Relations between the laity and the parochial clergy during the henr

Integral to the ‘revisionist’ approach to the late-medieval English Church is the contention that there was continued affection for the secular, parochial clergy.1 The revisionists regard the English Reformation as not inevitable and perceive aneffervescent late-medieval Church, in which the lower clergy were key participantsin retaining the affection of the laity despite some contemporary criticism ofecclesiastical institutions and personnel. The argument that the late-medievalEnglish Church retained its vibrancy is founded in part on the liturgicalperformance of the Catholic clergy.2 So the relationship between the laity and the 1 I am extremely grateful for comments by Peter Marshall, Julia Barrow, Rob Lutton, and two anonymous readers. Rather than a wider discussion about the progress of reformed religion, thispaper focuses closely on the particular issue of the question of lay satisfaction with the parochialclergy in a regional context. I intend to consider aspects of the progress of reformed religion in thisregion elsewhere.
2 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 109–11; Jack J. Scarisbrick, TheReformation and the English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 40–60 David Postles ([email protected]) is an independent researcher.
Abstract: Although the concept of anti-clericalism in the early sixteenth century has been successfullychallenged, there remain the questions whether and to what extent there was dissatisfaction with thesecular clergy. The comprehensive consideration of the Catholic clergy by Peter Marshall approached thoseissues from a variety of angles. More recently, Tim Cooper has exonerated the secular clergy of the dioceseof Coventry and Lichfield. Attitudes to the clergy in that diocese are re-examined here through a detailedanalysis of testamentary bequests by the laity to the secular (parochial) clergy, from the late 1520s to 1546,throughout the various mutations in direction of the Henrician Reformation. A certain level ofindifference is detected in the general paucity of death-bed considerations for the clergy.
Keywords: secular clergy, diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, wills, testamentary bequests, EnglishReformation, early sixteenth century, Catholicism clergy must assume an important place in any discussion of the pre-Reformationcondition of the English Church, in general, but also locally and regionally. Asexplained below, any attempt to construct a general view of the English Churchbefore the Reformation must now address potential local and regional differences.
The purpose here is to introduce an investigation of lay–clerical relations in thediocese of Lichfield, which, as we shall see, had an important geographical positionin terms of broad differences of religious affiliations and which has not previouslybeen investigated from the particular source material examined here: laytestaments or wills.3 These data are supplemented by a corpus of wills from thearchdeaconry of Leicester.
One suggestion from a different perspective from the revisionists has proposed that anticlericalism was not a cause but a consequence of the EnglishReformation: that there was less dissatisfaction with the clergy before theReformation than occurred afterwards.4 The most extensive and satisfactory(‘post-revisionist’) discussion of the clergy developed that argument, explainingwhy the ‘functions’ of the Catholic priesthood responded to the needs ofparishioners well into the sixteenth century: ‘that respect for priests could not be exonerated the English lower clergy by comparison with some of their continental counterparts;Tim Cooper, The Last Generation of English Catholic Clergy: Parish Priests in the Diocese ofCoventry and Lichfield in the Early Sixteenth Century (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999) has a veryfavourable estimation of the clergy in the diocese which is the concern of this paper.
3 Hereafter the term will is used, although technically the documents are testaments concerned only with personal (movable) estate (goods and chattels) and not land (real estate,immovable estate), which was the domain of the will (ultima voluntas). For one perception of thecharacter of early evangelical (i.e. loosely reformed religion), The Beginnings of EnglishProtestantism, ed. by Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002), pp. 12–13 4 Christopher Haigh, ‘Anticlericalism and the English Reformation’, in The English Reformation Revised, ed. by Christopher Haigh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987),pp. 56–74, countered by David Loades, ‘Anticlericalism in the Church of England before 1558:An “eating canker”?’, in Anticlericalism, ed. by Nigel Aston and Matthew Cragoe (Stroud: Sutton,2000), pp. 1–17; Eric Carlson, ‘Good Pastors or Careless Shepherds? Parish Ministers and theEnglish Reformation’, History, 88 (2003), 423–36; Peter Marshall, ‘Anticlericalism Revested?Expressions of Discontent in Early Tudor England’, in The Parish in Late Medieval England, ed.
by Clive Burgess and Eamon Duffy (Donington: Tyas, 2006), pp. 365–80; for a somewhatcontrary perception, see Robert Whiting, Local Responses to the English Reformation (Basingstoke:Macmillan, 1998), pp. 29–33 and Ethan Shagan, ‘Anticlericalism, Popular Politics and theEnglish Reformation’, in his Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003), pp. 131–61.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY divorced from sacramental piety’, an important argument which has had aprofound impact and assuredly presents a cogent reflection on the question of‘anticlericalism’.5 Those historians disposed favourably towards the role of the pre-Reformation clergy have discovered general satisfaction with what was essentially a sacramentalrole, both with its essence and with the clergy’s general acquittal of it, particularlyas the celebrant of the mass.6 One might opine, nonetheless, that sometimes thisperception of widespread satisfaction has been predicated on a one-sidedinterpretation, that is, through the institutional records of the Church,ordinations and recruitment in particular.7 To employ economic metaphors, it isa producer-side approach rather than a consumer-side, supply-side rather thandemand-side, or, in computing terms, a server-side rather than client-side.8Whilst, indeed, the two aspects are not separable but inter-related, the discussionof the clergy has sometimes been approached from one perspective.9 In so far ascontemporary criticism of the clergy has been investigated, the critical voices havebeen relegated to the margin, or interpreted as a critique with the intention of 5 Peter Marshall, The Catholic Priesthood and the English Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). I am inordinately grateful for Peter Marshall’s comments on a draft ofthis paper. The quotation is from a personal communication from him. For some contention overthe morality of the clergy in London, Shannon McSheffrey, ‘Whoring Priests and Godly Citizens:Law, Morality and Clerical Sexual Misconduct in Late Medieval London’, in Local Identities inLate Medieval and Early Modern England, ed. by Norman Jones and Daniel Woolf (Basingstoke:Macmillan, 2007), pp. 58–60.
6 Peter Heath, The English Parish Clergy on the Eve of the Reformation (London: Routledge 7 In this present context, Cooper, Last Generation. The literature about levels of recruitment is summarized by Claire Cross, ‘Ordinations in the Diocese of York 1500–1630’, in Patronageand Recruitment in the Tudor and Early Stuart Church, ed. by Claire Cross, Borthwick Studiesin History, 2 (York: Borthwick Institute, 1996), pp. 5–9. One implication is that there was ademand for priests and that the numbers of men becoming priests signified satisfaction with theclergy: Haigh, English Reformations, pp. 37–38, for example; Christopher Marsh, Popular Religionin Sixteenth-Century England: Holding their Peace (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 93.
8 Both sides were, however, explored by Margaret Bowker, The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1495–1520 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); Bowker, The HenricianReformation: The Diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521–1547 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981); Christopher Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); see also Michael Zell, ‘The Personnel of theClergy in Kent in the Reformation Period’, English Historical Review, 89 (1974), 513–33.
9 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, is the most rounded assessment to date.
enhancing the existing clerical complement rather than exhibiting an anticlericalcontent. So Dean Colet’s address was an exhortation from within rather thanradical criticism for reform.10 More radical complaint was peripheral incomparison to the general satisfaction. A distinction has therefore been madebetween an internal, but intellectual, complaint literature from above, in contrastto ‘popular’ satisfaction associated with different expectations of the lower clergy.
Where the defects of the clergy indicated in visitation returns have beenaddressed, furthermore, their faults have been dismissed as occasional, notrepresentative, and thus having no wider consequence.11 Recently, however, somepotential points of attrition between laity and clergy have been identified, ensuingfrom a form of economic management of parochial temporalities which resultedin some absenteeism, it is suggested, so that the level of non-residence was muchhigher than previously suspected. Overall, this interpretation proposes that thepoints of conflict led to legislation (in 1529) to compel the clergy to meet theirobligations and the expectations of them, which inadvertently produced a ruptureand reform.12 Is there another way to assess the level of satisfaction with the secular, parish clergy in the late-medieval English Church? If we discount complaints about thelocal clergy at visitations, perhaps we might consider legacies and bequests to theclergy in the testaments of English parishioners.13 In fact, wills have been one of 10 Christopher Harper-Bill, ‘Dean Colet’s Convocation Sermon and the Pre-Reformation Church in England’, History, 73 (1988), 191–210; Jonathan Arnold, ‘Colet, Wolsey and thePolitics of Reform: St Paul’s Cathedral in 1518’, English Historical Review, 181 (2006),979–1001; Arnold, ‘John Colet, Preaching and Reform at St Paul’s Cathedral, 1505–19’,Reformation and Renaissance Review, 5 (2003), 205–30. For Colet, Arnold, Dean John Colet ofSt Paul’s: Humanism and Reform in Early Tudor England (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007).
11 John A. F. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society 1485–1529 (London: Longman, 1993), pp. 12–13; Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics andSociety under the Tudors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 41–43, 48–49.
12 Robert Palmer, Selling the Church: The English Parish in Law, Commerce, and Religion, 1350–1550 (Chapel Hill, NC : University of North Carolina Press, 2002): for absenteeism, pp.
100–11. For other points of potential conflict in urban places, Susan Brigden, ‘Tithe Controversyin Reformation London’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 32 (1981), 285–301; John A. F.
Thomson, ‘Tithe Disputes in Later Medieval London’, English Historical Review, 78 (1963),1–17.
13 For a critique of the previous use of evidence from visitations, Palmer, Selling the Church, p. 101, who suspects that the returns to visitations were influenced by the agenda in the articlesof visitation and the affiliations of the churchwardens.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY (if not the) most exploited sources for the revisionist explanation of late-medievalEnglish religion’s effervescence, although more recent work using the samematerial in Kent has arrived at a rather different conclusion.14 The intentionbelow is to reconsider relations between the laity and the clergy from otherevidence and in particular to isolate benefactions to the secular clergy from thewider range of conferment on the fabric and liturgy, in an attempt to considerparishioners’ affection for the local clergy.15 It might be argued that such anexercise cannot be conducted separately from the wider benefactions to the parishchurch. On the other hand, contentment with institutions does not always implyunconditional respect for the personnel. So the purpose here is to reconsiderrelations between the local laity and the parochial clergy from the perspective oflay gifts to the clergy at the end of life.
In his magisterial examination of the English clergy in the decades prior to and during the Henrician Reformation, Peter Marshall attempted to assess layattitudes to the clergy from testamentary evidence. His corpus of 5500 willsbetween 1500 and 1553 consisted of P.C.C. wills for Kent, Hampshire andOxfordshire, and from ‘most English counties in printed collections’.16 AlthoughChesterfield (Derbyshire) testators were included in his purposive sample, theremainder of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield was not addressed.17 In hisdiscussion of the clerical personnel of this diocese, Cooper did not examine laytestaments for attitudes towards the clergy.18 There is, therefore, scope forconsidering testamentary material in the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield 14 For example, Scarisbrick, Reformation and the English People, pp. 2–11; for the difference in Kent, Rob Lutton, Lollardy and Orthodox Religion in Pre-Reformation England:Reconstructing Piety (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006). For a summary of the use of wills, PeterMarshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),pp. 19–20.
15 For affection for the ‘community of the parish’, Beat Kümin, The Shaping of a Community: The Rise and Reformation of the English Parish c.1400–1560 (Aldershot: Scolar, 1996).
16 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, p. 3. To some extent, his sample, in the nature of what was available, exhibits some concentration on the perhaps more ‘conservative’ locations of Yorkshire,Lancashire, and Somerset, although including a significant corpus of Bedfordshire wills. Heinforms me that that P.C.C. wills were included in part to counter-balance that concentrationand widen the geographical compass. P.C.C. wills received probate in the Prerogative Court ofCanterbury and usually consisted of the wills of the wealthiest testators with personal estate inmore than one diocese.
17 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, pp. 4, 239–41.
18 Cooper, The Last Generation.
(hereafter, simply Lichfield) in more detail, since it has not been exploited.
Further than that, however, there is a religio-geographical reason for itsassessment, since the diocese was located on the perimeter of the ‘golden crescent’where evangelical sentiment might take some hold and locations which wereapparently more ‘conservative’: the diocese had something of a ‘liminal’ orintermediate position.19 Since the archdeaconry of Leicester was similarlypositioned, testamentary material from that jurisdiction is additionally included.
The dissemination of evangelical or reformed ideas was no doubt morecomplicated than this simple differentiation between conservative north and westand more receptive south and east. That the north and west were indeed moreconservative does, however, give some substance to considering a location justbelow that northern conservatism.20 The wills are subjected to a rigorousexamination in terms of quantitative analysis and categorization. It must beadmitted that, of course, quantification can be misleading and should be treatedwith a considerable degree of caution.21 Finally, circumspection is needed in how testamentary material is examined in terms of social group. To combine P.C.C. material, inevitably relating tosuperior status and wealth, with the testaments of other groups may tendentiouslyaffect the conclusions. For the purposes here, P.C.C. wills have been deliberatelyexcluded to remove the socially exclusive social group which they represent, sothat a fairer assessment can be elicited of the attitudes, as far as they can beperceived from wills, of the less privileged. Perhaps that statement needs somejustification: as illustrated below, it was open to testators to convey their affectionto the local clergy through the most minimal of bequests: household stuff such asa sheet, or apparel. The relative paucity of probate material before c. 1520 alsocomplicates matters. Here the probate material is more chronologically confined:the late 1520s to 1546.22 The testamentary data thus comprise more than 2800 19 Nicholas Tyacke, ‘Introduction: Rethinking the “English Reformation”’, in England’s Long Reformation 1500–1800, ed. by Nicholas Tyacke (London: UCL Press, 1998), pp. 1–32.
20 For the use of the term evangelical for reformed movements in the 1520s, Marshall and Ryrie, Beginnings of English Protestantism. For devotional bequests in wills of urban testators inthe north and west Midlands, Dave Postles, ‘Religion and Uncertainty in Four Midland UrbanCentres, c. 1529–1546’, Midland History, 34 (2009), 22–43, which also discusses the extent towhich reformed religion might have been received in urban places.
21 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, concentrated more on the ‘eight paradigms of priestly “function”’ (p. 4), which explains the more allusive use of lay testaments.
22 Robert Whiting, The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY wills from the diocese of Lichfield and about 1100 from the archdeaconry ofLeicester between 1522 and 1546. The Lichfield testaments extend from1528–46. The evidence is circumscribed temporally to the period of uncertaintyof the changes in Henrician religious policy. The timespan is purposely selectedbecause of those vicissitudes of official observance. It is evident, of course, thattestamentary bequests were ambiguous from several perspectives. In some cases,they might be supplementary to benefactions made during lifetime, so onetestator bequeathed 20s. for two trentals ‘after my departure in case thatt I cawsenot the same to be seyd In my lyffe tyme’.23 We should also be aware that suchlegacies were sometimes aspirational, and the testator did not necessarily leavesufficient resources for their performance or acquittal. The analysis below isconcerned purely with lay perceptions of the lower clergy, consequentlyaddressing serially the following aspects of that relationship: the parochial clergyas supervisors and executors; the parochial clergy as kin; and testamentarybequests to the parochial clergy. None of these attributes of the pre-Reformationclergy has been ignored before, but some different interpretations can beadduced.24 The potential for an intimate relationship between laity and local clergy can be illustrated by the testament of Thomas Walsh, probably a singleman, ofWolston, in 1538. He bequeathed his best gown, best cap, and silver spoon to hisbrother, Sir John. Another 5d. he directed to the clergy for prayer. He appointedas his residuary legatee and sole executor Sir William Clarke, the vicar, todistribute to the poor for his soul’s benefit.25 His probate inventory, however,enumerated personal estate valued at merely £5 11s., £1 7s. of which wasconsumed in his funeral expenses according to a memorandum. The desires ofWalsh thus reflect a range of possible relationships between a lay person with little Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 6, illustrates the changing levelsof production of wills over the course of the early sixteenth century.
23 Lichfield Record Office [LRO], B/C/11 Geoffrey Sheryngton of Wigan, 1536.
24 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, Chapter 7 (pp. 194–210), ‘Priest as Neighbour’, esp. pp.
208–09, and also pp. 231–32, for clergy as supervisors, executors, and witnesses of testaments; p.
230 for bequests to the clergy not specifically for masses or other services (20 per cent of histestators); pp. 10–11, 47–49, 51–53, 58, 75, 99–100, 116, 125–26, 132–33, 158–63 for theconnection between ‘honesty’ and ‘chastity’. Cooper, Last Generation, passim, with more explicitreferences below. Sometimes clergy appointed as executors were in fact kin: John Walker ofWichnor selected as joint executors his sons, Sir Richard and Sir John: LRO, B/C/11 JohnWalker, Wichnor, 1542.
25 Sir was a title applied to the parochial clergy, in its Latin form as dominus.
disposable income and the lower clergy: kinship; affection; and trust. We learn,nonetheless, that Walsh was in fact a servant of Clarke, his master, and his singlestatus probably influenced the sort of persons to whom he had recourse. How farwas Walsh representative of the laity of lower status in the diocese of Lichfield?26 Clergy as Supervisors and Executors A number of testators, particularly, but not exclusively, widows, selected the localclergy as the supervisors or overseers of their wills. As an example of a widowfollowing such a course, Joan Farmer of Coventry bequeathed a pair of sheets toher curate and nominated him joint overseer of her will.27 So too in 1541 JoanRownall, a widow of Long Itchington, appointed as her overseers: Sir ThosHopkens, vicar, Sir William Odun, priest, and Robert Hopkens.28 The will ofWilliam Smifçht, of Sheldon, proven in 1542, constituted as his overseer SirHenry Rowde, parson of Sheldon, for personal estate assessed at over £42.29 In1538, Henry Thorleton of Baxterley requested the parson there, Sir GeorgeWhetreson, to be his only supervisor.30 William Rachedale, of Leigh, in 1540desired as his overseer his ghostly father Sir Thos Drackeford, his curate.31 AtSeighford, Sir Richard Hart jointly supervised the implementation of the will ofHugh Untann.32 In his will of 1537, John Torner, husbandman, selected as jointexecutor Sir William Banister, clerk, and his widow, who died shortly afterwards,retained Sir William, her ghostly father, as joint overseer.33 In the same year,William Trubschae of Wolstanton, arranged for his ghostly father, Sir ThomasTurnar, to be joint supervisor.34 Also in that year, William Turlle of Walsallappointed as his overseer Sir Henry Hynkys.35 Turlle’s personal estate did not 26 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Walsh, Wolston, 1538.
27 LRO, B/C/11 Joan Farmer, Coventry, 1536.
28 LRO, B/C/11 Joan Rownall, Long Itchington, 1541.
29 LRO, B/C/11 William Smi3ht, Sheldon, 1542. 30 LRO, B/C/11 Henry Thorleton, Baxterley, 1538.
31 LRO, B/C/11 William Rachdale, Leigh, 1540.
32 LRO, B/C/11 Hugh Untann, Seighford, 1539.
33 LRO, B/C/11 John and Margaret Torner, Yeton, 1537.
34 LRO, B/C/11 William Trubschae, Wolstanton, 1537.
35 LRO, B/C/11 William Turlle, Walsall, 1537.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY quite attain £8, which illustrates how those lower down the social scale couldnominate the clerics as their supervisors in return for a small expense. Sir John Beeconducted the supervision of the will of Roger Teylour of Walton on Trent in1539.36 With personal estate valued at merely £6, Thomas Blake of Duffieldassumed that his curate would act as the supervisor of his will.37 In like manner,Ralph Tayler of Wem, with personal estate not quite attaining £11, arranged thathis ghostly father would act as sole overseer of his will.38 The local parson, Sir JohnNowell, acted for John Snape of Swynnerton, and Thomas Shelley of Stoneselected as his overseer his parish priest. In such a manner, local clergy were ofparticular assistance to widows and unmarried people perhaps lacking local kin.39 Clerical executors or joint executors are not difficult to uncover in the testaments of the laity. The sole executor named in the will of Thomas Wyttemorof Swinnerton was the parson of that parish, although Thomas had merely £6 ofgoods and chattels.40 Sir Richard Tart was retained by John Tyrvyn of Lapley asjoint executor in 1539, and this testator also invoked as joint supervisor his vicar,Sir John Sykes.41 Sir Nicholas Bagshae acted as sole executor of the will of ThomasTurner of Tutbury.42 This association is perhaps exemplified by Sir WilliamClarke, vicar, acting as sole executor for Nicholas Turnour whose personal estatewas appraised at £5 15s. 10d. in 1538.43 We might add also that Sir NicholasWhelock, vicar of Biddulph, was joint executor for his parishioner, William Salt,and Sir Richard Gorst, curate of Mucklestone, residuary legatee and sole executorfor John Symons of his parish. The appointment of a clerical supervisor or executor was not always associated with beneficence in religious bequests. Thus Roger Webbe of Kinver, althoughselecting Sir Edward Haws clerk as sole executor, made no religious bequests in his 36 LRO, B/C/11 Roger Teylour, Walton upon Trent, 1539. For the clergy of Derbyshire, A.
M. Johnson, ‘The Reformation Clergy of Derbyshire’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 100(1980), 49–63.
37 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Blake, Duffield, 1542.
38 LRO, B/C/11 Ralph Tayler, Wem, 1538.
39 LRO, B/C/11 William Salt, Biddulph, 1539; John Symons, Mucklestone, 1539; Thomas Shelley, Stone, 1540; and John Snape, Swynnerton, 1540.
40 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Wyttemor, Swinnerton, 1540.
41 LRO, B/C/11 John Tyrvyn, Lapley, 1539.
42 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Turner, Tutbury, 1540.
43 LRO, B/C/11 Nicholas Turnour, Wolston, 1538.
testament.44 With only about £10 of personal estate, James Raynoldes ofBirmingham, gave his best towel to the high altar for forgotten tithes, but henominated as his overseer Sir Hugh Browforde and his will was attested by SirThomas Grene, chantry priest, Sir Thomas Cumberbache, priest, and RichardJones, parochial deacon.45 There is a contrast here with most testators whoselected a clerical supervisor. When Henry Watkenson of North Wingfieldrequested that Sir John Full, curate, act as his joint supervisor, he left from hispersonal estate of just over £13 a hive to maintain a taper before the picture ofOur Lord and another one to the services of Our Lady and St Laurence.46 Personaldevotion was exhibited too in the will of John Wryght of Dovebridge whoselected the local priest, Sir Richard Home, as his overseer, reflected in his bequestof nine pounds of wax for three torches to light high mass at sacring on holy days,complemented, indeed, by half a trental for his parents’ soul and his own, and 3s.
4d. to the local clergy to intercede for his soul.47 In a register of testaments of will-makers mainly within the archdeaconry of Coventry, some ten of the seventy appointed local clergy in a supervisorycapacity.48 If, however, we examine the proportion of testators in the diocese as awhole who resorted to the local clergy in this way, it is revealed that only aminority of the local laity explicitly elicited their assistance in these roles, asrevealed in Table 1. This table depicts the numbers and proportions of testatorswho invoked the help of the clergy as (joint) overseer or (joint) supervisor (theterms are perhaps synonymous) and executor (whether joint or sole) in more than2800 testaments. The figures reveal that the proportion of testators who resortedto the clergy was thus fairly minimal. Where clergy were also kin both clericalstatus and kinship were important, which complicates matters further.
44 LRO, B/C/11 Roger Webbe, Kinver, 1540.
45 LRO, B/C/11 James Raynoldes, Birmingham, 1543.
46 LRO, B/C/11 Henry Watkenson, North Wingfield, 1540.
47 LRO, B/C/11 John Wryght, Dovebridge, 1539. Although extensively recited, these are merely illustrative examples of which there are many, many more, such as, again merely by way ofillustration: John Wyes, Rugby, 1536 (joint executor Sir Henry Mylner), Robert Wryght, OverWhitacre, 1535 (overseer his ghostly father, Sir John Marpull), Nicholas Wryght, Tamworth,1538 (overseer the vicar of Kinsbury, Sir John), Richard Wodschawe of Kinsbury (joint overseerSir John Lysatt), Edmund Walker, Norbury, 1541 (sole overseer Sir Richard Ocley curate ofNorbury).
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY Table 1: Clergy as Overseers, Supervisors or Executors of Lay Wills in the Sir Henry Northege was appointed to be joint supervisor of the will of John Northege of Ashover in 1544, both clerical and kin.49 We have the complicationof clergy who performed a social role for testators, but who were also relations.
That combination was repeated when William Tunstall of Wolstanton appointedhis son, Sir Thomas, as joint executor of his will; William’s personal estate wasappraised at merely £7 6s. 8d.50 So also John Turmer of Cheddleton in Stoke-on-Trent, whose personal estate was accounted as £14 16s. 1d., including a lease ofpart of a coalmine in Handley, required his son Sir John Turmer to act as jointexecutor.51 The brother of John Trennant of Upton, Sir William, acted as jointexecutor of the former’s will and the testator’s curate, Sir John More, assupervisor.52 Another joint executor was Sir Thomas Thomkynson, vicar ofDilthorne, requested by the will-maker John Tumkynson of Standley in Leekparish, perhaps a relative.53 Perhaps Sir John Tomsone who supervised the will ofWilliam Tomsone of Polesworth was also related to the testator.54 The jointexecutor of Thomas Howlle of Shifnall under his will of 1540 was Sir MichaelHowle.55 These kin relationships are explored further below.
This role of the clergy has been categorized as ‘neighbourliness’, but, although it presumably did involve a kindness, there were other perspectives.56 As well asthe inclusion of kin who were clergy, clergy who acted as overseer, supervisor, orexecutor were invariably remunerated, as were some (but not all) lay executors, 49 LRO, B/C/11 John Northege, Ashover, 154450 LRO, B/C/11 William Tunstall, Wolstanton, 1536.
51 LRO, B/C/11 John Turmer, Cheddleton, 1537.
52 LRO, B/C/11 John Trennant, Upton, 1542.
53 LRO, B/C/11 John Tumkynson, Standley, 1540.
54 LRO, B/C/11 William Tomsone, Polesworth, 1543.
55 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Howlle, Shifnal, 1540 (inventory valuation £78 19s. 0d.).
56 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, 194–210.
most frequently with cash, sometimes in kind. In a sense, therefore, the positionwas the extension of a ‘professional’ service, by those who had the faculty ofliteracy. No doubt, trust was also a considerable influence: in the person of thecleric, the clerical office, and the expertise or competence which ensued equallyfrom the person and the clerical status. We should not, however, assume that theelement of neighbourliness was paramount nor that it necessarily distinguishedthe clergy from other neighbours. We might come to the same conclusion aboutclerical composition of wills. In one sense, their writing wills for their parishionerswas a ‘neighbourly’ act, but again it was tinged with more contractual elements.
The clergy still retained a considerable advantage in literacy, particularly theability to write. There is no doubt, furthermore, that the clergy were remuneratedjust as any scrivener for composing the wills. Richard Patryke of Walsallbequeathed 6d. to his ghostly father for having written his testament.57 Only avery small number of testaments, moreover, were explicitly compiled by localclergy: eleven, five of which were written by the same curate of Stoke-on-Trentand Worfield who made a feature of subscribing the testaments that hecomposed.58 In most cases, it is impossible to identify the writers of wills. More isknown about the scribes of wills in the late sixteenth century than earlier.59 It ispossible that clerks in minor orders were involved in the writing of wills, clergywho had not advanced to the priesthood.
In all of these roles (overseer, supervisor, executor, scrivener), the clergy might be described as acting in a neighbourly fashion, out of charitable concern in asense. On the other hand, their relative monopoly of literacy meant that theywould be an obvious recourse.60 The clergy received remuneration in return, sothat, although they offered a service, they were also able to supplement theirincome through these roles, which might have been important for those in the 57 LRO, B/C/11 Richard Patryke, Walsall, 1545.
58 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Hyll, Stoke-on-Trent, 1534; Robert Morr, Barley, 1537; Henry Meyre, Stoke-on-Trent, 1538; Richard Glover, Wolstanton, 1538; Robert Kynder, Ashbourne,1539; Elizabeth Pollson, Stoke-on-Trent, 1540; John Pytt, Albrighton, 1540; Thomas Smythe,Audley, 1542; Margaret Bryggend, Worfield, 1543; Patryke as above; John Barret, Worfield,1546.
59 Nigel Goose and Nesta Evans, ‘Wills as an Historical Source’, in When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modern England, ed. by Tom Arkell,Nesta Evans, and Nigel Goose (Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press, 2000), 49–50.
60 For a testament composed by the testator himself: LRO, B/C/11 Robert Temple, Barton (Staffs.), 1534: at the foot: ‘Be me Rob[ert] tempull’.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY poorest livings. We should accordingly be a little circumspect about accordingtheir motives to pure neighbourliness or in defining the act as neighbourliness inhowever wide a notion. There was a reciprocal relationship, such as might beinherent in neighbourly exchange, but there were other elements involved too. A small proportion of lay testators had clergy among their close kin. Cooper,examining clerical wills, remarked upon this relationship, which is just as evidentin the wills of the laity.61 Table 2: Clerical Connections Revealed in Lay Wills in the Diocese of *The will of Thomas Lovat of Edgmond reveals that he had two clerical brothers, Sir Robert and SirWilliam.
4Four acted as supervisors and five as executors.
Given the relative localization of the clergy, acquiring livings or stipends not too distant from their native settlement, this phenomenon is not surprising.62 Thenumbers might be an underestimate since we do not know enough about the life-course stage of the testator. Possibly some testators died before their sons hadproceeded far towards ordination as clergy. On the other hand, the proportionsin Table 2 are so small that this life-course factor is not likely to make a significantimpact. Although in 1541 John Rogers of Aston near Birmingham appointed his 61 Cooper, Last Generation, pp. 156–58.
62 Cooper, Last Generation, pp. 33–36, 104, 109, 127.
son, Sir John, priest, to be joint overseer if he came to these parts, most clerical kinwere more proximate.63 It is not surprising that the brother of John Collumbellof Marston-on-Dove (Derbyshire) was vicar of that parish, for John’s personalestate was valued at over £80 and he belonged to the gentry, and was no doubt ina position to influence the patron of the living, Tutbury Priory, to whom he left10s., although he made bequests of the same amount to the friars of Derby, 20s.
to Beauvale Priory, and 40s. to the Charterhouse in the Isle of Axholme.64 Oflesser status, but still wealthy enough with over £50 of personalty, Henry Porterof Sudbury had a son John who was vicar of Hinckley and whom he appointed asjoint supervisor.65 Of lower position too was the husbandman Richard Rycroft ofHodnet, who in 1540 designated his son Sir John as joint executor.66 Anotherjoint executor was Sir Thomas Renscha, son of the testator Henry Renscha ofChesterfield under his father’s testament of 1538, receiving also his father’s bestgown and 6s. 8d.67 Amongst the many bequests concerned with the salvation ofhis soul, Thomas Hosyer of Shrewsbury, bequeathed ten marks (£6 13s. 4d.) to hisson, Sir John, to pray for his soul, along with other bequests to him of a silver cupand spoon as a gesture symbolic of the relationship between parent and child.68 Sotoo James Tunstall of Wolstanton in 1539 bequeathed 6s. 8d. to his brother, SirThomas, to pray for his soul and also requested that he act as joint executor.69Household stuff was bequeathed by William Typpyng of Newport (Shropshire)to his brother Sir Hugh.70 Another cleric deriving from fairly humble status wasSir Harry Randall, beneficiary of household stuff by the will of his father, NicholasRandall, of Coventry, whose inventory only attained a valuation of £8 3s. 4d.71We might surmise too that Sir William Whyt had fairly humble origins, for whenhe was appointed as sole executor by his mother, the widow Elizabeth Whyt ofDronfield, her personal estate was evaluated at merely £1 0s. 2d. and he, indeed, 63 LRO, B/C/11 John Rogers, Aston, 1541.
64 LRO, B/C/11 John Collumbell, Marston, 1536.
65 LRO, B/C/11 Henry Porter, Sudbury, 1540.
66 LRO, B/C/11 Richard Rycroft, Hognet, 1540.
67 LRO, B/C/11 Henry Renscha, Chesterfield, 1538.
68 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Hosyer, Shrewsbury, 1538.
69 LRO, B/C/11 James Tunstall, Wolstanton, 1539.
70 LRO, B/C/11 William Typpyng, Newport, 1540.
71 LRO, B/C/11 Nicholas Randall, Coventry, 1538, RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY was her principal creditor in her list of debts.72 She made no bequests to religiouspurposes, but that failure might well have resulted from her ostensible poverty.
The joint executor of the will of Edmund Whytmor of Madeley was his brotherSir Thomas, although that did not induce Edmund to expend his personal estate(valued at £15 3s. 0d) on religious causes.73 Nor did the husbandman RogerWycherley of Eyton feel compelled to make such bequests although his son SirRichard, priest of Baschurch, was his joint executor.74 Although his brotherbelonged to the lower clergy, William Hancock of Dronfield did not makereligious bequests in his will, but his limited personal estate of £5 13s. 6d. mighthave been a contributory factor.75 We have, consequently, the prospect both ofhumble clerical origins and the omission of religious bequests from wills of somepoorer testators with clerical connections.76 We might even suspect that sometestators of this kind had uncertain religious sentiment. For example, John Becheof Wolstanton made his son, Sir John, supervisor of his will, yet made no religiousbequests, such as for special services at burial or for altars in the parish church, andcommended his soul only to God his maker and redeemer, which might indicatean attachment to reformed religion.77 It was, of course, possible that sometestators had already made provisions in their lifetimes, but we might expect themto make further bequests in their wills.
It was quite otherwise, and the norm, with the testators David Walker alias apHowell and Roger Wodward, of respectively Rodington and Derby. Both hadclerical brothers (Sir John ApHowell and Sir Ralph Wodward) and bothconcomitantly made elaborate arrangements for the health of their souls. As wellas wax for lights, dirige, and mass, Walker desired his cloth and kerchief to beemployed to cover the pyx of the high altar and Wodward left 3s. 4d. to his 72 LRO, B/C/11 Elizabeth Whyt, Dronfield, 1538.
73 LRO, B/C/11 Edmund Whytmor, Madeley, 1540.
74 LRO, B/C/11 Roger Wycherley, Eyton, 1537.
75 LRO, B/C/11 William Hancock, Dronfield, 1539.
76 At the other extreme, the will of Anne Luson, of Sutton Coldfield (1540), contained no religious bequests; her son was Chancellor of Exeter diocese and the bishop of Exeter hersupervisor; her commendation was simply to God ‘my Creatour’. LRO, B/C/11 Anne Luson,Sutton Coldfield, 1540. For another example of testators with clerical connections who includedno religious bequests in their wills: Agnes Cook, Dronfield, 1537 (son). 77 LRO, B/C/11 John Beche, Wolstanton, 1539. I intend to examine elsewhere the possibility of some adherents to reformed positions.
mother to buy a kerchief to remind her to pray daily for his soul.78 Thomas Bakerof Solihull invested heavily in religious bequests for the salvation of his soul:bequests to three altars; obit; month’s and year’s mind; and bequests to the clergyfor prayer. His brother was one, Sir John.79 Occasionally, the association betweentestator and clergy amounted to nepotism, in that the testator made religiousbequests which sponsored the career of the clerical kin. When EdmundWashynton of Leek exhibited great largesse in his bequest of £26 13s. 4d. to thestock of the new chapel of St Catherine to find a priest, he expected his son, SirWilliam, to be appointed to sing the office. The bequest was assured too, perhaps,by his appointment of Sir William as his joint executor. The arrangementconsiderably depleted the personal estate, for, after this payment, only £9remained.80 On a smaller scale, John Wodwarde of Allestree bequeathed 10s. fora trental by his son, Sir Harry.81 So also the Atherstone widow, Helen Eton,arranged for her two sons, Sir Christopher, and the friar, William, to singtrentals.82 Several implications follow from these associations. We may be confronting the possibility that a proportion of testators had clerical connections and kin andthus perhaps a predilection for the traditional religion. Certainly, almost all thetestators above made corresponding bequests. Testators who selected local clergyas executors or testators were also likely to have been predisposed to traditionalobservances, which is borne out by the benefactions. Perhaps this allegiance isexemplified by Anne Ryland, of Shrewsbury, widow, who in 1539 bequeathed toher son, Sir William, household stuff and also made him overseer; not surprisinglyshe allocated £4 for her burial when, in fact, the costs of her funeral in lights,tapers, torches, priests, clerks, and bread amounted to £5 2s. 4d.83 We can confirm 78 LRO, B/C/11 David Walker alias ApHowell, Rodington, 1539, and Roger Wodward, 79 LRO, B/C/11 Thomas Baker, Solihull, 1545 (inventory total £19 18s. 8d.).
80 LRO, B/C/11 Edmund Washynton, Leek, 1537.
81 LRO, B/C/11 John Wodwarde, Allestree, 1535.
82 LRO, B/C/11 Christopher Eton, Atherstone, 1534; LRO, B/C/11 Helen Eton, Atherstone, 1535. William was undoubtedly one of the mendicants at the Austin friary inAtherstone where Helen elected to be interred next to her husband, Christopher, before theimage of our Lady. Christopher’s inventory total had amounted to just over £16, but by Helen’sdeath in the following year she had no more than £9 5s. 0d. of personal estate. Her will wascomposed ‘per me fratrem Johannem Goodwyn priorem’.
83 LRO, B/C/11 Anne Ryland, Shrewsbury, 1539.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY this association too by the will of John Wodwarde, alluded to above. Wodwarde’swill was written by his curate, Sir Anthony Downs, and his son, Sir Harry, asmentioned above, was a beneficiary of a spiritual bequest. In addition, the testatormade bequests from his personal estate of about £13 for torches and in money tohis own parish church and those of Tamworth, Chorley, Overton, and Norton,financed a trental by his son, and allocated 1s. each to the friars in Coventry,Lichfield and Atherstone.84 Even so, it is not without some risk to extrapolatefrom these connections a widespread affection for the clergy through intimacyand neighbourliness. Some parents may perhaps have encouraged a son to entera clerical career just as working-class parents in the 1960s desired their childrento progress to white-collar jobs, for social mobility, without any profound esteemfor those positions.
Clergy as Beneficiaries in Testaments Table 3: Lay Legacies in Cash to the Clergy *4d.-16d. = 52 testators‚ 3352 individuals, but many had inventories without an extant will ‡ if the highest amount (960d.) is omitted, mean = 38d., std dev = 45.057 Bequests are a potential indicator of affection for the secular clergy. In thiscontext, only ostensibly unconditional legacies have been included, which meansthat amounts of money designated in wills for the clergy for prayers or masses havebeen excluded. The rationale is that these legacies exacted services as a counter- 84 LRO, B/C/11 John Wodwarde, Allestree, 1535.
gift. Legacies without conditions explicitly attached might be a better indicatorof fondness. Even that inference is not entirely certain, for an implicit gift-exchange might still have obtained, even though no reciprocal action wasspecified.85 Here, we might also comment on another aspect of remembrance intestaments. It has been remarked that a preponderance of testators stipulated apayment (in cash or in kind) for tithes forgotten.86 We should, nonetheless, beaware that the vast proportion of testators allocated this payment specifically tothe high altar, not to the incumbent (although that may have been the effect),which may also have resonances for a difference between affection for the liturgyand for the clergy.87 Table 3 presents details of legacies in cash to the clergy inmore than 5000 wills in the Midlands. What is evident is the very low proportionof testators who made such a commitment. Merely 6 to 9 per cent of will-makersproffered an unconditional cash legacy to the clergy. Bequests to the clergy did notalways consist of cash legacies, of course, and innumerable small remembrances inkind were offered in Lichfield diocese: sheets (often flaxen) (sixteen will-makers);household stuff in general (five testators); sheep (four); ewes (two); lambs (two);cows (two); calves (two); hives (two); a quarter of wheat; half a quarter of malt;corn; a horse; a colt; a napkin; a gown; a coffer; a petticoat; a cramp ring; a cloth;a tin bottle; a bonnet and tippet; a jerkin; a kerchief; and a jacket.88 Theproportion of testators in Lichfield diocese making a bequest in cash or in kindis thus increased to about 8 per cent. A substantial number of the Lincolnshiretestators making bequests to the clergy did so in kind rather than (or as well as)in cash: wethers, ewes, hogs, and lambs; a white horse; a horse; a calf; a bushel of 85 The whole concept of Maussian gift-exchange has now been described for early modern England: Ilana K. Ben-Amos, The Culture of Giving: Informal Support and Gift-Exchange in EarlyModern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); immense insights arecontained in Lewis Hyde, The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World, rev. edn(Edinburgh: Canongate, 2006), particularly for the circulation of gifts and deferred and implicitcounter-gifts.
86 For example, but there are multitudinous in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire wills, LRO, B/C/11 Agnes Columbell, Darley, widow, 1540: 10s. to the sacrament of the high altar for tithesforgotten.
87 Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, p. 231.
88 LRO, B/C/11 James Holynshed, Shifnal, 1534: a hive of bees to the clergy; Elizabeth Penyfather, Barton under Needwood, widow, 1534: two sheets and a blanket to the clergy;Emmot Tayler, Rushall, widow: a flaxen sheet to the clergy; Thomas Baker, Solihull, 1545: aflaxen sheet to the curate for prayers; Richard Hearinge, Coventry, 1544: a black gown to theclergy.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY barley; one and a half quarters of malt and half a quarter of rye; a cow and fouryards of violet (cloth); a brown cow; pairs of linen sheets; a trotting black foal andhalf a quarter of wheat; a pair of beads; a nag, bow, and arrows; and so on.89Perhaps 9 per cent of Lincolnshire testators thus remembered the clergy.
In Lichfield diocese, it is possible to examine the level of personal estate of individuals who made bequests to the clergy. The mean valuation of their personalestate amounted to about £20 (standard deviation 23.69), but 70 per cent ofinventory totals fell below that amount, and, indeed, 39 per cent below £10.
Extending further, it is possible to correlate the amount bequeathed to the clergyin the testament with the valuation of personal estate in the inventory. TheSpearman rank correlation coefficient produced is 0.564, a positive correlationgenerally (but not overwhelmingly) between wealth (as represented by personalestate) and the amount of the legacy.90 Some seventy-eight of the Lichfieldtestators made reference to their ghostly father, an affective, spiritual term, eitherexhorting prayers or appointing a supervisor of the will.91 This appellationreflected affection or respect for the person and office of the priest or curate. Theproportion was equally low in the wills of Lincolnshire testators between 1532and 1534.92 What is striking is the low level of bequests to the local clergy in thetestaments of the laity. Legacies in wills remained, nonetheless, somewhatspeculative and contingent. Their nature is indicated by the bequest of JohnBasseth, a singleman of Barrowby in Lincolnshire, in 1530: ‘I will that the parsonhaue vjs. viijd. yff it may be sparyd.’93 89 Foster, Lincoln Wills, III, 34, 137, 145, 184; Hickman, Lincoln Wills, pp. 136 (195), 146 (212), 157 (227), 188 (273), 248 (362), 287 (422), 298 (439), 322 (477), 367 (550), 374 (559),375 (560), 380 (568).
90 Spearman’s rank correlation is used to assess the relationship between two variables when the constituent numbers are not normally distributed (a normal distribution features a mirrorimage around the mean when the numbers are graphed). Correlation coefficients are usually takento be significant when they exceed +/- 0.5.
91 For example, LRO, Oliver Feyrechyld 1543: 3s. 4d. to his ghostly father for prayer; Richard Fox 1545: 10s. to his ghostly father for prayer.
92 Hickman, Lincoln Wills. Marshall suspects that ghostly father may be more appropriately considered as a reference in a quasi-technical sense to a parishioner’s confessor rather than a ‘broadterm of endearment’: pers. comm.
93 Foster, Lincoln Wills, III, 30.
Many ambiguities will remain in any discussion of the relationship between thelocal laity and their parochial clergy in the early sixteenth century and during thevicissitudes of the Henrician polity. To rely upon a single source, such astestaments, is not entirely satisfactory. On the other hand, if we wish to exploredeeply the lay–clerical association, a detailed analysis of lay testaments isabsolutely necessary. The process of testamentary bequests contains many caveatstoo. There is the strong possibility that testaments were vetted or policed whenthey reached the ecclesiastical forum, although there has been some mitigation ofthis suspicion.94 Since livings were at a premium, the clergy in the diocese ofLichfield tended to remain in a parish over long periods of time.95 Theirpersistence in local society was an opportunity for the lay–clerical relationship todevelop and flourish. The evidence of testamentary bequests, nonetheless, suggeststhat the relationship was not a deeply defined one. Quantitative evidence is not,of course, entirely satisfactory. It is difficult to move from a relative paucity ofbequests to a wider sentiment. Conversely, however, we should not just assumea firm association from anecdotal evidence of bequests and the occupation of rolesof overseer, supervisor, and executor. Overall, the evidence from the Lichfieldtestamentary material suggests that a deep association may have been confinedhere to a relatively small proportion of local society and that only a muchshallower connection existed between the preponderant part of parishioners andthe local clergy in this locality.
England remained a complex of regional and local societies, as important for religious affiliations as for other aspects of society. What obtained in the dioceseof Lichfield was not representative of some locations where a much strongerappreciation of ‘traditional’ religion persisted.96 In these parts of the Midlands,nonetheless, the affective relationship between the local laity and the parochialclergy seems on the basis of this evidence to have been fairly weak by the 1530s 94 This issue is now succinctly covered from the wider literature by Goose and Evans, ‘Wills as an historical source’, pp. 54–57.
95 Cooper, Last Generation, pp. 56–57.
96 For the regional and social differences in religious observance, Whiting, Local Responses; Rob Lutton, ‘Geographies and Materialities of Piety: Reconciling Competing Narratives ofReligious Change in Pre-Reformation and Reformation England’, in Pieties in Transition.
Religious Practices and Experiences, c. 1400–1640, ed. by Lutton and Elizabeth Salter (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2007), pp. 11–40.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LAITY AND THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY and 1540s. So, in this sense, the Lichfield material supports the notion of regionaldifferences in devotion, to the extent that here and also in the archdeaconry ofLeicester the wills of the laity did not exhibit that deeper affection for theparochial clergy in evidence in some other regions. The further difficulty,however, is that we have little sense of the extent of individual lay piety andaffection for the clergy before the 1520s. It is unlikely that this problem can beresolved in the light of the deficiency of probate material before the late 1520s. Analternative interpretation might be that there was a decline within benefactionsto the clergy during the late 1520s to 1546, as the laity took advantage of aperceived licence under royal policy to withdraw support from the clergy, higherand lower: the ‘popular politics’ identified by Shagan.97 What is evident is that inthe diocese of Lichfield the laity did not exhibit a high level of practical allegianceto the clergy in this time of uncertain religious policy. We can agree to rule out anotion of anticlericalism, a vituperation against the late-medieval clergy. On theother hand, the coolness of support for the lower and local clergy must haveensued from some dissatisfaction or indifference.
97 Shagan, ‘Anticlericalism, Popular Politics and the English Reformation’.

Source: http://historicalresources.myzen.co.uk/PAPERS/NMS5411.pdf