RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



trust in and affection for Lenton Priory. The 

 foundress provided that if the mayor and corpora- 

 tion were in any way remiss in their trust, the 

 Prior and Convent of Lenton were to have the 

 rule, guidance, and oversight of the lands and 

 the school.*^ 



When there was a vacancy in the headship of 

 this house in 1534, Sir Anthony Babington 

 wrote to Cromwell begging that the new prior, 

 in succession to John Annesley, deceased, might 

 be chosen from one of the monks of the house, 

 as it was then likely to prosper better than under 

 a stranger ; ' for which reason my lord Cardinal 

 in his time made Thomas Holrose prior and 

 Simmes (?) that is late prior.' °' 



Nicholas Hethe or Heath, the last prior, was 

 appointed by patent on 27 December 1535.^' 

 Soon after his appointment the new prior wrote 

 to Cromwell one of those numerous letters which 

 show so plainly the extortions of which that 

 minister was guilty. Heath states that it was of 

 Cromwell's favour that he obtained this pro- 

 motion, but he had not found it in so clear a 

 state as had been anticipated. He had granted 

 to ' Mr. Richard ' (Cromwell's nephew) for 

 Cromwell's use ;^ioo, but begged he would 

 take ;^6o and remit the rest till Martinmas. 

 He was bound to keep up hospitality, and if he did 

 not get this remission would have to resort to 

 some London merchant, which would be to his 

 great hindrance. He had accomplished Crom- 

 well's pleasure touching the cell of Kersall in 

 Lancashire. He further begged that the new 

 rule discharging all religious under twenty-five 

 might be relaxed in favour of two of their young 

 monks, for all his brethren, except four or five, 

 were very impotent and of great age, and re- 

 quested his favour that they might continue in 

 their religion.^' 



The quasi-legal means adopted to dissolve 

 this monastery differed from all others save the 

 similar case of the Cistercian abbey of Woburn 

 in Bedfordshire. Lenton had been much per- 

 turbed by Cromwell's visitors. Here, as else- 

 where, certain religious were incited or tempted 

 to bring railing accusations against their superiors. 

 Hamlet Pentrich, one of the monks, brought a 

 charge against his prior before the Privy Council, 

 being released for the purpose from the Fleet, 

 where he was prisoner. Pentrich was, however, 

 a twice-forgiven ' apostate,' and for a third time 

 he forsook his monastery, carrying away with 

 him goods belonging to the priory.™ 



™ Deering, Nottingham, 147. 



"L. and P. Hen. Vni,vn, 1626; 'Simmes' is 

 probably an alias for Annesley. 



^ Pat. 27 Hen. VIII, pt. ii, m. 9. 



«» L. and P. Hen. Vlll, x, 1234. 



'" Ibid. 655. The letter of the prior about this 

 case is dated 1 2 April, but no year. It is virongly 

 placed in the calendar, as it is evidently of the year 

 1537, and not 1536. 



It is clear that Pentrich and one or two more 

 were ready enough to repeat or invent monastery 

 gossip against the king and Cromwell, in order 

 to save themselves from the results of their 

 own disorderly conduct. A long statement that 

 reached the Privy Council in the spring of 1537 

 as to talk over the fire (in the Misericorde) at 

 Christmastide contains it would seem much truth, 

 and in the light of resulting consequences is 

 somewhat pathetic reading. Said Dan Haughton, 

 'It is a marvellous world, for the King will 

 hang a man for a word speaking nowadays.' 

 ' Yea,' said Dan Ralph, ' but the King of Heaven 

 will not do so, and he is the King of all Kings ; 

 but he that hangs a man in this world for a 

 word speaking, he shall be hanged in another 

 world himself.' Then, said the sub-prior, ' I was 

 afraid for my life, for I had heard many of the 

 monks speak ill of the King and Queen, and 

 lord Privy Seal, whom they love worst of any 

 man in the world.' '^ 



The documents effecting the dissolution of 

 Lenton Priory, though fairly numerous, are 

 fragmentary, and it seems impossible now to 

 discover with precision under what nominal plea 

 the prior and many of his monks were accused 

 of high treason ; but there can be little doubt 

 that it was accomplished under the provisions of 

 what was known as the Verbal Treasons Act of 

 December 1534.'^ Prior Heath was seized and 

 thrown into prison in February 1538, and it is 

 clear from Cromwell's private ' remembrances ' 

 or notes that his doom was fixed and he was to 

 be executed.'^ In March the prior with eight 

 of his monks and four labourers of Lenton were 

 indicted for treason. The names of the monks 

 were : — Ralph Swenson, Richard Bower, Ri- 

 chard Atkinson, Christopher Browne, John 

 Trewruan, John Adelenton, William Berry, and 

 William Gylham.'^ The prior and Ralph 

 Swenson, according to a letter from the special 

 commissioners to Cromwell dated 1 1 April, were 

 the first to be executed.'' One other monk, 

 William Gylham, as well as the four labourers, 

 was also sentenced, according to the Control- 

 ment Roll, to the shocking punishment then 

 dealt out for treason, of being hanged, drawn, 

 and quartered, with all its unspeakable barbarities. 

 The executions were at Nottingham or its 

 immediate vicinity, and, judging from analogy, 

 directly in front of the priory, where some of 



" L. and P. Hen. Vlll, xii, 892 ; see also 912, 

 1327. 



" Under this Act it was high treason to deprive 

 the king or queen by words or writing of their 

 dignity, title, or name, or to pronounce the king a 

 tyrant. 



" L. and P. Hen. Vlll, xiii, 877. 



" Control R. 30 Hen. VIII, m. 39. Cited by 

 Gasquet in Hen. Vlll and Engl. Mon. ii, 1 90, where 

 various other particulars are set forth. 



" L. and P. Hen. Vlll, xiii (i), 786. 



99 



