THE COUNCIL AT PONTEFRACT
At the great council which was now approaching, the Pilgrims were
confronted by the very serious business of stating and justifying their
position. Obedience to the government in the sixteenth century was not
merely a theory or a convenience, as at the present day; it was a
fundamental duty. There were none of the methods of peaceful opposition
which are so common now. To resist the government meant civil war and
social anarchy—cattle driven, houses burnt, women ravished, men
slaughtered. The duty of non-resistance was the first principle of
self-preservation, and the Pilgrims were not fulfilling that duty. They
had risen in arms, and they were seriously anxious to show that they had
sufficient grounds for this desperate step. Their justification was that
the Church was in danger. The Church had always upheld the duty of
obedience to the secular government, with but one important reservation,
that the Pope had the power to release subjects from their allegiance if
the King’s conduct was such that to obey him was mortal sin. In the
opinion of Pope Paul III, the crisis in England entitled him to use this
extreme power. He had prepared a bull of deposition against Henry, but
he lacked courage to publish it. Though the people of England had heard
rumours of this bull, they knew nothing with certainty. The Pilgrimage
of Grace had lasted for two months without the smallest sign of approval
arriving from Rome.
It was of the utmost importance to the success of the movement that both
gentlemen and commons should be convinced of the justice of their cause,
for it was their unity in faith alone which held them together. As the
Pope made no sign, the leaders resolved to obtain the sanction of the
Church, if possible, from her chief representatives among themselves.
Even before the council at York, it had been proposed that the clergy of
the northern parts should be asked to define clearly the ancient faith
for which the Pilgrims had risen. After the truce at Doncaster, Aske
requested Archbishop Lee to make a “book of the spiritual promotions,”
but Lee did not reply[1633]. At York it was resolved that the spiritual
men of the north should be bidden to prepare themselves for an assembly
at Pontefract, where they were requested to declare their opinion
touching the faith[1634]. William Babthorpe took this order to the
Archbishop, who was very reluctant to obey such a summons. He tried to
persuade Sir Robert Constable to give him leave to remain at home, but
Sir Robert would only agree to this if he would send his opinion to the
council in writing. Shortly before the assembly at Pontefract Sir Ralph
Ellerker, Robert Bowes and William Babthorpe waited on the Archbishop
and told him that he was expected to draw up articles for the conference
with Norfolk; Lee was very much alarmed, though they explained that they
meant articles concerning the faith. He replied that he must first know
on what points the Pilgrims wished to consult the clergy, and Babthorpe
wrote to Aske for a statement of them, giving his own advice in the
letter.
Aske with unsuspecting candour sent the Archbishop an outline of the
articles which he thought should be considered[1635]. This list of
questions proposed to the clergy may be the one contained in an existing
document, without heading or signature[1636]. Most of the subjects
mentioned in it were afterwards discussed at Pontefract, but there was
one point of great importance which was not raised there. “If one oath
be made and after one other oath to the contrary, and by the latter oath
the party is sworn to repute and take the first oath void, whether it
may be so by [_spiritual_] law or not[1637]?”
This was a pressing question to most of the Pilgrims; nearly all, even
the commons, had taken an oath of allegiance to the King, and although
their new oath had been framed so that it should not directly contradict
the former one, they could not hide from themselves that its meaning was
very different. But this problem did not confront only the laymen. The
English bishops had all taken an oath of canonical obedience to the Pope
on their first installation, before the breach with Rome. The clergy had
sworn to obey the bishops in all lawful and canonical mandates, and to
oppose all heresies condemned by the Church. But in February 1535 the
bishops had made a solemn renunciation of any sort of obedience to the
Pope, and in June of the same year the oath of the clergy had been
altered to include a similar renunciation. In these cases also some
attempt had been made to avoid a direct contradiction of their first
oaths. The form laid before the bishops was not an oath, but a
renunciation. The clergy had not sworn to obey the Pope, but only to
obey their diocesans, who in turn obeyed the Pope[1638]. The parallel of
the Pilgrims’ case with that of the clergy was obvious, and might be so
inconvenient that it is no wonder they did not choose to argue the
point.
When he sent his list of questions, Aske referred them wholly to the
Archbishop as metropolitan[1639], and begged that the clergy should
determine the points “whereupon we may danger battle.” Lee assured
Cromwell that as soon as he read this he resolved to go to Pontefract,
in order that he might explain to the misguided people that they had
nothing to fight for, as the King had taken pains to have the faith
clearly set forth in the Ten Articles, with the consent of the bishops
and clergy[1640]. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that he really
went because he found the Pilgrims were resolved to have either his
written or his spoken word, and it was easier to explain away the latter
than the former.
A letter was sent to all the northern clergy “that they should go a
procession every day and send their minds, out of Holy Scripture and the
four doctors of the Church, touching the commons’ petition.” Lee did not
admit that he had anything to do with this letter, though it was issued
in his name[1641].
The leading north-country divines were summoned in person; the less
important clergy were requested to send their opinions in writing[1642].
Grice brought one of these written opinions to Pontefract, probably from
a priest who lived near Wakefield[1643]. Hallam brought two others from
Watton. The alleged letter from the Archbishop was brought to Watton by
William Horskey, and the curate of Watton forwarded it to a bachelor of
divinity named Wade, who lived near by. When he received it Wade said
that there was not time before the meeting to deal with such a difficult
subject. The other theologians of the neighbourhood were not so
diffident. Thomas Asheton, a young monk of Watton Priory, wrote a paper
on the supremacy “comparing Peter and his apostles.” Dr Swinburne, who
lived thereabouts, also wrote out his opinion on the same subject[1644].
As early as Tuesday 28 November the Pilgrims had begun to assemble at
Pontefract, and Shrewsbury was alarmed by the report of their numbers.
Sir Anthony Browne was sent by Norfolk to guard the bridges at Doncaster
and Rotherham[1645]. On 30 November Darcy wrote from Templehurst to
Shrewsbury and Hastings to assure them that the meeting at Pontefract
had no other object than to draw up articles to lay before Norfolk, that
the truce should be observed, and that no treachery was intended at
Doncaster, but all earnestly hoped for peace[1646].
The leaders rode into Pontefract on Saturday, 2 December. Lord Darcy
took up his abode at the Castle; Aske went to the Priory, and Lord
Lumley to “Mr Henryson’s, the late mayor,” where he displayed the banner
of the Five Wounds[1647]. From all the districts concerned in the
Pilgrimage the “worshipful men” had been summoned, as well as a certain
number of yeomen and “well-horsed commoners.”[1648] These, with the
gentlemen’s servants, formed a picked force, which Norfolk had some
reason to regard with misgiving, especially as more came than were
summoned, a proof that the Pilgrims’ zeal had not cooled. The towns were
also represented. For York the lord mayor and his council had elected
Sir George Lawson, the sheriff of the city, and six burgesses, with
servants. They were given money for new coats, presumably of the city
livery, ranging in price from 6_s._ 6_d._ for Lawson’s to 2_s._ 4_d._
for the servants’. Their expenses were paid by the city which also
provided them with a tent and all other necessaries[1649]. With them
came Richard Bowyer, who was a burgess but not one of the chosen
delegates[1650]. The companies marched into Pontefract well harnessed
and bringing with them the latest achievement of military engineering, a
bridge “to shoot over any arm of the sea in this realm.” It was a device
which had been constructed by “one Diamond of Wakefield, a poor
man,”[1651] and must have been designed to make the Pilgrims independent
of the guarded bridges of the Don.
Early on this morning the leaders at Pontefract wrote to Norfolk and
Shrewsbury saying that as yet there were not above a hundred assembled
there, that they intended no treachery, and were awaiting the
safeconduct to treat with Norfolk. They expected the safeconduct to
arrive on Sunday, 3 December[1652].
The Pilgrims’ council at Pontefract seems to have sat only from
Saturday, 2 December to Monday, 4 December, 1536. Aske frequently
remarked that the time was very short for all the work that had to be
done.
Among those present were:
_Lords._ Scrope, Latimer, Conyers, Lumley, Darcy and Neville.
_Knights._ Robert Constable, James Strangways, Christopher Danby, Thomas
Hilton, William Constable, John Constable, Peter Vavasour, Ralph
Ellerker, Christopher Hilliard, Robert Neville, Oswald Wolsthrope,
Edward Gower, George Darcy, William Fairfax, Nicholas Fairfax, William
Mallory, Ralph Bulmer, William Bulmer, Stephen Hamerton, John Dawnye,
Richard Tempest, Thomas Johnson, Henry Gascoigne.
_Gentlemen._ Robert Bowes, Robert Chaloner, William Babthorpe[1653],
John Norton, Richard Norton, Roger Lassells, Mr Place, Mr Fulthorpe,
Richard Bowes, Delariver, Barton of Whenby, Richard Lassells, Mr Redman,
Hamerton, Mr Ralph Bulmer, Rither, Metham, Saltmarsh, Palmes, Aclom,
Rudston, Plumpton, Middleton, Mallory of Wothersome, Allerton[1654],
Marmaduke Neville[1655].
_Commons._ Robert Pullen, Nicholas Musgrave and six others from
Penrith[1656], William Collins and Brown from the borough of Kendal, Mr
Duckett, Edward Manser, Mr Strickland, Anthony Langthorn, John Ayrey and
Harry Bateman from the barony of Kendal[1657].
The only important captains who did not attend were Sir Thomas Percy,
who was busy in Northumberland, and Sir Thomas Tempest, who had caught a
chill “through being plunged in water in coming from York”; Tempest sent
an apology for his absence, and as the best proof of his good faith he
communicated his opinion on the various points to be considered to
Robert Bowes in writing[1658]; this was a length to which few of the
gentlemen would go, as it was making permanent evidence against
themselves.
It is not certain whereabouts in Pontefract the council was held, but
probably it was at the Priory.
The first business was to choose a certain number of gentlemen, who
should go to the Duke of Norfolk to lay before him the articles and to
bring back the safeconduct for the three hundred who were to treat with
the Duke[1659]. The procedure was as follows: the Herald was sent to the
Duke with the names of the first party, and brought back safeconducts
for them on Sunday, 3 December[1660]. The chosen gentlemen were Sir
Thomas Hilton, Sir William Constable, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Sir Ralph
Bulmer, Roger Lassells, Robert Bowes, Nicholas Rudston, John Norton,
William Babthorpe and Robert Chaloner, each with two servants[1661]. On
Monday, 4 December, they were to take the articles to Doncaster and
bring back the second safeconduct. On Tuesday, 5 December, the great
meeting was to take place, at which it was hoped the leaders on both
sides would be able to make a satisfactory treaty.
After the gentlemen had been chosen, and the Herald despatched with
their names, it was necessary to agree upon the articles. These had
already been prepared by Aske in consultation with Darcy and the other
leaders from lists of grievances brought in by the delegates, and from
opinions in writing contributed by Sir Thomas Tempest, Babthorpe,
Chaloner and others. Aske copied out the articles upon which they were
all agreed, and returned the writings to their owners[1662]. The list
thus compiled was laid before the full assembly. Each article was read
aloud, and when it was accepted the word “fiat” was written against
it[1663].
The articles may be divided into four groups, containing respectively:
I. Religious, II. Constitutional, III. Legal, IV. Economic Grievances.
I. RELIGIOUS GRIEVANCES.
Article (1) “To have the heresies of Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Melangton,
Elicampadus, Burcerus, Confessa Germanie, Apologia Melanctonis, the
works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell, Seynt Germayne and
other such heresy of Anabaptist destroyed.”
The impressive list of heretics was probably drawn up from books which
Richard Bowyer laid before the council as being heretical[1664]. This
was merely a general article to which the King would certainly have
agreed, and therefore it does not require further discussion.
(2) “The supremacy of the Church touching ‘_cura animarum_’ to be
reserved to the See of Rome as before. The consecration of the bishops
to be from him, without any first fruits or pensions to be paid to
him, or else a reasonable pension for the outward defence for the
Faith.”
This was an article of the greatest importance. It was on this point
that the papers brought in by Grice and Hallam had been written. Two
other papers on the same subject were put into Aske’s hand, as poor
men’s petitions. One, written in Latin, he gave to Archbishop Lee, but
he did not receive the other, which was in English, until the conference
was over[1665]. Sir Francis Bigod wrote down his views in a paper which
was a source of much future trouble[1666]. There also remain some
fragments of a list of Articles drawn up in the form of a petition to
the King, which was doubtless brought by some of the representatives to
Pontefract, although it cannot be ascertained from which district it
came[1667].
The number of papers on the question of the Supremacy shows what deep
feeling it aroused. Aske stated that every man grudged against the
Statute of Supremacy because it would cause England to be divided from
the universal Church[1668]. The council of the Pilgrims was ready to
petition that the Act might be annulled altogether, but Aske advised
them to insert the clause “touching _cura animarum_.”[1669] Even on this
point there were differences of opinion among the Pilgrims. It will be
remembered that the commons of Caistor in Lincolnshire had said that
they were ready to take the King for supreme head of the Church[1670].
Darcy did not consider that excluding the Pope from England was against
the Faith[1671], and Aske made it appear that both Darcy and Constable
agreed to include this among the articles at his own request[1672]. The
papal scandals of the last century and the growing spirit of nationality
made Henry’s proclamation of independence not altogether distasteful,
and there was a feeling that the authority of the Pope in England might
be limited in some way, if the King could come to an agreement with him
to preserve the unity of Christendom. The nameless petition accepted the
King’s title of “supreme head of the Church in that it may stand with
the law of Christ,” but complained that “heretics, bishops ... naughtily
understanding that term ... enforce your Grace through flattery and
blind fables to grant them commissions and authorities to exercise all
manner of jurisdiction as well against the laws of God as the authority
of those [_the Pope’s_] councils, and so to make acts in your
parliaments and convocations to annul all laws and the sequel that by
the laws of God, of the Church, and of these councils should be good
throughout all the world approved and admitted for laws.”[1673] In the
list of questions which may be Aske’s, it is suggested that “where his
Highness is recognised to be the supreme head of the Church of England,”
yet as he is a temporal man and the cure of souls and administration of
sacraments are spiritual, “whereof necessity must be one head,” and as
the Bishop of Rome is the most ancient bishop and has been admitted in
all realms to have such cure, it may please “our said sovereign lord” to
admit him head of spiritual matters, giving spiritual authority to the
archbishops of Canterbury and York, “so that the said bishop of Rome
have no further meddling[1674].”?
In after days a compromise on these lines was long a cherished dream of
the high church party in England, and if Henry would have allowed the
discussion of his title, such an arrangement might have been effected.
(4)[1675] “The suppressed abbeys to be restored to their houses, lands
and goods.”
Here lay the chief cause of the rebellion. Aske constantly maintained
that the suppression of the abbeys and the divisions among the preachers
were alone sufficient to have made the commons rise, apart from any
other real or imaginary grievances. The case for the monasteries was set
forth by Aske in the answer to an interrogatory which he wrote in the
Tower. The draft is hastily written, in some parts corrected, in others
scarcely grammatical, but the skilful use of words, and the swing and
balance of the sentences show that Henry had reason to fear Aske’s
“filed tongue”:
“[As] to the statute of suppression, he did grudge against the same
and so did all the whole country, because the abbeys in the north
parts gave great alms to poor men and laudably served God; in which
parts of late days they had but small comfort by ghostly teaching. And
by occasion of the said suppression the divine service of almighty God
is much minished, great number of masses unsaid, and the blessed
consecration of the sacrament now not used and showed in those places,
to the distress of the faith and spiritual comfort to man’s soul; the
temple of God russed[1676] and pulled down, the ornaments and relics
of the church of God unreverent used, the towns [_tombs_] and
sepulchres of honourable and noble men pulled down and sold, none
hospitality now in those places kept, but the farmers for the most
part lets and taverns[1677] out the farms of the same houses to other
farmers, for lucre and advantage to themselves. And the profits of
these abbeys yearly goeth out of the country to the King’s highness,
so that in short space little money, by occasion of the said yearly
rents, tenths and first fruits, should be left in the said country, in
consideration of the absence of the King’s highness in those parts,
want of his laws and the frequentation of merchandise. Also divers and
many of the said abbeys were in the mountains and desert places, where
the people be rude of conditions and not well taught the law of God,
and when the said abbeys stood, the said people not only had worldly
refreshing in their bodies but also spiritual refuge both by ghostly
living of them and also by spiritual information, and preaching; and
many their tenants were their fee’d servants to them, and serving-men,
well succoured by abbeys; and now not only these tenants and servants
want refreshing there, both of meat, cloth and wages and knoweth not
now where to have any living, but also strangers and baggers of corn
as betwixt Yorkshire, Lancashire, Kendal, Westmorland, and the
Bishopric, [for there] was neither carriage of corn and merchandise
[but was] greatly succoured both horse and man by the said abbeys, for
none was in these parts denied, neither horsemeat nor mansmeat, so
that the people were greatly refreshed by the said abbeys, where now
they have no such succour; and wherefore the said statute of
suppression was greatly to the decay of the commonwealth of that
country, and all those parts of all degrees greatly grudged against
the same, and yet doth, their duty of allegiance always saved.
“Also the abbeys were one of the beauties of this realm to all men and
strangers passing through the same; also all gentlemen [were] much
succoured in their needs with money, their young sons there succoured,
and in nunneries their daughters brought up in virtue; and also their
evidences and money left to the uses of infants in abbeys’ hands,
always sure there; and such abbeys as were near the danger of sea
banks, [were] great maintainers of sea walls and dykes, maintainers
and builders of bridges and highways, [and] such other things for the
commonwealth.”[1678]
Even more enthusiastic evidence as to the virtues of the monasteries was
given by a Yorkshireman who lived near Roche Abbey in the reign of
Edward VI. He too praised the monks for repairing the highways, for
lending money to the needy, and for their hospitality and charity. In
addition he said that they were good landlords, who never enclosed the
common lands, and when corn was scarce, would sell it “under the market”
to bring down the price[1679]. The Pilgrims’ marching song sets forth
their praises with the greatest simplicity:
“Alack, alack!
For the church’s sake
Poor commons wake
And no marvel!
For clear it is
The decay of this
How the poor shall miss
No tongue can tell.
For there they had
Both ale and bread
At time of need
And succour great
In all distress
And heaviness
And well entreat.
In trouble and care
When that we were
In manner all bare
Of our substance.
We found good bate
At churchmen’s gate
Without checkmate
Or variance.”[1680]
The anonymous petition is to the same effect, “Our petition is, the same
[_the statute of suppression_] to be annulled and a new qualified order
commodious to your Grace to be taken, so that the said monasteries may
stand and your commonalty and poor subjects therein to be relieved, and
the prayer for the founders and service of God maintained.”[1681]
It will be observed that the monks are praised for their public virtues.
They might have done all this, except the education of children, even if
their private lives were stained with as many vices as are mentioned in
the Comperta. The people judged the monks by their deeds, and that their
deeds were on the whole good is shown by the very fact that the King
attacked them for their private lives, concerning which it was
impossible that there should be very reliable evidence.
Allowance must be made for the fact that these eulogies were written by
partisans of the monks. Even in Yorkshire all the monasteries did not
attain this high standard, as for instance in the case of Whitby, where
the Abbot lived on his cliff like a robber baron, in league with the
pirates of the coast, and his fee’d men fought with the townspeople, and
carried on feuds with the servants of the neighbouring gentlemen[1682].
Nevertheless from the whole evidence it appears that in the north the
abbeys still performed useful social duties, and that their destruction
was therefore a severe blow. In the south, which was more civilised,
their functions had been to a great extent superseded and consequently
their loss was less felt. The wholesale suppression of all the
monasteries, without more than nominal discrimination between the useful
and the useless, was rightly felt by the Pilgrims to be a great
injustice to the north.
In addition to the general objections to the suppression, Aske, being a
lawyer, noticed a flaw in the printed version of the statute. He pointed
out to Darcy and Constable that the Act granted to the King all
monasteries under the value of £200, without any definition as to where
the monasteries were situated, whether in England or abroad. In
consequence of this Aske considered the statute in that form to be void,
although he supposed that there might be “another statute” [i.e. the
original] which was fully and legally drawn up[1683].
(5) “To have the tenths and first fruits clearly discharged of the
same [monasteries] unless the clergy will grant a rent charge in
generality to the augmentation of the Crown.”
The arguments against the Act of Annates[1684], which granted the first
fruits to the King, were:
(_a_) that no King of England had ever received them before;
(_b_) that it had not been accepted by the Convocation of York;
(_c_) that in the case of monasteries it impoverished the monks unduly,
as they had nothing to live on during the first year of a new abbot;
(_d_) that the money was sent out of the north, where there was too
little coin already;
(_e_) that ecclesiastical benefices might by death, deprivation, or
resignation become vacant several times in one year, and as the King
demanded first fruits on each new appointment, the value of the benefice
was for the time reduced to nothing, and in the case of monasteries the
brethren were completely ruined[1685].
This last complaint expresses the origin of the whole trouble. The
King’s argument was that tenths and first fruits had always been paid to
the Pope, and that the clergy were just as well able to pay them to him.
Also it was better that the money should be kept in the kingdom and
spent on the needs of the government than that it should be sent abroad
and nothing received in return. But the payments to Rome had only fallen
due at reasonably long intervals; even then they had been a grievance,
but now that they were collected by the King at close quarters, and made
to yield as much as could possibly be squeezed out of the Church, the
grievance became intolerable.
The clergy themselves naturally wished that all the payments should be
abolished[1686], but the laymen were of the opinion that though the
Statute of Firstfruits was “a decay to all religion,” the tenths “might
be borne well enough.”[1687] They were themselves petitioning against
the heavy taxes, and they did not intend that the clergy should escape
their share of the burden, although the laity were willing to defend the
clergy from extortion. The Pilgrims thought that the case might be met
by a fixed rent charge paid by the Church to the Crown. The same idea is
expressed in two of the articles attributed to Aske. One complains of
the “first fruits, augmentations and other extortions that the lord
Chancellor, lord Cromwell and their servants yearly collect from all
parts of the realm.” The other, which is mutilated at the beginning,
proposes that a charge should be reserved, probably upon the monastic
lands, “which is thought to be sufficient for defence of the said realm
and maintenance of lawful war, if it be kept for the same use.”[1688]
(6) “To have the Friars Observants restored to their houses.”
As this order had been suppressed earlier than the others, by different
means and for different reasons[1689], the repeal of the Act of
Suppression would not be sufficient to restore it, and it was therefore
mentioned separately.
(7) “To have the heretics, bishops and temporal, and their sect, to
have condign punishment by fire or such other, or else to try the
quarrel with us and our partakers in battle.”
Aske said that this was taken from the Lincolnshire articles[1690],
although it differed from them in naming none of the heretics. The
article was probably drawn up in this general form because the question
as to who were heretics was being very carefully discussed. The ten
articles of religion were accepted as being a satisfactory exposition of
the Faith. Archbishop Lee considered that they were all that could be
desired. Reginald Pole found no fault with their contents, which he held
to be in accordance with the Roman standard, although he was shocked
that they should be issued by the King’s authority[1691]. The Pilgrims
evaded this last difficulty by laying stress on the part which
Convocation had taken in drawing up the articles. In the propositions
attributed to Aske, it is desired “that the book of articles lately
commanded, by the advice of the Catholic bishops and doctors, be
taught,” and that those who offended against it should be punished.
Among the supposed offenders are named the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishops of Rochester and Dublin, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy
Seal, and probably others whose names are lost[1692].
In order that heresy should be clearly defined, Robert Chaloner laid
before Aske, Constable, and the other leaders who drew up the Pilgrims’
articles, a memorial on the subject. “In that book first were, as it had
been interrogatories to the spirituality, touching our faith, to prove
whose works and books were heresy by their opinion, and who of the
bishops and others preached and maintained these books, being heresy,
and by that means to have proved who, by their opinion, had been
heretics, as then it was said friar Barnes was for his opinions put in
the Tower.”[1693] Richard Bowyer laid before Aske certain books which he
“articled to be heresy.”[1694] In the course of the discussion, Darcy
declared that “he would be none heretic in consenting to the opinions”
expressed in “the new preaching of certain new bishops.”[1695]
The books and the interrogatories were laid before the council of
divines in order that they might pronounce on their doctrines, and
meanwhile the laity expressed their opinion in this general resolution.
Although no names were entered in the petition, the commons “noted the
bishops of Canterbury [_Cranmer_], Worcester [_Latimer_], Rochester
[_Hilsey_] and St David’s [_Barlow_] to be heretics.”[1696] It was
objected against all of them that they had been named in the
Lincolnshire petition, that they favoured the new learning and the
opinions of Luther and Tyndale, that they preached against the religious
orders and supported the Act of Suppression, disregarded the customs and
ceremonies of the Church, preached against the Pope, and supported the
royal supremacy. In particular it was alleged against the Bishop of
Worcester that “he was before abjured, or else should have borne a
faggot for his preaching,” and against the Archbishop of Canterbury that
he had not received his pall from Rome, and that he had pronounced the
divorce between the King and Queen Katharine[1697]. It was also said,
with a manifest allusion to the execution of More and Fisher, that the
King should mingle mercy with justice, for though he had the power of
life and death, he could not bring to life a man who had been executed,
and therefore no one should be condemned without the counsel of the most
virtuous bishops, not of those who were mere time-servers[1698].
It is easier to unite in hate than in love; all the Pilgrims may not
have been sound on the question of the papal supremacy, but none of them
had a good word to say for the heretic bishops. Still the Pilgrims
endeavoured to act fairly even by these men, for though it cannot be
denied that they would dearly have liked to burn them, they referred
their case for further consideration to the spirituality.
(11)[1699] “That Dr Legh and Dr Layton have condign punishment for
their extortions from religious houses and other abominable acts.”
After the council at York, Aske sent orders into Cumberland and
Westmorland that evidence should be collected as to the behaviour of the
monastic commissioners[1700]. The clergy in those parts were out of
sympathy with the Pilgrims and would determine nothing[1701], but
similar orders were probably sent into other districts where the
witnesses were more willing. Only one fragment of their evidence is
preserved, and that not of a very serious character; it was said that
the servants of the commissioners used the vestments from the suppressed
abbeys for saddle-cloths[1702]. It is not certain what further
accusations were brought against Legh and Layton on this occasion, but
in 1539 one of Bishop Tunstall’s servants told a similar story. The
commissioners stripped the gold and silver from the relics of the saints
and threw the bones contemptuously away. On one occasion they gave some
ornamented relics to a bystander and “bade him pluck off the silver and
garnish his dagger withal,” but he, horror-stricken, preserved what they
gave him intact, and afterwards gathered up the bones they had
dishonoured[1703]. Such outrages against popular feeling aroused the
greatest indignation and “in all parts of the realm men’s hearts much
grudge ... against the visitors, especially against Doctors Legh and
Layton.”[1704]
(18) “The privileges and rights of the Church to be confirmed by Act
of Parliament. Priests not to suffer by the sword unless degraded. A
man to be saved by his book. Sanctuary to save a man for all causes in
extreme need, and the Church for forty days, and further according to
the laws as they were used in the beginning of the King’s days.”
The first clause of this article is one of several which show the
Pilgrims’ respect for constitutional procedure. It was not enough that
the King should promise to grant their petition, the articles must be
ratified by the act of the whole nation.
The later clauses are frankly reactionary, but it may be urged in their
favour that the laws at that time were very severe, and were enforced
with great inequality. Any custom which tended to mitigate their
severity had a certain use, and might serve to give the poor man a
little protection against the rich. The abolition of privileges, even of
those which were open to so much abuse as the right of sanctuary, made
the weak more helpless.
In the case of the punishment of priests without degradation, it might
fairly be maintained that a serious subject had been treated too
hastily, as the clause which put an end to this privilege had been
tacked on to the end of a re-enactment of some earlier statutes dealing
with sanctuary and benefit of clergy[1705].
(19) “The liberties of the Church to have their old customs, as the
county palatine of Durham, Beverley, Ripon, St Peter of York, and such
other, by Act of Parliament.”
The policy of the Tudors was centralisation, but while the central
government was still so ineffective, the advantages of centralisation
were not as obvious as they are at present. Local feeling was very
strong, and all of the “liberties of the Church” keenly resented any
interference with their privileges, although with the passing of the
feudal system the reasons for their exemption had disappeared. While the
King was anxious to abolish privileges he was slow to grant the
equivalent rights; for instance, most of the privileges of the county
palatine of Durham were abolished, but the shire of Durham was not
allowed to send representatives to the House of Commons. This article
was included in deference to the feelings of the men of Durham, Beverley
and elsewhere, but the point was not of much importance in itself.
II. CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCES.
(3) “That the Lady Mary may be made legitimate, and the former statute
therein annulled for the danger of the title that might incur to the
crown of Scotland: that to be by parliament.”
All Henry’s efforts to obtain a legitimate male heir had ended in
plunging the question of the succession into hopeless confusion. The
acknowledgment of Mary was the solution which would be most acceptable
to the nation at large. She was beloved for her own sake and for her
mother’s, she was undoubtedly Henry’s daughter, she represented the old
faith, and she stood between the crown and the detested Scots claim. The
arguments in her favour were set forth as follows:
(_a_) Mary was legitimate “if any laws in Christendom may have place.”
The process by which her mother’s marriage was declared void had been
hurried through by the King while the cause was still before the Court
of Rome, the authority which both the parties had acknowledged. “This
cannot stand, a man to be both judge in his own case and party.”[1706]
Although the Archbishop of Canterbury had pronounced the marriage null,
yet he had no power to do so while the cause was being tried before his
superior, the Pope, and the Archbishop’s own consecration was doubtful,
as he had not received the pall from Rome[1707].
(_b_) The statute which pronounced Mary to be illegitimate was passed
before the Pope’s decision on her mother’s appeal was known in
England[1708], and it was unjust to condemn her to the penalty before
the judgment had been delivered[1709].
(_c_) If the Pope’s decision was in her favour, she would still be
illegitimate by statute, from which it would appear that the statute had
been made “more for some displeasure towards her and her friends, than
for any just cause.”[1710] The wording of this objection shows that the
decision of the papal Consistory Court was not generally known in
England, although judgment had been given in favour of Katharine more
than two years before, on 23 March 1534[1711].
(_d_) She and her friends did not deserve displeasure; they ought rather
to receive the highest consideration, as through her mother she was
related to the greatest European monarch, whose family had long been
allied with England[1712].
(_e_) “The said Lady Mary ought to be favoured for her great virtues
then and yet esteemed to be in her ... for the said Lady Mary is
marvellously beloved for her virtue in the hearts of the people.”[1713]
(_f_) She ought to be restored to the succession because her cousin,
Charles V, might take up her cause, and prohibit the valuable trade with
Flanders[1714].
(8) “Lord Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor [Audley] and Sir Richard Riche
to have condign punishment, as subvertors of the good laws of the
realm and maintainers and inventers of heretics.”
Aske said little against Cromwell and his underlings except in the
matter of heresy[1715]. The expressions of less moderate men may be
learnt from the only one of the “books of advice” laid before the
council of Pilgrims which has been preserved. Aske mentioned three such
papers, Chaloner’s, Babthorpe’s and Sir Thomas Tempest’s[1716].
Chaloner’s related principally to religion, and Babthorpe’s “touched but
few matters in the petitions;”[1717] it therefore seems probable that
the extant paper is the one which Sir Thomas Tempest sent to Pontefract
because he was too ill to come himself. In form it is to some extent a
reply to the King’s letter to the gentlemen. The exordium is that “the
King should [condescend to] our petition against the lollard and traitor
Thomas Cromwell, his disciples and adherents, or at least exile him and
them forth of the realm.” The writer begins by discussing the question
whether subjects have a right to appoint the King’s Council, which Henry
angrily denied. The Pilgrims, however, pointed out that it was essential
for the welfare of the kingdom that the Council should be composed of
patriots. If the King appointed men merely because they were personally
pleasing to him, his subjects for his own sake must take some
precaution, as in the case of “the council of Paris in France,” for if
the King preferred his favourites to the nobles, baronage and
commonwealth of the realm, he would come to a miserable end like
Rehoboam, Edward II, and Richard II. After touching on some other
points, the writer enumerated Cromwell’s offences. He was a traitor to
the King, for he encouraged him to break his coronation oath, and caused
him to lose the love of his subjects by pillaging them, and to lose the
respect of foreign princes by his perjury. Cromwell had boasted that he
would make the King the richest prince in Christendom, but instead of
that he had made him the poorest, for the riches of his kingdom were
spent, his subjects were in rebellion, and his allies abroad had grown
hostile. The writer concluded by a solemn warning that there could be no
safety for any of the Pilgrims until Cromwell was dead. They saw what
was the fate of the Lincolnshire rebels. Cromwell must be executed, and
the treasure which he and his disciples had accumulated might be used
for the good of the realm. If Cromwell were not put out of the way, it
would be better to fight while the rebels’ situation was so promising.
The Duke of Norfolk and the other southern noblemen ought to help on the
destruction of the archtraitor, “for their part is not unlike to be in
after this.”[1718]
This invective shows clearly how successful Henry had been in throwing
the whole responsibility for his measures upon Cromwell’s shoulders. The
Pilgrims believed that they were saving both the King and the country
from the power of a wicked man. They did not realise that Cromwell was
the tool, not the principal.
Audley and Riche were not so much considered. They came in for a share
of the hatred excited by Cromwell, because they were looked upon as his
dependents. They had succeeded to the offices formerly held by the good
Sir Thomas More, Audley as Chancellor and Riche as Speaker of the House
of Commons[1719].
(12) “Reformation for the election of knights of the shire and
burgesses, and for the use among the lords in the parliament house
after their ancient custom.”
Henry asserted that Parliament had sanctioned everything which he had
done. The Pilgrims retorted that “these parliaments were of none
authority nor virtue, for if they should be truly named, they should be
called councils of the King’s appointment, and not parliaments.”[1720]
Sir Thomas Tempest, if it was he, declared that members were no longer
elected, but were appointed by the King. As an instance he mentioned Sir
Francis Brian, who knew nothing about the affairs of the borough[1721]
which he nominally represented in the last parliament. His seat was
given to him in order that he might speak against religion and make the
grants which the King demanded. Moreover it was no longer permitted that
the King’s affairs should be discussed in parliament, although the whole
realm suffered for the King’s sin, as Israel did for David’s[1722].
The propositions attributed to Aske mention the same points.
“Such persons as were elected to the said parliament were named in the
King’s letters....
Every burgess of parliament ought to be [an] inhabitant within the
borough he represents; yet many were to the contrary, yea, that of the
worst sort.
The old custom was that none of the King’s servants should be of the
Commons’ House; yet most of that house were the King’s servants.
If a knight or a burgess died during parliament his room should
continue void to the end of the same[1723]; and it is not unknown
that—”
Here the manuscript is mutilated, but at the end the writer seems to be
arguing that the acts of this packed House of Commons were all
void[1724].
Another parliamentary grievance was the insufficient representation of
the north. This was not due to any malice on the part of the King, but
rather to the poverty and indifference of the Yorkshire boroughs.
Members were returned by fifteen boroughs, besides those for the shire
and city of York, in the reigns of Edward I and Edward III[1725], but of
these all but two had become virtually disfranchised long before the
reign of Henry VIII. In the case of Pontefract, it was recorded that in
the time of Henry VI a return had been made for this place, but the
inhabitants could not afford to send a member[1726]. The other boroughs
must have fallen off in the same way during the Scots wars and the Wars
of the Roses. In 1529 Yorkshire sent to Westminster two knights of the
shire, two members each from the city of York and the borough of Hull,
which were separate counties, and two from the borough of
Scarborough[1727]. The returns for the parliament of 1536 are lost, but
according to Aske’s statement Scarborough was the only Yorkshire borough
represented in it, apart from York and Hull[1728]. It is interesting to
see that reawakened interest in political affairs made the Yorkshire
gentlemen regret the loss of their members, which was due to the
indifference of their ancestors.
It was suggested at Doncaster that burgesses should be returned by
Beverley, Ripon, Richmond, Pontefract, Wakefield, Skipton and
Kendal[1729], but it is not certain whether this point was discussed at
Pontefract[1730].
As for the ancient customs of the House of Lords, Darcy described to
Aske recent innovations. In the first place, matters touching the
spiritual authority had formerly been determined in Convocation and not
by the Lords.
Secondly, it had been usual for the Lords to begin their proceedings
after mass, by reading the first chapter of Magna Carta, “touching the
rights and liberties of the Church,” but this custom had been
discontinued. It seems to be alluded to in the list of propositions
attributed to Aske, “that the Church of England may enjoy the liberties
granted them by Magna Carta, and used until six or seven years
past.”[1731] The Pilgrims anticipated the “discovery” of Magna Carta (so
far as it affected the Church) by the parliamentary opponents of the
Stewarts[1732].
Thirdly, when any bill touching the prerogative of the crown was
introduced into the House of Commons, it had been customary for the
Lords to request to have a copy of it, that they might take counsel’s
opinion as to whether the bill was constitutional; but of late they had
had great difficulty in obtaining copies of the bills, partly through
“default in those of the Chancery in the use of their office amongst the
lords,” and partly because the bills were rushed through both houses
without proper warning[1733].
Thus the twelfth article in the Pilgrims’ petition comprised the
following points:
(_a_) that the King should not interfere in elections;
(_b_) that complete freedom of speech should be enjoyed in the House of
Commons;
(_c_) that additional representation should be given to Yorkshire;
(_d_) that spiritual matters should be dealt with by Convocation;
(_e_) that the House of Lords should be supplied with copies of the
bills laid before the House of Commons.
(15) “To have a parliament at Nottingham or York, and that shortly.”
This was the necessary corollary of the last article. The reformed
parliament must meet at once to undo the work of its corrupt
predecessors, and it must be held at some place where it would not be so
completely in the power of the King as it was at Westminster. The
Pilgrims did not believe that there would be freedom of debate so near
the Tower, but at York a brave man might venture to utter an opinion
which it would be mere suicide to whisper in London.
This article and the preceding one bear upon the vexed question of
whether there was or was not freedom of speech in Henry VIII’s
parliaments. Without plunging into that controversy, we must simply note
that the Pilgrims believed there ought to be freedom of speech, but did
not believe that it existed. One scrap of evidence comes from Lord
Montague, who used to talk over the business just transacted in
Parliament with the Earl of Huntingdon. They both “did always grudge and
murmur against things determined there,” and “would say they were but
knaves and heretics that gave over, and that such as did agree to things
there did the same for fear.”[1734] This may have been merely the
peevishness of a defeated opposition[1735], but the Pilgrims had some
grounds for their belief, as Darcy, after opposing a royal measure, had
not been allowed to resume his seat in the House of Lords. In any case
this demand of the Pilgrims is worth noting. Their expedient for
securing free speech appears rather primitive, but it is necessary to
bear in mind what a great difference there was at that period between
the home counties and the more remote parts of England. Henry himself
could not seize a man until he came within his reach, and the King’s arm
was not long. This makes it the more extraordinary that he was able to
lure so many of his victims into his grasp.
(17) “Pardon by Act of Parliament for all recognizances, statutes and
penalties new forfeited during the time of this commotion.”
The general act of indemnity was the first work which the new parliament
would be called upon to do.
(16) “The statute of the declaration of the crown by will to be
repealed.”
This statute aroused great indignation. Among the commons it was
believed to have been framed in order that Cromwell himself might be
brought into the succession[1736]. Aske and his more enlightened
colleagues were not deceived by this wild fancy, but they had
substantial reasons to urge against the statute:
(_a_) First and most important from an Englishman’s point of view, there
had never been such a law before[1737].
(_b_) Private men did not enjoy the right of bequeathing their lands as
they pleased, although such a right would be very beneficial to them for
the payment of their debts and provision for their younger children. It
was unreasonable to give this power to the King, who required it less
than a private man, and thereby to make a distinction between
inheritance of the crown of England and inheritance of private property
in England[1738]. This is an allusion to the unpopular Statute of Uses.
(_c_) Henry IV had made an entail of the crown, but Edward IV had
repealed it, by the advice of his wise men. Henry VII had also wished to
make an entail, but had been prevented, “and King Henry VII was bruited
and called the wisest prince and king of the world.”[1739]
This point was characteristic of all the Lancastrian kings. As their
title to the crown by descent was defective, they sought to have it
confirmed by parliament[1740]. It is curious that Aske should have
thought that Henry VII did not make such a settlement, for the first
statute of his first parliament confirmed the crown of England to
himself and his heirs, as had been done in the case of Henry IV[1741].
There is however a great difference between these acts and that of Henry
VIII. In the earlier measures the crown was expressly entailed on the
King’s heirs according to the law of the land, whereas Henry was
empowered to name his own heir.
(_d_) If the King willed the crown away from the rightful heir apparent,
i.e. his next of kin, the result would be a war of succession, as it
would be impossible to try the case, because there were no
precedents[1742]. One of the questions to be put to the clergy, in the
list which is possibly Aske’s, bears on this point,—“If the King by his
last will will his realm after his death, especially out of the right
line of inheritance, whether his subjects are bound by God’s laws to
obey the will?”[1743]
In this objection Aske goes right to the heart of the position taken up
by the defenders of the act. They are unanimous in saying that the
nation delegated such power to the King in order to avoid civil war on
his death. But it appeared to the Pilgrims that the act, far from
averting a war of succession, made such a catastrophe almost inevitable.
If the King merely named his natural heir as his successor, the act was
pointless, for that person would have succeeded in any case. The late
King’s will might strengthen his or her position, but could have no
material importance. The only object of the statute, they thought, must
be to enable the King to alter the succession “out of the right line of
inheritance,” and there could be no possible guarantee that the
disinherited heir by birth would acknowledge the statute to be binding.
The Pilgrims concluded from these arguments that the statute should
either be annulled altogether, leaving the crown to descend according to
the law of the land, or else that the King’s heir should be named at
once by act of parliament[1744].
(_e_) The next objection brought against the statute shows the direction
which the gentlemen’s fears were taking. “If the crown were given by the
King’s highness to an alien, as we doubt not his grace will not do so,
how should this alien by reason have it, for he in his person was not
made able to take it, no more than if I would give lands to an alien, it
is a void gift to the alien, because he is not born under the allegiance
of this crown.”[1745]
The gentlemen did not believe that Henry could or would make Cromwell
his heir, but they feared that he might bring into the succession the
King of Scotland, or still more probably James V’s half-sister, Lady
Margaret Douglas. The idea of a Scots monarch sitting on the throne of
England was detested in the north, and if Henry VIII had allowed his
bitterness against his daughter Mary to carry him so far as to alter the
succession in favour of her cousins, there can be no doubt that war
would have followed.
(_f_) Finally it would appear very strange and ridiculous to other
nations that in England there should be one law for the King and another
for the people, and, what was still more inconvenient, that it should
not be known who was the heir to the crown until after the King’s
death[1746].
For all these reasons and many more “not necessary to be opened, unless
it were in parliament,” the Pilgrims determined that the statute ought
to be repealed.
III. LEGAL GRIEVANCES.
(10) “The statute of handguns and crossbows to be repealed, except in
the King’s parks or forests.”
This statute was a re-enactment of two earlier statutes, which
prohibited the use of handguns and crossbows to persons whose income was
less than £100 a year. Exceptions from its operation were made in favour
of towns and fortresses on or within seven miles of the coast, or the
Scots marches, and also in favour of the inhabitants of Northumberland,
Durham, Westmorland and Cumberland[1747]. Its object was to keep up the
practice of shooting with the long bow, which was falling into disuse,
but all such attempts at coercion are inevitably unpopular, and this
statute must have been particularly resented in Yorkshire, by reason of
the contrast with the neighbouring counties which were exempted from its
provisions.
Apart from any such local feeling there was a deeper motive in the
opposition to this statute. The men of England dimly perceived that in
their weapons lay their last hope of freedom. Legislation even about the
nature of their weapons roused their suspicions. They felt that it would
make a distinction between themselves and the regular soldiers whom the
King might employ. The long bow, still the principal instrument of war
in England, was becoming obsolete and the English bowmen respected if
they did not fear the arquebus men used in the continental wars. The
success of the Pilgrimage up to this point was in fact due to the
absence of any trained soldiers in England. The revolt in Germany was
crushed by the veterans who returned home from Italy after the battle of
Pavia[1748]. The Norfolk rebellion in 1549 was suppressed by means of
German and Italian mercenaries[1749]. Henry’s foreign wars had been too
brief to produce bodies of seasoned troopers, and it must be put to his
credit that he had not yet employed mercenaries. But he might do so
whenever he saw fit, and to equalise matters as far as possible the
commons wished to be free to use whatever weapons they found most
effective.
(20) “To have the statute that no man shall not will his lands
repealed.”
This was the Statute of Uses, which has already been discussed so
fully[1750] that it is not necessary to do more than recapitulate Aske’s
arguments against it. He seems to have considered that the law with
respect to the inheritance of land held in chief of the King had been
unsatisfactory before the statute was passed, and he said that this
article would not have been included if it had not occurred in the
Lincolnshire petition. When he went to court he declared his opinion of
the old law fully to the King[1751]. In the propositions attributed to
Aske there are two mutilated articles which appear to suggest that the
King should cause inquisition to be made, and the Exchequer rolls to be
searched, in order that it might be clearly ascertained which were the
lands held in chief of the King, as at present much trouble and expense
was caused by uncertainty on this point[1752].
But Aske did not consider that the Statute of Uses was rightly framed to
reform the old state of things. In the first place it gave a man in some
ways more opportunity of defeating the royal claims on his lands;
secondly, it altered the old forms of pleading at law and introduced
great confusion; thirdly, it prevented men from raising money on their
lands by making it possible for their sons to repudiate their
debts[1753].
The first objection roused the interest of his examiners, and they
wanted to know how the King’s rights might now be defeated[1754]. Aske
replied that it was difficult for him to set forth the matter, as he had
been separated from his books for so long, but the judges and others
deeply learned in the law could explain it, and there was one case which
he himself could give from his own knowledge[1755]. “If a man held land
of the King as of his duchy or of the crown, and have licence to alien
and do alien to an estranger to the use of the stranger, upon condition
that he shall execute an estatute to him for term of his life, the
remainder thereof to his son or heir apparent, and to the heirs of his
body legitime, the remainder in fee simple to a younger of his sons or
daughters or to an estranger, in this case his son cannot be in ward,
nor the lands, for he comes in after his father as a purchaser; and
collusion it cannot be, because the remainder of the fee simple is in a
stranger.”[1756]
Aske was expressing the lawyer’s point of view in this. Most of the
gentlemen assembled at Pontefract would object to the Statute of Uses,
not because it could be evaded, but because they did not for the moment
see how to evade it. In the end Aske’s view proved to be correct, and
the effects of the statute were the very opposite to those which the
King expected[1757].
(21) “The statutes of treasons for words and such-like made since 21
Henry VIII to be repealed.”
The chief reason that the people grudged against the treason laws was
that they were prohibited from discussing the King’s title of supreme
head of the Church. They “thought it very strait that a man might not
declare his conscience in such a great case,” for it was a matter that
touched the health of their souls[1758]. There seem to be one or two
allusions to the treason laws in the paper attributed to Sir Thomas
Tempest. One has been noted above[1759]. Another may be implied when the
writer refers to the good days of Henry VII, who allowed men condemned
to death to buy their pardons, and “if the faulter had amend[ed] his
condition and grown to be a good man again, when he had amended the King
would have withdrawn his wrath and by one mean or other have looked so
of him that he should have had such a thing as should help him as much
as his fine hindered him.”[1760] In the propositions attributed to Aske
it is requested that “acts of parliament ... contrary to the law of God
may be avoided [made void] and the acts concerning high treason
reformed.”[1761]
On the whole there was little discussion of these terrible laws, because
no one ventured to criticise them. Aske’s reply to a question on the
subject breaks off suddenly, as if even his examiners in the Tower did
not dare to hear all that an outspoken man could say on the
subject[1762].
(22) “That the common laws may have place as was used in the beginning
of the reign, and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has
been determined in Chancery.”
This and the following article are included in one among the
propositions attributed to Aske: “that the laws may be used as at the
beginning of the King’s reign, and that injunctions, subpoenas, and
privy seals be not granted so commonly and into countries distant from
London as of late time they have been.”[1763] In another place Aske
accused Audley the Lord Chancellor of “playing of ambedexter in granting
and dissolving of injunctions.”[1764]
The theory which underlay the Chancellor’s power to grant injunctions is
well known. The Common Law courts administered justice according to law
and precedent, but this, although sufficient in the average case, might
bear hardly on individuals in special cases. When this happened, the
individual had the power to appeal to the Chancellor who, as keeper of
the King’s conscience, was able to grant “grace,” “conscience,” or
“equity,” in the form of an injunction which bound the other party in
the suit either to refrain from prosecuting in a particular court, or to
cease from the conduct which was causing complaint[1765]. There was no
objection to this power in general, except the universal one that the
remedy was in practice open only to the rich, but in the hands of such a
man as Audley the granting of injunctions was liable to abuse. The
Pilgrims’ article “means that the chancery may interfere with an action
at common law, only if that action is opening a question already decided
in the chancery.”[1766]
At this particular period, however, the Chancellor’s power had another
and more dangerous aspect. There is some reason to believe that England
was on the verge of a “Reception” of the Civil Code of Justinian similar
to that which took place in Germany. Although Reginald Pole was an
admirer of the Civil Law[1767], yet its chief advocates were found among
Henry’s chosen servants, Gardiner, Bonner, Layton, Legh[1768] and
others, and “partly by injunctions, as well before verdicts, judgments
and executions as after, and partly by writs of Sub Poena issuing out of
the King’s court of chancery” the “Common Laws of this realm ... hath
not been only stayed of their direct course, but also many times altered
and violated by reason of Decrees made in the said court of chancery,
most grounded upon law civil and upon matter depending in the conscience
and discretion of the hearers thereof, who being civilians and not
learned in the Common Laws, setting aside the said Common Laws,
determine the weighty causes of this realm according either to the said
Law Civil or to their own conscience; which Law Civil is to the subjects
of this realm unknown, and they not bound nor inheritable to the same
law, and which judgments and decrees grounded upon conscience are not
grounded nor made upon any rule certain or law written.”[1769]
The great bulwark of English Common Law against the Civil Law was the
body of lawyers of the inns of court[1770], and these champions were
numerously represented among the Pilgrims, in whose ranks they carried
on the struggle with weapons in their hands. Maitland says, “It will be
seen that in 1536 the cause of ‘the common laws’ found itself in very
queer company; illiterate, monkish and papistical company, which
apparently has made a man of ‘Anibaptist.’”[1771] If the great jurist
had gone more deeply into the Pilgrimage of Grace, he would have been
surprised to find how familiar that company was to him.
(23) “That men north of Trent summoned on subpoena appear at York, or
by attorney, unless it be directed on pain of allegiance, or for like
matters concerning the King.”
This article is closely connected with the preceding one. It is another
illustration of the wide separation that there was between London and
the North, when the journey was long, costly and dangerous, and the
countryman in London found himself in a strange land.
(24) “A remedy against escheators for finding false offices and
extorting fees.”
This was one of the grievances connected with the Statute of Uses, and
it is mentioned in the propositions attributed to Aske under that
heading. As the lands held _in capite_ are not certainly known “certain
of the Exchequer for money finds untrue offices against the King and in
like case oftentimes bribes and extortions the King’s —.” Here the
manuscript is mutilated[1772].
Complaints against escheators are older than the Statute of Uses, and
occur among the grievances of the rebels in almost all revolts, both
before and after the Pilgrimage. The escheators were the King’s
servants, who used their authority to bully and plunder the provincials.
Another of the propositions attributed to Aske refers to the same
injuries; it is against those who obtain “rooms” and “offices” “for
maintenance of their authority and their children’s blood,” and who have
“bribed and extortioned the King’s subjects.” It is requested that they
may be punished and honourable men put in their places[1773].
The Pilgrims associated all such abuses with Cromwell. The writer
supposed to be Sir Thomas Tempest complained that Cromwell’s servants
and his servants’ servants “thinks to have the law in every place here
ordered at their commandment, and will take upon them to command
sheriff, justices of peace, coram and of session in their master’s name
at their pleasure, witness Brabson and Dakyns.”[1774]
IV. ECONOMIC GRIEVANCES.
(9) “That the lands in Westmorland, Cumberland, Kendal, Dent,
Sedbergh, Furness, and the abbey lands in Mashamshire, Kirkbyshire,
Netherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have, at every
change, two years’ rent for gressom, according to the grant now made
by the lords to the commons there. This to be done by Act of
Parliament.”
The “gressom,” “ingressum” or “gyrsuma” was the fine paid by a tenant on
entering upon his lands. In order to understand the peasants’ grievances
with respect to this fine, it is necessary to sketch the position of the
tenant with regard to his landlord in these districts.
The commons of the districts named in the article held their lands by
tenant right. “In this mode of tenure, the lord could not impose his
will on the tenant—they were joint owners. The rights of lord and tenant
were determined by the custom of the manor. When a tenant died, his
estate escheated to the lord till the heir was declared as in tenure in
capite. The lord was obliged to admit the heir, and the fine on
admission was not arbitrary, like some other phases of tenure, but
according to the custom of the manor.” In the thirteenth century a fine
of one year’s rent seems to have been usual[1775]. After the Black
Death, when it was very difficult to find tenants, the lords of manors
were often content with merely nominal fines; in 1358 at Pittington in
Durham a tenant came in on payment of “one urchinne,” i.e. a
hedgehog[1776]. But with the increase of enclosure and sheep-farming,
the position of the lord altered completely. The tenant was no longer
necessary to him, and the lord therefore began to disregard the custom
of the manor and to demand much higher fines. If the tenant could pay,
it was so much ready money into the lord’s pocket. If he could not, he
was evicted and the farm was thrown open as part of the lord’s sheep
pastures. This was going on all over the country. In a case which was
brought before the Court of Star Chamber in 1527, the fine of land at
Thingdon in Northamptonshire was raised from 6_s._ 3½_d._ to
30_s._[1777] The commons of Kendal complained that where the ingressum
had been 4 marks it was now £40[1778]. When they took up arms the first
thing they did was to force their landlord to promise that he would
observe their ancient customs with regard to the ingressum. From the
wording of the article it appears that such promises had been obtained
in other districts also.
The commons of Westmorland demanded that “consernynge ye gyrsumes for
power mens to bee layd aparte bot only penny farm penny gyrsum.”[1779]
The fixing of the fine at two years’ rent, as requested in the article,
finally became law in 1781[1780].
The rising in Cumberland and Westmorland bears a much closer resemblance
to the various peasant revolts in Germany than do the movements in the
other counties[1781]. Thus in the proclamation drawn up at Penrith by
Robert Thompson, the rebels were commanded to say daily five aves, five
paters and a creed, which recalls the Bruchsal insurgents of 1502, who
bound themselves to say five aves and five paternosters daily[1782].
There is a striking correspondence between the petition of the commons
of Westmorland dated 15 November 1536[1783], and the Twelve Articles of
the Swabian Peasants in 1525[1784], despite the fact that the former
were rising, nominally at least, on behalf of the Church, and the latter
against it.
The first of the Twelve Articles required “that ministers should be
chosen by the whole congregation,—If they misconducted themselves their
parishioners should be empowered to remove them.” The commons of
Westmorland wished to turn out non-resident incumbents “ytt we may putt
in yair rowmes to serve God oder yt wald be glad to keep hospytallyte
for sum of yam ar no preestes yt hath ye benefyce in hand and oder of
yam is my lord Cr[om]well chapplaynes.”
The second of the Twelve Articles required that “only the great tithes
[of wheat and other grain] ... should be in future exacted, and not the
small tithes [of the produce of animals and the minor crops].” The
commons of Westmorland wished “all ye tythes to remayn to every man hys
owne doynge yerfor accordynge to yair dewtye,” which must mean that the
tithes should be replaced by a voluntary subscription.
In the sixth article the peasants demanded that “no feudal services were
to be exacted beyond those which could be proved to be of immemorial
antiquity.” This is paralleled by the demand of the Westmorland commons
“to haffe nowte Gyelt and sargeant corne layd downe qwyche we thynke war
a Great welthe for all ye power men to bee layd downe.” It is not
necessary for the present purpose to go into the vexed question of the
original significance which belonged to the payment of “nowt geld,” i.e.
neat [cattle] geld or cornage[1785]. In Henry VIII’s reign the feudal
origin of the payments was forgotten, and the levying of cornage and
serjeant corn, otherwise called bailiff oats, probably did not differ
materially from what it was a hundred years later, when in 1634 the
tenants made another effort to free themselves. The neat geld was a
fixed annual payment made by the townships in the barony of Westmorland
and varying from £5. 5_s._ 8_d._ paid by Milburn to 1_s._ paid by
Croftormount. The serjeant corn was still paid in kind, the oats being
collected by the bailiff between St Andrew’s Day [30 November] and
Candlemas [2 February]; the amount due from each township was measured
in two ancient pecks, one containing 8 and the other 10 quarts. A
perpetual quarrel raged between the bailiff and the tenants as to
whether the measures ought to be “striked,” i.e. filled level with the
brim, or upheaped[1786].
A comparison of the two articles shows how much further the English had
advanced on the road to freedom than the Swabian peasants. In Germany
the actual services were still demanded, and new ones might be exacted.
In England the commons were trying to free themselves from the mere
relics of the ancient services.
In the eighth article the Swabians required that “rents, which were in
the majority of cases excessive, should be reduced to reasonable
amounts.” This may be compared with the complaint against the ingressum.
The tenth article required that “common land on which the lords had
encroached should be restored to the community.” This grievance was
equally felt by the insurgents of both nations. In the Westmorland
petition it is requested that “all the intakes yt [are] noysom for power
men [ought] to be layd downe.” On this point more will be said below.
One clause in the Westmorland petition has no parallel in the Twelve
Articles, namely that “taxes [be] casten emongst ye benefest men as well
yam in abbett within us as yai yt is nott incumbent.” The clergy voted
their grants of money to the King in convocation, apart from the money
bills in the House of Commons, and paid separately from the laity[1787].
When the taxes were fixed sums raised by each district, as in the case
of the tenth and fifteenth, it would be a relief to the small farmer if
the clergy of the district shared in the lay taxes, instead of being
assessed separately. The commons probably did not reflect that if clergy
and laity paid together the King would demand a larger total than if the
laity paid alone. As the subsidy was not levied in Cumberland and
Westmorland all the taxes were paid in the old manner; none were
assessed directly. In Germany the question of taxation cannot have
arisen, as government taxes scarcely existed.
It is to be noticed that only two of the articles in the Westmorland
petition, those relating to fines and to enclosures, were included in
the list of articles drawn up at Pontefract. An assembly in which the
knightly and clerical elements were so strong had little sympathy with
demands drawn up entirely from the commons’ point of view. The clergy
could not be expected to acknowledge that parishioners might dispossess
the incumbent, for although those particular incumbents were very
unsatisfactory characters, still the principle, if once admitted, might
easily be carried a great deal too far. The same argument applies to the
question of tithes and taxation. The gentlemen, indeed, having accepted
the great point of the fines, might have consented to waive the
half-obsolete feudal dues, but the point may not have appeared of
sufficient importance to be included in the Pilgrims’ petition, as it
applied only to one district, and might be settled privately between
landlord and tenant.
(13) “The statute for enclosures and intacks to be put in execution
and intacks since 4 Henry VII to be pulled down, except mountains,
forests and parks.”
This was a point on which the government was at one with the labourers,
but both were powerless. Acts of parliament had been passed with a view
to remedying the evil, but the King could not enforce them in the face
of the passive resistance of the country gentlemen. During the rebellion
the labourers sometimes took matters into their own hands, and pulled
down the enclosures[1788]. It is to be observed that the enclosure
movement in the north was not quite the same as that in the south; “it
was not the characteristic enclosure of the period, that of the open
fields, which is most prominent [during the Pilgrimage of Grace], but
the much older and long-continued enclosure of the commons.”[1789]
The gentlemen and their tenants at Pontefract must have united to insert
this article in their petition, but it is perhaps not unjust to imagine
that each of the gentlemen thought the reform ought to begin on somebody
else’s lands.
(14) “To be discharged of the quinzine and taxes now granted by Act of
Parliament.”
Something has already been said about the attitude of all classes
towards taxation[1790]. Briefly, they did not see why they should be
taxed at all. Instead of looking upon the taxes as a necessary incident
of government, they regarded them as something extraordinary, which were
required only on account of the King’s wilful extravagance. Therefore in
every rising it was usual to demand that the taxes should be
remitted[1791]. Although the fifteenth is mentioned by name, the subsidy
appears to have been the most keenly resented, because it was being
assessed directly.
The leaders of the Pilgrimage might have been expected to know that it
was absolutely necessary for the government to have money, and the
article may have been included to please the rank and file. Some of the
gentlemen, however, cherished the belief that the King could obtain what
he needed without troubling them. The writer supposed to be Sir Thomas
Tempest, dwells upon the means by which Henry VII increased his wealth;
first, by selling pardons; secondly, by some rather obscure dealings in
bishoprics, described as follows: “when a bishopric fell he would
promote his chaplain, and thereby by such exchange he would have the
profit of the temporalities of all the sees in the realm and content all
his prelates by the same, for he amended all their lineage thereby, and
hurt none, and yet increased his own riches marvellously”; thirdly, by
encouraging foreign trade[1792]. It is amusing to see how the gentlemen
now turned fond eyes back to the reign of Henry VII, who while he lived
was so bitterly hated for his extortion.
Such were the articles to be treated upon by the leaders of the
Pilgrimage and the King’s representatives. In reviewing them, it is
evident that they were not the clamour of peasants driven mad by
suffering, but ignorant of the remedy for their wrongs; nor were they
the work of blind fanatics who insisted on a complete reaction. The
articles show willingness to accept a reasonable compromise on every
important point.
The Pilgrims were ready to acknowledge the Ten Articles of Religion, as
issued by the King. They were prepared to agree to his possession of all
the substantial power attached to his title of Supreme Head of the
Church, if he would lay down the unlimited pretensions which were
implied in it. This was precisely what was done by his daughter
Elizabeth. The Pilgrims suggested that the King should receive an annual
rent charge from the monasteries, a permanent source of income which the
wholesale suppression destroyed for ever. They asked the King to burn
heretics, but he had never shown himself reluctant to perform that duty.
They asked him to punish Cromwell, but Henry had no sentimental scruples
about destroying a minister who had ceased to be useful. They desired
the repeal of a number of statutes, but they were willing to refer that
to a free parliament, and Henry always declared that he was glad to
summon a free parliament at any time. The question of the succession was
a thorny one, but it was to be solved next year by the birth of Prince
Edward; consequently, if it had been referred to parliament it would not
have proved a permanent obstacle.
It may be questioned whether it would not have been a wiser as well as a
more honourable course if Henry had entered into serious negotiations
with the Pilgrims, considered their demands, and established the Church
of England on the basis of an agreement between the opposition and
himself. That Church, when at last it was established, was the result of
a compromise, and there seems to be no vital reason why some compromise
should not have been made at once. No doubt the settlement would have
been on more conservative lines than were adopted later, and therefore
it would have had perhaps less chance of permanence, but it would have
been a rallying-point for the moderate men of all parties in the
troubled reigns which followed, and might have prevented much violent
change and consequent suffering.
The King himself seems to have been swayed for a little while by this
prospect. Stephen Gardiner, in a sermon preached at Paul’s Cross on 2
December, 1554, said, “When the tumult was in the north, in the time of
King Henry VIII, I am sure the King was determined to have given over
the supremacy again to the Pope; but the hour was not then come, and
therefore it went not forward, lest some would have said that he did it
for fear.”[1793] Gardiner was on an embassy in France during the
rebellion, and therefore cannot have been speaking from first-hand
knowledge, but his opinion carries a certain weight.
A still more interesting witness to the King’s hesitation is the draft
for an act of parliament, which, it has been conjectured, was to be
submitted to the free parliament which the Pilgrims demanded. It
represents Henry’s idea of a compromise on the subject of the
monasteries. In the first place all the monasteries which had been
suppressed were to remain so; the King would give up nothing which had
come into his hands, but it was to be enacted that the grantees must
reside upon the lands and maintain hospitality as the monks had done. In
the second place, all houses north of Trent which had not yet been
suppressed were to be expressly preserved by the act. The monks in these
houses must observe the new rules for their conduct which had been drawn
up in 1535, and a governor appointed by the King was to administer the
revenues of every house. No monastery was to be permitted to have an
income of more than 1000 marks a year. In the third place, the surplus
revenue of the monasteries was to be made over to a court, to be called
the Curia Centenariorum, presided over by the lord admiral. The funds
belonging to this court were to be devoted to maintaining a standing
army both in peace and war in the towns, castles and fortresses of the
realm[1794]. This scheme is stamped with Henry’s own peculiar form of
humour. In effect he said to the north:—“You insist on keeping the
monasteries? Very well. But you shall keep a standing army too.” It was
easy to see that the greater part of this army would be garrisoned in
the north. The project is a very striking one, but of no practical
importance, as it was never carried out.
Against these symptoms of yielding, slight as they were, Henry’s own
argument may be used, that it would have been foolish to take serious
notice of demands put forward by the ignorant and backward north. The
policy of the government ought to be controlled by the more enlightened
south. But it is clear that sympathy was felt for the northern movement
all over the country. This was not a mere fancy of the Pilgrims. Apart
from the abortive risings in other counties[1795], there is abundant
evidence that many, perhaps most, of the “southern men” would have
rejoiced at a compromise of the kind suggested above[1796].
In their negotiations with the King, the Pilgrims were handicapped by
having among their leaders no nobleman above the rank of a baron. It was
here that the Earl of Derby’s loss was severely felt. He would at any
rate have made a respectable figure-head for negotiations. The only
ecclesiastical dignitary of importance with them was the Archbishop of
York, whose timid, unstable character made him worse than useless.
Nevertheless, in spite of these drawbacks, the fact remains that the
King was forced to enter into negotiations with the Pilgrims, even
though they were northern men and lacked representatives in the peerage.
Henry saved his honour, in his own opinion, by the mental reservation
that he would not observe the terms any longer than he was compelled to
do so by force. He was obliged to treat, but at least he need not do it
sincerely. It was bad enough to be reduced to such an extremity, but he
had not fallen so low as to make a serious treaty and to keep his
promises. In this spirit, therefore, he rejected the opportunity of
establishing the Church of England upon the consent of the people. For
the remaining nine years of his reign his will was absolute in
ecclesiastical matters. The doctrines of the catholic faith were to be
accepted by his subjects not on the authority of “the Holy Church
throughout all the world” but on that of the reigning king. There was
therefore no security for the conservatives that the King would not
alter these doctrines at his pleasure, and in fact there is reason to
believe that Henry contemplated further changes of a more sweeping
character in the doctrine and practice of the Church at the time of his
death. The most probable explanation of his attitude in ecclesiastical
matters seems to be that he overrated his own power. He believed that he
could establish a church upon his own absolute will, and that yet, after
his own death, the church would stand. The event showed his mistake. On
his death religion in England fell into chaos.
The council at Pontefract had already done a good day’s work, but it was
not yet ended. In addition to agreeing upon the articles, a list of
instructions was drawn up for Sir Thomas Hilton and his
companions[1797]. One of these alone requires comment here: “That
Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at our meeting at
Doncaster.” This was resolved upon because—
(_a_) Norfolk had stated that he was coming to Doncaster unaccompanied
save by Sir Anthony Browne’s band, and the Pilgrims were annoyed to hear
that Richard Cromwell was also with him.
(_b_) There was great danger that if the commons knew that Cromwell’s
men were there they would insist upon attacking them.
(_c_) One of Robert Bowes’ servants, while in London, had quarrelled
with one of the Lord Privy Seal’s servants, and would pursue the feud if
he had the chance.
(_d_) Richard Cromwell had “spoken extreme words against the commons of
Lincolnshire.”[1798]
Before the council broke up, Lord Latimer suggested that the Archbishop
and the divines now assembled should be requested to “show their
learning whether subjects might lawfully move war in any case against
their prince.”[1799] There was no debate on the question, but Aske
undertook to lay it before the clergy, and it was hoped that the
Archbishop would deal with the problem in the sermon which he was to
preach next day[1800].
Lee had already arrived at Pontefract. The first thing that he did was
to attempt to play the same trick on Darcy which had succeeded so well
with Aske. His chaplain, Dr Brandsby, carried a verbal message to Darcy
that the Archbishop wished to have his written opinion as to how the
divines there assembled should show their learning. But Darcy was not to
be caught. He answered Dr Brandsby not in writing but by word of mouth,
and “like a knight, and neither as an orator nor lawyer nor
dissembler.”[1801] From this it may be inferred that his language was
forcible, not to say profane. At any rate he upset Lee’s plan for
collecting the treasonable opinions of the Pilgrims without stating his
own.
Meanwhile the other priests were assembling at Pontefract. Richmond was
represented by John Dakyn and the rector of Wycliffe, who was probably
Dr Rokeby[1802]. The rector of Wycliffe was not popular with his
parishioners, as one of his uncles was a surveyor of the abbeys. On the
outbreak of the rebellion the commons had threatened Rokeby, calling him
a lollard and a puller down of abbeys[1803]. It was Sir William
Tristram, the warlike chantry priest of Lartington, who told him that he
must go to Pontefract with Dakyn. On this news Rokeby went to consult
Dakyn, and they both appealed to Robert Bowes for advice. He assured
them that the Archbishop wanted their counsel, and they therefore both
went to Pontefract. They arrived in the afternoon on Saturday 2
December, and waited on the Archbishop in his chamber[1804]. He seems to
have been at the Priory, as he refused to go to the Castle[1805]. On
seeing Dakyn and Rokeby he expressed some surprise. They told him that
they understood from Bowes that he sent for them. He denied that he had
summoned anyone to a conference, although the letters had been sent out
in his name. He admitted, however, that he had received a list of
articles from the rebels, and had been requested to pronounce on their
truth. Although he would not acknowledge that he possessed the articles,
he sent Rokeby and Dakyn to Dr Brandsby for a copy. These seem to have
been the articles that Aske had sent to him[1806].
After this, the laymen’s conference having broken up, Lord Latimer came
to the Archbishop and asked him to declare next day in his sermon
whether it was lawful for subjects to wage war against their sovereign,
and to do it briefly, as there was to be a council at the Castle at nine
o’clock. Lee felt himself driven into a corner. With the resolution of
despair he promised to obey and asked Latimer to attend the sermon
instead of the council[1807]. Richard Bowyer, who seems to have acted as
clerk to the council, came to the Archbishop the same night with the
articles which had been passed by the Pilgrims that day. To him Lee
assumed the pose of a martyr: “Ye do see I cannot better it. How I am
entreated ye know.”[1808]
It has been said before, and may here be repeated, that it is incredible
that Archbishop Lee should have been allowed to preach at this critical
point if he really uttered all the loyal sentiments and made all the
protests which he afterwards attributed to himself. There were many
prominent divines at Pontefract who were heart and soul with the
Pilgrims. One of these, Friar John Pickering for example, would have
been asked to preach if it had been known that the Archbishop was such a
convinced supporter of passive obedience. In spite of his subsequent
protests, Lee was regarded on all hands as the ecclesiastical leader of
the opposition to Cromwell’s innovations. So long as conservatism was
safe, he had been a bigoted conservative[1809]. He had vigorously
attacked the very moderate reforming tendencies of Erasmus[1810]. He is
supposed to have burnt a man and a woman at York for heresy, although
the evidence in this case is defective[1811]. It was at this very time
reported in the host on the authority of Sir Robert Oughtred that Lee
had said “that there was no way for the commons but battle.”[1812] His
determination to preach was opposed by three of his chaplains and his
suffragan, but it does not appear whether they knew what he was going to
say, or merely did not wish him to preach at all[1813].
Service was held in the parish church of Pontefract on the morning of
Sunday 3 December before nine o’clock. Lord Darcy was not present[1814],
but everyone else thronged to hear the Archbishop’s sermon. It seems
that the gentlemen and divines filled the body of the church, and that
most of the commons were in a gallery, “up a height in the
church.”[1815]
Lee afterwards represented himself as coming to the pulpit “indifferent
to live or die,” resolved only to save the bodies and souls of his flock
by telling them at any cost that they did evil in resisting the
King[1816]. But this was not what his audience anticipated, and it was
some time before the drift of his sermon appeared. His text
unfortunately has not been preserved, but he began his discourse by
speaking of the sacraments of baptism, penance and communion, and of the
creed, which had been set forth in the Ten Articles of Religion[1817].
This was non-controversial matter, as the Ten Articles were accepted by
both parties. He next ventured on the rather bolder assertion that lands
which were given to the Church might not be put to profane uses. This
was what the congregation expected, and they waited eagerly for what
followed. The Archbishop continued that priests ought not to fight in
any circumstances[1818]; as for making a “peregrynage”—and on this word
he paused[1819]. There was a little stir and bustle round the door, and
Lancaster Herald came into the church. He had arrived with the
safeconduct, and very properly attended divine service on Sunday morning
at the first opportunity[1820].
The appearance of the Herald had a decisive influence on the
Archbishop’s sermon. It either gave him courage to carry out his purpose
of condemning the Pilgrimage[1821], as he said, or drove away the little
courage that he had and prevented him from blessing it, as his audience
believed[1822]. After this little pause he took up his discourse again
and declared that in the King’s Book of Articles the Faith was
sufficiently determined, that the sword was given to none but a prince,
and that no man might draw it but by his prince’s orders.
At this the fury of the commons broke loose. They cried out that the
Archbishop was a false dissembler[1823], and in the midst of the uproar
Aske and the other gentlemen hurried Lee away[1824]. He afterwards dwelt
pathetically on the danger that he had incurred[1825], but it cannot
have been very great, as it appears that the commons were some distance
from him in the gallery, and that he was surrounded by the gentlemen,
who, however angry they might be, would do him no bodily harm. Darcy did
not think much of his peril. He told the Archbishop that he reckoned
that the King and his honourable councillors would accept him after the
true meaning of that and all his sermons, without his seeking the King’s
favour by desiring, in letters, to die for his faith. “Whosoever desires
such high perfection may, with the King’s licence, be sped in Africa or
Turkey.”[1826] Darcy obtained “such high perfection” much nearer home,
but it was denied to Archbishop Lee.
It was natural that the gentlemen should resent Lee’s sermon. When a man
is risking his lands and life for a cause, it is very annoying to be
told by the representative of that cause that he is acting wickedly, and
that the cause has no need of him. Lee dined with Darcy that Sunday, and
begged him to use his influence for peace[1827], but it may be imagined
that he was not very warmly received. He heard many unfavourable
opinions of his sermon in the next few days. Sir Robert Constable used
“cruel words far unfitting to be uttered by his mouth against me that
have the cure of his soul,” complained the aggrieved Archbishop[1828].
To appease the commons and perhaps to give vent to his own feelings,
Constable had said that the Archbishop would make amends hereafter. As
soon as he was safely home at Cawood, Lee wrote to remonstrate with Sir
Robert for using such words, and declared that he had nothing to make
amends for[1829]. Robert Aske was reported to have said that if he had
known what the sermon would be he would have pulled Lee out of the
pulpit[1830], but what he really said was that if he had known “my lord
of York would preach as he did, he should not have preached.”[1831] Lee
was told that when Darcy heard that he had said no one might lawfully
resist the King, he exclaimed “By God’s mother that is not true.”[1832]
Lee wrote to complain of this to Darcy, who denied the words; but the
bitterly contemptuous tone of his letter shows what he thought of the
Archbishop[1833].
All this chorus of condemnation arouses a certain amount of sympathy for
the Archbishop in the modern mind. The doctrine of non-resistance at its
highest is perhaps the noblest conceivable. Lee was upholding
non-resistance, and there is an odd resemblance between his position and
that of the Tolstoian hero in Zangwill’s _War God_. But the likeness
breaks down when tested. In order to win acceptance the professor of
non-resistance must be unflinchingly brave and absolutely consistent.
Lee did not fulfil either of these conditions. He had not dared to
proclaim his doctrine, or he would not have been allowed to preach that
day, and he did not protest against all war. On the contrary, he praised
those who fought for the King and condemned only rebellion. Finally even
non-resisters agree that a body of men may unite to indicate peacefully
but firmly that they disapprove of the government’s action. At this
crisis of the Pilgrimage there was a reasonable hope that the Pilgrims
would obtain all they desired by peaceful means if they stood firmly
together. Lee’s sermon did a great deal to destroy that hope. This was
far from being his intention. Whatever may be thought of his conduct, it
is quite certain that he sincerely desired peace. Yet he had adopted a
very unfortunate method of bringing it about. His sermon not only
exasperated the commons, but increased their constant suspicion of the
gentlemen. After the fiasco in Lincolnshire they naturally feared that
the gentlemen would make their own peace with the King and abandon the
commons to Cromwell’s vengeance. Lee’s condemnation of the Pilgrimage
increased this distrust. It seemed only too probable that he had been
inspired by the leaders, who might already have secretly come to terms
with Norfolk. If this were so, they were now anxious to dismiss the
commons to their homes in order that, disunited and helpless, they might
fall into the hands of the royal troops. On account of these inevitable
suspicions Aske deeply regretted that he had allowed the Archbishop to
preach. The sermon had the air of an official statement, and though Lee
might have made himself safe with the King, he had embarrassed the
position of the leaders. Quarrelling broke out among the commons, and
tumults arose. Aske’s servants cut the red crosses off the coat of
Richard Bowyer, who was in the coat at the time. It does not appear what
he had done to annoy them, but he seems to have been a meddlesome
fellow. Sir George Lawson expressed a wish to know what the assembly of
divines resolved upon, and Bowyer tried to be present at their meeting.
He succeeded in entering the room while they were at dinner, but when
they came back, they declined his offer to act as secretary and turned
him out[1834].
The convocation of divines met in the Priory on Monday 4 December[1835].
They were summoned to the Priory church by Dr William Cliff, chancellor
to the Archbishop of York, chaunter of York and rector of Waverton in
Cheshire[1836], who was acting for his master, and were led by the Prior
of Pontefract into a private chamber. The persons present were John
Ripley[1837], Abbot of Kirkstall; his chaplain; Dr Sherwood, chancellor
of Beverley minster[1838]; Dr Cliff; Dr Langrege, Archdeacon of
Cleveland[1839]; Dr Geoffrey Downes, Chancellor of York; Dr John
Brandsby, the Archbishop’s chaplain and master of the collegiate church
of Sutton[1840]; Dr Cuthbert Marshall, Archdeacon of Nottingham; James
Thwaites, Prior of Pontefract; Dr Waldby, rector of Kirk Deighton and
prebendary of Carlisle; Dr Pickering the Friar Preacher; Dr Rokeby; a
friar; Dr George Palmes, rector of Sutton-upon-Derwent[1841]; and Dr
Dakyn, rector of Kirkby Ravensworth and vicar-general of York, who was
requested to sit in the midst and take the minutes. The Prior of
Pontefract and the friar seem to have been the only persons present who
were not doctors either of law or of divinity[1842].
The divines had before them the questions and propositions which Aske
had originally sent to Lee, but Aske said that they made no direct reply
to his list, and that he could not remember who drew up the questions
which they answered[1843]. These questions may perhaps have been
Chaloner’s interrogatories concerning heresy[1844].
The divines’ first resolution was:—
“We thynke yt preachynge agaynste purgatory, worshuppynge of Sayntes,
pylgrymage, Images and all bookes set forth agenst ye same or
sacramentes or sacramentallis of ye Churche be worthy to be reproved
and condempned by Convocacion, and ye payne to be executed yt is
devysed for ye doars to ye contrary, and proces to be made herafter in
heresye as was in ye dayes of kynge henry ye 1111 th and ye new
statutes wherby heresyes now lately have ben greatly norysshed to be
annolled and abrogated, and yt ye holydaes may be observed accordyng
to ye lawes and lawdable Customes, and yt ye byddynge of beadys and
preachinge may be observed as hath ben used by olde Custume.”[1845]
Over this there was little debate, for even Archbishop Lee objected to
the abolition of holydays[1846], but the second resolution was that
“ye kynges highnes ne any temporall man may not be supreme hedd of ye
churche by ye lawes of god to have or exercise any jurysdiccons or
poer spirituall in ye same, and all actes of parliamente made to ye
contrary to be revoked.”
There was a long discussion over this. Marshall, Pickering, Brandsby and
Waldby maintained the papal cause, urging the primacy of St Peter. The
three last named had been present in Convocation when the momentous
resolution in the King’s favour was passed. They took out of their
purses protests which had been made then[1847], and complained that the
saving clause “in quantum per legem Christi licet[1848]” was omitted.
Dakyn, Cliff and Rokeby thought that the question ought to be referred
to a General Council. Dakyn was not opposed to some limitation of the
Pope’s authority, for he had been in the Court of Arches and had learnt
there how much trouble and delay were caused by appeals to Rome. Dr
Sherwood was more inclined to the royal supremacy than the rest. Finally
they agreed that the King might retain the title of “Caput Ecclesiæ,”
but that he might exercise no jurisdiction such as visitation[1849].
The third question seems to have referred to Mary’s legitimacy, upon
which they resolved
“we be not suffycyently instructed in ye facte ne in ye proces therin
made but we refarre it to ye determynation of ye Churche to whom it
was appealed.”
The other resolutions were
“yt no clerke oughte to be put to death withoute degradacyon by ye
lawes of ye Churche.
yt no man ought to be drawen owte of sentuary but in certayne causes
expressed in ye lawes of ye Churche.
To ye vi^{th} we saye yt ye clargye of ye northe parties hath not
graunted nor consentyd to ye pamente of ye tenthes or ffyrste frutes
of benefices in ye Convocan and also we may make no suche personall
graunte by ye lawes of ye Churche and we thynke yt no temporall man
hathe auctoryte by ye lawes of god to claym any suche tenthes or
ffyrst frutes of any benyfyce or spirituall promocyon.
To ye vii^{th} we thinke yt landis gyven to god, ye churche or
relygyouse men ma not betaken away and put to prophane uses by ye
lawes of god.
To ye viii^{th} we thynke yt dispensacons upon Iuste causes lawfully
graunted by ye pope of Rome to be good and to be accepted, and pardons
have ben allowed by generall Counsels of lateran and Vyenna and by
lawes of ye churche.
To ye ix^{th} we thynke yt by ye lawes of ye Churche, Generall
counselles, interpreta [_torn_] ys of approved doctors and consente of
Crysten people ye poope of Rome hath ben taken for ye hedd of ye
Churche and Vycare of Cryste and so oughte to be taken.
To ye x^{th} we thinke yt ye examynacon and Correxion of dedly synne
belongith to ye mynisters of ye Churche by ye lawes of ye same, wch be
consonante to goddes lawes.”
This was the conclusion of the interrogatories, which were ten in
number. In the debate Cliff and Palmes were most eager for the repeal of
the various statutes, and Dakyn for the restoration of the monasteries,
as he had been very much shocked by the profanation of sacred
things[1850].
In the afternoon Aske himself brought the laymen’s articles to the
divines. He found them sitting with their books before them, and with
their articles almost ready[1851]. They read over the laymen’s petition
to the King, but they did not consider the temporal articles within
their province. Aske offered to lend them a book written by the Bishop
of Rochester [Fisher], which would assist them if they were in any
difficulty[1852], and besought them to speak their minds on all points
openly and without fear[1853]. He himself was ready to fight and die for
the old faith and the papal supremacy[1854].
On Tuesday 5 December the divines debated on the first eight articles of
the petition, namely (1) the suppression of heresies, (2) the supremacy
of the Pope, (3) the legitimacy of Mary, (4) the restoration of the
abbeys, (5) the abolition of tenths and first fruits, (6) the
restoration of the Friars Observants, (7) the punishment of heretics,
(8) the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and Rich.
In this they were going over the same ground as on the day before, and
they had only to confirm the lay articles. In addition to their answers
to the questions which they had received, the divines passed some
resolutions of their own:—
“ffarther we thynke it convenyente yt ye lawes of ye churche may be
openly redde in Unyversyties as hath ben used here to ffore, and yt
suche clarkys as be in pryson or ffledde owte of ye realme for
withstandyng ye kynges supporyorite in ye Church may be set at
lybertye and restored withoute danger and yt suche bookys and workes
as do entreate of ye primacye of ye Churche of Rome may be ffrely
kepte and redde notwithstandyng any prohybyssion to ye contrary and yt
ye artycles of praemynire may be declared by actes of parlamente to
the entente no man be in daunger therof withoute a prohibicyon fyrste
awarded and yt suche apostataes as be goon from relygion withoute
suffycyente and lawfull dyspensacyon of ye See of Rome may be
compelled to returne to theyre howses, and yt all Sommes of mony as
tenthes fyrste frutes and other Arreragis [_torn_] graunted unto ye
kynges highnes by parlyamente or convocacyon and dew to be payed
before ye fyrst day of ye nexte parliament may be remytted and
forgyven for ye causes and reasones above expressed.
And we ye saide clargie saye yt for lacke of tyme and instruccyon in
thies artycles and wante of bookys we declare this our opynyon for
this tyme refarrynge our determynacon in ye premysses to ye nexte
Convocacyon.
Also we desyre yt ye statute Cammanndynge ye clergye to exhibyte ye
dyspensacons graunted by ye pope byfore ye ffeaste of michelmas nexte
commynge may be revoked at ye nexte parliamente.”
On Tuesday evening the articles were ready, and the assembled divines
carried them to the Archbishop[1855]. Aske was present[1856], as Lee had
been urging him to come to terms with Norfolk, to disclose everything,
and to inquire whether Lee should proceed with the collection of the
tenth[1857]. The Archbishop read over the articles, but when he came to
the declaration of the papal supremacy, he objected that it was
unnecessary. There was a long debate over this. Marshall and Pickering
defended the article[1858]. Aske questioned the Archbishop as to what he
really believed on this point. Lee replied that the supremacy touching
the cure of souls did not belong to the King, but the punishment of sin
rested with him as the head of his people, and therein he was supreme
head. Aske was surprised at the distinction, as he had never before
heard anyone make it[1859]. In the end Lee permitted the clause to
stand, as it expressed the consent of Christian people[1860]. The
articles were then delivered to Aske[1861]. That night, probably after
they had left Lee’s presence, Aske laid before the divines the problem
which the Archbishop had solved in so unexpected a fashion. Was it ever
lawful for subjects to resist their sovereign? To this they returned no
answer[1862], but on the whole their attitude was much more
satisfactory, from Aske’s point of view, than Lee’s had been. Their
resolutions were certainly bold enough; probably the timid spirits were
encouraged and hurried on by the ardour of Pickering and the more
enthusiastic priests. It is true that afterwards they all represented
themselves as having been in terror of the commons, but the statement of
Dakyn, who was a very simpleminded man, throws some light on that point.
He explained that when he, Marshall and Cliff were summoned to court to
account for their conduct, they agreed together that they would say they
had done everything from fear; and Dakyn innocently goes on to repeat
exactly the words they had agreed upon, that every man came through
fear, and was weary of his part, and doubtful what to do[1863]. If this
were true, the reason of the Pilgrims’ failure is not far to seek. No
one could drag to victory such very flabby and reluctant upholders of
the Church. But a statement made with such an obvious motive does not
command much belief. No doubt the priests were anxious and afraid. An
assembly of elderly clergymen are very uncomfortably situated in the
midst of a rebel army, and very dangerously employed in drawing up a
manifesto hostile to the government. But it was the King, not the
commons, whom they chiefly feared.
On this point Aske was closely interrogated. After some questions as to
the matters laid before the clergy, he was asked, “Was it not a double
iniquity to fall into rebellion and also after to procure matter to be
set forth to justify that rebellion?”[1864] To which he replied with
that touch of humour which is sometimes perceptible in his answers, “If
the clergy did declare their minds contrary to the laws of God, it was a
double iniquity,” and again, “as he thinks, the spiritual men were
willing enough of themselves to declare their minds as they did in those
points that they answered unto, but in that point, whether subjects
might fight against their prince, he thinks they were not willing,
because they made no determination at all touching the same.”[1865]
In short, it is an injustice to the learned men to say that they did not
mean what they resolved. Aske expressed the confidence of all the
Pilgrims when he said, “They thought none other like but that the said
clergy would have showed their minds according to their learning and
conscience, and [they] had no violence offered them in the world to do
the contrary.”[1866]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV
Note A. The points which indicate that this paper was drawn up by Aske
are:
(1) The questions are not the same as those which were laid before the
clergy at Pontefract, and Aske said afterwards that his questions were
not used there[1867].
(2) Several of the questions are on points on which Aske was examined,
e.g. the contradictory oaths, the rights of the Church according to
Magna Carta, and the Statute of Uses. The opinions expressed in the
questions agree with those in Aske’s replies.
(3) The questions were found together with a paper in Latin on the
clause in the Creed “Credo in Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam.”[1868] This
paper would probably be given to Archbishop Lee, who also had Aske’s
questions in his possession[1869]. He may have sent both to the King
together.
Note B. The Articles of Pontefract are printed in the Letters and
Papers, XI, 1246, in Speed’s History of Great Britain, Book IX, chap.
21, and in Froude’s History of England, II, chap. XIII, in a foot-note.
In the present work the articles have been grouped in a new order, but
the numbering of the original order has been retained for convenience of
reference.
Note C. Against this article is written “ney,” but it is uncertain when
or by whom the note was made. It is difficult to believe that there was
a division of opinion among the Pilgrims as to the conduct of the
notorious commissioners, and there seems to be no reason to suppose that
this article was opposed or rejected after it was laid before the
general council, for Aske stated that “they all agreed to the Articles
and none to the contrary of them.”[1870] Possibly the word may have been
written when Aske was being examined to indicate that he had not yet
been interrogated on this article, as his reply to it occurs in his last
examination[1871].
“Non” is written in the margin against article 9, probably for a similar
reason.
Note D. Bye-elections were not accepted as a constitutional practice
even as late as the seventeenth century[1872].
Note E. The boroughs were Ripon, Doncaster, Tickhill, Ravenspur, Yarm,
Pickering, Hedon, Beverley, Thirsk, Northallerton, Malton,
Knaresborough, Pontefract, Hull and Scarborough[1873].
The other northern counties had electoral grievances as well as
Yorkshire, for instance, Durham was not represented at all. The members
for Cumberland in 1523 were nominated by the King but this was because
no one would volunteer to stand[1874].
Note F. The name is illegible in his confession[1875], and as he had
received his benefice in August 1536 it cannot be discovered from the
Valor Ecclesiasticus. Dakyn, however, mentions that Dr Rokeby was at
Pontefract[1876], and the unknown writer names his uncle William Rokeby.
Friar Pickering adds to the list of divines, Mr Bachelor of Meux and a
secular man. He also says that the friar was an Observant[1877].
Note G. There are galleries in All Hallows, the parish Church of
Pontefract, at the present day[1878], but as the church was almost
completely destroyed during the Civil War it is impossible to say
whether there were galleries in the original building[1879].
Note H. These articles are printed by Strype, Memorials, I (ii), 266,
and by Wilkins, Concilia, III, 812, but as neither of these copies is
very accurate a fresh one has been made from the original in the British
Museum, Cotton MS. Cleop. E. V, 381 (old numbering), 413 (modern
numbering). A very much condensed summary is printed in the Letters and
Papers, XI, 1245. The Articles are also printed in “The Acts of the
Northern Convocation” (Surtees Soc.), but they are erroneously
represented as being the reply of the Northern Convocation to the King’s
Ten Articles.
END OF VOLUME ONE.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
-----
Footnote 1:
28 Hen. VIII, c. 7.
Footnote 2:
L. and P. Hen. VIII, XI, 148.
Footnote 3:
Ibid. preface, p. iv, and No. 6.
Footnote 4:
Ibid. X, 1134, 1150.
Footnote 5:
Cunningham, The Growth of Eng. Ind. and Com. I, chap. V, sections 1
and 6.
Footnote 6:
L. and P. VIII, 121.
Footnote 7:
L. and P. XI, 1244.
Footnote 8:
Ibid. 1182.
Footnote 9:
Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, I, pt III, chap. XVII.
Footnote 10:
Dictionary of National Biography; Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas
Cromwell, I, chap. VI.
Footnote 11:
Ibid. I, chap. I.
Footnote 12:
Ibid. I, chap. IV.
Footnote 13:
21 Hen. VIII, c. 13.
Footnote 14:
Dixon, Hist. of the Ch. of Eng. I, chap. I.
Footnote 15:
28 Hen. VIII, c. 13.
Footnote 16:
Dixon, op. cit. I, chap. I.
Footnote 17:
Ibid.
Footnote 18:
22 Hen. VIII, c. 15.
Footnote 19:
Gee and Hardy, Doc. illus. of Eng. Ch. Hist. nos. XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII.
Footnote 20:
23 Hen. VIII, c. 20.
Footnote 21:
25 Hen. VIII, c. 20.
Footnote 22:
Gee and Hardy, op. cit. no. LVIII.
Footnote 23:
Ibid. no. LIX.
Footnote 24:
26 Hen. VIII, c. 1.
Footnote 25:
L. and P. VIII, 623.
Footnote 26:
Dixon, op. cit. I, chap. IV.
Footnote 27:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 28.
Footnote 28:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 14.
Footnote 29:
28 Hen. VIII, c. 10.
Footnote 30:
25 Hen. VIII, c. 21.
Footnote 31:
28 Hen. VIII, c. 16.
Footnote 32:
L. and P. XI, 148.
Footnote 33:
21 Hen. VIII, c. 2; 23 Hen. VIII, c. 1.
Footnote 34:
28 Hen. VIII, b. XIII, 1.
Footnote 35:
Hardwick, Hist. of the Articles, chap. III.
Footnote 36:
Ibid. App. I.
Footnote 37:
Ibid. chap. III.
Footnote 38:
Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, II, 5, n. 3.
Footnote 39:
Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, II, 1 et seq.
Footnote 40:
Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), I, 55, n.
Footnote 41:
25 Hen. VIII, c. 22.
Footnote 42:
26 Hen. VIII, c. 2.
Footnote 43:
26 Hen. VIII, c. 13.
Footnote 44:
L. and P. VIII, preface, p. xxxiv, n.
Footnote 45:
Froude, Reign of Henry VIII, II, chap. IX; Cal. of Venetian St. P. V,
no. 125; Pollard, Henry VIII, chap. XII.
Footnote 46:
Froude, loc. cit.
Footnote 47:
Cunningham, op. cit. chap. V, section 6.
Footnote 48:
Dowell, Hist. of Tax in Eng. I, Bk III, chap. I, pt II, sections 1 and
2.
Footnote 49:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 10. See F. Pollock, The Land Laws (The English
Citizen Series), 89–104; Holdsworth, Hist. of Eng. Law, I, 241.
Footnote 50:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 12.
Footnote 51:
See below, chap. IV.
Footnote 52:
25 Hen. VIII, c. 13.
Footnote 53:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 22.
Footnote 54:
Leadam, Select Cases in the Court of Star Chamber (Selden Soc.), II,
pp. xxxviii-liv.
Footnote 55:
25 Hen. VIII, c. 2.
Footnote 56:
See below, chap. IV.
Footnote 57:
D. N. B., Pole and Courtenay.
Footnote 58:
Ibid. Stafford.
Footnote 59:
L. and P. III (1) 1293.
Footnote 60:
L. and P. XI, 92.
Footnote 61:
Haile, Life of Reginald Pole.
Footnote 62:
Haile, Life of Reginald Pole, chap. IX.
Footnote 63:
Ibid. chap. X.
Footnote 64:
See note A at end of chapter.
Footnote 65:
Pollard, op. cit. chap. XIII.
Footnote 66:
D. N. B., Darcy.
Footnote 67:
See note B at end of chapter.
Footnote 68:
L. and P. XII (1) 667; printed in full, Papers of the Earl of
Hardwicke, I, 41.
Footnote 69:
D. N. B. loc. cit.
Footnote 70:
Ibid.
Footnote 71:
L. and P. V, 805.
Footnote 72:
L. and P. XII (1) 901, p. 410.
Footnote 73:
L. and P. VII, 121.
Footnote 74:
L. and P. XII (2) 186 (63).
Footnote 75:
Tonge’s Visitation of Yorks. (Surtees Soc.), p. 22.
Footnote 76:
D. N. B., Hussey.
Footnote 77:
L. and P. XI, 969.
Footnote 78:
D. N. B. loc. cit. J. H. Round, Peerage Studies, Henry VIII and the
Peers.
Footnote 79:
L. and P. VII, 1036; op. cit. vol. XI, no. 222.
Footnote 80:
L. and P. XII (1) no. 899; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. II,
chap. XIV.
Footnote 81:
L. and P. vol. VII, no. 1206.
Footnote 82:
Ibid. VIII, 750.
Footnote 83:
Ibid. VII, 1206.
Footnote 84:
Ibid. 962 (X).
Footnote 85:
Ibid. VIII, Preface, pp. ii-iv.
Footnote 86:
L. and P. VIII, 355.
Footnote 87:
Ibid. VII, 1206.
Footnote 88:
Ibid. VIII, 272.
Footnote 89:
Ibid. I.
Footnote 90:
Ibid. Preface, pp. i-ii.
Footnote 91:
See note C at end of chapter.
Footnote 92:
L. and P. VIII, 750.
Footnote 93:
L. and P. XII (1) 576.
Footnote 94:
L. and P. VIII, 1018.
Footnote 95:
L. and P. VII, 1426; ibid. VIII, Preface, p. iii.
Footnote 96:
L. and P. IX, 776.
Footnote 97:
See note D at end of chapter.
Footnote 98:
L. and P. IX, 861.
Footnote 99:
Ibid. VII, 1036.
Footnote 100:
L. and P. XI, 222.
Footnote 101:
Ibid. 7.
Footnote 102:
Ibid.
Footnote 103:
Ibid. 219; 220.
Footnote 104:
Ibid. 10.
Footnote 105:
Ibid. 222.
Footnote 106:
Ibid. 969.
Footnote 107:
See chap. X.
Footnote 108:
Lapsley, County Palatine of Durham (Harvard Hist. Studies), p. 259.
Footnote 109:
L. and P. XII (2), 186 (38).
Footnote 110:
L. and P. IV (2), 4336.
Footnote 111:
De Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy, I, chap. IX.
Footnote 112:
Ibid.
Footnote 113:
De Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy, I, chap. IX; cf.
Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), Introduction, vol. I, p.
xxxviii.
Footnote 114:
L. and P. VIII, 80, 255, 1143; XII (2) 1090.
Footnote 115:
L. and P. VIII, 1, 121.
Footnote 116:
L. and P. VIII, 166.
Footnote 117:
L. and P. V, 727; cf. XII (1) 1090.
Footnote 118:
L. and P. VIII, 1143.
Footnote 119:
De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX; L. and P. XII (1), 577.
Footnote 120:
L. and P. VIII, 166.
Footnote 121:
L. and P. XI, 714.
Footnote 122:
27 Hen. VIII, c. 47.
Footnote 123:
De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX.
Footnote 124:
L. and P. X, 246 (12), (13).
Footnote 125:
L. and P. VIII, 1143 (4).
Footnote 126:
L. and P. XII (1), 491, 393; printed in full, de Fonblanque, op. cit.
I, chap. IX.
Footnote 127:
L. and P. XI, 785.
Footnote 128:
L. and P. XII (1), 1090.
Footnote 129:
Dic. of Nat. Biog., Henry Clifford, 1st Earl of Cumberland.
Footnote 130:
Star Chamber Proceedings, Henry VIII, Bundle XXX, no. 6; and see
below.
Footnote 131:
L. and P. XI, 1236; printed in full, State Papers, I, 521.
Footnote 132:
L. and P. XII (1) 372, and see Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.
Footnote 133:
J. Scott, Berwick-upon-Tweed, chap. VII.
Footnote 134:
L. and P. XII (1), 419.
Footnote 135:
L. and P. XI, 993; XII (1) 439.
Footnote 136:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 137:
L. and P. XI, 503.
Footnote 138:
Foster, Durham Visitation Pedigrees, Bowes.
Footnote 139:
Plantagenet-Harrison, Hist. of Yorks., Aske of Aske.
Footnote 140:
L. and P. XI. 1143.
Footnote 141:
F. W. Maitland, The Year Books of Edward II (Selden Soc.).
Footnote 142:
L. and P. XII (2), 100.
Footnote 143:
Tonge’s Visitation of Yorks. (Surtees Soc.), p. 25.
Footnote 144:
L. and P. I, 4462.
Footnote 145:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, vol. II, no. 134; L. and P. II, 2733.
Footnote 146:
Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1519.
Footnote 147:
Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII, I, chap. XIII.
Footnote 148:
Ibid. I, chap. XI.
Footnote 149:
Halliwell-Phillipps, Letters of the Kings of England, I, Hen. VIII to
the Earl of Surrey.
Footnote 150:
Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.) VI, 306.
Footnote 151:
See above, chap. II.
Footnote 152:
Raine, loc. cit.
Footnote 153:
Tonge, op. cit. 25.
Footnote 154:
Raine, op. cit. VI, 306.
Footnote 155:
Tonge, op. cit. 25.
Footnote 156:
Ord, Hist. of Cleveland, Pedigree of Bulmer; Brenan and Statham, The
House of Howard, I, chap. V.
Footnote 157:
Foster, Yorkshire Visitation Pedigrees, Bulmer of Pinchinthorpe.
Footnote 158:
Wriothesley, Chron. (Camden Soc.) I, 64.
Footnote 159:
Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.) p. 41; see note A at end of chapter.
Footnote 160:
L. and P. XII (1) 1199 (2).
Footnote 161:
Ibid. 236.
Footnote 162:
Foster, op. cit., Bulmer of Pinchinthorpe.
Footnote 163:
L. and P. XII (1), 66, 236.
Footnote 164:
Tonge, op. cit. 25.
Footnote 165:
Dur. Cursitor’s Rec. portf. 171, no. 2.
Footnote 166:
L. and P. XIII (1) 366, 707.
Footnote 167:
Raine, op. cit. IV, 215 n.
Footnote 168:
Tonge, op. cit. 67.
Footnote 169:
Ibid. 64.
Footnote 170:
See above.
Footnote 171:
Raine, op. cit. V, 306 n.
Footnote 172:
Archaeologia Aeliana (new ser.) III, 214.
Footnote 173:
L. and P. VIII, 135.
Footnote 174:
Raine, op. cit. VI, 68 n.; Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, 404.
Footnote 175:
Raine, op. cit. V, 55.
Footnote 176:
Ibid. VI, 223.
Footnote 177:
Dic. Nat. Biog., Francis Bigod; Raine, op. cit. V, 55.
Footnote 178:
Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.
Footnote 179:
L. and P. VIII, 135, 735; XI, 23.
Footnote 180:
Tonge, op. cit. 67.
Footnote 181:
L. and P. XII (1) 271.
Footnote 182:
Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. II, 246–51.
Footnote 183:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, XXVII, no. 131.
Footnote 184:
Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. II, 246–51.
Footnote 185:
L. and P. IX, 216.
Footnote 186:
L. and P. X, 47–49, 238.
Footnote 187:
Ibid. 611, 679.
Footnote 188:
Ibid. 1167.
Footnote 189:
Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.
Footnote 190:
L. and P. VIII, 849, 854, 869, 1082.
Footnote 191:
Ibid. 1025, 1033, 1069.
Footnote 192:
Ibid. IX, 37.
Footnote 193:
L. and P. X, 49.
Footnote 194:
Ibid. 742.
Footnote 195:
Tonge, op. cit. 68.
Footnote 196:
Gentleman’s Mag. 1835 (1), pp. 151–2.
Footnote 197:
L. and P. XII (1), 851; see note B at end of chapter.
Footnote 198:
Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIII.
Footnote 199:
Dic. Nat. Biog., Robert Constable.
Footnote 200:
See above, chap. II.
Footnote 201:
Arch. Ael. (new ser.), vol. III, p. 214.
Footnote 202:
Ibid. p. 225.
Footnote 203:
L. and P. II, 2735.
Footnote 204:
Ibid. 3446.
Footnote 205:
Gentleman’s Mag. 1835 (1), p. 153.
Footnote 206:
L. and P. III (1), 654–5.
Footnote 207:
Ibid. 1236, 1260.
Footnote 208:
L. and P. III (2), 3240; cf. Brown, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks.
Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I, nos. IX and LXXXI.
Footnote 209:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, bundle 22 no. 162.
Footnote 210:
The Plumpton Letters (Camden Soc.), vol. IV (1839), pp. 227–8; Brown,
Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.) I, no. XXVII.
Footnote 211:
L. and P. XIII (1) 708.
Footnote 212:
A. F. Leach, Beverley Town Documents (Selden Soc.), preface, p. xxxvi,
pp. 64, 65.
Footnote 213:
Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, p. 401.
Footnote 214:
Archaeological Journ. XXV, 170.
Footnote 215:
J. Foster, Glover’s Visitation of Yorks. p. 441.
Footnote 216:
Tonge, op. cit. 64.
Footnote 217:
Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.) IV, 123.
Footnote 218:
Tonge, op. cit. 64.
Footnote 219:
Raine, op. cit. IV, 257.
Footnote 220:
Ibid. VI. 21.
Footnote 221:
For the marriages of the Askes see Flower’s Visit. of Yorks. (Harl.
Soc.), XVI, 7; B. M. Add. MS 38133, fol. 45b–46a.
Footnote 222:
See below, chap. VI.
Footnote 223:
L. and P. XI, 622; XII (1), 852.
Footnote 224:
L. and P. XII (1), 191.
Footnote 225:
Durham Cursitor’s Rec. portf. 177, no. 9.
Footnote 226:
Tonge, op. cit. 64.
Footnote 227:
Raine, Testa. Ebor. VI, 165.
Footnote 228:
L. and P. XVI, 653; XVII, 8, 283 (8).
Footnote 229:
Raine, op. cit. IV, 123; L. and P. XII (1), 1186 and 1321.
Footnote 230:
Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees Soc.), I, App. p. clxii n.
Footnote 231:
L. and P. XII (1), 1321.
Footnote 232:
Raine, loc. cit.
Footnote 233:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXVII, no. 143.
Footnote 234:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXVII, no. 135; cf. Bundle
XVIII, no. 164, printed in full, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks.
Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), II, no. 15.
Footnote 235:
Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXX, no. 6.
Footnote 236:
Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory, I, p. clxii.
Footnote 237:
L. and P. XII (1), 1321.
Footnote 238:
Raine, op. cit. p. clxii.
Footnote 239:
See below, chap. XIX.
Footnote 240:
L. and P. XII (1), 1186.
Footnote 241:
Arch. Journ. XXV, 171.
Footnote 242:
Ibid.; facsimile in Gentleman’s Magazine, Aug. 1754. See note C at end
of chapter.
Footnote 243:
See note D at end of chapter.
Footnote 244:
Raine, Testa. Ebor. VI, 21; Exch. Inq. ser. 2, 983/4.
Footnote 245:
L. and P. XII (1), 1223, 1224.
Footnote 246:
Notes and Queries, 11th ser. vol. IV, p. 441.
Footnote 247:
Ibid.
Footnote 248:
L. and P. XI, 1175.
Footnote 249:
Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1536.
Footnote 250:
L. and P. XI, 1103.
Footnote 251:
See note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 252:
L. and P. VIII, 475, 892; IX, 463.
Footnote 253:
L. and P. IX, 37.
Footnote 254:
Ibid. 463.
Footnote 255:
L. and P. IX, 404.
Footnote 256:
See note F at end of chapter.
Footnote 257:
L. and P. VIII, 457.
Footnote 258:
L. and P. XII (2), 369 (3).
Footnote 259:
Ibid. 316, 369.
Footnote 260:
Ibid.
Footnote 261:
L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, J. C. Cox, William Stapleton
and the Pilgrimage of Grace; see note G at end of chapter.
Footnote 262:
Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, p. 403.
Footnote 263:
L. and P. XII (1), 392, see below, chap. VII.
Footnote 264:
Now Hutton Wandesley in Long Marston parish.
Footnote 265:
Yorks. Arch. Journ. XX, 362.
Footnote 266:
Morris, The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, 1st Ser., The
Bapthorpes.
Footnote 267:
L. and P. VIII, 457; see note F at end of chapter.
Footnote 268:
L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 330 et seq.
Footnote 269:
L. and P. XI, 1244.
Footnote 270:
G. Brenan and E. P. Statham, op. cit. I, chap. V; Foster, loc. cit.
Footnote 271:
Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.), IV, 257; B. M. Add. MS 38133, f.
45 b–46 a.
Footnote 272:
Printed in full, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec.
Ser.), II, nos. xiv, xxiii, xxvii.
Footnote 273:
Printed in full, Yorks. Star. Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I,
no. lxxxii.
Footnote 274:
L. and P. VIII, 457. See below, chap. IV.
Footnote 275:
William Stapleton and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Trans. of the East
Riding Rec. Soc., vol. X.
Footnote 276:
Gasquet, Hen. VIII and the Eng. Mon. I, chap. VI.
Footnote 277:
Merriman, Life of Thomas Cromwell, I, chap. VII.
Footnote 278:
Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Mon. I, chap. V.
Footnote 279:
Brand, Newcastle-on-Tyne, I, 335 n.
Footnote 280:
Gasquet, loc. cit.
Footnote 281:
See note A at end of chapter.
Footnote 282:
L. and P. VIII, 626; the document is quoted by Froude, op. cit. chap.
XIV.
Footnote 283:
L. and P. VIII, 624.
Footnote 284:
L. and P. VII, 595; VIII, 480; IX, 189, 315.
Footnote 285:
L. and P. X, 594; Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. VII.
Footnote 286:
L. and P. IX, 1118, printed in Latimer’s Sermons and Remains (Parker
Soc.), II, 373.
Footnote 287:
L. and P. IX, 179.
Footnote 288:
L. and P. IX, 740.
Footnote 289:
L. and P. X, 462.
Footnote 290:
Ibid. 1027, 1099.
Footnote 291:
Ibid. 790.
Footnote 292:
L. and P. VIII, 480; IX, 704.
Footnote 293:
L. and P. VIII, 20; X, 296.
Footnote 294:
L. and P. IX, 1130.
Footnote 295:
Ibid. 1091.
Footnote 296:
L. and P. X, 804, 891.
Footnote 297:
Dixon, Hist. of the Church of Eng. I, chap. IV.
Footnote 298:
L. and P. IX, 100, X, 14.
Footnote 299:
L. and P. IX, 408.
Footnote 300:
L. and P. VIII, 406.
Footnote 301:
L. and P. IX, 46; XII (2), 518.
Footnote 302:
L. and P. IX, 1066.
Footnote 303:
L. and P. VIII, 480; IX, 789.
Footnote 304:
L. and P. VIII, 589, 770, 776; IX, 846; X, 1140; XII (2), 505.
Footnote 305:
Barnes was afterwards (30 July 1540) put to death at Smithfield on the
famous occasion when three heretics, of whom he was one, and three
romanists were executed together.
Footnote 306:
L. and P. IX, 1059.
Footnote 307:
Bradfield St Clare.
Footnote 308:
L. and P. VIII, 196, quoted by Merriman, op. cit. I, chap. VII; see
note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 309:
L. and P. VIII, 278; quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.
Footnote 310:
L. and P. XIII (2), 307.
Footnote 311:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 312:
L. and P. VIII, 844; IX, 864, 1123; X, 1205.
Footnote 313:
L. and P. XI, 300 (ii); quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.
Footnote 314:
L. and P. IX, 883.
Footnote 315:
L. and P. X, 722.
Footnote 316:
L. and P. IX, 74; quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.
Footnote 317:
L. and P. XI, 407; Merriman, op. cit. II, nos. 161, 164; L. and P. XII
(1), 109.
Footnote 318:
L. and P. X, 693 (ii); see note F at end of chapter.
Footnote 319:
L. and P. XII (1), 407.
Footnote 320:
L. and P. VIII, 386.
Footnote 321:
See note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 322:
L. and P. VIII, 955.
Footnote 323:
L. and P. IX, 704, 742; X, 172.
Footnote 324:
L. and P. VIII, 1024.
Footnote 325:
L. and P. VIII, 1020.
Footnote 326:
Ibid. 1005; printed by Strype, Eccles. Mem. I (ii), 274.
Footnote 327:
L. and P. IX, 135.
Footnote 328:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 329:
L. and P. IX, 791.
Footnote 330:
L. and P. VIII, 457. For the date see above, chap. III, note F.
Footnote 331:
L. and P. VIII, 863, 970, 984, 991; IX, 150, 196, 427.
Footnote 332:
L. and P. X, 77.
Footnote 333:
Ibid. 733.
Footnote 334:
Ibid. 745.
Footnote 335:
L. and P. VI, 355, 537.
Footnote 336:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 337:
See note B at end of chapter.
Footnote 338:
L. and P. X, 1264.
Footnote 339:
A. F. Pollard, Henry VIII, chap. XII.
Footnote 340:
Froude, The Dissolution of the Monasteries, Frazer’s Mag. 1857.
Footnote 341:
L. and P. X, 1221.
Footnote 342:
L. and P. XI (1), 70 (xi), 481; XI, 854 (ii), 768 (2).
Footnote 343:
L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in State Papers, I, 482.
Footnote 344:
Ibid.
Footnote 345:
L. and P. XI, 828 (vi).
Footnote 346:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 347:
L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in St. P. I, 482.
Footnote 348:
Ibid.
Footnote 349:
See above, chap. I.
Footnote 350:
L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in St. P. I, 482.
Footnote 351:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (x), (xi).
Footnote 352:
L. and P. XI, 405.
Footnote 353:
L. and P. XII (1), 901; see below, chap. VII.
Footnote 354:
L. and P. XII (1), 392; see below, chap. VII.
Footnote 355:
L. and P. XI, 841; see below, chap. VII.
Footnote 356:
L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331.
Footnote 357:
E. B. Bax, The Peasants’ War in Germany, 1524–25, p. 37.
Footnote 358:
L. and P. XI, 319; printed by Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees
Soc.), I, p. clvi, n.
Footnote 359:
L. and P. XI, 434, 470.
Footnote 360:
L. and P. XI, 543.
Footnote 361:
The serving-man’s master, i.e. Cromwell.
Footnote 362:
L. and P. XI, 828 (vii).
Footnote 363:
L. and P. XII, (1), 481.
Footnote 364:
L. and P. XI, 841.
Footnote 365:
L. and P. XII (1), 590.
Footnote 366:
L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).
Footnote 367:
Ibid. 972.
Footnote 368:
See below, chaps. V and VII.
Footnote 369:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (viii).
Footnote 370:
L. and P. XI, 1120.
Footnote 371:
L. and P. XII (1), 392.
Footnote 372:
Ibid.
Footnote 373:
L. and P. VIII, 809.
Footnote 374:
Ibid. 949.
Footnote 375:
Ibid. 771.
Footnote 376:
Furnivall, Ballads from MS (Ballad Soc.), I (2), 317.
Footnote 377:
Bax, op. cit. 59.
Footnote 378:
L. and P. VIII, 736.
Footnote 379:
L. and P. X, 911.
Footnote 380:
L. and P. XII (1), 841, 3 (ii) and 4. For similar sayings see
Furnivall, loc. cit. and Early Eng. Text Soc., Thomas of Ercildoune,
vol. 61, p. 61.
Footnote 381:
L. and P. XII (1), 534.
Footnote 382:
L. and P. XIV (1), 186; Merriman, op. cit. I, chap. XI.
Footnote 383:
L. and P. IX, 846.
Footnote 384:
L. and P. X, 614.
Footnote 385:
Ibid. 1207.
Footnote 386:
Lansd. MS, 762.
Footnote 387:
E. E. T. Soc. 61, p. lix.
Footnote 388:
Ibid. 52–61.
Footnote 389:
See note C at end of chapter.
Footnote 390:
Cf. The Prophecies of Rymour, Beid and Marleyng, E. E. T. Soc. vol.
61, App. 2.
Footnote 391:
See note D at end of chapter.
Footnote 392:
L. and P. XII (1), 318.
Footnote 393:
L. and P. XII (2), 1212, 1231.
Footnote 394:
The Mirror for Magistrates, II, 71. The Legend of Glendour.
Footnote 395:
Henry IV, pt. 1, Act III, sc. 1.
Footnote 396:
Wilfrid Holme, The Fall and Evil Success of Rebellion.
Footnote 397:
Longstaffe, Hist. of Darlington, 98, n.
Footnote 398:
L. and P. XI, 501; printed in St. P. I, 459.
Footnote 399:
E. E. T. Soc. vol. 61, App. 2.
Footnote 400:
L. and P. VI, 1193; M. A. Everett Green, Letters of Royal and
Illustrious Ladies, II, no. xcvii.
Footnote 401:
L. and P. X, 702.
Footnote 402:
Ibid. 929 (ii).
Footnote 403:
Ibid. 1015 (26).
Footnote 404:
L. and P. XI, 381 (A).
Footnote 405:
Wriothesley, Chron. (Camden Soc.), I, 61.
Footnote 406:
L. and P. XII (1), 1194–95; see below, chap. XIX.
Footnote 407:
L. and P. XI, 780 (2); printed St. P. I, 463.
Footnote 408:
Leadam, The Domesday of Inclosures, I, pp. 8, 243.
Footnote 409:
Ibid. 244.
Footnote 410:
Ibid. 245, 251, 255.
Footnote 411:
Froude always alludes to Moigne as Mayne. The name is spelt in many
different ways.
Footnote 412:
Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), I, 61; cf. Inderwick, Cal. of
Inner Temple Records, I, pp. 94, 104, 107–8, 110–14.
Footnote 413:
Star Chamber Cases, Bundle XXVIII, no. 120. As usual the result of the
case is unknown.
Footnote 414:
See note A at end of chapter.
Footnote 415:
L. and P. XI, preface, pp. xi-xii.
Footnote 416:
Ibid. p. XV.
Footnote 417:
Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. II.
Footnote 418:
L. and P. XII (1), 481, 380.
Footnote 419:
Ibid. 481.
Footnote 420:
i.e. Dr Raynes, Chancellor of the Bishop of Lincoln.
Footnote 421:
L. and P. XI, 975 (4).
Footnote 422:
L. and P. XII (1), 481.
Footnote 423:
L. and P. XI, 975 (4).
Footnote 424:
Ibid. 854, 828 (1).
Footnote 425:
See note B at the end of the chapter.
Footnote 426:
L. and P. XII (1), 380; extracts are printed by Gasquet, Henry VIII
and the English Mon. II, chap. II.
Footnote 427:
L. and P. XI, 828 (iii).
Footnote 428:
Ibid. (1).
Footnote 429:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 430:
Ibid. 70 (1).
Footnote 431:
L. and P. XI, 854.
Footnote 432:
Ibid. 828 (1).
Footnote 433:
Ibid. 324.
Footnote 434:
Ibid. 854.
Footnote 435:
Ibid. 135.
Footnote 436:
Ibid. 828 (1).
Footnote 437:
See below, chap. VII.
Footnote 438:
L. and P. XI, 567.
Footnote 439:
See above, chap. IV.
Footnote 440:
L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).
Footnote 441:
L. and P. XI, 828 (iii).
Footnote 442:
Ibid. (xii).
Footnote 443:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 444:
L. and P. XI, 568, 852.
Footnote 445:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 446:
Ibid. 853.
Footnote 447:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 448:
Ibid. 828 (xii).
Footnote 449:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 450:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 451:
Ibid. 853.
Footnote 452:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 453:
See note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 454:
Robert Aske’s brother-in-law, see above, chap. III.
Footnote 455:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 456:
L. and P. XI, 853.
Footnote 457:
Ibid. 534, 568.
Footnote 458:
Ibid. 568.
Footnote 459:
L. and P. XI, 534 (St. P. Hen. VIII, vol. 106, p. 250. R. O.)
Footnote 460:
L. and P. XI, 568.
Footnote 461:
Ibid. 533.
Footnote 462:
Ibid. 536.
Footnote 463:
Ibid. 563.
Footnote 464:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 465:
Ibid. 532.
Footnote 466:
Ibid. 531.
Footnote 467:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 468:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 469:
Ibid. 852, 973.
Footnote 470:
Ibid. 531, 971, cf. 879 (2).
Footnote 471:
Ibid. 585.
Footnote 472:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 473:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 474:
L. and P. XI, 967 (xi).
Footnote 475:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 476:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 477:
Ibid. 539.
Footnote 478:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 479:
L. and P. XI, 536.
Footnote 480:
Ibid. 828 (2).
Footnote 481:
Ibid. 975 (2).
Footnote 482:
Ibid. 828 (2).
Footnote 483:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ix).
Footnote 484:
Ibid.
Footnote 485:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ix).
Footnote 486:
L. and P. XII (1), 380, 481.
Footnote 487:
See above.
Footnote 488:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 489:
Christopher Hales.
Footnote 490:
Richard Riche.
Footnote 491:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (iii, vii, x, xi); ibid. 380.
Footnote 492:
L. and P. XI, 852.
Footnote 493:
Ibid. 620.
Footnote 494:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 495:
Ibid.
Footnote 496:
L. and P. XI, 969.
Footnote 497:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (iii).
Footnote 498:
L. and P. XI, 620.
Footnote 499:
Ibid. 828 (2).
Footnote 500:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 501:
L. and P. XI, 563.
Footnote 502:
L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full by Cox, op. cit.
Footnote 503:
L. and P. XI, 828 (v).
Footnote 504:
Ibid. (vii).
Footnote 505:
Ibid.(x).
Footnote 506:
L. and P. XI, 828 (viii).
Footnote 507:
Ibid. 593.
Footnote 508:
L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 331.
Footnote 509:
The third was probably Thomas Portington’s eldest son.
Footnote 510:
L. and P. XII (1) 6; Eng. Hist. Rev. loc. cit.
Footnote 511:
L. and P. XI, 853.
Footnote 512:
Ibid.
Footnote 513:
Ibid. 828 (i).
Footnote 514:
Ibid. 828 (2).
Footnote 515:
See description of Lionel Dymmoke’s tomb, G. Weir, Hist. Sketches of
Horncastle, 30, and S. Lodge, Scrivelsby, Append. 3.
Footnote 516:
L. and P. XI, 828, iii (2), 585.
Footnote 517:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 518:
L. and P. XII (1) 6, Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 333.
Footnote 519:
See note C at end of chapter.
Footnote 520:
L. and P. XI, 805.
Footnote 521:
L. and P. XI, 576, 714.
Footnote 522:
L. and P. XI, 576; printed also in Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 104; L.
and P. XI, 714.
Footnote 523:
L. and P. XI, 538.
Footnote 524:
See note D at end of chapter.
Footnote 525:
L. and P. XI, 536.
Footnote 526:
Ibid. 537.
Footnote 527:
Ibid. 860.
Footnote 528:
Ibid. 557.
Footnote 529:
Ibid. 545; see above chap. I.
Footnote 530:
L. and P. XI, 576.
Footnote 531:
Ibid. 552.
Footnote 532:
See note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 533:
L. and P. XI, 561.
Footnote 534:
Ibid. 552.
Footnote 535:
Ibid. 553.
Footnote 536:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 537:
L. and P. XI, 852, 969.
Footnote 538:
Ibid. 561.
Footnote 539:
Ibid. 578, 561.
Footnote 540:
Ibid. 561.
Footnote 541:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 542:
Ibid. 853.
Footnote 543:
Ibid. 828 (xii).
Footnote 544:
Ibid. 853.
Footnote 545:
Ibid.
Footnote 546:
Ibid. 587 (2).
Footnote 547:
Ibid. 853.
Footnote 548:
Ibid. 828 (2).
Footnote 549:
L. and P. XI, 853.
Footnote 550:
Ibid. 939.
Footnote 551:
Ibid. 805.
Footnote 552:
Ibid. 571.
Footnote 553:
Ibid. 585.
Footnote 554:
See note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 555:
L. and P. XI, 567.
Footnote 556:
Ibid. 587.
Footnote 557:
Ibid. 620.
Footnote 558:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 559:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 560:
Ibid. 854; see note E at end of chapter.
Footnote 561:
L. and P. XI, 852.
Footnote 562:
Ibid. 969.
Footnote 563:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 564:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 565:
L. and P. XI, 853, 854.
Footnote 566:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 567:
Ibid.
Footnote 568:
Ibid. 587.
Footnote 569:
Ibid. 589.
Footnote 570:
L. and P. XI, 828 (1).
Footnote 571:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 572:
Ibid.
Footnote 573:
Ibid. 828 (v).
Footnote 574:
Ibid. (vii).
Footnote 575:
Ibid. 828 (2); XII (1), 70 (ii).
Footnote 576:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 577:
Ibid. 828 (v).
Footnote 578:
Ibid. 780 (2); 828 (5).
Footnote 579:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 580:
Holinshed, Chronicle, III, 800.
Footnote 581:
Ibid.
Footnote 582:
L. and P. XI, 536.
Footnote 583:
Ibid. 537.
Footnote 584:
Ibid. 562.
Footnote 585:
Ibid. 612; printed by Merriman, op. cit. II, 33.
Footnote 586:
L. and P. XI, 715–16.
Footnote 587:
L. and P. XII (2), 436.
Footnote 588:
L. and P. XI, 579, 580.
Footnote 589:
Ibid. 584; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. chap. XIII.
Footnote 590:
L. and P. XI, 576.
Footnote 591:
Ibid. 558, 560, 562, 581, 590.
Footnote 592:
Ibid. 590.
Footnote 593:
Ibid. 576, 714.
Footnote 594:
Ibid. 593.
Footnote 595:
Ibid. 585.
Footnote 596:
Ibid. 584.
Footnote 597:
Ibid. 714; printed in “The Pilgrim,” ed. Froude, p. 113.
Footnote 598:
L. and P. XI, 568.
Footnote 599:
Ibid. 587.
Footnote 600:
Ibid. 563.
Footnote 601:
L. and P. XI, 592.
Footnote 602:
Ibid. 587 (2).
Footnote 603:
Ibid. 581, 587.
Footnote 604:
Ibid. 714.
Footnote 605:
Ibid. 600.
Footnote 606:
Ibid. 607.
Footnote 607:
Probably Monday, 16 Oct.
Footnote 608:
L. and P. XI, 579 (2).
Footnote 609:
Ibid. 576.
Footnote 610:
Ibid. 615.
Footnote 611:
Ibid. 601.
Footnote 612:
Ibid.
Footnote 613:
L. and P. XI, 603.
Footnote 614:
Ibid. 625.
Footnote 615:
Ibid. 626.
Footnote 616:
Ibid.
Footnote 617:
Ibid. 605.
Footnote 618:
Ibid. 662.
Footnote 619:
Ibid. 598.
Footnote 620:
L. and P. XI, 611.
Footnote 621:
Ibid. 714.
Footnote 622:
Ibid. 621.
Footnote 623:
Ibid. 615.
Footnote 624:
Ibid. 569.
Footnote 625:
Ibid. 616.
Footnote 626:
Ibid. 615.
Footnote 627:
Ibid. 617.
Footnote 628:
Ibid. 658.
Footnote 629:
Ibid. 638.
Footnote 630:
L. and P. XI, 650.
Footnote 631:
Ibid. 658; see above, chap. V.
Footnote 632:
Ibid. 658.
Footnote 633:
L. and P. XI, 888.
Footnote 634:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 635:
Ibid. 70 (x).
Footnote 636:
L. and P. XI, 828 (xi).
Footnote 637:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ii).
Footnote 638:
See above, chap. V.
Footnote 639:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (xi).
Footnote 640:
L. and P. XI, 853.
Footnote 641:
L. and P. XII (1), 70 (x).
Footnote 642:
See note A at end of chapter.
Footnote 643:
L. and P. XI, 828 (viii), 969.
Footnote 644:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 645:
See note B at end of chapter.
Footnote 646:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 647:
Ibid. 975 (3).
Footnote 648:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 649:
Ibid. 939.
Footnote 650:
Ibid. 971.
Footnote 651:
Ibid.
Footnote 652:
L. and P. XI, 969.
Footnote 653:
Ibid. 828 (V).
Footnote 654:
L. and P. XII (1), 380.
Footnote 655:
L. and P. XI, 658.
Footnote 656:
Ibid.
Footnote 657:
Ibid. 661.
Footnote 658:
Ibid. 694.
Footnote 659:
L. and P. XI, 971; XII (1), 380.
Footnote 660:
Ibid.
Footnote 661:
L. and P. XI, 694 (2); printed in St. P. I, 462.
Footnote 662:
L. and P. XI, 854.
Footnote 663:
Ibid. 690, 718; printed St. P. I, 468.
Footnote 664:
L. and P. XI, 971.
Footnote 665:
Ibid. 843.
Footnote 666:
Ibid. 828, i, (2); XII (1), 70 (xiii).
Footnote 667:
L. and P. XI, 672.
Footnote 668:
Ibid. 680.
Footnote 669:
L. and P. XI, 672.
Footnote 670:
Ibid. 854, 691.
Footnote 671:
Ibid. 854 (ii).
Footnote 672:
Ibid. 828, i, (2).
Footnote 673:
Ibid. 808.
Footnote 674:
Ibid. 694.
Footnote 675:
Ibid. 587.
Footnote 676:
L. and P. XI, 625.
Footnote 677:
Ibid. 584.
Footnote 678:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 679:
Ibid. 620.
Footnote 680:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 681:
Lincolnshire Pedigrees (Harl. Soc.), Ped. of Carr of Sleaford.
Footnote 682:
L. and P. XI, 969.
Footnote 683:
L. and P. XI, 975 (4).
Footnote 684:
Ibid. 852.
Footnote 685:
Ibid. 969.
Footnote 686:
L. and P. XI, 656; printed by Tierney, Dodd’s Church Hist. of Eng. I,
Append.
Footnote 687:
See note C at end of chapter.
Footnote 688:
See note D at end of chapter.
Footnote 689:
L. and P. XI, 714; the translation of another copy is printed by
Froude, The Pilgrim, p. 113.
Footnote 690:
L. and P. XI, 720–1.
Footnote 691:
Ibid. 808.
Footnote 692:
Ibid. 717.
Footnote 693:
L. and P. XI, 718; printed in St. P. I, 468.
Footnote 694:
L. and P. XI, 717.
Footnote 695:
Ibid. 756.
Footnote 696:
Ibid. 854.
Footnote 697:
L. and P. XI, 780 (1).
Footnote 698:
L. and P. XI, 780 (2); printed in St. P. I, 463.
Footnote 699:
See above, chap. V.
Footnote 700:
Bax, op. cit. 108.
Footnote 701:
Bax, op. cit. 137–41.
Footnote 702:
Ibid. 141–2.
Footnote 703:
L. and P. XI, 842; printed in St. P. I, 490.
Footnote 704:
Bax, op. cit. 44, 108.