The Last Abbot of Colchester

The Abbot of Saint John’s, Colchester, Thomas Marshall, writes Browne Willis, “was one of the three mitred parliamentary abbots that had courage enough to maintain his conscience and run the last extremity, being neither to be prevailed upon by bribery, terror or any dishonourable motives to come into a surrender, or subscribe to the king’s supremacy; on which account, being attainted of high treason, he suffered death.”

Thomas Marshall succeeded Abbot Barton in June, 1533, and entered upon the cares of office at a time when religious life was becoming almost impossible. At the outset he had apparently considerable difficulty in obtaining possession of the temporalities of his abbey. “I, with the whole consent of my brethren,” he writes to Crumwell, “have sealed four several obligations for the payment of £200 to the king’s use, trusting now by your especial favour to have restitution of my temporalities with all other things pertaining to the same. Unless I have your especial favour and aid in recovering such rents and dues as are withdrawn from the monastery of late, and I not able to recover them by the law, I cannot tell how I shall live in the world, saving my truth and promises.”

Of the earlier career of Thomas Marshall little Is known except that he, like the majority of his order in England who were selected by their superiors for a university course, was sent to Oxford, where he resided for several years, and passed through the schools with credit to himself and his order. During this period he was probably an inmate of Saint Benedict’s or Gloucester Hall, the largest of the three establishments which the Benedictines possessed in Oxford, and to which the younger religious of most of the English abbeys were sent to pursue their higher studies.

Very shortly after Abbot Marshall’s election his troubles commenced. At Colchester, as elsewhere in the country at this period, there were to be found some only too anxious to win favour to themselves by carrying reports of the doings and sayings of their brethren to Crumwell or the king. In April, 1534, a monk of Saint John’s complained of the “slanderous and presumptuous” sayings of the sub-prior, “D. John Francis.” This latter monk, according to Crumwells informer, had “declared our sovereign lord the king and his most honourable council, on the occasion of a new book of articles, to be all heretics, whereas before he said they were but schismatics.” These and other remarks were quite sufficient to have brought both the bold monk himself and his abbot into trouble at a time when the gossip of the fratry or shaving-house was picked up by eavesdroppers and carried to court to regale the ears of the Lord Privy Seal. In this case, however, the report came on the eve of the administration to the monks of Colchester of what was to be henceforth considered the touchstone of loyalty, the oath of supremacy. On the 7th of July, 1534, the oath was offered to the monks in the chapter house of Saint John’s, and taken by Abbot Marshall and sixteen monks, including Dom John Francis, the sub-prior complained of to Crumwell.

Very little indeed is known about Colchester or the doings of the abbot from this time till his arrest in 1539. At the time of the northern rising, whilst the commissioners for gaol-delivery sat at Colchester, they were invited to dine at the abbey with the Abbot of Saint John’s. When they were at dinner, as Crumwell’s informant writes to him, one Marmaduke Nevill and others came into the hall “I asked him,” says the writer, ‘How do the traitors in the north?’ ‘No traitors, for if ye call us traitors we will call you heretics.'” Nevill then went on to say that the king had pardoned them, or they had not been at Colchester. They were, he declared, 30,000 well-horsed, and “I am sure,” he said, “my lord abbot will make me good cheer;” and asked why, said, “Marry, for all the abbeys in England be beholden to us, for we have set up all the abbeys again in our country, and though it were never so late they sang mattins the same night.” He added that in the north they were “plain fellows,” and southern men, though they “thought as much, durst not utter it.”

Another glimpse of the life led by the Abbot of Colchester during the few troubled years of his authority is afforded by a writer of a slightly subsequent period:

“Those who can call to mind the cruel deeds of Henry VIII, the confusion of things sacred and profane, and the slaughterings of which he was the author, will have no difficulty in recollecting the case of John Beche, Abbat of Colchester. Excelling many of the abbats of his day in devotion, piety and learning, the sad fate of the cardinal (Fisher) and the execution of Sir Thomas More oppressed him with grief and bitterness. For he had greatly loved them; and as he had honoured them when living, so now that they had so gladly suffered death for the Churches unity, he began to reverence and venerate them, and often and much did he utter to that effect, and made his friends partakers of his grief which the late events had caused him. And he was in the habit of extolling the piety, meekness, and innocence of the late martyrs to those guests whom he invited to his table, and who came to him of their own will, some of whom assented to his words, while others listened in silence. There came at length a traitorous guest, a violator of the sacred rights of hospitality, who by his words incited the abbat to talk about the execution of the cardinal and More, hoping to entrap him in his speech! Thereon the abbat, who could not be silent on such a theme spoke indeed in their praise but with moderation and sparingly, adding at last that he marvelled what cause of complaint the king could have found in men so virtuous and learned, and the greatest ornaments of Church and State, as to deem them unworthy of longer life, and to condemn them to a most cruel death. These words did this false friend carry away in his traitorous breast, to make them known in due season to the advisers of the king. What need of more? The abbat is led to the same tribunal which had condemned both Fisher and More, and there received the like sentence of death; yea, his punishment was the more cruel than theirs, for in his case no part of the sentence was remitted. Thus he was added as the third to the company of the two former. But why should I call him the third, and try to enumerate the English martyrs of that time, who are past counting? The writers of our annals mention many by name, but there were many more whose names they could not ascertain, whose number is known to God alone, for whose cause they died. Yet I hope that some day God will make known their names and the resting-places of their bodies, which were in life the dwelling-places of His Holy Spirit.”

About the time of the arrest of the Abbots of Reading and Glastonbury, in September, 1539, reports were spread as to the approaching dissolution of Saint John’s, Colchester. Sir Thomas Audley, the chancellor, endeavoured to avert what he thought would be an evil thing for the county. He had heard the rumours about the destruction of the two abbeys of Saint John’s, Colchester, and Saint Osyth’s, and, writing to Crumwell, he begs they may continue, “not, as they be, religious; but that the king’s majesty of his goodness to translate them into colleges. For the which, as I said to you before, his grace may have of either of them £1,000, that is for both £2,000, and the gift of the deans and prebendaries at his own pleasure. The cause I move this is, first, I consider that Saint John’s standeth in his grace’s own town at Colchester, wherein dwell many poor people who have daily relief of the house. Another cause, both these houses be in the end of the shire of Essex, where little hospitality will be kept if these be dissolved. For as for Saint John’s it lacketh water, and Saint Osyth’s standeth in the marshes, not very wholesome, so that few of reputation, as I think, will keep continual houses in any of them unless it be a congregation as there is now. There are also twenty houses, great and small, dissolved in the shire of Essex already.” Audley then goes on to protest that he only asks for the common good, and can get no advantage himself by the houses being allowed to continue, and concludes by offering Crumwell £200 for himself if he can persuade the king to grant his request.

The circumstances attending Abbot Marshall’s arrest are unknown, but by the begining of November, 1539, he was certainly in the Tower. On the 1st of that month Edmund Crowman, who had been his servant ever since he had been abbot, was under examination. All that was apparently extracted from this witness was that a year before the abbot had given him certain plate to take care of and “£40 in a coser.”

The abbot’s chaplain was also interrogated as to any words he had heard the abbot speak against the king at any time, but little information was elicited from him. The most important piece of evidence is a document, which, as it contains declarations as to Abbot Marshall’s opinions upon several important matters, and as it is almost the only record of the examinations of witnesses against any of the three abbots, and gives a sample of the questions on which all these examinations in the Tower concerning treason must have turned, may here be given as nearly as possible in the original form.

Interrogatories ministered unto Robert Rowse, mercer, of Colchester, 4 Novembris anno regni Henrici octavi tricesimo primo (1539). Ad primam, the said Rowse sworne upon the Evangel, and sayeth that he hath known the Abbat of Colchester the space of six years at midsummer last past or thereabout, about which time the said was elected abbat. And within a sennight after or thereabout this examinant sent unto the said abbat a dish of bass (baces) and a pottle of wine to the welcome. Upon the which present the said abbat did send for the examinant to dine with him upon a Friday, at which time they were first acquainted, and since was divers times in his company and familiar with him unto a fortnight before the feast of All Hallows was two years past. – Robert Rowse.

2. Ad secundam, he sayeth that the principal cause why that he did leave the company of the said abbat was because that abbat was divers times communing and respuing against the king’s majesty’s supremacy and such ordinances as were passed by the act of Parliament concerning the extinguishment of the bishop of Rome’s usurped authority, saying that the whole authority was given by Christ unto Peter and to his successors, bishops of Rome, to bind and to loose, and to grant pardons for sin, and to be chief and supreme head of the Church throughout all Christian realms immediate and next unto Christ, and that it was against God’s commandment and His laws that any temporal prince should be head of the Church. And also he said that the king’s highness had evil counsel that moved him to take on hand to be chief head of the Church of England and to pull down these houses of religion which were founded by his grace’s progenitors and many noble men for the service and honour of God, the commonwealth, and relief of poor folk, and that the same was both against God’s law and man’s law; and furthermore, he said that by means of the premises the king and his council were drawn into such an inordinate covetousness that if all the water in the Thames were flowing gold and silver it were not able to slake their covetousness, and said a vengeance of all such councillors. – Robert Rowse.

3. Ad tertiam, he sayeth that he is not well remembered of the year nor of the days that the said abbat had the foresaid communications because he spoke at divers times, and specially at such times as he heard that any such matters were had in use, and furthermore of this he is well remembered of that at such time as the monks of Syon, the Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More were put to execution, the said abbat would say that he marvelled greatly of such tyranny as was used by the king and his council to put such holy men to death, and further the abbat said that in his opinion they died holy martyrs and in the right of Christ’s Church. – Robert Rowse.

4. Ad quartam, he sayeth that the last time that ever he heard the said abbat have any communication of such matters was, immediately after that he heard of the insurrection in the north parts, he sent for this examinant to come to sup with him, and in the mean time that supper was making ready the abbat and the examinant were walking between the hall and the garden in a little gallery off the ground, and then and there the abbat asked of this examinant what news he heard of the coast? and this examinant said that he heard none. Then the abbat said: “Dost you not hear of the insurrection in the north?” and this examinant said “no.” “The northern lads be up and they begin to take pip in the webe [sic] and say plainly that they will have no more abbeys suppressed in their country; ” and he said to this examinant that the northern men were as true subjects unto the king as anywhere within his realm, and that they desired nothing of the king but that they might have delivered unto their hands the Archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, and the lord privy seal; and the abbat said “would to God that the northern men had them, for then (he said) we should have a merry world, for they were three arch-heretics,” which term this examinant never heard before; and so then they went to supper, and since this time, which was as this examinant doth remember a fortnight or three weeks before the feast of All Saints, was two years. – Robert Rowse.

The evidence of Thomas Nuthake, a “physition,” of Colchester, is to the like effect. He had not, he said, to his knowledge seen or known Abbot Thomas before his election, although he had divers times repaired to the abbey before that time. In reply to the third question, this doctor “sayeth that concerning the marriage of queen Anne this examinant remembers he hath heard the said abbat say that the reason why the kings highness did forsake the bishop of Rome was to the intent that his majesty might be divorced from the lady dowager and wed queen Anne, and therefore his grace refused to take the bishop of Rome for the supreme head of the Church, and made himself the supreme head.”

Another of the witnesses against the Lord Abbot of Colchester was a cleric, John Seyn, who deposed that when he had informed him of his neighbour, the Abbot of Saint Osyth’s surrender of his monastery to the king, he answered, “I will not say the king shall never have my house, but it will be against my will and against my heart, for I know by my learning that he cannot take it by right and law, wherefore in my conscience I cannot be content, nor he shall never have it with my heart and will.” Whereunto John Seyn, clerk, answered in this wise: ” Beware of such learning as ye learned at Oxenford when ye were young. Ye would be hanged and ye are worthy. I will advise you to conform yourself as a true subject, or else you shall hinder your brethren and also yourself.”

Nothing more is known of Abbot Marshall’s last days, but the fact of his execution as a traitor on 1 December 1539. The enamelled pectoral cross of the venerable martyr has been preserved, and is now in possession of the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. On one side it bears the emblems of the Five Wounds, in the centre the Sacred Heart of our Lord, surrounded by the crown of thorns, above which is the inscription, “I.N.R.I.,” and below it the sacred monogram, “I.H.S.” with the wounded hands and feet of our Saviour. On the back the instruments of the Passion are engraved. The following inscriptions in Latin appear in and about the cross: “May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ bring us out of sorrow and sadness. This sign of the cross shall be in the heavens when our Lord shall come to judgment. Behold, O man! thy Redeemer suffers for thee. He who will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me.”

It is curious to observe how frequently in this world malice defeats its own ends even when it takes a guise, to some persons apparently so attractive, of doing God a service. It is by a singular fate that the would-be preacher, who gave himself so much trouble to defame the three Abbots of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester and their companions, in the expectation doubtless of thereby recommending him- self to the king, should have been, after three centuries and a half of oblivion, the most explicit witness of the cause for which these venerable men gave up their lives in all the terrors of as shameful and painful a death as man could devise.

The writer himself amid the periods which betoken his unhappy spirit, seems to have been haunted still with some forebodings that he was destined to make manifest a truth which it was the evident design of those in power to shroud in obscurity. He cannot help being truculent even at his best; but the form which he adopts may well be pardoned for the sake of the sense. “Is it not to be thought, trow ye,” he says, “that forasmuch as these trusty traitors have so valiantly jeopardied a joint for the Bishop of Rome’s sake, that his Holiness will after their hanging canvass them, canonise them, I would say, for their labours and pains. It is not to be doubted but his Holiness will look upon their pains as upon Thomas Becket’s, seeing it is for like matter.”

Much has since happened which the writer of these words could not have anticipated. In God’s hands are times and seasons, and He alone it is Who judges rightly the acts and lives of men. The words of the wise man fittingly rise up in the mind as it recalls the story of the deaths of these holy abbots. “In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery, and their going away from us for utter destruction: but they are in peace. And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded; because God has tried them and found them worthy of Himself. As gold in the furnace He hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust He hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had unto them.”