A HISTORY OF NORFOLK and John Pecock, a Carmelite friar, suffered at Lynn. Several others, including two clergy, were condemned to life imprisonment. A few days after the execution of the sub- prior and another at Walsingham, namely on 3 June, depositions were taken before Sir Roger Townsend of certain who charged Henry Manse, the priest in charge of Our Lady's Chapel of Walsingham, with certain seditious words. The main evidence was that of one Sutton, 'a sore and diseased person,' who would persist in coming to the door of the chapel annoying the pilgrims. When Manser rebuked him at the request of the pilgrims, he retorted with froward and naughty words. Thereupon Manser requested one of the constables to put Sutton in the stocks, and when there Sutton re- taliated by charging Manser with using seditious words to certain pilgrims from Lincolnshire. Apparently this evidence was considered too tainted to lead to another execution.' On 31 August Sir Roger Townsend, writing to Cromwell, strongly commends Prior Vowell to his favour, saying that he had been the taker of one of the most rank traitors privy to the Walsingiiam conspiracy, probably referring to the sub-prior. There was then a matter at issue between the prior and the cellarer, and Towns- end begged for Cromwell's support of the prior in his suits." On 14 July 1538, the obsequious Prior Vowell wrote to Cromwell, that, in accordance with his instructions, he had attended on the commis- sioners, who took away the image and all the gold and silver things from the chapel. As for the silver which still remained in the house, he begged that it might remain to sustain unavoid- able charges in connexion with their suits for the translation of their house into a college.'* Richard Gresham, writing to Cromwell, on 25 July, acknowledging his letter to the effect that it was the king's pleasure to dissolve the house of Walsingham, stated that he had written about it to the prior, who, he doubted not, would raise no difficulty.* On 4 August Prior Vowell duly surrendered his house and all its possessions to William Petre as royal commissioner.^ Eight days later Vowell wrote to Cromwell, regretting that the priory had not been turned into a college, and begging for the parsonage of Walsingham, so that he might not be his grace's chaplain in name only. He pleaded his age and impotency, had heard that the king had granted him a pension of jTioo, and hoped to have it confirmed.^ An unsigned communication to Cromwell of this date throws some light upon the mean way ' L. and P. Hen. Fill, xii (2), 9. " Ibid. 223. ^ Ibid, xiii (i), 510.
- Ibid. 536. ' Ibid, xiii (2), 1 1.
'Ibid. 32. the suppression commissioners behaved, and how ready folk were to curry favour with the Lord Privy Seal by reporting their conduct. This statement is to the effect that at the dissolution of Walsingham, a rich cope and a vestment were in the prior's chamber reserved for my Lord Privy Seal, but Mr. Southwell suddenly coming into the prior's chamber asked who it was for. Vowell replied, ' For you, if it be your pleasure,* and Southwell took it away. Cromwell has endorsed this communication, ' Touching Mr, Southwell.' ' Bishop Latimer wrote a jocular letter to Cromwell in June, 1538, suggesting the burning of the image of the virgin of Walsingham and others : ' they would make a joly mustere in Smythfeld.' * John Husee, writing to Lord Lisle, on 1 8 June, also attempted to be witty or» the same subject : This day our late lady of Walsingham was brought to Lambithe (Lambeth), where was both my Lord Chancellor and my Lord Privy Seal with many virtuous prelates, but there was offered neither obla- tion nor candle. What shall become of her is not determined.' Melancthon, on i November of the same year, exulted in the overthrow of the image of 'Mary by the Sea.' ^^ Among the Lady Day accounts of 1538 the usual payments were made for the king's candle, and to the king's priest who sang before Our Lady at Walsingham. But when the Michael- mas payments came round the entry runs : ' For the king's candle before Our Lady of Walsingham, and to the prior there for his salary, nil.' 11 ^ On 20 October, 1539, the late prior received a grant of the exceedingly large pension of ^^loa in reward for his obsequiousness and consider- able bribes to Cromwell. Fifteen of the canons at the same time received small pensions of about the usual rate, varying from £6 to £i-}^ Nine of them were living and in receipt of pensions in 1555. Notwithstanding the destruction of the priory , and the execution of its sub- was found impossible to eradicate at once all the belief in the minds of the common folk in the virtues of Our Lady of Walsingham. Small wonder, too, if such was the case ; for the majority of the adults of the district could well remember the time when the very king who now dealt so cruelly with those who maintained their faith in it had walked many miles barefoot to the shrine, and they had seen the royal taper burning before the sacred image down to Lady ' Ibid, xiii (2), 506. Mbid. xiii (i), 437. Mbid. 521. '" Ibid, xiii (2), 287. " Ibid. 529, 535, fols. 12, 39. " Aug. Office Bks. ccxxxiii, fol. 13^. and its adjuncts, prior, it 400
