CHAPTER IIIAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION

When the assembly, which has gained for itself the name of the Reformation Parliament, met, the air was full of rumours of attacks upon the clergy. The French Ambassador reported: “it is the intention, when Wolsey is dead or destroyed, to get rid of the Church and spoil the goods of both.” Parliament assembled on November 3rd, 1530, and to the Convocation which was called at the same time the heads of the following religious houses in Staffordshire were summoned: Burton, Rocester, Dieulacres, Hulton, Croxden, Tutbury, Stone, St. Thomas (Stafford), Trentham, Ronton, Calwich, and Dudley. Sandwell and Canwell had, of course, disappeared recently. The Bishop of the diocese was Geoffrey Blythe. Archdeacon Strete was one of the Proctors for the clergy.

The Prior of Calwich, who was summoned, died just at this juncture, and the dispute which arose as to the appointment of a successor enabled the Crown to assert its supremacy at the expense of all parties concerned.

Calwich had originally been a hermitage, and had been given by Nicholas de Gresley Fitz Nigel in the twelfth century to the Priory of Kenilworth. It had thus become a cell of that house, and came under the rules of the Austin Canons. A considerable amount of building had been done at Calwich in the latter partof the fourteenth century: in 1391 the Pope granted Indulgences to those who visited the place and made contributions to the fabric on the feast of St. Margaret and certain other days. The history of Calwich illustrates how the dependent “cells” were a source of weakness to the monastic system. Such houses were often unsatisfactory. They were sometimes looked upon as places of banishment for brethren who deserved punishment: a method of discipline akin to the later system of penal settlements like Botany Bay, and as likely to be productive of the very worst results. The very men who needed supervision would be freed from it, and the remedy would intensify the evil. In any case, such small communities would easily become engrossed in secular pursuits: their interests were narrowed, and their occupation small.

Disputes arose between the dependent cells and the parent house, and the inmates of the cells often became unpopular with their neighbours. In 1293 the dependence of Calwich on Kenilworth was made the excuse for depriving its Prior of pasture rights in the Wootton Woods, it being asserted that he was removable at the will of the Prior of Kenilworth. This, indeed, was strikingly shown to be the case in 1334, when the Prior, although duly instituted, was recalled by the Prior of Kenilworth. The Prior of Calwich in 1293 denied that he held such a dependent position, but the local jury, to whom the case was referred, decided against him. Local feeling was hostile to the Canons, much as it was afterwards against the Alien Priories, and Calwich had to forego further rights of gallows and free warren, etc., in the manor of Ellastone. Theparent house did not relax its hold or lessen its claims at the bidding of a Staffordshire jury. In 1334 the Bishop inquired into the matter and decided in favour of Kenilworth. This apparently brought matters to a crisis, for in 1349 the four resident Canons pleaded that they could no longer endure the uncertainty of their position and the unpopularity they experienced. They succeeded in having their house declared independent, under the patronage of the original founders, who undertook to pay yearly a sum of sixty shillings to Kenilworth in acknowledgment of its rights.

The house gained nothing by its independence, but rather the reverse. The Prior found his subjection to the lay-patron involved him in litigation, without gaining him protection from the jealousy of neighbours. The house shared in the general decline in wealth and numbers after the Black Death. In 1384 Bishop Robert de Stretton appointed the Prior and Canons of Calwich to be the collectors in the Archdeaconry of Stafford of the Convocation grant, but they petitioned to be excused on the plea of infirmity, poverty, and smallness of numbers (there were only two Canons besides the Prior).

It sank lower and lower. In 1438 the Prior was charged with the forcible detention of ten oxen and eight cows, for which damages to the amount of £20 were claimed. Twenty years after he was troubled by neighbours breaking into his close, cutting down his underwood and letting loose their cattle to graze upon his pastures.

Accordingly, when the Prior died in 1530, the house was a poor place with a bad record. In accordancewith the usual practice, the Priory was taken into the royal hands during the vacancy; and the subsequent story affords an interesting illustration of the way in which the attack on clerical privileges which was carried on in the early years of the Reformation Parliament, was supported by irregular movements in detail. It also helps us to see how the great work of the Suppression of the Monasteries was the independent work of the Government. They made use of Parliamentary support and sanction when it was convenient or wise, but the work was in reality their own. The suppression of Calwich was never referred to Parliament. It aroused no feeling and evoked no protest from anyone. It was evidently looked upon as quite a natural exercise of the royal power.

On the Prior’s death there was but one remaining canon, Dr. David Pole, or Powle;[34]and the representative of the original founder of the Priory, Ralf Longford, claimed the right of presentation, and sent an agent, furnished with means, to London to press his claim. Dr. Roland Lee was one of the King’s Chaplains, and Chancellor of Lichfield. Richard Strete, the Archdeacon of Salop, Cromwell’s agent in the district, wrote to Lee in London informing him of the position of affairs at Calwich, on April 6th, 1530, adding that he could find no record of such a right as Longford claimed, and arguing that it should not be allowed. It was convenient now to assert the Bishop’s right of appointment. Lord Shrewsbury also put forward claims in virtue of donations to the house by past members of his family. There were other claimants, and the resultwas that various persons were recommended for the preferment. All this helped to play into the hands of the enemy. Strete’s conclusion was that it would be well to consult with Cromwell as to what should be done. Later, Strete wrote fully to Cromwell himself, repeating the same information and giving in detail an account of the spoil that might be expected from the house.[35]

“My duty done, according to your lettres datydpenultimo die Aprilis, I have ben at Calwich, and takyn an inventary of the goodes of that house by indenture and committyd the keping and garding of all thinges ther to thabbott of Rowceter ij myles thens, and on of his brethren abidith at Calwich to overse them who hath kept the sequestre syns the departur of the late prior. The valour of the goodes and laundes foloith.

“In these is no harde peneworth: the house and other byldinges be in mean good state of reparacion. I have dischargyd and put forth such persons as were not mete to be ther, and laft such as be husbaundes, and I have made sure the convent saill, and the evidence.“The first founder ther was Nich. Gresley, in whose title now claymyth Mr. Longford (as men here report). Ther be diverse benefactours that hath gyffyn landes to that house, as it doith appere, viz., my lord Stuard, sir Henrie Saucheverell, Mr. Oker, and other thair ansetors. And thus ye may partly perceyve, and what I can do ferther shalbe redy by God his grace.... Lich. xijo, Maij.“Yours,“Richard Strete, preist.”

“The first founder ther was Nich. Gresley, in whose title now claymyth Mr. Longford (as men here report). Ther be diverse benefactours that hath gyffyn landes to that house, as it doith appere, viz., my lord Stuard, sir Henrie Saucheverell, Mr. Oker, and other thair ansetors. And thus ye may partly perceyve, and what I can do ferther shalbe redy by God his grace.... Lich. xijo, Maij.

“Yours,

“Richard Strete, preist.”

Wolsey died on November 29th, 1530. Bishop Blythe soon followed him. The exact date does not appear in his Act Books, but it was apparently not long before January 21st, as on that date the Archbishop’s Commission was issued to the Vicar-General to act during the vacancy. Archdeacon Strete was appointed in May “to receive the rents and profits of the same [Bishopric] to the King’s use” during the vacancy. At the same time he received the following letter from Cromwell:[36]

“Mr. Strete after most hertie commendacions these shalbe to advertise you that by the berers hereof ye shall receyve the Kinge’s comission and warraunte gevyng you auctoryte to Survey the londes of the bisshopriche of Coventre and Licheld and to receyve the rentes and profites of the same to the Kinges use. And also ye shall receyve his gracious letteres directed to the Eschetor of the Countie palentyne of Chester uppon the sight whereof I doubte not but he will not onelie Surcease to medle any Ferther with the receipt of any rentes there, but also in case he have receyved any, will repay the same unto your handes accordinglie. Not dowbting but ye will diligentlie, effectuallie, and trewly put in execucion the teanour and effecte of your saide Commyssion in suche wise as shalbe most for your honestie to the Kinges most profite and advantage. And for your paynes and diligence alredy taken and susteyned aboute his affayres there his highnes hathe commaunded me to geve unto you his most hertie thankes. And trustith that ye will so indevour your self in the receipt of the said rentes and revenues as beforethe feaste of the Natyvyte of Saynt John Baptist next ye will bryng or send up the hole half-yeres rent or the most parte of the same and that ye will have good awayte and regarde to his haukes in the Cauke there wherein ye shall do and admynister unto his highnes right good and acceptable servyce.“And as touching the Catell at the pryorie of Calliche the kinges gracious pleasure is that ye shall suffer the berers hereof named Fyndern and Curson to have the preferrement in the byeng of the same uppon suche reasonable prises as they may convenyently lyve on taking of them som money in hande and such sufficient bonde and suertie for the residue as the king may be trewly answered of the same. And so Fare ye well &c.“Your mastership.”

“And as touching the Catell at the pryorie of Calliche the kinges gracious pleasure is that ye shall suffer the berers hereof named Fyndern and Curson to have the preferrement in the byeng of the same uppon suche reasonable prises as they may convenyently lyve on taking of them som money in hande and such sufficient bonde and suertie for the residue as the king may be trewly answered of the same. And so Fare ye well &c.

“Your mastership.”

An agreement was made between the King and Longford. The Patron surrendered his claim of presentation, and agreed to the suppression of the house in 1532. He was to hold the lands in farm from the King, and the rent was to be fixed by a local jury. Strete recommended the Abbot of Rocester, Sir William Bassett, Sir John Gifford, and himself, but the Sheriff refused to “affirm” the panel by reason of its manifest partiality.[37]Strete’s inclusion was in itself sufficient to condemn it: in the long letter in which he suggested it he maligned Longford for “slackness,” and recommended Cromwell to press him for £60 which was owing on account of Calwich.

Another claimant to the lands, or part of them, was the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Sheriff’s panel consisted of the Earl’s tenants. It was, therefore, as little impartial as Strete’s, but it met with the approval of Brabazon,[38]one of Cromwell’s emissaries, who was sent down to Lichfield to help in the business; andevidently no idea of fairness entered the minds of any of the officials. There were other claimants, too, apparently Sir Henry Sacheverell and Mr. Oker (Okeover), but they could be disregarded. Strete and Brabazon used their powers of persuasion, and the members of the jury, having served their lord’s ends by deciding in favour of the Earl’s claim to “a small portion” of the property, were ready to give their decision as the Crown required. Yet they judged it wiser to save appearances by a show of hesitation; they insisted on an adjournment, though at the same time they promised the requisite verdict. This was in the third week in August, 1532. Of course Strete was able to write to Cromwell in due course (October 21st, 1532):[39]“The Office of Calwich is passed for the King.” At that time Longford owed £46 5s. 2d. He had also in his possession the tithes (£13 3s. 4d.) and the last Michaelmas rents (£11 16s.). These he undertook to deliver to Cromwell. An escheator was appointed to receive the dues on the King’s behalf, and on March 11th of the next year we have a note of Cromwell’s (11th March, 1533) that £30 had been received from Strete on the Calwich account. By April 26th the legal formalities were completed, and Strete was able to report to Cromwell: “The Priory of Calwich, now void, rests in the King’s pleasure.”[40]This was the year in which the Act was passed giving to the King the rights of visitation of the religious houses, and, of course, considerably before any Act was passed for their dissolution.

But all was not plain sailing for Longford. In 1534 among the “bills to be signed” was still that of “Sir Ralf Longford for the late Priory of Calwiche.” Moreover, Strete was instructed that Mr. Fitzherbert, Longford’s father-in-law, was to have the tithes and the growing corn “at such prices as may be deemed sufficient,” and Findern and Curson, already mentioned, were repudiated in his favour.

The letter, dated June 14th, 1533, which Cromwell wrote to Archdeacon Strete is as follows:[41]

“Maister Strete as hertelye as I Can I commend me unto you, and whereas by my last letteres I wrott unto you in the Favors of Curson and Fyndern to be prefferyd unto the Catell and Corn of late belongyng to the priorye of Colwyche, and Sythyn that tyme I wrotte unto you on the behalf of Mr. longford for his prefferment unto the demaynes of the sayd pryorye so hit ys that now the sayd maister longford by his Fatherinlaw, Mr. Fyzherbert moche desyryth to have the Tythys and also suche Corn as at thys tyme ys Sown uppon the demaynes of the sayd late pryorye for this yere whych tythe and corn sown uppon the demaynes I require yow that he may haffe at such prysys as ye shall thinke convenyent and in such wyse as the kynge’s highnes may be Substauncyallye answeryd of the proftyttes growing of the same without any Favour to be born to anye othre partye and wher as I wrott in myn other letter that Curson and Fyndern shold have the preffermentt of the Catell and Corn I dyd not wrytt for anye Corne growing on the grownde ne yet for any tythys which in no wyse ye shall Suffer them to have but to order hyt as ys afforsayd most to the kynge’s proffytte advauntage. I well persayve who grauntyth suchemen an Inche they wyll take an ell. I am Infformyd they avaunte them selfs to have Commyssyons and graunttes of the kyng which ys untrew I praye yew advyse them to use no such Facyons. Syr, the kynges highnes trustyth that ye with all spede will bryng up the halfyere’s Ferme and Renttes of the Busshopryche which I praye yow may be here before his gracyous departyngin progresse, and as to the Chanon off Colwyche ye may translate hym unto Sum good howse of that relygyon being nere unto yow and to gyve hym sumthing after your discrecyon suche as may stand with the kynges honour and also to his honest Contentacyon, and thus trustyng in your approvyd wysdom and experyence Commytt all the premysses unto your discrecyon trustyng ever that ye wyll have respect to your dew and charge and also that I may have short answer of thes and other my letteres, and so Fare ye well at London, the xiiiith daye of June.”

Where Dr. David Pole was placed we are not told, but in 1535 a David Pole is found as Prebendary of Tachebroke, in receipt of a stipend of £10 a year.[42]

On February 12th, 1534, Richard Harecourt became the escheator for the year, and remained till November 18th, when another was appointed, who proved to lack the necessary property qualification, so Longford had to pay the King’s dues direct. Next year (November 24th, 1535) Thomas Skrymsher was appointed.

The King now made one of those “exchanges” which became so frequent later. The manor of East Molesey was pleasantly situated on the southern bank of the Thames, in Surrey, and had obvious advantages over the remote estate in North Staffordshire. It belonged to the old and historic priory of Merton, where Becket had been educated, where the Parliament had sat which enacted the statutes of Merton, and which had provided a refuge for the patriot Hubert de Burgh in his days of adversity. Its past fame and present wealth seemed to warrant its inmates in a confident assurance of security, and they agreed to give the King their riverside manor of East Moleseyin exchange for the distant and forlorn cell of their Order at Calwich. No doubt they hoped eventually to retrieve its fortunes and to re-establish it as a religious house, though for the present they had to acquiesce in the arrangements regarding it which had just been made. The exchange appears to have been made in 1535–6, and Merton renewed the lease to Longford for £43, with the obligation to discharge the pension of sixty shillings to “the late priory of Kelyngworth.”

Almost immediately the process of squeezing the larger houses began, and Merton Abbey soon succumbed. The date of its surrender, with Abbot and fourteen monks, is April 16th, 1538. The lease of Calwich to Longford was renewed in the same year. In 1540 he obtained an acknowledgment that he had paid all his dues to Cromwell and Gostwick, and was empowered to receive from the various escheators “tayles” (tallies,i.e., receipts) for them. The Augmentation Book in 1543 has a record of his twenty-one years’ lease, but the reversion was sold to John Fleetwood.

Longford soon found himself in financial difficulties. In spite of the grant of Calwich, for which Sir Anthony Fitzherbert wrote to thank Cromwell on April 18th, 1537, he could not pay the rent due. The royal escheators were hard taskmasters, exacting the uttermost farthing, and Fitzherbert’s letter shows Longford had been some time in debt. In 1541 they levied a distraint, and ejected from the estate the tenants to whom Longford had sublet it. He had to enter into a bond of £200 to settle the matter, and this only addedto his embarrassments. In 1543 he was in the Fleet, the debtors’ prison, writing piteous appeals for loans wherewith to discharge his indebtedness to the King.

Ralf Longford, his successor in Elizabeth’s reign, on the expiration of the lease made an effort to retain the property, but without success, and Calwich passed to the Fleetwoods. The way they treated the buildings is well known from Erdeswicke’s oft-quoted description. Writing about 1593, he noted how the new owner “hath made a parlour of the chancel, a hall of the church, and a kitchen of the steeple.” It is strange to find the Fleetwoods of Calwich in the lists of Recusants in later years.[43]

Back to Index Next