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 Christe
ndom 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 rela
tive 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.
Insurrection Page 5
