King Henry VIII.'s expences, like sandy ground, suddenly suck'd up the large showers of Abbey-lands, and little sign or show was seen thereof yea, such the parching thirst of his pressing occasions, that still they called aloud for more moisture. For whose satisfaction the Parliament, in the 38th year of his reign, put the lands of all Colleges, Chanteries, and Free Chapels, into his hands. This made three meals, or (if you will) one meal of three courses, on Abbey lands. For the lesser Monasteries were granted in 1535. The greater Monasteries in 1538. And the Colleges, Chanteries, and Free Chapels, in 1545.

"How much the yearly revenue of all these Chanteries, Free Chapels, and Colleges, amounted to, God knows; for the King knew as little as some in our age. Indeed, some of his officers knew, but would not know, as wilfully concealing their knowledge therein. Yea, some of these Chanteries may be said, in a double sense, to be suppressed; as not only put down, but also concealed, never coming into the Exchequer, being silently pocketed by private (but potent) persous. True it is, the courtiers were more rapacious to catch, and voracious to swallow these Chanteries than Abby-lands. For, at the first, many were scrupulous in mind, or modest in manners, doubting the acceptance of Abby-lands, tho' offered unto them, till profit and custom (two able Confessors) had, by degrees, satisfied their consciences, and absolved them from any fault therein. Now, all scruples remov'd, Chantery lands went down without any regret. Yea, such who mannerly expected till the King carved for them out of Abbey-lands, scrambled for themselves out of Chantery-revenues, as knowing this was the last dish of the last course; and after Chanteries, as after Cheese, nothing can be expected. As for those who fairly purchased them of the King, they had such good bargains therein, that thereby all enriched, and some ennobled both themselves and posterity.

*Fuller's Ch. Hist. B. vi. p. 350,

+Ibid. p. 354.

§ 8.-Mr. Collier's judicious Remarks upon the present Subject, under the following Heads...I. He gives us his Thoughts upon the General Dissolution of Abbies, &c... II. He plainly shows that the Abbies were serviceable to the Public upon several Accounts...III. He rescues and defends the Monks from the Imputation of Ignorance.

"THE

HE ruin of the Monasteries giving a new face to this kingdom, and appearing so very extraordinary, it may not be improper to make a few remarks upon so great an al

teration.

I. "It is pretty plain the lives of the Religious were not so irregular as some authors represent them. But granting this charge had been true, it would have been no sufficient reason to have seiz'd their estates. If insobriety and misbehaviour were sufficient grounds for forfeiture; if ill living, and not answering the ends of an estate, would justify the dispossessing the owner, property would be very precarious, and the English tenures slenderly guarded.

"For, if we consider the matter closely, all Christians are bound to strict living, to discipline, to large distributions of charity, little less than the Monks. They are false to the engagements of baptism, if they manage otherwise. The Monastic Institutions were principally designed to revive the piety of the ancient Christians, and bring up practice to the rule of the gospel.

"Farther, if degeneracy and misbehaviour were the grand motive for dissolution, why were they not put under a better management? Why had they not some tryal for reformation? If unnecessary expence, and omission of kindness to the poor; if luxury and licence are good reasons to change the owner, and determine the estate; if this will hold, we shall have strange transferring of titles. At this rate, 'tis to be fear'd, some people would have a very slender claim to their Abby-lands.

"But if immorality, or mispending of revenue, is no sufficient reason for defeating of titles, why did the Monasteries suffer? Why must the Church be dispossessed upon this score? Why were the Monasteries which were unexceptionable in their management, which were charitable to the poor, and hospitable to the rich; why were

+ Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. B. iii. p. 161.

these involved in the common fate, and condemn'd to dissolution with the rest? *By the evidence of records, there were more righteous Monasteries in England, than righteous men in Sodom.'-However, this over-ballance of merit could not divert the calamity, nor preserve them from ruin. Thus we see how much the mercies of God are greater than those of men! Justice below is sometimes blind upon mysterious motives, strikes without distinction, and sweeps away the innocent with the guilty!

"If the Monks were tied to greater strictness than others, are not the owners of Abby-lands bound to take their estates with the conditions annexed? I do not say they are bound to the whole compass of their institution; their tonsure or habit, their celibacy or retirement, can't reasonably be expected but are they not obliged to the more significant duties for which these houses were first endowed? Are not these Secular Grantees bound to the most substantial part of the founder's will? Are they not under the tie of being more frequent in their devotions, more guarded in their conduct than other people? That the Parliament in King Henry VIII.'s time was somewhat of this opinion, is plain : why else did they oblige the proprietors of Abby-lands to extraordinary degrees of hospitality ?-Vid. Stat. 27. H. 8.

c. 28.

"If strict living, sober hospitality, and serviceableness to the poor, are accounted incumbrances, the Abby-lands seem chargeable with them. For the Princes, Charters, and Acts of Parliament, may convey a legal title; yet, that they can destroy the force of Consecrations, dispense with the meaning of Founders, and defeat the design of the Original Grant, is farther than I can discover. Acts of Parliament have, without question, authority to over-rule claims and extinguish titles, and govern the courts of justice. But are not some things above the reach of the Legislature? Can a Statute unconsecrate a Church, enact Sunday no holy day, or sacrilege no sin? Is not God Almighty capable of property? If we must answer in the affirmative, how can an estate dedicated to his service, and vested in him, be taken away without his consent? Which way can the intention of the donor, and the main design of the conveyance, be overlook'd and defeated? Regularity and largeness of mind, therefore, are the least that can be

*See an instance of Mr. D...d's disingenuity, in a flagrant misquotation of our Author, Appen. No. XII.

expected from the Abby-proprietors. These, it may be, are the lowest requisites to make such alienations inoffensive to them.

"And therefore, when those who enjoy the religious estates, rack their tenants, or overlook the poor: when they exhaust themselves in figure and licenciousness: when any thing of this happens, the intention of the pious settlement is lamentably disappointed the misapplication is doubly criminal: and without reformation, it is much to be feared, the curse of the founders will fall upon them. To be better enabled to ridicule virtue, to browbeat religion, or set a fashion in vice, is wide of the design of a Religious Foundation. Those, therefore, who are possessed of these lands, should be particularly careful in these matters.

"It is said, the Monasteries, Colleges, &c. were of a Royal Foundation; and therefore the taking them away was only a resumption of grants from the Crown. To this it will be answered, the assertion is wide of matter of fact; and that many of the Abbies, &c. were founded by Bishops and temporal Lords, and some by subjects of lesser quality.

"Besides, all the estates in the kingdom were grants from the Crown, as appears from the tenures. And yet it would have been look'd upon as an arbitrary attempt to have taken them away. For a gift is a translation of right; it extinguishes the title of the donor, and vests the property in another.

"But this alienation of Abby-lands was made by Act of Parliament. That is true; and therefore it was a legal outing. But then it will be ask'd, if a great part of the temporal Lords, and others of the rich Laity, had been thrown out of their Estates by a Statute; if this had happened, the question is, whether such proceedings would not have been thought an instance of rigour, and a mysterious exercise of authority? Had they been thus impoverished, without treason or felony to deserve it, the legality of the form, and the pleasure of the legislators, would hardly have reconciled them to such usage. They could not have argued against the force of the law, but the friendship of those that made it would not have been so clear.

66

Farther, the Endowments of the Church were settled upon important considerations: for the honour of God, for the advancement of learning, for the interest of eternity. And therefore, in Acts of Resumption, the Church has been particularly excepted.

Y

"Lastly, the rights and liberties of the Church had been confirmed in thirty Parliaments. This made some people think it strange, that King Henry VIII.'s Parliaments should be of so very different a sentiment from those in former reigns."

II. "The advantages accruing to the Publick from these Religious Houses were considerable upon several accounts. To mention some of them. The temporal Nobility and Gentry had a credible way of providing for their younger children. Those who were disposed to withdraw from the world, or not likely to make their fortunes in it, had a handsome retreat to the cloister. Here they were furnish'd with conveniencies for life and study, with opportunities for thought and recollection; and over and above, pass'd their time in a condition not unbecoming their quality. The charge of the family being thus lessen'd, there was no temptation for racking of tenants, no occasion for breaking the bulk of the estate to provide for younger children. Thus figure and good house-keeping was maintained with greater ease, the entireness of the estate, and, by consequence, the lasting of the family better secured. 'Tis true, there was sometimes some small sums given to the monasteries for admitting persons to be professed; but, generally speaking, they received them gratis. This they thought most adviseable, to cultivate an interest with persons of distinction. By this means, they engaged great families to appear for them upon occasion, both in Court and in Parliament.

"The Abbies were serviceable places for the education of young people. Every Convent had one person, or more, assign'd for this business. Thus the children of the neighbourhood were taught grammar and music, without any charge to their parents. And in the Nunneries, those of the other sex learn'd to work, and read English, with some advances into Latin; and particularly the Nunnery of Godston', in Oxfordshire, was famous upon this account, and for breeding up young gentlewomen and others to improvements proper to their condition.

"Farther, it is to the Abbies we are obliged for most of our Historians, both of Church and State. These places of retirement had both most learning and leisure for such undertakings. Neither did they want information for such employment. For not to mention that several Episcopal Sees were founded for the Cloister, the Mitred Abbots sate

+ Collier's Eeel. Hist. Vol. II. B. ii. p. 165.