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
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]
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