Chapter XIV · 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.

342Even 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 343bishops 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 344other 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 6s. 6d. for Lawson’s to 2s. 4d. 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.

345Early 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.

346It 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]. 347This 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 348stand 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 349in 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:

350“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. 351The 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 352much 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 353which 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,” 354and 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]

355(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.”

356All 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 357virtues 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 358the 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].

359The 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].

360As 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.

361This 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 362King, 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 363only 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 364miles 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 365attributed 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 366laws 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 367to 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’ 368found 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]

369

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 6s. 3½d. to 30s.^[1777] The commons of Kendal complained that where the ingressum had been 4 marks it was now £40^[1778]. When they took 370up 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 371corne 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. 5s. 8d. paid by Milburn to 1s. 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, 372apart 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 373is 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 374by 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 375the 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, 376of 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 377Richard 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 378of 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. 379So 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].

380The 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 381such 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].