CHAPTER IVPRELIMINARIES TO THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION

For the sake of following up the story of the downfall of Calwich in a connected form it has been necessary to omit the mention of much that meanwhile had been happening. Bishop Blythe’s loyalty would have been severely strained had he lived a few weeks longer. Before the end of January (1531) the Convocation of Canterbury had been compelled to vote the enormous sum of £100,000 in atonement for the fault which had been committed in acknowledging Wolsey’s legatine authority. The Abbot of Croxden was too ill to attend the Session. The Northern Convocation subsequently voted an additional £18,840. The ease with which these huge amounts were raised was to have unsuspected effects. The clergy were also compelled to acknowledge the King “their singular protector, only and supreme lord, and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even Supreme Head,” though it must be remembered that Henry took pains to explain that he understood the expression in no blasphemous sense. Next, it was required that the Convocations should enact no new Canons without royal license. They made a vain attempt to retain some of their powers. On May 8th (1532) a deputation was appointed to wait upon the King to try to induce him to retain clerical immunities. The constitution of the deputation did not augur well for its success. It consisted of RolandLee, already called Bishop of Lichfield, though he was not consecrated till April 19th next year, the Abbot of Burton-on-Trent, and four others.

The Abbot of Burton-on-Trent was Dr. William Boston. He had been originally a monk of Peterborough, and became Abbot of Burton in 1531. He was one of Cromwell’s satellites, and there are many notes in Cromwell’s “Remembrances” which show that the two were in frequent consultation. It was probably through Cromwell’s influence, and against the wishes of the Convent, that Boston was elected Abbot, for at the next vacancy a strong party still adhered to the monk who ought to have been previously advanced. Roland Lee is a personage who needs no introduction, and we shall have sufficient of him before long.[44]

The deputation failed, if it was intended to preserve any semblance of initiative for Convocation. On May 10th the famous “Submission of the Clergy” was introduced, and on May 15th it was accepted.

At the same time Henry’s passion for Anne Boleyn was driving him further and further from the Pope. The Annates Bill, empowering the King to deprive the Pope of his revenues from England, was passed, for diplomatic reasons, on March 19th. It was at once a threat and a bribe to the Papacy, and its object was to secure the annulling of Katherine’s marriage. A post was sent to Rome “to frighten the Pope about the Annates,”[45]but it failed in achieving its object. Clement VII stood firm; but early in 1533, as wasafterwards alleged, the King went through a form of marriage with Anne Boleyn. Among those who were variously stated to have performed the ceremony was Roland Lee. The alienation from the Papacy became much more pronounced as the news of the marriage leaked out, and the passing of the Annates Bill into law became inevitable. The Royal Letters Patent, which made it effective, were issued on July 9th.

In the same Session the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome was passed, springing from the same unsavoury origin, and requiring more management in Parliament. Exceptional steps were taken to make sure that the King’s party should be well represented. William Boston had lately been in frequent consultation with Cromwell: he could be depended upon to speed the ecclesiastical legislation then in progress, and in his person the Abbot of Burton for the first time sat in Parliament. His admission is entered on the Rolls as being “by virtue of a writ of summons, dated the 30th of April, 24 Henry VIII.”[46]It may be recalled that meanwhile the house at Calwich was in the last throes of dissolution. It was on October 21st following that Strete reported: “the Office of Calwich is passed for the King.”

But Calwich was not the only Staffordshire house which was receiving Cromwell’s attention at this time. William Boston was speedily rewarded for his support of the royal policy in Parliament by being promoted to the high honour of the Abbacy of Westminster.[47]It was part of Cromwell’s policy to secure the electionof complacent nominees to the headships of the religious houses as vacancies occurred. A writer of Elizabeth’s reign, who had been cognisant of the whole history of the period, averred that he deliberately promoted such men as would afterwards further his schemes of confiscation: “He placed abbottes and ffriers in divers great housses, divers lerned men, and perswaded against these superstitiens,which men were readie to make surrender of their houses at the kinges commaundement.”[48]

We have already seen that pressure had been probably brought to bear upon the community at Burton-on-Trent when Boston had been elected. The facts about the election of his successor admit of no dispute. The whole story appears in full in the State papers.

No sooner had William Boston been promoted than Cromwell set about securing the election of a successor of the same type. He sent to the Abbey three men like-minded with himself, Roland Lee, Richard Strete, and Pole. Roland Lee and he had already been companions in much work of an unsavoury nature, of which the business at Burton was comparatively innocent. Strete’s character has already been seen in the matter of the dissolution of Calwich. Pole was Vicar-General. The three were to secure the election of Cromwell’s nominee. But there was much opposition. The majority of the brethren desired to elect one whom ancient custom marked out for the promotion, and it was hoped that the King or the Queen would save them from interference. Cromwell’s nominee was strongly objected to. The plausible Lee, however, assured themonks that in these virtuous days the Court had abjured all undue interference with the freedom of elections, and easily convinced them they had nothing to hope in that quarter. That accomplished, he was confident of success. On June 25th, 1533, he wrote from Burton a report to Cromwell in these words:[49]“This day, with the assistance of Mr. Strete and Mr. Pole, I have travailed with the convent of Burton, but as yet I have no promise, as one part trusts to have from the King, the Queen, and you, a command contrary to that I have from you. I had never so much to do about such matters because the beryn (? bearing—i.e., demeanour, fashion) in the Court hath been that no man durst mell; and those matters were shortly sped. There is one here that by election should have had the Abbey before, and yet by the same shall have it according to the ancient order of the law. I beg you to wait for further knowledge from me. Your furtherance of justice shall not be undeserved. I beg your favour to Master Dutton, Sir Piers,[50]whose only trust is in you. It is better for a man to lose his right arm than sue, but only for your good help, and he will keep his promise to you.”

Two days afterwards he had succeeded in persuading the monks to leave the nomination of their Abbot to him and Strete. He wrote to Cromwell on June 27th: “I sped the election at Burton, and the compromission is in me and Mr. Strete to nominate one of the Convent before the 1st of August.”[51]Heapparently had failed to secure the election of Cromwell’s original nominee, but it may be taken for granted that the man appointed by Lee and Strete would be sufficiently amenable for all practical purposes. The monks made a submission, and chose the third Prior, whose name was William Edie. Before August was out the royal assent had been given to his “election.” It was confirmed on 13th April, 1334.[52]He was subsequently summoned to Parliament, when the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries had to be passed, as will presently be related. Roland Lee was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield on April 19th.

When we find such men as Boston and Edie summoned to the Reformation Parliament, from a house which had not previously supplied mitred Abbots, it is evident that no pains were spared to pack the assembly throughout its existence. It is not surprising, therefore, that it proved compliant and obsequious.

In 1534 the Act of Succession was passed. The Oath of Succession appears to have been taken by all the members of both Houses of Parliament, but it caused the downfall of Sir Thomas More. Dr. Boston, now Abbot of Westminster, was one of the Commissioners appointed to administer the oath of supremacy to Sir Thomas More. On April 13th, 1534, Cranmer pressed the argument of loyalty, and, when More pleaded the claims of conscience, the Abbot of Westminster urged that his conscience should not be set above the opinion of the whole Parliament. More effectively retorted that a general council of Christendom was superior to a council of England, and repeatedthat he was perfectly willing to respect the succession as ordered by Parliament. As a loyal citizen and as a constitutional statesman he was ready to obey the Parliament in constitutional questions, but could not agree that it had unlimited authority in religion. He could “honour the King,” but at the same time he must “fear God.”

He was committed to the custody of Abbot Boston for four days, probably in the hope that so plausible and compliant an ecclesiastic would succeed in removing his scruples. But his constancy stood firm, and he soon found himself in the Tower, whence he went to the block on June 6th, 1535.

In 1534 further steps were taken to bring the religious houses under royal authority. The royal supremacy was formally established by Act of Parliament, and the King thus took over many of the powers which had been previously claimed by the Pope.

We must be on our guard against attaching too much significance to such legal enactments. It must be borne in mind that a good deal of this kind of lawmaking was not much more than giving statutory expression—often with brutal frankness—to what had long existed in fact. The royal authority had always been what the royal power had been able to make it, little under weak or indifferent kings, strong under masterful ones. The novelties after the period which is called “the Reformation” were in reality much slighter than is generally supposed. Henry VIII, when he exercised authority over the Church by virtue of the Act of Supremacy or in virtue of his title of “Supreme Head,” was not pressing much more hardlyon the liberties of his subjects than he had done before the new title had been invented. The history of the Staffordshire monasteries in previous centuries shows abundantly that whenever the King desired he could exercise the most arbitrary control over the religious houses in all sorts of ways. The only effective check before the Reformation was, not “Papal authority,” or “ecclesiastical privileges,” or “religious immunities”—all these could be, and were, overridden and set aside,—but public opinion. Precisely the same check was influential afterwards and to much the same extent as formerly. The skill of Henry VIII and his ministers was shown in the way they won public opinion to their side or crushed it away out of sight. English history, and continental too, has shown again and again that the civil power can never be permanently restrained by “immunities” and “concordats.” The force of circumstances is always liable to be too strong for such artificial arrangements: the power of Parliament must, as aforce majeure, be the final arbiter. It may, indeed, be argued that the statutes which seemed to place the English Church beneath the heel of the State, and which for three centuries have given the enemy occasion to blaspheme, gave her in reality a greater measure of freedom than many “unestablished” churches have enjoyed. It may almost be said that modern history has shown that the anxiety of Parliament to assert itself over a non-established church may be greater than over an established church, and that its powers may be exercised in the former case with greater tyranny and offensiveness than in the latter; it has also shownthat the powers and titles claimed by King and Parliament in Tudor times were, after all, only “stage properties”: the same authority may be claimed, and the same deeds done, without them.

Henry VIII, having formally taken over the Pope’s authority, was not slow to exercise it. A royal “Reformator and Inquisitor” of Croxden Abbey and many other Cistercian houses was appointed. This was Thomas Chard, alias Tybbes. He is a typical ecclesiastic of the period. He had been a member of St. Bernard’s, now St. John’s College, Oxford, and received the degree of D.D. in 1505, being styledvir doctrina et virtute clarus. He held a large number of preferments, vicarages, and rectories, as well as priorships. He became Prior of Montacute in 1515 (till 1525) and also Prior of Forde in 1521. The latter he held till the priory was dissolved. Meanwhile he was also a suffragan bishop, being styledEpiscopus Solubriensis. He was consecrated in 1508, when he was presented to the vicarage of Torrington Parva.[53]The fresh exercise of power and influence to which we have referred is explained in the following commission:

“Henry the eyethe by the grace of gode kyng of Ingelande and of Fraunce defensor of the fayeth and lorde of Yrelande sende gretynge | For as moche as hytt ys Requysytte and thaweth to be most expedyent thordre and Relygyon of Cystercanes to be visyted and Reformyde by Auctorite hade of vs wyrth in thys or Realme of Ingelande and nott be Auctorite hade from beyende the seys for dyv’se cosyderacons hade in the same We tenderyng the good cotynewaunce and mayntaynyg of all man’ catholique Religyon Firmely pceyvyng the indyfferensy dexterite and goode vertuous qualityes and divine lernyng wyche manyfestely bathe and dothe apperein owre trusty and welbeloyde Fadre in gode Thomas Abbott of Forde wherefore we name institute and ordeyne the sayde Abbott of Forde from hense Forde to be visitor Reformator and inquysitor of that Religion duryng hys naturall lyffe of all thos monasterys whos namys Folowyth Any comyssyon or comyssyons here tofore graunted to the contrary nott wyethstandyng that ys to vnderstande, Forde, Buckefaste, Buckelande, Dunckewell, Newham, Clyve, Byndon, Tarraunte, Bewley, Quarre, Letteley, Wav’ley, Rewley, Stanley, Haylys, Bordeley, Kyngewoode, Flaxley, Stratteford, Boxley, Crokedene, Combremeare, Cockehall, Brewern, Garydon, Bedyllisden, Combe, Stoneley, Merevalle, and Thame | Farther we wyll and straytely comande that no other psone or psons of what Estade degre or dygnite so ev’ he or they be but only the sayde Abbott of Forde or his depute do visett Reforme Inquyre or intermelle in any man’ wyse in any of the sayde monsterys afore Rehersyd nor wt any Religyous psone or psons of the same And ferther we wyll [lined through in original] duryng the natrall lyffe of the sayde Abbott of Forde whon we ordayne and depute visotor Reformator Inquysytor as before rehersid More ov’ we give and graunte and by thes presente we auctorisatt the fore sayde Abbott of Forde to destitute and institute any Abbott or Abbotts fro tyme to tyme wtyn all and ev’y of the Foresayde monsterys as the lawys and Rewlys of the sayde ordre dothe and wyll pymtte | And for hys Farther assystence in all and syngler the p’miss and for executyng of the same we wyll and straytely comaunde by vertew of thes or comyssyon all shreffys Mayrys baylyffys Constablys Justyce and all other or offycers in all and ev’y shere and libertie as far as any of thos Abbeys before namyde doth extende and for the executyng of this or Auctoritye comyttyde and gevyn to the foresayde Abbott of Ford | they and ev’y of them to Assyste the fore sayde Abbott of Forde att all tymys and att any tyme that they or any of them shalbe requyred by the sayd abbott of Forde or his depute in and a boute any of the monstreys before Rehersyde in advoydyng or hyeth dyspleasure. And this or comyssion and graunte we wyll to cotynewe in vigour and strengyth.”[54]

Very few of the monks ventured to follow More’s example in regard to the Oath of Succession, but the friars generally refused.

As they did most of the preaching in the parish churches, for the wholesale appropriation of tithes by the monasteries had so impoverished livings that few educated men held them, it was necessary that they should be silenced. Commissioners were accordingly appointed, to whom Roland Lee was afterwards added, to visit all the friaries, take an inventory of their goods, and examine each inmate separately.[55]In this way most of the friars in the provinces were reduced to submission, though Lee harried to death some honourable exceptions in London.

It is no wonder the monks, as a rule, proved amenable, for already it was common rumour that a vast scheme of spoliation was being planned, and they dared not precipitate matters by a bold refusal. The rumour was justified, for Cromwell was privately proposing to hand over all monasteries with less than thirteen inmates “for the maintenance of the royal estate,” though at the same time he publicly assured the monks that there was no such intention.

But the visitatorial powers in regard to them were now transferred to the King, and the first fruits and tenths which had been recently taken from the Pope were also revived as a fresh source of royal revenue. The statute which enacted the latter was entitled “The Bill for the First Fruits,[56]with the yearly pension to the King.” It slightly lessens the offensivenessof the King’s new title, by styling him “the only Supreme Head on Earth, next, and immediately under God, of the Church ofEngland,” and basing even this on the facts of history—“as he always, indeed, hath heretofore been.” Every person nominated to any ecclesiastical preferment, “religious” or “secular,” was to pay to the King “the first-fruits, revenues, and profits, for the year,” and also the tenth part annually. Commissioners were to be appointed to “examine and search for the just and true value of the said first-fruits and profits,” and first-fruits were allowed to no one but the King: it appears that in the Diocese of Norwich they had gone to the Bishop, and in the Archdeaconry of Richmond to the Archdeacon. Priors of dependent cells were exempted from the payment of first-fruits, but not of tenths. “And forasmuch as divers Abbots and Priors been charged to pay great pensions to sundry their Predecessors yet living, to the great Decay of their Hospitalities and Housekeeping; be it enacted by Authority aforesaid, That every such Predecessor of such Abbots or Priors, having any Pensions made sure unto them, or to any to their use, during their Lives, amounting above the yearly value of xlli.shall from henceforth be defalked and abated of the moiety and Halfdeal of every such Pension” (Art. 23). Article 24 expressly includes “the Lord Prior of Saint John’s of Jerusalem in England, and his Brethren” within the scope of the Act.[57]Article 28 “allows” the King to remit what remained as yet unpaid of thePræmunireFine “inConsideration that the said yearly Pension and annual Rent shall be yearly from henceforth duly paid and satisfied.”

Immediate steps were taken to ensure the due and accurate payment of the new income. In January, 1535, Cromwell procured a Royal Commission appointing himself Vicar-General and Visitor-General of all churches and monasteries, with authority to delegate agents. He set to work in the exercise of his new power with characteristic promptness. On January 30th commissions were issued for each county, to make the necessary investigations for discovering the whole amount of ecclesiastical property for the purpose of levying the tenths. The Staffordshire Commissioners[58]had Bishop Roland Lee for chairman, but he was the only ecclesiastic among them.

The others were Sir John Talbot, Sir John Gifford, George Audeley, John Vernon, Walter Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett, Edward Lyttleton, Thomas Gifford, Thomas Holte, Walter Blounte, John Grosvenor, and Thomas Moreton. They are the usual names which appear among the lists of officials. For example, John Gifford, Edward Lyttleton, and John Vernon had been the Commissioners appointed to investigate the matter of Wolsey’s dissolutions; and the Commissioners for Musters in 1539 included John Gifford, John Vernon, Walter Wrottesley, George Gresley, William Bassett, Edward Lyttleton, and Thomas Gifford.[59]John Vernon was Sheriff in the nineteenth, twenty-fourth, and thirtieth years of thereign; John Gifford in the twenty-second and the thirty-third; Walter Wrottesley in the thirty-eighth; George Gresley in the twenty-ninth; William Bassett in the thirty-fourth; Edward Lyttleton in the thirty-first; Thomas Gifford in the twenty-first. They were eminently “men of affairs,” well acquainted with public and official work.

Detailed instructions were given them.[60]Dividing themselves into sub-commissions, with three members as a quorum, they were to examine upon oath all persons concerned, and to inspect the necessary books and documents. Only certain specified deductions were to be allowed, and names and full details were in all cases to be given.

We know from the Returns of the Commissioners which of them investigated the Rural Deanery of Lapey and Trysull: Sir John Talbot, John Gifford, Walter Wrottesley, and John Grosvenor.[61]When the work had been completed in detail all the Commissioners for each diocese were to meet together and draw up a General Diocesan Return. The result of their work has been published by royal authority asValor Ecclesiasticus.[62]

It is a document of very great interest and importance. If the readiness with which the clergy raised the enormous fine of £100,000 from the Province of Canterbury and £18,840 0s. lOd. from York, for having acquiesced in Wolsey’s legatine authority, first opened Henry VIII’s eyes to the financial possibilities of theclergy, as may well have been the case, it is probable that the data supplied byValor Ecclesiasticusshowed him how to proceed to further supplies from the same source. To confiscate the whole of the clerical wealth was out of the question, but the Returns, by giving it in detail, made it possible to proceed piecemeal. That the Returns did thus suggest the suppression of monasteries seems to be indicated by the seventh article of the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries, which points out that those which came within its scope could be ascertained from the Returns which had just been made.

In various waysValor Ecclesiasticusis the most satisfactory record we have of the economy of the religious houses at the time of their dissolution, in spite of very serious drawbacks which we shall mention. It is, as a rule, plain and definite, and it is the only document we have which professes to give a statement of the monastic economy with any approach to completeness. In both of these respects it is superior to other sources of information. The “Particulars for Grants” relate, of course, only to such portions of the monastic lands as were desired by the applicant who supplied them, and theComputi Ministrorumwhich are printed at the end of the information about many of the religious houses inMonasticonare also incomplete. They are the first accounts of the possessions of the several monasteries as rendered to the Augmentation Office immediately after the Dissolution by the King’s Ministers and Receivers; but they show that already some of the property had changed hands. They supplement the particulars ofValor Ecclesiasticus,and afford a certain amount of basis for comparison and criticism, but they are drawn up on a different plan and with a different object, and so a complete comparison by means of them is difficult. It is also difficult in some places to understand the method of reckoning which is adopted in them.

It is easy to point out the deficiencies ofValor Ecclesiasticus.

That the Commissioners did not always succeed in ascertaining the whole income of the monasteries was by no means the fault of the Government. They kept in touch with their agents throughout the work; indeed, constant supervision and stimulus was wise, for the work was difficult and had to be done in a short time. It was ordered to be accomplished by the octave of Trinity following the issue of the Commissions, and it was actually finished soon afterwards. The Staffordshire Commissioners, under the guidance of the obsequious Bishop Lee, who was well experienced in official work, were the first, with a single exception, to send in their returns. Lee wrote to Cromwell on September 22nd (1535): “Your comfortable letters have made me strong and whole, and able to return to the King’s service. We delivered by Thomas Moreton, one of my assistants in the Commission, the taxation of the churches in Staffordshire in the course of last term, when there was not one except Kent that so did. The Court of Exchequer was well satisfied.”[63]

To carry out so huge a task in so short a time was to ensure much superficial work. It is true that the business habits of Englishmen and the bureaucratic natureof the Tudor administration, and the large number of lay officials, bailiffs, stewards, collectors, etc., in the employ of the monasteries, made the investigation easier than might otherwise have been the case. But even so there must have been many difficulties. We find in the returns ample evidence that through haste but little was done in the way of checking entries and balancing accounts. In the returns from Rocester Abbey the expenditure is given in four groups, each with its correct total. But the addition of the four totals is £1 too little. In the case of Stone Priory the “spiritual” balance is given as £68, etc., whereas it should be £59, etc., a difference of £9. But the tithe paid is correct for £119 14s. 11¼d., which is exactly £9 more than the real sum of the temporal and spiritual balances as these are shown. The official probably intended to write the spiritual balance as £lviiii, but when he came to make his final addition he read it as £lxviii, a mistake not difficult to make. Other mistakes of a similar nature will be noticed. No doubt it was difficult to compare and check the returns from different dioceses, as they came in at different times; and the omissions, from the stated incomes of monasteries, of items which elsewhere are noted as being paid to them, are probably due rather to deliberate concealment on the part of the monks than to any grave slackness on the part of the Commissioners. For instance, £2 3s. is noted in the valuation of the churches of Berkswick, Bushbury and Weston, as being paid to Stone Priory, but no trace of it appears in the monastic return. But it is remarkable that in the valuation of Dudley Priory no mention is madeof the 10s. from Dudley Vicarage, or in that of Trentham Priory of the 6s. 8d. from Hulton Abbey, a few miles away, and the valuation of which immediately precedes it. The £4 6s. 8d. given in the valuation of Rocester Abbey as being paid to a chantry at Lichfield does not appear in the Cathedral valuation. The remarkable omissions in the Burton investigation will be dealt with fully later on.

Again, many of the valuations could only be approximations: such were the returns made of offerings and payments in kind, and of the demesnes. It is, indeed, distinctly stated, as a rule, that the value of the demesne is given “according to the valuation of the Commissioners” or of one of them: Walter Wrottesley estimated the demesne at Dudley. Sometimes they called in assistance, possibly that of experts, or perhaps of local men, as happened at Rocester.

TheValor Ecclesiasticus, therefore, cannot be regarded as a complete statement of the monastic income. Its deficiencies as regards expenditure are still more grave. Only certain disbursements were allowed to be taken into account—regular pensions, rents, endowed doles, and fees to bailiffs, collectors of rents, etc., auditors, and stewards, episcopal visitation fees, synodals and proxies. The statute had allowed other fees also to be deducted, such as those to the Chancellor and Judges, but the instructions to the Commissioners omitted these, and they are usually disallowed. The object of the investigation being to show as large a net balance of income as possible, disbursements were reduced to a minimum. Only those which could not be avoided were shown, andbecause any particular item of expenditure is not shown in any particular return we cannot assert with confidence that it was actually not incurred. Only two corrodies are recorded in the whole of Staffordshire, and alms at Burton, Rocester and Tutbury only, yet we know that Dieulacres maintained eight poor bedeswomen.

The investigation was a contest between the two parties—the Commissioners, whose primary object was to make the income as large and the expenditure as small as possible, and the monks who naturally desired to reverse the proportion. The result was that there were serious omissions on both sides of the account, and theValor Ecclesiasticusis, accordingly, a very incomplete statement of the accounts of the religious houses. The omissions as regards income are many, but the information as to expenditure can only be described as altogether inadequate and incomplete. The Commissioners were not allowed to show much expenditure, even if they wished to do so: it was easy for them to allow little if they so desired. Under the direction of Bishop Lee it may safely be assumed that in Staffordshire they allowed the barest minimum.

The fictitious character of the expenditure side of the account is well illustrated by the case of Burton-on-Trent. When, as will be described later,[64]the valuation sent in by the Commissioners was found to be hopelessly erroneous, and a revised statement was drawn up by the order of the Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, which increased the revenue from £356 16s. 3½d.to £501 7s. 0½d., the expenditure was, apparently, not re-investigated. In face of the enormous increase of income which had been shown the Chancellor could well afford to spare himself the trouble of enquiring whether the statement of expenses needed revising: he treated it with scornful indifference and passed it with the contemptuous remark at the foot of the more profitable survey: “Mem. to deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye olde boke.”

Yet, in spite of these deficiencies, theValor Ecclesiasticusmay tell us much, if we bear in mind its limitations. The valuations made after the Dissolution were expressly ordered to be compared with theValor Ecclesiasticusand, as has been mentioned, they afford useful data for comparison. It is not surprising that they are usually higher in amount. The Surveyors had gained experience, and they had the previous survey for a guide. No source of income previously recorded would be likely to be overlooked, while those which had been omitted would now be discovered. The Surveyors, of course, desired to make their valuation as high as possible in order to ingratiate themselves with the Government. But, while the income inValor Ecclesiasticusmay well be less than is correct, that of the Dissolution officials could not easily be excessive. If in any case it were so, the fact would soon be proved by the would-be purchasers.

The Staffordshire Returns inValor Ecclesiasticusare arranged as follows:[65]

1. Rural Deanery of Lapley and Trysull. Thisincludes Brewood Nunnery and Dudley Priory. The names of the Commissioners who did the work for the Rural Deanery are recorded, as we have mentioned, and Walter Wrottesley is expressly stated to have estimated the value of the demesne at Dudley. Disbursements are reduced to a vanishing point at Brewood and to little better at Dudley, only the fees of the steward, Edward Blount, gent., and the bailiff, John Coke, being allowed.

2. Rural Deanery of Newcastle and Stone. This includes Hulton Abbey, Trentham Priory, St. Thomas’s Priory at Stafford, Stone Priory and Ronton Priory. No records of alms or payments for education are shown, though a corrody is allowed at Trentham.

3. Stafford Archdeaconry.

4. Rural Deanery of Leek and Alton. In this are included Dieulacres, Rocester and Croxden Abbeys. Payments are shown to the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter, and at Croxden the unusual item of 13s. 4d. to “the General Reformator of the Cistercian Order.” But, as we have already shown, this official was of Royal, not of Papal appointment. The arrangement of the valuation is alike for all three abbeys, and alms are only recorded at Rocester.

5. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and the Cathedral at Lichfield.

6. Tutbury Priory and Burton Abbey. Alms are noticed in both cases, and the Commissioners appear to have been unusually lenient.

7. Tamworth Collegiate Church.

8. Deanery of Tamworth and Tutbury.

A rough calculation of the net income of the Church in Staffordshire, as shown in the above returns, has been made as follows:

As far as possible the income from Staffordshire only is shown as regards the bishop, etc., but it was not always easy to separate the items. No visitation fees are shown, as they could not be apportioned between the counties: the total was £34 19s.

Of the total shown above, the net income of the religious houses is given as £1,608 5s. 2¾d., or rather less than two-fifths.

The following table gives the figures relating to the religious housesas they appear in Valor Ecclesiasticus: they must be read in conjunction with the notes which follow the table:

Part 1 of table

Part 2 of table

Part 3 of table

Part 4 of table

Back to Index Next