A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



general efFect on the county of Lancaster than the mere territorial re-arrange- 

 ments of jurisdiction which followed on the erection of the new see. it 

 affected the parochial clergy and the parishioners themselves, though to what 

 extent it is not easy to determine. It is clear that the administration, Henry 

 and his Privy Council, was highly suspicious of the attitude of the northern 

 ecclesiastics. This suspicion was possibly justified by the delay and opposi- 

 tion made during May, 1532, by the Convocation of York in the recognition 

 of his supremacy.- In the next year, 1533, Dr. Nicholas Wilson of 

 Cambridge, a north-countryman, on behalf of the ' Popish clergy, travelled 

 about Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire preaching against the supremacy. 

 But on I June, 1534, the acknowledgement of the king's claim by the northern 

 province was duly made in Convocation, which had met at York on 5 May."' 

 In the course of the following months, July and August, this collective 

 acknowledgement was followed by the individual subscriptions of the clergy 

 throughout the country which are now known technically as ' renunciations 

 of Papal supremacy.' Only certain portions of the returns of these sub- 

 scriptions have survived,''" and do not include those for the northern province 

 at all, although Wharton asserts that to his certain knowledge the original 

 subscriptions of the remaining dioceses were in existence.'" The absence of 

 any returns for Lancashire makes it impossible to say how far the clergy of 

 this part of England actually acquiesced in the measure. If the argument 

 from silence is safe the assumption is that acquiescence was general, for there 

 is no hint of any refusal. 



In the following year the administration busied itself with a scheme of 

 spreading the doctrine of the royal supremacy amongst the laity. Letters 

 were sent out in June, 1535, from the Privy Council to all the bishops re- 

 quiring them to see that the people in their respective dioceses were effectually 

 instructed in this point. The replies from Edward Lee, archbishop of York, to 

 this missive have been preserved. "° Although they are somewhat enigmatic the 

 archbishop informed the king clearly that he had spared no pains in distributing 

 among the clergy of his diocese the ' book ' containing the new order for 

 preaching and for bidding the beads which contained the king's new style as 

 head of the Church, and he does not give the slightest hint of any opposition 

 or dissatisfaction among either clergy or laity save only from the priors of 

 Hull and Mountgrace. Incidentally the correspondence yields the informa- 

 tion that there were not in the diocese of York at the time twelve preaching 

 resident secular priests : a remark that may cover the archdeaconry of 

 Richmond. The probability is therefore great that in the northern counties 

 the supremacy was dutifully accepted, and that this question alone would not 

 have raised a revolt. There is nothing to show that the riots and unlawful 

 assemblies in Lancashire, Westmorland, Cumberland, and Craven which caused 



^. J'^u'?'^'' ^"'- ^""- ' ^'^' '°5; Cott. MSS. Cleopatra, E. 6, 216; Cabala, p. 2+4; FuUer, 

 Ch. Hut. bk. V, 49. » r TT > > 



*" Rymer, Foedera, xiv, 492. 



»* They are contained in two volumes at the Record Office ; Exchequer, Treasury of the Receipt Mis- 



t^^^.^:,K.\j:zzi7^''^^^:' '""'"'^ '^°^'""' '''' ^^^" '"^'^ "" "°' -"^^-^ 



on thTaotR:,! of f^L^^ tltrrecf.- '"^'^ ^"'="'^"' ''''' ^"^^ °^ ^'^^ ^^^'P-- "« ^^^^^ 



•^ Cott. AISS. (Cleop. E. 6, 234-9, dated 1 4. lune. I c ? c and 10 Tnl„ ir,, j i 



and are summarized in Strype, Eccl. MeZu, 287-9.. "' '^ ^"- '"^-S) 



42 



