Editing Dissolution of the monasteries (section)

===Visitation of the monasteries===

In 1534, Cromwell undertook, on behalf of the King, an inventory of the endowments, liabilities and income of the entire ecclesiastical estate of England and Wales, including the monasteries (see {{lang|la|[[Valor Ecclesiasticus]]}}), for the purpose of assessing the Church's taxable value, through local commissioners who reported in May 1535. At the same time, Henry had [[Parliament of England|Parliament]] authorise Cromwell to "[[Canonical visitation|visit]]" all the [[monasteries]], including those like the Cistercians previously exempted from episcopal oversight by papal dispensation, to instruct them in their duty to obey the King and reject papal authority. Cromwell delegated his visitation authority to hand-picked commissioners, chiefly Richard Layton, Thomas Legh, [[John ap Rice]] and [[John Tregonwell]], for the purposes of ascertaining the quality of religious life being maintained in religious houses, of assessing the prevalence of 'superstitious' religious observances such as the veneration of [[Christian relic|relics]], and for inquiring into evidence of moral laxity (especially sexual). The chosen commissioners were mostly secular clergy, and appear to have been Erasmian, doubtful of the value of monastic life and universally dismissive of relics and miraculous tokens. By comparison with the valuation commissions, the timetable for these monastic visitations was tight, with some houses missed altogether, and inquiries appear to have concentrated on gross faults and laxity; consequently, where the reports of misbehaviour can be checked against other sources, they commonly appear to have been both rushed and greatly exaggerated, often recalling events from years before. The visitors interviewed each member of the house and selected servants, prompting individual confessions of wrongdoing and asking them to inform on one another. From their correspondence with Cromwell it can be seen that the visitors knew that findings of impropriety were both expected and desired; however, where no faults were revealed, none were reported. The visitors put the worst construction they could on whatever they were told, but they do not appear to have fabricated allegations of wrongdoing outright.{{sfn|Bernard|2011|p=397-399}}