Suppression Of The English Monasteries Essay, Research Paper
Suppression OF THE ENGLISH MONASTERIESDURING THE REIGN OF KING HENRY THE EIGHTHAn EssayTABLE OF CONTENTSChapter 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Chapter 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Chapter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Chapter 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Chapter 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Chapter 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Chapter 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Chapter 1INTRODUCTION TO IMPORTANT PERSONAGESAND PREVALENT SOCIAL CONDITIONSIN THE 1520 & # 8217 ; s AND 1530 & # 8217 ; sIn the old ages 1536 and 1539 A. D. at that place occurred two events in England that were destined to change its whole spiritual character. In these two old ages the King of England, Henry VIII, forced through the English Parliament two Acts of the Apostless that sealed the destiny of the Catholic Church in England. They were the & # 8220 ; Act for the Dissolution of the Smaller Monasteries & # 8221 ; and the & # 8220 ; Act for the Dissolution of the Greater Monasteries & # 8221 ; , re-spectively. In this paper I will research the events and the grounds behind these events, which led to this complete and entire interruption with a faith that had been embraced by England for centuries. Naturally, the most of import of the people involved in these suppressions was King Henry VIII for it was during his reign that the monasteries were suppressed. When Henry & # 8217 ; s father died in 1509 Henryascended a throne which his male parent had made unusually secure, he inherited a luck which likely no English male monarch had of all time been bequeathed, he came to a land which was the best governed and most obedient in Christendom. Upon taking the throne Henry married his brother & # 8217 ; s widow, Catherine of Aragon, who was destined to be a chief character in a spiritual contention which shook all of Europe. After go uping to the throne it shortly became evident that Henry was non every bit economical as his male parent. Possibly he was using all the energy stored up while his male parent was alive for he was at that clip watched so closely that he might hold been a miss. He could travel out merely through a private door, and so he was under the supervising of specially-appointed people. No 1 could talk to him. He spent most of his clip in his room which could merely be entered via the king & # 8217 ; s chamber. He ne’er spoke in public unless it was to reply a inquiry from his male parent. One ground for this complete copiousness of protection may hold been that the male monarch, holding seen his oldest boy Arthur die shortly after get marrieding Catherine, feared for the safety of his lone staying male inheritor. But, whatever the ground, the consequence of this forced parturiency was that Henry began prosecuting in activities, many of them dearly-won, to ex-pend his energy. He held many jousting tourneies, went hunting and rubber-necking and even decided on the most & # 8220 ; kingly & # 8221 ; of activities, war. Within hebdomads of taking the throne, Henry decided to travel to war with France. One of the grounds doing Henry to get at this dearly-won determination waswhatever else an English male monarch may hold been & # 8211 ; and he was much else & # 8211 ; he was still a leader in war. He must still & # 8216 ; venture & # 8217 ; himself in conflict, to utilize an old expression, and blood himself.Henry went to war with France in 1513 and during this run a adult male ap-peared on phase who was destined to play a portion in the events to follow. Thomas Wolsey had been King Henry VII & # 8217 ; s chaplain and had carried out some minor diplomatic responsibilities which resulted in his being named Dean of Lincoln and made Royal Almoner.When Henry came to power Thomas Wolsey was & # 8220 ; house in the Council and As-cendent in the Church & # 8221 ; but he craved still more power. The war with France gave him his chance. It was Wolsey & # 8217 ; s work which made the run of 1513 successful. He provided Henry with a well-nourished, well-equipped, healthy and disciplined ground forces. Wolsey rode with Henry throughout the run, seeing that the military personnels built good shelters against the winter. The war enabled Wolsey to demo Henry his organisational abilities. & # 8220 ; Thus in a twelvemonth he had been raised & # 8211 ; at royal case & # 8211 ; from a mere dean to archbishop, legatus natus and archpriest of England. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; For the following 15 old ages Eng-land & # 8217 ; s foreign policy was Wolsey & # 8217 ; s, . . . & # 8221 ; . But, as is ever the instance, the mighty must fall, and when Wolsey was unable to obtain Henry & # 8217 ; s desired divorce from Catherine, he fell into disfavour and in November of 1530 he was arrested for lese majesty and died shortly afterwards. The vacuity left by Wolsey & # 8217 ; s death was filled by Thomas Cromwell who was the male monarch & # 8217 ; s main curate by 1533. It was this adult male who carried out the suppression of the monas-teries. Heoversaw the breach with Rome and the constitution of the Royal Supremacy. He directed the huge opera-tion of the disintegration of the monasteries. He was either the direct or posthumous laminitis of the two Courts ( we would state ministries ) of Augmentations and First Fruits, which handled the new income from the dissolved relig-ious houses and the secular Church, and the two tribunals of Wards and Surveyors, which were designed to work more expeditiously the Crown & # 8217 ; s feudal rights and lands.According to Thomas Starkey, who became chaplain to Henry in 1535, England was a land of societal crisis. England was under populated at this clip as a consequence of the black pestilence of 1348-1349 and repeated eruptions of the deathly disease since. Yf you loke to the cytes and townie throughout thys reame [ kingdom ] , you schal fynd that in tyme past they haue byn much bettur inhabytd, and much more replenyschyd with pepul so they be now ; . . . . This averment of a noteworthy deficiency of people is supported by Francis Gasquet who saysalthough a hundred and 50 old ages had elapsed before Henry VIII mounted the throne, so great had been the depredations of the flagellum, and so unsettled had been the interval, that the state was still enduring from the ef-fects of the great sick-ness. It could barely hold been otherwise, when in one twelvemonth, 1348-1349, about half of the full population was swept away.As a consequence of this bead in population there were fewer people to feed. Therefore, there was a & # 8220 ; autumn in the monetary value of many, though non all, agricultural merchandises & # 8221 ; . This deficiency of able-bodied work forces allowed the hired manus to demand higher rewards. As monetary values and rents fell and rewards rose, many landlords were forced to travel into sheep-raising because it required fewer custodies and there was a large demand for wool on the continent. As a consequence, the pattern of enclosure came into common use with black consequences for the little husbandman. The provincials were forced off their retentions and into the metropoliss where, for the most portion, they had to take between imploring and steal-ing in order to populate. The consequence was that many towns fell into decay as the people were forced to travel. Ther yn no adult male but he seth the grating enclosyng in euery parte of herebul land ; and where as was corne and fruteful tyllage, now no thyng ys but pasturys and playnys, by the reson wherof many vyllagus and townies are in few yearss ruynate and dekeyd.This statement is supported by Thomas More who saidthe cause of this decay is by and large attributed to sheep-farming and the enclosure of lands. Wherever the finest wool was grown, there Lords and Abbots enclosed all the land for grazing land. They leveled houses and towns, and left nil standing except the church, which they converted into a sheep house. They turned all dwelling topographic points and all glebelands into a wilderness. Merely as the common adult male was holding fiscal problems, so was the male monarch, the chief rea-son being war and rising prices. The mode in which war could blow up outgos can be seen from this tally of figures: 1509, L65,097 ; 1510, L26,735 ; 1511, L64,157 ; 1512, L269,564 ( Guienne ) ; 1513, L699,714 ( Flanders ) ; 1514, L155,757 ; 1515, L74,006 ; and Wolsey & # 8217 ; s foreign escapades proved even more expensive, the outgos of 1522-3 bing al-most L400,000.The economic alterations in Europe were besides consuming Henry & # 8217 ; s resources. Henry & # 8217 ; s demand of money was due to something that lay deeper than his ain extravagancy and edacity. The whole of Europe was undergoing great economic alterations, in con-sequence of the find of new trade paths and the im-portation of gold and Ag from America, which depreci-ated the value of the mintage. Monetary values rose and the disbursement power of any fixed amount of money diminished. As the royal grosss were about en-tirely customary and hence fixed, it followed that the King was turning poorer while the disbursals of authorities were invariably increasing as the state emerged from feudal into modern life.Obviously, Henry had to happen new beginnings of income and it was to Wolsey that this re-spon-sibility fell. In 1514 Wolsey introduced a & # 8220 ; levy on rewards, personal belongings, and rents, which grew to be a regular portion of the system of direct revenue enhancement, though it lost its flexibleness and finally became simply a conventional look for a parliamentary grant of approximately L80,000 to L100,000 & # 8243 ; . & # 8221 ; In 1522 the cardinal imposed a forced loan on the rich, which brought in L200,000. In the following twelvemonth Parliament was summoned and was asked for a revenue enhancement of four shillings in the lb but the members were fractious and finally granted merely two shillings. & # 8221 ; So, in 1524 Wolsey was forced to try another forced loan but this clip he was met with resis-tance. Even & # 8220 ; priests denounced the loan openly and preached against it and stood for the rights and autonomies of the people & # 8221 ; . The ground for the opposition seems to be that the & # 8220 ; loan & # 8221 ; did non travel through parliament and there-fore was non lawfully adhering. The consequence was that Henry had to call off his programs for an-other Gallic invasion but he did larn a valuable lesson: for the remainder of his reign all of his actions would be absolutely & # 8220 ; legal & # 8221 ; . Wolsey besides tried to relieve some of the jobs caused by the pattern of enclosure by patronizing assorted anti-enclosure measures but they met with small success. & # 8220 ; In 1518 a Chancery order was issued that enclosures made since 1485 were to be de-molished unless it could be shown that they were for the good of the state. Further orders followed in 1520, 1526, and 1528, but they remained mostly dead letters. & # 8221 ; Undoubtedly the black pestilence, which had devastated the general populous of England in the mid-fourteenth century, besides had an every bit black consequence on the monaster-ies. It was inevitable that the clergy who tried to assist the agony would themselves go septic with the deathly disease. Furthermore, it seems logical to presume that the 1s to last would, for the most portion be those who would non acquire involved but, instead, fly to the countryside. The consequence was the subsisters were the worst of the batch. This hypothesis is supported by assorted historiographers. Francis Gasquet says thatin the County of Norfolk, out of 799 priests 527 died of the pestilence ; and William Bateman, the bishop, applied for and obtained from Pope Clement VII, a bull leting him to dis-pense with 60 clerks, who were merely 21 old ages of age, & # 8216 ; though merely shavelings, & # 8217 ; and to let them to keep parsonages, as one 1000 lifes had been ren-dered vacant by decease, as otherwise service would discontinue altogether.Here we see the beginning of future problems as unqualified people were given places of duty. Philip Hughes says thatin many respects the monasteries in England ne’er re-gained what they now lost [ from the pestilence ] . Very few so of them & # 8211 ; relatively talking & # 8211 ; were, hence-forward, suffi-ciently staffed even to transport out their pri-mary map of choral supplication in the manner this needs to be done.This last averment is supported by P. J. Helm who says & # 8220 ; there were wholly about 825 spiritual houses of all types and the mean figure of individuals in the smaller houses was non more than seven or eight & # 8221 ; . The hereafter of the monasteries seemed so black to some that they felt their terminal was in sight. When Bishop Fox of Winchester proposed to construct a col-lege at Oxford for immature monastics of his cathedral priory, his friend Bishop Oldham of Exeter advised him to aban-don the program and in its topographic point to fund a college for secular priests. & # 8216 ; Shall we build houses and supply supports for a com-pany of snoging monastics, whose terminal and autumn we may populate to see? No, no ; it is more meet a great trade that we should hold to care and supply for such who by their acquisition shall make good in the Church and common-wealth. & # 8217 ; Oldham & # 8217 ; s ad-vice was non ignored, for in 1516 Bishop Fox and he founded Corpus Christi college, Ox-ford.Thomas Wolsey did non believe things were every bit bad as Bishop Oldham implied but he did acknowledge that some of the monasteries were non able to make their occupations. So, in 1524 he appealed to Pope Clement VII & # 8220 ; for authorization to fade out a figure of & # 8216 ; certain expatriate & # 8217 ; and little monasteries, and to allow their grosss and belongingss & # 8221 ; for & # 8220 ; establishing Cardinal college at Oxford together with a preparatory or nursery college in his native topographic point, Ipswich & # 8221 ; . Obviously, Pope Clement VII thought Wolsey & # 8217 ; s bespeak legitimate for he allowed Wolsey to stamp down 28 houses in which the & # 8220 ; figure of inmates had dwindled to individual figures. In merely five was there a community of eight or more, and the net income in all but six was less than L200 a twelvemonth. The entire gross of all the doomed houses amounted to about L2,300. & # 8221 ; The adult male entrusted with all as-pects of the legal concern of these suppressions was Thomas Cromwell. Although the male monarch received ailments about the behavior of Cromwell and the other agents assigned to the suppression, Wolsey assured him that the ailments were undue. It has been said by many that it was Wolsey who planted in the male monarch & # 8217 ; s head the thought of increasing grosss by stamp downing the monasteries. He suppressed certain little monasteries and took their gross and lands. Thereby he trained the work forces, he set the illustration, he inaugurated the policy which ended in a prodi-gious economic Revolution: the greatest England has of all time known. The disintegration of all monasteries after his decease, and the distribution of their lands among the new adventur-ers. . . . It might besides be remembered that Wolsey & # 8217 ; s cavalier actions as official emissary a latere & # 8220 ; rode apostolic legal power in England to its decease. . . . Wolsey provided for the male monarch and for his civil disposal a intimation of the mode in which secular and spiritual controls, vested in the custodies of one adult male, might be used to destruct Catholic and feudal autonomies and, after triumph, to make a national state-church. & # 8221 ; But, there was one thing the male monarch and Cromwell failed to give proper attending to and it would about be Henry his throne in 1536. They forgot that the parks were greatly displeased with these suppressions of Wolsey and in some countries reacted violently. Although & # 8220 ; at that place seems to hold been small resistance to Wolsey & # 8217 ; s steps by the inmates of the houses marked for suppression & # 8221 ; ( there were efforts to corrupt Wolsey ) & # 8220 ; there were here and at that place marks of dissatisfaction amongst the townspeople and people of the countryside, when it became known that a monastery in the vicinity was to be surren-dered to Wolsey & # 8221 ; . & # 8220 ; At Tonbridge the townsmen petitioned for a continuation of the priory which they preferred to the promise of a school with scholarships at Cardinal College, . . . & # 8221 ; but it was all to no help. At Bayham in Sussex the opposition took the signifier of vio-lence. You have heard before how the Cardinal suppressed many monasteries, of the which 1 called Bayham in Sussex, the which was really convenient to the state, but so bechance the cause that a exuberant company, disguised and unknown with painted faces and vizors, came to the same monastery and brought with them the canons, and put them in their topographic point once more ; and promised them that whensoever they rang the bell, that they would come once more with a great power and support them. This making came to the ear of the King & # 8217 ; s coun-sel, which caused the canons to be taken, and they con-fessed the captains, which were imprisoned and sore pun-ished.Chapter 2THE REFORMATION PARLIAMENTThe terminal of 1530 proverb Henrylaunch the claim to a national unsusceptibility against Rome & # 8217 ; s sov-ereignty ; it saw him denote a personal claim to imperial position which could neither admit nor al-low any supe-rior on Earth. It besides saw the first effort to manhandle the clerical estate within his realm.1 Although all duty for the undermentioned events must fall upon Henry & # 8217 ; s shoulders, it seems safe to state that the inspiration for these actions was Thomas Cromwell. Throughout his political calling Cromwell, unlike Wolsey, recognized the value of working through the House of Commons, and it was during his eight twelvemonth pe-riod of ministry, 1532-1540, that the bulk of the Henrican Reforms were carried out. By contrast, outside these eight old ages, the reign of Henry VIII has barely a individual creative or radical achieve-ment to its recognition. The King & # 8217 ; s will-power, his bravery, his decision, his huge capacity to animate adulation, these preserved the unity of the land and paved the manner for the long Elizabethan peace which Englishmen were to bask amid a helter-skelter Europe. But otherwise his personal touch proved sterile ; he was excessively narcissistic, excessively emotional, excessively interested in kingly pleasances, excessively conservative to originate new techniques of authorities, new waies of advancement for English society. Yet between the old ages 1532 and 1540 all is different. Creation, devastation and alteration are seeable on all sides ; . . .2. Henry opened his assault upon the clergy on September 29, 1530. This put them on the defence which was the place they remained in for the remainder of Henry & # 8217 ; s reign. & # 8220 ; In Michaelmas, 1530, 15 churchmans were cited to the King & # 8217 ; s Bench on praemunire charges, charges, that is, of lesser lese majesty, punishable with loss of goods and imprisonment. & # 8221 ; 3 But these charges were dropped, it seems, by the design of Cromwell. & # 8220 ; The archpriests shall non look in the praemunire, . . . There is another manner devised. & # 8221 ; 4 That & # 8220 ; other manner & # 8221 ; was much more brave. A few yearss after the decease of Thomas Wolsey [ November 30, 1530 ] , the lawyer general filed an in-junction in the male monarch & # 8217 ; s bench bear downing the clergy with a breach of the legislative acts of Praemunire and Provisors. These were legislative acts of 1351 and 1353 under which a ci-tation could be brought against anyone who sought satis-faction in Rome or elsewhere in instances which fell under royal legal power. It was charged that the whole English clergy was guilty in the entry that it had made to Cardinal Wolsey during his legatine administra-tion. It was irrelevant that Henry had accepted this authorization and had supported Wolsey in his exercising of it. The jurisprudence was clear. The jurisprudence was higher than the king.5The clergy rapidly called a Convocation both in Canterbury and York. The Southern Convocation [ in Canterbury ] hoped to corrupt the male monarch with L40,000 but shortly learned that Henry expected much more. Therefore, on January 24, 1531 they voted to pay the male monarch L100,000 & # 8220 ; as a grant to the male monarch in recognition of his defence of the religion against unorthodoxy & # 8221 ; .6 This obvious effort to corrupt the male monarch without acknowledging their guilt failed when on February 7 Henry sent the grant back or-dering the & # 8220 ; clergy to squeal their guilt and acknowledge him as & # 8216 ; the Protector and Supreme Head of the Church in England & # 8217 ; holding, furthermore, in his rules a remedy of souls & # 8221 ; .7 The bishops wanted to add the phrase & # 8220 ; so far as Canon Law allows & # 8221 ; but Henry re-jected this with a counterproposal of & # 8220 ; after God & # 8221 ; . Finally, on February 11, 1531, the clergy and the male monarch agreed upon the rubric & # 8220 ; the Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of England, whose exceptional Protector, individual and Supreme Lord, and every bit far as the jurisprudence of Christ allows, even Supreme Head & # 8221 ; . The obvious ambiguity of this phrase was questioned by the presiding bishop of the Northern Convocation, Cuthbert Tunstall. Bishop Tunstall wanted the phrase & # 8220 ; merely and Supreme Lord after Christ in temporal affairs & # 8221 ; inserted but Henry, in his answer, said that & # 8220 ; you [ Bishop Tunstall ] foremost define the Church as the Body of Christ, and so suggest I shall be the caput of it in temporal affairs, but the church so defined has no temporal affairs & # 8221 ; .8Bishop Tunstall backed down and the Northern Convocation bought their par-don for L18,840, 0s. 10d. Bishop Tunstall & # 8217 ; s reserves about Henry & # 8217 ; s purposes were proven justified early in 1532 when Parliament went into session. & # 8220 ; Two Acts of the Apostless of this session had a per-manent consequence, and are critical forces to this twenty-four hours in English life: the act about first-fruits, and the entry of the clergy. The first is straight anti-papal, the other anti-clerical. . . & # 8221 ; .9 The first-fruits act, otherwise known as the Conditional Restraints of Annates, was purportedly designed to forestall the escape of money from England to Rome but it was ac-tually intended to set force per unit area on the Catholic Pope to profess to Henry & # 8217 ; s wants. Since the Tudors came in, 47 old ages before [ 1485 ] , more than L160,000 in coinage had found its manner out of the kingdom to the Catholic Pope, through the payments bish-ops were obliged to do on their assignment & # 8211 ; pay-ment, in each instance, of a sum equal to a 3rd of the see & # 8217 ; s one-year gross [ other beginnings say a old ages net incomes ] . . . & # 8221 ; .10 The interesting facet of this measure was that Henry had a twelvemonth to ordain it. Obvi-ously it was being used as a Damoclean blade to coerce the Catholic Pope to O.K. of Henry & # 8217 ; s divorce. The opposition Henry met in go throughing this measure demonstrates that, although the Parliament usu-ally went along with Henry, it was non a gum elastic stamp organisation. Henry had to do three visual aspects before Parliament before the measure was passed. One might inquire why the Parliament was so hesitating to forestall this escape of money. The ground was that Parliament was non every bit ready as Henry was for such drastic ecclesiastical alterations. This annates measure provided for excessively many eventualities for the Parliaments gustatory sensation. Such asif the tribunal of Rome endeavored to exert excommunica-tion, interdict, or procedure compulsory, so all mode of sacra-ments and godly service should go on to be administered, and the interdict, etc. should non by any archpriest or curate be executed or divulged.11 From the above it is obvious that the bulk of Parliament was non yet ready for a complete frontal onslaught on the clergy but, they were acquiring at that place. On March 18, 1532 the Petitions of the Commons was presented to the male monarch. This papers made 12 basic charges against the clergy of England. They are:1 ) The clergy in convocation make canons which may con-travene the Torahs of the kingdom and be damaging to the royal authorization. They are written in an unknown lingua, so that simple people do non understand them. 2 ) The Courts of Arches and Audience have excessively few monitors and therefore the jurisprudence & # 8217 ; s holds. The King is asked to name more monitors. 3 ) Summoners and Apparitors are invariably mentioning peo-ple to look in tribunal on frivolous charges. 4 ) Fees are by and large inordinate. 5 ) Priests take money for observing the sacraments. 6 ) Executors find it hard to obtain probate of volitions and have to do long journeys. 7 ) Archpriests make treaties before establishing work forces to bene-fices and such treaties are simoniacal. 8 ) Bishops and Ordinaries present dealingss, being mi-nors, to benefices and during their minority enjoy the grosss. 9 ) The figure of holy yearss is inordinate, particularly in crop, and are the juncture of idle and motiveless athleticss. 10 ) Innocent people are capable to annoying examina-tion, and kept in prison without damages. 11 ) It is impossible to retrieve amendss for unlawful ac-cu-sations. 12 ) Innocent people defamed as misbelievers are trapped by elusive questions about the high enigmas of the Faith, and any two informants, nevertheless unworthy of cre-dence, suffice for disapprobation. The Commons concluded by beging the intercession of the King, & # 8216 ; in whom and by whom the lone and exclusive damages, reformation and redress herein perfectly rests and remains & # 8217 ; .12 Critics of Henry & # 8217 ; s methods and motivations are speedy to indicate out that this request did non arise within the parks but instead was written by Thomas Cromwell. The Petition truly emanated from the Court, as is proved by the fact that there are, amongst the State Pa-pers, four cor-rected bill of exchanges of it, the corrections in these being by and large in the script of Thomas Cromwell. . . .13 But, it should be pointed out that it was common process for the royal tribunal to compose up these measures, and it seems likely that the parks agreed with the charges for they supported the Petition. Henry asked the bishops to do a answer to these charges and on April 28, 1532 this was done. In it [ the answer ] the clergy asserted their immemorial right, derived from Bible and the finding of the Church, to pull off their ain personal businesss, and emphasized the fact that it was their responsibility to decree what was true in religion and ethical motives. They denied that their canons were contrary to the Torahs of the kingdom or infringed the royal prerogative.14 They concluded their defence with & # 8220 ; an entreaty to the King as defender of the English Church. . . & # 8220 ; .15We hence, your most low beadsmans and speechmakers, be-seech your grace & # 8217 ; s Highness & # 8211 ; upon the stamp ardor and full love which your grace doth bear to Christ & # 8217 ; s religion and to the Torahs of His Church, specially in this your grace & # 8217 ; s ain kingdom & # 8211 ; of your accustomed and incompara-ble goodness unto us your said beadsmans, to go on our head defender, de-fender, and aider in and for the executing of our office and responsibility, specially touching re-pression of unorthodoxy, reformation of wickedness, and due behavior and order in the premises of all your grace & # 8217 ; s topics, religious and temporal, which ( no uncertainty thereof ) shall be much to the pleasance of God, great comfort to many & # 8217 ; s psyches, soundlessness and integrity of all your whole kingdom, and, as we think verily, most chiefly to the great comfort of your grace & # 8217 ; s stateliness, which we beseech lowly upon our articulatio genuss, so wholly as we can, to be the writer of integrity, char-ity, and Concord as above, for whose preser-vation we do and shall continually pray to Almighty God long to reign and thrive in most honorable estate to His pleasure.16 & # 8220 ; The clergy were shortly to detect that they had to purchase his protection with something more touchable than just words. & # 8221 ; 17 On April 30, 1532 Henry sent the Ordinaries & # 8217 ; answer to the parks stating, & # 8220 ; we think their reply will smally delight you, for it seemeth to us really slender. You be a great kind of wise work forces ; I doubt non but you will look cagily on the affair, and we will be apathetic between you. & # 8221 ; 18 On May 10 Henry followed this statement to the parks with demands of his ain. Henry demanded that the Convocation promisethat they would non do and print any new canons unless licensed by the male monarch to make so and unless these canons had received the royal acquiescence, and, secondly, they offered the whole bing organic structure of the canon jurisprudence for the consideration and judgement of a committee to be named by the male monarch. This committee was to be made up of eight ballad Godheads, eight members of the House of Commons and 16 of the clergy, and merely those parts of the canon jurisprudence were to stand which the committee ap-proved.19 The following twenty-four hours Henry continued his assault by addressingthe Speaker and a commission of the House: & # 8220 ; Well-be-loved topics, we thought that the clergy of our kingdom had been our topics entirely, but now we have good per-ceived that they be but half our topics ; yea, and scarce our topics ; for all the archpriests at their consecration make an curse to the Pope clean reverse to the curse that they make to us, so that they seem to be his topics, and non ours & # 8217 ; .20 The clergy saw the script on the wall and on May 15, with lone Bishop John Clerk dissenting, they acceded to the male monarch & # 8217 ; s wants. & # 8220 ; The dice was cast. Henry & # 8217 ; s cam-paign had shown beyond all possibility of uncertainty in what sense he took himself to be & # 8216 ; Supreme Head of the English Church and clergy every bit far as the jurisprudence of Christ allows. & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; 21 When the clergy eventually surrendered to Henry he proved to beless anticlerical than his topics, and in the last resort he honoured his promise to stand between the temporalty and clergy. Having used the Commons as a bogeyman to scare Convocation into passing him its legislative power, he so showed no enthusiasm refering the remainder of the ballad de-mands and refrained from that extremist inspection and repair or abolishment of ecclesiastical legal power to which the Commons aspired. Henry VIII was in fact the operator, non the Godhead, of anticlerical sentiment.22 This is non to state that Henry & # 8217 ; s onslaughts on the Church were over, but he ne’er did let anti-clerical sentiment to destruct & # 8220 ; the legal maps of the Church in society & # 8221 ; .23 In August, 1532, Archbishop Warham of Canterbury died, and Henry appointed Thomas Cranmer as his replacement. Cranmer returned the favour by allowing Henry his long sought divorce on May 23, 1533. & # 8220 ; Besides in 1533 [ February ] Cromwell produced his most critical piece of legisla-tion & # 8211 ; the Act in Restraint of Appeals. . . & # 8221 ; .24 The gap preamble of this measure is really interesting for it defines how Henry viewed England and his place of power. Where by frogmans assorted old reliable histories and chron-icles, it is obviously declared and expressed, that this kingdom of England is an imperium, and so hath be ac-cepted in the universe, governed by one supreme caput and male monarch, the same, unto whom a organic structure politic, compact of all kinds and grades of people divided in footings and by names of spiritualty and temporalty, be bounden and ought to bear, following to God, a natural and low obedi-ence, he being besides institute and furnished, by the good-ness and sufferance of Almighty God, with plenary, whole, and full power, distinction, author-ity, pre-rogative, and legal power, to render and give justness, and concluding finding to all mode of common people, occupants, or topics within this his kingdom, in all causes, affairs, de-bates, and contentions, go oning to happen, insurge, or get down within the bounds thereof, without restraint, or aggravation to any foreign princes or dictators of the universe ; the organic structure religious whereof holding power, when any cause of the jurisprudence Godhead happened to come in ques-tion, or of religious acquisition, so it was declared, inter-preted, and showed by that portion of the said organic structure politic, called the English Church, which ever hath been re-puted, and besides found of that kind, that both for knowl-edge, unity, and sufficiency of figure, it hath been ever thought, and is besides at this hr, sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior individual or individuals, to declare and find as such uncertainties, and to administrate all such offices and responsibilities, as to their suites religious doth appertain ; for the due ad-ministra-tion whereof, and to maintain them from corruptness and sinister fondness, the male monarch & # 8217 ; s most baronial primogenitors, and the anteces-sors of the Lords of this kingdom, have sufficiently endowed the said Church, both with honor and ownerships ; and the Torahs temporal, for test of belongings of lands and goods, and for the preservation of the people of this kingdom in integrity and peace, without ravin or spoil, was and yet is administered, adjudged, and exe-cuted by assorted Judgess and curates of the other portion of
the said organic structure politic, called the temporalty ; and both their governments and legal powers do conjoin to-gether in the due disposal of justness, the one to assist the other. . .25.
& # 8220 ; By naming England an & # 8216 ; Empire & # 8217 ; , Cromwell designated it a autonomous province, with a King who owed no entry to any other human swayer and who was invested with plenary power to give his people justness in all causes. & # 8221 ; 26 And this is what the measure provided for. By this act the Catholic Pope & # 8217 ; s juridical power over the English lay-man was absolutely abolished ; for the act laid down that entreaties in instances about volitions, matrimonies, rights of tithes, offerings and obventions should non henceforward be made to Rome but be heard and eventually decided within the realm.27 But the complete breach with Rome was still non achieved. This act & # 8220 ; prohibited ap-peals on volitions, tithes, and fees, inquiries which concerned the belongings rights of Mem-bers of Parliament, and on matrimony [ Henry ‘s divorce ] . It did non prohibit entreaties in instances of heresy. & # 8221 ; 28Although Mr. Russel is right in stating that the breach was non complete, ( & # 8221 ; non till the undermentioned twelvemonth would Convocation declare that he [ the Catholic Pope ] had no more authorization in England than any other foreign bishop, and Parliament declare Henry caput of the English Church & # 8221 ; 29 ) the point was simply proficient. For this measure interpreted the praemunire statutes in the broadest possible significance, a significance that Pope Clement VII could no longer disregard for it was this measure which gave Thomas Cranmer the power to allow Henry & # 8217 ; s divorce. The state of affairs is best summarized by Philip Hughes when he says, & # 8220 ; To restrict the exercising of the Catholic Pope & # 8217 ; s legal power, albeit unlawfully, is non necessar-ily to deny it ; to get rid of it wholly can barely be anything else than arrant denial & # 8221 ; .30Therefore, on July 4, 1533 Clement VIIexcommunicated the archpriest for judging the instance, and ex-communicated along with him the other bishops who had taken portion in the test, Lee of York, Longland of Lin-coln, and Stephen Gardiner. And on the same twenty-four hours, . . . , the Catholic Pope ex-communicated Henry besides, unless, by Sep-tember he had left Anne and taken back Catherine ; besides the nuncio was with-drawn from London.31 Henry & # 8217 ; s reaction was fleet and decisive. Henry started a propaganda run di-rected against the pontificate and reconvened the Parliament. Henry orderedthat agreements be made with the bishops for discourses everyplace demoing how the Catholic Pope is capable to the council, and that he is non, by God & # 8217 ; s jurisprudence, any more authorization in England than any other foreign bishop ; and that whatever authorization the Catholic Pope has of all time exercised in England had its ori-gins in the male monarch & # 8217 ; s good pleasance only.32 Furthermore, it was ordered that & # 8220 ; announcements are to be made, printed and posted & # 8216 ; on every church door in England & # 8217 ; , of the whole legislative acts of entreaties, . . . , so that none shall be nescient of the legislative act, and all work forces will be prepared to ignore any sentence from Rome against the male monarch & # 8221 ; .33 In sum-up, & # 8220 ; there should, so, be an assault on the Catholic Pope at place ; and at the same time a protective conference should be organized abroad against his rejoinder, a conference & # 8211 ; even & # 8211 ; with the true dissident, Lutheran princes of Germany & # 8221 ; . 34It is uncovering that Henry considered Lutheranism dissident. Further demon-stration that Henry was non a reformist in the usual sense of the word can be found in the Six Articles of 1539. This act said thatall, who henceforth, denied Transubstantiation were apt to be burnt as misbelievers and to lose all their belongings as trai-tors, those who taught that, in order to have the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Communion under both species was necessary, or that private multitudes were con-trary to God & # 8217 ; s jurisprudence, or that existent confession of wickednesss to a priest was non nec-essary to the sacrament of repentance, priests who married, and work forces or adult females who violated their grave vows of celibacy & # 8211 ; all these were to be hanged as criminals. . . .35 Henry besides placed before the Parliament in 1534 & # 8220 ; five new measures that would work out to the full the deductions of the resignation of Convocation in 1531, of the Submis-sion of 1532, of the act of that twelvemonth about annates and Episcopal assignments, and of the Statue of Appeals of 1533 & # 8243 ; .36As Hughes points out, the ground Henry could now be so decisive was that heknew that at place he was safe. He had parliament with him, Godheads and parks, the landed involvement and the bargainers ; and he had for his agent the one political mastermind of the twenty-four hours, Cromwell. The clerics had collapsed before the mere idea of his displeasure, while every bit yet non a individual new punishment had been enacted to penalize their resistance [ this would be rectified ] . Henry now pro-posed to procure his additions by a system of new personal curses for all topics, and of new, even bloody, punishments for disobedi-ence, against which neither rank nor any prestigiousness of honor and sanctum life would be protection. The & # 8216 ; reign of panic & # 8217 ; , as it has been called, that was about to get down was non the cause of the first cardinal as-sents to the alteration, but an consequence of the easiness with which these had been obtained, a means de-signed to safeguard the alteration already made and to trans-form it, where this was necessary, from something notational to reality.37 The five measures passed by the spring session of Parliament were:1 ) The Ecclesiastical Appointments Act: Determined how vacancies were to be filled. The male monarch would take his adult male who would so be consecrated by an arch-bishop with no mentions made to the Catholic Pope. 2 ) Dispensations Act: Took attention of instances which once found their solution in apostolic licences and dispensations. The money which once went to Rome in these instances now went to the Archbishop of Canterbury who turned most of it over to the male monarch. Besides, all monasteries which, because of apostolic privilege, were non under the con-trol of the diocesan bishop [ about 300 houses ] were now under the male monarch & # 8217 ; s command. 3 ) The Submission of the Clergy was now made jurisprudence. 4 ) First Act of Succession: First move of all time passed to modulate the sequence to the Crown. Henry & # 8217 ; s lawful inheritors are to be the issue from Anne Boleyn. 5 ) This act said & # 8220 ; no mode of speech production. . .against the said Bishop of Rome or his assumed power. . .nor. . .against any Torahs called religious Torahs made by his authorization and repugnant to English Torahs or the male monarch & # 8217 ; s prerogative shall be deemed. . .heresy & # 8221 ; .38The transition of these measures was followed on March 31, 1534, by a 34 to four negative ballot by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury to the ques-tion of & # 8220 ; Whether the Roman pope has any greater legal power bestowed on him by God in the Holy Scriptures in this kingdom of England than any other foreign bishop? & # 8221 ; The split was complete. Meanwhile, the Catholic Pope was eventually taking some action on Catherine & # 8217 ; s quandary. On March 23, 1534 ( word reached London on April 11 ) 22 cardinals in Rome voted that Catherine & # 8217 ; s matrimony to Henry was merely and Henry must take her dorsum. Henry, hence, must take back Catherine, and pay her costs every bit good as his ain. His request was answered, his uncertainties resolved, by the authorization which, as the divinely guided translator of God & # 8217 ; s jurisprudence, he had, seven old ages be-fore, appealed.39 Henry & # 8217 ; s reaction was to farther increase his propaganda plan. Therefore, Henry made all the sermonizers preach an functionary discourse which denounced the Catholic Pope. Henry besides published an anti-papal treatise entitled A Small Treatise Against the Muttering of Some Papists in Corners. It statedthe Royal Supremacy. . .had truly nil to make with re-lig-ion. It was non a alteration in faith, . . . , but a affair of poli-tics, the stoping of a monstrous trespass that had been really profitable to the supplanter but ne’er justi-fied & # 8211 ; a trespass ever grudged in England and ruin-ous to the realm.40Also at this clip Cromwell decided thatif parliament & # 8217 ; s head concern was to be the presentation to Europe that England could acquire on absolutely good with-out Rome, so a necessary preliminary was insurance against alienation, and for this there was nil more necessary and utile than & # 8216 ; to do indictments to be drawn for the of-fenses in lese majesty and misprision con-cerning the Nun of Canterbury & # 8211 ; to cognize what the male monarch will hold done with the Nun and her confederates & # 8217 ; .41In 1525 a adult female named Elizabeth Barton became sick for several months. & # 8220 ; The ill-ness was accompanied by enchantments, in which she foretold coming events and asserted that the Blessed Virgin had appeared to her and announce her remedy at the neighbouring chapel of Court-at-Street. & # 8221 ; 42 She was & # 8220 ; cured & # 8221 ; as predicted and therefore came to the atten-tion of the church. Archbishop Warham appointed Dr. Edward Bocking, who was the cellarer of the cathedral monastery of Christ Church, to look into the matter. The committee made a favourable study and in 1525, at the age of 16, Elizabeth Bar-ton entered the Benedictine convent of St. Sepulchre near Canterbury. Dr. Bocking was appointed her confessor and manager. She remained at Canterbury for eight old ages but was allowed to go & # 8220 ; on visits of devotedness, or in her function of religious counsellor and sympathizer of those in hurt & # 8221 ; .43In 1527 the Nun of Kent, as she was now called, came out against the male monarch & # 8217 ; s pro-posed divorce from Catherine. Her celebrity was such at this clip that in 1528 she met with Thomas Wolsey and rebuked him & # 8220 ; for his general disregard of his duties and in par-ticu-lar for his portion in the divorce proceedings & # 8221 ; .44 As her celebrity continued to distribute even Henry had an audience with her. She warned him to halt the divorce or he would be over-taken by calamity. As to whether she was holding visions or non, it is difficult to state. In a judgement of character the coincident testimony of Warham, Fisher, and More and their regard for Elizabeth Barton over a series of old ages, must transport considerable weight, and it goes far towards extinguishing the possibility of complete and long standing fraudulence.45 On the other manus it seems plausible to presume she was a ill miss who was eas-ily influenced by those around her. There can be small uncertainty that she was finally ex-ploited by a group of clergy centered on Canterbury & # 8211 ; es-pecially one Dr. Edward Bocking, her religious manager and a monastic at Christ Church & # 8211 ; who were opposed to the divorce and proverb in her a utile arm with which to hassle the king.46 Under Dr. Bocking & # 8217 ; s influence, the Holy Maid prophesied that & # 8220 ; if Catherine suffered any incorrect Henry & # 8217 ; should no longer be king of this kingdom. . .and should decease a scoundrel & # 8217 ; s decease & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; .47If it had been any other clip, Elizabeth Barton would likely hold been safe from persecution, but with the state of affairs as it was in 1533 Henry could non afford to ig-nore a po-tential beginning of problem. For & # 8220 ; if Bocking and the others had their manner, she might hold been used to stir the parks and fire serious agitation. . . & # 8221 ; .48Another possible ground for Henry & # 8217 ; s determination to strike against the Nun was that hewas moved by intelligence or prognosiss of his impending ex-com-munication [ for disassociating Catherine ] which took topographic point on 4 July in Rome. In the subsequence the main purpose of the male monarch and his curate was to strip both excommu-nication and prophet-ess of their recognition by stand foring the former as effected by the latter, and the latter as de-luded or criminal.49 Therefore, & # 8220 ; in mid-July ( 1533 ) he [ Henry ] ordered Cromwell and Cranmer to strike & # 8221 ; .50 Elizabeth was questioned briefly in July and released. But in November she was arrested once more and & # 8220 ; was examined several times by the Council and the Star Cham-ber & # 8221 ; 51 and was charged with & # 8220 ; holding spoken and influenced sentiment against the male monarch & # 8217 ; s divorce and 2nd matrimony, . . . & # 8221 ; .52 We can infer that sometime during this test she confessed that & # 8220 ; her disclosures were fanciful, and had been suggested and en-couraged by Bocking and others & # 8221 ; .53 Now it remained to discredit her in the eyes of the populace. Thereforeon Sunday, November 23, 1533, she and her compan-ions. . .were placed on a scaffold at St. Paul & # 8217 ; s cross to make public penance.54During this public displaythe nun was required to manus a signifier of confession to Dr. Capon, who read it to the people. & # 8220 ; I dame Elizabeth Barton. . .do confess that I, most suffering and wretched individual, have been the original of all this mischievousness, and by my falsity have deceived all these individuals here and many more, whereby I have most grievously pained Godhead God and my most baronial crowned head, the male monarch & # 8217 ; s grace. Wherefore I meekly, and with bosom most sorrow-ful, merit you to pray to Almighty God for my miser-able wickednesss, and ye that may make me good to do supplica-tion to my most sov-ereign for me for his gracious clemency and pardon.55But the supplications were unheard for on April 21, 1534, under an act of Attainder ( for it was non yet treason to talk against the male monarch ) , & # 8220 ; Elizabeth Barton, the Benedictine Bocking. . .were executed as treasonists at Tyburn & # 8221 ; .56This whole matter is best summed up G. H. Cook who saidalthough it had no immediate bearing on the general sup-pression, the matter of the Holy Maid of Kent ; in which sev-eral spiritual houses were implicated, had some in-fluence in conveying monastics into disfavor with Henry VIII, and hastened Cromwell & # 8217 ; s programs for the consfication of cloistered prop-erty.57Furthermore, Cromwell made certain that the fall Parliament of 1534 corrected some defi-ciencies in the male monarch & # 8217 ; s power. The most obvious lack was the deficiency of a defini-tion of lese majesty wide plenty to manage instances such as Elizabeth Barton & # 8217 ; s. The First Act of Succession had given a definition of lese majesty but it made no refer-ence to talking against the male monarch. And if any individual or individuals. . .by authorship or by any ex-terior act or title, maliciously procure or make. . .any thing or things to the bias, slander, perturbation, or dero-gation of the said lawful marriage solemnized between your stateliness and the said Queen Anne. . .then every such individual and individuals. . .shall be adjudged high treasonists, and. .shall suffer strivings of decease, as in instances of high trea-son. . . .58Therefore, the Treasons Act was passed in November, 1534. This definition of lese majesty made it a offense to talk against the male monarch. Be it hence enacted. . .that if any individual. . .do mali-ciously wish, will, or desire, by words or composing. . .to deprive them [ Royal Family ] . . .of their self-respect, rubric or name. . . [ or ] pronounce, by express authorship or words, that the king our crowned head Godhead should be a heretic, schis-matic, tyrant, heathen or supplanter of the Crown. . .being thereof legitimately convicted. . .shall be adjudged treasonist, and that every such discourtesy. . .shall be reputed. . .and adjudged high trea-son. . .and suffer such strivings of decease and other punishments, as is limited and accustomed in instances of high lese majesty ( accent is mine ) .59Also, in this same session of Parliament, there was passed the Supremacy Act which gave legal position to the male monarch & # 8217 ; s new powers. Let it be enactedthat the male monarch. . .shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the lone supreme caput on Earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia ; and shall hold. . .full power and author-ity from clip to clip to see, repress, damages, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such er-rors, unorthodoxies, maltreatments, discourtesies, disdains, and enormi-ties, whatsoever they be, by which any mode religious authorization or jurisdic-tion ought or may legitimately be re-formed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, re-strained, or amended, most to the pleasance of Almighty God, the addition of virtuousness on Christ & # 8217 ; s faith, and for the preservation of the peace, integrity, and tranquility of this kingdom ; any use, usage, foreign jurisprudence, for-eign authorization, prescription, or nay other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.60The Second Act of Succession was besides passed in this session. This act gave the signifier of the curse which was provided for in the First Act of Succession. Ye shall curse to bear religion, truth, and obeisance alonely to the male monarch & # 8217 ; s stateliness, and to his inheritors of his organic structure of his most beloved and wholly darling married woman Queen Anne, begot-ten and to be begotten, and farther to the inheritors of our said crowned head Godhead harmonizing to the restriction in the legislative act made for surety of his sequence in the Crown of this kingdom, mentioned and contained, and non to any other within this kingdom, nor foreign authorization or poten-tate: and in instance any curse be made, or has been made, by you, to any individual or individuals, that so ye ( are ) to re-pute the same as vain and annihilate ; and that, to your cun-ning, humor, and utmost of your power, without craft, fraud, or other undue agencies, you shall detect, maintain, keep, and support the said Act of Succession, and all the whole ef-fects, and contents thereof, and all other Acts and legislative acts made in verification, or for exe-cution of the same, or of anything therein contained ; and this ye shall make against all mode of individuals, of what estate, self-respect, grade, or condi-tion soever they be, and in no wise do or try, nor to your power suffer to be done or attempted, straight or indi-rectly, any thing or things privily or apartly to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, hin-drance, harm, or disparagement thereof, or of any portion of the same, by any mode of agencies, or for any mode of pre-tense ; so assist you God, all saints, and the sanctum Evangelists.61Finally, the Annates Tax once paid to the Catholic Pope was now ordered to be paid to the male monarch. This ended the of import Acts of the Apostless of the fall session of Parliament and besides ended the Reformation Parliament. The legal colony was now complete. It merely re-mained to recognize it in a few of import public submis-sions, and to en-force its countenances against the little set of extremely placed recusants.62Therefore, in April, 1535 & # 8220 ; all protagonists of the Catholic Pope & # 8217 ; s legal power were now ordered to be arrested, and on April 20. . .the priors of the Charterhouse of London, Beauvale and Axholme, and Dr. Richard Reynolds of the Bridgettine monastery of Syon & # 8221 ; 63 were ar-rested. They were charged with & # 8220 ; denying the male monarch to be supreme caput of the English Church & # 8221 ; 64 and were sentenced to decease. On May 4 they were put to decease as treasonists at Tyburn, hanged in their spiritual frock, against all case in point for the executing of criminous clerks, priesthood and mona-chism being thereby punished and warned every bit good as priests and monks.65As pointed out by Professor Hughes, the fact that they were executed in their clerical attire demonstrated the authorities & # 8217 ; s contempt for the clerical estate as did the method of execu-tion. He was so hanged with a thick rope, and about im-medi-ately cut down. He was stripped of all his apparels, except for his hair shirt. He was disemboweled, his bosom was torn out and rubbed in his face, he was dismembered and one arm sent to be nailed above the door of the Charterhouse.66On June 19 three more members of the London Charterhouse were likewise executed. Following these executings were the executings of Bishop Fisher on June 22, 1535 and Thomas More on July 6, 1535. They were both convicted of declining to take the curse of domination. At this clip Cromwell decided to utilize the male monarch & # 8217 ; s new powers of trial to roll up the & # 8220 ; Valor Ecclesiastious, a elaborate appraisal of all clerical incomes from those of bishop-rics down to those of parsonages and chapels & # 8221 ; 67, in order to roll up the freshly reinstated an-nates revenue enhancement. Cathedrals, collegiate churches, parish churches, monas-ter-ies, convents and infirmaries, all were summoned to bring forth their estate books and histories. Their functionaries were heard on curse, their stewards and bailiffs and ten-ants ; and shortly the king knew to a farthing precisely how much the Church owned. . . . All was done harmonizing to a good ordered program, and set down in orderly signifier, so that the male monarch would cognize merely what his new ecclesiastical gross ought to be, that an-nual ten percent of the income of every benifice & # 8211 ; clerical or cloistered & # 8211 ; and that the revenue enhancement of a whole twelvemonth & # 8217 ; s income paid every clip a benifice changed hands.68Naturally many of the houses tried to stand for their retentions as being less so they were. Ironically, these prevarications would return to stalk them. Chapter 3DISSOLUTION OF THE LESSER MONASTERIESIn January, 1535 Henry appointed Thomas Cromwell & # 8220 ; vicar-general with authorization to set about, by himself or his agents, a general trial of churches, mon-asteries, and clergy & # 8221 ; .1Therefore, in July, 1535 Cromwell appointed assorted work forces to the undertaking of sing monasteries one time once more. This clip at that place stated intent wasto enquire whether Godhead service was punctually observed, how many inmates there were and how many at that place ought to be, specifics of foundation and gift, what particular regulations there were and how far kept, how good the Benedictine regulation was followed, whether woolen shirts were ever worn, and so on.2After geting this information, it would be distinct how to better the spiritual life. But, the & # 8220 ; existent & # 8221 ; intent of the trials seems to hold been to garner adequate incrimi-nating evi-dence to warrant at least partial suppressions in order to assist relieve Henry & # 8217 ; s financial jobs. As was pointed out earlier in this paper, the importing of American bullion was doing international rising prices at this clip. Henry was besides faced with the possibil-ity of inva-sion by Spain or France in revenge for his anti-papal actions of the last six old ages. This ne-cessitated his apportioning more money to the armed forces. It is possible to understand why, with these pressing pecuniary demands, the male monarch & # 8217 ; s oculus would fall on the church as a manner to work out his jobs. The monasteries & # 8220 ; had a gross in-come of a 100 and 60 1000 lbs and a net income of a 100 and 30 five & # 8221 ; .3 & # 8220 ; The belongings of the Church represented between one-forth and one-third of all the land in England. . . & # 8221 ; .4In July, 1535 Thomas Cromwell sent his agents to see the monasteries. The four chief visitants were Richard Layton, Thomas Legh, John ap Rice and John London. The first two were physicians of the university of Cambridge, London an Oxford physician. The first three were, at this clip, work forces in the in-between mid-thirtiess, Dr. London was someplace about 50. He was a priest, and so was Layton ; the other two were laymen.5They carried with themtwo paperss, a list of instructions, which was in fact a long questionnaire to be administered to each of the re-ligious, and a set of injunctions to be issued at the terminal of the visitations.6The & # 8220 ; instructions & # 8221 ; consisted of 74 inquiries for the spiritual and 12 separate inquiries for the nuns. Among the inquiries were: the figure of the spiritual ; grosss and ownerships and ti-tle workss of the house ; the regulation ; whether the nov-ices were taught the regulation, how they were educated and whether money was demanded for their admittance ; ob-servance of the relig-ious duties, e. g. usage of a common residence hall, common refectory, and of the offi-cial costume or wont ; observation of the subject of fasts, of silence and the regulation of enclosure. Had any of the community abandoned the spiritual life? How was the superior chosen? Were his dealingss with the other sex correct? Had he favourites in the community? Did he favor his relations at the disbursal of the cloistered reve-nues or sell presentations to lifes? Did he subject his histories to the community and attention for the belongings? Was there an stock list and was the convent seal kept from abuse? Were ill spiritual treated good ; the responsibilities of cordial reception practiced ; the archives good preserved? Were the subsidiary functionaries competent and faithful? The nuns were asked whether they had made their pro-fessions in existent freedom ; how they occu-pied their clip when non in choir ; whether their dealingss with clergy and laypersons were right, and how frequently they went to con-fession and received Holy Communion.7The injunctionsbegan by reminding the archimandrite and community of the two curses they had late taken in regard of the Acts of Succession and Supremacy, and the first injunction laid down that & # 8216 ; the archimandrite. . .shall dependably, genuinely and heartily maintain and detect, and cause, Teach and procure to be kept & # 8217 ; all the Torahs and instructions associating to these two great issues, and that higher-ups & # 8217 ; shall detect and carry through by all the agencies that they best may, the legislative acts of the kingdom made or to be made for the suppression and taking off of the usurped and assumed legal power of the bishop of Rome within this kingdom & # 8217 ; .8The injunctions went on to cut down the figure of clergy by disregarding kids who had been dedicated to the religious residence by their parents, disregarding those who had entered as male childs and those who confessed they were in the incorrect career. Furthermore, the monastics were for-bidden to go forth their precinct. & # 8220 ; Besides, that adult females, of what province or grade soever they be, be absolutely excluded from come ining into the bounds or circuit of this monastery. . .unless they foremost obtain licence of the male monarch & # 8217 ; s Highness or his visitor. & # 8221 ; 9 It was ordered & # 8220 ; that they shall non prove no reliques, or feigned miracles, for addition of lucre, but that they exhort pilgrims and aliens to give that to the hapless that they thought to offer to their images or reliques & # 8221 ; .10It must hold been known that some of these regulations were unenforceable. Henry and Cromwell must hold planned to utilize the inevitable misdemeanors as evidences for sup-pression. This is supported by Professor Knowles who says the injunctions were in-tended to & # 8220 ; drive them [ the monastics ] either to request for release or to disobedience which could be punished by suppression & # 8221 ; .11 But, whatever the purpose of the trials and injunctions, the consequence was suppres-sions. In March 1536 sufficient grounds had been collected to warrant Henry looking himself in Parliament to declare the wickednesss of the monastics in the lesser monasteries [ income of L200 or less a twelvemonth } , to propose their dissolu-tion, and to claim that their wealth should be appropri-ated to his ain use.12Parliament agreed and shortly afterwards passed the “ Act for the disintegration of the Lesser Monasteries ” ( this measure is in the Appendix ) which suppressed all monasteries “ with a commu-nity of no more than 12 and a net income of less than L200 a twelvemonth ” .13 The gap line of this measure says that “ manifest wickedness, barbarous, animal, and abomi-nable life is day-to-day used and committed among the small and little abbeys. . . “ 14 and this is why they must be closed. We have no record of what Henry said to Parliament. It was much subsequently said that Parliament was presented with a study called The Black Book ; but if so there is no grounds of what was in it, or of anyone who saw it. It can-not have contained the fragmental Comperta [ studies of the 1535 trials ] which have survived, for, in the resulting Act, Parliament devoutly thanks God & # 8216 ; for frogmans and great sol-emn monasteries where faith is right good kept & # 8217 ; , but in the Comperta the greater mon-asteries are made out to be as bad, if non worse, than the lesser 1s. We can merely con-clude that Parliament ac-cepted the word of the King.15But, by analyzing the letters sent to Cromwell by his agents, we will acquire some thought of the conditions they reported they found. One of the common ailments of the visitants seems to hold been the figure of relics and the image worship prevalent in the monasteries. Richard Layton wrote Cromwell from Monk Farleign, Wiltshire: I send you the Vincula of S. Petrus [ hobbles or girdle of S. Peter ] which adult females put about them at the clip of their de-livery. Ye shall besides have a great comb called Mary Magdalen & # 8217 ; s comb, S. Dorothy & # 8217 ; s comb, S. Margarets & # 8217 ; s comb the least, they [ the monastics ] can non state how they came by them, nor have anything to demo in composing [ that ] they be rel-ics.16L