REPORT. XXIIL 
rare occurrence, though such inquiries as ours, if generally adopted, will pro- 
bably bring to light a few more specimens. William the Conqueror, in 1070, 
not only robbed monastic and collegiate establishments of their plate and 
jewels, but even condescended to appropriate the chalices of parish churches. 
In 1194 another general raid was made upon the vessels for the purpose of 
ransoming Richard I. The changes introduced at the Reformation not only 
caused a good deal of Church Plate connected with a more elaborate ritual to 
disappear, but were also eventually very destructive to Eucharistic Plate proper. 
The first thing to notice in the Reformation period is the continually recurring 
reports of robbery and embezzlement which followed the suppression of the 
monasteries and the appropriation of ‘‘ Cathedral stuff,” including all the 
shrincs, jewels, rich vestments (burnt for the sake of gold wire) and such plate 
as was deemed superfluous by the worthy king, Henry VIII. It is, however, 
a mistake to suppose that the king also robbed the parish churches. That was 
left for his hopeful son. At Staveley, we are told, in 1552, ‘‘our chalis was 
stolen xij monethes past.” Dovezridge report ‘‘ our chalys and other orna- 
ments were solde by Thomas Blythe, sumtyme chauntry priste, for which 
cause he was putt from the same promocon and dyed very poore.”” Marston 
says, ‘‘A chales was latelie stolen.” The chantry of S. Michael, Chester- 
“field: “A chalys the vycar there had in custody and roune awaye with it ij 
yeres paste.” Many articles of value, however, disappeared by the aid of the 
very persons who ought to have taken care of them, viz., the churchwardens. 
At Egginton, ‘‘ij bells themselves were sold in the ijnd yere of the kyng’s 
reign to the repairinge of the Monks Bridge,” the excuse being that it ‘‘is so 
farre in decay that the township is not able to amend the same.” The in- 
habitants of Ambaston also sold a bell which was in the chapel, and at Ash- 
burne, after calmly submitting to the loss of ‘“j holde albe stolen forth 
of acofer in the Church, the locke beying pyked, ” we hear of ‘‘ ij holde 
frunts of no valewe beying lant to disguyse persons at the bryngynge in of a 
Maii gamme.” 
These and other losses became such a scandal, that Commissioners were 
more than once sent through each county to take inventories of what was 
spared. From these we are able to gather what our loss has been, but, unfor- 
tunately, the lists themselves have not always come down to our day. Those of 
the North Riding of York, Lincoln, and Sussex are missing entirely. Derby- 
shire has been more lucky, for, though only one inventory in the visitation of 
1547—that of Hope Church—has survived, from the Commission of 1552 we 
possess lists of goods then remaining in between 80 and 90 Churches, prin- 
cipally in the Deaneries of Ashburne, Duffield, Hartshorne, Lullington, Ock- 
brook, Radbourne, Stanton, and Wirksworth. They have all been 
printed by Mr. Walcott in 7%e Religuary, and revised by myself for the 
Churches of Derbyshire. 
