THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE
1536–1537
AND
THE EXETER CONSPIRACY
1538
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
=London=: FETTER LANE, E.C.
=Edinburgh=: 100 PRINCES STREET
[Illustration: Black-and-white woodcut colophon showing a heraldic
shield divided into four quarters with rampant lions, separated by
vertical panels of ermine spots; a small rectangular cartouche sits at
the center.]
=New York=: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
=Bombay, Calcutta and Madras=: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
=Toronto=: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
=Tokyo=: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
_All rights reserved_
THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE
1536–1537
AND
THE EXETER CONSPIRACY
1538
BY
MADELEINE HOPE DODDS
(Historical Tripos, Cambridge)
AND
RUTH DODDS
VOLUME I
Cambridge:
at the University Press
1915
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
NOTE
The authors wish to express their most sincere gratitude to Miss Myra
Curtis, Professor A. F. Pollard, Mr I. J. Bell of the British Museum, Mr
H. R. Leighton, the Rev. J. Wilson, and Mr T. C. Hodgson for their kind
and valuable help in the preparation of this book.
The documents transcribed by the authors from the originals have been
given in the original spelling; in those which have been taken from
printed copies the spelling has been modernised.
The spelling of proper names of persons and places is that used in the
Index to the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.
M. H. D.
R. D.
_July 1915._
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I THE TURNING-POINT 1
II PLOTS AND TOKENS 14
III AFFINITY AND CONFEDERACY 28
IV FACTS AND RUMOURS 63
V THE RISING IN LINCOLNSHIRE 89
VI THE FAILURE OF LINCOLNSHIRE 117
VII THE INSURRECTION IN THE EAST RIDING 141
VIII THE PILGRIMS’ ADVANCE 168
IX THE EXTENT OF THE INSURRECTION 192
X THE MUSTERS AT PONTEFRACT 227
XI THE FIRST APPOINTMENT AT DONCASTER 241
XII THE FIRST WEEKS OF THE TRUCE 273
XIII THE COUNCIL AT YORK 308
XIV THE COUNCIL AT PONTEFRACT 341
MAPS
I MAP OF ENGLAND SHOWING THE AREAS OF DISAFFECTION _To face p._ 1
II CENTRAL LINCOLNSHIRE „ „
III THE MAIN ROADS FROM LONDON TO THE NORTH „ „
IV THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE „ „
V THE NORTHERN COUNTIES „ „
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
PAGE
=3= For influence on elections in the King’s favour, see “History,”
October 1914, A. F. Hattersley, “The Real Position of the Duke
of Norfolk in 1529–30.”
=50= _For_ Thomas Monkton _read_ William Monketon.
=79= The church plate of Hull. This method of securing the value of
the church plate to the parish became fairly common in the
later part of Henry VIII’s reign and during the reign of Edward
VI. See Cox, “Churchwardens’ Accounts” (the Antiquary’s Books),
pp. 133, 140–1.
=91= For the commission to the clergy see Usher, “The Rise and Fall of
the High Commission,” pp. 15–21.
=116= Note E. The Sir Marmaduke Constable mentioned was Sir Robert’s
brother, not his cousin.
=123= Composition of the royal and the rebel forces. See Cox,
“Churchwardens’ Accounts” (the Antiquary’s Books), pp. 325–7,
for the parish soldier and the parish armour.
=145= “Four docepyers.” Not “deceivers,” as suggested, but “douzepers,”
great men. See New English Dictionary, and Lydgate, “Minor
Poems” (Percy Society), p. 25:—
“Where been of Fraunce all the dozepiere,
Which in Gaule had the governaunce?”
=149= The commons of Howdenshire attacked the house of Sir Marmaduke
Tunstall, the Bishop of Durham’s nephew, but “some more
sober than the residue” prevented any serious damage. See
“Richmondshire Wills” (Surtees Society), p. 288 n.
=184= Spoiling of Blytheman’s house. Colins was afterwards accused of
being the chief plunderer. See L. and P. XII (1), 1264.
=203= Oxneyfield is close to Darlington, where it seems that the
townspeople rose and joined the rebels. The dean of the
collegiate church commended one of his servants who “was the
safeguard of my life, for else I had been betrapped by the
commons ere I had known.” “Richmondshire Wills” (Surtees
Society), p. 40 n. Cf. below, vol. II, p. 94.
=208= The lordship of Middleham, which had belonged to Warwick the
Kingmaker, on his death and attainder was granted by Edward IV
to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards Richard III.
(Gairdner, “Richard III,” p. 22.) It is well known that Richard
married Warwick’s daughter Anne, co-heiress with her sister
Isabel, and thus obtained a claim to the lordship not only by
grant but also by inheritance. He and his wife were very
popular at Middleham, which he called his home (ibid. pp. 28,
259). When Richard in his turn was killed and attainted,
Middleham escheated to the crown, but, Anne and her only child
being dead, Warwick’s line was now represented by the Countess
of Salisbury, the daughter of Anne’s sister Isabel, who was
married to the Duke of Clarence. This expression of affection
for the old line may therefore be a reference to the Poles.
=209= “Merlione.” This is a misreading of “Meliore,” i.e. Mallory. The
leader of the siege of Skipton was not a peasant with a feigned
name, but a member of the family of Mallory.
=213= _For_ Guisburn _read_ Guisborough, as on p. 71. It is not quite
clear whether this incident happened at Guisburn or at
Guisborough, but the latter seems the more probable.
=233= “St Saviour’s of Newburgh.” The Priory of Newburgh was dedicated
to the Virgin Mary, but the canons possessed “the girdle Sancti
Salvatoris, which, as it was said, was good for those in child
birth.” (L. and P. X, p. 137.) This relic was kept in St
Saviour’s chapel at the Priory, where many pilgrims resorted.
(L. and P. XII (2), 1231.) Probably Newburgh was called St
Saviour’s after the most famous relic which it possessed,
though it was really St Mary’s, just as Durham was called St
Cuthbert’s, though it also was dedicated to the Virgin.
=233= The message to Darcy from Shrewsbury’s camp. After the rebellion
was over, when even the executions were almost at an end,
Christopher Lassels, who was imprisoned in the Tower with Aske,
was heard to say that Aske had told him “very sure tokens” by
which the man who sent the warning might be recognised. This
remark of Lassels was reported to Cromwell on 22 July 1537, but
there is no record to show whether any arrest was made on
Lassels’ information. (L. and P. XII (2), 321.)
=237= _For_ “Sir Robert Bowes of Barnard Castle, and his sons” _read_
“Robert Bowes and his brothers.”
=266= The deposition against Hogon is printed in full, with
illustrative notes by Furnivall, in “Ballads from MSS,” vol. I,
pt 2, p. 310 (Ballad Society).
=273= Hutton of Snape, probably a misreading of Snaith.
=281= Pickering’s poem is printed by Furnivall in “Ballads from MSS,”
vol. I, pt 2, p. 301 (Ballad Society). The editor states that
it was published at Ripon in 1843, with a preface by J. R. W. I
have not seen this last version, but it appears that neither
Furnivall nor J. R. W. knew the author of the poem and its
occasion, though they conjectured correctly that it referred to
the Pilgrimage of Grace.
=317= Henry VIII and the letter. Cf. Chapuys’ despatch of 3 November
1533:—“On 25 October Henry had received Gardiner’s letter of
the 17th, in which the bishop reported that Clement had refused
to dispose of the matrimonial cause in the offhand manner that
had been suggested. Henry became pale with anger and crushed
Gardiner’s letter in his hand, exclaiming that he was betrayed,
and that the King of France was not the true friend he had
thought. He continued for some time to swear at the pope, and
could not regain his equanimity.” (L. and P. VI, 1392.)
=364= As late as 1596 it was maintained that the long bow was superior
to firearms (Sir H. Knyvet, “Defence of the Realme,” 1596), but
on the other hand as early as 1515 in a paper relating to
Ireland it was stated that “the wild Irish and English rebels
of all the land doth dread more and feareth the sudden shot of
guns much more than the shot of arrows or any other shot of
kind of weapon in this world.” (L. and P. II (1), 1366, printed
in full Furnivall, “Ballads from MSS,” I, pt 1, p. 38 [Ballad
Society].)
[Illustration:
_Cambridge Univ. Press_
]
[Illustration:
_Cambridge Univ. Press_
]
[Illustration:
_Cambridge Univ. Press_
]
[Illustration:
_Cambridge Univ. Press_
]
[Illustration:
_Cambridge Univ. Press_
]
CHAPTER I
THE TURNING-POINT
In order to see the rebellion of 1536–7 in its true perspective it is
necessary to make a preliminary survey of the political position in
England before the first rising took place. At the end of July 1536
Henry VIII’s domestic relations were more settled than they had been for
the last ten years. The execution of Anne Boleyn on 19 May had been
followed by his marriage with Jane Seymour, who was indisputably his
lawful wife. The parliament which met on 8 June declared the two
children of the King’s former wives, Mary and Elizabeth, illegitimate,
and settled the succession to the crown upon the issue of the King’s
latest marriage: that failing, the King was empowered to determine his
heir himself either by will or by letters patent[1]. It was believed
that the object of this statute was to bring into the succession Henry’s
illegitimate son, Henry Duke of Richmond, who, however, died on 23
July[2]. After his death the situation with regard to the succession was
practically the same as it had been before the divorce of Katherine of
Arragon was proposed. The King was legally married, but it was
considered unlikely that Queen Jane would have a child, and unless he
acknowledged Mary, his heir by blood was the King of Scotland, whose
claim was exceedingly unpopular in England. If the King died it was
certain that Mary would be chosen by the nation as their queen, whether
she was legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover the power to offer her hand
in marriage might be useful to her father in foreign affairs.
A reconciliation between the King and his daughter was effected in
July[3], and the greater part of England would have rejoiced if the
matter had gone still further[4],—if Henry had acknowledged Mary,
beheaded Cromwell, burnt Latimer and the heretic bishops, and reconciled
himself with the Pope, who in return would certainly have been willing
to recognise Queen Jane and her possible children. Apart from all other
objections to this change of policy, however, there was one fatal
obstacle; the King could not afford it.
The characters of the Tudor Kings have made so deep an impression on
English history that it is easy to explain the events of their reigns by
attributing everything to their personal traits, but Henry’s need of
money was due to something that lay deeper than his own extravagance and
rapacity. The whole of Europe was undergoing great economic changes, in
consequence of the discovery of new trade routes and the importation of
gold and silver from America, which depreciated the value of the
coinage. Prices rose and the spending power of any fixed sum of money
diminished. As the royal revenues were almost entirely customary and
therefore fixed, it followed that the King was growing poorer while the
expenses of government were constantly increasing as the nation emerged
from feudal into modern life[5].
One of the most deeply-rooted feudal theories was that “the King should
live of his own,” that is, that the ordinary revenues derived from the
crown lands, the customs and feudal dues, should serve for the ordinary
needs of the government, and that taxes should be levied only in time of
war, or to meet extraordinary need. This theory had seldom corresponded
to facts, and it was now quite untenable, but the tax-payer naturally
cherished it. Henry’s taxation had already aroused great discontent, but
the need for a sufficient revenue did not grow less, and the King could
not afford to give up the money which, as supreme head of the Church of
England, he diverted from the Pope, or the still more considerable sum
that he hoped to derive from the suppression of the monasteries. But
while the great mass of the nation desired nothing so much as the
remission of all taxes, the educated classes were beginning to realise
that this would not be such a very desirable state of affairs. The idea
was just beginning to emerge that if the King did not need money he
would never call a parliament, and that the liberties of the nation
depended on its control of taxation. When the King declared that if only
the wealth of the monasteries were in his hands he would never ask his
people for money again, there were a few who saw that the King’s wealth
was a much more serious danger than the King’s poverty[6].
The state of affairs on the continent permitted Henry to do as he
pleased, for Francis I had again attacked Charles V, and the Pope could
do nothing while his two champions were cutting each other’s throats.
Henry therefore continued to carry out the policy expressed in the acts
of his two last parliaments, the long parliament which met in December
1529 and was dissolved in March 1536, and its brief successor which met
in June and was dissolved in July 1536.
A word must be said about the composition of these parliaments. A Tudor
House of Commons was not, of course, representative in the modern sense
of the word, for it consisted exclusively of country gentlemen and
wealthy merchants, who were in most cases appointed by a small close
body rather than popularly elected. The influence of the crown,
exercised through the sheriff or through some local magnate, was
paramount at the nomination of members, and it does not seem to have
been resented, so long as the chosen candidate was a well-known man in
the district for which he was appointed. The electors were willing that
the King should choose the man most pleasing to himself among perhaps a
dozen equally eligible persons, but gentlemen and burgesses alike
resented the “carpet-bagger,” the stranger sent down from the court, who
knew nothing of the place and despised the provincials whom he nominally
represented[7]. They also objected to members who held government posts,
and, curiously enough, bye-elections were considered an abuse, as it was
maintained that when a member died his seat ought to remain vacant until
the next general election[8].
The parliament of 1529–36 violated even these elementary conditions of
representation; Cromwell, who came into power during these seven years,
gradually developed the art of managing the House of Commons to an
extent which had never been known before, and the electors were
powerless in his hands, because they could not understand what was
happening[9]. It must also be noticed that the electors in 1529 had very
little means of knowing what measures would be brought before the
parliament. They knew of course that the King would want money, and they
knew also that the question of the divorce would be dealt with, but even
the best-informed can hardly have foreseen the act for the dissolution
of the smaller monasteries. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that
the acts of this parliament were not passed with the consent, or even
with the knowledge, of the nation. Their true originator was believed to
be Thomas Cromwell. Whether his rise had been slow or rapid, this
remarkable man was now (1536) at the height of his power[10], and the
greater number of this parliament’s acts were stages in the progress of
his policy. By birth Cromwell came of the English lower middle class,
but part of his early manhood was spent in Italy[11], and his character
was an illustration of the proverb “An Englishman Italianate is a devil
incarnate.” He belonged to the new school of political thought which had
for its exponents Philip de Commines and Machiavelli, and for its heroes
Louis XI and Caesar Borgia. Thomas Cromwell, clothier, solicitor and
moneylender, seems genuinely to have believed that it was the duty of
any man who by birth, luck or skill became a prince, to make himself
absolute, and to guard against any breath of opposition at home as
carefully as he did against any hint of attack from abroad. He was
really convinced that an absolute autocracy was the best form of
government for any country, and that it was the duty of a good subject
to do everything in his power to strengthen the hand of the King.
Religion meant nothing at all to him. He conformed to the existing
usages, whatever they might be, but distinctions between creeds only
interested him in so far as they might be used politically. Honour,
mercy, conscience, were simply the prevailing weaknesses of mankind,
which might be employed for his advantage, just as he might take
advantage of drunkenness or stupidity. It was not so much that he
disregarded as that he never felt them. With all this moral
insensibility he was a singularly efficient administrator. Instead of
fearing and slighting the houses of parliament, he manipulated them for
his own ends, while his spy system was unrivalled. But this was the
darker side of his labours; it was also part of his policy to promote
trade, to put the kingdom in a state of defence, to repress crime and
violence as well as rebellion. His faults as a statesman were rapacity
and a too great desire to interfere in every department of life. It was
now six years since his celebrated promise “to make Henry the richest
king that ever was in England”[12]; at last the treasures of the
monasteries were within his grasp, and his promise seemed on the point
of fulfilment.
Cromwell’s low birth exposed him to the scorn of his contemporaries, and
has been brought up against him even by modern historians; nevertheless
if it were necessary to make a choice between his moral character and
that of his high-born opponent, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, it could
scarcely be denied that Norfolk was the greater scoundrel of the two. He
was simply a courtier and politician, with not a tenth of Cromwell’s
ability. By inclination he was conservative and favoured the Old
Learning, but if he could advance himself by denying his politics or his
faith he was quite ready to abandon either. Cromwell at least had a
political end in view; Norfolk merely wished to aggrandise himself and
had no other object.
It goes without saying that the two regarded each other with the
bitterest hatred. After the fall of Anne Boleyn Cromwell managed to
procure Norfolk’s banishment from the court, but they were in constant
correspondence with each other. Among all the records of misery, crime
and brutality in the Letters and Papers of the time there is perhaps
nothing more horrible than Norfolk’s letters to Cromwell; the sickly
expressions of goodwill, the filthy jokes, the grimaces of thankfulness,
make them vile reading. But not many letters were written in the summer
of 1536, for Norfolk had just been worsted, and Cromwell was completely
master of the situation.
The general course of Cromwell’s systematic attack on the Church is so
well known that it is necessary only to recapitulate those features
which chiefly aroused popular indignation.
In 1529, the first year of Henry’s long parliament, a very sweeping
measure was passed to regulate the clergy. They were prohibited from
holding any land by lease. All leases held by ecclesiastics must be
transferred to laymen before the next Michaelmas. Spiritual persons were
prohibited from trading, except in the case of monasteries selling the
produce of their own lands for their own needs. No priest was henceforth
to hold more than one benefice of value above £8 yearly, but existing
pluralists might retain four; members of the King’s Council, chaplains
of the royal family or of peers, and brothers of peers and knights, were
permitted to hold three, and Doctors of Divinity might hold two. Every
priest was required to reside on one of his benefices, but exceptions
were made in favour of pilgrims, persons on the King’s service, scholars
at universities, and royal chaplains. Spiritual persons were prohibited
from keeping breweries and tan-yards[13]. The chief object of this
statute was probably to facilitate the transference of ecclesiastical
property to laymen[14]. It must have caused great indignation among the
clergy. They may have hoped at first that it would not be strictly
enforced, but in 1536 it was re-enacted with still more stringent
residentiary clauses[15].
In 1530 the clergy of England were called upon to face the overwhelming
charge that they had all offended against the Statute of Praemunire by
acknowledging Wolsey’s legatine authority. In order to buy their pardon
from the King they were compelled to pay a heavy fine. In addition to
this the King demanded that they should acknowledge him “the only
Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and clergy of England,” and
that cure of souls was committed to him, “curæ animarum ejus majestati
commissæ et populo sibi commisso debite inservire possimus.” He made
other demands, but these were the most important points. The clergy
would only accept the title qualified by the phrase “quantum per Christi
leges licet,” “as far as the laws of Christ will allow.”[16] They
applied the same qualifications to the phrase about the cure of souls
“ut et curæ animarum populi ejus majestati commissi _dehinc_ servire
possimus,” “and so far (as the laws of Christ will allow) we are able to
agree that the cure of the souls of his people has been committed to his
Majesty.” This acknowledgment was made, as far as can be discovered,
only by the southern convocation. The questions were not put to the
northern convocation, and it seems that at least three of the northern
bishops, Tunstall being one, protested against the new title, even with
the modification[17]. However the King was satisfied for the moment by
the compromise, and the clergy were solemnly pardoned[18].
It is not necessary to go into the complicated questions of the Petition
of the Commons, the Answer of the Ordinaries, and the Submission of the
Clergy in 1532, as they were not understood by the people at large[19].
Passing over the anti-papal legislation of the following years, those
acts which were protested against by the rebels are the only ones which
need be mentioned. The first of these was the Act which conditionally
restrained the payment of Annates or First Fruits to Rome in 1532[20], a
prohibition which was made absolute in 1534[21]. The fault found with
this statute was not that the payments were no longer made to Rome, but
that they were still levied by the King.
In 1534 Henry attacked the Church of Rome at a vital point. On 31 March
of that year the question was put to the Convocation of Canterbury,
“Whether the Roman pontiff has any greater jurisdiction bestowed on him
by God in the Holy Scripture in this realm of England than any other
foreign bishop?” Only four of those present voted for the Pope’s
authority, and it was consequently resolved by a large majority that he
had no such power[22]. On 5 May the same resolution was passed by the
Convocation of York without a dissenting vote[23]. Following on this,
Henry caused the Supremacy Act to be passed in November 1534. This
measure conferred upon the King and his heirs for ever the title of
“Only supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” The saving clause
“quantum per Christi leges licet” was quietly ignored[24].
It must always be remembered that behind this brief summary the great
drama of the rival queens, Katherine of Arragon and Anne Boleyn, had
been running its course. The anti-papal acts so far had been diplomatic
moves. In the more remote country districts they were probably hardly
known and not at all understood. But at this point Henry resolved to
make the whole nation realise their altered relation to Rome.
In April 1535 Henry issued a mandate which declared that “sundry persons
both religious and secular, priests and curates, daily set forth and
extol the jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise
called Pope, sowing their pestilential and false doctrine, praying for
him in the pulpit, making him a god, illuding and seducing our subjects,
and bringing them into great errors, sedition and evil opinions, more
preserving the power, laws and jurisdiction of the said bishop than the
most holy laws and precepts of Almighty God.” Any person offending in
this way was to be apprehended at once and committed to prison without
bail until the King’s pleasure in his case was known[25]. Royal letters
were sent out on 1 June 1535 to all the bishops to command them to
declare the King’s new title in their sermons every Sunday, and to cause
their clergy to do the same. The name of the Bishop of Rome was to be
erased from all services and mass books. This was followed on the 3rd by
an “Order for preaching and bidding of the beads in all sermons to be
made within the realm.” The Pope and the Cardinals of Rome were no
longer to be named in the bidding of the beads. The prayers were to be
“for the whole Catholic Church and for the Catholic Church of the realm;
for the King, only Supreme Head of the Catholic Church of England, for
Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, for the whole clergy and temporality,
and especially for such as the preacher might name of devotion; for the
souls of the dead, and specially of such as it might please the preacher
to name.” Every preacher was ordered to preach against the usurped power
of the Bishop of Rome, and they were to abstain for one year from any
reference to purgatory, honouring of saints, marriage of priests,
pilgrimages, miracles[26]. The shock which this measure gave to the
nation will be to some extent illustrated in the following chapters. It
struck at the very foundations of the existing creed. The papal
authority was not always popular in England,—men grumbled at the Pope,
sneered at him, criticised him,—but that he was the only supreme head of
Christianity was as firmly believed and as confidently accepted as that
the sun rose in the east. When simple country priests were called upon
to deny weekly a proposition which they had never before dreamed of
questioning, they and their congregations might well think that the
foundations of society were giving way, and their worst fears seemed to
be realised by the Act for the Suppression of the Smaller Monasteries,
passed in the following year[27]. It is not necessary to repeat the
well-known story of Henry’s dealings with the monasteries, and the whole
of the following work is a commentary on it.
In the same year the privileges of the palatinate of Durham and other
exempted districts were abolished[28].
In the short parliament of June-July 1536 two Acts were passed of
considerable importance. By one all bulls, breves, dispensations and
faculties from the Pope now within the realm were declared void[29]. In
1534 the clergy had been prohibited from obtaining dispensations, etc.
from Rome[30], but those obtained before 12 March 1533 had been
expressly declared valid. Now, however, they were required to surrender
their papal licences, etc. to the Archbishop of Canterbury before
Michaelmas 1537[31]. The Imperial ambassador, Chapuys, reported that
this was the statute which the parliament was most reluctant to pass, as
it involved serious questions of legitimacy, “but in the end everything
must go as the King wishes.”[32] The other statute dealt with the
question of sanctuary and benefit of clergy. Already several statutes
had been passed limiting this much abused privilege[33]. In this statute
benefit of clergy was denied to any ecclesiastic who committed the
crimes specified in former statutes as those for which no layman might
claim benefit. The offending priest was to be punished like a layman,
without degradation from his holy orders[34].
By the time that this mass of legislation was completed there were very
few people in England who knew what they were really intended by the
government to believe. In order that the new state of things might be
understood, the King as Supreme Head of the Church of England, with the
advice and assent of Convocation, published Ten Articles about Religion.
They were issued in June 1536, when the year’s prohibition of
controversy about purgatory, pilgrimages, etc. was at an end[35]. The
first five articles stated those points in belief which were necessary
to salvation. They were the grounds of faith, as set forth in the Bible,
the Creeds as interpreted by the patristic traditions not contrary to
Scripture, and by the Acts of the Four Councils; Justification; Baptism;
Penance, which included confession and good works; and the Sacrament of
the Altar. Thus only three of the seven sacraments were named as
essential. The other five Articles dealt with such points “as have been
of a long continuance for a decent order and honest policy, prudently
instituted and used in the churches of our realm, and be for that same
purpose and end to be observed and kept accordingly, although they be
not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to our salvation.” These
were paying honour to saints, placing their images in churches and
praying to them; the rites and ceremonies of the Church; and the belief
in purgatory, which involved prayers for the dead[36].
The Ten Articles received the assent of the southern, but not of the
northern convocation, although they were signed by the Archbishop of
York and the Bishop of Durham[37]. They were supplemented in July by an
order of the Supreme Head and Convocation that no holy days should be
observed in harvest time, 1 July–29 September, except the feasts of the
Apostles, the Virgin Mary, and St George; or in the law terms, except
Ascension Day, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, All Hallows and
Candlemas; all feasts of the Dedication should be observed on the first
Sunday in October, and no “church holidays,” which were the feasts of
the patron saints of churches, should be observed unless they fell on an
authorised holy day[38].
In the same month these new regulations were enforced by the first Royal
Injunctions of Henry VIII[39]. The publication of these injunctions “was
the first act of pure supremacy done by the King, for in all that had
gone before he had acted with the concurrence of Convocation.”[40] The
Ten Articles were a compromise between the Old and the New Learning, but
the Injunctions, which were issued in Cromwell’s name, went further in
the way of innovations. The clergy were ordered to preach every Sunday
for the next quarter, and afterwards twice a quarter, on the subject of
the King’s Supremacy, setting forth the abolition of the Bishop of
Rome’s pretended authority. They were also to expound and enforce the
Ten Articles and to declare the new order for holy days. They were to
discourage superstitious ceremonies, and to exhort all men to “apply
themselves to the keeping of God’s commandments and fulfilling of His
works of charity, rather than to make pilgrimages or bestow money on
saints and relics.” In this the Injunctions went further than the
Articles, in which pilgrimages were not mentioned. Another innovation
was the order that all servants and young people must be taught the
Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments in English. The
remaining injunctions directed the clergy to study, give alms, lead
sober lives, etc.
In addition to these measures, any one of which was sufficient to arm
all the forces of tradition and religious conservatism against the King,
several important political Acts had been passed, which were scarcely
more likely to be popular. Among these the three Succession Acts were
the most important. The first declared the Princess Mary illegitimate
and entailed the succession on the heirs male of the King and Anne
Boleyn, or failing heirs male, on the Princess Elizabeth. All were to
swear to maintain this act, under penalty of high treason[41]. The
second Succession Act confirmed the first and supplied a form of oath to
be taken[42], but this was superseded by the third, which has been
described above. The Treason Act gave a new definition of high treason.
It was declared to be high treason “if any person ... do _maliciously_
wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent,
practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the
King’s most royal person, the queen’s or their heir’s apparent, or to
deprive them of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or
_slanderously and maliciously_ publish and pronounce, by express wri.
ting or words, that the King our sovereign lord should be heretic,
schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown.”[43] This act was
passed only after prolonged debate in the House of Commons, and the King
was forced to permit the word “maliciously” to be inserted; this was
done in the hope of saving those who could not conscientiously call the
King Supreme Head of the Church, but did and said nothing to prevent
others from giving him the title[44].
It was for offences against these statutes, the second Succession Act
and the Treason Act, that Sir Thomas More and Cardinal Fisher were put
to death in July 1535. Pope Paul III, roused at last by this deliberate
defiance of his authority, prepared a bull of interdict and deposition
against Henry in the autumn of the same year[45]. But he had not
sufficient faith in his own curses to launch them at Henry without
adequate secular support. If he had had the courage of a medieval pope,
he would have published the bull with perfect confidence that it would
accomplish its own work, without earthly aid; what is more, it would
very likely have been effective, as will be shown hereafter. Paul III,
however, endeavoured to back up his supernatural threats by physical
force, and failed. Francis I protested vigorously against the
publication of the bull, as he was Henry’s ally, while Charles V was not
in a position to lend his aid, and the Pope suspended it for the
time[46].
Returning to the unpopular statutes of the long parliament, the
financial situation must be briefly considered. Henry’s money troubles
have already been mentioned. The usual levies by direct taxation, the
Fifteenth and the Tenth, had originally been the actual fraction of the
tax-payer’s possessions, but since 1334 they had become fixed payments
levied from each county without reassessment, and therefore did not
represent the wealth of the nation[47]. In addition to the usual
Fifteenth and Tenth, the long parliament granted to the King a general
subsidy of 1_d._ in the £ on incomes above £20 a year, levied by
commissioners who were sent into every shire to discover through the
constables the amount which each person ought to pay[48]. In Henry’s
reign at any rate a real assessment was made, and the measure was
consequently exceedingly unpopular.
Another act which was designed to increase the revenue was the Statute
of Uses[49]. The object of this statute was to preserve intact to the
King the feudal dues from estates which were held directly from him in
chief. Such estates might not be given by will, but their holders
usually provided for their families by leaving a rent charge on the
estate to the use of their younger children or other dependents. The
statute abolished such uses entirely, and thus deprived the whole
family, except the eldest son, of any income from an estate held in
chief from the King.
These statutes were all passed at the direct instance of the King, and
chiefly for his profit, but statutes of a more disinterested character
were not more popular. Tudor statesmen were firmly convinced that it was
their duty to regulate the trade of the nation in every possible way.
Their constant interference in minute points must have been most
exasperating to tradesmen, and although their object was always the
common good, such unwise meddling produced bad results more often than
good ones, and therefore was detested not only by the sellers, but also
by the buyers, whose interests it was supposed to protect. Moreover the
common people had no confidence in the government, and were always ready
to believe rumours that these acts would turn out to be new forms of
taxation.
A statute which aroused great indignation in the eastern counties was
passed in 1535. Clothiers were ordered to weave into their cloth their
respective trade marks, and to specify the length of each piece of cloth
on a seal attached to it. Until this was done the aulnager was not
permitted to seal the goods. At the same time the legal breadth of
various kinds of cloth, which had been regulated by previous statutes,
was increased, except in the case of Suffolk set cloths. The provisions
of the statute did not apply to the county of Worcester[50].
In order, to check the evils of enclosures, which were increasing
rapidly[51], it was enacted that no grazier might keep a flock of more
than 2,000 sheep[52], and by another statute landowners who had
abandoned husbandry for sheep-farming since 1515, were ordered to
re-erect or repair the houses of husbandry on their lands under penalty
of forfeiting half the land to the crown[53]. These two statutes were
intended to check the depopulation caused by sheep-farming enclosures,
and were therefore popular in intention, but they were naturally
resented by the landowners, and rumours spread that both cattle and
sheep were to be taxed or confiscated.
Other measures with an equally good object had equally unfortunate
results. Ever since 1529 the government had been endeavouring to keep
down the price of meat. As all prices were rising rapidly during this
period, owing to causes beyond the control of legislation, these efforts
had exasperated the butchers, while they left the purchasers in a rather
worse case than before[54]. In 1534 by one of several statutes dealing
with the subject the Lords of the Council were empowered to issue
proclamations “from time to time as the case shall require to set and
tax reasonable prices of all such kinds of victuals” as “cheese, butter,
capons, hens, chickens,” etc.[55] It seems possible that this statute,
together with the ineffective regulations which accompanied it, gave
rise to the rumour that all poor men were to be prohibited from eating
“white meat” unless they paid a tax to the King on every chicken, capon
or such-like[56]. But whether the rumour may be traced to this statute
or not, it will be seen in what follows that the butchers sought their
revenge on the King by taking an active part in the insurrection.
From this brief review it is obvious that the government had been
pursuing a remarkably daring policy in all departments of national life.
In the following chapters an attempt will be made to show how the
different classes were affected by this varied mass of legislation, and
what their feelings were towards its originators, the King and Thomas
Cromwell.