Chapter VI: Islip in Public Life

The personality of the Abbot of Westminster can seldom have been a matter of indifference to the reigning Sovereign. The mere proximity of Court and monastery would alone be sufficient to ensure some degree of friendship or provoke some measure of antagonism, and instances are not wanting of both. But when it is remembered that the Abbey church was the place of burial of many and the place of coronation of all the Kings; that it contained the saintly relics of one and owed its very structure to another, it is not surprising that at times Abbot and King should be brought together in intimate contact.

When Islip first became Abbot every circumstance combined to bring such contact about. Henry VII. was half ready with the plans for his new chapel and Islip’s enthusiasm as a builder must already have been obvious. It may be supposed that Islip had already attracted the royal notice by his share in the matter of the proposed translation of Henry VI., and the King’s assent to his election would seem to have been given readily enough if we may judge by the relative lack of delay in issuing the royal writs that dealt with the Abbot’s temporalities.

One small incident suggests that the new Abbot soon became on intimate terms with the King. Islip’s cook had evidently a reputation for the excellence of his marrowbone puddings, for presents of such to the Lord Chamberlain and others of his friends were not infrequent. Before Islip had been Abbot for six months we find in his household accounts the record of the purchase of “ij marybons for ij podyngis for the Kyng.” The cost was only two pence, but in skilled hands the value was evidently more. The present of a buck from one to the other would be a matter of no surprise, but there is a certain intimacy, indefinable perhaps but none the less real, implied in so trivial a gift as that of a marrowbone pudding.

A few weeks later the Abbot’s steward notes that “the Kingis grace dyned at Cheynygate.” The cost of the entertainment was only 17s. 4d. and the fare provided was by no means elaborate. It was on a Friday so no meat was served, and the only purchases unusual to the Abbot’s accounts were wine and strawberries which together cost 3s. 8d., a barrel of ale for 2s. and a “potell of wyne for to Sowse ffysche w^{t.}” for 4d. The endowment of the King’s new chapel and the services to be performed in it when finished would have been a topic of interest to both and in itself have provided sufficient matter for conversation. A further instance of friendly relations may be found in the royal presents to Islip of two tuns of wine yearly which began in the year 1501.

Islip’s first entry into public life, so far as can be discovered, must date from his appointment in 1504 as treasurer of the hospital of the Savoy, then about to be rebuilt by Henry VII. It does not appear that the Abbot had any particular share in the work beyond the actual guardianship of the funds. The money came to him in sealed bags which were probably deposited in the undercroft of the Chapter House. He might not deliver them over without the royal warrant in Henry’s lifetime or an order signed by seven at least of Henry’s executors after his death. In 1512 he had as much as ten thousand pounds in his keeping, the last instalment of which he paid over late in the year 1515 when his connection with the hospital came apparently to an end.

The trust which Henry VII. placed in him was continued by his successor, and in September, 1513, Islip appears as a member of the Privy Council of Henry VIII. Thomas Wolsey had been appointed to the Council two years before. The Abbot and the future Cardinal must, however, have been acquainted at an earlier date, for in 1505 Wolsey had been appointed a chaplain to Henry VII. In 1507 the Abbot and Convent had granted to Sir Richard Empson the parsonage and adjoining gardens of St. Bride’s, Fleet Street, and when Empson fell the grant was given to Wolsey, who thus became a tenant of the Abbey. Moreover both Islip and Wolsey were among the personal friends of Sir Reginald Bray, a favoured adviser of Henry VII.

Reference has been made elsewhere to Islip’s legal training. This was doubtless responsible for his appointment in 1510 as a trier of petitions of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, an office which he continued to fill in the years that followed. In 1519 Wolsey deputed him along with others to hear the causes of poor men depending in the Star Chamber, while in 1512 and subsequent years his name appears on the Commission of Peace for the County of Middlesex.

Among the minor activities of these years may be included Islip’s work in 1524 as a Collector for Middlesex on behalf of the loan for the war with France, and in 1526 as a Commissioner of Sewers from East Greenwich to Gravesend, work in which he was associated among others with Sir Thomas More and Lord Cobham. It is interesting to note in the Navy List for 1513 the Abbot of Westminster as part owner of the ship _Kateryn Fortileza_, doubtless one of that gallant squadron which swept the Channel under Sir Edmund Howard and blockaded the port of Brest.

Little record remains of any activity Islip may have displayed in Parliament. As a mitred abbot he was summoned to the assembly which met early in 1515, and there is some evidence to shew that in 1523 he was not a silent member, but his record in this connection is to be sought in the work of Parliament in general rather than in individual effort.

Elusive references to Islip in public documents are not infrequent in the second decade of the sixteenth century, but it is not easy to place them in their historical setting. For instance we find that he had evidently made a loan of some magnitude to his fellow Privy Councillor, the Earl of Shrewsbury, but the purpose of the loan cannot be discovered and we note only the difficulty which Shrewsbury had in making repayment and the not unusual mode of behaviour on the part of the defaulting debtor of sending a present of venison in place of an instalment of the debt.

At this time Islip would seem to have stood just on the outer fringe of public affairs. He dined with Wolsey in 1516 to meet the ambassadors from Scotland, and in the summer of 1520, when the mission from France was being shewn the sights of London, he “enterteigned” the three gentlemen that composed it with “right goodly chere,” for among those sights was the King’s new chapel at Westminster, not to mention the Hospital of the Savoy. So, too, he visited the Princess Mary at Richmond and is able to report with the rest of the Privy Council that she “is right merry and in prosperous health and state, daily exercising herself in virtuous pastimes.” The visit was followed by gifts of puddings, for the bringing of which the Abbot’s servants were duly tipped by the Princess. Again, on the occasion of the important visit of the Emperor Charles V. to England in May, 1522, Islip was summoned along with his brethren of Bury, Canterbury and Bermondsey, to attend Wolsey at Dover to meet him, but this must not be interpreted to imply that Islip had any share in the important matters that were to hand. It would be but a compliment to his orthodox majesty to be met by representative Churchmen and to the Churchmen themselves to be asked to meet him.

Among the problems of the earlier Tudor period was one of interest at the present time. There are no unimpeachable statistics as to the proportion of English land which was held by the Church but that proportion was undoubtedly large. Many of the monasteries were landlords on a large scale and yet were suffering the pinch of severe poverty. The land was becoming denuded of tenants and rapidly passing from the plough to pasture. Increasing demands from the royal exchequer upon monastic houses aggravated the evil and it has been well said that “debt with no chance of redemption weighed heavily upon all.”

It was a problem that Islip could view both with personal knowledge and official interest. It was a natural but at the same time an anomalous appointment which placed Islip in 1516 on a Commission among whose terms of reference were inquiries as to what towns, hamlets, houses and buildings had been destroyed since 1489; what and how much land in cultivation in that year had since been converted into pasture; what number of parks had since been inclosed, and what land had been added to existing parks. Islip was concerned in this inquiry with Middlesex only, but that county included his own Manor of Hendon as well as other portions of the abbatial property, not to mention manors such as Ashford which belonged to his Convent.

In 1522 was levied the first of a series of loans designed to defray the costs of ineffective foreign wars and Islip was associated with Sir Andrew Wyndsore and Thomas Docwra, the Prior of the Order of St. John, as a Commissioner for Middlesex. Theirs was the unpopular task of making a list of all the residents in the county who possessed a yearly income of twenty pounds in goods or land, of ascertaining the total value of their property and assessing the tax due from them by way of loan. But if Islip had thus to deal with others he did not escape himself. His own contribution was one thousand pounds, equalling that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a sum which by now he could ill afford. At the same time he had to look forward to the payment of his share of an annual grant levied upon the whole spirituality of the kingdom for the King’s expenses in France.

In 1525 Islip was sent by Wolsey to inquire into the affairs of the Abbey of Glastonbury. Abbot Richard Beere had died and considerable delay had occurred in electing his successor. Finally the forty-seven monks decided to remit the appointment to Wolsey who selected Richard Whiting, then Chamberlain of the Abbey, for the vacant office, doubtless on Islip’s recommendation. It was perhaps well that Islip did not live to see the tragic fate that was to overtake the new Abbot.

Another side of Islip’s later life is seen in his occasional presence at the trial of those accused of holding or promulgating heretical doctrine. It is easy to-day to enlarge upon the bigotry and intolerance of the judges at such trials, and to make much of the unreliable stories of men such as Foxe. It is less easy but it is imperative for a proper understanding to make the necessary effort of imagination and place oneself in the position of men faced with the spread of opinions which were subversive of all that they believed true and all that they held dear, opinions which they thought to be destructive of a social order which they had long prized. It is foolish to defend them on the ground that they but found men guilty or not guilty of offences for which the civil and not the ecclesiastical arm awarded the punishment. They would have scorned such a plea in their own defence. It is better to try to understand the point of view which could place men of such gentle character as Thomas More in the position of apparent persecutors. The old order was changing, and the phenomena which accompany such changes, whether ecclesiastical or social, are apt to be the same in every age though they find expression in different modes of action. It is the form of expression which characterises the age rather than the phenomena which produce it.

Islip’s first connection with such matters appears to have been in 1526, when Wolsey appointed him to search for heretics among the Hanseatic merchants in London. The search was apparently successful, for he presided together with the Bishop of Bath and Wells at the trial of one Hans Ellerdope, the main accusation against whom was the possession of one of Luther’s prohibited treatises. The trial took place probably in the Chapter House of the Abbey, for the Prior, the Archdeacon, and another monk were all present. Ellerdope protested that he could neither speak nor understand Latin. He had not therefore read a single page of the book but had refrained from burning it because it was not his own property. He had found it in the chamber of one of his master’s agents on whose death he had taken possession of it. The issue of the trial does not appear but it seems probable that Ellerdope was acquitted.

In 1527 the Chapter House was definitely the scene of a trial. On this occasion Wolsey, attended by a long array of bishops, lawyers and others, presided there at the trial of one Thomas Bilney for heretical pronouncements. Bilney is only of interest as being, according to Foxe, “a Cambridge man and the first Framer of that University in the knowledge of Christ.” More interesting would it be to have heard the talk of the monastery upon the trial which was taking place in its very centre.

In the last two years of his life Islip was connected with two more such trials, both of which were held in the Consistory Court in St. Paul’s Cathedral and were presided over by the Bishop of London. One of these was that of Richard Bayfield, a renegade monk of Bury, against whom thirteen articles of offence were alleged. The more important items in the indictment were the importation of the works of Luther and of divers other heretics, and the holding of opinions contrary to Holy Church. The Abbots of Westminster and Waltham together with certain of the nobility and others assisted the Bishop at the trial. Bayfield was found guilty and handed over to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London. In due course he suffered at the stake. The second trial was that of a leather-seller, John Tewkesbury, who came to the same end, but in this case Islip seems only to have been present at the first hearing.

But if this aspect of Islip’s public life is little calculated to attract the sympathies of more tolerant times still less perhaps is the part which he played in the matter of the King’s divorce. It was but a minor part, but there can be little doubt as to Islip’s views in the case. No sadder fate fell to any woman in English history than came to Katharine of Arragon. Yet sympathy is apt to outrun judgment, and the easily formed verdict of all but the student dwells on the pathos of her story, makes much of the King’s sensual inclinations, and is entirely uninterested in and impatient of the problems and niceties of ecclesiastical law.

To attempt some defence of Islip’s action is not necessarily to attempt the same for Henry, though the efforts of the one were enlisted in the service of the other. To a Churchman such as Islip, though not to the Statesman such as Wolsey, there was but one point at issue in the matter and that was the legality of the original dispensation for the marriage which Pope Julius II. had granted. This can hardly be too strongly emphasised if strict justice is to be done to men such as he was. In this connection it is to be noted that eight of the foreign universities to whom the question was submitted and as to the general impartiality of whose judgment there can be little question decided that the Pope’s dispensation was null and void. The verdicts of the English universities in Henry’s favour and those of the Spanish against him may be neglected as not uninfluenced by questions of expediency, but it is impossible to ignore the importance of the decision of the others.

Islip was present on two famous occasions in the year 1529: on May 31st, when the papal commission was presented to Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio by the Bishop of Lincoln and a citation issued for the King and Queen to appear before their Court, and on June 18th, when the King appeared by proxies and Katharine attended in person to protest against the Cardinal’s jurisdiction. In the furtherance of the King’s suit Islip was employed with others to search for documents among the royal papers and to report on others in the possession of Garter King of Arms.

On July 13th, 1530, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent a petition to Clement VII. praying him to grant the divorce “if it can be granted with justice.” This petition was signed by both Archbishops, by four Bishops and by twenty-two Abbots of whom Islip was one. The Pope’s difficulties in the matter are well known and the story of Islip’s connection with it may be concluded with the mention of the letter which the King wrote on July 10th, 1531, telling Benet to suggest to the Pope that if he were afraid of the Emperor Charles, as he undoubtedly was, the Archbishop of Canterbury might be appointed to judge of the matter. With the Archbishop might be associated the Abbot of Winchcombe or the Abbot of Westminster, “a good old father.” This suggestion of course came to nothing and Islip did not live to see the matter finally determined.

Some time, however, before Henry’s letter Wolsey had died. Before his fall it had seemed for a moment that others would be involved with him among whom was Islip. In one of the indictments of Wolsey under the _Statute of Præmunire_, an undated copy of which is in the archives of the Abbey, Islip was also charged. After setting forth the accusations against Wolsey the document may be translated somewhat thus:--

“Nevertheless John, Abbot of the monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, little weighing the said statute, verily indeed setting it at naught, scheming and seeking after the said Cardinal in all his evil deeds, joined himself to him in a fuller and more extravagant use of his said powers and pretended legatine authority, and took him as his guide and almost as his tutor and gradually undermined the laws of this realm and at last almost extinguished the same, with the result that the aforesaid Cardinal bore himself the more loftily and insolently in his legatine state and dignity. Upon a day at Westminster the said Abbot submitted himself to the Cardinal and accepted and approved the several legatine faculties and professed obedience to the same Cardinal and promised it by a binding oath. And also he promised him the annates of his exempt monastery right up to the Feast of the Annunciation, 20 Henr. VIII., and caused him to be paid in full at Westminster. And so the said Abbot abetted the said Cardinal in his contempt of the King....”

_Præmunire_ was a convenient weapon in the King’s hands and he was graciously pleased to pardon Islip with various others against whom similar indictments had been laid. The pardon in Islip’s case may have facilitated the acquisition by the King of lands on which he had cast a covetous eye, the story of which has already been told.

Such is the record of the part played in public affairs by a Westminster abbot in the later history of the monastery. Scanty as it is and disconnected, it will yet be seen how that public life from which he could hardly escape must have severed him from the spiritual duties which the Rule of his Order enjoined upon him. In justice to him it must be said that he was the victim of a system which had developed too far for him to be able to check it.