The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-1537, and the Exeter Conspiracy, 1538, Volume 2 (of 2)Dodds, Madeleine Hope
History
The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-1537, and the Exeter Conspiracy, 1538, Volume 2 (of 2)
Dodds, Madeleine Hope
Exeter, Henry Courtenay, Marquis of, 1496?-1538; Great Britain -- History -- Henry VIII, 1509-1547; Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-1537
The omission was not quite so surprising at that date as it would be
now, for Yorkshire gentlemen were still accustomed to transact most of
their business by word of mouth, and writing was unfamiliar to their
ideas. But Darcy and Aske must have known how important it was to have
the King’s terms in black and white. We can only conclude that the
absence of a written agreement was due to Norfolk’s skill and prudence.
It seems to have been agreed on both sides that the terms were only
provisional. Norfolk might explain that he would go and represent to the
King what he had promised and what the Pilgrims had demanded, and that
he would bring back the King’s answer in full legal form under the Great
Seal. That would be the real treaty. Until that was drawn up there was
no need for writing. It will be shown in the next chapter that Norfolk’s
speedy return with the King’s confirmation of the terms was fully
expected by gentlemen and commons alike, and that his delay produced
fresh agitation. At present the only one of the King’s concessions which
the Pilgrims actually saw in writing was the pardon. They did not see
the promise of the parliament, which the King offered to concede in his
instructions to Norfolk; neither did they see any written promise
concerning the monasteries, for which Norfolk had no authority.
The only report of the proceedings at the time occurs in a letter to
Lady Lisle, wife of the Governor of Calais, from her agent in England,
John Husee. With the delightful inconsequence of a contemporary he
writes “news has just come that the Northern men have obeyed the King’s
proclamation, and submitted to mercy. The wine and herrings are come,
and will be delivered to Mr Sulyard.”[78] This, it will be observed, was
the report circulated in London by the King on Monday 11 December.
Needless to say, it was not true. The northern men had not submitted to
mercy, but had made terms. The difficulty lies in discovering what those
terms were. In order that the narrative should not be interrupted, we
have stated above as an actual fact the terms which we believe were
made, but it is now necessary to give the grounds for this belief. There
is no doubt about the pardon and the parliament. The problem lies in the
agreement as to the monasteries. About this the evidence is conflicting.
In the first place, on Wednesday night, when Aske returned to Pontefract
to communicate the terms to the commons, Norfolk wrote to the King that
it would not be possible “to appease the commons unless the King
consented to the standing of the abbeys in those parts which are to be
suppressed by act of parliament.”[79] This looks as though he had made
some provisional promise, which he was trying to persuade the King to
ratify, but unfortunately his letter has not been preserved. The
quotation is from the King’s reply. Before Norfolk’s return to the
north, “the King examined him in the gallery of his opinion in causes of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account