“All governors of shires, cities, towns, etc., shall find and keep every
aged poor and impotent person which was born or dwelt three years within
the same limit, by way of voluntary and charitable alms, etc., with such
convenient alms as shall be thought meet by their discretion,” etc.
It was in this year (1535) that the lesser monasteries were dissolved. So
the first poor law was enacted, to provide for the poor and impotent, in
the same year in which the dissolution occurred.
The total annual revenue of _all_ the monastic and chantry estates,
together with the episcopal and chapter estates surrendered to the
Crown, was about £300,000, which, if carefully managed—say by a Board
of Commissioners—to provide for the poor, would now realize an annual
revenue of eight and a half millions sterling, sufficiently adequate to
defray all the expenses of the poor of England and Wales, without a penny
expense to the ratepayers. All the vast properties were disgracefully
granted away to unprincipled, poor, avaricious favourites and courtiers
of Henry VIII., and his children.
It was Cromwell who, in his desire to promote the Reformation, advised
the King to divide the abbey lands among the nobles and gentry, either
by grant or sale on easy terms; and that by being thus bound by the
sureties of private interest, they might always oppose any return towards
the dominion of Rome.[232]
Cromwell’s views turned out to be correct, as we know from the conduct
of members of Parliament who were in possession of monastic property.
In Mary’s reign her Parliament, which was so obsequious in all matters
of religion, adhered with a firm grasp to their Church lands. Nor could
the papal supremacy be re-established by Mary until her sanction was
given that they should be allowed the full enjoyment of their Abbey
lands, and we may ascribe the zeal of the same class, in bringing back
and preserving the reformed Church under Elizabeth, to a similar motive;
that, according to the general laws of human nature, they gave a readier
reception to truth, which made their estates more secure.[233] They would
be any religion, provided they retained their church lands.[234]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account