visitations at the time, and were not inclined to give up the last vestige of their independence. In June it was suggested to Cromwell by Dr. Richard Layton, one of the clerks of the council (who had examined More and Fisher in the Tower) that he and a certain Dr. Thomas Legh (who had examined one of Fisher's servants) might be appointed his commissaries for the visitation of the north country from the diocese of Lincoln to the borders of Scotland, for they had friends everywhere in those parts who would enable them to detect abuses. This was not conceded at once; but in July, having accompanied Cromwell and the court into Gloucestershire, Layton was allowed to make a beginning in the visitation of monasteries only, taking those in that district first, while his friend, Dr. Legh started on a similar mission at Worcester, accompanied by a notary named John Ap Rice. The methods of these two visitors differed somewhat, and Legh actually visited the monastery of Bruton after Layton had visited it already; but neither of them seems to have been very scrupulous, and though abuses no doubt existed in some monasteries, it is impossible to suppose they were so flagrant or so general as their reports imply.

From Bath and Bristol Layton proceeded to Oxford, where he instituted new lectures, abolished the study of canon law, and committed shameful havoc in the destruction of the works of Duns Scotus. He then passed on into Surrey, Sussex, and Kent, where he caused two small monasteries at Folkestone and Dover to surrender, and returned towards the end of the year to London, in the neighborhood of which he and Bedyll did their best to coerce the remaining brethren of Sion into accepting the king's new title. His colleague, Legh, meanwhile passed through Wiltshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, Surrey, and from thence by Bedfordshire to Cambridge where, in October, he visited the university (of which Cromwell had just been made chancellor in the room of Bishop Fisher), leaving a set of injunctions for its future government.

Both visitors had professed to discover a great amount of foulness in most of the monasteries they visited, besides superstitious relics. But Legh was foremost in a policy of laying down severe regulations for the monks, binding them by antiquated restrictions which it had long been impossible to maintain. And this policy, he frankly told Cromwell in his letters, would be useful in making monks sue to him for dispensations from rules which, even in the interest of the houses themselves, required occasionally to be set aside. But he and his colleague, John Ap Rice, struck out

a still bolder course, and suggested to Cromwell that as the bishops disliked interference with their visitations, they should be compelled to acknowledge that they held their jurisdiction merely from the king, who was therefore free to resume it into his own hands; for if they were allowed to exercise it without interruption, they would do so according to the canon law which was now abolished. This advice was taken, and the bishops in the beginning of October received orders to suspend their visitations pending the royal visitation to be held under the direction of Cromwell as vicargeneral.

Legh and Layton, then, having traversed by different routes a large part of the south of England, met before the end of the year at Lichfield and visited Yorkshire and the northern monasteries in company. Here, as in the south, their objects were to inquire partly as to the revenue of the houses, and how far they were burdened with debt, partly as to pilgrimages, relics, and superstitions, but most of all as to the immoralities practised by the inmates. They had transmitted piecemeal reports of what they called their comperta in the southern houses to Cromwell. For the province of York and the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield they made up a compendium compertorum of the most extraordinary foulness, similar to one drawn up by Ap Rice from the records of Legh's visitation for the diocese of Norwich. If we are to believe these "comperts" (so the word was Anglicized in a subsequent act of Parliament), a large proportion of the monasteries of England were little better than brothels. There were even nuns who had had children, and in several instances by priests. Some of these cases may be accounted for by the fact that ladies had found retreats in religious houses after personal misfortune and disgrace, and no doubt there were other scandals here and there. But there are grave reasons for suspecting the whole of these "comperts" to be a gross exaggeration. Nor can we well believe that visitors cared much about the truth, who did their work so hurriedly. Certain it is that many of the houses which stood worst in their reports were afterwards declared to bear a fair character by gentlemen of the neighborhood specially commissioned to report on them for other purposes. Moreover, we know that the visitors' reports to Cromwell were secret and had a distinct object in view, to be mentioned presently.

Cromwell himself had conducted some visitations personally while travelling about with the king in the autumn of 1535. He had made inventories of the goods of such monasteries as came

in his way, and had turned out all monks or nuns who had made their profession before they were twenty-five, letting the rest know that they were free either to go or remain, as a very rigorous reformation was at hand. Measures like these, however, did not tend to improve the discipline of the monasteries, which the royal visitation altogether was admirably calculated to destroy, encouraging monks to turn informers, while heads of houses were harassed in a way to make them weary of their charge and anxious to surrender.

84. The Dissolution of the Smaller Monasteries

Legh and Layton concluded their work in February, 1536, when Henry's "Long Parliament" had met again for its last session. The principal measure laid before it was one for the dissolution of monasteries under £200 a year in value. By what pressure the consent of the two houses was obtained to this measure it might be rash to affirm, although it is certain that the king had intended to forbid the attendance of the abbots this session, and there is a remarkable tradition recorded by Spelman of a royal threat which intimidated the House of Commons. But the words of the act itself are suggestive. The preamble states that carnal sin and abominable living were usual in small monasteries with less than twelve inmates. So it is said the king had ascertained by the "comperts" of his late visitations, and "by sundry credible informations," and the only reformation possible was to suppress such houses entirely and transfer the inmates to large houses, where religion, happily, was well preserved. Writers of a later generation speak of a certain "Black Book" supposed to have been produced in this Parliament, which contained a register of monastic enormities; but there is no appearance that any document of the kind ever existed except the compendium compertorum, and certainly this, in which some of the largest monasteries were the worst defamed, affords no warrant for the extraordinary insinuation that vice prevailed invariably where the numbers fell below twelve, and that the great monasteries were better regulated. So it is evident that the Parliament took the king's word as to the character of the disclosures, and passed the bill because they were required to do so. Nothing else alleged to have been discovered in the monasteries could really have gone before Parliament or the public except certain vague statements that immoralities were practised in a large number of houses.

$5. The Death of Catherine

But before this parliamentary session had begun - before the visitors had ended their labors in the north, and while the king's ambassadors in Germany were still discussing theology with Protestant divines—an event occurred which made a sensible change in the situation. Catherine of Aragon, after nearly four years' separation from her husband, died at Kimbolton on January 7, 1536. A pathetic story which has gained too much credit with historians says that at the last she wrote a touching letter to Henry, which drew tears into his eyes when he read it. Facts, unhappily reported at the time in confidential despatches by Chapuys, show that the tale is pure invention. Catherine, for her part, could not have written such a letter; for she had long been obliged to yield to the painful conviction that her husband had become utterly hardened and unscrupulous. And the news of her death gave him a satisfaction that he was at no pains to conceal. "God be praised," he said; "we are now free from all fear of war." Next day he clothed himself in yellow and danced with the ladies of his court like one mad with delight.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The great work on the dissolution of the monasteries is Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries. For a full and scholarly account of Cromwell and his work, consult Merriman, Thomas Cromwell. On all the points discussed in the above extract, compare the views and accounts given by Froude, History of England, and Pollard, Henry VIII.

T

CHAPTER V

THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINAL REVOLT

DR. JOHN CLARK, in presenting to the pope Henry VIII's book against Luther, doubtless spoke truly when he declared that England "has never been behind other nations in the worship of God and the Christian faith, and in obedience to the Roman Church." In spite of attempts to demonstrate that the influence of Wycliffe's teachings was widespread and that there was a steady increase of heretical opinion in England before the Act of separation from the Roman Church, the evidence so far adduced has not been very conclusive. The king and Parliament, whether representing national will or not, were just as anxious to punish those who attempted to bring about changes in doctrine as those who retained their allegiance to the pope. It seems, therefore, that the distinguished Catholic writer, Dr. Gasquet, is quite sound in his contention that we should look to Luther rather than to Wycliffe as the source of the dogmatic revolution; but it must be admitted that English Protestant theologians in the sixteenth century were influenced by the study of Wycliffe's writings.

§ 1. Religious Discontent and Lollardry1

It is not uncommonly asserted that the religious changes in England, although for convenience' sake dated from the rejection of papal supremacy, were in reality the outcome of long-continued and ever increasing dissatisfaction with the then existing ecclesiastical system. The pope's refusal to grant Henry his wished-for divorce from Catherine, we are told, was a mere incident, which at most precipitated by a short while what had long been inevi1 Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation, 1st edition, pp. 208 ff. By permission of Dr. Francis A. Gasquet.