Page:VCH London 1.djvu/607

 RELIGIOUS HOUSES Before the end of the century they had added considerably to their resources. John de Caus- ton, alderman of London, in 1350 gave them a tenement with gardens and shops near the Tower, and a tenement called the Cardinalshat at ' Grascherche ' as the endowment of the two chantries founded by him in the con- ventual church '^ ; tenements near Dowgate, and in ' Syvedenlane ' were bequeathed by another London citizen, Richard Rothyng, in 1379, also for the establishment of a chantry ^'^ ; and in 1383 Sir Richard Abberbury, kt., granted to them lands and houses in Donington,^^ but these they seem afterwards to have lost, as in 1447 Richard's heir, Thomas de Abberbury, made them over to the duke of Suffolk. ^^ The priory must have been popular with the foreigners who lived round its precincts, for the Fraternity of the Holy Blood of Jesus, founded in the church in 1459, and the Brotherhood of St. Katharine, established there in 1495, were both of German origin.^' It is evident too that the house was not viewed unfavourably by the citizens generally, since on the petition of the prior for aid in the rebuilding of the church in 1520 ^^ the City accepted the patronage of the foundation, pressed its claims upon the fellow- ships of London,^* and in 1522^^ granted some common soil for its extension. It was probably to the good ofRces of their new patrons that the priory owed the bequest of ;^50 made to the new buildings in 1524 by Sir John Skevington, alderman," and that of £6 iT^s.^d. left in 1523 by Robert CoUyns, haberdasher of London.^* Sir John Milbourne, who had been mayor in 1 52 1, purchased some land of the friars in 1534 for his almshouses,^^ and had his obit celebrated in the conventual church.'** Such assistance as was procured was not, how- ever, sufficient to rescue the house from its em- barrassments. A woman named Margaret Johnson complained to Cromwell about 1534 that she and her husband had lent the convent large sums in 1 5 1 2 and other amounts since, but " Doc. of D. and C. of Westminster, London, B. Box I. 'o Sharpe, Cat. of Wills, ii, 213. " Cal. Pap. Letters, v, 12, 13. " Cal. Rot. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 291. ^' Stow, op. cit. ii, 75, 76 ; Lond. and Midd. Arch. Soc. Trans, iv, 44, 5 2. " Rec. of Corp. of Lond. Repert. v, fol. 52. Just about this time, viz. in 1 52 1, the bishop of London confirmed the Fraternity of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary in the church of the Crossed Friars, but the brotherhood of course may have been of earlier foundation. Lond. Epis. Reg. Fitz James, fol. 142. " Stovif, op. cit. ii, 74. '* Rec. of Corp. of Lond. Repert. iv, fol. 122^. " L. and P. Hen. Vlll, iv, 952. " Lond. and Midd. Arch. Soc. Trans, iii, i 38-42. '" Herbert, Livery Companies of Lond. i, 413. had not for ten years received the annuity promised in return.  The priory in 1525 had borrowed money on security of a silver-gilt cross and some vestments, and in 1535 had not dis- charged the debt ;^- in 1527 it borrowed ^27 lOj. from George Tadlow, haberdasher of London; and in 1538 it owed ^40 to William Fernley, a mercer, and ^{[loo to the executors of a certain Walter Marsshe.'* After 1530 monetary difficulties were not the only ones with which the convent had to con- tend. The religious changes did not meet with the approval of John Dryver, prior of the house in 1532, and of course spies were not lacking to report the imprudent expression of his opinions. He had said that if it were true that the king was determined to put down certain religious houses he should be called ' Destructor Fidei,' and in speaking of a fall the king's jester had had from his horse had remarked that ' the fool should say. . . that the king should have a fall shortly.' '* It is unlikely that he would have been allowed to remain prior after this, and it was Edmund Stretam who as head of the house acknowledged the royal supremacy on 17 April, 1534.''= Robert Ball, the friar who was one of the witnesses against Dryver, was prior in 1535," and was the subject of the well-known letter of John Bartelot to Cromwell.'* Bartelot's story was that he and some others, having caught the prior in an act of gross immorality, had been bribed not to tell by a sum down and a promise of more. The prior not paying the second amount was arrested, but found a friend in the chan- cellor, who declared that it was a heinous robbery on Bartelot's part. As far as one can judge it appears to have been an attempt at intimidation and blackmail based on the fact that the court policy was known to have but the half-hearted adherence of the convent. It is not without significance that when the provincial of the Austin Friars in 1535 refused to let the Spaniards celebrate the emperor's victory in Africa in that church until he knew the king's pleasure, they went to the Crossed Friars for their service.'^ A priest there was reported to have tried to confirm a penitent in the old doctrines in February, 1535,''° and in March, 1536," a doctor and three or four others of the Crossed Friars were prohibited by Hilsey from hearing confessions. It is possible to see the reflection of these proceedings in the small "^ L. and P. Hen. Vlll, viii, i6i. " Ibid, ix, 1 168. '' Add. Chart. 24490. "Aug. Off. Misc. Bks. 250, fol. 40, 4i3. '' L. and P. Hen. Fill, v, 1209. Ibid, vii, 665. Ibid, ix, 1 168. 'Hbid. 330. " Ibid. 462. ^ Ibid, ix, 1092 515
 * ' Ibid, iii, 3175.
 * " Ibid. X, 346.