RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



of the provincial, enrich the house with his own 

 possessions, require only the same living as 

 priors usually had, and render due account of 

 the revenues of the priory. The post was given 

 to him, but according to the story of his suc- 

 cessor the appointment was not to the convent's 

 benefit: after four years of office he was ^£64 

 in debt to the house. In his last illness he 

 desired that the sum should be paid, and in 

 further recompense of charges on the priory 

 caused by his episcopal dignity he bequeathed 

 to the convent his crozier and mitre worth ^40. 

 After his death his executors sued the prior 

 and convent for some of his property — viz., a 

 silver ewer and holy water stock,** a counter- 

 pane and a dozen napkins. The friars declared 

 that they belonged to the house, and the bishop 

 had them in pledge, and asked that the trial 

 of the case in Worcestershire might be stopped 

 as detrimental to their interests. The friars 

 may have been wronged, but it must be owned 

 that their tale is not very plausible, for it is 

 unUkely that they would pawn goods to a 

 person in their debt. 



The house was subjected to an attack on its 

 rights and propertyfrom — Verneyin 1533, when 

 Cromwell showed himself disposed in their 

 favour.** Richard Yngworth,*' the prior, on 

 16 December** sent him a present of apples, 

 and thanked him for his help and counsel to 

 the provincial (Hilsey), by which he himself 

 was enabled to serve God quietly and keep his 

 study and office without trouble. Verney 

 several months later was still causing the con- 

 vent annoyance and loss, but the prior would 

 not take steps against him without Cromwell's 

 leave.*' Yngworth's attitude here expresses 

 his policy, which was complete subservience to 

 Cromwell, naturally for his own advancement. 

 In April 1534 he went on a visitation to the 

 eastern counties to secure the acknowledge- 

 ment by the friars of the king's claim to be 

 supreme head of the English Church,*" and 

 later made himself useful to Hilsey elsewhere in 

 the same business.** The convent at Langley, 



'* Valued at ^\ and ^t, respectively.^ 

 " Christopher Hales wrote to Cromwell, I Jan. 

 1 5 34 : ' The Prior of King's Langley tells me you 

 have been very good master to him, in which I 

 think you do well. I know neither the place nor 

 his adversary, but I have seen several of his charters, 

 showing that former kings have been good to the house, 

 and I see no reason why such an officer as Mr. Verney 

 should do them wrong' {L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 



'' His name is not mentioned, but there is no 

 doubt that he was prior then. 



"« L. and P. Hen. Vlll, vi, 1532. 



" Hilsey's letter to Cromwell (L. and P. Hen. VIII, 

 ix, 1 1 54). As Hilsey was then Bishop of Rochester 

 the date cannot be earlier than August 1535. 



'" Ibid, vii, 595. 



«l Ibid. 939 ; ix, 373. 



needless to say, made the formal declaration 

 required.** 



Yngworth's labours were not unnoticed. 

 When Hilsey was made Bishop of Rochester, *3 

 Thomas Bedell wrote to Cromwell recom- 

 mending that the Prior of Langley, ' who had 

 taken great pains in the king's matters,' should 

 have the office of provincial ** ; Russell also 

 urged his appointment.** The post, however, 

 was not vacant, and Yngworth had to wait for 

 preferment until December 1537, being then 

 made Suffragan Bishop of Dover.** Probably 

 he ceased to be Prior of King's Langley from 

 that time.*' He was commissioned by the king 

 in February 1538 to visit all friaries in England,** 

 and in May he was ordered to put their goods 

 into safe custody and take inventories of 

 them,*» evidently in preparation for suppres- 

 sion. Langley was surrendered towards the 

 end of that year.'" Many of the friars were 

 very old and poor,'* but it is doubtful whether 

 any provision was made for them. Yngworth 

 begged for the house immediately,'^ and in 

 February 1540 it was granted to him with most 

 of its lands, to be held until he obtained eccle- 

 siastical benefices worth ^^100 a year.'' The 

 priory was reckoned in the Valor of 1535 as 

 worth j^i22 4^. a year clear,'* a fairly accurate 

 estimate, to judge from the statement at the 

 Dissolution.'* Its gross annual value was 

 then said to be ^130 16s. Sd., but to this 

 must be added ^11 I3J-. ^d. for the obits 

 of Sir John Cheyne and Sir Ralph Verney, 

 so that its net income after the deduction of 

 ^18 6s. Sd. for salaries and other payments 

 was ^124 3.;. 4^. 



It is impossible to ascertain the size of the 

 convent at any period. Edward II intended 

 the house to hold a hundred,'* but there is no 

 proof that it ever did. His allowance of ^50 

 extra for fifteen brothers in 131 1 " implies that 

 there were then forty-five here. Edward III 

 in 1356 gave licence to the nuns of Dartford to 

 acquire land sufficient to maintain forty sisters 

 and sixty friars,'* but the number he actually 



62 L. and P. Hen. VIII, vii, 665 (2). 

 •' August 1535. 



«* Ibid. 598. 



«^ L. and P. Hen. VIII, ix, 373. 



*» Ibid, xii (2), 131 1 (13). 



*' Palmer says he was prior until 1537. ' Prelates 

 of the Black Friars of England ' {Jntiq. xxvii, 114). 



«8 L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiii (i), 225. 



«8 Ibid. 926. 



'" Ibid, xiii (2), 1021. The account of the house, 

 dated 10 Dec. 1538, seems to have been drawn 

 up very soon after the Suppression (ibid. 1022). 



'1 Ibid. 1022. " Ibid, xiv (i), 348. 



" Ibid. XV, 1032, p. 542. 



'* Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iv, 276. 



'5 L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiii (2), 1022. 



'* Cal. Papal Pet. 1342-1419, p. 187. 



" Cal. Pal. 1 307-1 3> P- 397- 



'*Ibid. 1354-8, p. 486. 



449 



57 



