You are on page 1of 1

Visitation of the monasteries[edit]

In 1534, Cromwell undertook, on behalf of the King, an inventory of the endowments, liabilities and
income of the entire ecclesiastical estate of England and Wales, including the monasteries
(see Valor Ecclesiasticus), for the purpose of assessing the Church's taxable value, through local
commissioners who reported in May 1535. At the same time, Henry had Parliament authorise
Cromwell to "visit" all the monasteries, including those like the Cistercians previously exempted from
episcopal oversight by papal dispensation, to purify them in their religious life, and to instruct them in
their duty to obey the King and reject Papal authority. Cromwell delegated his visitation authority to
hand-picked commissioners, chiefly Richard Layton, Thomas Legh, John ap Rice and John
Tregonwell for the purposes of ascertaining the quality of religious life being maintained in religious
houses, of assessing the prevalence of 'superstitious' religious observances such as the veneration
of relics, and for inquiring into evidence of moral laxity (especially sexual). The chosen
commissioners were mostly secular clergy, and appear to have been Erasmian in their views,
doubtful of the value of monastic life and universally dismissive of relics and miraculous tokens. An
objective assessment of the quality of monastic observance in England in the 1530s would almost
certainly have been largely negative. By comparison with the valuation commissions, the timetable
for these monastic visitations was very tight, with some houses missed altogether, and inquiries
appear to have concentrated on gross faults and laxity; consequently where the reports of
misbehaviour returned by the visitors can be checked against other sources, they commonly appear
to have been both rushed and greatly exaggerated, often recalling events and scandals from years
before. The visitors interviewed individually each member of the house and selected servants,
prompting each one both to make individual confessions of wrongdoing and also to inform on one
another. From their correspondence with Cromwell it can be seen that the visitors knew that findings
of impropriety were both expected and desired; however it is also clear that, where no faults were
revealed, none were reported. The visitors put the worst construction they could on whatever they
were told, but they do not appear to have fabricated allegations of wrongdoing outright.

You might also like