VI fault is not in them."5 To desolate the houses and CHAP churches of the monks and nuns by such plunder seems to have been the first care of the commis- A.D. 1535 sioners; and what goods were thus obtained went straightway to the King without any process of law whatever, and simply by the authority of irresistible tyranny. By such plunder of all valuable things tying up that could be taken away, and by tying up the hands was left of the monks as to control over what remained, some houses, and perhaps not a few, were unable to provide means for sustaining existence; and not only their alms and hospitality were obliged to be discontinued, but they themselves were brought to the verge of starvation." what else out the Another means by which the monks were starved Starving out of their houses, was by the strictest enforcement, monks in its most rigid sense, of one of the Injunctions,— "That no monk, or brother of this monastery, by any means go forth of the precinct of the same;" a "porter specially appointed" being placed at the only entrance allowed to secure the efficiency of the imprisonment thus enjoined. This was called "enclosing" the monks; and the circumstances of the seclusion seem to have been so severely felt that many gave way, unable to endure the hardships which it entailed. If any one of the monks thus virtually imprisoned ventured outside the walls of the monastery, Fuller says they were not allowed to enter the gateway again, the "porter specially appointed" having instructions to exclude them altogether from their houses. At the same time their numbers were vigor- Thinning ously thinned by an injunction, which ordered that Supp. of Monast., Camd. Soc., p. 59. • Ibid., p. 67. their num bers CHAP by a strained interpreta injunctions no man was to be suffered to profess, or to wear the habit of religion, unless he were twenty-four years of A. D. 1535 age. As early as November 18, 1535, doubts had begun to arise as to the proper application of this injunction; and disputes arose at the visitation of Christ Church, Canterbury, which led Archbishop Cranmer to write to Cromwell for the purpose of ascertaining its real meaning. From this it appears that the visitors were sending away all monks under tion of the twenty-four years of age, even though they had not professed until after twenty, and also that the money given to them was limited to their travelling expenses, all money sent them by their friends being taken away. This shows that the visitors were. anxious to thin the number of the monks; and it is not extravagant to suppose (especially suppose (especially as there is no trace of an answer to Cranmer's appeal) that they had secret instructions to do so. But they went even further than this, for one of the visitors, Ap Rice, wrote to Cromwell respecting Dr. Legh, that and send. "he setteth a clause in his injunctions that all they that will, of what age soever they be, may go abroad, which I heard not of your instructions."8 And though Ap Rice had suddenly become scrupulous, because he had a quarrel with Legh, in which he was trying to secure Cromwell on his own side, there ing all away who could be made to go This Injunction is thus given by Archbishop Cranmer. "Item, quod nullus deinceps permittatur profiteri regularem observantiam, aut vestem suscipere religionis per confratres hujus domus gestari solitam, nisi vicesimum suæ ætatis annum compleverit. Et si qui jam sub vicesimo anno completo in veste hujusmodi infra hanc domum jam inducti sunt, et si qui alii sub vicesimo quarto anno existentes discedere veluit, illam quam primum se exuant. Et magister hujus domus suo sumptu vestibus secularibus et honestis ad præsens ornet, et ad amicos suos chariores cum viaticis com petentibus transmittendos curet." Jenkyns' Cranmer, i. 156. 358. Ellis' Orig. Letters, III. ii. VI can be no doubt this was the course taken by the CHAP visitors in general, Stow recording that they "put forth all religious persons that would go, and all that A.D. 1535 were under the age of twenty-and-four years;" the abbot or prior being required to give each monk so driven out "a priest's gown, and forty shillings of money; the nuns to have such apparel as secular women wear, and to go where they will.' monas at once The effect, perhaps it would be more correct to say Thus many the instant effect, therefore, of the visitation was to teries thin the monasteries of their inmates, to place those broken up who remained in them under a yoke of unbearable tyranny, hardship, and espionage, and to confiscate all the most valuable part of the property belonging to their establishments. The case was so hard that some monasteries gave way altogether, and there is reason to think that only 123 of those which had been doomed for confiscation were able to hold out until the Act of Suppression rendered any further holding out impossible. The commissioners had entered on what (if it had been properly conducted) ought to have been a labour of many months, in the autumn of 1535. But they seem to have finished their labours in fewer weeks than they ought to have spent months upon them so that it is clear the visitation itself must have been a mere pro forma business, the packing Visitation up and conveyance of the plate, jewels and other apro forma valuables (which they abstracted solely under authority of the King's command) being the work that occupied their time. Meanwhile a bill was preparing which was to legalize these acts of plunder, and to 9 From a paper printed by Stevens in his History of Monasteries, ii. App. 17. one CHAP complete the suppression of those monasteries which could be brought to the ground without danger. VI A. D. 1535-6 visits to of Com This first Act of Dissolution [27 Hen. VIII. cap. Act of Dis. 28] was passed about the end of February 1535-6, solution some four or five months from the time at which the important inquiry into the condition of the monastic institutions was begun. In what manner, and by what channel it found its way into Parliament, is not on record, but of course it was a "Government bill," and bills of this kind were sometimes initiated, or forwarded a stage, by very significant impulses. The King's Which among the "faithful Commons" could hesitate the House as to his vote when "the King's Grace came in among the burgesses of Parliament, and delivered them a bill and bade them look upon it, and weigh it in conscience," departing out of the House of Commons with a promise that he would be there again on the following Wednesday to hear their minds! Whether or not this was so presented, the King afterwards spoke to them of it as "my bill," and it bears strong marks of royal authorship. It is entitled "an Act whereby religious houses of monks, canons, and nuns, which may dispend manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments above the clear value of two hundred pounds, are given to the King's highness, his heirs, and successors for ever." mons Statements In the preamble of this Act, it is first stated that preamble "manifest sin, vicious, carnal, and abominable living of the is daily used and committed commonly" in religious houses whose inmates do not exceed twelve in number, "whereby" the heads of those houses spoil, destroy, and waste their churches, monasteries, lands, and other possessions, as well as the "ornaments of their churches," to the high displeasure of God, and VI A. D. 1535-6 of some of to the great infamy of the King's highness and the CHAP realm. Thus two important charges are at the outset made against a certain class of monasteries, those in which the number of persons was less than twelve. The allegation is, of course, so far as the number is Absurdity concerned, ridiculous; as, if there had been a plague them of immorality and wickedness pervading monastic houses to so great an extent, it would not have been limited to the "hard and fast line" of those whose inmates amounted to one dozen only. The statement of the preamble is, therefore, to this extent weakened in its force as a probably truthful accusation, though even this absurdity may not be inconsistent with the truthfulness of other portions. But it is further weakened by the charge that the untruth of heads of these monasteries containing twelve persons others or fewer wasted the "ornaments" as well as the other possessions of their churches and monasteries. It is indisputable that the visitors dispossessed them of these, laying their hands upon all the gold and silver plate that they could find, and also on all "relics" which were adorned with the precious metals or precious stones. This accusation seems to have no Seem other object than to cover the fact that the disap- inserted to pearance of such " ornaments" from the monasteries acts of and churches arose from their appropriation by the King. The visitors "hadde packed up such joells & stuffe as the monks had," the "crosses of silver & golde," of which Layton wrote "I shall bring you the reste, whan I have recevide all," and the 1 The number twelve was really suggested by the Bull of 1528, which empowered Wolsey and Campeggio to suppress any houses under that number, and transfer the monks or nuns to the larger disguise plunder |
