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.