Insurrection Page 7

  Items 4, 6 and 11 deal with the dissolution of the monasteries:

  Item 4: To have the abbayes suppressed to be restoryd unto ther howses land and goodes.

  Item 6: To have the Freres Observauntes restorid unto ther houses agayn.

  Item 11: That doctor Ligh and doctor Layton have condigne ponyshment for theyr extortions in theyr tyme of visitacions, as in bribes of sume religiose houses … and other theyr abhominable actes bt them comytted and done.

  By the autumn of 1536, much of the work of the dissolution of the lesser monasteries had been carried out. The monasteries were part of the fabric of English society and provided education, hospitality, alms, religious services and care for the sick. Those who went on pilgrimages to them could earn indulgences, freeing them from time in Purgatory.95 Monasteries also had a role as landlords and commanded considerable respect. As Richard Rex has argued, the connection of the dissolution with the Pilgrimage of Grace is undeniable and demonstrates a strong loyalty to local institutions. Merriman has made the point that the sight of an ‘army of outcast monks and nuns’ passing by people’s doors, begging for food and shelter, made the religious changes at the centre real and visible in the North.96 As early as July 1536, Chapuys had commented that it was lamentable to see legions of monks and nuns: there were ‘20,000 who knew not how to live’.97

  Robert Aske emphasised the role of the monasteries in popular loyalty98 and stated that the commons wanted the suppressed houses to be reinstated. Aske highlighted the ‘poverty’ of the realm and the North especially. For Aske, much of the relief of the commons of the North was by succour of the abbeys and if this were taken away, poverty would force them to make commotions or rebellions. During his examinations in the Tower in 1537, Aske made a number of points explaining why the Pilgrims called for a restoration of the monasteries. He stated that he grudged against the suppressions and so did the whole country. He also emphasised the fact that the northern abbeys laudably served God by providing alms for the poor.

  For Aske, the suppressions meant that the Divine Service of Almighty God was much diminished: a great number of Masses were not said and the consecration of the sacrament was not performed. This, he said, was a source of distress and jeopardised the spiritual comfort of the soul. The ‘temple of God’ had been pulled down and the ornaments and relics of the church irreverently used. Further, the lands and farms of the monasteries had been given to other ‘farmers’ for pecuniary gain and advantage. Hospitality had become redundant.99 The significance of this will be apparent in later chapters when patronage is examined. The dissolved monasteries gave the monarch a much increased pool of wealth with which he could dispense patronage, reward loyalty and purchase support.

  The Friars Observant (Item 6) had been founded by St Francis and had opposed the Royal Supremacy. Katherine of Aragon especially favoured the order. The order was dissolved in June 1534 and the most obstinate members were sent to the Tower. Henry and Princess Mary had been baptised at the Church of the Friars at Greenwich,100 but the friars were to feel his wrath in their theological and spiritual opposition to his new title. They were believed to be the spreaders of active sedition.

  One of the friars, John Peto, had preached a sermon in front of the king in 1533 and had strongly denounced Henry and compared him to the Old Testament king Ahab. Ahab’s wife was Jezebel and the unspoken implication was that Anne Boleyn was Jezebel. Peto warned that if the king continued on his present course, the dogs would lick his blood, as they had Ahab, after his death. Peto and another friar, Elstow, were reprimanded and banished from the country. Two other friars, Rich and Risby, had been executed in 1534.101

  The Pilgrims also attacked the commissioners for the dissolution: Dr Leigh and Dr Layton are clearly held to account and the Pilgrims perceived them as having taken bribes.

  The following three articles deal with the rights and independence of the Church:

  Item 5: To have the tenth and fyrst frutes clearly discharged of the same,onles the clergy wyll of them selvys graunte a rent charge in genrality to the augmentacion of the crown.

  Item 18: The privilages and ryghtes of the church to be confirmyd by acte of parliament, and prestes not suffre by sourde on les he be disgradid, a man to be savied by his book, sanctuary to save a man for all causes in extreme nede, and the church for xl daies and further according to the laws as they weeyr usid in the begynning of the kinges daies.

  Item 19: The liberties of the church to have ther old customys as the cownty palatyn of Durham, Beverlay, Rippon, Saint Peter of York and such other by acte of parliament.

  The benefit of the clergy is stressed in Item 18 and clearly the Pilgrims’ desired to see a return to previous practices – those in place at the start of Henry’s reign.

  As is evident, the above articles are purely religious in nature, but it is worth highlighting the following:

  Item 3: We humbly beseche our moost dred sovereign lorde that the Lady Mary may be made legitimate and the former statute therin annulled, for the danger of the title that might incurre to the crown of Scotland.

  At this time, in the autumn of 1536, Henry had married Jane Seymour but had yet to produce a legitimate male heir. Both his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, had been bastardised by the Second Act of Succession in 1536, and the Scottish king, James V, son of Henry’s sister, Margaret Tudor, would have had a strong claim to the throne. This would have been disconcerting for the northern people, long accustomed to raids from their perennial enemies. Henry’s record in producing children, especially male children, had been less than impressive so it is easy to understand the lack of faith in his ability to do so. Additionally, Princess Mary was a very popular figure in the country,102 especially the North: her orthodoxy and dislike of heresy and religious innovation was well known. The Pilgrims were obviously seeking to promote a conservative and Catholic potential successor. Elizabeth is conspicuous by her absence.

  Item 15: To have the parliament in a convenient place at Nottyngham or York and the same shortly somonyd.

  Item 23: That no man upon subpoena from Trent north apeyr but at York or by attorney on les it be directid upon payn of allegeance and for lyke maters concerning the kyng.

  The previous two items illustrate the sense of disconnection the Pilgrims felt from the centre of power in the South. A clear geographical demarcation, north of the River Trent, is identified.

  Whilst Fletcher and MacCulloch have described the Pilgrims’ manifestos as ‘highly eclectic’,103 the single issue of religion is by far the most prevalent. The Pontefract Articles do contain other issues, but the nature of protest movements tends to provide opportunities for additional grievances to be ‘tacked on’. As a movement gathers momentum, participants are likely to raise other issues in the hope of having them acknowledged and rectified at the same time. It is abundantly clear that the Pilgrimage of Grace’s driving motivation was religious. One only has to consider its very title and symbolism to identify its primary raison d’être.

  On 6 December it was agreed that these twenty-four articles were to be taken to the king. A general pardon was to be granted and the restored abbeys would be allowed to remain. Two days later, Lancaster Herald brought the general pardon and confirmation was given of a parliament which was to convene at York (although no date was specified). The commons dispersed and the gentlemen met with Norfolk at Doncaster to submit and they then tore off their Pilgrim badges.104 So far as the Pilgrims were concerned, the receipt of the general pardon and the commitment to convene a parliament at York, together with the undertaking that the restored abbeys should stand, must have felt like a mission accomplished. The very fact that King Henry condescended to even contemplate a discourse with the rebels illustrates the sheer magnitude of the insurrection and the potential it displayed to threaten the throne. Thirty thousand men in the field by early modern standards was a huge number. Henry’s own father had claimed the throne by conquest with a mere fraction of that number only fifty-one years previously.
In sum, the evidence indicates clearly that the revolt was religious in causation, despite arguments by some modern historians to the contrary.

  The timing of the risings, hot on the heels of the First Henrician Injunctions and during a period where the monasteries were being suppressed, is surely significant. The Pilgrimage of Grace was undoubtedly a spontaneous, mass public rising and a reaction to change and rumour. It was driven, in the first place, by concerns about the Henrician religious innovations: its very name, the Pontefract Articles and the Pilgrims’ Ballad illustrate this. It was not the result of a conspiracy but an outburst in opposition to those perceived as heretics: these individuals had influenced the king and made him stray from the right path, in particular Thomas Cromwell.

  There has been much debate as to whether Henry ever intended to keep the agreement: to consider the rebels’ grievances, to hold a parliament in York and freely to pardon all the protagonists.105 It is in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage that the king’s response will be examined to try and shed some light on his true intentions.

  The New Year 1537 brought about the resumption of revolts. Why was this? What role did the leaders play and what was the fate of those involved? The aftermath presents us with an opportunity to explore the king’s rhetoric and methods of retribution and reward more thoroughly in the coming chapters.

  Notes

  1 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, pp.26 & 28.

  2 R. Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, p.206.

  3 TNA, SP1/110, f.6 (L&P, Vol. X: 909).

  4 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536, p.436.

  5 BL, Cotton, Vespasian, F/XIII, f.213; TNA SP1/106, f.248 (L&P, Vol. XI: 531 & 533).

  6 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.26; Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536, p.425.

  7 L&P, Vol. XI: 585.

  8 Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace Reconsidered’, No 41, p.70.

  9 TNA, SP1/106, f.248 (L&P, Vol. XI: 533); SP1/106, f.250 (L&P, Vol. XI: 534).

  10 TNA, SP1/106, f.301 (L&P, Vol. XI: 569); SP1/107, f.76 (L&P, Vol. XI: 598) (spelling modernised.)

  11 BL, Cotton, Vespasian, F/XIII, f.213 (L&P, Vol. XI: 531).

  12 TNA, SP1/106, f.260 (L&P, Vol. XI: 547); SP1/106, f.268 (L&P, Vol. XI: 552).

  13 Dickens, ‘Secular and Religious Motivation’, p.75.

  14 L&P, Vol. XI: 563.

  15 TNA, SP1/107 (L&P, Vol. XI: 611) (spelling modernised.)

  16 L&P, Vol. XI: 567.

  17 CSP Sp., Vol. 5.2, Henry VIII, 1536–1538: 104; CSP Sp., Vol. 5.2: 105; L&P, Vol. XI: 597.

  18 TNA, SP1/107, f.116 (L&P, Vol. XI: 622).

  19 TNA, SP1/107, f.136 (L&P, Vol. XI: 645); SP1/107, f.144 (L&P, Vol. XI: 655).

  20 L&P, Vol. XI: 698 (quotation).

  21 TNA, SP1/108, f.43 (L&P, Vol. XI: 704).

  22 TNA, SP1/108, f.50 (L&P, Vol. XI: 705(i)). As Fletcher and MacCulloch have stated, these five articles had been drawn up at Lincoln on 9 October and now survive only in the archives of York. See Tudor Rebellions, pp.142–43. Hoyle has stated that the document was addressed to ‘lords, knights, masters, kinsmen and friends’, and casts doubt about whether or not they were presented to the mayor. See The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, pp. 203–4.

  23 L&P, Vol. XI: 705(ii). This version taken from Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, pp.456–57.

  24 L&P, Vol. XI: 729.

  25 TNA, SP1/108, f.140 (L&P, Vol. XI: 759); SP1/108, f.169 (L&P, Vol. XI: 774).

  26 L&P, Vol. XI: 704(iv) (my italics). This version is taken from Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, pp.143–44. Also in Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, pp.457–58. Original document in the Lancashire Record Office, ‘Derby Correspondence’, DDF/1 (unfoliated). Fletcher and MacCulloch date the oath as being 17 October, whilst Hoyle gives it a date of 24 October. Given the fact that Shrewsbury, Rutland and Huntingdon were aware of it on 18 October, the earlier date appears more accurate. In any event, the fact that the rebels were so eager to receive it at this point is what is of real significance.

  27 TNA, SP1/108, f.180 (L&P, Vol. XI: 784); SP1/108, f.183 (L&P, Vol. XI: 785); SP1/108, f.184 (L&P, Vol. XI: 786).

  28 Ibid. See Mary Bateson, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace’, English Historical Review, Vol. 5, No 18 (April 1890), pp.330–45. See also Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, pp.144–45.

  29 TNA, SP1/108 (L&P, Vol. XI: 826) (spelling modernised).

  30 Ibid.

  31 Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation, p.127; pp.120–21.

  32 Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation, p.119; Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace Reconsidered’, p.63; Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation, p.99; Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace Reconsidered’, p.65.

  33 TNA, SP1/110, ff.141–48 (L&P, Vol. XI: 970).

  34 L&P, Vol. XI: 848.

  35 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.32.

  36 Elton, ‘Politics & the Pilgrimage of Grace’, pp.32 & 36.

  37 L&P, Vol. XI: 569, 956, 957, 1175.

  38 TNA, SP1/106, f.301 (L&P, Vol. XI: 569 & 780).

  39 TNA, SP1/108, f.118 (L&P, Vol. XI: 748) (spelling modernised); SP1/109, f.251, f.257; SP1/110 f.1 (L&P, Vol. XI: 906, 907, 908). See also, Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, 2007, p.319. This assessment is yet another at odds with Elton’s claim with regard to the size of the movement.

  40 TNA, SP1/110, f.6 (L&P, Vol. XI: 909).

  41 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, p.433.

  42 TNA, SP1/110, f.8 (L&P, Vol. XI: 910).

  43 TNA, SP1/110, ff. 100–14 (L&P, Vol. XI: 956). See, for instance, L&P, Vol. XI: 957, 1064.

  44 L&P, Vol. XI: 995.

  45 TNA, SP1/111, f.9 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1007).

  46 TNA, SP1/111, f.59 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1045).

  47 TNA, SP1/111 f.9 (L&P Vol. XI: 1007).

  48 TNA, SP1/110, f.137 (L&P, Vol. XI: 969).

  49 L&P, Vol. XI: 1069; TNA, SP1/111, f.117 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1079).

  50 TNA, SP1/111, f.122 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1086) (spelling modernised); SP1/111, ff.133–34 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1096); SP1/112, f.2 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1167) (spelling modernised).

  51 Elton, ‘Politics & the Pilgrimage of Grace’, p.37; TNA, SP1/106, ff.234–41 (L&P, Vol. XI: 522).

  52 Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, p.273.

  53 See TNA, SP1/108, f.33,SP1/108, f.106 (L&P, Vol. XI: 692,729,739).

  54 TNA, SP1/108, f.29 (L&P, Vol. XI: 689).

  55 TNA, SP1/107, f.154,SP1/107, f.156, SP1/108, f.3 (L&P, Vol. XI: 663, 665, 672).

  56 Elton, ‘Politics & the Pilgrimage of Grace’, p.37; Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace 1536–37, p.19.

  57 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, p.425.

  58 Elton, ‘Politics & the Pilgrimage of Grace’, p.39.

  59 Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace Reconsidered’, p.41.

  60 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.342; Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.337.

  61 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.347.

  62 L&P, Vol. XI: 714 (quotation).

  63 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 2004, p.35.

  64 BL, Add MS 38133 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1128).

  65 L&P, Vol. XI: 1128 (quotation).

  66 L&P, Vol. XI: 1143, 1159.

  67 L&P, Vol. XI: 1173, 1183.

  68 Elton, Reform and Reformation, p.252; ‘Politics & the Pilgrimage of Grace’, pp. 40, 41, 45, 47 & 52.

  69 L&P, Vol. XI: 1175 (quotation).

  70 TNA, SP1/112, ff.151–57 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1271). Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536, 1996, p.409. The concept of the body politic was the accepted political analogy in Tudor England and ‘conceived of social structure through the prism of the human body’. See Jonathan Gil Harr
is, Foreign Bodies and the Body Politic: Discourses of Social Pathology in Early Modern England, Cambridge, 1998, p.1. This theme is recurrent and will be discussed in subsequent chapters.

  71 L&P, Vol. XI: 1228.

  72 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, pp.10 & 12.

  73 L&P, Vol. XI: 1236.

  74 TNA, SP1/112, f18 (L&P Vol. XI: 1246).

  75 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp.110–11, 113, 115–17.

  76 Germain Marc’hadour, ‘Fisher and More: a note’, in Humanism, Reform and the Reformation: The Career of Bishop John Fisher, Brendan Bradshaw & Eamon Duffy (eds), Cambridge, 1989, p.105.

  77 Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Bishop John Fisher, 1469–1535: the man and his work’ in Humanism, Reform and Reformation, p.9.

  78 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.401.

  79 Marshall, The Reformation: A Very Short Introduction, p.4.

  80 Elton, Reformation Europe, p.101.

  81 G.W. Bernard, ‘The Making of Religious Policy, 1533–46: Henry VIII and the Search for the Middle Way’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 41, No 2 (June 1998), pp.321–49.

  82 David Sandler Berkowitz, Humanist Scholarship and Public Order: Two Tracts against the Pilgrimage of Grace by Sir Richard Morison, London, 1984, p.168.

  83 Elton, Reformation Europe, p.42; Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, pp.162–74.

  84 Daniel Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England, Aldershot, 2007, pp.19–21.