Stater V. The Political History of Tudor and Stuart England: A Sourcebook
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
19 July 1601. The Lord Deputy Mountjoy, Sir Richard
Wingfield, and Sir George Bourchier, to the Privy Council
Having, since our last letters to your Lordships from the Moyerie, planted a
garrison in Lecale and another at Armagh, and being able to undertake no fur-
ther at that time, both for want of victuals, tools and carriages, I, the Deputy,
remained in the field, thereby to cause the traitor to keep his forces the longer
together, the sooner by it to weaken him, and desired the Marshal and Sir
George Bourchier to repair to Dublin, the one to haste away the. . . beeves and
carriages, the other tools and munitions. While I encamped some three mile[s]
from the Newry, Sir Henry Davers drew from Armagh into the fastness where
Brian McArt encamped, had the killing of divers of his men, took many of his
horses, the spoil of much baggage, and at that time took a prey of above 300
cows from Magennis, and since (before my return to Armagh) took some chief
horses from Tyrone’s camp, entered into the MacCanns’ country, of [sic] the
greatest fastness of any in Ireland, and brought from thence a great prey. But
being himself over-wearied with the travel of that night, and putting a strong
guard of horse upon the cows while they grazed, by the negligence of the cor-
poral and guard, that wearied with overtravel had withdrawn themselves to
sleep, he lost the greatest part of the prey he had taken by Tyrone himself, who
the same morning drew thither with his whole force. The country answering
their rising out for the general hosting exceeding slowly and backwardly, and
the Council certifying me from Dublin that neither the victuals, the most part
of the munitions, nor any pick-axes, were as then arrived, and besides that the
carriages and beeves appointed to be brought in were in the greatest part like
to fail us, I thought fit to fall back unto Dundalk with three companies only
for a few days, thrusting the rest of the army to those garrisons that fronted
nearest unto the rebels’ countries.
On Thursday, the 16th, whilst some were busily working at the fort, we sent
out a regiment in the highway towards Dungannon, to discover what way we
shall find it to be, and whether the rebels did possess it. When they came some-
what beyond Benburb, being, a greater fastness, the rebels fell into a very hot
skirmish with them, which was well maintained on both sides by the space of
two hours and above, Tyrone with all his horse and foot coming in, which were
laid thereabout for such a purpose, and on our side other regiments being
drawn from our camp for seconds, as providing for that which might and did
happen. In this fight were many hurt and killed on both sides, though we verily
think (and might perceive by our eyes, for our men cut off almost as many of
their heads, as we had in all killed) many more of their side than of ours. For
ours did many times make very good retreats, our purpose not being to go fur-
ther, and then would they come on so hotly, as if they had gotten the day upon
us, even upon good hard ground without their woods, though their woods
were always round about them; and then would ours turn and charge them to
their woods again, which makes us assure ourselves we have killed many of
CONTEXT
84
them. The number of the hurt and slain on our side will appear unto your
Lordships by the enclosed note, which we have caused truly to be collected, as
we will answer it upon our credits. And yet, if we had lost many more, being
Irish, as in a manner all these were, for there was but one Englishman killed,
being mine own chaplain, that would needs strive to be the next man unto me,
we think we have done Her Majesty almost as good service, as by killing so
many of the rebels; for so those were, or would have been, upon any slight occa-
sion. And therefore we hold it a very good piece of policy, to make them cut one
another’s throats, without which this kingdom will lie never in quiet.
[Postscript]
We have of new proclaimed a reward for Tyrone’s head, because we hear no
man durst take notice of the old proclamation, and we have caused our scouts
to publish it, that the rebels cannot but hear thereof.
THE SCOTTISH PRIVY COUNCIL AT WORK, 1617
James VI’s accession to the English throne as James I deprived Scotland of its
king’s physical presence. James wasted no time departing Edinburgh for
London – indeed, some on both sides of the border thought his haste to leave
unseemly. But nevertheless in the absence of its sovereign Scotland required an
executive. The Scottish Privy Council undertook the job. Like its counterpart in the
south, the Scottish Council was the main executive authority in the country, but with
the king in distant London, its members had more freedom to act. After 1603
none of the Stuarts devoted themselves to Scottish affairs unless there was a
crisis, and ordinarily the Council, composed of judges, lawyers, and peers, han-
dled most of the routine administration. Many complained that its membership was
dominated by a self-interested clique, but it must be admitted that ruling Scotland
in the absence of its monarch was never easy. Poor (by comparison to the English)
and often quarrelsome, the Scots gave the councillors plenty to do. The Council’s
business ran the gamut from murder to markets, but a persistent source of trouble
was religion. What follows is the record of a session in which councillors tried to
get to the bottom of an alleged riot in Edinburgh, the result of royal interference in
the selection of a minister. Scots were fiercely protective of their ecclesiastical
rights, and James VI and I was no less determined to protect his own. Inevitably
clashes occurred. In this case the community closed ranks and denied that there
had been any tumult at all.
22 January 1617
The which day William Nesbitt, Provost, James Nesbitt . . . and John Fairlie,
Beillies, David Aikinheade, Deane of G[ild, and] Johnne Byris, Treasurer,
85
THE BRITISH CONTEXT
with some of the Council of the burgh of Edinburgh, Mr Patrick Galloway, Mr
John Hall, Mr Andrew Ramsay, Mr William Strutheris, and Mr Thomas
Sydserff, ministers of Edinburgh, appeared before the Lords, and they being
demanded anent [about] the form and manner of the tumultuous and muti-
nous coming of a number of the inhabitants of the said burgh to that meeting
and assembly which was kept in the said burgh for the [nomination] and
election of some persons for their ministry, it was answered by the said Provost
and by the ministers that the form and order usually observed within the said
burgh anent the election . . . of the ministry is to warn the whole neighbour-
hood of the town to convene at the time and place appointed to give their
opinion and voices anent the said election, and that this warning is commonly
made from the pulpit by the ministers; and that accordingly the Provost and
Baillies, with the old and new Council and the old and new Session, with a
number of other neighbours of the town, convened in the Little Kirk upon the
seventeenth day of December last in a very peaceable, quiet, and modest
manner, without any kind of appearance or show of mutiny or tumult, and that
not any of them spoke any word while they were called upon and their voices
and opinion craved anent the matter which was in hand; and that no man was
called upon but these of the old and new Council and of the old and new
Session, with some four grave and honest men of the town who had borne
office and charge within the same; and that they all delivered their voices with
that kind of respect and modesty that became them. And the said Provost and
Baillies and ministers declare that they never saw a more calm, peaceable, and
quiet meeting within the burgh of Edinburgh [than] they saw that day. And,
they being demanded upon what occasion the listing of Mr Robert Balcanquell
for one of their ministers was brought in question, seeing he had been once for-
merly and orderly [nominated], it was answered that he was once [nominated],
and at the second meeting of the brethren upon the seventeenth day of
December last the matter was then brought in question by a number of per-
sons who were present, who alleged that they had the first [nomination],
because they apprehended that, albeit they had nominated him, that notwith-
standing the nomination and approbation of him to be their minister would be
reserved to the town; and, seeing his Majesty by his most gracious letter sent
to the town in favour of Mr Robert had reserved to the town their own freedom
and liberty in their election, and had only recommended Mr Robert condi-
tionally so as he was found qualified, they therefore desired that they might be
heard anew; and, the same being with some difficulty granted, it then past
through with plurality of votes that he should be first tried afore he was nom-
inated. And the Provost and Baillies declared that they and the Council
convened that same day in the forenoon afore the general meeting of the whole
company and resolved amongst themselves to stand to their first nomination
of Mr Robert.
CONTEXT
86
Further reading
Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill, eds, The British Problem c.1534-1707 (New York,
1996).
Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British, 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2000).
Peter Donald, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637–41
(Cambridge, 1991).
R.A. Griffiths and Roger S. Thomas, The Principality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages
(Cardiff, 1972).
Philip Jenkins, The Making of a Ruling Class: The Glamorgan Gentry (Cambridge,
1983).
James Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Dublin, 1973).
Roger A. Mason, Scots and Britons: Scottish Political Thought and the Union of 1603
(Cambridge, 1994).
Ian. D. Whyte, Scotland Before the Industrial Revolution: An Economic and Social History,
c.1050–c.1750 (London, 1995).
Glanmor Williams, Recovery, Reorientation and Reformation: Wales 1415–1642 (Oxford,
1987).
87
THE BRITISH CONTEXT
Part II
POLITICS IN ACTION
7
THE EARLY TUDORS
LAMBERT SIMNEL’S IMPOSTURE (1487)
Seized forcibly from Richard III on Bosworth Field in the summer of 1485, Henry
Tudor’s crown was by no means secure. Although a Parliament declared his title
good, Henry knew as well as anyone that his power might not survive a challenge
from an enemy. The new king’s experience taught that the English throne was a
perilous seat. Moreover, there was no shortage of rivals with closer ties to the blood
royal than Henry’s own. Although Richard III had probably murdered the two most
dangerous members of the Royal Family – his nephews Richard and Edward, sons
of Edward IV – there was still another potential threat alive in 1487: Edward, earl
of Warwick. Son of the duke of Clarence, Edward IV’s younger brother, Warwick
might plausibly claim to be the true king. Henry wasted no time locking him up in
the Tower, but there he remained, alive.
The uncertainty surrounding the fates of both the princes and Warwick allowed
Richard Symonds (or Simons), an ambitious Oxford priest, to hatch a plot that
threatened Henry’s throne. A local boy, Lambert Simnel, was the key to Symond’s
plans. Simnel, the son of a tradesman, apparently bore some resemblance to
Edward IV, and after a period of instruction in courtly manners, Symonds revealed
his young protégé as Edward, Earl of Warwick. Taking him to Ireland, where he
found support from disgruntled nobles there, Symonds engineered Simnel’s coro-
nation as ‘Edward VI’ in Dublin. In June 1487 Simnel and his manipulators invaded
England leading a force of Irish troops and German mercenaries paid for by
Margaret, duchess of Burgundy – Edward IV’s sister. Symonds hoped to repeat
Henry’s own success two years earlier by drawing support from the restless
English nobility, but his hopes were dashed at the Battle of Stoke (16 June 1487).
Henry triumphed, killing many of his enemies and capturing Symonds and Simnel.
Simnel, who Henry believed was a mere pawn, ended his life long after, having
served in the royal kitchens and as the king’s falconer. The account of Simnel’s
brief career as the king of England excerpted here is by Polydore Vergil
(c.1470–1555), whose Anglicae Historia included Henry VII’s reign. Vergil was an
accomplished humanist scholar who had made a name for himself in the papal
service, and who came to England in 1502. He was hardly unbiased; Henry VII
91
appointed him archdeacon of Wells, a lucrative place in the English church, and
his history, while not completely uncritical, is notably kind to its patron. In 1582 the
Privy Council proclaimed his Historia to be required reading in English schools,
and it was the source of much of the historical knowledge of generations of stu-
dents, one of whom was Shakespeare, whose history plays reflect Vergil’s text.
Meanwhile, from something petty and feigned there arose a major distur-
bance. For indeed from the time when Edward [IV] having overthrown
Henry VI, arrogated to himself the kingdom of England, men were so nour-
ished on sectionalism that they could not later desist from it, and so
confounded their divine and human obligations by every conceivable means
that, blinded by partisan devotion, led not by reason but by evil and dis-
torted partiality, they were distracted into a thousand factions. This mischief,
which was largely subdued by Edward after the destruction of almost all the
descendants of Henry VI, was renewed by his brother Richard, who by his
example suggested to others the stirring up of new factions and the embark-
ing on other schemes whereby they might acquire for themselves power or
privileges. Latest among such adventurers was a lowborn priest called
Richard, whose surname was Simons, a man as cunning as he was corrupt. He
evolved a villainous deed of this sort, by which he might trouble the coun-
try’s tranquility. At Oxford, where he devoted himself to scholarship, he
brought up a certain youth who was called Lambert Simnel. He first taught
the boy courtly manners, so that if ever he should pretend the lad to be of
royal descent (as he had planned to do) people would the more readily believe
it and have absolute trust in the bold deceit. Some time having elapsed since
Henry VII had (as soon as he had gained power) flung Edward, the only son
of the duke of Clarence, into the Tower of London, and since it was popularly
rumoured that Edward had been murdered in that place, the priest Richard
decided that the time had arrived when he might profitably execute the vil-
lainy he had projected. He changed the boy’s name and called him Edward,
by which name the duke of Clarence’s son was known, and forthwith
departed with him to Ireland. There he secretly summoned a meeting of a
considerable number of Irish nobles whom he understood by popular report
to be ill-disposed to Henry. Having secured their trust, he described to them
how he had saved from death the duke of Clarence’s son, and how he had
brought him to that land, where (so he had heard) the name and family of
King Edward were always cherished. The story was readily believed by the
nobles and was soon communicated to others. It was accepted without dis-
pute to such an extent that Thomas Fitzgerald, the Irish-born chancellor of
King Henry in the island, was among the first to entertain the boy as if he
were of royal descent and to begin to give him all his support. Fitzgerald first
called together all his own followers [and] informed them of the boy’s arrival
and how the kingdom of England was his by right as the only male of royal
POLITICS IN ACTION
92
descent, and exhorted them on that account to support him in an attempt to
restore the boy to the throne. He then communicated the project to other
nobles who, having heard his plan, promised all the help in their power. Thus
it quickly came about that the news spread to all Irish cities, which sponta-
neously transferred their allegiance to the youth and called him king. Then
the leaders of the conspiracy sent secret messengers to those in England
whom they knew had been of King Richard’s party, to implore them to
remain loyal and decide upon supporting the boy . . . When these things
were told to Henry he was profoundly disturbed (as was indeed natural) that
the deception of a mere priest should precipitate so great an attack against
him. However, because he agreed with the rule that it is incumbent upon a
good general to overcome the enemy by stratagem no less than by force, he
proposed to try whether he could bring his subjects to their senses without
armed conflict. Accordingly a council of nobles having been summoned at
the Carthusians’ convent at the royal palace which the king later called
Richmond, the remedies appropriate to the dangerous condition were
debated. As soon as they were Assembled all agreed that it would be well-
advised if, before discussing anything else, a pardon were extended to any
guilty of offenses, lest, were this to be delayed, Sir Thomas Broughton (who
had long adhered to Francis lord Lovel, and was with him at present) and
other participants in the new conspiracy should in despair of pardon have no
alternative but to persist in their resolution; and, exposing themselves to
greater dangers, plunge into open revolution. Accordingly the king at once
by proclamation pardoned and excused from punishment all who were
accused of treason or any other crimes. Secondly, after long deliberation, it
seemed prudent to all that the duke of Clarence’s son should be shown to the
people, so that thereby the foolish notion that the boy was in Ireland would
be driven from men’s minds. Many ordinances were at the same time autho-
rised dealing with improvements in public administration . . . The king,
having dismissed his council, came to London and on the following Sunday
ordered Edward the duke of Clarence’s son to be led from the tower through
the centre of the city to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Here the boy (as he had been
instructed) showing himself to everyone, fell to prayer and took part in wor-
ship and then spoke with many important people and especially with those
of whom the king was suspicious, so that they might the more readily under-
stand that the Irish had based their new rebellion on an empty and spurious
cause. But this medicine was of no avail for diseased minds. For John earl of
Lincoln, the son of John duke of Suffolk and King Edward’s sister Elizabeth,
together with Thomas Broughton and many more who longed for revolution,
joined the conspiracy against Henry, and decided to cross over to Margaret*
so that they could unite with the other originators of the rebellion. Therefore
93
THE EARLY TUDORS
* Edward IV’s sister, widow of the duke of Burgundy, enemy of Henry VII.