About the Robbery of Jewels from Westminster Abbey

Robbery in the ancient Treasury of Westminster Abbey was perpetrated in the year 1303. The details, which are very curious, are given by Mr. Joseph Burtt, Assistant Keeper of the Public Records. At that time Edward I was preparing to take summary vengeance upon the Scots for their so-called rebellion against his power. Upon the first of May, or late in the preceding month (for the accounts vary a little) the daring attempt was made, and the treasure carried off. The king acted with his usual vigour; a writ was issued from Linlithgow on June 6th, directing investigations to be made, and from Kynlos, on October 10th, another writ was sent to Roger Brabazon, and other justices, reciting that whereas the Abbot of Westminster and forty-eight brethren, "commonachi ejusdem domus" (who are mentioned by name), and thirty-two other persons there named, were indicted for the robbery, and they had been committed to the Tower--and they assert they are falsely so charged, and beg that the truth may be inquired into--the said justices are directed to hear and determine the same.

It appears that the sacrist of Westminster having found certain cups, etc., spoke to some of the monks, and asked their advice thereon. They advised him to consult John de Foxle, and he, not knowing of the robbery, advised that the abbot should maintain his right to them as being found within the liberty of the church. Other proceedings of the sacrist, if truly reported, leave no doubt of his guilt. William the Palmer, the keeper of the king's palace, said he often saw the sacrist, the sub-prior, and other monks, go in and out, early and late, about the time of the burglary, and they often carried many things towards the church-he knew not what. John Albon was the designer of certain tools for breaking open the Treasury-Alexander de Pershore threatened to kill him if he revealed the design-and on a certain day he saw the same Alexander and certain monks enter a certain boat of the Abbey at the King's bridge, and take with them two large panniers covered with black leather, in which there was a great weight-he knew not what. The same persons returned late in another boat, and landed at the Abbey Mill. John de Ramage was suspected, because he was often going in and coming out of the Abbey, and on a sudden he dressed himself very richly, bought horses and arms, and boasted he was able to buy a town if he pleased. John de Linton scattered dirt on the ground near the Treasury, and destroyed all traces of the robbers. It was he who sowed hemp in the cloister garth. Many persons, especially goldsmiths and dealers, appear to have been implicated through the agency of the sacrist, and the other robbers. Richard de Podelicote went to Northampton and Colchester to get rid of some of the jewels there, and several worthy citizens of London are recorded as having purchased some "cheap" lots of precious stones and plate.

Just before the robbery, some friends of William de Palais "met in a certain house within the close of the prison of the Fleet, together with a horseman and four ribald persons unknown, and there stayed two nights eating and drinking, and in the middle of the third night they went armed towards Westminster, and returned in the morning. This they did for two nights, and then came no more. And as the treasury was broken into about that time-say the jurors-they were suspected of the felony. Much of the treasure seems to have been hid in the immediate neighbourhood of the Abbey, to be carried off at the convenience of the thieves. A linendraper at St. Giles's had a large pannier full of broken vessels of gold and silver sent to him by certain monks of Westminster, about which he became so alarmed when the royal proclamation was published, that he gave it to a shepherd-boy to hide in Kentish Town, where it was found. Some of the treasure found its way across the water, but was not traced, although the boatmen of the river from Lambeth to Kingston were examined. The case against the sacrist and the monks appears to be that the robbery could not have been committed without their knowledge, the gates of the Close must have been opened to admit some of the thieves, and they had the keys of them, while they refused admittance to a man who had bought the herbage of the cemetery, as they knew what was hid there, and that afterwards much treasure was known to have been taken to the sacrist's house, and claimed by him. Their antecedents were brought forward to strengthen the case against them, for it is said, "there was a great suspicion against the monks, because four years ago an attempt was made to break open the treasury in the cloister, which was inquired into, and the Abbot made peace with the King respecting it."

It seems that the Master of the Wardrobe himself, John de Drokenesford, was present in London on the king's affairs when the investigations into the robbery commenced. On June 20th he came to Westminster, where he was informed of the robbery, and in the presence of Ralph de Sandwich, Keeper of the Tower of London, two Justices of the King's Bench, the Mayor of the City, the Prior of Westminster, and others of the neighbourhood, "he produced the keys of the said treasury, which had been kept in a canvas pouch, sealed with the perfect seal of the King's Cofferer, and carried by him; and he took the said keys and opened the door of the treasury, and entered therein with the company assembled, and he found the treasury broken into, the chests and coffers broken open, and many goods carried away." An indenture describing with great minuteness the exact state of the case, was drawn up; and in this curious document we get a complete view of the interior of the vaulted chamber, and the anxious assembly investigating the extent of the damage so ruthlessly committed. It gives three lists, headed, "Jocalia dimissa in thesaurario," "Jocalia furtive surrepta de thesaurario Domini Regis et postea reinventa," and "Jocalia inventa in custodia Sacristae Westm'." It was evident however, at once, that many more valuables might have been carried off had the robbers been more accomplished in their craft, for there appears a long and goodly list of jewels, rings, and plate of various kinds, including the king's great crown and three other crowns embellished with precious stones, which had been left behind. The thieves had been embarrassed by the very richness of their spoils. The poor man who became a robber of the royal treasure because he had lost pound 14 17s., and who had for his confederates the servants of the palace and Abbey, might well have been afraid to seize the royal crown and other jewels.

It would have been simply impossible to have got rid of them or turned them to account. Obtained by the spoil of a castle or the sack of a town, the contents of the treasury would have been rich booty indeed, and would have afforded splendid trophies. As it was, and even at the reduced prices which robbers always obtain, had they not been disturbed, they would have been able to divide among themselves a sum equal to the whole proceeds of a subsidy levied upon the length and breadth of the land, and collected by the whole power of the State. That the robbers had not completed the work they had planned, is evident from the list of valuables which the party assembled in the chamber found upon the floor. With a feeling approaching to horror they must have picked from the dirt at their feet, "the ring with which the king was consecrated," and "the secret seal of the king's father," which were found among fragments of vessels of gold and silver, spoons, knives, and rings of various kinds.

There is little reason to doubt that a large quantity of the treasure-that consisting of the plate and jewels-was recovered. One of the principal thieves, Richard de Podelicote, was found with two thousand pounds' worth in his possession. This man subsequently confessed the whole matter, and so did another of the robbers. Their accounts are not quite consistent, as is usually the case. Podelicote is always spoken of as the great culprit, and in his confession he takes the whole blame of the matter, as well as the previous robbery of the conventual plate from the refectory. A portion of his confession runs thus:- "He was a travelling merchant for wool, cheese, and butter, and was arrested in Flanders for the king's debts in Bruges, and there were taken from him pound 14 17s., for which he sued in the King's Court at Westminster, at the beginning of August, in the thirty-first year, and then he saw the condition of the refectory of the Abbey, and saw the servants bringing out silver cups, and spoons, and mazers. So he thought how he might obtain some of these goods, as he was so poor, on account of his losses in Flanders; and so he spied about all the parts of the Abbey. And on the day when the king left the place for Barnes, on the following night as he had spied out, he found a ladder which was at a house near the gate of the Palace, towards the Abbey, and put that ladder to a window of the Chapter-House, which he opened, and closed by a cord; and he entered by this cord, and thence he went to the door of the refectory, and found it closed with a lock, and he opened it with his knife, and entered, and there he found six silver hanaps in an ambry behind the door, and more than thirty silver spoons in another ambry, and the mazer hanaps under a bench, near together; and he carried them all away, and closed the door after him without shutting the lock. And having spent the proceeds by Christmas, he thought how he could rob the king's treasury. And as he knew the ways of the Abbey, and where the treasury was, and how he could get there, he began to set about the robbery, eight days before Christmas, with the tools which he provided for it, viz., two 'tarrers,' great and small knives, and other small 'engines' of iron; and so was about the breaking open during the night hours of eight days before the Christmas to the quinzain of Easter, when he first had entry on the night of a Wednesday, the eve of St. Mark (April 24); and all the day of St. Mark he stayed in there, and arranged what he would carry away, which he did the night after, and the night after that, and the remainder he carried away with him out of the gate behind the Church of St. Margaret, and put it at the foot of the wall, beyond the gate, covering it with earth, and there were there pitchers, cups with feet and covers. And also he put a great pitcher, with stones and a cup, on a certain tomb. Besides, he put three pouches full of jewels and vessels, of which one 'hanaps' entire, and in pieces. In another, a great crucifix and jewels, a case with silver and gold spoons. In the third 'hanaps,' nine dishes and saucers, and an image of Our Lady in silver-gilt, and two little pitchers of silver. Besides, he took to the ditch by the Mews a pot and a cup of silver. Also, he took with him spoons, saucers, spice-dishes of silver, a cup, rings, brooches, stones, crowns, girdles, and other jewels, which were afterwards found with him. And he says that what he took out of the treasury he took at once out of the gate near St. Margaret's Church, and left nothing behind within it."

The other robber, who confessed, speaks of a number of persons-two monks, two foresters, two knights, and about eight others, being present at the "debrusure." His account, too, makes it a week earlier than the other.

The affair was evidently got up between the sacrist of Westminster, Richard de Podelicote, and the keeper of the palace, with the aid of their immediate servants and friends. Doubtless they speculated upon comparative impunity, while the king was so far away and occupied with such important matters, and they arranged accordingly. An extraordinary instance of the amount of cunning and foresight exercised by the robbers is shown by the circumstance of the cemetery-the green plot enclosed by the cloisters-being sown with hemp early in the spring, "so that the said hemp should grow high enough by the time of the robbery that they might hide the treasure there, and the misdeed be unknown." This shows that the plot was deeply laid, and the crime long prepared for. From the confession will be seen that upwards of four months were consumed in making an entry into the treasury.