Insurrection
Page 22
58 BL, Cotton, Calig, B/I, f.56 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1313).
59 TNA, SP1/116, ff.251 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 630).
60 TNA, SP1/118, ff.96–98 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 881).
61 TNA, SP1/119, f.146 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1129).
62 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 848.
63 Ibid., 1181.
64 TNA, SP1/127, f.58 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1216).
65 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 378. Ellis, ‘England in the Tudor State’, pp.201–12.
66 TNA, SP6/3, ff.1–4 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 281) (spelling modernised).
67 Bray, Documents of the English Reformation; (L&P, Vol. XIII: 281).
68 TNA, SP1/140, ff.209–16 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 1171) (spelling modernised).
69 L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 1279.
70 L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 1164 (spelling modernised).
71 L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 401.
72 Ibid., 406.
73 Ibid., 628.
74 Bernard, ‘The Making of Religious Policy,’ p.330; Rex, ‘The Crisis of Obedience’, p.864.
75 Bindoff, ‘Edward Hall’, History of Parliament, p.279; Williams, English Historical Documents V: 1485–1558, p.141.
76 Hall’s Chronicle, London, 1809, p.822.
77 Ibid. (My italics, spelling modernised.)
78 For Norfolk’s description, see Chapter 2. Estimates of the numbers of Pilgrims varied between 30,000 and 50,000 – Eustace Chapuys used this assessment (see Chapter 2). On 23 October 1536, the Bishop of Faenza put a figure of 40,000 on the rebel forces and Sir Brian Hastings corroborated this approximation.
79 Hall’s Chronicle, p.823 (spelling modernised).
80 Ibid., p.823 (spelling modernised).
81 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.408.
82 Hall’s Chronicle, p.823 (spelling modernised).
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Prior to the Pontefract meeting between 2 and 4 December, the king thought that the rebels would be ‘stiff’ with regard to the issues of a free pardon and a northern parliament.
86 Hall’s Chronicle, p.823 (spelling modernised).
87 Ibid.
88 For instance, the Yorkist victory at the Battle of Barnet on Easter Sunday, 14 April 1471, was attributed to the sudden descent of a mist. See A.J. Pollard, The Wars of the Roses, London, 1988, p.32, and Anthony Goodman (ed.), The Wars of the Roses, London, 1991, p.172.
89 Hall’s Chronicle, p.823.
90 See Hoyle, ‘Thomas Master’s Narrative of the Pilgrimage of Grace’, pp.53–79.
91 Hoyle, ‘Thomas Master’s Narrative’, p.55.
92 Ibid., p.71.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid., pp.71–72.
95 Ibid., p.75.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid., p.76. As Hoyle has pointed out, this letter of 3 December (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1022) makes no mention with regard to the sacraments and Purgatory. My italics – Master’s emphasis on the ‘military’ dimension to the Pilgrimage and its illegality.
98 Ibid., pp.77–79.
99 Jones, ‘Living the Reformations’, p.197.
7
The Rhetoric of
Resistance and Religiosity
In the previous chapter the Crown’s responses to the Pilgrimage in terms of the justification and defence of its position were analysed. The role of preaching and, especially, propaganda in disseminating the official Henrician position was examined. The construct of loyalty to the king as opposed to a foreign bishop (the pope) in Rome, which underpinned the Crown’s response, was to become an enduring characteristic of English national identity. It was exceedingly difficult to retain dual loyalty during the Pilgrimage and the Henrician phase of the Reformation: it was to become virtually impossible and treasonous in the future.
However, opposition to the king’s laws and reformation undoubtedly existed and Professor Jack Scarisbrick was of the view that those ‘who were enthusiastically behind the Henrician Reformation were probably a small minority’.1 Michael Graves went further when he stated that, during the turbulent years of the 1530s, public discontent with Henrician policies and hostility to the king were ‘frequently voiced and publicly expressed in many parts of the country’.2
What, then, of the perceptions of those opposed to the course that the king was taking? Our main sources with regard to the Pilgrimage are the views of the rebels as expressed in the York and Pontefract Articles. However, as Fletcher and MacCulloch have pointed out, the precise views of the rebels are much thinner on the ground because they did not have the resources that were available to the government to publish them.3 The York and Pontefract Articles, together with the evidence of those interrogated for their part of the rising and examples of dissent from outside of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, illustrate that the grievances of the northerners and opposition to Henrician policy was far from being confined to one geographical region. This chapter will consider further examples from other parts of the realm, as the North cannot be viewed in complete isolation. An insurrection of this magnitude cannot be treated as idiosyncratic and viewed as an insular phenomenon. This analysis will also include a brief exploration of the perceptions of the Pilgrimage in a wider, European context. How, for instance, did the Spanish and the papacy view and monitor events? Did they view the uprisings as an opportunity to coerce Henry into compliance or were they merely interested spectators?
Once the risings were underway, the Earl of Derby wrote to Lord Darcy with regard to the situation in Lancashire. On 20 October, he stated that the people there were ‘wholly’ with the commons, although he remained very ‘stiff’.4 On 24 October, dissent from within the king’s own household is recorded. Queen Jane Seymour, it was reported, threw herself on her knees before the king and begged him to restore the abbeys.5 This plea was given short shrift as the king told her to get up and not to meddle in his affairs; he referred to Anne Boleyn and this, unsurprisingly, frightened the timid and insecure queen. By 30 October, sympathy with the northern insurgents was reported by the Sheriff of Sussex.6 There is evidence of the pope being prayed for in the North at the outset of the Pilgrimage and reports suggested that the people of Dent were apportioning blame to Cromwell, as opposed to the king.7 On 2 December 1536, it was reported that copies of Aske’s manifestos were in circulation in Berkshire. The Pilgrims’ Oath and recruiting letters were also being circulated in London in 1536, where magistrates confiscated copies which came to light.8
Further evidence of clerical opposition is visible in December when Lord Wentworth described the behaviour of the parson of Wittillisham, stating that he had advised his parishioners within a month of the injunctions to beware of the English books. The parson also told one of his parishioners, Thomas Busshope, that by the authority God gave to Peter, the Bishop of Rome ought to be Supreme Head of the Church.9 In the same month, we are also told that twenty-two people in the parish of St Michael’s in Wood Street heard the curate speak contemptuously of the king’s injunctions.10 The northern clergy also gave their verdict on the Ten Articles and the First Injunctions in December 1536: they condemned all ten articles, denied the Royal Supremacy and called for the restoration of all clergy who had opposed the king’s position.11 Christopher Bradeley, discussing Aske’s rebellion in the company of his parish priest in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, commented, ‘I trust to God we shall have the old world again’.12
The Pilgrims did not perceive themselves as traitors, as is indicated from the reports of a conversation which took place in Colchester, Essex, in December 1537. During a dinner with the abbot of St John’s, Marmaduke Nevell and others were asked how the ‘traitors’ in the North were. They responded that they were not traitors and if this charge were levelled at them, they would retaliate by calling the accusers heretics. They then argued that all the abbeys in England were beholden to the Pilgrims, as they had re-established the abbeys in the North. Further, they stated, the malice of the commons was chiefly directed against Cromwell and Cranmer.13 This stance reiterated the position of the Pilgrims. They had criticised policies which appear
ed to undermine the prince’s duty to the commonwealth and displayed a willingness to assert constitutional propriety when the king appeared to have broken trust by imposing religious changes.14 Perhaps Richard Marshall encapsulated the reality of the time when, in a letter to the Convent of Blackfriars in Newcastle, he confessed to repeatedly denying the Royal Supremacy and, as such, had decided that he ought to flee. He would, he stated, willingly tarry and suffer death for his opinions but his flesh was weak.15 From this brief snapshot, it is apparent that dissent existed in both the West Country and the South, and ‘conservative’ opinions were by no means confined to the North.
The perception of Cromwell as the architect of the malaise afflicting the spiritual health of the country was recurring. The list of the rebel grievances produced for the meeting at Pontefract in early December (a forerunner of the Pontefract Articles), had this to say of the Lord Privy Seal: ‘traitur Thomas Crumwell, hys dyscypyles and adherents at leste exile hym and theym further of the relm’.16 Here, it is Cromwell who is portrayed as the traitor, and the use of the biblical term ‘disciples’ is quite revealing. Cromwell’s evangelical tendencies were well known and the usage of a descriptive term from the Gospels in relation to his adherents casts him in the role of leader. It also suggests that his status was so exalted that he had taken it upon himself to determine theology and doctrine. His position as vicegerent was clearly not welcomed. He is also described as the ‘false flatterer’ who said that he would make Henry the richest prince in Christendom and is repeatedly referred to as the ‘traitor’.
At this juncture, the northern clergy also condemned the Ten Articles. The clergy denied the Royal Supremacy and denounced the punishment of the clergy by temporal powers. The violation of sanctuary was also condemned. The clergy upheld papal dispensations and stated that all clergy who had opposed the Royal Supremacy should be restored.17
The twenty-four Pontefract Articles have been discussed but it is worth reiterating that the Pilgrims were explicit in who they would negotiate with. In the preamble to the articles it was specified that ‘Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at our meeting at Doncaster’.18 Richard was Cromwell’s nephew. After the resumption of revolts in January 1537, some in the North believed that they had been duped and the perception of Cromwell as the author of their misfortune continued. A bill sent to Richmond on 19 January illustrates this point:
That the commons in every township should rise on pain of death and make all lords and gentlemen swear on the mass book to these articles. (1) To mainten the profet of Holye Churche, which was the upholding of the Christian faith. (2) That no lord nor gentlyllman take nothing of their tenants but their rents. (3) To put downe the lord Cromwell, that hereyke, and all his sect, the whyche has mayde the kyng put downe prayinge and fastyng. (4) That no lorde nor gentleman shall not go to London.19
It is revealing that the instigators of this bill believed that the Holy Church (i.e. the Church of Rome) upheld the Christian faith and that Cromwell and his heretical sect induced the king to prevent praying and fasting. The oath was to be sworn on a Mass book. Tellingly, the proviso that no lord or gentleman should go to London was included. Clearly, the commons felt that they had been deceived by Ellerker, Bowes and Aske during their trips to Court.
During his examination in early 1537, Dr Pickering stated that he did not consider the Pilgrims as traitors and named the bishops of Canterbury, Worcester and Salisbury as heretics.20 Archbishop Lee of York gave evidence that Aske, Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and others told him at Pontefract that they were organising the holy Pilgrimage for the redress of certain grievances and required others to join them. In mitigation, he said that he was deceived, as others were, by the belief that they did sacrifice to God and no injury to the king.21
The ongoing rhetoric of the period requires closer examination. Opposition to the Royal Supremacy was a significant factor in anti-Henrician thinking: in March 1537, a monk named Henry Salley was reported for stating that there should be no lay knave head of the Church. One Barnarde Townley, a clerk in Cumberland, confessed that the cause of the insurrection there was that the vicar of Burgh read a letter from Richmondshire which stated that the people there, their brethren in Christ, had assembled and were ready for the maintenance of the faith of God, His laws and His Church. They confirmed that abbeys which had been suppressed had been restored again.
John Rochester was a very brave, or foolhardy, man when he wrote to the Duke of Norfolk that he had offered to prove before the council that the king had been deluded by those who enticed him to assume the authority of Supreme Head of the Church of England. He said that he was ready to do so and begged Norfolk to help the matter to come before the king, as he would rather die than have the truth cloaked and hidden as it had been.22
The resentment and opposition towards the Crown’s religious innovations continued unabated in the period after the pardon and the resumption of revolt. On Sunday, 4 February, the parish priest of Kendal, Sir Walter Browne, prayed for the pope and in so doing, was supported by about 300 people. Also in February, one John Hogon was reported for singing seditious songs by four informants. Hogon explained the verses of his song to the listeners and it was to the effect that if the Duke of Suffolk had allowed the Lincolnshire men to join with the northern men, England would have been brought ‘to a better place than it is now’.23
At the time of the examinations in April 1537, Lord Chancellor Audley reported words alleged to have been spoken by Lord Darcy to Cromwell. Whether they are true or not, they encapsulate the perceptions of the Pilgrims:
Cromwell it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief, and art likewise causer of the apprehension of us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly travail to bring us to our end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though thou wouldest procure all the noblemen’s heads within the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy head.24
Prophetic words indeed.
In the following year, reports of sedition among the clergy were being forwarded to Cromwell. Sir John Markham prepared articles against a Master Lytherland, the vicar of Newark-upon-Trent, with regard to the Royal Supremacy, the use of English books, Purgatory and the worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.25 Henry Lytherland had preached a sermon when Markham had been present and neglected to mention the Bishop of Rome’s ‘usurped’ authority or to emphasise the Royal Supremacy. He had also denounced translations of scripture into English and had instructed the congregation to pray for souls in Purgatory.
In April 1538, the abbot of Pershore, John Stonywell, sailed very close to the wind in his hostile opinion of the Henrician changes and favourable perception of the action of the Pilgrims. William Harrison, a groom of the king’s chamber, gave Cromwell information regarding a conversation which had taken place at Pershore in Worcester. The abbot had allegedly said that he trusted that he would die as one of the children of Rome. This was risky enough, but then Stonywell stated that the people in the North had died ‘fast enough’ the previous year, not only for themselves but for those in his own area as well. This reference to the executions in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage enraged Harrison, who argued that the king had been more than merciful to the rebels: ‘His grace might justly have put 4,000 more to death.’26
A few months later, in June 1538, another parish priest, of Kirkby Moorside, was reported for speaking evil of the king. The priest stated that the king deserved to be punished: ‘that vengeance must need light upon hym’ because he had put ‘soo many … wrongfully to dethe’. The cleric was also reported for saying that if Cromwell were also dead, it would not be a halfpenny loss.27
This anti-Cromwellian feeling continued unabated in the North throughout the summer, and seditious songs about the Lord Privy Seal were circulating in Lancashire in July.28 The Council of the North was also busy during this period. One James Prestwich confessed in July that he never thoug
ht the king could be Supreme Head of the Church of England.29
There are other examples of resistance to the Henrician Reformation and injunctions throughout the realm. On 8 October 1538, Cranmer wrote at length to Cromwell regarding the situation at Oxford University. There was a catalogue of complaints ‘against the Oxford men’. They were not, he stated, fulfilling the king’s injunctions with regard to preaching and would not allow the Bible to be read openly in the halls at dinner. A dean named Mr Chedsay had stated that if he saw a scholar with a New Testament, he would burn it. In addition, a Mr Slater was reported for saying that there were some present who could prove the Bishop of Rome’s authority. Those masters and fellows who were deemed to be advocates of the new learning were not admitted to any office of the college.30 These are examples of the mood which existed in various parts of the country during and after the northern uprisings. As Richard Hoyle has stated, the North in the 1530s ‘was not especially conservative so much as typically conservative’.31
What of the perception of Henry, his actions and the Pilgrimage outside of England?
After the start of the rising in Lincolnshire, Chapuys reported to the emperor that a great number had risen there against the king’s commissioners. He stated that the people swore fidelity first to God, secondly to the Church and thirdly to the king. Chapuys also mentioned the Duke of Norfolk as a potential supporter of any rebellion as a means of ruining his rival, Cromwell, and preventing further religious innovations, which were not to his mind.32 It is evident that Chapuys was alert to the opportunity presented by the rising in terms of arresting any further religious innovation and removing the arch-evangelical in the Privy Council. Norfolk, however, was not so foolhardy, and his desire for self-preservation was probably enhanced by the fall of his niece, Anne Boleyn, only four months before. He had also witnessed the examples of Fisher and More. Indeed, Norfolk was to write to Cromwell from Stoke-on-Trent on 8 October and describe how many of the people of the town rejoiced at the situation in Lincolnshire. He stated that if he had not gone there, a rising might have occurred.33