85 Henry Chadwick, ‘Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy’, in Bradshaw & Duffy (eds), Humanism, Reform and Reformation, p.178.
86 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, pp.19–21.
87 Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, p.179.
88 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p.7.
89 TNA, SP1/108, f.45 (L&P, Vol. XI: 705).
90 Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Vol. I, p.182.
91 See Jacqueline Rose, ‘Kingship and Counsel in Early Modern England’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 54 (March 2011) pp.47–71, and Gunn, Grummitt and Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.244.
92 Dickens, ‘Secular and Religious Motivation’, pp.76–77.
93 Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p.7; Gary W. Jenkins, John Jewel and the English National Church: The Dilemmas of an Erastian Reformer, Aldershot, 2006, p.17; Elton, Policy and Police, p.187.
94 Chadwick, ‘Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy’, in Bradshaw & Duffy (eds), Humanism, Reform and Reformation, p.169; Marshall, ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ in Ethan Shagan (ed.), Henry VIII and the Semantics of Schism, 2005, p.25.
95 Lucy Wooding, Henry VIII, Oxford, 2009, pp.201–2.
96 Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation, pp.49–50; Merriman, The Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Vol. I.
97 L&P, Vol. XI: 42.
98 Wooding, Henry VIII, 2009, p.213.
99 Bateson, Mary, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 5, No 18 (April 1890), pp.330–45; Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.150.
100 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.3.
101 See Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most Happy’, Oxford, 2004, pp.153–54; Garret Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, London, 1950, pp.89 & 284; Philip Hughes, The Reformation in England: The King’s Proceedings, 2nd edition, London, 1952, p.277.
102 Wooding, Henry VIII, p.200; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.352.
103 Fletcher & MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 2004, p.46.
104 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, p.436.
105 See, for instance, Bush & Bownes, The Defeat of the Pilgrimage of Grace, p.19.
3
Resumption of Revolts and
Royal Retribution
It seems clear that the Pilgrims’ rhetoric was dictated, in the main, by religious concerns – but what of the king? Henry’s behaviour during and after the Pilgrimage points to a monarch more concerned with politics and obedience than explaining his views on theology and the religious structure of the kingdom. Of course, to Henry, the idea of having to explain himself would have been tantamount to having to justify his actions to mere subjects – this simply was not going to happen. However, his correspondence with his commanders, especially the Duke of Norfolk, reveals his vengeful and duplicitous nature. The king only granted the free pardon upon the advice of the Privy Council and clearly felt that it was detrimental to his honour.1 What were the terms of the pardon? And how was it perceived by the Pilgrims?
It is necessary to examine the pardon in order to appreciate the ways in which events unfolded, leading ultimately to the resumption of rebellion. The proclamation of the pardon to the rebels would be free and granted under the Great Seal and, in a letter to the Duke of Suffolk of 4 December 1536, Henry wrote that Norfolk had been authorised to consent to a parliament to ‘be held at Michaelmas’.2 Yet on the same day as Lancaster Herald was delivering the pardon, his king was reiterating the message of obedience in his letter to Fitzwilliam and Russell. The Pilgrims had been given to understand that the pardon was free and a parliament in the North would convene at Michaelmas, and indeed Archbishop Lee of York wrote to Lord Darcy at the start of the New Year of this and stated that it would be combined with the coronation of Queen Jane Seymour.3
Historians have debated whether the king ever intended to honour the terms of the agreement and the pardon. For Bush and Bownes, the December agreement ‘humiliated the crown to the core’, but the Pilgrims’ rank and file distrusted the gentry leadership and had the perception that the pardon was bogus. The king’s correspondence does contain several references to his contempt for the rebels, and it is hard to avoid the impression that he was being disingenuous and waiting for them to make an error which would allow him to dispense with the unpalatable pardon and right the wrongs of their rebellious and traitorous action.
The rank-and-file Pilgrims’ distrust of the gentry leadership was probably due in no small measure to the perception that Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes had taken too long in returning north after their trip south in the autumn,4 and was most likely exacerbated by Robert Aske’s sojourn with the king at Court over Christmas. In any event, the perception that the king was duplicitous must have been pervasive, for the fact is that plans for fresh uprisings had come to the fore just a month after the pardon and promise of a northern parliament.
One of the leaders of these renewed ‘commotions’ was John Hallam, a captain at Yorkswold, who was apparently sceptical about the Crown’s intentions over the Christmas holidays. One witness stated that Hallam was of the opinion that the gentlemen would deceive the commons and that the king had no intention of granting their petitions. Hallam, it can be said, had a more realistic grasp of politics than the somewhat idealistic Aske.5
It was the Post-pardon Revolts which allowed the regime to exact revenge upon the rebellious North and crush opposition so effectively that another uprising was not attempted for more than thirty years. The revolts were relatively easily put down by the Duke of Norfolk, and the events and the ultimate retribution will be discussed in due course.
It is also necessary to examine the rhetoric of the pro- and anti-regime protagonists during the period between the resumption of revolt and the ultimate and indiscriminate punishment handed out by the Crown. What were the feelings of the former Pilgrims after the Doncaster agreement and what rhetoric was expounded in pro-regime circles following the pardon? Firstly, though, it is necessary to set the scene in relation to the discourse between the king and Robert Aske, and to ask how this might have appeared to the latter’s fellow Pilgrims.
The king wrote to Aske a week after the pardon on 15 December and stated that he had learned that Aske had repented of his offences in the late rebellion and commanded him to come with diligence.6 Aske had obviously to comply with the command of his sovereign, but one wonders if he really can have believed that the king was honourable in his intentions. After all, Henry had repudiated his loyal wife of more than twenty years, bastardised his daughter and had had no qualms in executing his long-standing and trusted friend, Sir Thomas More. Can Aske really have thought it possible that Henry was willing to forgive him and honour him with a visit to Court after he had raised 30,000 men in protest against the policies of the Crown? If he felt that Henry was treating him as someone noteworthy and was genuinely interested in his opinions, then Aske was incredibly naive.
Whilst at Court, Aske wrote an account of his involvement in the uprising and stated that he had first become aware of the Lincolnshire Rising upon leaving William Ellerker’s house in Yorkshire, intending to return to London. Upon crossing the Humber, he was told of the uprisings by the ferryman and after landing at Barton, he was travelling towards Sawcliffe to stay the night with his brother-in-law, Thomas Portington. En route, he was stopped by a Mr Huddswell who informed him of the commons assembly and made him take the oath to be true to God, the king and the commonwealth. Upon arriving at his brother-in-law’s, he found that he too had been taken by the commons and, despite this, Robert attempted to ‘take boat’ at Wintringham but was ‘entreated’ by more commons and was ‘glad to return to Sawcliffe’.7
Aske’s account continued until the December agreement and he stated that he had not been in contact with Lord Darcy before he went to Pontefract Castle and claimed that he was not involved in any way prior to his first taking. What is significant is that he ended the account under the d
istinct impression that there was to be a parliament and requested that the Duke of Norfolk declare to them when and where the parliament should be. He was also given to understand that a further letter, affirming the king’s pardon, would be sent to the North.8 Aske recommended that this letter should be written to Lord Darcy ‘to stay’ the country about him.
It is surely revealing that Aske was concerned that the pardon be reiterated in writing in order for the North to remain calm. He must have been aware of grave misgivings among the rank and file as to the intentions of the Crown. In any event, Aske must have felt that he had secured the peace, pending the convening of a parliament, and probably he felt that his stay at Court had been a success: the king even gave him a present of a jacket of crimson satin.9
In a letter to Darcy of 8 January, Aske was fulsome in his praise for Henry. He stated that the king was a gracious sovereign lord to him and had affirmed his pardon to all the North orally. Again, he referred to Henry’s intention to hold a parliament and have the queen crowned at York and stated that Henry was tender towards his subjects and extended his mercy ‘from the heart’.10 Aske must have been subjected to an effective charm offensive and there is no reason to believe that he was at all cynical about it. One gets the impression that he believed that he was actually a player of some significance at this juncture. About this time, he produced what is known as his ‘Manifesto’ and advised his ‘loving neighbours’ that the king loved his subjects ‘more than any other earthly riches’, and reiterated that a parliament was to be held at York to deal with their ‘reasonable petitions’.11 This document was apparently found at Aske’s lodging at a later date.
Whilst Aske gave the impression of being pleased with his efforts and was optimistic for the future upon his return north, storm clouds, it appears, were already gathering. On 8 January, Sir Marmaduke Constable wrote to Aske, welcoming him home but advising him that the men of Beverley had been ‘excited’ by a rumour and imploring him to pacify Beverley in ‘all haste’.12 Interestingly, he observed that this action would lead to Aske being ‘better esteemed’ for his ‘late coming home’.
On the same day, Sir Oswald Wolsthrope pleaded with his neighbours to resist those disposed to ‘spoil’, i.e. resume disturbances, which would be their undoing in the light of the king’s pardon.13 Aske immediately wrote to Beverley and went there in person, declaring the king’s love for the North, confirming the pardon and the intention to hold a parliament, and stayed the town. Sir Marmaduke Constable made Cromwell aware of this on 11 January and also informed him that Lord Darcy had maintained the peace in the parts around Pontefract. Aske dutifully reported to the king the following day that Beverley had been disposed for new commotions, and Lord Darcy instructed the rebellious commons to cease assembling or risk losing their lives, lands and goods.14
During this period in January, however, reports of dissatisfaction with the situation continued to grow and the Earl of Cumberland, in a letter to Henry, stated that the people were so wild that there was a danger of further rebellion. The earl reiterated his thoughts in a letter to Cromwell and was even more specific, informing him that the commons ‘were so minded against you’.15 Lady Darcy commented on the volatility in the North to her son, Sir George, on 13 January, and by 16 January it appeared that Scarborough Castle had fallen to the commons. However, what actually happened was that George Lumley, son of Lord Lumley, entered Scarborough with a small band of approximately 120–140 men to mount a guard over the castle and swear the commons. The commons elected two captains, Ralph Fenton and John Wyvell, who were subsequently arrested when Sir Ralph Eure retook the town shortly afterwards.16
The ‘siege’ of Scarborough was orchestrated by one Sir Francis Bigod, and his motivation and behaviour remain somewhat of a puzzle to historians. Bigod did not fit the usual Pilgrim profile, not least because he was a known evangelical and advocate of the new learning and reform. Bigod was a Yorkshire gentleman and he appears to have had no scruples with Henrician religious policy prior to his sudden leap to prominence during the Post-pardon Revolts. In April 1536, he wrote to Thomas Cromwell to ‘help me to be a priest, that I may preach the Word of God’. And he appears to have been involved in a festering dispute with the abbot of Whitby in the early part of that year. He reported the abbot to Cromwell early in January for ‘disobeying the king’s title of supremacy’,17 so his subsequent behaviour in the renewed revolts of 1537 was inconsistent to say the least.
The Royal Supremacy was a prominent item in the Pilgrims’ grievances and Bigod had been a defender of the king’s stance only a year prior to taking up arms against the monarch. George Lumley stated that Bigod had argued that the king’s claim to have cure of his subjects’ bodies and souls was against the Gospel.18 Thus, Bigod’s stance on the Supremacy shifted dramatically from his position in early 1536 to his participation in the rebellion in 1537. He even wrote a treatise arguing that the king was not to have cure of souls.
Bigod, it appears, also had severe reservations about the king’s pardon and thought it was deficient. In April 1537, after Bigod’s detention, he stated in his deposition that he had shown John Hallam a list of the defaults of the pardon.19 Indeed, Sir Ralph Eure attributed the renewal of rebellion to the commons’ perception of the pardon. He maintained that the country had been seduced by Sir Francis and Hallam, who had told the people that the king’s pardon was legally insufficient. However, the pardon was not the only cause for concern for Bigod: both the king and the Bishop of Rome, he argued, could be lawfully deprived for heresy. Bigod had explained to Hallam his conviction that the king could have no cure of souls and that the head of the Church ought to be a spiritual man such as an archbishop.20 This, then, appears to be his motivation for leading the renewed uprisings.
John Hallam had been in conspiracy with Sir Francis Bigod, and he attempted to take Hull (with only twenty men) on 16 January. However, his attempt was a failure and after a skirmish with two of the aldermen of the town, he was captured and imprisoned. According to Hallam, the first insurrection was precipitated by the fact that his local curate had left St Wilfred’s Day ‘unbidden’. Hallam’s ill-fated attempt to take Hull was a disaster and resulted in the execution of the protagonists.
It is worth highlighting here that Sir Ralph Ellerker had gone to Hull to offer assistance to the town and, after Hallam’s imprisonment, refused requests for his release from Bigod.21 Bigod, meanwhile, was attempting to get Sir Robert Constable to join in the renewed rebellion and admitted that the commons had initially been distrustful of him at Pontefract, to the extent that he was in fear of his life. He stated that they were suspicious of his learning at first but now had the greatest confidence in him.22 This request was met with a decisive rejection by Constable: ‘I doo marvell that you doo assemble the comons’, and he reiterated the fact that the king intended to pardon them all.23 Despite this, Bigod’s followers swore a new oath to ‘prepare themselves to battle against the undoers of Christ’s church’.24
By 18 January, Aske had advised the king of the commotions and stated that Bigod had not yet taken Scarborough Castle and he had informed the commons that he was astonished that they would assemble themselves with Bigod.25 The commons, however, had other ideas and argued that the government’s stance was actually feigned policy, designed to subdue them. They argued that the suppressed abbeys had not been restored by the December agreement but by the commons themselves, and that Cromwell and other ‘evil counsellors’ were in higher favour than ever. Interestingly, they were aggrieved that the pardon only extended to those who accepted the king’s title as Supreme Head of the Church and believed that, whilst in London, Robert Aske had received rewards to betray them. The distrust between the commons and the gentry is evident in this ‘Rebel Manifesto’, and it concludes that ‘now is the time to arise or else never and go proceed with our pilgrimage for grace, or else we shall all be undone’. The suspicion of the gentry is reiterated: ‘And ye shall have captains just and true and not be st
ayed by no gentlemen.’26
The commons were right to have had reservations, as a letter from Sir William Babthorpe to Robert Aske on 1 February 1537 illustrates. Babthorpe, although having been part of the Pilgrimage, advised Aske that both he and Sir Marmaduke Constable had spoken with Norfolk with regard to Aske meeting the duke in the North (Babthorpe’s career will be discussed further in the following chapter). Aske was advised not to rendezvous with Norfolk before the latter arrived at York. Babthorpe stated that, although Norfolk would receive Aske ‘with no very friendly countenance, you are not to be discouraged, for certain causes he will secretly show you’. He reassured Aske that Constable knew that he had the duke’s favour, and that the king and council esteemed his service.27 Here is evidence of subterfuge: Aske was to expect a cool reception from Norfolk in public, but he was to disregard this as he was a now a trusted confidante of the regime. Aske was soon to discover exactly what the king and council thought of him.
The mayor and aldermen of the town of Hull dealt with the attempted seizure by Hallam, and Sir Ralph Ellerker was one of the examiners of the rebels at the town from 23 January. In a few short weeks, Ellerker had sold out his former Pilgrims and had become an instrument of Crown retribution. Hallam himself was examined on 24 and 26 January. On 25 January, before the examinations were even concluded, the king himself wrote to Sir Ralph Ellerker, senior, and others and instructed them to execute those imprisoned at Hull and to ‘send up Bigod with all speed’.28 The king, it appears, was impatient for vengeance. Norfolk desired to know how many should be executed in his correspondence with both the king and Cromwell on 30 January.29
By the beginning of February, things do not appear to have improved much with regard to bringing the commons to heel. Norfolk advised Cromwell of much sedition in the North and informed him that ‘lewd persons do not yet cease to speak ill of you’, and he forwarded to the Lord Privy Seal a copy of a prophecy concerning him.30
Insurrection Page 8
