VI CHAP King's privy purse ultimately received them: but the Act of Parliament, at the King's bidding, stated that they had been "wasted" by the monks. A. D. 1535-6 as to many visitations desire to monks It is then further stated in this preamble that Allegation there had been "many continual visitations" of the previous monasteries during the preceding two hundred years; but from the extreme difficulty which Wolsey (with all his unprecedented power) found in obtaining authority to visit them, this must be a great exaggeration, except so far as it may be meant to apply to the few cases in which archbishops and bishops could visit without special license from Rome. The allegation was plainly introduced for the sake of the following assertion :-that "without such small Professed houses be utterly suppressed, and the religious perreform the sons therein committed to great and honourable monasteries of this realm, where they may be compelled to live religiously, for reformation of their lives, there shall else be no redress nor reformation in this behalf." This professed desire to reform the inmates of these houses was shown in practice, not by thus transferring them to larger monasteries, but by giving them each forty shillings and a layman's or priest's gown, out of the plunder of their houses, and then sending them about their business. This provision of the Act was copied from the papal bull of 1528, and there can be no doubt whatever that it originated with Wolsey; but the intention of its but no original framer was not carried out by the King and Parliament who adopted his words; and the monks ejected from the lesser monasteries were mostly sent into the world, and sent there with forty shillings, a little fortune on which to begin life again. Yet this portion of the preamble is reiterated a few lines attempt whatever made to do so VI A. D. 1535-6 further on in the Act, in the words, "considering CHAP also that divers and great solemn monasteries of this realm, wherein (thanks be to God) religion is right well kept and observed, be destitute of such full number of religious persons, as they ought and may keep ;" which words could hardly be inserted for any other purpose than that of conciliating the parliamentary representatives of the great solemn monasteries, whose opposition to the suppression of the "little and small abbeys" would be very troublesome, and might be thus prevented. fulness of Respecting this preamble, it is to be observed (1) Untruththat there are some manifest falsehoods in its allega- this Act tions; (2) that there is gross absurdity in its statement that the monasteries containing only twelve inmates were past reformation, while those containing more than twelve were respectable; and (3) that no attempt was made at the reformation which is said to be impossible, the Act being passed within six months of the time when the inquiry on which it was founded had been commenced. During that six months many of the monasteries had been extinguished instead of an attempt being made to reform them. The injunctions respecting reformation were, indeed, given to the remainder, but no further inquiry was made as to whether or not those injunctions had been observed. It is worth noting these circumstances in case any future historian should revive the allegation that the King and his ministers were conspicuous for their honesty in all and of its the transactions connected with the dissolution. Honesty is just the virtue of all others which is most certainly proved to have been wanting in them. It is observable that this limit is ignored in the enacting clauses. contrivers CHAP A. D. 1535-6 Of the enacting clauses, which go into great detail, only two or three particulars require to be noticed. (1.) In the first place all monasteries, priories, &c., which have not an income exceeding two hundred pounds a year are given to the King and his heirs, because it is "much more to the pleasure of Almighty God, and for the honour of this his realm," that their revenues "should be used and committed to better uses," and the "unthrifty religious persons" made to reform their lives. (2.) The possessions of every kind which belonged to these monasteries were invested in the King "in as large and ample manner as the abbots, priors, abbesses, prioresses, and other governors of such monasteries. priories, and other religious houses, now have, or ought to have, the same in the right of their houses;" not as in their own right, for their own use, but as trustees. (3.) The Act is an ex post facto piece of legislation, giving to the King all monasteries that had been handed over to him during the year preceding by the resignation of their inmates, or that have otherwise been suppressed or dissolved. (4.) All sites, tithes, or monastic goods which had been given away by the King were confirmed to those on whom he had already bestowed them. (5.) It was enacted that the King should have and enjoy the actual and real possession of all the dissolved monasteries for a particular object, "so that his Highness may lawfully give, grant, and dispose them, or any of them, at his will and pleasure, to the honour of God and the wealth of this realm." No doubt there is a certain vagueness about this expression, but it can scarcely be considered as honestly VI consistent with the reckless manner in which the pos- CHAP sessio.s of the monasteries were afterwards, and had been already, squandered on secular and evil objects. (6.) It was further enacted that the King should provide occupation and pensions for those monks who were not transferred to the greater houses and that on the site of every dissolved monastery or priory a mansion should be erected where liberal hospitality should be observed, as in the religious foundations which they had superseded. A. D. 1535-6 But although the tone of this Act was very far Some of above the infamous transactions which it sheltered, the Comand although it bears clear evidence of being con- pose it cocted under royal superintendence, some vigorous opposition to it was offered by members of the House of Commons, and it was only passed after the King had thrown some of his usual threats at their heads. "When the bill," says Sir Henry Spelman, "had stuck long in the Lower House, and could get no passage, he commanded the Commons to attend him in the forenoon in his gallery, where he let them wait till late in the afternoon, and then coming out of his chamber, walking a turn or two amongst them, and looking angrily on them, first on the one side and then on the other, at last-I hear,' saith he, 'that My Bill will not pass; but I will have it pass, or I will have some of your heads:' and without Their other rhetoric or persuasion returned to his chamber. threatened Enough was said, the bill passed, and all was given by the him as he desired.' The first words of the Act state that the administration of monastic property by the monks was "to the high displeasure of Almighty God, slander of heads King VI A. D. 1535-6 the small monas teries CHAP good religion, and to the great infamy of the King's highness and the realm." It may safely be alleged that the case was not improved, however bad it might be, by the operation of the Act itself. But some evidence as to the new uses which were made Spoils of of monastic property will be found at a subsequent page. It is enough to say here that 376 religious houses were ruined and despoiled, and that no portion of their property returned to the Church. Lord Herbert and other historians estimate the annual revenue of this first spoliation at £30,000, and the ready money value of the "jewels and stuff" which the visitors "packed up" and sent to Cromwell, at £100,000. These sums represent quite a quarter of a million, and a million, of modern money, and there are good reasons for thinking that they are much below the real value of the property confiscated." ing monas Attack But the spoils were not likely to last long when prepared for remain the expense of the King and his court was so enorteries mously prodigal: and the first Act of Suppression was no sooner passed than Cromwell and his master prepared for a new campaign. Even while the bill was passing through Parliament, the voice of the destructive party was heard boldly declaring that the measure was only a beginning. "Even at that time one said in the Parliament House," says Grafton in |
