The Unpredictable Past

The Pilgrimageof Grace,

October-December 1536The Pilgrimage of Grace has often been written off as a little local difficulty.

Yet Nick Fellows is impressed by the power which Robert Aske and the other leaders

could muster, by the shock they dealt to Henry VIU's government and by their success.

Despite being the mostheavily documented of allthe Tudor disturbances, thePilgrimage of Grace hadattracted relatively little

study since the publication, by Ruth andMadeline Dodds, in 1915 of their workon the rising. Their narrative account wassuch that it appeared as if there was littlemore that could be said about the actualevents, even if their analysis of the causeshas been challenged. The Pilgrimage wasdismissed as a failure and its significanceand impact were seen as minimal. Therebels were defeated at Carlisle inFebruary 15 3 7, and the severe repressionand executions that followed were awarning to other would-be rebels not torisk the wrath of their monarch.According to these accounts, the pilgrimshad failed to achieve what appear to havebeen their prime goals of restoring themonasteries and removing the king'schief minister, Thomas Cromwell.

The publication of Michael Bush's ThePilgrimage of Grace in 1996, however,challenged many of these assumptions,

Henry VIII had initially wanted to crush thePilgrimage of Grace with the maximum of

force. The strength of the rebels, however,led him to accept a tactical withdrawal. Yet

Aske, Darcy and others were executed for

treason in 1537.

History Review September 2000 23

The strength of the rising, and the reasons for its success, lay in the existence of a common denominator

to the grievances - bad government.

and in this article I want to suggest thatthe Pilgrimage represented not only aserious challenge to Henry, but nearlyresulted in his replacement by hisdaughter Mary. The pilgrimage, far frombeing a failure, was a success andachieved many of its aims.

Defining the PilgrimageIn order to understand why it is time torevise our understanding of thePilgrimage it is essential that we are clearabout the events with which we aredealing. The Pilgrimage of Grace refersonly to those events that took place northof the River Trent between October andDecember 1536, culminating in a royalpardon issued in December. It does notinclude the Lincolnshire Rising, whichwas easily dispersed and was over withintwo weeks in early October; and nor doesit include the Cumberland Rising that metits bloody end at Carlisle in February1537, with rumours of 800 deaths on thefield of battle and many more hanged intheir own villages as a warning thatfurther resistance was pointless. Althoughboth these other risings were related tothe main Pilgrimage and often had thesame causes, they were separate revolts.The Lincolnshire rising was more violent,lacked the support of peers and did notrestore the monastic houses, whereas therisings in 1537 were led not by a catholic,whose aim was to restore the oldreligion, but a supporter of the newlearning, Sir Francis Bigod. Robert Aske,the leader of the Pilgrimage proper, wasnqt involved in the Cumberland fiasco: hewas engaged in telling the northerngentry of the promises he had received inLondon from the king.

The Purposes of the PilgrimageWe must also be very clear about the aimsof the pilgrimage, for only then can wejudge the achievements of the movement.Firstly, it was not a military risingdesigned to overthrow the king, and mustnot be seen as such. It was, as its namesuggests, a pilgrimage that was to bepeaceful and whose aim was to putpressure on the king to change his ways.This was shown clearly in the oath the

pilgrims swore: 'You shall not enter intothis our Pilgrimage of Grace for theCommonwealth, but only for the lovethat ye do bear unto Almighty God hisfaith, and the Holy Church militant andthe maintenance thereof, to thepreservation of the King's person and hisissue'. The oath continued to stress thesort of behaviour that was expected fromthe participants: they were not to use it tomake profit, nor to harm others, butsimply to take 'the Cross of Christ'.

What was it that attracted in excess of40,000 men to its cause? Historians havebeen quick to see the rising in terms ofreligion, a response to economicdifficulties, local issues or the reaction ofa defeated court faction. Yet these mono-causal explanations do not do justice tothe complexity of the rising. Thesegrievances did not move the pilgrims as awhole and we need to look at theinteraction and relationship between thecauses. The strength of the rising, and thereasons for its success, lay in the existenceof a common denominator to thegrievances - bad government. Cromwellhad misused the power and trust Henryhad given him and subverted the laws ofGod and the realm. He had subjected thenation to too much unwanted change,and the rebellion was people's only wayof making their views heard. They were,as John Fines said, barking a warning.They felt that their views were beingignored.

The size of the rising reflects thescale of the discontent. As a consequenceof the amount of change in recent years,the rebels were able to draw on all groupswithin society. However, it also possibleto identify specific grievances that wouldhave motivated particular groups. Theclergy and monks are the easiest toexplain: the religious changes haddestroyed, or were threatening, their wayof life. The nobles and gentry disliked theking's use of base-born councillors andthe Statute of Uses, whilst the peasantswere dissatisfied with rising entry fines(or 'gressomes'), paid when a new tenanttook over a piece of land, new taxes andrumours of more to follow, as well aswith the attack on their beliefs. Although

it is also true that there were localgrievances — the most obvious being theagrarian complaints of Westmorland andCumberland — they did not affect all areas.We must also be careful not to becomeobsessed with categorising thecomplaints. After all, some of the'secular' complaints about taxation mayhave had a religious element as therumours of taxes on births, marriagesand deaths would take on a spiritualnature if people were unable to pay them.Therefore it is important to see themovement as a whole: it was designed toshow that things were out of joint andthat the commonwealth needed to besafeguarded. It was a pilgrimage, but inname only. Joyce Youings was certainlynearer the truth when she stated 'Thedissolution of the majority of smallermonasteries was only a minor cause ofthe rebellion of 1536'. It was an attackupon the turning upside down of thecommonwealth, and therefore it is bestdescribed as a conservative reaction thathoped to return to some past golden age,a not unusual demand in Tudorrebellions.

The Power of the RebelsThe first great achievement of the rebelswas the size of the force they were able toraise. According to Bush's recent study,the rebel army at Doncaster was some 28-35,000 strong. Yet this was not the fullrebel force. There was a force of 15,000active in Cumberland, two armiesdefending Sawley Abbey and a force ofsome 12-20,000 besieging Skip tonCastle. These were much larger than theroyal force of some 8,000. Bush makesthe point that 'the secret of success for thepilgrims had lain in their mobilisation ofa large force'. It is worth comparing thesize of the rebel hosts with those of otherTudor rebellions as once again thisdemonstrates the scale of theirachievement. Wyatt, who it is oftenbelieved came closest to toppling a Tudorruler, had only a force of 4,000, whilstthe Northern Rising of 1569 consisted ofsome 5,500 men. Against these figuresthe Pilgrimage was exceptional anddeserves to be seen as such.

24 History Review September 2 000

K A R L . OF KSSF.X

It was an attack upon the

turning upside down of the

commonwealth, and therefore it

is best described as a

conservative reaction that

hoped to return to some past

golden age, a not unusual

demand in Tudor rebellions.

Just as importantly they were norabble; many were well-armed andharnessed. Moreover they wereexperienced warriors, from fightingagainst the Scots. Should they havedesired to have given battle, it is highlylikely that they would have defeated theroyal army and been able to launch aquick ride on London. Bush's work hasalso revealed that a royal muster for thearea of the pilgrimage would have raisedroughly the same size force as the rebels.It is surely reasonable to assume thatthose who would have responded to theroyal summons to muster were the samemen who now responded to the local callto protest against the changes. Thisreveals two very important achievements.Firstly, it shows the rebels' organisationalskills and advance planning, obviouslynecessary for so many to be raised soquickly. Secondly, the numbers involvedsuggest that they were responding to callsfrom their social superiors: they turnedout because they had been instructed todo so by their betters and believed that itwas their duty to respond. The society oforders, which they perceived the kingand his ministers were overturning, wasstill something worth preserving. In someinstances it was undoubtedly thecommons who persuaded, or forced, thegentry to rise, but this also showsconcern for hierarchy. The commonslooked to their superiors for leadershipand, when it was not providedvoluntarily, they went and procured it.What better demonstration of unity couldthere be than a large-scale peacefulprotest?

The size and qualify of the forcemeant that they could challenge thecrown in battle, but as we suggested thiswas not their aim. They wanted tonegotiate, but to support this with the

Thomas Cromwell (c. 1485-1540), who was

considered by Robert Aske and other

Pilgrims to be an evil low-born counsellor

leading his monarch astray. Was

Cromwell's fall hastened by the Pilgrimage

of Grace?

potential threat that their numbers gavethem. It was the only way to make Henrylisten. This was shown clearly at the RiverDon. Whilst negotiations took place therebel army was visible to all sides, 'thewhole host standing in perfect array'. Thenumbers must have made a frighteningsight. They had secured Pontefract Castleand seemed to possess every advantage.Royal forces were outnumbered by threeor four to one and there was little chanceof further royal troops being madeavailable in quick time, certainly notsufficient to stop the pilgrims' advance.

The rebels were in a position tomove south; they had secured thegateway to the north and it was theirdecision to wait. It was the pilgrims whochose to reach a negotiated settlementwith the Duke of Norfolk at Doncaster

Bridge on 2 7 October. They did not wantto cause damage by fighting, but moreimportantly they wanted the opportunityto present their grievances to the king asthey believed that this was the best way toget evil councillors, such as ThomasCromwell, removed. This was notbecause they were naive, but becausetheir aims had always been peaceful andthey had respect for the society of orders.On the other hand, an armed risingagainst the king would have showndisrespect for the monarch and exposedthe rebels as no better than the men theywere complaining about. This concernfor law, order and peace is also seen in thebehaviour of the pilgrims. Only oneperson was killed during the rising, andthat was an accident. A band of pilgrimshad mistaken one of their own men —wearing a jerkin emblazoned with thecross of St George (the emblem of theking's troops) — for an opponent. Thereare no stories of gentry being threatenedand forced to run the gauntlet, ashappened during Ket's supposedly welldisciplined rising. Nor did the pilgrimstry to establish an alternative system of

History Review September 2000 25

The government was pressured into accepting the demands of the pilgrims by the existence of nine separate

hosts, creating a huge force and the fear that if the negotiations failed the rebels, under compulsion from the

commons, would rehost, march on London and-as in 1381 and 1450-achieve their goals by military force,

government. They supported the est-ablished order, but wanted it to functionas they believed it should.

Rebels VictoriousWhen agreement was reached on 6December 1536 with the Duke ofNorfolk, at Doncaster, it appeared as if therebels had achieved their aims. There iscertainly a great deal to support this viewof events. The pilgrims agreed to dispersepeacefully: surely this would not havehappened if they did not believe they hadsecured their goals? The pilgrims' trust inthe king must not be seen as naive, forthis would also fail to do them justice.Aske certainly believed in Henry VIII 's

faith, and he was no ignorant

peasant but an educated lawyer. He thentravelled to London, where he wassumptuously entertained and treatedwith considerable respect.

What happened to the specific aims ofthe pilgrims? The government certainlymade concessions. It is because of theseconcessions, and as a gesture of respecttowards the king, that the rebels chose toaccept the truce. As a result, thegovernment stopped the collection of the(1534) subsidy and suspended the newact for the regulation of the clothindustry. They were also quick toannounce that the news concerning extrataxes and the demolition of parishchurches consisted of false rumours.

More importantly, we should examine

This 19th-century engraving depicts Robert

Aske pinning a list of grievances to the

door of York Minster. Aske occupied York

on October 1536; he was executed there

the following July.

the second appointment the rebels hadwith royal representatives in December.Firstly, we need to remember that theinitiative for this meeting came from thegovernment because their policy hadfailed. The king was worried aboutraising a force in the south to meet therebels as he feared that they might go overto the pilgrims. This offer represented amassive climb-down. The governmentallowed a free and general pardonabsolving all participants. This wascertainly not their initial wish, since theyhad wanted a pardon with exceptions, sothat they could apprehend the ring-leaders of the rising. Nor should we seethe rebels as naive in accepting thepardon that followed. Indeed theyinsisted upon confirmation of thepardon, and it was only when this camethat they agreed to disperse. According toBush, 'the king was left in a state of furybecause none had been reserved forpunishment', a clear sign of the weaknessof the royal position.

The pilgrims had also secured thepromise of a parliament to be held by freeelection in York to consider theircomplaints. It was also agreed that untilparliament had met nothing would bedone to implement the policies to whichthe rebels objected. This meant that thecollection of taxes was suspended and thelesser monasteries that had been restoredby the pilgrims were allowed to stand.Once again this did not fit in with thewishes of Henry, as, according to Bush,'with the restored abbeys left standing,the way was now open for a permanentundoing of the Dissolution'. If that istrue, the pilgrims had come a long way.This appears possible as further changesin the government's religious policies didfollow. The most obvious sign of changewas the appearance of the Bishops' Bookin 1537. This restored many conservativepractices, recognising the four lostsacraments that had not been mentioned

26 History Review September 2000

timeLINEin the Ten Articles of 1536. The pilgrimswere also given further hope of betterthings to come by a letter from the kingto Cranmer. This letter was shown to thepilgrim leadership and, although it urgedthe enforcement of the Ten Articles, italso called for an attack on radicalpreaching and clerical marriage. In lightof these developments Lord ThomasDarcy, the defender of Pontefract whosubsequently defected to the rebels,commented that 'all true catholics mayjoy'. There was the real prospect of aconservative religious reaction. Majorplanks of the Henrician reformation hadbeen challenged and it is possible toargue that, as a consequence, anyintended religious revolution waspostponed until the reign of his son,Edward VI. The story of England'sreformation would become morecomplex, complicated and drawn out,allowing it to become England'sreformations.

It was not just in religious policy thatthe rebellion had an impact. The protestagainst fiscal change was largelysuccessful. They had stopped thecollection of the subsidy, but they alsomade it clear that further financialinnovation would be unacceptable andprobably unsuccessful. If there ever wassuch a thing as a Tudor Revolution ingovernment the pilgrimage of grace

Further ReadingM.L. Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace(Manchester University Press, 1996)

A. Fletcher and D. MacCulloch, TudorRebellions (Longman, 4th edition, 1997)

C.S.L. Davies, 'Popular Religion: thePilgrimage ofGrace'in A. Fletcher and J.Stevenson (eds). Order and Disorder in EarlyModern England (CUP, 1985)

C. Haigh, Reformation and Resistance inTudor Lancashire (CUP, 1975)

K. Randell, Henry VIII and the Government ofEngland (Hodder & Stoughton, 1993) - agood introduction

G.R. Elton, Reform and Reformation (CUP,1997) - puts the rising in context.

destroyed the financial element of it. It isalso important not to forget the originaltarget of the rebellion, the king's chiefminister, Thomas Cromwell. Although hedid not fall immediately following thepilgrimage, he had gone by 1540. It wasnot the rising that was ultimatelyresponsible for his downfall, but it issurely possible to suggest that itweakened his position and his hold overHenry. Many of the policies with whichhe was associated had been abandoned,or at least modified, and the radicalreligious changes that he supported hadcome to a halt. But if we are to beobjective this must be qualified byremembering that the closure of themonasteries would continue, so not allthat he stood for had failed.

Finally we must not forget that inWestmorland and Cumberland the rebelshad agrarian grievances. In particular theywere concerned about rights of tenureand entry fines. These were certainlyresolved in favour of the commons. Thesixteenth century saw the consolidationof customary rights of tenure, whichforced the landlords to abandon themanorial system and to try to replacecustomary tenure with demesneleaseholds. When the rising occurred thepeasants were subjected to arbitrary entryfines, but by the end of the century thesehad been fixed - as the pilgrims haddemanded in the articles that had beensubmitted to the government. In additionthe customary rate, of twice the rent, wasthe same amount as mentioned in theDecember petition.

ConclusionThe government had been pressured intoaccepting the demands of the pilgrims bythe existence of nine separate hosts,creating a huge force and the fear that ifthe negotiations failed the rebels, undercompulsion from the commons, wouldrehost, march on London and - as in1381 and 1450 - achieve their goals bymilitary force. The overall conclusion isperhaps best left to Michael Bush, whosework certainly caused me to rethink myviews about the Pilgrimage of Grace. 'Inthese respects, then, the formation of the

(2 Oct) Start of Lincolnshire rising.

(13 Oct) Rising in South Yorkshire;Aske becomes leader and speaksof a'Pilgrimage'.

(16 Oct) The rebels take York andthere are risings in other areas ofthe north: Northumberland,Durham, North Yorkshire andCumberland.

(21 Oct) Pontefract Castle issurrendered to Aske by Lord Darcy.

(27 Oct) The Pilgrim army of 30,000confronts the Royal army of 8,000at Doncaster. This leads to ameeting between the royalcommander, Norfolk, and thePilgrim leaders on Doncasterbridge. As a result, two pilgrimstake a petition to Henry VIII.

(21 Nov) Pilgrims returnfrom meeting with Henry andreport to the Pilgrims' Council.

(4 Dec) Pilgrims issue detailedArticles.

(6 Dec) A second meetingbetween Norfolk and the Pilgrimleaders. Norfolk agrees to grantthe pilgrims a pardon and thecalling of a parliament to redresstheir grievances. Pilgrims arepersuaded by Aske to accept theterms and disperse.

(10 Feb) Rising in Cumberland failsto take Carlisle and is crushed.

June) Darcy was executed inLondon.

(July) Aske was executed in York.

pilgrim armies in October 1536 has to beappreciated not only as a spectacularachievement in itself but also as a majorinfluence upon religious, political, fiscaland agrarian changes of the time'.

Nick Fellows is Head of History at King Edward's

School, Witley. He has written the Access to

History book on Charles II and James II and is

currently writing an Access to History: In Depth

volume on Tudor Rebellions.

History Review September 2000 27