III. Legal Grievances.
(10) “The statute of handguns and crossbows to be repealed, except in the King’s parks or forests.”
This statute was a re-enactment of two earlier statutes, which prohibited the use of handguns and crossbows to persons whose income was less than £100 a year. Exceptions from its operation were made in favour of towns and fortresses on or within seven miles of the coast, or the Scots marches, and also in favour of the inhabitants of Northumberland, Durham, Westmorland and Cumberland[1747]. Its object was to keep up the practice of shooting with the long bow, which was falling into disuse, but all such attempts at coercion are inevitably unpopular, and this statute must have been particularly resented in Yorkshire, by reason of the contrast with the neighbouring counties which were exempted from its provisions.
Apart from any such local feeling there was a deeper motive in the opposition to this statute. The men of England dimly perceived that in their weapons lay their last hope of freedom. Legislation even about the nature of their weapons roused their suspicions. They felt that it would make a distinction between themselves and the regular soldiers whom the King might employ. The long bow, still the principal instrument of war in England, was becoming obsolete and the English bowmen respected if they did not fear the arquebus men used in the continental wars. The success of the Pilgrimage up to this point was in fact due to the absence of any trained soldiers in England. The revolt in Germany was crushed by the veterans who returned home from Italy after the battle of Pavia[1748]. The Norfolk rebellion in 1549 was suppressed by means of German and Italian mercenaries[1749]. Henry’s foreign wars had been too brief to produce bodies of seasoned troopers, and it must be put to his credit that he had not yet employed mercenaries. But he might do so whenever he saw fit, and to equalise matters as far as possible the commons wished to be free to use whatever weapons they found most effective.
(20) “To have the statute that no man shall not will his lands repealed.”
This was the Statute of Uses, which has already been discussed so fully[1750] that it is not necessary to do more than recapitulate Aske’s arguments against it. He seems to have considered that the law with respect to the inheritance of land held in chief of the King had been unsatisfactory before the statute was passed, and he said that this article would not have been included if it had not occurred in the Lincolnshire petition. When he went to court he declared his opinion of the old law fully to the King[1751]. In the propositions attributed to Aske there are two mutilated articles which appear to suggest that the King should cause inquisition to be made, and the Exchequer rolls to be searched, in order that it might be clearly ascertained which were the lands held in chief of the King, as at present much trouble and expense was caused by uncertainty on this point[1752].
But Aske did not consider that the Statute of Uses was rightly framed to reform the old state of things. In the first place it gave a man in some ways more opportunity of defeating the royal claims on his lands; secondly, it altered the old forms of pleading at law and introduced great confusion; thirdly, it prevented men from raising money on their lands by making it possible for their sons to repudiate their debts[1753].
The first objection roused the interest of his examiners, and they wanted to know how the King’s rights might now be defeated[1754]. Aske replied that it was difficult for him to set forth the matter, as he had been separated from his books for so long, but the judges and others deeply learned in the law could explain it, and there was one case which he himself could give from his own knowledge[1755]. “If a man held land of the King as of his duchy or of the crown, and have licence to alien and do alien to an estranger to the use of the stranger, upon condition that he shall execute an estatute to him for term of his life, the remainder thereof to his son or heir apparent, and to the heirs of his body legitime, the remainder in fee simple to a younger of his sons or daughters or to an estranger, in this case his son cannot be in ward, nor the lands, for he comes in after his father as a purchaser; and collusion it cannot be, because the remainder of the fee simple is in a stranger.”[1756]
Aske was expressing the lawyer’s point of view in this. Most of the gentlemen assembled at Pontefract would object to the Statute of Uses, not because it could be evaded, but because they did not for the moment see how to evade it. In the end Aske’s view proved to be correct, and the effects of the statute were the very opposite to those which the King expected[1757].
(21) “The statutes of treasons for words and such-like made since 21 Henry VIII to be repealed.”
The chief reason that the people grudged against the treason laws was that they were prohibited from discussing the King’s title of supreme head of the Church. They “thought it very strait that a man might not declare his conscience in such a great case,” for it was a matter that touched the health of their souls[1758]. There seem to be one or two allusions to the treason laws in the paper attributed to Sir Thomas Tempest. One has been noted above[1759]. Another may be implied when the writer refers to the good days of Henry VII, who allowed men condemned to death to buy their pardons, and “if the faulter had amend[ed] his condition and grown to be a good man again, when he had amended the King would have withdrawn his wrath and by one mean or other have looked so of him that he should have had such a thing as should help him as much as his fine hindered him.”[1760] In the propositions attributed to Aske it is requested that “acts of parliament ... contrary to the law of God may be avoided [made void] and the acts concerning high treason reformed.”[1761]
On the whole there was little discussion of these terrible laws, because no one ventured to criticise them. Aske’s reply to a question on the subject breaks off suddenly, as if even his examiners in the Tower did not dare to hear all that an outspoken man could say on the subject[1762].
(22) “That the common laws may have place as was used in the beginning of the reign, and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has been determined in Chancery.”
This and the following article are included in one among the propositions attributed to Aske: “that the laws may be used as at the beginning of the King’s reign, and that injunctions, subpoenas, and privy seals be not granted so commonly and into countries distant from London as of late time they have been.”[1763] In another place Aske accused Audley the Lord Chancellor of “playing of ambedexter in granting and dissolving of injunctions.”[1764]
The theory which underlay the Chancellor’s power to grant injunctions is well known. The Common Law courts administered justice according to law and precedent, but this, although sufficient in the average case, might bear hardly on individuals in special cases. When this happened, the individual had the power to appeal to the Chancellor who, as keeper of the King’s conscience, was able to grant “grace,” “conscience,” or “equity,” in the form of an injunction which bound the other party in the suit either to refrain from prosecuting in a particular court, or to cease from the conduct which was causing complaint[1765]. There was no objection to this power in general, except the universal one that the remedy was in practice open only to the rich, but in the hands of such a man as Audley the granting of injunctions was liable to abuse. The Pilgrims’ article “means that the chancery may interfere with an action at common law, only if that action is opening a question already decided in the chancery.”[1766]
At this particular period, however, the Chancellor’s power had another and more dangerous aspect. There is some reason to believe that England was on the verge of a “Reception” of the Civil Code of Justinian similar to that which took place in Germany. Although Reginald Pole was an admirer of the Civil Law[1767], yet its chief advocates were found among Henry’s chosen servants, Gardiner, Bonner, Layton, Legh[1768] and others, and “partly by injunctions, as well before verdicts, judgments and executions as after, and partly by writs of Sub Poena issuing out of the King’s court of chancery” the “Common Laws of this realm ... hath not been only stayed of their direct course, but also many times altered and violated by reason of Decrees made in the said court of chancery, most grounded upon law civil and upon matter depending in the conscience and discretion of the hearers thereof, who being civilians and not learned in the Common Laws, setting aside the said Common Laws, determine the weighty causes of this realm according either to the said Law Civil or to their own conscience; which Law Civil is to the subjects of this realm unknown, and they not bound nor inheritable to the same law, and which judgments and decrees grounded upon conscience are not grounded nor made upon any rule certain or law written.”[1769]
The great bulwark of English Common Law against the Civil Law was the body of lawyers of the inns of court[1770], and these champions were numerously represented among the Pilgrims, in whose ranks they carried on the struggle with weapons in their hands. Maitland says, “It will be seen that in 1536 the cause of ‘the common laws’ found itself in very queer company; illiterate, monkish and papistical company, which apparently has made a man of ‘Anibaptist.’”[1771] If the great jurist had gone more deeply into the Pilgrimage of Grace, he would have been surprised to find how familiar that company was to him.
(23) “That men north of Trent summoned on subpoena appear at York, or by attorney, unless it be directed on pain of allegiance, or for like matters concerning the King.”
This article is closely connected with the preceding one. It is another illustration of the wide separation that there was between London and the North, when the journey was long, costly and dangerous, and the countryman in London found himself in a strange land.
(24) “A remedy against escheators for finding false offices and extorting fees.”
This was one of the grievances connected with the Statute of Uses, and it is mentioned in the propositions attributed to Aske under that heading. As the lands held in capite are not certainly known “certain of the Exchequer for money finds untrue offices against the King and in like case oftentimes bribes and extortions the King’s —.” Here the manuscript is mutilated[1772].
Complaints against escheators are older than the Statute of Uses, and occur among the grievances of the rebels in almost all revolts, both before and after the Pilgrimage. The escheators were the King’s servants, who used their authority to bully and plunder the provincials. Another of the propositions attributed to Aske refers to the same injuries; it is against those who obtain “rooms” and “offices” “for maintenance of their authority and their children’s blood,” and who have “bribed and extortioned the King’s subjects.” It is requested that they may be punished and honourable men put in their places[1773].
The Pilgrims associated all such abuses with Cromwell. The writer supposed to be Sir Thomas Tempest complained that Cromwell’s servants and his servants’ servants “thinks to have the law in every place here ordered at their commandment, and will take upon them to command sheriff, justices of peace, coram and of session in their master’s name at their pleasure, witness Brabson and Dakyns.”[1774]
IV. Economic Grievances.
(9) “That the lands in Westmorland, Cumberland, Kendal, Dent, Sedbergh, Furness, and the abbey lands in Mashamshire, Kirkbyshire, Netherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have, at every change, two years’ rent for gressom, according to the grant now made by the lords to the commons there. This to be done by Act of Parliament.”
The “gressom,” “ingressum” or “gyrsuma” was the fine paid by a tenant on entering upon his lands. In order to understand the peasants’ grievances with respect to this fine, it is necessary to sketch the position of the tenant with regard to his landlord in these districts.
The commons of the districts named in the article held their lands by tenant right. “In this mode of tenure, the lord could not impose his will on the tenant—they were joint owners. The rights of lord and tenant were determined by the custom of the manor. When a tenant died, his estate escheated to the lord till the heir was declared as in tenure in capite. The lord was obliged to admit the heir, and the fine on admission was not arbitrary, like some other phases of tenure, but according to the custom of the manor.” In the thirteenth century a fine of one year’s rent seems to have been usual[1775]. After the Black Death, when it was very difficult to find tenants, the lords of manors were often content with merely nominal fines; in 1358 at Pittington in Durham a tenant came in on payment of “one urchinne,” i.e. a hedgehog[1776]. But with the increase of enclosure and sheep-farming, the position of the lord altered completely. The tenant was no longer necessary to him, and the lord therefore began to disregard the custom of the manor and to demand much higher fines. If the tenant could pay, it was so much ready money into the lord’s pocket. If he could not, he was evicted and the farm was thrown open as part of the lord’s sheep pastures. This was going on all over the country. In a case which was brought before the Court of Star Chamber in 1527, the fine of land at Thingdon in Northamptonshire was raised from 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 up arms the first thing they did was to force their landlord to promise that he would observe their ancient customs with regard to the ingressum. From the wording of the article it appears that such promises had been obtained in other districts also.
The commons of Westmorland demanded that “consernynge ye gyrsumes for power mens to bee layd aparte bot only penny farm penny gyrsum.”[1779] The fixing of the fine at two years’ rent, as requested in the article, finally became law in 1781[1780].
The rising in Cumberland and Westmorland bears a much closer resemblance to the various peasant revolts in Germany than do the movements in the other counties[1781]. Thus in the proclamation drawn up at Penrith by Robert Thompson, the rebels were commanded to say daily five aves, five paters and a creed, which recalls the Bruchsal insurgents of 1502, who bound themselves to say five aves and five paternosters daily[1782]. There is a striking correspondence between the petition of the commons of Westmorland dated 15 November 1536[1783], and the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants in 1525[1784], despite the fact that the former were rising, nominally at least, on behalf of the Church, and the latter against it.
The first of the Twelve Articles required “that ministers should be chosen by the whole congregation,—If they misconducted themselves their parishioners should be empowered to remove them.” The commons of Westmorland wished to turn out non-resident incumbents “ytt we may putt in yair rowmes to serve God oder yt wald be glad to keep hospytallyte for sum of yam ar no preestes yt hath ye benefyce in hand and oder of yam is my lord Cr[om]well chapplaynes.”
The second of the Twelve Articles required that “only the great tithes [of wheat and other grain] ... should be in future exacted, and not the small tithes [of the produce of animals and the minor crops].” The commons of Westmorland wished “all ye tythes to remayn to every man hys owne doynge yerfor accordynge to yair dewtye,” which must mean that the tithes should be replaced by a voluntary subscription.
In the sixth article the peasants demanded that “no feudal services were to be exacted beyond those which could be proved to be of immemorial antiquity.” This is paralleled by the demand of the Westmorland commons “to haffe nowte Gyelt and sargeant corne layd downe qwyche we thynke war a Great welthe for all ye power men to bee layd downe.” It is not necessary for the present purpose to go into the vexed question of the original significance which belonged to the payment of “nowt geld,” i.e. neat [cattle] geld or cornage[1785]. In Henry VIII’s reign the feudal origin of the payments was forgotten, and the levying of cornage and serjeant corn, otherwise called bailiff oats, probably did not differ materially from what it was a hundred years later, when in 1634 the tenants made another effort to free themselves. The neat geld was a fixed annual payment made by the townships in the barony of Westmorland and varying from £5. 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, apart from the money bills in the House of Commons, and paid separately from the laity[1787]. When the taxes were fixed sums raised by each district, as in the case of the tenth and fifteenth, it would be a relief to the small farmer if the clergy of the district shared in the lay taxes, instead of being assessed separately. The commons probably did not reflect that if clergy and laity paid together the King would demand a larger total than if the laity paid alone. As the subsidy was not levied in Cumberland and Westmorland all the taxes were paid in the old manner; none were assessed directly. In Germany the question of taxation cannot have arisen, as government taxes scarcely existed.
It is to be noticed that only two of the articles in the Westmorland petition, those relating to fines and to enclosures, were included in the list of articles drawn up at Pontefract. An assembly in which the knightly and clerical elements were so strong had little sympathy with demands drawn up entirely from the commons’ point of view. The clergy could not be expected to acknowledge that parishioners might dispossess the incumbent, for although those particular incumbents were very unsatisfactory characters, still the principle, if once admitted, might easily be carried a great deal too far. The same argument applies to the question of tithes and taxation. The gentlemen, indeed, having accepted the great point of the fines, might have consented to waive the half-obsolete feudal dues, but the point may not have appeared of sufficient importance to be included in the Pilgrims’ petition, as it applied only to one district, and might be settled privately between landlord and tenant.
(13) “The statute for enclosures and intacks to be put in execution and intacks since 4 Henry VII to be pulled down, except mountains, forests and parks.”
This was a point on which the government was at one with the labourers, but both were powerless. Acts of parliament had been passed with a view to remedying the evil, but the King could not enforce them in the face of the passive resistance of the country gentlemen. During the rebellion the labourers sometimes took matters into their own hands, and pulled down the enclosures[1788]. It is to be observed that the enclosure movement in the north was not quite the same as that in the south; “it was not the characteristic enclosure of the period, that of the open fields, which is most prominent [during the Pilgrimage of Grace], but the much older and long-continued enclosure of the commons.”[1789]
The gentlemen and their tenants at Pontefract must have united to insert this article in their petition, but it is perhaps not unjust to imagine that each of the gentlemen thought the reform ought to begin on somebody else’s lands.
(14) “To be discharged of the quinzine and taxes now granted by Act of Parliament.”
Something has already been said about the attitude of all classes towards taxation[1790]. Briefly, they did not see why they should be taxed at all. Instead of looking upon the taxes as a necessary incident of government, they regarded them as something extraordinary, which were required only on account of the King’s wilful extravagance. Therefore in every rising it was usual to demand that the taxes should be remitted[1791]. Although the fifteenth is mentioned by name, the subsidy appears to have been the most keenly resented, because it was being assessed directly.
The leaders of the Pilgrimage might have been expected to know that it was absolutely necessary for the government to have money, and the article may have been included to please the rank and file. Some of the gentlemen, however, cherished the belief that the King could obtain what he needed without troubling them. The writer supposed to be Sir Thomas Tempest, dwells upon the means by which Henry VII increased his wealth; first, by selling pardons; secondly, by some rather obscure dealings in bishoprics, described as follows: “when a bishopric fell he would promote his chaplain, and thereby by such exchange he would have the profit of the temporalities of all the sees in the realm and content all his prelates by the same, for he amended all their lineage thereby, and hurt none, and yet increased his own riches marvellously”; thirdly, by encouraging foreign trade[1792]. It is amusing to see how the gentlemen now turned fond eyes back to the reign of Henry VII, who while he lived was so bitterly hated for his extortion.
Such were the articles to be treated upon by the leaders of the Pilgrimage and the King’s representatives. In reviewing them, it is evident that they were not the clamour of peasants driven mad by suffering, but ignorant of the remedy for their wrongs; nor were they the work of blind fanatics who insisted on a complete reaction. The articles show willingness to accept a reasonable compromise on every important point.
The Pilgrims were ready to acknowledge the Ten Articles of Religion, as issued by the King. They were prepared to agree to his possession of all the substantial power attached to his title of Supreme Head of the Church, if he would lay down the unlimited pretensions which were implied in it. This was precisely what was done by his daughter Elizabeth. The Pilgrims suggested that the King should receive an annual rent charge from the monasteries, a permanent source of income which the wholesale suppression destroyed for ever. They asked the King to burn heretics, but he had never shown himself reluctant to perform that duty. They asked him to punish Cromwell, but Henry had no sentimental scruples about destroying a minister who had ceased to be useful. They desired the repeal of a number of statutes, but they were willing to refer that to a free parliament, and Henry always declared that he was glad to summon a free parliament at any time. The question of the succession was a thorny one, but it was to be solved next year by the birth of Prince Edward; consequently, if it had been referred to parliament it would not have proved a permanent obstacle.
It may be questioned whether it would not have been a wiser as well as a more honourable course if Henry had entered into serious negotiations with the Pilgrims, considered their demands, and established the Church of England on the basis of an agreement between the opposition and himself. That Church, when at last it was established, was the result of a compromise, and there seems to be no vital reason why some compromise should not have been made at once. No doubt the settlement would have been on more conservative lines than were adopted later, and therefore it would have had perhaps less chance of permanence, but it would have been a rallying-point for the moderate men of all parties in the troubled reigns which followed, and might have prevented much violent change and consequent suffering.
The King himself seems to have been swayed for a little while by this prospect. Stephen Gardiner, in a sermon preached at Paul’s Cross on 2 December, 1554, said, “When the tumult was in the north, in the time of King Henry VIII, I am sure the King was determined to have given over the supremacy again to the Pope; but the hour was not then come, and therefore it went not forward, lest some would have said that he did it for fear.”[1793] Gardiner was on an embassy in France during the rebellion, and therefore cannot have been speaking from first-hand knowledge, but his opinion carries a certain weight.
A still more interesting witness to the King’s hesitation is the draft for an act of parliament, which, it has been conjectured, was to be submitted to the free parliament which the Pilgrims demanded. It represents Henry’s idea of a compromise on the subject of the monasteries. In the first place all the monasteries which had been suppressed were to remain so; the King would give up nothing which had come into his hands, but it was to be enacted that the grantees must reside upon the lands and maintain hospitality as the monks had done. In the second place, all houses north of Trent which had not yet been suppressed were to be expressly preserved by the act. The monks in these houses must observe the new rules for their conduct which had been drawn up in 1535, and a governor appointed by the King was to administer the revenues of every house. No monastery was to be permitted to have an income of more than 1000 marks a year. In the third place, the surplus revenue of the monasteries was to be made over to a court, to be called the Curia Centenariorum, presided over by the lord admiral. The funds belonging to this court were to be devoted to maintaining a standing army both in peace and war in the towns, castles and fortresses of the realm[1794]. This scheme is stamped with Henry’s own peculiar form of humour. In effect he said to the north:—“You insist on keeping the monasteries? Very well. But you shall keep a standing army too.” It was easy to see that the greater part of this army would be garrisoned in the north. The project is a very striking one, but of no practical importance, as it was never carried out.
Against these symptoms of yielding, slight as they were, Henry’s own argument may be used, that it would have been foolish to take serious notice of demands put forward by the ignorant and backward north. The policy of the government ought to be controlled by the more enlightened south. But it is clear that sympathy was felt for the northern movement all over the country. This was not a mere fancy of the Pilgrims. Apart from the abortive risings in other counties[1795], there is abundant evidence that many, perhaps most, of the “southern men” would have rejoiced at a compromise of the kind suggested above[1796].
In their negotiations with the King, the Pilgrims were handicapped by having among their leaders no nobleman above the rank of a baron. It was here that the Earl of Derby’s loss was severely felt. He would at any rate have made a respectable figure-head for negotiations. The only ecclesiastical dignitary of importance with them was the Archbishop of York, whose timid, unstable character made him worse than useless.
Nevertheless, in spite of these drawbacks, the fact remains that the King was forced to enter into negotiations with the Pilgrims, even though they were northern men and lacked representatives in the peerage. Henry saved his honour, in his own opinion, by the mental reservation that he would not observe the terms any longer than he was compelled to do so by force. He was obliged to treat, but at least he need not do it sincerely. It was bad enough to be reduced to such an extremity, but he had not fallen so low as to make a serious treaty and to keep his promises. In this spirit, therefore, he rejected the opportunity of establishing the Church of England upon the consent of the people. For the remaining nine years of his reign his will was absolute in ecclesiastical matters. The doctrines of the catholic faith were to be accepted by his subjects not on the authority of “the Holy Church throughout all the world” but on that of the reigning king. There was therefore no security for the conservatives that the King would not alter these doctrines at his pleasure, and in fact there is reason to believe that Henry contemplated further changes of a more sweeping character in the doctrine and practice of the Church at the time of his death. The most probable explanation of his attitude in ecclesiastical matters seems to be that he overrated his own power. He believed that he could establish a church upon his own absolute will, and that yet, after his own death, the church would stand. The event showed his mistake. On his death religion in England fell into chaos.
The council at Pontefract had already done a good day’s work, but it was not yet ended. In addition to agreeing upon the articles, a list of instructions was drawn up for Sir Thomas Hilton and his companions[1797]. One of these alone requires comment here: “That Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at our meeting at Doncaster.” This was resolved upon because—
(a) Norfolk had stated that he was coming to Doncaster unaccompanied save by Sir Anthony Browne’s band, and the Pilgrims were annoyed to hear that Richard Cromwell was also with him.
(b) There was great danger that if the commons knew that Cromwell’s men were there they would insist upon attacking them.
(c) One of Robert Bowes’ servants, while in London, had quarrelled with one of the Lord Privy Seal’s servants, and would pursue the feud if he had the chance.
(d) Richard Cromwell had “spoken extreme words against the commons of Lincolnshire.”[1798]
Before the council broke up, Lord Latimer suggested that the Archbishop and the divines now assembled should be requested to “show their learning whether subjects might lawfully move war in any case against their prince.”[1799] There was no debate on the question, but Aske undertook to lay it before the clergy, and it was hoped that the Archbishop would deal with the problem in the sermon which he was to preach next day[1800].
Lee had already arrived at Pontefract. The first thing that he did was to attempt to play the same trick on Darcy which had succeeded so well with Aske. His chaplain, Dr Brandsby, carried a verbal message to Darcy that the Archbishop wished to have his written opinion as to how the divines there assembled should show their learning. But Darcy was not to be caught. He answered Dr Brandsby not in writing but by word of mouth, and “like a knight, and neither as an orator nor lawyer nor dissembler.”[1801] From this it may be inferred that his language was forcible, not to say profane. At any rate he upset Lee’s plan for collecting the treasonable opinions of the Pilgrims without stating his own.
Meanwhile the other priests were assembling at Pontefract. Richmond was represented by John Dakyn and the rector of Wycliffe, who was probably Dr Rokeby[1802]. The rector of Wycliffe was not popular with his parishioners, as one of his uncles was a surveyor of the abbeys. On the outbreak of the rebellion the commons had threatened Rokeby, calling him a lollard and a puller down of abbeys[1803]. It was Sir William Tristram, the warlike chantry priest of Lartington, who told him that he must go to Pontefract with Dakyn. On this news Rokeby went to consult Dakyn, and they both appealed to Robert Bowes for advice. He assured them that the Archbishop wanted their counsel, and they therefore both went to Pontefract. They arrived in the afternoon on Saturday 2 December, and waited on the Archbishop in his chamber[1804]. He seems to have been at the Priory, as he refused to go to the Castle[1805]. On seeing Dakyn and Rokeby he expressed some surprise. They told him that they understood from Bowes that he sent for them. He denied that he had summoned anyone to a conference, although the letters had been sent out in his name. He admitted, however, that he had received a list of articles from the rebels, and had been requested to pronounce on their truth. Although he would not acknowledge that he possessed the articles, he sent Rokeby and Dakyn to Dr Brandsby for a copy. These seem to have been the articles that Aske had sent to him[1806].
After this, the laymen’s conference having broken up, Lord Latimer came to the Archbishop and asked him to declare next day in his sermon whether it was lawful for subjects to wage war against their sovereign, and to do it briefly, as there was to be a council at the Castle at nine o’clock. Lee felt himself driven into a corner. With the resolution of despair he promised to obey and asked Latimer to attend the sermon instead of the council[1807]. Richard Bowyer, who seems to have acted as clerk to the council, came to the Archbishop the same night with the articles which had been passed by the Pilgrims that day. To him Lee assumed the pose of a martyr: “Ye do see I cannot better it. How I am entreated ye know.”[1808]
It has been said before, and may here be repeated, that it is incredible that Archbishop Lee should have been allowed to preach at this critical point if he really uttered all the loyal sentiments and made all the protests which he afterwards attributed to himself. There were many prominent divines at Pontefract who were heart and soul with the Pilgrims. One of these, Friar John Pickering for example, would have been asked to preach if it had been known that the Archbishop was such a convinced supporter of passive obedience. In spite of his subsequent protests, Lee was regarded on all hands as the ecclesiastical leader of the opposition to Cromwell’s innovations. So long as conservatism was safe, he had been a bigoted conservative[1809]. He had vigorously attacked the very moderate reforming tendencies of Erasmus[1810]. He is supposed to have burnt a man and a woman at York for heresy, although the evidence in this case is defective[1811]. It was at this very time reported in the host on the authority of Sir Robert Oughtred that Lee had said “that there was no way for the commons but battle.”[1812] His determination to preach was opposed by three of his chaplains and his suffragan, but it does not appear whether they knew what he was going to say, or merely did not wish him to preach at all[1813].
Service was held in the parish church of Pontefract on the morning of Sunday 3 December before nine o’clock. Lord Darcy was not present[1814], but everyone else thronged to hear the Archbishop’s sermon. It seems that the gentlemen and divines filled the body of the church, and that most of the commons were in a gallery, “up a height in the church.”[1815]
Lee afterwards represented himself as coming to the pulpit “indifferent to live or die,” resolved only to save the bodies and souls of his flock by telling them at any cost that they did evil in resisting the King[1816]. But this was not what his audience anticipated, and it was some time before the drift of his sermon appeared. His text unfortunately has not been preserved, but he began his discourse by speaking of the sacraments of baptism, penance and communion, and of the creed, which had been set forth in the Ten Articles of Religion[1817]. This was non-controversial matter, as the Ten Articles were accepted by both parties. He next ventured on the rather bolder assertion that lands which were given to the Church might not be put to profane uses. This was what the congregation expected, and they waited eagerly for what followed. The Archbishop continued that priests ought not to fight in any circumstances[1818]; as for making a “peregrynage”—and on this word he paused[1819]. There was a little stir and bustle round the door, and Lancaster Herald came into the church. He had arrived with the safeconduct, and very properly attended divine service on Sunday morning at the first opportunity[1820].
The appearance of the Herald had a decisive influence on the Archbishop’s sermon. It either gave him courage to carry out his purpose of condemning the Pilgrimage[1821], as he said, or drove away the little courage that he had and prevented him from blessing it, as his audience believed[1822]. After this little pause he took up his discourse again and declared that in the King’s Book of Articles the Faith was sufficiently determined, that the sword was given to none but a prince, and that no man might draw it but by his prince’s orders.
At this the fury of the commons broke loose. They cried out that the Archbishop was a false dissembler[1823], and in the midst of the uproar Aske and the other gentlemen hurried Lee away[1824]. He afterwards dwelt pathetically on the danger that he had incurred[1825], but it cannot have been very great, as it appears that the commons were some distance from him in the gallery, and that he was surrounded by the gentlemen, who, however angry they might be, would do him no bodily harm. Darcy did not think much of his peril. He told the Archbishop that he reckoned that the King and his honourable councillors would accept him after the true meaning of that and all his sermons, without his seeking the King’s favour by desiring, in letters, to die for his faith. “Whosoever desires such high perfection may, with the King’s licence, be sped in Africa or Turkey.”[1826] Darcy obtained “such high perfection” much nearer home, but it was denied to Archbishop Lee.
It was natural that the gentlemen should resent Lee’s sermon. When a man is risking his lands and life for a cause, it is very annoying to be told by the representative of that cause that he is acting wickedly, and that the cause has no need of him. Lee dined with Darcy that Sunday, and begged him to use his influence for peace[1827], but it may be imagined that he was not very warmly received. He heard many unfavourable opinions of his sermon in the next few days. Sir Robert Constable used “cruel words far unfitting to be uttered by his mouth against me that have the cure of his soul,” complained the aggrieved Archbishop[1828]. To appease the commons and perhaps to give vent to his own feelings, Constable had said that the Archbishop would make amends hereafter. As soon as he was safely home at Cawood, Lee wrote to remonstrate with Sir Robert for using such words, and declared that he had nothing to make amends for[1829]. Robert Aske was reported to have said that if he had known what the sermon would be he would have pulled Lee out of the pulpit[1830], but what he really said was that if he had known “my lord of York would preach as he did, he should not have preached.”[1831] Lee was told that when Darcy heard that he had said no one might lawfully resist the King, he exclaimed “By God’s mother that is not true.”[1832] Lee wrote to complain of this to Darcy, who denied the words; but the bitterly contemptuous tone of his letter shows what he thought of the Archbishop[1833].
All this chorus of condemnation arouses a certain amount of sympathy for the Archbishop in the modern mind. The doctrine of non-resistance at its highest is perhaps the noblest conceivable. Lee was upholding non-resistance, and there is an odd resemblance between his position and that of the Tolstoian hero in Zangwill’s War God. But the likeness breaks down when tested. In order to win acceptance the professor of non-resistance must be unflinchingly brave and absolutely consistent. Lee did not fulfil either of these conditions. He had not dared to proclaim his doctrine, or he would not have been allowed to preach that day, and he did not protest against all war. On the contrary, he praised those who fought for the King and condemned only rebellion. Finally even non-resisters agree that a body of men may unite to indicate peacefully but firmly that they disapprove of the government’s action. At this crisis of the Pilgrimage there was a reasonable hope that the Pilgrims would obtain all they desired by peaceful means if they stood firmly together. Lee’s sermon did a great deal to destroy that hope. This was far from being his intention. Whatever may be thought of his conduct, it is quite certain that he sincerely desired peace. Yet he had adopted a very unfortunate method of bringing it about. His sermon not only exasperated the commons, but increased their constant suspicion of the gentlemen. After the fiasco in Lincolnshire they naturally feared that the gentlemen would make their own peace with the King and abandon the commons to Cromwell’s vengeance. Lee’s condemnation of the Pilgrimage increased this distrust. It seemed only too probable that he had been inspired by the leaders, who might already have secretly come to terms with Norfolk. If this were so, they were now anxious to dismiss the commons to their homes in order that, disunited and helpless, they might fall into the hands of the royal troops. On account of these inevitable suspicions Aske deeply regretted that he had allowed the Archbishop to preach. The sermon had the air of an official statement, and though Lee might have made himself safe with the King, he had embarrassed the position of the leaders. Quarrelling broke out among the commons, and tumults arose. Aske’s servants cut the red crosses off the coat of Richard Bowyer, who was in the coat at the time. It does not appear what he had done to annoy them, but he seems to have been a meddlesome fellow. Sir George Lawson expressed a wish to know what the assembly of divines resolved upon, and Bowyer tried to be present at their meeting. He succeeded in entering the room while they were at dinner, but when they came back, they declined his offer to act as secretary and turned him out[1834].
The convocation of divines met in the Priory on Monday 4 December[1835]. They were summoned to the Priory church by Dr William Cliff, chancellor to the Archbishop of York, chaunter of York and rector of Waverton in Cheshire[1836], who was acting for his master, and were led by the Prior of Pontefract into a private chamber. The persons present were John Ripley[1837], Abbot of Kirkstall; his chaplain; Dr Sherwood, chancellor of Beverley minster[1838]; Dr Cliff; Dr Langrege, Archdeacon of Cleveland[1839]; Dr Geoffrey Downes, Chancellor of York; Dr John Brandsby, the Archbishop’s chaplain and master of the collegiate church of Sutton[1840]; Dr Cuthbert Marshall, Archdeacon of Nottingham; James Thwaites, Prior of Pontefract; Dr Waldby, rector of Kirk Deighton and prebendary of Carlisle; Dr Pickering the Friar Preacher; Dr Rokeby; a friar; Dr George Palmes, rector of Sutton-upon-Derwent[1841]; and Dr Dakyn, rector of Kirkby Ravensworth and vicar-general of York, who was requested to sit in the midst and take the minutes. The Prior of Pontefract and the friar seem to have been the only persons present who were not doctors either of law or of divinity[1842].
The divines had before them the questions and propositions which Aske had originally sent to Lee, but Aske said that they made no direct reply to his list, and that he could not remember who drew up the questions which they answered[1843]. These questions may perhaps have been Chaloner’s interrogatories concerning heresy[1844].
The divines’ first resolution was:—
“We thynke yt preachynge agaynste purgatory, worshuppynge of Sayntes, pylgrymage, Images and all bookes set forth agenst ye same or sacramentes or sacramentallis of ye Churche be worthy to be reproved and condempned by Convocacion, and ye payne to be executed yt is devysed for ye doars to ye contrary, and proces to be made herafter in heresye as was in ye dayes of kynge henry ye 1111 th and ye new statutes wherby heresyes now lately have ben greatly norysshed to be annolled and abrogated, and yt ye holydaes may be observed accordyng to ye lawes and lawdable Customes, and yt ye byddynge of beadys and preachinge may be observed as hath ben used by olde Custume.”[1845]
Over this there was little debate, for even Archbishop Lee objected to the abolition of holydays[1846], but the second resolution was that
“ye kynges highnes ne any temporall man may not be supreme hedd of ye churche by ye lawes of god to have or exercise any jurysdiccons or poer spirituall in ye same, and all actes of parliamente made to ye contrary to be revoked.”
There was a long discussion over this. Marshall, Pickering, Brandsby and Waldby maintained the papal cause, urging the primacy of St Peter. The three last named had been present in Convocation when the momentous resolution in the King’s favour was passed. They took out of their purses protests which had been made then[1847], and complained that the saving clause “in quantum per legem Christi licet[1848]” was omitted. Dakyn, Cliff and Rokeby thought that the question ought to be referred to a General Council. Dakyn was not opposed to some limitation of the Pope’s authority, for he had been in the Court of Arches and had learnt there how much trouble and delay were caused by appeals to Rome. Dr Sherwood was more inclined to the royal supremacy than the rest. Finally they agreed that the King might retain the title of “Caput Ecclesiæ,” but that he might exercise no jurisdiction such as visitation[1849].
The third question seems to have referred to Mary’s legitimacy, upon which they resolved
“we be not suffycyently instructed in ye facte ne in ye proces therin made but we refarre it to ye determynation of ye Churche to whom it was appealed.”
The other resolutions were
“yt no clerke oughte to be put to death withoute degradacyon by ye lawes of ye Churche.
yt no man ought to be drawen owte of sentuary but in certayne causes expressed in ye lawes of ye Churche.
To ye vith we saye yt ye clargye of ye northe parties hath not graunted nor consentyd to ye pamente of ye tenthes or ffyrste frutes of benefices in ye Convocan and also we may make no suche personall graunte by ye lawes of ye Churche and we thynke yt no temporall man hathe auctoryte by ye lawes of god to claym any suche tenthes or ffyrst frutes of any benyfyce or spirituall promocyon.
To ye viith we thinke yt landis gyven to god, ye churche or relygyouse men ma not betaken away and put to prophane uses by ye lawes of god.
To ye viiith we thynke yt dispensacons upon Iuste causes lawfully graunted by ye pope of Rome to be good and to be accepted, and pardons have ben allowed by generall Counsels of lateran and Vyenna and by lawes of ye churche.
To ye ixth we thynke yt by ye lawes of ye Churche, Generall counselles, interpreta [torn] ys of approved doctors and consente of Crysten people ye poope of Rome hath ben taken for ye hedd of ye Churche and Vycare of Cryste and so oughte to be taken.
To ye xth we thinke yt ye examynacon and Correxion of dedly synne belongith to ye mynisters of ye Churche by ye lawes of ye same, wch be consonante to goddes lawes.”
This was the conclusion of the interrogatories, which were ten in number. In the debate Cliff and Palmes were most eager for the repeal of the various statutes, and Dakyn for the restoration of the monasteries, as he had been very much shocked by the profanation of sacred things[1850].
In the afternoon Aske himself brought the laymen’s articles to the divines. He found them sitting with their books before them, and with their articles almost ready[1851]. They read over the laymen’s petition to the King, but they did not consider the temporal articles within their province. Aske offered to lend them a book written by the Bishop of Rochester [Fisher], which would assist them if they were in any difficulty[1852], and besought them to speak their minds on all points openly and without fear[1853]. He himself was ready to fight and die for the old faith and the papal supremacy[1854].
On Tuesday 5 December the divines debated on the first eight articles of the petition, namely (1) the suppression of heresies, (2) the supremacy of the Pope, (3) the legitimacy of Mary, (4) the restoration of the abbeys, (5) the abolition of tenths and first fruits, (6) the restoration of the Friars Observants, (7) the punishment of heretics, (8) the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and Rich.
In this they were going over the same ground as on the day before, and they had only to confirm the lay articles. In addition to their answers to the questions which they had received, the divines passed some resolutions of their own:—
“ffarther we thynke it convenyente yt ye lawes of ye churche may be openly redde in Unyversyties as hath ben used here to ffore, and yt suche clarkys as be in pryson or ffledde owte of ye realme for withstandyng ye kynges supporyorite in ye Church may be set at lybertye and restored withoute danger and yt suche bookys and workes as do entreate of ye primacye of ye Churche of Rome may be ffrely kepte and redde notwithstandyng any prohybyssion to ye contrary and yt ye artycles of praemynire may be declared by actes of parlamente to the entente no man be in daunger therof withoute a prohibicyon fyrste awarded and yt suche apostataes as be goon from relygion withoute suffycyente and lawfull dyspensacyon of ye See of Rome may be compelled to returne to theyre howses, and yt all Sommes of mony as tenthes fyrste frutes and other Arreragis [torn] graunted unto ye kynges highnes by parlyamente or convocacyon and dew to be payed before ye fyrst day of ye nexte parliament may be remytted and forgyven for ye causes and reasones above expressed.
And we ye saide clargie saye yt for lacke of tyme and instruccyon in thies artycles and wante of bookys we declare this our opynyon for this tyme refarrynge our determynacon in ye premysses to ye nexte Convocacyon.
Also we desyre yt ye statute Cammanndynge ye clergye to exhibyte ye dyspensacons graunted by ye pope byfore ye ffeaste of michelmas nexte commynge may be revoked at ye nexte parliamente.”
On Tuesday evening the articles were ready, and the assembled divines carried them to the Archbishop[1855]. Aske was present[1856], as Lee had been urging him to come to terms with Norfolk, to disclose everything, and to inquire whether Lee should proceed with the collection of the tenth[1857]. The Archbishop read over the articles, but when he came to the declaration of the papal supremacy, he objected that it was unnecessary. There was a long debate over this. Marshall and Pickering defended the article[1858]. Aske questioned the Archbishop as to what he really believed on this point. Lee replied that the supremacy touching the cure of souls did not belong to the King, but the punishment of sin rested with him as the head of his people, and therein he was supreme head. Aske was surprised at the distinction, as he had never before heard anyone make it[1859]. In the end Lee permitted the clause to stand, as it expressed the consent of Christian people[1860]. The articles were then delivered to Aske[1861]. That night, probably after they had left Lee’s presence, Aske laid before the divines the problem which the Archbishop had solved in so unexpected a fashion. Was it ever lawful for subjects to resist their sovereign? To this they returned no answer[1862], but on the whole their attitude was much more satisfactory, from Aske’s point of view, than Lee’s had been. Their resolutions were certainly bold enough; probably the timid spirits were encouraged and hurried on by the ardour of Pickering and the more enthusiastic priests. It is true that afterwards they all represented themselves as having been in terror of the commons, but the statement of Dakyn, who was a very simpleminded man, throws some light on that point. He explained that when he, Marshall and Cliff were summoned to court to account for their conduct, they agreed together that they would say they had done everything from fear; and Dakyn innocently goes on to repeat exactly the words they had agreed upon, that every man came through fear, and was weary of his part, and doubtful what to do[1863]. If this were true, the reason of the Pilgrims’ failure is not far to seek. No one could drag to victory such very flabby and reluctant upholders of the Church. But a statement made with such an obvious motive does not command much belief. No doubt the priests were anxious and afraid. An assembly of elderly clergymen are very uncomfortably situated in the midst of a rebel army, and very dangerously employed in drawing up a manifesto hostile to the government. But it was the King, not the commons, whom they chiefly feared.
On this point Aske was closely interrogated. After some questions as to the matters laid before the clergy, he was asked, “Was it not a double iniquity to fall into rebellion and also after to procure matter to be set forth to justify that rebellion?”[1864] To which he replied with that touch of humour which is sometimes perceptible in his answers, “If the clergy did declare their minds contrary to the laws of God, it was a double iniquity,” and again, “as he thinks, the spiritual men were willing enough of themselves to declare their minds as they did in those points that they answered unto, but in that point, whether subjects might fight against their prince, he thinks they were not willing, because they made no determination at all touching the same.”[1865]
In short, it is an injustice to the learned men to say that they did not mean what they resolved. Aske expressed the confidence of all the Pilgrims when he said, “They thought none other like but that the said clergy would have showed their minds according to their learning and conscience, and [they] had no violence offered them in the world to do the contrary.”[1866]