Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
To all who are well versed in the current accounts of the dissolution of the English monasteries it will at once be evident that the date 1532 does not fall within any of the familiar stages of that revolution. It is usually said to have been begun by Wolsey, who obtained in 1524 and 1528 papal authority to suppress some houses, with the assent of the king and their other founders, and endow his two new colleges with their property. Towards the end of 1528 Henry himself extorted from the Pope a similar bull for the benefit of the royal foundations of Eton and King's College; and afterwards, at his request, others were issued (the last being dated 31 August 1529) authorising the cardinal to unite very small convents with larger ones, and to establish new cathedrals endowed with monastic lands. The fall of Wolsey and the meeting of the Reformation Parliament ended this stage, during which some thirty insignificant houses had been suppressed. The next familiar episode occurred in 1534: the extinction of the Order of Observant Franciscans in England. But meanwhile, as modern historians have failed to note, the very important house of Austin canons at Aldgate, Holy Trinity or Christchurch (the names were interchangeable) had fallen: the first monastery dissolved by the king, with no shadow of authorisation from the Pope.
page 127 note 1 Rymer, Fædera, xiv, 15, 23, 32, 243, 251, 270–3, 291, 345; cf. other bulls and grants in that volume, and the relevant documents in Letters and Papers, Henry VIII (henceforth cited as L. & P.), iv, passim. For a list of the houses suppressed, see Gairdner, , Eng. Church in the Sixteenth Century, p. 419Google Scholar.
page 129 note 1 Victoria History of London (henceforth cited as V. C. H.), Vol. i (1908), articles on Religious Houses, by Miss M. Reddan, passim. For St. James's see L. & P. v, 406, 606, 627 (28); x, 775 (1–4); Statutes of the Realm, iii, 398 and p. xviii.
page 129 note 2 New style: 1531 old, hence the different dates given in various works: cf. p. 135, note 1, below. Several of the incidents mentioned in this paper occurred at the beginning of a year; the new style has therefore been used throughout, to avoid the confusing effect of numerous double dates.
page 130 note 1 Calendar of Letterbooks among the Archives of the Corporation; Letter-Book C, pp. 73–5, 216–25, 12. Cf. R. R. Sharpe's introduction to this, pp. xvi–xxvi, and Page, W., London (1923), chap, iv and pp. 181, 210–12, 227Google Scholar.
page 130 note 2 On these see “The Transformation of London ” in Tudor Studies, presented to A. F. Pollard (1924), pp. 299–300, 312.
page 130 note 3 Cal. Letter–Book L, 1463–90, passim; Appendix II, below; James, M. R., Cat. MSS. Corpus Christi Coll., Cambridge, p. 388 (MS. 170).Google Scholar
page 131 note 1 Survey (edited by C. L. Kingsford, 1908; all future references will be to this edition), i, 141; ii, 291.
page 131 note 2 P.R.O. Rentals, etc., Rolls 437, 438: see Appendix I, below. Cf. Lond. Epis. Reg. Tunstall, in note 2, p. 136, below.
page 131 note 3 V. C. H. i, 470. For the church, see W. R. Lethaby in Home Counties Mag. (1900), ii, 48.
page 132 note 1 Cal. Papal Letters, x, 106: a reference which I owe to the Right Rev. Abbot Aloysius Smith, C.R.L., who was present when this paper was read. The Pope granted a petition of the king, bishop and mayor and aldermen that the priory should therefore be elevated into an abbey; but this does not seem ever to have taken effect: cf. ibid., p. 691 and C.C.C. MS. 170 in James' Catalogue, p. 388. The information in the V. C. H. i, 470–1, 474, about the priory in the fifteenth century may now be supplemented, also, by the Calendars not only of the City Letter-Books I, K and L, but of the Patent Rolls, since issued. Cf. Beaven, A. B., Aldermen of London (1908–1913), i, 180–1; ii, 30Google Scholar.
page 132 note 2 Chronicles of London (edited by C. L. Kingsford), pp. 199–201, 203; Hist. MSS. Comm. Report, ix, App. i (MSS. D. & C. of Canterbury), p. 119; L. & P. Hen. VIIL, i (old edition, dated 1518 in the new, part iii, p. lxxxi), 1639; cf. ii, p. 1483.
page 133 note 3 L. & P. v, 1744; i (new edition, not in old), 1804 (24); ii, 115.
page 133 note 1 Lond. Epis. Reg. Fitzjames, fo. 121; cf. the Hereford, Reg. Caroli Bothe (Cant, and York Soe.), p. 26Google Scholar.
page 133 note 2 Lond. Epis. Reg. Tunstall, fos. 51–57vo; L. & P. iv, 496; Rec. Corp. Lond., Repertoryiv, fos. 198, 215 (also in vii, fo. 6vo, and in Letter-Book N, fo. 272vo). The Repertories are the minutes of the Court of Aldermen, some of which were also recorded in the Letter-Books. This is perhaps the first definite reference to the appointment of a Deputy: see other entries in the City records extracted by Baddeley, J. J., Aldermen of Cripplegate, pp. 109–110Google Scholar.
page 134 note 1 Rec. Corp., Repert. vii, fo. 19 (33, old numbering); Baddeley, op. cit., pp. 141–2, 183 (there is a similar entry in Repert. iv, fo. 193vo). For the anti-clericalism of the City, see V. C. H. i, 246–7, 256, 259–60.
page 134 note 2 Lond. Epis. Reg. Tunstall, fo. 156vo; L. & P. iv, 3764; P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, § 74, pp. 2, 3 (cf. L. & P. vi, 3, 4, where relevant points are omitted); Rec. Corp., Letter-Book O, fo. 237.
page 134 note 3 P.R.O. Rentals, etc., Portfolio 11, No. 15, fo. 7: see Appendix I. The valuation was somewhat optimistic, for the net income is there given as over £630.
page 135 note 1 Eœdera, xiv. 411, where it is wrongly placed under 1531, and the reference should be Rot. Claus. 23 Hen. VIII. In the V. C. H. (p. 471, notes 115, 112) it is unfortunately cited from Kennett's collections in B.M. MS. Lans. 968 and from the summary in L. & P. v, 823. In the latter the omission of a comma after “ debt ” leads to the wrong inference that the priory still owed the king money in 1532, which is also implied in L. & P. v, 1731, where the relevant phrase of the original runs: “ yt I may haue a discharge of the Kynges highnes for the dettes of the hows: ” the point being, as the context shows, that the king should in future be responsible for these.
page 135 note 2 P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, § 73; p. 123 (L. & P. v, 1744); Nam cum nuper apud nos monasterio christi omnia pacata et quieta esse satis existimauimus nos felices ibidem fuisse … et religioni totum deditos: exinspirato [sic] obuenit nobis illa nephanda separatio diruptio et tandem Universe domus euersio et suppressio.
page 135 note 3 Only the first seven who signed the surrender, i.e. all those in orders (domini) are on the list in Tunstall's Register, fo. 51. The name given as Dawsen in Lans. MS. 968 (Monasticon, 1830, vi, 151) is Dawrea on the Close Roll, as in Fœdera and L. & P. v, 823.
page 136 note 1 L. & P. v, 1731–5; the last, whose original (P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, § 73, P. 114) is quoted above, must be later than the death of Warham, Aug. 1532, and should be connected with that summarised in L. & P. vi 1653. For the legal powers and responsibilities of the prior, see Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, I, bk. II, ch. ii, §§ 4, 12.
page 136 note 2 Fo. 51: Anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo xxxiijo (sic) suppressus erat prioratus ex improvida administracione prioris hie electi valor huius prioratus extendebat ad vc viij.li xiij.s ix.d.
Fo. 156vo: racione negligentie remissionis et improvide administracionis domini Nicholai hancock prioris huius prioratus iste prioratus extinctus erat Anno domini millesimo quingentesimo xxxijdo.
page 137 note 1 Camden Miscellany, xii, 6 (cf. the later Greyfriars' Chron., in Mon. Fran. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 194); Survey, i, 141.
page 137 note 2 I had come to this conclusion before I discovered that Fuller (see below, p. 146–7) had anticipated it.
page 137 note 3 L. & P. v. 1731–4: from P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, § 73, pp. 110–13. The passage quoted is on p. 111 (No. 1732).
page 138 note 1 See the second Statute of Westminster, 13 Edw. I, c. 41 (Stat. of the Realm, i, 91), and Lyndwood, , Provinciate (1679), p. 149Google Scholar.
page 138 note 2 P.R.O., T.R. Misc. Bk 162, fo. 37: cf. Appendix I.
page 138 note 3 L. & P. v, as p. 136 above, and 1065 (34), 1744; Newcourt, Repertorium Eccles. Lond., i, 561, 807–8; chronicles, as p. 137, followed by Stow (who, with his usual haziness in chronology, gives the date as July, 1531, confusing the surrender in Feb. 1531–2 with the dispersal six months later); Visitations of the diocese of Norwich (Camden Soc, New Ser., 43), p. 310. The last reference I owe to Mr. G. Baskerville; it corroborates the date given for the dispersal by the chronicler.
page 139 note 1 Ellis, Orig. Letters, 3rd Ser., ii, 247, 255 (L. & P. vi, 115, 116); L. & P. v, 1362, 1548, vi, 228; vii, p. 352, No. xxxvii (cf. other allusions in this set of “Remembrances”); P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, §73, p. 100 (L. & P. v, 1722, wrongly dated, as it must be after 2 Feb. 1532–3): a petition from one who had been a servant there (cf. L. & P. ii, 115) saying that the convent owed him over £9, “as Maister doctor olyver, Maister doctor lee and William Candyssh clerk to yor saide maistership aboute the Fest of the purificacion of or lady last syttyng in the priory of Christchurch aforesaide as commissioners for our soueraigne lord the Kyng, … truly had … perfytt knowlege,” but that Cavendish had refused to pay him more than 20s. Cf. L. & P. v, index: the corrected date makes it certain that “ Dr. Lee ” was Rowland, not Edward. The deed of surrender had been “ recognised ” by the canons before him and Dr. Oliver (Fædera, xiv, 411).
page 139 note 2 State Papers, Henry VIII (1830), i, 388 (L. & P. vi, 2; cf. v, 1514).
page 140 note 1 Statutes 8 Hen. VI, c. 16, and 18 Hen. VI, c. 6 (Stat. of the Realm, ii, 252, 306); Commentaries (edition 1773), iii, 258–9.
page 140 note 2 Herbert, Lord, Henry VIII (edition 1672), p. 297 (L. & P. iv, 6075)Google Scholar; Hall, Chron. (edition 1809), p. 694.
page 141 note 1 P.R.O., S.P. Hen. VIII, §78, p. 122 (L. & P. vi, 976).
page 141 note 2 Stat. of the Realm, iii, 489. The Act passed through all its stages between 17 and 24 March (Lords' Journals, i, 76–9).
page 142 note 1 A defect remedied in the later deeds: see Fædera, xiv, 555–7.
page 142 note 2 This question became of vital importance to the City itself in its struggle with the later Stuarts: see the “ Postscript ” on “ the Surrender of Corporations ” appended to The Pleadings and Arguments and other Proceedings in the Court of Kings Bench upon the Quo Warranto (London, 1690). Cf. Holdsworth, Hist, of Eng. Law (1923), iii, 489–90.
page 143 note 1 The first enacted that since the value of the houses concerned was known the king might dispose of their property “ without further inquisition or office ”; the second provided for the validity of his letters patent issued for that purpose in despite of various possible objections, among them “ lack of finding offices or inquisitions, whereby the title of his highness therein ought to have been found.” See Stat. of the Realm, iii.. 576, 737.
page 143 note 2 B.M. MS. Cott. Vesp. C. xiv, fo. 149 (166 later). The words “ act of ” are crossed out before “ Parliament.” Cf. his attitude towards the royal supremacy: Foxe, , Acts and Monuments (editions 1841–1877), vi. 3Google Scholar.
page 144 note 1 Appendix I, No. [6]; L. & P. vii, 419 (28), 587 (10), 1601 (35) viii, 481 (13), 962 (26). For other references to the property of the priory and its disposal (to the end of 1537) see ibid, v, 152, 1663, 1691; vi, 299; vii, 147 (15), 923 passim, 1601 (34); viii, 291 (19), 802 (20); ix, 914 (8); x, 254, 1256 (48); xii (i), 1330 (47); (ii) 796 (7), 1027.
page 145 note 1 Rec. Corp. Lond. Repert. ix, fos. 46, 53vo, I46vo, 153vo, 254–7, 262–4; Letter-Books Q, fo. 116 (see Appendix II, below), P, fo. 138vo (also in Repert. x, fo. 17vo). For the second scheme, see also Repert. ix, fo. 270, Repert. x, passim (cf. the contemporary attempt of the city to acquire other precincts: Tudor Studies, ut supra, p. 301).
page 145 note 2 Letter-Book A B, fo. 106; Newcourt, Repertorium, i, 588.
page 146 note 1 Survey, i, 142; P.R.O., Rentals, etc., portfolio 11, No. 15, fo. 3; L. & P. ix, 41; facsimiles of plans (c. 1592), now at Hatfield (cf. the Hist. MSS. Comm. Calendar, xiv, 48) illustrating an article by Lethaby, W. R. in Home Counties Mag. ii (1900)Google Scholar. The drawing of the gate (1793) there reproduced is from J. T. Smith's Antiquities of London.
page 147 note 1 Book VI, §iii: vol. iii, pp. 358–62 in Brewer's edition (Oxford, 1845).
page 147 note 2 Cf. P.R.O. Lists & Indexes, xxv, Rentals and Surveys, pp. 197, 205. In my list the relevant Surveys are given in chronological order. Portfolio 11, No. 15, contains four distinct documents about Christchurch: on fo. 5, between those here numbered [5] and [1], is a rough draft of one of the grants to Audley.
page 148 note 1 The heading is mutilated, and part of the date has disappeared: the portions left show that the statement was for a year ended Michaelmas, xxi Hen. viii. There is a “ th ” above the missing letter or letters, and the tail of some letter below, which is certainly not x. On palaeographical grounds, therefore, the date cannot be 29 Hen. viii, as in L. & P. and List xxv, p. 197; by that time, also, the estates were in the possession of Audley and other grantees. It is almost certainly 24 Hen. viii. Roll 438 is not dated, but is obviously a continuation of 437. The two together correct in important respects the list of estates, compiled from grants etc., in V. C. H. i, 473.
page 148 note 2 In margin.
page 149 note 1 Sic: for congregation and ancienty (seniority), respectively. The mistakes in grammar, etc., are also in the original.
page 149 note 2 Audley had died on 30 April.
page 149 note 3 In Margin.
