Dieulacres Abbey

During the course of the fourteenth century, a number of important changes took place in the economy and administration of the Cistercian monasteries in England. The first, already mentioned, was the gradual change from demesne farming to a policy of leasing out large parts of the monastic estates to lay tenants. This policy had begun in the late thirteenth century and the entries in the TAXATIO tell us that in the 1290s the Abbot of Dieulacres was receiving rent from some of his more distant Cheshire properties, as well as from the Manor of Leek, much nearer home. The policy of leasing continued into the fourieenth century, and it was accompanied by a more extensive use of hired labour and serfs on those parts of the estates which were still held in demesne, and also by the disappearance of the CONVERSI, who had been an essential feature of Cistercian monasticism since its early days.

It was once thought that the CONVERSI disappeared from the Cistercian estates as a result of the Black Death which swept across England in the middle of the fourteenth century. The scarcity of labour, and the rise in wages which occurred after the Great Plague, were thought to have attracted men who might formerly have joined the ranks of the Cistercian lay-brethren into more rewarding secular occupations. It is now quite clear that whatever effects the Black Death might have had on the monasteries, the reduction in the numbers of the CONVERSI began long before it, and was the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Cistercian Order. The presence of lay-brethren in the monasteries was always something of a mixed blessing, and the CONVERSI system did not work as well as it should have done. Between 1168 and 1308, there were at least 123 revolts in English and Welsh Cistercian abbeys, and in the majority of cases, the CONVERSI were directly responsible. [1] In the Chronicle of Meaux Abbey, we learn that a granary containing a valuable store of grain was completely destroyed by fire while the lay-brethren were on a drunken carouse; and as early as 1257 a number of CONVERSI on the Cheshire estates of Dieulacres were implicated in the murder of a local inhabitant. [2]

The unruly behaviour of the CONVERSI on many Cistercian estates, together with the growth of leasing and the adoption of a manorial economy, were the main reasons for the deliberate reduction in their numbers long before the Black Death. In 1348, just before the Plague, the Abbey of Meaux had only 7 CONVERSI, whereas a century before, there had been 90. In 1335, there were 21 monks at Vale Royal, but apparently no CoNVERsI at all. Although we have no figures for Dieulacres before the Black Death, we can assume that here, too, there was a drastic reduction in numbers.

The precise effects of the Great Plague upon the monasteries of North Staffordshire are not known. The Chronicles of Dieulaeres and Croxden make only passing references to it; and the absence of Court Rolls or any other contemporary records for Leek makes it impossible to say how the population of the area was affected. One very small clue can be found in an entry in the Register of Edward the Black Prince, noted in the last chapter. In 1351, the Prince made reference to the fact that Diculacres, along with certain other abbeys, had insufficient possessions “for the sustenance of the small number of monks at present serving God there”. The small size of these communities at this time may well have been due to the fact that they had been decimated by the Plague. Once a deadly disease like bubonic plague had been contracted by a member of such a clcsely-knit community as a monastery, its effects upon that house could be devastating. After the Black Death, the number of monks at Dieulaeres seems to have increased very slowly. There were still only seven in 1377, and ten in 1381. [3]

Another important feature of Cistercian life which underwent a significant change during the fourteenth century was the relationship of the English monasteries with Citeaux. Strictly speaking, every Cistercian abbot was obliged to travel to Citeaux each year in order to attend the General Chapter, taking with him a monetary contribution (known as an APPORTUM) from his own abbey. Some abbots attended more regularly than others, and it appears that at the end of the thirteenth century, the Abbot of Dieulacres was attending once in every three years. [4] The financial policy of Edward I, and the outbreak of the so-called Hundred Years’ War, seriously hampered relations between the English houses and Citeaux. In 1307 the Statute of Carlisle made it necessary for Cistercian abbots to seek the King’s licence before leaving England for the Chapter, and reaffirmed an earlier ban on the export of English money. Only one such licence is recorded as having; been granted to the Abbot of Dieulacres. This was in 1333, when he was given leave to cross from Dover with his men, his horses and whatever he needed in the way of expenses for himself and his households. [5]

The outbreak of hostilities between England and France in Edward III’s reign caused a complete severance between the English Cistercians and their Mother House. A much more serious break occurred during the Great Schism in the Papacy which began in 1378. Citeaux. along with all the other French monasteries, swore allegiance to the Pope at Avignon; England and Wales adhered to the Pope at Rome. The English Cistercians were thus cut off again from the General Chapter, and because the separation was a spiritual one, it was more serious than the political separation of Edward III’s reign. Although attempts were made to organise the English Cistercians on a national basis, there is evidence that the English General Chapter which was set up did not enjoy the same respect as the Chapter of Citeaux. [6] When the Schism ended in 1417, relations with Citeaux were to some extent renewed, but the long years of separation had made many abbeys indifferent to Citeaux, and the STATUS Quo of 1378 was never fully restored. The attendances of English abbots diminished gradually throughout the fifteenth century, and the general leave of absence granted in 1485 was probably no more than a mere formality, recognising reality.

The consequence of the breakdown in the relationship between the English abbeys and Citeaux, together with the other trends already noted, was a loosening of discipline, often accompanied by demoralisation and flagrant breaches of conduct. It was no coincidence that outbreaks of lawlessness occurred at a time when the old established administrative system of the Cistercian Order was in a state of suspension, and the Abbot of Dieulacres had his fair share of trouble at the end of the fourteenth century. By the fourteenth century, the Abbot of Dieulacres had become a powerful figure in the County of Stafford, owning large estates and numerous rights and privileges, in addition to which lie was playing the roles of a businessman and politician as well as being the head of a religious community. Cistercian abbots were often summoned to Parliament, and these summonses were by no means limited to the mitred abbots. The Abbot of Dieulacres did not enjoy the privilege of wearing a mitre, but we find from the lists of Parliamentary Writs that between 1295 and 1305 alone. he was summoned to Parliament on five occasions. Like many Cistercian abbots, the Abbot of Dieulacres had property in London, including a HOSPITUM in Wood Street, not far from St. Paul’s. [7] He also owned a house in Stafford, and it seems that business of various kinds caused him to be absent from his monastery on many occasions. Though doubtless beneficial to the abbot himself, participation in secular affairs inevitably made him materialistic and less mindful of his spiritual calling. The activities of some of the fourteenth and fifteenth century abbots shew that they were no more charitable in their dealings with their neighbours than were the secular lords of the time.

In 1379, a Royal Commission was granted to Hugh, Earl of Stafford, to enquire into the activities of the Abbot of Dieulacres and his men. Information had been received to the effect that the abbot, William Lichfield, was keeping a band of armed retainers at the abbey. It was alleged that these men were common disurbers of the King’s peace and that they did untold mischief in the county, committing assaults and even murders [8]. In the late 1370's some of them were involved in a feud with Iohn Warton of Leek. In 1378-9, Warton and his men attacked and assaulted some of Abbot William’s servants so viciously that their services were lost for a time. Although the abbot commenced a lawsuit against Warton, [9] his retainers, led by Henry and Richard Bradshaw, decided to seek their revenge in a more direct way. They laid an ambush for Warton, and when he appeared, one of the gang shot an arrow at him and called on him to surrender. Seeing that he was greatly outnumbered, Warton gave himself up, and he was carried away and shut up for four days in the abbot’s gaol in Leek. At the end of this time he was carried off to Leek Moor on the road to Ashbourne, where he was beheaded, apparently without any kind of trial.

In the inquisition which followed this outrage, it was alleged that Abbot William Lichfield had continued to harbour the Bradshaw brothers and their men, knowing full well what they had done. In another inquisition, it was stated that the abbot himself had given instructions that Warton was to be killed. The Bradshaws and their companions were accused of despoiling Warton’s body of weapons, valuables, and various items of clothing; and also of raiding the dead man’s house. Edmund Draycott, Cellarer of the abbey, and William del Brugge, Vicar of Leek, were accused, along with the abbot, of afterwards harbouring the felons.

The ensuing legal proceedings were long and involved. Warton’s widow, Almarica, brought a separate suit against the Bradshaws and her story differed in some respects from that of the witnesses at the inquisition. She said that the Bradshaws, together with seven other men, had lain in wait for her husband on the 24th April 1379, and that Warton had been murdered immediately after his capture. She made no mention of the alleged imprisonment in Leek, but said that Henry Bradshaw had shot her husband to the heart and killed him. In her attempt to implicate the rest of the gang, she went on to say that afterwards each of the other eight men had “caused a mortal wound”, and so any of them could have struck the death-blow.

A commission was appointed to round up the Bradshaw gang, along with the abbot, his cellarer, and the Vicar of Leek. The abbot was soon arrested and put in the Marshalsea, but as none of the others could yet be found, it was not possible to proceed with the case. After languishing alone for a time, the abbot was released on bail amounting to ￡216. He provided ￡100 of this himself perhaps borrowed from the abbey’s funds - and four of his friends put up ￡40 each as sureties for his good behaviour.

At Easter 1381, one of the principals, Robert Tuphead, surrendered himself and was imprisoned. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and appealed to a jury which was summoned lo meet at the end of April in the following year. In the meantime, two of the accessoues to me murder, William Dyke and the vicar of Leek, gave themselves up. When they were brought before the Justices they very convenietly produced Letters Patent pardoning them from all felonies commited before the 14th Decemoer 1381. Robert Tuphead also procured a pardon, and he was thererore released belore his appeal to the Jury was due to be heard. The abbot appeared for a second time, along with his cellarer; and as they had also obtained royal pardons, they were discharged on finding sureties lor their future good conduct.

The suit agamst Richard Bradshaw continued until October 1382, when it was moved to Stafford Assizes. He came out of it rather well, for the jury at Stafford found him not gulty, and he was released after being awarded ￡5 as damages. lt appears that he was not satistied with this. In January 1383, he brought a plea of conspiracy and trespass against John Wolaston, one ot the members ot the Commission which had been appointed to investigate the murder, and against three members ot the jury which had alleged that he and his brother were guilty of the crime.

One by one the rest of the felons emerged from hiding and surrendered themselves to the authorities, but as they were also equipped with royal pardons, they all escaped without so much as a fine for misconduct. Thus everybody who had been implicated either directly or indirectly in Warton’s murder got off scot free, and this particularly horrible crime was never avenged. [10] The fact that this outbreak of violence occurred about the time of the Peasants’ Revolt is an interesting coincidence, but it is no more than that. The Dieulacres Chronicle refers to the peasant uprisings in Essex and Kent, but there is no mention of any trouble on the abbey’s estates. Indeed, all the available evidence points to the fact that the servants and tenants of the abbey were very loyal to the abbots, even though some of them were high-handed in their dealings.

In the 1390s there was widespread lawlessness in North Staffordshire, and Richard Whitmore, who succeeded William Lichfield as Abbot of Dieulacres, had to contend with a good deal of trouble from people in the neighbourhood. The situation became so bad that he sent a number of petitions to the Court of Chancery alleging that various people were causing wilful damage to his property and assaulting his servants and tenants. In 1395, as a result of these petitions, a Commission of OYER ET TERMINER was appointed to investigate his grievances. [11] The findings of the Commission are not known, but they could have done little to remedy the situation, for the assaults and trespasses broke out again with renewed vigour in the early years of the fifteenth century. In 1402 Abbot Whitmore sued two men for breaking into his close at Leek, cutting down his trees, and taking ￡20 worth of fish from the abbey’s fishponds. They were also accused of taking rabbits, hares, pheasants and partridges from the abbot’s estates, and ol trespassing with their cattle on his pasture-land. [12]

In 1413 Abbot Whitmore accused a group ot five men of breaking into his close and houses at Cheddieton and cutting down trees and underwood to the value of ￡5. It was alleged that the men had threatened the servants of the abbey with loss of life and limb, to such an extent that they did not dare to carry out their duties. It is more than likely that the culprits were servants of William Egerton of Cheddleton, for later in the year a similar incident, which had all the appearances of a reprisal, took place on Egerton’s estates. It was organised by a monk of Dieulacres called Nicholas Poulton, an interesting name which suggests that monks were still being recruited from the original area in Cheshire. Brother Nicholas was accused, along with a number of the abbot’s servants, of gathering together a band of about 80 men, some of them wearing armour and carrying swords and axes. They marched to Cheddleton “in the manner of war”, raided Egerton’s park and manor, and took by force a quantity of stone worth ￡5 the exact value of the timber which had been stolen from the abbot’s lands earlier in the year. Abbot Whitmore was accused of harbouring the gang afterwards, knowing full well what they had done. Nicholas Poulton and the other ringleaders were arrested and put in the Marshalsea. When they came before the Justices, they pleaded not guilty and appealed to a jury which acquitted them of the charges. The abbot, who had been indicted as an accessory, was also acquitted. [13]

Richard Whitmore’s successor as abbot was a monk called John Goodfellow. It was not long before he earned himself a bad reputation by involving himself in a feud between two North Staffordshire families: the Bassetts of Blore and the Meverells of Throwley. Goodfellow was a supporter of the Meverell faction, and on at least two occasions his servants took part in brawls with Bassett’s men. In 1447-8 a dispute arose concerning the tithes of Throwley, which belonged to Ilam Church. The vicar of Ilam, lohn Southworth, had granted the tithes to Ralph Bassett, thereby arousing the wrath of Sampson Meverell, who claimed that, since he was the lord of Throwley, the tithes should have been given to him. In January 1448 Meverell gathered together a band of about forty men armed with swords, bows and arrows, and marched to Ilam with the intention of persuading Father Southworth to change his mind. When they had confronted the priest, they insulted him and threatened him with a violent death unless he agreed to disassociate himself from Ralph Bassett, recover the tithes, and give them to Sampson Meverell. Southworth at first refused, but when it became apparent that the men intended to carry out their threats, he gave way and re-granted the tithes to Meverell.

Ralph Bassett refused to agree to this new arrangement, and subsequently he and Southworth brought an indictment against Meverell, who appealed to a jury and was found not guilty of the charges that were brought against him. Before the jury met, Meverell had taken his quarrel with Ralph Bassett a stage further. In Iune 1448 he gathered together a band of about thirteen people, including Abbot Goodfellow and William Rufford, a priest from Grindon, and marched on Bassett’s house at Blore. They broke into the house and outbuildings, and made off with two dozen oxon and cows. They also insulted and beat up some of Bassett’s servants, three of whom were seriously injured [14]

The activities of John Goodfellow and some of his immediate predecessors reveal that the monastic way of life, as it was being lived at Dieulacres in the middle of the fifteenth century, left a great deal to be desired. The picture of a Cistercian abbot leading bands of armed retainers around the countryside is not a very edifying one, and such incidents as the murder of John Warton and the ill-treatment of Ralph Bassett’s servants could only have added to the anti-clerical feelings which were spreading throughout the country at this time. The Meverell-Bassett feud also provides a local illustration of the widespread disorder and turbulence which preceded Cade’s rebellion and the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses. In the parliament of 1449, proposals were made for the establishment of Commissions of OYER ET TERMINER to restore law and order in the counties, and to enquire “of murders and Ryottes agaynst the peace”. After the abbacy of John Goodfellow, Dieulacres seems to have settled down to a relatively quiet pattern of existence. Indeed owing to the lack of written records, the history of the abbey vanishes into obscurity for a period of about fifty years; and so there is nothing to say, either good or bad, about the abbots of the later fifteenth century. The fact that their names do not appear in the Court Records of the period seems to suggest that at least they managed to keep out of any serious trouble.

0 Comments: