In the previous chapters the retribution of the Crown against some rebels and the successful political rehabilitation of others were discussed. It is now important to turn our attention to a more extensive exploration of power and patronage in the latter part of Henry’s reign. The events of the Pilgrimage provide an opportunity to highlight and analyse issues of power, patronage and clientage – focusing, in this case, on the North of England. Who held power? Who were the patrons? And who were the clients? How were loyal clients rewarded in the period following the Pilgrimage of Grace?
The study of power and the associated themes of clientelism and patronage have occupied political scientists and sociologists for decades. However, writing in 1986, Sharon Kettering was of the view that historians have undertaken surprisingly little work on patronage.1 The exploration of power, patronage and clientelism is essential to aiding an understanding of how northern society recovered from the tumultuous events of 1536–37 and how good governance in the region was restored. In this chapter, numerous examples will be given of how a client’s loyalty during the period resulted in his reward.
At the outset, it is necessary to give a brief appraisal of the concepts and definitions of power, patronage and clientage. At its most basic, power is the control of the behaviour of others. It may rest upon the potential for physical force, the control of economic resources or the existence of social prestige. Power may manifest itself directly as coercion, or indirectly as manipulation or influence. Patronage is an indirect type of power: the patron manipulates his clients by granting or withdrawing benefits and favours. In this way, he rewards compliance and punishes disobedience. The patron can assist and protect his clients. He can provide them with offices and opportunities for career advancement. He has the power to distribute wealth and resources, in particular, political office. Clientage, conversely, is the service and loyalty the client owes a patron in return. The client acts as an obedient, reliable subordinate. He provides information and can secure places for other dependents. Clientage is the patron–client relationship characterised by the fact that it is unequal, personal and reciprocal.2 As Steve Gunn has recognised, nobles built up clienteles or affinities to serve their purposes in local government and court politics in England.3
Patronage was the lord’s contribution to the personal relationship between he and his man and, conversely, service was the man’s – the relationship was mutual. Service was also underpinned by the ingrained duty of obedience. It was also performed so as to result in some return, e.g. a grant (of fee, office or land). Horrox summarised the reciprocal relationship when discussing late fifteenth-century England: medieval kings had relied heavily on the co-operation of their subjects in implementing their wishes, especially with regard to regional governance. Geographical specialisation meant that men were ideally employed in areas where they possessed influence and knowledge. This strategy was deployed by Henry VIII in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage, particularly with regard to Ellerker and Bowes. That men of local standing served the Crown in this way was necessary for effective royal governance.
When discussing loyalty and examples of reward in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage of Grace, it is important to bear in mind the nature of patron–client relationships. These relationships were dyadic (two-person), personal, unequal and reciprocal. There is a superior, the patron, and an inferior, the client. Thus, they are unequal in rank. For this study, although the ultimate source of power and patronage was quite obviously the monarch, King Henry, the patron mainly under consideration is the Lord Privy Seal, Thomas Cromwell.
With regard to the evidence, we need to add the caveat that the operation of patronage is difficult to observe because patrons often veiled their activities. This is exacerbated by the distance of nearly 500 years and reliance upon written documentation. The three basic types of evidence that Kettering accepts as indicators of a patron–client relationship – letters, requests for patronage and expressions of gratitude – are all present with regard to Cromwell. It is fortunate that much of his correspondence survives. There are also the monthly lists of grants, which have been carefully scrutinised for evidence of reward.4
Cromwell’s role was of particular importance in the enforcement of the king’s policies. It is not the place here for a discussion of Cromwell’s career and rise to power. Suffice it to say that he is an example of both patron and client. His own career prospered despite his ‘low-born’ and obscure background. On 2 July 1536, he replaced Anne Boleyn’s father, the Earl of Wiltshire, as Lord Privy Seal and six days later he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Cromwell of Wimbledon. He was made Earl of Essex on 18 April 1540, shortly before his fall.
What is important here is the consideration of him in his role as a patron and how adeptly he fulfilled it. Henry VIII, unlike his father, had little interest in the day-to-day bureaucracy the governance of a kingdom entailed and had a particular aversion to writing letters.5 The second Tudor monarch entrusted the minutiae of correspondence to ministers who were both able and shrewd. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was the main influence upon the king until the ascendancy of Anne Boleyn. After Wolsey’s demise in 1530, Thomas Cromwell fulfilled the minister’s role. Thus, Henry’s inattention to detail gave more scope to these ministers to maximise their roles and power – and to dispense patronage.
Cromwell himself had been a client of Wolsey’s. Cromwell was to acquire a reputation for generously rewarding those who served him and thus he could exercise power because he had the potential to reward compliance and influence behaviour.6 D.M. Loades is also of the opinion that Cromwell’s success depended upon a network of local patronage.7 The blatant deference and requests contained in some of the correspondence cited here suggests that some were undoubtedly motivated to inform by the possibility of some sort of reward. What strikes the reader in the reports sent to Cromwell is the sycophantic nature adopted by the informants.
On the evidence to be presented here, it would be difficult to concur with Elton’s assessment that the vicegerent did not use spies. It is impossible to categorically state one way or the other, but one has to be at least open to the possibility. Examples of this occur in the middle of the Pilgrimage. Cromwell was informed by Sir William Pykering that he had been spying on the Dean of Lincoln and revealingly went on to beg ‘remembrance of his late suit’. Similarly, William Wood of Stamford, Lincolnshire, reported information regarding the missals in his church and revealed that he would be willing to provide further information ‘that it may please your honourable lordship’. He informed Cromwell that he lived at ‘great cost’ and was ‘but of small substance’. The king himself instructed the Earl of Derby to secretly search for sedition in a letter dated 27 November 1536.8
In October 1538, Robert Ward began his report of the papist misdemeanours of John Adryan, a parish priest in Suffolk, by thanking him for past favours received. John Freman in Lincolnshire wrote to Cromwell that he remembered his kind words when the two last met at Windsor. He desired help and living which, he said, would not be possible without Cromwell’s help. He asked Cromwell to move the king’s ‘highnyse to be a good lorde unto me’ in order to obtain the demesnes of Hawnby Abbey, in Lincolnshire, which he had in farm for £36 7s.
In November of the same year, Thomas Elyot wrote twice to Cromwell. The first was a letter of compliments in which Elyot appealed to Cromwell’s recollection of their past friendship since they first met twenty-one years previously, and to Cromwell’s good opinion of his learning.9 This letter was followed immediately by one which offered Cromwell ‘all hearty love and service’.10 Elyot went on to request that Cromwell would obtain for him from the king a portion of the suppressed lands on which he could live.
Sir William Waldegrave lamented his ‘heartburn’ for informing on his grandmother, but also took the opportunity to ask Cromwell to ‘put the King in remembrance of me to have something given me one day’.11 Horrox has identified the fact that the possibility of patronage may have motivated service, and the examples of Elyot and Waldegrave support that contention. Indeed, the provision of an opportunity to serve might in itself be a form of patronage.
As will be discussed in a later chapter, the Crown via Cromwell also deployed propaganda as a weapon in the battle to win hearts and minds. Theology and obedience were themes for rhetorical works within the realm, and here, too, Cromwell emerges as a benefactor with his hands on the purse-strings. The Scottish Lutheran, Alesius, denounced the monasteries, the cruelty of the rebels and stated that the real cause of the rebellion was ‘papistical doctrine’. On the same day (5 November 1536), he wrote to Cromwell asking for money.12
Richard Morison, author of two tracts against the Pilgrimage of Grace, wrote frequent letters to Cromwell and the request for money was a common feature. Morison’s two tracts were the only ones printed, apart from the royal admonitions, and as Zeeveld has stated, through them his future was secure. By December 1537, Morison was able to write of his gratitude to Cromwell for his ‘goodnes towards me’. The next sentence continued in Italian: ‘Thanks to your bounty, I have no cause to complain of fortune.’ Here we see an expression of gratitude for favours granted – a characteristic feature of a patron–client relationship. It illustrates how a man with few resources of his own was a dependent client, aiming to perform service which would please his patron whilst being beneficial to himself.13 Morison’s rhetorical works will be examined in the following chapter, but it is important to note that a man of such apparently meagre means became a highly regarded member of the administration and was to enhance both his wealth and prestige as a result.
Morison was to benefit materially from his loyalty and service to the Crown and his career survived Cromwell’s fall. In April and June 1540, he was granted various lands in London (the late priory of St Mary, Bishopsgate, Covent Garden and tenements and buildings in Shoreditch), as well as various properties in Worcestershire and Yorkshire. The following March, he was granted a number of lands in Yorkshire. In April 1544, the propagandist who had regularly complained of his impoverishment was granted £587 5s and various lands in Yorkshire.14
Events in August 1545 must have pleased Morison immensely. He was granted manors in Quenyngton, Gloucestershire and Lustbye, Lincolnshire, as well as Bardney Monastery. However, a more spectacular grant rapidly followed. This consisted of manors in Yorkshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Somerset; five rectories in Yorkshire and another in Worcestershire; nineteen woods; Reading Monastery in Berkshire; St Alban’s Monastery in Hertfordshire; the lordship and manor of Cassiobury in Hertfordshire; Montague Priory and Christchurch Priory in London.
This was an impressive portfolio, extending across a number of counties. In addition to this, Morison was appointed collector of customs and subsidies in the Port of London. Morison had indeed come a long way thanks to his rhetorical gifts. He was a special ambassador to Denmark between 23 December 1546 and March 1547, serving as Henry’s delegate in Holstein for the peace conference held there by the Duke of Holstein and Christian III, King of Denmark. Here is clear evidence that service resulted in an enhancement in social standing.15
Rhetoric and suggestion were not the exclusive preserve of known propagandists such as Morison and Starkey. Many sought Crown patronage or received it as a reward for loyalty during the rising, or for the expectation of diligent service and information to come. Alesius attempted to gain pecuniary favour by denouncing the Pilgrimage and, in January 1536, one John Parkyns suggested the reorganisation of the universities along evangelical lines as a remedy for dissent – he then proceeded to beg Cromwell for money repeatedly.16 It is worth highlighting that Cromwell was involved in the patronage and protection of evangelical preachers.17
The dissolution of the monasteries, which was a precipitative factor in the outbreak of the Pilgrimage of Grace, caused the avaricious to contact Cromwell with a view to enhancing their financial status. Lady Elizabeth Ughtred, a sister of Queen Jane Seymour, wrote to Cromwell on 18 March 1537, seeking to have one of the farms from a monastery if they were dissolved, and went on to say that Cromwell had promised her his favour when she was last at Court as her living was insufficient to entertain her friends and described herself as a poor woman alone. In June 1537, Sir William Gascoygne implored Cromwell to plead for either Bridlington or Jervaulx Abbey. He stated that he had but a small living. Darcy’s lands were up for discussion before he had even been charged or tried: Thomas Dalaryvere petitioned Cromwell in February 1537 for the monastery of Rastall in the North Riding and Fosse in the same region ‘now in the hands of Lord Darcy’.18
Despite the Duke of Norfolk being at pains to reassure Thomas Cromwell of his diligent service in early 1537, the king appeared pleased with his efforts in February and told him that his services would not be forgotten. Henry was glad to hear how the duke advanced the truth and how discreetly he painted ‘those who called themselves religious in the colours of their hypocrisy’. Revealingly, he went on to state that Norfolk was to ensure that the lands and goods of those attainted should be given to those who had truly served him.19
Sir William Parr (whose subsequent career will be examined below) was very active in drawing attention to his loyalty and service at every given opportunity. On 7 March 1537, he advised the king that he was present at the executions in Lincolnshire, and the following day he asked Cromwell for the attainted Guy Keym’s goods for William Tyrwhyt ‘in recompense for part of his expenses’. Similarly, on 12 March, he asked for allowances for five men in Lincolnshire as ‘they have done good service’. On these occasions, he was obviously interceding on behalf of others: this is an example of a client attempting to secure favours for other dependents. Parr was a frequent correspondent of Cromwell’s and used this relationship to further his own career and financial resources. For example, he then asked Cromwell for the farm of Barlinges for his own use on 18 March. Parr was praised as having handled himself ‘wisely’ by the Duke of Norfolk on 24 March.20
Parr was by no means unique in petitioning for the spoils of the confiscated lands of rebels or dissolved monasteries. Sir William Leylond wrote directly to the king requesting certain lands of the abbot and convent of Whalley, together with the parish church of Eccles and the chapel of the former dean of Whalley. Sir Thomas Wharton was able to confirm the state of affairs in Cumberland and advised Cromwell that the ‘goods forfeited of those traitors amount to a good sum’.
William Lord Grey asked Cromwell for some of Lord Hussey’s property in Lincolnshire while Hussey was in the Tower in April, whilst Sir Thomas Wentworth was to be remembered for Bamborough, following an order taken of all Darcy’s offices in the North. Here we see the shrewd and calculating opportunism of some of the northern gentry. Hussey and Darcy were imprisoned but not yet executed and vultures were circling around for prey. Norfolk also desired Cromwell’s favour for one Roger Myddelwode ‘who was in company with Gregory Conyers in pursuit of Bigod’. Sir George Lawson who had been loyal throughout the rebellion was also anxious to draw Cromwell’s attentions to his needs and said that he trusted that Cromwell would succour him in his old age.21
The names of those who had been loyal to the king during the northern risings continued to be brought to Cromwell’s attention and on 1 May 1537, Norfolk praised three individuals and sought the minister’s favour. Thomas Barton was described as having served the king ‘right well’ and Norfolk was of the opinion that he deserved thanks for his conduct at Beverley during the Bigod rebellion. John Eland of Hull, he said, did good service in the apprehension of Hallam and his accomplices and Hugh Ascue was held in good estimation in the locality.
By mid-May, Norfolk had switched his attention and praise further north to the Borders and requested that Cromwell be a good lord to the ‘four brethren of the Greymes’ (Grahams) who, he said, had served the king well on the Borders. They had, he stated, attacked the rebels at Carlisle. Norfolk sent a similar letter with regard to Robin Gase, ‘otherwise Robert Greme’, praising him for his efforts at Carlisle and stating that he was one of the best spies in Scotland.22
Sir John Neville shed some light on the state of affairs in the North in his letter to Cromwell and ended his description with a request for some reward. Neville stated that the country had never been as quiet since the king granted his pardon. He said he would like Richard, Cromwell’s nephew, to be there, so he could hear the people for himself and finished by asking Cromwell’s favour in his ‘grete suit to the kyng’.23
In the period following the collapse of the risings, it is clear that those who had remained loyal wanted to emphasise the fact that stability had been restored whilst, at the same time, impressing upon Cromwell’s mind their diligent service and request for some recompense. In addition, individuals who had not featured prominently in the proceedings obviously saw opportunities for self-aggrandisement and sought to benefit from the disloyalty or misfortune of others. Thomas Hall of Lincolnshire was quick to stake a claim to Lord Hussey’s mills at Sleaford in a letter to Richard Cromwell on 26 June, and covetous eyes were also trained on some of Hussey’s other lands. One Richard Gresham asked for the lease of the manor of Wytheham and the parcel of Barkele’s lands ‘which Lord Hussey had’. Darcy’s demise also brought the speculators to the fore and one John Babington told Cromwell that he trusted he would be remembered in his suits for Lord Darcy’s lands in Lincolnshire.24
The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk recommended individuals for reward as a result of loyalty to the Crown and the Earl of Shrewsbury also adopted this strategy on occasion. He wrote on behalf of Sir Henry Sacheverell who, he stated, did very good service with him during the recent insurrections. Sacheverell was en route to the king, and Shrewsbury requested that Cromwell grant him access to the king’s presence and to instruct His Highness of his services.25 The Earl of Shrewsbury was not averse to furthering his own ends as well as those of his clients; in October 1537, he contacted Cromwell seeking some of Darcy’s lands and was granted ‘various lands in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire’ that same month.26
Norfolk continued to further the causes of loyal men into July, in correspondence with the Lord Privy Seal, and he desired him ‘to be good lord to’ John Horseley who had been one of the best defenders of Northumberland during the uprisings. Around this time, in August, Norfolk was seeking clarification from Cromwell with regard to the possessions of Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and the Bulmers. He went on to plead in favour of Sir George Lawson: ‘I require you to be good lord unto George Lawson concerning th[e] offere that I wrote unto you of before’.27 These examples serve to highlight the link between retribution following the Pilgrimage of Grace and the rewards gained by those who served the Crown. Those who had demonstrated their loyalty were opportunistic – they seized the chance for wealth, gain and material advancement. They benefited from the disloyalty or, depending on one’s perspective, misfortune of others.
It is worthwhile considering those individuals who had remained steadfastly loyal to Henry during the Pilgrimage, despite having close family members who had chosen the path of rebellion. We have already examined the role played by Sir Robert Constable in the Pilgrimage of Grace and his subsequent demise. We can now turn our attention to his younger brother, Marmaduke. Marmaduke had established a junior branch of the family at Everingham by his marriage to a local heiress, the daughter of Sir John Sothill.28 He did not follow in his brother’s footsteps and participate in the Pilgrimage of Grace, thus remaining loyal to the Crown. By the summer following the Pilgrimage, in June 1537, Norfolk had suggested Marmaduke for a place on the Council of the North, and confirmed this to Cromwell, specifying that Constable was to have four servants and £20. His membership of the council and fee of £20 was confirmed in October 1537 and he is referred to as Sir Marmaduke Constable ‘the elder’, so as to differentiate him from yet another Marmaduke Constable (the son of the executed Robert). On 12 November, he was present at the funeral of Queen Jane Seymour.29
Like Ellerker and Bowes, Constable duly took his seat on the Council of the North and began to discharge his new-found responsibilities in an efficient and loyal manner. March 1538 saw Constable undertake surveys of Pickering and Scarborough castles with Sir Ralph Ellerker, and he was one of the examiners of Sir William Bulmer at York. Constable was also involved in the proceedings against Mabel Brigge, John Dobson and John Ainsworth, who were found guilty of treason. On 22 April, Tunstall wrote to Cromwell of ‘owre felowe Sir Marmaduke Constable th[e] elder’. Tunstall stated that Constable was ‘faithfull and substaniall’ and ‘at the tyme of the late commotion fleede frome hys brodyre Sir Robert for hys malice’. He praised Marmaduke for his ‘indifferencye and wisdome’ and stated, ‘I humbly beseech yo[ur] good lordship to be a good lord to hym’.30
Together with Ralph Ellerker and John Eland (among others), Constable was then appointed to the Commission of Sewers for Yorkshire in July 1538. He was also appointed as a Justice of the Peace for Yorkshire, North, East and West Ridings – this illustrates an enhancement in social standing and an increase in influence – and on 22 July he was rewarded handsomely. He was given a grant of £200 of the house and site of the dissolved priory of Drax in Yorkshire. This included the church, steeple, churchyard, lands and the fishery of New Hey, with a house and lands attached. The annual value was listed as being £21.31 Although Drax Priory had been founded by his wife’s Sothill ancestors and this probably explains his desire to acquire it, it must be viewed as a reward for his loyalty.
Like Ellerker and Bowes, Constable kept the sessions at Carlisle in December 1538 and, as a member of the council, dealt with a Scottish ship which was stranded at South Shields as a result of high winds in the spring of 1539. On board the ship were an English priest, Sir Robert More, and two Irish monks. The council sent the men, their letters and More’s examination to Cromwell. Soon afterwards, Constable signed a letter to Cromwell from the council to advise him of the apprehension of three Scotsmen and the discovery of a suspicious letter. These examples illustrate the diligence of the members of the Council of the North and the vigour with which they, Constable included, discharged their responsibilities. Constable continued to serve the Crown until his death on 14 September 1545, including participating in the Scottish campaign of 1544.32
Although Marmaduke’s brother had been one of the most high-profile leaders of the Pilgrimage, he himself had steered clear of involvement. It may be that the brothers were not particularly close or that they shared the same opinions on the great matters of the day. Marmaduke evidently threw himself into the cut and thrust of northern government in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage and was, perhaps, all the more eager in an attempt to display loyalty and compensate for Robert’s disgrace.
Although George Darcy had been present with his father, Lord Darcy, at the council at Pontefract in early December 1536, both he and his younger brother, Sir Arthur, displayed coolness towards the revolt. By February 1537, Arthur had emerged as a staunch supporter of Norfolk’s mission to subdue the North and he ‘gained considerably in the king’s and Cromwell’s favour as a result’.33 Lord Darcy had obtained a general pardon on 18 January.34 Four days later, in a letter to his father, Arthur revealed something of his own character and his assessment that fidelity must inevitably lead to reward: ‘Old Sir Ralph Ellecarr is likely to be rewarded for his service against Sir Francis Bygod.’ He stated that he did not doubt that his father would also prove himself a true knight.35
In April 1537, whilst his father was languishing in the Tower, Arthur was busy making enquiries as to the offices Lord Darcy held and what the king’s intentions were in respect of them. At the beginning of May, Arthur wrote directly to Henry and reassured him that the country was in ‘good quietness’ despite the fury of the late commotion. He went on to enquire whether his father’s acts condemned him and if he could exchange his lands for lands in the South. Arthur wrote that his house was in the middle of the countryside where there had been ‘pestilent commotions’ and that he would never be happy living there.36 Perhaps Arthur wanted to distance himself as much as possible from his father’s legacy of disloyalty and so reinforce his own credentials of fidelity. His use of the word ‘pestilent’ in relation to the Pilgrimage suggests more than distaste for the movement that Lord Darcy stood for. It may be that his father’s former allies in the movement, especially those of the lower social orders – the mere commons – harboured a lingering resentment against the gentry. How much more so towards the son of one of their leaders who could have been perceived as betraying his own father? In any event, Arthur was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable in his northern surroundings at this time.
On 8 June, Arthur wrote to Cromwell to confirm that he was present at the suppression of Jervaulx Abbey. He also stated that he felt he was wasting the king’s money at Pontefract, as the areas in the North were never in a more dreadful and true obedience. He ended his report by beseeching Cromwell to be a good lord to him.37
Arthur was obviously on reasonably good terms with Queen Jane Seymour’s family, as he petitioned the queen’s sister, Lady Ughtred, in June to intercede for him to obtain the parsonage of Askyrth. He was of the opinion that just a word from her would result in the king granting the request. As for himself, he stated, he would be happy to tarry in the North if she were to remain with him, but he was aware of the possibility that some Southern lord would make her forget the North.38 Here again, we see evidence of Arthur’s hankering for the South and the fact that he perceived a clear geographical demarcation between North and South.
On 12 November, Sir Arthur was present at the queen’s funeral and had been granted the office of steward of Galtres Forest, Yorkshire, a few weeks before.39 In May 1538, Arthur was granted lands, the extent of which is quite astonishing and thus needs to be listed in order to appreciate its magnitude. He was granted three dissolved monastic properties: the monastery of St Mary in Sawley, the abbey of Coverham and the priory of the Holy Trinity, all in Yorkshire. Coverham came with various lands, three messuages and Scraston Grange. In addition, Darcy was granted twenty-five manors, mainly in Yorkshire, with some in Lancashire. The manor of Gisbourne also included a forest. At least fifteen other messuages and other lands were also granted, as were two granges: one in Sonderland, Lancashire, and the other in Glingtorpe. To top this off, he was granted the advowsons and rectories of Tadcaster and Gargrave in Yorkshire, with an annual rent of 53s 4d.40 This grant is really quite spectacular when one considers that it came about eighteen months after the end of the Pilgrimage of Grace and a mere eleven months after Darcy’s father was executed as a traitor. Clearly, the king did not believe that the sins of the father should be visited on the son and Arthur’s shrewd perception that loyalty was the key to advancement had been borne out.
In January 1539, he was granted, in addition, over 500 acres of land in Conysthorp, North Yorkshire.41 Overall, he was, as R.B. Smith has stated, the recipient of the largest ‘political’ grant that the king bestowed on those who had been loyal during the Pilgrimage of Grace.42 Sir Arthur and his brother George were also on the reception committee for the arrival of Anne of Cleves at the end of 1539. The following December, he received a grant of a priory, lands and a vicarage in Yorkshire and in December 1541 he was granted the priory of St Andrew’s in York. The following August, Arthur was the beneficiary of yet another grant of £236 12s 6d and additional lands that had previously belonged to the convent of Charterhouse, London.43
May 1543 provides an indication of how diverse Arthur’s property portfolio was – he and his wife obtained a licence to alienate (sell or transfer) some of his property. These were the house and priory of the late priory of Clementhorpe and other lands in Burneholme, Yorkshire, and, interestingly, a ‘mansion’ in London to his brother, George. The following month he was the recipient of a licence to purchase lands and tenements in Aldgate, east London. Yet another grant of a manor, that of Nappaye in Yorkshire, was bestowed upon him six months later in January 1544 and the following year he received the manor, wood and fisheries of Gonby, and Selby Monastery in Yorkshire. He was also given the manor of Talertheg.
The Book of Augmentations for 1546 also reveals that Arthur was in receipt of the tithes of Whitgift Chapel, Yorkshire.44 Although Arthur may have been disappointed with regard to Lady Ughtred, he went on to marry Mary, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Carew of Bedyngton, Surrey, and was based at Brimham, North Yorkshire. Together they had ten sons and five daughters, including his heir, Henry, who in turn married the daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhyt.45 Tyrwhyt, as will be seen in due course, had remained steadfastly loyal to King Henry during the Pilgrimage and its aftermath and had gained both materially and in status as a result.
Whilst Arthur was evidently handsomely compensated for his loyalty and fidelity in Yorkshire, his elder brother, George, Lord Darcy’s son and heir, does not feature as prominently in the sources from the time of the Pilgrimage and does not appear to have gained as much. George had been in attendance at Pontefract with his father in December 1536 but appears to have kept a lower profile from then on. His presence at the Pilgrims’ Council, as Darcy’s elder son and heir, does not support Bastow’s theory that only second sons were involved in rebellious activity.46
Richard Pollard wrote to the Lord Privy Seal with regard to George the following August and stated that he understood that Cromwell had been a good lord to Darcy. This provides evidence that George Darcy was involved in a patron–client relationship with Cromwell. We are not told in what way Cromwell had been a good lord but the fact that it was acknowledged, and by a third party, is surely illuminating. Perhaps Cromwell had displayed another characteristic of a patron? Maybe he had protected George despite Lord Darcy’s rebellious actions? Pollard sent George to Cromwell with this letter and enclosed the value of the late Lord Darcy’s lands.47 Some of these lands were granted to Sir Thomas Hennege in May 1538: the house, manor and the advowson of the parish church of Knayth, Lincolnshire. The Lord Privy Seal duly recorded George’s name in his (Memorandum of) Remembrances.48
In September 1539, George was granted a manor in Gloucestershire, and he accompanied his brother to the reception for Anne of Cleves at the end of that year. The grant of an annuity of £56 3s 4d was to follow three years later, but a more extensive reward was bestowed in June 1543 when he was granted eleven manors and six rectories. His most significant grant was in April 1545 when he was given the manors of Hamylton, Acaster Selby and Stillingfleet in Yorkshire. In addition to this, George received the possessions of Selby, St Oswald’s, Gysborne, Pontefract and Worksoppe monasteries, as well as Helaugh and Basedale priories and St Leonard’s Hospital.49 The elder son does not appear to have gained the extensive rewards of his younger brother, but he was restored as Baron Darcy and he married Dorothy, the daughter and sole heir of Sir John Melton of Aston.50 His heir was John, 2nd Baron Darcy of Aston.
In 1536, Sir William Parr could not have envisaged the possibility of his niece, Katherine, becoming Queen of England; not least because she had married for the second time, her husband being Sir John Neville, Lord Latimer, who was involved in the initial stages of the Pilgrimage and present at the Pilgrims’ Council between 2 and 4 December.51 When the Lincolnshire Rising broke out in the autumn, Parr was steadfastly loyal to the Crown and was designated, among others, to take command in the event of the Duke of Suffolk being absent.52 Parr appears to have relished the opportunity to be involved in the restoration of peace and order in the North. His correspondence with both the king and Cromwell in the aftermath of the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace is both abundant and informative.
In early March 1537 Guy Keym and Thomas Moigne were among the ninety-two rebels condemned as traitors at Lincoln and among thirty-four sentenced to death. Parr wrote to advise the king that he had been present at the proceedings and at the executions of Keym and Moigne – he reiterated these details in a letter to Cromwell the same day.53 The following day, 8 March, saw Parr advancing the cause of the sheriff, William Tirwhit, who wished to have the goods come to the king by Guy Keym’s attainder, in recompense of his expenses. Four days later, in a letter to Cromwell, Parr confirmed that he had attended the executions at Louth and Horncastle and stated that he thought the people sorry for their late ill demeanour and that no county was now more peaceful. He went on to request allowances for Sir John Villers, Sir John Markham, John Herrington, Thomas Neville and Sir William Newnham, as they had performed good service.54 It is hard to avoid the impression that Parr wished to cast himself in the role of both loyal and diligent servant of the king and benefactor to the local gentry – a conduit between Crown and countryside. Here we see clientage in operation – Parr was endeavouring to secure favours for other dependents in the locality.
Having initially sought reward for others, Parr had obviously endeavoured to promote his own advancement and reward. On 18 March 1537, he wrote to Cromwell thanking him for speaking to the king about the farm of Barlinges. He said that if he were to be granted it, he could do the king good service in the locality.55 Unfortunately for Parr, he was to be disappointed in this request for the Lincolnshire abbey, but he received manors, lands and rents through grants in the same month. He received the manor and hundred of Rothwell, Northamptonshire, on a forty-year lease, which had reverted to the king as a result of the attainder of Edward, Duke of Buckingham (in 1521). In addition, he was granted five manors in Westmorland (Kirby, Croftwaite, Lithe, Heslington and Sampole) as well as two in Lancashire (Weresdale and Clevely).56
By mid-May, he was writing to Cromwell with regard to Lord Hussey’s indictment and, revealingly, stated that he hoped that Hussey’s offices would be given to those who would ensure the order of the countryside and that he wished them for himself.57 Parr was part of the Yorkshire jury panel annexed for the trial of Constable, Bigod, Percy, Sir John Bulmer, Cheny, Hammerton, Aske and Ralph Bulmer at Westminster on 16 May 1537,58 and by the end of that month he was writing to Cromwell, reminding him of his recent visit to London during which he had asked the king for the preferment of Jervaulx Abbey if it were to be suppressed. He reminded Cromwell of his promise of a favour, saying that if he failed to gain preferment of the abbey, of which he was the founder, he would consider it a great reproach.59 The outcome of this request will be noted in due course.
Parr continued to press not only for his own advancement but ostensibly that of others as well. In August, he informed Cromwell that he wanted the lands of the two abbeys in the City of Lincoln for the people of Lincoln.60 He followed up that request in a letter to Wriothesley in September when asking for the executed Lord Hussey’s lands for himself and asking what Cromwell intended to do with regard to Barlinges.61 He continued to be vigorous in his search for sedition and the maintenance of order, and told of a secret meeting which he suspected was against the king’s peace in the area of Brigstock. He duly had those in attendance arrested and pledged that he would continue to apprehend persons who held secret assemblies.62 A picture emerges of Parr as a rigorous and enthusiastic member of the loyal gentry in the North and one gets the impression that he rather relished his power, local standing and opportunity for wealth and self-advancement. He seems, more than any other, to have been at pains to point out his efficient service on a frequent basis.
In early 1538, Parr reminded Cromwell yet again that the situation with Barlinges had not yet been resolved and repeated his request that the City of Lincoln might have the attainted lands there which belonged to the two houses, in recompense of money and plate which he had taken out of the city for the king’s use.63 Although disappointed in his request for Barlinges, Parr was appointed as the chief steward of possessions in Lincolnshire, Rutland, Nottinghamshire and the City of Lincoln, ‘which came to the king by the attainder of John, Lord Hussey and Thomas Moigne’ with fees of £6 a year. During the summer, Parr was appointed to a Commission of Oyer and Terminer for Treasons for Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Rutland, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and the cities of Lincoln and Coventry, as well as the towns of Leicester and Nottingham. Parr was also granted Brayfield Rectory in Northampton in 1538.64
William Parr’s star continued to rise and he was granted leases of ex-monastic property, including Pipewell Abbey and a number of granges. In 1539, he was elected to Parliament for the last time.65 In September of that year, Parr was granted an annuity of £3 6s 8d from the attainted lands of Jervaulx Monastery; so his previous request was, in part, satisfied.66 John Hussey wrote to Lord Lisle on a couple of occasions in March 1539, stating that he had learned that Parr was to be made Lord Fitzhugh.67 Although Hussey was premature and had got the title wrong, Parr must have been a very proud man when he was created Baron Parr of Horton on his elevation to the peerage in 1543 after his niece Katherine’s marriage to the king. The ceremony took place on Sunday, 23 December at Hampton Court.68
Baron William Parr became chamberlain to the queen’s household and took his seat in the House of Lords on 17 January 1544. The following month, he received a significant grant of property – priories, rectories, manors, farms and windmills in various counties.69 The king appointed him a member of the regency council to advise Queen Katherine whilst he was abroad, but Parr was absent from the Lords during the last of Henry’s parliaments. Parr made his will on 21 June 1546 which made provision for his wife and relatives, including his grandson, Ralph Lane. (Parr and his wife had four daughters.)70 The following November, he was appointed as keeper of Rockingham Park, Northamptonshire, and keeper of the deer in Corby Woods.71
His loyalty to the Crown and energetic service had proved lucrative, and when he died on 10 September 1547, his wealth was approximately £1,500 in bequests and plate.72 He was thus a wealthy man. Parr’s career is an example of how enhanced prestige and power could be attained by loyal service: he profited from the patronage of a grateful monarch and the defeat of that monarch’s enemies.
Sir Ralph Eure (also known as Evers) was the son of Sir William Eure of Witton, County Durham, and predeceased his father. Both were active members of the northern gentry and are not recorded as having participated in the Pilgrimage of Grace. Ralph Eure appears on the East Riding Commission in April 1536 and was in command of Scarborough Castle during the Pilgrimage.73 Eure wrote to Sir John Bulmer in January 1537, praising the king for forgiving the Pilgrims both in writing and in his heart. He also kept Henry informed of the activities of Bigod and Hallam.74
Eure wasted no time in requesting Bigod’s lands in a letter to Cromwell of 11 February, before Bigod had even been to trial.75 The Privy Council displayed faith in both Eure’s and Ellerker’s abilities in March when it instructed Norfolk to ‘keep a special eye’ on Sir Robert Constable: ‘You shall secretly inform Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir Ralph Evers of this matter and let them take order of the parts of Hull and Scarborough to prevent him stealing away to outward parts.’76
By April, Cromwell had noted that ‘Raffe Evers’ was to be remembered, among others,77 and in May Eure was busy taking the inventory of the goods of the attainted Sir James Cockerell, formerly of Gisburn. In June, Norfolk recommended Eure for a pension of £40 a year78 and Cromwell made a further record of Eure’s entitlement to some acknowledgement in his Remembrances for 1537.79 It is interesting that Ralph’s servant was one of the accusers of the Vicar of Mustone for his failure to set forth the Royal Supremacy.80 Eure’s servant was clearly not only loyal and obedient to him, but also to the king’s religious policies and the vicar was subsequently executed for treason. The loyalty that Eure fostered in his servant was mirrored by his own behaviour towards the regime and he was duly rewarded, as he had requested, in April 1538. Eure was appointed chief steward of possessions in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, ‘which came to the king by the attainder of Sir Francis Bigod’, with a fee of £5 a year.81 This example again illustrates the link between retribution and reward.
Ralph’s father, William, had been a member of the Council of the North since 1525, and was suggested as a member for the newly constituted council set up by the Duke of Norfolk in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage in 1537.82 William, a man of ‘moderate fortune’, was appointed as one of the king’s lieutenants in the marches; Deputy and, subsequently, Warden of the East March.83 In June 1537, he was involved in a ‘device’ for the keeping of the East and Middle Marches, alongside Ellerker. Eure was given 200 marks per year and Ellerker £20. Eure was also paid £20 per annum as a member of the Council of the North and was appointed as a Justice of the Peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire in November 1537. He also received an annuity of £20 from the manor of Barmeston in Yorkshire from January 1542.84
William’s offices included Escheator of Durham, Steward of Pickering, Whitby Strand, Sir Francis Bigod’s lands and Jervaulx. He was also Constable of Scarborough and Captain of Berwick, in addition to being Warden of the East March. The pinnacle of his achievement came in March 1544, when he was created a baron, 1st Lord Eure, and had his patent as Warden of the East Marches renewed.85 In January 1545, William was also granted the lordship of Stritton Grange, Northumberland.86 In this case, a man of moderate fortune had reaped handsome dividends for his loyalty throughout the Pilgrimage.
However, his pleasure in his success must have been tempered by the death of his son and heir, Ralph, the following year. Ralph had been active on the border and participated in the Earl of Hertford’s invasion of Scotland in 1544, for which he received Henry’s thanks, but he then fell at Ancrum Moor on 27 February 1545 at the hands of the Earl of Angus.87 Lord William was appointed as chief steward of the lands in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (previously Sir Francis Bigod’s) the following May. He was also made Constable of Scarborough Castle (these offices had been Ralph’s) and received a grant for life of the manor of Northstede in Yorkshire.88 Ralph’s will was made on 6 May 1544 and his offices passed to his father, William.89
When William Eure died three years later, he was succeeded by Ralph’s son, William, who in turn became 2nd Baron Eure. Both father and son had benefited materially and in status as a result of their unwavering loyalty during the Pilgrimage and its aftermath. William made his will shortly before his death – it is dated 25 February 1548.90 William’s elevation to the peerage was the zenith of their achievements and Ralph would have expected to inherit the title as 2nd Baron Eure. However, the price he paid for his steadfast service on the Borders was that the title did not pass to him. Instead, his son, William, continued the family’s line in the nobility.
Sir Robert Tyrwhyt (or Tyrwhitt) of Lincolnshire played a role in suppressing both the Lincolnshire uprising and the Pilgrimage of Grace. On 15 October 1537 he is recorded as being present at Prince Edward’s christening.91 Between 1536 and 1547 he was rewarded with two dozen grants and leases. His first grant was the dissolved monastery of Stainfield in Lincolnshire: he received the house, site and 662 acres of land in 1538.92 John Freman expressed his disappointment to Cromwell in October that the farm of Bardney, Lincolnshire – which he had sought for himself – had been given to Tyrwhyt.93 In July 1538, Tyrwhyt was appointed as Justice of the Peace for Lincolnshire, alongside Sir William Parr.94 In December of the following year, Tyrwhyt was granted the former priory of Unforth in Lincolnshire and many other farms and lands, together with the rents from the tenants. Tyrwhyt advanced at Court and was a gentleman of the Privy Chamber by 1540. He acquired a number of other lands, manors and grants in Lincolnshire and Peterborough in August 1542. The following year, Tyrwhyt was appointed steward and bailiff of various properties, in addition to receiving life grants for a number of lands and a water mill in Bedfordshire.95
Like William Parr, Tyrwhyt benefited from a family connection with Queen Katherine Parr, was knighted and was the queen’s Master of Horse by 1544. At the end of that year, he was also appointed as steward and bailiff of Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire. Tyrwhyt was elected as Knight of the Shire for Lincolnshire in 1545 and on 12 July 1546, he was given the responsibility of keeper of Thornton manor, including the ‘mansion’, park and all the deer therein. Shortly before King Henry’s death, Tyrwhyt was granted an annuity of 58s 2d out of lands in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire which were in the king’s possession as a result of the minority of William Coggan. Tyrwhyt was given the wardship.96
Tyrwhyt was subsequently returned as Knight of the Shire for Huntingdonshire in 1554 and 1559. Thus he continued to prosper during the reigns of Edward VI (he purchased Leighton Bromswold, a manor of Lincoln Cathedral and 2,400 acres of land, pasture and marsh), Mary I and Elizabeth I. He acquired further property in Huntingdonshire and sat at Elizabeth’s first parliament before retiring to Leighton Bromswold where he died in May 1572.97 Tyrwhyt had gained a good deal in material wealth and enhanced status. From a member of the Lincolnshire gentry, he rose to become a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, the queen’s Master of Horse and a Knight of the Shire. His social prestige was significantly raised as a result. His daughter married Henry Darcy, Sir Arthur’s heir. Here we see evidence of loyal gentry families consolidating their positions and demonstrating their unwavering loyalty and reliability in the region.
Following the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace, John Uvedale, who was loyal throughout the Pilgrimage, was appointed to the newly constituted Council of the North as its secretary and was the keeper of a new, specially designed signet.98 In May 1537, he was sent to survey Bridlington and Jervaulx abbeys and as a member of the council assisted Norfolk with the examinations of those accused of sedition and treason, including the Vicar of Mustone in December 1537.99 Around this time, however, on 10 December, he wrote to Cromwell assuring him of his old and steadfast friendship. Uvedale requested that he might be allowed a position at Court, under the king or Prince Edward. He stated that he would rather serve in that capacity for £40 a year than in the North for £100. Here, like Arthur Darcy, is evidence of Uvedale’s dissatisfaction with life in the North. The lure of the South, or the Court, was obviously a characteristic in the personalities of some members of the northern gentry. We also see a clear indication of a patron–client bond. Appealing to Cromwell’s evangelical tendencies, he maintained that he might be able to set forward some of Cromwell’s good and godly purposes.100 This plea fell on deaf ears, apparently, for Uvedale was to spend the remainder of his career based in the North. Uvedale and Darcy were obviously required to remain in the North as part of the northern gentry necessary for the effective governance of the region.
In 1538, he was part of the council under the Bishop of Llandaff, and in 1539 he was appointed a commissioner to supervise the surrenders of five priories in Yorkshire.101 In April 1540, shortly before Cromwell’s fall, Uvedale wrote to the Lord Privy Seal thanking him for the gift of a stallion (a characteristic expression of gratitude). He wrote another letter to Cromwell around this time congratulating him on his creation as Earl of Essex. Uvedale stated that he rejoiced in Cromwell’s increase in honour.102 Here the use of effusive language is manifest evidence of the patron–client relationship at work. Uvedale asked Cromwell for a house and parsonage at Marrick and was eventually granted this request, together with other lands in 1541, interestingly after Cromwell’s demise.103
John Eland, Mayor of Hull, had been instrumental in capturing John Hallam in the renewed revolts in January 1537 and he advised the king of the ‘very truth of the taking of that traitor’.104 At the end of January 1537, he expressed his delight at the king’s benevolence in a letter to Cromwell. Eland confirmed that he had received the king’s letters, together with £20 for capturing the traitor Hallam and his accomplices. He reassured Cromwell of his best efforts in subduing anyone who misbehaved after the king’s pardon. He stated that the king’s aid to the town of Hull was ‘so abundant’ and his letters so ‘comfortable’ that the town would ‘doubt not’ to keep it surely.105
In May, the Duke of Norfolk sent Eland to Cromwell with a letter stating that nobody had been of better service in the apprehension of Hallam and requesting favour for the bearer.106 Eland was subsequently knighted. Here is a clear example of Eland being bound to Norfolk by virtue of his knighthood.107 The following July saw Eland appointed as a Justice of the Peace for Yorkshire; he was also granted the parcel of Elley Rectory in Hull. In 1540 and 1541, he and his wife were granted tithes in Analby and Wolfreton.108 He was also appointed as overseer of the king’s works in Hull in 1541 but died on 6 May the following year. His will, made shortly before his death, gave his wife a life interest in his lands in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and goods worth £112 – his heirs were five of his kinsmen.109 Thus Eland died a wealthy country gentleman. From being Mayor of Hull and loyal during the risings, he amassed wealth and land. His enhanced status as a knight and Justice of the Peace can be attributed directly to his conduct in 1537.
John Dudley’s conduct during the Pilgrimage of Grace may well have been a contributory factor in laying the foundations for his family’s advancement well into the reign of Elizabeth (despite his own fall and execution under Mary I). In November 1534, Dudley was Knight of the Shire for Kent in Parliament. When the Lincolnshire Rising broke out, he was appointed as one of fifteen commanders under the Duke of Norfolk and in charge of 200 men.110 He was appointed sheriff in Staffordshire in October 1536 and was another who was part of the reception committee to greet Anne of Cleves in late 1539. He received grants of lands, including a priory and rectories in Staffordshire and lands in Northamptonshire, in 1541.111 Dudley was subsequently sent to Calais as deputy to Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle (an illegitimate son of Edward IV). Further grants of manors and lands ensued in 1542, and in March of that year he was elevated to the peerage and created Viscount Lisle, following the disgrace and death of Arthur Plantagenet, with a grant of 20 marks a year.112 With tensions rising with the Scots in the autumn of 1542, the king decided to send Dudley to the Borders and appointed him Warden of the Marches.113
Dudley continued his political career and loyal service for the remainder of Henry’s reign and was granted manors and lands that had previously belonged to Queen Jane Seymour in August 1543.114 This was followed with an enormous list of grants in May 1544. These included a hospital and manor in Burton, Leicestershire, and the hospital of St Giles in the Fields, London. In addition, there were three lordships and manors and a rectory in Derbyshire; two manors and lordships in Norfolk; a rectory, four manors and lordships in Lincolnshire; the rents out of two rectories in Leicestershire; and a rectory in Feltham, Middlesex. Dudley was also granted Everley Wood in Staffordshire – which had previously belonged to George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV’s brother – in June 1545.115
Dudley was a pivotal figure in the manoeuvre or ‘device’ in attempting to interfere with the succession on Edward VI’s death, with the objective of preventing Princess Mary from succeeding to the throne. He failed miserably and was executed for treason on 22 August 1553. His wealth at death was land to the value of approximately £86,000 and an inventory of goods worth £10,000.116 Dudley was a spectacularly wealthy nobleman, who had been minor gentry at the time of the Pilgrimage. His rise was meteoric: he was, after all, a relatively minor figure in the autumn of 1536. It may be stretching the point, but the fact that he was demonstrably loyal at a crucial time perhaps laid the foundations for his future advancement. He was a man, perhaps fortuitously, in the right place at the right time, and obviously a man of undoubted ability. He was appointed as sheriff as a result of the rising and then became a peer, Lord High Admiral, Privy Councillor, Knight of the Garter, an earl, a member of the regency council and, finally, a duke. He eventually overreached himself, but had risen to become an incredibly wealthy noble by the time of his death.
Thus far, the role, reward and rehabilitation of the northern gentry has been concentrated on. It is now time to examine the parts played by some leading nobles and ascertain what benefits their loyalty to the Crown during the rising may have brought them.
Although Lord Thomas Darcy was the most outspoken of the northern nobility, he was by no means the most powerful. The five powerful and influential northern earls were Northumberland, Westmorland, Cumberland, Derby and Shrewsbury, and none were directly involved in the Pilgrimage. Their positions were, in reality, ambivalent and it can be argued that they decided on a policy of inertia at best. The Earl of Northumberland died in 1537. His nephew, Thomas Percy (son of Sir Thomas who was executed following the Pilgrimage) was restored to the peerage and became the 7th Earl of Northumberland in 1557.117 However, he inherited his father’s Catholic beliefs and somewhat reckless, or brave, characteristics.
Percy was one of the prime movers in the 1569 Northern Rebellion and was prominent in the restoration of the Mass at Durham and Ripon. It is not the place here to discuss the details and chronology of this rebellion, but it was a failure. Northumberland fled and was eventually captured by the Scots who delivered him to York, where he was beheaded on 22 August 1572.118 Sir Thomas Gargrave reported Northumberland’s last profession of Catholic faith and refusal to ask Queen Elizabeth’s forgiveness. Percy was advanced as a martyr by the English Catholic bishops and beatified by Pope Leo XIII on 13 May 1895: the grounds were primarily his Catholic declaration on the scaffold.119 So, although the Earl of Northumberland was loyal to the Crown in 1536, his heir revealed himself as very much his executed father’s son in his religious and rebellious behaviour.
The Neville Earl of Westmorland did not involve himself in the Pilgrimage but his son, Lord Neville, did march from Durham to Pontefract and finally to Doncaster. He is recorded as being present at the Pilgrims’ Council in early December 1536, together with Lords Darcy, Lumley, Scrope, Latimer and Conyers.120 As the earl himself was not involved, Smith has argued that he was able to use his influence to save Neville clients and supporters from serious harm. Thus, Westmorland was fulfilling his role as a patron by protecting his clients. Among this group were Robert and Richard Bowes, as well as John, Lord Latimer and his brother, Marmaduke.121
A stand-out name among this group must be Lord Latimer; he was, at this time, married to Katherine Parr who came to be known for her evangelical sympathies. It is most unlikely that her husband, nineteen years her senior, shared his wife’s convictions in 1536, as is revealed by his attendance at Pontefract and his will – he instructed that a priest should sing for his soul for forty years. He also bequeathed alms for ‘poor folks’.122
The Neville Earl himself remained aloof and used his loyalty in a bid to further enrich himself. In April 1538, he wrote to Cromwell asking for a farm and nunnery in Yorkshire that had previously belonged to Sir John Bulmer and was worth £50 a year.123 Sir John had been attainted and executed for his part in the Pilgrimage. Here again, we see the link between retribution and the possibility of reward. The earl followed this up with another request in February 1539 for Blauncheldone Abbey: the earl stated that he was aware that Sir Reynold Carnaby and others were going to petition for it, but he wanted it for himself.124 He was, however, unsuccessful in this regard. Westmorland died in 1549 and was succeeded by his son, Henry, the 5th Earl (d. 1564), a prominent supporter of Mary I, and in turn by Charles Neville, the 6th Earl. Charles, raised a Catholic, brought a degree of infamy to the family name through his undoubtedly significant contribution to the Northern Rising in 1569.125 As in the case of the Percys of Northumberland, a loyal peer in 1536 did not guarantee a loyal noble in 1569.
Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of Derby was the grandson of Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, whose intervention at the Battle of Bosworth Field had been critical in securing Henry Tudor’s victory. The earl was about 27 years old at the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace and the commons of Lancashire expressed sympathy with those in Lincolnshire. It was generally perceived that the ‘young’ earl was of the same religious persuasion. Smith has described Derby as ‘intriguing’ in that he gave no indication of his political views and appeared to waver at the start of the Pilgrimage; this, again, appears to be an inherited family trait. He was, though, married to the Duke of Norfolk’s daughter and in the end, Lancashire did not rise.126
On 10 October 1536, the king informed Derby of the traitors assembled in Lincolnshire and stated that, although prepared for them and confident that they would be subdued, the earl should be prepared as the outcome was uncertain!127 Mixed messages indeed: if Edward ran true to the Stanley form (waiting on the sidelines in order to see the most likely victor), he might well have wavered and been tempted to join the Pilgrimage.
According to the Dodds, Thomas Stanley, a priest who was related to the earl, used all his influence to persuade Edward to join the rebels. The Dodds maintained that it was believed that the priest had been successful in his efforts ‘for a time’ but that when it came to it, he ‘chose to serve the king’.128 This is exactly what happened and it can be argued that the rest was mere speculation and supposition. Derby remained steadfast and loyal to the Crown, and on 19 October Henry informed Derby that, contrary to previous instructions to join up with the Earl of Shrewsbury, he was to proceed immediately to Sawley to repress an insurrection there. Derby was to apprehend the captains and have them executed immediately or sent to Court. Derby was instructed to take the abbots and monks with violence and have them hanged in their ‘monks apparaul’ and ensure that no town or village began to assemble. ‘And doubt you not but that we shall remember your charges and service.’129 Here again, Henry appears to have relished the retribution at his command – the reiteration of the link between loyalty and reward.
Derby obviously fulfilled his duties conscientiously, as is demonstrated in a further letter from the king on 28 October. Henry thanked Derby for his diligence and wrote that he would remember him and that his posterity would rejoice; manifest evidence of the patron–client relationship between sovereign and vassal. Henry gave explicit instructions as to how the earl should proceed in the event that he found the abbot and monks restored again at Sawley. They were, he said, to be hanged on long pieces of timber or from the steeple. The king emphasised the fact that he wanted the ringleaders to be made an example of and the remainder reminded of the king’s mercy.130
Derby, however, was not inundated with grants from the Crown in the years following the Pilgrimage. There appears to be only one record of a grant in 1542 of a monastery with woods and pastures in Leeke, Staffordshire.131 It seems apparent from this survey that it was the loyal gentry who were the main beneficiaries of material reward.
Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland, possessed Plantagenet blood through his mother and was one of Henry’s favourites from early in the reign. During the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Rutland was entrusted with the defence of Nottingham Castle. He was appointed to a joint command with the earls of Huntingdon and Shrewsbury and he duly marched promptly to Nottingham and on to Newark, Southwell and Doncaster. However, he was moved to petition Cromwell for additional money in order to carry out his orders. Manners wrote that his base at Nottingham Castle was very expensive and that he had spent almost all of his own money at Doncaster. He stated that although the Duke of Norfolk had sent him £500, a large portion had been spent on paying for gunners at Nottingham and Newark. As a result, he had a little over £300 remaining and had to spend money on the castle on a daily basis. He begged Cromwell to obtain some money from the king.132
Manners’ stewardship of many monasteries, together with his ancestral claims to the foundation of certain houses, as well as his proven loyalty, worked to his advantage in the wake of the dissolution. By a grant of March 1539, in return for the sale of land to the king, including Elsinges, he received at least fourteen manors (mostly in Leicestershire) and several abbeys, including Rievaulx and Beverley, Yorkshire, and Belvoir Priory and Croxton, Leicestershire.133 Rutland was lord chamberlain to Jane Seymour and was also named as one of those appointed to receive Anne of Cleves in November 1539, together with the Earl of Derby, Sir John Dudley, Arthur and George Darcy, William Parr and Sir Robert Tyrwhyt. He was also appointed chamberlain to Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. Following the fall of Thomas Cromwell, Rutland acquired his former offices of warden of the forests beyond the Trent and steward of Halifax manor, Yorkshire, for which he received an income of £100 a year.134
Rutland continued as a Justice of the Peace for Lincoln during this period and received considerable grants of lands in March 1541 – seven lordships and manors, six rectories, the hospital of St Giles in Beverley and a priory in York. In addition, he was granted a long list of lands throughout the Midlands, including the monastery of Garadon in Leicestershire. This was followed a couple of months later by the grant of a manor and lands in Grantham and Barrowby, in Lincolnshire, and further lordships and manors in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Yorkshire. Grants of priories in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire were again made in July 1541.135 It should be acknowledged, however, that Rutland’s main sphere of influence was the Midlands – much closer to the core of power, the Court. He thus did not fit the profile of an ‘over-mighty’ peripheral magnate of the far north.
When the king made his long overdue visit to the North in the summer of 1541, Rutland was in attendance when Henry entered Lincoln on 9 August.136 The following summer saw Rutland sent north to the Scottish border, together with Sir Robert Bowes. In August 1542, he was appointed warden of all three marches. The following month, Rutland was the beneficiary of yet further grants, including one of £183 12s 6d.137 In April 1543, the earl received another grant of lands, chapels and a pension.138 This was the last recorded grant before his death in September 1543. Indeed, Rutland’s ‘intrusion’ into the power structures of the far north, especially the marches, reveals that the king must have trusted him more than the traditional regional magnates and thus sought to sideline them.
George Hastings, the Earl of Huntingdon was the grandson of William, Lord Hastings, trusted companion and councillor to Edward IV, who had been executed by Richard III in 1483. The Pilgrimage of Grace afforded Hastings the opportunity of demonstrating his loyalty to the Crown. In early October, at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, when news came of the risings in the North, he was swift to indicate that he was ready to raise troops against the king’s rebellious subjects. Alongside the earls of Shrewsbury and Rutland, he joined the forces headed by the Duke of Norfolk, remaining in Yorkshire until the dissemination of the royal pardon in December. In May 1539, his son was rewarded: Sir Francis, Lord Hastings was granted an annuity of £20 from the manors of Goodeby and Overtonquartermarshe, Leicestershire.139 Hastings continued in favour and in royal service until he died on 24 March 1544.
Although George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury was a conservative and unimpressed by Anne Boleyn, he remained steadfastly loyal to Henry during the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace. Once informed of the disturbances in Lincolnshire, on 4 October, he mobilised his servants, tenants and friends, raising men on horseback. Shrewsbury stated that the king’s subjects had risen in great numbers, ‘contrary to their duties and allegiance’.140 A week later, the earl wrote to Lord Darcy stating that he heard that Darcy’s neighbours had begun to rise, as they had in Lincolnshire. He advised Darcy to remain in his country.141 He was to write to Darcy again on 1 November, praising him for having stayed the commons: in his opinion, a good and honourable deed.142
Shrewsbury followed this up in the New Year with a letter to the king, advising the sovereign that he should write a letter of thanks to Lord Darcy.143 Henry responded three days later and confirmed that he had indeed written a ‘gentle’ letter to Darcy, in accordance with Shrewsbury’s recommendation. The king stated that he trusted that Darcy would now do his duty and he, the king, would regard this favourably, as if nothing had happened to the contrary.144 This exchange of correspondence is somewhat surprising given Darcy’s subsequent execution for treason. This appears, once again, to be evidence of Henry’s duplicitous nature. Talbot was obviously attempting to steer Darcy clear of suspicion and trouble and had demonstrated his own loyalty to the king. He was, it seems, of the opinion that Darcy was inherently honourable and wanted to make Henry aware of this. As Talbot had proven his loyalty to the Crown and was an important noble and commander north of the Trent, it would appear that Henry sought to appease him by acquiescing at this point. The evidence suggests, however, that Darcy was a marked man in the king’s eyes from early in the Pilgrimage (see the king’s letters of admonition) and was biding his time in order for the opportunity to punish him to arise.145
After the rebels captured York and Pontefract Castle and began to threaten the town of Doncaster in October 1536, Shrewsbury marched north to prevent its capture. Shrewsbury and Norfolk were outnumbered and forced to negotiate with the Pilgrims. Shrewsbury’s actions halted the momentum of the rising. The rebels did not march on London and their way was blocked by the area of influence of the Earl of Shrewsbury, centred on Sheffield and extending southwards through Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. The earl’s loyalty to Henry VIII was therefore crucial to the failure of the Pilgrimage.
In the aftermath of the Pilgrimage, Shrewsbury both added to and developed his estates. He acquired the lands of the former monasteries of Rufford in October 1537, which included the manor of Worksop and the lordship of Rotherham. The annual value was £246 15s 5d with rent of £46 15s 5d.146 Following his death on 26 July 1538, his income was assessed at £1,735147 and he was succeeded by his son, Francis, as the 5th Earl. Shrewsbury’s role in the crisis was pivotal – if the rebels had managed to secure his support, they might have achieved their goals.
Thomas Cromwell assured Shrewsbury that he was the ‘most woorthye erll that ever servyd a prince and suche a chefftayn as ys worthye eternall glorye’.148 Henry and Cromwell, it appears, were well aware of the strategic importance of keeping Talbot onside. Shrewsbury had the potential to raise his retinue and clientage. Given his geographical landed base, Talbot had the means to have tipped the balance of power during the Pilgrimage from stalemate to a decisive outcome in favour of the Pilgrims. Had he taken this stance, other nobles may well have followed suit.
Henry Clifford, Earl of Cumberland’s loyalty to the king is seen clearly during the Pilgrimage of Grace. He was initially instructed to lead a force to Hexham, Northumberland, where the monks had barricaded themselves in the monastery in defiance of the commissioners sent to suppress it. He attempted to fulfil this command but must have been forced to retreat to his castle at Skipton. Cumberland was trapped there by an insurrection of his own tenants, who attacked his houses and killed his deer. At the Pilgrims’ Council at York on 21 November 1536, a letter was sent to the earl, requesting that he surrender Skipton Castle149 – a request he obviously ignored.
Cumberland’s son, Henry, Lord Clifford, also managed the defence of Carlisle against the commons. On 12 January 1537 Cumberland advised the king that the commons were wild and that there was a danger of further rebellion and informed Cromwell that the people were against him.150 The earl tried to capture the rebels’ captains around Westmorland, in accordance with the king’s instructions. His illegitimate son, Thomas Clifford, and Sir Christopher Dacre routed the commons outside Carlisle Castle on 16 February 1537. The earl was elected to the Order of the Garter on 23 April 1537 to reward his loyal service. Henry, Lord Clifford was duly rewarded in June 1538 when he was appointed chief steward of the Yorkshire possessions of the king which had come about as the result of the attainder of Sir Stephen Hamerton.151 Here again is the link between retribution and reward. In April 1542 the earl was granted the Craven estates of Bolton Priory, a house traditionally associated with the Cliffords. However, he died on 22 April 1542.152
There is an abundance of evidence to support the contention that Henry’s loyal subjects undoubtedly benefited from their behaviour, either during or in the immediate aftermath of the Pilgrimage. The upper echelons of the nobility – the likes of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk – have been omitted from this aspect of the study, as the Pilgrimage did not really afford them the advancement and material gain that the other loyal protagonists coveted. However, some peers, such as the Earl of Shrewsbury, profited from the acquisition of ecclesiastical property. Whatever their private convictions, such men capitulated to the new order.
The most striking example of meteoric rise and spectacular financial reward during this period is, perhaps, John Dudley, but the material gains and wealth acquired by others, in particular, Arthur Darcy and Richard Morison, are illuminating in terms of demonstrating how conformity resulted in patronage and enhanced social prestige. This is not to say that loyalty during the Pilgrimage was solely responsible. Other factors, such as individual ability and serendipity, must also have been contributory factors in advancement. Richard Rex has emphasised the role that the dissolution of the monasteries played in facilitating grants and rewards. The dissolution, he stated ‘transferred the patronage of hundreds of benefices into lay hands, with the king emerging as far the greatest gainer’.153
It is hoped that this study has shown that the patronage of the Crown in the North was essential in securing loyalty and compliance. Such patronage was an important tool in the defeat of the Pilgrimage of Grace. Thomas Cromwell’s role in this process, throughout the risings and in the following years until his fall in 1540, was critical and the many examples given here have had to be included to demonstrate just how the Lord Privy Seal operated.
It is, however, interesting to note that Cromwell was ultimately a mere patron and broker, with an effective network of clients and informants. Many of his former clients continued to prosper despite his demise. The void left by Cromwell was filled by other administrators and patrons acting on behalf of the Crown – he was replaced as secretary jointly by Wriothesley and Sadler.154 Patronage and power were ultimately the preserve of the monarch and continued to be disseminated based upon the evidence of a subject’s service and loyalty. The watershed moment, it can be argued, came here. From this point, religion was inextricably linked with service as a way of demonstrating that loyalty.
The links between retribution and reward have also been examined and it seems apparent that one man’s misfortune was, inevitably, another man’s gain. Evidence of opportunism, ‘tale-telling’ and avarice has been presented. As Horrox has remarked, subjects were called upon to provide information in a mutually beneficial relationship. It is hard to avoid an impression of vultures circling on the lookout for carcasses. As Kettering has stated, the practice of clientage concealed the cold, hard reality of men and their ambitions coming together.155
The Pilgrimage of Grace and its aftermath provide an illustration of how patronage and clientage were used in a mutually beneficial way. Henry retained the loyalty of men who were crucial in the movement’s ultimate demise, whilst these clients were rewarded materially and socially, and so fulfilled their personal ambitions.
It is now time to consider the demise of the Pilgrimage under another spotlight. The rising was defeated on the ground, but how were the ideas and rhetoric it espoused quelled? Or were they? We turn, in the next chapter, to examining perceptions of the Pilgrimage and to analysing the methods the Crown used to attempt to discredit and defeat the ideals which led the Pilgrims to rebel in the first place.
1 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, p.6. However, Rosemary Horrox undertook a detailed study of English late medieval patronage in 1991 in her Richard III: A Study in Service. Kevin Sharpe described patronage as the principal currency in the exchange between sovereigns, subordinates and subjects in ‘Representations and Negotiations: Texts, Images and Authority in Early Modern England’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 42, No 3 (September 1999), pp.853–81. More recently, Jacqueline Rose has discussed patronage as a feature of personal rule in ‘Kingship and Counsel in Early Modern England’, p.47.
2 Kettering, Patrons, Broker and Clients, pp.3–4.
3 Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.200.
4 Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, pp.1, 3, 5 & 8; Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, pp.5, 8, 13 & 18.
5 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.44.
6 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, p.5.
7 D.M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450–1660, p.195.
8 TNA, SP1/111, f.57 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1043); SP1/113, ff.202–3 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1496) (spelling modernised); L&P, Vol. XI: 1178.
9 L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 571, 254 & 853.
10 BL, Cotton, Cleo, E/IV, f.260 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 854) (spelling modernised).
11 L&P, Vol. XIII: II: 1179 (spelling modernised); Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, p.3.
12 TNA, SP6/6, ff.84–88; SP 1/110, ff.182–83 (L&P, Vol. XI: 987 & 988).
13 TNA, SP1/113, ff.181–82 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1481); Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy, p.179; TNA, SP1/127, f.158 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1330); Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, pp.10 & 25.
14 L&P, Vol. XV: 613 (3) & 831 (64); L&P, Vol. XVI: 678 (5), (24) & (25); L&P, Vol. XIX.I: 444 (10).
15 L&P, Vol. XX.II: 266 (6) & (32), 910 (67); L&P, Vol. XXI.II: 640. See also Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, p.12.
16 TNA, SP1/115, ff.95, 104, 105, 111, 113–16; L&P, Vol. XII.I: 261, 263–69.
17 Joseph Block, ‘Thomas Cromwell’s Patronage of Preaching’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 8, No 1 (April 1977), pp.37–50.
18 TNA, SP1/117, ff. 36–37 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 678); SP1/121, f.57 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 36); SP1/116, ff.175–78 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 543).
19 TNA, SP1/116, ff.92–99 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 479).
20 TNA, SP1/116, ff.210–12 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 590) (spelling modernised); SP1/116, ff.271–75 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 639) (spelling modernised); SP1/117, ff.32–36 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 677); SP1/117, ff.101–03 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 713).
21 TNA, SP1/116, ff.255–56 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 633); SP1/116, ff.276–77 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 641) (spelling modernised); SP1/118, ff.131–33 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 905); L&P, Vol. XII.I: 973; SP1/118, f.237 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 992) (spelling modernised); SP1/119, f.17 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1024).
22 TNA, SP1/119, ff.124, 126 & 128 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1112, 1113, 1114); SP1/120, f.112 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1215); SP1/120, f.114 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1216).
23 TNA, SP1/120, f.244 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1317).
24 TNA, SP1/121, f.164 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 141); SP1/124, f.92 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 567) (spelling modernised); SP1/125, f.182 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 925).
25 TNA, SP1/122, f.207 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 209).
26 TNA, SP1/125, f.213 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 954); L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1008 (9).
27 TNA, SP1/122, f.213 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 226); SP1/124, f.113 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 588).
28 Smith, Land and Politics, p.246.
29 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 100; TNA, SP1/121, f.133 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 102); SP1/125, f.176 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 914); L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1060.
30 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 591, 597; TNA, SP1/131, f.40 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 705); SP1/131, f.139 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 825).
31 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1519 (19), (38), (39), (40), (65).
32 TNA, SP1/140, f.61 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 1010); SP1/144, ff.53 & 68 (L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 455, 481); SP1/144, f.145 (L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 566); L&P, Vol. XII.I: 116, 622, 623; L&P, Vol. XII.II: 910 (76).
33 Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.345; Smith, Land and Politics, p.194.
34 TNA, SP1/114, f.160–62 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 134).
35 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 197 (spelling modernised).
36 TNA, SP1/118, f.216 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 967); SP1/119, f.146 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1129).
37 C.H. Williams, English Historical Documents, Volume V: 1485–1558, London, 1967, p.108.
38 TNA, SP1/121, f.128 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 97).
39 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1060, 1008 (27).
40 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1115 (13).
41 L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 191 (43).
42 Smith, Land and Politics, p.245.
43 L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 572 (3); L&P, Vol. XVI: 379 (1), 1488 (5); L&P, Vol. XVII: 714 (18).
44 L&P, Vol. XVIII.I: 623 (5), (54), (100), 802 (1); L&P, Vol. XIX.I: 80 (23); L&P, Vol. XX.II: 266 (20); L&P, Vol. XXI.I: 1538.
45 Flower & Norcliffe (ed.), The Visitation of Yorkshire: in the Years 1563 and 1564, p.93.
46 Bastow, The Catholic Gentry of Yorkshire, 1536–1642, pp.18, 22, 23 & 25.
47 TNA, SP1/123, f.195 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 432).
48 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1115 (1); TNA, SP1/126, f.173 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1151).
49 L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 264 (27); L&P, Vol. XVII: 714 (9); L&P, Vol. XVIII.I: 802 (10); L&P, Vol. XX.I: 690 (32).
50 Flower & Best, The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564, p.92.
51 Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.345
52 Bindoff, ‘Sir William Parr’, History of Parliament, p.61.
53 TNA, SP1/116, ff.210–12 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 590); SP1/116, f.212 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 591).
54 TNA, SP1/116, f.231 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 608); SP1/116, ff.271–75 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 639).
55 TNA, SP1/117, ff.32–36 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 677).
56 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 795 (14).
57 TNA, SP1/120, f.106 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1213).
58 TNA, SP1/120, f.138 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1227).
59 TNA, SP1/120, f.218 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1298).
60 TNA, SP1/124, f.9 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 489).
61 TNA, SP7/1, f.18 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 657).
62 TNA, SP1/126, f.139 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1102).
63 TNA, SP1/128, f.55 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 65).
64 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 887 (17), 1519 (13), 1520 (34).
65 Bindoff, History of Parliament, p.61.
66 L&P, Vol. XIV: II: 239.
67 TNA, SP1/144, f.51; (L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 453).
68 L&P, Vol. XVIII.II: 516.
69 L&P, Vol. XIX.I: 141 (75).
70 Bindoff, History of Parliament, p.61.
71 L&P, Vol. XXI.II: 476 (10).
72 TNA PRO, PROB 11/32, sig. 6. See Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.177, for discussion of power and patronage.
73 L&P, Vol. XI: 760 (2), 1155 (4).
74 TNA, SP1/114, f.68 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 66); SP1/115, ff.65–67 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 234).
75 TNA, SP1/116 f.4 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 402).
76 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 558 (quotation – spelling modernised).
77 BL, Cotton, Titus, B/I f.447; (L&P, Vol. XII.I:1106).
78 TNA, SP1/120, f.212 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1296); SP1/121, f.133 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 102).
79 TNA, SP1/126, f.173 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1151).
80 TNA, SP1/127, f.51 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1212).
81 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 887 (10).
82 Reid, The King’s Council in the North, Part I–II, p.490; L&P, Vol. XII.II: 100.
83 Reid, The King’s Council in the North, Part I–II, p.163.
84 BL, Cotton, Caligula, B/III, f.246; TNA, SP1/122, f.239 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 249, 250); SP1/125, f.176 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 914); L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1150 (11); L&P, Vol. XVII: 71 (39).
85 L&P, Vol. XIX.I: 223.
86 L&P, Vol. XX.I: 125 (3).
87 L&P, Vol. XX.I: 311.
88 L&P, Vol. XX.I: 846 (7).
89 J. Clay (ed.), Testamenta Eboracensia: A Selection of Wills from the Registry at York, Vol. VI, Surtees Society, 1902, p.183.
90 Ibid., p.185.
91 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 911.
92 Ibid.
93 TNA, SP1/137, f.89; SP1/17, f.236 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 528, 649).
94 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1519 (13).
95 L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 780 (12) & (13); L&P, Vol. XVII: 714 (15) & (17); L&P, Vol. XVIII.I: 982 (94b) & (100b).
96 L&P, Vol. XIX.II: 800 (16); L&P, Vol. XXI.I: 1538 (193b); L&P, Vol. XXI.II: 476 (25).
97 Bindoff, History of Parliament, pp.501–2.
98 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 615 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 100, 102 (5), 250 (2), 914, 917, 918, 1016 & 1076).
99 TNA, SP1/127, ff.51 & 78 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1212, 1231).
100 TNA, SP1/127, f.37 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1192).
101 TNA, SP1/133, f.210 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1269); L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 663.
102 L&P, Vol. XV: 515; TNA, SP1/160, f.8 (L&P, Vol. XV: 648).
103 L&P, Vol. XX.I: 1081 (21).
104 TNA, SP1/114, ff.173–74 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 142) (spelling modernised).
105 TNA, SP1/115, f.126 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 279) (spelling modernised).
106 TNA, SP1/119, f.126 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1113). The creation of knights with royal permission was a particularly important means for noblemen to bind followers. See Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.200.
107 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1519 (19); L&P, Vol. XV: 1032; L&P, Vol. IV: 100.
108 L&P, Vol. XVII: 1258 (62).
109 Clay, Testamenta Eboracensia, p.152.
110 L&P, Vol. XI: 580, 623.
111 L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 572 (3); L&P, Vol. XVI: 503 (22), 678 (47), 878 (42).
112 L&P, Vol. XVII: 71 (5), 163 & 220 (46); Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Tudor England, p.161.
113 TNA, SPI/174, f.96 (L&P, Vol. XVII: 1048, 1064).
114 L&P, Vol. XVIII.II: 107 (12).
115 L&P, Vol. XIX.I: 610 (8) (L&P, Vol. XX.I: 1081 (5)).
116 D.M. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life, Oxford, 1989, p.195. TNA, LR 2/118; TNA, E.154/2/39.
117 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.102.
118 Ibid., p.111.
119 ‘Bl. Thomas Percy’, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912) [accessed 21 March 2013, www.newadvent.org/
120 Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.345.
121 Smith, Land and Politics, p.173.
122 Clay, Testamenta Eboracensia, p.161.
123 TNA, SP1/131, f.116 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 790).
124 TNA, SP1/143, f.141 (L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 344).
125 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, pp.107 & 111.
126 Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.214; Smith, Land and Politics, pp.170 & 175.
127 L&P, Vol. XI: 634.
128 Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, pp. 214–15.
129 TNA, SP1/108, f.176 (L&P, Vol. XI: 783).
130 TNA, SP1/109, f.224 (L&P, Vol. XI: 894).
131 L&P, Vol. XVII: 1258 (116).
132 TNA, SP1/111, f.47 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1038).
133 L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 551 & 651 (43).
134 L&P, Vol. XIV.II: 572 (3); L&P, Vol. XV: 1027 (22).
135 L&P, Vol. XVI.I:305 (67); L&P, Vol. XVI: 678 (6, 7), 878, 947 (11), 1056 (25).
136 L&P, Vol. XVI.I: 1088.
137 TNA, SP1/171, f.180 (L&P, Vol. XVII: 540); L&P, Vol. XVII: 714 (19); L&P, Vol. XVII: 881 (16).
138 L&P, Vol. XVIII.I: 474 (14).
139 L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 1056 (29).
140 L&P, Vol. XI: 537.
141 L&P, Vol. XI: 675.
142 TNA, SP1/110, f.91 (L&P, Vol. XI: 949).
143 TNA, SP1/114, ff.206–7.
144 TNA, SP1/115, f.49 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 226).
145 L&P, Vol. XI: 687, 748, 749, 957, 1062.
146 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1008 (9).
147 TNA, Chancery Close Rolls, C 54/412.
148 Lambeth Palace, London, Talbot Papers, MS A, f.61.
149 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 698 (3).
150 TNA, SP1/114, ff.75–77 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 71, 72).
151 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1309 (2).
152 L&P, Vol. XVII: 283 (11). Clay, Testamenta Eboracensia, p.152.
153 Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation, p.69.
154 TNA, SP7.
155 Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, p.13; Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, p.22.