The dissolution of the monasteries : $b As illustrated by the suppression of the religious houses of StaffordshireHibbert, Francis Aidan
History
The dissolution of the monasteries : $b As illustrated by the suppression of the religious houses of Staffordshire
Hibbert, Francis Aidan
Great Britain -- History -- Henry VIII, 1509-1547; Monasteries -- England -- Staffordshire; Monasteries and state
“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.
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