The dissolution of the monasteries : $b As illustrated by the suppression of the religious houses of Staffordshire — John Shaqi
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
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.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account