7 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 6. ‘The manner of the taking of Robert Aske in Lincolnshire, and the use of the same Robert unto his passage from York.’
8 Ibid.
9 TNA, SP1/120, f.134 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1224).
10 TNA, SP1/114, ff.49–51 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 43).
11 TNA, SP1/114, ff. 51–52 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 44) (spelling modernised).
12 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 46.
13 TNA, SP1/114, ff.52–53 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 45).
14 TNA, SP1/114, ff.64–66 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 64); SP1/114, ff.69–72 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 67); SP1/114, ff.72–73 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 68).
15 TNA, SP1/114, ff.75–77 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 71); SP1/114, f.77 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 72).
16 TNA, SP1/114, ff.127–28 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 102); Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of The 1530s, pp.382–3.
17 TNA, SP1/103, f.83 (L&P, Vol. X: 742); SP1/101, f.33 (L&P, Vol. X: 49).
18 TNA, SP1/115, ff.209–16 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 369).
19 TNA, SP1/119, f.73 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1087).
20 TNA, SP1/115, ff.65–67 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 234); SP1/11, f.73 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1087); Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation, p.120.
21 Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, p.378; TNA, SP1/114, ff.17–21 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 202); SP1/114, ff.169, 171 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 140, 141); SP1/115, ff.209–16 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 370); Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace, pp.380 & 383.
22 TNA, SP1/114, ff.178–79 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 145).
23 TNA, SP1/114, ff.179–81 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 146).
24 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 147.
25 TNA, SP1/114, ff.164–66, ff.166–67 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 136, 137).
26 TNA, SP1/114, ff.167–68 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 138).
27 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 315.
28 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 201; TNA, SP1/115, ff.51–57 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 227).
29 TNA, SP1/115, ff.130–32 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 292, 293).
30 TNA, SP1/115, ff.173–76 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 318) (my italics).
31 TNA, SP1/115, f.240 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 381); SP1/116, ff.20–24 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 416).
32 TNA, SP1/116, ff.20–24 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 416).
33 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 426 (quotation).
34 TNA, SP1/116, f.83 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 468); SP1/116, f.85 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 469) (spelling modernised); SP1/116, ff.108–12 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 498) (spelling modernised).
35 TNA, SP1/117, ff.189–201 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 786, 787, 788).
36 BL, Cotton, Cleo, E/IV, f.297 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 832).
37 TNA, SP1/118, ff.96–98 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 881).
38 TNA, SP1/118, ff.96–98 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1157).
39 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 923; L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1189 (quotation).
40 TNA, SP1/115 ff.190–91 (L&P XII.I: 336).
41 TNA, SP1/115, f.49; ff 51–57, ff.57–61 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 226, 227, 228); SP1/115, ff.206–208 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 362); L&P, Vol. XII.I: 401.
42 TNA, SP1/115, ff.209–16 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 369).
43 TNA, SP1/116, ff.92–99 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 479).
44 L&P, Vol. XIV.I: 13, 37. See Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.277, and Peter Lake & Michael Questier, ‘Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists and the State in Early Modern England’, Past & Present, No 153 (1996), pp.64–107, p.71; see also Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.354. The king was called ‘a tyrant more cruel than Nero’ and ‘a beast and worse than a beast’, L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 986.
45 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 498.
46 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 558.
47 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 576.
48 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.352.
49 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 581.
50 TNA, SP1/116, ff.210–12 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 590).
51 TNA, SP1/116, f.214 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 593).
52 TNA, SP1/116, ff.232–34 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 609); L&P, Vol. XII.I: 616 (quotation) (my italics).
53 TNA, SP1/116, f.253 (L&P, XII.I: 632).
54 TNA, SP1/117, ff.14–18 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 666).
55 TNA, SP1/117, ff.75–83 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 698).
56 Lake & Questier, ‘Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric’, p.69.
57 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 734.
58 Lake & Questier, ‘Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric’, pp.65 & 71. In later treason trials, the ritual violence even extended to cutting off the traitor’s privy members to demonstrate that ‘his issue is disinherited with the corruption of blood’, p.70.
59 TNA, SP1/117, ff.183–84 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 783).
60 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 846.
61 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 184.
62 TNA, SP1/115, ff.2–4 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 192).
63 TNA, SP1/115, ff.28–29 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 208, 209).
64 TNA, SP1/118, ff.14–20 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 847); SP1/115, ff.28–29 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 209).
65 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 848.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 TNA, SP1/118, ff.20–43 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 849) (spelling modernised).
69 Ibid.
70 TNA, SP1/118, ff.59–70 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 863).
71 TNA, SP1/118, ff.125–27 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 900).
72 TNA, SP1/118, f.123 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 899) (spelling modernised).
73 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 901.
74 Ibid. Marshall has also described Aske as ‘the most dangerous of Henry’s internal opponents’ in Shagan (ed.), Catholics and the ‘Protestant Nation’, p.28.
75 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 901.
76 TNA, SP1/118, f.152 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 918).
77 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 945.
78 TNA, SP1/118, f.213 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 965).
79 TNA, SP1/118, f.258 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1012).
80 TNA, SP1/118, f.265 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1014, 1013).
81 TNA, SP1/118, f.275 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1020); L&P, Vol. XII.II: 1014.
82 Ibid.
83 TNA, SP1/118, f.277 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1021).
84 TNA, SP1/119, f.53 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1064).
85 TNA, SP1/119, f.57 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1080).
86 TNA, SP1/119, f.73 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1087) (spelling modernised).
87 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1087 (quotation).
88 Ibid.
89 BL, Cotton, Caligula, B/I, f.341 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1156).
90 TNA, SP1/120, f.62 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1187).
91 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1207.
92 Ibid.
93 TNA, SP1/120, f.132 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1223).
94 TNA, SP1/120, f.136 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1225).
95 TNA, SP1/120, ff.138, 148 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1227, 1239).
96 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1243.
97 TNA, SP1/120, f.158 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 1252) (spelling modernised).
98 TNA, SP1/121, f.157 (L&P, Vol. XII.II: 133) (spelling modernised).
99 L&P, Vol. XII.II: 156 (spelling modernised).
100 Ibid., 228 (spelling modernised).
101 TNA, SP1/115, f.49 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 226).
102 Elton, Policy and Police, pp.389 & 403.
103 Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, p.409.
104 TNA, SP1/134, ff.86–88 (L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1311).
105 L&P, Vol. XIII.I: 1313.
106 TNA, SP1/135, f.19 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 20).
107 TNA, SP1/135, f.129 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 142).
108 TNA, SP1/135, ff.140–42 (L&P, Vol. XIII.II: 156).
109 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 46.
4
Rehabilitated Rebels and Reward
‘His Grace is disposed to give gifts and rewards to his true servants’,1 wrote a Halifax priest, Robert Holdsworth, in May 1537 after having described the execution of some of the rebels and the incarceration of others in the Tower. The Pilgrimage of Grace and its aftermath in the North can be used as a snapshot to illuminate and explore issues of reward and patronage and the role they played in securing compliance with Henrician religious policy. Reward is not examined in isolation and is interlinked
with the regime’s policy of retribution; a carrot and stick approach aimed at achieving cohesion, obedience and uniformity.
The role played by Thomas Cromwell in implementing Crown policy is widely recognised and has been discussed by Geoffrey Elton in detail.2 However, Richard Rex has identified a need for Cromwell’s specifically ecclesiastical patronage also to be surveyed3 and David Loades has acknowledged that Cromwell’s success depended upon a network of local patronage and that this in turn brought about a slow transformation in northern politics.4 Patronage will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter and it should be noted at the outset that there are inherent difficulties in attempting a study of patronage. As Sharon Kettering has pointed out, such studies can appear to be a ‘bewildering heap of examples, piled one upon the other’.5
The requests for confiscated lands addressed to Cromwell began during the Pilgrimage and continued thereafter. But before examining Cromwell’s relationship with some of the individuals loyal to the Crown during the rebellion and the successful rehabilitation of others, in particular, Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes, it is necessary to set the scene by highlighting the tone of requests forwarded to the Lord Privy Seal.
In October 1536, one Anthony Curteys was named as a great offender in the Lincolnshire Rising and was recorded as having been given bail, but his name was then crossed out. On 18 November, the Duke of Suffolk requested that Cromwell give Curteys’ lands to his kinsman and George Harper, but two days later, in a letter to the king, he described Curteys as a kinsman of Robert Aske who had offered to go and kill him!6 It would seem reasonable to deduce that Curteys had been implicated in the Lincolnshire Rising and had subsequently been able to preserve both his life and lands by turning against his kinsman, Aske. Thomas Hattecliffe displayed a similar opportunism to Suffolk on 18 November when he informed Cromwell about one Lionel Rathby of Lincolnshire. He requested that if Rathby were to be attainted, he should have his lands and goods as a ‘rewourde’.7
The opportunism characteristic of Suffolk and Hattecliffe was by no means unusual nor confined to the Lincolnshire situation. Sir Ralph Eure (also known as Evers) was very quick off the mark on 11 February 1537 – after Bigod’s capture by Sir John Lampley – when he wrote to Cromwell and told him that he wanted Sir Francis Bigod’s lands. He desired to have the lordships of Setterington and Bursdal.8 Similarly, Sir Ralph Ellerker (whose career will be discussed further below) wrote to Cromwell the following day, stating that the bearer, John Fowberry, had been the first to inform of Hallam’s traitorous intentions at Hull. Ellerker was of the opinion that Cromwell should help Fowberry, perhaps by granting him a farm of Hallam’s at Watton and other land worth 5 marks.9
The executions of high-profile Pilgrims such as Lord Darcy, Lord Hussey, Robert Aske, Robert Constable, Francis Bigod and John Hallam have been discussed, but a brief exploration of the reprisals taken against some other members of the gentry and nobility and an identification of the impact this had upon their heirs is necessary. An exploration and analysis of the rehabilitation of other individuals and the benefits they gained will then follow.
Sarah Bastow has made the point that the involvement of Sir Christopher Danby, Sir William Stapleton and Nicholas Fairfax indicates a strategy of involving second sons in the Pilgrimage, thereby safeguarding the families’ land and inheritance.10 However, this contention would suggest a premeditated plan to protect wealth. Older sons were obviously vulnerable because they were heirs to the family estates and wealth. Bastow’s hypothesis does not take into account the involvement of Lords Darcy, Hussey, Lumley and Sir John Bulmer. The Pilgrimage was not pre-planned and such tactics were clearly not uniform among the nobility and gentry.
Bastow also contends that there was a Tudor tactic of ensuring financial ruin and exclusion from office for the entire family following disobedience and that this was a deterrent to the gentry. This, as we shall see, was demonstrably not the case. The reconciliation of Ellerker, Bowes, Stapleton, Danby and Fairfax proves otherwise: it is apparent, as shall be discussed in the next chapter, that Sir Arthur and Sir George Darcy went on to prosper, despite their father’s execution for treason. The Crown could simply not afford a complete ‘harrowing’ of the northern gentry, however much the king thirsted for retribution. The region was not as attractive a proposition for the ambitious, qualified gentleman as the South and suitably qualified candidates, possessed of local knowledge and experience, were, relatively speaking, in shorter supply. Bastow is correct, though, in that the Danbys, Fairfaxes and Stapletons were to form a core of Catholic gentle families in the area.
Whilst Hussey was being interrogated for his participation in the Pilgrimage, Lord William Grey wrote to Cromwell, requesting his lands (11 April 1537). Here again is clear evidence of the link between retribution and opportunism: the request was based upon a presumption of guilt. Hussey was indeed executed and his estates were seized for the Crown. He had made his will on 22 October 1535. It mentioned his wife, Lady Anne, his sons, Sir William, Thomas, Gilbert and Sir Giles Huse, and his brothers, Sir William and Sir Robert. Hussey had many manors, lands and tenements in Lincolnshire, including Grantham and Old Sleaford.11 His forfeited lands were worth approximately £5,000 a year and although Hussey’s eldest son, Sir William Hussey (d. 1556), did not gain his inheritance, he was restored in blood by statute of 3 Edward VI, and his other sons and daughters by a further statute of 5 Elizabeth I.12 The restoration in blood was vitally important to peers (e.g. lords and barons) who claimed themselves ‘ennobled in blood’, meaning peerage could only be removed three ways: by an Act of Parliament; on the death of all heirs to it; or on forfeiture for treason or felony. Of some irony is the fact that one of Lord Hussey’s daughters, Bridget, married Sir Richard Morison (d. 1556) of Cassiobury – Henry and Cromwell’s chief propagandist, whose works will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. This is an example of political calculation and strategy: the forging of a dynastic alliance that was mutually beneficial. Lord Hussey’s noble birth enhanced Morison’s status and gave him the standing he quite obviously craved. At the same time, such an alliance had the advantage of banishing any lingering doubts about the Hussey family.
John, 5th Baron Lumley became involved in the Pilgrimage of Grace and although, like many others, he claimed to have been coerced, his Catholicism was probably a motivating factor. Although he was involved with the rebels in the initial stages, he came to terms with Crown policy and was one of the negotiators at Doncaster between 2 and 4 December 1536. He suffered declining health in his later years and avoided further trouble until his death in 1545. However, he had had to look on as his son and heir, George, became embroiled in the resumption of revolts in early 1537. George said in his deposition that he had heard Francis Bigod’s oration and was commanded to go and take Scarborough Castle, mustering men as he went.
Lumley was to meet a traitor’s death at Tyburn on 2 June 1537.13 Lord Lumley’s estates were eventually settled upon his grandson, John Lumley, 1st Baron Lumley (c. 1533–1609), a committed Catholic and the son and heir of George. John became involved in the intrigues of Mary, Queen of Scots and the Ridolfi plot and was imprisoned for over a year from 1571. He eventually died in 1609 and was buried at night – probably with Catholic rites.14 It is interesting to observe that the Lumleys obviously retained Catholic sympathies from the time of the Pilgrimage until at least 1609 – some seventy-three years later.
Sir John Bulmer was executed at Tyburn by 8 July 1537. Bulmer was obviously a gentry rebel leader and it is illuminating that both Sir Robert Bowes and Sir Thomas Tempest, his former fellow rebels, escorted him (among others) to London for interrogation. By May, Bowes and Tempest were appointed to a special commission at York to indict rebels including Darcy, Aske and Robert Constable. This was, as Christine Newman has argued, the government’s way of achieving the ‘ultimate show of loyalty from reconciled rebels’ – forcing them to condemn their fellow conspirators.15 Sir John’s son, Ralph, was his heir and re
mained loyal to the Crown until his death in 1558.16
Sir Stephen Hamerton and Nicholas Tempest were found guilty of having been involved in the renewed revolts in 1537. As such, both were guilty of treason. They thus met their fate and were executed at Tyburn on 8 July 1537.17 Nicholas Tempest (younger brother of Sir Thomas) had a son called Richard, according to The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564, and an Elizabethan hand confirms that Nicholas was attainted with Sir Stephen Handlon in 1537. Sir Stephen Hamerton, son and heir of John Hamerton, was married to a daughter of Ralph Bigod but no issue is recorded. He was survived by his brother, Richard, who was in turn succeeded by his son, John.18
The link between retribution and reward needs to be examined and it will be revealed how former Pilgrims demonstrated their loyalty by prosecuting their erstwhile allies. The poachers had effectively turned gamekeepers. Firstly, the careers of two men who had been prominent figures in the Pilgrimage of Grace, sworn by the rebels and the bearers of their petitions to the king, Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir Robert Bowes, will be considered. Both managed successfully to rehabilitate themselves and consequently furthered their careers and finances. How did they achieve this?
On the same day that a general pardon was issued to Lord Darcy (18 January 1537), Robert Aske advised the king that the commons were ‘wildly’ disposed to new commotions and that Francis Bigod was assembling and swearing the commons, although he had not yet taken Scarborough Castle. The following day saw Sir Ralph Ellerker advising Henry that he hoped to meet with Bigod that day. However, Ellerker had to inform Henry on 20 January that he could not confirm what had happened to Bigod or Lumley, but he had sent out spies.19 By 23 January, Ellerker was one of the examiners into Hallam’s rebellion at Hull, and Henry was expressing his gratitude to both him and his father for their conduct in the pursuit of Bigod a couple of days later.20
It is quite remarkable that this erstwhile Pilgrim should have been endeavouring to establish the whereabouts of Bigod approximately six weeks after the December pardon. Ellerker’s transformation was so rapid and complete that he was able to deploy spies in the hunt to apprehend Bigod and Lumley in the service of the Crown. To underline his new-found loyalty and commitment to Henry, he was playing the role of examiner into Hallam’s conduct before the first month of 1537 was even out.
Insurrection Page 11
