Insurrection

by Susan Loughlin

  Numerous examples of the way in which the Pilgrimage and the Henrician religious innovations were perceived by Catholic Europe, most notably the papacy, the emperor and Cardinal Pole, have been given. However, one has to conclude that the vast majority of this was empty rhetoric. Examples of contemporary domestic dissent have been highlighted and such examples were not exclusive to the North of England. Lucy Wooding has described the rhetoric which followed the Royal Supremacy as ‘exalted, inspirational and menacing’, and maintains that the overriding perception of King Henry was as that of a bully. Indeed, it would be difficult to deviate from Wooding’s view that the rhetoric of the 1530s was grand but that it was a statement of intent rather than a reflection of reality. Wooding is also of the opinion that the religious rhetoric with which Henry justified his laws and proclamations was questionable in both its logic and sincerity.62

  Given the fact that Henry continually changed his opinions on doctrine, this is a fair assessment. The only constant was the king’s Erastian position and consequent obsession with the Royal Supremacy. The continual changing of doctrinal position should make it clear that the word ‘reformation’ should not properly be used in conjunction with the king’s behaviour from the 1530s to the end of his reign. It was clearly subject to change, based upon the monarch’s personal whims, and, as such, should properly be regarded as an experiment.

  Exalted the rhetoric undoubtedly was. Propagandists like Morison underpinned the legitimacy of the official Henrician position and the regime placed a great emphasis on the theme of obedience. However, Henry’s own theological ideas were erratic: the numbers of sacraments varied at times in the 1530s, as did the belief in the doctrine of Purgatory. Added to that the inconsistent teaching on Transubstantiation, it is small wonder that the king’s subjects were confused and apprehensive. Henry’s theology was chopped and changed to suit his own personal moods and desires. It was also altered when politically expedient: for instance, he flirted with Lutheran doctrine when an alliance with the German princes suited him. He then reversed his position in 1539 with the more conservative Act of the Six Articles, when he had felt it expedient in order to demonstrate his orthodoxy to the Catholic powers in Europe.

  The monarch who had basked in the approval of the papacy for his treatise against Martin Luther in 1521 now regarded the pope as his arch-nemesis. Henry appears to have conveniently brushed his previously held orthodox beliefs to one side to justify his own actions. His subjects were understandably bewildered. That the king should have changed so dramatically must have been due to evil influence – be that Anne Boleyn or Thomas Cromwell. Both Starkey and Erasmus had emphasised the danger of royal reason succumbing to the passions, especially if it were tempted by evil flattery.63 It would appear that both the former queen and the Lord Privy Seal fitted the bill. The Pilgrimage of Grace was an expression of this insecurity and the northern risings were not treasonous, in so far as they blamed the influence of Cromwell and his fellow heretics and not the monarch. The Pilgrims, as has been demonstrated here, were by no means alone in their hostility to the Henrician religious experiments. Dissent existed in all parts of England and disapproval of the king’s proceedings continued (albeit covertly) well into subsequent reigns.

  The Religiosity of the North in the wake of the Pilgrimage of Grace

  The movement was religiously motivated, but what impact did it have on the North of England in religious terms and indeed what does the event and its aftermath reveal about the Henrician project? We know about the retribution taken by the king in the wake of the rising and another significant rising in the region was not attempted for more than thirty years – the Northern Rebellion in 1569. What can be ascertained about the religiosity of the region in the intervening period? Unfortunately, we are severely hampered in this regard due to the paucity of evidence. Churchwardens’ accounts would be the most informative tool in this regard but the North of England is sorely bereft of such accounts.64 Diana Newton has found that not a single account exists for the diocese of Durham before 1580.65

  What sources are likely to reveal indications of religious sentiment, then? In the absence of churchwardens’ accounts, wills have been used, as they can be a valuable signifier of religious change. However, as W. Sheils has pointed out, wills can be difficult to assess statistically. Traditional wills mentioned prayers for the dead, Masses for the soul, the Blessed Virgin and the saints. Such wills therefore would indicate an orthodox and Catholic religious belief of the testator. Richard Rex has, however, cautioned against the evidence of wills for religious belief and practice in Henry’s reign and stated that it needs to be handled with great care.66 This book has attempted a study of a cross-section sample of wills from across the North with a view to gauging religious sentiment: a sample of 355 wills have been studied.

  The first sample is taken from the Testamenta Eboracensia67 and covers wills from the registry at York between 1536 and 1551. A total of 192 wills were studied in this sample, of which 140 (73 per cent) contained traditional preambles. Such preambles mentioned that the soul of the testator was bequeathed to ‘Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin, the saints and all the celestial company of heaven’. Unequivocally Protestant wills did not contain such preambles and number only thirty-five (18 per cent) in this batch. Of these, fifteen were drawn up in the reign of Edward VI, as might be expected. Wills that explicitly mentioned Mass for the testator’s soul comprise thirty-three (17 per cent) over the period, and other stipulations for prayers for the dead number forty-two (22 per cent).

  Given that the First Henrician Injunctions and the Ten Articles had refuted the doctrine of Purgatory, it is hardly surprising that testators erred on the side of caution in this respect. What is interesting are the wills which clearly demonstrate an individual’s concern with complying with the law of the land and the monarch’s personal whims to the detriment of committing to paper their own personal wishes and feelings on these matters. There are a fair proportion of wills (forty-two, or 22 per cent) where the testators appear to ‘hedge their bets’, and one gets the impression that they did not wish their families to fall foul of the authorities by not adhering to official doctrine.

  This batch of wills includes those of the nobility and gentry and some individuals who featured in the Pilgrimage of Grace. Henry Clifford, Earl of Cumberland’s will, dated 2 April 1541 and proved on 4 June 1543, was traditional and specified diriges and Masses for his soul. This clearly indicates conservative religious persuasions. He left money to pay for the singing of a requiem and dirge by every curate in Westmorland and Craven willing to do so.68 Yet this northern magnate remained steadfastly loyal to the Crown and was evidently able to put his own religious scruples to one side during the risings.

  Katherine, the Countess of Northumberland in her will in 1542 specified that an annual Mass should be said for her soul.69 Similarly, Sir Ralph Eure, Sir Marmaduke Constable and Sir John Eland made traditional wills which are included in this sample. Ralph Eure’s will was made on 6 May 1544 and was of the traditional type, and his offices passed to his father. It specified that a priest should pray and sing for his soul before Our Lady of Walsingham.70 It was, thus, hardly indicative of firm Protestant leanings. Ralph’s offices passed to his father, William. William made his own will on 25 February 1548 and it contained a traditional preamble. Unlike Ralph, but in common with many of his contemporaries, William erred on the side of caution and hedged his bets. He specified that ‘such obsequies and funeral expenses as shall and ought to appertain to be done for a baron after the custom of Englande’.71 His will was made, of course, during the reign of Edward VI and Baron Eure obviously wanted to ensure that his will did not compromise his position or betray his own religious persuasions, whatever they may have been.

  Sir Marmaduke Constable made his will on 2 March 1541 and it was traditional. He specified Mass and dirige for his soul72 and he divided his property between his sons.73 John Eland, the Mayor of Hull during the Pilgrimage, died in 1542. Hi
s will, made shortly before his death on 29 April, was traditional in form and revealingly specified an annual dirige and that a priest should sing for his soul for six years.74 Christopher Stapleton, the father of the rehabilitated rebel William, made his will shortly after the punishments of the rebellions were carried out. On 30 July 1537, his will was drafted and was very traditional: it specified Masses to be said for him, his mother and father for a period of seven years after his own death.75 The father appears to have possessed a stronger courage of conviction than the son.

  The second sample studied relates to wills covering York, Nottingham, Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland between 1535 and 1547.76 These wills reveal that twenty-nine out of eighty-five (34 per cent) were traditional and Catholic – they included provisos for prayers for the dead and Masses. Included in this batch is the will of George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, which is very traditional, and Brian Higden, the Dean of York, whose will, dated 1539, specified that, ‘I will that a prest shall synge for me for five years’.77 Unsurprisingly, the number of traditional preambles drops off dramatically following the accession of Edward VI in 1547, with only one out of twenty-three being of this kind. More surprising is the fact that there is not a significant increase during the reign of Queen Mary, with only two out of thirteen displaying orthodox belief. One of the two was the Archbishop of York, Robert Holgate, in 1555 but revealingly, Michael Wentworth, Master of the Queen’s Household, only specified that he wished ‘to be buried in Christian man’s burial’.78

  Another sample examined is from the registry at Durham.79 This sample covers the years 1538–58, during the reigns of Henry, Edward and Mary. This reveals that twenty of the forty-five wills (44 per cent) were traditional and Catholic, mentioning saints and, crucially, provision for Masses for the soul of the deceased. In 1538, one John Hedworth in Chester specified that he wanted Masses for three years and anniversary Masses ‘for ever more’.80 Similarly, in 1540 Sir Roger Gray, brother-in-law to Lord Darcy, specified that money be given to a priest to pray for his soul for a year.81

  On the other hand, there are examples to the contrary. Robert Lord Ogle (1544) stated that, ‘I give my sowle to God omnipotent’, and Robert Gower of Berwick (1545) referred to Henry as Supreme Head of the Church of England and Ireland ‘immediately under God’.82

  Some testators were astute in the drafting of their wills and hedged their bets, and we see other examples in this batch. For instance, one Henry Anderson of Newcastle (1558) specified, ‘as I maye be layd wth my dutie to the vicar as the lawe hathe ordeyned’.83

  A further study sample concentrates on Durham wills between 1543 and 1558 and refers to minor gentry and tradesmen.84 Of these, twelve out of thirty-three (36 per cent) are traditional. Again, we see examples of testators being shrewd and hedging their bets. One Henry Sanderson (1550) left his money to ‘poore naked children’, but also specified that 3 shillings be given to ‘three old men to praye for my soull’. Ambrose Middleton (1555) specified ‘such divine service to be songe or said in the very day of my burial as shall appertain to the order and custome of the churche’ – and this was during Mary’s reign. In a similar fashion, Ralph Hutton (1558) wished his burial to be in accordance with ‘the laws of this realme’.85

  These samples of wills were examined to try and ascertain any trends in religious belief and practice in the North in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage and into the subsequent reigns. These, at least, indicate that traditional piety still existed but only overtly in approximately a third of cases. This appears somewhat surprising to the present writer, who had expected it to be a higher proportion at the outset. The fact that a relatively high proportion of individuals sought to shield themselves and their heirs from suspicion by inserting provisos that their executors dispose of their goods, for the health of their souls, in accordance with statute is surely significant and reveals that they were wary of falling foul of the preferences of the monarch of the day. There are also numerous references to bequests for priests without stipulation – might it be possible that these priests were already aware of the testator’s wishes but the individual had been reluctant to commit these wishes to writing?

  However, it is only a relatively small sample and cannot really be used to extrapolate a figure for the North as a whole. As Richard Rex has stated, definitive statements ‘about popular religious beliefs and allegiances in an age which had neither the census nor the opinion poll are always going to be beyond the scope of the historian’.86 It is, however, worth highlighting the will of John Longland, the Bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1547. He left, according to Sheils, a diocese with priests and laity as conservative as he was. Longland’s own will is quite illuminating. He left money to almsmen of Henley and required them to say five ‘Our Fathers’, five ‘Hail Marys’ and one creed each morning ‘in the worship of the Five Wounds’.87 The bishop’s servant, John Joseph, had made his own will in 1537 and this was also traditional in form.88

  So, what can be deduced with regard to the religiosity of the region and in which context should it be placed in terms of a national historiography? It is worth briefly noting the Wakefield Conspiracy in March 1541. With the exception of Geoffrey Dickens, most historians have tended to minimise its importance. Although the North appears to have settled in the four years after the Pilgrimage, by 1541 the king had acquired the lands of the convicted rebels and all the monasteries were now gone.89 Fifteen people were indicted as a result of the discovery of a plot to assassinate the president of the Council of the North, Robert Holgate. The objective was to demonstrate discontent with religious policy and remove central government interference in local affairs. The period between the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Northern Rebellion was, though, a comparatively peaceful interlude. So why did the North rise again in rebellion in 1569? The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the North still harboured disaffected individuals and still retained Catholic sympathies, or else it would not have been fertile ground for recruitment for another revolt. As Bastow has stated, the 1569 rising is ‘most usually viewed as a Catholic revolt’.90

  Diana Newton has stated that the Pilgrimage itself more than compensates for the lack of churchwardens’ accounts in the north-east, as thousands of people were willing to risk their lives to defend traditional belief and practices.91 She has also argued that there is abundant evidence of efforts to restore the fabric of the Catholic Church and to revive its rites and practices, both during the Northern Rising of 1569 and in its immediate aftermath. The rebels again used the imagery of the Five Wounds of Christ. According to the many depositions taken after the rebellion, Masses and anthems were sung in Durham Cathedral.92

  The traditional and Catholic persuasions of members of the gentry such as the Babthorpes and Danbys continued for decades. The samples of wills were studied in an attempt to gauge the religious sympathies of the testators from the time of the Pilgrimage and into the subsequent reigns. The Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Cumberland and Sir Marmaduke Constable made traditional wills, despite having outwardly opposed the Pilgrimage.93 These wills, however, can only provide us with a limited insight into the real consciences of private men and women and, as such, need to be treated with caution.

  The 1569 rising can be attributed, like the Pilgrimage, to religion. The nobility, however, featured much more prominently in 1569 than they had in 1536 and the Earl of Northumberland was later beatified by the Catholic Church for his role in it. The Earl of Westmorland was to spend the remainder of his long life in exile, intriguing with Catholic continental powers. It is also worth mentioning that the Duke of Norfolk’s heir, his grandson – another Thomas Howard – was implicated in the 1569 rising. The 4th Duke had become embroiled in intrigues with the imprisoned Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots and had even proposed marriage to her, without the consent of Queen Elizabeth. He was executed as a traitor for his part in the Ridolfi plot in 1572.94 The Pilgrimage and the Northern Rising obviously support the contention that the region was
still, on the whole, conservative in its religious belief.

  Examples of opposition thus existed throughout the realm; from the overtly rebellious North of England to Essex, Suffolk, Oxford, the West Country, Middlesex, through to Wales and Ireland. Broadly speaking though, the evidence examined shows Yorkshire and Lincolnshire as the location of the fiercest opposition. The North may have been outwardly compliant in the period between the two rebellions, but dissent was still very much a feature of northern society and the region retained and harboured orthodox and conservative tendencies.

  Notes

  1 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.338.

  2 M.A.R. Graves, Henry VIII: A Study in Kingship, London, 2003, p.45.

  3 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 2004, p.14.

  4 TNA, SP1/108, f.212 (L&P, Vol. XI: 807).

  5 L&P, Vol. XI: 860.

  6 L&P, Vol. XI: 920.

  7 TNA, SP1/107, f.144 (L&P, Vol. XI: 655); L&P XI: 841.

  8 L&P, Vol. XI: 1231; Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.320.

  9 L&P, Vol. XI: 1393.

  10 Ibid., 1425.

  11 Ibid., 1245.

  12 TNA, SP1/112, f.178 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1292) (spelling modernised).