A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



and John Pecock, a Carmelite friar, suffered at 

 Lynn. Several others, including two clergy, 

 were condemned to life imprisonment. 



A few days after the execution of the sub- 

 prior and another at Walsingham, namely on 

 3 June, depositions were taken before Sir Roger 

 Townsend of certain who charged Henry 

 Manse, the priest in charge of Our Lady's 

 Chapel of Walsingham, with certain seditious 

 words. The main evidence was that of one 

 Sutton, 'a sore and diseased person,' who would 

 persist in coming to the door of the chapel 

 annoying the pilgrims. When Manser rebuked 

 him at the request of the pilgrims, he retorted 

 with froward and naughty words. Thereupon 

 Manser requested one of the constables to put 

 Sutton in the stocks, and when there Sutton re- 

 taliated by charging Manser with using seditious 

 words to certain pilgrims from Lincolnshire. 

 Apparently this evidence was considered too 

 tainted to lead to another execution.' 



On 31 August Sir Roger Townsend, writing 

 to Cromwell, strongly commends Prior Vowell 

 to his favour, saying that he had been the taker 

 of one of the most rank traitors privy to the 

 Walsingiiam conspiracy, probably referring to 

 the sub-prior. There was then a matter at issue 

 between the prior and the cellarer, and Towns- 

 end begged for Cromwell's support of the prior 

 in his suits." 



On 14 July 1538, the obsequious Prior Vowell 

 wrote to Cromwell, that, in accordance with his 

 instructions, he had attended on the commis- 

 sioners, who took away the image and all the 

 gold and silver things from the chapel. As for 

 the silver which still remained in the house, he 

 begged that it might remain to sustain unavoid- 

 able charges in connexion with their suits for 

 the translation of their house into a college.'* 



Richard Gresham, writing to Cromwell, on 

 25 July, acknowledging his letter to the effect 

 that it was the king's pleasure to dissolve the 

 house of Walsingham, stated that he had written 

 about it to the prior, who, he doubted not, 

 would raise no difficulty.* 



On 4 August Prior Vowell duly surrendered 

 his house and all its possessions to William Petre 

 as royal commissioner.^ Eight days later Vowell 

 wrote to Cromwell, regretting that the priory 

 had not been turned into a college, and begging 

 for the parsonage of Walsingham, so that he 

 might not be his grace's chaplain in name only. 

 He pleaded his age and impotency, had heard 

 that the king had granted him a pension of jTioo, 

 and hoped to have it confirmed.^ 



An unsigned communication to Cromwell of 

 this date throws some light upon the mean way 



' L. and P. Hen. Fill, xii (2), 9. 



" Ibid. 223. 



^ Ibid, xiii (i), 510. 



* Ibid. 536. ' Ibid, xiii (2), 1 1. 



'Ibid. 32. 



the suppression commissioners behaved, and how 

 ready folk were to curry favour with the Lord 

 Privy Seal by reporting their conduct. This 

 statement is to the effect that at the dissolution 

 of Walsingham, a rich cope and a vestment were 

 in the prior's chamber reserved for my Lord 

 Privy Seal, but Mr. Southwell suddenly coming 

 into the prior's chamber asked who it was for. 

 Vowell replied, ' For you, if it be your pleasure,* 

 and Southwell took it away. Cromwell has 

 endorsed this communication, ' Touching Mr, 

 Southwell.' ' 



Bishop Latimer wrote a jocular letter to 

 Cromwell in June, 1538, suggesting the burning 

 of the image of the virgin of Walsingham and 

 others : ' they would make a joly mustere in 

 Smythfeld.' * John Husee, writing to Lord 

 Lisle, on 1 8 June, also attempted to be witty or» 

 the same subject : 



This day our late lady of Walsingham was brought to 

 Lambithe (Lambeth), where was both my Lord 

 Chancellor and my Lord Privy Seal with many 

 virtuous prelates, but there was offered neither obla- 

 tion nor candle. What shall become of her is not 

 determined.' 



Melancthon, on i November of the same year, 

 exulted in the overthrow of the image of 'Mary 

 by the Sea.' ^^ 



Among the Lady Day accounts of 1538 the 

 usual payments were made for the king's candle, 

 and to the king's priest who sang before Our 

 Lady at Walsingham. But when the Michael- 

 mas payments came round the entry runs : 



' For the king's candle before Our Lady of 

 Walsingham, and to the prior there for his salary, 

 nil.' 11 ^ 



On 20 October, 1539, the late prior received 

 a grant of the exceedingly large pension of ^^loa 

 in reward for his obsequiousness and consider- 

 able bribes to Cromwell. Fifteen of the canons 

 at the same time received small pensions of about 

 the usual rate, varying from £6 to £i\-}^ Nine 

 of them were living and in receipt of pensions 

 in 1555. 



Notwithstanding the destruction of the priory 

 , and the execution of its sub- 

 was found impossible to eradicate at 

 once all the belief in the minds of the common 

 folk in the virtues of Our Lady of Walsingham. 

 Small wonder, too, if such was the case ; for the 

 majority of the adults of the district could well 

 remember the time when the very king who 

 now dealt so cruelly with those who maintained 

 their faith in it had walked many miles barefoot 

 to the shrine, and they had seen the royal taper 

 burning before the sacred image down to Lady 



' Ibid, xiii (2), 506. 



Mbid. xiii (i), 437. 



Mbid. 521. 

 '" Ibid, xiii (2), 287. 

 " Ibid. 529, 535, fols. 12, 39. 

 " Aug. Office Bks. ccxxxiii, fol. 13^. 



and its adjuncts, 

 prior, it 



400 



