A series of revolts against the Crown broke out in the autumn of 1536. What actually precipitated them? It will be argued here that the cause of religion was the paramount motivator for the participants and that the revolts were, in essence, spontaneous and popular. The king’s religious innovations were discussed in the previous chapter. In addition to the dissemination of the Ten Articles and First Henrician Injunctions, government commissioners were working in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in September and October in an ‘atmosphere of rumour and alarm’. It was the presence of these commissioners in Lincolnshire, following the first wave of the dissolution of the monasteries, that arguably was the catalyst that unleashed the latent fear and resentment of a huge number of the king’s subjects in the North.
Although the Lincolnshire Rising ended by 11 October when the gentry sued for pardon,1 the revolt had spread to Yorkshire and gathered pace. It is the Yorkshire rising which is correctly referred to as the Pilgrimage of Grace and the title seems to have been devised by the rebel leader, Robert Aske, at York2 – it is first mentioned in the State Papers on 14 October. The revolt was so large that the Duke of Norfolk referred to it as representing ‘all the floure of the north’3 and it was brought to an end on 8 December when the king’s messenger, Lancaster Herald, brought a general pardon and the commons dispersed.4 A number of renewed revolts broke out early in 1537 and will be discussed in the following chapter; these will be referred to, using Professor Michael Bush’s term, as the Post-pardon Revolts.
The first references to a disturbance in Lincolnshire in the State Papers are dated 3 October and refer to ‘rebellious knaves’ in Lyndsey and a ‘great multitude of people from Loweth’.5 The rebellion actually commenced in Louth on 2 October, when the Bishop of Lincoln’s registrar was seized, and it was heralded by bell-ringing and assemblies.6 This was followed by the murder of the Bishop of Lincoln’s chancellor, Dr Raynes, and the burning of his books. The rebels stated that they wanted the suppression of the monasteries to cease and they wanted Cranmer, Latimer, the Bishop of Lincoln and Cromwell delivered up to them or else banished from the realm.7 The main architects of the rhetoric of reform were thus targets for the rebels.
The religious intent of the first outbreak of trouble at Louth was on Sunday, 1 October 1536 – a yeoman and singing-man, Thomas Foster, stated, ‘we shall never follow [the Cross] more’ in procession.8 Lord Thomas Burgh advised the king on 3 October that a sudden great magnitude of people from Louth had come within a mile of him and said that they would not pay any more silver and had caused the church bells to be rung. Sir Robert Tyrwhyt reported on the same day that 20,000 of the king’s ‘true and faithful subjects’ had assembled because it had been reported that all jewels and goods of the churches were to be taken away to the King’s Council.9 The commissioners had been working in an atmosphere where rumours were rife that the Crown intended to appropriate the goods of the parish churches, and it was small wonder that these were believed when everything else in the matter of religion seemed to be changing. The king reproached the Commissioners for the Subsidy early in the rebellion and stated that the removal of the goods of parish churches had never been intended, and he advised Thomas, Lord Darcy on 8 October that it appeared that the insurrection ‘grew by crafty persons reporting that we would take the goods of all the churches’.10
Lord John Hussey appears to have been the first to have mentioned the Lincolnshire Rising, in a letter to the Mayor of Lincoln, Robert Sutton, on 3 October 1536.11 Hussey advised Cromwell that the country was becoming increasingly rebellious on 5 October, and the rebels’ oath was reported to Cromwell the same day. Its religious tone is illuminating: ‘Ye shall swere to be trew to Allmyte god, to crystes catholyke churche, to owr sovereyne Lorde the Kynge and unto the comons of thys realme so helpe you god’.12 Sir Marmaduke Constable and Robert Tyrwhyt also reported that the rebels’ petition was for pardon and that they may keep holy days as in the past and also that the suppressed religious houses might remain. So, even at this early (and less serious) stage of the Northern Rebellions, the rebels were clear that they opposed the dissolution of the monasteries. It is thus hard to see why Dickens could have argued that the ‘monasteries should be deleted from religious motives’.13
Lord Darcy wrote to the king of the situation in Lincolnshire on 6 October. He spoke of ‘seditions’ in Northumberland which were dangerous and encouraged by the Scots. The rebels’ oath was to suffer neither spoils nor suppressions of abbeys, parish churches or their jewels.14 In the light of what was to come later, the king’s letter to Darcy of 9 October is somewhat curious. Henry praised Darcy’s wisdom and diligence and stated, ‘what an opinion we must have of your fidelity’.15 About this time, the king’s gentleman usher, Christopher Ascugh, informed Cromwell that the rebels had used ‘rigorous’ words against the Lord Privy Seal and that the Prior of Spalding had refused to help against the rebels, stating that he was a spiritual man.16
Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, was duly diligent in reporting the events to the emperor. On 7 October, he advised Charles V that there had been a great rising against the king’s commissioners over the previous five days. He informed Charles that the uprising was against the demolition of the abbeys and convents throughout England, with the rioters blaming Cromwell. The ambassador also informed his imperial counterpart at Rome, the Count of Cifuentes. Revealingly, Chapuys stated that the rising had no leader of note and cautioned that popular risings of the sort, which at first appeared formidable, often ended in smoke;17 not exactly the report of an arch-conspirator in the commotions.
Robert Aske is first referred to in a letter of 9 October, when he and others issued a proclamation for all men to assemble on Skypwithe Moor in order to take the oath to be ‘true to the king’s issue and the noble blood, to preserve the church from spoil and be true to the common wealth’.18 The following day, the town of Beverley in Yorkshire wrote to the commons of Lincolnshire stating that they too had risen. They stressed that the commons were sworn to their prince but were hostile towards his counsellors. They wished to enquire as to whether the captains and commons in Lincolnshire required their help. At the same time, parishioners and tenants in Northumberland were petitioning their priest, Master Deyn, to pray for the pope of Rome as the head of their mother Holy Church.19
The Lincolnshire rebels sued for pardon on 11 October, by which stage the Yorkshire rising was underway. Writing to the empress on 14 October, Eustace Chapuys informed her that a ‘great number of men’ had risen who ‘object to the suppression of churches, wishing ecclesiastical matters to be as formerly’.20 He also mentioned the position of the princess (Mary) and advised that her cause would be the next important issue for the rebels, after that of the Church. We would expect Chapuys’ rhetoric to be anti-heretical and perhaps prone to exaggeration, but the numbers he put the rebels at (30,000–50,000) and his succinct summary regarding religion are indicative of quite an informed and accurate picture of the insurrection at this stage.
This first stage of the insurrection in the North was over by 11 October and it is the uprisings in Yorkshire, led by Robert Aske, a London-based lawyer, which are properly referred to as the Pilgrimage of Grace. On 14 October, the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of York wrote to advise the king that the commons had rebelliously assembled and that York was ‘ill provided’ for defence.21 A copy of a set of rebel articles existed in York at this time, addressed ‘To the king our sovereign lord’, and these contained five broad grievances.22 They reveal the religious concerns of the rebels and also their distaste for members of the government. It is worth highlighting three of the articles to illustrate the mindset of the participants:
Item 1: By the suppression of so many religious houses, the service of God is not well performed and the people unrelieved.
Item 4: The king takes of his Council, and has about him, persons of low birth and small reputation who have procured these things for their own advantage, whom we suspect to be Lord Cromwell and Sir Richard Riche, Chancellor of the Augmentations.
Item 5: Are grieved that there are bishops of the king’s late promotion who have subverted the faith of Christ, the bishops of Canterbury, Rochester, Worcester, Salisbury, St David’s and Dublin.
Robert Aske also issued a proclamation to the City of York between 15 and 16 October, which denied that the rebels had assembled on account of impositions laid on them but because ‘evil-disposed persons being of the king’s council’ were responsible for ‘many and sundry new inventions, which be contrary [to] the faith of God … and thereby intendeth to destroy the church and … further intending utterly to spoil and rob the whole body of this realm’. The proclamation said that whether what was stated were true or not should be put to conscience but that if those who decided to fight against them should prevail, it would put ‘both us and you and your heirs and ours in bondage forever’. The proclamation went on to state clearly that ‘we will fight and die against both you and those that shall be about … to stop us in the said pilgrimage, and God shall judge which shall have his grace mercy …’23
Darcy and the other lords in Pontefract Castle wrote to the earls of Shrewsbury, Rutland and Huntingdon on 15 October and advised that 20,000 men were meeting at York and that they were in no doubt that the commons of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire received messages from each other – ‘they increase in every parish and the cross goes before them’.24 Sir Brian Hastings informed Shrewsbury of Aske’s triumphal entry into York on 16 October by letter the following day. According to Hastings, the rebels were present in an area between Doncaster and Newcastle and numbered 40,000. He was of the opinion that Lord Thomas Darcy would surrender Pontefract Castle and the rebels had already taken the abbey.
At this juncture, Hastings advised that Lords Latimer and Scrope had been sworn by the rebels. He implored Shrewsbury urgently to advise the king as he didn’t dare trust anyone and confirmed that the rebels had been received at York the previous Monday with a procession at 5 p.m. The momentum was clearly with the rebels: on 18 October, Shrewsbury, Rutland and Huntingdon advised the Duke of Suffolk of the fact that the mayor and commons of Doncaster had been sworn to the rebels’ cause: ‘never sheep ran faster in a morning owte of their fold than they did to receive the said othe’.25
Aske prepared an oath to be sworn by the participants and it appears to be at this stage, whilst at York, that the term Pilgrimage of Grace was devised. The oath is a highly illuminating declaration of the rebels’ rhetoric:
Ye shall not enter into this our Pilgrimage of Grace for the commonwealth, but only for the love that ye do bear unto almighty God, his faith and to holy church militant [and for] the maintenance therof, to the preservation of the king’s person [and] his issue, to the purifying of the nobility, and to expulse all villain blood and evil councillors against the commonwealth from his grace and his privy council of the same. And ye shall not enter into our said Pilgrimage for no particular profit to yourself, nor to do any displeasure to any private person, but by the counsel of the commonwealth, nor slay nor murder for no envy, but in your hearts put away fear and dread, and take afore you the Cross of Christ, and in your hearts his faith, the restitution of the church, the suppression of these heretics and their opinions by the holy contents of this book.26
Aske followed this dazzling early success with an order for the suppressed religious houses to be restored and prepared a draft of protection for the monastery of St Mary’s at Salley (Sawley) in Lancashire. The abbot and monks had been reinstated there by the commons on 12 October. The monastery then petitioned Sir Henry Percy, stating that the whole country supported the monks in entering their house and was ready to extend the pilgrimage of Christ’s faith. Sawley monastery was a hot bed of dissent and resistance and two revealing documents are to be found in the convent’s papers from this time. The first is a paper written in Latin entitled Summa Summarum, which stated that it was lawful to fight for faith and country, that men should bear injuries done to themselves, but not those done to God and their neighbours.27 The second is an example of anti-regime religious rhetoric in the form of a poem which has come to be known as the Pilgrims’ Ballad.28 It contains sixteen stanzas of seven lines each; listed here are six of them which serve as an illustration as to the nature of the concerns and grievances of the Pilgrims and will be analysed in turn:
Crist crucifyd!
For thy woundes wide
Vs commons guyde!
Which pilgrames be,
Thrughe godes grace,
For to purchache
Olde welth and peax
Of the spiritualtie.
The crucified Christ is called upon to guide the commons in their pilgrimage. Through God’s grace, they believed they would achieve their objective of the restoration of the spiritual peace. We see here the emphasis placed upon the (five) wounds of Christ.
The following stanzas deal with the role of the monasteries:
Gaif to releif,
Whome for amice greve
Boith day and even,
And can no wirke;
Yet this thay may,
Boith night and day
Rusorte and pray
Vnto godes kyrke
Those unable to work had been provided with relief. The fact that the monasteries provided alms for the poor is reiterated in the following stanzas. The poor commons had been prompted into action for the Church’s sake. This, it was said, was not surprising because it was clear that the decay of the Church, if allowed to continue un-checked, would be sorely lamented by the poor:
Alacke! Alacke!
For the church sake
Pore comons wake,
And no marvell!
For clere it is
The decay of this
How the pore shall mys
No tong can tell
The succour given to the poor is again highlighted; the abbeys provided the needy and distressed with both ale and bread:
For ther they hade
Boith ale and breyde
At tyme of nede,
And succer grete
In alle distresse
And hevynes,
And wel intrete
The people had been misled by lack of grace into following an erroneous belief:
Thus interlie
Peax and petie,
Luf and mercie,
For to purchache
For mannys mysdeyd,
And wrongfull crede
Most fer myslede,
Throght lack of grace.
The final stanza here contains an explicit reference to Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer and Richard Rich. These three individuals and their ‘like’ (i.e. adherents) needed to be shown the way by God and to amend their ways. Robert Aske was given the role of undertaking this task, and if he were to be successful, all would be well:
Crim, crame, and riche
With thre ell and the liche
As sum men teache.
God theym amend!
And that Aske may,
Without delay,
Here make a stay
And well to end!
The ballad sheds light on the Pilgrims’ perception of the true religion, the role of the monasteries and the authors of their misfortune. The six stanzas above provide a representation of the mindset of the rebels and demonstrate their areas of concern.
The Earl of Shrewsbury sent Lancaster Herald to Pontefract on 21 October and the herald’s account sheds light on the views of the commons, the conditions within the castle and the government’s rhetoric. He stated that he encountered the commons, in harness, en route to Pontefract and asked them why they were in harness, to which they replied that it was to prevent the Church from being destroyed. The herald described how he was sent for by Aske and had a discussion with him: his description of Aske is (as might be expected) hostile. He referred to him as having an ‘inestimable proud countenance’ and described him as holding court ‘like a great prince’ and ‘tyrant’. Aske prevented him from reading his intended proclamation at the Market Cross and stated that his people were true to the articles that they must see a reformation or die. When the herald asked what the articles were he was told that one was to go with his company to London on pilgrimage to the king to have all vile blood put from the council. In addition, he sought to have the faith of Christ and God’s laws kept and restitution for the wrongs done to the Church.29
The herald’s intended proclamation stated that the king’s subjects had behaved unnaturally and believed false and spiteful inventions devised to bring the country to ruin. They had shown their unnatural behaviour to the king, who had chief charge of both their souls and bodies. It went on to state that the herald was authorised to declare a general pardon in the king’s name if he perceived that the rebels were ready to submit.30 The issue of the king’s capacity to have cure of both the bodies and souls of his subjects was obviously integral to the Royal Supremacy and, as Shagan has pointed out, this imposed upon people’s religious sensibilities a paradigm of political loyalty. As regards the concept of the cure of souls (in Latin, Cura Animarum), and the idea that this function could be possessed by the monarch, these were rejected even by the evangelical Sir Francis Bigod who leapt to prominence in the renewed Northern Rebellions in 1537. Bigod was to write a treatise against the Royal Supremacy and stated that ‘the king’s office was to have no cure of souls’.31
Historians differ with respect to the primary motivation for the insurrection. For instance, Ethan Shagan argues that the issue of the Royal Supremacy was often crucial, whilst C.S.L. Davies believes that it was probably the least important issue for the Pilgrims. However, both agree that the dissolution of the monasteries was pivotal among the grievances. Shagan is of the opinion that the maintenance of the monasteries was ‘an absolute moral imperative’ and Davies states that the dissolution was probably the major single cause of the revolt.32 These views can be sharply contrasted with Dickens, who, as has been shown, stated that monasteries should be deleted from the list of grievances. Thomas Kendall, the vicar of Louth (the birthplace of the rebellions), succinctly summarised the role that both issues played. The people, he said, had indeed long grudged that the king should be head of the Church and were opposed to the putting down of holy days and of monasteries. Kendall was of the opinion that ‘if any o[ne would ry]se all would ryse’.33 The examination of the rebel articles of the Pilgrimage of Grace which follows later will highlight that both issues were extremely important to the participants.
After Lancaster Herald’s ‘mission’ to Pontefract, the rebellion continued with musters taking place in Yorkshire and Cumberland. The Bishop of Faenza, the papal nuncio in France, reported on 23 October that 40,000 were in arms ‘on account of the abbeys which the king had suppressed, taking away crosses and chalices and giving away the property to whomsoever he pleased’.34 The bishop here touched on a point that requires further consideration – the role of reward and patronage in securing obedience in the matter of the king’s religious changes. The dissolution of the monasteries and the granting of land and wealth to lay subjects created a symbiotic relationship with the Crown, one that was to have far-reaching implications for the future of both English Roman Catholicism and English society. Thomas Cromwell was central to the award of grants at this time. The issues of reward and patronage with regard to the Pilgrimage of Grace and the North of England will be discussed in a later chapter.
How had a situation come about where a rising of this magnitude had continued unchallenged for over three weeks? By late October, nine well-armed hosts had formed and all regarded Aske as their leader or Grand Captain. The government, it seems, was caught off guard: the king had disbanded an army he had sent northwards to engage the Lincolnshire rebels on 19 October at Ampthill in Bedfordshire, thinking that it was no longer required. The Duke of Suffolk remained in Lincolnshire dealing with the aftermath of the rising there and the Earl of Shrewsbury was still at Nottingham, awaiting the king’s orders.35 Lord Darcy and the majority of the gentry, including Sir Robert Constable and Archbishop Edward Lee, had joined the rebels at Pontefract Castle.
The gentry, nobility and higher clergy all claimed that they had been coerced into the rebellion but, according to Elton, the ‘tale rings very false’. Three key figures in the rebellion were Lord Hussey in Lincolnshire, Lord Darcy in the West Riding and Sir Robert Constable in the East Riding, and Elton cited a statement made by Hussey as evidence of manifest planning – Hussey stated that he and the others had agreed among themselves, as early as 1534, that they ‘would not be heretics but die as Christian men’.36 However, it can be suggested that Elton has taken this statement out of context and endowed it with too much weight. In Hussey’s letter of explanation to Cromwell of 11 April 1537, whilst imprisoned in the Tower, he stated that a priest in a sermon in 1534 had likened Our Lady to ‘a pudding when the meat was taken out’ and this had provoked their response at that time. The relatively elderly and conservative lords clearly found such a statement shockingly heretical. That does not mean that they set about organising a conspiracy for rebellion as a direct consequence. The contention that the Pilgrimage was the result of a pre-planned conspiracy will be discussed further in due course.
Obedience was central and crucial in the rhetoric of the king and his government and this obedience now extended to spiritual as well as temporal matters. Henry simply could not comprehend that his subjects were so ‘unnatural’ as to question his judgement and disobey his will.37 In this, he was absolutely no different from the other rulers of Christendom of his day, but his blurring of the roles between Church and state was new and distinctly bewildering to his subjects. For all the rhetoric of his right to obedience, he also deployed the weapon of fear and retribution. However, the king sometimes talked a good fight without having the resources to carry through his threats and the Pilgrimage of Grace was undoubtedly one of these occasions.
On 6 October, shortly after the outbreak of the rising in Louth, the king reproached the Commissioners of the Subsidy and threatened retribution against the rebels with a force of 100,000 men. He also demonstrated the cruel and unmerciful dimension of his character. Having described his subjects as ‘unnatural’, the king stated that he had appointed a great army to invade their countries and to burn, spoil and destroy their goods, wives and children with all extremity to the fearful example of all lewd subjects. Henry’s vindictive character and desire for retribution was evident when he instructed the Duke of Suffolk to destroy, burn and kill man, woman and child if there was renewed rebellion in Lincolnshire.38 The Duke of Suffolk, Robert Tyrwhyt, Archbishop Lee, not to mention Lord Darcy, all advised Henry of the fury and multitude of the rebels and despite this, Henry still stated his intention to ‘punish that insurrection to the example and terror of all others’. Towards the end of October, despite the Ampthill force having been disbanded, Henry wrote on three occasions of his personal intention to lead a royal army against the rebels in the North.
The Pilgrimage, however, demonstrated how rebels could utilise the machinery of warning beacons, bells and local musters to raise well-equipped armies which were larger than any Henry could field against them.39 The king’s commanders on the ground obviously had a more realistic grasp of the situation and had to make an assessment as to how to proceed given Henry’s intransigence and the logistics of communication. In such circumstances, the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury met with the rebels at the First Appointment at Doncaster on 27 October and agreed a truce.
Norfolk gave the reasons for his decision in correspondence to the Privy Council on 29 October, where he described the Pilgrims’ army as the ‘flower of the north’ but displayed an element of apprehension as to how his actions would be perceived by the king. He claimed that he had never served the king as well as by dissolving the enemy’s army without incurring losses among the royal forces. He was, however, filled with trepidation as to how Henry would react to the dispersal of his forces. As if to present himself in a more favourable light, he contrasted his actions with Darcy’s: ‘Fye, fye! upon the lord Darcy, the most arrant traitor that ever was living.’40 The truce was reached on the understanding that the rebels’ first five articles were to be taken to the king by Norfolk, accompanied by two of the Pilgrim leaders, Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes.41 In the light of Norfolk’s agreement, Shrewsbury, Rutland and Huntingdon advised Henry on the same day that, following Norfolk’s actions, they too had disbanded their army.42
The truce held throughout the month of November, although there are a number of references to Henry’s contempt for the Yorkshire rebels and it is hard to avoid the impression that he was biding his time, waiting for them to slip up.43 During this time, Norfolk wrote to Darcy and informed him that the king had answered the Pilgrims’ articles ‘with his own hand’ and advised him to betray Aske for his own preservation.44 The betrayal of Aske as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of rebellion was also urged by Lord Hussey in a letter to Darcy on 7 November.45 It is to his credit that Darcy ignored such advice and refused to deliver up Aske (in a letter to Norfolk of 11 November). He also revealed that the people were anxious for the return of Ellerker and Bowes and desired a parliament in the North.46
Although Hussey had joined the Earl of Shrewsbury with 200 men, he was summoned to London to give an account of his conduct instead. His answers initially appear to have satisfied the king and he was allowed to return north. He informed Darcy of this in a letter dated 7 November – the same letter where he urged Darcy to deliver Aske to the authorities.47 However, testimony hostile to Hussey is recorded on 4 November, and the evidence came from one Robert Carre of Sleaford. Carre stated that if Hussey had gathered men for the king as he had done for ‘his own pomp’ in riding to sessions or assizes, he might have driven the rebels back. Carre maintained that it was Hussey’s inaction and lack of leadership which resulted in his tenants joining the rebels.48
Meanwhile, Aske was advising the convent of Watton that it was his intention to be a maintainer of religion. Darcy’s anxiety about the delay of the envoys’ return was echoed by Aske himself when he advised Sir Francis Brian on 15 November that the delay in receiving an answer to the petitions was likely to produce ‘serious commotions’.49 Darcy gave his reasons for his refusal to betray Aske during a long conversation with Somerset Herald sometime in mid-November and maintained that he had been true to Henry VII and the present king and had always believed in ‘One God, One Faith, One King’. Discussing the magnitude of the insurrection and the support for its aims, Darcy pointed out that the grievances were not unique to the North – for if the king saw the letters to the captain from all parts of the realm, ‘he would marvel’.
Around this time, Darcy was also keen on explaining his involvement in the rising, notably advising Sir Brian Hastings that no man had ever been in such danger as he had been at Pontefract. He continued to try and justify his actions towards the end of November and his language appears to have changed with regard to a section of his fellow Pilgrims: ‘I will be no supporter of the commons in their evil acts.’ He was writing to the Duke of Norfolk at the time and appears particularly anxious to try to exculpate himself. He advised Norfolk that when Henry knew of his conduct, he was confident that his actions would be justified.50 It is probable that the enormity of what he had done had started to register with the elderly and conservative Darcy and his words appear to have the desperation of someone who was trying to extricate himself from a dangerous situation before it was too late.
Elton stated that Lord Darcy’s actions left no doubt: the implication that he had fully prepared for the rebellion was overwhelming. Three reasons are given for this contention – Darcy’s muster book of 1 October 1536; the speed of his surrender of Pontefract Castle; and his supply of the badges used by the Pilgrims depicting the Five Wounds of Christ. It must be conceded that Darcy’s muster book does at first lead to suspicion and appears incriminating: why did Darcy feel the need to write the names of knights, squires and gentlemen who had promised to serve the king upon an hour’s warning on 1 October, immediately prior to the Lincolnshire rebellion?51
Richard Hoyle takes an entirely different view and devotes a chapter in his book, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, to ‘Misunderstanding Darcy’. In this view, it is only the date which has led to Darcy’s condemnation by historians and Hoyle questions whether the date on the document is indeed accurate.52 Indeed, having had sight of the document, the date is by no means certain as being 1 October. Hoyle also emphasises the point that Darcy lacked money and munitions and this does indeed seem to be the case as there are numerous letters from Darcy to the king on this subject. Indeed, on 15 October, Darcy stated that he had twice before written to the king, without reply.53 Darcy’s account of the state of Pontefract Castle is corroborated by Edward, Archbishop of York, in a letter to Henry VIII of 13 October and he referred to Darcy as the king’s ‘true knight’.54 That the situation was indeed extremely grave is borne out by the letters of Sir Brian Hastings – Hastings wrote that the common people in the North would not be restrained without ‘great policy’ – and Sir Robert Tyrwhyt, who confirmed that the commons were so furious that the gentlemen were fearful for their lives. The Duke of Suffolk also reiterated the potential danger from the multitude of men in the North.55
Hoyle maintains that Darcy was playing for time in difficult circumstances and the fact that he did not act unilaterally against the rebels has resulted in the censure of historians. In such circumstances, it is easy to understand the relative speed with which Darcy surrendered Pontefract to the rebels and this ‘rapid conversion’ does not automatically prove that he ‘must have been involved in the plot’. Nor does the fact that Darcy’s badge of the Five Wounds was used by the Pilgrims constitute manifest evidence of advance planning. Darcy had led English troops in assisting Ferdinand of Aragon against the Moors in 1511 and these troops had worn the badge of the Five Wounds.56 Is it not then possible that Darcy had a stock remaining and these were convenient for the rebels to use in the Pilgrimage?
Elton portrayed Darcy and Aske as the leaders of the conspiracy. The evidence requires closers scrutiny. Aske was in Yorkshire at the start of the Lincolnshire Rising and crossed the Humber into Lincolnshire on 4 October where he was sworn by the Lincolnshire rebels.57 According to Aske, he had intended to return to London but he was intercepted and sworn; Elton was of the opinion that his whole conduct during the first week of October ‘makes sense only on the assumption that he was involved in a conspiracy but was taken by surprise when Lincolnshire broke out before he was ready in Yorkshire’.58 However, it is exactly that, an assumption: there is no hard evidence to support the contention that Aske was involved in a conspiracy prior to his being sworn. Indeed, Aske’s conduct in trying to secure an agreement with the government in December and his condemnation of the Post-pardon Revolts of 1537 (which will be discussed in the following chapter), both of which left him open to criticism from the rebels, does not lend credence to such a claim.
The evidence to support a credible claim for a conspiracy simply does not exist. Although Davies refuted the idea of a conspiracy, he does contend that ‘many of the nobility and gentry demonstrably played a more active part in the Pilgrimage than they afterwards admitted’.59 This conclusion would appear to be much nearer the mark. It would seem that, once the rebellion was underway, many acquiesced and used the outbreak to pursue their own agenda – it could, perhaps, be viewed as a conspiracy of inaction once underway – this is a long way from saying that it was all pre-planned.
Indeed, if a conspiracy had led to effective planning, it seems much more likely that the Pilgrimage would have had a greater chance of ultimate success; either a reversal in policy by the Crown or even, perhaps, the deposition of Henry. Davies has argued that the outcome could have been different if the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Northumberland had been involved, and by no stretch of the imagination could Norfolk be regarded as evangelical or pro-reform. Reginald Pole was in Rome at the time of the outbreak of the rebellion and was swiftly made a cardinal and sent to Flanders to muster support for the Pilgrims. The idea was that he might potentially go to England at the head of a military force. Whilst he must have been aware of the opportunity it presented, he was, according to the Dodds, ‘no crusader’ and ‘his heart did not leap up at the call to arms’.60 Pole, however, did not set out on his journey until mid-February 1537, by which time Rome was already aware that the Pilgrimage of Grace was over. In any case, the cardinal had too little money to raise mercenaries.61 Pole and Rome were reacting to events; they clearly had not planned them.
This reaction to events can also be illustrated in the correspondence of Chapuys’ nephew to Queen Mary of Hungary, sister of Charles V, regarding the ‘rebellion in the bishopric of Lincoln’. The letter, from mid-October 1536, is illuminating in that it highlights the anti-Henrician rhetoric of the time and displays clarity of purpose about what is required to deal effectively with Henry:
And now Madame, it appears … that considering the said trouble and they fish so well in troubled water, the time is come (and no such opportunity could be looked for in 100 years) to take revenge upon the schismatic … for … the indignities he inflicted upon your aunt and the innumerable iniquities he has committed against the patient Princess, to restore whom to her rightful estate would require but part of the army which was prepared in Zealand, and that it should land in the river which goes up to York with 2,000 arqubusiers and some ammunition which is what they are most in need of.62
On 21 November the Pilgrims’ council met at York where Robert Bowes gave an account of his visit to the king at Windsor and reassured them as to the king’s mercy. Henry was willing to pardon all but ten ringleaders.63 There were many among the Pilgrims who hated and distrusted Cromwell, and Aske confirmed this in his correspondence to Darcy. He also stated that the south parts of the country longed for the Pilgrims to arrive.64 At this time, it appears that the extent of the insurrection was appreciated and its potential to bring about change was being touted on the Continent. Charles V received letters describing the rebellion as being 40,000 ‘good Christians’ strong who used the crucifix as their principal banner. These letters echo Aske’s view: ‘the other parts of the kingdom wish the men of the north to come on and join them’.65 Charles was also advised that the pope should send money and could ‘easily send Pole’. Count Cifuentes in Rome wrote to the emperor on 24 November and seemed to have additional information. He stated that the pope advised him that he had ‘sent them money to succour them by a secret person whom he had in Picardy, and would not desist from aiding them’.66
These suggestions are echoed in the correspondence of the Bishop of Faenza: discussing Reginald Pole, he stated that ‘he could do great service to God by going there whenever any insurrection may arise’. Faenza also described how the people of England were ‘mostly alienated’, if not from the king, then at least from all his ministers; chief among these was Thomas Cromwell.
As we can see, these are reactions to the rebellion and suggestions as to how to grasp the opportunity it had presented. They do not provide any evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy. Indeed, Faenza’s letter to Monsignor Ambrogio of 12 November succinctly summarises the development of the insurrection: ‘these disturbances have been appeased, having been immature and having no head of importance.’67 This is exactly the case. If there had have been an Aragonese faction conspiracy, as has been alleged by Elton,68 Pole would have been involved from the start and the leadership would not have fallen to the elderly Darcy and the somewhat obscure Aske.
In any event, the Pilgrims’ representatives were summoned to a second appointment to discuss the situation with Norfolk. Prior to this, the king had revealed his feelings to Ellerker and Bowes and his correspondence is characteristic of his righteous indignation and the rhetoric of obedience. He could not understand the ingratitude shown to his royal person in the insurrection, especially by men of nobility. Henry was particularly angry that the rebels ‘presume, with force, to order their prince? God commanded them to obey their prince whatever he be.’ To underpin this rhetoric, Henry deployed the sanction of retribution: he questioned the madness that had seized the rebels that they were prepared to destroy themselves and utterly devastate the areas (of the country) which they inhabited. The king stated his intention to take measures to cut them off as corrupt members.69
Bush has argued that the Pilgrimage can be viewed as a malfunction in the body politic and Henry’s thinking appeared to be along these lines when he talked about the removal of corrupt members. Henry used a physician’s analogy when writing of the rebels and emphasised the theme of obedience to his ministers, Fitzwilliam and Russell, following the Pontefract meeting.70
In the lead up to the meeting, the issue of a free and general pardon for the rebels was to the forefront of the debate. The Privy Council advised the Duke of Norfolk on 2 December that it would not be honourable for the king to grant a free pardon: Henry was of the view that his honour would be gravely diminished.71 However, the rebels’ resoluteness and military strength obliged Norfolk to grant the free and general pardon, and it reserved no one for punishment.72 Henry attempted to put a positive spin on this decision by advising the Duke of Suffolk that he had granted the free pardon because he had yielded to the advice of his council.73
The Pilgrims based their negotiating position on the original five articles given to Norfolk on 27 October and produced the twenty-four Pontefract Articles on 4 December.74 Of these, ten are undoubtedly exclusively religious grievances and these are the ones which will be considered here. Although the articles can be dismissed as reactionary and somewhat ill-informed (for instance in the treatment given to known continental reformers), they are incredibly revealing. We will begin by examining the articles which specifically attacked heresy – items 1, 7 and 8:
Item 1: The fyrst touchyng our faith to have the heresyes of Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Malangton, Elocampadius, Bucerus, Confessio Germaniae, Apologia Malanctonis, The Works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell, Seynt Germayne and such other heresies of Anibaptist clerely within this realm to be annulled and destroyed.
It is clear that this list is a mishmash of reformers and continental reform ideas, but its intent is clear: the Pilgrims wanted an end to heresy. Martin Luther was the best-known reformer of the day, having precipitated the Reformation and ensuing social unrest in Germany. Indeed, King Henry himself had denounced Luther’s ideas in his own work, Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (The Defence of the Seven Sacraments), fifteen years prior to the Pilgrimage of Grace. This work went through twenty editions and translations during the century, and Henry was rewarded with the title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ by Pope Leo X in 1521.75 Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More had both been authors of anti-Lutheran polemical tracts in the 1520s,76 but the Defender of the Faith had become the prosecutor of the faith by the mid-1530s and they had paid the price with their lives.
Fisher had also denounced the Swiss reformer John Oecolampadius (referred to in the articles as ‘Elocampadius’) in 1527.77 Oecolampadius had been an assistant to Zwingli and denied the Real Presence. Tellingly, Oecolampadius, unlike Luther, gave judgement for Henry when the king had canvassed opinions on his divorce from Katherine of Aragon.78
The ‘Wyclif’ referred to in the Pontefract Articles was John Wycliffe, a fourteenth-century English theologian and university teacher. Wycliffe had translated the Bible into English and his followers were known as Lollards. Wycliffe was declared a heretic by the Council of Constance in 1415. ‘Husse’ is a reference to the Czech priest and rector of the University of Prague, Jan Hus. Hus condemned indulgences more than 100 years before Luther and was burned at the stake for heresy, again on the orders of the Council of Constance in 1415.79 ‘Malangton’ was actually Philipp Melanchthon, a German reformer, professor and theologian, and a close collaborator of Luther’s. He was mainly responsible for the Confession of Augsburg.80
‘Barnys’, or Robert Barnes, a former Austin friar and doctor of divinity at Cambridge, had been imprisoned after an examination by Wolsey in 1526, before escaping and fleeing to Antwerp in 1528. Barnes returned to England in 1531 and was among Cromwell’s associates.81 ‘Raskell’ is a reference to John Rastell, a member of Lincoln’s Inn and a lawyer and printer who had attacked the practice of paying tithes.82
‘Bucerus’ was actually a reference to Martin Bucer, a Strasbourg-based reformer who had originally been a member of the Dominican order. Bucer had met Luther and agreed with him on the doctrine of Sola Fide – justification by faith alone. He rejected the Mass, Purgatory and the pope and emphasised obedience to temporal government. Unsurprisingly, he was excommunicated. His most notable contribution to the theological debate was the notion of adiaphora, or things that were indifferent in order to secure salvation. Bucer’s ideas were reflected in the Henrician Ten Articles. These articles obviously also reflected Lutheran theology and Henry had opened negotiations with the Lutherans and the German princes prior to their formulation.83
Perhaps the Pilgrims missed an opportunity with regard to Article 1. Instead of denouncing a random list of reformers and ideas, they may have fared better if they had concentrated their attack on the ideas and reformers that Henry found so repugnant. Dickens was correct when he stated that the king detested Anabaptists. Yet there is no mention of Thomas Muntzer, perhaps the most notorious ‘heretic’ of the day. If the Pilgrims had tailored their arguments to suit the king’s sensibilities, the item may have been taken more seriously. Having said that, it was indeed a difficult task ascertaining Henry’s preferences: they fluctuated on a relatively frequent basis. The one factor that remained a constant was Henry’s Caesaropapism (his position as a secular ruler who is also head of the church) and this will be addressed in due course.
Article 1 criticises reformers whose views could actually be interpreted as underpinning the king’s position with regard to religious change. For instance, although Tyndale had been burned for heresy in 1535, his book, The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528), presented a concept of royal authority over the realm and stated that all people had a duty to submit to the authority of the prince. The work was anti-papal and stressed that the king was the vicar of God: God alone was the judge of kings.84 This was a view shared by Christopher St German, a ‘hard-headed’ anti-clerical lawyer, who sought to claim for the Crown authority over the discernment of God’s will.85 The Pilgrims had referred to him as ‘Seynt Germayne’. His and Tyndale’s views supported the king’s Erastian stance (Henry’s supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs). Tyndale’s main preoccupation had been with the dissemination of the English translation of the Bible. However, Tunstall and the English bishops had ordered its burning as it was riddled with errors and promoted heresy.86 Of course, Tyndale had just been following the ideas of another ‘heretic’, Wycliffe, but it is interesting to note that the concern with the vernacular Bible had changed to positive approval when it was promoted by the Henrician injunctions by the end of the decade. The Second Henrician Injunctions of 1538 made it a requirement that every parish church had a copy of the Bible in English.87
Item 7: To have the heretiqes, bisshoppis and temporall, and their secte, to have condigne punyshment by fyer or such oder, or els to trye ther quareles with us and our parte takers in batell.
The desire for the punishment of heretics is evident. Death by burning had been the usual method in such cases under the heresy laws, De Haeretico Comburendo, 1401.88 The reference to the bishops, however, does not explicitly name the heretic prelates. This is in contrast to the Lincoln/York Articles of 14 October. These articles listed six bishops as heretics, including Cranmer of Canterbury, Shaxton of Salisbury and Latimer of Worcester. These articles also inferred that the cause of the trouble was the doctrinally orthodox Bishop Longland of Lincoln.89 It can be suggested that this lends further credence to the view that this was not an orchestrated and premeditated uprising. Sophisticated ‘high’ politicians and nobles would, perhaps, have ‘named and shamed’ the Protestant ones in this item in the articles. The temporal heretics undoubtedly referred to the king’s ‘evil councillors’ and would have included Cromwell, Richard Rich and the Lord Chancellor, Thomas Audley. Cromwell and Rich were singled out for notoriety in the Pilgrims’ Ballad. This is reiterated in Article 8:
Item 8: To have the lord Crumwell, the Lorde Chancelor, and Sir Ric Riche knight to have condigne ponyshment, as subverters of the good laws of this realme and maynteners of the false sect of those heretiqes and the first inventors and bryngars in of them.
This is probably the article that sheds most light on the motivation of the Pilgrims. Not only was heresy deeply unpopular in the North, Thomas Cromwell was seen as its principal advocate and the man responsible, in the main, for providing the king with evil counsel. As Merriman has remarked, the people made Cromwell the author of all their troubles. A crusade against him would not, in their minds, be a revolt against royal authority.90 They had no complaint against the king, only the influence of the heretical and evil men who had led Henry astray. After all, this was the same monarch who had denounced Luther so passionately that he was rewarded with an exalted title from the pope. Cromwell was not only responsible for the promotion of heresy, he had acted against the body politic by acting against the good laws of the country. This article reflected the perspective that ‘ungodly counsellors could and should be removed by monarchs and also reiterated the theme in early Tudor rebellions that the criticism was of the policies and not the person of the prince’.91
One could not expect non-theologians to have a complete grasp of the intricacies of theological debate nor a contemporary knowledge of the development of continental reform. Dickens claims that the rebels should have known that Henry disliked Luther and the Anabaptists, but how were they to know this? To the ordinary rank and file Pilgrim, one heretic was the same as another and they lacked the sophistication or training to differentiate between different strands of continental reform. The Pilgrim profile was conservative and consistent in its dislike and distrust of heresy, unlike the monarch who would not be averse to flirting with Lutheranism if he perceived it to be expedient.
It is small wonder that conservative and traditional people should be bewildered and inclined to believe rumours, when everything they held to be true had been turned upside down. Their world view and certainties had been shattered and the actions of the monarch encapsulated this epistemological rupture. If anything, the absence of theological awareness and sophistication lends even more credence to the view that the Pilgrimage was popular, commons led and spontaneous, and not the result of a conspiracy.
Any self-respecting member of an ‘Aragonese’ noble faction involved in preplanning would have taken the time and trouble to present the argument in a more informed and erudite fashion. Dickens’ arguments also fall down when he (rightly) states that there is little evidence of Protestantism in the northern counties until after the Pilgrimage of Grace, but then, paradoxically, argues that ‘recorded protests made against heresy do not derive in any remarkable degree from the north, and it would be hard to prove that feeling there was exceptionally intense’.92 Surely this demonstrates a lack of heretical belief and practice in the North prior to 1536?
One factor remained constant in Henry’s religious innovations and this was the Royal Supremacy. The following, however, is the only article which specifically attacks it:
Item 2: the supreme head of the church towching cure animarum to be reserved unto the see of Rome as before it was accustomyd to be, and to have the consecracions of the bisshops from hym, with owt any first frutes or pencion to hym to be payd owt of this realme or else a pension reasonable for the owtward defence of our faith.
Here is the rejection of the Royal Supremacy and the king’s capacity to have cure of souls. Royal input in the enforcement of orthodoxy was not new (for example, the 1401 statute had made the secular authorities responsible for the execution of heretics), but prior to the mid-1530s, responsibility for deciding what was heretical had been the preserve of the clerics. The Royal Supremacy invested the Crown with the power to define doctrine and this was indeed radical. After such lengthy, arduous and troublesome endeavours to secure the Act of Supremacy in 1534, Henry was consistently and fundamentally hostile to the papacy and firmly defended his title.
Crucial to the new title’s success were the twin foundations of theology and rhetoric. Obedience was emphasised and here the influence of Luther and Tyndale came in useful. It was not just Lutherans who emphasised obedience: even the conservative bishop, Stephen Gardiner of Winchester, wrote a treatise defending the Royal Supremacy, De Vera Obedientia, in 1535.93 However, the Pilgrims were clearly not acquiescent in this regard and probably reflected the views of Reginald Pole, expressed in his Defence of the Unity of the Church. To Pole, it seemed absurd that one claiming to be the Supreme Head of the Church could not minister the sacraments but yet could deem himself as the judge of doctrinal controversies.94 It is worth highlighting that the Pilgrims also took the opportunity to state their preference that first fruits and material wealth would not leave England. Despite clearly expressing a desire for the restoration of communion with Rome, they did not want the first year’s income from a new bishop to be paid directly to the Holy See. Perhaps some among the leading Pilgrims had been influenced by the criticisms that wealth from other realms had been somewhat exploited in order to enhance the prestige, aesthetic beauty and power of the Vatican.
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.
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 Harris, 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.
85 Henry Chadwick, ‘Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy’, in Bradshaw & Duffy (eds), Humanism, Reform and Reformation, p.178.
86 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, pp.19–21.
87 Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, p.179.
88 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p.7.
89 TNA, SP1/108, f.45 (L&P, Vol. XI: 705).
90 Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Vol. I, p.182.
91 See Jacqueline Rose, ‘Kingship and Counsel in Early Modern England’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 54 (March 2011) pp.47–71, and Gunn, Grummitt and Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.244.
92 Dickens, ‘Secular and Religious Motivation’, pp.76–77.
93 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p.7; Gary W. Jenkins, John Jewel and the English National Church: The Dilemmas of an Erastian Reformer, Aldershot, 2006, p.17; Elton, Policy and Police, p.187.
94 Chadwick, ‘Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy’, in Bradshaw & Duffy (eds), Humanism, Reform and Reformation, p.169; Marshall, ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ in Ethan Shagan (ed.), Henry VIII and the Semantics of Schism, 2005, p.25.
95 Lucy Wooding, Henry VIII, Oxford, 2009, pp.201–2.
96 Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation, pp.49–50; Merriman, The Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Vol. I.
97 L&P, Vol. XI: 42.
98 Wooding, Henry VIII, 2009, p.213.
99 Bateson, Mary, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 5, No 18 (April 1890), pp.330–45; Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.150.
100 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.3.
101 See Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most Happy’, Oxford, 2004, pp.153–54; Garret Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, London, 1950, pp.89 & 284; Philip Hughes, The Reformation in England: The King’s Proceedings, 2nd edition, London, 1952, p.277.
102 Wooding, Henry VIII, p.200; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.352.
103 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 2004, p.46.
104 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, p.436.
105 See, for instance, Bush & Bownes, The Defeat of the Pilgrimage of Grace, p.19.