HOUSES OF BENEDICTINE MONKS
1. THE ABBEY (fn. 1) OF COLCHESTER
The abbey of St. John the Baptist, Colchester,
was founded towards the end of the eleventh
century by Eudo, the son of Hubert de Ria, who
was dapifer or sewer of William Rufus and lord
of the town of Colchester. A detailed account
of the foundation is given in a manuscript (fn. 2) in
the Cottonian collection. Much of this appears
to be fiction, but part may be accepted. It is
said that Eudo determined to build a monastery
at the place where a miracle had occurred at
Colchester, and for this he obtained the help of
Maurice, bishop of London. The building was
marked out on 29 August, 1096, in the presence
of the bishop, and workmen were appointed;
but it was not until after Easter in the following
year that the first stone was laid by Eudo himself. At the request of Eudo two monks were
sent to the monastery by Gundulf, bishop of
Rochester, and stipends were given to them; but
they became discontented and returned home.
Others were sent in their place, of whom one
named Ralph pressed Eudo to assign regular possessions to them as being more suitable than
dependence upon laymen. Eudo at last, at the
beginning of the reign of Henry I, granted certain tithes and churches; but these were distant
and small, and the expense of collection as great
as the profit; so Ralph and his fellows sulkily
departed. At this Eudo began to repent of his
undertaking, but meeting with Stephen, abbot
of York, he entrusted the work to him; and
Stephen on his return home selected thirteen
monks and sent them to Colchester. The
building was now pressed on under the direction
of a priest named William, a kinsman of Eudo,
and no expense was spared. The monks lived
regularly according to their order, and many of
the neighbours bound themselves to the service of
God. Not long afterwards one of the thirteen
from York, Hugh by name, who is described as
a man of great piety and religion but not of secular astuteness, was elected abbot, and consecrated
by Bishop Maurice about the year 1104. The
offices and lodgings of the monks were originally
on the north side of the church towards the town,
but on account of the noise the abbot removed
them to the south; and a hill overhanging the
church was removed and the cemetery levelled.
Eudo and several of the neighbours granted
lands, churches and other possessions, and after
some claimants to the site had been satisfied the
church was dedicated on 10 January. The
number of the monks had grown to more than
twenty, but only three remained of the original
thirteen, viz., the abbot Hugh, Walter, and
Osmond, afterwards prior; and soon Hugh, on
account of some dispute with Eudo, resigned his
charge into the king's hands and returned to
York, being succeeded by Gilbert, a monk of
Bec in Normandy.
The endowments of the abbey are set out
in detail in the fine chartulary (fn. 3) in the possession of Lord Lucas. The charter of Eudo as
given at the beginning is evidently spurious,
though the grants mentioned in it are for
the most part quite genuine and in agreement
with the two large charters of Henry I. The
first (fn. 4) of these (about 1104) confirms the grant
by Eudo of the manors of Weeley and Pitsea,
a fair of four days at the feast of St. John
at Colchester, the churches of 'Turnecruft'
(Leatherhead, Surrey) and St. Mary Woolchurch,
London, and various lands and tithes, and also
grants by other donors; and in addition grants
that the abbey shall have the same liberties as
Westminster. The second (fn. 5) (in 1119) confirms a
longer list of possessions, the principal additions
being the manor of Mundon and the church of
'Nieweseles' (Barkway, Herts.), and grants the
liberties to the abbey in detail. A curious story
is told in the chartulary about the granting of this
charter. Abbot Gilbert after his election could
find no muniments of importance, and consequently drew up a charter, which he sent by
Osmund the prior across the sea to Eudo and
Rose his wife that confirmation might be obtained from King Henry, who was then in Normandy. They supported the petition of the
abbot to the king. A clerk, John of Bayeux,
read the charter, but when he came to the passage
where the customs were mentioned in their
English form (mundbryce, etc.) he stopped,
professing ignorance of their meaning. (fn. 6) The
king took the charter, read it, and expounded
the meaning, finally assenting to the confirmation.
But, besides the strange statement as to the lack
of earlier charters, it is suspicious that Eudo does
not appear as a witnesss to this charter and it
makes no mention of any request from him. A
charter (fn. 7) of William II confirms grants made by
Eudo to the abbey, mentioning the manors of
Brightlingsea, Weeley and Hallingbury, and the
churches of Lillechurch, St. Mary Woolchurch,
and Leatherhead. But if this is genuine the
grants must have been partially revoked, for
neither Brightlingsea nor Hallingbury is mentioned in the charters of Henry I above. Brightlingsea is said in the history of the foundation to
have been granted to the abbey by Eudo on his
deathbed, and the grant was confirmed by a
charter (fn. 8) of Henry I dated probably immediately
afterwards (1119-20). Hallingbury was granted (fn. 9)
by Eudo's widow after his death. The church
of Lillechurch remained in the possession of the
abbey until the reign of Stephen, when it was
exchanged (fn. 10) for land in East Donyland. Henry I
granted (fn. 11) free warren in various lands of the abbey.
Henry II granted (fn. 12) the chapel of St. Helen at
Colchester, and a fair of two days at the feast of
the Invention of the Cross. A large number of
further grants and confirmations of these and
other kings are also recorded, as well as of various
popes and bishops. The manor and church of
Wickham Skeith (fn. 13) in Suffolk were granted early
in the reign of Stephen by Robert de Sakeville,
who became a monk in the abbey. It was
originally intended that four monks should be
maintained at the manor to pray for his soul, but
his son Jordan agreed that instead the number of
the monks in the abbey should be increased by
four. Another important grant was that of the
manor and church of Greensted (fn. 14) by William de
St. Clare. The manor and advowson of the
church of Little Bardfield (fn. 15) were granted by
Clement de Rumburgh in 1351. The abbey
also owned at one time or another the churches
or advowsons, besides those given above, of Ardleigh, Boxted, Berechurch, Brightlingsea, St.
Giles, St. Leonard, St. Nicholas and Holy
Trinity in Colchester, East Donyland, Mundon,
Pitsea, Takeley and Weeley in Essex, St.
Stephen Walbrook in London, Walkern in Hertfordshire, Hamerton in Huntingdonshire, Aldeburgh and Hemingstone in Suffolk, and St.
George, Norwich. The temporalities mentioned
in the Taxation of 1291 amount to the value of
£164 5s. 2½d. yearly; the chief items being
£41 15s. 8½d. in Colchester, £18 8s. 2d. in
Mundon, £12 16s. 8½d. in Wickham Skeith,
£12 15s. 7¼d. in Weeley, £7 12s. 2d. in Pitsea
and £6 18s. 7½d. in Brightlingsea.
Two separate possessions of the abbey call for
special notice. A monk named Robert made a
hermitage (fn. 16) at Writtle with the permission of
Henry I. and of Stephen, who granted privileges
to him, and later gave it to Abbot Hugh and the
chapter of Colchester, receiving it back from
them for life. In time it came again to the
abbot and convent. Henry II confirmed them
in possession and granted various privileges, including the right to gather nuts in the forest
round, under the condition that two monks
should dwell perpetually in the hermitage to pray
for the safety of the king and the souls of dead
kings. Bedemannesberg, as it was called, (fn. 17) thus
became a cell of the abbey, though it appears to
have been completely subject and without any
corporate existence. Its priors are mentioned
occasionally, one taking part in the election of
the abbot in 1523. After the dissolution it was
granted (fn. 18) on 18 August, 1542, to Robert Tyrwhitt in fee. The priory of Snape in Suffolk
was also a cell of the abbey. In 1155 (fn. 19) William
Martel and Albreda his wife and Geoffrey their
son and heir granted (fn. 20) the manor of Snape and
Aldeburgh to the abbot and convent under the
agreement that these should place there a prior
and monks, who should be under the obedience
of the abbey and render to it a yearly pension of
half a mark. The abbot was to visit the priory
twice a year with twelve horses for a stay of four
days, or oftener in cases of necessity. Abbot
Adam and the convent granted (fn. 21) the church of
Aldeburgh to the priory for ever in return for a
yearly rent of ten marks, but the priory gave it
back in 1300 because they found the charge too
heavy. In the fourteenth century it appeared
that the prior alone resided at the priory, and
monks were only sent there temporarily from the
abbey although its means were sufficient for
several. In consequence of this the countess of
Suffolk, patroness of the priory, complained to
Pope Boniface IX, and on 10 January, 1400,
he issued a bull (fn. 22) separating the priory from the
abbey. But the king, the patron of the abbey,
issued an order for the arrest of John Mersey,
monk of St. John's, Colchester, whom the abbot
had sent to the priory of Snape, a cell of the
abbey, to govern it, but who had schemed to separate the priory from the abbey, and had obtained
certain exemptions from the pope, and intended to
go to Rome and obtain further bulls (fn. 23) ; so for
some time the matter remained in dispute, and
it was not until 22 Henry VI that it was settled
by an agreement (fn. 24) that the earl of Suffolk, as
patron, should nominate a Benedictine monk to
the priory at each vacancy, and that the abbot
and convent should present the nominee to the
bishop of Norwich for institution, and should
abandon all claim of visitation and spiritual
jurisdiction, saving the pension of half a mark
yearly.
One of the earliest notices that we have of the
abbey is an account of a miracle. (fn. 25) During the
period of Becket's exile a monk of Canterbury,
Ralph by name, came to Colchester Abbey, where
he was well received; returning to Canterbury
when the archbishop came back, he was there
at the time of the murder, and collected some of
the martyr's blood in a glass vessel which he sealed
with wax and sent to his late hosts at Colchester.
There were only a very few drops at the bottom
of the flask, consequently Ralph was much surprised to learn that when it reached Colchester it
was quite full and even oozing through the wax.
On the other hand, when the abbot washed the
wax and gave some of this diluted relic to a
neighbouring church the priest had the mortification of finding next morning that it had all
vanished. Two or three 'miraculous' cures
wrought on members of the household of the
abbey by, apparently, the washings of the wax
are narrated. (fn. 26)
Between the abbey and the town there appears
to have been almost continuous strife; chiefly
in connection with Greensted and Donyland,
which were within the liberty of the borough.
An agreement (fn. 27) was made in 1255 concerning
the division of the warren there and also as to
toll and gallows. Fifteen years later the king
had to order (fn. 28) the abbot to desist from distraining
the men of those suburbs, in infringement of the
rights of the borough in matter of trespass of
bread and ale and other matters. An extraordinary event (fn. 29) occurred in 1272: a riot had taken
place between the men of the abbey and of the
town at the Midsummer fair, and on the next
day the coroner was shown a dead man on
St. John's Field, said to have been killed by the
townsmen; but when an inquest was taken it
was found that no one had been killed, but that
the monks had taken down a dead thief from
their gallows and represented him as a murdered
man. Agreements (fn. 30) were made with the town in
1348 about taxation and suit at the lawhundred
court, and in 1353 about common in certain
places. In 15 Richard II the Hilary leet presented (fn. 31) Abbot Geoffrey for that he, with twelve
horsemen armed with haubergeons and other
arms, rode from the abbey on the Saturday after
the feast of St. Lawrence to the Balkerne Fields
opposite Colkyngs Castle, to the disturbance of
the public peace and so forth. In 4 Henry V
Abbot Roger Best was presented (fn. 32) for appropriating a certain parcel of land of the king's way on
which he built a stone tower for defence of the
abbey. In 1429 and 1430 there was another
outburst of strife, (fn. 33) again in connection with
Greensted. The abbot complained to the
council, and after narrating the real matter in
dispute went on to accuse members of the commonalty of Lollardy. He also claimed arrears
of £228 from the town. King Stephen had
granted (fn. 34) to Abbot Hugh and the convent 20s.
yearly from the tenth of the farm of the city for
firing for the infirmary, and the abbot alleged (fn. 35)
that this had been unpaid from 1199 to 1427.
On the other hand the abbot was charged (fn. 36)
with damages for the failure of himself and his
predecessors for 130 years to find a chaplain
to celebrate mass on three days in each week
in St. Helen's chapel according to a judgment (fn. 37)
given in the Exchequer against his predecessor
in 1290.
In 1274, (fn. 38) 1280 (fn. 39) and 1286, (fn. 40) the abbot is
mentioned as going beyond the seas.
Bishop Baldock visited (fn. 41) the abbey in 1310
and issued consequent injunctions on 30 June.
He ordered silence in accordance with the rule
of the blessed Benedict; infirm monks or those
weak through bloodletting or requiring medical
treatment to be in the infirmary so as to have
fleshmeat; the monks to obtain clothes, shoes,
and other necessaries from the proper quarter and
not to buy anything; the Benedictine rule of
abstinence from flesh in the refectory and elsewhere, save in the infirmary, to be observed.
Further orders were issued respecting the temporalities of the monastery and the collection of
the tithes in the archdeaconries of Colchester and
Essex twice a year. The translation of monks
from this abbey, where they had been professed,
to the cell of Snape in the diocese of Norwich
was not to be done save for great and evident
cause, and then only with the consent of the
majority of the chapter.
A dispute as to the right of the king to assign a
corrody was settled in the King's Bench in favour
of the abbey in 1340. (fn. 42) In the time of Abbot
Robert de Grenested one Peter del Broch, also
called De Sauveny, (fn. 43) was admitted to sustenance
in the abbey for life at the mandate of Edward I,
and after him Roger Filiol and John de Redynges (fn. 44)
1329 the king granted that in consideration of
their poverty this pension should be discontinued
when John died, but (fn. 45) on his death the king
sent Thomas de Mussenden (fn. 46) to the abbot and
convent for sustenance in 1338, which they declined to grant. The abbot was in consequence
attached to answer for his disobedience. Counsel
for the king argued that the abbey ought to be
charged with the sustenance because it was of
the king's advowson and because Peter, Roger
and John had been admitted; but the abbot cited
the charters of the abbey and said that the previous
grants had been made of courtesy and not of
right and should not be to his prejudice, and
obtained judgment. (fn. 47)
Abbot Walter obtained leave of absence for a
year on 20 October, 1312, whilst he endeavoured
to devise means for relieving the great debt on
the house. (fn. 48)
In 1338 the abbey was suffering from such
depression that it obtained (fn. 49) exemption from the
king from the payment of the wool collected for
his use; and in 1363 a relaxation of penance
was granted (fn. 50) to penitents who at certain times
should visit the abbey church, which had suffered
from flood, storm and fire. In 1346 the abbot
got into trouble (fn. 51) over a French prisoner calling
himself Berengar de Monte Alto, and said to be
the archdeacon of Paris. The latter had been
captured, very likely at Crecy, by some of the
English army, who deserted and sold him in
England for £50. He came into the hands of
the abbot, and was afterwards sold again and removed to London, in direct defiance of the
king's writ ordering his detention. In 1363 (fn. 52) the
abbot complained to the pope that the canons of
St. Botolph's with some of their men and other
laymen to the number of two hundred had attacked
Thomas Stuckele, a monk, and blockaded the
abbey, and some of them had forcibly entered it
and injured the abbot and convent. The cause
of the riot is not stated, but it may very likely
have arisen through a dispute about a pension
out of the church of St. Peter, Colchester, which
was settled (fn. 53) in 1364.
On 21 August, 1396, John Colschestre, or
Pak, a monk of the abbey, was appointed (fn. 54) bishop
of Orkney by the pope. On 25 February,
1399, the pope granted licence (fn. 55) for the abbot
(who already had a papal indult to use the ring,
pastoral staff and other insignia) to use also the
pontifical mitre, and to give solemn benediction
after mass and vespers, provided that no bishop
or papal legate was present. On 15 March in
the same year he granted (fn. 56) indulgences to penitents visiting the abbey at the Nativity of St.
John the Baptist; further granting licence to
the abbot, in consideration of the number of
pilgrims likely to be attracted by this indulgence,
to choose six priests secular or regular to hear
confessions. (fn. 57)
In the autumn of 1403 the abbot joined the
conspiracy (fn. 58) of the countess of Oxford and others
for the restoration of Richard II, who was supposed to be still alive. When first sounded by
the conspirators he was cautious, and dispatched a
trusted messenger to Scotland to make inquiries,
giving him a ring as a guarantee of good faith.
The messenger on his return was arrested at
Bury, but released on bail of the abbot, and
brought word that Richard was alive. On this
the abbot determined 'that with his goode and
with his meyzt he wold refresch him to his
power,' and also induced the abbot of Beeleigh
to join him. But the expected arrival of
Richard II and invasion by the French did not
come about, and in the spring the plot was discovered and warrants were issued for the arrest of
the conspirators. The abbey was sequestrated (fn. 59)
on 21 March, 1404, no doubt on account of this
business, and committed to the custody of the
archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of
Lincoln; and on 16 May order (fn. 60) was given for
the arrest of the abbot, who had fled. The
whole matter was investigated by a commission
in August; two Colchester monks, John Herst
and William Denton, being also implicated.
Pardon was granted (fn. 61) to the abbot on 1 November at the request of the queen, though he did
not recover his forfeited goods, which were
granted (fn. 62) to her at the same time. But in spite
of this lesson the abbot and the same two monks
and others were soon again in trouble for fresh
treasons committed after Christmas. (fn. 63) On a certain day in Lent, 1405, he and John Herst
were arrested (fn. 64) on certain articles of treason
imagined against the king. The abbot was
carried from his own chamber to the common
hall of the town in a chair, because he was ill
with a disease of the throat, by his own servant
and the servant of the sheriff, and there he was
imprisoned for five weeks, and afterwards taken
to the castle of Nottingham. William Denton
was also arrested on the same articles and taken
successively at the mandate of Edward II. In
to the prison of the town and bound with great
iron chains. Abbot Geoffrey died shortly afterwards, and was succeeded by Roger Best, who
was himself charged with treason at the end of
1409, though he was soon pardoned. (fn. 65)
The rule of Abbot Geoffrey appears to have
been unfortunate in more ways than one. The
bishop at a visitation of the abbey found waste
and dilapidations through his negligence and
misgovernment, and he at first submitted voluntarily to the bishop's correction and orders, but
afterwards refused obedience, diminished the
food and clothing of the prior and monks, and
alienated the possessions of the house. The king
then interfered, and on 17 December, 1392,
ordered him to be arrested and brought into
Chancery; and on 12 January, 1393, appointed
a commission to settle the dispute. (fn. 66)
Bishop Clifford held an ordination (fn. 67) in the
church of the abbey on 18 March, 1408, when
thirty-five candidates were ordained. The priests
included three monks of St. John's and two
canons of St. Osyth's.
In October, 1454, Thomas Fuller of Halstead, weaver, fled (fn. 68) to the sanctuary of the
abbey to avoid arrest for debt, and at the king's
command the bailiffs of Colchester caused proclamation to be made each week for five successive weeks at the gate of the abbey that he
should attend before the justices at Westminster.
The result is not recorded. There had previously been disputes about the sanctuary, and
on 13 May, 1453, its bounds had been formally
defined by the king. (fn. 69)
The abbots of Colchester and Chertsey made
a visitation of the abbey of St. Augustine at Canterbury in February, 1449. (fn. 70)
Political dissensions were rife in the abbey
early in 1534. It is significant that the abbot,
the sub-prior, and two (apparently) of the older
monks were not among those who took the oath
of fealty to the heirs of Henry VIII and Anne
Boleyn. (fn. 71) One Thomas Tye, monk, writes (fn. 72)
to Cromwell complaining of the slanderous
reports of John Frances, sub-prior, against
the king and council. Accordingly on 8 April
we have 'The confession (fn. 73) of dompne Thomas
Essex (apparently the same as Tye) upon a certain letter sent by him to my lord of Norfolk,
accusing dompne John Fraunces of divers seditious and slanderous words against the king's
highness and his most honourable council, taken,
examined, and sworn by the reverend father in
God, Thomas, abbot of the monastery of St.
John Baptist beside Colchester, Sir John Sentclere, knight, Sir William Pyrton, knight, John
Cristmes, esquire, and dompne John Milford,
prior of the monastery.' Thomas Essex, decane
of the monastery, twenty-five years old, says that
on 21 January John Fraunces spoke of a new
book containing nine articles put forth by the
king and his council, saying that the putters
forth of it are heretics, though before he said
they were but schismatics, which he would prove
on pain of losing his tongue. He said also in
derision, when the king was beyond the sea last,
that the queen followed him like a dog its
master. John Flingant says the occasion of the
words being spoken was that Thomas Clare
wished he had a dispensation of his religion.
Flyngant remarked that dispensations were hung
up for sale in the apothecaries' shops in Rome,
with a blank for the buyer's name. To this
Fraunces answered that he had rather go to
Walsingham on his bare feet than that Clare
should go about any such business. William
Westmynster, John Pepper, William Page,
Thomas Clare and John Islipp gave evidence
as to the above, and also that on 4 February
Fraunces said that he could prove those who consented to the king's last marriage to be heretics.
Fraunces explained the former part and denied
the words about the queen, and apparently everything was settled satisfactorily, for the oath of
supremacy was taken (fn. 74) on 7 July by Thomas,
abbot, John Melford, prior, William Ros, Henry
Bumstede, William Ryppnere, John Franceys,
Thomas Clare, George Dedham, John Flyngant, William Page, John Pepper, Thomas
Stow, Sylvester Hynygam, William Westmynster, Robert Reason, Thomas Essex and John
Islyp.
The net value of the abbey is given in the
Valor as £523 16s. 0¼d. yearly. In another
place (fn. 75) the net value is said to be £523 17s. 0¼d.
and the gross value £639 2s. 0¼d. The abbey
was thus fourth in size in the county, and rich
enough to escape the first dissolution.
The abbey procured the favour of Sir Thomas
Audeley, the chancellor, by exchanges (fn. 76) of lands;
and, when the fate of the greater monasteries was
seen to be certain, an attempt was made to save
Colchester and St. Osyth's in the form of secular
colleges. Writing (fn. 77) to Cromwell from Berechurch on 8 September, 1538, Audeley says:
'Succh bruits hath runne sythens my last departyng from yr good lordship concerning the
dissolution of the abbeys of Seynt John in Colchester and Seynt Osyes that I am bold to write
to yr good lordship after myne own sute for the
contynuance of the same ii places, not as they bee
religious, but that it mought pleese the kynges
majesty of his goodness to translate them into
colleges after soche sorte and ordynance as shal
seme most charitable to his highnes. For the
which as I seyd to you afore his grace may have
of eyther of them a m li that ys for bothe mm li
and the gyft of the deans and prebendaries at his
owne pleasure. The cause I move this ys fyrst
I consider that Seynt Johns stondyth in his
graces owne towne at Colchester wherein dwell
many poor people which have daily relefe of the
house; another cawse, bothe these houses be in
the ende of the shire of Essex where litel hospitality shalbe kept yf these be dissolved for as
Seynt Jones lakkyth water and Seynt Osyes
stondith in the marshes not very holsom as yt
fewe of reputation as I thinke will kepe contynual howses in any of them save it be a congregation as ther be now. There is also xxti howses
gret and small dissolved in the shire of Essex all
redy. These and many other consideracions
movyth me to be a sutor for ther translations and
yet I wyll not now mynde in any wise to move
or speke in this matter otherwyse than shal
stonde with the kynges plesure nor in good
fayth I entend not to serve any particular advantage for they standyng yt hath plesed the kynges
majesty to giff me leve to exchange lands and
thyngs with eyther of the howses wherwith I am
satisfied and right hertely thank his highness for
the same. I beseech you, my good lord, if yr
lordship shall thynke thys sute honest and reasonable to move this matter to the kyngs mageste
and to sette it ernestly forward. Yr lordship
knowyng bothe the howses as ye do can alegge
more better considerations than I can imagyne
or wryte. And thus I trobell you with my
sutes oft tymes and can not recompens your
often gentelnesses and paynes takyn for me, but
with my poor harty good will whereof yor lordship shall be sure duryng my liffe. And besides that if ye can or may opteyn this sute for
the translation of these ii howses yr lordship shal
have for yr favor therein cc li besechyng you to
travayle therein and to advertise me as soon as
ye shal se tyme of the forwardnes or onforwardnes therof. And thus a bold sutor puttyng yr
lordshipp in remembraunce of al myn olde sutes
to use them at yr owne leysure I beseche or
Lord to send yr lordshipp as godd helth and as
wel to fare as I wold myself.'
But the scheme was not accepted, and on
6 November Cromwell ordered (fn. 78) Dr. Lee and
William Cavendish to repair to and dissolve the
two houses, assigning pensions to the persons
there, according to the king's commission, and
putting the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor
of Augmentations each in possession of one.
The order was not actually carried out, and the
abbey was still in existence in the next year;
but it fell at last through the attainder of the
abbot.
Suspicion had probably rested on him for some
time, although he had paid the usual bribes (fn. 79) to
Cromwell. The justices of gaol delivery at
Colchester had dined with him in December,
1536, and reported (fn. 80) words spoken by his friends
in favour of the northern insurrection. On
21 November, 1538, Sir John Seyncler writes (fn. 81)
to Cromwell: 'Yesterday bying the xx daie of
November I was with the abbot of Seynt John
of Colchester, who axed of me what the abbot of
Saynt Osis dyd as touchyng his howse, for the
brewte whas the kyng would have yt. To the
which I answered hym that he dyd lyke an
honest man, for he sayth "I am the kynges
subject and I and my house and all is the kynges
wherefore if yt be the kynges pleasure I as a
trewe subject shall obey withoute groge." To
the which the abbot of Seynt John answered, "I
will not saye (so), for the kyng shall never have
my howse but agayne my will and agayne my
hart, for I knowe by my lernyng that he cannot
take yt by right and lawe; wherefore in my
concyens I cannot be contente nor he shall never
have yt with my hart and wyll." To the
which I sayd, "Beware of suche lerning, for if
ye holde suche lernyng as ye lernyd at Oxenforde
when ye were yonge ye wil be hanged and ye
are wordye: but I will advyse you to confirme
yor self as a trewe subject or ells you shall hynder
yor brethren and also yor self." My lorde I
lyke not the man. I fere he hath a cankred
harte for he whas accused but of late of traitorous
words by one William Halle but he hade no witnesse.' After this it is not surprising that the
abbot was attainted of treason, though this did
not apparently come about until the middle of
the next year.
The principal evidence against him was that
of his servant Edmund Trowman and two personal friends. Trowman, examined (fn. 82) at Brentwood before Sir John Seyncler, John Ryther
and Harry Polsted on 1 November, 1539, gave
an account of plate, money and other things delivered to him by the abbot, and also of words
spoken by the abbot at various times. He had
heard him say at Colchester divers times within
the last year that the king could not lawfully
suppress any house of religion above the yearly
value of 300 marks; that he himself would
never surrender his house to the king, and would
die sooner than forsake his living, and that he
would to God that every abbot was of his mind
concerning the surrender and suppression of
their houses. He had never heard the abbot say
anything against the king in the advancement of
the bishop of Rome, nor that the bishop of
Rome was the immediate successor of St. Peter.
He had heard him say at Colchester within the
last half year, 'Well, God will take vengeance
at length for the putting down of these houses
of religion,' and also that God was like to the
butcher whose property is to suffer his cattle to
be fat before that he will kill them, and so doth
God suffer the people to grow in sin and unhappiness of this world and then He will pay them
home. He had heard him say that two or
three of the king's council had brought his grace
to such a covetous mind that if all the water in
Thames did flow gold and silver it were not able
to quench his grace's thirst, but he could not remember of whom the words were spoken. He
had heard him say soon after the deaths of Fisher
and More that they died like good men, and it
was pity of their deaths for they were great
learned men and wise men. He had heard him
say of the northern insurgents that they 'were
good men, mokyll in the mothe, great cracars,
and nothing worthe in their deades'; and 'I
would to Christ that the rebels in the north
country had the archbishop of Canterbury, the
Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal among
them, and then I trust we should have a merry
world again.'
Thomas Nuthake of Colchester, physician and
mercer, examined (fn. 83) on 3 November, said that he
became acquainted with the abbot in the year of
his election. He had heard him say that the
cause why the king forsook the bishop of Rome
was to the intent that his majesty might be
divorced from the Lady Dowager and wed Queen
Anne, and therefore his grace refused to take the
bishop of Rome for the supreme head of the
church and made himself the supreme head.
The first time he heard the abbot speak of these
matters was five or six years ago, and the last
time was three years ago come Christmas; on
which occasion they were alone in the abbot's
dining chamber, 'the servants being at latter
dinner,' when the abbot chanced to speak of
Queen Anne's death and said he hoped the
other—meaning Queen Jane—would not come
to the same pass. At the time the supremacy
was treated in Parliament, the abbot said he
could prove the bishop of Rome supreme head
of the church, and that 'those who made the
king supreme head were false heretics and cursed
to God's own mouth, axing a vengeance of the
archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord chancellor
and of other the king's council, saying they were
arch heretics and do go about to destroy the
church and the law of God, rehearsing those
words 'Ecce Domine lapides sanctuarii tui jacent
in placeis,' meaning that God should take
vengeance of such as destroyed abbeys. On
hearing of the deaths of the bishop of Rochester
and Sir Thomas More, the abbot said 'Nuthake,
alas, what wretched tyrants and bloodsuckers be
these that have put to death and martyred these
blessed clerks and best learned men that were in
this realm. They died martyrs and saints, in my
conscience, for holding with our holy father the
pope for the right of all holy church'; to which
Nuthake answered, 'My lord, I pray you speak
no more of that.' At the time of the insurrection in the north the abbot sent for Nuthake to
sup with him, and he found him sitting at a
gate at the hall of the monastery. He said,
'Nuthake, welcome. I send for you to tell unto
you news which I have in writing. For a troth
the northern men be up in a great number and
will in no wise that abbeys shall be put down nor
holy days to be taken away, and rather than
they will suffer the new laws which are now in
hand to go forward they will die forty thousand
men.' He told him to beware what he said, and
the abbot answered, 'Hold thy peace, fool, for
my nay say shall be as good as thy say,' and said
that the king, because he could not get what he
wanted at Rome, had usurped the pope's dignity,
and that those who held with the new acts
against the bishop of Rome were accursed. After
the commotion, when the commissioners were
suppressing Louth and other abbeys whose heads
were offenders, the abbot said to him in an
orchard 'where the hawthorne groweth,' 'What
a world is this. I hear say that all abbeys shall
go down. These tyrants and bloodsuckers doth
thrust out of their houses these good religious
fathers against all right and law, but let them
hang and draw as fast as they will I shall keep
one, for I am sure of 1,200 marks in my purse,
and therefore my friend hangs always at my
girdle, and if the hardest come that shall defend
me till these storms be overpast.' He said also
the lord chancellor, privy seal and two or three
of the bishops went about to make all England
heretics or else set the realm by the ears, and he
wished they were at Rome or with the rebels in
the north.
Robert Rouse, mercer, of Colchester, examined (fn. 84) on 4 November, said that he had known
the abbot since his election about six years ago
last Midsummer; on which occasion he sent him
a dish of 'baces' and a pottle of wine and dined
with him; and left his company about two years ago
because he reasoned against the king's supremacy
and the Acts of Parliament for extinguishing the
authority of the bishop of Rome. He gave
evidence similar to that of Trowman and
Nuthake as to words used by the abbot about the
king's covetousness and tyranny. The last time
he heard the abbot speak of such matters was
immediately after the insurrection in the north.
While walking in a gallery between the hall and
garden before supper the abbot told him of the
insurrection, of which he had not hitherto heard,
saying 'The northern lads be up, and they
begin to take piper in the nebe and say plainly
that they will have no more abbeys suppressed in
their country.' He said also that they were
as true subjects as the king had, and desired
nothing but that they might have the archbishop
of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord
Privy Seal delivered to them, and he would
God they had had them, for then we should
have a merry world, for they were three archheretics.
The examination of the abbot himself made
matters no better for him. The following
are the interrogatories put to him, and his answers (fn. 85) :—
What he hath spoken at any time concerning
the king's supremacy?
And concerning the bishop of Rome's usurped
authority?
Item, that all the water in Thames would not
slake the king's majesties covetousness?
That God would take vengeance for suppressing houses of religion?
What he hath spoken touching Sir Thomas
More's death and bishop of Rochester and the
monks of Sion with other?
What he hath spoken of the northern men in
the time of commotion?
'As concerning the first and 2 interrogatories for as moche as I have reade in a pistle
of Seint Jeronimi wer hee sayth that all
bisshoppes have lyke autoryte but of "scismatis
remedium" in thos parties "elegerunt Episcopum
Romanum in summum": by the which sayyng I
take and understand the Bischoppe of Rome
hadd his suppremicye "jure humano" and afterwards usurpid moch more autoryte then ever
was gyve to hym by any law. Wherfor now I
affyrme that our most godly prince electid by
the fre consent of all his hoole reawme hath
good autoryte to be and is suppreme head of
the same and this I have sayd as I am well rememberyd.
'As concernyng the 3 interrogatory I never
sayd nor thought that yff all the water in the
Temaes wer gold yett it wold not qwench or slake
the coveytisse mynd of the kyng or his counsell
nor any sentence lyke the sayme. I have sayde
that the nature of coveytise is lyke to the dropysy,
it is insaciable and never content, but I never
referith the same saynge to the kyngges grace nor
yet to his most honourable counsell.
'As concernyng the 4 interrogatory in
suppressyng relygious houses I have said, as I
remember and yff it be the wyll of God so to be
it is well doon, yff not God well ponyssh at
lengyth; and as towchyng my own house I take
God my jugge yff the kynges visitours hadd cum
to suppresse the same I would have gyve it uppe
rather then to have the kynges displeasure, but I
thowght sumwhat to stonde in it for that I wold
my pensyon schold be the more.
'As concernynge the 5 interrogatory I have
sayd that the bisshope of Rochester and Syr T.
More wer grett lernyd men and with the
grace of God they myght have contrition for
ther. . .
'And as concernyng the 6 interrogatory I
have sayd the northern men well speke moch
with ther tonge but with the grace of God they
schalbe vanqwysshith as the Cornysshemen were
or else it wolbe wrong with us for whe schalbe
spoylid in our howses. And heere is all that I
have sayd as I do remember most mekely besechyng the kyngges most gracious magiste and his
most honorable consell to be good to me for the
love of God.
'per me Thomam Bech alias Marciall.'
The abbot was in the Tower of London
on 20 November. (fn. 86) Soon afterwards he was sent
down to Colchester to be tried by a commission (fn. 87)
consisting of the earl of Essex, Sir Christopher
Jenny, Sir Thomas Darcye, Sir Giles Capell, Sir
John Seynclere and Sir William Pyrton; with a
jury of sixteen to inquire and seventeen to try.
In view of the evidence given above there can
have been no possible doubt as to the result
of the trial, but we only know that the abbot
was found guilty and hanged (fn. 88) at Colchester on
1 December, 1539. Sir Christopher Jenny,
writing (fn. 89) soon afterwards to Cromwell, says
'The prisoner after his judgment axed the kyngs
highness, yr lordeshippes and my lord chauncellors
forgiveness and knowlegid hymself in substaunce
to be giltie accordynge to theffect of the indictmente and shewyd hym self to be very penytent,
savynge he stoode somewhat in his own conceyte
that the subpression of abbeys should not stonde
with the lawes of God, and therby and by other
circumstances I thought hym an evill man in
myn own concyensand opinion yf ther had apperyd
noo more but his own confesion.'
By this attainder the abbey and all its possessions came into the hands of the king. Pensions
were, however, granted to the monks; John
Fraunce receiving £6 13s. 4d., and William
Ryppner £5 yearly in 1553. Sir Thomas
Audeley endeavoured to get a grant of the site
from the king, but failed; though he held it for
a time at farm. On 20 August, 1546, it was
leased (fn. 90) to Sir Thomas Darcy for twenty-six
years, and the lease was afterwards sold by him
to John Lucas. The reversion of the site was
granted (fn. 91) on 22 June, 1547, to John Dudley,
earl of Warwick, and later it came into the
possession of John Lucas.
The plate of the abbey at the dissolution
amounted (fn. 92) to 2,244¼ ounces besides 'two
mytors garnished with silver and gilte, small
seade perles and counterfeete stones or glasses,
lackinge parte of the garnisshinge.'
The abbots of Colchester were mitred, with
a seat in Parliament. The patronage of the
abbey came to the crown on the death of Eudo,
and consequently the Patent Rolls record their
elections. (fn. 93) The following list is probably complete:— (fn. 94)
Abbots Of Colchester
Hugh of York, the first abbot, 1104. (fn. 95)
Gilbert de Lungrill, (fn. 96)
circa 1104-1129.
William de Scuri, (fn. 97)
circa 1129-1132.
Hugh de Haya, (fn. 98)
circa 1132-1148.
Gilbert de Wicham, (fn. 99)
circa 1148-1164.
Walter Walensis, (fn. 100)
circa 1164-1179.
Osbert, (fn. 101)
circa 1179-1195.
Adam de Campes, (fn. 102)
circa 1195-1238. (fn. 103)
William de Wande, 1238 (fn. 104) -1245. (fn. 105)
William de Spaldwic, 1245 (fn. 106) -1272. (fn. 107)
Robert de Grenstede, elected 1272, (fn. 108) died
1306. (fn. 109)
John de Bruges, elected 1306, (fn. 110) died 1311. (fn. 111)
Walter de Huntingfeld, elected 1311. (fn. 112)
William de Glemham, elected 1326, (fn. 113) died
1327. (fn. 114)
John de Wymondham, elected 1327, (fn. 115) died
1349. (fn. 116)
Simon de Blyton, elected 1349, (fn. 117) resigned
1353. (fn. 118)
Thomas Moveron, elected 1353. (fn. 119)
Simon, occurs 1358, (fn. 120) died 1368. (fn. 121)
Thomas Stukelee, elected 1368, (fn. 122) died
1369. (fn. 123)
Richard de Colne, elected 1369, (fn. 124) died
1375. (fn. 125)
John Dedham, elected 1375, (fn. 126) died 1377. (fn. 127)
William de Gritton, elected 1377, (fn. 128) died
1380. (fn. 129)
Geoffrey Story or de Sancta Ositha, elected
1380, (fn. 130) died 1405. (fn. 131)
Roger Best, elected 1405, (fn. 132) died 1418. (fn. 133)
Robert Gryttone, elected 1418, (fn. 134) died 1432. (fn. 135)
William Ardeley, elected 1432, (fn. 136) died
1464. (fn. 137)
John Canon, elected 1464, (fn. 138) died 1468. (fn. 139)
Walter Stansted, elected 1468, (fn. 140) died 1497. (fn. 141)
William Lyndesey or Sprowton, elected
1498, (fn. 142) died 1517. (fn. 143)
John Stoke, elected 1517, (fn. 144) resigned 1523. (fn. 145)
Thomas Barton, elected 1523, (fn. 146) died 1533. (fn. 147)
Thomas Marshall or Beche, elected 1533, (fn. 148)
executed (fn. 149) 1539; the last abbot.
The seal (fn. 150) of the abbey is circular, with a diameter of 3 inches. The obverse represents
St. John the Baptist seated in a canopied niche,
holding in his left hand the Agnus Dei on a
plaque, and pointing to it with his right hand.
In smaller canopied niches on the left and right
are SS. Peter and Paul. In the base is a shield
of the arms of the abbey—a cross within a bordure, over all an escarbuncle of eight staves
fleury. Legend:—
SIGILLUM COMUNE MONASTERII SANCTI
IOHIS BAPTISTE COLCESTRIE
The reverse represents St. John the Evangelist seated in a canopied niche, holding in the
right hand a chalice with a dragon, and in the
left hand a palm branch. In canopied niches on
either side are angels. Outside these on either
side is a penthouse, on which is an angel holding
out a shield of arms; on the left those of France
and England quartered, and on the right those
of the abbey. In the base under an arch is an
abbot kneeling, with figures in niches on each
side. Legend:—
O MATRIS . . . ALNE IOHS CONSERBES OMES
CCIB[UD] . . . ATQ . . . DS.