Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:29:15.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Enhancements and Importunate Charges”: An Analysis of the Tax Complaints of October 1536

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

M. L. Bush
Get access

Extract

Historians differ widely in appreciating the fiscal grievances of the Lincolnshire Uprising and the Pilgrimage of Grace. Following the Dodds, some dismiss them as a marginal concern, while others regard them as a major cause of revolt. No matter where they stand, historians have handled these grievances without careful analysis. This seems to stem from a debate that has dogged both rebellions. The complexity of the rebels' complaint is obscured by a simplistic desire to show that the revolts were primarily of religious provenance, notwithstanding the variety of causes evident in the rebels' demands. Furthermore, the two main advocates of secular motivation, A. G. Dickens and R. R. Reid, perversely mention the fiscal grievances only in passing. Yet they were there, firmly declared in the rebels' bills, petitions, and songs. A pervasive force affecting the whole range of society, they sustained the rebel view that the government had to be checked not only to prevent the subversion of the Church but also the decay of the commonwealth. They were also present in the revolts of 1537 as northerners rose again, this time to protest against a breach of promise committed by the government's attempt to collect the lay subsidy and clerical tenth before the York Parliament had met to determine whether or not they should be collected.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Fall 1990 , pp. 403 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the Dodds' view: M. H., and Dodds, R., The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-1537 and the Exeter Conspiracy, 1538 (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 77-78, 177 and 192Google Scholar: while mostly dismissive, they were more appreciative of the role of taxation in the Lincolnshire Uprising than in the Pilgrimage of Grace (p. 139). They obscure the importance of the fiscal grievances in the December articles by categorizing them separately: thus the objection to first fruits and tenths is tucked away in the religious grievances (p. 352), the objection to fiscal feudalism is located in the legal grievances (p. 364), and the objection to the quindime is placed with the economic grievances (p. 373). For followers of the Dodds, see Fletcher, Anthony, Tudor Rebellions (3rd ed.; London, 1983)Google Scholar: “Taxation can hardly be accounted a major element in the rebellion” (p. 29), and Guy, John, Tudor England (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar: “If…rumours attacking Cromwell's centralizing and fiscal policies abounded…the rebels' grievances were still chiefly religious…” (p. 151). For more appreciative but not very analytical views of the tax factor in these rebellions, see Williams, Penry, The Tudor Regime (Oxford, 1979), pp. 62 and 316Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Tudor Rebellions (London, 1968), p. 37Google Scholar; Davies, C. S. L., “The pilgrimage of grace reconsidered,” Past and Present 41 (1968): 60, 64 and 72Google Scholar; and James, M. E., “Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion of 1536,” Past and Present 48 (1970): 15-17, 36 and 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Scarisbrick, J. J. (Henry VIII [London, 1968], p. 340-41Google Scholar) echoes Hughes and Knowles as do C. Haigh (in The Last Days of the Lancashire Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Chetham Society, 3rd ser., 7 [Manchester, 1969], p. 60Google Scholar, and Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire [Cambridge, 1975], p. 138Google Scholar), and Davies, C. S. L. (“Popular Religion and the Pilgrimage of Grace,” in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Fletcher, A. and Stevenson, J. [Cambridge, 1985], pp. 58ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar and in Past and Present 41 [1968]: 54ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar). Harrison, S. M. (The Pilgrimage of Grace in the Lake Counties [London, 1981])Google Scholar, escapes the charge but confusingly places the little he has to say about the Lakeland tax complaint in a section devoted to religious grievances (pp. 72-73).

3 Dickens, A. G., “Secular and religious motivation in the pilgrimage of grace,” Studies in Church History 4, ed. Cuming, G.J. (Cambridge 1967), pp. 39ffGoogle Scholar (e.g. pp. 46 and 54); Reid, R. R., The King's Council in the North (London, 1921), pp. 121ffGoogle Scholar (e.g. pp. 123 and 136).

4 For their importance in the 1536 and 1537 revolts, see a forthcoming companion article entitled “Up for the commonweal: the significance of tax grievances in the rebellions of 1536.”

5 Hen. VIII, c. 19. The term “quindime” or “quindene” is used in the rebel articles (Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H., eds. [London, 1862-1932], 11Google Scholar, nos. 705[1] and 1246 [hereafter cited as LP]) and by Aske (Bateson, M., “Aske's Examination,” English Historical Review 5 [1890]: 558Google Scholar). The Dodds fail to identify it with the fifteenth and tenth, regard the objection to it as a protest against the basis upon which the subsidy was assessed, and admit that the grievance “is rather difficult to understand” (Pilgrimage of Grace, p. 177). Ever since, this complaint against the quindime has evaded scrutiny and has mostly passed unnoticed. For discussion of the novelty and significance of the act 26 Hen. VIII, c. 19, see Elton, G. R., “Taxation for war and peace in early Tudor England,” in Winter, J. M., ed., War and Economic Development (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 33ffGoogle Scholar, and Alsop, J. D., “The theory and practice of Tudor taxation,” English Historical Review 97 (1982): 1ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Only an imperfect copy has survived: P.R.O., SP1/108 (LP, 11, no. 705 [1]). For Aske's use of it, see “Up for the commonweal.”

7 Schofield, R. S., Parliamentary lay taxation, 1485-1547 (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1963), pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

8 SP1/106 (LP, 11, no. 534). It is printed in full, but with several errors by the Dodds, (Pilgrimage of Grace, pp. 98–99Google Scholar).

9 P.R.O., E36/121 p. 116 (LP, 11, no. 585).

10 LP, 11, no. 1143.

11 For the act, see 26 Hen. VIII, c. 19. For the king's scorn, see SP1/106 (LP, 11, no. 569) and State Papers, Henry VIII (London, 1831-1852), 1: 475-76Google Scholar, (LP, 11, no. 956). The latter appears to be misdated by Letters and Papers. It seems to belong to late December (sec LP, 11, no. 1371) rather than early November.

12 Schofield, Parliamentary Lay Taxation, table 40.

13 SP1/106 (LP, 11, no. 569) and State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 475Google Scholar). Henry does not say less than 10% of the rebels were affected (as Davies assumes, see Past and Present 41 [1968]: 60Google Scholar) but that at least 10% were unaffected.

14 In 1526 and 1527: £50 (14/15 Hen. VIII, c. 16); in 1541 and 1542: £20 (32 Hen. VIII, c. 50).

15 One year subsidy: 5 Hen. VIII, c. 17. Repeater subsidies: 14/15 Hen. VIII, c. 16; 32 Hen. VIII, c. 50; 37 Hen. VIII, c. 25; 2/3 Ed. VI, c. 36, 7 Ed. VI, c. 12; 2/3 Phil, and M., c. 23. Installment subsidies: 26 Hen. VIII, c. 19; 34/35 Hen. VIII, c. 27; 1 Eliz., c. 21; 8 Eliz., c. 18. Multiple subsidies: 31 Eliz., c 15; 35 Eliz., c. 13; 39 Eliz., c. 27; 43 Eliz., c. 18.

16 Coincidence: for 1513, see 3 Hen. VIII, c. 22 and 4 Hen. VIII, c. 19. For 1541, 1542, and 1543, see 32 Hen. VIII c. 50 and 34/35 Hen. VIII, c. 27. For 1546 and 1547, see 37 Hen. VIII, c. 25. Non-coincidence: for 1515, see 7 Hen. VIII, c. 9. For 1534, see 26 Hen. VIII, c. 19.

17 Schofield, Parliamentary Lay Taxation, (able 40. The loan: LP, 3, pt. 2, no. 2483(3), p. 1050.

18 For Aske, see his second proclamation (Store, Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 466-67Google Scholar [LP, 11, no. 705 (2)]). For Tempest, see LP, 11, no. 1244. For reports, see LP, 11, nos. 533, 553, 678 and 853; SP1/106 (LP, 11, no. 563[2]).

19 SP1/108 (LP, 11, no. 705 [1]). For Aske, see Bateson, , “Aske's Examination,” p. 558Google ScholarPubMed. For Henry VIII, see State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 464.Google Scholar

20 SP1/112 (LP, 11, no. 1246).

21 Subsidy rumors: LP, 11, no. 567 and Srare, Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 482Google Scholar, n. 1 (LP, 11, no. 768[2]).

22 Chimney tax: B. L., Cottonian MSS Titus B, vol. 1, f. 160 (LP, 11, no. 725). Debasement: Challis, C. E., The Tudor Coinage (Manchester, 1978), pp. 84–85.Google Scholar

23 Chimney tax complaint: LP, 11, no. 841.

24 LP 11, nos. 650, 828 (vi), 854 and 1047; State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 482 n. 1Google Scholar (LP, 11, no. 768[(2]); State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 485Google Scholar (LP 11, no. 826); SP1/109 (LP, 11, no. 841); T.N. Toller, ed., Correspondence of Edward, Third Earl of Derby, Chetham Society, n. s., 19 (1980), pp. 49-50 (LP, 11, no. 892); SP1/110 (LP, 11, no. 968); LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 70 (vi.vii, ix, x, xi); SP1/115, f. 213 (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 369); LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 393; LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 1018.

25 The government's resistance: LP, 11, nos. 569 and 598; SP1/107 (LP, 11, no. 611); LP, 11, no. 826; LP, 11, no. 956, and Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., eds., Tudor Royal Proclamations, vol. 1 (London, 1964), no. 168.Google Scholar

26 See n. 8 and SP1/106 (LP, 11, no. 569).

27 State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 482 n. 1 (LP, 11, no. 768[2]).Google Scholar

28 State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 485 (LP, 11, 826).Google Scholar

29 LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 201 (1 (iv)).

30 SP1/115 f. 213 (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 369).

31 Correspondence of Edward, Third Earl of Derby, pp. 49-50 (LP, 11, no. 892).

32 LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 520.

33 SP1/107 (LP 11, no. 650); LP, 12 pt. 1, no. 1018; SP1/111 (LP, 11, no. 1047); State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 527Google Scholar (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 200).

34 State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 482Google Scholar n. 1 (LP, 11, no. 768 [2]); LP, 11, no. 975; E36/119 p. 72 (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 481); LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 1018.

35 SP1/114 (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 62). For the proclamation, see Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations 1: 168.Google Scholar

36 26 Hen. VIII, c. 19 (Statutes of the Realm, 3: 524Google Scholar [xvii]).

37 26 Hen. VIII, c. 3. For exemption from the 1534 subsidy grant, see Statutes of the Realm, 3: 524(xvi)Google Scholar. The original plan was to remit two payments of the convocation tax (see LP, 7, no. 1490), but by the time of the enactment it had been reduced to one (see Statutes of the Realm, 3: 499 (xxiv).Google Scholar

38 Statutes of the Realm, 3: 495 (viii).

39 Scarisbrick, J. J., “Clerical taxation in England, 1485 to 1547,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 11 (1960): 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 McHardy, A. K., “Clerical taxation in fifteenth-century England: the clergy as agents of the Crown,” in Dobson, R. B., ed., The Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1984), p. 170Google Scholar. For the break with the old assessments in the 1520s. see Heath, P., The English Parish Clergy on the Eve of Reformation (London, 1969), p. 146Google Scholar, and Salter, H. E., A Subsidy Collected in the Diocese of Lincoln in 1526, Oxford Historical Society, 63 (1909), pp. iv-v and ix.Google Scholar

41 Bowker, Margaret, The Henrician Reformation: the Diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521-1547 (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 43–44Google Scholar; Salter, , Subsidy Collected in the Diocese of Lincoln, p. v.Google Scholar

42 Scarisbrick, , “Clerical Taxation,” p. 49Google Scholar; Elton, G. R., The Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge, 1953), p. 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 For the Wolsey regime, see Guy, , Tudor England, p. 98Google Scholar. The average can be measured against the annual average for 1485 to 1534 which amounted to £9,000 (Scarisbrick, “Clerical Taxation,” p. 50). For 1523-28, see LP, 3, pt. 2, no. 2484 (p. 1050). Besides the five year clerical subsidy, there was the unpaid loan of £60,000 raised in 1522 (ibid.). For the early thirties, see 26 Hen. VIII, c. 3 (Statutes of the Realm, 3: 499 [xxiv]) and Guy, , Tudor England, p. 144.Google Scholar

44 Elton, , Tudor Revolution in Government, p. 198.Google Scholar

45 Ibid.; Guy, , Tudor England, p. 98Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, , “Clerical Taxation,” p. 52.Google Scholar

46 B.L., Cottonian MSS Cleo. E, vol. 5, ff. 413-413b (LP, 11, no. 1245).

47 P.R.O., E36/119, p. 72 (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 481).

48 The exact wording of the article is unknown since it was omitted from the only surviving copy of the Lincolnshire petition (see note 6). That it was present is evident in the king's reply (see State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 465Google Scholar). What is known about the complaint's formulation in the Lincolnshire petition relies upon the description Aske gave of it under examination, see Bateson, “Aske's Examination,” p. 558. For its effect upon the Lincolnshire clergy, see Bowker, Margaret, The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1495-1520 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 140.Google Scholar

49 SP1/112 (LP, 11, no. 1246).

50 LP, 11, no. 853.

51 Bateson, , “Aske's Examination,” p. 559.Google ScholarPubMed

52 The archbishop of York presented the proposal to abolish the clerical taxes as the work of Aske (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 1022). But the strong clerical opposition evident at Pontefract in the first week of December (see note 46) suggests that in his attribution the archbishop was contriving a clerical cover-up.

53 SP1/112 (LP, 11, no. 1246). An early draft of the petition (SP1/112, p. VII [LP, 11, no. 1182 (2)]) does not appear to object to the exaction of first fruits and tenths but only to placing the revenues from these taxes in the hands of Audley and Cromwell.

54 Bateson, , “Aske's Examination,” pp. 562-63.Google ScholarPubMed

55 See n. 33.

56 See ns. 8-10.

57 SP1/114 (LP, 12, pt. 1, 154).

58 E36/119, p. 24b (LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 201 [1, iii]).

59 SP1/108 (LP, 11, no. 705[1]).

60 Article 20 (SP1/112 (LP, 11, no. 1246)).

61 State Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 464.Google Scholar

62 Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism (Manchester, 1968), p. 6Google Scholar, and Simpson, A. W. B., An introduction to the History of the Land Law (Reprint; London, 1973), pp. 173-75 and 186.Google Scholar

63 Bean, , Decline of English Feudalism, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

64 Article 24 (SP1/112 [LP, 11, no. 1246]).

65 This is made clear in an early draft of the articles, see SP1/112, p. v (LP, 11, no. 1182 [2]).

66 Store, Papers, Henry VIII, 1: 464Google Scholar, and SP1/108 (LP, 11, no. 705 [1]).

67 Dodds, , Pilgrimage of Grace, pp. 36Google Scholar (Bowes), 54 (Aske), and 58 (Stapulton). For the strength of the younger son's objection to the statute of uses, see LP, 11, no. 1319.

68 LP, 12, pt. 1, no. 70 (x, xi and xii) and LP, 11, no. 705(2).

69 Bateson, , “Aske's Examination,” p. 563.Google ScholarPubMed

70 Ibid., p. 559 and SP1/112 (LP, 11, no. 1319).

71 Bateson, , “Aske's Examination,” p. 563.Google ScholarPubMed

72 See, for example, State Papers, Henry VIII. 1: 467Google Scholar (LP, 11, no. 705[2]) and SP1/111 (LP, 11, no. 1135 [2]).

73 Bean, , Decline of English Feudalism, p. 15Google Scholar; Simpson, , History of the Land Law, p. 172.Google Scholar

74 27 Hen. VIII, c. 10.

75 Ives, E. W., “The genesis of the Statute of Uses,” English Historical Review 82 (1967): 683ff.Google Scholar

76 Subsidy act: Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation Parliament, 1529-1536 (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 133, 147-48, and 157-58Google Scholar. Act for first fruits and tenths: ibid., p. 206. Statute of Uses: ibid., pp. 133-34.

77 NotabIy article 12 (LP, 11, no. 1246). For clarification, see SP1/112 p. viii (LP, 11, no. 1182 [2]), and Bateson, , “The Pilgrimage of Grace,” English Historical Review 5 (1890): 343.Google Scholar

78 Statutes of the Realm, 3: 517, and Elton, G. R., “Taxation for war and peace in early Tudor England,” in Winter, J. M., ed., War and Economic Development (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 40–42.Google Scholar