Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:25:44.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

London and the Rebellions of 1548-1549

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

B. L. Beer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the years 1548 to 1549 England experienced the most serious rebellions since the end of the fifteenth century. Although the worst disturbances occurred in the West of England and Norfolk, few areas of the country were wholly unaffected. In London the Mayor and Aldermen made elaborate military and security preparations to prevent revolt from within the City and to ward off possible attacks from the outside. City authorities succeeded in maintaining order, but in the political crisis that followed, London threw its support to members of the Privy Council who were disillusioned with the leadership of the Duke of Somerset and contributed, perhaps decisively, to the overthrow of the Protectorate.

This paper examines events in London during these troubled years and attempts to assess its influence on national politics. Evidence of discontent in the City is studied to determine whether rebellious parties actually threatened law and order or whether City authorities merely took preventive measures in response to events elsewhere in the country. In addition the City's intensive preparations for defense are considered in detail. As the chronicler, Charles Wriothesley, recorded, beginning on July 3, 1549, “my Lord Mayor began to watch at night, riding about the City to peruse the constables with their watches, and to see that they keep the hours appointed at the last Court of Aldermen holden at the Guildhall, for the preservation and safeguard of the City because of the rebellions in divers places of this realm.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , November 1972 , pp. 15 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1972

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. Wriothesley, Charles, A Chronicle of England [Camden Society, N. S. XX] (London, 1877), II, 15Google Scholar.

2. Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 199f.Google Scholar

3. Mackie, J. D., The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1558 (Oxford, 1966), p. 124Google Scholar.

4. Storey, R. L., The Reign of Henry VII (London, 1968), p. 213Google Scholar.

5. Mackie, , Earlier Tudors, p. 298Google Scholar.

6. Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII (London, 1925), p. 166Google Scholar; Wolsey (London, 1929), p. 144Google Scholar.

7. Sharpe, R. R., London and the Kingdom (London, 1894–1899), I, 422Google Scholar.

8. Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Young King (London, 1968), p. 188Google Scholar, cf. pp. 146-49.

9. Corporation of London, Repertory 11, fol. 432v., 456v.

10. Corporation of London, Repertory 11, fol. 373v; Sharpe, , London and the Kingdom, I, 423Google Scholar.

11. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 2.

12. Elton, G. R. (ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II, The Reformation, 1520-1559 (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 127–28Google Scholar.

13. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 12–13Google Scholar.

14. Oxley, J. E., The Reformation in Essex (Manchester, 1965), pp. 167, 225Google Scholar.

15. Craik, T. W., “The Political Interpretation of Two Tudor Interludes: Temperance and Humility and Wealth and Health,” Review of English Studies, N.S. IV, 98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and The Tudor Interlude (Leicester, 1958), p. 24Google Scholar. See also Chambers, E. K., The Medieval Stage (Oxford, 1903), II, 189Google Scholar.

16. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 91 v.

17. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 92.

18. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 100. Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), IV, 261Google Scholar.

19. Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., Tudor Royal Proclamations, Vol. I, The Early Tudors (1485-1553) (New Haven, 1964), 478Google Scholar.

20. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 162v. Chambers, , The Elizabethan Stage, IV, 261Google Scholar. The compters, located in Bread Street and in the Poultry, were prisons under the authority of the Sheriff.

21. Return of the Name of Every Member of the Lower House of the Parliaments of England, Scotland, and Ireland (London, 1878)Google Scholar Pt. I; Dictionary of National Biography.

22. Possibly John Foster of Loughborough; see Loades, D. M., Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965), p. 33Google Scholar.

23. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 93.

24. Dictionary of National Biography.

25. Loades, , Two Tudor Conspiracies, p. 96Google Scholar.

26. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 104.

27. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 103.

28. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 119.

29. Smith remained loyal to Protector Somerset during the crisis of October, 1549. For further details see Dewar, Mary, Sir Thomas Smith (London, 1964), p. 56f,Google Scholar; this account, however, does not mention Smith's conflict with the City of London.

30. Lemon, Robert (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (London, 1856), I, 16–18Google Scholar.

31. Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 415–16Google Scholar.

32. Ibid., pp. 456-57.

33. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 110v.

34. Russell, F. W., Kett's Rebellion in Norfolk (London, 1859), pp. 118–149Google Scholar; Nevil, Alexander, Norfolkes Furies, or a View of Ketts Campe (London, 1615), I2–I3vGoogle Scholar.

35. Tytler, P. F., England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary (London, 1839), I, 198Google Scholar.

36. Dasent, J. R. (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council (London, 1890), II, 308, 311, 347Google Scholar; Russell, , Kett's Rebellion, p. 157Google Scholar.

37. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 148. Bands of soldiers had complained earlier about the high cost of meals in London; Journal 16, fol. 28v.

38. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 110.

39. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fols. 28v-29.

40. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 122.

41. Cf. Ramsey, Peter, Tudor Economic Problems (London, 1968), pp. 114–18Google Scholar.

42. Stow's Survey of London (Everyman's Library, London, 1956), p. 92Google Scholar.

43. For further details on constables and watchmen see Lambard, William, The Duties of Constables (London, 1587), p. 11Google Scholar; Stow's Survey, pp. 91-96; and Lee, W. L. M., A History of Police in England (London, 1901), pp. 30–31Google Scholar; 53-55.

44. Corporation of London, Rep. 11, fol. 440. Jordan's statement on p. 439 of Edward VI that “no watch was mounted in London until rather late in the summer” is in conflict with the above Repertory entry.

45. Stow's Survey, p. 94; Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, I, 100Google Scholar; Brewer, J. S.et al. (eds.), Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1862–1910), XIVGoogle Scholar Pt. I, 1144. Cf. Nichols, J. G. (ed.), Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London [Camden Society, O. S. LIII] (London, 1852), p. 56Google Scholar, which states that in 1548 “the watch at midsummer was begun again, that was left from M. Dodmer unto this time.” This account is in error since Dodmer was Sheriff in 1524 and Mayor in 1529.

46. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 3Google Scholar.

47. Fletcher, Anthony, Tudor Rebellions (London, 1968), pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

48. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fols. 91v, 92.

49. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 15v., Letter Book R, fols. 8v-9. On the previous day the Court of Aldermen agreed that precepts for keeping the watch should be directed to every Alderman; see rep. 12 (1), fol. 95.

50. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 15v. A jornette is a large coat or cloak; a cresset is a vessel made to hold grease or oil to be burned for light.

51. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 17v., Rep. 12 (1), fol. 98v.

52. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 15Google Scholar. On July 18 the Mayor and Aldermen were to keep a “privy watch” throughout the City; see Rep. 12 (1), fol. 111.

53. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 100.

54. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 17v., Rep. 12 (1), fol. 102v., Letter Book R, fol. 11v.

55. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 102.

56. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 104v.

57. Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 12.

58. Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 11v.

59. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1) fol. 105v.

60. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 107v., Journal 16, fol. 20v. Companies that sent men for the “winning of Boulogne” were to arm the same number for the defense of the City; see Rep. 12 (1), fol. 108 and Journal 16, fol. 24v.

61. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 106v.

62. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 108.

63. Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 13.

64. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 106v.

65. Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 475–76Google Scholar.

66. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 15–16Google Scholar.

67. Holdsworth, W. S., A History of English Law (7th ed.; London, 1956), I, 575–76Google Scholar.

68. Holdsworth, , A History of English Law (2nd ed.; London, 1938), X, 709–10Google Scholar.

69. Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 475–76Google Scholar.

70. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 18–20Google Scholar; Grey Friars, p. 59.

71. Stow's Survey, p. 131. Cf. Rose-Troup, F., The Western Rebellion of 1549 (London, 1913), p. 322Google Scholar.

72. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 23; Rep. 12 (1), fol. 112.

73. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 16Google Scholar.

74. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 24v.

75. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1) fol. 117v.; Letter Book R, fol. 24.

76. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 20Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Tudor Rebellions, p. 55Google Scholar.

77. Stow's Survey, p. 20.

78. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 25v.

79. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 20Google Scholar; Grey Friars, p. 61.

80. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 32; Letter Book R, fol. 31v.

81. Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 464–69Google Scholar.

82. There were complaints about excessive charges to military forces; see Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 28 and Journal 16, fol. 28v.

83. Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 14v.

84. Corporation of London, Letter Book R, fol. 32.

85. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 26.

86. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 126v.

87. Stow's Survey, pp. 95-96; Mitchell, R. J. and Leys, M. D. R., A History of London Life (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1964), pp. 135–38Google Scholar.

88. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 130v.

89. Grey Friars, p. 62; cf. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 21Google Scholar.

90. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 138v.; Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 23Google Scholar.

91. Executions during July and August, 1549:

July 22
Bailiff of Romford, Essex, executed at Aldgate.
A man from Boulogne executed at Southwark.
A man “that came out of Kent at the brygge fotte in to Southwark on another gibbet.”
August 16
A man named Church executed at Bishopsgate.
A man named Payne executed at Waltham.
A man executed without Aldgate.
A man executed at Tottenham Hill.
August 22
John Allen, peddler of Southwark, executed at Tyburn.
Roger Baker, falconer of Southfield, Suffolk, executed at Tower Hill.
William Gates of Hampton, Wiltshire, executed at Tottenham.
James Webbe, vicar of Barford, Oxfordshire, executed at Aylesbury.
August 27
Three persons executed at Tyburn that came out of the West Country.

Sources: Wriothesley, Chronicle of England; Grey Friars; Stow, John, Summary of the Chronicles (London, 1570)Google Scholar, and Annales of England (London, 1592)Google Scholar.

92. Sharpe, , London and the Kingdom, I, 433Google Scholar.

93. Jordan, , Edward VI, pp. 511–12Google Scholar. Jordan refers to the “considerable and devoted sentiment in the City favouring Somerset in this struggle for power ….” John Foxe, who was quite partial to Somerset, wrote that after the Aldermen received letters from both Somerset and the leaders of the Privy Council asking for support, “the case seemed hard to them, and very doubtful (as it was indeed) what way to take, and what were best for the citizens of London to do. On the one side, the power and garrisons of the lords, lying then in London, was not little, which seemed then to be such as would have no repulse.” Foxe, John, Actes and Monuments (London, 1844), II, 912–13Google Scholar.

94. See p. 27 above.

95. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fols. 99-99v.

96. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fols. 135-135v.

97. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 139v.

98. Although sheriffs were traditionally elected on June 24 and sworn in on September 28 [Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1961), p. 52Google Scholar], it is possible that York was not chosen until August 1. The year before the sheriffs had been elected on that date, according to Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 5Google Scholar; moreover, the dating of Somerset's letter would also suggest that York had only recently been elected.

99. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 120v.

100. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 24–25Google Scholar; Stow, , Annales, pp. 1007–08Google Scholar; Foxe, , Actes and Monuments, II, 910–11Google Scholar; Grafton, Richard, This Chronicle of Briteyn (London, 1568), p. 1311Google Scholar; Holinshed, R., Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (London, 1818), III, 1017Google Scholar. Cf. Sharpe, , London and the Kingdom, I, 433–35Google Scholar, and Jordan, , Edward VI, pp. 508–11Google Scholar. Jordan incorrectly states that October 6 was Saturday. According to Grafton, the Aldermen informed the Privy Councillors that London could provide armed men to be used against Somerset only after obtaining consent of Common Council. See also Acts of the Privy Council, II, 330–32Google Scholar.

101. Grafton, , This Chronicle of Briteyn, p. 1311Google Scholar; Foxe, , Actes and Monuments, II, 909Google Scholar.

102. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 25Google Scholar.

103. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fols. 36-7. Underlining is mine. Cf. Sharpe, , London and the Kingdom, I, 435–36Google Scholar.

104. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 25–26Google Scholar; Stow, Summary, fols. 353v-354.

105. Acts of the Privy Council, II, 336–37Google Scholar.

106. Among the various versions of George Stadlow's, speech are the following: BM, Hargrave MSS, 134; Harl. MSS, 1749 fols. 174v. and 253; Foxe, , Actes and Monuments, II, 913Google Scholar; Hayward, John, The Life and Raigne of King Edward the Sixth (London, 1636), pp. 220–23Google Scholar; and Maitland, William, History of London (London, 1772), I, 240Google Scholar. See also Norton, George, Commentaries on the History, Constitution … of London (3rd ed.; London, 1869), p. 198Google Scholar.

107. Corporation of London, Rep. 12 (1), fol. 151v.

108. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 37.

109. Corporation of London, Journal 16, fol. 37v. See also Stow, Summary, fol. 354. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 26Google Scholar, states that on October 10 there was also “an assembly of all the commons of the city having liveries ….”

110. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 26–27Google Scholar.

111. Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 26Google Scholar; Acts of the Privy Council, II, 337Google Scholar. The other Sheriff, Richard Turke, also participated. It was Turke who read the proclamation against Somerset on October 8, and his house was the scene of a meeting of the Privy Councillors on October 10.

112. Stow, Summary, fol. 355; Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 28Google Scholar.

I am pleased to acknowledge the kind assistance of Miss Betty R. Masters, Deputy Keeper of the Records, Corporation of London, who commented on an earlier draft of this paper.