy in Leicestershire; Stamford, Mountstrell
and Casterne in Northampton; Middlewich in Cheshire, and £1 6s. 8d. for
certain tenements in London: total £56 5s. 9d.
It is noted that the following demesne lands are not let, but are
reserved for the use of the Monastery; the demesne at Croxden (£16),
certain lands at Musden Grange (£13 6s. 8d.), and at Cauldon and Oncott
(£7 10s.); total, £36 16s. 8d.
Then follow the outgoings. First come the “fixed charges” (£2 10s.
10d.), among which the foremost item is £1 12s. 4d., paid as chief
rents to the Earl of Shrewsbury for lands in Cauldon and Alton. Four
shillings a year is paid to the “monastery” of Rocester; 4s. 6d. to
the King for lands in Ashbourne; and payments are noted to the Lord
Mountjoy, William Chetwen, arm., the heirs of John Blount, miles, and
the royal bailiff of Totmonslow.
Ecclesiastical payments are next given: to Hulton and Burton Abbeys,
the parishes of Uttoxeter and Checkley, the Archdeacons of Stafford
and Leicester, and 13s. 4d. per annum to the “General Reformator of
the Cistercian Order,” Henry VIII’s official, whose appointment was
chronicled in the preceding chapter.[93]
Wages to lay officials conclude the account. The steward of Tokeby
received 10s. and of Oken, 20s. The steward of Croxden, Ashbourne, and
Cauldon was John Wistowe, gent., and was paid £1. The bailiff and rent
collector in Leicestershire was paid £1 13s. 4d., and the collectors in
Oken and Croxden with its members 10s. and £1 6s. 8d. respectively. The
bailiff of Ashbourne and Cauldon was paid £1 a year.
When we attempt to compare this valuation with the first valuation made
after the surrender, as given in _Monasticon_ we find that the
latter omits various sources of income, as has already been mentioned
is commonly the case. The valuation of the demesne at Croxden had
decreased from £16 to £14 2s. 5d., but that of Musden Grange had risen
from £13 6s. 8d. to £19 11s. 8d. Alton rents had risen from £5 4s.
1d. to £5 15s. 3d., and the value of the water-mill there from £2 5s.
4d. to £4. Rents in Tokeby in Leicestershire had risen from £8 to
£11 9s. 4d., and the tithe there from £4 to £7. It appears as though
the rents from lesser folk had been generally raised, but the richer
people managed to keep down the valuation of their property. The total
valuation for the property which is mentioned is £157 1s. 2d. When it
is remembered that items amounting to some £15 are not included, this
is a very large increase on _Valor Ecclesiasticus_. The following
are not mentioned in the earlier valuation but appear in the later:
Great Gate and Denstone--rents £2 16 8
Ditto with Musden, Calder, and Trussley (tithes) 6 13 4
Great Gate and Ridding--messuage and wood 3 5 0
Crakemarsh Grange 3 0 0
Calton, fixed rents 3 6
Cauldon--rents 3 7 0
„ water-mill 1 0 0
Musdon, 3 messuages 3 12 0
Ellaston--rents 4 11 8
„ water-mill 1 6 8
Hunchedial 17 18 8
Puttels 1 4
East Norton, tithe 2 13 4
Caythorpe, „ 13 4
There are also a few other items of small amount.
DIEULACRES ABBEY
Dieulacres was another Cistercian house which had profited by the wool
trade, and had done much to bring the Moorlands into cultivation. Its
monks had improved the course of the river Churnet, which flowed down
the valley, had effected a great scheme of drainage, including the
building of a stone drain so huge as to give rise to an impossible
story of an underground passage from the Abbey to the Church, and
had constructed a raised paved road across the valley. They had been
well endowed at the commencement, and had begun with the advowson
of the Church at Leek and its chapels. They owned a London house.
The Abbot’s court was sometimes attended by as many as three or four
hundred persons. His gallows stood at the end of the town, and his fair
was held at Leek annually for seven days at the Feast of St. Arnulph
(July 28th). He was a county magnate of importance, and even so late
as 1504 we find him stipulating in the lease of the Manor of Pulton
that he was to be entertained there with twelve mounted companions
twice a year. Such a position was dangerous, and it is not surprising
to find that the Abbot sometimes carried things with a high hand. In
1379 it was alleged against the Abbot that he attempted “to perpetrate
maintenance in his marches” (_in marchiis suis manutenenciam
facere_) and to oppress the people. He had a band of twenty-one
retainers, who are described as common disturbers of the King’s peace,
living at the Abbey and doing all the mischief they can, lying in wait
for travellers, assaulting, maiming, and even killing them. Some of
them were captured on the definite charge of murdering John de Warton
at Leek, and were committed to the Marshalsea, with Edmund de Draycot,
Cellarer at Dieulacres, and William del Brugge, Vicar of Leek, who,
with the Abbot, had harboured the murderers. But the Abbot managed to
delay proceedings again and again, and finally no one was punished.[94]
In 1413 a monk of Dieulacres, with a large number of armed men, raided
a neighbouring park, and took by force much stone, the Abbot being
privy to the deed. The Abbot in question was Richard Whitmore, and one
of the armed men who led the expedition was Adam Whitmore, Knight.
Abbot Whitmore was frequently engaged in quarrels with his neighbours,
as was his successor, John Goodfellow. He once stole goods worth £40,
and once engaged in a riotous attack on the Vicar of Ilam, who had
given the tithes to a neighbour he disliked.[95]
When the Commissioners visited Dieulacres the Abbot was Thomas Whitney,
and subsequent events showed he inherited the spirit and vigour of his
predecessors.
The summary[96] is arranged like that of Croxden and Rocester. The
ecclesiastical income is mainly derived from Leek and its chapels: £1
4s. from glebe, £18 3s. 8d. from tithes of straw and hay, £46 8s. from
oblations, £10 from tithes of sheep and wool, and £6 from tithes of
cattle. From Leek also comes £6 5s. 4d. in Easter dues. Besides these
there are two items from Sandbach: £23 16s. tithes of straw and hay,
etc., and 14s. 8d. from glebe.
Fixed rents include 5s. 8d. from Leek, 1s. 6d. from Thornley, 5d. from
Stafford, and 11s. from Norbrook and Biscopham in Lancashire; other
“lands and tenaments” produce £160 15s. A salt-pan at Middlewich, worth
£3 yearly, is included.
The demesne is said to be reserved _ad usum hospicii monasterii_,
and to have been estimated by the discretion of the Commissioners to
be worth £8 18s. 6d. per year. “Perquisites” of the Court and other
“casual [fees]” are estimated in a similar manner at £4.
The outgoings begin with a payment of £4 13s. 4d. to the Royal
Exchequer at Chester, and include 2s. to the landlord of Field for
lands there; £3 13s. 4d. to the Abbot of Shrewsbury for the Lancashire
lands; 8d. to Lord Audley for lands in Longton, and 2s. to Thomas
Butler, Kt., for lands in Biscopham. “Pensions, Procurations, and
Synodals” are paid to the Archdeacons of Stafford (15s.) and Chester
(7s. for Sandbach), and to the Abbot of Combermere (18s. 6d.).
Wages to lay officials are given as follows: William Damport, £1 6s.
8d., as steward of the courts, and a similar amount for his fee as
“Collector or Receiver” of the rents in Le Frith and elsewhere in
Staffordshire; 13s. 4d. to John Corden, collector in Leek, and £2 to
Humfry Whitney, collector in Cheshire. It will be noticed that the last
mentioned bears the same surname as the Abbot. In 1537 he received a 49
years’ lease of a salt-pan at Middlewich.
Other possessions named, besides those already mentioned, were situated
at Heyton, Tentisworth, Esyng, Lowe, Longnor, Horton, Cheddleton,
Pulford, Poulton, Duddleston, Chirton Cestria, Byveley, Yatehouses and
Rudheth, Bagford and Hadford, Knutsford, Newbalt, and Rossall.
At the Dissolution the following lay officials received “fees and
annuities”: Lord Derby, steward of the monastery and town of Leek, £2;
Richard Grosvenor, Steward of Poulton, 26s. 8d.; Humfry Whitney, £3 6s.
8d.; William Davenport, £4; Robert Burgh, forester (amount not stated);
John Gordon, bailiff of Leek, £1; John Aleynn, bailiff of Rossall,
etc., 26s. 8d.; Richard Daun, late steward of the household at Rossall,
etc., £3; and eleven others, one of whom was subsequently described as
chamberlain to the Abbot.
In the post-Dissolution valuation there are only two omissions, which
amount to £2 12s. The site and demesne had fallen from £8 18s. 6d.
to £3 18s. 1d. Rents at Heyton had risen nearly £3, at Thoreby, £1
4s.; at Tettysworth, £2 8s. 5d.; at Middlewich, over £4; but in some
places they had slightly fallen, and at Esyng they had dropped from
£3 3s. 8d. to £1 5s. 6d. The value of the Frith had fallen from £35
16s. 3d. to £31 4s. 11½d., and the salt-pan at Middlewich from £3 to
£1 16s. 8d. Perquisites of the Court at Leek had fallen from £4 to £1
17s. 9d. Perquisites of the Court are added at Heyton (8s. 9d.), the
Frith (2s. 7d.), Lowe (4d.), and Poulton (6s. 8d.). Other additions are
water-mills at Leek (£4 6s. 8d.) and Heyton (12s.). Rents in kind at
Heyton--“_reddit’ mobil’ caponum_”--(10s. 6d.) and at Lowe (8s.);
rents at Nether Tettysworth, etc. (£1 17s. 4d.), Newbold in Aslebery
(£1), tithes at Gostree (£3 6s. 8d.), and Hulme (£6 13s. 4d.), rents at
Aldelegh (£2 5s.). Rents in Leek remained practically unchanged, but
the Rectory was raised nearly £20. The manor of Poulton remained at
£25, but the tithes at Sandbach had fallen £10. Rossall Grange remained
almost the same. Grants under the seal of the Abbot or Convent appear
at the Frith (£24 14s. 2½d.); Tettysworth (£2 19s. 8d.) and Lowe (£14
6s.10d.); perhaps these are the ante-dated leases, which Abbot Whitney
arranged, and which were divulged by John Whitney long afterwards, as
will be related in due course. The valuation amounted to £285 14s. 6d.
DUDLEY PRIORY
Dudley Priory was a cell to the great Austin Priory of Wenlock in
Shropshire, and its Prior at the visit of the Commissioners was John
Webley.[97]
The bulk of its income came from places in the diocese of Lichfield.
The house, with three demesnes adjoining, is valued at £7 10s. 8d., and
it is stated that the Commissioner who made the valuation was Walter
Wrottesley, Kt. A further sum of £3 10s. is made up from divers rents
of lands and houses in Sedgeley, Omburn, and Woodford, the land at
Omburn being described as arable (10s.). From Sedgeley also came tithes
of grain worth £6 6s. 8d.; and tithes from Omburn and Trefull amount to
£10. From Worcester diocese came a total of £9 0s. 8d., Dudley supplied
fixed rents (£2 1s.), other rents (£1 6s. 8d.), and herbage and tithes
therefrom (£2 10s.). The rest came from fixed rents in Churchill and
pensions from Northfield.
Disbursements (£2 6s. 8d.) are shared between two officials, Edward
Blount, gent. the steward (6s. 8d.), and John Coke, the bailiff (£2).
The latter is stated to hold his office for life, and when Sir John
Dudley obtained the possessions of the Priory at the Dissolution they
continued to be charged with John Coke’s annual fee.[98]
The payment from the rectory of Northfield is returned as £2 6s., but
in the Worcestershire return it appears as £2 6s. 8d. (p. 270), and no
mention is made of the 10s. which the vicarage of Dudley paid (p. 275).
The valuation made after the Dissolution is given in _Monasticon_
(v, 84). It is described as follows: “_Compotus Johannis Dudley
militis perceptoris Reddituum et Firmarum ibidem per tempus praedictum.
Redditus et Firmae pertinentes nuper Cellae sive Prioratui de Dudley
praedicta._” The site and demesne had risen in value to £8 3s. 2d.
Rents in Dudley are £4 9s. 3d.-- a decrease from £5 17s. 8d.; in
Sedgeley there was an increase to £1 2s. 8d. The tithes at Dudley had
risen to £6 6s. 8d., and tithes “from divers parishes” amounted to £19
18s. 8d. £5 as the _firma_ of Trysull Grange is added. The total
is given as £39 10s. 9d., but it has proved impossible to make it
agree with the items which are given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
Outgoings are given as follows: Edward Blount, steward, and John Coke,
bailiff, receive their fees as before; the auditor’s fee for writing
the valuation was 2s.; and the Bishop’s visitation fee is 2s. for
Dudley and 12d. for Omborne and Trysull.
It is mentioned that various leases had been granted by the Priory for
life, and that 45½ acres of the pasture of the demesne in divers closes
were in separate parcels. They were “occupied” by John Dudley, but
unfortunately no valuation of them is given.
HULTON ABBEY
The Cistercian Abbey of Hulton had annexed the parish church in 1368,
when it was stipulated that a suitable proportion of the profits should
be reserved for a resident vicar. It had been prosperous in the golden
days of the wool trade, and in 1310 had given Edward II’s army as much
in the way of supplies as Burton Abbey; but its wealth had seriously
declined. In later years it had possessed a pottery. The Abbot’s name
when the Commissioners visited Hulton was John, but his rule ended
shortly afterwards.
In the summary given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_[99] the income is
given in detail from each manor and parish. The same arrangement is
followed in the case of Trentham, Stafford, Stone, and Ronton.
The following are the particulars relating to the several manors:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rents of | Chief | Court |
Demesne | tenements | rents | perquisites | Water-mills
£ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | s. d. | s. d.
Hulton Manor 6 0 0 | 9 15 0 | 6 0 | 3 4 | 5 0
Normacot Manor 5 18 0 | | | 2 0 | 6 8
Bradnop Manor 4 0 | 1 16 8 |11 6 0 | 3 4 |
Cambryngham Manor | | | |
(Lincs.) 3 6 8 | 12 17 1½ | | 3 4 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Hulton the rent came from twelve tenements held “_ad
voluntatem_,” and in each case the demesne comprised arable, meadow,
and pasture. At Rushton Grange there was also arable, meadow, and
pasture, worth £4.
The remaining property was all in Lincolnshire: Fillingham (5 tenements
and a cottage), £2 4s. 4d.; Coots (lands), 4s. 4d.; Willingham (part of
a meadow), 16d.; and Lincoln (one cottage), 1s.
The temporal disbursements comprised payments to the Abbot of
Dieulacres, the Prior of Trentham, and the Prior of Torksey; to
the King for Fillingham; to Philip Dreycote, miles, chief steward
of the Staffordshire manors (£1 6s. 8d.), and Richard Sutton, Kt.,
chief steward of Cambringham; and to the bailiffs--£1 to Thomas Leer
(Hulton), 10s. to Laurence Ratclyffe (Bradnop), 10s. to Robert Asten
(Normacot), £1 to William Rede (Cambringham). The Under Steward, Sir
Richard’s deputy, was paid 13s. 4d.
The spiritual income consisted of tithes (£18 10s.) and glebe
(£2), from the parishes of Audley (£11) and Byddell (£4 10s.) in
Staffordshire, and Cambringham (£2 10s.) in Lincolnshire.
The spiritual outgoings included £1 13s. 4d. to the Bishop of
Lichfield, “_extra ecclesias de Audeley and Byddell predictas per
idempnitate sua_,” and 6s. 8d. every third year for visitation fees;
10s. 4d. to the Archdeacon of Stafford for procurations; 7s. 6d. to
the Archdeacon of Stowe (Lincs.); 6s. 8d. to the Bishop of Lincoln for
synodals; 5s. 4d. to “the ... of Blessed Mary of Lincoln” as a pension.
3s. 4d. is also paid to the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield “_pro
idempnitate_,” and 3s. 4d. to the Priory of Coventry for the same
purpose.
There was a change of Abbots between the valuation in 1535 and October
1st, 1536, for on the latter date the Abbot who received a grant of
exemption from the Act suppressing the Lesser Monasteries was Edward
Wilkyns. The payment he had to make was £66 13s. 4d.[100]
In the valuation given in _Monasticon_ (v. 716) the rents at
Hulton Manor only amounted to £1 16s., but additions were made of rents
at Stoke, 6s.; Burdeslyme and Sneyd, £18 18s. 3d.; More, £1 18s., and
Myxton Heyes (pastures), £5 16s. 8d., as well as at Northwich, 10s.,
and Bridgeworth, 2s. The water-mill at Hulton was omitted, but one
was mentioned at More worth 14s. Rushton Grange had risen in value to
£7 5s., but Normacot Manor had fallen to £2 1s., and the water-mill
is not mentioned. The demesne at Bradnop Manor is not mentioned,
nor are Cambryngham, Fillingham, Coots, Willingham, or Lincoln. No
“perquisites of Courts” are mentioned. The valuation amounted to £67
3s. 4d.
ROCESTER ABBEY
The house of Austin Canons at Rocester was often called an Abbey, and
its Abbot was William Grafton. It was a house with a history containing
many points of minor interest. We see how the religious were able to
turn the difficulties of others to their own advantage when we read
that when Sir Hugh de Okeover’s unwavering loyalty to Henry III during
the Welsh War and the Barons’ Revolt seriously impoverished him and he
had to sell much of his patrimony, the neighbouring Abbot of Rocester
was a ready purchaser of his lands.
The wool trade made Rocester prosperous for a time, and Edward I
granted the Abbot a fair and a market. So late as the reign of Henry
VI a second fair was obtained. The Manor of Rocester had been granted
to the Abbey when the Chester Earldom was appropriated by Henry III
as a provision for the heir-apparent. The house had once maintained
two chantries, one at Halywell in Warwickshire and another at Lees in
Staffordshire.
The prosperous days of the canons had ended even before the Black
Death. In 1318 they alleged that the cattle plague and bad harvests
had reduced them to such poverty that they had been obliged to go out
and beg _quasi mendicantes_. But on Bishop Norbury’s personal
visitation of Rocester Priory he found that heavy debts had been
incurred through the attempt to obtain possession of the appropriation
of Woodford in Northamptonshire. There were other abuses, too.
He forbade the granting of corrodies and the keeping of _canes
venatici_, but his injunctions were not observed.
It was in the time of Bishop Norbury that the interesting question
arose about Easter Communions, which has already been mentioned.
The arrangement of the summary in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_[101] is
identical with that of Croxden, with an interesting addition which
will be noticed presently. Ecclesiastical revenues include the tithes
of straw (“garbas”) and hay in Rocester (with Waterfall and Bradley),
Edensor, Kynston, and Woodford. The tithes in Rocester, etc., appear to
be leased (_de firma_). The total is £46 13s. 10d.
The fixed rents were from lands in “Le Clownams” (Clownholme), Glaston,
Great Meadow, and Rocester, and amounted to 13s. 1d.
Lands and tenements produced £40 8s. 8d. They were situated in
Rocester, Swinscoe, Stanton, Combridge, Quickshill (“Quitsell”),
Denstone, Alton, Waterfall, Foston, and Hognaston.
The value of the demesne lands is stated to be estimated, by the
judgment of the Commissioners and others appointed by them, at £23
16s. _per annum_: they were reserved “_ad usum hospicii
monasterii_.” From the Paper Survey we know they consisted of
arable, 70 acres; pasture, 201 acres, and meadow, 20 acres.
The outgoings begin with the fixed payments: 1d. to the Earl of
Shrewsbury for lands in Alton, £1 to William Bassett, Kt., for lands in
Swinscoe, and 10s. to the King.
The ecclesiastical payments included fees to the Archdeacons of Derby
(for procurations and synodals for the Church of Edensor) and Stafford
(for Rocester and Kynston); £4 6s. 8d. for a chantry in Lichfield
Cathedral; 6s. 8d. to the Rector of Kyngeley for the chapel at Bradley,
and 10s. to the Rector of Blythfield for the Church of Kynston.
Only two lay officials are mentioned: Henry Pole, Steward of the Courts
at Rocester (13s. 4d.) and John Needham, collector (£2).
Lastly comes an interesting section of “Annual Alms to the Poor,” which
amount to £1 17s. 4d. At Easter four quarters of frumenty cakes were
distributed (a quarter is reckoned to be worth 8s.); and at Hallowmas
8 dishes (“_fercula_”) of meat, 16 loaves, and 8 gallons of ale
(“_servicia_”). These are the only doles mentioned in the Rural
Deanery, and it is expressly stated, in accordance with the official
instructions, that each is “_ex fundatione monasterii_.”
In the valuation made subsequent to the Dissolution we find the
site and demesne had risen in value from £23 16s. to £36 8s. 10d.
The Rectory of Rocester (£4) is added and also a fulling mill there
(£2 6s. 8d.). Rents had slightly fallen at Waterfall and Swinscoe,
but had risen £2 at Rocester, and 16s. at Quickshill and Denstone.
Additions are, besides those already mentioned, perquisites of
the Court at Rocester, 6s. 8d., tithes at Waterfall (£1 6s. 8d.),
Calton (£1), and Quickshill and Denstone (11s. 8d.), and rents at
Somersall--pasture--(10) and Scropton (£1 3s. 4d.). Kynston Rectory had
fallen from £7 to £1. The omissions are small and amount to £6 only,
but the total valuation was raised to £129 6s. 3d.
RONTON PRIORY
The Priory at Ronton had been built on assarted land, that is, land
reclaimed and cleared from the surrounding forests. Its full name was
_S. Maria de Exsartis_ or _Ste Marie des Essarz_, and in its precincts
had formerly stood almshouses in connection with which we read of a
gift of _unam assartam in campis de Flotesbroc_ (Flashbrook). No trace
of them appears in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ or in any of the records
of the Dissolution. The Priory was dependent on Haughmond Abbey in
Shropshire, to which it made an annual payment. So long ago as 1246
this had been fixed by the Bishop at £5, and this amount was paid down
to the time of the suppression. The Prior of Haughmond was supposed
to visit Ronton every year, but no effective control was exercised.
In the fourteenth century Bishop Norbury found much to censure at
Ronton, and Bishop Blythe had recently (1530) refused to institute one
of its canons who had been nominated to a vicarage, as he found him
_indoctus et indignus_. In 1535 the Prior was Thomas Alton. _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_[102] records that the temporal income came from Ronton
and Heathhouse Grange (£13 11s. 8d.), the town of Ronton (£3 18s.
8d.), Clanford, Knighton, Ellerton, Bachaker, Hevedale, Hevehall,
Watteley More, Seighford, Brucheford, Ellenhall, Billington, Orslow,
Apeton, Launde Stockton, Aston and Cokysland, Walford, Gnosall,
Halghton, Offley, Eccleshall, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Milwich, Whitgreve,
Wodeyton, and Cowley in Staffordshire, besides 7s. 4d. from Stafford.
The amounts are all small. From Shepey in Leicestershire came £4 8s.
8d.; from St. Mary’s Gild in Newport (Salop), 1s.; and from Grenburgh
(Warw.), £4.
The demesne at Ronton produced £4 6s. 8d. arable, £6 5s. pasture, and
£3 came from “_xxviii dey mathys prati ibidem_.” The total amount is
£13 11s. 8d., and from the Paper Survey we know the acreage was as
follows: arable, 79 acres; pasture, 121½ acres; meadow, 39 acres.
At the town of Ronton 18s. 4d. came from two parcels of land and a
water-mill.
Temporal outgoings consisted of payments to the Bishop for houses
in Eccleshall and Knighton; Henry, Lord Stafford (Billington), John
Gifford (Dulverne), and Thomas Gifford, Kt., “Lord” of Cariswall
(Hevehall), Thomas Astley, Kt. (Shepey), the canons of Penkridge
(Billington), John Harcourt, Kt. (Ronton), the Prebendary of
Chyltrenhall in Gnosal (pastures in Gnosal), William Essex, Kt.
(Walford).
The chief steward was John Harcourt (£2). Bailiffs are Reginald Carte
(Grenburgh), Robert Vincent (Shepey), and John Hoggson (Ronton, etc.).
The spiritual income consisted of tithes only: £13 8s. 6d. from
Seighford and £32 17s. from Grenburgh (Warw.).
Spiritual payments were as follows: Bishop £3 6s. 8d. triennially
as visitation fees, 6s. 8d. annually from Grenburgh, and 4s. from
Seighford; £5 to Haughmond Abbey.
The valuation of Ronton after the Dissolution (_Monasticon_, vi,
259) amounted to £116 16s. 9d. There were additions as follows: A
salt-pan at Nantwich, £1 11s.; rents at Brichford, 9s. 4d.; Heathcote
Grange, £3 16s.; tithes in Aston (Staffs.); Doddington and Cotton, £3
13s. 4d.; Oldall Grange, £1 4s.; Ronton Rectory, £4 13s. 4d.; Ellenhall
Rectory, £3 12s. 8d. The omissions are Ronton, rents £3 0s. 4d.;
water-mill, 18s. 4d.; Clanford, rents, £2 13s. 4d.; Hevedale, rents, £1
4s.; Orslowe, 12s.; Apeton, 8s.; Offley, 9s.; Cowley, 6d.; and Newport
(Salop), 1s. Seighford Church is £6 5s. 2d. only, and there are tithes
there worth £4 13s. 4d. Watteley More Grange, £2 13s. 4d., is added.
Aston (Staffs.) and Cokysland has risen from 6s. 8d. to 19s. 4d.,
including 1s. for “_terra vasta_.” Grenburgh Rectory was £36 7s.
instead of £32 17s. The remaining items are either unchanged or usually
show a slight increase. The demesne remained practically unchanged,
though in the Paper Survey it is £16 7s.[103]
ST. THOMAS’S PRIORY, STAFFORD
The Austin Canons of St. Thomas the Martyr, near Stafford, had often
given striking illustrations of the worldly spirit which gradually
infused itself in the “religious.” They were such keen men of business
that their transactions were sometimes questionable. It has already
been mentioned that when a verderer of the Forest of Cannock, in the
latter part of the thirteenth century, laid himself open to the severe
penalties of the Forest Laws and fled for his life beyond the seas, St.
Thomas’s Priory did not hesitate to strike a bargain with him and to
buy his manor. They possessed it at the Dissolution. They built a fine
church and had a well-furnished house, fit to entertain Henry IV on
his return from his victory at Shrewsbury. They were paid 26s. 8d. for
their hospitality on the occasion.
In 1389 the Priory received from Robert de Ferrers an interesting
grant from the revenues of the rectory of Weston. It was to vary
with the number of Canons. There was to be an allowance of food
(_pictancia_) from the kitchen every Thursday, and it was to
be suitable to the season of the ecclesiastical year (_prout
tempus_), and if the number of canons increased the allowance was
to be correspondingly increased. Moreover, in 1409, the Bishop ordered
that it was to be paid “_in Refectario seu Infirmaria prout tempus
aut necessitas exquirit_.”[104]
In 1535 the Prior was Richard Whytwell. The Commissioners[105] found
that at the Priory were lands--arable, meadow, and pasture--worth £2,
and similarly at Arberton Grange, worth £10. At each of the manors was
a demesne and usually a Court:
-----------+---------+-----------------+-------------+------------
Manor | Demesne | Rents of | Perquisites | Water-mill
| | tenements | of Court |
-----------+---------+-----------------+-------------+------------
| £ s. d. | £ s. d. | s. d. | £ s. d.
Frodeswell | 2 0 0 | 6 17 7[106] | 1 0 |
Penford | 4 0 0 | 5 18 7½ | 1 2 |
Drayton | 1 6 0 | 5 18 2 | 6 | 2 0 0
Mere | 2 0 0 | 5 13 4 | 6 |
Apeton | 1 9 8 | 3 4 2 | |
Coton | 4 0 0 | 6 0 0 | |
Penulton | 4 0 0 | 14 18 6 | |
-----------+---------+------------- --+-------------+------------
[106] And 1 lb. pepper.
In each case the demesne is described as arable, meadow, and pasture.
In Stafford the Priory had burgages, orts, and gardens worth £14.
Other possessions were at Amerton, Drayngton, Grindley, Newton,
Lee, Acton Trussell, Colton, Salt, Hopton, Shradycote, Whitgreve,
Admaston, Rycerdysctote, Lichfield (a burgage, 6s.), Byssheton,
Olton, Marchington, Bednall, Walton, Hanyate, and Swynneshed, in
Staffordshire. Elsewhere are Ashbourne, Duranstrope, Quinton, “_villa
de Wico Malbano_” (where £2 13s. 4d. comes “_de duobus domibus
salinis_,” called “Salt Howses”), besides the Manor of Penulton
already mentioned.
The temporal outgoings include the following:
To the King, 2s. for “Sute silver” from the Manor of Penford, 10d. from
Arberton, 12d. from Salt, and 13d. from Pennulton; to the Bishop of
Lichfield, 20s. 11d. for lands in Stafford, etc.; to William Chetyn,
Kt., from Stafford and Salt, 4s. 10d.; Thomas Bagott, Kt., from
Admaston, 3s.; George Gresley, mil., from Colton and Admaston; to Sir
John Dudley, 3s. from Penford; to Rose Cleyton of Bushbury, widow,
from Penford; to Richard Egerton, clerk, Master of St. John’s Hospital
at Stafford, 4s. 4d.; to the Prior of Stone, 2s.; of Ronton, 2s.; of
Croxden, 2s.; of Shene, 10s. 4d.; to the presbyters of the College of
Stafford, 3s. 4d.; to the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, 8d.
The chief steward was Earl Ferrers and his fee was £4. The steward of
Pennulton, Alexander Ratclyffe, received £1. Thomas Crosse, deputy
steward or custodian of the Manor Courts in Staffordshire, received
13s. 8d. The bailiffs were Otto Holond at Penulton, George Boughey at
Frodswell, etc., Edward Whythell at Coton and Stafford, William Russell
at Drayton, William Parry at Penford, Hugh Brenn’ at Mere, John Kelyng
at Apeton. Their fees ranged from 33s. 4d. to 6s. 8d.
Of these at the Dissolution[107] Earl Ferrers received a pension of
40s.; Ratcliffe, 13s. 4d.; Holland, 13s. 4d., Boughey, 20s., and Edward
Whytell, 33s. 4d. There were also the following: Mr. Robert Browne,
15s.; Mr. Philip Chetwynd, 26s. 8d.; Hugh Baker, 20s.; William Harney,
10s.; William Bagley, 10s.; Richard Torner, baker, 10s.; James Cocke,
20s.; Thomas Stapleton, 10s.; and Richard Whytell, 20s. These were all,
evidently, lay officials of the house, and doubtless some of them were
the successors of those named in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_.
The spiritual income came from glebe and tithes at Stowe, Bushbury,
Geyton, Berkyswiche, Weston, and Aldelem (Cheshire), tithes at
Cariswall and Mere, Easter dues from Stowe, Weston, Geyton, and
Berkyswiche. The glebe is particularised, and amounts to £6 6s. 4d.
Spiritual outgoings include £2 4s. to the Bishop for appropriated
churches, and £3 6s. 8d. every third year for visitation fees; 3s. 6d.
to the Archdeacon of Stafford; £18 10s. to the Dean and Chapter; and
15s. to the Priory of Coventry.
No valuation subsequent to the Dissolution is given in
_Monasticon_. The fine for continuance was £133 6s. 8d.[108]
The house was comfortably furnished, and there were considerable
quantities of stores and a fair amount of live stock, etc., as will be
detailed later.
STONE PRIORY
The Austin Priory of Stone had had many struggles arising out of the
encroachments of the “religious” on the sphere of the “secular” clergy.
In the twelfth century it employed an agent to purchase livings and
many troubles arose in consequence of his success.
In the competition for appropriations and tithes which went on
between the religious houses there was keen rivalry. St. Thomas,
Stafford, attempted in 1278 to obtain the Church of Stone, and sought
to get Bishop Longsword on its side by submitting the matter to his
arbitration. But Stone retaliated by appealing to the Dean and Chapter
with a gift of 10 marks. In the same century there was a dispute
between Kenilworth Priory, on behalf of its dependent house at Stone,
and St. Remigius, on behalf of Lapley, about the tithes of Shefford.
Ultimately, they were taken from Lapley and bestowed on Stone, but in
1368 there were further disputes about the same subject.
In the reign of Henry III there was strife between the parishioners and
the Priory about the payment of tithes, and it was formally arranged
that all parishioners, freemen and villeins alike, should pay the
definite sum of two farthings a year, with “oblations” four times
yearly.
The Canons of Stone trafficked largely in corrodies. From Edward I
they obtained permission for a fair. They entered thoroughly into the
affairs of the world. During the Barons’ War they were not above
plundering the lands of those who were fighting: their cellarer was
charged with breaking into the house of a man who was a prisoner in
the hands of the Barons. The Priory suffered, however, from making
itself too “secular,” and in the days of Bishop Norbury it was
brought to the verge of bankruptcy by the frequent calls which were
made on its hospitality by travellers on the King’s highway beside
which it stood. It maintained its spirit of worldliness. In 1473 the
Prior is found associating himself with one Sir Thomas Fyton, Kt.,
in disseising Richard Whalley of property in Darlaston, Anslow, and
Aston, near Stone. Neither appeared to answer the charge, and their
bail was forfeited. The Prior was fined £6, and the Knight £120, with
£60 damages, he having taken the property _vi et armis_.[109] The
Prior in the time of Bishop Smythe (1493–1496), whose name was Thomas
Fort, acted as suffragan bishop in the diocese while the diocesan
employed himself in political work.
The Prior at the time of the Suppression was William Smith. In
the returns which he supplied to the Commissioners for _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_[110] there are not many details of particular
interest, though the old connection with Kenilworth is shown to be
still maintained.
From the Manor of Stone came £27 13s. 2d., the items of which are of
tenements with their appurtenances, £8 12s.; 26 cottages, £5 7s.;
demesne arable, £3 6s. 8d.; pasture, £2 10s.; meadow, £2 1s. 4d.; a
water-mill, £4; perquisites of the Court, 13s. 4d.; chief rents, £1 2s.
10d. £16 came from Stallington, and smaller sums from Stoke, Walton
near Stone, Aston in fee of Walton, Burston, Shebridge, Stafford (5s.
8d.), Coppenhall, Wotton, Hilderstone, and Darlaston. Among these
an orchard at Aston produces 4d., and Hilderstone, “_de crofto et
orio_,” 2s.
Temporal outgoings included 1s. 8d. to Henry, Lord Stafford, and 5s.
1d. to the heirs of Henry Vernon, mil. The chief steward was Edward
Aston, mil., and his fee was £1 5s. 8d.; his deputy, Thomas Moreton,
received 13s. 4d. Walter Walkeden, the bailiff, received £1 6s. 8d.
Spiritual income came as follows: £40 from Stone, £8 10s. in tithes
from Milwich, £2 from Swynnerton, £1 from Checkley, and £24 from Tyso
in Warwickshire. The revenue from Stone was £8 in Easter dues; tithes,
£28; lesser tithes called “White Tythes,” £1, and oblations to St.
Wulphade, etc., £3.
Spiritual outgoings consisted of Episcopal visitation fees £3 6s. 8d.
triennially and £1 6s. 8d. annually for procurations, etc.; 13s. 4d.
to the Dean and Chapter; £2 to the Vicars of the Cathedral; 19s. to
the Archdeacon of Stafford; £9 to Kenilworth Abbey; and 13s. 4d. to
Coventry Priory.
The payment of £9 to Kenilworth Abbey appears as £9 11s. 4d. in the
_Valor_ of that Abbey, but there is no entry of the 2s. paid
by the Priory of St. Thomas, Stafford (_V.E._, p. 111), or of
the £2 3s. paid from the churches of Berkswich, Bushbury, and Weston
(_V.E._, p. 129).
In the valuation after the Dissolution (_Monasticon_, vi, 233),
Coppenhall and Darlaston are omitted, but Myford, 3s.; Fulford, 8s.;
Tittensor (tithes), £2 13s. 4d., and Burston (tithes), 10s. 4d., are
added; also a fulling-mill at Stone worth £1 6s. 8d., and Madeley
Rectory, £9 6s. 8d. Decreases are the demesne at Stone (to £5 0s. 4d.),
rents in Stafford (3s. 4d.), Stone Rectory (£39 10s.), Tyso Rectory
(£22), Milwich Rectory, £4. The rents at Stone had increased to £49 8s.
10d., at Stallington to £23 6s. 8d., at Walton to £6 0s. 4d., at Stoke
(with Aston, Darlaston, and Burston) from £3 16s. to £7 11s. 6½d., at
Shebridge to £2, at Walton to £8 0s. 5d., and at Hilderstone to 5s. The
Court perquisites at Stone Manor had also risen to £1 6s. 8d.; this
with the decrease in the value of the demesne and the enormous increase
in rents shows that a considerable part of the demesne had been let.
The total valuation is £199 19s. 1½d.
TRENTHAM PRIORY
The Priory of Trentham had always been an aristocratic house,
intimately connected in its early days with the Earls of Chester and
later with the Earls of Lancaster, their successors. It had, of course,
been involved in the struggles of its patrons. In the early days of
Stephen, during one of the periods when Earl Ralf was on Matilda’s
side, he allowed her (1139) to nominate the Prior of his house at
Trentham. The Prior was declared to be appointed _tam largitione quam
presentacione venerabilis Domine nostre Matilde_.[111]
During the rebellion of Thomas of Lancaster Prior Richard de
Lavynden died (1321). Lancaster promptly asserted his claim to the
presentation, forcibly entered the house against the wish of the
Canons--or so they subsequently asserted when Lancaster fell--and
insisted on the election of Richard de Dulverne. Dulverne petitioned
the King, immediately after Lancaster’s execution, to allow his
election. Edward II assented, on receiving a fine of forty marks, but
asserted that the right of preservation had “always” belonged to the
Crown.[112] Edward II also enforced his claim to nominate to corrodies
at Trentham with vigour and harshness, and _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
shows that the claim was still maintained in the reign of Henry VIII.
But the royal patronage of Trentham did not avail to protect the Priory
in times of disorder. In 1428 Prior Thomas had his goods plundered by
Richard Twigg of Ashbourn, who also laid in wait to kill him, so that
he had to keep a bodyguard of defenders.
The Prior in 1535 was Thomas Bradwall. According to _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_,[113] the main part of the temporal income came from
the Manor of Trentham (£39 6s. 6d. out of £83 19s.). There were demesne
lands worth £26, arable, meadow, and pasture, and a water-mill. The
remainder was chief rents (18s. 8d.), 11 tenements, another water-mill,
and 16 cottages “_cum pertinentibus_” in Trentham (£11 15s. 10d.),
and the perquisites of the Courts (12s.). The remaining property in
Staffordshire was at Longton, Kybbulston, Blurton, Cokenage, Newstead,
Hanchurch, Cleyton Gryffin, Chaldon, Mere juxta Caryswall, Elkeston,
and Newcastle-under-Lyme. The proceeds from Longton include 4 barbed
arrows, and there was a water-mill worth 30 shillings at Chaldon. In
Warwickshire Fenny Compton produced £2 and in Leicestershire Gaddesby
produced 13s. 4d.
Outgoings included 11s. 6d. to the King for lands, etc., in Newcastle,
and 2s. 6d. for lands in Chaldon; 4s. to the Bishop of Lichfield; 3s.
6d. to the heirs of Robert Sheffield (Newcastle and Clayton Gryffin);
4s. 4d. to the heirs of Henry Vernon (Kybbulston). William Chetwyn is
chief steward (£1) and his deputy is Thomas Ironmonger (13s. 4d.). The
bailiffs were Henry Bredehurst (Franchises of Trentham, 13s. 4d.), and
Richard Gynne (Elkeston, 13s. 4d.). Laurence Bradwell was receiver and
was paid £2.
Henry Akers had a corrody of £2 a year _ex dono regis_.
The spiritual income came from the parishes of Trentham (£12 3s.
4d.) and Barleston (£6 14s. 4d.) in Staffordshire, Barkeley in
Leicestershire (£5 13s. 4d.), and Sutton in Derbyshire (£12 13s. 4d.).
The amount left to Sutton was £4 16s. 8d. From Trentham came Easter
dues, £3; tithes of grass, £6 13s. 4d.; tithes of sheep, £2 10s.; and
oblations, 10s. From Barlaston came Easter dues, 13s. 4d., tithes of
grass and hay, £5 0s. 8d.; tithes of sheep, 13s. 4d.; oblations, 3s.;
lesser tithes (called “White Tythes”), 3s.
The payment from Barkeley is described as “_extra ecclesiam predictam
appropriat’ monasterio Prat’ Leic’_”; and that from Sutton was from
glebe and tithes of grass.
The spiritual payments included 10s. synodals from Trentham and 10s.
7d. synodals and procurations to the Bishop of Lichfield; 13s. 4d. to
the Archdeacon of Stafford; £3 17s. 4d. every third year to the Bishop
as visitation fees; £2 13s. 4d. to the Priory of Tutbury for Sutton,
and £1 to the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem for the same church. 7d.
annually is paid to the heirs of Lord Mountjoy out of the glebe at
Sutton. The 16s. 8d. paid by Hulton Abbey (p. 107) does not appear in
the receipts, nor the 20s. from Dalbury (p. 167).
The valuation after the Dissolution (_Monasticon_, vi, 397)
amounted to £156 8s. 10d. Omissions are the rents at Kybbulston,
Blurton, Cokenage, Newstead, Hanchurch, and Mere. Additions are rents
at Wyttemore, 4s.; Meyford, 1s.; Schebrige (crofts), 4s.; Wall Grange,
£6 13s. 4d., Bradborne, £1 1s. 8d. At Trentham Manor the demesne and
mill had increased to £32 15s. 10d., and rents had increased to no less
than £44 13s. 1½d. Trentham Rectory also had increased to £15 15s. 4d.
Rents at Longton had increased to £2 8s. 6d., at Chaldon to £3 6s.
8d., at Newcastle to £7 10s. 4d., at Clayton Gryffin to £14 10s. 2d.
Perquisites of the Court are 7s. 10d. Barleston Church had fallen in
value to £2. The other items are practically identical.
TUTBURY PRIORY
Tutbury was another house which had always had aristocratic
connections, and its history had been influenced by its proximity to
Tutbury Castle, one of the great houses of the Dukes of Lancaster. Its
dependence on St. Peter-sur-Dive was ended in consequence of the French
Wars, though Lancaster had some difficulty to enforce his authority.
On a vacancy occurring in 1337 in the headship of the Priory Henry Earl
of Lancaster claimed the presentation, alleging that the Prior who had
just resigned had been appointed on his nomination. The monks claimed
the right of election, and asserted that the last Prior, though he had
been nominated by Lancaster, had been rejected and another elected,
whose election, however, had been set aside by the Abbot of the parent
house of St. Peter-super-Divam. Against this exercise of authority
on the part of the parent house they had appealed to Rome. The suit
was still pending, and they alleged that the Prior had only resigned
through conviction that judgment would be given against him. But they
could not deny that Lancaster was patron of the house, and he won his
case, and his nominee was ordered to be admitted by the Bishop.[114]
The new authority was not more effective than the foreign had been,
and Bishop Norbury found at Tutbury general disorder, incontinency,
addiction to hunting, and even a military spirit. It is to be feared
that the Kings valued the control they had acquired over the houses
with foreign connections mainly for its financial advantage. Henry IV
gave his Queen Joan charges on the revenues of Tutbury and we have
already seen that the claim to nominate to a corrody there was enforced
as late as 1532.[115]
In 1535 the Prior was Arthur Meverell. He had only just been
appointed. His predecessor had died in the January of the very year
the Commissioners visited the Priory, and the Earl of Shrewsbury
had immediately written to Cromwell begging the preferment for the
Sub-Prior, “Dn. Arthur Meverell.” Even before the late Prior was dead,
a recommendation of Meverell for the post soon to be vacant had been
sent in, and an unknown hand has endorsed it: “He was my godfather, and
I knew him a comely grave man.”[116] The Bishop wrote to Cromwell on
May 7th: “I beg you will not be displeased in the matter of the Prior
of Tutbury. I have your letters wherein you desired me not to meddle
therein. But now your pleasure known the bond shall be substantially
made and the penalty sent to you with all diligence”; and on May 28th:
“I sent to the Prior of Tutbury to repair to you.”[117] Dn. Arthur
Meverell was, apparently, to judge from his later history, one of the
“divers abbottes that could be perswaded or were ... for the purpose
placed ... [and who subsequently] made surrender of their houses
and conveied them to the Kinge by order of lawe, and had competent
pencions.”[118]
The summary of Tutbury is arranged in counties; firstly, the temporal
income from Derbyshire, then that from Staffordshire; then comes the
spiritual income: annual “pensions” from various counties grouped
together (£25 11s. 4d.), and tithes arranged in counties. The outgoings
are arranged under the headings of “pensions,” fixed rents, annual
fees, and alms.
The temporal income from Derbyshire was £141 14s. 3d. and from
Staffordshire, £29 4s. 1d.; £38 11s. 5d. from Doveridge and £8 from
the demesne lands called Doveridge Holt there; demesne lands (£5)
at West Broughton, and Tutbury (“Chapel Yard,” £3 16s. 10d., and
“Prior’s Holmes,” £2 6s. 8d.); perquisites of the Courts at Doveridge,
Matherfield, Kirkbroughton, and Marston, 16s. 8d.; lands, etc., at
Somersall, Osmaston, and Edulneston, Wotton, Ednaston, and Holington,
Kirkbroughton, Duffield (John Prince), Norbury (called “the lands
of the demesne”), Fenton, Brailsford, Overton, and Matherfield. At
Mulneston is a mill worth (with lands) £2 0s. 9d.
The temporal outgoings included £2 0s. 8d. in fixed rents and £18 13s.
4d. in annual fees. The former comprised 5s. “Sheriff’s Geld” for
Wetton; 2s. 4d., chief rents in Tutbury; 3s. 4d., “Palfrey Money” in
the Hundred of Apultre, and £1 10s. to the Keepers of Needwood Forest
at the Feast of the Purification. All except the last item went to the
King.[119]
Annual fees comprised £3 6s. 8d. to the Chief Steward, George, Earl
of Shrewsbury; £1 6s. 8d. to Henry Pole, Clerk of the Manor Courts;
£2 to Francis Basset, Auditor, and £2 to Humfry Meverell, receiver
of the bailiffs, Roland Heth (the franchises of Tutbury and West
Broughton) paid £2, and the others £1 6s. 8d. each as follows: William
Hyll (Wetton), Ralf Wodcoke (Matherfield), Richard Lane (Edlaston and
Osmonston), William Wetton (Adnaston and Hollington), Thomas Wyllot
(Marston and Duffield), Henry Mylward (Doveridge).
The spiritual outgoings comprised 13s. 4d. to the Bishop for the
appropriated church of Broughton; £6 13s. 4d. to the Dean and Chapter
for the church of Matherfield; £8 2s. 2d. to the Archdeacon of Derby
(Richard Strete) for Kirkbroughton and Marston (procurations and
synodals); £5 to Thurston Courtnay, Vicar of Tutbury; £6 13s. 4d. to
Robert Gaunt, Vicar of Kirkbroughton; and 15s. to the Archdeacon of
Stafford for procurations for Matherfield and Tutbury.
The alms were £2 given to the poor at Corpus Christi, by ancient
foundation, and £1 given on the anniversary of the death of the founder.
The valuation subsequent to the Dissolution, as given in
_Monasticon_ (iii, 399), is impossible to compare with that
of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, the items and allotments being so
grouped and apportioned that they do not correspond with the earlier
arrangement in the great majority of cases. New rents appear at
Doveridge to the amount of nearly £48, and the demesne there has
risen from £8 to £25 7s. Doveridge Rectory is increased exactly £2.
At Wetton, demesne is given worth £8 16s., rents £36 16s. 10¾d., and
the Rectory, £8 6s. 8d. Matherfield Rectory was only worth £4 10s. in
tithes. The tithe at Sudbury is called “St. Mary’s Tithe,” and appears
at only half its former value. Sales of wood and perquisites of the
Court are mentioned at Churchbroughton, Edelston, Calton, Wetton,
Shirley, Hollington, Esteleke (Leics.), Hatton, Tutbury, Langley, and
Doveridge, but in every instance the amount is stated as _nulla_.
_Redditus mobiles_ are mentioned at Wetton (£4 4s.), and Doveridge
(13s. 6d.). At Hollington £15 13s. 4d. is given as “payment in lieu of
pigs” (_Pens’ sive Porc’_) and at Wymondham the tithes of pigs
appear as having been leased at a rent of £1 9s. 8d. [_Firm’ Porc
X^{mae} ad Firm’ dimiss’_). The total valuation was £358 2s. 0¾d.
* * * * *
It will be noticed that no friaries have been mentioned: the Diocesan
Returns of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ entirely omit them. The reason
is possibly to be found in the remark which is made under the heading
of “House of the Friars Minors at Coventry”[120]: “Brother John
Stafford being examined upon oath, says that they have no lands or
tenements nor any other possessions or revenues spiritual or temporal
of any annual value, but only the licensed alms of the neighbourhood
and the uncertain charity of the people.” That no attempt was made
to estimate the worth of such “alms and charity” may be taken as
indicating a certain amount of sympathetic regard for the friars.
We know, however, that the Black Friars at Newcastle-under-Lyme
received rents to the amount of £2 per year. At Stafford the Austin
Friars had rents bringing in £2 11s. 8d. and the Grey Friars £1 6s. 8d.
The latter had some timber and growing corn, six “lands” in the common
fields, a close and an orchard, and a meadow which had been given them
recently by Robert Quytgrave, gent., for a yearly obit. Half of it was
let at 20s. annual rent. At the Dissolution Quytgrave asked for the
return of the gift as, he alleged, the bargain had not been kept.
There are other omissions which are more surprising. Woods were
extensive in Staffordshire yet they are unmentioned in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ in all the Staffordshire houses with the single
exception of Burton-on-Trent. Even in the post-Dissolution valuation
of Tutbury Priory woods are only mentioned in order to record that they
produce no revenue. Yet the earlier history of the houses shows that
they possessed large tracts of woodland which should have yielded a
profitable income. The Black Friars at Newcastle, we learn from Bishop
Ingworth, had a “proper wood,” leased to Master Broke. The value of
mills, whether water-mills for grinding corn, or fulling-mills, for
fulling or milling cloth by beating it with wooden mallets and cleaning
it with soap or Fuller’s earth, is often small, and there is no mention
of any revenue from tolls or markets. A recent Act of Parliament (21
Henry VIII, c. 13) had forbidden the monks to engage in trade, and they
appear to have complied with its behests. The revenue from salt-pans
is small: perhaps for the same reason. Water-mills are mentioned at
Burton (2), Bromley Hurst, Derby (belonging to Burton Abbey); Alton,
Cauldon, and Ellaston (belonging to Croxden); Hulton, Normacot, and
More (belonging to Hulton Abbey); Ronton; Drayton (belonging to St.
Thomas’s, Stafford); Stone; Trentham (2), and Chaldon (belonging to
Trentham Priory; and at Mulneston belonging to Tutbury Priory. The
three at Hulton were only worth in all £1 5s. 8d. a year, and that at
Ronton was only worth 18s. 9d. a year. The three belonging to Croxden
produced at most £6 6s. 8d. a year, and the one at Tutbury £2 0s. 9d.
On the other hand, the one at Stone was worth £4 a year, and the two at
Burton were worth no less than £12 a year.
Fulling-mills are only found at Rocester and Stone, and their annual
value in each case is small, £2 6s. 8d. and £1 6s. 8d. respectively,
so that in Staffordshire at any rate it could not be said that the
monasteries competed to any large extent with lay industries. Salt-pans
are only mentioned in the case of Dieulacres (£3) and Ronton (£1 11s.).
It is strange that no mention is made of the Pottery Works at Hulton
Abbey, and the Tannery which the same house had possessed at the time
of Pope Nicholas IV’s _Taxatio_ (1288) had also disappeared.
In the _Taxatio_ four mills had been taken into account in the
valuation of Burton Abbey, one each in those of Croxden, Dieulacres,
and Stone, and two each in those of Hulton, Ronton, St. Thomas’s
Priory, and Tutbury.
The revenue from Courts is also small. It is as follows:
£ s. d.
Burton Abbey 3 6 8
Dieulacres Abbey 4 0 0
Hulton Abbey 12 0
Rocester Abbey 6 8 (in post-Dissolution Valuation).
St. Thomas’s Priory 3 2
Stone Priory 13 4 (£1 6s. 8d. in post-Dissolution Valuation).
Trentham Priory 12 0
Tutbury Priory 16 8 (_nulla_ in post-Dissolution Valuation).
It is difficult to account for the smallness of these figures. It is
idle to say the monks withheld all the information they possessed when
we find the Valuers after the Dissolution deliberately stating that the
revenue from all the Courts which had belonged to Tutbury was nothing.
Perhaps the Court profits were in many cases included in other items,
but more probably the explanation is to be found in the feeling of
insecurity which must have been general throughout the whole period
with which we are dealing. The shadow of the impending Dissolution
must have been for some time darkening the land, and tenants would not
readily take new tenancies, with the accompanying admission fees, in
the general uncertainty. It shows that there had been few changes of
tenants or of tenures during recent years.
CHAPTER VII
THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: FIRST STAGE
We have already perceived that the eyes of Henry VIII were being
gradually and steadily opened to the financial possibilities of
the clergy. To confiscate the whole of their wealth at once, as it
was rumoured was the intention, was an impracticable idea, but the
particulars given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ showed how it might be
possible to proceed in detail. In obtaining those particulars a clearer
insight than ever before had been obtained into the circumstances of
all the monasteries in England. Royal agents had penetrated further
within their walls than they had previously gone. Much information
besides what was required for the immediate purpose had been obtained.
Gradually Cromwell was able to proceed in his grander scheme, and
to accumulate materials upon which he might build up a case against
the monasteries. Legislation is often based upon the work of a Royal
Commission, and it was upon the work of a Royal Commission, of the
Tudor type, that the Bill for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries
was based.
More’s execution on June 2nd, 1535, having ended a somewhat
embarrassing difficulty, the way was clear. A new visitation of
the religious houses was set on foot. The visitors whose names are
best known were Doctors Legh and Layton. They were young lawyers in
holy orders, with all the arrogant characteristics of the new age,
determined to do their work thoroughly and to the satisfaction of
their master and patron, and deterred by no qualms of delicacy or
reverence for persons or institutions. They started together from
Lichfield on a tour through the North. Layton himself suggested the
expedition, and also the companionship, not only because of the “faste
and unfaynede servys that we here towardes yowe,” but also because
“ther ys nother monasterie, selle, priorie, nor any other religiouse
howse in the north but other doctor Lee [_sic_] or I have familier
acqwayntance within x or xii mylles of hit, so that no knaverie can
be hyde from us in that contre, nor ther we cannot be over fayssede
nor suffer any maner injurie. We knowe and have experiens bothe of the
fassion off the contre and the rudenes of the pepull, owre frendes
and kynsfookes be dispersyde in those parties in evere place redy to
assyste us if any stoborne or sturdy carle myght perchaunce be fownde a
rebellous.”[121]
Elaborate directions were given to the visitors, the extant draft
of which bears evidence of careful revision, probably by the King
himself as well as by Cromwell. It consists of no less than 86
articles of enquiry and 25 injunctions. The former are as searching
and comprehensive as the latter are severe and intolerable, and, taken
together, they enable us to form a good idea of the procedure.
Richard Layton appears to have suggested many of the articles. When
he wrote begging to be appointed one of the visitors for “the north
contre” he reminded Cromwell of this. “If ye hade leisure to overlooke
the booke of articles that I made for your visitacion this tyme xii
monethes, and to marke evere sondrie interrogatorie therin wryttyn,
dowtles ther is matter sufficient to detecte and opyn all coloryde
sanctitie, all supersticiouse rewlles of pretendyde religion, and other
abusys detestable of all sorttes, hether[to] clokyde and coloryde.”[122]
Full investigation was ordered into the foundation and title-deeds of
each house, and its property, privileges, and benefices; the manner in
which the rules were observed; the conduct of the inmates; the bestowal
of alms; the keeping of the seal and the accounts; the instruction of
the novices; the repair and general management of the property. The
officials were to compare their valuation with the one which had been
recently made for estimating the tenths, and of course the latter would
be an excellent guide and would much simplify their task. It is evident
from the extraordinary details which are suggested for investigation
that not only would an enormous time be necessary for anything like a
proper carrying out of the task, but also that every inducement was
intended to be offered to discontented or time-serving brethren to come
forward with complaints and accusations.
The injunctions which were to be given to the monks are of the same
colour. Not only was the head of every religious house to attack the
Pope’s power and to exalt the King’s in sermon and instruction, but
requirements were made which could only make monastic life intolerable.
No inmate was to leave the precincts. All entrance was severely
restricted and regulated. Other rules followed, some inevitable and
laudable, others laying heavy burdens of expense, all difficult of
exact fulfilment. No inmates under 24 years of age were to be suffered
to remain.
It is impossible to escape the conviction that the object of such
proceedings was not reform, but destruction. For instance, the
confinement to the precincts was not merely intolerable but was
impossible if the estates were to be properly looked after. Even
Cromwell was obliged to own this and to make exceptions.
If it had been hoped that such thorough regulations would make people
think that reformation was intended, all such ideas were dissipated by
the conduct of the visitors. Their behaviour was not only offensive
in itself, but the way they conducted the investigation was such as
to preclude absolutely any lingering hope that their intentions were
sincere. The rapidity with which they proceeded was alone sufficient
to condemn them. For instance, Layton and Legh came to Lichfield on
December 22nd, and the former wrote to Cromwell: “_Crastino divi
Thome_”--“This mornyng we depart towards Lichefelde Churche, and
from thens to certayne abbeys upon Trent syde, and so to pase on to
Sothewelle, and to be at Yorke within a day affter the xiith day, we
intende, and thus to make spede with diligence, and trew knowledge of
everethyng is our intent.”[123] Their “intent” was accomplished, and
the 11th of January saw them “with the Archebushope of Yorke.”[124]
Much alarm was naturally aroused by the appearance of the visitors.
Even the bishops were inclined to resent such intrusion into their
province, but they were reduced to silence by a prohibitory letter
from Cromwell in September forbidding them to interfere in any matter
connected with the religious houses during the progress of the
visitation.[125]
In due course the visitors sent in their reports. Among them, in the
handwriting of Ap Rice, is a “_Compendium compertorum per Doctorem
Layton et Doctorem Legh in visitatione regia in provincia Eboracensi
ac episcopatu Coven. et Lichfelden_.”[126] It was presented within
six weeks from their setting out from Lichfield, during which time they
professed to have investigated the affairs of 88 monasteries. It is
evident that the inquiry must have been of the most superficial nature,
and cannot possibly have been conducted with any care. The only mention
of Staffordshire is of the Cathedral at Lichfield, and the worst they
can say of it is: “Here a pilgrimage is held to St. Chad. Annual rent,
£400. Founder, the King.”
To act upon the evidence of the visitors was among the latest work of
the Reformation Parliament. Its last, and by no means least, important
session began on February 4th, 1536. To this session William Edie,
the recently-elected Abbot of Burton, was summoned[127] in order
to strengthen Cromwell’s party in the House of Lords. No attempt
appears to have been made to sift the evidence alleged against the
monasteries, but it was worked up with appropriate embellishments into
the preamble of an Act which was passed in March, and which transferred
to the King all religious houses of the annual value of less than £200
a year, referring to the Returns which had recently been “certified
unto the King’s Exchequer” as providing the data by which the houses
which were affected were to be ascertained (Article 7). These were
the Returns, known as _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, which have been
already examined in detail. Such evidence of abuses as is extant by
no means allows us to draw such an arbitrary line and to say that the
lesser houses were blameworthy and the greater innocent. Yet that is
what the Act did, making it more emphatic by pointing to the contrast
between the “manifest sin, vicious, carnal, and abominable living” in
the houses to be dissolved, and the character of “divers great and
solemn monasteries of the realm, wherein, thanks be to God, religion
is right well kept and observed.” Indeed, as a matter of fact, the
evidence which remains points rather the other way. Many of the great
monasteries were certainly visited, and it was seldom indeed that
such men as Layton and Legh could not find something scandalous. In
no case in Staffordshire is there any extant evidence of abuses. If
the Staffordshire houses were reported on, either the documents have
perished or they have not yet been brought to light. The houses in
Staffordshire included under the Act were Tutbury, Rocester, Croxden,
Brewood Nunnery, Hulton, Trentham, Stafford (St. Thomas the Martyr),
Stone, and Ronton. With these was classed St. Mary Broke, Rutland, and
the total value is given as £976 5s. 3¾d.[128] The value, according to
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_, was £975 13s. 9¾d.
The Act expressly exempted all monasteries whose annual value exceeded
£200 according to _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, and thus Burton-on-Trent
and Dieulacres escaped. It also exempted “such cells of Religious
Houses, appertaining or belonging to their Monasteries or Priories, in
which cells the Priors or other chief governors thereof be under the
obedience of the Abbots or Priors to whom such Cells belong, as the
Monks or Canons of the Convents of their Monasteries or Priories, and
cannot sue or be sued, by the Laws of this Realm, in or by their own
proper Names, for the Possessions or other Things appertaining to such
Cells whereof they be Priors or Governors, but must sue and be sued in
and by the Names of the Abbots or Priors to whom they be Obediencers,
and to whom such Cells belong; and also be Priors or Governors dative,
and removable from Time to Time, and Accountants of the Profits of such
Cells, at the only Pleasure and Will of the Abbots or Priors to whom
such Cells belong” (Art. 7). Dudley Priory accordingly remained till
its superior house at Wenlock fell in 1540.
The suppression of Calwich, already completed, was legalised by a
clause which gave to the King any religious house “that otherwise hath
been suppressed or dissolved.”
To deal with the treasure which would accrue to the Crown, a special
“Court of Augmentations” was created. It consisted of a chancellor,
treasurer, attorney and solicitor, ten auditors, 17 receivers,
etc., and its business was to take the surrenders and dispose of the
property and movables. The chancellor was Sir Richard Riche, the
Solicitor-General.[129]
The treasurer was Sir Thomas Pope, better known as the founder of
Trinity College, Oxford.[130] Of the auditors, the one most concerned
with Staffordshire was William Cavendish,[131] brother of Wolsey’s
biographer. The receiver who did most work in our neighbourhood was
John Scudamore.
No sooner was the Act passed than a most unseemly scramble for the
spoils began. Petitions flowed in to Cromwell and other people of
influence, begging, often in the most abject way, for favours. The
rights of Patrons and Founders were in theory respected by the Act
(Art. viii), but obviously little could be done for such persons when
the monasteries disappeared. Obviously all religious and spiritual
privileges and benefits vanished, and rights of nomination were
valueless when there was no house to which to nominate. The clause was
an elaborate pretence. How little the moral rights of founders were
regarded is shown in the case of Ronton.
On April 2nd, 1536, Sir Simon Harcourt wrote to Cromwell:[132] “I am
informed that it is enacted in Parliament that certain religious houses
shall be dissolved. There is a little house of canons in Staffordshire,
called Ronton, built and endowed by my ancestors, to the intent they
might be prayed for perpetually, and many of them are buried there.
I would gladly be a suitor for it to the King, but I dare not, as I
know not his pleasure. I beg you will be a mediator to the King for
me, that the same house may continue, and he shall have £100 and you
£100 if you can accomplish it, and £20 fee out of the said house. If
the King is determined to dissolve it, I desire to have it, as it
adjoins such small lands as I have in that county, and I and my heirs
will pay so much as the rent of assize cometh to, and give you 100
marks.” Sir Simon Harcourt evidently realized the state of affairs
thoroughly well, and equally thoroughly understood the sort of man to
whom he was writing. Sincerely as he desired the continuance of the
burial-place of his ancestors, he knew that Cromwell would recognise
no such filial sentiments, so he boldly offered him the large bribe
of £100. But a more powerful suitor was in the field. On April 27th
Henry Lord Stafford wrote urging his claims.[133] “I beg you will use
means with the King that I may have the farm of the Abbey of Rantone
if it be dissolved. It is within four miles of my house, and reaches
my park pale, and I will give as much for it as any man. I heard that
the Queen had moved the King to have me in remembrance for it, and he
was content, saying it was alms to help me, having so many children on
my hands. I heard that George Blunt endeavours to obstruct my suit.”
Next day he wrote to the Earl of Westmoreland begging him to use his
influence with the secretary on his behalf, and, failing Ronton, he
asks for the house of the White Ladies at Brewood, urging “it is only
£40 rent by year, and is in great decay.”[134] Stafford’s suit, thus
supported, found more favour than that of poor Simon Harcourt. Richard
Cromwell, “honeying at the whisper of a lord,” wrote to Lord Stafford
on May 15th[135]: “As to the Abbey you wrote about, my uncle says he
will not fail to obtain it for you when the surveying of the Abbeys
is at an end.” Stafford had not obtained the house in March of the
following year, for Harcourt made a brave fight for it. Later we shall
find Lord Hastings asking for Burton.
But squires and lords were not the only people who interested
themselves in the dividing of the spoils. Bishop Roland Lee was as
forward as any in urging his claims. On April 29th, 1536, he wrote
to Cromwell[136]: “Remember my suit for the Priory of St. Thomas
(Stafford), of which not only the King, but you, shall have a certain
sum. If that cannot be, I trust, as the demesnes came from the Mitre,
I may have the preferment of the house and the demesnes for one of
my kinsfolk.” He failed to obtain the Priory at once, though he made
repeated efforts. On June 27th of this year he wrote[137]: “Though your
suit for the Priory of St. Thomas in my behalf cannot stand, yet as you
mind my preferment to the farm of the demesnes, I thank you. I desire
them only for quietness, not for advantage”; and he wrote again on
April 3rd, 1537.
The Priory of Stone contained many tombs of the Staffords, and Lord
Stafford evidently hoped the house would escape. But the glory of
his family had departed and he had no real influence. The Prior was
William Smith, and he does not appear to have had any suspicion that
his house was soon to come to an end. Even while the Visitors were
making their investigations, if, indeed, any investigation at all was
made in the great majority of cases, he was engaged in the business
of his house. In his financial transactions with his Bishop he found
the latter more worldly-wise than he was himself. Bishop Roland Lee
sold him timber out of Blore Park and received the payment. But, being
better informed of the trend of events, he prevented many of the trees
from being felled and delivered to the dying Priory. On February 19th
William Smith wrote urgently to Lee,[138] “Touching the timber in
Blore Park which I bought and paid for to my lord, 40 trees are still
standing, as the bearer can show. If I have not the said timber I know
not where to be provided for my great work now in hand. I shall intreat
you for your pains.” Several months later, Henry Lord Stafford wrote to
Cromwell telling him “that the Prior of Stone hathe good hope that his
howse schall stand, whereof all the contree is right glad, and praye
fulle hertily for your lordeship therfore.” The Earl of Shrewsbury,
however, had designs on it, and sought the assistance of Scudamore in
obtaining it, bringing himself to address his letter “To my hertly
biloved fellow John Skydmore, oon of the gentylmen vsshers of the
Kynge’s most honourable Chamber.”
In these circumstances there was much uncertainty as to the extent to
which the Act would literally and fully be carried out, and how far
influence might succeed in nullifying it.
In due course another band of royal agents was let loose upon the
land to carry out the work of dissolution. The “Instructions for
the King’s Commissioners” are exceedingly minute. For each county
an Auditor and Receiver was to be appointed, with one of the clerks
of the late visitation, and to these were to be joined “three other
discreet persons to be named by the King.” These were to visit each
condemned house and exhibit the Statute of Dissolution to the head and
his brethren. The inmates were then to be required to make on oath
a full disclosure of the state of their affairs, to surrender their
charters and seal, plate, and other effects. Such of the monks as were
willing to take “capacities” were to be referred to the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, and were to be rewarded for their
complacency; the rest were to be transferred to other houses. Orders
were to be given that the monks were to cease receiving any income
except such as was absolutely necessary, but they were to continue
“to sow and till their grounds as they have done before,” and the
Superior was referred to “the Chancellor of the Augmentation for his
yearly stipend and pension.” But evidently the agents were prepared to
accept favourable offers. Henry Lord Stafford, writing to Cromwell on
March 12th, 1537, says: “The Commissioners will be in Staffordshire on
Sunday next. The Prior of Stone thinks his house shall stand, whereof
the country is glad; so my suit is in vain unless your Lordship help
me to the Priory of Rontone, for which I was first suitor: howbeit Sir
Simon Harcourt makes great labour for it”; and he proceeds again to
plead his poverty and his large family, mentioning that he had twelve
children.[139]
The Commissioners in Staffordshire dissolved three out of the nine
houses which came within the scope of the Act, namely Ronton, Stone,
and Trentham. The majority were spared, some, as we have seen, through
the intervention of powerful or interested friends, but all on payment
of large sums.[140] For instance, Hulton, having paid £66 13s. 4d.,
obtained a grant of exemption on October 1st, 1536, the Abbot being
Edward Wilkyns; Rocester’s grant was made on March 11th, 1537, and its
payment £100; Tutbury, per Arthur Meverell, received its license on
May 3rd; Croxden, per Thomas Chawner, on the 2nd of July, by payment
of £100; St. Thomas’, Stafford, per Richard Whyttewall, on July 4th,
by payment of £133 6s. 8d. On April 3rd, Robert Burgoyn had written
to the Bishop, who so earnestly had desired the Priory: “According to
your desire ... I have forwarded letters from the Chancellor of the
Augmentations to Mr. Scudamore to survey the lead of the late house
of Canons beside Stafford,”[141] which shows how narrowly the house
escaped, even for a time, the clutches of Roland Lee and Cromwell, for
though he spoke of it as “the late house,” it did not surrender till
October, 1538. Lee kept up his persistent begging for it to the end.
The Grant of Exemption obtained by Croxden is given in the Appendix.
It gives the King’s new title, “_Supremum Caput Anglicanae
Ecclesiae_,” in its most offensive form, without the qualifying
words, but it will be noticed that it is couched throughout in general
terms. There is nothing in it which is peculiar to the particular house
concerned. Everything would apply equally well to any other house. It
looks as though the Commissioners went on their circuit provided with
a supply of such general forms, having blanks for the names of houses
and of abbots, which they were prepared to issue whenever they thought
fit, that is, whenever a sufficiently large pecuniary inducement could
be offered. That there was no genuine intention to allow any of the
religious houses to continue permanently was speedily shown.
But for the present the elaborate grants for continuance served their
turn, and allayed public dismay. No echo of the Pilgrimage of Grace
was heard in Staffordshire, although that dangerous rising began
near the north-eastern border of the county. It rolled northwards,
and Lord Stafford was so entirely satisfied that he carried out the
difficult and costly process of transferring his family monuments from
the dissolved Priory at Stone to the Austin Friary at Stafford. He
evidently had no idea that Commissioners would destroy that house, too,
in a few months.
It was, of course, entirely to the interest of the agents of the
Dissolution to conceal the real scope of their intentions, for the
threatened monks naturally tried sometimes to keep back part of their
cherished possessions and to save the sacred vessels and vestments
from the profane uses to which they were likely to be put. The Act of
Dissolution had foreseen the danger and had made all sales and leases
of lands effected “within one year next before the making of this
Act,” “utterly void and of none effect”; while all ornaments, jewels,
goods and chattels which the houses possessed “at the first day of
March in the year of our Lord God 1535 or any time sithen whensoever”
were declared the property of the King. The Prior of Stone and some of
his neighbours, who, as we have seen, resented the suppression of the
house, attempted to save something.
“Articles and instructions” for special commissioners were issued
“concerning the embezzling and taking [away] of certain plate, jewels,
ornaments, goods, and chattels of the late monastery of Stone ...
whereupon as well William Smyth, late Prior of the said house, James
Colyer, James Atkyn, Sampson Greswike, Geoffrey Walkeden, and Hugh
Rathebone, and all such other persons as Thomas Woodall, bringer
hereof, shall name, are to be examined.”[142] The specific charges
are as follows, so far as they can be traced, for the document
unfortunately exists in a fragmentary form only: “Whether Colyer
received a shrine, four standing cups, and two silver salts; whether
Atkyn received certain sheep and cattle since the said fourth day of
February; whether Greswike since the fourth day of February hath of the
said house ...,” and there the paper ends. February 4th was the day on
which the Session of Parliament which had passed the Act of Dissolution
had opened.
In the Augmentation Accounts for 1538 we find “A parcel of £20 due
from James Colyer for the surplus value of a shrine of silver-gilt
mortgaged to him by the Prior of Stone, part of which was paid 5 of
June, 30 Henry VIII, £13 6s. 8d.”[143] The Abbot of Dieulacres secured
blank forms with the Convent seal before it was taken from him, and on
these he subsequently made out ante-dated leases. Bishop Lee reported
to Cromwell that the Prior of St. Thomas at Stafford was making
“unreasonable waste,” which probably means that he had realized the
uselessness of economy in the face of imminent dissolution.
The fines for continuance were exceedingly heavy and must have pressed
very hardly on the houses which were called upon to raise such
large sums. They appear to have been roughly calculated at a year’s
income,[144] and no doubt they account in no small measure for the
indebtedness which subsequently was charged against some of the houses.
Moreover, the officials looked for bribes and presents, and we may
be sure they required to be well entertained when they visited the
monasteries, to judge from their own large expenditure on “cates.”[145]
The houses were impoverished by direct methods as well. Prior Richard,
of St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was ordered to give the lease of a church
at Audlem in Cheshire, belonging to the Priory, to a nominee of
Cromwell’s. He protested against the unfairness, though he was unable
to avoid compliance. “It is,” he says,[146] “in the occupation of five
poor farmers there by lease,” but he had to give Cromwell’s nominee
a fifty years’ lease in reversion, in consideration of Cromwell’s
“goodness,” and the lessee was to pay six shillings and eightpence,
whereas they could have had 40 marks from another. He adds that last
Midsummer he paid Cromwell £60 and now sends £20 more.
The same policy of crippling the Abbeys was pursued even towards
Burton, which did not come under the Act. On August 15th, 1538, the
Abbot of Burton-on-Trent wrote to Cromwell[147]: “On the 12th of
August I received the King’s letters and yours in favour of Mr. Robert
Everest, one of the servers of the Chambers, for the tithe of the
parsonage of Allstrye, Warwickshire. That tithe is so necessary for
our house that we cannot do without it, and was appropriated under
the broad seal of England because we had not corn sufficient for
hospitality. You write that Sir Thomas Gresley, lately deceased, had
it. But that is 34 years ago, and he only had it then because the Abbot
was indebted to him.”
The following letter from the Abbot of Burton is addressed “to the
Ryght Worshipful Maister Holcroft the Kynge comycyoner at Lenton
delyver this:”[148]
“Mayster Holcroft I enterlye recomend me vnto you beseching
God that I may once be able to surrendre vnto you condygne
thanks for thys youre goodness wyche have dymynysshed parte
of the charges wyche by yor (scored through) comyssyon
you myght have put me to, And as touchyng youre request
of this brother and the lame chylde, god wyllyng I shall
so accomplysshe hyt as shall both please yor mastership &
content the partyes beyng not only in this thyng but also
in all other redy at my prynces comandement and to my small
power shew yor mastershippe pleasure pryng you accordyng
to yor w’tyng of good word and lawfull favor Thus oure
lorde have yor mastershippe in his kepyng to his pleasure
and youre comfort from Burton the xviiith day of Maye
“Yors assuryd
“Willm Abbot there.”
The friaries for some time were left to themselves. They were poor
and had few inmates, and their houses were not settled in pleasant
situations, with broad estates reaching “to my lord’s park pale.” They
were, indeed, within or near the walls of the towns, and, consequently,
were of little interest to the aristocracy.
But their poverty was no permanent security. On February 6th, 1538,
Dr. Ingworth, the renegade Prior of the richest house of the Black
Friars in England, and lately made Suffragan Bishop of Dover, was
commissioned to visit all the friaries, and he rapidly carried out his
work. We have very full particulars of his campaign in Staffordshire,
and some remarkable details. On August 7th he was at the house of the
Grey Friars at Lichfield, on August 9th he decided the fate of both
the friaries at Stafford, and next day he was equally effective at
Newcastle-under-Lyme;[149] and this in spite of the fact that he was
obliged to confess that “the Friars in these parts have many favourers,
and great labour is made for their continuance. Divers trust to see
them set up again, and some have gone up to sue for them.” But he
tells Latimer (on August 23rd) that such strong expressions of popular
opinion had had no terrors for him; he had visited 18 places, including
Lichfield, Stafford, and Newcastle, and had only left one house
standing.[150]
The Staffordshire friaries were without exception poor places in every
respect, and the Bishop cleverly made that a strong argument against
them. In spite of poverty, the friars clung to their old homes and
work, although he invariably offered them money payments to depart.
Writing from Lichfield, he told Cromwell that “divers of the Friars are
very loath to forsake their houses, and yet they are not able to live.”
The house at Lichfield, for instance, he says, “is in that taking, and
yet loath to give up.”[151] The day after he had been there he wrote
Cromwell a full account of his visit.[152] He announced that in spite
of their wishes he had induced them all to surrender. The warden was
in a pitiable state of ill-health, with a loathsome disease on his
face. He had been little at home for the past six months, “yet now he
came home and was loath to give up his house, though it is more in
debt than all the stuff that belongs to it will pay, chalice, bells,
and all, by 20 nobles.” The certificate of surrender is dated August
7th.[153] It states that the house was surrendered voluntarily, without
any counsel or constraining, for very poverty--a manifest falsehood, as
the Bishop’s own letters testify. The witnesses of this surrender were
Richard Wetwode, “Master of the Guild there,” and the two constables,
Alexander Grene and Thomas Lont. The Visitor delivered the house and
goods to these three, gave every friar a letter, and departed. An
inventory of the goods so delivered follows, and comprises articles in
kitchen, brewhouse, choir, and sextry. There is also a statement of
the debts owing by the house, which were partly for malt and rye, with
30 shillings which had been borrowed “for byldyng of the quere” and 20
shillings due to the Bishop for five years’ rent. Four days later Dr.
Legh wrote to Cromwell, on his own account and also at the instance of
the Bishop, to both of whom Wetwode had shown “great pleasure,” asking
that Wetwode should have the preferment.[154] It is evident that just
as great lords and enterprising country squires were interested parties
in the suppression of monasteries, so the rising tradesmen in the towns
cast longing eyes on the houses of the friars. This accounts for the
co-operation of the municipal authorities in the work of dissolution.
A very full and detailed account of the Bishop’s procedure in regard to
the friars is given in a memorandum referring to the visitation of the
two houses at Stafford. This most interesting and valuable document is
as follows:[155]
“Mem. This 9 day of August in the 30 year of our most dred
Sovereign lord King Henry VIII., Richard Bishop of Dover,
visitor under the Lord Privy Seal for the King’s Grace,
was in Stafford in the Grey Friars and also in the Austen
Friars, where that the said Visitor said to the heads and
brethren of both places these words: Brethren, where that I
understand ye have had information that I should come, by
the King’s Commission, to suppress your house and put you
out, fear not, for I have no such commission, nor I use no
such fashion in any place. I am sent to reform every man
to a good order and to give injunctions for preservation
of the same. If ye can be content and think yourself
able here to live and to be reformed and to observe such
reasonable injunctions as I shall leave with you, the which
or that I require your answer, ye shall here and see in
writing, then I am and shall be content that ye shall with
the King’s favour continue as before ye have do. If that
ye be not able to live and observe the same then if ye of
your own minds and wills give your houses into the King’s
hands I must receive them. The said injunctions were read
to them which were reasonable. The said heads with all the
brethren with one assent, without any counsel or co-action,
gave their houses into the Visitor’s hands to the King’s
use. The Visitor received the same, and of the houses and
implements made inventories and delivered them to such as
should keep them to the King’s use, and so delivered to
each friar a letter to visit his friends and so departed.
This witnesseth John Savage and Thos. Russell, Bailiffs
of the borough of Stafford; Wm. Stamforde and Ric. Warde,
gentlemen, with divers others.”
The mean trickery as well as absolute perversion of truth in the
Bishop’s conduct and statement could not be better shown than in this
interesting record. The wretched friars were already trembling for
their own safety, as they saw the monks on every side dispossessed
and impoverished, and impoverished themselves at any rate by the
check which the events of recent years must inevitably have given
to bequests and alms to all religious institutions. Disheartened
by long uncertainty, they fell easy victims to the bullying and
falsehoods of the plausible Visitor and his coadjutors, the vulgar
and rich shopkeepers who accompanied him, the latter eager for the
site and buildings, adjoining perhaps their own places of business,
and certainly convenient for warehouses and store-rooms. It was not
till the spring of 1539 that Parliament passed an Act recognising the
_fait accompli_ and giving the King all the religious houses.
The Inventory of the possessions of the Austin Friars at Stafford,
which were placed in charge of William Stamforde, of Rowley, and
Master Richard Warde, of Tylynton, is full of interesting details
throwing much light on the ecclesiastical and domestic arrangements
of the time.[156] In the vestry there was a cross of copper gilt
“with an image silver of parcel gilt,” a copper censer, four “suits”
(_i.e._, sets) of vestments, one black set for requiems, and
one with “images” of the Blessed Virgin, two green copes, one black
“chamlet,” etc. In the choir were two old altar-cloths, two small
candlesticks, a sacring-bell, and a “pair of organs.” There were
two bells in the steeple. In the church were two stained cloths, an
alabaster table, two ladders, and two benches. The contents of hall,
kitchen, recreation-house, etc., are also given. There was little or no
lead, and the yearly rents amounted only to 51s. 8d. The Visitor took
into his own keeping the chalice, which weighed 13 oz., and he ordered
that the servants should be paid ten shillings of their wages at the
next Michaelmas.
The Inventory of the house of the Grey Friars is similarly
detailed.[157] In the sextry there were five “suits” without albs;
a suit for requiems, one each of dun silk, yellow sey, and branched
green silk. There were six copes, two being of linen cloth “stained
with image work.” There were six altar-cloths, a pyx of latten, etc. In
the church were four alabaster tables, a pair of large candlesticks,
a cross, and a censer of latten, two missals, one printed and one
written, “a pair of small organs,” etc. There was much lead, for half
the choir was leaded and one of the chapels. The rents only came to
26s. 8d. Again the chalice was taken by the Visitor, with six spoons:
16 oz. in all.
Next day he was at Newcastle-under-Lyme.[158] He found it owed £14, for
which all its substance was in pledge, yet was insufficient to meet
the debt. The Inventory was again signed by the town officials, John
Lymforde, Mayor, and Thomas Brodsha and Richard Smyth. The Inventory of
the goods showed that in the vestry there were “suits” of blue silk,
of silk with roses, and of green silk. There were eleven chasubles,
five copes, and two old tunicles. In the choir there were two pairs of
candlesticks of copper and latten, one cross of copper and gilt with a
“Mary and John.” “A pair of organs” is mentioned and an alabaster table
on the High Altar. In the steeple were two bells. In the house were
two old feather beds, one old bolster, and five old coverlets, an old
chest, and a green covering of say. The usual articles are mentioned
in kitchen, brewhouse, hall, and buttery. The choir and cloisters
were roofed with lead, and the rents came to 40s. a year. The Bishop
of Dover took possession of the chalice, which was a small one, five
spoons, and “two narrow bands of masers” (14 oz.), but he sent up to
Cromwell three boxes “of evidence,” one of the King’s, one of other
gentlemen’s, and one of the Convent’s.
He wrote from Lichfield an account of his journey to that point,
and supplemented it on August 13th by another letter written at
Shrewsbury.[159] He apologises for not being able to send at once all
the Inventories, but he had no leisure for such work, and, moreover,
his servants were ill. Perhaps they could not stand the rapidity with
which he travelled, “but I trust to se yower lordschype within a veke,
and be that tyme I trust to make an ende in all Walys.” He continues:
“Sumwhat to certyfye yower lordeschype of the state off suche as I have
receyveyd sythe that I wrote to yow towcheynge Stafforde, the Austen
Fryeres ther ys a pore howse, with small implementes, no jwelles but
on lytyll chales, no led in the howse, in rentes by yere li_s._
xiii_d._ The Graye Fryeres ther, halfe the quere ledeyd and
a chapell, small implementes, no plate but a chales and vi. small
sponys, in renttes xxvi_s._ iiii_d._ The Blacke Fryeres
in Newecastell Underlyne, all in ruyne, and a pore howse, the quere
ledeyd and the cloeyster led redy to fall downe, the reste slate and
schyngyll; in fermys by yere xl_s._ On master Broke hathe of
late fownde the menys with the prior to gett of hym the more parte
of they howseys and grownde ther by iii. leseys, and that for lytyll
money; he wolde a gyve me golde to a grantteyd to hys leseys, but I
toke no peny of hym nor of non other, nor non woll. Iff he have thoys
leseys there ys lytyll besyde, for he hathe lyberte allmost in all.
Ther ys a proper wode, but he hathe all in lese. No sylver above xiii.
ounce.” The property had been fully mortgaged to Mr. Broke, possibly,
but not probably--for the general poverty of the house amply accounts
for it--with a view to the threatened visit of Dr. Ingworth. But the
Bishop’s elaborate assertion of his superiority to bribery must have
been amusing reading to Cromwell: he “doth protest too much, methinks.”
He was not chary of sycophancy, however. He proceeds, after describing
the ruined state of the Austin Friars at Shrewsbury: “My synguler good
lorde, I beseche youe pardon me of my rude wrytynge, and yf that I do
not my dewte as I owte to do I beseche youe pardon me, for my hart
and intente ys to do that thynge that shulde specyally plese God, the
kynges grace, and yower lordschype, accordeynge to my dewte.” He then
goes on to “beseche” his Lordship, the son of the drunken brewer,
“that yf before my cumynge there be any order taken for Newecastell
Underlyne, that ye wolde be good lorde to on Master Johan Bothe, a
servant of the kynges graces, the whyche is a grett bylder in theys
partes, that he myght for money have the slate and schyngyll ther; for
ther ys no other to be don with the more parte of that howse, but save
the lede and slate, and take the profete of the grownde. That master
Bothe for yower sake sheuyd me many plesures and gave me venyson;
wherefor I may no lesse do but wryght to yower lordeschype besecheynge
yow to be good lorde to hym, an I ever yower orator to Jhesu, who
preserve yower lordschype.”
In this year Bishop Lee issued a series of injunctions to the clergy
of the diocese.[160] In these he ordered sermons to be preached at
least quarterly in “all monasteries.” There were few remaining by the
end of the year, and only one--Burton-on-Trent, in Staffordshire. No
monks or friars were to have any “cure or servyce,” “except they be
lawfully dispensed withall or licensed by the ordinary.” Confessions to
monks and friars were forbidden, though ordered to be made to parish
priests, before Communion, and the wearing of secular dress was sternly
condemned.
Cromwell also issued injunctions to the clergy, on September 5th,
1538,[161] ordering, among other things, “that such Images as ye know
in any of your cures to be so abused with pilgrimages or offerings of
anything made thereunto ye shall for avoiding of that most detestable
offence of Idolatry furthwith take down and deley ... admonyishng
your parishioners that Images serve for no other purpose but as to be
bookes of unlearned men that can no letters.... And therefor the kinges
highnes graciously tenderyng the weale of his subjectes sowles hath
in parte alredy and more will hereafter travail for the abolishing of
suche Images as might be occasion of so greate an offence to god and
so gret daunger to the sowles of his loving subjectes.” No charge of
superstition had been brought against the image of St. Modwen at Burton
by Layton and Legh at their visitation, but none the less it was pulled
down. Sir William Bassett, of Meynell Langley, a few miles from Burton,
wrote as follows to Cromwell:[162] “Ryght honorabull my inesspeyciall
gud lord, accordyng to my bownden dewte and the teynor of youre
lordschypys lettres lately to me dyrectyd, I have sende unto yowre gud
lordschyp by thys beyrer, my brother, Francis Bassett, the ymages off
sentt Anne off Buxtone and sentt Mudwen of Burtun apon Trentt, the wych
ymages I dyd take frome the place where they dyd stande, and browght
them to my owne howss within xlviiie howres after the contemplation
of yowre seyd lordschypis lettres, in as soober maner as my lyttull
and rude wytt wollde serve me. And ffor that there schullde no more
idollatre and supersticion be there usyd, I dyd nott only deface the
tabernaculles and placis where they dyd stande, butt allso dyd take
away cruchys, schertes, and schetes, with wax offeryd, being thynges
thatt dyd alure and intyse the yngnorantt pepull to the seyd offeryng;
allso gyffyng the kepers of bothe placis admonicion and charge thatt no
more offeryng schulld be made in those placis tyll the kynges plesure
and yowre lordschypis be ffurther knowen in that behallf.... And, my
lord, as concerning the opynion off the pepull and the ffonde trust
that they dyd putt in those ymages and the vanyte of the thynges, thys
beyrer my brother can telle yowre lordschyp much better att large
then I can wryte, for he was with me att the doing of all.” The said
Francis Bassett was in the service of Cranmer, and we shall meet with
him again; “There cam nothyng with theym but the bare imagis.” Bishop
Lee saved from the spoilers the jewels of St. Chad’s Shrine at the
Cathedral for “necessary uses.” Prebendary Arthur Dudley was one of the
authorized commissioners for holding such Church goods as were seized
by the Crown, but he apparently reverenced holy things, and gave the
bones of St. Chad to some female relatives of his. The latter handed
them to two brothers named Hodgetts, and eventually some of them have
been deposited in the Roman Catholic Cathedral at Birmingham. The
shrine disappeared, and as the relics had gone the Cathedral was spared
such sacrilege as was witnessed elsewhere.
CHAPTER VIII
THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: SECOND STAGE
Meanwhile the harrying of the houses continued, and the feeling of
uncertainty deepened. It became more and more evident that the whole
monastic edifice was falling. The dissolution of the lesser monasteries
and the sharing of their spoils had served the useful purpose of
creating an appetite for more. On February 20th, 1538, Francis Lord
Hastings wrote to Cromwell begging the Abbey of Burton, apologizing
for not having written sooner, and explaining that he should have
done so but that he had been suffering from measles.[163] On August
23rd, Cranmer wrote urging on Cromwell the suppression of Tutbury, and
desiring that Commissions should be sent to Rocester and Croxden.[164]
The three had paid large sums for their continuance only a year before,
but Cranmer was interested in obtaining them, or one of them, for his
servant, Francis Bassett. Again, on December 14th, he wrote begging for
Croxden to be given to Bassett.[165]
Bishop Roland Lee had continued his pleading for the Priory at
Stafford, and when time went by without seeming to bring him nearer
obtaining it he began to suspect Legh of playing him false. The latter,
however, assured him he was as interested as the Bishop himself in
the matter, though he advised an application direct to Cromwell. “I
have spoken,” he wrote,[166] “to Mr. Strete for the suppression of St.
Thomas’s, but I would your lordship should write to my Lord Privy Seal
(Cromwell) for your own matter, and to thank him, for he told me he
would move the King for you and your heirs to have St. Thomas’s, and no
doubt the King will be content, and, indeed, it is all one. Remember
to write to my lord to put away sinister suspicion, and be not light
of credit against me: mistrust without cause is very unpleasant.” Thus
encouraged, Lee returned to the charge, adding fresh inducements. He
suggests that the longer the matter is delayed the less there will be
to confiscate, “as the Prior makes unreasonable waste.” He asks that
the Priory may be let to him “at an easy rent, that the poor boys,
my nephews, may have some relief thereby”; and he begs that Cromwell
will write to the surveyors that he may buy what things belonging to
the house he desires.[167] The latter request he obtained. Again,
on December 13th, he wrote to Cromwell on the same subject. He even
ventured to apply direct to the King, both in person and by letter.
There is a letter of his written to the King on December 26th, which
says: “Where at my being with your Majesty, I moved the same for the
late Priory of St. Thomas, I was minded to pay a certain sum as your
Grace should determine. I am so much bound to your Majesty that I
can crave no more; but, being charged with eight poor children of
my sister’s, now fatherless and motherless, I am forced to show the
truth.”[168]
Other petitions had flowed in, and gradually matters were arranged.
Some houses were granted as they stood, sites, buildings, furniture and
other contents, stores, animals, farm implements, etc., to a single
recipient in return for a single money payment. No doubt influential
petitioners like Bishop Roland Lee and Lord Derby (who obtained
Dieulacres) met with less rivalry than more obscure suitors who made
efforts for the smaller houses. There appears to have been keen
competition for the little nunnery at Brewood.
When the houses and belongings were to be sold _en bloc_, Dr.
Legh, with whom went William Cavendish as auditor, appears to have had
the management, while Scudamore conducted the business where other
arrangements had been made, and the contents of the houses were sold by
public auction.
The religious houses found that their attempts to secure a further
lease of life for themselves by authorized payments to the Royal
Treasury, or by irregular bribes to Cromwell and his friends, had all
failed. The large fines recently paid served to prolong the houses for
a twelvemonth only, and as the autumn of 1538 drew on the news probably
reached all the houses that they were doomed.
The harvest having been safely gathered in by the monks, in accordance
with the royal injunctions, the royal agents began to close round them
once more, and the last agony began.
John Scudamore was appointed “Receiver-General unto the King’s Majesty
of the dissolved possessions” in Staffordshire and elsewhere. He
received his authorization on August 23rd, 1538, from Sir Richard
Riche, the Solicitor-General and Chancellor of Augmentations. His
instructions were to survey all the lands of surrendered houses and to
make a return of their yearly value, with such pensions and corrodies,
etc., as they might be burdened with. The bells and superfluous houses
were to be sold, and the lead melted into “plokes” and sows and marked
with the Royal mark, and delivered under indenture to the constables of
neighbouring castles.[169] On September 27th, the goods of both houses
at Stafford were sold, on October 4th the friary at Lichfield, on the
15th Scudamore was at Croxden, and next day at Rocester; on the 21st he
was at Hulton. The details of all these sales are extant and are full
of interest.
The sales were evidently conducted in a most wasteful way, as Robert
Burgoyne, who acted as auditor at the sales at Stafford, testified. He
told Scudamore, “I have sold in some ffrire houses all the buyldynges,
the cause was for that they were so spoyled and torne by suche as sold
the goodes, that in manner they were downe, and yff they shuld nott
have ben sold, the kyng shuld have hadd nothyng theroff.”[170]
Although there had been loud discontent at the threatened dissolutions
of the friaries at Stafford, the townspeople did not hesitate to
profit by the sales any more than the country people did in the case
of the monasteries. They knew that the end of the alms and easy rents
had come, and it was only human nature to make the best of the sorry
business. The town bought the stone wall of the Grey Friars and a pair
of candlesticks at Stafford; and the churchwardens a Corporas.[171]
The “warden of the sayd [Grey] Fryers” bought two brass pots for eight
shillings and six plates for 2s.; the under-bailiff and the late warden
of the friars bought “iii leads, one to brue in, and ii to kele in,
fates, iiii tubbes, a bulting hutche, and a knedyng troughe” for 14s.
7d. Friar Wood bought a vestment of blue fustian and one of white
diaper for 6d., and the Prior of the Austin Friars bought a vestment
of white bustion for 8d. The friars were determined to make the best
of things. Robert Whytgreve bought books. The great purchaser was
James Luson or Leveson, from Wolverhampton, who followed the sales.
At the sale of the Grey Friars in Stafford he purchased “a table of
alabaster standyng in the church” for 2s. 8d., and “all the churche and
quyer, with all edyfyengs and buyldynges within the precinct of the
Fryers Minours surrendryd, with all the stone, tymber, tyle, glasse,
and iron in the same, ledd and belles only exceptyd, and also exceptyd
and reservyd the stone wall next unto the towne of Stafford,” for £29
1s. 8d. At the Austin Friars he bought a vestment and two tunacles “of
bawdekyn with images of our lady” for 18d., two copes, “greene and
yelowe partye colouryd and rewyd,” for 22d., and, with Thomas Picto
and Richard Warde, “all the tyle, shyngle, tymber, stone, glass, and
iron, one marble gravestone, the pavementes of the church, quyer, and
chapelles, with rode lofte, the pyctures of Cryst, Mary, and Johan,
beyng in the church and chauncell of the Austen Fryers, besydes the
towne of Stafford, surrendryd with all other superfluos edyfyes and
buyldynges within the precynct of the seyd Fryers, to be takyn down,
defaycd, and caryed away by the seyd Loveson, Picto, and Ward, at
there owne proper costes and charges,” for £28 8s. 4d. The two bells
at the former house, one a Sanctus bell and one “by estimation Xcth,”
were also placed in his custody. Sir Richard Riche wrote to Scudamore
“to assingne and apoynct unto my ffrende James Lewson the five bellis
remaynyng at the late monasterie of Wenlocke.”[172] Robert Dorynton
was another dealer. At the Austin Friars at Stafford he purchased “a
table in the inner hall with ii trestylles and iii formes,” and at the
Grey Friars, Stafford, he bought a “gret basen” from the buttery, 3
altar cloths, the seats in St. Francis Chapel, books in library and
vestry, a coffer in the former, four pennyworth of “old wexe,” and a
lamp. Robert Wetwode, the Master of the Guild, bought “the table at the
hyeghe deske” in the hall for 8d. The whole contents of the kitchen
sold for 22s. 2d., of the church, 55s. 8d., of the brewhouse, 15s.,
and of the hall, 3s. 4d. The total sales of goods and buildings at the
Grey Friars fetched £34 3s. 10d. The lead upon choir and chapel, 45
feet broad “of bothe sydes” by 43 feet long, was left in the custody
of the town bailiffs. The contents of the Austin Friars fetched 79s.,
and Robert Burgoyne, the auditor, kept “one playne crosse of copper
with a lytle image of Cryst sylver apon hyt,” estimated to be worth 3s.
4d., John Scudamore kept “one lytle woodden crosse,” which is noted as
being “platyd over verry thyn with sylver,” and as being worth only
12d. “Ther remaynyth in the steple one belle, by estimation Xcth in
the custody of Thomas Picto, worth by estimation viii_li._, and
a lytle bell worth 8s. The total sales of goods and buildings at the
Austin Friars produced £32 6s. 4d.
The Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield was sold on October 4th. The
“_prisors jurati_,” or sworn valuers, were Robert Ryve, William
Colman, Marke Wyrley, and Thomas Fanne. Mr. Strete made a great
purchase of “all the copes, vestments, and tynakles in gros for
xl_s._,” also two candlesticks of latten, for 8d., the paving
tiles in the cloisters for 40s., and of the choir for 13s. 4d. Thomas
Fanne, above-mentioned, bought “the bryck wall at the churche ende” for
2s.; Marke Wyrley, “a fryer’s masse boke” for 4d., and William Colman
“the glasse that ys lewse in the newe loggyng” for 3s. The Warden of
the Guild bought a vestry press, “the cundyt of ledd in the cloyster,”
“all the kechyn stuff,” and “ii. standert candelstyckes.” Mr. Lytleton
bought “the cesterne of ledd standyng in the porche at the Tenys Court
ende,” and “a lytle porche standyng by the dwellyng house.” The whole
of the buildings were sold to a “ring” of eight purchasers for £42
13s. 4d., “except and reserved ledd, belles, pavement, and gravestones
within all the seyd buyldynges, save only the pavement of the seyd
churche, whyche ys parcell of the seyd bargayne ... and hath day to
deface the steple, cloyster, and quyer forth [with], wyth the churche,
onles they obteyne lycens otherwyse of the kyng, and hys councell,
athyssyde the feast of the Purification of our Lady next commyng, and
for all the residewe of the buyldynges iii. yeres day to pull downe
and carye awey, and to have egresse and regresse for the same.” These
careful stipulations that the buildings should be defaced and destroyed
show that the ruin of the monastic buildings is not to be attributed to
the ravages of time alone, but also to wilful and deliberate vandalism.
Meanwhile Legh and Cavendish began to go on their circuit. They were at
Tutbury in the middle of September. No record exists of the procedure
or of the means Legh used; but his progress was an unqualified triumph
and the surrenders of the monasteries one after another were formally
received. The Deed of Surrender was signed at Tutbury on September
14th.[173] It bears the following signatures:[174]
p me Arthurum priorem de Tuttbury
p me Thomam Norton
p me Thomam Smith
p me Thomam Shele
p me Rob’tum Stafford
p me Nycholas Broly
p me Rogerum Hylton
p me Thomam Renez
p Richardum Arnold
From Tutbury they proceeded, along the road by the banks of the swift
and winsome Dove, to Rocester. There the canons, who seem to have been
living simple, harmless lives among neighbours who respected them, were
speedily forced to sign the Deed of Surrender. It is dated September
16th, and the seal, except for a fracture at the base, is still in good
condition. The signatures are as follows:[175]
per me Wylliamum Grafton
„ Georgium Dave
„ Johannem Snape
„ Ricardum Heith
„ Johannem Brykylbake
„ Radulphum Corke
„ Williamum Bond
„ Georgium Graftu
„ Johannem Dayne
The following witnesses signed:
Mr. [magister] Williamus Bassett, miles
Thomas Fizharberd, armiger
William Bassett, armiger
Johannes Fizharberd, generosus
Hurrying away up the secluded valley to the west, Legh came in an hour
to the Abbey of Croxden. Its surrender was signed next day, and the
seal is in good condition:[176]
per me Thomam Chalner Abbatem de Crokesden
„ Thomam Rollesto[n]
„ Robertum Clarke
„ Thomam Kelynge
„ Johannem Thornto[n]
„ Johannem Orpe
„ Johannem Almo
„ Wylliamus Beche
„ Henricum Rothwell
„ Robertum Keydr.
„ Johannem Standlaw
„ Rycardum Meyre
„ Thomam Hendon
The following signed as witnesses:
Mr. Georgius Vernam, armiger
Ranoldus Corbett, armiger
Walterus Orton, generosus
Dominus Edmundus Stretaye
Archbishop Cranmer’s desire was thus accomplished, and the three
Staffordshire houses of Tutbury, Rocester, and Croxden, owe their
destruction directly to him.
Scudamore followed and held his public auctions. The sale at Croxden
took place on October 15th. Mr. Bassett, who looked to have the place
by Cranmer’s good offices, purchased the “lytle gatehouse on the north
syde of the comyn wey,” the loft under the organ, “the lytle smythes
forge,” and the roof of the dormitory. He paid for the latter only.
The whole sale only produced £9 9s. 8d. The sale at Rocester next day
was short and speedy, as nothing was sold save St. Michael’s Chapel.
John Forman bought “the glasse and iron in the wyndowes” for 3s. 4d.;
William Loghtonhouse the timber of the same chapel for 7s. 6d.; and
William Bagnall “the shyngle” for 8d., the total proceeds being 11s.
6d. The parishioners obtained the three bells because they had been
rung for their services as well as for those of the canons.[177] At
Hulton, on October 21st, the only item was the unusual one of the
bells. With the lead they were generally sent to London, but here the
three were sold to Stephen Bagott, gentleman, for £19 16s., “after the
rate of xviii_s._ the hundredd.”
By this time the fate of St. Thomas’s Priory and of Dieulacres Abbey
had been settled. Bishop Roland Lee’s desires were to be gratified,
and the Earl of Derby was to have Dieulacres. Legh and Cavendish
accordingly proceeded towards these houses. Their first business when
they arrived at such houses as were to be disposed of according to
arrangements already made, was to empanel the jury for the valuation.
This is explained in the Account Book of Dr. Legh,[178] which gives
exceedingly full details of everything such houses possessed at the
time of their final suppression. Vestments and church furniture,
domestic utensils, farm implements, animals and stores, all were made
over alike to the purchasers, only such things as the more valuable
church plate, lead, and bells, being usually held back. In spite of
efforts at prevention it is obvious from the inventories that a good
deal had disappeared recently. No doubt the religious themselves had
made away with something, though this was a dangerous thing to attempt;
and probably there had been a good deal of “picking and stealing,”
regular and irregular, during recent months.
It is somewhat surprising to find that so many of the monks and nuns
had remained after knowing that their fate was sealed. Some, of course,
had nowhere else to go: some stayed doubtless through indifference:
some waited for the promised pensions. All who remained were “rewarded”
and most were given pensions.
The final arrangement at St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was made on October
18th, and at Dieulacres on October 21st, at the same time as Scudamore
was holding his auctions at Rocester and Hulton. Legh’s inventories are
given in full in the Appendix.[179]
On October 11th Dr. Legh received a letter from Sir Thomas Hennege[180]
informing him that the house of Benedictine Nuns at Brewood was to be
given by the King’s orders to Sir Thos. Gifford, a Gentleman Usher
of the Chamber, who had been begging for it for over a year, and
continuing, “At your now being there you shall put him in possession,
and he may at leisure apply to the Chancellor of Augmentations for the
lease.” Legh was on his way to Brewood at the time. When he arrived at
the house he found himself in a difficulty. There was a rival claimant.
He wisely referred the matter to Cromwell, enclosing Hennege’s letter
and saying, “There was Mr. Littleton also who said the King was
pleased he should have it, as he perceived by your lordship when he
was last in London.” The cautious Legh did not care to run the risk
of offending anyone, so he solved the difficulty in a characteristic
way, as he explains: “Wherfore I and Mr. Candisshe have put them both
in possession, and sold the stuff to them both till they may know the
King’s pleasure.”[181] Legh’s inventory describes the sale as having
been made to Sir Thomas Gifford. Gifford certainly obtained the place
in the end.
The Black Nuns of Brewood surrendered on October 16th.[182] None
of them signed the document. The house was too poor to afford
accommodation suitable for Dr. Legh, and he went on the same day to
Lilleshall Abbey, which he gave to Cavendish, who had accompanied him
as auditor, as he explains to Cromwell: “Now being at Lilleshall, I
intend to put Mr. Candisshe in possession of the farm of the house who
prays you that in his absence he be not in this behalf supplanted.”
Legh himself went on to Stafford next day. Bishop Roland Lee’s
solicitations at last had their desired effect, and on October 17th
the Priory of St. Thomas surrendered. The Deed bore the following
signatures:[183]
p me Ricardum Whittall, p’iorem
p me Ricardum Harve
p me Thomam Baguley
p me Will’m pipstoke
p me Guilihelmum Stapletone
+ p me Christtoferum Symson
There was at least one other canon, William Boudon, and when the
affairs of the house were wound up next day he received no pension.
No doubt this was his punishment for refusing to sign the Deed of
Surrender. The whole was sold to Bishop Roland Lee.
From Stafford a long journey was made northwards as far as Leek. There
stood the imposing Cistercian house of Dieulacres,[184] with its fine
church, with a timbered roof and a screen bearing twelve candles, a
glazed cloister with carrells, a dormitory and fratry, an infirmary,
hall and buttery, larder and kitchen, and outhouses of various kinds.
Dr. Legh’s eyes must have glistened as they came in sight of the wealth
of lead which covered the roofs, and which he subsequently computed
to be worth no less a sum than the enormous amount of £720. There was
also a fine peal of bells. Sheep and cattle, horses and pigs, were in
the fields, stores of grain were in the granary, and abundance of hay
was on the site. So large a house gave employment to a large number of
servants. The monks numbered thirteen, under Thomas Whitney, the Abbot.
The King’s Commissioners did not know how their visit had been prepared
for. The _personnel_ at Dieulacres comprised a useful proportion
of members of the Abbot’s family. Besides himself there were four other
men of the name of Whitney--Humphrey, who was bailiff of the Cheshire
Manors, John, who was Chamberlain, and two other lay members of the
household. Under these circumstances it was not difficult to devise
a scheme which should to some extent defeat the plan for wholesale
confiscation. William Davenport, steward of the courts and collector
of the rents in the Frith and elsewhere, who acted as Abbot Whitney’s
secretary, prepared blank forms which were duly sealed with the Convent
seal while it was still in the Abbot’s keeping. On these forms various
leases were subsequently made out, when Legh and Cavendish were safely
out of the way, one of which was the lease and reversion of the Manor
of Poulton for a tenure of sixty-one years.
All this was carefully concealed from the Commissioners when they
arrived. The seal having been used for the last time on the Deed of
Dissolution on October 20th,[185] was duly handed over, and it was not
till Elizabeth had reigned for some years that John Whitney turned
Queen’s evidence and divulged the whole story.[186]
There is no reason for supposing that John Whitney’s confession
was untrue. It was by no means improbable in itself, and no doubt
represented action which was often attempted. But there appears to
have been considerable hesitation in believing it and in acting upon
it. It was made in the seventh year of Elizabeth’s reign, and so long
afterwards as fourteen years later one of the alleged ante-dated leases
was cancelled by the Master of the Rolls and the Solicitor-General.
There had evidently also been much selling of stock here as elsewhere.
Legh only found sixty sheep, six oxen, three horses and thirteen pigs,
all of inferior quality. These represented but a small proportion of
the farm-stock which had formerly made Dieulacres rich and prosperous,
and obviously would give but little occupation to the thirty
men-servants who applied for “rewards.” Abbot Whitney had evidently
played a bold though dangerous game, and it is impossible not to feel
considerable satisfaction in the knowledge that it succeeded so well.
On October 21st the whole was sold to Edward, Earl of Derby.
As the agents went about their work, they lived well and spent large
sums on their own entertainment. Even at Brewood they spent on
themselves nearly as much as they gave in rewards to the Prioress
and her nuns. At Stafford they spent £8 19s. 10d. on themselves,
and at Dieulacres £10 17s. They looked to be well treated by all
who desired their favour. Their path was strewn with bribes and
gifts from prospective makers of easy bargains. Robert Burgoyne, who
had acted as auditor at Stafford, sent Scudamore a buck: “good Mr.
Giffard kylled yt for you yesterdaye.”[187] Another time he is told a
hostess “hadd provyded a ffat swane for you.”[188] Master Bothe, the
“grett bylder,” who hoped for a good bargain in regard to the Friary
at Newcastle-under-Lyme, was careful to “show Bishop Ingworth many
pleasures.” On August 13th Bishop Ingworth wrote to Cromwell asking
“that yf before my cumyng ther be any order taken for Newecastell
Underlyne, that ye wolde be good lorde to on master Johan Bothe,
a servant of the kynges graces, the whyche ys a grett bylder in
theys partes, that he myghte for money have the slate and schyngyll
ther; for ther ys no other to be don with the more parte of that
howse, but save the lede and the slate, and take the profete of the
grownde. That master Bothe for yower sake scheuyd me many plesures,
and gave me venyson; wherefor I may no lesse do but wryght to yower
lordeschype.”[189] Fault was found with William Cavendish, who had
accompanied Legh to Brewood, for having given higher “rewards and
wages” than he had divulged. These were probably intended as bribes,
for while riding back from Merivale in Warwickshire they learnt
that the Abbot had not sold some plate as he said he had done. They
accordingly despatched a messenger back to fetch it, and the Abbot
sent it by way of bribe to them “to be good masters unto him and his
brethren.” Both Cavendish and Legh confessed that the whole story was
true.[190]
In 1541 the sum of £3 10s. was paid by warrant of the council to sundry
witnesses, including some of the servants of the late Priory of St.
Thomas’s, Stafford, for “coming up to the Court of Augmentations to
give evidence for the King against William Cavendish.”[191]
Archbishop Cranmer maintained his paltry petitions for his friends
right through the whole period. As long ago as 1535 he had begged for
the Priory of Worcester to be given to one of the monks of Burton.[192]
On December 14th, 1538, he wrote to Cromwell to accomplish his suit
for his servant the bearer, Francis Bassett, who had carried the
image of St. Modwen up to London, for the Monastery of Croxden.[193]
Among Cromwell’s notes there is “A remembrance to speak to the King
for Francis Bassett, servant to my lord of Canterbury”: “The ferme
of Musden Grawnge, appertaining to the Abbey of Crocksden, within
the county of Stafford, being of the yearly value of 20 marks by the
year.”[194]
After Burton Abbey was dissolved it was made into a collegiate church,
with Abbot Edie as Dean; he was soon succeeded by Dr. Brocke. The
Patent is dated July 27th, 1540. The Chapels of Shene, Cauldon, and
Okeover, were allotted to the new foundation, and the possessions of
the late Abbey were to be held of the Crown by a yearly rent of £62
2s. 4d., in lieu of first-fruits and tenths, and burdened with various
pensions, stipends, and fees. A pretence was made that one of the
objects of the transformation was that some of the wealth should go
towards poor-relief and repair of roads. Some of the monks remained
as Canons or Prebendaries; there was a Gospeller and an Epistoller,
with five singing men, six choristers, two deacons, a parish priest,
a schoolmaster, and four bedesmen. Among the “common servants” were a
barber, parish clerk, bridgemaster, laundress, “turnbroche” or turnspit
and apparitor. Robert Bradshawe, gent., was Porter of the Gate, and
Nicholas Burwey, gent., was under-steward and clerk of the courts.
It does not appear how much of the contents of the Abbey--vestments,
plate, etc.--was removed when the change was made in its constitution,
but a considerable amount remained at the final dissolution, which took
place in 1545, when the place was given to Sir William Paget. Scudamore
again did most of the work, associated now with Richard Goodrich.
They rode in comfort and by easy stages from London to Burton, living
sumptuously and extravagantly, and spent four days at Burton in the
performance of their task. Again the best of the goods were not sold
but carried up to London, wrapped in ten yards of canvas and borne on
a horse specially hired for the purpose at a cost of £1 6s. 8d.[195]
From the inventories and surrenders, supplementing _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_, we are able to form some idea as to the mode of
living in the monasteries, and the standard of comfort which was
reached. Doubtless the obligation to perform manual work had in most
cases been forgotten, otherwise the large number of servants and
labourers cannot well be accounted for. At Dieulacres[196] there were
thirteen monks, six stewards and bailiffs (excluding “my lord of
Derby,” whose office was a sinecure), a forester, and eleven others
who had to be pensioned, besides thirty servants and “the launders and
pore bedewomen.” The last-named probably did the Abbey washing. The
“household” is a large one in comparison with the number of monks,
even when we take into account the sheep-runs of the Abbey. Still more
excessive is the staff of twenty-nine servants at Stafford for the
seven canons; for the Priory of St. Thomas, though it had scattered
possessions, employed in 1535 nine or ten stewards and bailiffs. Their
baker was a person of sufficient importance to receive a pension of
10s. a year. The four nuns at Brewood had eight servants, although
their house and income were alike small. They must have had an idle
time, and when they were ejected with small pensions of £3 6s. 8d.
to the Prioress, and half that amount to each of the three nuns, the
change in their style of living must have been very marked and painful.
Payments to lay officials, such as stewards, bailiffs, rent-collectors,
and auditors, appear in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ as follows: Brewood
Nunnery (4), _nil_; Burton-on-Trent, £28; Croxden (13), £7;
Dieulacres (13), £5 6s. 8d.; Dudley, £2 6s. 8d.; Hulton, £6; Rocester
(9), £2 13s. 4d.; Ronton, £4 6s. 8d.; St. Thomas’s (7), £11 13s. 4d.;
Stone, £3 6s. 8d.; Trentham, £5; Tutbury (9), £18 13s. 4d.: Total, £94
6s. 8d. The figures in brackets show the number of religious, where
these can be ascertained. At Dudley and Trentham these must have been
very few, yet at the latter the expenditure on administration was
£5. Tutbury also spent large sums on management. On the other hand,
Rocester, with nine canons and two stewards, and a small expenditure on
management, appears in a favourable light. The canons at Rocester were
on good terms with their neighbours, and the house was almost unique
among the smaller houses in Staffordshire in the matter of charity. The
general impression of the canons of Rocester is that they were living
quiet, simple lives, working hard themselves, and held in respect.
The Nunnery at Brewood[197] possessed a hall, parlour, kitchen,
buttery, and larder, with a large bedroom (in which they all slept
on two bedsteads) and a bailiff’s chamber. Of outhouses there were
brewhouse and cooling house, bolting house for kneading bread,
cheeseloft, and a “kylhouse,” all of which were more or less adequately
furnished. There were hangings of painted cloth in the parlour. In
the hall there were two tables but only one form. The nuns’ bedroom
contained a feather bed and one tester of white linen cloth, two
coverlets and a blanket described as old, one bolster, two pillows and
four pairs of sheets. The bailiff slept on a mattress on the floor,
with a coverlet and blanket. His axe remained in his bedroom when the
house was sold. A table-cloth and two latten candlesticks, a bushel and
a half of salt, four pewter porringers, four platters, and two saucers,
which are mentioned, also throw light on the standard of living. Of
grain they had a quarter of wheat (6s. 2d.), a quarter of “munke-corne”
(8s.), a quarter of oats (1s. 8d.), and a quarter of peas (2s. 8d.).
The bread they made was of good quality: rye is not even mentioned.
Their one horse was sold for 4s., the wain and dung-cart for 16d. They
had ten loads of hay (15s.).
With this we may compare the abbey and out-buildings at
Dieulacres.[198] In the cloister was a lavatory. No beds or bedding
are mentioned in the dorter or dormitory, which the monks had forsaken
for more comfortable quarters in smaller bedrooms, of which there were
several. The corner chamber was luxuriously provided with a mattress,
feather bed, bolster, and two pillows, a blanket and coverlet, a tester
of “dorney,” a hanging of sey (silk), etc. In the inner chamber also
was a mattress. In the ryder’s chamber were two bedsteads, a hanging
of painted cloth, etc. In the butler’s chamber were a mattress and
feather bed and four coverlets, a bolster and two pillows. In the
buttery were five napkins, three pewter salts, eight hogsheads, six
candlesticks, etc.; in the larder, a salting vat; in the kitchen, five
great brass pots, four small pans, a cauldron, three spits, a frying
pan, a gridiron, thirty-eight plates, dishes, and saucers, a grater,
two chafing dishes, a brass “skimmer,” etc. There was a brewhouse,
bolting-house and labourers’ chamber (with two mattresses and two
coverlets).
Their live stock consisted of six oxen (sold for £4 5s.), sixty ewes
and lambs (£3 6s. 8d.), three horses (£1), and twelve swine (13s. 4d.).
Of grain they had 159 bushels of oats (£11 19s.), and rye worth £1 1s.,
with twenty-nine loads of hay which sold for £3.
At St. Thomas’s, Stafford,[199] the seven religious and twenty-nine
“servants” had stores as follows:
Wheat. Rye and Barley. Peas. Hay.
Munke-corn.
Arberton Grange 3 qrs. 11 qrs. 40 qrs. 10 qrs. 20 loads
Berkswick Grange 12 „ 4 „
St. Thomas’s Priory 12 „
There were also the following farm implements and horses:
Waggons. Harrows. Ploughs. Cart. Cart Mares.
Horses.
Arberton Grange 2 2 1 3 2
Berkswick Grange 2 2 2
Some of the waggons were “ironbound” and some “unbound,” and all, with
the ploughs and harrows, and the cart, appear to have been complete
“with yokes and teams to them belonging.”
The live stock was as follows:
Oxen. Cows. Calves. Wethers. Ewes. Lambs. Swine. Winter
Beasts.
Arberton Grange 12 9 8 60 70 6 6
Berkswick Grange 12 80 9
In the house the dormitory had “cells” or cubicles, but the absence of
beds and bedding there indicates that more comfortable quarters were
occupied. The court had a conduit for the supply of water. The Prior’s
parlour was hung with linen, and had a folding or trestle table, two
forms and four chairs. There were six bedrooms furnished as follows:
the water chamber had bedsteads with painted hangings, two feather
beds, two bolsters, two pillows and four coverlets. The great chamber
had a bedstead with a feather bed, a coverlet, two fustian blankets
and a bolster. The two “inner chambers” had a bedstead each, furnished
with a bolster apiece and four old coverlets between them. The chamber
over the chapel had a bedstead with feather bed, coverlet, a pair of
blankets and sheets, and a cupboard, form, chair and hangings of linen
cloth. The carter’s chamber had a bedstead with a mattress, a pair of
sheets and three old coverlets.
In the buttery were napkins and cloths, a washing towel, tubs, two
pewter salts, two costrells or wine jugs; in the kitchen, four brass
pots, a broche or spit, two brass pans, a brass mortar, two cupboards,
a mustard quern, a kemnell or tub, a skimmer, a flesh hook and two
pairs of pothooks, seven platters, a voider or basket for clearing away
the relics of meals, three dishes, four saucers, four porringers, etc.
The brewhouse and bakehouse was well furnished with leads, vats, pans,
etc., and attached to it was a bedroom, which Richard Torner doubtless
occupied, and which was well supplied with bed and bedding. St.
Thomas’s Priory was well and comfortably furnished, and the standard
of comfort there was considerably higher than at either of the other
smaller Staffordshire houses of which we have details.
In the houses of the friars[200] there were few signs of anything
approaching domestic comfort. The kitchens had various necessary
utensils, more, apparently, than the communities would require for
their own cooking, and pointing probably to considerable dispensation
of charity and poor relief. There was a considerable amount of church
furniture--vestments, candlesticks, etc.,--but practically nothing at
all in the way of bedding or linen.
The records by no means show that the religious, either monks, nuns,
or friars, were living a life more luxurious than the generality of
people. If we are to take the prices at which their live stock was
sold it must have been of inferior breed. The sales being “compulsory”
tended to lower the prices realized, but the monks had, in all
probability, sold as much as they could and dared as the imminence
of dissolution became more threatening, and of course their better
animals would find the readiest sale. As regards the furniture of the
houses, the inventories of the sales may well be compared with other
contemporary lists of a similar nature, such as the “Inventory of
the Goods and Catales of Richd. Master, Clerk, Parson of Aldington”
[Kent], in 1534, which is given by Froude.[201] If Dieulacres really
had only sixty sheep in the sixteenth century it had sadly declined
from its earlier wealth in that branch of industry, and there was
little occupation for the servants. But, probably, as we have said,
the number represents the remainder which had not been sold. All sales
so made were by law _ipso facto_ void if they became known, so
that no extraordinary number could have been parted with. The inference
therefore is that their sheep-farming had declined, and the monks of
Dieulacres, at any rate, had not taken the part in the conversion of
arable into pasture of which the monasteries have often been accused.
Ronton Priory had enclosed all its demesne, but there is no evidence
that it was for the purpose of forming large sheep-runs--it may have
been merely in order to facilitate “convertible husbandry”--a very
different matter.
As we have already pointed out, none of the graver charges which were
alleged against many of the religious at the time of the Dissolution,
and have been so generally magnified since, were even hinted at in
connection with Staffordshire. On the other hand, there are many signs
that they were respected by their neighbours. Indeed the only definite
fault which could be found with them was an occasional charge of
insolvency, and even that is sometimes so vague as to be practically
worthless. Bishop Ingworth enlarged upon the bankrupt condition of
the friars. The house at Lichfield was “more in debt than all the
stuff that belongs to it will pay, by twenty nobles.” The house at
Newcastle-under-Lyme, he says, had mortgaged all its substances and was
bankrupt, with its buildings in a ruinous condition. The Grey Friars
at Stafford owed £4. Dieulacres was £171 10s. 5d. in debt, and St.
Thomas’s Priory, Stafford, £235 19s. 7d.
Fortunately we have details of some of these debts, so that it is
possible to see how they had been incurred. The Lichfield friars owed
thirty shillings which had been raised on loan for building purposes,
and twenty shillings to the Bishop for five years’ rent; the rest
of the debt was for malt and rye. At Dieulacres and St. Thomas’s
Priory[202] the items of indebtedness appear to be usually fees to
various officials, such as the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and the
Archdeacon, wages to stewards and bailiffs, stipends to vicars, and
tradesmen’s small bills. Among them there is only one other instance
of borrowing, besides that already mentioned at Lichfield, though
St. Thomas’s Priory had raised £43 by mortgaging some of its plate,
including a silver censer and a cross of silver plate.
The total amount of indebtedness, as well as the nature of the debts,
hardly bears out the charge of general insolvency which has been
brought against the religious houses.
No doubt their days of undimmed prosperity had passed. Economic changes
had pressed hard on all landlords, and recent religious movements had
seriously affected all forms of charity. The friars in particular
must have felt the effects of the latter, and their buildings had
evidently fallen steadily into disrepair. Yet even they can hardly be
said with justice to have been hopelessly insolvent. They had assets
of considerable value:[203] those which were sold at Stafford amounted
to £32 6s. 4d. at the Austin Friars (besides 13 oz. of plate and bells
worth £8 8s.), and £34 3s. 10d. at the Grey Friars (besides 16 oz. of
plate, £45 worth of lead, and bells worth £10. The sale of the effects
at the Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield produced £68 15s. The small
debt of the Grey Friars at Stafford was discharged by the sale of
timber and growing corn.
The indebtedness of the “monasteries” is in all probability to be
accounted for, to no small extent, by the very large sums which most of
them had been recently called upon to pay under the pretence that they
were to be allowed to continue. The amount seems to have been roughly
calculated at a year’s net income, as will be seen from the following
table. The first column of figures gives the net income of the house as
returned in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ (1535), and the second the fine
paid for being allowed to continue (1536–7).
Net Income. Fine.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Croxden Abbey 90 5 11 100 0 0
Hulton Abbey 76 14 0 66 13 4
Rocester Priory 100 2 10½ 100 0 0
St. Thomas’s, Stafford 141 13 2¼ 133 6 8
To enable themselves to pay such very large sums in ready money the
monks would have to leave many small creditors unpaid for a time. The
fact that they were able to do this is of itself sufficient to show
that in the popular estimation they were considered thoroughly solvent.
They had abundance of assets, as is shown by the amounts raised at the
sales of the furniture, etc., at the Suppression. Dieulacres (which
had not been called upon to pay a fine for continuance), proved to
have lead alone worth £720, besides 117 oz. of plate, and bells worth
£37 10s. The actual goods sold produced £63 14s. 10d., and would
have doubtless realized a much higher sum if they had been disposed
of under other conditions. Besides, the net income of the Abbey was
returned in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ as £227 5s., so that a debt of
£171 10s. 5d. cannot be considered, under the circumstances, entirely
unreasonable.
The financial condition of St. Thomas’s Priory, the other house
which we are told was heavily in debt, was rather worse than that of
Dieulacres, but it had recently paid the heavy fine of £133 6s. 8d. It
owed £235 19s. 7d., in addition to the mortgage of £43 6s. 8d., which
was covered by the plate mentioned. Yet even this large sum is not much
more than half as much again as a year’s net income; and if, as we have
surmised, it had been partially incurred by the payment of the Fine
for Continuance, it was considerably less. At the sale of the effects
of the Priory, £87 9s. 6d. was realized, besides £40 worth of lead,
bells worth £54, plate, etc. Here, again, we cannot fairly say that the
position was one of hopeless bankruptcy.
The allegation of insolvency against the houses appears, therefore,
to have little basis in fact. The monks had felt the adverse effects
of recent tendencies, both economic and religious, and their finances
had quite recently been subjected to a severe and exceptional strain.
But in spite of this they appear to have been in a fairly sound
financial position. Their normal debts represent only the casual credit
of ordinary life. Their alleged insolvency was merely temporary and
mainly fictitious. In the ordinary course of events it would have been
discharged in due course.
CHAPTER IX
LOSS AND GAIN
We do not propose to enter into a discussion of the principles which
were involved in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, or of the
religious and moral loss and gain which ensued. It would be superfluous
and profitless. We may, however, attempt to form an idea of the way
those who were responsible for the suppression solved the various
practical questions which had to be faced in bringing the religious
houses to an end, and to estimate the degree of success which attended
their efforts. Of course we shall consider only the _immediate_
results: the broader and ultimate religious, constitutional, and
economic effects are the province of the historian of the epoch and
the nation, not of the student of a brief episode in the history of a
single locality.
There were many material interests to be considered, for it must not be
forgotten that the monks and nuns, friars and canons, were not the only
people affected by the changes we have been considering. The King, the
clergy, the tenants, the lay people employed, maintained, and assisted
at the monasteries, all had interests more or less important.
We may note at the outset that the necessity for taking into
consideration the material interests involved was fully recognised.
According to the instructions issued to the suppression officials who
dealt with the lesser monasteries, the Superior of each house was to
be provided for, but no one else. Accordingly at Trentham we find no
record of pensions to any others except the Prior. The rest were to be
given the option of receiving “capacities” or of being transferred to
other houses. This was following the precedent of earlier dissolutions,
and it will be remembered that Dr. David Pole, of Calwich, was ordered
to be “translated to some good house of his religion near.”[204]
While the work of destruction was yet on a small scale, and its
ultimate extension unsuspected, it may have appeared less necessary
to conciliate public opinion, by removing occasion for complaints of
material and pecuniary loss, than appeared later. As it became evident
that the destruction of the monasteries was to become wholesale, and
that great numbers of people, not only religious but lay folk, must be
affected, it may well have seemed politic and wise to take pains to
assure everyone that vested interests would be respected.
Accordingly a different policy was pursued in the later dissolutions.
All the religious received payments and most received pensions.
At the suppression of Brewood,[205] Prioress Isabel Launder received a
reward of £2 and a pension of £3 6s. 8d.; each of the nuns a reward of
£1 and a pension of £1 13s. 4d. At Stafford[206] the payments were as
follows:
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Richard Whytell, “late Prior” 6 0 0 reward, 26 13 4 pension
Richard Harvey, Sub-Prior 2 0 0 „ 6 0 0 „
Sir Christopher Simson 2 0 0 „ 6 0 0 „
Sir Thomas Bageley 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Sir William Pykstok 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Sir William Stapulton 2 0 0 „ 5 0 0 „
Sir William Boudon 1 0 0 „
No explanation is given as to why William Boudon received a smaller
“reward” than the rest, and was awarded no pension; but, as we have
already noticed, he had not signed the Deed of Surrender on the
previous day and perhaps he had to be punished for his recalcitrancy.
At Dieulacres[207] the arrangements were of a similar nature:
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Thomas Whitney, Abbot 6 0 0 reward, 60 0 0 pension
Robert Bageley, Prior 2 10 0 „ 60 0 0 „
Henry Bennett 2 10 0 „ 6 0 0 „
George Ferny 2 10 0 „
Brother Rauffe Motesset 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Randall Barnes 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Brother William Crosse 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Brother Robert Cherinton 2 0 0 „ 5 6 8 „
Brother Edmond Bolton 2 0 0 „ 5 0 0 „
Brother William Prowdluffe 2 0 0 „ 5 0 0 „
Thomas Loke 2 0 0 „ 2 0 0 „
Brother Richard Gordon 2 0 0 „ 2 0 0 „
John Bykerton 2 0 0 „ 2 0 0 „
To George Ferny no pension was allotted. Pensions to “late monks” of
Croxden, Rocester, Tutbury, and Burton are mentioned in subsequent
records. In 1553 the payments to late monks of Tutbury appear as
follows: Prior Thomas Meverell, £50; Thomas Moreton, _alias_
Sutton, £7; Richard Arnold, £6 13s. 4d.; Thomas Raynard, £6; Robert
Stafford, £6; Roger Hilton, £6.
In the pension lists of 2–3 Philip and Mary, Robert Moore, who had been
one of the prebendaries of the collegiate church of Burton-on-Trent,
appears in receipt of £6; John Carter, a “late canon,” £6; William
Sutton, “minor canon,” £6; and William Hether, epistoller, £5; with
Thomas Smith, incumbent of a chantry, £1 5s. 9d.
Monks of Burton who were in receipt of pensions in 1540 were as
follows: John Pole, Robert Robynson, Robert Heithcott, William
Fyssher, John Goodcole, William Symon, and Humphrey Cotton. Of these
the following appear in the list of Mary’s reign above-mentioned:
William Fyssher, £6; William Symonds, £5; and Humphrey Cotton, 40s. The
following also had pensions then: Robert Brocke, _alias_ Brooke
(who succeeded Abbot Edie as Dean), £66 13s. 4d.; John Rudde, £15;
Roger Bulle (? Ball) and John Jermy, _alias_ Heron, £6 13s. 4d.
There are “annuities” also to twenty-five others, two of £5, one of £4,
one of £3 6s. 8d., two of 53s. 4d., one of 50s., and three of 40s.,
and so on to 20s., but none of the names are the same as appear in
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_, though John Moseley (20s.) may be the son
of Richard Mosley, bailiff of Findern and Stapenhill, who received 13s.
4d. in 1535.
Ecclesiastics who proved compliant were often well rewarded, as we
have seen in the case of David Pole of Calwich. The Abbot of Burton
became the dean of the collegiate church which took the place of the
Abbey for a few years. At the suppression of Forde Abbey the Abbot,
who had been the royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden and many
other Cistercian houses, received “fourtie wayne lodes of fyre wood to
be taken yerely during his lyfe owte of suche woods being no parte of
demaynes of the said late howse as the officers of the Kings courte of
the augmentacions or there deputies for the tyme there shall appoynte
and assigne ... lxxx_li._”[208]
It would be deeply interesting if we could trace the after history
of the rank and file of the ejected monks, nuns, and friars.
Unfortunately, the materials are of the scantiest.
If the history of the dissolution of the religious houses in France
in our own days in any way reproduces that of the dissolution in
England in the sixteenth century, many of the religious were obliged
to take up secular employment. Did the friars of Stafford[209] make
their purchases with the object of carrying on business? Besides “ii
brasse pottes” in the kitchen, they bought out of their brewhouse “iii
leads”--_i.e._, pans, “one to brue [brew] in,” and “ii to kele
[cool] in” (_i.e._, “coolers”); besides “fates” (which Cowell’s
_Interpreter_ explains as the vessels, each containing a quarter,
used to measure malt), a “bultyng hutch” or sifting tub, and “a knedyng
troughe.” The prospect for the nuns must have been terrible.[210] They
received very small pensions. They were turned adrift in a world whose
moral sense had been shaken by the accusations lately brought against
the inmates of the religious houses, and among people whose betters
were described by Legh[211] as living “so incontinently having their
concubines openly in their houses, with five or six of their children,
putting from them their wyfes, that all the contrey therewith be not
a littill offendyd, and takithe evyll example of theym.” The last
Abbot of Rocester appears to have continued to live near his destroyed
house, if the entry in the earliest volume of the Rocester parish
registers--“1576, Aug. 14, Willm. Grafton, prs.... sep.”--records his
burial. The last Prior of Trentham was Thomas Bradwall, and a “Thos.
Bradwall, s. of John B.,” was buried at Trentham on March 13th, 1567.
Thomas Whitney, the last Abbot of Dieulacres, continued to live
in the town of Leek, in Milne Street. In 1541 he was one of the
witnesses to the Crown sale of Swythamley, etc., to William Traford
of Wilmslow.[212] He made his will in 1558[213] and in it expressed a
desire to be buried in Westminster Abbey.
Ample provision was also made for the lay officials: the laity, at all
events, were to have no grievances. Of course the chief stewards took
care to be compensated. The chief steward of Burton Abbey was George,
Earl of Huntingdon, and his annual fee was £6 13s. 4d.; in Mary’s reign
his successor, Francis, was in receipt of £3 6s. 8d. At the dissolution
of Dieulacres “my lord of Darby, Stuard of the Seid monastery,”
whose fee had not been allowed by the Commissioners of _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_, received a pension of £2. William Davenport lost
£1 6s. 8d. and received £4;[214] John Cordon, 13s. 4d. and £1; Humfry
Whitney, £2 and £3 6s. 8d. Besides these, two other bailiffs, a
forester and two stewards, and eleven other men, received “fees and
annuities.”
At Stafford Lord Ferrers, the High Steward, was pensioned (40s.)
with thirteen other lay officials, including Richard Torner, baker.
Rewards were given to twenty-nine “servants,” of whom seven were also
pensioned. There were four “plough-drivers” who received 1s. 8d. each,
and six women. John Coke, the bailiff of Dudley, held his office by
an appointment for life, and at the Dissolution the terms of the
agreement were carefully respected, for the grant of the priory and its
possessions to Sir John Dudley in March, 1541, was expressly charged
with the annual payment of John Coke’s fee of £2. In 1541 there are
records of the half-yearly payments (on April 20th and October 4th) to
Nicholas Whitney, of Dieulacres, and his wife Mary. The payment appears
again in 1542.
The lesser “servants,” labourers, “launders and pore bedewomen,” and
the like, were paid off with lump sums, and no further responsibility
in their case remained.
Of course many of the bailiffs and stewards continued in their old
posts under the new owners. The Dissolution was the reverse of a
loss to them. But they had to find sureties and guarantees for their
honesty. For instance, Humphrey Whitney, of Middlewich, bailiff of
“Wycch,” is noted in 1541 as finding sureties to the amount of £120;
Roland Heth, of Tutbury, bailiff of Wetton, etc., 100 marks, and of
Elkeston, 40 marks; Geoffrey Legh, of Berreston, Salop, bailiff of
Great Gate, £120; and William Davenport, bailiff of Abbots Frith, etc.,
£200. An interesting entry of the same date shows Sampson Erdeswick, of
Sandon, becoming sureties for Robert Harcourt, bailiff of lands which
had belonged to Ronton Abbey, for 200 marks.[215]
Even if it were intended that the pensions and annuities should be
loyally paid the charge was a wise one to incur. It saved appearances
by appearing to respect “vested interests”; it effectually prevented
agitation against the Government by any who desired to retain their
pensions; and it was a charge which would steadily decrease and
eventually disappear in the ordinary course of nature.
But it is to be feared that the pensioners were by no means loyally
treated as time went on. In a few months a tenth part of all pensions
was deducted as a royal subsidy, and two years later a fourth.
John Scudamore had the collection of the former sum, and in his
“Declaration of Receipts”[216] payments are found from the following:
Brewood--Isabel Launder and her three nuns; Croxden--John Orpe and ten
others; Dieulacres--Thomas Whitney and others; Hulton--Edward Wilkyns
and eight others; Rocester--William Grafton and others; Ronton--Thomas
Allen and the curate of Elynhall; Stone--“two curates of Stone”;
Trentham--Thomas Bradwall; Tutbury--Roger Hilton and six others.
Unfortunately the leaf is mutilated so that the other names in the case
of Dieulacres and Rocester are missing.
Moreover, there was unseemly delay in paying the pensions. Receipts
dated May, 1541, appear for half-year’s pensions due the previous
Lady-Day[217] signed by the following monks of Croxden: Robert Clerke
(£10 13s. 4d.), Robert Cade, John Orpe, William Beche, John Thornton,
and Richard Meyre. Poor Thomas Whitney, the late Abbot of Dieulacres,
had great difficulty in obtaining his pension regularly, and became
involved in debt in consequence. We find him writing as follows to
Scudamore in December, 1540:[218]
“Upon the letter to my brother to appear before Mr. Auditor
and you at Burton-upon-Trent the 13th of this December
I prepared to come thither. Coming to Leke on Saturday
night I heard you were departed towards Lichfield and
Worcestershire, and considering the danger by evil weather
and floods I thought best to send my brother after you
and spare myself; and I trust you will be good to me for
my pension due at Michaelmas last. I had to borrow £8 of
my said brother: I beg you to repay him and deliver the
rest to my servant, Richard Day. Also I beg you to send
by Richard Day the pensions of my poor brethren that are
not able to come for them, and let me have letters to the
bailiffs to pay my pension regularly.”
Any personal debts which could be fastened on the monks were looked
after with relentless persistence: so late as 1542 we find the last
Abbot of Hulton being harassed about arrears he still owed.
On the other hand, the debts owing from the monastic estates were
slow in finding payment. Dieulacres owed Elizabeth Alenn £22 at its
dissolution, and in 1541 and 1542 instalments were still being paid.
Such a mode of payment was disastrously slow and unsatisfactory. Henry
Hargreaves, of Luddington, to whom Dieulacres owed £29 0s. 4d., and who
came first on the list of creditors drawn up by Legh and Cavendish,
apparently died without receiving his money, and at the end of 1541
Laurence Hargreaves was glad to compound the old debt for the sum of
£20. In the same month Peter Bonye accepted £14 6s. 8d. in discharge of
the £20 which was still owing to him from Tutbury Priory. We can well
understand that every obstacle would be put in the way of the proving
of claims. Richard Corveysor had a patent for £1 6s. 8d. a year granted
to him by the Abbot of Dieulacres before the Dissolution, but he did
not manage to get it allowed till 1542.[219]
Indeed a keen eye to business was possessed by all the officials
concerned, and every care was exercised to make as much as possible
out of the monastic property. Just as old debts were often compounded
by the acceptance of smaller sums, no doubt in despair caused by long
delay, so payments for work done on the estates were often made at less
than their proper amount. John Pratye had a lease for two years of
Heath Mill (apparently formerly the property of Trentham Priory) and,
in 1538, he sent in an account for repairs done, showing payments to
various workmen, who are named, amounting to £16 7s. 8d. The bailiff
was Robert Whyttworth, and although he passed the account and signed it
as correct, John Pratye is found offering to take £10 down in discharge
of it. The document affords an interesting illustration of the way the
monastic estates were managed when they passed into the hands of the
Crown.[220]
There being such difficulty in obtaining the payment of money legally
due within anything like reasonable time, it is not surprising to find
that speculators arose and did a brisk business. The abuse became
so marked that in Edward VI’s reign Parliament had to pass an Act
(2–3 Edward VI, Cap. VII) “against the craftie and deceitful buying
of Pensions from the late Monasteries,” but without much success in
providing a remedy.
Of course the Dissolution entailed a very large material loss to the
Church. The gross total income of the monasteries in Staffordshire, as
given in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, was £1,874 0s. 1½d.--an estimate,
as we have seen, which was probably below the mark. If it be said that
the monks took but little share in the spiritual life of the people
and did but little practical work for the Church, we may at least take
into consideration the amount they received from tithes, glebe, and
voluntary offerings from parishes. They received, as we have seen, £543
6s. 5d. from this source and paid out £19 7s. 10d. Of the former sum
practically nothing reverted to its original use, so that, even if the
latter continued to be paid, the Church, though it might be no worse
off in the matter of tithes than it was before, was at any rate no
better. The benefices decreased in value. Ellaston was valued by Strete
before the suppression of Calwich at £13 6s. 8d.;[221] in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ it stands at £4 9s. 2d.[222] The Bishop of the
Diocese lost £94 6s. 8d. in fees and the Archdeacons £10 13s. 4d. The
fees paid to the King amounted to £10 9s. 7d., and would, of course,
continue under the new owners.
The total amount of wealth brought to the Royal Treasury is quite
incalculable. Besides the whole annual income of the monasteries,
there was the value of the contents of the houses, plate, furniture,
stores, grain, cattle, etc. The former was enormous, but the latter
was no despicable figure. We have figures of some of the sales at the
Dissolution:
---------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+----------
| Goods Sold | Plate | Lead | Bells
---------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+----------
| £ s. d. | | |
Brewood Nunnery | 7 6 1 | | |
St. Thomas’s Priory | 87 9 6 | 28½oz. | £40 | £54
Dieulacres Abbey | 63 14 10 | 117oz. | £720 | £37 10s.
Newcastle--Black Friars | | 14oz. | choir & |
| | | cloister |
Stafford--Austin Friars | 32 6 4 | 13oz. | £8 | 8s.
„ Grey Friars | 34 3 10 | 16oz. | £45 | £10
Lichfield--Grey Friars | 68 15 0 | | |
Croxden Abbey | 9 9 8 | | |
Rocester Abbey | 11 6 | | |
Hulton Abbey | | | | £19 16s.
---------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+----------
Total (of figures shown) | 304 6 9 | 448½ oz. | £805 | £129 14s.
---------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------+----------
Besides the above figures we know of much lead at other places. In
1555 Scudamore was being sued for arrears from the sales of lead from
Croxden, Rocester, Dieulacres, Tutbury, St. Thomas’s, and Dudley,
amounting to close on £500, so that the figure shown in the above
table evidently represents but a small proportion of the total amount
received from this source alone. Of course there were considerable
deductions for rewards and expenses, but the amount of wealth brought
immediately into the Royal Treasury was very large. And a very short
time earlier £400 at least had been paid by Staffordshire houses for
being allowed to continue.
It is noticeable that nothing is said about the monastic libraries. As
a rule, books are almost unmentioned in any of the documents of the
Suppression, so that we might suppose the houses were destitute of
literature. But the scanty survivals are sufficient to show that the
reverse was the fact.
The Annals of Burton are in the British Museum,[223] and so is the
Chronicle of Croxden. Various other books from the monastic libraries
of Staffordshire have also drifted thither, one of which, a copy of
St. Augustine from Burton Abbey, has on the fly-leaf a list of the
books in the Library in the thirteenth century.[224] It shows that
there were then over sixty volumes, many of which contained several
works. These are Commentaries on various books of the Bible, most of
the works of the Fathers, sundry books of Sermons and Homilies, Lives
of various saints, and several editions of Bede’s History, one of
which is in English. There were also copies of the Gospels and of the
Psalms in English, an English Hymnary, and an English Homily book.
Abbot Geoffrey, the sixth Abbot of Burton, wrote the life and miracles
of St. Modwen in a quarto of 167 folios in double columns,[225] and
the first Abbot of Croxden himself copied out the greater part of the
Bible. A later Abbot of Croxden, in the thirteenth century, bought for
the Library an annotated Bible in nine volumes for fifty marks. Abbot
William de Over, who was elected in 1297, much enriched the Library. It
is evident there were books in considerable numbers in the monasteries,
yet they are unmentioned in the records of the dissolution. Very
occasionally we find “old books” sold for trivial sums, and one or two
Missals are mentioned. At Stafford Robert Dorrington bought two “lots”
of “old bokes,” those in the Library at the Grey Friars (with a coffer)
for two shillings, and those in the vestry for eightpence; the “old
bokes in the quyer” at the Austin Friars sold for sixpence. At Stafford
two Missals sold for eightpence and twelvepence each, and at Lichfield
one fetched fourpence.
The books and documents that were important as title-deeds were of
course looked after. The original Chartulary of Burton Abbey is still
in the possession of the Marquis of Anglesey, and that of Dieulacres is
possessed by the Earl of Macclesfield. The Chartularies of Stone and
Ronton are in the British Museum.[226] But probably the greater part of
the books were treated in a manner similar to that in which Dr. Layton
treated the books at the Oxford colleges, and no doubt the description
he gave of the result of his visit to New College would apply to most
of the monasteries: “We fownde all the gret quadrant court full of the
leiffes ... the wynde blowing them into evere corner.”[227]
As might be supposed from the character of the agents employed, much of
the spoil did not reach the Royal treasure-house without a good deal
of trouble. The lead was to be melted into “plokes” and sows, weighed,
and marked with the King’s marks, and delivered under indenture to
the constables of neighbouring castles, such as Tutbury. But so long
afterwards as the reign of Mary, John Scudamore was being called upon
for the settlement of his accounts. The following letter was addressed
to him from Westminster on the “laste of February,” 1555:[228]
“After our harty comendacyons, theise maye be to advertyse
you that we have perused the indentures made betwyxte Mr.
Sheldon and you, and accordynge to the tenure of the same
have charged the sayed master Sheldon with all the leade,
bell metalle, and redy money mencyoned and conteigned in
the sayed indenture, which beynge deducted oute of youer
charge, yett there dothe remayne to be aunsweryd by you
bothe leade and bell metalle as ffollowythe, that ys to
saye for leade att ... Rocestre, vi, ff.; Croxden, xiiii,
ff. de.; Delacres, iiii, ff.; Tuttberye, vi, ff., i,
quarter; _nuper prioratus canonicorum de_ Stafford,
xliiii, ff.; ... the celle of Dudley, iiii, ff.; ... ffor
the aunswere whereof we requyer you, by the vertue of the
kynge and quenes majesties comyssyon to us directed, that
wythe as convenyente spede as you may after the receyte
hereof sende unto us youre suffycyente deputie to accoumpte
byfore us for the same, so as hereuppon their majesties
may be satisfyed by you of the dett that shall faul out
uppon the same. And bycause we be moche callyd uppon to
reporte youer estate and dett herein, we therefore are
constrayned the more ernestly to calle uppon you, whome we
dought not wylle have such regarde hereunto as bothe their
majesties expectacyon herein may be served (as ys mete),
as also for the full ende of this charge towardes youer
selfe, with which as before the ende ys troublesome and
comberous unto you, so will the ende thereof be to youer
quyetnes and comforte. Whereof, for that you are ouer oulde
ffrende and of oulde acquayntaunce, we thought to advyse
you the rather for that commyssyon ys nowe oute for the
ende of those causys, of which you nowe may be dyscharged
yf the faulte be not in youer selfe. We also advertysse you
that Mr. Sheldone wylbe no further charged concernynge the
leade and belles within your late circuyte there thenne
ys conteyned in the indentures bytwyxte you and hym;
and therefore you muste aunswere the reste youer selfe,
whereunto we dought not but you wyll have such respecte as
we may receyve youer aunswere withe expedycion.”
It is difficult to make any precise estimate of the numbers affected
by the Dissolution. In the case of houses the deeds of surrender of
which are extant, of course the number of signatories can be definitely
stated. The Suppression papers give some further details. _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ gives the stewards and bailiffs, etc., but, as we
have seen, cannot be relied upon for completeness. From a comparison of
the available data the following table has been compiled:
---------------------+---------+--------+--------+---------------------+---------------
|Religious|Bailiffs|Servants| Chief Steward | Others
| | etc. | | |
---------------------+---------+--------+--------+---------------------+---------------
Brewood Nunnery | 4 | | 7 | | 1 chaplain
Burton Abbey | | 11 | | Earl of Huntingdon | 1 corrodian,
| | | | | 1 scholar
Croxden Abbey | 13 | 7 | | |
Dieulacres Abbey | 13 | 8 | 30 | Lord Derby | 8 bedeswomen
Dudley Priory | | 2 | | |
Hulton Abbey | | 5 | | {Sir Philip Draycot |
| | | | {Sir Richard Sutton |
Rocester Priory | 9 | 2 | | |
Ronton Priory | | 3 | | John Harcourt |
St. Thomas’s Priory | 7 | 13 | 16 | Earl Ferrers |
Stone Priory | | 2 | | Sir Edward Aston |
Trentham Priory | | 4 | | William Chetwyn | 1 corrodian
Tutbury Priory | 9 | 10 | | Earl of Shrewsbury |
---------------------+---------+--------+--------+---------------------+---------------
The recurrence of the same surname among the lists of inmates and
employees of the religious houses is worth noticing. At Dieulacres
the Abbot, Thomas Whitney, had Humfrey Whitney as bailiff of his
lordships and manors in Cheshire, John Whitney as chamberlain, and two
other servants who bore his name and were of sufficient importance
to be pensioned. At St. Thomas’s the Prior, Richard Whitwell, gave
employment to another Richard, an Edward, and a Katharine, who all
bore his surname; William Stapulton and Thomas Bagley were canons, and
Thomas Stapulton and William Bagley were servants. Among the servants
three were named Coke, two Turner, two Beche or Bech (besides one named
Bache), and three were named Baker.
That there was ordinarily a bailiff at Brewood Nunnery is shown by the
existence in the house of a bailiff’s chamber. It was well furnished at
the Suppression, and Robert Baker, who received a “reward” of 13s. 4d.,
may have been the occupant.
At Dieulacres _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ gives three bailiffs, etc.,
but at the Dissolution seven are mentioned, besides a forester;
and eleven other men were pensioned. Lord Derby, “Steward of the
Monastery and town of Leek,” received a pension at the Dissolution.
At Stafford _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ gives nine stewards: at the
Suppression twenty-nine people were rewarded, which appears to mean
thirteen officials (besides the High Steward and including the cook),
who were also pensioned, and sixteen others, including four ploughmen
and six women. At Hulton Sir Philip Draycot was Chief Steward of the
Staffordshire Manors, and Sir Richard Sutton of Cambryngham.
From the names of the holders of the office of Chief Steward it may
be presumed that the post was mainly an honorary one. Lord Derby and
the Earls of Huntingdon and Shrewsbury are not likely to have presided
often in the manor courts or to have taken much active part in the
work of administration. In many cases it is even mentioned expressly
that there was a deputy steward. Probably the office corresponded
somewhat to that of patron of an institution, or Chancellor of a
modern University: the holder lent the house the prestige of his name,
attended on special occasions, and was expected to use his influence
when necessity arose. It is to be feared the Chief Stewards did nothing
to help the monasteries in their hour of need: many of them only used
whatever knowledge they possessed of the monastic affairs to obtain
a good share of the spoil. The Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Steward of
Tutbury, was also Chief Steward of the Abbeys of Shrewsbury, Buildwas,
Lilleshall and Wenlock in the adjoining county of Salop, of Beauchief
in Derbyshire, St. Werburgh (Chester), Vale Royal and Combermere in
Cheshire, Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, and Wilton in Wiltshire. Thomas
Cromwell was steward of five monasteries and of New College, Oxford.
The duties of the bailiff were to supervise the work on the estates.
The steward presided in the courts. Sometimes one man was both bailiff
and steward. The auditors verified the accounts of the bailiffs and
stewards and collectors. The collectors gathered the rents and tithes,
and as the latter were often paid in kind, the work was onerous. That
so much of the financial and secular work of the monasteries was in
lay hands must have immensely simplified the work of dissolution. The
extent and value of the property were well known, and as the tenants
came into contact with lay administrators much more frequently than
with the “religious” owners, the change when laymen supplanted the
latter as possessors of the estates came with much less of a shock than
would otherwise have been the case. The change, indeed, probably seemed
slight to the tenants. They had known little and seen little of the
“religious,” especially in places at a distance from the house, and the
same bailiff usually continued in his office at the change of ownership.
Rents were probably not much raised. When the allotments of _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ can be definitely identified with those of the
post-dissolution valuations the rents are generally unchanged, and in
any place where they appear to be larger in the latter, the increase is
probably due as much to deliberate suppression of part in the earlier
returns, as to increased strictness by the new owners.
For a similar reason the transfer of the tithes to lay hands was easier
than would seem to have been likely. Under ordinary circumstances it
would have been a bold step to have transferred to laymen payments
definitely apportioned for religious purposes. But to the ordinary
people the tithe had long ceased to wear an ecclesiastical dress. The
vicars who had lost it had been denouncing it roundly for many years.
It was regularly received by lay officials--often the collectors of
the ordinary secular rents,--for the collecting of it was inevitably a
matter of difficulty and much haggling, and needed expert knowledge.
The benefits resulting from it appeared _nil_ to the payers, for
it was taken away from the parish to the monastery, which was often
far distant. Moreover, the tithes were sometimes actually leased to
laymen. Thus “the whirligig of time brought in its revenges.” The
spiritual character of tithes was lost, and they were transferred to,
and remained in, lay hands without difficulty. There was, however, no
spiritual gain from the change. The lay owners of livings were found
appointing clergy of even lower calibre than the monasteries had placed
in their appropriated benefices; they often appointed their servants,
men who by habit and training were utterly unfitted for the position,
and not seldom on the understanding that much of the endowment should
be surrendered.
The information which is available for Staffordshire throws little
light on the much-discussed question of monastic charity. All that
we know is that eight bedeswomen were maintained at Dieulacres, and
that doles were systematically distributed at Burton, Rocester, and
Tutbury. The latter were endowed and so were obliged to be recorded by
the Commissioners of _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, but the fact that the
women at Dieulacres were not mentioned shows how narrowly the official
instructions were interpreted. The single instance is sufficient to
show that because _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ is silent in the majority
of cases we are not justified in drawing a positive conclusion that
in them no charity at all was dispensed. Indeed, one is tempted to go
further and to argue that it is incredible that no other _endowed_
alms (which the instructions permitted to be reckoned) existed in
the county. At any rate this much may be said: that if the charity
of which we have positive proof represents all that was distributed
by the Staffordshire houses the strictures which have been so often
passed on the monks for excessive and demoralising almsgiving are quite
undeserved: the monasteries of Staffordshire, at any rate, were not
“nurseries of dishonest mendicancy.”
Probably, however, the truth lies midway between the two extremes. The
scanty records no doubt indicate that doles played no important part
in the monastic system, and the definite details which are given of
the extent and nature of those mentioned seem to show that charity was
practised with care and judgment. The cessation of the doles would not
be much felt, for they came only on stated days and at long intervals.
They had not helped much to solve the problem of poor-relief while they
lasted: their abolition did not add greatly to its difficulty. There
was no marked increase in the number of the poor in need of relief.
The ejected monks and nuns, being usually, as we have seen, pensioned
more or less adequately, need not have added to the number of destitute
paupers. Lay officials, servants, labourers and the like, doubtless
continued, in the great majority of cases, their old occupations under
new conditions.
It is probably true that the new owners were harder masters than
the monks had been. But the monks seldom came into direct personal
contact with their labourers. The bailiffs and stewards had managed
the estates for the religious, just as they continued to do under the
new owners. But the bailiffs and stewards probably had a much freer
hand in the old days than in the new. The whole spirit of the estate
was changed. Instead of landlords who had held the property from time
immemorial, who could afford to let a bad year be set off against a
good, and who were, from the very fact of old possession, indifferent
or tender-hearted according to the point of view we take of their
conduct, the landlords were now men whose whole conduct shows them to
be possessed of keen business instincts and intent on turning their new
property to the fullest account. It is impossible to think they would
be influenced by any feelings of sentiment or sympathy.
The first Act of Dissolution ordered that the new owners were “to
kepe or cause to be kept an honest contynewell hous and houshold in
the same cyte or precynct, and to occupye yerely as moche of the
same demeanes in plowyng and tyllage of husbondry, that ys to saye
as moche of the seid demeanes which hath ben commonly used to be
kept in tyllage by the governors, abbottes, or pryours of the same
howses, monasteryes, or pryoryes.” But how far this wise and equitable
provision was carried, or even intended to be carried, into effect
has been seen by the deliberate arrangements which were made with the
purchasers of the Friaries at Stafford and Lichfield, to take down,
deface, and remove most of the buildings, even though it might be the
work of three years. The new owners, indeed, seldom occupied the lands
themselves. The greater ones sublet them, and lesser and greater alike
speculated briskly with them. Sutcote, the “server of the Kingis Grace
Chamber,” who obtained the Cistercian Nunnery at Brewood, just over
the Staffordshire border, in a high-handed manner, had no sooner done
so than he “offered hyt to dyvers to selle for suche a price that no
man will gladly by hit at hys hand.” Trentham was only surrendered in
1536, yet in December, 1538, the Duke of Suffolk obtained by exchange a
grant of the rents and reversions reserved upon the Crown leases there,
and many cottages, lands, and advowsons; and at the same time procured
a license to alienate. He sold it in 1540 to James Leveson, who had
been so large a purchaser at the sales of the goods of the houses.
The enterprising Leveson, in his turn, had no sooner secured Rushton
Grange from the spoils of Hulton Abbey in 1539 than he sold it again
to Biddulph of Biddulph. There is ample evidence to show he was a man
who did a regular business in buying and selling monastic property of
all kinds. It is evident that any inquiry into the original grants of
the lands of the religious houses would throw little light upon the
permanent results of the transfer of the monastic property. It would
indicate at least who were the shrewdest bargainers and the readiest
speculators.
But, taking all things into consideration, we may perhaps say that the
social effects of the Dissolution were probably not great. Things went
on in much the same way as before. Rents and tithes had to be paid to
the same collectors and with much the same result. The same bailiffs
and stewards generally managed the estates. Even if the new owner
desired to raise the rents it would not be easy to make any sudden
change in the country districts. In the towns the change would be more
marked. Burgage rents could be more easily raised than those of farms
and crofts, and the new owners would certainly insist on punctuality
much more strictly than the “religious” had done: payments would no
longer be allowed to fall into arrear.
But the amount of town property which the monks held was small. In
proportion to their whole rent-roll the part which came from the
towns was a mere fraction, and except such cases as Burton-on-Trent
and Stafford, both of which had “monasteries” at their gates, all the
houses were at a distance from the towns. In the towns accordingly it
is not probable that the monks and canons were familiar figures. They
played no great part in town life. The friars were the religious orders
of the towns. But in Staffordshire, and indeed throughout the country,
the property the friars possessed was insignificant. As we have seen it
was so trifling that the Staffordshire Commissioners in 1535 did not
trouble to send in any return of it. The Suppression officials only
found £2 rents at Newcastle-under-Lyme, £2 4s. 8d. at the Austin Friars
and £1 6s. 8d. at the Grey Friars of Stafford. We are told, also, that
the Grey Friars had “in the fields six lands yearly, worth 16d.,” which
apparently means six allotments in the Common Fields. They also had
a close with an orchard worth 5s. The town property being so small
the rent-collectors of the new owners would not find much scope for
activity and strictness.
Seldom, indeed, has a great Revolution been accomplished with so little
commotion and disturbance. Not only did no foreign complications ensue,
but even in England itself there was very little to disturb public
serenity. The Pilgrimage of Grace did not awake an echo even in so
near a county as Staffordshire:[229] not a single riot is recorded, and
for ordinary people the change passed, apparently, almost unnoticed. A
few almsfolk and poor bedeswomen suffered, but that seemed to be all.
The reason is, as we have seen, partly because the monks, as such,
played a very small part in public life--they were landlords and
landlords only; and partly because the change of landlords was managed
by the Government with consummate skill and infinite worldly wisdom.
They made sure that everyone worth considering should profit by the
transaction, and in Tudor times such a policy was sure to succeed.
For the age was one in which expediency had supplanted principle, and
worldly prosperity was the one thing that mattered. The Dissolution of
the Monasteries was to a very large extent prompted by cupidity. Their
wealth was an irresistible attraction to the Government; to emphasise
their shortcomings was a useful after-thought, and the question
of justice was hardly raised by anyone. In all the correspondence
connected with the fall of the Staffordshire houses there is no hint of
immorality or even unworthiness. Indeed, the rights and wrongs of the
business are never alluded to: the one and only topic is the personal
gain for which the petitioners hoped, and the pecuniary inducements
they tried to hold out to persons in authority in the hope of gaining
their help. But, in the irony of fate, circumstances proved too strong
for the Government, whose cupidity was largely disappointed. Begun as
a source of new supplies for a prodigal king, as the work progressed it
developed into a huge scheme for the wholesale bribery of the classes
which had political power.
Thus, the Dissolution of the Monasteries served rather to illustrate
the power of the monarchy than materially to increase its wealth. The
confiscated possessions were dissipated in innumerable directions,
and the royal treasury received but little permanent enrichment. Had
anything like the greater proportion of the wealth of which the Church
was deprived been retained by the Crown, the throne would have been
rendered independent of Parliament and the constitutional victory over
the Stuarts might not have been won.
APPENDIX I
EXAMPLE OF A LICENSE TO CONTINUE, GRANTED
TO A “LESSER MONASTERY”
_Patent Roll (Chancery), 29 Henry VIII, Part 3, Mem. 23_ (18)
DE RENOUACIONE MONASTERII DE CROXDON
Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Cum per quendam actum in parliamento
nostro apud London tercio die Novembris anno regni nostri vicesimo
primo inchoato et deinde usque Westmonasterium adiornato et per
diversas prorogaciones usque ad et in quartum diem Februarii anno
regni nostri vicesimo septimo continuato et tunc ibidem tento inter
alia inactitatum existit quod nos haberemus et gauderemus nobis ac
heredibus nostris imperpetuum omnia et singula monasteria Prioratus
ac alias domos Religiosas Monachorum Canonicorum et Monialium
quibuscumque generibus siue diversitatibus habituum Regularum siue
ordinum vocarentur siue nominarentur que non habebant terras tenementa
redditus decimas porciones et alia hereditamenta ultra clarum annuum
valorem ducentarum librarum dicti annualis claris valoris dictorum
Monasteriorum ac Prioratuum capiendi ac construendi secundum clarum
valorem in Scaccario nostro certificatum. Et simili modo quod haberemus
et gauderemus nobis ac heredibus nostris omnes et omnimodi sectas
[_sic_ (? scitos)] et circuitus eorundem Religiosarum domorum ac
omnia et singula Maneria grangeas mesuagia terras tenementa reversiones
redditus servicia decimas penciones porciones advocaciones patronatus
ecclesiarum Capellarum annuitates iura intraciones condiciones et
alia hereditamenta quecumque eisdem Monasterio Prioratibus siue
domibus Religiosis non habentibus ut predicitur terras tenementa vel
hereditamenta ultra predictum annuum valorem ducentarum librarum
pertinentia siue spectantia adeo plene et integre prout Abbates Priores
Abbatisse ac alii gubernatores huiusmodi Monasteriorum Prioratuum
et aliarum Religiosarum domorum adtunc habuerunt illa aut habere
debuerunt in iure domorum suarum habendum et tenendum omnia et singula
premissa cum omnibus suis iuribus proficuis jurisdictionibus et
commoditatibus nobis heredibus et successoribus notris imperpetuum
ad inde faciendum et utendum nostras proprias voluntates Cumque
eciam in actu predicto provideatur quod nos aliquo et quocumque
tempore post confeccionem actus illius valeamus et potuissemus ad
beneplacitum nostrum ordinare constituere et declarare per literas
nostras patentes sub magno sigillo nostro conficiendas quod ille et
tales huiusmodi predictarum domorum Religiosarum quas supprimendas
et dissoluendas esse noluissemus essent perseurerarent starent
continuarent et permanerent in eisdem suis corporibus corporatis ac
in eisdem suis essencialibus statu qualitate condicione robore et
effectu tam in possessionibus quam aliter prout essent et fuissent
ante confeccionem actus predicti absque suppressione siue dissolucione
earundem aut alicuius partis inde pretextu et auctoritate eiusdem
actus Et quod quilibet talis huiusmodi ordinacio et declaracio per nos
sic fienda et ordinanda esset bona secura et effectualis Capitalibus
gubernatoribus huiusmodi Religiosarum domorum quas supprimendas et
dissoluendas esse noluissemus et successoribus suis iuxta et secundum
tenores et effectus literarum patencium inde conficiendarum aliqua
re siue aliquibus rebus in actu predicto incontrarium inde facto
non obstante prout in actu predicto inter alia plenius continetur.
pretextu cuiusquidem actus Monasterium siue Abbacia beate Marie de
Croxdon Covent’ et Lich diocesis in Comitatu nostro Staffordie pro
eo quod non habet terras tenementa redditus decimas porciones aut
hereditamenta ultra dictum clarum annuum valorem ducentarum librarum
prout certificatur in dicto Scaccario nostro et ibidem plene liquet
in manibus et disposicione nostris iam existit utrum dissolueretur
secundum formam et effectus actus predicti an permaneret et continuaret
in suo pristino et essentiali statu condicione et qualitate prout ante
confeccionem actus predicti fuit. Nos volentes dictum Monasterium
siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predictam pro diuersis causis
et consideracionibus nos ad presens specialiter mouentibus in suo
pristino essenciali statu corpore condicione et qualitate permanere et
continuare prout ante confeccionem actus predicti fuit ac prout esset
si actus ille factus non fuisset. Sciatis igitur quod nos ob fauorem
quem erga Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predictam
quod non extenditur in terris tenementis et aliis hereditamentis suis
ad annuum valorem ducentarum librarum in Comitatu predicto ordinis
Cistriciensis Couen et [_sic_] diocesis gerimus et habemus. Et
ut Abbas et Religiose persone eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie diuino
cultu ibidem celebrando deuocius intendant hospitalitatem ac alia
pietatis opera ibidem uberius excerceant de gratia nostra speciali
ac ex certa sciencia et mero motu nostris ordinauimus constituimus
et declarauimus erigimus et renouamus quod predictum Monasterium
siue Abbacia beate Marie de Croxdon predicta imperpetuum continuabit
stabit et permanebit in eodem suo corpore corporato ac in eodem suo
essenciali statu gradu qualitate et condicione tam in possessionibus
quam in omnibus aliis rebus tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus et
mixtas [_sic_] prout fuit tempore confeccionis actus predicti aut
aliquo tempore ante confeccionem actus predicti absque suppressione
sine dissolucione aliquali eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie
de Croxdon predicta aut alicuius partis vel parcelle inde vigore et
auctoritate actus predicti. Et ulterius de uberiori gratia nostra
speciali concessimus et per presentes concedimus quod Thomas Chawner
professor ordinis Cistriciensis sit deinceps Abbas dicti Monasterii
siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac pro Abbate et Capitali
gubernatore eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon
predicta deinceps habeatur reputetur et acceptetur eisdem modo et
forma qualitate gradu condicione dignitate et robore prout dictus
Thomas quarto die Februarii anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo aut
antea fuit. Et quod omnes alie Religiose persone eiusdem Monasterii
siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta modo existentes aut que
quarto die Februarii dicto Anno vicesimo septimo ibidem fuerunt et iam
a dicto Conuentu non separantur sint decetero et deinceps Conuentus
eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta ac
pro Conventu eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon
predicta deinceps habeantur reputentur et acceptentur eisdem modo et
forma qualitate condicione et statu prout dicto quarto die Februarii
dicto anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo aut antea fuerunt. Et quod
predictus Thomas et Religiose persone predicte et omnes successores
sui imperpetuum habeant et habebunt huiusmodi et eandem successionem
in omnibus et per omnia prout ante dictum quartum diem Februarii dicto
anno vicesimo septimo habuerunt et habere debuerunt ac prout habuissent
et habere debuissent valuissent et potuissent si actus predictus
factus non fuisset. Et quod predictus Thomas per nomen Abbatis dicti
Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et successores
sui Abbates dicti monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon
predicta sint deinceps persone habiles implacitare et implacitari in
omnibus sectis placitis querelis accionibus petiticionibus tam realibus
quam personalibus et mixtis et aliis quibuscumque in quibuscumque
Curiis et locis ac coram quibuscumque Judicibus siue Justiciariis
tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus licet tangat nos heredes aut
successores nostros et ad faciendum excercendum et exequendum omnia
et singula alia quecumque ut Abbates dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie
beate Marie de Croxdon predicta fecissent et facere potuissent ante
confeccionem actus predicti. Ac prout fecissent et facere potuissent
si idem actus minime factus et editus fuisset. Et quod predictus
Abbas et Religiose persone predicte ut Abbas et Conuentus Monasterii
siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta et successores sui
Abbates et Conuentus Monasterii siue Abbacie illius habeant gaudeant
et teneant ac habere possint et valeant imperpetuum totum predictum
Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predicta necnon
ecclesiam Campanalia scitum Cimitorium fundum ambitum precinctum et
circuitum ecclesie eiusdem ac omnia et singula Maneria terras tenementa
redditus reversiones servicia possessiones penciones perpetuitates et
hereditamenta nostra quecumque necnon commoditates ornamenta iocalia
bona et catalla et alias res quascumque tam spirituales quam temporales
eidem Monasterio siue Abbacie quouismodo spectantia siue pertinentia
modo et forma prout haberent gauderent et tenerent aut habere gaudere
et tenere potuissent et valerent si actus predictus factus et editus
non fuisset. Et pro maiore securitate de et in premssiis prefatis
Abbati et Conuentui Monasterii siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon
predicta et successoribus suis adhibenda Sciatis insuper quod nos de
uberiori gratia nostra speciali dedimus et concessimus ac per presentes
damus et concedimus prefato Abbati dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie beate
Marie de Croxdon predicta et Conuentui eiusdem loci et successoribus
suis totum dictum Monasteruim siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon
predicta necnon totum situm fundum ambitum precinctum et circuitum
ecclesiam Campanile et Cimitorium eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie beate
Marie de Croxdon predicta ac omnia et singula domos Maneria mesuagia
terras tenementa boscos subboscos redditus reversiones servicia feoda
Militum Warda maritagia relevia escaeta parcos warrenas stagna vivaria
piscarias communas Rectorias vicarias advocaciones et patronatus
ecclesiarum Capellarum et Cantariarum terras glebas penciones porciones
decimas oblaciones Curias letas visus franci plegii libertates
jurisdictiones franchesias et alia iura possessiones et hereditamenta
quecumque ac omnia bona et catalla Campanas iocalia ornamenta et alia
quecumque eidem Monasterio siue Abbacie beate Marie de Croxdon predicta
nuper spectantia siue pertinencia. Et que predictus Abbas et Conventus
quarto die Februarii dicto anno vicesimo septimo aut antea vel postea
in iure Monasterii siue Abbacie illius habuerunt tenuerunt vel gauisi
fuerunt. Et que ad manus nostras racione et pretextu actus predicti
devenerunt et devenire debuerunt adeo plene et integre et in tam
amplis modo et forma prout dicti Abbas et Conuentus dicto quarto die
Februarii dicto Anno vicesimo septimo et ante faccionem actus predicti
in iure Monasterii siue Abbacie predicte illa habuerunt tenuerunt vel
gauisi fuerunt et adeo plene et integre ac in tam amplis modo et forma
prout illa racione pretextu vigore et auctoritate actus predicti ad
manus nostras devenerunt et devenire debuerunt aut in manibus nostris
iam existunt vel existere deberent. Habendum tenendum et gaudendum
predictum Monasterium siue Abbaciam beate Marie de Croxdon predicta
ac omnia et singula cetera premissa cum suis iuribus pertinenciis et
commoditatibus uniuersis prefato Thome Abbati dicti Monasterii siue
Abbacie illius et Conuentui eiusdem loci et successoribus suis in puram
et perpetuam elemosinam imperpetuum de nobis et heredibus nostris de
fundacione nostra et non aliter. Soluendo et faciendo Capitalibus
dominis terrarum et tenementorum predictorum et ceterorum premissorum
et cuiuslibet inde parcelle redditus et seruicia inde eis et eorum
cuilibet debita et de iure consueta. Prouiso semper quod prefati.
Abbas et Conuentus unanimi consensu pro se et successoribus suis per
presentes concedant nobis et heredibus nostris quod predicti Abbas et
Conuentus et successores sui imperpetuum soluant aut solui faciant
nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris omnes decimas et primos
fructus quocienscumque euenire contigerint eodem modo et forma atsi
dictum Monasterium siue Abbacia suppressum dissolutum siue datum nobis
per actum predictum non fuisset. Ac secundum vim formam et effectum
cuiusdam actus parliamenti pro decimis et primis fructibus editi et
prouisi Et predicti Abbas et Conuentus concedunt per presentes quod
ipsi et successores sui imperpetuum bene et fideliter custodiant et
obseruabunt omnes et omnimodi regulas ordinaciones et statuta per
nos ut supremum caput Anglicane ecclesie siue Ministros nostros et
successores nostros bonum regimen dicti Monasterii siue Abbacie et
Religiosorum virorum eiusdem Monasterii siue Abbacie concernencia siue
tangencia imposterum prouidenda assignanda et appunctuanda. Eo quod
expressa mencio etc. In cuius etc. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium
secundo die Julii.
per ipsum Regem et de dato etc.
APPENDIX II
DEED OF SURRENDER OF CROXDEN
[_Exchequer Augmentation Office; Deeds of Surrender, No. 66,
Crokesden Abbey, Cistercians_]
TRANSCRIPT (extended)
Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Nos
Thomas Chalner abbas Monasterii siue Abbathie Beate Marie virginis
de Crokesden in Comitatu Staff’ Coven’ et Lich’ dioc’ ordinis
Cistercien’ et eiusdem loci conventus Salutem in Domino sempiternam
Noueritis nos prefatos abbatem et conventum unanimi assensu et
concensu nostris, animis deliberatis, certa scientia, et mero motu
nostris ex quibusdam causis iustis et racionalibus nos animas et
conscientas nostras spiritualiter moventibus ultro et sponte dedisse
concessisse, ac per presentes damus, concedimus, reddimus, deliberamus,
et confirmamus Illustrissimo et Invictissimo principi et domino
nostro Henrico dei gratia Anglie et Francie Regi fidei defensori
domino Hibernie ac in terris supremo ecclesie Anglicane sub Christo
Capiti totum dictum monasterium siue abbathiam nostram de Crokesden,
predict’ ac totum scitum, fundum, circuitum, et precinctum eiusdem
monasterii de Crokesden predict’, Nec non omnia et singula maneria,
domos, mesuagia, gardina, curtilagia, tofta, terras et tenementa,
prata, pascua, pasturas, boscos, redditus, seruicia, molendina,
passagia, feoda militum, wardas, maritagia, natiuos, villanos, cum
eorum sequelis, communias, libertates, franchesias, iurisdictiones,
officia, cur’, let’, hundred’, visus franci pledgii, feria, mercata,
parcos, warrennia, viuaria, aquas, piscarias, vias, chimina,
vacuos fundos, advocationes ecclesiarum, Hospitalium, et aliorum
ecclesiasticorum beneficiorum quorumcunque, Rectorias, vicarias,
cantarias, porciones, pensiones, annuitates, decimas, oblaciones, ac
omnia et singula emolumenta, proficua, possessiones, hereditamenta et
iura nostra quecunque, tam infra dictum Com’ Staff’ quam infra Com’
Darby, Northampton, Lincoln’ Lecestr’ Cestrie, Middlesex’ et alibi
infra regnum Anglie, Wallie, Hibernie et marchiarum earundem eidem
monasterio siue Abbathie de Crokesden quoquomodo pertinentes spectantes
appendentes siue incumbentes ac omnimodas chartas, evidentias, scripta,
et munimenta nostra dicto monasterio siue Abbathie ac maneriis,
terris, et tenementis ac ceteris premissis cum pertenentiis, seu
alicui inde parcelle quoquomodo spectantes siue concernentes Habend’,
tenend’ et gaudend’ dictum monasterium siue Abbathiam, scitum, fundum,
circuitum, et precinctum de Crokesden predicto, terras, tenementa, ac
cetera premissa, cum omnibus et singulis suis pertinentiis prefato
Invictissimo Principi et Domino nostro Regi, heredibus et assignatis
suis imperpetuum, cui in hac parte ad omnem iuris effectum, qui exinde
sequi poterit aut potest nos et dictum monasterium siue Abbathiam de
Crokesden predict’, ac omnia iura nobis qualitercumque acquisata (vt
decet) subiicimus et submittimus, dantes et concedentes eidem Regie
maiestati heredibus et assignatis suis omnem et omnimodam plenam
et liberam facultatem, auctoritatem et potestatem nos et dictum
monasterium de Crokesden predicto vna cum omnibus et singulis maneriis,
terris, tenementis, redditibus, revercionibus, serviciis, et singulis
premissis cum suis iuribus et pertinentiis quibuscumque dispondendi ac
pro suo libro regio voluntatis libito ad quoscunque vsus maiestati sue
placentes alienandi, donandi, couertendi et transferendi, hujusmodi
disposiciones alienaciones donaciones conuersiones et translaciones,
per maiestatem suam quouismodo fiend’ extunc ratificantes, ratas et
gratas ac perpetuo firmas habituros promittimus per presentes et
ut premissa omnia et singula suum debitum sortiri valeant effectum
electionibus insuper nobis ei successoribus nostris necnon omnibus
querelis, provocationibus, appellacionibus, actionibus, litibus, et
instanciis aliisque quibuscumque nostris remediis et beneficiis nobis
forsan et successoribus nostris in ea parte pretextu disposicionis,
alienacionis, translacionis, et convrecionis predictarum et ceterorum
premissorum qualitercumque competentibus et competituris omnibusque
doli erroris metus ignorancie, vel alterius materie siue disposicionis
exceptionibus obiectionibus, et alleggacionibus prorsus semotis
et depositis palam publice et expresse ex certa nostra scientia
animisque spontaneis renunciamus et redimus et ab eisdem recedimus
in hiis scriptis Et nos predict’ abbas et conventus et successores
nostri dictum monasterium precinctum scitum mansionem et ecclesiam
de Crokesden predicto ac omnia et singula maneria, domos, mesuagia,
gardina, cutilagia, tofta, prata, pascua, pasturas, boscos, subboscos,
terras et tenementa ac omnia et singula cetera premissa cum suis
pertinentiis vniversis prefato domino nostro Regi heredibus et
assignatis suis contra omnes gentes warantizabimus imperpetuum per
presentes In quorum premissorum fidem et testimonium Nos prefati Abbas
et conventus huic scripto sigillum nostrum commune apposuimus et
propriis manibus adscripsimus dat’ xviimo die mensis septembris Anno
Domini millesimo quigentesimo trigesimo octavo. Anno 30 Henry viii.
[Signatures in the margin.]
per me Thomam Chalner Abbatem de Crokesden
„ Thomam Rollesto [Rolleston]
„ Robertum Clarke
„ Thomam Kelynge
„ Johannem Thornto[n]
„ Johannem Orpe
„ Johannem Almo
„ Wylliamus Beche
„ Henricum Rothwell
„ Robertum Kyedr
„ Johannem Standlaw
„ Rycardum Meyre
„ Thomam Hendon
[Seal in good condition.]
[On the dorse]
Memorandum quod die et anno infra scripto Abbas et conventus infra
nominati in domo capitulari omnes et singuli tunc ibidem congregati et
capitulum facientes vnanimi eorum consensu et assensu ex certa eorum
scientia animis deliberatis hoc eorum scriptum sigillo suo communi
sigillatum et manibus suis propriis ad scriptum continens donationem
concessionem alienationem siue sursum reddicionem ut factum suum
liberum et voluntarium cognoverunt et recognoverunt ac ut factum suum
commune in manibus venerabilis viri magistri Thome Legh legum doctoris
commissarii ibidem domini nostri regis ad vsum ipsius illustrissimi
domini Regis vltro et sponte tradebant et deliberant ac petierunt
instanter ut in curia cancellarie domini nostri regis seu vbicunque
aliis ut factum suum hujusmodi ad perpetuam rei memoriam irrotuletur
insinuatur et inscribatur et regarunt hos testes subscriptos quatenus
tam super eorum facto hujus modi quam sigillacione deliberatione et
peticione predict’ testimonium prohiberent.
Mr Georgius Vernam, armiger
Ranoldus Corbett, armiger
Walterus Orton, generosus
Dominus Edmundus Stretaye.
[Enrolled on the dorse of the Close Rolls the month and year within
written.]
APPENDIX III
INVENTORY OF THE SALE AT BREWOOD
NUNNERY
(_Exchequer Augmentation Office; Miscellaneous Books, Vol._ 172)
NOTE.--_The volume from which this and the two following extracts are
taken begins as follows:_
Herafter Ensueth the names of all and euery suche pson and psons as
was by Thomas Ligh Doctor in the lawe and Wyllms Cauendyshe Auditor
Commissionours appoynted by the King our soueraigne lorde for the
dyssolucion of thes monasteryes foloweng by them Indiferently chosyn
and sworne of and for the valuying ratyng and apprisyng of all and
singler the gooddes and catelles cummyng and beyng found at the
surrenders taken in the same late dyssoluyd Monasteries and priories
within sundry sheres or Counties the names as well of the seyd howses
as of the psons so sworne foloweng hervnder wryghten in order.
That ys to say
[_Then follow the jurors of “Meryvale.”_]
{John Broune } {Rychard Whyt } {John Shyrborne }
Brewode {William Barnes} Jurors {John Baker } Jurors {Thomas Clarke } Jurors
{Henry Holte } {William Turner} {Anthony Palmer }
{Thomas Willes } {William Atwill} {George Wilkyns }
Seint {Raffe Mynors } {John Hyll } {Nycholas Bagshaw}
Thomas {John Langley } Jur. {John Lyenshaw } Jur. {Rychard Rawson } Jur.
bysyde {Roger Alayn } {Willm. Whitill} {John Fyssher }
Staff {George Bowgley} {Roger Gratwych} {Willm. Blythe }
{William Butler} {John Arden } {Henry Barber }
Delacres {Thomas Johnson} Jurors {Hugh Latham } Jurors {Thomas Jacson } Jurors
{Henry Atkyns } {Rychard Luther} {William Tanner}
{John Flynte } {John Thomson } {Thomas Morris }
[_Here follow jurors of Lylleshull and Darley. And on f._ 2
_jurors of Dale, Repton, Gracedue, Pypwell and Barnwel_.]
PRIORY OF BREWOOD
Hereafter folowyth all suche parcelles of implementes or houshold
Stuff, Corne, Catell, ornamentes of the church and such other lyke
founde within the late priory there at the tyme of the Dissolucion of
the same house, Soulde by the Kinges Commissioners to Thomas Gyfforde,
esqr.
_The Churche_
Fyrst, one table of alebaster, owlde formes and settes, ij. particions
of carvyd woode, pavyng of the church and quere, xxviij. panes of glas,
and on masboke
xxs.
_The Vestrye_
_It’_ ij. payr of grene dornyx[230] westmentes, j. olde cope of
sendall, one serples, j. altercloth and j. towell, j. litell bell, and
a sensure of latynne
iiijs.
_The Chapter House_
_It’_ iij. panys of glasse and ij. long formes soulde for
xijd.
_Belles in the Stepull_
_It’_ ther remayneth unsolde in the stepull iij. belles.
_The Hale_
_It’_ there ij. tabulles and a forme soulde for xijd.
_The Parlore_
_It’ j._ foldyng tabull, j. forme, j. chayre, j. cubborde, and the
hangyngs of payntyd clothe
ijs.
_The Cheffe Chamber_
_It’_ one fetherbedd, ij. oulde coverlettes, j. oulde blankett,
j. tester of whyght lynen clothe, ij. bed-steddes, ij. formes, j.
cubborde, one joynt chayre, ij. oulde coffers, j. boulster, ij.
pyllowis, and iiij. payre of shettes
xs.
_The Baylyffes Chamber_
It’ one mattres, j. coverlet, one blankett, and one axe
xijd.
_The Buttery_
It’ ij. ale tubbes, j. oulde chest, j. borde, j. tableclothe, and ij.
candlestykys of latenn
xijd.
_The Kechyn_
_It’_ ij. dressyngbordes, ij. stoles, j. forme, j. ladder, j.
bz [] di’ of salte, iiij. porrengers of peuter, iiij. platters, ij.
saucers, and ij. braspottes
vs.
_The Larder_
_It’_ one great chest, j. troffe, and two little barrelles
vjd.
_The Brewhouse_
_It’_ v. tubbes, j. keler, j. olde tubbe, j. olde table, j. olde
whele, and one chese presse
xvjd.
_The Yelyng House_
_It’_ iij. colyng[231] ledes, ij. brassepannes, and vij. oulde
tobbes
vs.
_The Boultyng House_
_It’_ iij. troffes, j. watering fate, j. boulting huche, j.
busshell, and ij. tubbes soulde for
viijd.
_The Cheslofte_
_It’_ ij. litell tubbes, ij. chese rakkes, ij. charnes, j. lytell
whele, and ij. shelves
viijd.
_The Kylhouse_
_It’_ j. hercloth and j. lader hengyng upon the wall of ye seid
house
xjd.
_Grayne_
_It’_ one quarter of whete vjs. ijd., quarter of munke corne
viijs., j. quarter of ottes xxd., j. quarter of pese ijs. viijd. In all
xviijs. iiijd.
_Catell_
_It’_ one horse iiijs. soulde to the said Thomas
iiijs.
_Waynes_
_It’_ j. wayne and j. dungcarte sould for
xvjd.
_Heye_
_It’_ for x lode of hey
xvs.
_Plate Soulde_
_It’_ soulde to George Warenn j. chales and iij. spounys all whytt
weing viij. ounces at iijs. iiijd. the ounce
xxvjs. viijd.
_Dette receyvyd_
_It’_ receyvyd of an olde dett dwe to ye seid late priorye
xxvjs. viijd.
The sume totall of all the guddis of thys seid late priory with xxvjs.
viijd. for dett receyvyd and xxvjs. viijd. for plate
vii_li._ vj_s._ j_d._
Rewardes gyvene to the late Abbes and the Covent ther at ther departure
Fyrst to Isabell Launder xls.
_It’_ to Christabell Smith xxs.
_It’_ to Alice Beche xxs.
_It’_ to Felix Baggshawe xxs.
----
cs.
Rewardes gyvene to the servantes ther at theyr lyke departure
_It_to William parker, Chapelan, xxxs.
_It_to Robert Baker xiijs. iiijd.
_It_to Margarett Burre ijs.
_It_to Thomas Bolde iijs.
_It_to William Morre ijs. vjd.
_It_ to Thomas Smith xs.
_It_ to Kateryn Alate xiijs. iiijd.
_It_ to Philip Duffelde iiijs.
--------- -----
lxxviijs. ijd.
_It’_ in cates boughte and spente at the tyme of the
commissionours being there for the dissolucion of the seid
late priory, and for the saffe kepyng of the guddes and
catell there found duryng the seid tyme
lxs.
The sum of the paymentes aforeseid is, xj. li. xviijs. ijd.
and so remayneth in the seid comissionour’s handes nil, for
they have payd more then they for the goodes of the seid
late priory have receyvyd by iiij. li. xijs. jd.
Md. that the Prioresse of the seid late Priory hath
receyvyd of Michaelmas Quarters Rente dwe to the seid
Priory these Parcelles folowing, and none other as sche
sayth.
Fyrst, of Mr. Thomas Gyfford for Blythbery for halfe a
yere xxxiijs. iiijd.
_It’_ of Mr. Thomas Moreton for le feldes for half a yere
xxvjs. viijd.
_It’_ of T ... Tunkes for the rente of hys ferme for
halfe a yere vjs. viijd.
_It’_ of John Penford for halfe a yeres rent viijs.
_It’_ of Thomas Pitt for a hole yeres rente ijs.
_It’_ of Cristofer Alatt, for one quarters rente vjs. viijd.
Summa iiij. li. iijs. iiijd.
Md. that ther is owyng to the seid late Priory of
Michaelmas Rente by the confession of the foreseid these
parcelles.
Fyrst, of Barnaby Clarke for iij. yeres quiet rent xviijs.
_It’_ of the balyff of Tonge for j yeres rente ijs.
_It’_ of Willm Wydowes for j yeres rente xijd.
_It’_ of the lordshype of Brome for j quarter rente lxs.
_It’_ of Rychard Gowgh for halfe a yeres rente viijd.
_It’_ of Mathew Parker for halfe a yeres rente xvd.
_It’_ of John Staunton for halfe a yeres quiet rente vjd.
_It’_ of ... Blakeman for halfe a yeres rente xijd.
_It’_ of ... Whytemore for ij yere vjd.
_It’_ of Thomas Johnson for halfe a yeres rente iijd. ob.
_It’_ of the churchwardens of Brewode for iij yeres rente iijd.
_It’_ of Robart Bromhall for halfe a yeres rente iiijd.
----------------
Suma xxxiiijs. ixd.ob
Penc’ and Porc’ grauntyd and alottyd to the late Prioresse
and Convent’ there by the seid Commissionours.
Fyrst, to Isabell Launder, late prioresse lxvjs. viijd.
_It’_ to Cristabell Smyth xxxiijs. iiijd.
_It’_ to Alys Beche xxxiijs. iiijd.
_It’_ to Felix Baggeshawe xxxiijs. iiijd.
-------------------
viijli. vjs. viijd.
APPENDIX IV
INVENTORY OF SALE AT ST. THOMAS’S PRIORY, STAFFORD
(_Augmentation Office. Miscellaneous Books, Vol._ 172)
{Herafter folowyth all suche pcelles of
{Implementes and housholde Stuffe Corne Catell
{ornamentes of the Churche and suche other lyke
{founde wythin the seid late Monastery at the
The late {tyme of the Dissolucon of the same house Soulde
Priory of {by the Kynges Commissionors to the Reuerend
Saint Thomas {father in God Bysshope of Couet and Lychefelde
nygh Staff {the xviiith Day of October in the xxxth yere
{o^rf [_sic_] our Soueraigne lorde Kyng Henry
{the viiith.
{ That ys to saye
{Fyrst j Tabull of woode at the hye alter }
{iiij Candulstykes of latyn j Crosse of }
{latyn the deskys in the quere j olde }
{alter in our lady Chapell j Imag of our }
The Churche {lady one payre of olde Organes ij syde } cxs.
{alters j Rode the flatt Roffes ouer the }
{Churche and Crosse yeles wyth all the }
{Glasse and the pauenement j Rode in }
{the Churche ij Images and one Cloke }
{soulde for }
{It. iiij Tynacles of oulde redd }
{Baudkynn iij oulde Vestmentes j oulde }
{Cope of Crymsonn Veluett iij oulde }
{Copes of redd Baudkynn j of grene and }
The Vestry {Redd sylke vij other oulde Copes iij } xlvs.
{Fruntes for the alter of Dune yelowe }
{and grene Sylke v olde alter clothes j }
{towel and tow sacryng Belles soulde for }
{It. the glasse Iroun pauementes tyle }
The Cloyster {and shyngull wyth the Roffes ther j }
and the {lauer of leade i Cundyth } cs.
Chapter house {It. the glasse in the Chapter house and }
{pauyng stounes ar soulde for }
The Dorter It. all the Selles ther ar soulde for xjs.
The Frater It. ij Bordes ther soulde for xijd.
{It. j olde Wynde for Stone the Iroun }
The newe {in the Walles the smale Cundyth in the}
Halle. {Courte ij Bordes and tow Formes in the} xs.
{oulde halle soulde for }
The Priors {It. ther j foulden tabull ij formes iiij}
parler {chayres and the hengynges of lynyon } xvjd.
{ar soulde for }
The Water {It. Bedstedes the hengynges paynted }
Chamb. {ij fetherbeddes ij boulsters ij pyllowes} xxs.
{and iiij couerlettes sould for }
{It. a beadsteadd j fetherbedd j }
The Great {Couerlett ij fustyon blankettes and} xxxiijs.
chamb. {a boulster soulde for }
The ij iner {It. ij fetherbeddes iiij oulde Couerynges} xxs.
chambs. {ij boulsters ther founde solde for }
{It. ther j bedstedd j Couerlett j payre }
The Chamb {of blankettes j payre of shetes j fetherbedd}
ouer the {j Cupborde j forme j smale borde } xijs.
Chapell {j Chayer and the hengyng of lynyon }
{clothe soulde for }
{It. ther j bedstedd j payr of shettes j}
The Carters {materes and iij oulde Couerlettes } ijs.
chamb. {soulde for }
{It. ther ij Napkyns iiij ould Borde }
The Buttery {clothes j wesshyng towell j kyffe[232] ij }
{pewter Saltes xij lomes ij Costrelles[233] iij} vs.
{oulde tubbes soulde for }
{It. ther iiij Brasse pottes j Broche[234] ij }
{Brasse pannes j brasynn morter ij }
{Cobbordes j pott beme of Tymber j }
The Kechenn {musterd queren[235] j kemnell j Skymer j }xijs.
{fleshehoke ij payr of henges ij payr of } vjd.
{potthokes vij platers j voyder[236] iij }
{dysshes iiij saucers iiij potyngers and j }
{Shuffnett sould for }
{It. ther ij Brewing leadds ij fattes vj }
{wortleades j panne in a Furneshe j }
The Brewhouse {steping Sesterne j here for the kill in }
and {the Brewhouse chamb j bedstedd j } xls.
Bakhouse {matres j Couerlett j payr of Shetes j }
{Blankett j borde iij trowes and j }
{bultyng tubb whyche ar soulde for }
Tymber {It. Tymber lying about the Scite of the } xiiijs.
sould {seid late priory ys soulde for }
{It. in Whete there iij qrt} }
{at vijs. le qrt } xxjs. }
{It. in Rye and Munkencorne} lxxiijs. }
{xj qrt at vjs. viijd. } iiijd. }
{the qrt } }
{It. in Barley xl qrt. at } vjli. }
Grayne and {iijs. iiijd. the qrt. } xiijs. iiijd.} xvjli.
Heye at {It. pese x qrt at vjs. } } xiiijs.
Orb’toun {viijd. the qrt whyche } lxvjs. } iiijd.
Grayunge {amountyth to the Sume } viijd. }
{of } }
{It. of hey ther founde xx } }
{lodes at ijs. the lode } xls. }
{amountyng to the Sume } }
{of } }
{It. in Rye ther xij qrt. }
{at vjs. viijd. the qrt. } iiijli. }
Grayne att {amountyng to the Sume } } iiijli.
Barkeswhiche {of } } xiijs.
Graunge {It. in Barley iiij qrt at } } iiijd.
{at iijs. iiijd. the qrt. } xiijs. }
{amountyng to the Sume } iiijd. }
{of } }
Hey att the {It. of hey ther founde xij lodes at ijs. }
Priory {the lode soulde for } xxiiijs.
Waynes att {It. ther j Iroun bound Wayne and j }
Orb’ton {other onbounden wyth yokes and } xs.
Graunge wt {temes thereto belongyng and ij } viijd.
other {harrowes }
Waynes and {It. ther ij Waynes j Ieronbound and }
harrowes at {the other vnbounde ij harrowes ij } xiijs.
Barkeswych {plowes wt yokes and temes to them } iiijd.
Graung {belongyng }
{It. ther founde xij Oxenn } }
{soulde for } xli. }
{It. ix kyne soulde for iiijli. xs.}
{It. ther founde viij wening } }
{Calues at ijs. the pece on } xvjs. }
{wyth an other } }
Catell soulde {It. lx yewes soulde for iijli. }
att Orbtoun {It. lxx lambes at xd. the pece lviijs. } xxvj. li
Graunge {It. iij carthorses and ij mares} } iiijs.
{wt a Carte and gere belongyng } xxxs. }
{to them soulde for } }
{It. vj Swyne oulde and yonge } xs. }
{sould for } }
{It. vj Wynter bestes soulde } xls. }
{for } }
{It. ther founde at the tyme } }
{of the dyssolucion of the seid } x. li. }
Catell att {late priory xij Oxen soulde } } xvli.
Barkeswyche {for } } xiijs.
Graunge {It. iiij^{xx} Wethers at xvjd. } cvjs. } viijd.
{the pece } viijd. }
{It. ix Swyne soulde for vijs. }
The sume total of all the guddes}
founde within the seid late } iiij^{xx} vijli.
mon att the tyme of the } ixs. vjd.
dyssolucion is }
{Fyrst to Rychard } vjli. } }
{Whytell late prior} } }
{It. to Ric. Haruy } xls. } }
{subprior } } }
Rewardes {It to Sr. Xpofer } xls. } }
gyuen to the {Simson } } }
Couent ther {It. to Sr. Thomas } xls. } }
at ther Departure {Bageley } } xvij li. }
{It. to Sr. William} xls. } }
{Pykstok } } }
{It. to Sr. William} xls. } }
{Stapulton } } }
{It. to Sr. William} xxs. } }
{Bovdon } } }
{It. to Philip Chetwyn xvs. } }
{It. to George Bowghey xs. } }
{It. to Peter Sponer xs. } }
{It. to Edmund Sale xvs. } }
{It. to Roger Cokes xvs. } }
{It. to James Coke xs. } }
{It. to Richard Turner } vijs. } }
{ } vjd. } }
{It. to John Coke iiij.s.iij.d.} }
{It. to Willm Loncome } iijs. } } xxixli.
{ } iiijd. } }
{It. to Thomas Stapulton} vijs. } }
{ } vjd. } }
Rewardes {It. to Thomas Beche } xvjs. } }
gyuen to the { } viijd. } }
seruantes {It. to iiij plowgh } vjs. viijd. } }
late apperteynyng {dryuers } } }
to {It. to Alis Bech } iijs. iiijd. }xijli.}
the seid {It. to Agnes iijs. iiijd. } }
priory at the {It. to Hewe Baker xs. } }
dissolution {It. to Susan Turner } xiijs. } }
therof { } iiijd. } }
{It. to Katerin } xiijs. } }
{Whyttyll } iiijd. } }
{It. to Richard Baker xiijs. iiijd.} }
{It. to Henry Baker iijs. iiijd.} }
{It. to Nicholas Wood iijs. iiijd.} }
{It. to Richard } } }
{Whytell } xvs. } }
{It. to Grola Hordram } iijs. } }
{ } iiijd. } }
{It. to Denys Rochson xxd. } }
{It. to John Bache xxd. } }
{It. to Raufe Hales xvs. } }
{It. to Elizabeth Grene xxs. } }
{It. in Cates bought and spente at the }
{tyme of the Commissionors beyng there for} viijli.
Cates bought {the dissolucon of the seid late priory } xixs.
{and for the saffe kepyng of the guddes } xd.
{and Catell there duryng the same tyme }
The summe of the } xxxvijli.
paymentes aforseid ys } xixs. xd.
Md. the Remayneth a specialite of xl. li. }
_ixs. ijd._ vpon the Reuerend father in }
God Rowland bisshop of Couentry and }
Lych for the guddes of the seid late }
priory by hym bought and not yet }
payed for as apperyth by on obligacon } xl. li
beryng date the xviijth day of October } ixs.
in the xxx yere of our Souerayngne } ijd.
lorde King Henri the viijth paiabull at }
the feast of Saint Andrewe the appostyll }
which shalbe in the yere of our lorde }
God MDXXXIX }
And so Remayneth in the seid Commissionors }
handes } ixli. ijd.
Certyn guddes or stuffe founde at
the seid late priory whiche Remayneth
vnsolde
Gylte plate Fyrst 1 Chales all gylte wayeng xix oz.
Whyte plate It. 1 Chales all whyte wayeng ixoz. di.
Lead remayn {It. ther ys estemed to be xliiij fothers of}
eng vnsould {leade valued at } xl. li.
Belles { }
remayneng {It. ther found iiij belles valued at } liiijli.
vnsoulde { }
Md. there remayneth all the howses edyfyed wythin
the precincte of the seid priory except the flatte
roffes ouer the Churche the crosse ylez wyth the
glasse and pauement in the Churche wt. the Roffes
glasse yron pauement tyle shingull of the Cloyster
and Chapter house whych ys soulde.
{Fyrst in the handys of Syr Gryme at acton j
{Stondyng Cuppe Morgagyd for----It. in the
{handes of Willm Stamforde at Rowhaye ij syluer
Plate {saltes for x_li_. In the handes of Mr. Lytelton j
morgagyd {Bason and on ewer of syluer for x_li_. In the handes
to Dyuers {of Willm Litleton of Stafford on senser of syluer
parsons {for lxvjs. viijd. In the handes of Vmfrey fox
{thelder of Opton j Crosse of woode platyd wt. syluer
{and sett aboute wt. stones for xx_li_.
Pencions and stypendes appoyntyd and allottyd
to the late prior and Couent of the seid priory by
the forseid Commissionors.
Fyrst to Rychard Whytell late prior xxvjli. xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Rychard Haruey vjli.
It. to Xpofer Symsoun vjli.
It. to Thomas Bagley Cvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Pykestoke Cvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Stapulton Cs.
Sum liiijli. vjs. viijd.
Fees and Annuites grauntyd out to dyuerse
persons before the dyssolucon of the seid late
priory
Fyrst to my lorde Ferres hygh stuard xls.
It. to Mr. Robert Browne xvs.
It. to Mr. Phylypp Chewynn xxvjs. viijd.
It. to Edward Whytell xxxiijs. iiijd.
It. to Hugh Baker xxs.
It. to Willm Harney [_sic_] xs.
It. to Willm Bagley xs.
It. to Rychard Torner Baker xs.
It. to Jamys Cocke xxs.
It. to George Bougley xxs.
It. to Thomas Stapultoun xs.
It. to Alexander Rattclyff xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Ottes Hollande xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Rychard Whytell xxs.
Summ xiij li. xxd.
Dettes owyng by the late prior and Couent of the
forseid priory befor the dyssolucon therof
Fyrst to Mr. Edward Lyteltoun Esquier ixli. xs.
It. to Vmfrey fox thelder xvijli. iiijs.
It. to Willm Chamber of Westoun Cxvjs. jd.
It. to Syr Henry Slany vycar of Busbury xls.
It. to Willm Stamford xli.
It. to Syr Edward Astoun knyght xxiijli. xjs. viijd.
It. to Edward Lyteltoun Esquyer xlli.
It. to Peyes Sponer xiiijli. xviijs. id.
It. to Agnes Daryngton of Stafford Gent lxvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Gylbert vjli. xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Sr. Robert Gryme lxvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Mydeltoun of Stafford lxvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Russell lxxiijs. iiijd.
{It. to Rychard Homersley of Stafford for money }
{borowed and other warres of hym bowght } xijli. vs. ixd.
It. to Mr. Strethay Commessary vjli. xiijs. iiijd.
{It. to my lorde of Chester for the pencions of }
{Busbury Westoun and Barkeswych at Michaelmas } lxvijs. iiijd.
{last and procuracions in visitacions last }
{It. to the Deane and Chapeter of Lych for certyn }
{pencions Due at the feast of Seint Michael } xijli. vjs. viijd.
{tharchangell last past }
It. to Walter Wortesley xviijli.
It. to the Bysshopp of Chester xlli.
Sum ccxxxvli. xixs. vijd.
APPENDIX V
INVENTORY OF THE SALE OF DIEULACRES ABBEY
(_Augmentation Office. Miscell. Books. Vol. 172, ff. 41–49_)
THE LATE MON. OF DELACRES IN THE COUNTE OF STAFFORD
Herafter foloweth all such pcelles of Implementes or houshoulde Stuffe
Corne Catell Ornamentes of the Churche & suche other lyke founde wyth
in the late Monastery ther at the tyme of the Dyssolucon of the same
howse soulde by the Kynges Commissionors to the honrable Edward Erie of
Derby the xxj day of October in the xxx yere of Kyng Henry the viijth.
{ Fyrst halfe a dosoun of oulde }
{ Antyke clothes, j fayre table of }
{ Aler Baster, ij Candlestykes of }
{ latenn on the Alter, j great lectroun }
{ of latenn, ij great Candlestykes }
{ of latenn the Mounkes }
The Churche { seattes in the quere, j oulde } xliiijs.
{ laumpe in the quere, iiij ould }
{ alters in the Iles, iiij alters of }
{ Alebaster in the body of the }
{ Churche the Crusifyx, xij Candulstykes }
{ of latenn before the same, j }
{ pticion of Tymber in the body of }
{ the Churche sould for }
{ It. the pauyng of the Churche & }
{ the Iles wythe the grauestones }
{ And all the glasse Jeroun[237] & the } xiijli. vjs.
{ tymber Roffes of the same } viijd.
{ churche & also the Iles ther of ar }
{ sould for }
{ It. one sute of vestmentes of blue }
{ sylke inbroderyd wyth goulde & }
{ j Cope of the same, j cope of oulde }
{ redd veluet & ij tow tynacles set }
{ wyth grene & whyte j sute of }
{ branched sylke imbroderyd wyth }
{ goulde, j sute of Branchyd sylke }
{ spotted wyth whyte & grene wt. }
{ byrdes of goulde & j Cope of the }
{ same, j sute of yelow Sylke imbroyderyd}
{ wt. redd sylke & on }
{ Cope of the same, j suyt of redd }
{ saye & fustyoun spotted lx. s. }
{ Roses & a Cope of the same, j }
{ Cope of oulde redd Veluett }
{ spotted wyth sters, j Cope of }
The Vestrye { grene and redd sylke imbroydered } lxs.
{ to gether spottyd wyth }
{ lyans, j oulde cope of cloth }
{ peinted wt. youle,[238] j vestment of }
{ grene baudekyne, j vestment of }
{ whyte baudekynne, j vestment of }
{ grene and dune sylke, j vestment }
{ of ij Tynacles of Cranecoleryd }
{ sylke }
{ It. the glasse Jeroun the Mounkes }
{ settes, the Roffes of the seid }
The Cloyster{ Cloyster & a lauar[239] ther & the } lxvjs. viijd.
{ glasse & Jeron in the Chapiter }
{ house ar sould for }
The Dorter { It. glasse Jeroun & oulde deskes }
frater & { in the dorter It. the tymber of } lxvjs. viijd.
farmery { the frater & farmery ar soulde for }
{ It. ther, j matres, j fetherbed, j }
{ Boulster, j Blankett, ij pyllowes, j }
{ couerlett, j Tester of dornyx, j }
The Corner { fouldyng table, j Chayr wyth a } xvjs. viijd.
Chamber { Cusshyon the hengyng of say wt. }
{ one matres in the inner Chamber }
{ ar soulde for }
{ It. ther, ij Bedsteddes, j Cupborde, }
The Ryders { j Chayre wt. j Cusshyon a Tester } iijs.
Chamber { & the hengyng of payented clothe }
{ soulde for }
The Butelers{ It. j matres, iiij Couerlettes, ij pyllowes, }
Chamber { j fetherbedd, j boulster } xs.
{ soulde for }
{It. ther, iij Tables, iij formes, j }
The Hale {Cupborde & j oulde hengyng } iiijs.
{soulde for }
{ It. ther, v borde Clothes v napkyns, }
{ iij peuter saltes wt. i Cyner, }
The Buttery { viij hoggesheaddes, vj Candlestykes, } vijs.
{ j oulde Cheste & j shorte }
{ borde wt. ij Trestulles soulde for }
The larder { It. ther, j saltyngfatt, j Troffe, iiij } iiijs.
{ Bordes & ij Tubbes soulde }
{ It. v great braspottes & iiij smale }
{ pannes, j Cauderoune, iij spyttes, j }
{ skyelett[240], ij Cupbordes, j fyerforke, }
{ j fleshoke, j fryengpanne, ij cressettes[241],}
The { j gryderoune, xxxviij }
Kechynne { platters, dysshes & saucers, j } iiijli. xxd.
{ brasen morter wt. a pestell, ij }
{ Choppyngknyues, j dressyng }
{ knyffe, j Almery, j grater, ij dressyng }
{ bordes, ij Chafyngdyshys & }
{ Skimmer of brasse soulde for }
{ It. ther, iij leades, j masshyng fatt, }
The brewe { xij kelers[242] of leade, ij yelyng fattes, }
house { j table before the ouenne & j } vjli. xjs. xd.
{ sestyroune[243] soulde for }
The boultyng{ It. ther, j Boultyng huche & } xijd.
house { certein oulde troffes & tubbes }
The laborars{ It. ther, ij materes, ij couerlettes, } xxd.
Chamber { j borde & j forme sould for }
{ It. vj Oxenne, iiijli. xs., It. lx. }
Catell { Ewys & lammes lxvj. s. viijd. } ixli. xs.
{ It. iij horses xxs. It. xiij Swynne }
{ soulde for xiijs. iiijd. }
{ It. vij^{xx}[244] xix bz. of otes xjli. xixs.}
Grayne { It. j quart. ij bz. di. of Rye xxjs. } xvjli.
{ It. xxix lodes of haye soulde for }
{ lxs }
{ The summe totall of all the } lxiijli.
{ goodes aforeseid is } xiiijs. xd.
Wherof
{ Fyrst to Thomas Whitney } vjli. } }
{ abbott ther } } }
Rewardes { It. to Robt. Bagley prior ls. } }
gyuen to { It. to Sr. Henry Benett ls. } }
Abbott and { It. to Sr. George Ferny ls. } }
Conuent of { It. to Sr. Rauffe Motessott xls. } }
the seid Mon. { It. to Sr. Randall Barnes xls. } xxxjli. }
at the tyme of { It. to Sr. Willm Crosse xls. } xs. }
the dissolucon { It. to Sr. Robt. Cheryngton xls. } }
of the { It. to Sr. Edmund bolton xls. } }
same { It. to Sr. Willm prowdluffe xls. } }
{ It. to Sr. Thomas loke xls. } }
{ It. to Sr. Richard Cordon xls. } }
{ It. to Sr. John Bykerton xls. } }
{ It. to Anthony Colclegh xxs. } }
{ It. to John Jorell xs. } }
{ It. to John Wood xvs. } }
{ It. to John feirfeld xvs. } }
{ It. to Hughe palyn xvs. } }
{ It. to Will’m Rudeyerd xvs. } }
{ It. to Thomas Vygours vijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to Robt. Hardyng iijs. ixd. } }
{ It. to Thomas Calcott vs. } }
{ It. to [_sic_] bartram xvs. } }
{ It. to Edmud plumber xxs. } }
{ It. to Roger Tatten iijs. ixd. } }
{ It. to peter Woodworte vs. } }
Rewardes { It. to Robt. Wardell xs. } }
gyuen to the { It. to Jamys Dadam xvs. } xiiijli. } xlvli.
seruantes { It. to Richard Vigours vijs. vjd. } vs. xd. } xvs.
ther the { It. to Henry Symson vijs. vjd. } } xd.
same tyme { It. to Thomas Tatten vs. } }
{ It. to John Fyney vijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to John Stele vs. } }
{ It. to Roger Cocker vijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to Rychard Dale iijs. iiijd.} }
{ It. to John banne vs. } }
{ It. to Ric. Heygrevez xvs. } }
{ It. to John newlys xvs. } }
{ It. to Thomas Walle } } }
{ It. to Thomas Masse } vijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to Ric. Buchyngham } } }
{ It. to Rauffe Chester vijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to Jamys Hardyng xvijs. vjd. } }
{ It. to Agnes Whytt, to the Wyffe }
Almes gyuen { of John Strettell, to Margery }
to the { poole, to Secily brempett, to } xxvjs. viijd.
anders and { Jone Coke, to Matild Wyburley, }
pore Bede { to the Wyffe of Flyxton, & to the }
Women ther { Wyffe of Robt. Rudyer }
{ It. in Cates bought & spente at }
{ the tyme of the Commissionors }
Cates bought { being ther for to dyssolue the seid } xli. xvijs.
{ Mon & for the saffe kepyng of the }
{ Guddes and Catell ther founde &c. }
The summe of the paymentes } lvijli. xixs. vjd.
aforeseid is }
{ Md. ther remayneth a specialtie }
{ of xxli. upon the honorable Edward }
{ Erle of Derby for the goodes }
{ & Catell ther by hym bowght } xxli.
{ payable at the feast of Seynt }
{ Andrewe thappostill wch shalbe }
{ in the yere of our lorde god MI. }
{ Dxxxix }
And so remayneth in the seid Commissionours } xiiijli.
Handes nl. for they haue payed more then the [_sic_] } iiijs. viijd.
haue Receuyd by ye sume of }
Certeyn guddes or stuffe Remaynyng vnsould late
belongyng to the seyd late Monastery
Gylte plate { It. iij Chalesys and the head of a } iiij^{xx} vij oz.
{ Crosestaffe all gylt wayeng }
{ It. broken plate whych was ouer }
Whyte plate { a Crosse of wood & xj spounes all } xxx oz.
{ whytt weyng }
leade { It. ther ys estemyd to be Ciiij^{xx} }
remaynyng { foters[245] of leade valued at [_sic_] } DCCxxli.
vnsold { the fother }
Belles { It. ther remayneth vj belles }
remayneng { weyng 1 hundreth valued at } xxxvijli. xs.
vnsould { }
Md. ther remayneth all the howses edyfyed upon the scite of the seid
late Mon. the pauement the grauestones glasse Jeroune tymber & Roffes
of the Churche & Ilez to yt adioynyng the glasse Jeron and Roffes of
the Cloyster the glasse Jeron of the Chapiter house the glasse & Jeron
in the Dorter & ye tymber of the fratreter & farmery only excerp and
soulde
Md. that the seid honerable Erle of Derby was put in possession of
the seid late Mon & the Demaynez to yt Apptenyng to our soueraygne
lorde the Kynges vse the xxj day of Octobr in the xxx yere of or. seid
soueraigne lorde Kyng Henry the viijth
Pencions & stypendes appoynted & allotted to the late
abbott and Couent of the forseyd late Monastery by the
forseid Commissionors
Fyrst to Thomas Wytney late abbott lxli.
It. to Robert Bageley pryor vjli.
It. to Henry Benett vjli.
It. to George Farny vjli.
It. to Rauffe Motsett cvjs. viijd.
It. to Randall Barnes cvjs. viijd.
It. to Willm Crosse cvjs. viijd.
It. to Robt. Cheryngtoun cvjs. viijd.
It. to Edmund Boultoun cs.
It. to Willm prowluffe cs.
It. to Thomas loke xls.
It. to Rychard Cordon xls.
It. to John Bykertoun xls.
Summa cxvli. vjs. viijd.
Fees and Annuites graunted owt by Couent sealle before
the dyssolucon of the seid late Monastery
Fyrst to my lorde of Darby stuard of the seid }
Monastery & the towne and maner of loke } xls.
It. to Rychard Grosuenour stuard of pultoun xxvjs. viijd.
It. to Vmfrey Witney Balyffe of all the lorsheppes}
& Maners belonging to the seid Monastery } lxvjs. viijd.
Wythin the Countye of Chester }
It. to Willm Damport Balyff of all the lordshyppes}
& maners of the seid late Mon. in the Countye of} iiijli.
Stafford except the Toune of loke }
It. to Robt. Burgh forester of the forest of loke }
belongyng to the seid late Monastery } [_sic_]
It. to John Cordoun Balyffe of the toune of loke xxs.
It. to John Alynn Balyff of Rassall Norbroke & }
bysshopham } xxvjs. viijd.
It. to Richard Dann late stuard of housholde ther lxs.
It. to Henry Beretoun xls.
It. to Roger Williamson xxvjs. viijd.
It. to laurence plunte xxs.
It. to John Wytney xxvjs. viijd.
It. to Robt. Warmyngton xls.
It. to Thomas Wytney xxvjs. viijd.
It. to Jamys Coke xxs.
It. to William Halme xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Thomas Redhed xls.
It. to Jamys Statheham xls.
It. to Nycholas Witney lxvjs. viijd.
Summa xxxiiij li.
Dettes owyng by the seid late abbot to diuers psons as
folowyth
Fyrst to Henry Hargraues of luddyngtoun xxixli. iiijd.
It. to Elyzabeth Alenn of Rossall xxijli.
It. to John Alenn of Rossall iiijli.
It. to the Wydow Amrye of londin vjli.
It. to Helyn fitton of Sidingtoun xvjli. xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Robt. Burgh for oulde dette lxixs. ixd.
It. to Thomas Heth viijli. vjs. viijd.
It. to Robt. Myddeltoun of Islyngtoun xxxs.
It. to Thomas Maynewaryng of londondon [_sic_] xxvjs viijd
It. to Thomas Ball of Chester xlvjs viijd
It. to Jamys Colyar viijli. xvs. vijd.
It. to Robt. Wandell lxvjs. viijd.
It. to Willim Nyckted person of Rollestoun xlvjs. viijd.
It. to John lokker chepelleyn of ypstons xxxvs. viijd.
It. to Willm Heth of parkelown xvs.
It. to Roger Williamson iiijli.
It. to John Higgenboth xxviijs. iiijd.
It. to John gudwyn Chapelayne of Chedton iijs. iiijd.
It. to Hery bennett vjli. xiijs. iiijd.
It. to Thomas Hattoun xliiijs.
It. to Richard Hyggenbothe xvs. vjd.
It. to John Cheryngton xls.
It. to the pisshionors of Sandbath vjli.
It. to Willm Dauenport xxvs.
It. to Vmfrey Reynould ciijs. iiijd.
It. to John Hale iijs.
It. to Richard Vygors xvjs.
It. to John Wood xxiijs.
It. to Roger Tatton xs.
It. to John Fayrfeld xijs. iiijd.
It. to Hugh palenn ixs.
It. to Henry Symson viijs.
It. to Rychard Hergreues xxxjs. viijd.
It. to John Feny ixs. viijd.
It. to Thomas Cattoun ijs.
It. to James Coke xlviijs. ix d.
It. to Xpofer Crowther iijs. iiijd.
It. to Edward plummer ijs. iiijd.
It. to Jamys Vygors taylor xiijs. xjd.
It. to Willm Rame of Newboulte xli.
It. to Sr. Thomas Arundell Knyght liijs. iiijd.
It. to Sr. Robt. Nedham Knyght xxxiijs. iiijd.
It. to Robt. Warmingtoun for hys fee xxs.
It. to Dan Wllm Crosse xls.
It. to Willm feni lxs.
Summa clxxjli. xs. vjd.
APPENDIX VI
THE SALE OF THE GOODS AT THE GREY FRIARS, STAFFORD
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11,041, fol. 86b_)
The Grey ffryers { The Sale of goodes ther made the xxvijth
of Staff. surrendryd { day of September, anno xxxmo. Henrici
{ viij^{ui} ., as herafter followyth
Kechyn
Sol. { Fyrst, sold to the warden of the } viijs.
{ seyd fryers ij brasse pottes }
Sol. { Item, ij brasse pottes, sold to Edward } iiijs
{ Scudamour }
Sol. { Item, sold to the towene of Stafford } vs.
{ ij Church candelstyckes }
Sol. { Item, sold to the seyd Scudamour }
{ ij coberds, (xiid.); a cobert; a } xviijd.
{ spytt, (vid.); and a tryvett }
Sol. Item, sold to the wardene vj platters ijs.
Sol. { Item, a fryeng panne (iiijd.) and a }
{ peyre (ijd.) of pothangles, sold to the} vjd.
{ seyd Scudamour }
Sol. Item, ij pannes, sold to ... vid.
Sol. { Item, sold to the bayliff of Staff. a }
{ potthangles } viij. d.
Summa xxijs. ijd.
Butterie
Sol. { Item, sold to }
{ Doryngton, a gret basen } xxd.
Summa patet
Churche
Sol. Item, a cope of tawny damaske xijd.
Sol. { Item, a vestment and ij tynakles of }
{ old prest velvet, sold to John Savage } xiijd. iiijd.
{ baylyf }
Sol. { Item, sold to Thomas Williams ij } xiid.
{ copes of redd tartarne }
Sol. { Item, a sute of blue sarcenet, sold to } iijs. iiijd.
{ Thomas Cradock }
Sol. { Item, a sute of grene branchyd sylk, } vj. viijd.
{ sold to Mr. Offeley }
Sol. { Item, ij tynakles of dunne sylk, sold } xxd.
{ to Pereson }
Sol. { Item, ij auter clothes, sold to Robert } xijd.
{ Doryngton }
Sol. { Item, a cope of lynyn cloth steynyd, } iiijd.
{ sold to a fryer }
Sol. { Item, ij table clothes, sold to John } vjd
{ a Lee }
Sol. { Item, ij corperas casys, sold to the } iiijd.
{ prior }
Sol. { Item, a corperas, sold to the } iiijd.
{ wardens of the churche }
Sol. { Item, sold to William Bentrey a } iiijd.
{ stremer of lynyn clothe }
Sol. { Item, a vestment of blue fustian and }
{ one of whyt diaper, sold to fryere } vjd.
{ Wood }
Sol. { Item, a sute of vestmentes of yolowe } xijd.
{ say, sold to Edward Rogers }
Sol. { Item, sold to John Webbe the }
{ tymber worke in the hyegh quyer, } ixs. viijd.
{ and a auter of alablaster in the body }
{ of the churche }
Sol. { Item, sold to Rychard Lees all the } vjd.
{ setes }
Sol. { Item, a table of allablaster standyng }
{ in the church, sold to Mr. Loveson } ijs. viijd.
Sol. { Item in Seynt Fraunces chapelle all } iiijd.
{ the seates, sold to Robert Doryngton }
Sol. { Item, a image of Seynt Katerine, } vjd.
{ sold to ... Lee }
Sol. { Item, sold to Robert Doryngton, old } ijs.
{ bokes and a cofer in the library }
Sol. { Item, sold a old peyre of portatyffe } ijs.
{ organs to Mr. Lvsun }
Sol. { Item, an old cofer, in the vestry, sold} ijs. viijd.
{ to Janys Clement }
Sol. { Item, old wexe, sold to Robert } iiijd.
{ Doryngton }
Sol. { Item, a lampe, sold to Robert }
{ Doryngton } viijd.
Sol. { Item, old bokes in the vestry, sold }
{ to the same Robert } viijd.
Sol. { Item, sold to Robert Whytgreve, a }
{ missale } viijd.
Sol. { Item, ij aulter candelstyckes and a }
{ pykes of copper, sold to Mr. Swynnerton} xijd.
Sol. Item, a bere franke, sold to ... ijd.
Summa lvs. viijd.
Bruehouse
Sol. { Item, sold to the vnder baylyff and to }
{ the late warden of the Fryers iij }
{ leades, one to brue in, and ij to kele } xiiijs. viijd.
{ in, fates,[246] iiij tubbes, a bultyng }
{ hutche, and a knedyng trowghe }
Sol. { Item, ij peces of tymber lyeng in } iiijd.
{ the bruehouse, sold to Bagnoll }
Summa xvs.
Hall
Sol. { Item, a table on the north syde of }
{ the hall sold to Robert Danes } xvjd.
Sol. { Item, sold to the hyeghe baylyff, the }
{ table on the sowth syde of the hall } xvjd.
Sol. { Item, sold to Robert Wetwood, the } viijd.
{ table at the hyeghe deske }
Summa iijs. iiijd.
Buyldynges
Item, sold to Jamys Lusone esquyer } xxixli. xxd. pro.
all the church and quyer, with all } qua quidem
edyfyenges and buyldynges within } summa prefatus
the precinct of the Fryers Minours } Jacobus obligat.
surrendryd, with all the stone, } inter al. ad solvend.
tymber, tyle, glasse, and iron in the } ad fest.
same, ledd and belles only exceptyd, } Pur. beate Marie
and also exceptyd and reservyd the } et Nativitat.
stone wall next unto the towne of } sancti Johannis
Stafford } equal.
Sol. { Item, sold to the towneshyp, the wall }
{ of the Fryers next unto the towne } iijs. iiijd.
Summa xxixli. vs.
Sum of all the goodes } { R’ by John }
and buyldynges of } xxxiiijli. iijs. xd. { Scudamour } cjs. ijd.
the seyd ffryers sold } { esquyer, r. }
Item, ij belles, one a sauncebelle,[247] the other by estimation
Xcth, in the custodye of Mr. Luson.
Item, in ledd upon the quyer and a chapelle by estimation
xlv. fotes brode of bothe sydes and xliij
fotes long, in the custody of baylyffes of Stafford.
APPENDIX VII
THE SALE OF THE GOODS AT THE AUSTIN FRIARS, STAFFORD
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11,041, fol. 87b_)
The Austen { The sales of goodes ther made the xxvijth
Fryers of Staff. { day of September, anno xxxmo Regis Henrici
{ viij.
Church
Sol. { Fyrst, sold to Mr. Whytgreve, a } xijd.
{ masse boke }
Sol. Item, a cope of blake chamlett, sold ijs.
R.B. { Item, a vestment and ij tynaklez of }
{ blake say with albes and amyses, etc., } iiijs.
{ sold to Richard Ward }
R.B. { Item, a vestment and ij tynakles of } iiijs.
{ tawny sarcenett, sold to ... }
R.B. { Item, a vestment and ij tynakles }
{ without albes of bawdekyn with } xviijd.
{ images of our lady, sold to Mr. Luson }
R.B. { Item, ij tynakles with albes, bawdekyn }
{ with bryddes, sold to ... Affley } iijs. iiijd.
R.B. { Item, a syngle vestment with a albe }
{ and a blake orferuns, sold } xxd.
R.B. { Item, a vestment of redd fustyan }
{ with ij albes } ijs. viijd.
Sol. { Item, ij old copes, one of grene and }
{ another of old badkyn parke worke } ijs.
R.B. { Item, ij copes grene and yolowe }
{ partye Colowryd and rewyd, sold to } xxijd.
{ Mr. Luson }
R.B. Item, iiij corperas casys viijd.
R.B. { Item, a peyre of censours, sold to } iiijd.
{ Thomas Browne }
R.B. { Item, a vestment of white bustion, } viijd.
{ sold to the prior }
I.S. Item, ij candelstyckes xvjd.
I.S. Item, a alter cloth viijd.
I.S. Item, old bokes in the quyer vjd.
R.B. Item, a pulpytt iiijd.
I.S. Item, ij ladders viijd.
R.B. { Item, a table of alablaster (iijs. viijd.) }
{ and a dore (iiijd) sold to Mr. } iiijs.
{ Stamford}
R.B. { Item, the hyegh alter, sold to Mr. } iijs.
{ Stamford }
R.B. { Item, the bordes of the altar of the } viijd.
{ northe syde of the church }
I.S. { Item, ij grave stones of alablast, sold }
{ to ... Wolrych } xijd.
I.S. Item, the organs, sold to Mr. Offeley xxvjs. viijd.
Hall
I.S. { Item, a table in the old hall with ij } iiijd.
{ trestylles }
R.B. { Item, a table in the inner hall, with }
{ ij trestylles and ij formes, sold to } viijd.
{ Robert Doryngton }
Bruehouse
R.B. { Item, a bultyng table, sold to }
{ Margarett Whytfyld } ijd.
R.B. { Item, a furnes of ledd, sold to Mr. }
{ Stamford } vjs.
Kechyn
I.S. Item, a great pot and a lesse iijs. iiijd.
R.B. Item, iij pannes of brasse ijs. viijd.
R.B. { Item, iij platters, a dysshe, and a } xijd.
{ sawecere }
R.B. Item, a trevett iiijd.
Summa lxxixs.
Buyldynges.
{ Item, sold to Jamys Loveson esquyer,} xxviijli. viijs. iiijd.
{ Thomas Picto, and Richard } Inde sol. pro Picto
{ Warde, all the tyle, shyngle, } xls. et rem. xxvjl.
{ tymber, stone, glasse and iron, one } viijs. iiijd. pro qua
{ marble graue stone, the pauementes } quidem summa
{ of the church, quyer, and } Jacobus Loveson
{ chapelles, with rode lofte, the } de Woleverhampton.
{ pyctures of Cryst, Mary and John, } Ar. obligat.
{ beyng in the church and chauncell } inter al. ad solvend.
{ of the Austen Fryers, besydes the } ad fest.
rec. xls. { towne of Stafford, surrendryd with } Pur. beate Marie
{ all other superfluos edyfyes and } virginis et Nat.
{ buyldynges within the precynct of } Sancti Johannis
{ the seyd Fryers, to be takyn } prox. equal. ut
{ downe, defacyd, and caryed awey } patet obligac. dat.
{ by the seyd Loveson, Picto, and } Sept. anno xxxmo.
{ Ward, at there owne proper costes } regis enrici viij
{ and charges, and to pay for all the } rem. cum J.
{ premysses to the Kyng and hys } Scudamour ar. rec.
{ heyres, successors and assignes } partic.
Sum of all the goodes } { Rec. per J. S. cxviijs.
and edyfyenges forseyd } xxxij. vjs. viijd. { Super. pro edific.
in the Austen Fryres sold } { xxvjli. viijs. iiijd.
Item, there remaynyth in the custodye }
of Robert Burgoyne, audytour, }
one playne crosse of copper, with a } iijs. iiijd.
lytle image of Cryst sylver apon hyt, }
worth by estimation }
Item, remaynyth in the custodye of }
John Scudamore esquyer, particuler }
receivor etc., one lytle woodden } xijd.
crosse platyd over verry thyn with }
sylver, worth by estimation }
Item, ther remaynyth in the steple }
one belle, by estimation x C^{th} in the } viijli.
custodye of Thomas Picto, worth by }
estimation }
Item, one lytle belle in the steple, }
weyng by estimation di. C^{th}, worth } viijs.
by estimation }
APPENDIX VIII
THE SALE OF THE GOODS OF THE GREY FRIARS, LICHFIELD
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11,041, fol. 88b_)
Prisours { Robert Ryve }
{ William Colman }
{ Marke Wyrley } jurati.
{ Thomas Fanne }
Grey Fryers { The Sales ther made the iiijth day of October,
of Lychefyld { anno xxx^o regis Henrici viij^{ui}
Sol. { ffyrst sold to Mr. Strete all the copes, } xls.
{ vestments, and tynakles in gros for }
Sol. { Item, sold to the seyd Mr. Strete ij } viijd.
{ candelstyckes of latten }
Sol. { Item, the pauyng tyle in both the } xls.
{ cloysters, sold to Mr. Strete }
Sol. { Item, sold to Thomas Bardell, ij } viijd.
{ candelstykes }
Sol. { Item, sold to Sir Thomas Dobsone, } iiijd.
{ a presse, a bedstede, and a dore }
Sol. { Item, the tymber, tyle, and stone of }
{ the old hostery and the ffermery, sold } iiijli.
{ to Rychard Rawson }
Sol. { Item, the tyle and tymber of the }
{ lytle cloyster, sold to John ap Gl’m. } xiijs. iiijd.
Sol. { Item, ij worte leddes[248] in the bruehouse, }
{ sold to John Sandelond } vjs. viiijd.
Sol. Item, sold to Mr. Aston, a wynd ijs.
Sol. { Item, sold to Thomas Fanne, the } ijs.
{ brycke wall at the churche ende }
Sol. { Item, sold to the master of the Ile, } iiijd.
{ a fate in the bruehouse }
Sol. Item, sold to Chapman, a fate xijd.
{ Item, sold to John Genynges, the }
{ tymber, tyle, and stone of the stable } iiijli.
{ buttyng upon the churche ende }
{ Item, sold to John Mylward, the }
{ tymber, tyle, and stone of the iij } xls.
{ houses joynyng together in the court }
{ callyd the Tenys Court }
{ Item, sold to Rychard Ballard, the } iijs. iiijd.
{ lytle house over the ovyn }
{ Item, sold to Mr. Ryce, mastres }
{ Warden, mastres Stonye, vij leddes } xviijs.
{ for wort }
{ Item, the tymber, tyle, and stone of }
{ the kechyn and the bruehouse, sold } liijs. iiijd.
{ to Edward Spratte }
{ Item, sold to John Laughton, a } xijd.
{ cofere and a hutche in the buttery }
{ Item, the cesterne of ledd, and the }
{ stone that hyt standyth in, in the } xiijs. iiijd.
{ kechyn, sold to John Genynges }
{ Item, the glasse that ys lewse in the }
{ newe loggyng, sold to William } iijs.
{ Colman }
{ Item, a lampe, sold to Edmund } viijd.
{ Bardell }
{ Item, the presse in the vestrye, sold } xvjd.
{ to the warden of the gyld }
Item, ij hutches, sold to Mr. Warden viijd.
{ Item, a fryers masse boke, solde to } iiijd.
{ Marke Wyrley }
{ Item, the stone wall betwene the old }
{ ostery and the ffrater, sold to John } vs.
{ Sadeler }
{ Item, the pauement of the quyere, } xiijs. iiijd.
{ sold to Mr. Stretes }
{ Item the fryers setes in the quyere, } vjs. viijd.
{ sold to John Laughton }
{ Item, the cundyt of ledd in the }
{ cloyster, sold to the master of the } xxxs.
{ gyld and his brethern }
Sol. { Item, a holy water stocke, sold to } xxd.
{ John Howlat }
Sol. { Item, all the kechyn stuff, sold to } xxs.
{ master warden of the gyld }
Sol. { Item, ij standert candelstyckes, sold } viijs.
{ to the seyd master warden }
Sol. { Item, the lytle cundyt standyng at }
{ the revestrye dore, sold to George } vs.
{ Stonyng }
Sol. { Item, the cesterne of ledd standyng }
{ in the porche at the Tenys Court } xxs.
{ ende, sold to Mr. Lytleton }
Sol. { Item, a lytle porche standyng by the } xs.
{ dwellyng house, sold to Mr. Lytylton }
{ Item, the ffrayter and the chambers }
{ stretchyng to the kechyn, with all }
{ the quadrant of the inner cloyster } xlijli. xiijs. iiijd.
{ joynyng to the church and steple, } Inde sol. J. S.
{ and the church and quyer, and the } xxjli. iijs. iiijd.
{ long newe house of the est syde of } Et rem. xxjli. xs.
{ the same cloyster, except and } pro qua quidem
{ reseruyd ledd, belles, pauement, and } summa Johannes
{ grauestones within all the seyd } Weston,
{ buyldynges, save only the pauement } Johannes Archer,
{ of the seyd churche, whyche ys } Ricardus
{ parcell of the seyd bargayne, sold to } Cotes et Hugo
recepi { John Weston of Lichfeld, John } Bowde, obligat.
xxjli. iijs. { Archer, Richard Cotes, gent., Hugh } ad sol. ad fest.
iiijd. { Bowde, Harry Hopwood draper, } sancti Michaelis
{ Michaell Hyll, John Genynges and } archangeli prox.
{ John Mylward, and hath day to } ut patet oblig.
{ deface the steple, cloyster, and quyer } dat. quinto die
{ forthwyth the churche, onles they } Octobr. anno
{ obtayne lycens otherwyse of the } regni regis Henrici
{ Kyng and hys councell, athys-side } viij^{ui.} xxx.
{ the feast of the Purification of our } rem. cum Johanne
{ Lady next commyng, and for all the } Scudamour,
{ residewe of the buyldynges iij yeres } ar. r.
{ day[249] to pull downe and carye awey, } partic. etc.
{ and to have egresse and regresse for }
{ the same }
APPENDIX IX
THE SALE OF GOODS AT CROXDEN ABBEY
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11,041, fol. 89b_)
Crokesden--The sales ther made the xvth day of October, anno xxx^o
regis Henrici viij^{ui} as herafter followyth:
Sol. { Item, a lytle gatehouse on the north }
{ syde of the comyn wey, sold to Mr. } xiijs. iiijd.
{ Bassett }
Sol. { Item, sold to Mr. Bassett, the loft }
{ under the organs } xs.
Sol. { Item, sold to Mr. Bassett, the lytle }
{ smythes forge } iiijs. viijd.
Sol. Item, the bott of an asshe sold xxd.
Sol. { Item, the roffe of the churche, sold }
{ to Sir Thomas Gylbert and Edmund } vjli.
{ Wetheryns of Chekeley parysshe }
r. xxxiijs. { Item, the roffe of the dorter,[250] sold to }
iiijd. { Mr. Bassett } xxxiijs. iiijd.
Sol. { Item, sold to John Ferne, all the }
{ old tymber in the cloyster } vjs. viijd.
Summa, ixli. ixs. viijd. oneratur.
APPENDIX X
THE SALE OF THE GOODS AT ROCESTER ABBEY
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11041, fol. 89b_)
Rouceter--The sales there made, the xvj^{th} day of October, anno xxx^o
regis Henrici viij.
Sol. { Item, the glasse and iron in the }
{ wyndowes of Seynt Michaelles } iijs. iiijd.
{ chapell, sold to John Forman }
Sol. { Item, the tymber of the seyd chapell, }
{ sold to William Loghtonhouse } vijs. vjd.
Sol. { Item, the shyngle of the same }
{ chapell, sold to William Bagnall } viijd.
Summa: xjs. vjd. oneratur.
APPENDIX XI
THE SALE OF THE GOODS AT HULTON ABBEY
(_British Museum, Addit. MS. No. 11,041, fol. 90_)
Hylton--The Sales ther made, the xxj^{th} day of October, anno xxx^o
regis Henrici viij^{ui.}
{ Item, sold to Stephen } xixli. xvjs. inde sol. J. S. ar. iiijli.
{ Bagott, gent. } et rem. xvli. xvjs. pro qua quidem
rec. iiijli. { thre belles, a grett } summa prefatus Stephanus oblig.
oneratur { ..., for the somme } solvend. ad festum sancti Michaelis
iiijli. { of nynetene poundes } archangeli prox. ut patet
{ syxtene shyllynges, } oblig. gerent. dat. xxi^o die Ottobr.
{ after the rate of } anno xxx^o regis Henrici viij cum
{ xviijs. the hundredd } Johanne Scudamour ar. rec. rem.
APPENDIX XII
DISSOLUTION OF BURTON “COLLEGE”
1. Inventory and valuation of goods.
2. Sale of goods.
3. Payments to disbanded household, etc.
4. Expenses of royal officials.
5. Pensions.
6. Summary.
(_P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Miscell. Books. Vol. 400, ff.
60–76_) _Transcript._
[Sidenote: [fol. 60] [_Being outside cover of inventory._]]
REMEMBRAUNC FOR MR SKUDEAMOR’
Phylipp Skudeamore to be a scoler in the Kynges
new colledge in oxfford
Skydmor
p Ann xxxviijuo
[Sidenote: [fol. 61 _blank_]]
[Sidenote: [fol. 62] [_21 Nov., 1545_]]
An Inventorye takyn the xxjth day of Nouember in the xxxvijth yere of
the reign of or sou’aign lord Henry the viijth by the grace of god Kyng
of Englond Fraunce & Irelond Defender of the Feyth & in Erthe sup’me
Hedd of the Church of Englond & also of Irelond by Richard Goodryck &
John Scudamore Esquyers appoyntyd by the Ryght Worshypfull s Edward
North Knyght chauncellor of the Kynges maiesties most honorable Court
of Augmentacons in the name of the Kyng or sou’aign lord of all the
plate Juelles Ornamentes of the Church Wt all the goodes & cattalles
belongeyng & appteynyng vnto the late Colledge of Burton vpon Trent in
the Countie of Staff’ surrendryd & prisyd by Walt’ Charnell[251] & John
Norton gent. Willm Murcott Richard Whyttell Willm Meycock & John Browne
PLATE OF THE CHURCH
Fyrst iiijor Challys Wt ther }
patentes gylt Weyng } xlix oz. di.
Itm ij Challys Wt ther patentes }
Whytt Weyng } xxxiij oz. iij qart’s.
Itm A Shypp Wt a Spone } xii oz. qart’.
Whytt Weyng }
Itm ij Sensors Whytt Weyng } xlvij oz.
Itm the Garnysshyng of A }
Crosse pcell gylt Weyng } vi oz.
Itm the garnysshyng of a gospell} xviij oz. di.
boke pcell gylt Weyng }
[_sic_] Sma of the } { guylt xlix oz. di. exr.
ounces of the } pr. { pcell guylt xxxiiij oz. di. exr.
seyd plate } clxvij { Whyt iiij^{xx} xiij oz. exr.
[Sidenote: [_Signatures_]]
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 63]]
ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
Itm a vestment & ij tynakles of }
old Cheker velfett redd & blue } xxs.
Wt albes }
Itm a Chesable of Blue tartron }
Wt lions & ij tynakles of blue }
tartron Wt half moones & } xxs.
bryddes & albes therunto }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
black velfett old & bare traylyd } xvs.
Wt grene & Wt Whytt Daysyes }
Itm an old Aut’ Front of Redd |
Sylke braunchyd wt Copp gold | iiis.
Itm an old Aut’ Front of }
Cheker Worke } iis.
Itm an old blue pall of tartron }
Wt. Daysies } iis.
Itm an old pall of tawnye sylke }
Wt gart’s } xxd.
Itm an old pece of a pall of }
gyng’ Collor sylke } xvjd.
Itm a pece of a old pall of black } xijd.
Worstede Wt Starres }
Itm an old bann’ Cloth of Sylke viijd.
Itm a Cope of blue tartron Wt }
lyons & bryddes } vis. viijd.
Itm a Cope of old & base redd }
velfett Wt lyons & brokyn } xs.
Itm a Cope of Crymsyn velfett } xs.
braunchyd }
Itm iij Copes of Count’fett Redd }
bawdekyn } xxs.
Itm a Cope of brokyn velfett }
Wt Daysyes } vs.
Itm a Cope of old Redd Count’fett }
bawdekyn } viijs.
Itm a Cope of Whyt sylke Wt }
Wheate eares } vs.
Itm an old Cope of Cheker } iijs. iiijd.
velfett }
Itm V Copes of Count’fett } xxvs.
bawdekyn }
Itm one old Cope of Whyt sylke vs.
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whytt Saye Wt gart’s & } vjs. viijd.
thalbes }
[Sidenote: [fol. 64]]
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Redd Saye Wt thalbes } vs.
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
grene Dornyxe Wt albes } vs.
Itm a vestment & ij tynakles of }
old count’fett bawdekyn wt } xs.
thalbes }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whyt bustian wt thalbes } iijs. iiijd.
Itm a old vestmt & ij tynakles }
of Redd sylke wt Flowres & } iiijs.
thalbes }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whyt bustian } xijd.
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
blue sylke Wt Whyt Dasyes & } xs.
thalbes }
Itm a vestmt of Redd & Whytt }
Dornyxe } iijs.
Itm an Aut’ Front of redd & }
grene sylke wt vnycornes } xvjd.
Itm a vestmt of Whyt fustyan }
Wt a redd Crosse } viijd.
Itm a vestmt of old grene }
Damaske Wt an albe } ijs.
Itm a vestmt of tawnye sylke }
Wt yelowe bryddes & flowres } xijd.
& lyons }
Itm a vestmt of Whytt & }
tawnye sylke Wt Flowres } xxd.
Itm a vestmt of black Worstede ijs.
Itm viij albes xxs.
Itm iij quysshynges[252] viijd.
Itm the p’sse for the Copes xijd.
Itm ij grett Candelstyckes of }
latton } vs.
Itm iiij Small Candelstyckes of }
latton } ijs.
Itm a lectorne of Brasse xxs.
[Sidenote: [fol. 65]]
Itm ij peyr of Organsvjs viijd.
Itm one other peyr of organs vjs. viijd.
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of } }
Count’fett tyssue Wt thalbes } vjd. }
to the same } }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of } }
Redd velfett braunchyd Wt } ls. }
Flowres & ij albes } } dd. to
Itm an Aut’ Front of Crymsyn } } the Thes.[253]
velfett & Cloth of gold Wt } xxxs. }
Raysyd velfett } }
Itm a Cope of tawnye velfett } xxvjs. }
braunchyd Wt Flowres } viijd. }
Itm ij Copes of blewe velfett } liijs. iiijd.
Wt Flowres }
Itm vij Copes of Whyt Damaske } lxxs.
Wt Flowres & sylke }
{ Itm A Sute of Westmts of } xxxvjs.}
{ Whyt Damaske } viijd. }
gevyn to the { Itm An Aut’ Front of Whyt } }
Church of { Damaske Wt the Salutacon of } xs. }
Burton { or lady) } } lvjs. viijd.
{ Itm a Canope of Redd Sylke } iiijs. }
{ Flowryd Wt Collors } }
{ Itm a peyr of Organs vjs. }
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 66]]
IMPLEM’TES & STUFF OF HOWSEHOLD
Petycanons Itm ij table bourdes V trestylles} }
Hall iij formes one benche Wt bordes } iijs. }
at the Wall } } }
}
Itm one cupbord iiijd. }
}
Itm one peyr of small Andyrons xijd. }
}
Itm one Fyre forke & A old} }
Fyre Shouell } iiijd. }
}
The Buttrye Itm iij old brokyn table Clothes} }
Whereof one of Diap & iij } viijd. }
towelles } }
}
Itm a basen & A Ewyer of pewt’ xvjd. }
}
Itm iiij Candelstyckes of brasse xvjd. }
}
Itm ij small standes for ale vjd. }
}
Itm an alm’ye & a Cofer for} xijd. }
bredd } }
}
The Kechyn Itm iij small brasse pottes iijs. }
}
Itm ij small brasse pannes &} }
one lytle Cawdron } xvjd. }
}
Itm one ther lytle Cawdron of} viijd. } geaven to
brasse } } mr Secretary
} pagott
Itm one Chaffron xxd. }
}
Itm x platt’s (iij^s iiij^d) v pot} }
tyngers & v Sawcers (ij^s vj^d)}vs. xd }
}
Itm x Count’fett Dysshes xxd. }
}
Itm A Charger viijd. }
}
Itm A Mort’ of brasse & A} ijs. }
pestell of Iron } }
}
Itm iij pothangles & A barre} xvjd. }
of Iron } }
}
Itm one gredyron iiijd. one old} }
alm’ye ijd & A must’d mylle } xd. }
iiijd. } }
}
Itm a peyr of Cob’tes & ij broches xxd. }
}
The bruehowse {Itm ij furnes of ledd xxvjs. viijd. }
& bakehowse {Itm xiij Wort leddes in iij} xxijs. }
{frames } }
}
Itm one grett malt Fate vs. }
}
[Sidenote: [fol. 67]]
Itm one yelyng Fate vs. }
Itm a Cest’ne of ledd xxvjs. viijd. }
}
Itm a p’sse & a trowgh iijs. }
}
Itm a table bord viijd. }
}
Itm a bultyng Whynch iiijd. }
}
Itm ij treddes ijs. & ij. } ijs. viijd. }
trowghes viijd. } }
}
Itm a Moldyng table vjd. } £ s. d.
} vij iij ij
The Garden Itm ij gable Ropes ijs. }
}
Itm certen old ledd of glasse } }
Wyndowes } ijs iiij. { geaven to
Itm iij pypes of ledd & a pece } { mr S.
of ledd } vs. { pagott
}
Itm certen old tymb’ vnder the } }
garden & other old trasshe of } iijs. iiijd }
Frontes of tymb’ & Images } }
}
Itm one old lytle Fate viijd. }
}
Itm certen Shyngle xijd. }
}
Itm a old ladder ijd. }
}
The grett Hall { Itm iiij table bordes Wt } }
{ trestelles & Formes } xvjd. }
}
The Entrye { }
goying into { }
ye Deanes { Itm a table bord & ij formes viijd. }
Hall { }
}
The gret { Itm the Hangynges of Steynyd } xxd. }
Chamb’ { Saye } }
}
The Kynges { Itm the Hangynges of grene saye xxd. }
Chamb. { }
}
The vtt’ Hall Itm ij bordes Wt iiij formes viijd. }
Summa Totalis of the seyd }
Inuentorye } xljli. xiijs. ijd.
vij^{_li._} iiij^{_s._} iij^{_d._}
Forasmoche as these pcelles to ye value of vij^{_li._}
iiij^{_s._} iij^{_d._} [_sic_] byn delyu’yd
by the Kynges Ma’tes Offyc’s to s Wyllm Patgett[254] Knyght
for Whych he ys to answer the Kynges Hyghnes Sythens Whych
tyme the seyd s Wyllm Patgett hathe grawntyd oyr Implymtes
of hys beynge at the spytalles of Kepyer[255] to the
Kynges Ma’te beyng also of greater value Make therefore a
dyscharge of the seyd vijli. iiijs. iijd. and Redelyu’ that
Was made for the seid accordynglye Edward North
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 68]]
Salez
Heraft’ ensuyth the Salez made by the seyd
Richard Goodryck & John Scudamore at the
tyme of ther beyng at Burton aforeseyd.
Itm sold to Willm Dethyck }
Esquyer a vestmt & ij tynakles }
of old cheker velfett redd & } xxs.
blue Wt the albes }
Itm a Chesable of blue tartron }
Wt lyons & ij tynakles of blue }
tartron Wt half Moones & } xxs.
bryddes Wt thalbes sold to }
s Phelyp Draycott Knyght }
Itm sold to s Willm Bassett[256] }
Knyght a vestmt & ij tynakles } xvs.
of black velfett traylyd Wt }
grene & Whyt Daysies }
Itm sold to s Robt More An old }
Aut’r Front of Redd sylke } iijs.
braunchyd Wt Copp gold }
Itm sold to mr Dethyck an old }
brokyn Front of Cheker velfett } ijs.
Itm a blue pall off tartron Wt }
Daysies sold to s. Willm Bassett } ijs.
Itm A pece of A old pall of }
gyng’ Collor sylke & A pall of } iijs.
tawnye sylke }
Itm sold to John Stone a pece }
of a old pall of black Worstede } xxd.
& a old bann’ Clothe of Sylke }
Itm a Cope of blue tartron Wt }
lyons & bryddes sold to s } vjs. viijd.
Phelyp Draycott Knyght }
Itm a Cope of old base Redd }
velfett Wt lyons sold to s } xijs. iiijd.
Phelyp Draycott }
Itm a Cope of Crymsyn velfett }
braunchyd sold to s Phelyp } xiijs. iiijd.
Draycott }
Itm iij Copes of Count’fett }
bawdekyn Redd sold to mr } xxs.
Dethyck & mr Charnell }
Itm A Cope of brokyn velfett }
Wt Daysyes & a old Cope of }
Redd count’fett bawdekyn sold } xvjs.
to mr Dethyck }
Itm a Cope of Whyt sylke Wt }
Wheate eares sold to mr } vs.
Dethyck }
[Sidenote: [fol. 69]]
Itm a Cope of Cheker velfett }
sold to John ap Gllm } iijs. iiijd.
Itm V Copes of Count’fett }
bawdekyn & a old Cope of } xxxijs.
Whytt sylke sold to s Willm }
Bassett Knyght }
Itm A vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whyt sylke Wt gart’s & thalbes } vjs. viijd.
sold to mr Charnell }
Itm a vestment & ij tynakles of }
Redd say Wt albes sold to } vs.
mr Dethyck }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
grene Dornyxe Wt thalbes sold } vs.
to mr Welles }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
old count’fett bawdekyn Wt } xs.
thalbes sold to s Willm Bassett }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whyt bustian Wt albes sold to } iijs. iiijd.
mr Dethyck }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
old redd Sylke Wt flowres & } iiijs.
thalbes sold to mr Dethyck }
Itm a vestmt & ij tynakles of }
Whyt bustian Wtout albes sold } [xd.]
to mr Dethyck }
Itm a vestmt of blewe sylke Wt }
Whyt Daysies & ij tynakles Wt } xs.
thalbes sold to mr Dethyck }
Itm An Aut’ Front of Redd & }
grene sylke Wt vnycornes & } ijs.
A vestmt of Whyt fustian Wt }
a redd Crosse sold to John Stone}
Itm A vestmt of Redd & Whyt } iijs.
Dornyxe sold to mr Dethyck }
Itm A vestmt of old grene }
Damaske Wt An Albe sold to } ijs.
Robt Benett }
Itm A vestmt of tawnye sylke }
Wt yolowe bryddes & lyons } xijd.
old & brokyn sold to John ap }
Gllm }
Itm A vestmt of Whyt & }
tawnye sylke sold to mr Layton } xxd.
Itm A vestmt of black Worstede }
sold to s Willm Bassett } ijs.
[Sidenote: [fol. 70]]
Itm viijth [_sic_] Albes sold to } xxs.
mr More }
Itm iij quysshynges sold to }
s phelyp Draycott } viijd.
Itm a p’sse for the Copes sold }
to George Constantyne } xijd.
Itm ij grett Candelstyckes & }
one lytle peyr of organs sold to} xiijs.
s Willm Bassett }
Itm iiij Small Candelstyckes of }
latton sold to John Stone } ijs.
Itm a lectorne of Brasse sold to}
thuse of the p’ysshe of Burton } xxs.
Itm one peyr of Organs sold to }
thuse of the p’ysshe of Burton } vjs. viijd.
Itm one peyr of organs sold to }
mr Vnderton } iiijs.
Itm one old pyxe of Copp sold }
to Willm Scudamor[257] } xijd.
Itm ij Copes of blue velfett sold} liijs. iiijd
to Robt Benett }
Itm iiij Copes of Whyt Damaske }
sold to Robt Benett } xls.
Itm an Aut’ Front of Redd }
velfett & Cloth of Bawdekyn } xxxs.
raysyd Wt Redd velfett sold to }
Robt Bennett }
Summa of the Sales xxjli. iiijs. viijd.
p’. [_i.e._, _probatur_] re[m] xxli viijs. vjd.
RICHARD GOODRICK.
_John Scudamore._
[Sidenote: [fol. 71]]
ORNAMENTES OF THE CHURCH
dd vnto mr Tresorer
Itm A vestmt & ij tynakles of } }
Count’fett Tysshewe Wt thalbes} vjli }
to the same p’syd at } }
}
Itm A vestmt & ij tynakles of } }
Redd velfett Wt ij albes } ls. }
}
Itm A Cope of tawnye velfett } } dd to the
Wt An orffryes of Redd } xxvjs. } Treasor’
Turkye Satten } viijd. }
}
Itm iij Copes of Whyt Damaske } }
Wt Flowres of nedle Worke } xxxs. }
Wrowght } }
Summa xjli vjs. viijd.
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
Receuyd of John Morley at }
the tyme of the Dischargyng }
of the late College of Burton }
vpon Trent in the Countie of }
Staff for and towardes the }
paymt of A certen debt by }
hym owyng to the seyd late } xlviijli ijs. iiijd.
College vpon hys accompt }
then & ther made viz by hys }
owne handes xxxjli. & by }
thandes of s Robt More }
xvijli ijs. iiijd. }
[Sidenote: [fol. 72]]
Wages Rewardes & debtes y’ payd the xxiiijth day of Nouemb A° xxxvijmo
R. H. viijui by Richard Goodrick & John Scudamore Esquyers Appoynted by
the Ryght Worshypfull s Edward North Knyght Chauncellor of the Kynges
maiesties most honorable Court of Augmentacon in the name of the Kyng
or sou’aign lord for that purpose &c. Aswell to the petye Canons &
Syngyngmen Wt other mynysters & s’untes of the late Colledge of Burton
vpon Trent as also to such psons to Whom the Deane & Chaptor of the
same late Colledge Was Indebtyd vnto as heraft’ ensuyth
PETYE CANONS NEU’[258] RELIGIOUS
{Wages for one qart’ of} }
Fyrst to {a yere to be due at } ls. } iiijli.
s Willm Porter {Crystmas next } }
{Reward xxxs. }
Itm to {Wages as aforeseyd ls. }
s Willm Myln’ {Reward xxvjs. viijd.} lxxvjs. viijd.
{Wages as aforeseyd ls. }
Itm to {Reward for that he } }
s Robt Baslowe {ys appoyntyd to be } nll. } ls.
{ye chief Curat of } }
{burton } }
PETYE CANONS LATE RELIGIOUS
Itm to s Willm Sutton { Wages ls. } ls.
{ Reward nll. }
Itm to s John Hyern { Wages ls. } ls.
{ Reward nll }
Itm to s John Cart’ { Wages ls. } ls.
{ Reward nll }
Summa xvijli xvjs. viiid.
GOSPELLER
Itm to s Willm { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xlvjs. viijd.
Tomlynson { Reward xiijs. iiijd. }
Summa xlvjs. viijd.
[Sidenote: [fol. 73]]
PYSTELER LATE RELIGIOUS
Itm to s Willm Hether { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xxxiijs. iiijd.
{ Reward nll }
Summa xxxiijs. iiijd.
SYNGYNGMEN
Itm to Arthure { Wages ls. }
Buckenall mr of { Reward xxs. } lxxs.
the Choryst’s { }
Itm to John Bradshawe { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xlvjs. viijd.
{ Reward xiijs. iiijd. }
Itm to Richard Wylton { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xlvjs. viijd.
{ Reward xiijs. iiijd. }
Itm to Willm Band { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } liijs. iiijd.
{ Reward xxs. }
Itm to John Pem’ton { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xlvjs. viijd.
{ Reward xiijs. iiijd. }
Summa xiijli.] iijs. iiijd.
CHORYSTES
Itm to Symon Genyns { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. iiijd.
{ Reward vs. }
Itm to John Wylton { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. iiijd.
{ Reward vs. }
Itm to John Wylkynson { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. iiijd.
{ Reward vs. }
Itm to John Buckenall { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. vjd.
{ Reward vs. ijd. }
Itm to Ambrose Tete { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. iiijd.
{ Reward vs. }
[Sidenote: [fol. 74]]
Itm to John Coke { Wages xiijs. iiijd. } xviijs. iiijd.
{ Reward vs. }
Summa cxs. ijd.
DEACONS
Itm to John Stone { Wages xxs. } xxxs.
{ Reward xs. }
Itm to Willm Myln’ { Wages xxiijs. iiijd. } xxxs.
{ Reward vjs. viijd. }
Summa lxs.
P’YSSHE PRIST
Itm to Bartylmewe Kyrkby { Wages } xxxvs.
Summa p
SCOLE MR
Itm to Richard Harman { Wages } cs.
Summa pz
BEDEMEN
Itm to Thomas Breden Wages xxvs.
Itm to Robt Holder Wages xxvs.
Itm to John Bredon Wages xxvs.
Itm to Thomas Archard Wages xxvs.
Summa p^{ts}
COMON S’UANTES
Itm to John Blount gent in Wages & reward xxvs.
Itm to Willm Fysshewyck { Wages xs. } xvjs. viijd.
{ Reward vjs. viijd. }
[Sidenote: [fol. 75]]
Itm to xtofer palm’ { Wages xs. } xvijs.
{ Reward vijs. }
Itm to Willm Mathewe { Wages ijs. vjd. } iijs. ijd.
{ Reward xxd. }
Itm to Jamys Gylbt { Wages vs. } vs.
barbor { Reward nll }
Itm to Robt More { Wages xs. } xvjs. viijd.
p’yshe clerk { Reward vjs. viijd. }
Itm to Willm Mason { Wages xxxiijs. iiijd. } xxxiijs. iiijd.
bruge mr { Reward nll }
Itm to Willm port’ { Wages vjs. viijd. } viijs. iiijd.
{ Reward xxd. }
Itm to Avice Archard { Wages xd. } ijs. vjd.
launder { Reward xxd. }
Itm to Richard Burton { Turnebroche yn } [ijs.
{ Reward }
Itm to John Ledbett’ { Wages vs. } vjs. viijd.
appitor { Reward xxd. }
Summa vjli xvijs. iiijd.
Sma Totall of all }
Wages & Rewardes aforeseyd } xijli ijs. vjd. p’.
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 76]]
DEBTES PAYD Y’
Itm payd the xxiiijth day of Nouemb A° }
xxxvijmo R. H. viijui to John Lambert[259] }
baylyf of Aldestree & Appulbye for so }
moche money owyng vnto hym by the }
late Deanes & Chaptor of the seyd late } cvjs. viijd.
Colledge of Burton for hys Fee of _xxvjs }
viijd_ by yere due vnto hym for iiij yeres }
endyd at the Feast of Seynt Michaell }
tharchaungell last as app’yth in the boke }
of debtes }
Itm payd to John Stone late one of the }
Deacons y’ for so moche money by hym }
disbursyd for certen Wyne Waxe & } vijs.
tallowe candelles expendyd in the Church }
in the tyme of Dyvyne s’uys syns }
Michaelmas last }
Itm payd to Robt Bradshawe gent. port’ }
of the gates of the seyd late Colledge for }
pte of hys Fee of _lxs._ payable by the } xls.
Deane & Chaptor of the same late }
Colledge due vnto hym at Michaelmas last }
Itm payd to Nichas Burwey gent. vnderstuard }
& clerk of the Courtes holdyn }
Wtin the lordshyp of Burton for so }
moche money owyng vnto hym by the } xls.
seyd late Deane for his Fee of _xiijs. iiijd._}
by yere for exercysyng of the seyd office }
due for iij yeres endyd at Michaelmas last }
As App’yth in the boke of Debtes }
Summa ixli xiijs. viijd.
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 77]]
The Costes[260] & Charges of Richard Goodryck & John Scudamore Esquyers
appoyntyd by the Ryght Worshypfull s Edward North Knyght Chauncellor of
the Kynges maiesties most honorable Court of Augmentacon in the name
of the Kyng or sou’aign lord for takyng of An Inuentorye of the plate
Juelles ornamentes of the Church Wt the Implemtes & Stuff of howsehold
belongyng & appteynyng vnto the late Colledge of Burton vpon Trent in
the Countie of Staff surrendryd Rydyng from London vnto Burton & ther
contynuyng Wt ther Retorne from thens to London As heraft’ ensuyth.
Fyrst payd at London the xvjth day of }
Nouemb A° xxxvij R. H. viijui for } vs. iiijd.
mendyng of the Saddelles of the seyd }
John Scudamore }
Itm for Shoyng of ix horses of the seyd } iiijs. ixd.
John Scudamor }
Summa xs. jd.
THE XVIJTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Supp’ at Seynt Albons
In bredd viijd. Ale xvjd. Wyne nll. }
Mutton xxijd. beoff vjd. one Capon xvjd. } vjs. vjd.
one Cowple of Conyes xd. }
Itm payd for Fyre & Candelles xijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ that nyght vijs. vd.
Itm for mr palm’s[261] Horsemete Hys }
s’untes supp Wt Hys Drynkyng aft’ supp } xvijd.
& for Fyre }
Itm payd the xviijth day of Nouemb } viijd.
for brakefast y’ }
THE XVIIJTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Den’ at Bryckhyll[262]
In bredd viijd. Ale ixd. Wyne iiijd. Beoff }
viijd. Mutton iiijd. pygge vijd. & one } iiijs. ijd.
cowple of Conyes xd. }
Itm for Fyre y’ ijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ iijs. xjd.
Itm for Shoyng y’ vjd.
Summa xxvs. xjd. [_sic_]
[Sidenote: [fol. 78]]
Supp’ at Towcetr’
In bredd vjd. Ale xiijd. Wyne xiijd. }
Mutton xixd. Chekens viijd. Suyttes vjd. } vs. vijd.
Chese & Apples ijd. }
Itm for Fyre & Candelles y’ xvjd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ that nyght ixs. vjd.
Itm for Shoyng y’ iiijd.
Itm for brekefast y’ the xixth day of } xiijd.
Nouemb }
Summa xvijs. xd.
THE XIXTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Den’ at Dayntree[263]
In bredd vjd. Ale ixd. Wyne iiijd. beoff } iijs. vjd.
xvjd. Mutton vjd. Chese jd. }
Itm for Fyre ijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ ijs. xd.
Supp’ at Couentre’
In bredd iiijd. Ale xiijd. Wyne iiijd. & } iijs. vd.
Mutton xxd. }
Itm for Fyre & Candell y’ xvjd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ viijs. xjd.
Itm for Shoyng mendyng of Saddles & }
for a Drynche for a Horse } viijd.
Itm for Drynkyng in the mornyng y’ viijd.
Summa xxjs. vjd.
THE XXTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Den’ at Atherston
In bredd vd. Ale ixd. Wyne iiijd. Buttor } ijs. vjd.
iiijd. Egges iijd. Herryng jd. Chese iiijd }
Itm for Horsemete y’ xxjd.
At Burton that nyght
In bredd xd. Ale ijs. Buttor vd. Egges ijd. }
Chese iijd. Saltfysshe xd. Fresshefysshe } iiijs. xjd.
vd. }
Summa ixs. ijd.
[Sidenote: [fol. 79]]
AT BURTON THE XXJTH XXIJTH XXIIJTH & XXIIIJTH
DAYS OF NOUEMB’
Itm for xj Dossen of bredd xjs.
Itm for xlvij gallons of Ale At iiijd. the }
gallon } xvs. viijd.
Itm for one pottell of Wyne viijd.
Itm for vj lib. of Candelles at ijd. the lib. xijd.
Itm for pottes & cuppes iiijd.
Summa xxviijs. viijd.
THE XXJTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
In buttor viijd.
Itm for Egges vjd.
Itm for Saltfysshe xviijd.
Itm for Fresshe Fysshe xijd.
Summa iijs. viijd.
THE XXIJTH XXIIJTH & XXIIIJTH DAYS OF NOUEMB’
Itm for beoff vs. viijd.
Itm for Mutton iijs. iiijd.
Itm for veale xxd.
Itm for iiijor geese ijs.
Itm for ij pygges xiiijd.
Itm for iij Capons xvjd.
Itm for one Woodcock ijd.
Itm for black bryddes iiijd.
Summa xvs. viijd.
[Sidenote: [fol. 80]]
OTHER NECESS’IE P’UYC’ON
Itm for must’d ijd.
Itm for Vinegre iijd.
Itm for Salt iiijd.
Itm for Flowre to bake venyson xvd.
Itm for pep’ vjd.
Itm for Saffron ijd.
Itm for Suger iiijd.
Itm for small reasons iijd.
Itm for Chese & Apples viijd.
Itm for bastyng butt’ iiijd.
Itm for Fyre Wood vjs.
Itm payd to Thomas Ousbye beyng Coke } ijs.
for hys hyre }
Summa xijs. iijd.
Itm payd for iij of mr Goodryckes Horses } xs. viijd.
mete & for ij of mr palm’s Horsemete }
Itm payd for mendyng of mr Goodryckes }
Saddles & for shoyng of hys horses &c } vs. vjd.
As App’yth by a byll }
Itm payd for Shoyng of mr palm’s Horses }
& for ij drynches for hys seyd horses } xvjd.
Itm payd for Horsemete for ix of the } xviijs. viijd.
seyd mr Scudamors Horses }
Itm payd for Shoyng of the seyd mr }
Scudamors horses & for mendyng of his } iijs. viijd.
Sadelles at Burton }
Itm payd for a Saddell for the Cariage }
of the Kynges maiesties plate & ornamentes } iiijs.
of the Church from burton to }
london }
Itm payd for x yardes of Canvas to pack }
the seyd omamentes in & for a Maylyng } iiijs. iiijd.
Corde }
Itm payd for a Horse to Carrye the seyd }
plate & ornamtes } xxvjs. viijd.
Summa lxxiiijs. xd.
[Sidenote: [fol. 81]]
RETORNYNG TOWARDES LONDON
THE XXVTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Den’ at Atherston
In bredd vjd. ob Ale viijd. ob. beoff vjd. }
Mutton iiijd. one Capon vjd. one Chekyn } iijs. vd.
ijd. one Conye iiijd. Butt’ & Chese iiijd. }
Itm payd for Horsemete y’ for xv horses ijs. ixd.
Supp’ at Couentre
In bredd xd. Ale ijs. Wyne vjd. Mutton }
xvjd. one Cowple Conyes viijd. one Capon } vjs. viijd.
vjd. Wyldfowle vijd. Apples & Chese iijd. }
Itm for Fyre & Candelles y’ xiiijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ for xv Horses viijs. ixd.
Itm for Shoyng y’ viijd.
Itm for Drynkyng in the mornyng the }
xxjth day [_sic_] } vjd.
Summa xxiijs. xjd.
THE XXVJTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
Den’ at Dayntre
In bredd viijd. Ale xiiijd. Wyne viijd. }
beof ixd. Mutton ixd. A Mallard iiijd. } vs. iiijd.
iij Woodcockes vjd; Suyttes iiijd. Chese }
& Apples ijd. }
Itm for Fyre y’ iijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ iijs.
Supp’ at Towcetr
In bredd viijd. Ale xvijd. Wyne xd. }
Mutton xvjd. A Mallard vjd. one Conye } vjs. jd.
iiijd. Wyldfowle xd. Apples & Chese }
ijd. }
Itm for Fyre & Candelles y’ xviijd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ for xv Horses viijs. ixd.
Itm for Shoyng & mendyng of Sadelles y’ xiiijd.
Itm for Drynkyng y’ in the mornyng the } vjd.
xxvijth Day }
Summa xxvjs. vijd.
[Sidenote: [fol. 82]]
THE XXVIJTH DAY OF NOUEMB’
At Bryckhyll
Itm for Drynkyng y’ xixd.
Itm for Fyre jd.
Itm for Horsemete y’ ijs. vjd.
At Seynt Albones
Den’
In bredd viijd. ob. Ale xiiijd. Wyne iiijd. }
Butt’ iiijd. Egges ijd. oyst’s iiijd. Saltfysshe } vs. ijd. ob.
xiiijd. Herryng vd. Whyttynges }
vd. Chese & Apples ijd. }
Itm for Fyre & Candelles y’ xvid.
Itm for Horsemete y’ that nyght viijs. xjd.
Itm for drynkyng y’ in the mornyng the }
xxviijth day } xijd.
Summa xxs. vijd. ob.
Itm payd for the Hyre of iij Horses Hyryd }
by the seyd mr Goodryck by the space }
of xij days to Ryde from London to } xvijs. iiijd.
Burton aforeseyd for thexecutyng of }
mr Chauncellors Comaundemt aforeseyd }
Itm for iiij quere of pap’ xijd. one skynne }
of pchemt iiijd. for Waxe ijd. to Seale vp } xviijd.
the Evidences & Also the Inuentorye }
Indentyd }
Itm for the Costes & Charges of the seyd }
John Scudamore &c lyeng At London }
Aftr ther retome from Burton by the } xli.
space of viijth Days to make certyficat of }
ther Doynges & Also from thens Home }
Summa x to xviijs. xd. }
Summa Totalis of All the } xxvli. ixs. vjd. ob.
Expences Aforeseyd }
RICHARD GOODRICK.
JOHN SCUDAMORE.
[Sidenote: [fol. 83]]
Summa Totalis of All the charges } iiijxx xvij to
& paymtes exp’ssyd in thys boke } vs. viijd. ob.
[Sidenote: [fol. 84]]
Pencons assigned vnto the late Dean and p’bendaries petycanons and
other of the late colledge of Burton vppon Trent in the countie of
Staff’ surrendred to be payd at ij termes in the yere That is to say at
the feastes of thannucyacon of or lady and seint Michaell tharchangell
by even porcons
DEANE
Brocke xlli[264] [_sic_]
P’BENDARIES
Rudd xx m’kes[265] xvli [_sic_]
Robert More xvjli
Bull xx m’kes
PETICANONS LATE RELIGIOUS
Sir Willm Sutton vjli
Sir John Hyerne vjli xiijs. iiijd.
Sir John Carter vjli
PYSTELER LATE RELIGIOUS
Sir Willm Hether cs.
Summa cvjli vjs. viijd.
Sma totalis of thextraordynary }
charges wch remayne but at } lvj^{li.}
Kinges maiesties pleasure }
The some of all the charges ordynary }
and extraordynary conteyned in this }
boke amounteth to }
ij^c lix^{li.} xij^{s.} iiij^{d.} ob.
WYLLM MORLEY xls.
[Sidenote: [fol. 85]]
The Churche plate goodes & Cataill of the said late Colledge at the
Surrendre of the same.
{ { Gilte xlix oz. di }
{ Churche { pcell gilte (x) xxiijj oz. di } Clxvij oz Deliu’d to
{ plate { [_sic_] }
{ { White iiij^{xx} xiij oz.} s John Willyams Knight
{ Thes p Indent. Dat.
{ die A^o [_sic_]
{ xxxviij^o R. H. viijui
{ { Ornamentes Delui’d }
{ { to the said mr Thes }xjli vjs. viijd. p Ind p’d
{ { psed at }
{ { Ornametes sold by the}
viz in { { Comyssioners }xxjli iiijs. viijd. y’ Rec
{ { Implementes left in }vijli iijs. ijd. Assigned to
{ Orname’tes{ the house of the said}mr secretary pagett in
{ & { late Coll }liew of suche implemetes
{ Imple’tes { as he left at Kepier in
{ { Com. Ebor.
{ { Orname’tes valowed }lvjs. viijd. Assigned by
{ { worth }discrecon of the Comyssioners
{ { to thuse of the
{ { pisshe Church of Burton
{ Debtes { Dettes Dew to thouse }
{ { at the Surrendre }xlviijli ijs. iijd. y’ Rec^d.
{
{ r } Thesxjli vjs. viijd. cu’
{ Summa Totalis iiij^{xx}li. xiijs } clxvi oz. vnc. Argent.
{ viijd. r } Rec. lxixli vijs.
[Sidenote: [fol. 86]]
PAYME’TES made by the Comyssioners at the tyme of
the dissolucon of the said late Colledge
viz.
Wages & Rewardes of peti Canons }
Singingmen & other Ministers & } lxijli ijs. vjd.
s’untes of the Church there }
Paymet of Dettes Dew to sondry } ixli xlljs. viijd.
p’sounes }
The xpences of the said Comyssioners }
wth xli geaven in Reward for } xxvli ixs. vjd. ob.
there paynes }
Summa iiij^{xx} xvij^{li.} vs. viijd. ob.
And so the Rec’ restith in } xxvijli xviijs. vlljd. ob.
supplussage vpon this Reconing }
[Sidenote: [fol. 87]
[_Endorsed._]
[_Outside cover._]]
The Inventorie of the plate Ornamentes
goodes and Catailles of the Late Colledge
of Burton vpon Trente Deliu’d by Richard
Goodryck & John Scudamore esquiers
Comyssioners for that p’rpose Assigned.
Burton sup’ Trente.
APPENDIX XIII
DISSOLUTION OF BURTON COLLEGE: SCUDAMORE’S RECEIPT FOR GOODS UNSOLD
P. R. O. CHURCH GOODS, 8/24a.
[Sidenote: [_4 Dec., 1545._]]
This bill Indentyd made the iiijth of December in the xxxvijth
yere of the Raigne of or soueraigne lorde Kinge Henrye the eight
Witnessethe that I sr John Willms[266] Knight Tresoror of the courte
of Thaugmentacyons of the reuenues of or seyd soueraigne the Kinge
corone Haue Receuyd of John Scudamore esquyer Rceuor of the seyd courte
wthin the counties of Salope Worc’ Herefford and Stafford by thandes of
Willam Scudamore his sone Certen plate and ornamentes latlye belonging
to the late Colleidge of Burton apon [_sic_] Trent in the seid
countie of Staff’ as hereafter pticlerly is resyted
That is to seye
_Plate_
Fyrst iiijor Chalesis wth theyr patentes } xlix oz. di.
gylte weyng }
Itm ij Chalesie wth there patentes } xxxiij oz. iij. quart.
whight weing }
Itm a shippe wth a spone whight weying xij oz. quart.
Itm ij Sensers whight weying xlvij oz.
Itm the garnyshing of a Crosse p’cell gyllt } vj oz.
weying }
Itm the garnyshing of a gospell boke } xviij oz. di.
p’cel gilt weing }
_Orname’tes_
First on Vessement wth ij Tynnades of count’faite
tysshue wth albes to the same belonging.
Itm a vesment wth ij Tynnacles of Redd velwet and
ij albes to the same belonging
[Sidenote: _u_?]]
Itm a Cope of Taunnye velwet wth an offer[e]s of red
turkye satten
Itm iij Copes of whight damaske wth Flowers of nedle
worke wroght
In witnes whereof to this presentes I have sett to
my seale the daye and yere aboue writen.
JOHN WILLIAMZ.
APPENDIX XIV
LIST OF BOOKS AT BURTON ABBEY
(_British Museum. Addit. MS. 23,944. See p. 200._)
The following list shows what books the Abbey of Burton possessed in
the early part of the thirteenth century: it is not probable that
many of them had disappeared by the sixteenth century. If we had a
list of the books in the Abbey Library at the time of its Dissolution
we should be able to form some idea as to the extent to which the
Revival of Learning had influenced the monks there. Failing this we
may notice with interest the number and character of English books at
the end of this Catalogue, including _Apollonius Anglicus_ (see
note _infra_), which appears to be the only “pagan” book in the
collection.
The list begins _Hos habet Libros Ecclesia Burtonne_, and the
succeeding entries are therefore in the accusative case, _e.g._,
“Bibliothecam in duobus codicibus.” I have, however, printed them in
the nominative throughout.
_Bibliotheca_[267] in duobus codicibus
Omeliarum ab Adventu usque Pascham }
et _Vita Sanctae Moduennae_ } in uno codice
et Bernardus, _super “Missus est [Angelus”]_[268]}
Psalterium secundum Augustinum in tribus voluminibus
Augustinus, _de Civitate Dei_
Augustinus, _super Johannem_
Augustinus, _de sermone Domini [in Monte]_ }
et _de decem cordis_[269] }
et _contra quinque haereses_ } in uno codice
et Ieronimus, _super Josue_ }
Augustinus, _Exameron_[270]
Augustinus, _Contra Iulianum [haeresis Pelagianae defensorem]_
Augustinus, _de Disciplina Christianorum_ }
et ejusdem _epistola ad quendam comitem_[271] } in uno codice
Regula Sancti Augustini a quodam exposita }
et cantica psalterii } in uno codice
et Hugo, _de Disciplina Novitiorum_[272] }
Hugo, _super Ecclesiasten_[273]
Gregorius, _super Job_, in tribus voluminibus[274]
_Dialogus_ Gregorii[275] } in uno codice
et liber qui vocatur _scintillarum_[276] }
Gregorius, _super Ezechielem_
_Pastoralis_ Gregorii[277]
Liber xl omeliarum Gregorii[278]
Registrum [Epistolarum] Gregorii in duobus codicis
Ambrosius, _super “Beati Immaculati”_[279]
Ambrosius, _de Officiis [Ministrorum]_ }
et Hugo, _de Archa Noe_[280] } in uno codice
et Beda, _de situ [urbis] Ierusalem_ }
Beda, _super Lucam_
_Hystoria Anglorum_ secundum Bedam
Item alius liber vetustior
Decem collationes patrum }
et Liber qui vocatur _Paradisus_[281] } in uno volumine
Vitae patrum
Robertus,[282] _super Canticum Canticorum_}
et _Sinonima_ ysidori[283] }
et Liber Effrem[284] } in uno codice
et _Regula_ Sancti Basilii }
et _Decessus Bedae presbyteri_ }
Item, _Canticum Canticorum_ cujus auctorem ignoramus
_Prognosticon futuri sacculi_[285]
Ailredus, _de Oneribus ysaiae_[286] }
et _Didascalion_ Hugonis[287] } in uno codice
_Speculum Karitatis_
Prosper,[288] } in uno volumine
et _Diadema Monachorum_ }
_Miracula Sanctae Mariae_
_Vita Sanctae Moduennae_ quam Martinus scripsit[289]
et alia quam Briennius scripsit[290]
Item alia antiquissima
Passionale Octobrii et Decembrii mensis }
_Vita Sanctae Katerinae_ } in uno codice
et Sancti Martini }
_Sermones_ Yvonis carnotensis[291]
_Leviticus_ glosatus[292]
Anselmus, _Cur Deus Homo_
Item Anselmus, _de processione Spiritus Sancti_
Rodbertus, _de Corpore et Sanguine Christi_[293]
Compotus[294] Gaufridi Abbatis[295]
_Interpretationes Hebraicorum nominum_[296]
Quidam liber _de Titulis Psalterii_
_Vita Sanctae Werburge_
_Vita Sancti Edwardi_
_Vita Sancti Basilii_
_Vita Sancti Blasii_
_Vita Sancti Nicholai_
_Vita Sancti Johannis eleymonis_[297] }
et liber qui vocatur _Dominus vobiscum_ }
et _Vita Sancti Dunstani_ }
_Vita Sancti Leonardi_
_Passio Sanctae Agathae et aliorum_, in magno quaternione[298]
_Vita Sanctae Martae[299] Egyptiacae_ versibus insignita
Arator, _super Acta Apostolorum_[300]
_Sinonima_ Ysidori in parvo libro[301]
Sex libri Sententiarum qui fuerant Bernardi Abbatis[302]
Duo capitularia[303] vetusta
Ymnarium cum aureis litteris
_Epistolae Apostolorum Canonicae_
Omeliarium vetustissimum
Sermones Paschales Sancti Cesarii[304]
Ernaldus, _de Villico iniquitatis_[305]
Martirologia duo vetera }
et unum novum }
Regula duo vetusta
Omeliarium anglicum
Psalterium anglicum
Passionale anglicum
_Dialogus_ Gregorii[306]
et _Historia Anglorum anglica_
_Apollonius_ anglicus[307]
Evangelistae anglicae
Ymnarium anglicum
Hugo Abbas Radingensis,[308] _de quibusdam questionibus_.
INDEX
CHIEFLY OF PERSONS AND PLACES
Abbots Bromley, 59, 77, 79, 81, 84, 86, 90
Abingdon, Nicholas, Abbot of Burton, 89
Acton Trussell, 116
Admaston, 116
Akers, Henry, 123
Albrighton, 93
Alcock, Bishop of Ely, 19
Aldelem, Aldelegh, 68, 104, 117
Aldington (Kent), 183
Aldred, Archbishop, 9
Alenn, Elizabeth, 198
Aleynn, John, 103
Alfrike, Archbishop, 90
Algar, 9
Alien Priories, 19, 28, 31
Allen, Thomas, Abbot of Hulton, 195
Allestree, Allstrye, 69, 70, 79, 86, 89, 90, 149
Alms, 1, 3, 60, 86, 89, 90, 111, 128, 207
Almo, John, 168, 222
Alton (Staffs.), 13, 62, 63, 68, 96, 97, 98, 99, 110, 130
---- Thomas, Prior of Ronton, 112
Amerton, 116
Amyas, Robert, 21
Andrasia, 79
Anglesey, Marquis of, 201
Annates Bill, 43, 44
Anselm Spot, 90
Anslow, 77, 81, 86, 119
Apeton, 112, 114, 115, 117
Appeals to Rome, Act in restraint of, 44
Appleby, 90
Appropriations, 2, 3, 15, 117, 118
Ap Rice, 137
Apultre, 127
Arberton Grange, 115, 116, 181
Archdeacon, 70, 71, 98, 103, 108, 111, 117, 120, 123, 128, 199
Arnold, Richard, 167, 191
Arnulph, Feast of St., 100
Ashbourne, 98, 99, 116, 122
Assarting, 112
Aslebury, 104
Asten, Robert, 107
Astley, Thomas, 113
Aston, 112, 114, 119, 120, 121
---- Sir Edward, 25, 120, 203
Atkyn, James, 147
Audlem, 148
Audley, 68, 108
Audley, George, 54
---- Henry de, founder of Hulton Abbey, 14
---- Lord, 102
---- Sir Thomas (Chancellor), 60, 75, 83, 91
Augmentations, Court of, 56, 139, 144, 145, 147, 163, 171, 176
Aunay, 13, 97
Austin Canons, 10, 11;
Staffs. houses, 10, 30;
Wolsey’s regulations, 22
---- Friars. _See_ Friars
Bachaker, 112
Bache, 204
Bacon, Richard, 10
Bageley, Robert, 190, 239, 242
Bagford, 103
---- Thomas, 204
Bagley, William, 117, 204
Bagnall, William, 169
Bagot, John, 88, 89
---- Thomas, 77, 116
Bagott, Stephen, 170, 257
Baguley, Thomas, 172, 190, 232
Baker, Hugh, 117, 204
---- Robert, 204
Bannebury, Thomas de, 80
Bannockburn, 96
Bar, Magna and Parva, 23
Barkley, 123
Barleston, 68, 123, 124
Barley, Hugh, 90
Barnes, Randall, 190
Bassett, Francis, 127, 158, 159, 160, 169, 176, 255
---- William, 36, 54, 55, 110, 158, 168, 264, 265, 266
Beauchief, 205
Beaulieu, 13 n.
Bech, Beche, 204, 233
Beche, William, 168, 196, 222
Becket, Archbishop, 10, 39
Bednall, 116
Belfeld, John, 87
Benedictines, 12, 14, 87
Bennett, Henry, 190
Bentley Park, 77
Berkswick, 58, 68, 117, 120, 181
Berreston, 195
Beyne, Abbot of Burton, 17, 81, 89
Bible, 95, 201
Biddulph, 6, 210
Billington, 112, 113
Billysdon, John de, Abbot of Croxden, 95
Biscopham, 102
Bitterstone, 24
Black Death, 32, 72, 96, 109
Blackmore, 93
Blithburgh, 23 note
Blithbury, 23 note, 94
Blithfield, 69, 79, 111
Blore Park, 143
Blount or Blunt, Edward, 62, 105, 106
---- John, 98
---- George, 141
---- Walter, 54
Blurton, 122, 124
Blythe, Geoffrey, Bishop of Lichfield, 26, 27, 30, 35, 42, 112
Boleyn, Anne, 43, 44
Bolton, Edmond, 190
Bond, William, 168
Bonye, Peter, 197
Boston, William, Abbot of Burton and afterwards of Westminster, 43,
44, 45, 47, 48, 74, 83
Bothe, John, 157, 175
Boudon, William, 172, 190, 232
Boughey, George, 117, 233
Boyston, Thomas, 90
Brabazon, William, 24, 36 and note, 37
Bradborne, 124
Bradley, 68, 93, 110, 111
Bradnop, 107, 108
Bradshawe, Robert, 177
Bradwall, or Bradwell, Laurence, 123
---- ---- John, 193
---- ---- Thomas, Prior of Trentham, 122, 193, 195
Brailsford, 127
Branstone, 77, 86, 90
---- William, Abbot of Burton, 81
Brazenose College, 20
Bredehurst, Henry, 123
Brenn’, Hugh, 117
Brewood, Cistercian Nunnery, 92, 141, 209
---- Benedictine Nunnery, 14, 18, 62, 64, 67, 71, 92–4, 203, 204;
_Dissolution_, 138, 162, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 179, 189, 198,
199. App. iii
_See_ Prioress Isabel Launder
Bridgnorth, 108
Brocke, or Brooke, Dr., 177, 191
Brodsha, Thomas, 155
Broke, Mr., 130, 156
---- St. Mary, 138
Broley, Nicholas, 167
Brome, 92, 93
Bromley Hurst, 77, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 130
Browne, Robert, 117
Brucheford, 112, 114
Brugge, William del, 101
Brykylbake, John, 168
Buckinghamshire, 7
Buildwas Abbey, 205
Bulle, Roger, 191
Burbank, William, 23, 25
Burchard, 9
Burdeslyme, 108
Burgh, Hubert de, 39
---- Robert, 103, 242
Burgoyn(e) Robert, 145, 163, 165, 175
Burnet, Archbishop Gilbert, quoted, 2, 4
Burston, 120, 121
Burton-on-Trent, 69, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 177, 196
---- Abbey, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, 30, 43, 47, 60, 74, 80, 81, 86, 95,
96, 98, 106, 129, 130, 131, 139, 149, 150, 157, 176, 201, 207
Annals, 9, 74 and note, 200
Cook, 81
Library, 200. App. xiv
Manor Court, 84
In _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69,
70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86, 129, 179
Dissolution, 160, 177, 203
College, 177, 191. App. xii, xiii
Pensions, 190, 191
_See_ Abbots Abingdon, Beyne, Boston, Branstone, Edie, Felde,
Geoffrey, Nicholas, Packington, Richard, and Sudbury
---- Grammar School, 81, 177
Burton Overy, 98
Burwey, Nicholas, 177
Bushbury, 58, 68, 116, 117, 120
Butler, Thomas, 102
Byddel, 68, 108
Bykerton, John, 190
Byssheton, 116
Byveley, 103
Cade, or Keydr, Robert, 168, 196, 222
Calder, 100
Calton, 98, 100, 128
Calwich Priory, 8, 10, 18, 30, 31, 32
Dissolution, 30, 33–41, 42, 44, 45, 139, 189, 198
_See_ Dr. Pole
Cambryngham, 68, 107, 108, 204
Cannock Chase, 12, 15, 114
Canwell Priory, 11, 18, 22
Dissolution, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Cariswell, 68, 113, 117
Carte, Reginald, 113
Carter, John, 191
Casterne, 98
Cauldon, 69, 79, 84, 98, 99, 100, 130, 177
Cauldwell, 78, 84, 90
Cavendish, William, 140, 162, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 197
Caythorpe, 100
Cellarer, 101
Cells, 31, 139
Chad, St., 137, 159
Chaldon, 122, 123, 124
Chamberlain, Abbot’s, 103
Chantries, 15, 63, 69, 70, 86, 109, 111
Chard, Thomas, Abbot of Forde, 50, 99
Charity, Monastic, 1, 3, 60, 86, 89, 90, 111, 128, 207
Charnels, Walter, 90, 258
Chawner, or Chalner, Thomas, Abbot of Croxden, 97, 145, 168, 222
Cheadle, 95, 97, 98
Checkley, 98, 120
Cheddleton, 103
Cherinton, Robert, 190
Chester, 35, 102, 103, 205
---- Earls, of, 9, 14, 121
Chetwen, Chetwynd, Philip, 117, 233, 235
----, ---- William, 98, 116, 123, 203
Chichele, Archbishop, 19
Chillington, 93
Chirton Cestria, 103
Church Broughton, 68, 127, 128
Churches, Parish, and Monasteries.
_See_ Appropriations
Churchill, 105
Churnet, river, 100
Chyltrenhall Prebend, 113
Cistercians, 11, 12, 67, 71, 94, 192
---- Reformator of, 50, 99, 192
Citeaux, 94
Clanford, 112, 114
Clarke, Robert, 168, 196, 222
Clayborough, Dr., 28 and note
Clement VII, Pope, 23, 43
Cleyton Gryffin, 122, 123, 124
Cleyton, Rose, 116
Clifton, John, 23
Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield, 10, 27
---- Geoffrey de, 13
Clownholme, Le Clownams, 110
Cluniac Houses in Staffordshire, 11, 22
Cocke, James, 117
Coke, John, 62, 105, 106, 194, 264
Cokenage, 122, 124
Cokysland, 112, 114
Colet, Dean of St. Paul’s, 26
Colman William, 166, 252, 253
Collingwood, 77
Colton, 116
Colyer, James, 147
Combermere Abbey, 103, 205
Combridge, 110
Comperta, 137
Convocation, 30, 42, 43, 55, 87
Coots, 107, 109
Coppenhall, 120, 121
Corbet, Ranold, 168, 223
Corbet, Roger, 93
Corden, John, 103, 194
Corke, Ralf, 168
Cornwall, 7
Corpus Christi, 90, 128
Corrodies, 15, and note, 16, 21, 60, 62, 76, 80, 86, 87, 90, 96,
110, 118, 122, 123, 125, 203
Corveysor, Richard, 197
Coston, 23
Coton, 115, 117
Cotton, 114
---- Humphrey, 191
Courtenay, Thurston, 128
Courts of the Manor, 77, 78, 85, 90, 102, 103, 104, 109, 111, 115,
116, 120, 121, 124, 127, 131
Coventry, 108, 117, 120, 129
Cowley, 113, 114
Crakemarsh Grange, 100
Cranmer, Archbishop, 47, 83, 159, 160, 169, 176
Cromwell, Thomas: concerned in Wolsey’s Dissolutions, 23, 25, 29;
and Calwich, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40,
and Appointments to Monasteries 43, 44, 45, 74, 126, 205
and Tenths, 54, 57
Dissolution of Monasteries, 52, 133, 134, 137, 140, 141, 142,
143, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161,
171, 175, 176
Crosse, William, 190
---- Thomas, 116
Croxden Abbey, 8, 13, 17, 18, 30, 42, 50, 51, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68,
71, 94–100, 102, 110, 116, 130, 131, 192, 201, 202, 203
Chronicle, 94–6, 200
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 97–9, 179
Dissolution, 138, 145, 163, 168, 169, 176, 186, 199, 203. App. ii
and ix
License to continue, App. i
Pensions, 190, 195, 196
_See_ Abbots Billysdon, Chawner, Howton, John of London, and
William de Over.
Cumberland, 7
Cunningham, Dr., quoted, 81, note
Curson, 36, 38
Dalbury, 124
Damport (or Davenport) William, 103, 173, 194 and note, 195, 242,
243
Darlastone, 77, 119, 120, 121
Daun, Richard, 103
Dave, George, 168
Dawley, 93
Day, Richard, 196
Dayne, John, 168
Demesne, 77, 78, 98, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114,
115, 119, 121, 122, 124, 127, 128, 142
Denstone, 100, 110, 111
Derby, 78, 81, 84, 98, 111, 128, 130
---- Lord Edward, 103, 162, 170, 174, 193, 203, 204, 205, 237, 241,
242
Derbyshire, 7
Dieulacres Abbey, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68,
71, 95, 107, 131, 139, 148, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 197, 201,
207
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 102, 103, 179, 204
Dissolution, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 and note, 175, 187, 193,
199, 203, 204, App. ix
Pensions, 190, 195, 196
_See_ Abbots Goodfellow, Whitmore, and Whitney
Dijon, 94
Doddington, 114
Domesday Book, 75
Dorynton, Dorrington Robert, 165, 201, 246, 247, 249
Dove, River, 167
Dover, Bishop of. _See_ Ingworth
Doveridge, 68, 98, 127, 128
Doveridge Holt, 127
Draycott, 130
---- Edmund de, 101
---- or Dreycote, Philip, 107, 203, 204, 264, 265, 266
Drayngton, 116
Drayton, 24, 115, 117
---- Edmund de, 101
Duddlestone, 105
Dudley, 23, 59, 105, 106
---- Prebendary Arthur, 159
---- Lord Edward, 25
---- Priory, 6, 11, 18, 30, 58, 59, 62, 64, 67, 70, 71, 92, 139,
202
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 104–6, 179
Dissolution, 194, 199, 203
_See_ Prior John Webley
Dudley, Sir John, 6, 105, 116, 194
Duffield, 127
Dulverne, 113
---- Richard de, Prior of Trentham, 122
Duranstrope, 116
Durham (County), 7
Dutton, Sir Piers, 46 and note
Easter Communion, 11, 110, 111
East Molesey, 39
Eccleshall, 112, 113
Edelston, 128
Edensor (Derbyshire), 68, 110, 111
Edensore, Edward, 90
Edie, William, Abbot of Burton, 47, 82, 137, 149, 177, 191
Ednaston, 127
Educational work of Monasteries, 3, 17, 86
Edulneston, 127
Edward I, 16, 109, 118
---- II, 16, 80, 96, 106, 122
---- III, 15, 17, 76, 80
Edwin and Morcar, 9
Egerton, Richard, 116
Elford, 24
Elizabeth, Queen, 41, 45, 174 and note
Elkeston, 122, 123, 195
Ellaston (“Glaston”), 31, 34, 98 and note, 100, 110, 130, 198
Ellenhall, Elynhall, 112, 114, 195
Ellerton, 112
Erdeswick, Sampson, quoted 41, 195
Essex, William, 113
Esteleke, 128
Esyng, 103, 104
Etheldred, King, 90
Everest, Robert, 149
Fairs, 17, 190
Fairwell Nunnery, 14, 18, 27, 28
Fanne, Thomas, 166, 255
Farysley, 24
Feccham, 23
Felde, Thomas de, Abbot of Burton, 17, 89
Fenny Compton, 123
Fenton, 127
Ferny, George, 190
Ferrers, Henry de, Founder of Tutbury, 9, 129
Ferrers, Earl, 116, 117, 194, 203, 235
---- Robert de, 115
Field, 77, 88, 102
Fillingham, 107, 109
Findern, 79, 191
First Fruits, Bill for, 52
Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 19
Fitzherberts, 38, 40, 70, 168
Flashbrook, 112
Fleet Prison, 41
Fleetwood, John, 40, 41
Forde, Prior of, 50, 51, 191, 192
Foresters, 103, 194, 204
Forest Laws, 15, 114
Forman, John, 169
Fort, Thomas, Prior of Stone, 20, 119
Foston, 110
French Wars. _See_ “100 Years’ War”
Friars, 14, 52, 129, 150, 151, 157, 183, 185, 211
Frideswide’s, St., Oxford, 22
Frith, le, 103, 104, 195
Frodswell, 115, 117
Froude, J. A., quoted, 1, 183
Fulford, 121
Fulling Mills, 15, 111, 121, 130
Furnivalls, 96
Fyndern, 36, 38, 90
Fyssher, William, 191
Fyton, Sir Thomas, 119
Gaddesby, 123
Gairdner, Dr., quoted 2, 139 note
Gallows, 100
Gasquet, Dr., quoted 2, 139 note
Gaunt, Robert, 128
Geoffrey, Abbot of Burton, 200
Geyton, 68, 117
Giffard, Mr., 175
Gifford (or Gyfford), John, 6, 25, 36, 54, 55, 93, 113
----, ---- Thomas, 54, 55, 116, 225, 227
Glaston = Ellaston, q.v.
Glebe, 67, 68, 79, 102, 117, 124
Gloucester College, Oxford, 87
Gnosall, 112, 113
Goodcole, John, 191
Goodfellow, John, Abbot of Dieulacres, 101
Goodrich, Richard, 177, App. xii
Gordon, John, 103
---- Richard, 190
Gorton, Dan Richard, 83
Gostree, 104
Gostwick, John, Treasurer of First Fruits, 40
Grafton, George, 168
---- William, Abbot of Rocester, 109, 168, 193, 195
Great Gate, 100, 195
---- Meadow, 110
Green, J. R., quoted, 2
Grenburgh, 68, 113, 114
Grene, Alexander, 151
Gresley, George, 54, 55, 116
---- Nicholas, 35
---- Thomas, 149
---- Thomas de, 87
Greswike, Sampson, 147
Grindley, 116
Grindon, 69, 79
Grosvenor, John, 54, 55
---- Richard, 103, 242
Gynne, Richard, 123
Hadford, 103
Halghton, 112
Halywell, 109
Hampton, 94
---- Court, 28
Hamstall Ridware, 69, 79
Hanchurch, 122, 124
Hanyate, 116
Harborne, 23
Harcourt, Harecourt, John, 113, 203
----, ---- Robert, 195
----, ---- Richard, 39
----, ---- Simon, 140, 141, 142, 144
Hargreaves, Henry, 197
---- Laurence, 197
Harmon, Bishop of Exeter, 26
Harvey Richard, 172, 190, 232
---- William, 117
Hartshorne, 98
Hastings, Lord, 142, 160
Hatton, 128
Haughmond Abbey, 10, 112, 113
Heathhouse Grange, 112, 114
Heath Mill, 197
Heith, Richard, 158
Heithcott, Robert, 191
Hendon, Thomas, 168, 222
Hennege, Thomas, 171
Henry I, 13
---- II, 13
---- III, 14, 94, 109, 118
---- IV, 87, 88, 115, 125
---- V, 19
---- VI, 17, 109
---- VIII, 16, 19, 21, 26, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, 50, 55, 80, 99, 122,
130, 134
Henyngton, 94
Herefordshire, 7
Heron, John, 191
Heth, Roland, 127, 195
Hether, William, 191
Hevedale, 112, 114
Hevehall, 112, 113
Heyton, 103, 104
Higdon, John, Dean of Cardinal’s College, 24, 25
Hilderstone, 120, 121
Hilton, Hylton, Roger, 167, 195
Hodgetts, 159
Hoggson, John, 113
Hognaston, 110
Holcroft, Mr., 149
Hollington, Holington, 127, 128
Holond, Holland, Otto, 116, 117
Holte, Thomas, 54
Hopton, 116
Hornington, 77
Hospitality, 1, 16, 118
Horsbrook, 92 and note
Horton, 103
Howton, Abbot of Croxden, 94
Hulme, 104
Hulton, 130
Hulton Abbey, 6, 14, 18, 30, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 95,
98, 106–9, 124, 130, 131, 196
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 107, 108, 179, 204
Dissolution, 138, 145, 163, 169, 171, 186, 199, 203. App. xi
Pensions, 195
_See_ Abbots Allen, John, and Wilkyns
Hulton Manor, 107, 108
Hunchedial, 100
Hundred Years’ War, 72, 96, 124
Huntingdon, George, Earl of, 90, 193, 203
---- Francis, Earl of, 193
Hyll, William, 127
Hyns, 24
Ilam, 69, 79, 86, 101
Images, 158
Indulgences, 31
Ingworth, Bishop of Dover, 130, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,
175, 184
Injunctions, 135
Insolvency of Monasteries, 96, 184, 187
Ironmonger, Thomas, 123
Isabella, Queen, 76
Jermy, John, 191
Jerusalem, Knights of St. John of, 53 and note, 116, 124
Jews, 15
John, Abbot of Hulton, 106
Katherine of Aragon, 43
Keele, 15, 19
Kelyng, John, 112, 113
---- Thomas, 168, 222
Kenilworth Abbey, 10, 30, 32, 40, 118, 119, 120
Kent (County), 7, 57
Keydr (or Cade), Robert, 168, 196, 222
Kidderminster, 93
Kirk Broughton. _See_ Church Broughton
Knighton, 112, 113
Knutsford, 103
Kybbulston, 122, 123, 124
Kyngeley, 111
Kynston, 68, 110
Labourers, Statute of, 88
Lambert, John, 90, 271
Lamp, Endowment of, 69, 86, 89
Lancashire, 7, 102
Lancaster, Earls of, 95, 121, 124, 125
Lane, Richard, 127
Langley, 98, 128
Langton, Archbishop, 14
Lapley Priory, 9, 118
Suppression of, 19
---- Rural Deanery of, 55, 61, 63
Lateran Council, 67
Latimer, Bishop, 150
Launde Stockton, 112
Launder, Isabel, 92, 189, 195, 227, 228
Laundresses, 178
Lavynden, Richard de, Prior of Trentham, 121
Layton, Dr. Richard, 133, 134, 136, 138, 158, 201, 224
Leases, 72
Lee, 116
---- Roland, Bishop of Lichfield, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52, 54, 57,
60, 126, 142, 143, 145, 148, 152, 157, 160, 161, 162, 170,
172, 185, 229, 234
Leek, 8, 14, 62, 63, 68, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 172, 196, 204
Lees, Thomas, 107
Lees, 15, 109
Legh, Geoffrey, 195
---- Dr. Thomas, 133, 134, 136, 138, 158, 160, 162, 167, 170, 171,
172, 173, 176, 193, 197, 224
Leicester, Archdeacon of, 98
Leicestershire, 99, 113, 123, 128
Leigh, 69, 77, 79
Lenton, 149
Leo X, Pope, 22
Lepers, 14
Leveson (Loveson, Luson), John, 6, 164, 165, 210, 246, 247, 249,
251
_Liber Regis_, 83, 200, 201
Libraries, Monastic, 95, 200, 201
Lichfield, 8, 14, 16, 27, 28, 36, 47, 59, 116, 134, 136, 137, 151,
155, 196
---- Bishop, 62, 63, 70, 71, 86, 92, 106, 108, 113, 115, 116, 117,
120, 123, 124, 127, 185, 199, 229
---- Cathedral, 27, 62, 63, 70, 86, 111, 120, 137, 159
---- Dean and Chapter, 28, 62, 70, 71, 86, 108, 117, 120, 128, 185,
236
---- Grey Friars, 14, 18, 150, 151, 163, 166, 184, 199, 209. App.
vii
---- Michael de, 95
_See_ Bishops Blythe, Clinton, Lee, Limesey, Longsword, Norbury,
Peche, Smythe, Stretton.
Lights, Endowment of, 15, 69, 86, 89
Lilleshall Abbey, 205
Limesey, Bishop of Lichfield, 10
Lincoln, 107, 108, 109
Lincolnshire, 7, 107
Littleover, 79
Littleton, Edward, 25, 54, 55, 90, 235
---- Mr., 171
Lisle, Lord, 24
Loke, Thomas, 190
London, 7, 52, 84, 98, 100, 169, 177
---- John of, Abbot of Croxden, 95
Longford, 98
---- Ralf, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40;
Junr., 41
Longnor, 103
Longsword (Longespee), de Meulan (or Meyland), Bishop of Lichfield,
118
Longton, 102, 122, 123, 124
Lont, Thomas, 151
Loughtonhouse, John, 168
Lowe, 103, 104
Lupton, John, 23
Lymforde, John, 155
Lyttleton, Mr., 160
Macclesfield, Earl of, 201
Madeley, 121
Maintenance, 38, 101
Mainwaring, Ralf, 90
Manor Courts, 77, 78, 85, 90, 102, 103, 104, 109, 111, 115, 116,
120, 121, 124, 127, 131, 205
Marchington, 116
Markets, 17
Marshalsea, 101
Marston, 68, 127, 128
Master, Richard, 183
Matherfield, 68, 127, 128
Matilda, Empress, 12, 121
Mere, Meyre, 68, 115, 117, 122, 124
Merivale, 176
Merton Priory, 39, 40
Meverell, Arthur, Prior of Tutbury, 125, 126, 145, 167, 191
---- Humfry, 127
Meynell, Henry, 90
Meyre, Richard, 168, 196, 222
Mickleover, 69, 78, 79, 81, 86, 90
Middlesex, 7
Middlewick, 98, 102, 103, 104, 194
Mills, Fulling, 15, 111, 121, 130
---- Water, 77, 78, 84, 99, 104, 108, 113, 114, 115, 122, 123, 124,
127, 130
Milwich, 6, 68, 113, 120, 121
Misterton, 98
Modwen’s, St., Chapel, 69, 79
----, -- Image, 158, 176
_Monasticon_, quoted 91; Chap. VI, _passim_
Monmouthshire, 7
Montacute Priory, 50
Moore, Robert, 191
Morality of Religious, 72, 184
Morcar, 9
More, 108, 130
---- Sir Thomas, 47, 48, 52, 133
Moreton, John, 54, 57
---- Thomas, 120, 191, 227
Morley, Richard, 90
Moseley, John, 191
---- Richard, 191
Motesset, Rauffe, 190
Mountjoy, Lord, 98, 124
Mountstrell, 98
Mulneston, 127, 130
Musden Grange, 98, 99, 100, 176
Myfford, Meyford, 121, 124
Mylward, Henry, 127
Myxton Heyes, 108
Nakerer, John le, 76
Nantwich, 114
Nativi, 83, 85
Needham, John, 111
Needwood Forest, 127
Newbalt, Newbold, 103, 104
Newcastle-under-Lyme, 14, 112, 123, 124
---- Dominican Friary, 5, 14, 18, 129, 130, 150, 155, 156, 157,
175, 199, 211
---- Rural Deanery, 62, 63
New Learning, 20, 29, 72
Newport (Salop), 113, 114
Newstead, 122, 124
Newton, 116
---- John, 87
Nicholas, Abbot of Burton, 17, 81
---- IV’s _Taxatio_, 131
Nigel, Fitz, 10, 30, 35
Norbury, 70, 127
---- Bishop of Lichfield, 11, 16, 27, 109, 110, 112, 118, 125
Noel, Fitz, 10
Norbrook, 102
Normacot, 107, 130
North, Sir Edward, 271
Northfield, 105
Northumberland, 7
Northwich, 108
Norton (Leics.), 68, 97
Norton, East, 100
---- Thomas, 167
Norwich, Diocese, 53
Nunneries, 14, 92, 192
Oaken, Oken, 98, 99
Oblations, 79
Offley, 112, 114
Okeover, Oker, 35, 37, 77, 109, 177
Oldall Grange, 114
Olton, 116
Omburn, 104, 106
Oncott, 98
Orpe, John, 168, 195, 196, 222
Orslow, 112, 114
Orton, Walter, 168, 223
Osmaston, Osmonston, 127
Over, William de, Abbot of Croxden, 95, 201
Overton, 127
Oxford, St. Bernard’s College (now St. John’s), 50
Brazenose College, 20
Cardinal’s College, 22, 24, 26
_See_ Higdon, John
Gloucester College (now Worcester), 87
New College, 201, 205
Trinity College, 140
Packington, 24
---- Thomas, Abbot of Burton, 85
Paget, Sir William, afterwards Baron Paget of Beaudesert, 177, 263
and note, 264 and note
Paganel, Gervase, Baron of Dudley, 11
“Palfrey Money,” 127
Paper Surveys, 110, 113
Parliament, “Reformation,” 30, 44, 47, 137
Parry, William, 117
Particulars for Grants, 5
Peche, Bishop of Lichfield, 10
Peckham, Archbishop, 16
Penford, 115, 116, 117
Penford, John, 93
Penkridge, 113
Pensions to Religious, 26, 79, 178, 189–91, 198
---- -- Lay Inmates, 193, 194
Penulton, 115, 116
Peter-sur-Dive, St., 9, 124, 125
Picto, Thomas, 164, 165, 166, 251
Pigs as Rent, 128
Pilgrimage of Grace, 146, 211
Pillatonhall, 77
Pipstoke (or Pykstoke), William, 172, 190, 232
Pitt, Thomas, 93
Plante, William, 5
Pole, Dr., 33, 39, 45, 46, 189, 212 note
---- Henry, 111, 127
---- John, 191
---- Reginald (Cardinal), 22
Polesworth Abbey, 85
Pope, Sir Thomas, 140
Pothlac, 86, 90
Pottery Works, 131
_Præmunire_, 42, 53, 55
Pratye, John, 197
Prince, John, 127
Prowdluffe, William, 190
Pulford, 103
Pulton, Poulton, 100, 103, 104, 173, 174 and note
Puttels, 98, 100
Quickshill, 110, 111
Quinton, 116
Quytgrave, Robert, 129
Radford, 14
Radmore, 12
Ralf, Baron of Stafford, 14
Ratclyffe, Alexander, 116, 117
---- Laurence, 107
Rathbone, Hugh, 147
Rede, William, 107
Reformator of Cistercians, 50, 62, 99, 192
Revival of Learning. _See_ New Learning
Renez (or Raynard), Thomas, 167, 191
Repton Priory, 84
Rheims, 9, 118
Riche, Sir Richard, Solicitor-General, Chancellor of Augmentations,
140, 163, 165
Richard, Abbot of Burton, 81
Richard II, 16, 96
Richmond, Archdeaconry, 53
---- Duke of, 16, 21
Ridding, 100
Ridel, Justice Geoffrey, his widow, 11
Robynson, Robert, 191
Rocester, 68, 94, 109, 110, 130, 193
---- “Abbey,” 5, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 30, 34, 36, 58, 59, 60, 62,
64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 98, 102, 109–12, 130, 202, 207
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 110–11, 179
Dissolution, 138, 145, 163, 167, 169 and note, 171, 186, 193,
199, 203. App. x.
Pensions, 190, 195, 196
_See_ Abbot William Grafton
Rogers, Thorold, quoted 4, 5
Rolleston, 87
---- Thomas, 168, 222
Ronton, 112, 113, 114, 130
---- Priory, 10, 18, 26, 30, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 107,
112–14, 116, 131, 195, 201
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 112–13, 179
Dissolution, 138, 140, 144, 145, 203
Pensions, 195
_See_ Prior Thomas Alton
Roses, Wars of, 72, 97
Rokyn, Roland, 23
Rossall, 103, 104
Rothwell, Henry, 168, 222
Rowley, 153
Rudde, John, 191
Rudheth, 103
Rugeley, 14
Rushton Grange, 6, 108, 210
Russell, William, 117
---- Thomas, 153
Rutland, 7, 138
Rycerdysctote, 116
Ryve, Robert, 166, 252
Sacheverell, Henry, 35, 37
Salisbury, John of, 71
Sallow, 69, 86, 89
Salt, 116
---- Houses, 116
---- Pans, 15, 102, 103, 114, 130, 131
_Salve Regina_, 94
Sandbach, 68, 102, 104
Sandon, 195
Sandwell Priory, 18, 30
Dissolution, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 87
Savage, John, 153
Scudamore, John, 140, 143, 145, 162, 163, 165, 169 and note, 171,
175, 177, 195, 199, 202, App. vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii,
xiii
---- Philip, 258
---- William, 267 and note
Sedgeley, 105, 106
Seggewik, John, 87
Seighford, Seightford, 68, 112, 113, 114
Seney (or Sinai) Park, 77, 82
Sepulchre, Holy, Friars of the, 14
Shardycote, 94, 116
Shebridge, 120, 121, 124
Sheffield, Robert, 123
Shefford, 118
Sheldon, Mr., 202, 203
Shele, Thomas, 167
Shene, Prior of, 26, 119
---- 177
Shepey, 113
Shepherd, Thomas, 88
Sheriff’s Aids, 90, 127
Shirley, 128
Shobnall Grange, 77, 82, 84
Shrewsbury, 115, 155, 157
---- Abbey, 102, 205
---- Francis, Earl of, 5
---- George Talbot, Earl of, (Lord Steward), 33, 35, 36, 98, 110,
125, 127, 143, 203, 205
Shropshire, 7
Skrymsher, Thomas, 39
Smith, John, 90
---- Thomas, 167
---- William, Prior of Stone, 119, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148
Smyth, Richard, 155
---- Thomas, 191
Smythe, William, Bishop of Lichfield, 20, 119
---- John, 5
Snape, John, 168
Sneyd, 108
_Solubriensis Episcopus_, 50
Somersall, 111, 127
Somerset, 7
Southwell, 136
Speed, quoted 2, 4
Speenhamland, 96
Spot, Wulfric, 8, 89
Stafford, 8, 14, 98, 103, 111, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 128, 153
Stafford, Austin Friars, 14, 18, 129, 142, 146, 150, 152, 153, 154,
156, 163, 164, 165, 166, 199, 201, 209, 211. App. vi.
---- Grey Friars, 14, 17, 18, 129, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 163,
164, 165, 184, 186, 192, 199, 201, 209, 211. App. v
---- St. John’s Hospital, 116
---- St. Thomas’s Priory, 10, 15, 17, 18, 30, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68,
70, 71, 107, 114–8, 130, 131, 148, 176, 181, 182, 184, 202
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 115–7, 120, 179
Dissolution, 138, 142, 145, 160, 161, 170, 171, 172, 175, 186,
187, 199, 203, 204. App. iv
Pensions, 189, 190
_See_ Prior Richard Whytwell
---- Abbot of Burton, 69, 89
---- Brother John (of Coventry), 129
---- Henry, Lord, 113, 120, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146
---- Robert de, founder of Stone, 9
----, Robert, 167, 191
Staffordshire Religious Houses, Characteristics of, 18, 19
Stallington, 120, 121
Stamford, 98
---- William, 153
Standlaw, John, 168, 222
Stanton, 110
Stapenhill, 69, 79, 86, 87, 90, 191
Stapleton, Thomas, 117, 204
---- William, 172, 190, 204, 232
Stephen, King, 10, 11, 12, 121
Stock, Monastic, 93, 173, 181
Stoke, 108, 120, 121
Stone, 68, 118, 120, 121, 130
---- Rural Deanery, 62, 63
---- Priory, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 30, 58, 62, 64, 66, 67,
68, 70, 71, 107, 116, 118–21, 130, 131, 201
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 119–20, 179
Dissolution, 138, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 203
Pensions, 195
_See_ Priors Fort and William Smith
Stoneleigh, 12
Stowe, 68, 108, 117
Stratford Priory (Essex), 95
Stretaye, Edmund, 168, 223
Strete, Richard, Archbishop of Salop (and Derby), 28, 29, 30, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 128, 161, 198, 252
Stretton, 77
---- Bishop of Lichfield, 27, 32
Stubbs, Bishop, quoted 6, 50 note
“Submission of the Clergy,” 43
Succession, Act and Oath of, 47, 52
Sudbury, 128
---- John, Abbot of Burton, 87, 88, 89
Suffolk, Charles Brandon, Duke of, 6, 93, 210
Sutcote, Mr., 209
Sutton, 123, 124
---- Richard, 107, 203, 204
---- William, 191
“Supreme Head,” 42, 48, 53, 146, 219, 220
Swinscoe, 110, 111
Swynneshed, 116
Swynneston, 120
Swythamley, 193
Symon, William, 191
Symson, Simson, Christopher, 172, 190, 232
Tachbrook, 39
Talbot, Sir John, 54, 55
Tamworth, 24, 62, 63
Tanneries, 131
Taverner Margery, 88
---- Nicholas, 88
Templars, Knights, 15, 19, 28
Tentisworth, 103, 104
Teyte, Nicholas, 90
Thomas, Prior of Trentham, 122
Thoreby, 103
Thornley, 102
Thornton, John, 168, 196, 222, 233
Thorpe (Lincs.), 69
Tickford, 26
Tipton, 23
Tithes, 52, 67, 68, 74, 79, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110,
111, 113, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 126, 128, 135, 149, 177,
198, 206, 210
Tittensor, 121
Tokeby, 68, 97, 98, 99
Tong, 93
Torcea, 81
Torksey, 107
Torner or Turner, Richard, 117, 182, 194, 204
Torrington, Parva, 50
Totmonslow, 98
Traford, William, 193
Trefall, 105
Trentham, 68, 122, 123, 124, 130, 193
---- Priory, 6, 9, 10, 11, 18, 30, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71,
107, 121–24, 130, 197, 202
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 122–4, 179
Dissolution, 138, 145, 193, 203, 210
Pensions, 189, 195
_See_ Priors Bradwall, Dulverne, Lavynden, and Thomas
Trent, River, 77, 81, 87, 136
Treour, John le, 76
Trinity College, Oxford, 140
Trusley, 98, 100
Trysull, 55, 61, 63, 106
Tutbury, 127, 128, 195
---- Castle, 9, 124, 202
---- Priory, 9, 16, 18, 21, 30, 60, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 124–9,
130, 131, 197, 207
in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 125–8, 179
Dissolution, 138, 145, 167, 169, 199, 203
Pensions, 190, 191, 195
_See_ Prior Arthur Meverell
Twigg, Richard, 122
Tybbes, Thomas, 50
Tylynton, 154
Tyso, 68, 120, 121
Uttoxeter, 98
Vale Royal, 205
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 55–71, 73, 74, Chap. vi, 133, 138, 139,
178, 179, 186, 187, 191, 198, 203, 204, 206, 207, 211
Verduns, 13, 95
Vernam, George, 168, 223
Vernon, Henry, 120, 123
---- John, 25, 54
---- 93
_Villani_, 85
Vincent, Robert, 113
Voysey, Bishop of Exeter, 26
Wales, 156
Walford, 112, 113
Walkeden, Geoffrey, 147
---- Walter, 120
Wall Grange, 124
Walton, 5, 98, 116, 120, 121
Warde, Richard, 154, 164, 165
Warham, Archbishop, 26
Warton, John de, 101
Waterfall, 68, 110, 111
Watteley More, 112, 114
Waynfleet, Bishop of Winchester, 19
Webley, John, Prior of Dudley, 104
Wednesbury, 23
Welbeck Abbey, 205
Wenlock Priory, 11, 104, 139, 165, 205
Wernell, 23
West Broughton, 127
---- Bromwich, 23
Westminster Abbey, 9, 83, 193
---- Abbot of, 44, 47, 48, 74, 83
and _see_ Boston, William
Westmoreland, 7
---- Earl of, 141
Weston, 58, 68, 77, 115, 117, 120
Wetton, 127, 128, 195
---- William, 127
Wetwode, Richard, 151, 152, 165
Whalley, Richard, 119
Whitels, 98
“White Ship,” 11
Whitgreve, 113, 116
Whitmere, 77
Whitmore, Adam, 101
---- Richard, Abbot of Dieulacres, 100
Whitney, Humfry, 103, 173, 194, 195, 204, 242
---- John, 104, 173, 174 and note, 204, 242
---- Mary and Nicholas, 194 (cf. 193 note), 243
---- Thomas, Abbot of Dieulacres, 102, 104, 148, 173, 190, 193,
196, 204, 239
Whittington, 24
Whytgreve, Robert, 164, 247, 249
Whytteworth, Robert, 197
Whytwell, Whyttel, Whyttewell, Whittall, Edward, 117, 204, 235
Whytwell, Whyttel, Whyttwell, Whittall Katherine, 204
----, ---- Richard, Prior of Stafford, 115, 145, 161, 172, 190,
204, 232, 235
----, ---- Richard, 117, 148, 204, 258
_Wico Malbano_, 116
Wilkyns, Edward, Abbot of Hulton, 108, 145, 195, 196
Williams, John, 279 and note
Willingham, 107, 109
Wilmslow, 193
Wilton, 205
Winchester, Bishop of, 88
Windsor, 26
Wistowe, John, 99
Withington, 86, 90
Wodcoke, Ralf, 127
Wodeyton (Wood Eyton), 113
Wolsey, Cardinal, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 42, 54, 55, 140
Wolverhampton, 164
Womborne, 23
Wood, Friar, 164
Woodford, 68, 104, 109, 110
Woodhouse, Wydowes, 93, 228
Woods, 128, 129, 130
Wool Trade, 13, 17, 81, 95, 96, 100, 106
Wootton, Wotton, 31, 120, 127
Worcester Priory, 83, 87, 176
---- College, 87
---- Diocese, 105
Wriothesley, Sir Thomas (afterwards Earl of Southampton), 22
Wrottesley, Walter, 54, 55, 59, 62, 105
Wulphade, St., 120
Wycche, 194
Wyfford, 24
Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester, 19
Wyllot, Thomas, 127
Wymondham, 68, 128
Wyrley, Marke, 166, 252
Wyttemore, 124
Yatehouses, 103
York, 28, 136
---- Archbishop of, 136
Yorkshire, 7
THE END
_Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., Bath._
Illustration: Sketch Map of STAFFORDSHIRE to Illustrate the
Dissolution of the Monasteries]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Froude’s _History of England_.
[2] _Seventeen Lectures_ (1887), p. 289.
[3] See below, Chap. iv.
[4] These figures, omitting shillings and pence, are from _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.
[5] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, p. 146, 148.
[6] The only other exception is said to be Beaulieu.
[7] Pleas of the Forest, 1286. (_Salt Collections_, V, Pt. I, p.
162; VIII, p. 177.)
[8] Some very interesting examples of corrodies granted by
Staffordshire monasteries are given in _Monasticism in Staffordshire_,
p. 157–160.
[9] Dieulacres Chartulary, No. 99.
[10] _Plea Rolls, Henry III_ (in _Salt Collections_, VI, Pt.
I, p. 293).
[11] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, v, 1529.
[12] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Henry VI_, Vol. II, 1429–36.
[13] _Plea Rolls, 6 Edw. IV_ (_Salt Collections_ n.s. IV).
[14] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. I_, 1281–92, p. 25.
[15] Cf. the election of Edie to Burton Abbey (Chap. iv _infra_)
and of Meverell to Tutbury Priory (Chap. vi _infra_); and
Cranmer’s request for the appointment of Gorton to Worcester (Chap. v
_infra_).
[16] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, v, 1529.
[17] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, i, 1235, 1360.
[18] _Ibid._, iv, Part I, 650.
[19] _Plea Rolls, Henry III_ (_Salt Collections_, IV).
[20] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, iv, Part I, 1137.
[21] _Ibid._, iv, Part II, 3536, 3538.
[22] _Ibid._, iv, Part I, 649, 697, 1913.
[23] Staffordshire Antiquaries usually add Blithbury, being misled by
the similarity of name to Blythburgh, an Austin Priory in Suffolk which
was one of those suppressed by Wolsey.
[24] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, iv, Part I, 1964.
[25] _Ibid._, 2217, 2024.
[26] _Ibid._, iv. Part II, 3537–8.
[27] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, iv, Part II, 3190, 4275.
[28] _Ibid._, iv, Part III, 6516, 6222.
[29] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, iv, Part III, 6788.
[30] Bishop Norbury’s Register, p. 28.
[31] Bishop Stretton’s (2nd) Register, _sub ann._
[32] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, iv, Part I, 2193; Part
II, 2969. Clayborough was one of the King’s Counsel employed in the
“Divorce” proceedings at Dunstable in May, 1533.
[33] _Ibid._, Part II, 3390.
[34] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, vi, 389.
[35] Wright’s _Letters_, p. 127. (“Glaston” is a misprint for
“Ellaston.”)
[36] _Letters and Papers_, v, 277.
[37] _Letters and Papers_, v, 1234.
[38] Cf. _supra_, p. 24; he became Sub-Treasurer and Receiver-General
in Ireland.
[39] _Letters and Papers_, v, 1456.
[40] _Ibid._, vi, 389.
[41] _Letters and Papers_, vi, 645.
[42] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 131.
[43] _e.g._, in 1608 (_State Papers, Domestic, James I_,
1603–10, p. 407) and 1680 (_Salt Collections_ V, 188).
[44] Cf. _Dict. Nat. Biog._, xxxii, 373.
[45] _Letters and Papers_, v, 879; cf. 150 (where the date should
be 1532).
[46] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, vi, 119; cf. iv, Part II,
2700.
[47] _Ibid._, vi, 417.
[48] Wright’s _Letters_, p. 114.
[49] _Letters and Papers_, vi, 700.
[50] Sir Piers Dutton was Sheriff of Chester (_Letters and
Papers_, x, 618).
[51] _Ibid._, vi, 714. (Vols. V and VI give a considerable number
of instances of interference with elections at this time.)
[52] _Letters and Papers_, vi, 1060; vii, 587 (19).
[53] These particulars are from Stubbs (_Registrum Sacrum
Anglicanum_, 146, and _Monasticon_, v, 377 note).
[54] _P.R.O._, _State Papers, Henry VIII_, Fol. Vol. R. and
S., 165.
[Attached to this document is a paper containing a longer list of
monasteries covering three sides, of which those above-named fill the
first side. Some Welsh houses are included.]
[55] Cf. _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, vi, 590.
[56] _26 Henry VIII_, c. 3.
[57] The Possessions of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem were taken
by the Act 32 Henry VIII, c. xxiv.
[58] _Letters and Papers_, viii, 149 (75).
[59] _Ibid._, xiv, Part I, p. 289.
[60] Cf. also Arts. 10–13 of the Act.
[61] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, p. 99.
[62] _Valor Ecclesiasticus, temp. Hen. VIII, auctoritate regia
institutus_ (6 vols., 1810–34). The Staffordshire returns come in
Vol. III.
[63] _Letters and Papers_, ix, 354.
[64] Cf. _infra_, Ch. v.
[65] Vol. III, pp. 99–152.
The figures in heavy type are from the second survey in _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_.
[69] His will is printed in the _Journal of the Derbyshire
Archæological and Natural History Society_, Vol. VII (1885), pp.
226–233.
[70] _Annales de Burton_ are printed in _Annales Monastici_,
Vol. I (1864), edited by H. R. Luard, M.A.
[71] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 144.
[72] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 146.
[73] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. III_, 1313–18, pp. 428, 447, 564;
1318–23, pp. 116, 694.
[74] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. III_, 1307–13, pp. 331, 335, 343.
[77] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, i,
625–632.
[78] _A Description of Leicestershire_, by William Burton (1622),
p. 119.
[79] Cf. _supra_, p. 47.
[80] The tradition is recorded by J. Bacon in the Preface to his
edition (1786) of Ecton’s _Thesaurus rerum Ecclesiasticarum_, the
first edition of which was printed in 1711. Ecton and Bacon were both
officials of the Office of First-Fruits and Tenths.
[81] In 1535, Cranmer wrote to Cromwell: “I understand the Priory of
Worcester is to be shortly void. If so, be good to ... Dn. Richard
Gorton, B.D., of the house of Burton-on-Trent.”--_Letters and Papers,
Henry VIII_, ix, 971.)
[82] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 126.
[83] _Ibid._, 163.
[84] _Ibid._, 149.
[85] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 226.
[86] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Henry IV_, 1405–8.
[87] “Early Chancery Proceedings,” Bundle 6, No. 50 (_Salt
Collections, N.S._, vii, 244).
[88] Vol. III, 103.
[89] In the twelfth century Margery, daughter of Sir Ralf de Coven,
endowed the Nunnery with this annual rent in Horsebrook. (Original Deed
at Chillington, printed in _Salt Collections_, iii, p. 211.)
[90] Cf. Appendix i.
[91] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 125.
[92] Glaston is obviously a misprint for “Ellaston,” a mistake easily
made. Cf. _supra_, p. 34.
[93] Cf. _supra_, p. 50.
[94] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Rich. II_, 1377–81, pp. 362, 516.
[95] _Salt Collections_, iii, 163, 182; N.S., ix, 298.
[96] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 123.
[97] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 104 (cf. _Letters and
Papers_, viii, 191).
[98] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xvi, 678.
[99] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 107.
[100] Cf. _infra_ Ch. vii.
[101] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 124.
[102] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 114.
[103] Exchequer Augmentation Office: Miscellaneous Books, Vol. 400, p.
108–9.
[104] _Salt Collections_, viii, 195, 197.
[105] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 110.
[107] Cf. _infra_ Appendix iv.
[108] Cf. _infra_, p. 145.
[109] _Salt Collections_, N.S., iv (13 Edw. IV).
[110] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 113.
[111] _Salt Collections_, xi, 322.
[112] _Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. I_, 1292–1301, p. 253 (cf. pp. 248,
252); _Pat. Rolls_, 15 Edw. II (_Salt Collections_, xi, 299).
[113] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 108.
[114] _De Banco Roll_, Hilary 10–11, Edw. III (_Salt
Collections_, xi, 72).
[115] _Supra_, p. 21.
[116] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, viii, 56.
[117] _Ibid._, viii, 682.
[118] Wright’s _Letters_, p. 114.
[119] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 142.
[120] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 57.
[121] Wright’s _Letters_, 156.
[122] Wright’s _Letters_, 157.
[123] Wright’s _Letters_, 93.
[124] _Ibid._, 95.
[125] _Letters and Papers_, ix, 517.
[126] _Ibid._, x, 364.
[127] _Ibid._, x, 1088.
[128] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, Vol. X, 1238. [Gairdner,
_English Church_, does not include Tutbury in his list on p. 420.]
[129] Cf. _Dict. Nat. Biog._, xlviij, 123.
[130] _Ibid._, xlvj, 135.
[131] _Ibid._, ix, 363.
[132] _Letters and Papers_, x, 613.
[133] _Letters and Papers_, x, 741.
[134] _Ibid._, 749.
[135] _Letters and Papers_, x, 886.
[136] _Ibid._, 754.
[137] _Ibid._, 1178.
[138] _Letters and Papers_, x, 324.
[139] _Letters and Papers_, xii, Pt. II, 638.
[140] _Ibid._, xii, Pt. I, 1104; Pt. II, 1008(1), 456, 411 (2) and
(12); xiii. Pt. II, 456, 364, 343, 370.
[141] _Ibid._, xii, Pt. I, 819.
[142] _Letters and Papers_, xii, Pt. II, 531.
[143] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. I, 456.
[144] Cf. _infra_, p. 186.
[145] Cf. _infra_, pp. 175, 227, 233, 240, 272–6.
[146] _Letters and Papers_, xii, Pt. II, 611.
[147] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. I, 1520.
[148] Public Record Office, _State Papers, Dom., Henry VIII_, Vol.
120, No. 143.
[149] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 44, 56, 61.
[150] _Ibid._, 170.
[151] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 49.
[152] _Ibid._, 50.
[153] _Ibid._, 44.
[154] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 79.
[155] _Ibid._, 56 (Aug. 9, 1538).
[156] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 56.
[157] _Ibid._
[158] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 61.
[159] Wright’s _Letters_, 203, 204.
[160] Burnet, iv, 490.
[161] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 281.
[162] Wright’s _Letters_, 143.
[163] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. I, 317.
[164] _Ibid._, Pt. II, 164.
[165] _Ibid._, 1051.
[166] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 652.
[167] _Ibid._, 736.
[168] _Ibid._, 1143.
[169] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 168; Wright’s
_Letters_, 267, 270.
[170] Wright’s _Letters_, 282.
[171] Wright’s _Letters_, 267.
[172] Wright’s _letters_, 278.
[173] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 343.
[174] Public Record Office, Exchequer Augmentation Office, No. 247.
[175] _Ibid._, No. 206 (_Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II,
364).
[176] Public Record Office, Exchequer Augmentation Office, No. 66
(_Ibid._, 370).
[177] Public Record Office, Ministers’ Accounts, Divers Counties,
No. 230, Bundle 61 (Accounts of John Scudamore, membrane 6): “Nuper
Monasterii de Roucester--de precio trium campanorum nuper Monasterii de
Roucester remanentium in Campanilia Ecclesiae parochialis ibidem non
de eo quod parochiani de Roucester predicta Clamant easdem campanas
sibi et parochianis ibidem pertinere et remanere super clamentium
suum quousque determinentur coram Cancellario et Consilio Curiae
Augmentationis etc. Si dictum clamentium verum sit necne quia easdem
campanas occupabuntur et usi fuerunt tam per nuper Religiosos quam
eciam per parochianos de Rocester predicta pulsandas ad divina servicia
et aliter. Summa nulla.”
[178] Exchequer Augmentation Office, Miscellaneous Books, Vol. 172.
[179] Appendix, iii, iv, v.
[180] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 586.
[181] _Ibid._, 628.
[182] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 627.
[183] _Ibid._, 634 (Exchequer Augmentation Office, 220).
[184] See the Inventory in Appendix v.
[185] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 656.
[186] Sleigh’s _Leek_, p. 64. “Cole’s MS., 26, 246, contains the
Deposition of John Whitney, late Chamberleyne to the last Abbot of
Dieulacresse, taken 8 Jany., 7^o Elizh. Hereby it appeared that 4 or
5 days after the suppression of that Abbey, several Blanks, having
the Covent-sealle, were seene by the Deponent, the Abbot and others
being privy. Upon these blanks Wm. Damport, the Abbot’s Scribe, wrote
_Leases_, with Ante-Dates: and among the rest one was the Lease
and Reversion of the Mannour of Poultone.”
[187] Wright’s _Letters_ 282.
[188] _Ibid._ 286.
[189] _Ibid._ 206.
[190] _Letters and Papers_, xiii, Pt. II, 1233.
[191] _Ibid._, xvi, 745.
[192] _Ibid._, ix, 971; cf. _supra_, p. 83 _n._
[193] _Ibid._, xiii, Pt. II, 1051.
[194] _Ibid._, 1052.
[195] Cf. Appendix xii, xiii, where many interesting details are given
of the journey and the whole business.
[196] Cf. Appendix v.
[197] Cf. Appendix iii.
[198] Cf. Appendix v.
[199] Cf. Appendix iv.
[200] Cf. Appendix vi, vii, viii.
[201] _History of England_, i, 41 n.
[202] Cf. Appendix v, vi.
[203] Cf. _supra_, pp. 154, 155.
[204] _Supra_, p. 39.
[205] Cf. Appendix iii.
[206] Cf. Appendix iv.
[207] Cf. Appendix v.
[208] _Monasticon_, v, 383.
[209] Cf. _supra_, p. 164.
[210] Bazin’s novel, translated into English under the title of _The
Nun_, describes the suppression of a French nunnery in recent years,
and the after-history of the sisters. It is very instructive.
[211] Wright’s _Letters_, 243.
[212] Sleigh’s _Leek_, 140.
[213] _Ibid._, 64. He left his chalice of silver-gilt to his
“servant and nephew Nicholas Whitney,” stipulating that if the Abbey
were ever restored the chalice should be returned to it.
[214] His rent-roll of lands which he continued to manage, dated Oct.
6th, 34 Hen. viij, is in the William Salt Library at Stafford (Box 145).
[215] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xvi, 617.
[216] _Ibid._, App. i.
[217] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xvi, 866.
[218] _Ibid._, 324.
[219] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xvi, 745, 425, 258.
[220] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xiii, Pt. ii, 1220.
[221] Cf. _supra_, p. 34.
[222] _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, iii, 128 (printed “Glaston”).
[223] Printed in _Annales Monastici_, Vol. I (1864). Another copy
is in the Library of the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield.
[224] Addit. MS., 23, 944. See App. xiv.
[225] British Museum, Royal MS., 15, B, iv.
[226] Cottonian MS., Vespasian E., xxiv, cxv.
[227] Wright’s _Letters_, p. 71. Strype, Vol. I, pt. i, p. 324.
[228] Wright’s _Letters_, 291.
[229] _Letters and Papers_, xii, Pt. I, 767: Dr. Pole to Bp.
Lee (Mar. 29th, 1537), “I know none within your diocese of seditious
opinions touching the bishop of Rome or favourable to the late
insurrections.”
[230] A kind of figured linen.
[231] _i.e._, cooling pans.
[232]? Cyfus or Cyphus = a drinking-cup.
[233] _i.e._, flagons.
[234] _i.e._, spit.
[235] _i.e._, a small handmill for grinding mustard.
[236] _i.e._, a basket or other vessel for clearing away the
remains of a meal.
[237] _i.e._, iron.
[238] _i.e._, ornamented with work illustrating the Nativity of
Christ.
[239] _i.e._, lavatory
[240] _i.e._, saucepan.
[241] _i.e._, an iron hook for hanging a pot over the fire.
[242] _i.e._, coolers.
[243] _i.e._, cistern.
[244] _i.e._, seven score and nineteen = 159.
[245] A fother = 19½ cwt.
[246] _i.e._, vats.
[247] _i.e._, sanctus bell.
[248] beer coppers (wort = new unfermented beer).
[249] _i.e._, time allowed, respite, credit; cf. Chaucer, _The
Franklin’s Tale_, l. 847, “bysecheth ... to graunte him dayes of the
remenaunt.”
[250] _i.e._, dormitory.
[251] “Walter Charnels” was Bailiff of the town of Burton (cf.
_supra_, p. 90).
[252] _i.e._, cushions.
[253] _i.e._, treasurer.
[254] Sir William Paget was Clerk of the Signet and Privy Councillor,
afterwards Baron Paget of Beaudesert (cf. _Dict. Natl. Biog._,
xliii, 60).
[255] Public Record Office. Particulars for Grants, 10 Jan., 37 Hen.
viii. Sir William Paget.
Request to exchange (_1_) [_lined through_]. Lands appointed
unto the King by Sir Will. Paget, _viz._, farm of the manor or
late hospital of Kepeyere (Durham); (_2_) [_lined through_]
in exchange for farm of the manor of Nantwich; farm of the demesne of
Burton-on-Trent with site of the late college, and the demesne lands
pertaining.
[Kepier is described in the Aug. Off. Misc. Book, 400, as being in the
county of York: it is in Easington Ward, co. Durham. The Hospital there
was surrendered and granted to Sir William Paget 36 Hen. viij.]
[256] Cf. _supra_, pp. 158, 168.
[257] William Scudamore was John Scudamore’s son. He acted as Clerk to
Robert Burgoyn, one of the Commissioners for Northamptonshire, etc.
(cf. Wright’s _Letters_, p. 281).
[258] _i.e._, never.
[259] John Lambert had held this office under the Abbey at the time of
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_ (cf. _supra_, p. 90).
[260] The details of the expenses incurred by Goodrick and Scudamore
in the journey from London to Burton and back are most interesting,
showing as they do the cost of meals, etc., at the various places
where they stayed. It may be compared with the “book of accounts” of
Lenthall, auditor of the attainted lands, in his journey from London to
the North in 1541. (_Letters and Papers_, xvi, 1490.)
[261] One of Cromwell’s men was named Thomas Palmer (cf. _Letters and
Papers_, xiv, Pt. I, 1039, 1060).
[262] Brickhill is near Fenny-Stratford.
[263] _i.e._, Daventry.
[264] [lined through in original.]
[265] [lined through in original.]
[266] John Williams had been one of Cromwell’s agents so long ago
as 1536 at least. In that year he had been deputed with Sir John
Clark (Commissioner of the Peace in Oxfordshire) and George Gifford
to investigate a complaint which had been lodged against Sir John
Browne that his mill “doth annoye the Kinges other Subgiettes ... in
the surunding and overflowing of their groundes.” (_Letters and
Papers_, xi, 446; cf. 227, 353, 888.) He had also been one of the
Commissioners of the Dissolution, and had visited Bury St. Edmund’s,
Ely, Winchester, Hyde, Eynsham, and Notley (Bucks.). (Cf. Wright’s
_Letters_, pp. 145, 147, 220, 233, 235.)
[267] This was a common name for the Bible down to the fourteenth
century.
[268] Four homilies on the text, “missus est angelus” (St. Luke i, 26),
composed by St. Bernard about the year 1120 (cf. Morison, p. 49).
[269] A treatise on the Ten Commandments.
[270] Probably ascribed wrongly to St. Augustine instead of to St.
Ambrose.
[271] _Epistola Augustini ad Iulianum comitem._
[272] Hugh of St. Victor, near Paris (A.D. 1097–1141). His
works include _In Ecclesiasten homiliae_, _de Institutione
Novitiorum_, and _Mystica archae Noe descriptio_. See also Note
19 _infra_.
[273] See last note.
[274] _Expositio in beatum Job, seu Moralium libri xxxv_, by Pope
Gregory the Great.
[275] _Dialogorum libri iv de vita et miraculis patrum_, by the
above.
[276] _Scintillarum seu sententiarum catholicorum Patrum_, a
collection of extracts from the Fathers, by Defensor, a monk of Ligugé,
near Poitiers, who lived about 800 A.D.
[277] _Liber Regulae Pastoralis_, by Pope Gregory.
[278] _Libri duo in Evangelia_, viz., 40 Homilies on the Gospels
for the day, by the above.
[279] _Beati immaculati_, _i.e._, Ps. cxix.
[280] See Note 6 _supra_.
[281] The work of Albertus Magnus (1193–1280) with this title can have
been hardly yet written when the list was drawn up. The “book” is
therefore more probably _Paradisus Heraclidis_, the oldest Latin
version of the _Lausiac History_ of Palladius.
[282] There was a Robert, Abbot of Burton from 1150 to 1159, when he
was deposed. In 1175 he was re-elected, and died in 1177.
[283] _Synonyma de lamentatione animae peccatricis_, by St.
Isidore of Seville (died 636). The book in question is a dialogue
between Homo, bewailing his sinfulness, and Ratio, teaching him aright.
[284] St. Ephraem Syrus (died _c._ 373), a voluminous writer.
[285] _Liber Prognosticorum futuri saeculi_, by Julian of Toledo,
died 690.
[286] An English writer, born at Hexham, 1109, Abbot of Rievaulx, died
1166. He wrote many historical and theological works, the latter in the
style of St. Bernard.
[287] _De Eruditione Didascalica_, by Hugh of St. Victor, in six
books. It is a kind of encyclopædia of sciences, and obtained for its
compiler the title of Didascalus or Teacher.
[288] St. Prosper, of Aquitaine, born _c._ 403.
[289] A monk of Burton named Martin is mentioned in the time of Abbot
Bernard (1160–75) in the Burton Chartulary.
[290] Briennius, monk and subprior, of Burton, in the time of Abbot
Robert (1150–77), is mentioned in the Burton Chartulary.
[291] St. Ivo of Chartres, died 1115.
[292] _i.e._, _Leviticus_ with notes.
[293] Radbertus was Abbot of Corbie, near Amiens, from 844 to 851. The
book which is here named was one of the early arguments in favour of
“transubstantiation.”
[294] _i.e._, Account Book.
[295] Geoffrey was Abbot of Burton from 1114 to 1150. His life of St.
Modwen is mentioned _supra_, p. 220.
[296] By St. Jerome.
[297] Joannes Eleemosynarius, or Misericors, Patriarch of Alexandria,
609–616; the original patron saint of the Hospitallers.
[298] “The quires or gatherings of which the book was formed generally
consisted, in the earliest examples, of four sheets folded to make
eight leaves” (_Encyclopædia Britannica_, xviij, 144), hence
“quaternio” or quarto.
[299] St. Martha the Egyptian.
[300] _Historia Apostolica ex Luca expressa_, a poem in Latin
hexameters, which is described as bad in style and treatment, filled
with far-fetched metaphors and wearisome digressions. Arator lived in
the middle of the sixth century and his poem is dedicated in flattering
terms to Pope Vigilius.
[301] See Note 17 _supra_.
[302] See Note 23 _supra_.
[303] _i.e._, Chapter Books.
[304] St. Caesarius of Chalons, died 542. He wrote a large number of
“sermons,” which show a wide knowledge of the Bible and are eminently
practical.
[305] _Villicus Iniquitatis_--the unjust Steward (cf. St. Luke
xvj. 8, Vulgate).
[306] See Note 9 _supra_.
[307] Perhaps (^1) _Apollonius of Tyre_, a Greek love-story of
the 3rd or 4th century, perhaps translated into Latin verse in the
fifth century, and re-translated into Latin prose in the twelfth or
thirteenth century. An ancient Anglo-Saxon translation was printed
by Thorpe in 1834. Gower’s _Confessio Amantis_ (Bk. viij) is an
adaptation of it, and it is also one of the sources of Shakespeare’s
_Pericles_. The earliest English version now known was made in
1510 from the French. (See _Encyclopædia Britannica_, Vol. XX, p.
635.) (^2) Or, _The Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, by Philostratus
(born _c._ 175 A.D.).
[308] Hugh, the eighth Abbot of Reading, who founded, in the year 1190,
a hospital for twenty-six poor people and for the entertainment of
travellers.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original.
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
4. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or
X^{xx}.
5. Italics are shown as _xxx_.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
