Insurrection

by Susan Loughlin

  Cromwell’s humble origins and rather obscure background did not hinder his rise to power. Like Wolsey before him, it appears that the king had complete faith in his judgement and ability to co-ordinate policy and implement decisions. Henry retained trust in his minister despite the hatred the Pilgrims harboured towards him and the renewed rebellions probably afforded Cromwell the opportunity to settle a score or two. It must, however, have been galling for members of the old nobility to have to report to this ‘low-born’ minister.

  The Duke of Norfolk felt compelled to write to Cromwell in response to certain insinuations in February 1537. On 9 February, he wrote that ‘almost’ all the gentlemen of the shire ‘will bear him witness that he is neither Papist nor favourer of traitors’. Norfolk must have felt that his loyalty was being questioned and the suspicions obviously continued, for he had to write to Cromwell again four days later. He was at pains to point out that he did not deserve a reputation as a papist or as being favourably disposed towards ‘naughty’ religious people.31

  Norfolk, however, continued to busy himself with suppressing the residual conflicts and extracting retribution for the Crown. Writing to Cromwell on 13 February from York, he advised that the ‘dreadful’ execution which had commenced there should be followed elsewhere.32 Two days later, his advice to Sir Christopher Dacre was even blunter. Referring to Sir Christopher as a true knight to his sovereign lord, as well as being hardy and a man of war, he advised him to ‘Pinch now for no courtesy to shed blood of false traitors; and ye be busy on the one side, and ye may be sure the duke of Norfolk will come on the other. Finally, now, Sir Christopher, or never!’ He signed this instruction, ‘your loving cousin if ye do well now or else enemy for ever’.33

  Throughout the remainder of February, Norfolk was involved in putting down the post-pardon uprisings and imposing martial law at Carlisle. He discussed the requirement for him to be present at every punishment and the great numbers of prisoners. By 19 February, Norfolk was able to inform Cromwell that he had the ‘ill people in such fear’, and he confirmed that seventy-four ‘principal offenders’ had been judged to suffer death in every town where they dwelt, by martial law.34

  As the risings were put down, martial law declared and people taken in for questioning – such as John Dakyn, rector of Kirkby Ravensworth – it might have been expected that fear and the expedient desire for self-preservation would play its part in diluting the anti-regime rhetoric. Dakyn was subjected to an extensive examination at the end of March and had to answer a comprehensive set of questions devised by the council, some in Cromwell’s own hand.

  Whilst in prison, Dakyn wrote a petition to Cromwell, apologising for his conduct in the insurrection. In this letter he stated that he feared that Cromwell had taken ‘an evil opinion of him’ and claimed that he was forced to do as the rebels did, as he was in fear of his life. He acknowledged that he was present at the formulation of the Pontefract Articles, but blamed others such as Dr Marshall and Aske for their content. He also shifted the blame to Archbishop Lee of York and Dr Cliff for murmuring against the abrogation of holy days. Dakyn maintained that the laws made in the king’s time were ‘just’ and the realm was well rid of the Bishop of Rome’s authority. He thus appeared to accept the Royal Supremacy and the Crown’s legitimacy in spiritual matters, but it must be treated with extreme scepticism, given the circumstances in which it was said.35 In a similar vein, the abbot of Furness played into the regime’s hands on 5 April. Roger, ‘knowyng the mysorder and evil lyfe’ of the brethren, surrendered all his interest in the house and lands to the king.36

  Cromwell continued to turn the screw to secure compliance with the regime’s policies. In April he issued specific instructions to Sir Marmaduke Tunstall as to how he should behave in his office, responsible to the Lord Privy Seal. Tunstall was ordered to ensure that all curates in the area set forth the king’s Supremacy and the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome. Further, if anyone was found preaching or spreading seditious tales, they should be committed to ward, pending further direction.37 Cromwell’s position was extremely secure at this point. Norfolk had cause to write to him yet again with regard to his own behaviour in May. Norfolk was perturbed because he believed that Cromwell had received reports that when he had denounced the Bishop of Rome, he had done so with a heavy countenance and, thus, was insincere. Norfolk strenuously denied such an accusation.38 This persistent self-justification of a nobleman’s own actions to Cromwell illustrates the fact that Cromwell was being regularly informed of news by a network of clients/informers and retained the king’s complete confidence. It certainly suggests a belief among the nobility that this was indeed the case.

  Despite the evident government crack-down, anti-Henrician rhetoric, as might be expected, continued unabated abroad. Faenza commented that although the English reported that the disturbances were appeased, it was not so, for the people were more irritated than ever because the king had observed none of his promises and put many of them (the people) to death. Cardinal Contarini described his grief that the kingdom of England had been ‘torn from this body’ and wished that Pole might ‘conduct this matter so that the universal Church of Christ, his King and his country of England, may sing praises to God for the fishing of the pearl which was lost and the recovery of the beautiful sheep that had strayed from the fold’.39 (See also, Chapter 7.)

  The sheep, however, were not returning to the fold but were being led into the pen and slaughterhouse by shepherd Cromwell. Norfolk had put seventy-four to death under martial law and investigations and examinations continued in April and May.

  The period between the December pardon and the ultimate retribution in May and June – the interrogations and punishments – requires examination. Norfolk himself appears to have been under a cloud of suspicion during this period and one gets the impression that he was almost desperate to prove himself utterly loyal in his beliefs and in his hostility to the rebels. He informed Cromwell at the start of February that unless the commons were soon brought to better obedience, they would lose their lives and goods. He was of the belief that the people had never been so hostile to the nobility.40

  Examinations of suspected rebels continued into February and carried on until May. Henry was obsessed with bringing Bigod, the architect of the ‘new tragedy’, to justice. Although Norfolk bravely conceded to the king on 7 February that he could not promise the apprehension of Bigod, he was able to confirm his capture by Sir John Lampley four days later.41 Lord Lumley’s son and heir was examined in the Tower on 8 February by Cromwell and stated that Bigod had argued that the gentry had deceived the commons and that the king should not have cure of souls.42

  Henry’s desire for retribution was unwavering and his instructions became more explicit. Writing to Norfolk on 22 February he ordered that he must administer dreadful execution upon a good number of the inhabitants, hanging them on trees, quartering them and setting their heads and quarters in every town, so as to serve as a fearful warning. He added that Norfolk should tie up the monks, without pity, with no further delay or ceremony.43

  The attempted use of what Max Weber has described as the state’s monopoly of legitimate violence was, of course, not unusual in early modern society and the enforcement of obedience was part of the state’s duty. What is interesting to note here, however, is Henry’s apparent relish of the task and his graphic descriptions of punishment do lend credence to the perception of him as a blood-thirsty tyrant.44

  The Duke of Norfolk seemed at pains to emphasise the scale of the Crown’s retribution: ‘I think the like number hath not be heard to be put to execution at one time.’ Tellingly, he advised the king that he had had the vicar of Burgh arrested because he had been a principal maintainer of the Bishop of Rome at the first insurrection. However, Norfolk could, by his own admission, get no proof that he consented to the last rebellion.45 Clearly the pardon had not been binding in this case. The Crown’s quest for just punishment involved a degree of subterfuge. Even though
Sir Robert Constable had opposed Bigod’s rebellion, the Privy Council was still suspicious of him and advised Norfolk to keep a special eye on him. Further, Norfolk was secretly to inform Sir Ralph Ellerker, junior, and Sir Ralph Evers (Eure) of this and order them to secure the ports of Hull and Scarborough to prevent Constable from fleeing.46

  In the aftermath of the renewed uprisings in the early part of 1537, Lord Hussey was included among those who were under suspicion and interrogated. It can be argued that Hussey’s inertia and continuing association with Darcy ultimately led to his downfall. Hussey’s servant, Thomas Rycard, was questioned by Sir Brian Hastings on 26 February about alleged comments Hussey had made regarding heresy in Hussey’s own garden at Sleaford, Lincolnshire almost two years previously.47 Once again, Hussey had not been involved in the fresh rebellions. Lord Hussey’s role was one of inertia during the risings. His religious qualms have been highlighted and it should perhaps come as no surprise that his wife, Lady Hussey, who had been part of Princess Mary’s household at Hunsdon, had been imprisoned in the Tower for a time. This was during the same period as Mary was obstinately refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy.48 Lady Hussey had been heard to use the title ‘Princess’ whilst referring to Mary and this was not permitted. The Husseys had conservative and orthodox opinions and old habits die hard – it should be remembered that Hussey was over 70 years of age when the risings began.

  Whilst interrogations continued, the fate of the rebels involved in the Lincolnshire Rising of the previous autumn was decided at Lincoln on 6 March. Two lists are given. The first contains those condemned and not executed; the second details the names of thirty-four individuals, including Thomas Moigne and Guy Keym, who were condemned and executed.49 Sir William Parr (who will be discussed in Chapter 5) confirmed that he had been present at the executions of Moigne and Keym and that thirty-four ‘traitors’ were condemned in a letter to the king dated 7 March. He stated that he would also attend the subsequent executions at Louth and Horncastle in the following days.50 Malice and score settling also played their parts in the information forwarded to the regime. One of those condemned at Lincoln who was not executed was Thomas Brumpton of Burton, Lincolnshire. One John Mounson wasted no time in advising Thomas Cromwell the following day that Brumpton had threatened and coerced his neighbours into rebellion and that it was a ‘great pity’ that he should be pardoned.51

  It seems from the lines of enquiry being followed by the government that the remit was not strictly to punish those who had violated the pardon: the cases of the vicar of Burgh, Sir Robert Constable and Lord Hussey are testament to this. The momentum for revenge and punishment had been built up and showed no signs of abating, despite any impediments to its implementation. Norfolk advised Cromwell on 8 March that he would sit in justice on the twenty or so rebels at Durham and that none would escape should good evidence be obtained against them. However, the following day, he informed the Lord Privy Seal that Durham was not actually included in his commission, so ‘we charged the inquest, keeping secret our lack of authority’.52 The earls of Sussex and Derby were, however, more circumspect. They advised Norfolk that since they had been in Lancashire, they had overseen the executions of the abbot of Whalley and one of his monks, Sir Richard Eastgate, one of the monks of Sawley, some canons of Cartmell and ten lay persons who lived in the vicinity, who, they stated, had been the principal offenders since the pardon.53 The details of the ten lay people were not given.

  The king sent further instructions to Norfolk on 17 March and specified that he would send for Lord Darcy within a few days, as the duke recommended.54 Darcy had been an opponent of renewed rebellion, so it can be argued that this instruction was purely a desire to gain revenge on the ageing, conservative nobleman. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell on 22 March and this correspondence highlights the mindset of the regime and points to the direction in which events were heading. He referred to an individual called Boyer as a ‘naughty knave’, well acquainted with Darcy who would be able to ‘tell much’. The friar Dr Pickering would, Norfolk claimed, be able to provide information about the prior of Bridlington and Sir Robert Constable if he was handled with ‘fair words’. By adopting this approach, Norfolk was of the opinion that Cromwell would find out whether Lord Darcy or Sir Robert Constable had done anything amiss since the pardon. The duke also stated that Aske was accompanying him on his journey, ‘thinking him better with me than at home’. This letter, it can be argued, makes it obvious that Norfolk was duplicitous and was seeking to trap Aske. He advised that the king should lull Aske into a false sense of security by speaking to him as if he had great trust in him. The idea was that Aske might then betray Lord Darcy and Sir Robert Constable by telling all that he knew of them.55

  At the end of the month, the trial of Dr Mackerell and other Lincolnshire rebels took place. A guilty verdict was returned on all the prisoners and the judgement was the standard for cases of high treason. This basic conceptual distinction, that religion could be treason, was used to legitimate the state’s treatment of its Catholic subjects.56 Their execution was to take place at Tyburn: they were to be hanged, cut down alive, disembowelled and their entrails burned (whilst still alive) and beheaded.57 Once Catholics, or in this case, those who opposed Henrician religious policy, were identified as ‘traitors’, they could be treated with ‘disgusting violence’ and the visual message was that the felon had died a traitor’s death, as opposed to a heretic’s. The powerful symbolism of the rites of execution was, as Lake and Questier have argued, ‘surely intended to operate as a means of ideological control.’ Social and ideological energies were released by the rituals on the gallows. Again, we see evidence of the Weberian idea of the state’s use of legitimate violence, and the recurrent theme of the body politic.58

  In the meantime, the net was closing ever tighter around Lord Darcy. Sir Henry Saville added his poison to the mix in a letter to Cromwell. He recounted that, at the time of the Pilgrimage, the Earl of Shrewsbury had asked Sir Arthur Darcy how many men his father could raise for the king. Sir Arthur had replied that 5,000 could be raised ‘if the abbeys might stand’. It was at this point that the Lord Steward (Shrewsbury) began to distrust Lord Darcy.59 By 7 April, Darcy, along with Constable and Aske, was committed to the Tower for the treasons they had committed since the pardon.60

  Both Aske and Darcy had been anxious that people return home and not be part of any fresh revolt in January 1537. Darcy expressed his desire that the people keep within the king’s pardon and not follow those who assembled with Bigod,61 but almost immediately there were those who sought to discredit him and sow suspicion. Sir William Fairfax was quick to express his opinion to Cromwell that both Darcy and Sir Richard Tempest were not steadfast, although they soon afterwards began to pretend all they did was with the best of intentions.62 However, it seems overwhelmingly clear that neither Aske nor Darcy was involved in the outbreak of the renewed revolts and both conducted themselves in a manner displaying complete loyalty to the Crown. Indeed, the king himself expressed his gratitude to them both by letter on 24 January for their ‘goodwill’ against Bigod’s rebellion.63 It is also clear that, at that time, Aske still had complete faith in the king and his promises and behaved as a dutiful subject.

  A number of allegations were made against Darcy, Constable and Aske, and it is obvious that these were framed in such a way as to ensure a guilty verdict. For instance, a letter from Aske to Darcy of 18 January where he asked Darcy to stay the commons until the arrival of the Duke of Norfolk was cited as demonstrating a ‘traitor’s heart’ in that he only desired a stay until Norfolk’s arrival. Similarly, Constable and Aske exhibited their ‘traitorous hearts’ by not having resisted Bigod – this despite the king himself having thanked Aske for his ‘goodwill’ against Bigod and Constable’s clear refusal to join Bigod.64

  Lord Darcy’s words were twisted with one objective in mind – to convict him of treason. The regime seemed at pains to point out that Darcy had offended since the pardon. A letter
written by Darcy on 21 January, where he spoke of the Duke of Norfolk’s impending arrival in the North and the holding of a parliament, is here portrayed as exposing, yet again, his traitorous heart. He allegedly rejoiced in the parliament, trusting to have his unlawful desires reformed, which was well known to be high treason.65

  Similarly, Aske was a victim of the clever legal minds who devised the articles against him. He was criticised for his failure to denounce or apprehend Bigod’s followers and this evidently made him a traitor. When he returned from his stay with Henry he wrote to the commons assuring them that their reasonable petitions would be ordered by Parliament. So Aske then thought their petitions reasonable, and in writing it, he committed treason.66 Aske and Constable, like Darcy, were accused of only specifying that the commons should be remain calm until Norfolk’s arrival. This was twisted to mean that they would only comply until Norfolk had returned and had the added bonus that if no man should stir, therefore, those who would have served the king could not either.67

  Included in the articles or items against Darcy, Aske and Constable was an allegation against Archbishop Edward Lee of York. He and the clergy of the North were accused of committing high treason by concluding at Pontefract that the king ‘ought not to be supreme head of the church’.68 Whether Lee genuinely believed this or concurred because of his desire for self-preservation is a moot point. In any event, this quite obviously occurred prior to the December pardon and it may be that fact which saved Lee from being condemned as a traitor, or the fact that the desire for retribution was focused on Darcy, Aske and Constable. Similarly, the Earl of Northumberland was accused of high treason for ‘maintaining Aske’ by surrendering his castle at Wressle in the East Riding of Yorkshire in November. Cromwell himself had written opposite this item, ‘Before the pardon’.69 It is worth pointing out that the earl had gained the enmity of his brothers by having named the king as his heir. In any event, the earl did not suffer the same fate as Darcy, Aske and Constable.