¹ Loades, D. M., Two Tudor conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar is the standard account of Wyatt's rebellion, Thorp, Malcolm R., ‘Religion and the Wyatt rebellion of 1554’, Church History, XLVII, 4 (1978), 363–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, makes a strong case for religious motives in addition to opposition to the Spanish match, as well as summarizing much of the scholarly opinion for and against Loades; another important critique of Loades is Clark, Peter, English provincial society from the reformation to the revolution: religion, politics, and society in Kent, 1500–1640 (Hassocks, 1977)Google Scholar.

² The older view is presented most succinctly in Jones, W. R. D., The mid-Tudor crisis 1539–1563 (New York, 1973)Google Scholar, though it is embodied in a vast number of older works; examples of the new view are also too numerous to cite, but a good sample of the most important scholars' work can be found in Jennifer Loach and Tittler, Robert. (eds.) The mid-Tudor polity c. 1540–1560 (London, 1980)Google Scholar; revisionism has had some influence on the old school, e.g. Elton, G. R., Reform and reformation: England 1509–1558 (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar, but Loades continues to express some reservations in The reign of Mary Tudor: politics, government, and religion in England, 1553–1558 (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

³ Loades, , Mary Tudor, p. viiGoogle Scholar ; Clark, , English provincial society, pp. 87–98Google Scholar.

⁴ On the trials, see Loades, Two Tudor conspiracies, ch. 4; on opposition to Mary at her accession, Tittler, R. and Battley, Susan L., ‘The local community and the crown in 1558: the accession of Mary Tudor revisited’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LVII, 136 (1984), 131–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Biographical sketches of Cawarden can be found in Bindoff, S T (ed), The history of parliament the house of commons 1509–1558 (3 vols, London, 1982), I, 599–602Google Scholar, Hasler, Peter (ed), The history of parliament the house of commons 1558–1603, (3 vols, London, 1981), I, 569–70Google Scholar, Craib, Theodore, ‘Thomas Cawarden’, Surrey archaeological collections, XXVIII, 7–28Google Scholar, Gower, Leveson, ‘History of Blechingley’, Surrey archaeological collections, V, 203–36Google Scholar, Kempe, Alfred John, The Loseley manuscripts, manuscripts and other rare documents illustrative of some of the more minute particulars of English history, biography, and manners, from the reign of Henry VIII to that of James I, preserved in the muniment room of James More Molyneux, esq at Loseley House in Surrey (London, 1836), pp 15–19Google Scholar, and Lambert, Uvedale, Blechingley a parish history, (2 vols London, 1921), I, 257–72Google Scholar, on Cawarden's appointment to the privy chamber, Starkey, D M, ‘The king's privy chamber 1485–1547’ (unpublished Ph D dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1973), p 205Google Scholar, on his prosecution for heresy cf Fuller, Thomas, The worthies of England (3 vols, London, 1841), III, 235Google Scholar, and Muller, James Arthur, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor reaction (London, 1926), pp 108–9, 360Google Scholar, his house at Blackfriars was a meeting place for London protestants during Mary's reign Dickens, A G, The English reformation (London, 1964), p 274Google Scholar, on his lands in Surrey, , Malden, H E (ed), The Victoria history of the counties of England a history of Surrey (hereafter VCH) (5 vols, London, 1901–1912), III, 267–8, 317, IV, 57, 190, 257–8, 307–8, 311, 324, 328Google Scholar, for the context of his political career in Surrey, , Robison, William Baxter III, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey in national and county politics, 1483–1570’ (unpublished Ph D dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1983)Google Scholar, chs 4–6 passim, and for a list of his offices, pp 431–2 Cawarden's papers form part of the Loseley MSS, housed vanously at the Folger Shakespeare Library, the Guildford Muniment Room in Surrey, and Loseley House near Guildford The author is very grateful to Major James More-Molyneux of Loseley for permission to use those portions of the MSS in the latter two locations, to Miss Beck and Mrs Cork of the Guildford Muniment Room for their continuing help with the Loseley MSS, and to Ms Laetitia Yendle of the Folger and Professor John Loos of Louisiana State University for helping him to arrange the purchase by the Troy Middleton Library at L S U of microfilm of the portions of the Loseley MSS at the Folger

⁶ Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 599Google Scholar, Public Record Office C 66/801/18d, List of sheriffs for England and Wales, Public Record Office lists and indexes series IX, reprinted (New York, 1963), p 137 Hereafter all documents cited are in the Public Record Office, London, unless otherwise specified

⁷ Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, chs. 4–6 passim; William More was the overseer and a beneficiary of Cawarden's will, PROB 11/43/4.

⁸ Robison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, pp. 263–7Google Scholar; REQ. 2/5/305; STAC 3/3/49; SP 1O/7/35.

⁹ The activities of these factions are a major theme of Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’.

¹⁰ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 57–62Google Scholar, 67, 69, 73.

¹¹ The first extant commission of the peace on which the Saunderses appear is dated 7 February 1541, C 66/697/12d; James Skinner first appears on a commission for 9 July 1538, C 66/678/8d, but may have been a J.P. for as long as three years, since he is shown attending quarter sessions on a pipe roll account for October 1535 to November 1538, E 372/384/Surr-Suss; John Skinner first appears on a commission for 18 February 1554, C 66/864/6d, but appears on a pipe roll account for May 1552 to January 1553, E 372/398/Surr-Suss; for the context of their careers in Surrey, Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, chs. 3–6 passim, and for their offices, pp. 489–91, 495–6, 498; Bindoff, , History of parliament, III, 274Google Scholar.

¹² F[olger/ S[hakespeare] L[ibrary] MSS L.b. 24, 303, 504; G[uildford] M[uniment] R[oom] Loseley MSS, Correspondence 3/3; Loseley [House] MSS, V, no. 4; XII, no 139, 2014/8. Wyatt may have opposed Mary more actively than is usually credited – the anonymous chronicler in Nichols, John Gough (ed.), The chronicle of Queen Jane and two years of Queen Mary and especially of the rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt written by a resident in the Tower of London (Camden Society, old series, XLVIII, 1870), p. 52Google Scholar, records the assertion that Wyatt had borne arms against Mary prior to the rebellion of 1554; that assertion is repeated in Stow, John, The annals of England (London, 1605), p. 1051Google Scholar (I am grateful to Professor Barrett Beer for calling this latter reference to my attention).

¹³ Robison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, pp. 278–82Google Scholar; C 66/864/6d; the J.P.s removed by 18 February 1554 and possibly before Wyatt's rebellion were Cawarden, his ally and fellow protestant William More, Sir Roger Cholmley of London (imprisoned July-September 1553 for supporting Queen Jane), Richard Goodrich (a protestant), Henry Mannoke (an enemy of William Saunders), John Stidolph (the son of one of Thomas Cromwell's chief supporters in Surrey), Lawrence Stoughton (a protestant), Richard Taverner (a notorious protestant polemicist), John Vaughan (a protestant with connexions to William Cecil), and three relative nonentities, William Baseley, Griffin Leyson and George Powle.

¹⁴ This estimate is based on the commission of the peace for 18 February 1554, C 66/864/6d Bray married the daughter of Sir Matthew Browne of Betchworth, a powerful and cantankerous Surrey Bannerman, J P W Bruce (ed ), The visitations of the county of Surrey made and taken in the years 1530 by Thomas Benolte, Clarenceux king of arms, 1572 by Robert Cooke, Clarenceux king of arms, and 1623 by Samuel Thompson, Windsor herald, and Augustin Vincent, Rouge Croix pursuivant, marshals and deputies to William Camden, Clarenceux king of arms (London, 1895), pp 9, 177Google Scholar, on Bray and Caryll's connexion to the Howards, , Swales, R J W, ‘The Howard interest in Sussex elections 1529 to 1558’, Sussex archaeological collections, CXIV (1976), 50–1Google Scholar, though in fact Bray's description of himself as Norfolk's ‘servant’ may simply have been the polite formula of sixteenth-century correspondents, on Morgan, and Vine, Robison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, p 293Google Scholar, associated in various ways with Sir Anthony and Sir Matthew Browne were Sir John Gage, Sir Robert Southwell, Richard Bedon, John Scott and Bray

¹⁵ Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 193–7, 491–2, 679–80, 708–9, II, 290–1, 434–5, III, 70–1 Bray's protestantism is problematic – History of parliament assumes it on the basis of his appearance on a list of those ‘who stood for the true religion’, butGoogle ScholarLoach, Jennifer, ‘Opposition to the crown in parliament 1553–1558’ (unpublished D Phil dissertation, University of Oxford, 1971), pp 86–7Google Scholar, notes that the inclusion on that list of Sir Thomas Cornwallis, a known catholic, makes it an unreliable indicator of religious preference

¹⁶ For those indicted, Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp 15–6Google Scholar, F S L Loseley MSS L b 44, a petition presented by Cawarden to the privy council in 1559, seeking the return of goods seized from him by Lord William Howard on behalf of the Marian government during Wyatt's rebellion (the council granted him permission to seek redress through the common law on 3 May 1559, though on 8 August 1560 they ordered the overseer of his will, William More, to drop the effort, L b 45), L b 32, a draft of the aforementioned petition, contains a fuller account of Cawarden's arrests, the seizure of his goods, and his ultimate release, the assumption of Lambert, , Blechingley, p 267Google Scholar, that Cawarden was innocent is not particularly convincing, his suggestion, p 266, that Cawarden and Sir Thomas Saunders were friends is wrong, as is borne out by the fuller context given in Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, chs 5–6 In preparing this article, the author has consulted all those chronicles used by Loades in Two Tudor conspiracies Cobbett, William et al. , A complete collection of state trials (London, 1816–1898)Google Scholar, Foxe, John, Acts and monuments of the English Martyrs, ed Cattley, S R and Townsend, George (London, 1837–1841)Google Scholar, Hohnshed, Raphael, Chronicles, ed Ellis, Henry (London, 1807–1988)Google Scholar, Machyn, Henry, The diary of Henry Machyn, ed Nichols, John Gough (Camden Society, old series, XLII, 1848)Google Scholar, Nichols, John Gough (ed ), The Greyfriars chronicle of London (Camden Society, old series, LIII, 1852)Google Scholar, The chronicle of Queen Jane, Proctor, John, The historie of Wyate's rebellion (London, 1554)Google Scholar, reprinted in A F Pollard, Tudor tracts 1532–1388 (New York, 1964), pp 199–257, Stow, The annals of England, Strype, John, Ecclesiastical memorials (London, 1721)Google Scholar, Wriothesley, Charles, A chronicle of England, ed Hamilton, W D (Camden Society, new series, XI, 1875)Google Scholar, Wyatt, George, The papers of George Wyatt, ed Loades, D M (Camden Society, 4th series, V, 1968)Google Scholar Additional chronicles consulted for this article include Burnet, Gilbert, History of the reformation in England (London, 1681–1714)Google Scholar, Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge (ed ), Two London chroniclers from the collections of John Stow (Camden Society, 3rd series, XVIII, 1910)Google Scholar, Nichols, John Gough (ed ), Narratives of the days of the reformation (Camden Society, old series, LXXVII, 1859)Google Scholar, Sander, Nicholas, Rise and growth of the Anglican schism, published A D 1585 with a continuation of the history by the Rev Edward Richton, B A of Brasenose College Oxford, translated, with introduction and notes by David Lewis MA (London, 1877)Google Scholar Also examined was the correspondence of all those diplomats in London at the time of the rebellion whose papers have survived and been calendared in English in Brown, Rawdon et al. (eds ), Calendar of state papers, Venetian (London, 1864–1898)Google Scholar, Turnbull, W B, Calendar of state papers, foreign (London, 1861)Google Scholar, Tyler, Royall et al. , C[alendar of] S[tate] P[apers], Span[ish] (London, 1862–1964)Google Scholar None of these sources mentions Cawarden in connexion with Wyatt's rebellion

¹⁷ Dickens, , English reformation, p 274Google Scholar, Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p 25Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cawarden was associated with Warner under Elizabeth as joint lieutenant of the Tower of London, Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 599Google Scholar, on Warner's possible indictment, Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p 16Google Scholar, Cawarden was connected to Northampton through the latter's friendship with William More, eg Loseley MSS XII, nos 10, 12, he was overseer of will, Knight's, Clark, , English provincial society, p 92Google Scholar, he was known to be friendly to Elizabeth during Mary's reign, Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 602Google Scholar, he benefited substantially at her accession to the throne, Robison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’ pp 303–13Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 329–30Google Scholar, Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp 190, 210, 228, 246n, 265Google Scholar

²⁰ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 12–24Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid. pp. 23–4; E. Harbison, Harris, Rival ambassadors at the court of Queen Mary (Princeton, 1940), chs. 4–6 for Noailles' complicity and p. 130Google Scholar on Gardiner's suppression of evidence.

²² Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

²³ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32; Lambert, , Blechingley, p. 265Google Scholar, erroneously has Cawarden being released on 27 January.

²⁴ F.S.L Loseley L.b. 32; L.b. 341, the letter ordering Cawarden to raise troops is headed ‘By the queen’, but is not signed by any privy councillor.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ On Cawarden's military activities, Loseley MSS 2014/8, printed in Kempe, , The Loseley manuscripts, pp. 121–3Google Scholar – a letter from Queen Jane to Northampton and (unnamed) deputy lieutenants, confirming them in their duties as under Edward VI; since these are Cawarden and More's papers, it stands to reason that one or both of them were deputies; for Howard's appointment, F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 70, printed in Kempe, pp. 132–4.

²⁷ SP 11/2/19; V.C.H. I, 375, gives the estimate of the number Cawarden could have armed; there are numerous inventories of his arsenal in F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 53–80; an example is printed in Kempe, , The Loseley manuscripts, pp. 134–9Google Scholar.

²⁸ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p. 66Google Scholar; F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32; on Paget's complaint, C.S.P. Span, XII, 68 (I am grateful to Professor Ann Weikel for this reference).

²⁹ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p 58Google Scholar, and Lemasters, G A, ‘The privy council in the reign of Queen Mary I’ (unpublished Ph D dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1971), p 155Google Scholar, on Paget and Renard's suspicions about Gardiner, the idea that Gardiner conceivably could have wanted Cawarden to rebel developed as the result of a dialogue between the author of the present article and Professor Ronald H Fritze, who has studied Gardiner's political activities in Hampshire, in ‘Faith and faction religious changes, national politics, and the development of local factionalism in Hampshire, 1485–1570’ (unpublished Ph D dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar, the argument that Gardiner was the author of a Machiavellian treatise was made by Donaldson, Peter S (ed), A Machiavellian treatise by Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1975), who also contends (pp 27–8)Google Scholar, that Gardiner had accepted the Spanish match by December 1553, at which time he was in fact working for its acceptance However, the treaty which Gardiner supported in December contained numerous concessions to England which addressed Gardiner's own earlier objections to the marriage Moreover, as Donaldson himself admits, Philip, after signing the treaty, then forswore it on 4 January 1554, three weeks before the outbreak of Wyatt's rebellion, and there is some evidence that Mary consented to this (C S P Span XII, 5, 36) This could have aroused Gardiner's opposition to the marriage once again It is also interesting, if Donaldson is right about Gardiner's authorship, that the treatise is rather ambivalent on the subject of rebellion Though the treatise does say that revolt is not permissible, it defends the practice of arming the English populace, claiming that its reputation for rebelliousness is undeserved and that rebellions in the past occurred because of the unfairness of the prince or because of aristocratic factionalism, pp 36, 125–6 The treatise also contains an invented story about a law of Edward VI's reign against insult, ‘allegedly designed to protect former rebels from the taunts of their countrymen’ the suggestion being that this was a good idea, pp 22–3, 129 Finally, the general tenor of Donaldson's work is that the treatise shows Gardiner as more favourable to Spain and the Habsburgs than has generally been thought Even if this is true, however, the bulk – perhaps all – of the treatise was written after Wyatt's rebellion and is not necessarily indicative of Gardiner's attitude during the rising Certainly Gardiner was capable of changing his mind, as he did on the role of religion as a motive for the rebellion After the revolt's failure, with the marriage plan secure and preparations under way for Philip's arrival, Gardiner had little cause for open opposition and ample reason for wanting to appear more pro Habsburg

³⁰ Gardiner is generally regarded as loyal to the Marian regime, e.g. Donaldson, A Machiavellian treatise; Loades, Two Tudor conspiracies and Queen Mary; Ann Weikel, ‘The Marian council revisited’, in Loach and Tittler, The mid-Tudor polity; on divisions in the council cf. Lemasters, , ‘The privy council in the reign of Queen Mary I’, p. 155Google Scholar; on Gardiner's ignorance of Cawarden's second arrest, F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b. 32.

³¹ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 52–4Google Scholar.

³² Interestingly, there is a copy of Mary's pardon to the rebels in the More and Cawarden papers, Loseley MSS V, no. 5, printed in Kempe, , The Loseley manuscripts, pp. 129–30Google Scholar. Cawarden could have been given a copy of the pardon at the time of his arrest (or later) by Sir Thomas Saunders, who endorsed the copy.

³³ On the councillors' knowledge of the second arrest, F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32, 44, 70; on Howard's relationship to Paget, e.g. Weikel, , ‘The Marian council revisited’, p. 69Google Scholar; on More, Bindoff, , History of parliament, II, 625–6Google Scholar, and Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, ch. 5.

³⁴ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32,70; on the baseless rumours about Howard's disloyalty, Weikel, , ‘The Marian council revisited’, p. 68Google Scholar. It is tempting to speculate a bit here about the ramifications of Cawarden's release and subsequent rearrest. Did Gardiner learn something from Cawarden which led to the actions culminating in the arrest of John Harrington on 27 January (Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p. 27)Google Scholar ? Were the granting of new powers to Lord William Howard, the command of the London Whitecoats given to Norfolk on 27 January and the decision to rearrest Cawarden all part of a single programme, adopted by Paget and other councillors who distrusted Gardiner, because of suspicions aroused by the release of Cawarden? Was Gardiner's involvement in that release contributory to his being completely out of favour by 31 January?

³⁵ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32; Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p. 57Google Scholar, erroneously places Cawarden in the Tower of London on 27 January.

³⁶ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b 32, 44, 70; on the distribution of rebels in Kent, , Fletcher, Anthony, Tudor rebellions, 2nd edn (London, 1973), p. 86Google Scholar, and the map in Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, opposite p. 284Google Scholar; the importance of Howard's preventing Cawarden's arms from falling into rebel hands is underscored by John Proctor's observation that many of Wyatt's followers were unarmed as they approached London, Pollard, , Tudor Tracts, p. 249Google Scholar; The chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 47 mentions that on 7 February, the day of Wyatt's final march on London, there were ten or twelve carts laden with weapons in Paul's churchyard – this could have been part of Cawarden's hoard; V.C.H. II, 134–5, observes of Cawarden's sixteen pieces of ordnance that ‘he was not likely to have enough powder to make it very dangerous’, but no reason is given why he should not have, and in fact powder could have been obtained elsewhere; Wyatt had got his hands on some pieces of ordnance, – for instance, the six pieces he obtained at the desertion of the London Whitecoats, Holinshed, , Chronicles, IV, 14Google Scholar – but apparently considered whatever number he had insufficient, since he wasted time over one piece which got stuck in the mud on his final march on London – Stow, , The annals of England, pp. 1048–9Google Scholar – thus Cawarden's ordnance could have been a significant addition.

³⁷ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b. 32, 44, 70.

³⁸ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b. 32; Kempe, , The Loseley manuscripts, p. 142Google Scholar, interprets the words ‘w^thowte bounde’ to mean ‘without any limit of confinement’, but what is clearly meant is ‘without bond’.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Weikel, , ‘The Marian council revisited’, p. 66Google Scholar.

⁴¹ F.S.L. Loseley MSS L.b. 32, 44, 45, 65, 66, 69; E 13/258 (I am grateful for this reference to Mr David Lidington); Dasent, John Roche (ed.), Acts of the privy council of England (32 vols., London, 1890–1907), IV, 399–400Google Scholar.

⁴² Fletcher, , Tudor rebellions, p. 80Google Scholar; Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 44, 80Google Scholar.

⁴³ Robison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, pp 266–7Google Scholar, for evidence of the antagonism aroused in Surrey by Cawarden's opposition to the insurrection of 1549 see, for example, REQ 2/5/305, which indicates hostility on both sides

⁴⁴ The chronicle of Queen Jane, p 43, the emphasis is mine

⁴⁵ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p 69Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid pp 68–70, The chronicle of Queen Jane, pp 45–51, KB 8/32/13–16

⁴⁷ The chronicle of Queen Jane, pp. 45–51; Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 70–2Google Scholar; V.C.H. I, I, 376; according to one of the chroniclers in Kingsford, , Two London chroniclers, p. 32Google Scholar , Wyatt was resisted at Kingston, but this assertion is found nowhere else; two men from Kingston were among those found guilty of treason at the trial in Southwark; most of the men tried at Southwark were from that borough or (the majority) from Kent, KB 8/32/13–16.

⁴⁸ Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, pp. 72–4Google Scholar; KB 8/32/13–16; on 17 February Mary ordered Lord William Howard, Lord Clinton, Sir Edward Bray and others in Surrey to make a ‘full certificate’ of the number of men who had been mustered in Surrey during the rebellion, along with the names of their captains and the number of weapons in their possession, G.M.R. Loseley MSS 1330/13 – unfortunately, the certificate itself has not been found.

⁴⁹ C 66/864/6d – the other two protestants restored to the commission of the peace were Lawrence Stoughton and John Vaughan; Bindoff, , History of parliament, I, 194–7, 641, 694–6; II, 170–1, 195–6; III, 273–4, 417–8, 604, 660; E 372/400–1/Surr–Suss; SP 11/5/6;Google ScholarRobison, , ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, pp. 291–302Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Fritze, , ‘Faith and Faction’, pp. 272–4Google Scholar; it was to Hampshire that Sir Henry Isley fled from Marian forces in Kent: Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p. 59Google Scholar –did he expect aid there?; Manning, Roger B., Religion and society in Elizabethan Sussex: a study of the enforcement of the religious settlement 1558–1603 (Leicester, 1969), p. 264Google Scholar; the French clearly expected ‘that all the towns and counties of England would rise in the same way at the same time’, C.S.P. Span, XII, 68.

⁵¹ For instance, the notoriously arch-catholic Sander, Nicolas, Rise and growth of the Anglican schism, p. 222Google Scholar, observes that ‘Wyatt made a sedition in Kent for the purpose of thwarting the marriage and the reconciliation of the kingdom by renouncing heresy’; Stow, , The annals of England, p. 1044Google Scholar, says that ‘the purpose of the queen's marriage was so grievously taken of diverse men, that for this and for religion…they…conspired against the queen’; Holinshed, , Chronicles, IV, 10Google Scholar, says the ‘marriage was not well thought of by the commons, nor much better liked of many of the nobility, who for this, and for the cause of religion, conspired to raise war’; admittedly, John Proctor, the apologist for the Marian government's position, said that religion (heresy) was the main cause, and George Wyatt, Papers, argued that it was not the cause at all, but both men had special axes to grind.

⁵² The earl of Arundel reported during the disturbances in 1549 that the people of Surrey disliked the sheriff, Sir William Goring of Sussex, an ardent protestant, SP 10/7/44; on the antagonism engendered by Cawarden himself, REQ 2/5/305.

⁵³ Clark, , English provincial society, p. 94Google Scholar, which questions the view of Loades, , Two Tudor conspiracies, p. 78Google Scholar; cf. Beer, Barrett, Rebellion and not: popular disorder in England during the reign of Edward VI (Kent, Ohio, 1982)Google Scholar and Harrison, Scott Michael, The pilgrimage of grace in the lake counties, 1536–7 (London, 1981)Google Scholar for other instances of the commons taking the initiative.

⁵⁴ Weikel, ‘The Marian council revisited’; Lemasters, ‘The privy council in the reign of Queen Mary I’.

⁵⁵ Robison, ‘The justices of the peace of Surrey’, ch. 5.

⁵⁶ Ibid.; all of the Tudors exercised considerable restraint in altering the composition of the commission of the peace in Surrey, though Mary made more changes at the beginning of her reign than any of the others.