The dissertation concentrates on the effects of the reformation in Hampshire, and the region around Southampton in particular. It sets out to discover why resistance was so muted within the county, beginning with the reaction to Henry's divorce campaign and his declaration of supremacy from Rome, and ending with the dissolution of the county's monasteries, friaries and colleges. Unlike other regions of the country, there was no popular reaction that claimed to be antagonised by Henry's religious reforms. This could have been due to the apathy of the population or the disinclination of the most influential men in Hampshire to revolt against the king. The attitudes of the religious leaders should also be examined. The Bishop of Winchester and his officers, the county's abbots and its priests all had substantial influence over their congregations and communities. Their apparent compliance with Henry's wishes gave him carte blanche to carry out his policies. The religious upheavals should also be put into the context of the other issues the people of Hampshire had to face at the time. Few were likely to be concerned about religious changes if their livelihoods were threatened by economic problems or the danger of a foreign invasion.
It should also be considered whether the religious situation within Hampshire was unique to the county, because of its location, and whether the effects of the changes were felt uniformly within its boundaries. The significance of the timing of these developments should also be discussed, seeing how resistance might have changed had it occurred earlier or later in Hampshire's history. In my search for contemporary opinions and comments on the reformation, I have concentrated my research on Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, beginning with volume four (1524- 30). For secondary sources I have found the Victoria County History of Hampshire, David Knowles' The Religious Orders of England and Joseph Kennedy's thesis, The Dissolution of the Monasteries in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight especially helpful.
Henry chose to use Parliament as the principal tool in his campaign to secure an annulment once attempts using diplomacy and propaganda had proved unsuccessful. Parliament allowed him to put pressure on the church's legislative bodies, the northern and southern convocations, demanding their allegiance to his campaign to demonstrate to Rome that his own church considered an annulment to be legitimate. The indictment of Thomas Wolsey on charges of praemunire in 1529 signalled the beginning of this approach after his failure to meet Henry's requirements. This was developed further during the next year when the clergy was charged for exercising their spiritual jurisdiction, and were only pardoned after the Southern Convocation agreed to pay Henry £100,000. These events demonstrated several things. The statute of praemunire could be used to attack the church's judicial independence as hostile to the king's authority. If this could be done, then every ecclesiastical link with Rome could be dealt with in a similar manner. Secondly, the church was shown be a very lucrative source of revenue, if suitable pressure was applied.
The Supplication of the Ordinaries, presented by the Commons on 18 March 1532, and the Southern Convocation's submission on 15 March demonstrated the commitment of Henry, now assisted by Thomas Cromwell, to gain a submissive and obedient clergy. The church agreed to submit all legislation to royal investigation and only alter its organisation and doctrine with the permission of the king, removing its independence and threatening its relationship with Rome. The Act against Appeals, passed in March 1533, removed the papal influence from English church law, placing the highest court of appeal for ecclesiastical matters into the hands of the King. The act's preamble, stated that "this realme of England is an Impier and so hath byn accepted in the worlde governed by one King of a sovereign state, with no obligation to submit to any other earthly authority", echoing claims made by Henry's predecessors, Edward I and Henry V, during their own disputes with the papacy. [2]
This act gave Cromwell the opportunity to pass motions through the convocations declaring the pope to have had no legitimate power to permit Henry's first marriage to Catherine, the last role these legislative bodies were to play within the Church of England. Once this declaration had been made, Thomas Cranmer, now Archbishop of Canterbury, was able to annul Henry's first marriage and preside over his wedding to Anne. However, although the king's original ambitions had been met, Parliament continued to pass statutes that strengthened his authority over the Church. The Act for the Submission of the Clergy confirmed the surrender of the convocations and the Act of Dispensations and Act in Absolute Restraint of Annates blocked most of the Pope's income from England. The Act of Succession confirmed the annulment of Henry's first marriage and removal of Princess Mary's claim to the throne and required every subject to swear an oath agreeing to these statements. The Act of Supremacy, passed in November 1534, was the culmination of those changes that had gone before. According to Edward Hall, it "auctorised the knyges hignes to be Supreme Head of the Churche of England, by the whiche the pope and all his college of cardinalles with all their pardons and indulgences was utterly abolished out of this realme". [3] The act gave legal expression to Henry's title as Supreme Head, and clarified the appropriate jurisdiction and authority entailed by it. This position was further strengthened by the Act of Treasons, passed in early 1535, which made it an offence to "maliciously" deny the royal supremacy, and gave Henry's officers the power to arrest those who demonstrated their opposition to the King by words alone.
This raft of legislation completed the first stage of Henry's programme, but, as will be seen, much of it went unnoticed by the majority of the population. The oath included in the act of succession and the stricter penalties of the treason act demonstrated that Henry and Cromwell were aware that their actions were likely to create hostility. Opposition from the supporters of the Holy Maid of Kent, Franciscan Observant friars and Carthusian monks, as well from two prominent individuals, Bishop John Fisher and Thomas More, demonstrated that hostility could come from a variety of sources, and required differing responses if it were to be successfully suppressed. To gain people's loyalty, Cromwell used a combination of propaganda and repression . Preachers were dispatched to praise the benefits of the supremacy and criticise the arrogance of Rome, and every parish priest was instructed to reinforce this message in their Sunday sermons. Pamphlets were written for every taste, urging the necessity of obedience to the king and his officers. Those who chose to disobey the king could be sure of the appropriate punishment, as the executions of More and Fisher in June 1535 demonstrated.
Most people had little interest in events in Parliament or Henry's relationship with the Church. Their understanding of religious affairs extended as far as their own parish church and little further. It was only when Henry's reformation altered the organisation and customs of these churches, that people began to take notice of what was happening. "Doctrinal changes which were frequently ambiguous might have meant little to those who knew nothing of the finer points of Catholic and Lutheran theology," writes Margaret Bowker, "but even the simplest villager could not fail to notice when saints' days were abolished, bibles purchased and shrines of pilgrimage and devotion were removed." [4] Henry and his writers attempted to justify the doctrinal changes that had been made by promising that Henry's increased authority would be used to deal with corruption and inefficiency within the church. Before the Reformation, Parliament had made several attempts to interfere in ecclesiastical business using this justification, declaring it to be in the interests of the public. In 1512 a statute attacked the legal rights of members of the lower clergy, demanding they be tried in temporal courts if accused of crimes such as robbery or murder. Although later repealed, it set the format for future acts. If he could declare to be acting in the "public interest" Henry and Cromwell, now appointed Vicar-General, could act as they wished.
The dissolution of the monasteries was a blatant example of this exploitation of royal power. The first vistors sent out during 1535 were claimed to be investigating allegations of corruption and inefficiency within the religious houses to raise their standards of sprituality and discipline. They questioned the inmates and examined the finances of each house before issuing a set of injunctions that reminded the inhabitants of their oath of loyalty to the king and regulated various aspects of monastic life. However, in March the next year a bill proposing the monasteries' dissolution was laid before Parliament condemning those houses considered inadequate to closure. However, despite claiming to be based on the reports of the visitors, the bill used a financial assessment to distinguish between worthy and inadequate monasteries. All those assessed by the Valor Ecclesiasticus of the previous year to have an income of less than œ200 were to be closed. 372 institutions fell into this category, although some were able to postpone their closure by purchasing an exemption from Henry for a substantial price. [5] It is doubtful whether Henry and Cromwell planned to dissolve every religious house in the kingdom in 1536. Indeed several houses were re-founded by the king during the year, including Stixwould in Lincolnshire and Bisham in Berkshire. [6] However, once the most serious pposition to the dissolution, the Pilgrimage of Grace, had been quelled, the king and his minister resumed the campaign, encouraging larger houses to surrender their lands and possessions voluntarily to the crown by offering annual pensions to the monks and nuns as rewards for their actions. "Thus by persuasion, manipulation and the hard logic of the changing times," wrote David Knowles, "the great monasteries were brought to surrender one by one throughout 1538 and 1539...The method of voluntary surrender made all apologetics superfluous and it was itself the most profitable that could be devised.". [7] In May 1539 Parliament passed the second Act of Dissolution, which gave legal validity to all property transferred to Henry, guaranteed to protect all associated rights and leases, and promised that Henry would create new bishoprics, schools and colleges with some of the monastic land. Henry hoped that these promises would be adequate to secure the loyalty of the people during such a substantial transfer of property. The most vocal opponents to his policies in the past, the friars, had already been dealt with, and those remaining were quickly mopped up in a campaign led by Richard Ingworth, the Bishop of Dover and former friar. Those who did choose to oppose him, including monks from Woburn Abbey, and the Abbots of Colchester, Reading and Glastonbury, were charged with treason and executed. In January 1540, Waltham Abbey, the last remaining monastery, surrendered, completing an operation that had been conducted speedily and efficiently.
For the majority of the clergy, the first significant change imposed upon them by Henry's reformation was the Act of First Fruits and Tenths of 1534, requiring them to give over their entire first year's income when awarded a new benefice, and one tenth of their earnings every following year. A survey was investigating the revenue of the church, the Valor Ecclesiasticus, took place during the next year, and aimed to investigate every cathedral, monastery and parish church in the country. Five years earlier, Parliament had passed an act intended to remove non-residence and pluralism from the church which had limited the number of benefices a priest could hold to three, with only one of these worth more than eight pounds. The combined result of these acts was that many priests struggled to meet the crown's requirements, and the most lucrative benefices were quickly acquired by ordained officials in court looking for extra income, carefully ensuring that their portfolios did not exceed the requirements of the 1529 act.
Many parish churches supplemented their income by encouraging people to make devotions to particular saints, shrines and holy relics. Despite misgivings from some that they were little more than superstition, these more "traditional" signs of devotion seemed to be as popular as ever at the beginning of reformation. Indeed, according to Ronald Hutton, their popularity had never been higher. "It is important to stress," he writes, "that many of the decorations and activities outlawed during the various reformations had been present for only a generation, and that parish religion in 1530 was an intensely dynamic and rapidly developing phenomenon." [8] As late as 1533 Henry demonstrated his commitment to more popular forms of religion by giving part of Christ's crown of thorns to his royal chapel at Windsor. [9] However, the fervour surrounding the Holy Maid of Kent caused concern within the government and the reformation began to be increasingly hostile towards the cults of saints and relics, despite their general popularity. Henry's visitors in 1535 investigated the major sites of pilgrimage in the country, and carefully examined the relics and shrines that they found, asking difficult questions about their authenticity. The Ten Articles and the Injunctions of 1536 took an aggressive line against many forms of popular religion, rejecting the concept of patron saints, and discouraging pilgrimages and offerings to relics. The Injunctions of 1538 were even more uncompromising, rejecting the veneration of relics, ordering images used for pilgrimages or offerings to be removed and stipulating that all candles, except those around the altar, be blown out. At the same time they demanded that every parish purchase a copy of the an English Bible, a considerable expense for a parish priest already reeling from the loss of income from people's devotions.
Perhaps the legislation which had the most significant impact on the population was the Act for the "Abrogation of Certain Holydays" passed in 1536, which reduced the number of feast days in the church calendar, which were seen by reformers as outlets for superstition and laziness. All festivals within the harvest period were banned and many more were put under review. A second act in 1540 restored some festivals but abolished others, and tried to put a stop to events associated with them, such as the "Boy Bishop" and "misrule" ceremonies held on St Nicholas' day. [10] Acts like these, attacking local traditions and cutting the number of holidays, were bound to be unpopular with the public, and were one of the grievances raised during the Pilgrimage of Grace. Elsewhere, priests continued to celebrate the feast days and flout the act with plenty of popular support.
The nature and level of enforcement of all of these measures depended on the balance of power between the reforming and conservative factions within Henry's court. Thomas Cromwell's fall in 1540 can be seen either as a victory for the conservative faction, led by the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, or a decision by Henry VIII to slow down the pace of reform. The Act of Six Articles of 1539 prompted the resignations of Bishops Latimer and Shaxton and suggested that king's conservative principles were returning to the fore. However, Henry never abandoned his Archbishop of Canterbury, despite Cranmer's well-known Protestant sympathies, and remained interested in the promotion of the English Bible. The Six Articles of 1539 gave Henry sole authority over ecclestiatical doctrine, reinforcing his main objective for the church - religious uniformity across his kingdom, that implicitly encouraged obedience to the king.
Because of its landscape, Hampshire was never likely to have much of a common identity. Indeed, many areas could identify more with neighbouring regions in Sussex, Wiltshire or Berkshire than they could with the rest of the county. Land-owning patterns reflected this. Before the dissolution, the largest land-owners were the monasteries, owning about a quarter of all manorial property. All also owned manors outside Hampshire, as did the next largest landowners, the church and the king, who together owned another quarter of the manors in the county. Amongst the landowners no single family was dominant. The Plantagenet (or Lisle) and Pole families each held eight or nine manors and the West family owned seven and all also owned property elsewhere in the country. [1] The local economy depended upon agriculture, the form of which was determined by the landscape. The soil on the downs was suitable only for sheep grazing, and wool from these regions supported a number of cloth industries and markets within the county. Traditionally Winchester, once the capital city of the kingdom, had been the central cloth market for the region, but by 1500 it had lost out to its competitors. The mayor complained of the town's abandonment by its merchants, which by Henry's reign had led to the "greatest depauperization, ruin, desolation and decay". [2] However, in smaller towns, especially in northern Hampshire, the cloth trade was improving. Merchants in Basingstoke, Andover, Odiham and Overton were buying wool from downland farmers in Hampshire and neighbouring areas in Wiltshire and Berkshire, traditionally prosperous woollen counties, and then taking their wares direct to London.
John Leland, on his travels in the 1530s, described the soil in the south of the county as "betwixt meately good and mouch dry feren ground, apter for brede of catelle then to bere corne" and noted that the land had been enclosed here, as this was more appropriate for the breeding of cattle. [3] It is difficult to discover how much land was enclosed in the county during this period, and what the effect of this enclosure might have been. An act passed in 1488 to prevent enclosures on the Isle of Wight in 1488 stated that the island was "late decayed of people, by reason that many towns and villages have been let down and the fields dyked and made pastures for beasts and cattle.". [4] However, fields continued to be enclosed, ableit at a slower rate than other regions of the country. In the eight out of the thirty-eight hundreds where records are available, 559 acres are recorded as having been enclosed in the thirty years since 1488, and 355 acres were enclosed on the Isle of Wight. [5] No disputes over enclosure are recorded, perhaps because most of the communities affected never recovered from the effects of the Black Death, which had destroyed a third of Hampshire's population, and were too impoverished to contemplate opposition.
Of greater importance to most people was the quality of the harvest, crucial to the well being of local communities. Because of the mix of arable and pastoral farming in the county, not everyone experienced the same level of quality. On average, one in every six harvests would be bad, although these could often occur in sequence. This happened in 1519-21, and was then followed by five good harvests before a second poor sequence ended the decade. The 1530s were more successful, with five excellent harvests, four average, and only one poor. [6] There is little mention of disquiet during the years of bad harvests, and it could be that the cattle and sheep farmers during these years fared less badly than their arable neighbours. Even so, many landowners and town councillors were concerned about the possibility of unrest if the level of food supplies fell dangerously low. In 1528 William Lord Sandys was commanded by Wolsey "not to permit any clothworkers to discharge any artificers employed in the making of cloth so as to cause unlawful assemblies" and gave his assurance that "Nothing of that kind shall occur in Hampshire". [7]
The south coast of the county is dominated by two ports - Southampton and Portsmouth. Portsmouth was beginning to establish its reputation as a naval town after the construction of a dry dock in 1495 but John Leland, although he described the docks and fortifications of the town in some detail, stated that "The town of Portesmouth is bare and litle occupied in time of pece...There is much vacant ground within the town wall.". [8] He described Southampton, by contrast, as having "one of the fairest streates that ys yn any town of al England, and it is welle buildid for timbre building." [9] According to tax returns of 1523-7, Southampton was the wealthiest town in Hampshire, bringing the highest yield in the region. However, this figure of œ224 ranked it far below London (£16675), the port of Bristol (£1072) and even its neighbour, Salisbury (£852). [10] Although it had been used as an assembly point for some military campaigns in France, Southampton was principally a commercial port, and in Henry VIII's reign it began to suffer increasingly from declining trade. An analysis of its average annual customs duties demonstrates this. During the reign of Henry VII, the town was gathering an average of £7095 a year, 18.9% of the total revenue for the country. During Henry VIII's reign, however, this figure fell to £3626 (9.1%). [11] 1509 was the last year that the Venetian shipping fleet, traditionally a strong trading partner, visited the town. But, business elsewhere looked encouraging, with increased traffic travelling to and from Spain, the Netherlands and Brittany, and the port was handling greater volumes of Cornish tin after suitable facilities were built in 1492.
Despite the withdrawal of Italian merchants, the last five years of Henry VII's reign were the best ever for Southampton, gathering £10342 in revenue. [12] But, the majority of this trade was being handled by merchants from London, who kept their profits out of the town's reach. "The extent to which the Londoners were dominating the chief branches of the trade at the expense of the local merchants," writes Alwyn Ruddock, "was sapping the financial stability and vitality of Southampton to an alarming degree.". [13] On several occasions the mayor wrote to Cromwell to complain that the customs revenues were insufficient to pay for the towns military defences and its sea walls and asked that they be relieved of the King's "fee-farm" demands.[ 14] As the port of London developed, the merchants had less need to use Southampton and began to take their trade back to the capital. Ships were now strong enough to travel through the English Channel without difficulty, and pilots were appointed by the City of London to make the approaches to the Thames less dangerous. Wool exports were declining, and Henry's foreign policy left Southampton increased the possibility of an invasion from abroad. During the 1520s and 30s, ships were attacked in Southampton Water by Flemish pirates, including several owned by Sir William Godolfin which were boarded whilst sailing close to the Isle of Wight. [15] George Lovedaye wrote to Thomas Wriothesley from Caen on 12 March 1537 that "those here will not go to Hampton for fear of men of war" demonstrating people's concern that Southampton was no longer a safe place for their cargo.[16]
Southampton's customs figures for the last years of Henry's reign show that the town had been hit hard by the withdrawal of the London merchants and the loss of people's confidence in the town. From a peak of £10342 in Henry VII's reign, average revenue dropped to £2033 between 1535 and 1540, and slid further still to £662 during the next five years. [17] Whilst local merchants such as John Mille, James Bettes and Thomas Welles had been able to protect themselves from Southampton's economic decline by investing in property, others were less fortunate and began to leave including John Huttoft the son of Southampton's official customs overseer, who left for London in 1539. In a petition to Henry in 1530, the mayor and burgesses wrote, "many Persons that wer lyke to have grown to greate Substance have departed and forsaken your said Towne, and moo be in purpose and mynde shortly to departe from the same". [18] They were concerned that Southampton was being drained not only of its trade, but also of its talent, and asked for action to be taken to reverse this decline. Anthony Guidotti, one of the few remaining foreign merchants in the town, proposed that twenty-four silkweavers be transferred from Sicily to Southampton to establish an industry as the town "was almost destroyed for lack of exercise of workmen". [19] Henry also granted Southampton a monopoly for the importation of sweet wine, but this also failed to bring an end to its economic suffering. Merchants and workers across the county depended upon Southampton for their livelihoods, but during the latter half of Henry's reign there seemed little chance of the town's economic decline being halted.
The bishop was closely associated with the Benedictine priory of St Swithuns's, the monastic foundation for Winchester Cathedral, which was governed during this period by the priors Thomas Silkested (1498-1524), Henry Brook (1524-35) and William Kingsmill (1535-9). The responsibilities of Bishop and Prior had been clearly separated, but the priory remained the wealthiest religious house in Hampshire, and also its eldest, founded in 639 by Cenwalh, the King of Wessex. [3] By the 1530s it owned many manors and benefices both within and outside the county, and was assessed to have an annual revenue in 1535 of £1585,19s,5d, higher than many dioceses. [4] Although other monasteries were not quite as wealthy as this they together owned a high proportion of Hampshire's property. In 1535 the Valor Ecclesiasticus assessed the monastic property in the region to have an annual income of £6400 (gross), the fifth highest total out of the twenty-three counties assessed. [5] 124 of the 487 manors recorded in Hampshire were owned by the monasteries, who also held rights to one sixth of the county's parish churches. [6]
The monasteries varied in size and style. Other Benedictine houses founded in Winchester were the New Minster at Hyde, founded in 901, and the nunnery at St Mary's (or Nunnaminster) founded in 899. Hyde Abbey had about thirty monks at the beginning of Henry's reign and was governed for twenty-one years by Abbot Richard Romsey. After his death in 1529, John Salcot (alias Capon), a strong supporter of Henry's divorce campaign and nominee of Thomas Wolsey, was elected, and in 1534 he gained further advancement for his loyalty to the crown when appointed Bishop of Bangor.
St Mary's Abbey was assessed as having twenty-six nuns and thirteen lay sisters in 1536 and was also responsible for the education of twenty-six "children of lords, knights and gentlemen". [7] Dame Elizabeth Shelley was elected abbess in 1527 and formed close relationships with the parents of these children, including Margaret Pole, whose granddaughter Mary was educated there, and Viscountess Lisle, whose daughter Bridget was in Dame Elizabeth's care.
Two Benedictine abbeys were founded outside Winchester - Romsey (in 907) and Wherwell (in 986). The nuns of Romsey seemed to have earned themselves a poor reputation at the turn of the century, when the prioress, Isabel Morgan, complained that some were visiting local taverns and the abbess, Elizabeth Brooke, was allowing their sins to go unpunished. [8] A visitation in 1501 brought further scandals to light, including an improper relationship between the abbess and "Master Bryce", Chaplain of the Infirmary. [9] Her successor, Joyce Rowse, was also criticised for the lax discipline in the abbey and, under pressure from Bishop Fox, resigned in 1515. The following two abbesses, Anne Westbroke and Elizabeth Ryprose, were more successful in restoring Romsey's reputation, indeed so much so that in 1534 nine more nuns joined the convent, increasing the community to twenty-six. [10]
Wherwell's reputation seems spotless during this period, but its abbess, Anne Colte, came under pressure in 1533 for refusing to grant a request from the king and donate a farm to John Cooke, a servant of Thomas Cromwell. [11] The abbey's Chief Steward, Sir William Paulet, Comptroller of the King's household, advised that she should resign and when she refused elaborate charges were brought against the abbess, implicating her in an improper relationship with the bishop of London. [12] Finally, after a visit from Cromwell's agents, Dr Thomas Legh and John Ap Rice, in September 1535, the Abbess Colte resigned on a suitable pension and Morphita Kingsmill was elected in her place. [13]
Three Cistercian houses were founded in Hampshire, Beaulieu (1204) and Netley (1239) for monks and Wintney (during the twelfth century) for nuns, whilst Quarr (1131) was founded on the Isle of Wight. Beaulieu was home to twenty monks and had a substantial gross income of £428,6s,8d, according to the Valor Ecclesiasticus. [14] This wealth was a tempting target for the government, who fined its abbot, Thomas Skeffington (recently appointed Bishop of Bangor) £333,6s,8d for offences against the statute of praemunire in 1531. [15] The charge was particularly directed towards the monastery's papal privilege of sanctuary which had occasionally led to conflict when wanted men sought safety within its bounds. [16]
Netley Abbey had originally been founded as a sister monastery to Beaulieu, but was always its poor relation, with a much lower revenue in 1535 of £160,2s,9d and only seven monks in residence, half of its capacity. [17] Despite this, however, at the time of visitation the abbey was praised by the inspectors for its provision of "great relief and comfort" for sailors on Southampton water. [18]
Wintney priory was the poorest in the county, with a 1535 revenue of £52,5s,8d to meet the needs of ten nuns and two priests. [19] Despite its poverty, Sir William Paulet was happy to be appointed as chief steward for the priory, an office he already held at Wherwell and St Swithun's. In 1534 Henry Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter, also showed his interest in the priory's fortunes, and asked Thomas Cromwell to consider his candidate, Elizabeth Martin, for the forthcoming elections there, confident that she would "fully content the king of all the duties pertaining to him" despite the fact that she was only twenty-two years old. [20]
Quarr Abbey also felt the influence of the laity in its affairs. In 1533 the
merchant John Mille wrote to Cromwell, mentioning that its abbot, William Ripon
was "desirous of his favour", describing him as being "of little personage" but
also "wise and virtuous". [21]
Despite having an income of only about £134 (1535) [22]
the abbot was prepared to pay Cromwell a half yearly fee of twenty shillings in
exchange for his favour. [23]
However, this did not stop Cromwell from requesting two years later
that Ripon grant a farm to one of his servants. The abbot protested that he
could not afford to lose the income, and would be unable to support his
community, writing that "If I granted the desmesnes my convent would make
exclamation upon me.". [24]
However, it is unclear whether this request was successful.
Five Augustinian Priories remained in Hampshire during Henry's reign, Christchurch Twynham (Eleventh Century), St Denys (1124), Southwick (1133), Breamore (Twelfth Century) and Mottisfont (1200). Selborne (1233) and Barton Oratory on the Isle of Wight (1275) had been dissolved in the previous century. Christchurch, close to the Dorset border, played an important role in the society and economy of an isolated region of the county. Its income was estimated at £257,4s,4d in 1535, and much of this was spent within the local community established around it. [25] The prior, John Draper emphasized this in a petition to King Henry in 1536, writing that his church served 1500 people in the parish, and his monks were kept busy feeding the region's poor and educating its children. [26]
The inmates of St Denys, just outside Southampton, were criticised by Bishop Fox for spending too much time in the taverns of Portswood, but by 1536 their behaviour had improved enough for the visitors to describe them as being of "good conversation". [27] By this time, however, the priory, was struggling to maintain nine canons with an income of about £80, and its buildings were considered to be in a poor state. [28]
Southwick Priory, close to Portsmouth, was visited by the king in 1510 who paused to give an offering to its shrine to the Virgin Mary. Its prior, William Norton, was also aware of the importance of a sympathetic lay patron and kept in close touch with Viscount Lisle, the Governor of Calais, and Thomas Wriothesley, his chief steward. [29] The priory's income was moderate, assessed at £257,4s,4d in 1535, which was sufficient to support Norton and his twelve canons. [30]
Breamore, in the west of the county, faced debts of £600 in 1501, and was required to pay a further £66 to Henry for his war campaigns twenty years later. [31] It coped with these pressures by selling off many of its valuables and raising rents, and by 1535 was surviving on an adequate income of £200. [32] However, its prior, William Finch, still thought it necessary to follow the Abbot of Quarr's example and in 1533 and 1535 wrote letters to Thomas Cromwell offering the services of the abbey in exchange for his protection. [33]
Mottisfont Priory had already survived threats of dissolution from Henry VII, who went as far as acquiring a bull of annexation from Pope Alexander VI, but eventually allowed it to continue after payment of a heavy fine. Its income by the 1530s was still very low, valued at £124,3s,5rd in 1535, which was barely enough to sustain its prior, William Christchurch, and his ten canons. [34]
Of the other religious houses in the county, Titchfield Abbey was the most substantial, founded in 1231 for Premonstratensian canons, and in 1535 had an income of £280 and sustained eight priests and two novices. [35] Two of its abbots at this time, John Maxey and John Simpson and been able to survive barely a year in office, and their successor, John Salisbury, was appointed from outside the abbey in 1536 on the ominous insistence of its chief steward, Thomas Wriothesley. Baddesley Priory, north of Southampton, was house of the Knights Hospitallers. Its preceptor, Sir William Weston, was appointed Grand Prior of England for the order in 1527, but the activities of the house itself were very limited.
As well as these houses, there were also five friaries in the county, four in Winchester and one in Southampton, and several hospitals, including St Cross in Winchester, governed by Dr John Incent and responsible for the care of thirteen inmates and a hundred others, and God's House, Southampton, which in 1535 had an annual revenue of £140 to meet its requirements. [36]
Religious activity in Hampshire at the beginning of the century remained sufficiently diverse and vigorous to counter any accusations of decay and apathy. "In the first half of the sixteenth century," writes John Paul, "few counties were more fundamentally Catholic in culture than Hampshire...where abbeys, priories, friaries, convents, churches and guilds abounded." [37] Churches were being constructed and re-decorated across the county, and the shrine of St Swithun and the Southwick statue of the virgin remained popular places of pilgrimage and devotion. Most people had little complaint to make of their local church or monastery, and were happy with the conduct of their priests. Religious life within the county gave every indication of being healthy and robust, and few expected it to undergo radical change within the near future.
These groups of people were easy to manage with a suitable campaign of propaganda and repression, demonstrating the advantages of reform, and warning of the consequences of opposition. However, within every community there remained the possibility that a charismatic individual could still persuade others to resist religious change. If such a leader possessed suitable authority or resources, they could pose a dangerous threat to the authorities as a member of either the clergy or the laity. Henry and Cromwell were powerless to stop every potentially dangerous individual from rising to prominence in such a manner. It would be the speed and efficiency of their response to these people that would play an important role in the reformation's success.
The most significant individual within the county who could pose such a threat was the Bishop of Winchester himself, Stephen Gardiner. He had been granted the bishopric in 1531 after the death and disgrace of Thomas Wolsey, and his appointment seemed to demonstrate that he enjoyed the king's trust and respect. Describing his appointment, Gardiner remarked that Henry VIII had said "that he had often squared with me, but he lovedil me never the worse, and for a token thereof gave me the bishopric." [1] But, when asked by the convocation to respond to Henry's Supplication of the Ordinaries in the first year of his appointment, the bishop answered with a heartfelt reply, describing the king's proposal as unjust and unfair on the clergy. This response earned the king's considerable displeasure, and lost Gardiner the chance of further advancement within the government. He regained the king's trust enough to be sent to France as Henry's ambassador in 1533, but in the following year he again demonstrated his concern about the weakening of the church's position, opposing the Act in Restraint of Appeals and the Act of Succession up to their point of adoption within Parliament. This led to his complete loss of royal favour and forced him to return to his diocese for some time in semi-disgrace. Observers at the time thought that the bishop had gone too far. "My Lord of Winchester is out of the secretary-ship and resteth in master Cromwell." wro te Sir Thomas Palmer to Lord Lisle. [2] John Hussey, also writing to the Lord, said that "The Bishops of Durham, Winchester and York have been sent for. Some think they will be committed to the tower." [3]
Gardiner escaped imprisonment on this occasion, but also had to face hostility in Winchester concerning a case brought by John Cooke, registrar for the diocese, servant of Cromwell and friend of the king. Cooke alleged that Gardiner held a grudge against him and had tried to prevent him exercising his farming rights on manors leased from Wherwell Priory. Because the bishop had been absent abroad, the case had stagnated for some time, fostering resentment towards Gardiner amongst some members of the community. "I bear no malice against Cooke," wrote Gardiner to the Duke of Richmond, "but regret his folly...I never interrupted him in the office of my registership, but hath hitherto always and yet do suffer him to occupy it." [4] The dispute appears to have been resolved soon afterwards, but it may have aggravated further the frosty relationship between Gardiner and Cromwell, and led many in the county to conclude that the bishop could never be trusted fully. Even Henry was suspicious that the bishop was on several occasions using a "coloured doubleness". [5]
Whilst in the diocese, Gardiner seems to have worked to restore his reputation with the king. He gathered together all the abbots, priors and curates of the diocese together in Winchester Castle to swear the oath of succession that he had previously opposed, and all did so, he reported to Cromwell, "very obediently". [6] He allowed the Commission of First Fruits and Tenths to investigate the diocese without opposition, writing to Cromwell that "we have passed over everything without miscontentment" and adding, to get the point across, "some men think that I am too strait in charging myself, but I will have my own way". [7] After the Act of Supremacy had been passed, he showed that he was not prepared to make the same mistake twice. He was one of the first to renounce obedience to Rome, to the disappointment of foreign observers, who had hoped Gardiner would be a suitable standard-bearer for the church. "Cromwell does not cease to harass the bishops," wrote Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador, "even the good ones like Winchester and some others, whom he called lately before the council to aske him if the King could not make or unmake bishops at pleasure; who were obliged to say yes, else they should have been deprived of their dignities". [8]
Gardiner's capacity for self sacrifice was demonstrated further during Henry's visit to Hampshire in September 1535, when the bishop agreed to the king making a full inventory of the cathedral's treasures and removing a large silver cross studded with jewels. [9] His rehabilitation was completed when his sermon preaching the validity of Henry's title was printed and used in the propaganda campaign with the title De Vera Obientia, and soon after he was appointed ambassador to the French court.
Gardiner's behaviour seems to be that of a man who reached his limits and stepped back before it was too late. Yet there are suggestions that he remained a frustrated conservative who could still pose a threat to the progress of reform. There was evidence of this before his appointment as ambassador, when the bishop complained of the unnecessary imposition of an official visitation to the diocese by Thomas Cranmer, which Gardiner considered to be an abuse of the archbishop's authority. His purpose for this is unclear, although he would certainly be keen to save the diocese the expense of such a visit. The bishop explained to Henry that he was simply trying to clarify a statute which Cranmer considered sufficient to allow him to conduct visitations and hold his own court. Gardiner disagreed, saying that "The Act of Parliament which he alleges is so plain that it cannot be drawn with twenty team of oxen to stretch to the continuance of this Court of Audience". [10] A confrontation with Henry's archbishop was a serious risk for Gardiner to take, and he was well aware that he had little chance of winning such a conflict. It leads one to wonder whether his appointment as ambassador was a reward for good conduct, or a form of exile for an inconvenient troublemaker.
Gardiner's time abroad removed him from the Hampshire scene for three years, leaving the diocese in the hands of deputies such as Dr John Incent whose loyalty could be guaranteed. Even whilst away the bishop continued to cause trouble. At the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace, he advised Henry to "yield to his own subjects" which drew a testy response from the king, concerned that either his "old opinion is not utterly mortified or that he has had some advertisement from factious persons." [11] He continued to antagonise Cromwell, and argued bitterly with Dr Edmund Bonner, the ambassador sent out to replace him.[12] Discussing this dispute, Thomas Wriothesley wrote to Cromwell that "The tragedy between him and the elect of Hereford was very ill handled on (his) side for at the very first meeting my lord of Winchester called him fool." [13] Indeed Wriothesley's own relationship with the bishop soon soured, if John Kingsmill is to be believed. "I marvel at the intended hindrance of the Bishop of Winchester towards you in Hampshire..." he wrote to Wriothesley, "for no one ever had so many voices to be their knight of the shire as you first." [14]
By antagonising Wriothesley, Gardiner risked making an enemy of one of the most powerful men in Hampshire. Perhaps it was this quality, his own irrascibility, that prevented him forming a focus of opposition within his diocese. More likely, however, was that he did not consider this to be a credible option. His ambitions were more subtle, and he hoped to influence the king with words and insinuations within his own court, rather than sponsor any uprising or conspiracy. It must be said that this approach eventually brought success, and after the fall of Cromwell in 1540 he returned to the council and influenced the return of a more conservative religious policy. He had neither the desire nor the ability to create a firm power base within his diocese, and preferred to act in isolation, taking opportunities where he could find them.
Religious resistance in Hampshire was thus deprived of the man best placed to lead effective opposition. Perhaps the only other religious figures with the potential to make an impact beyond the local community were Hampshire's friars, whose preaching obligations and greater mobility around the country gave them a greater impact upon county society. The Franciscan Observants, with strict discipline, uncompromising orthodoxy and a loyalty to Catherine of Aragon, were most likely to be a source of opposition to Henry. Their convent in Greenwich was well-known for its highly vocal criticism of Henry's reforms, but it had close connections with its sister friary in Southampton. Father Curzon of Greenwich was discreetly elected to the Hampshire convent in 1532 and shortly afterwards one of Cromwell's spies reported that Father Scrivener, warden of Southampton, was supporting Father William Peto of Greenwich, Princess Mary's confessor. [15] Speculation continued during the next year that Friar John Forest, Catherine's confessor, and the friar who had felt the most pressure from the authorities so far, might also move to Southampton, as it was a "convent far off". [16]
This evidence seems to suggest that the Southampton friary was deliberately not going to take a high profile so that its inmates could be protected from too much attention and could have somewhere to lie low for a while. However, this policy appeared to have changed on Passion Sunday 1534 when the new warden of Southampton, Father Gabriel Peacock, preached a sermon at St Swithun's in Winchester, upholding the supremacy of the papacy and exhorted people to live and die in their faith. He exhorted people to follow the example of St Maurice, who refused to obey commands of his king that were contrary to God's law, and suffered martyrdom as a result. [17] These were explosive words, which were given an even greater impact by the choice of a sermon in the cathedral as a platform for their delivery. Father Peacock's speech does not sound as if it was made on the spur of the moment, and there may have been some in the congregation who were eagerly anticipating what he had to say. A letter from John Cooke to Cromwell written several days before mentioned that "Some priests at my late being at Hampton spoke much of maintaining the pope's power, which seduced many people." which seems to suggest that something was going on. [18]
The response of the authorities to this situation is also interesting. Cromwell, understandably, was very concerned to prevent further unrest and ordered John Perchard, the Mayor of Southampton, to arrest Peacock as soon as possible. However, for several days his men were unable to find the friar because he was out preaching somewhere, and all the mayor could promise was that "as soon as he can be taken he shall be sent to you as you desire." [19] This suggests that no attempt was made to apprehend Peacock at the time of his sermon, and he was allowed to continue on his way until Cromwell's orders were delivered. If Peacock was preaching in the cathedral, there must have been plenty of witnesses there to what he had to say, and yet nobody objected to his sermon. Either the members of the congregation were apathetic about what Peacock had to say, or they had great sympathy for him. Yet equally mysterious is that Peacock's sermon had very few consequences. When finally apprehended he was questioned by Perchard and Harry Huttoft, a prominent member of the town council, who found him to be "very dilligent in following your commands" and begged Cromwell to look favourably upon him "for since his being here he has been of very good behaviour, and keeps his convent in good order." [20] Either Peacock had changed his mind, or Perchard and Huttoft were sympathetic to his ideas, valuing him as a respected figure within the town. By July the transformation was so complete that he felt confident enough to write to Cromwell himself and report the visit to the convent of a bogus inspector who declared himself to have the authority of the king. [21] If Peacock intended to create an resistance movement then his ambition failed, yet the relaxed attitude of the authorities and people towards him suggests that this may not have simply been due to a lack of interest on their part.
Little was heard from the friaries after the Peacock incident until their suppression by Dr Richard Ingworth in 1538. However, when inspecting the convent at Southampton he described its inmates as Austin Friars, not Franciscans. [22] This may have been due to confusion on his part - the house had only become home to Franciscan Observants during the reign of Henry VII, or it could suggest that Cromwell had eventually decided to neutralise the threat of the friary by transferring more compliant Austin Friars to Southampton. There is no mention of Father Peacock on the certificate, and an earlier document seems to suggest that he had left the convent and moved to Lincoln at the end of 1534, but does not state whether the friar left voluntarily or had his departure imposed upon him. [23] All of the suppressions went smoothly, and Dr Ingworth had the support of the local mayors as he forced the surrender of the houses in Southampton and Winchester. At the request of the Mayor, Thomas Larkyn, four friars in Winchester were allowed to remain whilst their house was transferred to secular hands, but the Bishop was not convinced that the situation was satisfactory, and wrote in his report that he thought it was "not best". [24]
As has been seen, the other monks and nuns within the county were too spread out and lacked the necessary organisation to provide effective resistance to Henry's policies. The majority had already forged close ties with the establishment by accepting influential members of the laity as their officers and arranging leases and grants of property with the same people. New leaders of these monasteries owed their positions to patronage from these individuals or from the king himself, who used his right of cong, d'elire to impose a suitably loyal candidate upon the houses. John Salcot of Hyde was elected in this manner, to the disgruntlement of the local monks. The prioress of Wintney and the latest abbot of Titchfield were both outsiders brought in with the influence of the laity. Others had to cope with burdensome obligations towards their founders and patrons. The prior of St Swithun's, William Kingsmill, had had to buy his position for £500 after the forced resignation of Henry Brooke. [25] Dame Elizabeth Shelley of St Mary's had to pay a fine of £333,6s,8d to gain exemption for her house after its income had been deemed below the £200 limit and was marked for dissolution. When reassessed, its income was estimated to be £150 greater, at £330, and that this money had been concealed "without the consent of the abbess and convent", suggesting that the abbess had been the victim of some sort of conspiracy. [26] Dame Elizabeth's successful (if expensive) campaign to keep her abbey open was due to the support of the mayor and other influential individuals who were impressed by the convent's reputation and had children of their own being educated there. The abbey was one of the last to be dissolved, in November 1539, suggesting that Cromwell realised that its closure would be a sensitive issue, but when it was finally suppressed there was little outcry from the community. However, Dame Elizabeth remained a respected figure within the town and the evidence suggests that she was allowed to continue living with her fellow nuns in a community close to the abbey. "There is little doubt," writes J.E.Paul, "that in a religiously conservative city like Winchester the eight nuns concerned were able freely to lead some kind of community life." [27]
The five other monasteries supressed in 1536, St Denys, Mottisfont, Breamore, Netley and Quarr, were unable to resist and had little outside support. Harry Huttoft's attitude is perhaps a fitting portrait of how most people felt towards the events taking place. Writing to Cromwell, he praised the house of Mottisfont, "where there is a good friend of mine with as good a master and convent, as is in the country." But he then went on to add "If none are to be reserved, but all must pass one way, please to let me have it towards my poor living." [28] This request failed, and the site was granted to William, Lord Sandys, whilst land from the others was transferred to a number of different people, including Sir William Paulett, granted Netley, and Henry, Marquess of Exeter, granted Breamore. Several monks from the monasteries found places elsewhere, including William Ripon, who moved to Beaulieu, and Thomas Skeffington, abbot of Netley, who was appointed as the new abbot of Beaulieu, to the concern of the monks there.
In the intervening period before the second wave of dissolutions most monasteries attempted to reinforce their positions, searching for their original charters to prove their heritage and granting out leases of land for very long terms to their lay patrons to secure their loyalty. Sir Richard Lyster, writing to Cromwell, commented that "The monastery of Romsey, hearing they are in danger of suppression, are making leases and alienating their goods." and asked what action should be taken to prevent this from taking place. [29] The prior of Christchurch, as was seen earlier, wrote a petition to the king, whom he had served as chaplain, begging that the priory be saved for the sake of the local community. [30]
But all of these attempts were in vain, and again the closure of the monasteries and nunneries did not seem to cause the local people much concern. The only hint that the authorities were concerned about the reaction of the locals came when Wriothesley, the bishop's chancellor, Dr Crayford, and the mayor of Winchester, came to remove the shrine of St Swithun's, doing so in the middle of the night to avoid confrontation. [31] As the priory of St Swithun's was allowed to continue, converted into a new chapter of canons, with William Kingsmill and his monks remaining within the cathedral, the people of Winchester felt little need for concern. Again, the indecent haste amongst the laity to acquire monastic property after the dissolutions suggested that whatever people's personal opinions of the situation were, they could not afford to lose out on the chance to increase their wealth and influence. Thomas Wriothesley, for example, was granted property at Titchfield, Beaulieu, Hyde and Christchurch. Others, such as William, Lord Sandys and Sir Thomas West, Lord de la Warre, had to acquire property of their own simply to avoid being overwhelmed by the vast fortune Wriothesley had been able to create for himself.
As the majority of the nobility and gentry hurried to purchase monastic property, they committed themselves to Henry's reforms. Reversal of doctrine could lead to an enforced return of monastic property, which none were prepared to contemplate. For purely secular reasons, organised resistance from within Hampshire was unlikely. However, this did not stop Henry and Cromwell's suspicions falling upon two of the county's families, the Poles and the Courtenays, as potential threats to the throne. The Poles, whose family home was at Warblington, on the border with Sussex, had always been treated with caution because of their claim to the throne - thought by some to be more substantial than Henry's own. The appointment of Reginald Pole, in exile abroad, as Cardinal in 1537 infuriated Henry and raised suspicion that the remaining family had established close links with Rome. The merchant Hugh Holland, a friend of the family and John Heliar, former rector of Warblington, were both suspected of acting as messengers for the family on the continent. [32] Sir Geoffrey Pole, the Cardinal's brother, had certainly made statements in support of the papacy and against the king in his time, but there was very little evidence that any action was taken by him or his brother, Lord Montague. Again, their associate the Marquis of Exeter was noted for his conservative opinions. A servant of his informed Cromwell that "If my Lord know any of his servants either to have any of these books in English or to be read any of the same, they shall never do him any longer service." [33], but never took action that could be considered treasonable. It took a change in the Treason statute to include allegations of conversations, and some heavy pressure on Sir Geoffrey Pole before any of the group could be arrested. "There is absolutely no proof of conspiracy", wrote the Dodds sisters, "the White Rose party were working on no sort of plan and had come to no definite agreement amongst themselves." [34] There is certainly no proof, but this may have been because the parties involved were careful to conceal the evidence. It may have been that they were biding their time, aware after the collapse of the Pilgrimage of Grace that the conditions had to be right before they could contemplate resistance in some form or another.
Could the conditions ever be right? It seems unlikely. Hampshire as a county was too disjointed to form a sufficient base for opposition. There was less of the common identity and shared hardships that could be found in the north and west of the county. There are several examples of individual attempts at resistance within local communities. John Barret, parson of Monkyston, for example, defied the injunctions of the king and declared St Mark's day to be a holy day and encouraged the neighbouring parishes of Amporte and Grakley to join him. [35] Sir Nicholas Porter, parson of Freshwater on the Isle of Wight, was reported to Cromwell for saying (whilst probably drunk at the time) "Loo, whilis the Kyng and his Councell were besy to put downe abbeys and pull away the right of the Holy Churche, he was made cuckold at home." [36] The next year John Kingsmill, now sheriff of the county, reported that one "Wygg" had been arrested for "suspect preaching" but that Bishop Gardiner had intervened, granted him a benefice and even allowed him to give a sermon in the Cathedral, to the surprise of Kingsmill "for at his apprehension he was in distemperance swearing Our Lord's blood and wounds that we would rob him.". [37]
These were all individual cases, however, of limited significance and impact upon the community as a whole. There are other examples where the reverse took place, and the local people rejected their priest for taking views that they considered to be too radical for their liking. James Cosyn, for example, faced a hostile reception when he dared to dispute the powers of holy water and confession, and declared that "no bishop ne priest have any power to assoil any man of any sin." [38] The only incident that seemed to be more than simply one individual airing his grievances occurred in Hamble, on Southampton Water, in 1537. It was alleged that two Cornish fishermen, John Treglosacke and a "Mr Carpyssacke" met with several local Hampshire men and asked "why they rose not when the northern men did." They then swore to provide help in the form of two hundred jerkins and a banner of the five wounds, the insignia of the Pilgrimage of Grace. [39] Cromwell was sufficiently concerned about the threat of a southern uprising that he ordered Sir William Godolphin and the Southampton council to arrest the Cornishmen and gather the names and addresses of all sympathetic locals. Like the Peacock incident, little else is heard other than these original allegations. Two hundred jerkins and a banner was not enough to start an uprising, and it may have been that the Cornishmen hoped that these items would act as a catalyst to mobilise everyone else. Villages such as Hamble in frequent contact with passing sailors might have been excited by such an opportunity, but the majority of people in Hampshire chose to ignore it, as they had done to every other possibility of resistance.
Hampshire has traditionally been seen as a "conservative" county, but this is not necessarily a reputation that can be given to it during Henry's reign. Certainly its bishop and leading families could be thought of as conservative, but none were prepared to risk resistance during this period. As has been seen, the county was considered before the Henrician Reformation as a place where traditional religion and popular devotion were flourishing, with new churches being rebuilt and old ones re-decorated. However, this does not demonstrate that the county was conservative by nature, simply that its people were proud of their churches and the traditions of their community.
In the years after Henry's death, there is some evidence that people were consciously beginning to reject the doctrine of royal supremacy and the evangelical culture that the Henrician reformation had engendered. This may have been due to the influence of Bishop Gardiner, who was eventually freed to express his own conservative views, first under Henry after the fall of Cromwell and later under Mary as her chief minister, his career culminating with the marriage of his queen to Philip II in Winchester Cathedral in 1554. Certainly during Elizabeth's reign there were a high number of cases of recusancy within the county, but these may have been more due to the influence by the Jesuit priests who had begun landing along the county's coast than to that of the more traditionally catholic families.
For the majority of people in Hampshire, religious reform was an issue within their lives to which they only gave concern if they had the time or the inclination. Resistance to such measures was a luxury few could afford, being too risky and time-consuming. The only way this state of mind could be broken was with a sufficiently charismatic and authoritative leader with enough persuasive powers to unite the county's disparate communities. The few who might have possessed these qualities, such as Bishop Gardiner and the Marquess of Exeter, chose not to commit themselves, passing the responsibility into the hands of the enigmatic Father Peacock and the Cornish fishermen of Hamble. Although both the friar and the fishermen gained the respect of their local community, they lacked the resources or the skills to transfer this passive sympathy into active resistance. Most people disapproved of the reformation in principle, but few were prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to take action against it. Hampshire was thus a county of half-hearted conservatives, strong on words but low on action. Anyone who dreamed of stirring it into revolt against Henry's reformation was simply asking for the impossible.
Julian Coy
Southampton
June 1996