Faith and Fraternity: London Livery Companies and the Reformation 1510-1603 (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History) [XII, 270 Pp. ed.] 9004330690, 9789004330696

Table of contents :
Faith and Fraternity: London Livery Companies and the Reformation 1510–1603
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Introduction: Mercantile Institutions and Individuals during the English Reformation
1 Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century c. 1510–1534
2 The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change 1534–1603
3 Beyond the Company Hall: Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors
4 Reputation and Religion: Mercantile Attitudes towards
Money and Trade
5 Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Faith and Fraternity

St Andrews Studies in Reformation History Lead Editor Bridget Heal (University of St Andrews) Editorial Board Amy Burnett (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Euan Cameron (Columbia University) Bruce Gordon (Yale University) Kaspar von Greyerz (Universität Basel) Felicity Heal (Jesus College, Oxford) Andrew Pettegree (University of St Andrews) Karin Maag (Calvin College, Grand Rapids) Roger Mason (University of St Andrews) Alec Ryrie (Durham University) Jonathan Willis (University of Birmingham)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sasrh

Faith and Fraternity London Livery Companies and the Reformation 1510–1603

By

Laura Branch

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: The Freeman’s Oath of the Company of Drapers c. 1405. By permission of the Master and Wardens of the Worshipful Company of Drapers. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2017008323

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2468-4317 isbn 978-90-04-33069-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-33070-2 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgments vii List of Abbreviations ix Introduction: Mercantile Institutions and Individuals during the English Reformation 1 1 Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century c. 1510–1534 18 2 The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change 1534–1603 40 3 Beyond the Company Hall: Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors 87 4 Reputation and Religion: Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade 132 5 Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks 174 Conclusion 229 Bibliography 238 Index 266

Acknowledgements This book began as my doctoral thesis, although its roots extend even further back in time to 2005 when I undertook a Masters degree at the University of Birmingham. While there I studied the writing of Rose Throckmorton (1526– 1613) who recounted her experience as an exile in Antwerp, with her young family and merchant husband, during the reign of Mary i. Her text alerted me to the nuanced complexities of early modern religious identities, as she was regarded by future generations as a godly exemplar whilst displaying ties of friendship to Catholics. It was at Birmingham that I discovered a love for research and, although they might not realise, my tutors there have been hugely influential in my continued archival adventures. I thank them all, particularly Alec Ryrie, Elaine Fulton, and Graeme Murdock. I am also indebted to Peter Marshall who ­supervised my doctoral thesis at Warwick. Peter has been an endless and invaluable source of sage advice, encouragement and good humour, especially when I have had research-induced horrors. A host of other scholars have assisted, directly and indirectly, with my work, including Norman Jones, Beat Kümin and Bernard Capp, who all read elements of my work in its early stages. I am grateful for their insights. As they are for many, the years following the completion of my doctorate were especially challenging which, combined with an extended period of ill health, meant that this project was put to one side for much longer than intended. It was Dan Carey in particular who encouraged me to put together a book proposal and for that, along with his unfailing support, I would like to thank him. I am grateful to Andrew Pettegree for commissioning this book and his words of encouragement, and would also like to thank the anonymous readers for their thoughtful comments on how to improve the manuscript. This research would not have been possible without financial support and I am thankful for the funding that I have received from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Institute of Historical Research, and the N ­ ewberry ­Library. My work has also been assisted by the staff and archivists of the ­London Guildhall Library, St Bartholomew’s Hospital Archives, the National Archives, and the London Metropolitan Archives. I would like to thank the Master and Wardens of the Worshipful Company of Drapers for granting me access to their rich and wonderfully preserved archives. I am also grateful to the Drapers’ Company Archivist, Penny Fussell, for her help and advice, and for allowing me to take over a room at Drapers’ Hall for many weeks on end.

viii

Acknowledgements

My friends and family have helped in providing me with a world beyond research, one that often features gin. Finally, to end as I began, it was also at the University of Birmingham that I met my husband, Jameson Tucker. He has lived and breathed this project almost as much as I have, and for that, I owe him the greatest debt.

List of Abbreviations Beaven, Aldermen of London Alfred Beaven, The Aldermen of the City of London, 2 vols. (London, 1908–13) Benbow, Index of Citizens Mark Benbow, ‘Index of London Citizens Involved in City Government 1558–1603’ (deposited at lma) bihr  Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Boyd’s Roll  Roll of the Drapers’ Company of London: collected from the company’s records and other sources, ed. Percival Boyd (Croydon, 1934) bha St Bartholomew’s Hospital Archives, London brha Bethlem Royal Hospital Archive and Museum, Kent CCEd  Clergy of the Church of England Database 1540–1835 [CCEd], http://www.clergydatabase.org.uk Chronicle of Calais  The Chronicle of Calais in the reigns of Henry vii and viii until the year 1540, ed. John Gough Nicholas (Camden Society, old series, xxxv, London, 1846) Cooper, Ath. Cantab.  Athenae Cantabrigienses, ed. Charles Henry Cooper and Thompson Cooper, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1858–61) Diary of Machyn  The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant Taylor of London from a.d. 1550 to 1563, ed. John Gough Nicholas (Camden Society, old series, xlii, 1848) dh Drapers’ Hall, London EcHR  Economic History Review ehr  English Historical Review Foxe, tamo John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments Online gl Guildhall Library, London Grafton, Chronicle  Grafton’s Chronicle, or, History of England, ed. Henry Ellis, 2 vols. (London, 1809) Grocers’ Wardens  List of the Wardens of the Grocers’ Company from 1345 to 1907, ed. William Wilson Grantham (London, 1907) Heath, Grocers John Benjamin Heath, Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London (London, 1829) Hennessy, Repertorium  Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinese, ed. George Hennessy (London, 1908) Herbert, Livery Companies William Herbert, The History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies, 2 vols. (London)

x

List of Abbreviations

hr Historical Research jbs Journal of British Studies jeh Journal of Ecclesiastical History Johnson, Drapers W A Johnson, The History of the Worshipful Company of Drapers of London, 5 vols. (Oxford 1914–22). Journal Journal of the Common Council lj London Journal lma London Metropolitan Archives, London L&P  Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry viii 1509–47, ed. J S Brewer, J Gairdner and R H Brodie, 21 vols. (London, 1862–1910). Narratives of the Reformation  Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Chiefly from the Manuscripts of John Foxe the Martyrologist with two contemporary biographies of Archbishop Cranmer, ed. John Gough Nicholas (Camden society, old series, lxxvii, London, 1859). odnb Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online) Original Letters  Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. Hastings Robinson, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1846) pcc Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills. phsl Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London reed, Civic London to 1558 Anne Lancashire (ed.), reed: Civic London to 1558, 3 vols. (Woodbridge, 2015) Repertory Repertory of the Court of Aldermen Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials. John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, relating chiefly to religion and the reformation of it…under King Henry viii, King Edward vi, and Queen Mary i, 3 vols. (London, 1721) Strype, Survey John Strype, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster…written at first in the year mdxcviii by John Stow, 2 vols. (London, 1720) Tanner, tcd  Tudor Constitutional Documents 1485–1603: with an historical commentary, ed. Joseph Robson Tanner (Cambridge, 1922) ted  Tudor Economic Documents, ed. R H Tawney and E Power, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1924) tna The National Archives, Kew trp  Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. P L Hughes and J F Larkin, 3 vols. (New Haven, 1964)

List of Abbreviations

xi

Two London Chronicles from the Collections of John Stow, Two London Chronicles  ed. Charles L Kingsford, Camden Miscellany 12 (Camden Society, 3rd ser. xviii, London, 1910) Visitation Articles  Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, ed. Walter Howard Frere, 2 vols. (London, 1910) Visitation of London, 1568  The Visitation of London 1568, ed. H S London and S W Rawlins (Harleian Society, 109–110, London, 1963) vch Kent William Page ed., A History of the County of Kent, Victoria County History, 3 vols. (London, 1908–32) vch London William Page ed., A History of the County of London: volume 1: London within the Bars, Westminster and Southwark (London, 1909)

Introduction: Mercantile Institutions and Individuals during the English Reformation From the earliest days of Europe’s Reformation, contemporaries noted that those engaged in trade were amongst the first converts to Protestantism, from the wealthy merchant to the humble artisan.1 The import of religious texts into England was linked initially to foreign merchants in particular. This early link between mercantile communities and Protestantism was reflected in the Henrician proclamations of the 1520s and 30s. It was repeatedly stated that the English people had been corrupted by ‘sinister opinions’ from ‘outward parts’ or from ‘beyond the seas.’2 This was a politick way of suggesting that Henry viii’s subjects were good Christians who had simply been misled by external forces that ‘lurk[ed] secretly in divers corners and places.’3 In 1526 the German Steelyard in London was raided and several merchants arrested on suspicion of possessing Lutheran texts.4 Nor was the link between merchants and heresy confined to London – in 1530 the bishop of Norwich claimed that his diocese harboured few heretics aside from ‘merchants and such as hath their abiding not far from the sea.’5 In London it was the Mercers, as chief of the city companies, that presented a list of grievances seeking redress of clerical (financial) abuses to the Reformation Parliament of 1529–36.6 One of those who drafted the five articles was the evangelical mercer Robert Packington who was shot dead in

1 Richard Mackenney, Tradesmen and Traders: The World of the Guild in Venice and Europe c. 1250–c. 1650 (London, 1987), pp. 173–174, 200–201; Guido Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis 1550–1577 (Baltimore, 1996); in particular apprentices were associated with disorder and heresy, see Susan Brigden, ‘Youth and the English Reformation,’ P&P 95 (1982), pp. 37–67. 2 trp, vol. 1, pp. 181–186, 193–195. 3 Ibid., pp. 270–272. 4 Craig W D’Alton, ‘The Suppression of Lutheran Heretics in England 1526–1529,’ jeh 54 (2003), pp. 229–253. 5 Cited in David M Palliser, ‘Popular Reactions to the Reformation during the years of uncertainty,’ in Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), p. 95. 6 Stanford E Lehmberg, The Reformation Parliament (London, 1970), p. 83; Christopher Haigh, ‘Anticlericalism and the English Reformation,’ in idem, (ed.), English Reformation Revised, pp. 59–62.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_002

2

introduction

Cheapside in 1536.7 His will, thought to be the first in London to display a belief in justification by faith, demonstrated ties of friendship to a large network of evangelicals.8 Foxe’s Acts and Monuments is littered with references to merchants, such as the draper Humfrey Monmouth and the grocer Richard Grafton, who aided the true word of God by protecting preachers and printing Bibles.9 Merchants were also the fourth most numerous group amongst the Marian exiles, yet feature rarely amongst the names of Catholic exiles in the Henrician era.10 As a result, scholars have long emphasised the susceptibility of merchants to the Protestant faith and their role in its proliferation in both England and Europe.11 Overseas traders were said to have both encountered new ideas and enthusiastically adopted and promoted them. Such a view has been developed by Ole Peter Grell who argued that merchants were as significant as clergy in the creation of international Calvinism in the second half of the sixteenth century.12 Writing in 1925, A F Scott Pearson argued that English merchants, ‘through their association with the exponents of reform on the continent… became the staunchest protagonists of Protestantism, and it was a notorious fact that wealthy merchants were among the most generous supporters of Puritanism.’13 Pearson’s assertion has been borne out by more recent research

7

Indicative of the religious ambiguities of the time, he was on his way to Mass, see Peter Marshall, ‘The Shooting of Robert Packington’ in idem, Religious Identities in Henry viii’s England (Aldershot, 2006), pp. 61–79. 8 Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p. 265; Marshall, Religious Identities, pp. 67–68. 9 Foxe, tamo (1570 edition), pp. 1401, 1172–1173. 10 Christina Garrett, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1938), p. 41; Marshall, Religious Identities, pp. 263–276. 11 The prominence of merchants in urban congregations in particular has been stressed, see Steven E Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to SixteenthCentury Germany and Switzerland, (New Haven, 1975); Robert Scribner, Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich (eds), The Reformation in National Context (Cambridge, 1994); Judith Pugh Meyer, Reformation in La Rochelle: Tradition and Change in Early Modern Europe 1500–1568 (Geneva, 1996); John D Fudge, Commerce and Print in the Early Reformation (Leiden, 2007). 12 Ole Peter Grell, ‘Merchants and ministers: the foundations of international Calvinism,’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alistair Duke and Gillian Lewis (eds), Calvinism in Europe 1540–1620 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 254–273. 13 Andrew Forrest Scott Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism 1535–1603 (Cambridge, 1925), p. 169.

Introduction

3

by Brett Usher who uncovered the significant financial support provided to godly clergy in the 1560s by members of the livery companies.14 Overseas trade, particularly to cities that were also printing centres, must have meant that merchants encountered new doctrine more readily than the rural masses of England, but it has also been suggested that Calvinism in particular legitimated mercantile activity in a way that the Catholic Church had never done. Whilst the Catholic Church recognised the necessity of trade in distributing vital goods, medieval Canon law stated that ‘a merchant is rarely or never able to please God’ because of his usury and avarice.15 Luther took a similar stance and was critical of merchants in his 1520 Long Sermon on Usury and 1524 tract On Trade and Usury. He was opposed to anything other than the most necessary exchange of goods as the generation of profit was harmful to others. Likewise, he opposed the use of sureties – a hugely widespread practice throughout the period – because it placed faith in people ahead of faith in God.16 The sociologist Max Weber saw that Calvinism’s sense of vocation, coupled with a belief in double-predestination, created a mindset that saw the endless generation of capital as a sign of God’s grace rather than of the sin of avarice.17 The Weberian thesis suggested that the rationalization of modern society, the so-called ‘disenchantment of the world,’ could be traced to the Reformation. Likewise, Richard Tawney saw that Calvinism ‘endowed the life of trade with a new sanctification’ and cast aside medieval asceticism.18 But the attitude of reformers to the conduct of trade remained nuanced and some, like Martin Bucer, called upon Edward vi to expand the cloth trade whilst limiting involvement only to the most pious individuals who would not put private gain above the good of the commonwealth. For Tawney, what he perceived as the Reformed compromise on the issue of usury, resulted in the eventual triumph 14

15 16 17 18

Brett Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism: the London Godly, the exchequer and the Foxe circle,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 105–134; for more on the Haberdashers’ promotion of puritan preaching in the seventeenth century see Dorothy William Whitney, ‘London Puritanism: The Haberdashers’ Company,’ Church History 32 (1963), pp. 298–321. Cited in Lester K Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, 1978), p. 38. Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics (Edinburgh, 1985, reprinted London, 2006), pp. 130–131. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London, 1930, reprinted 1992). R H Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (Harmondsworth, reprinted 1977), p. 47.

4

introduction

of economics over religion; by the late sixteenth century the Church no longer acted as a critic of the capitalist mindset but as its ‘anodyne, its apologist, its drudge.’19 In the longer term, this saw the secularisation of political, social and economic thought, with Tawney identifying the British civil wars as the turning point.20 The so-called secularisation thesis was a notion popularised by sociologists in the mid twentieth century and is most strongly associated with Peter Berger. In sum the paradigm links modernity to a decline in religion, particularly in public life, although its precise meaning has been subject to great debate, at least in part because Berger himself rejected the validity of the thesis after recognising that responses to modernity have resulted in elements of both secularisation and de-secularisation.21 Even so, it has remained an appealing explanatory framework for some Reformation historians. Brad Gregory, for instance, seeking to find a reason for the consumerism and secularity of contemporary Western society found his answer in the Reformation. Whilst conceding that both Reformers and Catholics were critical of capitalistic modes of trade unless the resultant wealth was used to benefit the common good, he argues that the outcome was the removal of religion from public life. Religious pluralism, for example, led to the ‘privatisation and individualization of religious belief’ so that diverse communities could live alongside one another but also to facilitate trade. In doing so, Gregory posits, many ‘turned their back on Biblical teachings about material things.’22 Religious pluralism resulted eventually in freedom of conscience for Protestants and Catholics alike but ‘by privatizing religion and separating it from society, individual religious freedom unintentionally precipitated the secularization of religion and society [his emphasis].’23 For many scholars there is a vague implicit link between Protestantism and progress and against what Gregory has termed the ‘putative backwardness’ of Medieval Catholicism. Whilst his thesis has proved controversial, it is a salient reminder of the strength of perception for some that the relationship between trade and Protestantism is symbiotic. 19 Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, p. 196. 20 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 21 Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Construction of Religion (New York, 1967); cf. idem (ed.), The Desecularization of the World: The Resurgence of Religion in World Politics (Grand Rapids, 1999). For an overview see William H Swatos, ‘Secularization Theory: The Course of a Concept,’ Sociology of Religion 60 (1999), pp. 209–228. 22 Brad Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (New Haven, 2012), p. 278. 23 Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, p. 243.

Introduction

5

More often, Protestantism has been associated with a march towards a rational, secular and Enlightened society.24 Geoffrey Dickens is the archetype of the triumphalist narrative of the English Reformation. For him, the Reformation was greeted with enthusiasm by an anti-clerical laity. He too saw the significance of merchants to this process stating that ‘the spread of Protestant doctrines was greatly facilitated by the international connections, the anticlerical outlook, the mobility and relative political immunity of the merchant classes.’25 Whilst Dickens’ narrative has been rejected by the likes of Christopher Haigh, and Patrick Collinson, who argued for a slower Reformation foisted upon a largely unwilling laity, the idea that merchants, if not unusually prone to Protestantism, were always at the heart of the action, remains a theme within research.26 Haigh even argued that merchants were just the sort of people to whom the Reformation appealed as members of the literate book-owning middling sort.27 Patrick Collinson demonstrated that English merchants took an active role in London’s stranger churches whose Calvinist doctrine was more palatable than that which the Elizabethan Settlement provided.28 Such research has created the general impression that merchants became Protestant further and faster than other sectors of society. This book, however, will demonstrate that whilst there were committed evangelicals amongst the mercantile community from the earliest stages of religious change, their response to religious change is more complex, and their religious identities more diverse, than has been recognised. Merchants were not just merchants; they were also magistrates. Freedom  of the city of London was required to participate in local government, and this freedom was gained by membership of a livery company, whether or not that freedom was gained by apprenticeship, patrimony or redemption.29 It was members of London’s companies therefore who dominated public office from  precinct and parish to the courts of common councillors and aldermen. Studies of the urban Reformation across England have thus enabled us to glimpse mercantile responses to religious change. Again, there has been an emphasis 24 25 26

C John Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England (Oxford, 1992). A G Dickens, The English Reformation (London, 1964, revised 1967), p. 105. Christopher Haigh, The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987); idem, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993). 27 Haigh, English Reformation Revised, p. 213. 28 Patrick Collinson, ‘The Elizabethan Puritans and the Foreign Reformed Churches in London,’ in idem, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), pp. 245–272. 29 Phil Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005).

6

introduction

upon Protestantism and subsequent secularisation. For example, in Exeter the town council was almost entirely drawn from the merchant classes and was said to be ‘Protestant to a man’ by at least 1558.30 Across England, there was no uniform pattern beyond the ultimate adoption of Protestantism in some form and with varying degrees of enthusiasm.31 Such studies have similarly noted that towns secularised their ritual culture in the wake of Reformation change. Charles Phythian-Adams’s account of Coventry’s communal rituals argues that such rituals were designed to maintain the status quo and thus in a Reformation context, and a time of urban crisis, only ‘the elaborate official inaugurations which had characterised the old secular moiety… survived untarnished…and dominate[d] the altered and abbreviated ceremonial calendar of the Coventry citizen.’32 Michael Berlin argued for a similar pattern in London. He asserted that London’s civic elite were puritan by at least the 1560s; they saw popular festivities as ungodly, smacking of superstition, and likely to lead to disorder.33 A secular ritual culture was developed – even more elaborate than that of the pre-Reformation era – that saw the ‘Protestant exaltation of secular authority.34 Tracey Hill has likewise examined lord mayor’s shows as demonstrative of a secular culture that celebrated civic power.35 In London, Paul Slack and Peter Clark recognised that religion remained important to the people of London but that with the Reformation the ‘dense undergrowth of civic religion was cleared’ away.36 Robert Tittler has provided a detailed account of the apparent secularisation of civic culture in England’s towns. For him the Reformation was the making of England’s towns, a period during which we see the growth of oligarchy and concomitantly the growth of a secular civic ritual culture that replaced veneration of saints with historical local figures like Lady Godiva, and the displaying of civic leaders on guildhall walls.37 A more nuanced interpretation 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37

W G Hoskins, ‘The Elizabethan Merchants of Exeter,’ in Peter Clark (ed.), The Early Modern Town: A Reader (London, 1976), p. 163. Patrick Collinson and John Craig (eds), The Reformation in English Towns 1500–1640 (Basingstoke, 1998). Charles Phythian-Adams, ‘Ceremony and the Citizen: the communal year at Coventry 1450–1550,’ in Peter Clark and Paul Slack (eds), Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500–1700 (London, 1972), pp. 57–85, at p. 80. Michael Berlin, ‘Civic Ceremony in Early Modern London,’ Urban History 13 (1986), pp. 15–27, at pp. 19–20. Ibid., p. 24. Tracey Hill, Pageantry and Power: A Cultural History of the Early Modern Lord Mayor’s Show (Manchester, 2010). Peter Clark and Paul Slack, English Towns in Transition 1500–1700 (Oxford, 1976), p. 71. Robert Tittler, The Face of the City: Civic Portraiture and Civic Identity in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007).

Introduction

7

has been provided by Patrick Collinson who stated that if the period witnessed a secularisation in the ritual culture of towns, it correspondingly witnessed ‘the sacralisation of the town, which now became self-consciously a godly commonwealth, its symbolic and mimetic codes replaced by a literally articulated, didactic religious discipline.’38 In a detailed study of the magistrates of Norwich, England’s second city and London’s closest counterpart, Muriel McClendon argues that a desire for civic harmony overrode a desire for religious unity and that magistrates were thus able to neatly compartmentalize religion from politics. The consequence of this was an unwritten and entirely unarticulated policy of tolerance. Matthew Reynolds attacked McClendon’s argument, for inferring that silence in mayoral records equalled inaction and toleration, and for not consulting ecclesiastical records. By contrast Reynolds argued that Norwich was a ‘puritan citadel’ although not exclusively, and that its reformation was ‘anything but quiet.’39 Reynolds has been accused of taking his criticisms of McClendon too far, and for failing to recognise the overall lack of interpersonal violence and the survival of Catholic artefacts well into the seventeenth century.40 Moreover, McClendon’s argument is paralleled by the work of Guido Marnef on Antwerp who argued that, particularly during the early years of the Reformation, the aim of civic leaders was to ‘preserve their city’s peace and prosperity. They took a moderate attitude toward the early Reformation movement, especially when its leaders were respectable people’ whose trade sustained the city.41 In 1550, Catholic Antwerp refused to publish an anti-heresy edict that forced all residents to produce a certificate of Catholic orthodoxy as it was feared that this would deter the valuable trade of Protestant merchants, particularly from Germany and the Baltic, as it was thought that ‘where the inquisition treads, the merchant departs.’42 Likewise, in Strasbourg magistrates saw the toleration of diversity as a lesser evil than civil disorder.43 Even some post-revisionist scholars, who have done much to advance our understanding of the interplay of continuity and change during the Reformation, 38

Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: religious and cultural change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Basingstoke, 1988), p. 55. 39 Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c. 1560–1640 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 35, 253. 40 Ralph Houlbrooke, ‘Review of Matthew Reynolds, “Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c. 1560–1640,”’ ehr 497 (2007), pp. 751–753. 41 Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation, p. 203. 42 Alastair C Duke, Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer (eds), Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries (Aldershot, 2009), p. 81. 43 Lorna Jane Abray, The People’s Reformation: Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in Strasbourg 1500–1598 (Oxford, 1985).

8

introduction

remain wedded to the notion that the main response of institutions like livery companies to religious change was to rid themselves of religion. Secularisation occurred initially to retain harmony and was maintained as part of a Protestant piety that was inward and private and saw previous communal rituals as indicative of superstition. A host of scholars have all conceived of institutional change in terms of a process of secularisation: as already noted they include Robert Tittler and Muriel McClendon, but also Norman Jones and Lena Cowen Orlin, although their interpretations are by no means homogenous. In a study of privacy in Tudor London, Orlin noted the growing secularisation of the Drapers’ company conviviality from the 1570s under the influence of the godly Francis Barnham.44 Norman Jones sees generational change as accounting for slow yet harmonious transition to Protestantism. Until the late sixteenth century institutions such as the Inns of Court harboured members who had been born into some kind of Catholic world. It was the young, who had been acculturated, that formed the Protestant majority. The livery companies – great and small – gradually removed religion from their ritual culture such that by the 1590s they no longer viewed religion as central to their community.45 A growing seam of scholarship has sought to demonstrate the coexistence of continuity and change in both religious belief and practice. Work by historians such as Bob Scribner, Alexandra Walsham, and Peter Marshall, amongst others, has helped to demonstrate how Catholic tropes were retained or refashioned in a Protestant context.46 In a similar vein, scholars have begun to consider the complex, fluid and shifting nature of religious identities.47 We now have a greater understanding of how individuals displayed and [re]constructed their religious identity during an unprecedented era of religious choice and of how Catholics and Protestants managed to live alongside one another.48 44 45

Lena Cowen Orlin, Locating Privacy in Tudor London (Oxford, 2007), p. 118. Norman Jones, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2001), p. 113. 46 Robert Scriber, ‘The Impact of the Reformation on Daily Life’ in Lyndal Roper (ed.), Religion and Culture in Germany 1400–1800 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 275–301; Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham (eds), Angels in the Early Modern World (Cambridge, 2006); Peter Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2004); Alexandra Walsham, The Reformation of the Landscape: Religion, Identity and Memory in early modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2011). 47 On early Protestant identities see Marshall, Religious Identities; Ryrie, Gospel and Henry viii; Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge, 2002); Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1992). 48 Jones, The English Reformation; Christopher Haigh, The Plain Man’s Pathways to Heaven: Kinds of Christianity in Post-Reformation England 1570–1640 (Oxford, 2007). On moderation

Introduction

9

Several inter-related questions have therefore been presented by recent historical scholarship: that of whether urban mercantile communities, and individual merchants, were unusually susceptible to Protestantism; that of whether Reformation, particular urban reformation, is best understood as a process of secularisation; and that of how urban communities managed the fact of religious division. The question of how mercantile institutions and individuals reconstructed their religious identities during an unprecedented period of choice lies at the heart of this study. It will shed important light upon the responses of merchants, and thereby civic elites, to religious change and demonstrate how institutions whose membership comprised a spectrum of religious identities managed to live, trade and work alongside one another whilst maintaining a culture based upon Christian doctrine. It will demonstrate that whilst there were evangelicals and, later, puritans amongst their membership, the responses of individual merchants to religious change were not homogenous. As scholars have tended to emphasize the zealously reformed amongst the mercantile community, one sometimes gets the impression that the majority of merchants spent their time hiding preachers, importing Bibles and financing godly clergy, but this view is in need of moderation. Not only were mercantile responses to religious change both more measured and diverse than has previously been suggested, but recognising this is of importance to help us understand how England’s civic elites managed to navigate the religious turmoil of the sixteenth century. Whilst London, and indeed England, was by no means free of religious protest, it was patchy and limited, particularly when compared to other parts of Europe that also experienced a shift from Catholicism to Protestantism, such as the Low Countries and Germany. as an ideology of control see Ethan Shagan, ‘Beyond Good and Evil: Thinking with Moderates in Early Modern England,’ jbs 49 (2010), pp. 488–513; idem, The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2011). Allied to a discussion of shifting, ambiguous and moderate religious identities is research on toleration. A key early study argued for the link between secularisation and toleration is provided by W K Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 4 vols. (London, 1932–40). The relationship between secularisation and toleration is dismissed by John Laursen and Cary Nedermen (eds), Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious toleration before the Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 1998); for more nuanced accounts see Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner (eds), Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (Cambridge, 1996); Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500–1700 (Manchester, 2006); John Coffey, Persecution and Tolerance in Protestant England 1558–1689 (London, 2000); in a comparative European context see Benjamin Kaplan, Bob Moore, Henk van Nierop and Judith Pollmann (eds), Catholic Communities in Protestant States: Britain and the Netherlands c. 1570–1720 (Manchester, 2009).

10

introduction

Whilst scholars have made significant strides in explaining how society experienced a limited desacralisation in the wake of the Reformation, only small steps have been made to question effectively the apparent secularisation of society – p ­ articularly of institutions. This book will also, therefore, argue for the need to see adaptation and change in the religious practice of London’s livery companies, rather than the simple removal of religion from corporate life. London’s merchants were organised into guilds, more generally referred to as livery companies, after the coloured gowns they wore on civic occasions.49 Liveries were medieval in origin and from the outset married together socioeconomic and religious functions. On the one hand their ordinances were designed to regulate trade, and maintain standards of production; but on the other they were concerned with the wellbeing of their members in this life and the next. Charity was distributed, funerals were attended and souls were prayed for. Each company had a patron saint and, if there were sufficient funds, maintained an altar and priests for the company.50 The Mercers even had their own private chapel.51 At the heart of this book therefore is an attempt to uncover how institutions with such strong religious elements to their corporate identity and ritual culture navigated the Reformation. It will demonstrate that the existing emphasis upon secularisation, based upon limited research on the liveries, is not satisfactory and that religion continued to have a distinct place in corporate life. In an article on the charity of livery companies in the early modern period, Ian Archer argued that a full understanding of their role ‘is rendered difficult by the extraordinarily fragmented nature of research upon them. The effect of individually commissioned company histories, often works of pietas or corporate legitimation, has been the ghettoisation of the subject. There is a crying need for works of synthesis and comparison.’52 Company-produced histories are frequently useful for their rich narrative detail, but leave us without

49 50

51

52

City of London, The Corporation of London: Its origin, constitution, power and duties (Oxford, 1950). The 1548 Chantry certificate revealed that thirty-four companies maintained obits and chantries, C J Kitching (ed.), London and Middlesex Chantry Certificate 1548 (London, 1980). Anne F Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005); Gordon Huelin, Think and Thank God: The Mercers’ Company and its contribution to the Church and religious life since the Reformation (London, 1994). Ian Archer, ‘The Livery Companies and Charity in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’ in Ian Gadd and Patrick Wallis (eds), Guilds, Society and Economy in London 1450–1800 (London, 2002), p. 15.

Introduction

11

systematic comparison and often have little to say about the Reformation.53 Moreover, as Valerie Pearl has discovered that by the mid seventeenth-century three-quarters of all men in the capital were members of companies, an understanding of early modern London, therefore, has to make reference to the liveries.54 This work, comparative in nature, hopes to go some way to provide a scholarly consideration of the religious culture of the liveries, and in the process, to shed light on the reception of religious change in sixteenth-century England more generally. In 1515 the livery companies were placed in an order of precedence; the prime companies were known as the Great Twelve, with the Mercers as the chief of all companies. It is the Grocers and Drapers, second and third respectively in the order, that will form the basis of this study with an especial focus on members of the livery.55 The livery were the most elite members who governed the company, contributed money, and took part in ritual and ceremonial occasions, both for the company and city. The Grocers and Drapers have been chosen partly because of their plentiful archival sources and also in an attempt to extend and compliment the work of Anne Sutton on the Mercers. Sutton’s study has uncovered the religious diversity of the company in the early decades of religious change and provides a counter-balance to previous narratives that emphasise the ardently reformed character of the mercantile community.56 Not only that, but research by Brett Usher examining members of 53

For the great twelve companies see Herbert, Livery Companies; the most scholarly account of any company is provided by Anne Sutton, The Mercery of London; the Drapers are also relatively well served by a history based upon a detailed, if narrative, archival investigation, Johnson, Drapers; our understanding of the Grocers is best served by Pamela Nightingale, A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company and the Politics and Trade of London 1000–1485 (New Haven, 1996); Joseph Aubrey Rees, The Worshipful Company of Grocers: an historical retrospect 1345–1923 (London, 1922); Heath, Grocers. Some general comments have been made by G D Ramsay, ‘Victorian Historiography and the Guilds of London: The Report of the Royal Commission on the Livery Companies of London, 1884,’ lj 10 (1984), pp. 155–166. Even recent histories are company-sponsored surveys, see Ian Archer, The History of the Haberdashers’ Company (Chichester, 1991); Matthew Davies and Ann Saunders, The History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company (Leeds, 2004). General suggestive remarks about the livery companies have been made by Jones, The English Reformation; Brigden, London and the Reformation; and Joseph P Ward, Metropolitan Communities: trade guilds, identity and change in early modern London (Stanford, 1997). 54 Valerie Pearl, ‘Change and Stability in Seventeenth-Century London,’ lj 5 (1979), pp. 3–34, at p. 13. 55 Herbert, Livery Companies. 56 Sutton, The Mercery of London.

12

introduction

the laity that stood surety for London clergy in the 1560s has revealed that the majority were drawn from the great companies.57 Conversely, examining the reign of Charles i until 1643, Valerie Pearl has suggested that it was the smaller companies that were ‘radical’ in their Puritanism and that the majority of the city remained loyal to their monarch.58 Our knowledge of London’s response to religious change, however, remains largely limited to the first half of the sixteenth century. Most notably, the research of Susan Brigden has demonstrated the slippery nature of religious identities in the early Reformation. There was no clear distinction between evangelical and orthodox.59 We see the juxtaposition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and the sense of resignation, bewilderment and lamentation with which the laity greeted Reformation change. The prudent concealment of religious beliefs was widespread and not necessarily seen as evidence of insincerity. This study will extend Brigden’s work by considering the sweep of the sixteenth century and furthering our understanding of change over time. It has also been suggested that London’s parish fraternities were situated in parishes that became centres of reform.60 Yet studying the liveries, which were in part religious fraternities and blithely conformed to religious change, suggests the relationship between fraternity and Protestantism is more complex than has previously been assumed. London’s early modern social and cultural history has been relatively well served by recent scholarship, but a fuller understanding can only come with a systematic consideration of religion.61 For example, Steve Rappaport’s study of sixteenth century London is impressive in scope and recognises the 57 58

Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism,’ pp. 105–134. Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 74–75. 59 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 383. 60 Caroline Barron, ‘The Parish Fraternities of Medieval London,’ in Caroline Barron and Christopher Harper-Bill (eds), The Church in Pre-Reformation Society: essays in honour of F R H Duboulay (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 13–37. 61 Paul Griffiths and Mark Jenner (eds), Londinopolis: Essays in The Social and Cultural History of Early Modern London c. 1500–1750 (Manchester, 2000); A L Beier and Roger Finlay (eds), London 1500–1700: the Making of the Metropolis (London, 1986); Julia Merritt (ed.), Imagining Early Modern London: Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stow to Strype 1598–1720 (Cambridge, 2001); Lena Cowen Orlin (ed.), Material London ca. 1600 (Philadelphia, 2000); Karen Newman, Cultural Capitals: Early Modern London and Paris (Woodstock, 2009); Lawrence Manley, Literature and Culture in Early Modern London (Cambridge, 1995); Steve Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds: Structures of Life in SixteenthCentury London (Cambridge, 2002) Archer, Pursuit of Stability.

Introduction

13

significance of the liveries as a social institution; second only to the family, but is necessarily brief in its consideration and dwells little on religion.62 It has been noted by urban and Reformation scholars alike that London’s civic elites held multiple roles. They were aldermen, churchwardens, and company governors at the very least. These overlapping networks combined with a sense of ‘collective responsibility’ help explain London’s relative stability in the early modern period.63 The only long-term study of London’s civic leaders and their religious identity has been undertaken by David Hickman.64 By studying the wills of civic leaders Hickman uncovered a greater degree of religious diversity than suggested by other scholarship, but he draws unduly sharp and early distinctions between religious groupings (for example, he identifies puritans in the 1540s).65 Moreover, he does little to draw out the mercantile background of his subjects and consider its significance for our understanding of religious change. He argues that shared civic values, above religion, helped maintain London’s stability but does not spell out exactly what those civic values might have been. Research on London’s Reformed stranger community further supports the value of a detailed investigation into religious identities as refracted through mercantile communities. Andrew Pettegree has highlighted that not all the largely mercantile members of the foreign community joined the Dutch and French stranger churches.66 There was broad enthusiasm from the Dutch printers and weavers but indifference from the coopers. Pettegree suggests that occupations of new technology or skill that were less well integrated into the traditional trade structure were over-represented in the reformed faith. This may explain why printers, and weavers (who were usually making high status products such as silks) were overrepresented, whilst the traditional coopers were less so. The pattern Pettegree outlines lies in opposition to Brett Usher’s research which has suggested that the most well established trading companies such as the Mercers, Grocers and Drapers were also those most associated with the Reformed faith and, between them, traded in both luxury and essential goods.67 62 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds (Cambridge, 2002), p. 184. 63 Susan Brigden, ‘Religion and Social Obligation in Early Sixteenth-Century London,’ P&P 103 (1984), pp. 67–112, at p. 70. 64 David Hickman, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite, 1520–1603,’ (University of London PhD, 1996). 65 Ibid., p. 188. 66 Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London (Oxford, 1986), pp. 79–109. 67 Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism,’ pp. 105–134.

14

introduction

It has been suggested that further local studies will not add significantly to our understanding of the English Reformation.68 Whilst this study focuses on London’s merchants it is not wholly a local history. Very few of London’s mercantile community were born in London and this might have been why the rallying cry of the commonwealth was depended upon as a unifying force.69 Merchants were inherently peripatetic – traversing England, Europe and beyond in the pursuit of trade. They encountered other nationalities, cultures and confessions. The fruits of such trade enabled individuals to own property, and live, in different parts of England and also abroad in trading centres like Seville, Calais and Antwerp. They were neither insular nor ensconced only in one locality. Through London’s merchants therefore, we glimpse the experience of religious change both within and without of the metropolis.

Methodology, Terminology and Structure

This book is underpinned by a narrative prosopographical study. Using company records, 977 individuals have been identified as having served on the livery of the Grocers or Drapers during the period 1510–1600. These individuals have been tracked not just through company life but also through civic office. Parish records have revealed those who served as churchwarden, whilst hospitals records have been used to uncover governors and officers. Letters and accounts of individual merchants have been utilised to reconstruct trading networks, whilst pcc wills have been used in an attempt to relate their spiritual tenor to the named recipients of bequests. The actions of merchants as aldermen and common councillors have not been considered in great detail, if only because David Hickman has covered this ground, although more remains to be done.70 The role of merchants as members of parliament also remains for another

68 Ryrie, Gospel and Henry viii, p. 8. 69 G D Ramsay, ‘The Recruitment and Fortune of Some London Freemen in the Sixteenth Century,’ EcHR 31 (1978), pp. 526–540, at p. 528. For more on notions of a Christian commonwealth see W R D Jones, The Tudor Commonwealth 1529–1559 (London, 1970); Catharine Davies, A Religion of the Word: the defence of the Reformation in the reign of Edward  vi (Manchester, 2002); Scott Lucas, A Mirror for Magistrates and the Politics of the English Reformation (Amherst, 2009). 70 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ idem, ‘From Catholic to Protestant: the changing meaning of testamentary religious provisions in Elizabethan London,’ in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), England’s Long Reformation 1500–1800 (London, 1998), pp. 117–140; idem, ‘Religious Belief and Pious Practice among London’s Elizabethan elite,’ hj 42 (1999), pp. 941–960.

Introduction

15

study. Nonetheless, a significant amount of material has been uncovered that has allowed comparative analysis. In light of recent research on the imprecise nature of labels of religious identity, it is necessary to discuss terminology.71 Whilst this book will underline the folly of applying rigid confessional labels to individuals, particularly before the late sixteenth century, we still need identifying labels – however vague and imprecise they might be. Consequently, unless individuals display behaviour or belief that can be clearly identified with a particular doctrine, such as Calvinism, broader terms have been favoured such as evangelical, traditional, conservative, whilst Protestant has been retained as an umbrella term for those who rejected key aspects of the doctrine and practice of the medieval Catholic Church. It is not intended to imply homogeneity but rather to highlight the stratification and diversity of opinion that prevents the consistent and precise application of anything other than such a broad label. The term merchant has been favoured in this study but it is recognised that this too is imprecise, and often umbrella, term. Merchant guilds, like the Grocers and Drapers, comprised a mixture of merchants (or wholesalers) and retailers (or shopkeepers).72 As Sylvia Thrupp noted, most merchants engaged in ‘mixed enterprise’ of wholesale, retail and other ventures.73 By the mid sixteenth century this could also include investing in the mining and metallurgy industries, or the newly formed overseas trading companies. Liverymen might even have acted as retailers, wholesalers, or merchants at different stages of their career. Some of the wealthiest members of the liveries also acted as moneylenders and generated further income through land ownership. The occupational identity of such elites was therefore stratified. Equally, membership of a particularly company was no guarantee of occupational identity – stationers can be found amongst the Drapers’ membership, whilst until 1616 the Grocers was also home to the apothecaries. Hugh Morgan, apothecary to the queen, also traded in spices like any other grocer.74 Occupational identity is therefore highly differentiated, so a fluid definition of merchant has been applied to the 71

72 73 74

Peter Marshall, ‘Is the Pope Catholic? Henry viii and the semantics of schism,’ in Ethan Shagan (ed.), Catholics and the ‘Protestant’ Nation: religious politics and identity in early modern England (Manchester, 2005), pp. 22–48; reprinted in Marshall, Religious Identities, pp. 169–197; Ryrie, Gospel and Henry viii. Sheilagh Ogilvie, Institutions and European Trade: Merchant Guilds, 1000–1800 (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 19ff. Sylvia Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London, p. 6; Nancy Cox and Karin Dannehl, Perceptions of Retailing in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 11–12. John Bennell, ‘Hugh Morgan (c. 1530–1613),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

16

introduction

individuals at the heart of this book recognising that they might have engaged in commercial exchange in a variety of ways throughout their career. Chapters 1 and 2 consider the corporate religious culture of the Grocers and Drapers both before and after the Reformation. Scholars have claimed that by conforming to religious change the livery companies effectively secularised themselves.75 A detailed exploration of corporate records, however, suggests that the companies adapted their religious values to the Reformation, and the Reformation to their core values, rather than simply removing religion from their ritual, material and governing culture. Centuries-old rituals were maintained, but reflected the official religion with a requirement to hear sermons replacing attendance at Mass. In fact, the companies were able to navigate the Reformation peacefully precisely because of their use of religious rhetoric. Their existing methods of governance were based upon fundamental Christian principles such as brotherly love, peace and charity, principles which were fluid enough to accommodate diversity and bound together an amorphous group of individuals. Chapter 3 considers how grocers and drapers behaved in positions of civic responsibility. David Hickman’s work on the Corporation of London suggests it was small, zealous groups of governors who disproportionately influenced London’s transition to Protestantism.76 Instead, this chapter, taking London’s hospital governors and churchwardens as case studies, argues that whilst the zealously Reformed were in the minority they were not always disproportionately influential. Vestry records suggest that decisions were made according to the will of the majority, meaning that churchwardens might have been forced to act against their conscience; nonetheless, attempts were made to make individual religious inclinations clear. Moreover, London’s hospitals provide further evidence to refute the claim that institutions secularised after the Reformation. Rather we see the governors employing the simple Christian values that they drew upon in the court rooms of their livery companies, fusing them with the previous monastic practices of the hospitals. Chapter 4 examines the trading activities of merchants as refracted through their accounts and letters. It demonstrates that whilst some were early converts to Protestantism, others remained Catholic, perhaps because they traded with parts of Europe that were penetrated less deeply by reform. The 1520s ledger of the draper Thomas Howell, who exported cloth to Spain, is indicative of a strong traditional faith. Yet his ledger reveals that he traded with Catholics

75 76

In particular Jones, The English Reformation; Tittler, The Face of the City; Ward, Metropolitan Communities. Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ pp. 2, 205.

Introduction

17

and evangelicals alike. From the earliest days of religious change it was almost impossible for merchants to avoid some level of contact with reform. Evangelicals, for example, did not exist in mutually exclusive hubs. Consequently, the letters of the Johnson Company that cover the 1540s and 1550s show that they valued reputation above religion when deciding who to trade alongside. Equally, we see that some merchants, like the grocer George Stoddard, were flexible in their faith; conforming to religious change and being guided by Christian principles yet without betraying a strong commitment to a particular doctrine. Even in the late sixteenth century when historians agree that England was becoming a Protestant nation, individual identities remained complex and not without inconsistencies. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the Muscovy Company. Established in 1553 and formally incorporated in 1555, this was the first of the joint-stock companies. Many elite grocers and drapers were amongst their first active members and implemented a spiritual culture that valued daily prayer and strict moral conduct as part of a venture that emphasised their service in support of a godly commonwealth. Even during a time of religious upheaval, religion remained the basis of these trading organisations. Chapter 5 examines almost 400 wills of members of the livery of the grocers and drapers from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury between 1510 and 1600. Whilst the utility of wills as historical evidence has generated strong debate, this chapter shows that they remain a vital source for understanding individuals who left behind few personal records. The method is unusual in taking a holistic approach to wills by considering together preambles, religious and charitable bequests, and by paying close attention to the identity of named individuals who served as witnesses, executors and recipients of bequests. Such a methodology uncovers not just a snapshot of the individual’s religious identity but also of the social group within which it was situated. The findings here question the arbitrary religious labels scholars have applied to individuals by demonstrating that, until the reign of Elizabeth, all but the most zealous existed in a religiously mixed social group and possessed fluid religious identities. After making provisions for their family, merchants made bequests primarily to other members of their company. Ties of friendship, trade and corporate loyalty had the potential to transcend religious divisions and question existing rigid notions of what it meant to be Catholic or Protestant. Taken together, the institutional and individual responses of merchants to the Reformation suggest that they were neither unusually prone to Protestantism nor intent on removing religion from the public sphere. In attempting to balance personal piety with loyalty to their company and the demands of government, the livery companies called upon the common Christian language of peace and charity that provided London’s citizens with an element of familiar continuity during a time of religious turmoil.

chapter 1

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century c. 1510–1534 Introduction The very first ordinances for the Grocers and Drapers (from 1345 and 1371 respectively), list the prime obligation of members of the fraternity to attend Mass together on the feast of their patron saint.1 This duty, along with a number of other pious requirements, remained in place into the sixteenth century; but did this fraternal religious culture exist beyond the recording of their ordinances, or was it simply aspirational window-dressing? If we look to the work of historians of medieval London’s trade guilds they emphasize the economic, civic and political elements of guild life, often viewing merchants as indvidually pious but of a secular outlook in their corporate activities.2 Sylvia Thrupp studied London’s merchants as a class rather than in an institutional context and recognised how much religion infused all aspects of mercantile life. On the eve of the Reformation London’s merchants, in their capacity as parishioners, were deeply engaged with traditional religious practices, although there were always those who remained detached from pious conventions, such as the draper who left just half a mark to his chaplain and 20 times as much to his cook.3 Yet in the governance of guilds, Thrupp identifies religion as just one of a number of factors driving company administration.4 The most detailed study of London’s late medieval Grocers’ company is particularly sceptical of the richness of their religious culture. Pamela Nightingale argues that whilst each company is distinct, for the Grocers ties between members were not necessarily strong and some viewed the company chiefly as a ‘disciplinary body’ and their ‘family…household and… parish church remained the focus of their generosity’ in terms of post-mortem bequests.5 Some of this, however, 1 Heath, Grocers, p. 44; Johnson, Drapers, vol. 1, pp. 196–202. 2 Caroline Barron, London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2004), p. 2. 3 Sylvia L Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London (Chicago, 1948), p. 184. 4 Thrupp, Merchant Class, p. 19. 5 Pamela Nightingale, A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company and the Politics and Trade of London 1000–1485 (New Haven, 1996), p. 430.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_003

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

19

stems from the fact that it was only when companies received formal charters of incorporation from the crown that they could legally own land and therefore administer the obits and chantries of their brethren which were usually sustained by the rental income derived from bequeathed property. When the Grocers built their company hall in the mid fourteenth century they included a small chapel although infrequent mentions of it in company records suggest to Nightingale that company members had already separated their professional and parochial spheres.6 It seems that the chapel was simply too small to hold their membership and that they preferred to maintain ties with their patronal church, St Antholin. The Mercers also had a chapel on site which might have engendered stronger corporate ties, although as Anne Sutton has highlighted, we know very little about its workings.7 Nightingale even suggested that whilst the medieval Grocers’ company was held together by spiritual bonds, they were fundamentally motivated by trade and city politics, as evidenced by an undeveloped corporate social life.8 Her research is a salient reminder that livery companies dedicated much of their time to the temporal realm, underlined by the fact that at the end of the fifteenth century the company recognised that the ‘spiritual provision it made for its members was inadequate.’9 The collective view created by this research is rather subtle. We see that late medieval London had a flourishing religious life but in a corporate setting, whether in the guild hall or the Guildhall, a collective religious culture that was more restrained either because, as Barron has suggested, it was impossible for London to ‘speak with one voice’ when governing, or because trade and politics took precedence, as we are told it did for the Grocers. Although none of the scholars noted make this specific point, taken together their research draws a partial parallel with the notion of Renaissance individualism, particularly Nightingale’s suggestion that fraternal bonds amongst the grocers were not strong. This chapter, however, taking the first three decades of the sixteenth century as its focus, will take a different view. Whilst it is inadvisable to make neat divisions between the sacred and secular in pre-modern societies, I would not dispute that the day-to-day functions and activities of the Grocers and Drapers were of a worldly nature. An examination of company records suggests that much of their time was dedicated to the humdrum administration of their burgeoning property portfolio, the attempted regulation of trade, and the 6 Nightingale, Medieval Mercantile Community, p. 399ff, at p. 429. 7 Anne F Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005), p. 198. 8 Nightingale, Medieval Mercantile Community, pp. 177–180, 295. 9 Ibid., p. 541.

20

chapter 1

punishment of recalcitrant brethren. Religion was not central to their function but it was a significant facet of their corporate identity, communal rituals and governing rhetoric. Certainly, overt questions of religious doctrine are absent from the records, but all of their activities were informed by C ­ hristian values and we need to recognise that their religious culture extended far beyond the obvious public ceremonial. Whilst medieval historians have downplayed the religious culture of trade guilds, Reformation historians have created a sense of overwhelmingly pious organisations by stressing the devastating effects of religious change upon the liveries.10 Communal religious activities were either eradicated or reduced and replaced with the private, individualistic pursuit of a direct relationship with God. Although research increasingly recognises that both Catholics and Protestants were concerned with individual and communal spirituality, it is a notion that has not been explored within the context of England’s trade guilds. This chapter will argue that the livery companies were fundamentally secular organisations which were governed in line with civic concerns, but which drew upon Christian ideals of peace, love and charity. By 1510, when this study begins, the companies had outgrown their origins as parish fraternities and their corporate identity and activity continued to display the sacred and secular elements that had been there since their medieval inception. Fraternal order was maintained and promoted through a mixture of coercive measures and communal conviviality, both of which saw the secular concern with social order fused with elements of religious imagery that would be meaningful to all. Nonetheless, there is evidence that certain aspects of religious culture – ­particularly commemorative practices – were growing in the early decades of the sixteenth century which underlines how the spiritual culture of guilds does not correspond to a linear narrative of intense religiosity followed by decline and secularisation, but is perhaps better viewed in terms of cycles of intensifying religiosity. Consideration will be given to four themes: the methods and language of fraternal discipline; governance in the form of communal ritual; the distribution of charity; and the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage. ­Evidence is drawn from the Wardens’ and Renters’ accounts of both companies from 1510, the court minutes of the Drapers from 1515 (the Grocers’ minutes are not extant until 1556), and the Drapers’ ordinance book.

10

By contrast, the vitality of parish fraternities has been noted, see, for example, Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–c. 1580 (New ­Haven, 2nd edn. 2005); Gervase Rosser, The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages: Guilds in England 1250–1550 (Oxford, 2015).

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

21

Before examining the corporate life of the companies in further detail, it is necessary to outline the structure which underpinned the Grocers and ­Drapers. Both companies were led by a master and wardens, corporate figureheads who were the first point of call for civic and national government. The Drapers comprised a master and four wardens, whilst the Grocers were governed by a master (usually referred to as their upper warden) and two wardens. Key decisions, however, were made by the court of assistants, which was formed of approximately twenty of the most elite members of the livery. The size of the livery fluctuated throughout the century but on average amounted to a total of fifty individuals (including the court and wardens). The function of the livery was both financial and ritual in that they would be called upon to lend or give money to company and civic ventures, and also to attend corporate company and civic rituals, particularly funerals, obits and feasts, and to act generally as the collective face of the company. As long as members of the livery lived long enough they were almost certainly guaranteed a place as warden and subsequently assistant and master. These were companies which were run according to their ancient customs enshrined in their ordinances, and individuals were appointed according to their seniority within the company. The factors determining seniority were not delineated but age and wealth seemed to be of greater significance than character or ability. Livery companies were not meritocracies; they were essentially conservative organisations that sought to maintain the status quo. Decisions made were never rash or extreme but considered, methodical and occasionally plodding. In terms of size, it has been estimated that the Drapers numbered 2000 by 1600 and the Grocers approximately 1000 by 1595.11 Given their large membership and small government they have been labelled oligarchies, but of a benevolent sort which aimed to balance the sometimes competing demands of the crown, city, church and company. Steve Rappaport has demonstrated how significant the livery companies were in the sixteenth century in regulating trade and thus the London economy. He also points to their political power in controlling entry to citizenship and thereby enfranchisement. The companies were also arms of both central and local government as proclamations and precepts from the crown and lord mayor were distributed to the companies to be read to their membership.12 Both companies record in their court minutes precepts received and note when they were read to the company and any 11

Ian Archer, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991), p. 123. This figure includes freemen but excludes apprentices who were not official members of the company. 12 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 184–201.

22

chapter 1

further action taken. This occurred much more frequently in the Drapers than the Grocers, reflective of a significant difference in the government of the two companies: the Drapers’ court met twice a week on Mondays and Wednesdays from 9 am until 11 am. The Grocers, however, distinguished between ordinary courts, held every Monday, which the master and wardens would attend and where routine business would be discussed, and meetings of the court of ­assistants, for more important issues, which met on average thirteen times a year.13

Coercion and Conciliation

Livery companies acted as an arm of central government in enforcing precepts from the crown and lord mayor; but they were also significant in maintaining general civic order by enforcing company ordinances and providing their members with the opportunity to seek redress for a range of grievances. ­Ordinances underpinned company life and sought to promote and maintain brotherly love. The Grocers’ first ordinances of 1345 stated that every member was to behave with ‘good love and with a loyal heart,’ whilst the preamble to the Drapers’ ordinances of 1543 stated, it was the aim of the company: ‘to unyte and knytt together everye brother and syster in parfecte love and charitye.’14 As Gervase Rosser has highlighted, the promotion of friendship, or brotherly love, was the ‘universally expressed goal’ of guilds.15 Late medieval conceptions of friendship stressed that love had the potential to bring ‘its participants into conformity with one another,’ or in other words to create a sense of ­unity.16 ­Notions of friendship, love and charity had classical roots, most notably in Aristotle’s Ethics and Cicero’s essay On Friendship, which were later appropriated by Christianity and restated (at least in part) as ‘love they neighbour as thyself.’17 To display friendship was a ‘partial suppression of the self in the 13 14

dh, Repertory 7(i), p. 154; Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 265. dh, Ordinance and Oath Book, fo. 1r (1543 ordinances). This was a stock religious phrase, when the Leathersellers incorporated the Glovers in 1500 they spoke of being ‘kytte togider in verye true amytie charitably and kyndely,’ cited in Susan Brigden, ‘Religion and Social Obligation in Early Sixteenth-Century London,’ P&P 103 (1984), pp. 67–112, at p. 68. Moreover, the Papal Bull excommunicating Elizabeth i stated that God preserved his faithful people ‘knit together with the band of charity in the unity of the Spirit,’ see Tanner, tcd, p. 144. 15 Rosser, The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages, p. 89. 16 Ibid., p. 95. 17 Ibid., pp. 98–104.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

23

name of mutual obligation’ demonstrated through the charitable acts of the guilds, the use of familial language, and promotion of fraternal conduct. Taken together these behaviours in turn demonstrated loyalty to God and contributed to the peaceable nature of the state.18 The language of peace, love and unity was motivated by a desire for civic peace as well as individual spiritual advancement through collective endeavour. In this context, therefore, the religious rhetoric of corporate governance retained a civic dimension. The governors of the livery companies were almost always involved in civic government and so the need to maintain company and thereby civic order seems to have taken precedence over the imposition of a distinct religious doctrine.19 Instead, the companies appealed to the fundamental ideals of ­Christianity such as love, forgiveness, peace and charity. Throughout the century these terms were used by Catholics and Protestant alike.20 Moreover, given the timeless and opaque nature of such concepts, coupled with the early modern obsession with maintaining order, companies generally sought to avoid overt matters of religious doctrine and, as we shall see, rarely made any demands of their brethren relating to the specifics of religious belief. The livery was called upon to adhere to the custom of attendance at obits for example, but their individual beliefs were not questioned. Despite fluctuating religious tensions outside the company hall, from Lollards and early evangelicals, the Drapers were consistent in their lack of desire to question the inner beliefs of their membership. In short, religious doctrine was rarely used as a tool for good governance; rather, companies appealed to the rhetoric of Christianity via the concept of brotherly love. Consequently, in examining the approach to, and language of, corporate governance, particularly dispute resolution we see a remarkable consistency across the sixteenth century. Steve Rappaport stated that, after the family, the most important social institution in early modern London was the livery company.21 As company members were to take disputes (of any nature) to be heard by the court of assistants before any other court of law, he argues that for many Londoners it would be the only court with which they interacted.22 In enforcing ordinances both 18 Ibid., p. 100. 19 Frank Freeman Foster, The Politics of Stability (London, 1977). 20 Lucy Wooding, ‘Charity, Community and Reformation Propaganda,’ Reformation 11 (2006), pp. 131–169. Wooding shows that the homilies of Cranmer and Bonner used the same language, emphasising that charity was the most important thing a Christian could be taught. It was ‘charity as love that bound man to God and his neighbour within the mystical body of Christ that was the Church,’ p. 133. 21 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 184. 22 Ibid., p. 201.

24

chapter 1

c­ ompanies exhibited a great deal of common sense, compassion and leniency. The companies were more concerned with eliciting remorse from an individual, and thereby a change in behaviour, than imposing a monetary fine. In examining accounts for both companies we see a consistently patchy approach to the imposition of monetary fines for the breaking of ordinances and other misdeeds. For example, in 1520 the Grocers recorded no fines at all, despite a page in the accounts readily dedicated to them.23 At other times, the total amount received would be recorded but with no further information such as names or the offence committed. Occasionally there is evidence of a crackdown, for example a glut of fines for short yards of cloth, but usually for trade-based ordinances rather than those which governed individual behaviour.24 When fines were imposed they were often much smaller than ordinances prescribed. This dualistic approach to the collection of fines stemmed from a desire to balance the demands of the city government, which sanctioned such ordinances, with the company members who had to operate within their boundaries. Richard Wunderli has demonstrated that the pre-Reformation commissary court aimed to follow the rule of St Cyprian of ‘justice tempered by sweet mercy,’ and it seems a sense of equity also filtered into the livery companies.25 For example, in 1518 the draper William Champion lodged a complaint against fellow liveryman Thomas Huntingfeld. Whilst Champion brought in a gold ring with a sapphire for his £5 pawn, Huntingfeld asked to be forgiven his contribution in the interests of marital harmony as it would ‘by lyklyhod to amaid grete debate bittwen’ him and his wife. The wardens took him at his word and simply asked him to seek the forgiveness of the other party for ‘all suche symple wordes and untrue reportes as he had agenst him.’26 Appeals to brotherly love can also be seen in the recorded depositions. ­Although disputes were often recorded according to the same format, it is the final judgements which prove the most revealing. These judgements were issued in more complex cases which required arbitration or a resolution to be forced by senior company members. A judgement issued by the Drapers in a debt dispute, for example, began by telling the parties that they must ‘from hensfurth lovyngly and brotherly…behave them self other unto other aswele in words as in deede according to the good ordre of this place.’ They were also

23 24 25 26

gl, ms 11571/4, p. 315. ms 11571/3, fo. 111r. Richard Wunderli, London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation ­(Cambridge, Mass., 1981), p. 52. dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 86.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

25

ordered to repay the debt.27 Often, the two parties would be required to shake hands to visibly demonstrate their amity and so depart from the court ‘as friends and lovers.’ Likewise, a judgement from 1518 in an inheritance dispute between drapers William Game and Richard Ely stated that they were firstly to forgive each other for their misbehaviour and ‘shall lovingly and kyndely either of them take other by the hand as bretheren in tokyn of parfite charite to be contynued bitween them by the grace of God during there lyves.’28 However, many more disputes were brought before the court than were ­resolved; often only the initial registration of ‘a matter of variance’ would be ­recorded. Equally, final judgements would be recorded without any earlier mention. Consequently, we are often presented with, at best, fragments of discord, making it difficult to stitch together a full picture of the dispute and its evolution. It seems likely that many disputes were resolved informally and doubtless the threat of having a warden, or even the master appointed to investigate the minutiae of a grievance, was enough to bring some parties to their senses.29 Despite these fragmentary snapshots of disputes, it was complaints regarding debt which dominated cases and this remained consistent throughout the sixteenth century.30 The prevalence of debt over grievances of a more religious or moral nature suggests several things. Firstly, dispute is perhaps too strong a term. It seems more likely that this was the accepted way of ensuring that an individual received his payment. It was the verbal equivalent of a final demand letter. Merchants and retailers knew that this was effective and were happy to bring these financial disputes in front of the wardens. The comparative absence of grievances of a religious or moral nature suggests that the companies were not thought of as appropriate or effective tools of dispute resolution in this arena and parties sought redress from other law courts. This questions Richard Wunderli’s thesis that the laity were disillusioned with ecclesiastical law courts and sought redress for spiritual suits from secular courts before 27 Ibid., p. 15. 28 Ibid., pp. 111–113. 29 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 204. Conflict in the parish was also often resolved informally, see Beat Kümin, ‘Parishioners in court: litigation and the local community 1350–1650’ in Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (eds), Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A tribute to Patrick Collinson from his students (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 26–27. 30 The preponderance of lawsuits regarding unpaid debts has been noted by Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern England (Harmondsworth, 2002), p. 175.

26

chapter 1

the Reformation.31 We do see inheritance disputes before the courts but little else that would otherwise have been dealt with by the spiritual courts. The occasional assault case could equally have been dealt with by the commissary court. Nonetheless, it seems that when people were seeking redress they generally chose to bring trade-based grievances before the court. It was, after all, where their expertise and powers of enforcement lay. For example, ordinances consistently stated that fines would be imposed for those who insulted other fellows, particularly using words such as ‘whoreson, knave or rebel,’ but despite (and probably because of) the prevalence of disputes relating to name calling in the secular law courts, comparatively few instances appear in the records. In 1515 the draper Thomas Fflud was fined three shillings and sixpence for calling Thomas Spencer a ‘pylled knave,’ and Spencer was similarly fined for his (unrecorded) reply but this is one of a handful of examples notable for their rarity compared to commercial grievances.32 Before the Reformation, the Drapers’ court would call upon clergy, usually one of their two chaplains at St Michael’s Cornhill, to attend court when an obit was being established or at the reading of a will. The last recorded instance dates from 1530 when the Drapers’ second chaplain Sir Thomas Baker appeared at court for the reading of Sir George Monoux’s will.33 But for a curiously brief period between 1517 and 1518, the newly-appointed rector at St ­Michael’s, Sir Rowland Phillips, was called upon to act as an arbitrator in a series of disputes of varying significance. Phillips, best known as the vicar of Croydon, had previously served as chaplain to Henry viii and was already a ‘celebrated public preacher.’34 He seemed to be a prestigious and entirely orthodox appointment worthy of direct involvement in company government. His first appointment was to arbitrate between Sir Lawrence Aylmer who was in dispute with George Monoux and John Brugge. All three were aldermen and had previously served as masters of the company. We are not told exactly what had passed between them beyond a series of ‘variances, mysbyhavyoures and displeasores lately hadd.’35 A special court of assistants was convened which was attended also by the Prior of Crichurch.36 Both plaintiff and defendants were told that they ‘merely and chefely shall forgett and forgeve other almaner of displeasures before this day in any manner wyse comytted without any 31 Wunderli, Church Courts, p. 2. 32 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 18. 33 Rep. 7(ii), pp. 304, 368. 34 J P D Cooper, ‘Rowland Philipps (1467/8–1538?),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 35 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 71. 36 The priory of Holy Trinity was commonly known as Crichurch or Christchurch.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

27

grudge or farther rehersal by any of them and for a parfite quietnes to be had between the said parties,’ they were then to ‘take other by the hand as honorable and kynd bretheren shuld doo aswele for the honor of this place as for there own honor.’ If they did not abide by this judgement they were to be fined £40 each and receive no forgiveness.37 The grievance, however, rumbled on and shortly afterwards Aylmer was called before the court again where they judged that he had ‘offendyd more than Mr Monoux dyd.’ Aylmer was thus told to ‘humble hym self’ to Monoux and Monoux was to do likewise. At the end we are told quite simply that ‘they were made ffrendes by the help of the fore said Prior [of Crichurch] and parson [of St Michael’s Cornhill].’38 Again, we do not know the substance of the dispute but the familiar language – of seeking forgiveness, of being humble, and of being reconciled in friendship – is present. In a second incident (the content of which we are not told) Phillips was to act as an arbitrator alongside John Grene, Common Serjeant and draper; and finally in 1518 Phillips was appointed ‘umpire’ in an inheritance dispute.39 In legal terms an umpire is one appointed when arbitrators cannot themselves agree, suggestive of the hope that Phillips would fulfil the role of independent judge. He also appeared in 1518 with Mistress Cott regarding the establishment of her husband’s obit, although this was a more usual occurrence.40 As so often happened, these cases do not appear again in court minutes leading us to assume that the matters were resolved informally. Nonetheless, it is striking that the use of clergy in disputes was so infrequent given that, in theory, they were the ideal independent moral arbiters. Yet this experiment was short lived, perhaps because Sir Rowland Phillips himself became embroiled in a dispute within his own parish in 1519 and was no longer judged to be an appropriate candidate.41 Furthermore, in emphasising the disruption of the Reformation, previous research has by implication suggested that the late medieval companies were functionally harmonious. There is perhaps greater evidence, however, of discontent within the Drapers’ livery in the decades before 1530. Our previous example of the draper John Brugge was not an entirely isolated incident. Of course, disputes amongst the livery were those with which the court would be most acutely aware and the most important to quell in order to set the brotherly example to the rest of the company. Again, in the interests of future 37 38 39 40 41

Rep. 7(i), p. 71. Ibid., p. 73. Ibid., pp. 82, 107. Ibid., p. 114. Ibid., p. 136.

28

chapter 1

harmony we do not know what was at issue, but in 1521 two senior drapers Christopher Askew and William Dixon were told to be ‘hensforth loving, kynd and gentyll other unto other aswele in wordes as in ded within this place and withoute’ on pain of a £20 fine.42 In 1527 liverymen Walter Champion and William Brothers, ‘were made frendes and handes takn to geder’ in front of the whole court.43 This is not to suggest either that the companies were wracked with discontent – far from it – but rather to demonstrate that the companies had dealt with disharmony before and were structured and equipped to deal with it in a way which enabled them to continue functioning normally, even in times of stress and change.

Commemoration and Conviviality

Whilst appeals to brotherly love were deployed to reconcile recalcitrant members, religion played an even more overt role in binding the company together through their rituals and material culture, particularly obits and feasting. ­Ordinances for both the Grocers and the Drapers stated the obligation of the livery to attend services at their patronal church on the feast of their patron saint and on election day. They were also duty bound to attend the funerals of their brethren (where requested) upon payment of a fine. There has been some debate about how well companies observed these religious rituals – ­particularly obits. Obits were held yearly on the anniversary of death, usually for a set period of years, or in some cases perpetually. They mirrored the rituals of the funeral with a sung dirge followed by the sharing of spiced bread and ale at the house of the deceased, and a Mass of requiem the following morning with d­ inner in the evening. They were established in wills and funded either by a lump sum of money or by the rental income of lands bequeathed for that purpose. Susan Brigden has argued that ‘obits had often enough been neglected in the past because people could not be bothered to attend.’44 And there is evidence that other livery companies complained of the burden. The Goldsmiths, for example, attended twenty-five obits a year until 1497 when they were reduced to a more manageable fourteen.45 An act made by the Drapers in 1519 is often cited in support of such lacklustre attendance when they stated that only half 42 Rep. 7(ii), p. 202. 43 Rep. 7(i), p. 305. 44 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 388. 45 Peter Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2002), p. 45.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

29

of the livery were to attend processions for funerals and obits, yet the livery as a whole were still to attend civic processions.46 However, in 1519 the Drapers were attending twelve obits a year and it was after the passing of this act that the establishment of obits increased steadily reaching a peak of nineteen by the mid 1540s.47 The Grocers witnessed a similar, although less stark, increase from six obits in 1510 to twelve by the 1540s.48 At first sight, this increase would suggest that the Drapers were enthusiastic in honouring the establishment of obits because of the revenues they generated, but less enthusiastic about actually attending. The very fact, however, that the livery had to be reminded intermittently by the clerk that only half of them were to attend suggests they were rather more enthusiastic about honouring their duty to attend than they have been given credit for. It might have been that attendance was so ingrained in the livery that it was habitual. The act also arguably made attendance more complex; the livery was divided in two along geographic lines and if someone could not attend they were to secure a replacement from the other half of the livery.49 Perhaps it was easier for a large group to attend rather than work out the logistics of who was to attend which obits. There might also have been practical reasons motivating reduced attendance. For example, in 1542 after John Wilkinson’s obit the decree on the ­division of the livery for general processions and obits was reasserted, perhaps to ease the burden of constantly attending such events during years of plague.50 It is true though, that there was a clear economic element motivating the maintenance of obits. The very first order of business in the Drapers’ court minutes of 1515 concerns the establishment of a perpetual obit for Sir William Capell. In fact, the overwhelming majority of minutes recorded in August 1515 concerned this obit. The court’s first concern was negotiating a suitable profit for the company; they informed Capell that it would cost £14 a year to maintain and provided him with the option of paying them a thousand marks, or a mixture of money and land in order to maintain his obit perpetually.51 Eventually, at a Court meeting also attended by the Prior of St Bartholomew’s, the company was promised £600 with which to buy property and were happy to proceed

46 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 388. 47 The figures include their general obit for the fraternity which was usually one of the services attended at election day; dh, RA1, 1519–20, fo. 10v; ra, 1545–6, fo. 7r. 48 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 388. 49 dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 707. 50 Ibid. 51 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 2.

30

chapter 1

with this request.52 We also see that the rhetoric of brotherly love could be appealed to for the material gain of the company when the court stated that they ‘trust to have a speciall and a kynd brotherly tokyn of remembrance of plate… for a dayly memory.’53 Capell’s executors, however, were not forthcoming with funds and by 1525 the master, William Bayly, warned that the obit would cease to be observed unless Capell’s ‘executors will see an end with us before the next obyt according to his wyll.’54 The obit was kept the following year but only with the consent of the court ‘orelles they wold not a kept hyt.’55 In 1529 at the court meeting following their first quarter day they decided to talk to the executor, William Paulet, to discuss the continuation of his obit. By the time of their second quarter day they decreed that they would no longer observe his obit; presumably the continuing lack of money with which to perform Capell’s will was the key issue.56 Again, without explanation, the obit was re-instituted in 1533 ‘as afore tymes.’57 The withholding of funds by executors seems to have been a frequent occurrence. In fact, where there was an irregularity in maintaining an obit the reason tended to lie not with the company, but with the executors not presenting the money or lands that were bequeathed for that purpose, and there are cases where the wardens took executors to court for not adhering to such bequests. At a quarter day in 1534, the Drapers’ court decreed that they would not observe the obit of former master Sir John Brugge until his son Giles gave £20 to the house.58 At a quarter day the same year the court reaffirmed that they were to ‘stande ffyrme and stable’ in their refusal to observe Brugge’s obit until the requested money was provided and eventually in 1535 the money was received and the obit observed.59 Given John Bayly’s admonishments of executors, it is surprising to learn that the Drapers even had trouble receiving money to maintain the obit for his wife, Lady Bayly. In 1535 the company said that if her executors would not bring in the money then they would take the dispute to the Dean of Arches and vowed not to accept less than £200 for an outlay of £5 a year for a perpetual obit.60 The Drapers also ensured that the clergy were performing their duties correctly. In 1519 the court decreed that they would 52 Ibid., p. 3. 53 Ibid. 54 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 36; dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 271. 55 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 293. 56 Ibid., p. 365. 57 dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 444. 58 Ibid., p. 461. 59 Ibid., pp. 466, 500. 60 Ibid., p. 530.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

31

talk with the churchwardens at St Dionis Backchurch regarding the discontinuance of a chantry priest to sing for the soul of Mr Derby and for the ‘mysusing and breking of the wyll of the said Master Derby.’61 Similarly, each year several members of the Grocers rode to Lullingstone in Kent ‘to see Mr Petche’s obit kept.’ They often took gifts with them for Lady Peche and her servants including, on one occasion, a 4lb box of marmalade.62 This was a significant undertaking but yearly accounts attest to their faithful maintenance of this obit. Nor were companies authoritarian and inflexible in the maintenance of obits; they recognised the importance of persuasion and patience. For example, in 1522 the Drapers attended the years mind of Henry Patmor so that his widow ‘shuld be the better wylling to geve us the cupp of the value of £5 whiche her housband bequest to this place and also for the fulfylling of his wyll at this tyme.’63 There was clearly a mixture of religious and economic reasons for continuing such religious traditions. However, they were not entirely mercenary and would maintain an obit if they thought they would soon receive a return; after reading Hugh Umpton’s will in 1531–2 they stated that they were to be ‘bownd for performances of the charges accordyng to the wyll untyll landes may be purchaysed,’ a process which was not always swift.64 There were doubtless funerals, particularly those of notable members, where more than half of the livery would seek to be in attendance. In 1532 the Drapers were overwhelmed when forty-two members of the livery turned up to the dinner for John Rycrofte. Rycrofte’s executors had only provided enough money for eight dishes, causing the stewards, who were granted an extra payment, to hurriedly provide more.65 Perhaps the livery expected unusually good fare as Rycrofte had served Henry vii and viii as Serjeant of the Larder.66 Nonetheless, their attendance does suggest some enthusiasm for the rituals associated with obits; it provided the company with a chance to gather together and remember their brethren, but was also a social and convivial occasion which helped to oil the wheels of trade and city government with which the livery were so heavily involved.67 Certainly, references to the master and wardens 61 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 123. 62 gl, ms 11571/4, fo. 363r. 63 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 229. 64 dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 410. 65 Ibid., p. 427. 66 Strype, Survey, vol. 1, p. 32. 67 For an example of corporate conviviality reinforcing hierarchies and enhancing communal solidarity see Celeste Chamberland, ‘Honour, Brotherhood and the Corporate Ethos of London’s Barber-Surgeons 1570–1640,’ Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied S­ ciences 64 (2009), pp. 300–332.

32

chapter 1

attending both funerals and obits abound in the court minutes suggesting that they infused daily life, particularly for the most senior members of the livery. It was routine for court meetings to be held before or after an obit, sometimes sandwiched in-between two. In 1534 the clerk recorded that the assembly met after attending John Wilkinson’s obit at St Mary Abchurch and their first order of business was the establishment of Lady Bayly’s obit.68 It is also curious, given the suggestion of a lack of enthusiasm for attending obits, that so few fines were recorded for non-attendance. The Drapers’ ­accounts record just three, whilst the Grocers are similarly sporadic – in 1512–13 five individuals were charged 20d for missing obits, whilst in 1517–8 Nicholas Gibson, a repeat offender, was fined 12d for his absence ‘at a berieng,’ although this was a token sum when compared to several grocers who were fined 6s 8d for breaking ordinances regarding the sale of pepper.69 Joseph Ward, writing with reference to the Grocers, suggests that this absence is reflective of the tacit non-enforcement of such fines.70 Ward’s argument is ­largely convincing, but it is also important to highlight that, as we have seen, the enforcement of monetary fines for all transgressions was at best patchy. Adhering to honest trading practices was deemed to require a clear economic sanction, as the repercussions of dishonesty were far-reaching. But the absence of fines for attending religious services could be because the onus to attend was borne by the livery alone; locked into a nexus of overlapping communities of reciprocal patronage and friendship their transgressions were either overlooked or else not recorded by the company. Alongside obit attendance, both companies had a rich culture of feasting which featured both secular and sacred elements.71 The most significant event in the ritual year of the company was the election day feast, which from its earliest origins saw sacred sanction given to secular power. The rituals of the Drapers in the early sixteenth century (derived from their ordinances of 1460) followed this pattern: the livery gathered at their patronal Church – St Michael’s Cornhill – on the Sunday closest to 15 August to celebrate the feast 68 69

70 71

dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 356. gl, 11571/3, fo. 44r, 205v. Those fined in 1511–12 were John Baxter, Richard Young, Nicholas Gibson, John Lane, and Henry Posear who was also fined for his absence at general processions. Joseph P Ward, Metropolitan Communities: Trade Guilds, Identity and Change in Early Modern London (Stanford, 1997), p. 111. Similar activities were seen in Coventry, see Charles Phythian-Adams, ‘Ceremony and the Citizen: the communal year at Coventry 1450–1550’ in Peter Clark and Paul Slack (eds), Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500–1700: Essays in Urban History (London, 1972), pp. 57–85.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

33

of the Assumption of Our Lady – their patron saint. Following the service they would return to the hall for the (secret) nomination of their new master and wardens, before attending evensong, which would be followed by drinks for the master and livery. There would also be a smaller gathering for dinner comprising the master and wardens and their wives alongside the local clergy – listed in 1515 as ‘the parishe preste and ii other prestes from saynt Michaelles [and] our ii chapelayns.’72 On Monday they would attend a Mass of requiem, otherwise known as their general obit for the fraternity. The livery would each make an offering of a penny to the poor box and would then return to the hall, two by two, for the feast at which the new master and wardens were openly elected ‘according to the old custom.’73 The ensuing feast would be a lavish affair. In 1515 it was attended by at least eighty named guests. Ecclesiastical guests included the bishop of Gallipoli, John Young; the master of Thomas of Acres and of St Lawrence; the priors of Christchurch, St Martin’s, St Mary Overies and St Bartholomew’s; Lord St John of the Knights Hospitallers, the rector of St Michael’s, and the parish priest of St Swithun’s.74 From the political sphere were the lord mayor and mayoress, both sheriffs, the lieutenant of the Tower, the chamberlain, recorder, common sergeant and town clerk. The company would balance this lavish display with charity for the company almsmen receiving their ‘reward’ in the form of food.75 The following day the bachelors would gather, either for breakfast or dinner, and would be entertained with the same ‘merry consayte’ enacted at the election feast. This pattern of ritual remained intact until ordinances were slightly modified in 1543.76 Even before the Reformation we can find evidence of traditional parochial customs being reduced which must have caused London’s various trade guilds to take on greater significance as centres of communal ritual. In 1522 Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, reduced the numerous feast days celebrating the foundation of London’s parish churches to just one on 3 October. He introduced this measure in response to holy days resulting in ‘dancing, surfeits, excessive drinking’ rather than ‘prayer, fasting and devout abstinence.’77 In fact, at the start of the sixteenth century there were numerous occasions when the company would gather together for reasons that were not overtly religious, but 72 73 74 75 76 77

dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 28. dh, Ordinance and Oath Book, Ordinances for 1460 (unpaginated). Rep. 7(i), p. 30. Ibid., p. 27. See Ch. 2 of this book. lma, Repertory 12, fos. 247–248.

34

chapter 1

which coincided with saints’ days or mirrored other parochial events. The ritual calendar of late medieval England had always been punctuated by sacred, secular and semi-secular events, and the companies had the same variety of events.78 Both companies would dine following the delivery of accounts, and the bi-annual search of their lands, an event which echoed the Rogationtide perambulation of the parish.79 There would be dinner or drinks on quarter days (which coincided with feast days) and all livery companies would dine in their halls following St Simon and Jude’s day, when the lord mayor took his oath at Westminster, again demonstrating this consistent fusion of sacred and secular concerns.80 The most significant event that the companies participated in that possessed both secular and religious elements, however, was the Midsummer Watch. The Watch took place on the eves of the feast of St John the Baptist (23–24 June) and Ss Peter and Paul (28–29 June), and as it coincided with the election of the sheriffs it also marked the transition to the secular half of the ritual year. In part, these torch-lit night-time processions represented a reinforcement of civic power and a security measure as armed men, provided by the city companies, marched on a defined route through the City. The watch, however, was chiefly a moment for festivity. Whilst the craft guilds of most English towns produced pageants at the feast of Corpus Christi, London favoured the Midsummer Watch.81 For the early part of the sixteenth century, until its demise in the 1540s, the Watch represented the ‘largest and most important annual…spectacle’ in London’s ritual calendar.82 In addition to the processions of armed men were Morris dancers, minstrels, dragons and giants, and pageants that drew upon civic, classical and religious themes. The ­Grocers rarely itemised their pageantry expenditure so we know little of which pageants they favoured but we do know that they spent significant sums in years when the lord mayor was a member of their company when they were expected to produce pageants in addition to the annual contribution to ­harnessed 78 79

80 81 82

Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994). dh, Rep. 7(i), pp. 72, 114, 154; Steve Hindle, ‘Beating the Bounds of the Parish: Order, ­Memory, and Identity in the English Local Community,’ in Michael Halvorson and Karen E Spierling (eds), Defining Community in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 205–228; Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England, pp. 34–36; David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989), pp. 23–24. gl, ms 11571/3, fos. 16r–17r, 29v–31v; dh, Rep. 7(iii), p. 775. Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1991). Anne Lancashire, London Civic Theatre: City Drama and Pageantry from Roman Times to 1558 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 153.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

35

men. In 1516–7 they paid £8 16s 10d for pageants, 39s 6d for jackets for the archers, and 6s 8d to the wardens of St Giles for the hire of their giant.83 Of all the accounts of the livery companies, however, the Drapers are consistently the most revealing. In 1512, during the mayoralty of Roger Achilly, the company paid £12 17s 9d for three pageants of St Blythe, the Assumption, and Achilles, as it was common practice for one of the pageants to be a pun on the name of the mayor.84 The pageant of the Assumption was that most frequently used by the Drapers because it formed part of their corporate identity. In 1520 the company appointed a painter-stainer to make twelve new banners featuring the Drapers’ Arms and the Assumption, visibly marrying their heritage as both a trade guild and religious fraternity.85 In the same year accounts for their midsummer pageants reveal payments to John Wakeling for playing the King of the Moors, alongside repairs to his costume, which had been borrowed from Barking. A man played the Sultan, whilst five children armed with swords staffed a castle complete with drawbridge.86 In 1521 the Drapers produced their usual pageant of the Assumption alongside a new pageant of the Golden Fleece in honour of the visit of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles v. The following year they record payments for a pageant of St Ursula – who was played by ‘Childes eldest daughter.’ Again, in 1534 the draper mayor Christopher Askew was honoured with a pageant of St Christopher. The company paid 4d to the man that played Jesus ‘upon the xpofers sholder,’ and in 1536, when Humfrey Monmouth was sheriff, the Drapers paid for a pageant of the ‘Castell of Monmoth.’87 The castle, which was manned by five children, went head to head with the King of the Moors; the children armed with thirty ‘balles of paper like stones for them to caste in the defens of the said Castell.’88 These multifaceted festivities demonstrate the capacity of London’s early modern laity for a ritual culture that drew upon a range of influences and had the potential to flex with religious change. Charity As well as attending feasts and funerals as a corporate entity, the companies also engendered company loyalty and harmony by enacting their Christian 83 84 85 86 87 88

gh, ms 11571/3, fo. 186v. dh, WA3, 1511–12, fo. 6r. dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 142. reed: Civic London to 1558, vol. 1, pp. 381–383. dh, WA3, 1533–4, fos. 3v–5r; 1535–6, fos. 7r–8r. Ibid.; For more on pageants see reed: Civic London to 1558; A Calendar of Dramatic Records in the Books of the Livery Companies of London 1485–1640, ed. Donald James Gordon and Jean Robertson, Malone Society Collections, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1954).

36

chapter 1

duty through the provision of charity. The giving of alms was ritualised in their election day festivities when the livery would give a penny to the poor box after attending the annual obit for the company. A cursory glance at the accounts of the Drapers in this period suggests very little charitable activity, although this is perhaps reflective of a medieval conception of charity. At this time the Drapers did not account for poor relief separately. Rather, those who were bedemen or almsmen were listed under ‘officers wages’ indicative of their corporate role in the salvation of company members. Renters’ accounts for 1515–6 show that approximately 16 per cent of officers’ wages went to four bedemen or almsmen, and a fifth for his burial charges; this accounted for just 0.05 per cent of total expenditure.89 This figure does not provide a true reflection of charitable activity, as it does not include the charity derived from obits which accounts do not outline at this time. Furthermore, Ian Archer has argued that informal poor relief that amounted to ‘a whip-round from those present’ was not necessarily accounted for officially.90 This is further compounded by the brevity of company minutes in this period. They appear to record only that which might need to be referred to in the future, be it the establishment of an obit, the issuing of a lease, or the modification of an ordinance. The true extent of the charity of the Drapers, therefore, is impossible to gauge. The Grocers, however, had a very different policy and from the outset their accounts had a page dedicated to almsmen, and a steady five to ten per cent of expenditure went on formal alms. In 1512 they were supporting eight almsmen at a cost of £10 0s 17d from a total expenditure of £157 6s 5d.91 In 1520 this had risen to £24 8s 4d from a total expenditure of £252 7s 8d, despite the fact that the company was in massive debt.92 In 1531 a total of £20 3s 4d was spent on alms for seventeen people (including a payment to the four prisons on Good Friday).93 Total expenditure that year was £396 5s 4d.94 Such alms payments were recorded because it represented the administration of substantial bequests from the grocer and former lord mayor, Sir Henry Keble, and Sir John Peche, Lord Deputy of Calais.95 Again, informal ad hoc payments were not recorded in accounts but the evidence goes some way to suggest that before the 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Total income was £195 15s 8d, of that £43 13 4d was spent on wages, of which £1 10s 8d went to bedesmen. Total expenditure was £83 6s 4d. dh, RA1, 1515–6, fos. 1r–12r. Ian Archer, ‘The Livery Companies and Charity,’ p. 17. gl, ms 11571/3, fos. 20v, 32r. Ibid., fo. 299r, expenditure was so high because the company master was also lord mayor. gl, ms 11571/4, fo. 445r. Ibid., fo. 458v. ‘Report on the Charities of the Grocers’ Company: Part 1,’ City of London Livery Companies Commission, vol. 4 (London, 1884), pp. 120–146; Heath, Grocers, p. 208.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

37

Reformation – in fact from the time that companies could legally hold land – charity was increasingly being directed to these secular institutions.

Clerical Appointments: The First Sign of Change

Despite moments of tension, it seems that the local clergy – and not just those appointed by the liveries – played a role in the company beyond the simple saying of services. As we have seen, the clergy attended annual election feasts, but it was also customary to admit clergy to the company, usually as honorary members of the livery. In 1510 the Drapers paid for gowns for their two chaplains, Sir William Church and Sir Nicholas Pyke.96 In 1512–3 the Grocers paid for two livery gowns for chantry priests. Some clergy even kept their own apprentices such as John Bradwell, prior of Crichurch, whose indenture for his apprentice was sealed before the Drapers’ court in 1526.97 Even in death clergy behaved as any other company member: in 1533 one of the Drapers’ company chaplains, the aptly named William Church, died leaving to the company a silver spoon and a comparatively modest ten shillings for a drinking. The company waited upon the wardens in their second livery at his burial and attended Mass the next day.98 The most direct way, however, in which the companies engaged with religion and ritual, was in their role as ecclesiastical patrons and it is here that we see the first signs of religious change. The Grocers were bequeathed the advowson to All Hallows Honey Lane in 1456, and in December 1502 bought the right to make the presentation at St Stephen’s Walbrook, a parish in which many grocers lived and with which the company had long association.99 The Drapers held the advowson to St Michael’s Cornhill from 1505.100 Neither company sought to increase their ecclesiastical patronage across the course of century, nor did they ever have total control over appointments as they had to be approved by the bishop of London, and at least informally accepted by the churchwardens and parishioners. Nor were appointments made in isolation; 96 97 98 99

dh, wa, 1510–1, fo. 4r. dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 302. Rep. 7(ii), p. 430. Although the Grocers never held the advowson, it is not clear how their link to their patronal church, St Antholin Budge Row, fell away. Heath, Grocers, pp. 101, 160–161. 100 The Drapers shifted from St Mary-le-Bow to St Michael’s in 1503 from which point they de facto held the advowson, until it was confirmed in 1505; Johnson, Drapers, vol. 1, pp. 110, 164–165.

38

chapter 1

both companies were keen to seek advice from other clergy and were often happy to make appointments based on the recommendation of the parishioners or the outgoing incumbent. Again, a desire for civic harmony must have been factored into the decision-making process. In 1517 the rector at St Michael’s Cornhill, Dr Peter Drayton, died. The election of his successor followed just two days later. The very fact that the Drapers referred to this process as an election suggests a desire to appoint an individual that the master, wardens and court of assistants approved of. There were four nominees and Rowland Phillips received twenty votes (out of twenty-five).101 As we have seen, Phillips was already a well-known preacher making him a prestigious appointment, but his tenure at St Michael’s was not without event. In 1519 the churchwardens and parishioners of St Michael’s Cornhill were in dispute with Phillips regarding the withholding of a surplice. The churchwardens, William Game, John Lavender and John Madenhed, were ordered to ­return it to the rector or his deputy the day after St Paul’s Day, and with characteristic brevity, the minutes record, ‘uppon this Reformation the surples was delyvered according to this aggreement, and the dayly service maynteyned.’102 Presumably, this dispute was the result of a parochial power struggle but ­Phillips also found himself at the centre of political and religious controversy in his opposition to Henry viii’s divorce resulting in his imprisonment in the Tower in 1532. In the aftermath of the break with Rome Phillips was suspected of being ‘of the popish sort’ and upon his death in 1538 Henry viii’s choice of Edward Sepham took over the cure of St Michael’s Cornhill.103 The Grocers, however, were making appointments which suggested an engagement with heterodox ideas. In 1525 they appointed Dr Robert Forman as rector of All Hallows Honey Lane who, alongside his curate Thomas Garrett (or Garrard), ran a contraband book trade, circulating books by Luther, Wycliffe, and Zwingli amongst the young scholars at the Universities.104 Even when this book trade was uncovered, these zealous evangelicals were shielded from punishment after the intervention of Anne Boleyn.105 After Forman’s death in 1528 a more conservative incumbent was found in the form of Dr John Coke, who found himself in the Tower in 1532 for criticising the King’s divorce.106 For the Grocers, we can see that in a short space of time appointments crossed 101 The other candidates were Mr Naryn, Dr Goodrich and Mr Capon; dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 67. 102 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 136. 103 dh, Rep. 7 (ii), pp. 506, 513, 523, 527, 529; Cooper, ‘Rowland Philipps,’ odnb. 104 Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 114–115. 105 Ibid., p. 128. 106 Ibid., p. 209 and 209n.

Company Life in the Early Sixteenth Century

39

the spectrum from evangelical to ultra conservative, and for the Drapers from ‘popish’ to court-approved orthodoxy. Before the break with Rome, the religious culture of the Grocers and Drapers was rich and increasingly so but the seeds of religious change had already been sown. Whilst the foundation of obits increased, ecclesiastical appointments – especially by the Grocers – demonstrated an engagement with evangelical ideas, although if the support for such ideas came from the company more so than the parishioners remains to be seen. For all the associations of trade with the adoption and spread of Protestantism, these two livery companies demonstrate an adherence to traditional Catholic practice, yet we can also find religious diversity. After all, in 1528 draper Humfrey Monmouth was arrested for heresy as a result of his connections with William Tyndale, so some senior liverymen were quietly, but actively, promoting religious change.107 Perhaps then the early decades of the sixteenth century, as refracted through London’s liveries, should be recast as a period of intensifying religiosity. And although the confessional inclinations of members of trade guilds were never homogenous, what was homogenous was a governing culture with a unifying rhetoric of love and charity that was, as we shall see, sufficiently pliable to accommodate religious plurality. 107 Foxe, tamo (1570 edition), pp. 1172–1173.

chapter 2

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change 1534–1603 Foxe’s Acts and Monuments provides a number of examples of godly London guildsmen who aided the true church. One such individual was the draper Humfrey Monmouth who, as noted earlier, was arrested and imprisoned for heresy in 1528 because of his support for William Tyndale and supposed Lutheran views. After abjuring, Monmouth was released and continued his ascent through civic life being appointed alderman of Tower Ward in 1534. It seems that Monmouth’s status as a godly exemplar was recognised even during his lifetime. Foxe tells us of a sermon preached by Hugh Latimer about a rich merchant – supposedly Monmouth – who had begun to ‘smell the Gospel,’ and used to provide charity to his poor neighbour even though he was ‘a Papist still.’ Eventually, the poor man ‘took a great displeasure’ against Monmouth and refused to speak with him. When he saw his neighbour again Monmouth ‘spake so gentely, so charitablie, so louingly and frendly, that it wrought so in the poore mans harte, that by and by hee fell downe vppon his knees, and asked him forgeuenes. The riche man forgaue him, and so tooke hym agayne to hys fauour, and they loued as well as euer they did afore.’ What is notable about this vignette is that the ideals of late medieval Christianity, as embodied by the fraternal language that formed the basis of guild life, could also be utilised to frame an early Protestant as, in Foxe’s words, ‘a notable example of Christian patience.’1 The promotion of the theological virtue of love, expressed as friendship  and brotherly love by the guilds, came to act as a rhetorical common ground during the Reformation. This is not to suggest it was an easy common ground between Catholic and Protestant, but the frequent refrain of the importance of love and charity was, at the very least, an element of continuity for Christians of all stripes, particularly in the testing early decades of the Reformation. After all, when the Drapers renewed their ordinances in 1543 they continued to state that it was the aim of the company: ‘to unyte and knytt together everye brother and syster in parfecte love and charitye’ which also echoed what Brigden has termed the ‘universal reconciliation demanded before the celebration 1 Foxe, tamo [1570 edition], p. 1173.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_004

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

41

of Mass.’2 Matthew Davies and Ann Saunders, writing about the Merchant Taylors, argued that the late sixteenth century promulgation of charity by the livery companies stemmed from a common Christian impulse which all could unite behind.3 I would suggest that striving for the maintenance of fraternity and brotherly love through communal rituals likewise stemmed from a shared Christian impulse. We should take care, however, not to sugar coat the virtue of love. The first book of homilies (1547) printed, it should be noted, by the evangelical grocer, Richard Grafton, aimed to induce religious uniformity. The homily on Christian love and charity made clear that this was a doctrine of control and obedience to God. On the one hand, it was a duty to deny the self and love your enemy as a way of contributing to the harmony of the state. But on the other, it was an act of love for magistrates to cut off those who were not ‘in charity’ to protect the body of the commonwealth from the infection of heresy. Many of these homilies, including the one on love and charity, were published again in a Catholic context under Bonner in 1555.4 As Ethan Shagan has noted, moderate language could be used to justify violent methods of imposing conformity and exercising control. For Bonner, it was an act of love to send heretics to the stake.5 It was language, therefore, that could be used in different confessional contexts and to justify different ends, but it is still notable that the pre-existing confessional language of the livery companies came increasingly to mirror the language of the official Church, whether it was Catholic or Protestant. Without foreshadowing the Reformation, the livery companies were curiously well designed to withstand and accommodate religious upheaval, particularly when aspects of the Reformation echoed their existing approach to 2 dh, Ordinance and Oath Book, fo. 1r (1543 ordinances). This was a stock religious phrase, when the Leathersellers incorporated the Glovers in 1500 they spoke of being ‘kytte togider in verye true amytie charitably and kyndely,’ cited in Susan Brigden, ‘Religion and Social Obligation in Early Sixteenth-Century London,’ P&P 103 (1984), pp. 67–112, at p. 68. The language of the ordinances is also reminiscent of Henry viii’s 1545 speech to Parliament which urged religious unity, see Peter Marshall, ‘Mumpsimus and Sumpsimus: The Intellectual Origins of a Henrician Bon Mot,’ jeh 52 (2001), pp. 512–520. Moreover, the Papal Bull excommunicating Elizabeth i stated that God preserved his faithful people ‘knit together with the band of charity in the unity of the Spirit,’ see Tanner, tcd, p. 144. 3 Ian Archer, The History of the Haberdashers’ Company (Chichester, 1991), p. 45; Matthew Davies and Ann Saunders, The History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company (Leeds, 2004), p. 106. 4 Lucy Wooding, Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England (Oxford, 2000), p. 161. 5 Gina Adams, ‘Bonner and the Marian Persecutions,’ in Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), p. 160; Ethan Shagan, The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2011).

42

chapter 2

guiding and governing London’s citizens. Whilst the notion of brotherly love was doctrinally uncontroversial, it also helped that the liveries rarely questioned the interior religious life of the individual. Company governors required the livery to attend funerals and church services during their annual election festivities, but did not place extreme sanctions on those who absented themselves. Despite this, historians view the Reformation as a culturally devastating experience for London’s livery companies. One alternative to this view is provided by George Unwin who argued that although the companies changed as a result of the Reformation ‘the main current’ of their activities’ flowed on without an interruption.’6 Although his economic analysis was based upon sound research it was situated within a wider thesis which aimed teleologically to demonstrate the ‘progress of society’ through voluntary association.7 Unwin, however, remains a lone voice in suggesting that it was only in dissolving obits and chantries that the companies were affected by the Reformation.8 Most scholarship remains trapped in a narrative of cultural loss and subsequent secularisation. We are told that they survived the years of religious turmoil by promoting an increasingly secular culture in which those of differing faiths could operate side by side. Robert Tittler believes that this secular culture can be evidenced as early as the 1540s, while Lena Cowen Orlin points to the 1570s as marking the transition to vibrant festivities of a largely secular nature and in secular surroundings.9 Norman Jones, examining the Grocers and the Pewterers, sees change as occurring yet more gradually, but nonetheless believes that by the 1590s ‘they had ceased to view religion as integral to their community.’10 Although there is debate therefore about the rate of change, there is broad agreement that ritual activities became secularized in response to the Reformation.11 Religion was something which became a private, individual matter and not the subject of corporate activity and ritual. Instead, this chapter will offer a different interpretation and demonstrate that throughout the sixteenth century the livery companies were fundamentally secular organisations which were governed in line with civic concerns, 6 7 8 9

10 11

George Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (London, 1925), p. 202. Ibid., pp. 13–14. Ibid., p. 203. Robert Tittler, The Face of the City: Civic Portraiture and Civic Identity in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007), p. 108; Lena Cowen Orlin, Locating Privacy in Tudor London (Oxford, 2007), pp. 118, 139–140. Norman Jones, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2002), p. 113. For a survey of secularisation see C John Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England: From Religious Culture to Religious Faith (Oxford, 1992).

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

43

but which drew upon shared Christian ideals. The Grocers and Drapers were able to navigate change peacefully, yet without simply removing religion from their communities. The rhetoric and binding power of Christian principles remained of significance in governing the companies. They reacted to the Reformation, but as institutions they rarely courted religious change. Certainly, company records make frequent reference to acting in accordance with their ancient and laudable customs, and although they had an increasingly elastic interpretation as to the content of a custom, the pattern and rhythm of their customs were largely intact across the course of the century, whether those rituals were overtly religious, secular or a mixture of both.

The Early Reformation, 1534–1546

Whilst companies found a way to retain religion within their communities during the Reformation, it is also true that they were slow to enact reform unless it was forced upon them, so it is largely through the recording and enforcement of proclamations and precepts that we see official religious change. The earliest reference to the implications of the Reformation comes in the Drapers’ court minutes in 1534 when Henry viii issued a proclamation warning against expressing ill opinion of his marriage to Anne Boleyn. The company were gathered and warned to avoid the ‘extreme ponyshment that were lyke to ensue unto the offendare in that behalfe from the whyche god preserve all and every of our said compaynye.’12 Here we see the merest hint of the possibility of members of the Drapers opposing a marriage which was generally thought to have been unpopular with many. This initial fragment sets the general tone of the reaction of the livery companies to religious change; they sought to adhere to the law whilst protecting their membership, even if they had transgressed religious norms. In the same year the citizens of London were required to take an oath recognising the Act of Succession which saw them attest to the legitimacy of Henry’s marriage to Anne and thereby reject the power of the Pope. It was the first time that the companies had been called upon to endorse state-sponsored religious change and it is remarkable to note that everyone took the oath, although we do not know how many citizens had conveniently taken themselves beyond the seas. Even the conservative Rowland Phillips, rector of the Drapers’ church, St Michael’s Cornhill, was expected to abjure but relented, although needed 12

dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 440.

44

chapter 2

a stiff drink afterwards.13 Only the ultra certain and ultra committed refused to take the oath (Thomas More alone refused), and thus the compliance and conformity that is often displayed by the liveries in matters of religion cannot be read simply as agreement. As Ronald Hutton has argued, the Henrician Reformation had little impact upon the day-to-day realities of parish religious life, and the same can be said for the liveries as within the confines of the company hall their routine activities appear largely untouched either by official change or the circulation of new doctrines.14 This is perhaps surprising given the reputation of the Grocers and Drapers for harbouring individuals of ardent Protestant belief. In April 1538, for example, the draper Robert Gore appeared before the Court of Alderman charged with saying that the tonsured clergy were ‘false harlots’ and that there was ‘no more virtue in the holy unction’ than in grease or butter. He concluded his rant by saying that he was content to be burnt as a heretic so that he should not die cold.15 Gore was imprisoned for this speech, the antithesis of brotherly love and charity. But for those who managed to avoid making public heretical utterances, it was possible to hold both evangelical beliefs and public office. The draper Humfrey Monmouth was an early convert who could count Thomas Cromwell amongst his associates and, as noted earlier, was arrested in 1528 for his financing of William Tyndale. Monmouth served as master of the Drapers in 1536 although minutes for that year are scant. However, the influence of such early converts is hard to detect, perhaps because in the early decades of the Reformation to choose a new path was both a complex and potentially calamitous decision. Whilst Monmouth was a ‘known man’ he was also in the minority and has been identified as the only alderman with evangelical tendencies in the 1530s.16 We might also expect to see more disputes before the court that were fuelled by religious division or in which insults of a doctrinal nature were deployed. However, religion was never cited as the flashpoint in a dispute – it might well have been a factor but this was never reflected in company records. In fact, we see no clear evidence of a specifically Protestant doctrine or attitudes informing the punishment of recalcitrant members. 13 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 223. For more on the importance of oaths see Jonathan Michael Gray, Oaths and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2012). 14 Ronald Hutton, ‘The Local Impact of the Tudor Reformations,’ in Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), p. 116. 15 lma, Repertory 10, fo. 28r. 16 Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 2–9; David Hickman, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite 1520–1603’ (University of London PhD, 1996), p. 121.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

45

Rather, we see continuing appeals to the importance of maintaining brotherly love. Consequently, company records can present us with an image of largely enduring harmony punctuated only by tardy payments for business transactions. Doubtless, this was partly because the company wished to convey an image of harmony, and not dwell on discord, unless absolutely necessary. Paul Griffiths suggests that the purpose of court minutes was ‘as much to conceal as reveal’ in order to ‘give ruling elites one voice,’ a view supported by Janelle Day Jenstad.17 In writing about the Goldsmiths’ court minutes she stated that she viewed them, ‘not as a dispassionately and transparent recording of events but as an ideologically and rhetorically constructed projection of institutional self-definition.’18 Company records, particularly ordinances, were shown to the Corporation of London for approval so whilst their records were heavily guarded (usually locked away) they were not entirely private and what they recorded could have legal implications. Nor did the companies devote time to detecting potentially controversial moral crimes in the same way that the Drapers regulated the length of cloth and the Grocers ensured the correct garbling of wares. It was neither where their expertise lay nor in the interests of preserving company harmony. However, when an issue of morality was brought to their attention they would respond with full force, but continue to emphasise to company members the civic implications of bad behaviour. In 1534 John Rolles, the apprentice of John Herds, draper, was brought before the court having ‘grevously mysused hym self with a mayd servant of hys seyd mayster called Margaret Byllyngton upon passyon Sonday.’19 It was said that since that time ‘the said John Rolles not regardyng the shame of the worlde nor dredyng god but in gevyng vrey yll ensample to other young men apprent of the same crafte’ had been boasting of his conquest, giving encouragement to others. After deliberation the wardens decided that he must be punished and bought two ‘froks of canvas’ with hoods of the same with ‘a space for the mouthe and for the eyen lefte open onely.’ Then, at the next court day in the parlour: ‘ii tall man havyng the frocks upon them because they shuld not be knowen, came with twoo penyworth of burchen roddes’ and there in the presence of the wardens ‘withowten any wordes spekyng they pulled off the doblet and shert of the said John Rolles and ther 17 18

19

Paul Griffiths, ‘Secrecy and Authority in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century London,’ hj 40 (1997), pp. 925–951, at p. 931. Janelle Day Jenstad, ‘Public Glory, Private Gilt: The Goldsmiths’ Company and the Spectacle of Punishment,’ in Anne Goldgar and Robert Frost (eds), Institutional Culture in Early Modern Society (Leiden, 2004), pp. 191–217, at p. 193. dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 441.

46

chapter 2

upon hym beyng naked they spent all the said rods.’ This was to set an example and make others afraid or similar or worse punishment.20 It is curious that they chose men (presumably court members) distinctive by their stature yet disguised by their clothing to enact the punishment. Seemingly their ultimate aim was to conceal the exact identity of the executioners and prevent longlasting hostility. The provision of charity also remained a method of promoting brotherly love and wider civic harmony by providing assistance to those who had fallen on hard times. The Grocers continued to administer the alms bequeathed by John Peche and Henry Keble in the early sixteenth century.21 The amount expended on charity remained almost constant at approximately £18 15s 4d on alms for 12 individuals alongside an annual payment to the four prisons. For the Drapers, however, we do see an extension of official charitable provision when Sir John Milborne bought land beside Crossed Friars and built thirteen almshouses in 1535.22 The houses were for company members, men or women, and were required to go daily ‘to the conventual church, and to say the De Profundis, paternoster, ave, creed and collect for the benefit of the founder, his wife, children, and friends.’23 Despite the Catholic conception of his charity, drapers driven by fraternal loyalty would continue to re-edify his charity throughout the century.24 It has been suggested that the emphasis of livery companies upon the administration of charity by the second half of the century stemmed from a common Christian impulse which all could unite behind.25 In fact, some of the most substantial charities were established by Catholics in the earlier sixteenth century but often took several decades to come to fruition. Notable amongst these is the bequest of the draper and merchant adventurer, Thomas Howell. Upon his death in 1538 he left 12,000 gold ducats to provide for ten maiden orphans of his lineage.26 This was said to be the largest bequest of the sixteenth century but proved tremendously complex to administer.27 In part this was because Howell had spent much of the previous twenty years living in Seville and was so well integrated into that society that his will was written in ‘the Castilian 20 Ibid. 21 See Ch. 1 of this book. 22 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 328; Rep. 7(ii), p. 500. 23 vch London, p. 529. 24 See Ch. 5 of this book. 25 Davies and Saunders, History of the Merchant Taylors, p. 138. 26 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 192v–193v. 27 dh, Rep. 7(ii), pp. 583–585, 595–597, 622–623, 626, 629, 631, 683; Glanmor Williams, ‘Thomas Howell (c. 1480–1537),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

47

tongue.’28 Simply acquiring the money was difficult, and potential suitors had to prove their lineage.29 Despite these difficulties the company administered Howell’s charity and continue to do so, in modified form, to this day.30 Despite continuing charitable bequests motivated by traditional Catholic concerns, it cannot be denied that new religious ideas were circulating during this period and company members cannot have been impervious to them, irrespective of how they regarded such doctrine. As Susan Brigden has demonstrated, it was a time during which religious beliefs could happily juxtapose orthodoxy with heterodoxy.31 Consequently, communal ritual and conviviality must have taken on extra significance in ensuring company members remained bound together. This explains, in part, the growing number of occasions on which junior members of the Drapers’ company, the bachelors and yeomanry, came together.32 Traditionally the bachelors met following the election feast and also at the annual bachelors’ audit. In 1534 the master bachelors were granted their own election day dinner and from 1548 they held quarter day dinners which the whole yeomanry could attend with the intention that they ‘might hereafter the bettar one Brother know an other of the said Felloship.’33 There was also a practical and economic element to this in that they felt it would ensure greater efficiency in the collection of quarterage and payment of fines. The only concession made to doctrinal change came in 1543 with the revision of the ordinance concerning the religious aspect of the company’s election day rituals. The ordinances were made slightly more ambiguous demonstrating the fading of traditional religion alongside the maintenance of the pattern of their rituals. It now stated that on the Sunday before the feast the livery would attend church to hear ‘divine service and collacyon’ before returning to the hall for dinner. On Monday the livery would attend church where ‘Divine Service and sermon be done and Holy Communion ministered, if any be appointed.’34 It seems likely that these changes were made in response to the publication of the King’s Book (1543), which was critical of Masses for the dead, although stopped short of outlawing them. Consequently, the Drapers’

28 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 83. 29 Ibid., pp. 83–85. 30 http://www.thedrapers.co.uk/charities.aspx [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 31 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 108. 32 Bachelors and yeomanry were those who had obtained their freedom of the company but were not members of the livery. 33 dh, Rep. 7(ii), pp. 503, 505; Rep. 7(iii), p. 917; Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 297. 34 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, pp. 284–285.

48

chapter 2

ordinances no longer made reference to their requiem Mass, but replaced it with more adaptable terms that could cover a variety of services. It was the flexibility of ambiguity which enabled the religious rituals of the Drapers to withstand the Henrician Reformation. At the Dissolution the Drapers simply moved two of their obits from Austin Friars to St Swithun’s, but otherwise they did not record any sense of disruption or devastation.35 When the prospect of buying ex-monastic land was discussed in 1538 they concluded that they should not be ‘hasty’ and it was not until 1543 that they bought Thomas Cromwell’s mansion – formerly Austin Friars – using a bequest from Thomas Howell.36 Obits were not only maintained but, as noted earlier, continued to be established in this period. In fact, before the reign of Edward vi it is difficult to detect any real change in their religious activities. For example, in 1540 the Drapers’ clerk recorded that before Mr Wells’ funeral the court met and aggreed that the sowll of mastres toolles, late the wyfe of John Richardes draper, shalbe immediatly entered to be prayd for…besyde the sowll of the said John Richardes, the sowlles of his fader, moder and oder [of] his frendes sowlles in the testament of William Broders, draper, to be made and declared upon a tenement of his beying in pety Wales bought with the goodes of the said John Richardes and that the master, and wardenes of the guld or fraternytie of Drapers shall keep… yearly obyte.37 Such an entry would equally be at home amongst those of the 1520s. Particularly before the accession of Edward vi, it seems that traditional religious rituals were broadly observed. After all, as Clive Burgess has noted, corporate devotion was a ‘normative force within society: at a time of increasing factional strife, abandoning a principle that reinforced shared beliefs and behaviour and stabilized society at large would have been utter folly.’38 Nonetheless, rituals were not always perfectly observed and were motivated by a mixture of piety and profit and, in turn, the maintenance of fraternity. Actual enthusiasm for these rituals is difficult to chart as company records were keen to demonstrate a desire to follow the letter of the law and recorded this dispassionately. 35 36 37 38

dh, Rep. 7(ii), pp. 593, 773. dh, Rep. 7(iii), p. 572; Orlin, Locating Privacy, pp. 114–122. dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 652. Clive Burgess, ‘London, the Church and the Kingdom,’ in Matthew Davies and Andrew Prescott (eds), London and the Kingdom: essays in honour of Caroline M Barron (Donington, 2008), p. 108.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

49

However, whilst the Drapers were keen to promote an image of fundamental company harmony, it is again through ecclesiastical patronage and their engagement with parishioners that we see that such harmony was not reflected in the wider society. In examining ecclesiastical patronage during the 1530s and 40s we see a departure from orthodoxy. It is curious that in this period we witness the companies maintaining traditional religious rituals whilst making evangelical appointments in their parishes, again demonstrating the juxtaposition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. We also see a divide between the religious tendencies of the churchwardens and those of the companies. In 1535 two of the churchwardens of St Michael’s Cornhill appeared before the court charged with preventing the Drapers’ chaplain, Sir Thomas Baker, from saying Mass.39 The court reminded the churchwardens that the chaplain was there to serve the company by attending obits and funerals, and saying Mass. Preventing Mass was a potentially controversial act, made more controversial by the fact that the two churchwardens were also drapers. Thomas Iyan was a pewterer who had served the company at feasts and was dismissed from this role until ‘a reformation theryn to be made.’ In fact, shortly afterwards another pewterer, William Hurstwaite, was admitted to the company by redemption and Iyan never appears in the records again.40 Edmund Perry, a member of the livery, was also advised to reform himself although he suffered no long-lasting exclusion as he was appointed warden in 1541.41 Aside from possible evangelical stirrings amongst some of the churchwardens at St Michael’s, it is striking that for Iyan his punishment was one of economic sanction and here we begin to see the blurred boundary between company and parish. It is also not clear if the churchwardens received admonition from any other sphere or if this is an example of the company closing ranks and protecting one of their fellowship, irrespective of the religious context. Arthur Johnson believed that this episode was simply about whether or not the chaplain should read daily service at St Michael’s and was not indicative of an underlying religious dispute.42 It may well have been a power struggle within the parish or between different layers of the company, but it takes on more of a religious tenor when we consider that just a few weeks later Edmund Perry appeared before the court again this time charged with not attending obits. The records state that he had been warned previously and paid a fine of 11d and was now ‘commanded by the master wardens to keep his attendance 39 dh, Rep. 7(ii), pp. 503, 506. 40 Ibid., p. 505. 41 dh, WA3, 1541–2, fo. 1r. 42 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 78 n.

50

chapter 2

at sermons.’43 This rather lenient admonition may stem from the presence of evangelical sympathies amongst certain court members, coupled with the need to be seen to punish religious transgressions, which in turn threatened wider civic harmony. Continued evangelical tendencies were also demonstrated in appointments made by the Grocers. In 1537, following the resignation of the ultra-­conservative Dr John Coke (a pragmatic appointment following the evangelical Robert Forman in 1528), they appointed Thomas Garrett, previously Forman’s curate, as rector of All Hallows Honey Lane.44 A year earlier he had served as chaplain to Hugh Latimer and went on to serve Archbishop Cranmer in 1539. Garrett remained doggedly evangelical throughout: preaching ideas which conflicted with the Six Articles ultimately cost him his life. He was burnt at Smithfield on 3 July 1540 alongside fellow reformers Robert Barnes and William Jerome, and at the same time as three Catholics were hung, drawn and quartered for refusing to recognize the validity of the King’s ecclesiastical title.45 Having backed a heretic, the Grocers’ patronage of All Hallows was temporarily rescinded by the crown, and it wasn’t until the reign of Elizabeth i that the Grocers regained control of the benefice. In 1540 Henry viii appointed his chaplain, Richard Bernese, a former Augustinian canon of Merton Priory who had assisted with the Dissolution and was rewarded with clerical appointments.46 In 1545 patronage was returned to the Grocers although de facto rested with the crown as Thomas Paynell was appointed who was also a former Merton prior and chaplain to Henry viii. Upon his death in 1564, however, Paynell requested a Catholic burial.47

Peak Turmoil, 1547–1558

It was the reign of Edward vi, however, that resulted in the most significant encroachment of the official Reformation upon company life with the abolition of chantries and obits. Strong opinions, however, are sadly not to be found 43 dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 519. 44 Hennessy, Repertorium, p. 77; Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 209. Dr John Coke, presented as ‘Laurence Cooke,’ preached against the divorce and was imprisoned in the Tower in 1532. 45 Susan Wabuda, ‘Thomas Garrard (1498–1540),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016], Garrard is a variant spelling of Garrett. 46 Jonathan Hughes, ‘Richard Bernese (d. 1547),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 47 Geoffrey Eatough, ‘Thomas Paynell (d. 1564?),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

51

in company records. The Drapers’ court minutes of 1547 record payments to chantry priests and just weeks later the company prepared a dinner for the Chantry Commissioners – as did the Grocers.48 Accounts also demonstrate the faithful administration of obits and payments for chantry priests until 1547–8 and their total disappearance from records the following year, never to appear again. There is a total absence of commentary expressed on this in the records and the loss of obits was not recorded beyond the first payment of the quitrent to the king in 1548. Consequently, we are presented with a very dispassionate, business-like response.49 However, such silence must surely be reflective of a sense of resigned shock: resigned, because the 1545 Chantries Act pre-empted that of 1547.50 Even so, the companies themselves narrowly avoided being dissolved and irrespective of the religious inclination of their members, the abolition of these rituals was of great significance to them, whether they greeted this change with support, condemnation or bewilderment. The financial shock of the loss of chantry lands was lessened in 1550 when both companies bought back their lands from a cash-strapped crown. In the short term it was an enormous financial burden – the Grocers paid £1718 and the Drapers £1082 6s for their chantry assets.51 In order to meet this cost some company assets were sold. We know that ‘the moste part of the saide [Drapers] assistantes’ voted to sell land in order to buy back their quitrents, although the lands sold were bought by senior company members, with William Chester being told that he must buy the house he currently rented.52 Consequently, the cost was borne by company members as private individuals, rather than by company coffers, and the land remained within their sphere of influence. The sale of land by the Drapers raised just over £700, whilst the Grocers sold land to the value of £1266 and received £330 from company loans with the remainder taken from company funds.53 Despite the large sums of money and loss of land involved, both companies were financially diminished rather than devastated by the dissolution of the chantries. Significant company debt is seen in the later sixteenth century but was related to general economic trends rather than to religious change.

48 49 50

dh, Rep. 7(iii), pp. 907, 909. Ibid., p. 929. dh, wa, 1544–5, fo. 7v; Alan Kreider, English Chantries: The Road to Dissolution (Boston, 1979). 51 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 390. 52 dh, Rep. 7(iii), p. 974. 53 dh, wa, 1550, fo. 4v; gl, ms 11571/5, fo. 344v.

52

chapter 2

C John Sommerville, in a study of secularisation in early modern England, argued that ‘the religious character’ of the livery companies ended with the dissolution of the chantries.54 Evidence from the Drapers, however, would suggest that this is far from true. The spiritual shock of the loss of chantries and obits was instead greeted with quiet adaptation. Rituals were modified so that they both conformed to state orthodoxy and met the needs of the companies and their members. The clearest replacement for the obit was the funeral dinner or dinner of commemoration. Such dinners were by no means new; in 1519 the Grocers’ feast on St Anthonin’s day was funded by a bequest of £4 14s 2d from Henry Adees.55 However, funeral dinners became increasingly popular after the abolition of obits and were funded by bequests of a few pounds for a dinner or a series of dinners in their memory. They were usually held separately to any funeral-related festivities and while companies observed such requests, they were also happy to deploy them astutely, often combining dinners of commemoration with routine company dinners. A quarter dinner at the Drapers held in 1554, was funded by a bequest from William Lambard which was to be said openly to the whole fellowship and they were then to pray for his soul, Lady Lambard’s soul and all Christian souls.56 Without reason, the next quarter day dinner was cancelled entirely.57 Perhaps there was no bequest available to fund it as the following quarter dinner went ahead thanks to a bequest from John Branch, again the dinner was to include the ‘augmentation’ of his memory.58 In part, the combining of these dinners of remembrance with pre-existing company dinners is reflective of financial astuteness alongside the strains placed upon the Grocers and Drapers at various times throughout the century, although particularly in the later decades when the demands of war and disease caused company dinners to be cancelled entirely. But by the second half of the sixteenth century it was also the conventional way of remembering their deceased brethren without the religious controversy and administrative burden of maintaining an obit. Although a dinner of commemoration held in the company hall clearly had a secular sheen, such events also reflected the desire of company ordinances to ‘knytt together…in parfecte love and charitye’ those of a spectrum of beliefs into a corporate whole. 54 Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England, p. 78. 55 gl, ms 11571/3, fo. 286v. 56 dh, Rep. B, p. 50. 57 Ibid., p. 58. 58 dh, Rep. B, p. 64. Incidentally, it is not thought that John Branch was related to the Marian martyr William Branch (aka Flower) who also died in 1555.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

53

It also remained a requirement for the livery to attend the funerals of their brethren – irrespective of the religious tenor of the funeral. Doubtless, this meant that members of the company were being called upon to attend services which went against their own religious beliefs, yet company records still dutifully display their attendance. For example, in early 1548 the Drapers’ clerk recorded two funerals. At the first, the livery attended the burial of Mistress Swan, followed by dinner and a Mass the next morning. Three days later they attended the burial of Mistress Bucknell. We are told that: ‘they came from churche fro the Lector [and had potation and] on the morow they went not to churche by reason there was no Masse no more a doo.’59 Irrespective of individual religious allegiance it was important to retain these collective ritual acts which were about more than doctrine. Companies needed to maintain a sense of fraternity and solidarity at the highest level. For the master and wardens of a company not to attend the funeral of someone they had worked alongside for several decades must surely have gone against the ideal of perfect love and charity which they sought to promote throughout all layers of the company. And the sense of fraternity extended to all their members whatever their confessional identity. In 1556, for example, the Drapers’ livery attended the burial of ‘Mr Fowle late pryor of St Mary Overey, a brother of this house.’60 The corporate response to the Edwardian Reformation was generally one of bare-minimum conformity, but we do see a shift in the forms and extent of company charity. It has been argued that the Reformation promoted the growth (and centralisation) of charity, in terms of expenditure and significance.61 After all, the act abolishing the superstitious expenditure deriving from obits and chantries, justified their dissolution by stating that such funds should instead be put to ‘good and godly uses as in the erecting of Grammar Schools…the further augmenting of the universities and better provision for the poor and needy.’62 Contemporary preachers, however, were often critical of limited scope of London’s charitable giving. At a Paul’s Cross sermon in January 1548–9, Hugh Latimer criticised the rich citizens of London stating that whilst men used to ‘bequeath great sums of money towards the relief of the poor,’ now that ‘the knowledge of God’s word is brought to light’ they show

59 60 61

dh, Rep. 7 (iii), p. 934. dh, mb 5, p. 204. W K Jordan, The Charities of London 1480–1660: the aspirations and achievements of the urban society (London, 1960). 62 Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. 2, pp. 102–103.

54

chapter 2

no pity.63 Such preaching doubtless hoped to induce charitable giving and London’s merchants certainly distributed a significant amount and range of charity in their wills, with W K Jordan estimating that the greatest merchants provided 30 per cent of charity in London alone, and 20 per cent of charity in England.64 In distributing charity, merchants were said to favour public institutions rather than spiritual institutions and thereby charity became secularized. It is true that pages within the Grocers’ accounts previously dedicated to obits were replaced by those dedicated to charity, visibly suggesting the growing prominence of charity within company life.65 Claire Schen, however, has suggested a continuing preference amongst the laity for ‘familiar people and institutions’ and evidence from the Grocers suggests a great deal of continuity displayed in the amount and type of charitable expenditure, the majority of which continued to be taken up by the pre-existing alms of John Peche and Henry Keble.66 In 1548 we see what at first sight resembles a radical addition to charitable activity when a new page in the Grocers’ accounts was dedicated to alms ‘at the coste and charge of the common goodes of this mistery’ bringing their expenditure to £35 11s (as opposed to the usual £18).67 However, this represented charitable bequests stemming from obits, usually donations of coals, amounting to £10 6s 8d.68 The figure of £35 was also inflated by one-off payments to two chantry priests (still referred to by the traditional title of ‘Sir’) and a payment of £10 for the establishment of St Bartholomew’s ‘the new hospital in West Smithfield.’ Total expenditure that year was £289 15s 1d.69 Again, in 1549 they spent a total of £45 5s on alms, but this included a £20 payment to the new hospital and payments towards former chantry priests.70 Coals, pensions and other charitable donations from testators amounted to £10 3s 4d. Charity now almost equalled expenditure on feasting which in 1549 totalled £41 13s 4d.71 In 1551 we see the introduction of a benevolence to the universities of £5 63 Sermons by Hugh Latimer, ed. G E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 59–78. 64 Jordan, The Charities of London, p. 64; see Ch. 5 of this book. 65 This reflects Cranmer’s visitation articles of 1548 that stressed the laity were to divert funds from blind devotions, such as Masses, and towards charity. See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant: Edward vi and the Protestant Reformation (London, reprinted 2001), p. 125. 66 Claire S Schen, Charity and Lay Piety in Reformation London 1500–1620 (Aldershot, 2002), p. 123. 67 gl, ms 11571/5, fo. 331v. 68 Ibid., fo. 332v. 69 Ibid., fo. 336v. 70 Ibid., fo. 352v. 71 Ibid., fo. 361r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

55

towards ‘the fynding of scolers to learnyng’ – secular charity towards a sacred purpose.72 The Drapers took a different approach; their obits had been accounted for by the renter warden, as they were funded by rent from property, and so charity remained within these accounts, rather than those of the wardens. In fact, even at the end of the sixteenth century charitable expenditure was not accounted for separately. Rather, it was subsumed within ‘ordinary charges’ and ad hoc charity within ‘extraordinary charges.’ Ordinary charges included payments for the wages of company officers and other regular payments. The fact that almsmen were still represented alongside company officers suggests, on some level, a continued linking of almsmen with their medieval role of praying for the soul of their benefactor. They played a role within the company as much as the clerk or gardener. But this role was not prominent enough to warrant the clear tracking of their charitable expenses. Nonetheless, education did begin to feature more prominently in company administration, at least for the Grocers. Joseph Ward had noted that from the reign of Elizabeth company commemoration of its members shifted from the overtly spiritual, like the obit, towards almshouses, lectureships and schools. However, examples of such charity can be found before 1558.73 The first school administered by the Grocers’ company was the bequest of Sir William Laxton in 1556. He bequeathed land for the establishing of a school and almshouses in Oundle, Northamptonshire. He referred to the almsmen as bedesmen but did not stipulate that they were to pray for his soul; yet this has been enough for previous scholars to label Laxton a Catholic although his religious history suggests at least earlier connections with evangelicals.74 Moreover, the term bedesmen continued to be used beyond the Reformation and by those who religious identity was reformed.75 The company set to work immediately in 1556

72 73

74 75

Ibid., fo. 387v. Joseph Ward recognises grammar schools were maintained by the liveries from the sixteenth century but focuses almost exclusively the mid to late seventeenth century, see Ward, ‘Godliness, Commemoration and Community: The Management of Provincial Schools by London Trade Guilds,’ in Muriel C McClendon, Joseph P Ward, Michael MacDonald (eds), Protestant Identities: Religion, Society and Self-Fashioning in Post-­Reformation England (Stanford, 1999), pp. 141–158. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/38, fo. 79r–80v; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 105; for more on Laxton see Ch. 5 of this book. For example, in the 1570s St Bartholomew’s Hospital referred to recipients of the charity of William Chester, praised by Foxe for his sympathy for those persecuted during the reign of Mary, as bedeswomen – see Ch. 3 of this book.

56

chapter 2

and reassured Laxton’s widow that they would not hinder the ‘goode worke’ that her husband had devised.76 The Edwardian Reformation also impacted upon (but did not remove) other company rituals, particularly the religious elements of the election day proceedings. In 1547 the Drapers’ feast was moved to 6 August, on the Monday following Lamas day, instead of the weekend closest to the Assumption (15 August). The aldermen were not to wear their scarlet gowns, nor the livery their hoods. Nonetheless, with startling brevity the fellowship were told to ‘come to the hall on the Satday, Sonday and Mondaye after the old custom savyng the ceremonyes of dirge and Massyes in tymes past used and therein to be abrogatyd.’77 We do not learn what kind of service they did attend – if any – but their minutes seek to reassure us that whatever they did it was not Catholic. In 1550, however, we find a revealing (if inadvertently farcical) account of their election day service which demonstrates the difficulties of balancing secular and spiritual concerns. John Hooper, future bishop of Gloucester and Marian martyr, had been chosen to give a collation. He was late arriving, however, as he had been preaching at the burial of Thomas Wriothesley. The mayor, Sir Rowland Hill, had been a guest at the burial and was now on his way to attend the Drapers’ election feast, as was customary. Consequently, while Hooper was in the pulpit, the master and wardens went to intercept the mayor before he arrived at an empty hall and then ‘sent worde to the Churche to the hole feloshipp, wyllyng theym to come a waye to the hall, which so dyd immedyately and lefte the precher in the pulpett.’78 Again, the choice of Hooper to speak might suggest an active desire to display a Protestant religious identity. However, it was generally the responsibility of the rector at St Michael’s Cornhill to appoint the preacher. John Willoughby, appointed rector in 1545, had previously served as chaplain to Henry viii and physician to Anne Boleyn. He was deposed upon the accession of Mary, suggesting that he was married and therefore (at least in part) an enthusiastic adherent of the Edwardian Reformation, although in later life he refused to subscribe to the Elizabethan articles of religion which has led Norman Jones to refer to him as a recusant.79 Likewise, at St Stephen’s Walbrook, the Grocers 76 gl, ms 1588/1, fos. 5v, 16v. 77 dh, Rep. 7 (iii), p. 915, see also p. 920. 78 Ibid., p. 993. 79 Cooper, Ath. Cantab., vol. 1, p. 515; Barret L Beer has demonstrated that, of clergy appointed in the reign of Edward vi, it was generally only those who were married that were deposed at the accession of Mary i. Beer, ‘London Parish Clergy and the Protestant Reformation 1547–1559,’ Albion 18 (1986), pp. 375–393; Jones, The English Reformation, p. 64.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

57

appointed the evangelical divine Thomas Becon as rector in 1548. Becon had previously served as chaplain to Lord Protector, Edward Seymour. He had already come to the attention of the authorities in 1541 for his opposition to the Six Articles, with his troubles culminating in 1543 when he was forced to publicly recant and cut up his published works (which were outlawed in 1546). Becon served until the accession of Mary i when he was imprisoned in the Tower on the charge of seditious preaching. He subsequently went into exile on the continent but briefly returned as rector of St Stephen’s in 1563 only to resign the same year.80 Despite the significant religious changes, the companies do not seem to have been wracked with disharmony, or at least it was not presented to the court. Furthermore we do not see the imposition of an exclusively Protestant morality when punishing company members. However, although few disputes directly concern religion or religious change, the dispute resolution was infused with simple Christian values. And although the use of clergy as arbitrators disappears from records very early on, a Christian context to resolution can still be seen on several occasions. For example, in 1552 the draper Geoffrey Lewis, who had spoken ‘evil words of slander,’ was made to ask forgiveness of William Cater in the vestry of St Peter’s in Cheap ‘in which parish they both now inhabit’ in front of the churchwarden and ten parishioners.81 The accession of Mary i, however, signals a period of greater disturbance. The reaction of the Drapers to the death of Edward, brief reign of Lady Jane Grey and subsequent accession of Mary was, according to the Drapers’ historian, ‘studiously correct.’82 Yet at the same time they reflected the elements of unease within the city at the accession of Mary in the recording of numerous precepts. For example court minutes stated: The xii die Julii Anno primo Regine Marie was openly declared by Maister Wardens the commaundment of my Lorde Mayor, that every man should take good hede unto their apprentices and servants and to gyve them monycon to beware of their talke and to take ensample by one which lost bothe hys eres yesterday in Cheapsyde.83 Mary’s coronation passed without mention although we know from their accounts that the Drapers contributed £60 13s 4d (including £20 from the 80 Seymour Baker House, ‘Thomas Becon (1512/13–1567),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 81 Rappaport, Worlds Within Words, p. 209. 82 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 106. 83 dh, Rep. B, p. 1093.

58

chapter 2

bachelors and the rest from the livery) to the customary present of 1000 marks to the monarch.84 Yet equally, occasional disobedience occurred which would be read as unease with the Marian regime. The day after Mary’s coronation procession through the city we learn that the draper George Hopton had been committed to the ward for refusing to be a ‘whyflar to the Companye at the Qwenes matie comyng thorow the Citie towardes the Coronacyon.’85 He was ordered to bring in a pawn to the value of £5 but ‘upon his submyssyon they released hym immediately’ and forgave his fine.86 Although we cannot be sure what motivated this transgression, the company appeared to go through the motions of punishing him but were ultimately very lenient. The following year Hopton was appointed to the livery and was serving as fourth warden by 1565, so clearly the company bore no grudge against him for this misdemeanour.87 Very early into Mary’s reign a further precept was issued by the lord mayor that ‘no person shuld mock or skorne any preistes,’ in particular they should not throw ‘at theym crabbes or any other unlawful thynges’ or else incur the ‘high indygnacon’ of the queen.88 It was not long until Francis Higham, the apprentice of William Parker, appeared before the court to receive the ‘correcyon of the house,’ having been charged with shaving a boy’s crown. Court minutes state that his actions were taken to be ‘in derysyon of preistees, wherefore yt was commandyd by my Lord mayre and the benche that Master Alderman Chester, our master, with master wardens shold se yt done which accordyngly was so done.’89 The master at that time, William Chester, was also appointed alderman in 1553 yet was known to have been an early convert to the Protestant faith who released the Marian martyr, Laurence Saunders, from an apprenticeship with him to devote himself to preaching. Chester was faced with balancing private unease with popery with the civic duty to punish misbehaviour, particularly by apprentices, the youngest and traditionally the most unruly part of any company.90 Unusually, and perhaps purposefully, company records mention no more of the matter; only by consulting the repertories of the Court of Aldermen do we discover that Higham was whipped naked at Drapers’ Hall, 84 85

86 87 88 89 90

dh, wa, 1552–3, fo. 4r; ibid., 1553–4, fo. 2r. dh, Rep. B, p. 3. A whiffler was ‘one of a body of attendants armed with a javelin, battle-axe, sword or staff, and wearing a chain, employed to keep the way clear for a procession or public spectacle,’ oed. dh, Rep. B, p. 3. Ibid., p. 20; dh, Dinner Book, fo. 20r. Rep. B, p. 6. Ibid., p. 16. J D Alsop, ‘Sir William Chester (c. 1509–1595?),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

59

while the young boy whose hair he cut was carted through the city.91 Much like Hopton, the errant whiffler, Higham was able to rise up the ranks of the company in due course, joining the livery in 1576 and appointed warden in 1588.92 Such corporate reticence again underlines the desire to be seen to adhere to the letter of the law, but no more. The corporate conformity coupled with individual discontent within the Drapers is highlighted again in 1553 when the clerk recorded that the company, along with the wardens of others, were called to the Guildhall after a seditious letter had been found. They were admonished and told to be careful in their talk concerning Philip and Mary and in particular were not to question the queen’s love for the city. The yeomanry were gathered and warned similarly.93 Taken together, these events, all occurring within a very short space of time and the like of which cannot be found in the preceding decades, suggest a level of opposition either to Mary as monarch, or more specifically, to the re-­ imposition of the Catholic faith. This religious factor seems even more compelling when we consider that three senior drapers who all reached the status of warden, William Beswick, John Calthorpe and Richard Poynter formed part of the jury which acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton of involvement in Wyatt’s Rebellion and for which they were imprisoned in the Fleet and heavily fined.94 Also in 1554 we are told that ‘on Monday the master wardeyns and vi other of this ffelowshipp were commandyd by my Lorde mayor as dyverse other companyes were to be presentt at St Mary Overeys at the araignment and examynacion of Hoper and Rogers for heresye.’95 In 1550 Hooper had been chosen by the Drapers to give a sermon at St Michael’s Cornhill as part of their election day service, doubtless this was a distressing experience for certain members of the company to observe, but in such events only collective conformity and silence was ever recorded. The circulation of seditious texts always prompted action from the lord mayor and the company response demonstrates how they broadly adhered to precepts issued but they certainly could have done more. In 1555 articles from the lord mayor asked the Drapers if they had seen or heard of a seditious book called A Warning for England; they responded that they had heard of the 91 lma, Repertory 13, fo. 157. 92 dh, Rep. E, fo. 58v; Rep. F, p. 317. 93 Rep. B, p. 17. 94 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 109. One of the jurors is listed as ‘Beswicke,’ which might be William Beswick who served as warden in 1560, and alderman of Farringdon Without 1564–5. 95 dh, Rep. B, p. 48.

60

chapter 2

book but they certainly did not own any copies.96 The company as a whole were then warned to beware of such pernicious books that were circulating.97 No further action was taken against the Drapers and they were simply taken at their word. Yet despite these rumblings of discontent, companies were structured in a way which could accommodate disharmony of many kinds. In 1556 the Grocers had to contend with the particularly obstreperous warden, Thomas Bowyer. Our introduction to Bowyer in the Grocers’ court minutes in 1556 is a note stating that he had brought in a pawn for disobedience. He was referred to as a ‘Brother of this company’ who had refused to appear before the wardens of the previous year, Richard Grafton and Rauf Greenway, to discuss ‘certayne compleyntes’ against him.98 At the same time he was also in dispute with his former apprentice, Thomas Morgan, about money for which a panel of arbitrators were appointed.99 He was clearly out of fraternal love as the same court reveals that he was fined 2s 6d for not attending the election dinner and a further 20s for his disobedience towards the wardens.100 Despite repeated misbehaviour and fines, when the master of the company died, Bowyer was the most senior liveryman and was thus elected master despite his poor standing.101 Nor did this honour cause him to reconcile himself; instead he refused to contribute to the election day expenses, as was the custom, and was consequently fined £5 ‘for that he hath moved styrred dyvers and sondrie inconvenyences by reason of the said election.’102 Finally, on 28 June 1557 Bowyer ended his dispute with the wardens of the previous year, Thomas Pyckett and Thomas Wanton, and also asked ‘Alderman [Rauf] Greneway and Mr Richard Grafton forgyvenes and shaked handes with them.’103 The following February, it was decided to refund £4 13s 4d of Bowyer’s fine and keep the rest for the use of the company.104 Although Bowyer was from a noted Protestant family, given that he was in dispute with so many people over so many different matters, it seems that he was simply a disagreeable individual.105 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

dh, Rep. B, p. 82. Ibid., p. 84. gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 1v. Ibid., fo. 2r. Ibid., fo. 2r. gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 5v. Ibid., fo. 11v. Ibid., fo. 13r. Ibid., fo. 19v. It has been suggested that Bowyer’s disputes were motivated by discontent at the Marian regime, but as he directed his ire towards the Protestant Richard Grafton as much as to

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

61

Nonetheless, it demonstrates the capacity of companies to accommodate disharmony at the very top. It seems that their slow and methodical approach to dispute resolution acted to take the heat out of any grievance. Just as the Edwardian changes had been instituted in full, both companies quietly returned to the ‘old manner’ under Mary. Company rituals designed to forge bonds between company members remained intact and orthodox. For example, the Drapers’ election day ceremonies would be according to the ‘old manner’; that is they would attend church in the morning to hear a solemn Mass sung by note, returning in the evening for dirge. On the following morning they would attend a ‘Mass of requiem according to the old ordinance.’106 The Grocers also fell in line. In 1556, one of their first recorded minutes for the sixteenth century states that at election time they ‘they had Derige songe’ on the Sunday and the following day there ‘was a sermon preached by Mr Christo

herson and the masse of requiem song by note.’107 The same order was seen in ecclesiastical appointments. In February 1554 the Drapers appointed a former monk named William Wright to the benefice of St Michael’s. Court minutes are predictably reticent on exactly how he came to be appointed, all we know is that he spoke to alderman John Lambard – the most senior member of the company – and that he promised to be ‘moste parte resydent thereon and spycially in the wynter season.’108 Wright was certainly not a popular choice with his parishioners; within a year he was suing them for building tenements in the churchyard and for appropriating the charnel house, perhaps an assertion of their opposition to traditional Catholic practices.109 The Drapers gave Wright their full support, even going to the parsonage for ‘apples, byskettes, bread and wine.’110 Their support was motivated, however, by financial concerns; the court exhibited a list of articles to the parishioners

106 107 108

109 110

the Catholic Rauf Greenway this seems unlikely. I have also found Bowyer before the Court of St Bartholomew’s in dispute with a scrivener, and in 1548–9 he appeared before the Court of Aldermen in dispute with fellow grocer, Henry Mylles, but as Bowyer refused to be bound he was committed to ward. bha, Ha1/1, fo. 8r; lma, Repertory 12/1, fos. 41r–43r. John Abernethy Kingdon, Richard Grafton: Citizen and Grocer of London… (London, 1901), pp. 90–94. For Bowyer’s Protestant credentials see Rev. Canon J H Cooper, ‘Cuckfield Families, ii,’ Sussex Archaeological Collections 42 (1899), pp. 19–54. dh, Rep. B, p. 64. gl, ms 11588/1, facing 1r. dh, Rep. B, p. 11; for more on Lambard see Retha M Warnicke, ‘The Merchant Society of Tudor London: John Lambard – A Case Study,’ Indiana Social Studies Quarterly 27 (1984), pp. 57–69. dh, Rep. B, p. 49. Ibid., p. 50.

62

chapter 2

which, amongst others, stated that the Drapers would receive any rental income from the properties, but they also warned the churchwardens that the charnel house was to be returned to its original purpose.111 When the parishioners refused to respond to these articles, the company gave Wright permission to ‘suee by order of the lawe.’112 When it came to more overtly religious matters, however, it seems that the court were less willing to support the rector: for example, when Wright attempted to reinstitute the obit of John Kidderminster in 1556 the Drapers’ court denied all knowledge of the matter and stated that they were not able to attend. As a compromise, they promised to discuss it as a future court meeting but there is no record of this ever happening.113 A similar event occurred at the Grocers when, in 1557, Parson Jenkins appeared before court seeking the establishment of an obit.114 A committee, led by the godly merchant-printer Richard Grafton, was established to inspect the property he proposed to fund the bequest.115 Eventually, the company refused his request on the basis that it would not prove profitable.116 It is not clear if that was actually true, but it was certainly a diplomatic and very mercantile response designed to avoid discord. It seems that the Grocers handled a return to Catholicism skilfully by appointing Dr Henry Pendleton to St Stephen’s Walbrook in 1555.117 Although he had served Bishop Bonner as chaplain, and helped to compile the homilies of 1555, he also fitted in with the changing conformity of the livery companies: he had been an ardent supporter of the Reformed faith under Edward, only to return to Catholicism under Mary, leading John Strype to refer to him as Pendleton the Turncoat.118 And Pendleton certainly conformed well, arranging for John Christopherson, future bishop of Chichester and keen enforcer of Marian heresy legislation, to speak on election day in 1556.119 Pendleton, however, lived for just a year, forcing the Grocers to repeat the process in 1557. As court minutes are extant from 1556 we gain a greater insight into the inability of the companies to direct the religious complexion of their 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Ibid., p. 61. Ibid., p. 63. dh, mb 5, fo. 95v. gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 5r. Ibid., fo. 6r. Ibid., fo. 11v. Pendleton was a noted preacher although in 1554 a sermon at Paul’s Cross was interrupted when someone tried to shoot him. Lucy Wooding, ‘Henry Pendleton (d. 1557),’ odnb [accessed 1 Nov 2016]. 118 Strype, Survey, vol. 1, p. 196. 119 gl, ms 11588/1, facing 1r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

63

benefices in a way that was anything less than orthodox during Mary’s reign. In October 1557 there were eight suitors for the benefice of St Stephen’s to which the company initially appointed Dr Edward Staple, former bishop of Meath and a zealous supporter of the Edwardian church.120 Given Staple’s pedigree, presenting him to Bonner seems a particularly audacious move, although perhaps they hoped he would conform as Pendleton had. However, Staple was duly rejected and the company repaired to Bonner to ‘knowe his pleasure’ in not allowing Staple to serve.121 The second candidate, Bartholomew Kirkley, also seems to have been rejected.122 By February 1557–8 Humphrey Busby was appointed to the satisfaction of the bishop with the court minutes stating that Busby promised ‘to make such godly sermons for the lyvery and to doo such other thinges as Mr Doctor Pendilton did promese.’123

The Coalescing of Company and Crown Irenicism, 1558–1603

The reign of Elizabeth saw the establishment of a form of Protestant religion which, at least in the eyes of the queen, sought outward conformity, but no more.124 Arguably, this was all the companies had ever called for and finally we begin to see the coalescing of company and crown irenicism, but alongside growing anti-popery. The death of Mary and accession of Elizabeth were not recorded in the Grocers’ minutes and were recorded with the usual brevity by the Drapers.125 Elizabeth’s accession was squeezed into Drapers’ court minutes as if an afterthought stating simply, ‘Quene Elizabeth went from Charterhouse to the Tower by London Wall, passing by Bishopps Gate Streete.’126 The minutes recording the coronation are water damaged but talk of ‘much cost and pageantes.’127

120 Christopher Magin, ‘Edward Staple (c. 1490–c. 1558),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; gl, ms 11588/1, fos. 15v–16r. 121 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 16v. 122 Ibid., fos. 15v–17v. 123 Ibid., fo. 19r. 124 Alexandra Walsham, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity and Confessional Polemic in Early Modern England (London, 1993), p. 11, passim; for a survey of the Elizabethan Reformation see, Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England 1547–1603 (Basingstoke, 2001). 125 dh, Rep. C, p. 205. 126 Ibid., p. 121. 127 Ibid., p. 127.

64

chapter 2

Before the imposition of the Elizabethan Settlement, however, we continue to see the companies attending a variety of church services. The ritual and sentiment behind attendance at the funerals of their deceased brethren seemed of greater significance than the religious complexion of the ceremony. For example, in January 1558–9 the Drapers attended the dirge and Mass of Robert Hardy.128 In July 1559 they attended the burial of Lady Chester, the wife of the master, William Chester, at St Edmund’s Lombard Street. The livery ‘asmany as were in towne’ attended both ‘service and sermon made by Mr Bekon who preached also the day before at the buryall.’129 The sermon was followed by a dinner funded by £5 from the master. Spiced bread was sent to the houses of the livery, according to the ‘thold custom.’ The choice of the Protestant divine, Thomas Becon, to speak is perhaps suggestive of Chester’s Protestant identity, but the corporate response was consistent in attending the funerals of their brethren. It was the consistent approaches and attitudes of the livery companies that provided their members with beacons of stability in times of flux and readjustment. Apprentices continued to misbehave, and disagreements arose between brethren, but the resolution of these incidents reflected customary practice above the individual religious inclinations of the court of assistants. On one notable occasion in June 1559 a minute was recorded by the clerk that the assistants agreed that ‘it was not thought convenient that the foresaid submission [of John Calthorpe] should stande, wherefore they asked the clerke to crosse it owte.’130 It is not clear what the submission of May 1558 referred to as it has been crossed out to the extent of illegibility, but it has always been thought to refer to Calthorpe’s role as juror in trial of Nicholas Throckmorton for which he was imprisoned, whilst fellow drapers Richard Poynter and William Beswick admitted their fault and were set free.131 Poynter was apparently annoyed by the decision to excise the records as a following minute states that ‘it was finally concluded for the good mayntenance of brotherly love between brother and brother of this Howse, all malice ceasing, and Mr Poynter thereunto consenting, Maister Calthorpe’s submission to be put owte.’132 When the company appeared tumultuous then customary appeals to brotherly love and the significance of maintaining a peaceful commonweal would 128 Ibid., p. 131. 129 Ibid., p. 261. 130 dh, Rep. C, pp. 90, 159. 131 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, pp. 109–110; Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 627; Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 181. 132 dh, Rep. C, p. 159.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

65

be deployed. In 1564 the Grocers responded to a precept from the lord mayor regarding excessive apparel by admonishing the company for their ‘greate hosen and ruffs of theire shirtes’ which were to the ‘greate sclaunder of this honourable Citye’ and instructed that the householders should likewise see the precept enforced within their household.133 In 1567, we see a possible divergence between the attitudes of the apprenticed masses and the wealthy, educated company governors. The Grocers responded to a precept regarding discontent at the large number of religious refugees from Flanders by gathering the company and calling upon them, ‘partely by the Queenes majesties appointement as also for consyence sake…to bere wyth them for a whyle supposing that yt will not be long or ever such reasonable order to be taken that they may returne again into there owne countrie.’134 The quarterly reading of the ordinances at the Grocers would often be accompanied by an exhortation from one of the wardens to the company willing them to maintain amity for the good of the company and commonweal. For example, in 1574 the clerk noted that the master, Richard Thornhill, made an ‘excellent exhortation’ to the company reminding them of the efforts of their forefathers in maintaining the company. The clerk stated that Thornhill, ‘being moved, as it doth evydently apere, by the woorde of God, did for owre better contynewance, devyse very godly and wyse ordynances which tend not only to the good government of this Company but also to kepe and guyde the same in brotherly love and unitie which is one especiall means to preserve and  contynew all companyes and comen weales, declaring also very pithely the contrary being contencion and disagrement to be allwayes the dissolucion and overthrow of all as well companyes as comen wealthes.’135 The aim, apparently, was to ‘perswade the company to obedynce’ and Thornhill made clear his ‘great 133 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 128r; Roze Hentschell has argued that the obsession with apparel continued to have a moral and religious dimension throughout the early modern period, and emphasises that secular writers drew upon religious discourse. Hentschell, ‘Moralizing Apparel in Early Modern London: Popular Literature, Sermons, and Sartorial Display,’ Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 39 (2009), pp. 571–595. 134 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 164r. For a discussion of the numbers and reception of Dutch refugees see Lien Luu, Immigrants and the Industries of London 1500–1700 (Aldershot, 2005). For a broader discussion on immigration, including that of religious refugees see Nigel Goose and Lien Luu (eds), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England (Brighton, 2005). 135 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 256r. Calls for unity had a long history in a city where a diversity of trading companies could lead to rivalry and unbrotherly competition. In a dispute between the Merchant Adventurers and Staplers in 1504 the Mercers’ court of assistants sought to establish ‘an unity’ between them. See G D Ramsay, ‘A saint in the city: Thomas More at Mercers’ Hall, London,’ ehr 97 (1982), pp. 269–288, at p. 278.

66

chapter 2

zeale’ for the company. The following year, in response to a precept on the good ordering of apprentices, the wardens gathered the company and ordered that they ‘maintaine peace, love and unity’ to the great benefit of the city.136 Threats to the state religion were given the correct response, but still acted to conceal the identity of any Catholics within the company. In October 1571 both companies recorded a precept from the mayor concerning the Ridolfi plot, ‘horryble conspiracies’ against the queen’s majesty by the Florentine Catholic banker, Roberto Ridolfi.137 The Grocers recorded that the wardens gathered the company and read the precept warning them to be vigilant of any ‘evill disposed persons.’138 The plot was not mentioned again in company records, but clearly some in the city had not been entirely won over to the Protestant faith. Equally, there were those who feared the return of Catholicism. In November 1579 a precept was issued by the lord mayor regarding the muchopposed marriage alliance between Elizabeth and the French Catholic Prince, the Duke of Anjou.139 The precept was in response to a pamphlet by John Stubbs, The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf, which criticised Elizabeth i for seeking to break God’s law in marrying a Catholic.140 The Grocers gathered the whole company and, rather than questioning them, arranged that everyone would file past ‘some convenient place’ where they could ‘cast in the said bookes into the said place, which was fast lockked.’ Upon opening the box, three copies of Stubbs’ pamphlet were found, ‘whereof ii were onebound and the third bound, which iij books [the] master wardens did ymediatelie carry and dyliver to the Lord Mayor.’141 They were keen to comply with the requests of the lord mayor to present any such texts held by their membership, but were not prepared to identify those individuals and cause discontent within the company. This was not an unknown practice: we know that the Ironmongers also had a ‘secret place’ for such texts, suggesting that this reluctance to reveal the identities of those in possession of such texts was equally shared by the aldermen and lord mayor in the interests of civic harmony.142 It was during the 1560 and 70s, however, that both companies are said to have come under the influence of those of a Protestant or even Puritan nature 136 137 138 139

gl, ms 11588/1 fo. 273r. dh, Rep. D, fo. 167v. gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 218v. Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth i (London, 1996), pp. 154–194. 140 trp, vol. 2, pp. 445–453; Natalie Mears, ‘John Stubbs (c. 1541–1590),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 141 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 307r. 142 Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. 1, p. 164.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

67

and certain changes could hint at this.143 As well as continuing to attend funerals, liverymen continued to be remembered by their company not through obits, but through sermons. For example, in 1573 the Grocers’ livery went to the neighbouring parish church of St Mildred’s to ‘hear a sermon made by Mr Nowell, Dene of Powlles, apoynted by Mr Henry Milles late allderman of London decessed.’144 There were also changes made to the ordinances governing funeral attendance. The Drapers revised their ordinances three times in the sixteenth century to reflect ongoing change. Those issued in 1543 stated that the livery were to attend dirge and divine service. By 1560 they were to attend divine service on both days, and by 1576 attendance had been streamlined to divine service and a sermon on the day of burial but no more.145 But generally, corporate activity does not seem overtly Protestant but rather consistently conservative and slow to change. And some changes that stemmed from the Corporation of London were not necessarily entirely reflective of godly inclinations. For example, a precept was issued by the mercer lord mayor, Sir Lionel Duckett, in 1573 which prohibited all company dinners ‘on payne of imprisonement.’146 The only exceptions were gatherings held on quarter days to discuss company business, and dinners of commemoration. Outside guests were forbidden and venison was not to be consumed. Duckett has been labelled a puritan based, in part, upon this precept yet a similar precept was issued in the 1520s at the behest of bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, which reduced the numerous feast days for the City churches to just one because of the tendency of the laity to resort to dancing, drinking and other excesses rather that fasting and prayer.147 Nonetheless, the 1573 precept represented an attempt by the City to curtail the supposed excess of corporate commensality, but the companies were keen to find a way around such prohibitions.148 The Drapers held their election feast on a quarter day instead and, whilst the Grocers initially conformed, the following year decided that as other companies kept their dinners without recrimination they would do the same, although they would seek advice from the mayor.149 By 1576 the Grocers sought to circumnavigate further prohibitions by stating that their annual dinner in May was ‘in comymoracion of the beginning of the company’ on 9 May 1345 rather 143 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 144. 144 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 250r. 145 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, pp. 286, 309. 146 dh, Rep. D, fo. 230r. 147 lma, Journal 12, fos. 247–248. 148 John C Appleby, ‘Sir Lionel Duckett (d. 1587),’ odnb, [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 149 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 256v.

68

chapter 2

than specifically the worshipping of their patron saint. They would still gather, hear morning prayer and a sermon followed by a dinner.150 The old custom was not entirely forgotten, however, as both court minutes and accounts refer to their annual dinner as ‘the feast of St Antholin alias the commemoration dinner’ until at least 1603, neatly demonstrating this grafting of new rituals onto the old.151 In a study of another mercantile city – Norwich – Muriel McClendon has argued that the ritual culture of the city was secularized following the Reformation. New rituals were invented that enabled everyone to gather ‘to celebrate the civic body and triumphs of Tudor government with little or no reference to traditional religious doctrines and practices.’152 Such research is questioned by that of Paul Whitfield White, however, who described the Norwich Grocers’ Pageant of Paradise (1566), as one of the ‘most staunchly Protestant plays of the early Elizabethan period’ which explores concepts of election and salvation by faith, and also ‘implicitly links the guild’s commercial success to Protestant religious zeal.’153 White admits, however, that is the only example he is aware of that so ‘positively conjoins economic prosperity with godliness’ and recognized that more often Protestant drama was ‘distrustful of economic practices.’ Moreover, in London, new rituals were forged and even if they appeared entirely secular in nature they often reflected the liturgical calendar or were funded by bequests from their deceased brethren. There is even evidence of the introduction of new and overtly religious rituals. In 1567 we see the first mention of the Drapers’ master bachelors’ election dinner being preceded by a sermon at the ‘late ffrere Awgustynes church,’ then the Dutch stranger church.154 The need for them to go to church was not enshrined in their ordinances and is suggestive of a genuine desire to assemble at church and perhaps also to more accurately imitate the election day customs of the master and wardens. 150 Ibid., fo. 269v. 151 Ibid., fo. 69r; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 113; John Abernethy Kingdon has noted references to a dinner for St Anthony in Grocers’ records as late as 1671, see Kingdon, Richard Grafton, appendix xlvii. For more on the significance of corporate sociability in an artisanal setting see Jasmine Kilburn-Toppin, ‘Crafting Artisanal Identities in early modern London: the spatial, material and social practices of guild communities c. 1560–1640’ (V&A/RCA PhD, 2012). 152 Muriel C McClendon, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1999), p. 91. 153 Paul Whitfield White, ‘Interludes, economics, and the Elizabethan stage,’ in Mike Pincombe and Cathy Shrank (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Tudor Literature 1485–1603 (Oxford, 2009), pp. 556–570. 154 dh, Rep. D, fo. 3v.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

69

Both companies also continued to hold a dinner each year following the feast of Ss Simon and Jude, the day upon which the lord mayor took his oath, which was maintained across the century. The Drapers conducted the socalled search of the yard whereby they would measure the cloth on sale at St Bartholomew’s Fair and Southwark Fair and fine those selling incorrect measures, which was often followed by drinks or dinner for the Court. Curiously, in 1584 the clerk, Bartholomew Warner, records that the master and wardens went to Southwark Fair to search the yards according to their ancient custom, but he also tells us that ‘in olde tyme the master wardens and co[m]pany dyd goe in their best lyveries at which tyme the feast day of the natyvytie of the blessed Mary was kept as a sollempne holy daye and now no holy day at all.’155 This is curious because earlier entries recounting the search at Southwark Fair as far back as 1520 make no reference to the observance of a holy day. From at least 1556, if not earlier, all court minutes were read back to the court at the beginning of the following meeting to ensure they met with approval and accuracy – particularly as the clerk was not present at the most confidential discussions.156 If something was recorded in the minutes, with brevity or at length, it was done so for a reason. Is Warner’s comment demonstrative of a fond nostalgia for an imagined past or a clear assertion that they had forsaken past superstitions? We know he was linked by marriage to the evangelical Johnson family but that alone is not an indication of his own confessional identity.157 Either way, it served to keep alive the memory of religion as a significant facet of their corporate identity. The fusion of acceptable Protestant elements onto existing customs was also seen in the election day ceremonies. Once again, the religious services changed with the times but the pattern of the rituals remained intact. When Drapers’ company minutes return in 1567 we learn that (in 1568), ‘This after none at iii of the clocke our ii Aldermen in puke gownes & wearing their chaynes onely, Mr Rector of St Mighelles & Mr Lyndley our Skoller in Cambridge going before them & all the hole Company in their best Lyvery & single gownes following went orderly to St Mighells church wheare as after a solimne sone the said Mr Rector then made a sermon & so we returned home to the hall.’158 The company again attended church on the Monday of the election and heard a sermon

155 dh, Rep. F, fo. 9r. 156 dh, MB 5, fo. 100r. Lena Cowen Orlin incorrectly dates this practice as originating from 1570, Orlin, Locating Privacy, p. 215. 157 See Ch. 4 of this book for more on Warner and the Johnson family. 158 dh, Rep. D, fo. 40v.

70

chapter 2

given by their scholar Lindley.159 There was a new emphasis on sermons and the addition of their scholar preaching, but otherwise their activities are as we would expect. It is true though that by 1570 the Drapers actively chose to give their religious rituals a decidedly godly hue. Before the election the livery would hear a sermon from the puritan Robert Crowley. He was a favourite speaker of theirs even though, or perhaps because, he was noted for comparing usurers to heathens and warned that generating money in such a fashion would lead merchants ‘from pleasure to woe.’160 Following a godly sermon the livery would return for the same the following day and, we are told, that ‘in the tyme that the psalme was singing the whole company offred as in tyme past hath bene acustomed.’161 Just as giving to charity following the election service was part of their ‘ancient custom’ so too was the simple fact of gathering at church – this remained a significant part of their corporate identity which they ensured through these flexible ordinances. In fact, the Drapers revised their ordinances regarding the election in 1576 but they remained remarkably similar to those issued as early as 1543.162 The key differences were that all references to gathering on the feast day before the election had been replaced with simply gathering on the election day, and all church services were now to include a sermon alongside divine service. What is interesting is that they maintained the rhythm of these rituals – in a Protestant context there was no need for quite so many church services as it was no longer imperative for them to celebrate the feast day or pray for the souls of the departed. But rather than abolish these rituals entirely, acceptable Protestant services were grafted on in their place. As Natalie Zemon Davis and Robert Scribner have demonstrated, religious rituals had the power to divide communities as much as to unite, and could act to undermine, as a well as reinforce, existing power structures.163 The livery companies, however, managed to retain a ritual culture that was essentially binding by keeping the familiar ritual pattern and pragmatically 159 ‘Francis Lindley,’ Person id: 43654, CCEd [accessed 20 Nov 2016]. 160 ted, vol. 3, pp. 345–346. 161 dh, Rep. D, fo. 157r; for more on Crowley see Joseph Walford Martin, Religious Radicals in Tudor England (London, 1989), pp. 147–170. 162 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 307. 163 Natalie Zemon Davis, ‘The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,’ P&P 59 (1973), pp. 51–91; Robert Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London, 1987), pp. 103–123; for an exploration of customary rituals acting as both a normative and destructive force in the later sixteenth century see Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Carnival in Romans: Mayhem and Massacre in a French City (London, 1980); for a survey on ritual culture see Edward Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1997).

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

71

shifting the content of their customs to balance company and civic concerns. Consequently, despite a very different religious complexion in 1576 to that of 1543, company ordinances used terms sufficiently flexible that they were able to navigate religious change and ensure that the company could always gather together and receive (some kind of) spiritual sanction without breaching their regulations or the law. Norman Jones has also highlighted how the Grocers grafted on Protestant services in place of Catholic ones. Whilst the Reformation as a long process of adaptation is a mainstay of revisionism, for scholars of the livery companies this adaptation remains intrinsically linked with secularisation. Consequently, Jones goes one step further in stating that by the 1580s equivalent practices were abandoned and religious devotion was streamlined as the company became increasingly secularized. He states that 1584 ‘saw the last evening prayer service for the livery at election day, but by then even the tradition of the sermon on the next day had ended.’ He concedes that the disappearances of customs might be related to ‘the disturbed times’ but nonetheless concludes that ‘certainly the company no longer saw it necessary to associate corporate worship with communal identity.’164 However, the supposed disappearance of religious rituals is perhaps in part related to scribal practice and what the clerk chose (or was directed) to record. Consequently, the rituals which Jones supposed died out in 1584 remain in evidence in 1599. On Sunday 22 July the company went to St Stephen’s Walbrook where they heard divine service before returning to the hall for spiced bread and ale according to the ‘old custom.’ The secret nomination and election of the master and wardens then ensued. The next day the livery once again attended St Stephen’s for divine service and a ‘good sermon’ from Dr Hutchinson before returning to the hall for dinner as usual.165 Examining the Drapers’ records shows that in 1601 the company continued to attend church on both days over the course of the election, first on the Sunday before and then again on the Monday of election. Previously, they had attended church on Sunday to celebrate the feast of the Annunciation. This was no longer the case; in 1601 they attended church on 2 August, yet retained the rhythm of their rituals. On Sunday Mr Heywood preached, and on Monday Dr Ashpoole preached and gave a sermon.166 Even the removal of Catholic imagery and objects was slow, as Jones has also highlighted. But these items were sold was primarily to other members of 164 Jones, English Reformation, p. 112. 165 gl, ms 11588/2, p. 203, possibly Dr Michael Hutchinson, rector of St Michael Bassishaw, Person id: 28988, CCEd, [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 166 dh, Rep. G, fo. 274r–v.

72

chapter 2

the company, in which case can we really say that they were entirely removed from their community? And did members buy such items because of their intrinsic value or because of a lingering fondness for traditional Catholic material culture? A 1558 inventory of Grocers’ Hall reveals that they had six sets of vestments and four altar cloths on the premises alone.167 By March 1562 the company resolved to sell their ‘vestments, copes, albes and other ornaments belonging to church stuff’ but there is no further record of their ‘church stuff’ until 1568 when certain ‘olde vestmentes, copes, curtens and other old churce woorkes’ were brought into the parlour for sale to the court. Alderman John Ryvers bought ‘a vestment of purple velvet with thappurtenances…and divers old curtens and peces of alter clothes of fustien and other olde thinges.’ Court member Gregory Newman bought two ‘olde alter clothes of satten and bawdkyn.’ A cope of ‘crymsen velet and ii alter clothes of velvet and cloth of gold to be made in long cushins and a chair to serve in this House at meetings.’168 The 1568 sale, however, did not remove all traditional religious items and images from their company as in 1573 we are told ‘some of this company had hard that dyvers men were offendid at certen thinges’ on the cloth and thus the cloth was to be ‘reformed’ and agreed to ‘sett good thinges in there place.’169 That images had caused offence to some is indicative of a growing puritan sentiment amongst elements of company membership and is part of what Patrick Collinson has identified as a broader trend of iconophobia as Elizabeth’s reign progressed.170 The level of iconophobia, however, must have been limited as change was crushingly slow: it was not until May 1575 that we encounter the burial cloth again. The Grocers decided that they would either sell the ‘owlde best hearse cloth’ and make a new one of velvet, or else make the sides and ends of new velvet ‘fayre imbroydered with the Company’s arms and other good thinges.’171 Finally, in October 1575 certain ‘devysses’ were made by the ‘broyderer for the garnyshing of the borders around about the herse cloth with camelles and other things, which were well lyked’ by the company.172 At most, this is secularisation in its truest form of separating the sacred from the worldly 167 168 169 170

gl, ms 11571/6, fo. 81v. gl, ms 11588/1, fos. 65r, 176r. Ibid., fo. 243v. Patrick Collinson, ‘From Iconoclasm to Iconophobia: The Cultural Impact of the Second English Reformation,’ in Peter Marshall (ed.), The Impact of the English Reformation 1500–1640 (London, 1997), pp. 278–308; Tessa Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety 1550–1640 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 131–140. 171 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 264r. 172 Ibid., fo. 270r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

73

as a means of religious purification.173 But an examination of inventories of company plate and napery suggests that whilst religious imagery was always present it had never been dominant. Company plate was consistently adorned with company arms, although gifts from company members might deviate from this; usually favouring their own initials or arms or, in the case of the grocer Angel Dunne, six gilt goblets adorned with angels.174 When draper Richard Tull died in 1559 his executor and fellow draper John Quarles presented to the company ‘a long cusshen of crymosin velvet with the ymage of thassumption of our Lady embroidered and tasseled with crymosin silke and gold.’175 In 1569 the churchwardens of St Michael’s Cornhill presented a silver cup to the Drapers appropriately adorned with ‘a Mychaell,’ the archangel, upon it.176 And in 1600 the Grocers were still using a set of linen embroidered with images of the ‘Holy Ghoste,’ although since 1577 it had been reduced to the status of old linen no longer used at the most significant events.177 Whilst company halls increasingly featured portraits of eminent company members from the late sixteenth century, this was not a like-for-like replacement of sacred imagery, which continued to leave a visible imprint on company life.178 The increasing involvement of the companies in education, however, could be interpreted as the continuation of the Edwardian, or humanist, desire for the expansion of schooling, particularly with the aim of producing more divines.179 From 1564 the twelve great companies supported divinity scholars at 173 Puritan preachers like Edward Dering and Thomas Cartwright promoted a separation of the sacred from the secular. Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982); Claire Bartram, ‘“Some Tomb for a Remembrance”: Representations of Piety in Post-Reformation Gentry Funeral Monuments,’ in Robert Lutton and Elisabeth Salter (eds), Pieties in Transition: Religious Practices and Experiences c. 1400–1640 (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 131–132. 174 gl, ms 11571/7, fo. 208r. 175 dh, Rep. C, p. 207. 176 The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of St Michael, Cornhill, in the City of London from 1456–1608, ed. William Henry Overall (London, 1871), p. 163. 177 gl, ms 11571/6, fo. 488r. 178 Tittler, The Face of the City, pp. 52–56; idem, ‘Portraiture, Precedence and Politics amongst the London Liveries c. 1540–1640,’ Urban History 35 (2008), pp. 349–362; idem, ‘Faces and Spaces: Displaying the Civic Portrait in Early Modern England,’ in Tara Hamling and Catherine Richardson (eds), Everyday Objects: Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture and its Meanings (Aldershot, 2010), pp. 179–190. 179 Joan Simon, Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge, 2006); Ian M Green, Humanism and Protestantism in early English Education (Aldershot, 2009); Miu Sugahura, ‘The Coopers’ Company’s management of a grammar school in the suburbs of London in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries,’ in Kazuhio, Kondo and Miles Taylor

74

chapter 2

the universities. It seems, however, that the companies were prompted to establish the charity by clergy at a Spital sermon that year, rather than by their own corporate piety. The Grocers’ minutes also hint at debate (and therefore a variety of opinions) regarding the establishment of this charity. Minutes record that at a Spital Sermon during Easter 1564 ‘certain preachers’ called upon the twelve companies to each support two divinity scholars. The lord mayor, who was the grocer John White, called the wardens of the Great Twelve before him to gauge the support for such a motion.180 The Grocers responded that they would determine what the others companies were doing before they responded formally.181 The following month the company decided to lay aside £4 13s 4d for the ‘fyndynge of a scholler’ of divinity.182 However, at a court in July the company declared that they should increase their provision and instead fund two exhibitions at the grand total of £10 a year.183 In deciding who should receive these scholarships the Grocers were happy to go along with the recommendations of Miles Coverdale ‘and others of this company’ (who were not named) in appointing the future Presbyterian controversialist Thomas Cartwright at Trinity College, Cambridge, and William Power at Christ’s College.184 The company stipulated that the scholars were to preach once a year at St Paul’s Cross and were to promote the Grocers in all their sermons.185 It also soon became the custom for a scholar to preach to the company on election day. In 1568, two years into his exhibition at St John’s College, Oxford, Edmund Campion was requested to preach at Paul’s Cross by the Grocers.186 It seems doubts had already been raised about his faith as he was given fourteen days to clear ‘the suspicion conceived…that he may utter his mynd in favouring the (eds), British History 1600–2000: expansion in perspective (London, 2010), pp. 213–224; Laurence Stone, ‘The Educational Revolution in England 1560–1640,’ P&P 28 (1964), pp. 41–80; Frank Stubbings, The Statutes of Sir Walter Mildmay for Emmanuel College (Cambridge, 1983). 180 Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 2, p. 34. 181 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 105r. 182 Ibid., fo. 106v. 183 Ibid., fo. 115r. 184 Ibid., fo. 117r–v; Patrick Collinson, ‘Thomas Cartwright (1534/5–1603),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; A Biographical Register of Christ’s College 1505–1905, ed. John Peile (Cambridge, 1910), p. 209. Nor were the Grocers the only company to promote puritan divines: the Clothworkers sponsored John Field in the 1560s, see Patrick Collinson, ‘London’s Protestant Underworld’ in idem, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, reprinted 2000), pp. 85–86. 185 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 117r. 186 Ibid., fo. 156r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

75

religion now authorised.’187 At the following court meeting Campion was again called upon to preach between then and next Candlemas as he continued to be ‘suspected to be of no sounde judgement in religion’ and despite holding the exhibition for two years was not known to have preached at all.188 If he refused, his exhibition would be rescinded. On 2 August Campion appeared at court to answer the charges and stated that ‘to preche first at Paull’s Cross is a thing that he wold be very lothe to presume unto and therefore desyred this Court to give him a longer tyme to prepare hymself thereunto.’ The court were sympathetic and suggested that as an alternative he preach simply to the company at St Stephen’s Walbrook, but he continued to prevaricate stating that he was ‘this yere by office a publique person and cannot at all do what he will, as also is charged with the education of divers worshipfull mens children whereof he wold if he might be first discharged.’189 The company refused to grant extra time but insisted that he should preach on 27 October to which Campion finally agreed.190 However, Campion never returned and wrote to the company thanking them for this scholarship but stating that he ‘dare not’ preach; the reasons were apparently outlined in his letter but not recorded in the court minutes.191 The company gave his scholarship to Richard Dorset of Christ Church, Oxford.192 However, when the lord mayor, Thomas Roe, asked the company to ‘be goode’ to Campion and pay him the remaining half year of his exhibition, they complied.193 Campion was appointed exhibitioner in 1566 and although court minutes do not reveal why he was chosen, it seems it was the deployment of fraternal patronage.194 The Campion family had produced senior members of the Grocers, such as William Campion, master in 1530; and in 1579 Edward Campion was admitted by redemption, as he was servant to Sir Thomas Lodge, grocer and lord mayor.195 Their initial appointments suggest that they viewed this charity as a new form of patronage with which to promote company loyalty. Such appointments often favoured the neediest within the company even though this would result in extra expenditure. Thomas White, son of Hugh 187 Ibid., fo. 104r, see also Michael A R Graves, ‘Edmund Campion (1540–1581),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; Evelyn Waugh, Edmund Campion: Jesuit and Martyr (London, 1935). 188 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 185r. 189 Ibid., fo. 185v. 190 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 185v. 191 Ibid., fo. 188r. 192 Ibid., fo. 187v. 193 Ibid., fo. 189r. 194 Ibid., fo. 156r. 195 Ibid., fo. 301r.

76

chapter 2

White a poor grocer, was sent eight books at the expense of the company as his father was ‘not of habilitye to furnishe him thereof and in hope…that he will prove a Devyne.’196 However, occasionally appointments would be influenced by ecclesiastical concerns as well as fraternal ones. In 1570 the Grocers received five letters in support of John Hanson, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. The letters were from court member Peter Osborne, Alexander Nowell, dean of St Paul’s; Roger Goade, master of King’s College, Cambridge; John Whitgift, future archbishop of Canterbury; and John Young, master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. The court voted between Hanson and the other suitor, Travor, but unsurprisingly voted for Hanson.197 It was also in the second half of the sixteenth century that the companies became involved in the establishment of grammar schools. Such charitable activity, however, could stem from previous decades and different religious motivations to those of the late sixteenth century. It was not until 1572 that the Grocers finally took possession of the land and buildings bequeathed by William Laxton in 1556 for the founding of a grammar school and almshouse in Oundle, Northamptonshire. The administration of Oundle was lengthy, complex and increasingly time consuming. As it came to fruition in the 1570s it is tempting to consider that this represents the implementation of charity underpinned by Protestant religious ideas. However, Oundle was bequeathed by someone who stipulated that seven beadsmen were to pray for his soul.198 The company adhered to his wishes in that they appointed seven poor men to the almshouse and they were chosen by the minister, two churchwardens and four substantial parishioners.199 The men, and their wives, were told to live ‘quietly and godly together even lyke brothern and sisters.’200 On inspecting the buildings in 1573, the wardens determined that the schoolhouse resembled more an alehouse and called upon the local inhabitants to help repair and rearrange the buildings.201 However, the school came under the influence of the Chancellor and Northamptonshire gentleman, Sir Walter Mildmay. Mildmay, who also founded Emmanuel College, Cambridge, was noted for his puritan views, but he did 196 gl, ms 11588/2, fo. 22. 197 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 205r. Travor is possibly the Presbyterian William Travers. 198 As Chapter 5 of this book demonstrates, Laxton had links with evangelicals in the 1530s. I am reluctant to label him Catholic based almost entirely upon the use of the term ‘bedesman,’ but it remains redolent of former intercessory patterns. 199 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 239r–v. 200 Ibid., fo. 239v. 201 Ibid., fo. 240r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

77

not have completely free rein.202 When John Sadler, the schoolmaster, resigned in 1574–5 the company appointed ‘Mr Wilkinsone, doctor of physicke’ upon the recommendation of Mildmay, Sadler, and John Whitgift, future archbishop of Canterbury and opponent of puritans.203 In 1576 the company went to inspect the school and were impressed with the teaching, although they took along their carpenter as the school still lacked proper tables and chairs for the boys. Parson Blage, said that they were ‘excellent boyes for there tyme as by ii epistles by ii of the schollers doth well apere.’204 Yet when the school was inspected again in 1604 the boys were found to be lacking in Latin and allowed to spend too long away from learning; those who attended church on Sunday were badly behaved, but most were absent. The school was in such a poor state that parents were removing their children.205 The company spoke to several parents regarding the performance of the schoolmaster; it was said that Thomas Tresham, famed for his recusancy, ‘came voluntarily’ before the commissioners and claimed his son was a worse scholar after three years at the school.206 Whilst there was consistency in many corporate activities, we do see a clear increase in charity in the second half of the sixteenth century, which acted to marry both civic needs with spiritual impulses across the spectrum. The 1550s saw the emergence of recording charitable expenditure derived from company resources (rather than from bequests). By 1603 the Grocers provided pensions to twenty individuals amounting to an expenditure of £60 a year, compared to just two pensions in 1554 at £2 12s a year.207 If we include money for the company poor derived from bequests then the total expenditure by the end of the

202 Lehmberg, Sir Walter Mildmay and the Tudor Government; Stubbings, Statues of Sir Walter Mildmay for Emmanuel College; Brett Usher, ‘The Silent Community: early puritans and patronage of the arts,’ in Diana Wood (ed.), The Church and the Arts, (Studies in Church History, 28, Oxford, 1992), pp. 287–302. 203 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 262r; N P Milner and David Mateer, ‘John Sadler (b. 1512/3–c. 1591),’ odnb [accessed 20 Nov 2016]. The Haberdashers also routinely appointed a panel of experts to assist with the appointment of teachers and preachers to their school, whilst throughout the seventeenth century the liveries were reliant on clergy to assist with the governance of schools see Ward, ‘Godliness, Commemoration and Community,’ pp. 145, 148. 204 gl, ms 11588/1, fos. 271v–272r. Blage is recorded in the court minutes as ‘parson of St Peter’s’ but it is not clear if this refers to St Peter’s at Oundle or one of the London parishes. 205 Ibid., pp. 329–342. 206 gl, ms 11588/2, p. 337; Sandeep Kaushik, ‘Resistance, Loyalty and Recusant Politics: Sir Thomas Tresham and the Elizabethan State,’ Midland History 21 (1996), pp. 37–72. 207 gl, ms 11571/5, fo. 472r; ms 11571/9 fo. 63r.

78

chapter 2

century amounted to £80 1s 4d a year. Total expenditure on charity (including education) amounted to approximately £156 a year.208 In terms of ad hoc charity, the companies have been accused of making a meagre contribution to poor relief, measured by the number of people they helped.209 However, suitors for charity were never turned away (or so minutes suggest) even though it was an unwritten rule that company members were only supposed to turn to the company for relief once. Here we see the companies display compassion to human suffering which transcended religious differences. For example, in 1571 John Moon, grocer, ‘a very poore creature of this company’ was to be given 14d a week, new clothing, and a place at Bridewell, after he was ‘of necessytie dryven to lie under the stawlls in the colde winter nights in danger of deth.’210 At the same court Widow Reymond ‘almesmen’ of the company asked for her 8d a week stipend to be increased. The court agreed that ‘as she is an aged woman’ 2d a week extra would be provided for her.211 It seems that charity was given purely based upon need and individual piety was rarely taken into consideration. It was incredibly rare for charity to be threatened with removal because of religion. In August 1592 Thomas Millington, a pensioner of the Grocers, was thought ‘not to be sounde in religion’ as he had not attended Communion for several years. His charity was only reinstated in October of the same year when he presented the company with a certificate confirming his ‘conformitie in religion.’212 From 1568 the Grocers’ clerk would read a list of company benefactors once a year at a quarter day ‘for a memorye of there (sic) good wills’ (and perhaps inwardly pray for their soul), and also to inspire future generosity.213 As Ian Archer stated, the halls of the livery companies were ‘theatres of memory in which the elite constantly recalled the charitable acts of previous members of the ruling group, as a spur to further charitable endeavour.’214 Consequently, companies also saw an increase in charitable bequests from company members. As Joseph Ward has written, following the Reformation, ‘many companies poured the new wine of godly benefaction into the old skins of 208 Archer, ‘The Livery Companies and Charity,’ p. 24. 209 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 195–200. 210 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 208r. 211 Ibid. 212 gl, ms 11588/2, p. 24. 213 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 169r. 214 Ian Archer, ‘The arts and acts of memorialization in early modern London,’ in Julia Merritt (ed.), Imagining Early Modern London: Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stow to Strype 1598–1720 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 89–177, at p. 90.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

79

individual commemoration.’215 For example, on quarter days, mirroring the pre-­Reformation parish bede-roll, the names of charitable benefactors would be read to the rest of the company.216 A court minute from 1589 noted that the Drapers’ clerk read a ‘remembrance of good actes and deades as the brethren of this company hath done, given and bestowed to and for the good use and benefitt of the members of the same for the which amongst other God’s innumerable blessinges we are greatly bounde to geve hym prayse’; however, the clerk then stated that ‘the same were at this time dispensed with the daye being then too far spent.’217 An over-running company meeting could all too often curtail this commemorative practice. Nonetheless, the desirability of commemorating charitable giving was reiterated in 1596 when a Drapers’ court of assistants decided that ‘a note should be made of those good and charitable deedes’ made by members of the company for the relief of the poor through alms or the giving of loans to poor householders. It was decreed that the list should be read to the company on quarter days alongside the ordinances so that ‘the same should not be forgotten but rather that those good examples may be had in memory whereby others may be stirred to imitate and follow them therein.’218 The list itself, housed at the back of the company ordinance and oath book, dates from around 1620. Thirty-five instances of charity are recorded in rough chronological order covering the period from 1518 to 1620 and thus Catholic testators who had made bequests which had originally included requests for intercessory prayers, were still commemorated. The listed benefactors reflected a variety of religious identities, but the charitable impulse and desire to re-edify the company remained consistent throughout. In 1567 William Parker provided loans for young drapers, but also left property to the company to pay for a divinity lecturer to preach twice a week in the Drapers’ parish, St Michael’s Cornhill.219 Parker’s charity sat alongside 215 Joseph P. Ward, Culture, Faith and Philanthropy: Londoners and Provincial Reform in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2013), p. 16; Ward, ‘Godliness, Commemoration and Community: The Management of Provincial Grammar Schools by London Trade Guilds,’ in Muriel C. McClendon, Joseph P. Ward and Michael McDonald (eds), Protestant Identities: Religion, Society and Self-fashioning in Post-Reformation England (Stanford,1999), pp. 89–113. 216 For more on this see Laura Branch, ‘Fraternal Commemoration and the London Company of Drapers c. 1440–1600,’ in Elizabeth Tingle and Jonathan Willis (eds), Death, Dying, Burial and Commemoration in Reformation Europe (Aldershot, 2015), pp. 115–136. 217 dh, Rep. F, p. 380. 218 dh, Ordinance Book, unfoliated. 219 Ibid.

80

chapter 2

that of Owen Clome who left land to the company, the profits of which were to be distributed as alms annually at the master bachelors’ election dinner.220 What is interesting about Clome is that his will of 1563 was assertively Catholic and the last of the sample of wills explicitly to request prayers for his soul.221 Whilst this element of his will was not recorded by the Drapers, his corporate charity effectively transformed him into a godly exemplar. The ability of the Drapers to refashion Catholic acts of charity into a Protestant framework was seen elsewhere. As Joseph Ward has demonstrated, individuals such as the late medieval Lord Mayor of London, Richard Whittington, were reinvented in the seventeenth century as civic heroes because of the provision of civic charity.222 But such token bequests were nothing compared to those in the form of loans to advance young merchants and retailers. Individual bequests were usually in the region of £200, with loans to the value of £50 to be repaid in two years. By 1588 the Drapers were administering loans to the value of £1050 each year.223 This enormous sum of money suggests that whilst it is true that livery companies were increasingly devoted to administering charitable trusts, they were directed towards the promotion of trade with the aim of ensuring the future of the fraternity. It is the increase in charity designed to promote trade which is striking, rather than contributions to the poor and needy, but this still suggests that the wealthiest members of the companies had been inculcated with the importance of brotherly love and charity. The distribution of ecclesiastical patronage remained a vehicle for companies to, potentially, express their religious identity. As Grocers’ court minutes only begin in 1556 it is hard to judge if they were becoming more or less involved in their ecclesiastical appointments, but we can be sure that for the remainder of the sixteenth century trying to find a suitable candidate took up a not insubstantial amount of court time. Nor did they shy away from examining the pastoral and doctrinal worthiness of their clergy. When noted Protestant divine, Thomas Becon, resigned from St Stephen’s Walbrook in December 1562 it took almost 18 months for a suitable candidate to be found, even though he recommended his curate Philip Potytt as his successor. Becon stated that Potytt was a man of good learning, ‘paynfull in teaching and bringyng upp of youthe in good letters and manners, and he is one that right well pleaseth the parryshe and they are well contented with him.’224 220 Ibid., dh, Rep. C, ff. 1–48 (at back of volume). 221 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/47, ff. 55r–56v. 222 Ward, Culture, Faith and Philanthropy, pp. 47–70. 223 dh, wa, 1587–8, fo. 4r. 224 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 76v.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

81

In March 1563 a letter was received from parishioners stating that they were ‘in favour’ of Potytt and he was appointed at their request.225 Potytt himself appeared before court in May 1563 when the company confirmed they would appoint him based on the support of the parish, and because of the ‘towardness that he beareth for the settinge forthe of godes holie word.’ The company stipulated that he was to serve the company at election day and St Anthony’s day and also provide a ‘learned man’ to preach for the company. He was bound to the company by grocer alderman Edward Jackman and assistant William Bodnam.226 However, Potytt died shortly after and the process began again. Miles Coverdale nominated a minister named Sheriff, whilst Peter Osborne nominated Richard Layfield.227 Layfield was appointed but resigned almost immediately for ‘some cause to the sayde Layfield beste knowne.’ Finally, in May 1564, Henry Wright was appointed at the request of Bishop Grindal.228 What is most interesting about this interlude is the fact that the Grocers were prepared to make an appointment on the recommendation of just one individual: Peter Osborne. Between 1563 and 1574 Osborne’s name appears frequently when considering clerical appointments and also the appointments of divinity scholars to the universities. Osborne was neither a cleric nor a parishioner, and whilst he joined the livery in 1554 he did not attain higher office within the company and so in theory had no say in clerical appointments. His father Richard had links to evangelical grocers William Mery and Thomas Bowyer, and had served as warden in 1540. Peter Obsorne was said to have been zealous in his support of Reformation, having served Edward vi and supported Lady Jane Grey, which probably resulted in his imprisonment during the reign of Mary i.229 He moved in both godly and courtly circles and was advanced in his career at the Exchequer by William Cecil.230 Given such influential links perhaps the Grocers felt they could not dismiss his opinion. As a general rule, however, Osborne’s recommendation was still considered alongside those of others, but it is indicative of a trend within the Grocers to canvass the opinion of those to which they were already predisposed  – ­particularly former exiles such as Miles Coverdale and Alexander Nowell. In fact Nowell had very strong links to the Grocers; he had been aided in his exile by the grocer Francis Bowyer, and went on to marry Elizabeth, the widow of 225 226 227 228 229 230

Ibid., fo. 83v. Ibid., fo. 88r. Ibid., fos. 99v–101r. Ibid., fo. 106v. Grocers’ Wardens, p. 18; tna, pcc, Prob. 11/30 fo. 71 (Richard Osborne). J G Elzinga, ‘Peter Osborne (1521–92),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

82

chapter 2

Thomas Bowyer.231 And Miles Coverdale had worked with Richard Grafton in the 1530s on the publication of the Mathew Bible.232 Whilst the Grocers were trying to find a new incumbent for St Stephen’s, they also had to find a new appointee for All Hallows, as their rector, Hugh Brady, had been appointed bishop of Meath – another indicator of the quality of their candidates.233 They did not try and cut corners either; before John Bartlett was appointed to All Hallows in 1564, Miles Coverdale, Alexander Nowell and John Mullins were appointed to appear before court for the ‘trial, judgement and examination’ of Bartlett.234 Such phrasing certainly makes the dispensation of patronage sound like a very serious business. Moreover, whilst the parish has been described at this time as ‘resolutely evangelical,’ the company made appointments in line with the request of the donor.235 Thomas Knolles bequeathed the cure in 1436 in exchange for his obit being observed at St Antholin’s.236 He stated that four learned men were to be appointed in order to consider the benefice alongside the company.237 On occasion, the company chose four learned men and required them to appear at court, at other times they would accept four letters of recommendation presented by the suitor. When John Bartlett petitioned for the benefice the company appointed Miles Coverdale, at that time rector of St Magnus; John Mullins, archdeacon of London; Alexander Nowell, dean of St Paul’s; and a Mr Wright for the ‘tryall, judgement and examinacion’ of Bartlett.238 Whilst the Company adhered to Knolles’ wishes they also demonstrated the godly inclination of the court of assistants at that time through their choice of ‘learned men’ comprising former Marian exiles.

231 Stanford Lehmberg, ‘Alexander Nowell (c. 1516/17–1602),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 232 Meraud Grant Ferguson, ‘Richard Grafton (1506/7–1573),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 233 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 99v. 234 Ibid. 235 Magnus Williamson, ‘Evangelicalism at Boston, Oxford and Windsor under Henry viii: John Foxe’s Narratives Recontextualised,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe at Home and Abroad (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 31–41, at p. 40. By 1570 Thomas Wilcox, curate of All Hallows, Honey Lane, began to hold meetings with other clerics like John Field, culminating in the publication An Admonition to the Parliament (1572) which sought Church reform along Presbyterian lines. See Collinson, ‘London’s Protestant Underworld’ in idem, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, reprinted 2000), pp. 84–92. 236 Derek Keene and Vanessa Harding (eds), Historical Gazetteer of London Before the Great Fire (London, 1987), pp. 47–78. 237 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 109v. 238 Ibid., fo. 110r.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

83

The following September (1565) William Clarke petitioned for the same benefice bringing with him some of his parishioners alongside Giles Buskell, rector of St Lawrence Jewry, and Robert Cole, rector of St Mary-le-Bow ‘whoe commended him very much, declaring him to be one of singular virtue and honeste.’239 Again, he was asked to bring letters of recommendation from Coverdale, Mullins, Buskell and Wright ‘to declare his learninge sufficientlye to enstructe his flocke in the waye of truthe’ and in February 1566 he was appointed on the condition that he would preach for the company.240 Generally, appointments made by the Drapers stayed in post for many years, sometimes decades. The 1560s seem to herald a new era of stability, and we do not revisit the disputes between rector and parish which dogged the preceding thirty years. Consequently, the rector’s appearance in court records becomes increasingly rare which by simple dint of invisibility could suggest a growing separation of church and company. I would suggest, however, that perhaps the rector, churchwardens and parishioners were of increasingly similar religious dispositions and their absence from records is indicative of growing parochial harmony rather than stark secularisation. To support this, St Michael’s Cornhill has been labelled as ‘one of the centers of the reform movement’ and in 1562 the Drapers appointed the decidedly godly John Philpot as rector.241 Unfortunately, Drapers’ court minutes are not extant for the years 1560–1567 so we do not know whether the push to appoint Philpot came from the company or the parish. Nonetheless, we do know that Philpot also lectured at St Antholin’s alongside fellow godly preachers Robert Crowley and John Gough. This parish lectureship ran six days a week from six in the morning with an hour of psalm singing before the sermon. In 1566 all three lecturers were suspended for their part in the vestiarian controversy.242 Philpot also oversaw a parish which elected to sell its church organ and buy copies of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Erasmus’ Paraphrases, or, if unavailable, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.243 By the 1560s therefore both the Drapers and Grocers, in their neighbouring parishes, presided over godly parishes and appointed godly preachers for their livery to listen to. They remained engaged with the religious life of these parishes 239 Ibid., fo. 141v. 240 Ibid., fo. 145r. 241 Francis J Bremer, ‘William Winthrop and Religious Reform in London 1529–1582,’ lj 24 (1999), p. 6; idem, John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father (Oxford, 2003), p. 34. 242 Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1982), p. 54. 243 Bremer, John Winthrop, p. 32.

84

chapter 2

and now felt able to do so in a way which perhaps more adequately reflected the prevailing religious tenor of their courts. The trend, however, for the rector to recommend his successor continued. When Wright resigned from St Stephen’s in 1572 it was his minister, Henry Tripp who presented the court with a letter of resignation. Minutes state that the Company ‘who doth here a good reporte of him (and also havinge recyved a letter from Mr Peter Osborne in his behalf) are willing to prefer him to the said Rectorage.’ He was also told to present four letters of recommendation – yet this rule only applied to All Hallows and the Grocers could simply have appointed him outright suggesting a desire for ecclesiastical guidance and approval in their appointments. Tripp presented testimonials from Dean Nowell; Dr James Young, rector of St Magnus; Richard Allvey, ma; and Thomas Dunne, rector of Chelmsford, and was subsequently appointed.244 During his time at St Stephen’s, Tripp published several tracts including a translation of a Dutch work promoting a humanist approach to parish poor relief, The Regiment of Povertie (1572), and in 1581 Tripp and Robert Crowley responded to Thomas Pownd for his defence of Edmund Campion, formerly promoted by the Grocers. Taken together these suggest a man of Protestant faith whose serving of the parish until 1601 is suggestive of both company and parochial approval.245 In 1567 Richard Mathew was appointed rector of St Michael’s Cornhill and served until 1587. Given the puritan identity of the former incumbent, John Philpot, and the presence of puritan sympathies from notable churchwardens like the clothworker, William Winthrop, it is worth highlighting that Mathew was chosen to preach to Sir Anthony Cope and the other Presbyterian mps imprisoned in the Tower in 1587. Their imprisonment resulted from a parliamentary bill which sought to introduce Presbyterianism and a Geneva-style prayer book.246 In familiar language he began by reading them 1 Corinthians 12, reminding them ‘though they be many yet are but one body’ and urging that there should be ‘unitie and agreement…in the churche of God.’247 Such language was at once scriptural, civic and fraternal. In 1587 when Richard Mathew resigned, he recommended his successor, William Ashbold, who served the parish until 1622. At first sight, this might suggest ambivalence from the Drapers about who served the parish but the clerk reveals that his appointment was ‘longe debated’ and it took several meetings

244 245 246 247

gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 230v. Brett Usher, ‘Henry Tripp (1544/5–1612),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. Susan Doran, Elizabeth i and Religion 1558–1603 (London, 1994), p. 44. tna, sp 12/202, fo. 16.

The Corporate Reaction to Religious Change

85

of the Court until he was finally approved.248 The desire for parish approval in appointments was again seen in December 1582. Following the resignation of Thomas Cooke, rector of All Hallows Honey Lane, the Grocers sought to appoint a ‘good and a godly learned manne’; we are told that Richard Croser was recommended by ‘the said inhabitants of the said parish’ and was duly appointed.249 This desire to appoint in accordance with parish wishes is indicative of how seriously the Grocers took their role as ecclesiastical patrons. When the Lord Chamberlain sought to oust the rector at St Stephen’s in 1600, the wardens responded that such an election would not take place until the position was vacant and not only did the power to elect rest with the ‘whole Generality’ but that the company usually preferred to appoint ‘theire owne pore scholler afore others, with such other good speaches as to them shall seeme good.’250 None of their scholars had ever been noted as being under consideration for either of their benefices, but such was their desire to assert the validity and benevolence of their appointments. Even when given the opportunity to rid themselves of the responsibility of making ecclesiastical appointments, the companies stood firm. In an early modern context, it seems impossible to imagine that any institution would have abandoned religion entirely – who were they serving, if not God? The spectrum of religious identities within the Grocers and Drapers is doubtless more varied than has been recognised; they were not all zealous, early converts to Protestantism and even those that were, generally behaved moderately in a corporate context. We must remember that it was often only those few whose views came to the attention of the authorities that have left their mark on the historical record, in the same way that we must be cautious in viewing the companies’ recourse to the language of brotherly love as indicative of fraternal harmony in practice. As Phil Withington has argued, the language of peace was mutable with religious, civic and diplomatic connotations, and was used as an epithet to justify war in the 1640s.251 And in constructing their archives, the companies avoided recording anything potentially destabilising unless absolutely necessary. The Grocers, for example, had no need to record that Mary  i had relieved Richard Grafton of the post of Royal Printer because he had printed the proclamation of Queen Jane.252 Equally, when serving as common 248 249 250 251

dh, Rep. G, pp. 206, 209–210. gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 337v. gl, ms 11588/2, fo. 235. Phil Withington, ‘The Semantics of “Peace” in Early Modern England,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 23 (2013), pp. 127–153 252 Ferguson, ‘Richard Grafton,’ odnb.

86

chapter 2

councillors and aldermen it was harder to sidestep or conceal contentious issues, like religion, that the crown expected them to address directly. The draper lord mayor, William Roche, for example, had little choice but to head the 1541 heresy commission into those who had rejected the Six Articles.253 With these caveats in mind, it remains that the livery companies were able to navigate religious change without significant unrest amongst their membership because religious doctrine had always been deployed in a discreet manner: such an approach to governance lent itself well to maintaining unity in a time of upheaval. Given the opaque and timeless nature of this Christianity we see a remarkable consistency across the century in language and execution of ritual, charity, discipline and wider company governance. It also helped that the significance of the theological virtue of love was revived by evangelicals and became a mainstay of the Church of England, long after the 1530s. The homily designated for Rogationtide declared that love and charity were the ‘only livery’ of a Christian man and that the laity would be ‘knit together in one general fellowship of Christ’s forming.’254 Such continuity however is not to suggest perfect harmony within the liveries. In this respect, the companies were no more secular in 1600 than they had been a century earlier as their methods of governing were already fluid enough to accommodate change and to accommodate a variety of beliefs amongst their membership. Even in the late seventeenth century (1689) the Grocers described themselves as ‘a nursery of charity and a seminary of good citizens’; though their function as institutions was broadly secular the rhetoric of religion, particularly the unifying rally cry of brotherly love, continued to act as the lynchpin of company governance.255

253 Foxe, tamo (1570 edition), p. 1415. 254 The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches, ed. John Griffiths (Oxford, 1869), p. 495. 255 Cited in Peter Earle, The Making of the English Middle Class: business, society and family life in London, 1660–1730 (Berkeley, 1989), p. 260.

chapter 3

Beyond the Company Hall: Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors In 1574 Robert Carr, grocer and parishioner of All Hallows Staining, composed a lengthy ‘epistle’ to the vestry minutes stressing the lack of good governance in the parish and the necessity of ordinances. The form of his epistle mirrored Christian rhetoric that sought concord in a godly commonwealth to which both Catholic and Protestant would have recognised and aspired.1 Given Carr’s guild membership, the language is also redolent of the liveries; he stated: We have thought it verie meete and convenient to cawse certeyne ordinances to be devized and made, and in this booke to be putt downe in writtinge. To the intente to have neighbourly frienship and brotherly love maintayned and encreasse daiely more and more amonge us, knoweing assuredly that whear good orders and government lackith, ther growe in meny convtroversie and disorders. And also that where controversies and disorders be the place cannot prosper nor encrease be it in kingdom, citie, town, parish or house, as divers and sundrie times hath been. And whereof we have endovoried our selves to remedy this same, besechinge god of his mercie to grant our good meaninge to come to good effect to the encrease of brotherlie love and charitie among us as good Crestians ought to do, which we praie almightie god to grant, for his deerly belovide sonnes sake Jhus Christe our onilie saviour and redemar. To whom with the father and the hoolie goste be all glory, honour love and praise for ever and ever. Amen.2 In a further echo of livery company practices, before outlining the parish ordinances the scribe wrote, ‘I pray God give them all grace to agree in brotherly love.’3 It was also decreed that the ordinances were to be read quarterly, as they were in company halls, to keep them ‘better in memorie.’ One of the reasons for numerous parallels with the governing rhetoric of the liveries is 1 Lucy Wooding, ‘Charity, Community and Reformation Propaganda,’ Reformation 11 (2006), pp. 131–169. 2 lma, ms 4596/1, unfoliated [1r]. 3 Ibid., [1v].

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_005

88

chapter 3

because London’s merchants were also London’s magistrates. Membership of a livery company granted citizenship and thus the ability and duty to participate in the politics and governance of the city at every level, from the precinct to the Guildhall. London’s great merchants dominated civic and parish offices. The 200 common councillors and 26 aldermen were drawn almost exclusively from the livery companies and particularly from the Great Twelve. The Grocers and Drapers, as the second and third most ancient companies, were therefore amongst the dominant members of the Corporation of London and filled the hierarchy of civic and parish offices. Whether the participation in public life is glossed with reference to ­Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine or civic humanism, the key motif is the duty to contribute to the maintenance of the commonwealth.4 As Caroline Barron, amongst others, has argued, office holding should not been seen purely as a desire for personal advancement but stemming rather from a sense of obligation, and London’s citizens were increasingly engaged with the government of their city.5 In this context, we can understand how those with divergent religious beliefs worked alongside one another to govern the city of London and help to implement a Reformation that might not have aligned with their own views.6 This chapter will consider how grocers and drapers conducted themselves as civic and parish officers enforcing and negotiating religious change. It will also help to build up a bigger picture of the multiple roles held by London’s mercantile governors and of the different demands placed upon their time. With mercantile success came greater civic responsibilities. An individual could potentially serve concomitantly as alderman, company master, hospital governor and churchwarden. Consequently, a consideration of mercantile religious identities must also recognize that their religious identities were not shaped by trade alone, or by private inclinations, but by a variety of competing interests, many of which were civic in nature. The research of David Hickman has considered how the Corporation of London, the prime enforcer of crown policy, reacted to the Reformation. ­Hickman argued that change was slow, but that by the 1570s almost all of ­London’s ­governors were Protestants of some sort.7 And it was a small and 4 M S Kempshall, The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1999), argues for the influence of Augustine over Aristotle. 5 Jennifer Bishop, ‘“Utopia” and civic politics in mid-sixteenth-century London,’ hj 54 (2011), pp. 933–953. 6 There were certainly those who avoided public office although religion was never publically cited as the reason. Richard Wunderli, ‘Evasion of the Office of Alderman in London 1523–1672,’ lj 15 (1990), pp. 3–18. 7 By extension Hickman’s argument suggests that in terms of speed London’s Reformation was not remarkable and supports Patrick Collinson’s thesis that England was becoming

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

89

zealous group of governors who disproportionately influenced London’s transition from Catholic to Protestant.8 This chapter will select case studies from London’s hospitals and parishes, via court minutes and treasurers’ records, churchwardens’ accounts and vestry minutes, with the aim of demonstrating that whilst the firm rooting of Protestantism was slow, institutions often found a way to conform with religious change whilst their members made their own confessional inclinations known, which might have been at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy. The first half of this chapter will consider how London’s hospitals responded to the Reformation and will challenge the secularisation thesis by demonstrating that religion continued to form the basis of these public i­nstitutions. At times, religious conformity was coupled with doctrinal controversy; but more often pre-Reformation hospital practices were fused with the simple ­civic Christian values that the hospital governors drew upon in the court rooms of their livery companies. The second half of this chapter will examine the ways in which churchwardens and vestry members drawn from the Grocers and Drapers implemented religious change in their parishes. It will demonstrate that whilst the zealously Reformed were often in the minority they were not necessarily disproportionately influential, as Hickman argues. It seems that individuals were able to couple strong religious beliefs (Catholic or Protestant) with recognition of the duty to serve their community, even if they had to ­implement religious changes that conflicted with their own beliefs.9 Vestries appear to have worked on broadly democratic lines in that decisions were made based on majority vote, and thus individuals were only allowed as much power and influence as the majority would afford them.10



8 9

10

Protestant by the 1570s, see Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Basingstoke, 1988), p. xi. David Hickman, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite 1520–1603’ (University of London PhD, 1995), pp. 2, 205. Such attitudes extended beyond England. The seventeenth-century memoir of the Lutheran merchant, Matheus Miller, objected not to Catholics but to Lutherans who abused their office. He felt ‘deeds that damage the common substance cannot finally be hidden from God; and city and community shall reap shame as their reward,’ see Thomas Max Safley, Matheus Miller’s Memoir: A merchant’s life in the seventeenth-century (Basingstoke, 2000), p. 82. A recent study has questioned the supposed oligarchic nature of vestries, particularly the so-called select vestries of the seventeenth century. Julia Merritt, ‘Contested legitimacy and the ambiguous rise of vestries in early modern London,’ hj 54 (2011), pp. 25–45.

90

chapter 3

Mercantile Government of London’s Hospitals

In a recent study Norman Jones stated that examining ‘the history of… institutions…is [to examine] the history of the Reformation’s effects.’11 The history of London’s hospitals, however, has not been fully addressed by Reformation scholars, despite their monastic roots and the continuing role of religion in the care of the sick and needy. Urban and social historians have provided the greatest insight into the functioning and efficacy of the hospitals as tools of social control. Bridewell in particular has attracted attention and Paul Griffiths’ study is the most comprehensive work yet.12 Griffiths stresses the frequently corrupt and ineffective nature of England’s first workhouse. Despite its godly foundations, Griffiths sees Bridewell’s officers as venal individuals who rarely drew upon their godly heritage; and even when ministers were appointed to the council, such as the puritan William Gouge in 1629, they rarely attended court.13 Ian Archer offers a more sympathetic assessment of the hospitals, recognising that their intentions were to provide for the moral as well as physical well-being of their charges, but also noting that they ended up devoting a significant amount of time to disciplining hospital officers which distracted them from their original purpose.14 Despite these contributions, the history of London’s hospitals, much like that of the livery companies, remains dominated by institutional-sponsored histories or modern works of synthesis.15 Whilst valuable for their narrative detail, these studies have not considered the impact of the Reformation upon 11

Norman Jones, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2001), p. 135; see also Anne Goldgar and Robert Frost (eds), Institutional Culture in Early Modern Society (Leiden, 2004). 12 Paul Griffiths, Lost Londons: Change, Crime and Control in the Capital City 1550–1660 ­(Cambridge, 2008); on Bridewell see Faramerz Dabhoiwala, ‘Summary Justice in Early Modern London,’ ehr 121 (2006), pp. 796–822; L W Cowie, ‘Bridewell,’ History Today 23 (1973), pp. 350–358. 13 Griffiths, Lost Londons, pp. 14–15, 203, 206–207. 14 Ian Archer, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 154–163. 15 Norman Moore, The History of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, 2 vols. (London, 1918); E G O’Donoghue, Bridewell Hospital: Palace, Prison, Schools, 2 vols. (London, 1923–9); F G Parson, The History of St Thomas’s Hospital, 3 vols. (London, 1933–6); Edmund Dring, Annals of Christ’s Hospital (London, 1867); Edmund Blunden, The Christ’s Hospital Book (Horsham, 1953); Carol Kazmierczak Manzione, Christ’s Hospital of London 1552–1598: ‘A Passing Deed of Pity’ (Selinsgrove, 1995); Jonathan Andrews (ed.), The History of Bethlem (London, 1997); William G Hinkle, A History of Bridewell Prison 1553–1700 (Lampeter, 2006).

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

91

the way in which London’s hospitals were governed. This presents us with a curious dichotomy: on the one hand some contemporaries saw the re-foundation of London’s hospitals as a truly pious enterprise emblematic of Reformed religious change. Nicholas Ridley, for example, felt that the transformation of former monasteries into hospitals made them ‘truely religious houses’ for the first time.16 Yet on the other hand, historians have emphasised that the provision of charity for both pragmatic and pious reasons was a humanist salve that could heal religious division and contributed to the comparatively peaceful adoption of the Reformed religion in London and beyond.17 In support of this thesis, Norman Jones has suggested that such institutions produced ‘private treatises of toleration among members. These unwritten agreements generally avoided ideological conflict by concentrating on the pragmatic purposes of the community.’18 But whilst the hospital governors might have avoided stirring controversy amongst themselves, they could not help but be dragged into matters of religious debate, particularly in their role as ecclesiastical patrons, but also on a day-to-day basis: deciding who should receive their charity, or punishment in the case of Bridewell, entailed a moral judgement which drew as much from Christian principles as from pragmatism. Until 1546 almost all of London’s hospitals were run by the clergy, but there had always been a civic contribution to certain elements of poor relief.19 The hospitals of St Bartholomew and St Thomas had been run by the Augustinians since the twelfth century. Bethlem, however, was run by the Order of St Mary of Bethlehem, which was itself founded by the alderman Simon Fitzmary in 1247

16 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), pp. 1692–1693 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]; Grafton, Chronicle, vol. 2, pp. 530–531. 17 Ian Archer, ‘The Charity of Early Modern Londoners,’ trhs 12 (2002), pp. 223–244; Mathew Davies and Ann Saunders, The History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company (Leeds, 2004), p. 138; Anne Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 ­(Aldershot, 2005), pp. 475–510; Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge, 1987); for elsewhere in Europe see Natalie Zemon Davis, ‘Poor Relief, Humanism and Heresy’ in Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, 1991), pp. 17–64; Anne E C McCants, Civic Charity in a Golden Age: Orphan Care in Early Modern Amsterdam (Illinois, 1997); Ole Peter Grell in particular has emphasised the continuing centrality of religion, rather than purely political or secular concerns, in shaping responses to poor relief see Grell (ed.), Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe 1500–1700 (London, 1997). 18 Jones, English Reformation, p. 135. 19 Carole Rawcliffe, ‘The Hospitals of Later Medieval London,’ Medical History 28 (1984), pp. 1–21.

92

chapter 3

and was under the protection of the city from 1346.20 The city was also responsible for some of the leper houses, whilst wealthy merchants endowed almshouses. The Grocers administered the almshouses of Thomas Knolles from the mid fifteenth century, whilst from 1535 the Drapers oversaw those built by John Milborne.21 At their foundation, the almsmen were also bedesmen appointed to pray for the soul of their benefactor. Whilst the use of the term ‘bedesmen’ faded from use, the companies continued to provide almshouses for their brethren throughout the sixteenth century and beyond. Of the sample of 373 wills used in Chapter 5, fifteen individuals made bequests to either establish or re-edify existing almshouses. Almost 40% of wills made charitable bequests to London’s hospitals, mostly after 1547, demonstrating that London’s citizens continued to contribute to the upkeep of the city’s hospitals.22 The Grocers and Drapers, as institutions and individuals, had long made a contribution to the city’s hospitals and thus the re-foundation of London’s hospitals under Henry viii and Edward vi did not represent a neat or sudden transition from sacred to secular institutions. London’s late medieval hospitals were numerous; we know of at least thirtyfour institutions, although many were small and provided assistance for less than two dozen individuals.23 The reputation of the hospitals did not always tally with their pious intentions; yet London felt the loss of their services profoundly following the Dissolution, with increasing vagrancy coinciding with a rising population.24 The 1536 Act of Dissolution meant that the monastic land which comprised the hospitals, and the income it generated, was transferred to the crown. With the exception of Elsing Spital, the hospitals were not of themselves suppressed, but with a near-total loss of income they could barely function.25 The Dissolution was also swift in impact; by 1537 the monastic land was handed over to the crown and by 1538 the city petitioned the king for some of this land. Under the leadership of the mercer lord mayor, Richard Gresham, the petition asked for the hospitals of St Mary’s (Bethlem), St Bartholomew’s, St Thomas’s and the New Abbey at Tower Hill. Gresham asked that the hospitals 20 vch London, p. 495. 21 Heath, Grocers, pp. 186–187; dh, Rep. 7, p. 471. 22 Using the data from Chapter 5, 144 individuals, or 39% of testators, made bequests to the hospitals between 1510 and 1600. During the Henrician period 12% of testators remembered the hospitals, this rose to 56% across the course of Elizabeth I’s reign; Table 2: Charitable bequests, 1510–c. 1600. 23 Rawcliffe, ‘Hospitals,’ p. 5. 24 William B Robinson, ‘The Bawdy Masters of St Thomas’s Hospital,’ hr 83 (2010), pp. 565–574. 25 Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p. 245.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

93

be placed under their governance, along with the unused churches of the friaries which would be used ‘for Goddes word to be preched in a holy scrypture to be redde in, and also for all strangers resorting to your said cytie to hear masse yn without dysturbing of the paryssheners of the small parysshes.’26 A mixture of piety and pragmatism informed the tone of their petition. There was no change, however, until 1544 when Henry viii re-established St Bartholomew’s Hospital, but it was to be governed by his favourite chaplains and not by the city.27 By 1546 Henry viii granted the governance and associated advowsons of St Bartholomew’s and Bethlem to the city. To demonstrate its new identity St Bartholomew’s was to be known as The House of the Poor in West Smithfield, but in court records it continued to be referred to by its former monastic title. The only real change therefore was that its governors were now citizens rather than clergy. The establishment of London’s five hospitals – St Thomas’s, St B ­ artholomew’s, Christ’s, Bridewell and Bethlem – on the grounds of former religious houses was cast as an act of godly piety by supporters of the Edwardian Reformation.28 In actuality, the accession of Edward vi did not herald an immediate change in the number of hospitals or the methods of their governance. St Bartholomew’s and Bethlem remained the only civically-run hospitals until 1553. Paul Slack has identified the key civic figures in the reestablishment of the hospitals during the period 1547 to 1557.29 They represent a diversity of religious identities from the Catholic merchant taylor Thomas White to early Protestants like the grocer Richard Grafton and the mercer Rowland Hill. The most active and committed alderman, however, was the goldsmith Martin Bowes, a religious conservative of pliant and moderate outlook.30 In particular, Slack highlights that Bowes who ‘sat on virtually every relevant committee, “devised” successive ­orders 26

Memoranda, References and Documents relating to the Royal Hospitals and the City of London (London, 1836), Appendix, p. 3. Strangers is taken to mean merchants who were not from, or did not reside in, London. It could include merchants from overseas and those from other towns within Britain. 27 Memoranda, Appendix, pp. 5–8. 28 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), pp. 1692–1693 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]; Grafton, Chronicle, vol. 2, pp. 530–531. 29 Paul Slack, ‘Social Policy and the Constraints of Government, 1547–58,’ in Jennifer Loach and Robert Tittler (eds), The Mid-Tudor Policy c. 1540–1560 (London, 1980), pp. 94–115. 30 Bowes implemented both Protestant and Catholic reform in his parish of St Mary Woolnoth, this has been used to suggest he was either ambivalent in religion or otherwise an oddity; as the second half of this chapter illustrates, it seems to have been the norm. See Claire S Schen, Charity and Lay Piety in Reformation London 1500–1620 (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 80–82; C E Challis, ‘Sir Martin Bowes (1496/7–1556),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

94

chapter 3

r­egulating the hospitals, and was finally enthroned as their “comptroller-­ general” when the scheme reached completion in 1557.’31 Although once the hospitals were established, Bowes was far from committed in his attendance at court meetings, so there were limits even to his enthusiasm.32 With the likes of Catholic Bowes and Protestant Hill working side by side, the hospital project was clearly a common cause of the Corporation of L­ ondon. A fusion of immediate necessity, and a desire to fulfil their duty as rulers of a Christian polity, bound together those of different confessional hues. Given the increasingly confessionally mixed nature of London’s rulers, combined with the slow bureaucratic pace of early modern London, it was not until 1552 that formal ordinances were drawn up for the hospitals. During this transitional period the hospital governors were reliant both upon existing practices and personnel. Records for Bethlem are not extant for this period, but those for St Bartholomew’s begin in 1547. In that year Thomas Hickling was appointed vicar to the parish of St Bartholomew’s the Less, ecclesiastical patronage which now came into the hands of the city. Hickling was one of the friars of St Bartholomew’s who had recognised the Royal Supremacy in 1534 and served as vice-master of the hospital when it was re-founded by Henry viii in 1544.33 The hospital continued to refer to priests like Hickling by the traditional title of ‘sir’ until the accession of Elizabeth, but at the same time the hospital accommodated religious change. For example, in 1550 the court of St Bartholomew’s agreed that the ‘preachers of the French nation’ should continue to be allowed to preach at the ‘late grey friars.’34 Like the livery companies, St Bartholomew’s dutifully conformed with religious change, as did its parishes. St Bartholomew’s held the advowson to the parishes of St Barthlomew’s the Less by the Royal Exchange, and Christ Church Newgate. Christ Church was a parish newly-created from the former Greyfriars monastery and amalgamated the parishes of St Nicholas Shambles and St ­Ewen.35 In line with Edwardian injunctions, clerical vestments from these parishes were delivered to the hospital for the use of the poor. In 1549 court minutes record the delivery of eight ‘old broken albs’ to the matron, along with two altar cloths, one of white damask and the other of fine linen lined with 31 Slack, ‘Social Policy and the Constraints of Government 1547–58,’ p. 110. 32 Benbow, Index of London Citizens. As comptroller general of Christ’s Bowes attended just 2 of 14 sessions in 1557–8, although he managed 7 of 10 sessions in 1560–1. 33 Moore, St Bartholomew’s, vol. 2, p. 161. 34 bha, Ha/1/1, fo. 9v; Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in SixteenthCentury London (Oxford, 1986), pp. 23–45. 35 Moore, St Bartholomew’s, vol. 2, pp. 154–155.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

95

gold, and a selection of copes and vestments were made into sixteen cushions for the parlour.36 The printer-grocer Richard Grafton, in his capacity as churchwarden of Christ Church Newgate, also delivered a cope and vestment from the parish church.37 Grafton later served on the Grocers’ court of assistants that sold company vestments in 1562.38 The secularisation of clerical vestments, many of which may have been made from bequests of women’s clothing, was partly reflective of an early modern culture of make-do-and-mend, but it also served to divest them of their sacred connotations and reassert their worldly nature.39 It seems, at times, that the governors went beyond simple conformity with Edwardian injunctions. In a meeting of 1549 co-presided over by the grocer, John Lyon, a licence was granted to the hospitaller of St Bartholomew’s, William Hawkins, to attend Oxford for a year to have ‘further light of the Greek tongue’; his brother George was to serve as his deputy in his absence.40 The hospitaller was effectively St Bartholomew’s chaplain, but in addition to ministering to the sick he also maintained the store of victuals and would o­ ccasionally bury the dead. Consequently, knowledge of Greek was not a prerequisite of fulfilling his duties, but it is indicative of how seriously the hospital governors took the provision of more than adequate clergy for their charges. An education in Greek could be seen as reflective of enthusiasm for Renaissance h ­ umanism as much as for Protestantism; however, the president of the hospital was the alderman and skinner, Sir Richard Dobbs, whom Bishop Ridley lavished with praise for his role in the establishment of these godly institutions in his final letter of 1555.41 Despite the presence of individuals like Dobbs, it took time for formal structures of governance to be put into place and London’s mercantile governors were not swift to impose a godly regime. In June 1550 the court had to remind the hospitaller of his most basic and essential duty, that being to ‘read the chapter to the poor’ and to be available to minister to them at all times.42 But it was only at this time that the court reappropriated the vestry house as a store 36 37 38 39

bha, Ha/1/1, fo. 2r–v. bha, Ha/1/1, fo. 3v. See Ch. 2 of this book. Nicola A Lowe, ‘Women’s Devotional Bequests of Textiles in the Late Medieval English Parish, c. 1350–1550,’ Gender and History 22 (2010) pp. 407–429; Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c. 1400–1580 (New Haven, 2nd edn. 2005), p. 96. 40 bha, Ha1/1, fo. 2r. 41 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), pp. 1692–1693 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 42 bha, Ha1/1, fo. 5r.

96

chapter 3

house for the victuals, the oversight of which was also the responsibility of the hospitaller.43 And even at the highest level structures of government were in flux. In 1549 an act of Common Council decreed that four aldermen and eight of the ‘head commoners’ would oversee St Bartholomew’s.44 We know that governors were elected and it appears that the traditional methods of civic election applied and hence the eldest alderman was considered the most senior and so became president of the hospital. A slight adjustment to this rule was introduced in 1552 when it was decreed that one of the four governors should be the previous year’s lord mayor.45 Finally, in 1552, The Ordre of the Hospital of S. Bartholomewes was issued at the request of the lord mayor, Sir George Barne.46 The document, part history, part ordinances, part prayer book, was produced by the printer, parish resident, churchwarden, hospital governor, treasurer and grocer Richard ­Grafton. Unusually, these ordinances were published, apparently to counter the ‘­wickedness of reporte’ against the maintenance of the hospital, although it is not clear how widely this document circulated.47 A minute from the Court of Aldermen from February 1552 referring to The Ordre states, ‘It is agreid that the boke that Thomas Vycars barbour-surgeon hath devysed for the releif of the poor shalbe putt in prynt and that my lord mayor shall speak to Ric Grafton for the doinge thereof.’48 Vicary, however, was not cited as the author by Grafton. Ordinances were usually compiled by committee, and it seems probable that Vicary appeared before the Court of Aldermen as a representative of the hospital governors rather than as the sole author.49 The Ordre would have required the approval of the aldermen of the hospital, if not the entire court, including the president Sir Thomas White. White was free of the Merchant Taylors and is best known for his extensive charity including the foundation of St John’s College, Oxford. He was also thought to have remained Catholic. Edmund Campion delivered his funeral oration in 1567, the same year that the

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

bha, Ha1/1, fo. 6r. Memoranda, p. 13. Memoranda, pp. 13–14. The Ordre of the Hospital of S. Bartholomewes in West-Smythfielde in London (London, 1552). The Ordre, sig. a2r. lma, Repertory 12/2, fo. 449. In 1561 the Grocers read the new book of ordinances to the court of assistants so that those not involved in writing them would be made aware. They were ‘ripely debated, discussed and resolved…and perfectlye knowen…by all,’ gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 48v.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

97

Grocers declared Campion not ‘sound’ in religion.50 Serving alongside White was the alderman and grocer John Lyon whose will of 1584 suggests a man of solidly Reformed sensibilities.51 Given the inevitably mixed religious complexion of the board of governors at this time The Ordre is remarkably rich in religious rhetoric of a clearly Edwardian nature. Comparable livery company ordinances were much more oblique and much less doctrinaire in their use of religious rhetoric.52 It was not a document indicative of encroaching secularisation or one seeking to avoid controversy. Rather, The Ordre began by setting out how St Bartholomew’s came to be re-established by Henry viii, emphasising his ‘moste charitable zeale toward the afflicted membres and his brethren in Christ.’ The governors were told to ‘endevoure your selves to attende onely upon the nedeful doynges of this house, with suche a lovyng and careful diligence as shal become the faithful ministers of God, whome ye chieflie in this vocationate are appointed to serve…’53 It was also underlined that if they neglected their duty to the poor they were in effect neglecting their duty to God.54 The ordinances provide a detailed account of how the hospital would function, from the role of the governors to the way in which the clerk should record minutes. Underpinning the actions of all officers was the enactment of Christian charity. The treasurer was to understand that, ‘in recompence of your paines, ye shalbe assured of the mercies laied up for you in the promises and bloud of Jesu Christ our saviour.’55 Even the junior officers were reminded of their service to God: the steward and butler were warned to ‘serve in this house with feare of God and conscience as one that manifestly and plainly walketh before the face of God who perfectlie seeth and beholdeth the very thoughtes of your harte.’56 The hospitaller was reminded to minister ‘the moste wholsome and necessary doctrine of Gods comfortable worde, aswel by reading and preaching as also by ministring the sacrament of the holy Comunion at tymes convenient.’ Whilst the instructions for the hospitaller are doctrinally ambiguous, the visitor of Newgate was informed that as he ministered to the ‘poor and miserable captives’ he was to use ‘the kynges maiesties booke for ordinary 50

Alexandra Shepard, ‘Sir Thomas White (1495?–1567),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; gl, ms 11588/1, fos. 184v, 185r–v. 51 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/66 fos. 291r–294r (John Ryvers). 52 Compare with the Drapers’ ordinances reproduced in Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, pp. 283–332. 53 The Ordre, sig. b3r. 54 The Ordre, sig. b4r. 55 The Ordre, sig. [b6v]. 56 The Ordre, sig. [d6v–d7r].

98

chapter 3

praier.’57 He was also to memorise ‘the most pithie and frutefull sentences of Goddes most holy worde’ to comfort the ‘poore and miserable captives.’58 The final section of The Ordre set out the exact daily service to be delivered to the poor by the hospitaller. Morning, afternoon and evening prayers were to include the Lord’s Prayer, a lesson, a number of psalms and the Litany extracted from the Book of Common Prayer.59 In particular, the poor were to learn a prayer which emphasised that their physical distress was the result of their sins. The form and content of prayers might have conformed with the prevailing state religion, but they are also indicative of striking continuities with the practices of the religious orders. The spiritual element to care was a continuation of the medieval notion that a physical malady reflected poor spiritual health.60 Prayer as well as physick was the cure-all. Consequently, the daily routine of the sick housed at St Bartholomew’s was punctuated by prayer. These prayers were not voluntary and those who did not participate were to be dismissed from the house, although in practice this was never listed as a reason for dismissing an individual (where reasons were given). Once healed, patients were to kneel before the governors and recite a prayer in their praise which was both an act of deference but also a practice that gave these civic governors a quasi-sacral sheen.61 Whilst the hospitals of Christ’s, Bridewell and St Thomas’s were formally established by Edward vi in 1553, we do not have official court minutes for them until the end of Mary i’s reign. The records of St Bartholomew’s however, do not suggest a radical change in their method of governance. The governors of St Bartholomew’s, in addition to their parochial ecclesiastical patronage, also appointed the prison chaplain, known as the visitor, to Newgate. In May 1553, just two months before the death of Edward vi, an individual named Paynes was appointed visitor of Newgate upon condition that he was ‘suitable to fulfil the expectations and follow lessons of the scriptures to call them from despicaries [sic] to the life everlasting.’62 Given such a flexible remit, Paynes continued to serve under Mary i. And Catholicism was reinstated dutifully by those with contrary beliefs, such as the evangelical Richard Grafton. As ­churchwarden 57 58 59 60

61 62

The Ordre, sig. [e8r–f1v]. The Ordre, sig. [f1r]. The Ordre, sig. [h8v–j5v]. Theresa Coletti, ‘Social Contexts of the East Anglian Saint Play: The Digby Mary Magdalene and the Late Medieval Hospital?’ in Christopher Harper Bill (ed.), Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 287–302, at p. 291. The Ordre, sig. [j6r–j7r]. bha, Ha1/1, fo. 76r.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

99

of Christ Church Grafton was ordered by the court of St Bartholomew’s – of which he was also member – to restore the altar stone to the church along with the appropriate copes and vestments. He appeared again in October 1553 requesting meter and service books in Latin, doubtless contrary to his own religious beliefs but fulfilling his duty to the parish nonetheless, although, as we shall see later, Grafton was also prepared, on occasion, to subvert the furtherance of Marian Catholicism.63 As one of St Bartholomew’s governors, Richard Grafton attended just over half of scheduled court sessions each year, which suggests a genuine level of engagement with his role, particularly given his other substantial role as Royal Printer.64 Grafton, like countless others, does not fit into a neat narrative but represents the potential for even civic elites to behave inconsistently, and the difficulty that Protestants faced during the reign of Mary reconciling performing their civic duty with living according to their religious ideals. A further insight into the workings of the hospitals during the reign of Mary is provided by John Howes. Paul Griffiths has described Howes as a ‘friend of the hospitals’ but he was much more than that.65 Howes was free of the Grocers and worked as assistant to Richard Grafton in his capacity as treasurer general of the hospitals.66 His tract on the establishment and maintenance of Christ’s, St Thomas’s and Bridewell hospitals was published in 1582 with a second part following in 1587. The first part, in the form of a dialogue between Dignity and Duty, considered the recent history of the hospitals. The tract was addressed specifically to the governors of Christ’s hospital and informed the governors that they could only judge their success by examining the actions of their forebears. But, as we shall see, Howes’ second publication made clear that the governors of the 1580s, along with all other citizens, were failing in their charitable duties. Howes was clearly a strong supporter of both the hospitals and of Protestantism. He had much praise for those (including himself) who maintained the hospitals in ‘those daungerous daies of Qene Marie: when there was nothing ells looked for (but downe with them, downe with them).’67 We know that 63 bha, Ha1/1, fo. 93r. 64 Benbow, Index of London Citizens, calculated that Grafton attended 35/53 sessions at St Bartholomew’s in 1551–2 and 22/42 sessions in 1552–3. As Treasurer of Bridewell he is noted as attending 5/14 sessions in 1556–7, so his attendance was not hugely effected by the change of religion. 65 Griffiths, Lost Londons, p. 203. 66 John Howes’ ms 1582, ed. William Lempriere (London, 1904), p. 3. 67 Howes’ ms, p. 1.

100

chapter 3

Mary i sought the re-establishment of monasteries such as Greyfriars and Howes recounts the reaction of several former friars upon a visit to Christ’s Hospital.68 We are told that one of them, a Spaniard named John, upon seeing the children dining in the hall was said to have ‘sodenly burst oute in teares and saide in Lattin to the company that he had rather be a Scullion in theire kytchin then stewarde to the kinge.’ Howes delights in telling us of the subsequent conversion of this friar: ‘God wroughte a speciall myracle in that good ffryer for yt it wrytten of him that after his retourne into Spaine he was executed for relligion.’69 Whilst Howes probably embellished this tale, it remains true that the hospitals did not return to their monastic purposes. The governors of Christ’s placated the commissioners, including Dr John Story and Bishop Christopherson, by providing them with favourable leases.70 Yet at the same time Bishop Gardiner imprisoned Richard Grafton in the Fleet for two days for allowing the children to learn the English primer.71 Despite this act of resistance, emphasised in Howes’ work of apologia, the hospitals broadly conformed to religious change under Mary and re-established daily Mass in their chapels. Such conformity of itself underlines the diversity of religious identities within London in the 1550s. Catholics were happy to return to former practices, whilst Protestants viewed the accession of Mary as a punishment to be endured for their ungodly lives. Both views resulted in the same action – the restoration of Catholicism. It was also during the reign of Mary i that ordinances were finally drawn up for all of the royal hospitals. Unlike The Ordre of S. Bartholomews of 1552, the 1557 ordinances were heavy on civic imagery but continued to remind the officers that despite the immediate civic implications of their offices they were ultimately serving God. The treasurer, for example, was reminded that ‘your labours and paines herein shalbe rewarded at the hands of Almightie God, whom ye chiefly serue in this office. For, as the apostle saith, Godliness shall have his reward, not onley in this world, but also in the world to come.’72 68

69 70 71 72

William Wizeman, sj, The Theology and Spirituality of Mary Tudor’s Church (Aldershot, 2006), pp. 21–22; José Ignacio Tellechea Idígoras, ‘Fray Bartolomé Carranza: A Spanish Dominican in the England of Mary Tudor,’ in John Edwards and Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor: The Achievement of Friar Bartolomé Carranza (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 21–40, at p. 22; Eamon Duffy, ‘Cardinal Pole Preaching: St Andrew’s Day 1557,’ in Eamon Duffy and David M Loades (eds), The Church of Mary Tudor (Aldershot, 2006), p. 190. Howes’ ms, p. 66. Howes’ ms, pp. 67–68. Ibid., pp. 70–71. Memoranda, p. 94.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

101

The surveyors were likewise informed that they would be ‘recompenced with a crown in everlasting glory purchased by our Saviour Christe, for all such as travaile to the comfort and succoure of his poor and nedy members.’73 The nurses were told, borrowing from the fraternal language of the liveries, to be virtuous, loving and diligent.74 Given the accommodating nature of the ordinances there were no major revisions during the sixteenth century, and court minutes present an image of conformity and of continuing spiritual concern, but there were variations in apparent levels of engagement. By the reign of Elizabeth, when court minutes are extant for all of the hospitals excluding Bethlem, we see that some ­hospitals, either by choice or by design, displayed a greater engagement with religion than others. Christ’s hospital, for example, which presented itself as the most worthy recipient of charity in light of its innocent charges, initially produced court minutes that were little more than an admissions register.75 As the century progressed, their minutes became more discursive, but as they held no ecclesiastical patronage, records of engagement with doctrine are more limited. Nonetheless, when in May 1563 the schoolmaster at Christ’s was accused of demonstrating a continuing attachment to Catholicism, the court took appropriate action. Minutes record that Thomas Cuttes was warned ‘for the seconde tyme…for his unlawful convertynges of the scollers uppon complainte’ from a girdler, named Geeres, that his son had been ‘unlawfullie convertid.’76 The governors did not have to take further action as Cuttes died shortly after the accusations were made. Imbued with a sense of corporate loyalty nonetheless, Cuttes left ten shillings and a brass pot to the hospital.77 In contrast to Christ’s, the hospitals of St Thomas’s and St Bartholomew’s held ecclesiastical patronage and also employed clergy for their patients. Whilst in theory these charitable institutions were something which all could support, the governors spent a significant amount of time appointing clergy and dealing with complaints from parishioners: matters which had the potential to be divisive and served to remind a disparate court of governors of what was currently considered orthodox. Consequently, we see greater evidence of the impact of religious change and the general religious tenor of hospital governance in the court minutes of St Thomas’s and St Bartholomew’s than those of Christ’s. St Thomas’s in particular sought to institute a strict morality. In 1560, 73 Memoranda, p. 97. 74 Memoranda, p. 102. 75 Griffiths, Lost Londons, p. 268. 76 gl, ms 12806/2, unfoliated. 77 gl, ms 12806/2, unfoliated (30 October 1563).

102

chapter 3

at a court held in the presence of the draper and alderman, Sir William Chester, it was decreed that women would be sent to the surgeon for examination before being admitted.78 Minutes recount the recent admission of a woman who was found to be pregnant and was thus sent to Bridewell to be punished for acting ‘contrary to God’s will and commandment.’79 A subsequent meeting reiterated that pregnant women were not to be admitted as St Thomas’s was a hospital ‘for honeste persons and not harlotes.’80 When one of the sisters was accused in 1570 of ‘misusing her body contrary unto the law of god,’ she was punished with ‘twelve strips well laid on.’81 At the end of the century many of the poor were said to have the ‘French Disease’ which they contracted by living a ‘lewd and incontinent life.’ When they had recovered sufficiently the court decreed that they would be punished by the cross in the hospital grounds so that, ‘by the terror…others may be admonished from falling into the like vice.’82 Given the terminal prognosis of syphilis it is doubtful that any were actually punished, and despite such stern rhetoric the governors could equally demonstrate compassion and leniency. In 1560 an old woman was presented to the court accused of witchcraft. She informed the court that she used a psalm in David’s Psalter and a knife to ‘find things that were stolen.’83 The woman was told to attend the next court but, as with many disputants before livery company courts, we do not see record of her again. The court did not appear to take the accusation of witchcraft seriously and might have dealt with her informally or even with a degree of charity. And in 1561, when a man was accused of drinking to excess and beating his wife, he was simply told to institute ‘godly rule’ in his household, redolent of the actions of Geneva’s consistory at about the same time, where attending sermons and living a godly life were seen as the answer to all of society’s ills.84 During the early years of Elizabeth’s reign the governors of St Thomas’s included notable Protestants such as the draper Sir William Chester and the

78 lma, H1/ST/A/1, fo. 25v. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., fo. 46r. 81 lma, H1/ST/A/2, fo. 36v. 82 lma, H1/ST/A/3, fo. 147r. 83 lma, H1/ST/A/1, fo. 34r. 84 Ibid., fo. 65r; For example, in 1542 Claude Soutiez was said to have beaten his wife so badly that she lost an eye. The consistory told Soutiez to learn the Creed and attend sermons, whilst husband and wife were advised to live together in peace. Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the time of Calvin, Volume One: 1542–44, ed. Robert M Kingdon (Grand Rapids, 1996), p. 111.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

103

­grocers Sir Thomas Lodge and Richard Grafton.85 In spite of this, the hospital did not institute religious change in its parish, St Thomas the Apostle, as quickly as the parishioners would have liked. A court minute from 1562 records that a new communion table had been bought for the parish, but shortly afterwards parishioners complained that that table had not been provided, nor did they have a ‘decent’ cover for it. They also requested a copy of Erasmus’ Paraphrases and informed the court that they were not receiving sermons. The court responded appropriately by dismissing the priest, Sir William Weddison, and promising that he would be replaced with an ‘honeste and learned’ individual named Sir William Downing.86 The court stated that they would also endeavour to replace the chalice with a communion cup.87 Almost immediately, however, there was a dispute between a man named Swan and William Downing. Swan accused Downing of causing the death of a man named Baker who had committed suicide in his tenement. Swan initially refused to apologise and was subsequently punished with a spell in Bridewell. In spite of this serious accusation the hospital governors granted Downing the use of Baker’s room for the catechizing of the parish children.88 Downing clearly was not to the satisfaction of the parish, however, as by 1564 the court warned him to find himself a new post.89 As with the parishes of the Grocers and Drapers, during the 1560s and 1570s we see an enthusiastically Reformed impulse, which at times came from both hospital and parish. The governors of St Thomas’s were increasingly concerned with ensuring that everyone had access to church services, attended them diligently and lived in accordance with the ideal of a godly life. In a court meeting of 1564, attended by the drapers Richard Champion and Francis Barnham, the hospitaller was informed that he was to minister communion to the sisters of the hospital as well as to the poor.90 In 1565 the court decreed that if the poor did not attend services without good reason then they would have their

85 86

87 88 89 90

Chester and Lodge were also linked to one another through their involvement in the Muscovy Company, see T S Willan, The Muscovy Merchants (Manchester, 1955). Weddinson had previously served the Drapers as a chantry priest in the 1530s so presumably some members of the court were aware of his quality as a cleric. dh, Rep. 7(ii), pp. 430, 436. lma, H1/ST/A/1, fos. 51v, 52v, 53r. Ibid., fo. 59r. Ibid., fos. 87r–88r. lma, H1/ST/A/2, fo. 14v; for a detailed account of the godly inclinations of Francis Barnham and his family see Lena Cowen Orlin, Locating Privacy in Tudor London (Oxford, 2007).

104

chapter 3

allowance suspended.91 The sisters were also tasked with searching the poor for dice and cards, and those caught were to be punished.92 More often, it was the hospital officers that fell foul of such godly ideals. In 1579–80 the matron was admonished for her ‘fault with drink,’ and in 1584 the cook was accused of similar behaviour. Her drunkenness was thought to be ‘to the offence of god and disliking of the governors of this house. Yet forasmuch as she hath shewed her selff penytent for the same and hath promysed to become a newe woman the governors are contented to remytt and forgeve her.’93 The early decades of Elizabeth’s reign witnessed an attempt to institute a distinctly godly morality in hospital governance. Before acting as one of the governors of St Thomas’s, Francis Barnham served at Bridewell. During the period 1559 to 1561 Barnham served alongside the grocers William Boxe and Richard Grafton, amongst others, all of whom attended court regularly. There was a concerted effort to promote a godly life by punishing the idle, the dice players and those deemed guilty of sexual misconduct, from the pimps and bawds of Westminster to those conducting extra-marital relationships. Yet pious language was rarely invoked in court minutes which record charges in a remarkably matter of fact manner. Nonetheless, public punishments such as whipping, carting, and a stint in the stocks were all designed to induce a sense of shame and a reformation of behaviour. For example, in March 1561 Elizabeth, the wife of a clerk named William Wheatley, was said to have ‘dissembled’ and ‘to have bene brought in bed and delivered of a chyld.’ Elizabeth confessed and, with the consent of Bishop Grindal, was adjudged by the governors of this house namely Mr Boxe, Mr ­Hulson, Mr Harrys, and Richard Grafton, that on Easter day next coming, when most people shall be in the church, that then the curate shall make known her filthy dissimulation unto the people, and that the said ­Elizabeth shall stand before the said curate so long as he shall be declaring her fault, and when he hath done, then she shall confess her faults and ask the people forgiveness.94 Individuals who promised to marry – the Protestant locus of acceptable ­sexuality – would, however, be spared such punishment. John Porter, the c­ urate of All Hallows Staining appeared before grocer William Boxe and m ­ erchant

91 92 93 94

lma, H1/ST/A/2, fo. 42r. Ibid., fo. 74v. lma, H1/ST/A/2, fo. 217r; H1/ST/A/3, fo. 35r. brha, bhc, ms 33011/1, fo. 127r–v.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

105

taylor John Hulson in July 1560 with one Agnes Henry. It was said that they had ‘carnally coupled themselves together and she, the same Agnes, was at this present with child.’ However, they ‘pledged their troth each to other to marry together and therefore were discharged.’95 This godly influence was not limited to Bridewell. The children at Christ’s were catechised using Alexander Nowell’s catechism from 1570 and, on occasion, preachers would be called upon to discipline recalcitrant individuals.96 In May 1575 the skinner Humfrey Brooke appeared before the court of Christ’s accused of getting Anne Capper pregnant. Unusually, she was examined by two preachers: the former Marian exile, Robert Crowley, and another named Barnes.97 Capper repeated her story and they decided that Brooke would bear the cost of the child. No other such example has been found and the minutes do not make clear why preachers were appointed and who decided on such an overtly Reformed individual as Robert Crowley. There were limits to the Reformed impulse of the hospitals, however: when Christ’s sought to build a new ward that would have encroached upon Richard Grafton’s property in 1572, he refused to co-operate.98 The clergy of some of the hospital parishes were a constant cause for concern, particularly those of Christ Church Newgate. In 1570 the parishioners complained to the governors of St Bartholomew’s that a reader named White rarely attended and that when he did, ‘his teachings doth not edify the people.’ In an echo of livery court governance, where the maintenance of concord was paramount, St Bartholomew’s governors decreed that ‘for the appeasing of all controversies’ White would serve until midsummer next and receive half his quarterly wage of 40s, with the remaining 40s given to the new appointee.99 Parish disquiet continued, however, when in 1580 Thomas Fanshaw, the Queen’s Remembrancer, appeared before court stating that there was ‘great discord’ in the parish caused by ‘divers singing men, which doth rather hurt and hinder the service in the church then do any good, and also one of them is a drunkard.’ These ‘singing men,’ along with the churchwardens were requested to appear at the next court. It was further alleged that along with their singing there was also ‘playinge of organes…that the auditory and parishioners are not edified.’ They were thus dismissed and replaced with five preachers.100 95 96 97 98 99

brha, bhc, ms 3011/1, fo. 91v. gl, ms 12806/2, unfoliated (16 September 1570). I have not been able to confirm the identity of the preacher named Barnes. gl, ms 12806/2, unfoliated (7 June 1572). bha, Ha/1/2, fo. 37v; Brett Usher, ‘Expedient and experiment: The Elizabethan Lay Reader,’ Continuity and Change in Christian Worship (Studies in Church History 35, Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 185–198. 100 bha, Ha1/2, fos. 150v, 151v–r.

106

chapter 3

In 1582 parishioner Anthony Cage and Dr Croke recommended Francis S­ carlett to serve as a reader or preacher at Christ Church. However, four parishioners appeared requesting that Scarlet, along with another preacher named John Kington, be removed as they were ‘not learned nor pleaseth the auditory which will be the cause that the auditory will decay if that there be not better learned men placed in their rooms.’101 The court asked the parishioners to call a vestry to assess the suitability of Scarlet and Kington and to nominate a successor. At a following court meeting the churchwardens confirmed that Kington was unlearned and that Scarlett’s ‘voyce is lowe’ but the court decided that the accusation against Scarlet was not ‘altogeather trewe’ and thus he remained in office whilst Kington was removed.102 This was a parish clearly divided, but also one which was active in its desire for a preaching ministry.103 The court took an even-handed approach which tried to balance the demands of the opposing factions. As ever, through the prism of ecclesiastical patronage we see that London’s civic governors could not separate themselves from confessional matters and, in the context of the hospitals, had to consider the religious welfare of their charges as well as of their parishioners. Despite the godly conception of the hospitals in the 1550s, contemporaries were increasingly critical of them, particularly Bridewell, and not without justification. There is no record of a chaplain being appointed to Bridewell until 1628, suggesting that if the inmates received any spiritual edification before that date it was of an informal and haphazard nature.104 But what angered people most was the new level of scrutiny applied to all aspects of their lives – drinking to excess at the alehouse, playing dice, and visiting the bawdy house were punished with a new vigour. London’s elite merchants struggled to live by pious ideals, whether Catholic or Protestant, but when they appeared before hospital courts their status ensured that their punishment was much more lenient. In Bridewell’s earliest court minutes from 1559 to 1561, during which time godly individuals such as the grocer Richard Grafton and the draper Francis Barnham attended court avidly, the identity of offenders of high social status was concealed, often by the use of initials.105 Instead of being whipped or set to 101 bha, Ha1/2, fo. 198r; possibly the Reformed preacher, Dr Thomas Crooke, see Brett Usher, ‘Thomas Crooke (c. 1545–1598),’ odnb [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 102 bha, Ha1/2, fo. 199r–v. 103 For more on the importance attached to preaching by the laity see Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and their Audiences 1590–1640 (Cambridge, 2010). 104 See ‘Bridewell Hospital Chapel, Location id: 16802,’ CCEd, [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 105 Benbow, Index of London Citizens, does not record Grafton or Barnham’s hospital attendance but as an alderman from 1567–74, Barnham attended between 60% and 94% of court sessions.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

107

work as the poor were, such offenders were asked for a monetary contribution to the hospital. This practice of concealment, however, fell out of favour quickly – an individual recorded simply as A.P. had their full name, Anthony Pope, written in at a later date.106 In 1560 the grocer Dunstan Anes, a Portuguese Jew granted freedom of the company at the personal request of Philip ii and Mary i, appeared before the court of Bridewell charged with the ‘accompanying of Mr Wither’s wife.’107 He admitted the charge and, as it was his first offence, was asked for a contribution of £3 6s 8d towards the building of Bridewell wharf. During the mid 1570s the governors of Bridewell instigated a concerted crackdown on prostitutes and those who frequented them. Whilst court minutes do not record explicitly that this was their intention, cases before the court multiplied in the period 1574–6. The first volume of court minutes, for the period 1559 to 1561, runs to almost 500 pages whilst the next extant volume for 1574–6 runs to almost 1000 pages. This attempt to impose godly standards of living culminated in the filing of a bill in Star Chamber in 1577 by the goldsmith Robert Bate. Bate accused the treasurer of Bridewell, grocer Robert Winch, of falsely accusing him of sexual misconduct.108 Although Bate eventually admitted his guilt, the reputation of Bridewell was damaged; in 1579 Bishop Aylmer was reported to have said that Bridewell was ‘a rude and irreverent place’ run by ‘indisicrete’ men of ‘filthy bawdry,’ whilst Sir George Carey described Winch as ‘one of the worst members that can live in our common wealth.’109 Yet Winch was also accused of being complicit in the imposition of a regime of ‘determined and controversial moralism’ from 1576 when he was appointed ­treasurer.110 Using evidence primarily from wills, Ian Archer identified six puritans (his word) amongst the governors who attended court most frequently in the mid 1570s, including the grocers James Huish and William Ormeshaw.111 Huish was certainly an eager Protestant: his will of 1590 stated that his sons were to be apprenticed to ‘godly’ men and would only inherit his land if they lived according to the Church of England or Geneva – they would 106 brha, bhc, ms 33011/1, fo. 81r. 107 Ibid., fo. 87v; Edgar Samuel, ‘Dunstan Anes (c. 1520–1594),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; Edgar Samuel, ‘London’s Portuguese Jewish Community, 1540–1753,’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America 1550–1750 (London, 2001), pp. 239–246. 108 The most detailed account of this case is provided by Paul Griffiths, ‘Contesting London Bridewell 1576–80,’ jbs 42 (2003), pp. 283–315; Archer, Pursuit, pp. 232–233. 109 Cited in Archer, Pursuit, p. 233; Griffiths, Lost Londons, p. 238. 110 Ian Archer, ‘John Mabb (c. 1515–1582),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 111 The other four were Thomas Aldersley, Clement Kelke, John Clerk and John Mabb; see Archer, Pursuit, pp. 253–254.

108

chapter 3

be ­disinherited if they were Catholic.112 Ormeshaw’s will, also of 1590, is likewise suggestive of Reformed piety; in particular he dedicated a long section of his will to railing against his optimistically christened son, Emmanuel, who had failed to live up to his name.113 Winch was not the last treasurer, however, to be accused of corruption. ­Fellow grocer Roger Warfield served as treasurer in the 1580s but fell from grace after ‘financial irregularities’ were noticed by the Court of Aldermen. As it housed the undeserving poor, Bridewell constantly struggled to find sufficient financial support and by 1590 the Court of Aldermen sought to scrutinize their accounts. By 1590 the treasurer was John Stone, but it was his predecessor, Warfield, who had been helping himself to hospital funds. He was given money by the hospital governors to make routine payments, but the corresponding outgoings were not recorded. Warfield had previously worked as factor for the grocer William Lane in Flanders, so this was a man trained in keeping accounts.114 In 1587, before this indiscretion was known, Warfield was appointed master of the Grocers.115 Yet the company continued to hold Warfield in high esteem. In August 1591 Warfield owed the Grocers £10, the annual contribution made by the court of assistants towards the election dinner. The court forgave him the fine on account of his good reputation, stating that he was ‘a paynefull man as well as in service of the state of this Company as of the Cyttie generallye and in respect of his paynes taken to helpe and procure to the companye the some of fortye poundes of corne money whilst he was Mr of Bridewell.’116 Warfield’s fellow grocer, John Howes, was less forgiving of financial corruption. In 1587 Howes published his second tract on London’s hospitals.117 His publication of 1582 celebrated the establishment of the hospitals, in particular Christ’s, but this new work outlined their shortcomings. Howes was critical of Bridewell especially, accusing the governors of taking bribes and siphoning off charitable donations for their own benefit.118 He also felt that too much time was spent in the ‘searching out of Harlots’ thereby leaving the ‘workes of faythe and mercie undone’ as young and old alike suffered in the streets for want of 112 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/76, fos. 182v–187v (James Huish). 113 Prob. 11/77, fos. 135v–136r (William Ormeshaw). 114 O’Donoghue, Bridewell Hospital, pp. 186–187; Charles Sissons, Thomas Lodge and other Elizabethans (London, 1933), p. 68. 115 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 392v. 116 gl, ms 11588/2, fo. 3. 117 ‘John Howes’ Second ‘Famyliar and Frendly Discourse Dialogue Wyse’ printed in ted, vol.  3, pp. 421–443. 118 Ibid., p. 441.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

109

charity.119 The governors had lost sight of their original aim and he feared that hell and damnation would await a city of such wealth that did not adequately clothe and feed its poor. He also noted the inadequate religious provision: Bethlem’s chapel had been converted into tenements such that now praying is ‘tourned into pratling.’120 An alternative solution was set out by Howes who suggested that the Corporation of London should follow the example of Augsburg and build several hundred houses exclusively for the use of the poor with a peppercorn rent. The classical education of children should also be forsaken as only five of the scholars each year would go to the universities. Instead of learning Latin which is ‘longe and tedious,’ children should be taught more practical skills such as different kinds of handwriting, singing and music. Howes felt that ‘writinge, readinge and singinge are sooner obtained and with lesse charge, and serve better for any mans purpose.’121 The boys should be well-dressed in their uniform because ‘apparrell shapeth and manners maketh.’122 Girls should be taught spinning and knitting, skills that would gain them a place in any merchant household.123 Howes also railed against ‘very ille governemente’ brought about by governors who ignored their ordinances and remained in power for up to seven years, instead of one or two. The governors of Bridewell, however, should not be characterised as inherently corrupt individuals. Although their reputations morphed into those of the people they punished, many governors served at more than one hospital without scandal. Richard Grafton, for example, served at both Christ’s and Bridewell. Francis Barnham served first at Bridewell, before joining the court of St Thomas’s. Such public service was time consuming but court minutes indicate that some, such as the aforementioned Barnham and Grafton, took their responsibilities seriously and attended frequently. Court records are littered with references to governors providing additional sums of money or equipment for the hospital of their own volition, seemingly motivated by a genuine desire to enact Christian charity. In 1554 the grocer Sir John Ayliff gave St Bartholomew’s Hospital a ‘free gyffte’ of £30.124 And at St Thomas’s certain governors were moved by the piteous state of those they cared for. In 1560 the grocer Thomas Lodge, president of the hospital, paid ‘of his charytie…xd the 119 120 121 122 123 124

Ibid., p. 442. Ibid., p. 443. Ibid., p. 436. Ibid., p. 435. Ibid., p. 436. bha, Hb1/1, fo. 232r.

110

chapter 3

weke towardes ther meat and drinke, and for their curing he will paye xxvjs viijd.’125 In 1580 another governor, Edmund Chapman, gave the hospital a benevolence of £10 ‘having pitiful compassion of the poore.’126 And during the early 1570s, when the hospital found itself in dire straits, the treasurer and grocer, Nicholas Wheeler, was content to lend the hospital £40 ‘of his owen purse’ for five months.127 We also know that in the 1550s the draper alderman Sir ­William Chester, and the draper John Calthorpe built new walls for the hospitals and repaired ditches that were ‘very noysome and contagious…at their owne proper costes and charges.’128 During his lifetime, Chester donated tenements to St Bartholomew’s Hospital for the support of poor women. In 1573 his son, Thomas, who became bishop of Elphin in 1582, appeared before the hospital governors following the death of his father. This is significant both because it confirms that Chester died in or before 1573 (and not 1595 as was previously thought) but also because it gives us further insight into the charitable activities of a prominent and wealthy citizen for whom we do not have a will.129 Thomas Chester appeared before the court regarding an expired annuity of his father’s for £7 10s. Chester senior had requested that after his death a monthly stipend of 2s 6d each be distributed to five named women: Mother King, Isabell Stranlei, Elizabeth Winker alias Lawton, all widows, and Johan Bowland, maid. It is not clear why these women were selected but court minutes record that they were to receive the stipend for the duration of their lives and that the charity was to be administered by St Bartholomew’s ‘according to the memory’ of William Chester.130 When the charity was first paid in the financial year 1572–3 the accounts noted that ‘fyve pore wemen…Sir William Chesters beade wemen should have monethly twoe shillinges and six pence a pece paid them allwaies.’131 Although William Chester has been associated with reform – in fact, it was thought he resigned his aldermanship in 1573 to study divinity at Cambridge – this form of charity is reminiscent of earlier modes of giving. Directing alms to named individuals had been favoured by late medieval Catholics as a reciprocal bond ensuring prayers for the donor’s soul. Even for those like Chester who had been won over by reform, elements of former practices continued, unwittingly, to leave their imprint. Likewise, the records of St Bartholomew’s refer habitually to the recipients of this charity 125 lma, H1/ST/A/1, fo. 41v. 126 lma, H1/ST/A/4, fo. 6v. 127 H1/ST/A/3, fo. 106v. 128 Grafton, Chronicle, vol. 2, p. 531. 129 J D Alsop, ‘Sir William Chester (c. 1509–1595?),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 130 bha, Ha1/2, fo. 63r. 131 bha, Hb1/2, fo. 184v.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

111

as bedewomen. The charity was faithfully maintained, although the final reference to bedewomen was in 1582, and from 1585 the charity was referred to simply as an order of court from 1573, thereby expunging Chester’s name from memory.132 Such examples of charity far outweigh those of corruption. Whilst some were doubtless little more than timeservers, the most active hospital governors of the Grocers and Drapers were also amongst the earliest converts to Protestantism.133 Consequently, during the 1560s and 1570s we see an attempt to institute a distinctly godly morality in governance rather than any attempt to secularise the hospitals.

Merchants as Churchwardens and Parishioners

The parish acted both as a locus for piety and as a political unit. Vestries were composed of the most ancient and substantial parishioners, and directed the churchwardens who altered the outward appearance and spiritual tenor of their churches. The annual wardmote also took place in the parish and saw the election of local officers, from the scavenger to the common councillors. Consequently, the parish has been identified as a useful lens through which to chart continuity and change in the early modern period.134 Strong divisions remain between scholars as to whether a quantitative or qualitative methodology will yield the greatest insights. Much like wills, the utility of parochial records as a historical source has engendered lively debate. Clive Burgess, in research on the parishes of Bristol and London, has urged caution in using churchwardens’ accounts. Burgess argues that many of the remaining accounts are the final ‘tidied’ versions and do not necessarily reveal the full extent of parish g­ overnment and thus cannot be subjected to rigorous statistical analysis – a method advocated in particular by Beat Kümin.135 132 Ibid., fos. 283r, 328r. 133 Mark Benbow has calculated the frequency of attendance by court members of the hospitals, many rarely, or never, attended but a group – the likes of William Chester and the grocer John Harte – attended assiduously. It is not clear, though, if lack of attendance reflects a lack of concern in the wellbeing of London’s poor or demonstrates the numerous demands placed upon the time of common councillors and aldermen. Benbow, Index of London Citizens. 134 Eamon Duffy has used parish records to demonstrate the on-going vitality of the Catholic faith, The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village (New Haven, 2001); idem, Stripping of the Altars. 135 Clive Burgess, ‘Pre-Reformation churchwardens’ accounts and parish government: lessons from London and Bristol,’ ehr 117 (2002), pp. 306–332; Beat Kümin, ‘Late Medieval Churchwardens’ Accounts and Parish Government: Looking beyond Bristol and London,’

112

chapter 3

Whilst both approaches have merit, the aim of this study is to engage in detail with the person of the churchwarden as a method of considering more fully the construction and selective expression of the religious identities of London’s mercantile governors. Few studies have considered the social status of those appointed to parish office; research by John Craig and Eric Carlson provide notable exceptions.136 For this study, parochial records enable us to plot another point on the life trajectory of London’s merchants. From the available parochial records for the city of London, it appears that grocers and drapers were often appointed churchwarden within a year either side of joining the livery of their company.137 Serving as churchwarden would be the first significant decision-making role that merchants would undertake, but they were no more powerful than the vestry, or other senior parishioners, would allow. It seems that serving one’s parish was of great significance, irrespective of whether the individual’s religious identity coalesced with that of the state religion. For some this was motivated by a desire for social mobility and to be promoted through the ranks of civic office, but for others it might have been indicative of a pragmatic recognition that their views were not held by the majority.138 Not all early Protestants were willing to risk martyrdom, and many trod a more moderate, but nonetheless sincere, path. Particularly in the early decades of change there is evidence both of a rich traditional religious culture in London, and also of the maintenance of this culture by individuals who, in their wills or elsewhere, denounced certain aspects of that which they helped to maintain. This is not to suggest insincerity of faith, but to ehr 119 (2004), pp. 87–99; Burgess, ‘The Broader Church? A rejoinder to “Looking Beyond,”’ ehr 119 (2004), pp. 100–116. See also, Clive Burgess, ‘London Parishioners in Times of Change: St Andrew Hubbard, Eastcheap c. 1450–1570,’ jeh 53 (2002), pp. 38–63; Beat Kümin, The Shaping of a Community: The Rise and Reformation of the English Parish c. 1400–1560, (Aldershot, 1996) passim, but pp. 6–12 on methodology; Gary Gibbs, ‘New duties for the parish community in Tudor London,’ in Katherine French, Gary Gibbs and Beat Kümin (eds), The Parish in English Life 1400–1600 (Manchester, 1997), pp. 163–178; Jeremy P Boulton, ‘The Limits of Formal Religion: The administration of Holy Communion in the Elizabethan and early Stuart Church,’ lj 10 (1984), pp. 135–153. 136 John Craig, Reformation, Politics and Polemics: The Growth of Protestantism in East Anglian Market Towns 1500–1610 (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 37–50, particularly pp. 42–43; Eric Carlson, ‘The origins, function, and status of the office of churchwarden, with particular reference to the diocese of Ely’ in Margaret Spufford (ed.), The World of Rural Dissenters 1550–1725 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 164–207; see also Kümin, The Shaping of a Community, p. 38. 137 For more on the civic career trajectory of London’s merchants see Frank Foster, The Politics of Stability (London, 1977). 138 Burgess, ‘London Parishioners in Times of Change,’ pp. 38–63.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

113

d­ emonstrate the fluid and evolving character of religious identities. Those that we label evangelical, for example, did not and could not live purely evangelical lives and might not have seen any inconsistency in their actions. Only in the later sixteenth century do we see clearer dividing lines between those who identified themselves as Catholic or Protestant. In using parish records for London, however, our conclusions are based upon fragmentary evidence. The city comprised 107 parishes at the beginning of the sixteenth century; of those parishes we have at least partial churchwardens’ accounts for forty-five and separately bound vestry minutes for ­twenty-one.139 Many are extant only from the 1580s or later, and even those that are extant from earlier are often patchy in their coverage. One such parish with early, albeit incomplete, records is St Margaret Pattens. The accounts reveal that the draper Humfrey Monmouth served as churchwarden from 1520 to 1522.140 This was the same decade in which he was identified as one of the so-called ‘brethren,’ a group of evangelicals, including merchants, involved in the importation of religious texts and the protection of preachers such as William Tyndale.141 The accounts of 1521–2, written in Monmouth’s hand, demonstrate his compliance in maintaining this C ­ atholic ­culture, although a marginal note states that the junior churchwarden, John Samson, ­administered the payments for repairs to the rood and organs, alongside the purchase of a new legend and four processionals.142 Whilst the ­division of labour between the churchwardens must have occurred, it was unusual to highlight the work of the second warden in this manner, and could potentially represent a subtle attempt by Monmouth to dissociate himself from certain aspects of the visual, ritual and liturgical culture of Catholicism. But there could equally, and more probably, be a mundane explanation. The s­ econd warden would occasionally be highlighted if they had stepped in, possibly with their own funds, to run the parish in the absence of the senior churchwarden; such a method ensured that the second warden would be recognised and reimbursed 139 These figures are for parishes in the City of London and exclude those without the city walls. Many churchwardens’ accounts include occasional vestry minutes, only those significant enough to be bound separately are included in the figure of twenty one. Caroline Barron, ‘The Parish Fraternities of Medieval London,’ in Caroline Barron and Christopher Harper-Bill (eds), The Church in Pre-Reformation Society (Studies in Church History 46, Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 13–37, at p. 13. 140 lma, ms 4570/1, fos. 71v–82r. 141 Ernest Gordon Rupp, Studies in the making of the English Protestant tradition mainly in the reign of Henry viii (Cambridge, 1949), p. 11; idem, Six Makers of the English Religion 1500–1700 (London, 1957), pp. 16–18; Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 106–119. 142 lma, ms 4570/1 fo. 81r–v.

114

chapter 3

for their troubles.143 This seems a more likely explanation. Monmouth was a merchant proper and periods of absence were likely to allow him to source wool from outside London, or else to attend the markets in Europe. Moreover, many of the practices that Monmouth had renounced by the time he wrote his will in 1536, he maintained dutifully in the early 1520s. He administered a payment of 2d for the hallowing of a chalice, maintained four obits and paid the wages of the two conducts.144 He also ensured that his pew alone was mended during his tenure, suggestive of diligent church attendance and pride in his place within it.145 Monmouth provides further evidence to suggest that individuals recognised the duty of serving their parish above any, admittedly very early, misgivings they might have had about certain aspects of medieval ­Catholicism. At the end of his tenure as churchwarden, Monmouth continued to serve as one of the auditors of the accounts. In 1522–3 the parish bought new organs, and in 1523–4 an entry records a payment for the Mass of the parish fraternity, the Jesus Brotherhood, all payments sanctioned, in part, by Monmouth.146 The parish of St Stephen’s Walbrook likewise demonstrates the enthusiastic participation of grocers and drapers in the maintenance of traditional religion. Consequently, the religious complexion of the parish, as refracted through parochial records, suggests that we need to revise our conception of evangelicalism and recognise that even in parishes seen as early adopters and militant in their displays of Reformed faith, there remained continuities with the past – even into the late sixteenth century. The advowson to St Stephen’s was held by the Grocers’ Company and churchwardens’ accounts suggest that this was also a parish where many grocers chose to live. Records for St Stephen’s are not fully extant but cover much of the sixteenth century until 1538 and resume for the rest of the century in 1548.147 From the available evidence 143 In the parish of St Benet Gracechurch in 1559–60 there are frequent reimbursements to the churchwarden and grocer, John Soda, who made payments in the absence of fellow churchwarden and grocer, Henry Wayt. lma, ms 1568, fo. 127r. 144 lma, ms 4570/1, fos. 81r, 82r. 145 lma, ms 4570/1, fo. 77r. 146 Ibid., fos. 84r, 86v. In 1538, following a sermon by Hugh Latimer on the removal of images, the parishioners of St Margaret Pattens pulled down their elaborate rood screen. It occurred on the same evening that Friar Forest was burned for heresy for his adherence to the papacy; parish records for this period are not extant, see Susan Brigden, ‘Popular Disturbance and the Fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers 1539–40,’ hj 24 (1981), pp. 257–278, at pp. 259–260; Peter Marshall, ‘Papist as Heretic: the burning of Friar Forest 1538,’ hj 41 (1998), pp. 351–374. 147 lma, ms 593/1–2.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

115

the ­Henrician churchwardens showed no sign of doing anything other than continuing their long-held traditions, even though we are aware of growing engagement with shifting religious doctrine amongst certain parishioners. In 1522–3 the grocer George Gowsell served as churchwarden. He took receipt of payments for three obits, two of which were for fellow grocers; maintained the stained glass windows, bought palms on Palm Sunday, repaired the Sepulchre and paid the clerk’s wife for mending the surplices.148 They were as you would expect for the 1520s. One of the auditors of these accounts, however, was the scrivener William Carkke.149 Carkke, like Monmouth, was also one of the ‘brethren,’ as they called themselves, and in 1532 one of his servants, John Medwel, was imprisoned for twenty-four weeks on suspicion of heresy. Medwel was charged with denying purgatory, images, pilgrimages and saints, and trusting only ­Tyndale’s New Testament, a copy of which was found in his possession.150 George ­Gowsell’s will of 1524, however, supported the rich religious life of the parish and suggests that such individuals possessed greater influence over the spiritual complexion of the parish than those like Carkke. For example, Gowsell left money to gild the rood loft, established a chantry for five years for his mother, and for himself a ten year obit and three trental Masses. He left gowns in exchange for prayers for his soul to fellow grocers John Lane, Andrew Woodcock and Thomas Pierson.151 Whilst we cannot fully recover how those of divergent attitudes, like Carkke and Gowsell, co-operated on a day-to-day basis, churchwardens’ accounts suggest that levels of conflict were insufficient to stop the parish from functioning. Between 1510 and 1538 the records for St Stephen’s give the impression of a parish which displayed its Catholic faith lavishly. In 1517–18, during the churchwardenship of the organist, John Howe, £4 was spent on a bejewelled cross with a case.152 The following year the grocer John Bodnam paid to mend the rood loft, along with expenditure on torches for Corpus Christi and copes for children.153 Five years later, as a parishioner with less compulsion to contribute, Bodnam bought a new surplice for the church.154 Accounts for the Henrician period 148 lma, ms 593/1, (1522–3) fos. 2r, 3v, 4v. 149 Ibid., fo. 6r. 150 Foxe, tamo (1570 edition), p. 1228 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]; for more on Carkke (also spelled Carkeke) and his similarly evangelical wife, Eleanor, see Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 319–320, 418; idem, ‘Popular Disturbance and the Fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers 1539–40,’ hj 24 (1981), pp. 257–278. 151 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/21 (George Gowlsell, 1524). 152 lma, ms 593/1, fo. 6v (1517–18). 153 Ibid., fos. 1r–4r (1518–19). 154 Ibid., fo. 6r (1524–5).

116

chapter 3

make further references to jewel-encrusted pews, rich velvet vestments and copes embroidered with ostrich feathers, alongside significant expenditure on bells and the church organs.155 This was a parish whose religious culture engaged all the senses: there were annual payments for torches and garlands of roses at Corpus Christi; lights for the Sepulchre, paschal and rood loft; choristers sang on holy days and there was further conviviality and celebrations on the feast of St Stephen with bread, wine and ale provided by the ale wife.156 St Stephen’s was thus a parish that, by 1538, showed no outward signs of religious change. Maintenance of traditional elements in the early years of change in parishes associated with evangelicalism adds credence to the idea that many saw themselves as Catholics who objected to certain aspects of church life, but still considered themselves very much within the Church. Suggestions that merchants were amongst the earliest and most enthusiastic converts to Protestantism, are not reflected in the religious life of the Grocers’ own parish – neither is it evident in the Merchant Taylors’ parish of St Martin’s Outwich. An inventory of 1522 shows the extent of Catholic material culture in the form of multiple gold crosses and chalices, but also a box of divine relics, including a relic of St Martin and a book of his life.157 The parish was home to the Catholic polemicist Miles Huggarde, and the draper John Kidderminster.158 Kidderminster, who served as churchwarden in 1519, continued to live in the parish until his death in 1543. His will made clear his commitment to traditional practices through his desire to establish an obit and a chantry.159 Despite the maintenance of an unchanged Catholicism, the grocer and draper churchwardens enacted religious change with swiftness and often eagerness at the accession of Edward vi, while retaining some former practices. This retention is reflective of the diversity of religious identities amongst the London laity that was at odds with the desires of the Edwardian regime that sought, amongst other things, the wholesale removal of images. The Court of Aldermen was reluctant to enforce such drastic measures and undertook to view each church ‘in the most secrette, discrete and quyett manner,’ although the Privy Council remained unmoved.160 155 156 157 158

lma, ms 593/1 fo. 6r (1518–19), fo. 6r (1526–7), fo. 4r (1527–8), fo. 5v (1534–5). Ibid., fo. 5v–6r (1517–18), fos. 2v–3r (1518–19), fo. 4v–5r (1524–5), fo. 4r (1527–8). lma, ms 6842, unfoliated [1v]. In 1545 Huggarde was assessed to contribute 3s to the clerk’s wages; lma, ms 6842, unfoliated; C. Bradshaw, ‘Miles Huggarde (fl. 1533–1557),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 159 lma, ms 6842, fo. 31; tna, pcc, Prob. 11/30, fos. 286r–287v. 160 Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English ­Religious Worship 1547–c. 1700 (Oxford, 2007), p. 10.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

117

In the wealthy mercer-dominated parish of St Mary Magdalen Milk Street, the grocer William King served as churchwarden from 1549 to 1551, and from 1550 alongside the mercer Lionel Duckett.161 This was one of eighteen London churches that removed their high altar in advance of Ridley’s injunctions.162 They were also prompt in buying service books and six copies of David’s Psalter and the ‘pater noster in englyshe.’163 In addition they bought a new Bible with the epistles and gospels, and a copy of Erasmus’ Paraphrases, in line with ­Edwardian requirements.164 Nonetheless, they continued to refer to the church’s priests by the traditional title of ‘sir’ and, despite the Edwardian opposition to polyphonic music they continued to make an annual payment of 12d to John Howe to maintain four organs.165 The fusion of change and continuity was also in evidence at St Stephen’s Walbrook. When records resume in 1548 we see a parish that was quickly transforming its outward appearance in line with Edwardian injunctions. One of the first payments recorded for 1548–9 was of 5s to the rector Thomas Becon for a copy of Erasmus’ Paraphrases.166 In the same year the churchwardens paid for the removal of the rood loft and tabernacle and the whitewashing of the church. The churchwardens seemed enthusiastic in their adoption of ­Edwardian religion; whilst parishes were instructed to paint the scriptures on the walls, St Stephen’s did so with gusto, paying the painter Thomas Bullock 20s for his work in 1548–9. The following year another workman was tasked with producing ‘certain writings in painting,’ and a joiner was paid to make a ‘table with writings of scripture.’167 Nevertheless, like St Mary Magdalen Milk Street, the parish also continued to pay the organ maker, John Howe, his annual stipend of 2s for mending the organs; a role that Howe fulfilled until his death in 1571.168 It is also s­ urprising as 161 lma, ms 2596/1, fos. 97v–101r. 162 The others were St Andrew Hubbard, St Botolph Aldersgate, St Michael Cornhill, St ­Stephen Walbrook, All Hallows London Wall, St Christopher le Stocks, St John Walbrook, St Katherine Cree, All Hallows Honey Lane, St Edmund Lombard Street, St Katherine Cole­man, St Martin Ludgate, St Mary Staining, St Peter Cornhill and St Swithun, see Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, pp. 14–15. 163 lma, ms 2596/1, fos. 98v–99r, 100v. 164 lma, ms 2596/1, fo. 98v. 165 Ibid., fos. 98v–101r; for more on Edwardian attitudes to music see Jonathan Willis, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England: Discourses, Sites and Identities ­(Aldershot, 2010). 166 lma, ms 593/2, unfoliated (1549). 167 Ibid., unfoliated, accounts of Robert Bayliss 1550–1; accounts of John Bodnam, 1551–2. 168 lma, ms 593/1, unfoliated, accounts of Thomas Bullock, 1552–3.

118

chapter 3

their rector, Thomas Becon, went on to write a tract on the spiritually-­damaging effects of music. In a Jewel of Joy Becon argued that man should concentrate on spiritual contemplation and not waste valuable resources which would be better spent on preachers.169 As metrical psalms drew upon scriptures they were considered acceptable and so in accounts for the year ending 1550 the grocer Rauf Bodnam bought eleven psalm books and paid 3s 4d to a ‘singing man’ for half a year’s wages.170 Rauf followed the footsteps of his father, John, who had been churchwarden in the 1530s. Both enacted their duty to the parish, despite a changed and changing setting. Some aspects of change were both in line with the law and dramatic in their visual impact. Whilst a musical tradition was maintained at St Stephen’s, the stripping away of Catholic material culture was more extensive, particularly the selling of vestments. It seems that parishioners were more attached to the traditional rituals in which they took part, than to material objects from which spiritual edification was perhaps less obvious. The accounts for 1550–1 detail both the sale of vestments and their purchasers. The sale raised £132 2s 10d, indicative of a vast store of rich vestments. Most vestments were bought by parishioners, including the draper William Beswick, the grocer Roger Warfield and the mercer Mathew Locke. Beswick bought, amongst other things, six copes, vestments of velvet, damask and taffeta, two altar cloths and a small table. Mathew Locke paid £11 for three copes and two deacons of black cloth of gold. The grocer William Cheke paid £5 for a variety of cloths including the sepulchre cloth embroidered with lions, and three corpus cloths of silk and velvet.171 The grocers Rauf Bodnam and Thomas Alsop bought five vestments for children and a veil of tawny sarsnet respectively, whilst fellow parishioner John Bartholomew paid 2s for a banner painted with St Margaret.172 The eagerness with which parishioners bought these vestments is striking and a variety of factors must have influenced their purchase. Perhaps individuals bought up items which their ancestors had bequeathed; whilst for some there must have been a sense of affection and a refusal to change. For many, however, the motivation was more mundane. The mercer Mathew Locke came from a family associated with evangelical Protestantism from its earliest years; for him it seems buying vestments was both an everyday business transaction

169 Willis, Church Music, p. 54. 170 lma, ms 593/2, fos. 14v–15r. 171 lma, ms 593/2, fo. 17v. 172 Ibid., fo. 18r.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

119

and an opportunity to actively engage in purifying iconoclasm which would in turn fund the maintenance of a newly Reformed church.173 Ronald Hutton has suggested that many English parishes, including those in London with surviving Marian accounts, restored Catholicism faster and further than Bonner’s injunctions required.174 Eamon Duffy went further in suggesting that where churchwardens in London complained about the injunctions it was motivated by ‘financial or logistical difficulties, not Protestant resistance.’175 If parish vestries functioned according to majority rule, as they appear to have, then it seems that Catholics remained in the majority. David Hickman, however, has suggested that London’s relatively peaceful Reformation experience owes much to the desire of London’s governors to maintain order in their Christian commonwealth.176 What we see in London’s parishes is a broad conformity, that contained within it elements of enthusiasm, ­reluctance and ambivalence. In the Drapers’ parish of St Michael’s, home to Reformed parishioners such as the clothworker, William Winthrop, the churchwardens quickly restored the high altar, bought a pax and holywater sprinkler and reinstated the paschal and sepulchre lights.177 The priest’s surplice was mended, a new alb bought for the priest who sang Mass, the cloth before the high altar was painted and a canopy of fine white cloth with gold tassels was bought, whilst £3 was spent on two antiphoners and a new Mass book. These all demonstrate the speedy reinstatement of former practices, yet in the same year (1554) 4s was paid to a carpenter for a variety of jobs including setting up a ‘cloeth in the belfreye of the X Comandemetes and of the scripture at the requeste of Mr Gunter.’178 The Decalogue was not of itself doctrinally contentious; an inventory for St Christopher le Stocks in the late fifteenth century clearly records a table listing the commandments and another of prayers; but the displaying of such scriptural references was distinctly after the Protestant

173 The Locke family circle has been deftly illustrated by Sutton, The Mercery of London, pp. 390–394. 174 Ronald Hutton, ‘The local impact of the Tudor Reformations,’ in Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 114–138, at pp. 116–119. 175 Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, p. 546. 176 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 3. Hickman does not expand on what these shared values were. 177 The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of St Michael, Cornhill in the city of L­ ondon, ed. William Henry Overall (London, 1871), pp. 111–114. 178 Ibid., p. 115; Mr Gunter was Philip Gunter, skinner, and from 1569 alderman for Portsoken ward, see Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 1, p. 183.

120

chapter 3

form.179 In October 1554 Bishop Bonner addressed a letter to the London clergy making clear that scriptures on the wall from the time of Edward vi were to be whitewashed, particularly those that denounced idolatry.180 The displaying of the Ten Commandments in this way was both a neat circumvention of Catholic change and an echo of former times. Equally, individuals who were thought to be moving in heretical circles in the 1530s found themselves nominated to serve their parish under both ­Edward vi and Mary i. The grocer Ralph Clervis, for example, has been noted by historians only for his indictment under the Six Articles in 1540.181 Clervis, then living in the parish of St Magnus, was arrested with his wife and a number of other parishioners for harbouring preachers of ‘newe learning, as [Robert] Wisedome, [Thomas] Rose, frier Ward, Sir Wil Smith alias Wright.’182 In 1548 Clervis was recorded living in the parish of St Leonard Eastcheap and, with other parishioners, paid to ‘reedefie and buyld again such and so menye alteres within the said parish church’ that they had removed before the crown authorised such actions.183 By the following year Clervis was listed as one of the four parishioners of St Benet Gracechurch entrusted with a key to the treasury.184 It seems that Clervis was able to serve his parish, even when religious change was at odds with his own beliefs. For example, the parish accounts of 1553–4 record that the parish pre-empted Bonner’s injunctions of 1555, by buying the requisite church stuff.185 But a curious entry records that the churchwardens paid 3s 4d to a plasterer for ‘defasing of suche scriptures as in the tyme of King Edward the sixt were wrytten about the churche walles, we being commanded so to do by the right honorable Lorde Bysshop of Wynchester, Lord Chancellor of England.’186 The accounts did not stress that their other purchases were the

179 lma, ms 4424, fo. 82r. 180 Foxe, tamo (1570 edition), p. 1623 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 181 The other three grocers were Richard Grafton, John Blage and John Mayler, and the draper Ralph Bilby; Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 412. 182 Foxe, tamo (1583 edition), p. 1227 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]; New Learning was a term used by the authorities at the time to denote those of Lutheran beliefs, see Richard Rex, ‘The New Learning,’ jeh 44 (1993), pp. 26–44; for more on Smith and Wisdom and the London conventicles see Alec Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry viii: Evangelicals and the Early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 223–247. 183 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 113. 184 lma, ms 1568, fo. 21r. 185 For more on the shifting visual and material culture of churches during the Reformation see Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored. 186 lma, ms 1568, fo. 35v.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

121

result of any commandment. It is difficult to be sure if this was a method of underlining the compliance of the parishioners or of distancing themselves from an action with which they did not feel comfortable. From 1554 to 1556 Ralph Clervis served as churchwarden, his previous indictment proving no bar to future public service. If he was uncomfortable with the restoration of Catholicism there is no sign of it in the accounts. Bonner’s injunctions stated that most church stuff was to be in place by Christmas 1555 and Clervis’s parish tried to meet this requirement. During his tenure Catholic material culture was reinstalled with some vigour.187 A painter stainer was paid 5s for painting two cresetts and hatchments for the altar with the five wounds. A further 30s was paid to have both the twelve prophets and apostles painted onto the new altar cloth. £6 was paid for the new rood loft and a further 20s to ensure it was set fast.188 And 20d was distributed to the priests, clerks and organists who participated in a service for ‘the birth of our prince which was then thought to be’ – a reference to the supposed pregnancy of Mary i.189 The broad continuing enthusiasm for Catholicism of which Duffy and ­Hutton have written does not explain how individuals like Clervis came to serve so compliantly as churchwarden during the reign of Mary i. Doubtless the threat of arrest or worse, or indeed a genuine change of heart, caused many to reconcile themselves with Marian Catholicism. Clervis, however, seems to have remained a Protestant, albeit one who was able to avoid coming to the attention of the authorities again. Clervis died in 1557 but his will, composed in 1551, is indicative of his commitment to a preaching ministry. One of the few bequests not made to his immediate family was of both a charitable and religious nature. He asked that after the death of his wife a yearly quitrent of 50s be paid ‘towardes the fynding of one poore man’s chylde at Saint Nycolas Hospytall in Cambrydge at lernyng, I mean to be a precher of god’s word.’190 It would not be so anomalous though for a Protestant to serve as a churchwarden and restore Catholicism. Some saw the accession of Mary i as a punishment that had to be endured for their insufficiently godly lives and very few advocated active resistance.191 A logical extension of the need to ‘endure’ Mary is that 187 188 189 190

Visitation Articles, vol. 2, pp. 360–372. lma, ms 1568, fos. 39v–41r. Ibid., fo. 40v. The will of Ralph Clervis (also Clarvaux) was proved in the Commissary Court: gl, ms 9171/13 fos. 121v–122v. 191 Joy Shakespeare, ‘Plague and Punishment,’ in Peter Lake and Maria Dowling (eds), Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth-Century England (Chatham, 1987), pp. 103–123.

122

chapter 3

some practiced Nicodemism.192 There is of course no evidence to suggest that Clervis, or indeed any other merchants from the sample, were self-consciously Nicodemite, but it is one way in which we can understand why the transition to Catholicism was relatively peaceful and was carried out by some individuals who might not have welcomed it as much as Duffy has suggested. As Chapter 2 demonstrated, the Grocers struggled to make suitable clerical appointments to their cures during the reign of Mary i that both satisfied the Reformed inclinations of the parish and court of assistants and similarly met with the approval of the bishop of London. Yet the churchwardens restored the material culture of traditional Catholicism with compliance and even ­exuberance. Whilst this could be seen as indicative of genuine enthusiasm for the ­restoration of Catholicism, it could equally indicate some level of ­compromise – parishioners could accept the veneer of Catholic culture but not a Catholic liturgy.193 The response of London’s mercantile churchwardens to the Catholic restoration does not wholly indicate enthusiasm or apathy but rather an attempt to balance a spectrum of beliefs within the parish with ecclesiastical imperatives and the need to maintain social order. For example, in accounts for the year ending 1554 the churchwardens of St Stephen’s spent a not insignificant 33s 4d on a vestment adorned with the Grocers’ arms ‘and all thinges apperteynynge.’194 As well as demonstrating the strong ties between parish and company, this was also a way of equipping the parish clergy with appropriately lavish vestments that were not embellished with exclusively or obviously sacred imagery. The parish also procured new hymnals, restored the high altar and bought a new antiphoner from the grocer Rauf Prynne, as likely to be illustrative of the involvement of grocers with the book trade, as it could be of confessional allegiance.195 However, there must have been continuing Catholic sympathies within the parish as in 1555–6 they agreed to spend the 192 Andrew Pettegree, ‘Nicodemism and the English Reformation,’ in idem, Marian Protestantism: Six Studies (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 86–117. 193 It was only when attendance at Mass became compulsory in 1554 that the evangelicals Rose and Anthony Hickman sought exile in Antwerp – a similarly Catholic city. See Joy Shakespeare and Maria Dowling, ‘Religion and Politics in mid Tudor England through the eyes of an English Protestant Woman: The Recollections of Rose Hickman,’ bihr 55 (1982), pp. 94–102. 194 lma, ms 593/2, fo. 31v. 195 Ibid. For more on the book trade, including the role of certain livery companies (including grocers and drapers), see Marjorie Plant, The English Book Trade: An Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books (London, 1974), p. 124; Heather Collier, ‘Richard Hill: A London Compiler,’ in Evelyn Mullally and John Thompson (eds), The Court and Cultural Diversity (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 319–329.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

123

large sum of £8 on new images of Mary and John to adorn the rood loft, at a time when their annual income amounted to approximately £63, something which might account for the delay in the loft’s restoration.196 No other parish in the city of London is recorded spending such a significant sum – St Benet Gracechurch, as we have seen, spent a not insignificant but more modest £6 on its new rood. It is also notable that when the parishioners of St Stephen’s renewed their stock of vestments in 1555–6 the churchwardens’ accounts recorded that £4 was paid to the draper William Beswick in exchange for four of the copes that they had sold to him in 1550–1.197 For a draper to hold on to valuable cloths that could have been sold or transformed, for so long, could suggest continuing affection for this aspect of Catholic material culture. When Beswick died in 1567, however, his will requested ten sermons by the Protestant divine Thomas Becon, hardly a moderate choice. It was likely, then, that Beswick was an astute trader who had the foresight to understand that holding on to some garments might be of value in a time of flux, or else it had been difficult to sell cloth that was considered by some to be tainted by its religious history. Other parishes adopted Marian Catholicism but at a much slower pace which often reflected the Reformed nature of the vestry. St Lawrence Jewry was a wealthy parish which consequently saw many grocers and drapers taking parochial office. Vestry minutes begin in 1556 and provide us with examples of those who would later display strongly Protestant identities implementing the Catholic restoration. In 1556 the grocer Edward Elmar and draper Thomas Chapman served as churchwardens, whilst the grocer Rauf Woodcock was appointed collector for the poor.198 Chapman and Woodcock produced wills suggestive of conventional Elizabethan piety in 1561 and 1586 respectively, with Chapman’s will witnessed by the skinner Philip Gunter, who ordered that the Ten Commandments be displayed at St Michael’s Cornhill in 1554.199 Edward Elmar was also someone who until the end of his life registered affection for evangelical Protestantism displayed, in part, through his multiple portraits of Edward vi.200 With such Reformed individuals at the helm, the Catholic restoration faltered in application. It was not until a vestry of 1557, headed by the mercer Hugh Brinklow, brother of and servant to the polemicist Henry, that 196 197 198 199

lma, ms 593/2, fo. 35v. Ibid., fo. 36r. lma, ms 2590/1, pp. 3–4. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/44 fo. 249r–v; Prob. 11/69, fos. 365v–367v; Overall, St Michael Cornhill, p. 115. 200 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/82, fos. 339v–342v.

124

chapter 3

the parish agreed to pay for lights in the rood loft, and to ‘mend’ the windows and church books.201 The parish also agreed to assess every man for a contribution towards the sepulchre light. That such traditions had not been fully restored with greater speed is indicative at the very least of inertia, but could also suggest the foot-dragging resistance of Protestant churchwardens. At the accession of Elizabeth, however, churchwardens in favour of Reformation did not necessarily move swiftly to change all aspects of church life. The vestry of St Lawrence Jewry, now headed by Edward Elmar and Hugh Brinklow, decreed in August 1559 that the high altar and two additional altars would be taken down, but they were otherwise cautious – experience had doubtless taught them to be wary of hastily or destructively dismantling Catholic iconography, and thus a further minute from 1564 stated that the rood was still to be cut lower.202 It also seems that not all traditional practices were done away with, particularly the maintenance of church music and the long-standing traditions of decorating the church with holly and ivy at Christmas, and birch in the summer. The grocer and former Marian exile, Blase Saunders, served as c­ hurchwarden in the parish of St Helen’s Bishopsgate in 1567–8 and administered payments for church decorations and 6s 8d to John Howe for mending the organs and bellows, in addition to his annual 2s stipend.203 St Stephen’s was also slow to remove the organs and maintained them until John Howe’s death in 1571. Jonathan Willis suggests that the disappearance of organs from London’s parish churches in the 1570s is less indicative of growing Protestantism and more strongly linked to the death of Howe who effectively monopolized the city trade.204 This argument seems compelling, but nevertheless some parishes were quick to abandon them. St Michael’s Cornhill recorded its final payment for organ maintenance in 1560, although they were not removed until 1572 when extra pews were installed, indicative of a growing sermon culture. St Michael’s in particular was a parish quickly linked to the hotter sort of Protestants at the accession of Elizabeth with the appointment of John Philpot as rector, and Robert Crowley a frequent preacher in the parish.205 The swift restoration of Catholicism under Mary i, however, suggests that the religious complexion of the parish was more nuanced than has previously been thought. It has been suggested that during the 1560s the Drapers were influenced by 201 lma, ms 2590/1, p. 6; Sutton, The Mercery of London, pp. 388–389. 202 lma, ms 2590/1, pp. 10, 18. 203 lma, ms 9235, fo. 7r–v. 204 Willis, Church Music, p. 96. 205 Collinson, Godly People, pp. 54, 262.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

125

‘a somewhat strong wave of Protestant, and even Puritanical, feeling.’206 Corresponding ecclesiastical appointments could be seen as a desire to reflect the Reformed inclinations of the Drapers’ company and their member parishioners. The parish, however, was not dominated by drapers. In fact, just 11 of 142 churchwardens appointed between 1548 and 1600 were drapers, and those 11 churchwardens represent six distinct individuals who served more than one term.207 The churchwardens whose company membership can be identified, were more likely to be clothworkers, skinners, haberdashers or fishmongers. This surely questions (and adds a further layer of complexity to) the supposed link between the most ancient of the Great Twelve livery companies and thoroughgoing Protestantism.208 It also goes some way to explain why the Drapers conformed more readily to religious change when making ecclesiastical appointments during this period, and why the parish was so often in dispute with the company. It also stands in contrast to the Grocers who struggled to make appointments in the grocer-dominated parish of St Stephen’s Walbrook that satisfied company, parish and crown. Whilst Protestants did not remove all of their parish rituals at the accession of Elizabeth i, nor were those who retained Catholic links (if not faith) reluctant to serve their parish in a Protestant context. The grocer John Soda, who served as apothecary to Mary i, also lived in the parish of St Benet Gracechurch alongside Ralph Clervis. Soda’s social circle displays both Catholic and Protestant connections; for example his daughter Katherine married first the Protestant draper Jasper Allen and then the assertively Catholic grocer, Rauf Greenway.209 In 1553–4 Soda was been paid 5s for ‘his paynes for the recovering of our best cope.’210 If, taken together, this can be taken as an indication that Soda remained Catholic then it is noteworthy that he too was able to serve the parish as churchwarden from 1558–60.211 In 1558–9 4d was paid to remove the rood (although the loft remained intact until 1560 when ‘we were commanded to pull down our Rood loft’) and 2s was paid to the parson for two psalm books of ‘Jenevay’ – suggestive of an impulse within the parish to adopt a distinctly Reformed way of worship.212 The following year (1559–60) Soda paid 9s 8d to 206 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 144. 207 Overall, St Michael, Cornhill, pp. 61–189. 208 Brett Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism: The London Godly, the Exchequer and the Foxe Circle,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 105–134. 209 See Ch. 2 of this book. 210 lma, ms 1568, p. 67. 211 Ibid., pp. 109–130. 212 Ibid., pp. 112, 115, 124.

126

chapter 3

buy the rood, including the gilt work. Given his Catholic family links and previous ability to secure a fine cope for the parish, it seems that Soda retained his Catholicism, but he also continued to supply his parish with bread and wine for the communion.213 But if parishes were slow to remove visual reminders of Catholicism, some were swifter to institute a preaching ministry, an impulse which at times went beyond mere conformity. The parish of St Lawrence Jewry, for example, was efficient in establishing a lectureship. In 1560 a preacher named Bullinger was paid 53s for delivering a lecture twice a week for eleven weeks whilst the parish rector was absent, and in 1570 the godly divine Edward Dering was paid £10 a year to lecture three times a week.214 The advowson of St Lawrence Jewry was held by the masters of Balliol College, Oxford, who in 1576, conceded that on this one occasion, the vestry could elect their own choice of incumbent. The vestry chose Robert Crowley who accepted the post only if there would be some ‘benefit to himself’ and on the condition that he would not deliver the weekly lectures. His refusal seems related to his commitment at that time to lecture at St Antholin Budge Row.215 The vestry consented and agreed to pay him £10 a year with an additional benevolence of £10 granted immediately.216 But despite such a Reformed preaching ministry, as late as 1566 vestry minutes record references to clergy by the traditional status of ‘sir.’217 Clearly, the Reformed grocers and drapers were sufficiently dominant within the vestry of St Lawrence to ensure that such suitable appointments were made. Also in 1570, whilst the mercer and former Marian exile Thomas Heton and grocer Rauf Woodcock were churchwardens, the vestry decreed that the stone from the sepulchre would be ‘put to better use’ by being made into pews for the aldermen, representing a clear move away from, and denigration of, former traditions.218 During the early 1570s the grocer, Rauf Woodcock, moved to the neighbouring parish of St Mary Aldermary and by 1572 was auditing the churchwardens’ accounts.219 Like St Lawrence Jewry, this parish was by the 1570s more Reformed than the Elizabethan Settlement required and had a long history 213 Ibid., p. 123. 214 This was not the Swiss reformer, Heinrich Bullinger, but the exact identity of this preacher has not been uncovered; lma, ms 2590/1, p. 22. 215 See below. 216 lma, ms 2590/1, pp. 51–52. 217 Ibid., p. 24. 218 Ibid., p. 34; Christina Garret, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1938), p. 362. 219 lma, ms 3556/1, fo. 43r.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

127

of godly preachers.220 In 1582–3, by which time Woodcock was alderman for Portsoken ward, he audited accounts which paid to set up a table of the Ten Commandments, for eight ‘psalms appointed for the day of the Quenes raigne,’ and renewed the whitewashed walls.221 There is evidence to suggest, however, that whilst Woodcock served alongside the former exiles and was complicit in the actions of Reformed parishes, his own faith retained traces of an earlier Catholicism. In September 1586, shortly before his death, Alderman Woodcock sent 20s to the churchwardens of St Mary Aldermary to be distributed to the poor ‘desiring that they pray for him.’222 The churchwardens duly complied with his request despite its redolence of former intercessory patterns. Parishes also demonstrate how tight the overlapping networks were that merchants (and others) inhabited. Vestry minutes for the parish of St Bartholomew’s by the Exchange, extant from 1567, suggest a godly parish staffed by godly merchants. Catholics remained amongst London’s aldermen but they no longer seem to represent the majority. As the governors of St Bartholomew’s hospital held the advowson to the church, they too would attend vestry meetings from time to time. The first recorded meeting in 1567 was attended by the aldermen and grocers Sir John White and Sir John Ryvers.223 Ryvers had served his apprenticeship with William Laxton who had links with evangelicals in the 1530s but seems to have hedged his bets with a Catholic will in 1556.224 Ryvers’ own will of 1584 is suggestive of conventional Elizabethan piety and parochial loyalty – requesting four sermons a year for five years in both his home parish of Hadlow in Kent and also at St Bartholomew’s by the Exchange.225 At this vestry meeting the churchwardens’ accounts for the previous year were presented for auditing, whilst the old wardens stepped down and new wardens were elected. One of the auditors for the year 1567 was the draper Bartholomew Warner and through him we see the potential for parish, company, trade and family to intersect – a further reason for London’s negotiated Reformation.226 220 Edward Crome was appointed rector in 1534 with the support of Anne Boleyn so that he might encourage ‘the furtherance of virtue, truth and godly doctrine,’ cited in Susan Wabuda, ‘Equivocation and Recantation during the English Reformation: The “Subtle Shadows” of Dr Edward Crome,’ jeh 44 (1993), pp. 224–242. 221 lma, ms 3556/1, fos. 54v, 108v. 222 Ibid., fo. 115v. 223 The Vestry Minute Books of the Parish of St Bartholomew Exchange in the City of London 1567–1676, ed. Edwin Freshfield (London, 1890), p. 1; Alexandra Shepard, ‘Sir Thomas White (1495?–1567),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 224 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/38, fos. 79–80v; see Ch. 2 of this book. 225 tna, Prob. 11/66, fos. 291r–294r. 226 St Bartholomew Exchange, p. 1.

128

chapter 3

Warner was appointed clerk for the Drapers in 1569, but in the 1540s and 50s had acted as an agent for the Johnson Company – an evangelical circle of wool merchants and drapers.227 Warner’s sister, Maria, married Otwell Johnson who named their children Israel and Abigail, suggestive of their engagement with Reformed ideas. When Otwell died of the sweat in 1551 his widow married another draper, Mathew Colclough, who was also one of the outgoing churchwardens for St Bartholomew’s in 1567.228 By December 1569 Warner was noted as planning to leave the parish.229 This coincided with the re-foundation of the Italian stranger church in the chapel at Mercers’ Hall.230 The majority of the 160-strong congregation were Dutch, whilst many Londoners were said to gather to hear the Italian language.231 Warner provides an instance of an individual who withdrew from conventional parish administration to gather with Dutch Protestants and worship in a manner which the Elizabethan church could not provide. In 1570 Warner was elected as an elder on the consistory alongside five others, two of whom were English, William Winthrop and Michael Blount.232 Whilst some could not worship within the conventional parish framework, others displayed a strong commitment to a form of Protestantism that asserted its anti-popery. For example, the draper Francis Higham served as churchwarden at St Antholin Budge Row in 1576–7.233 Higham had been punished by the court of the Drapers in 1553 for shaving a boy’s crown, an act which was thought to be in derision of priests. Clearly, this offence did not prevent his ascent through public office and it is no surprise that he settled in a parish where, in the 1570s, Robert Crowley delivered the parish lecture. The lectureship was funded by a benevolence of £6 a year from the draper William ­Parker.234 ­Parker’s £6 a year benevolence continued until at least 1600.235

227 dh, Rep. D, fo. 66v, he was chosen based on a sample of his handwriting. For more on Bartholomew Warner see Ch. 4 of this book. 228 St Bartholomew Exchange, p. 2. 229 Ibid. 230 M Anne Overell, Italian Reform and the English Reformations c. 1535–c. 1585 (Aldershot, 2008), p. 180. 231 Unity in Multiformity: Minutes of the Coetus of London 1575 and the Consistory Minutes of the Italian Church of London 1570–1591, ed. O Boersma and Auke Jelsma (London, 1997), pp. 25–26. 232 Ibid., p. 134. 233 lma, ms 1046/1, fos. 4v–11r; for more on Higham see Ch. 2 of this book. 234 lma, ms 1046/1, fo. 4v. 235 Ibid., fo. 67r.

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

129

In the latter decades of the sixteenth century we see a move away from the inert retention of traditional Catholic objects, and into an active desire to purify churches of the remaining vestiges of Catholicism. St Christopher le Stocks was a parish in which grocers were active members. Vestry minutes begin in 1559, and in 1565 the grocers John Gardiner and Thomas Tyrell were appointed to serve as collectors for the poor.236 In 1571 the vestry agreed to sell the organs and, less contentiously, the church clock, although their attempts to sell were limited. Thomas Tyrell did not manage either of these tasks in his two year tenure (1572–4) and the next set of churchwardens promised to ‘do their best’ in selling the organ, clock and now the brass eagle also.237 By the 1570s, however, it seems that anti-popery as a distinct aspect of Reformed identities was crystallizing. In 1577 the Catholic seminary priest Cuthbert Mayne was hanged, drawn and quartered in Cornwall for denying the supremacy of the queen.238 In the same year, whilst the grocer Henry Bowyer, of a noted Reformed family, was churchwarden, the vestry of St Christopher le Stocks decided to ‘berne serten papest books which remayned in the vestry.’239 The act of burning was an aggressive act representative of a distinct Protestant identity that saw no reconciliation with its Catholic heritage, and drew parallels with the purifying ritual of burning heretics. Of course, this was not the first time London had witnessed the burning of Catholic stuff – in 1559 Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester, oversaw the burning of images and vestments.240 But here the impulse came direct from the parish. At the same vestry meeting it was also decided to move the pulpit and introduce more frequent sermons. There was clearly an overt Protestant majority in the vestry at this time and grocers were complicit in provocative actions that were destructive of Catholicism. This provides a starkly different view of mercantile attitudes and identities when compared to Chapter 2’s survey of company records. When confronting doctrinal change head on, compromise and conciliation were not always possible – particularly from the late sixteenth century when Catholics were increasingly seen as a dangerous and seditious fifth column. In the arenas of London’s hospitals and parishes, its governors could not avoid engaging with religious change. Certainly, the ordinances for London’s 236 Minutes of the Vestry Meetings and Other Records of the Parish of St Christopher le Stocks in the City of London, ed. Edwin Freshfield (London, 1886), p. 4. 237 St Christopher le Stocks, p. 6. 238 Raymond Francis Trudgian, ‘Cuthbert Mayne (bap. 1544 d. 1577),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 239 St Christopher le Stocks, p. 8. 240 Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, p. 37.

130

chapter 3

hospitals were much less equivocal than those of the livery companies, and made clear that their duty was to serve God above all others. Yet the hospitals still represent a curious fusion of continuity and change in matters of r­ eligion. Collectively they conformed with the shifting religious landscape, but the requirement for patients to say a prayer in praise of the governors, gave ­London’s mercantile elite a priestly air and underlines an on-going link between faith and physical health. The transfer of London’s hospitals from ecclesiastical to civic hands did not, therefore, result in the removal of religion from their governing culture. Nor does it mean that we can easily divide London’s mercantile citizens into opposing camps of ardent Protestants eager to imbue their governing rhetoric with godly morality, and shrewd confessional shape shifters seeking to advance their career (although doubtless some individuals met these criteria). Rather, this chapter has served to highlight the complex nature of the adoption of the Reformation. Individuals of all confessional hues participated in the administration of their city, and the enforcement of religious change, even if it was at odds with their own beliefs. The early decades of the Reformation were a time of flux, and if influential preachers like Edward Crome could repeatedly recant their beliefs, then actions that appear ­confessionally inconsistent by London’s governors should come as no surprise. And we should not underestimate how far some were driven by a sense of duty and, at times, a willingness to suffer and endure. For the evangelical printer and grocer, Richard Grafton, a desire both to suffer and serve God caused him to restore Catholicism in his parish in the 1550s, and simultaneously provide the English primer to the children of Christ’s, for which he was imprisoned. In a similar vein, Ralph Clervis was indicted under the Six Articles in 1540, yet served as churchwarden under Mary. He was not an especially prominent citizen and gained no higher office, so this service to his parish does not seem to indicate time serving. We do not know how many of these merchants – be they Catholic or Protestant – practiced Nicodemism but it goes some way to explain how those of divergent confessional allegiance could implement changes that were anathema to them. After all, even though there are examples of the Catholic Restoration faltering at the hands of reformed churchwardens, it still did not fail. But much remains hidden to the historian. Why, for example, did some hospital governors attend court more frequently than others? Who resented religious change, but found it easier to assume office and serve in a lackadaisical manner? Who avoided office entirely and why? The sources are frustratingly silent on these issues. Notwithstanding these (admittedly significant) limitations to our understanding, this chapter serves also as a reminder that the day-to-day existence of London’s mercantile elite was not dominated by trade, but rather by civic service, and that this doubtless informed their religious ­identities as

Merchants as Civic and Parish Governors

131

much, if not more so, than commerce. Whatever their confessional allegiance, they were also tasked, in their various governing guises, with maintaining the peace and harmony of the city. Perhaps the fear of disorder, coupled with a sense of duty, enabled the citizenry to participate in activities that privately might have troubled them. It is true that some merchants encountered the Reformed faith early on and were moved by its doctrine, but they were neither scholarly divines nor the stuff of martyrs. Primarily, they were civic governors tasked with implementing religious change as churchwardens, and maintaining public order as common councillors, aldermen, company governors and householders. Many were able to reconcile their faith with parish office, irrespective of the form or structure of the official religion. Compromise and conciliation was almost inevitably the outcome, partly because of the relative flexibility of Elizabethan Protestantism, but also because the overwhelming majority of London’s churchwardens derived from the livery companies. For such individuals it was second nature to draw upon ordinances which had long appealed to the Christian principles of love and charity to hold together an amorphous group of individuals.

chapter 4

Reputation and Religion: Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade Whilst Catholic and Protestant theologians alike could agree that the exchange of necessities was for the benefit of a Christian commonwealth, mercantile trade did not fit into the rural idyll of the poor, noble peasant bartering goods for a humble existence. Long distance trade often equalled bulk trade in luxury items – fine wines from Gascony and Bordeaux, olive oil from the Mediterranean, silks and spices from the Far East. Bulk trade was also a slow trade and frequent cash flow problems, coupled with shifting exchange rates, meant that merchants took up loans at interest, both as a means of subsistence and profit. Usury was thought to be sinful, whilst the generation and accumulation of capital had the potential to lead to the sins of avarice and greed. A large income also gave merchants greater opportunity for sin – they could buy fine clothing that was not befitting of their middling status and, more significantly, detracted from charitable giving. Of all the reformers, it is Calvin who has been noted most often for his support of trade and use of trade metaphors. He said that, The life of the godly is aptly compared to business, since they should deal naturally among themselves to maintain fellowship; and the industry with which each man prosecutes the task laid on him, and his very vocation, the ability to act aright, and the rest of the gifts, are reckoned as merchandise, since their purpose and use is the mutual communication among men… and the fruit of which Christ speaks is the common profit which lightens up the glory of God.1 But how far was the merchant to live a godly life? As noted, contemporaries perceived a link between merchants and the adoption of Protestantism from the earliest days of religious change, and scholars have likewise debated the validity of the relationship between the two. The sociologist Max Weber noted that in ‘French Huguenot churches monks and businessmen (merchants, craftsmen) were particularly numerous among the proselytes, especially at the 1 Jean Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, ed. David and Terrance ­Torrance, 3 vols. (St Andrews, 1972), vol. 2, p. 288.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_006

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

133

time of persecution. Even the Spaniards knew that heresy (i.e. the C ­ alvinism of the Dutch) promoted trade.’2 Weber never claimed that capitalism was created by the Reformation; rather he suggested that Protestantism created a new mindset that fuelled the further expansion of capitalism.3 A belief in predestination, coupled with a sense of vocation, meant that wealthy merchants could interpret the accumulation of capital as an outward and visible sign of God’s grace. But the idea that Protestant merchants stockpiled capital to demonstrate their elect status has been questioned. In his study of the Dutch in the seventeenth century, Simon Schama noted that ‘for all the polemics against worldliness and luxury, there seems no reason to assume that the “core” groups of Dutch society, from the patriciate at the top to skilled artisans and tradesmen at the bottom, showed any special propensity to avoid consumption in favour of savings and investment.’ Schama also recognised that whilst there doubtless were individuals who accumulated vast reserves of capital, it is difficult to link it to the incentive of Calvinist preaching.4 Recognising that Weber applied his argument most rigorously to the seventeenth century and beyond, Susan Brigden has considered the validity of ­Weber’s thesis in the context of the early Reformation in England and concluded that ‘the compelling reasons for conversion in the first instance of reform were not prevailingly economic.’5 Moreover, during the early Reformation when individuals became Protestant through conversion rather than acculturation, religious difference was ‘as likely to have brought divisions within as between the social orders.’6 It is also true that religion had long played a role in mercantile trade and the Catholic Church produced guidance on the ethics of trade. Pre-modern penitential handbooks stressed the need for justice in the exercise of trade.7 In particular, commutative justice was stressed from Aristotle right through the early modern period, which argued that contracts should be voluntary and equal.8 A good merchant was also to be known, as we shall see, by his pious and charitable nature. 2 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (1930, ­reprinted London, 1992), p. 43. 3 Hugh Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London, 1967). 4 Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York, 1988), p. 298. 5 Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p. 413 6 Ibid., pp. 412–413. 7 Odd Langholm, The Merchant in the Confessional: Trade and Price in the Pre-Reformation Penitential Handbooks (Leiden, 2002), pp. 233–269. 8 Craig Muldrew, The Economy of Obligation: the Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1998).

134

chapter 4

It is the aim of this chapter therefore to consider the ways in which religion influenced trade by examining the accounts and letters of individual merchants. Building upon the work of Adam Smyth, who has examined printed guides on accounting as a way of reconstructing individual lives, this chapter considers the trading world of three merchants.9 Firstly, the draper Thomas Howell who left behind a trade ledger (c. 1517–28) that reveals a confessionally mixed trading circle, but also a strong Catholic piety expressed in several wills that he drafted amongst his trading accounts. Secondly, the letters of John Johnson that cover the period 1542 to 1553 and reveal how evangelical drapers lived and worked with their Catholic neighbours. Thirdly, the cash book of the grocer George Stoddard (1553–1568) reveals his ability to conform to prevailing religious customs and suggests a man of flexible faith. The chapter will conclude by also considering the role of grocers and drapers in the establishment of new trading companies, particularly the Muscovy Company, and how far religion informed their conduct and attitudes towards those of different non-Christian confessions. In doing so, I make four broad suggestions. Firstly, that even those merchants who appear to us as zealous evangelicals could not escape the influence of the Catholic world into which they had been born. Their social and trading circle was often confessionally mixed, and we also see the continuing presence and influence of former Catholic practices, even if religious beliefs were allied elsewhere. Secondly, that these merchants were not significant proselytizers. Their private correspondence could display very strong opinions, but within their communities, and as merchants, they were more moderate and uncontroversial in their expressions of faith. Thirdly, it seems that factors like reputation and ties of family and friendship were of greater significance than religion when engaged in trade. But some, particularly the Johnsons, judged their success or failure very much as signs of divine providence. Finally, even when establishing new long-distance trading companies, their culture was steeped in Christianity, which further questions the secularisation thesis.10 Irrespective of growing religious plurality, Christianity still formed the basis of society and thus of any institution formed within it. Taken together, the themes of this chapter will underline that merchants can no longer be regarded either as exceptionally prone to Protestantism or as impious in their willingness to trade with those of other confessions. ­Rather, mercantile religious identities, and responses to the Reformation, were ­wide-ranging. In fact, recent research on religious moderation suggests that 9 10

Adam Smyth, Autobiography in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2010). In the context of the late seventeenth century, Brodie Waddell has illustrated the ongoing importance of religion to economic discourse. Brodie Waddell, God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life 1660–1720 (Woodbridge, 2012).

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

135

the ability of individual merchants to express their piety pragmatically was the norm rather than the exception and was an important factor in the comparatively stable transition from Catholic to Protestant in early modern England.11

Thomas Howell: Trade with Spain and the New World

The draper Thomas Howell serves as a reminder that overseas trade was neither a guarantee of conversion to Protestantism, nor was Catholic faith a barrier to the generation of significant capital. Howell features fleetingly in the historical record but was a wealthy and successful merchant. Born in Bristol in 1480, he followed in his father’s footsteps by trading with Spain, primarily in cloth bought from across southeast England, which he shipped to Seville and other Spanish ports, including the colony of San Domingo.12 In 1507 he joined the London Drapers and was apprenticed to William Roche. He was appointed to the livery in 1521 and served as one of the wardens in 1527.13 Howell is chiefly known to us for two things. Firstly, for his entirely ­traditional will of 1536 which made what is thought to be the largest endowment for marriage subsidies of the sixteenth century.14 Secondly, Howell is known for his trade ledger that covers the period 1517–28, and is often labelled as the earliest extant example of double-entry accounting in England, although some have suggested that it is not a true example of the double-entry system.15 Writing in 1951, G Connell Smith remarked with some surprise that Howell’s ledger had ‘aroused little interest…as a historical source,’ and this remains as true today.16 No systematic study has been undertaken of the ledger despite its value for our understanding of Anglo-Spanish trade in the early sixteenth-century and the conduct of trade by London merchants more broadly.17 11

Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (eds), Moderate Voices in the European Reformation (Aldershot, 2005); for a critique of the moderation thesis see Ethan Shagan, ‘Beyond Good and Evil: Thinking with Moderates in Early Modern England,’ jbs 49 (2010), pp. 488–513. 12 Glanmor Williams, ‘Thomas Howell (c. 1480–1537),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 13 dh, Rep. 7(i), p. 211; WA3, 1527–8, fo. 1r. 14 W K Jordan, The Charities of London 1480–1660 (London, 1960), pp. 184–185; Thomas ­Falconer, The Mystery of Improvidence: The Charity of Thomas Howell established for the benefit of his Monmouthshire kinsfolk and others a.d. 1540 (London, 1860). 15 Williams, ‘Thomas Howell,’ odnb; James Ole Winjum, The Role of Accounting in the ­Economic Development of England 1500–1750 (Michigan, 1972), p. 114; G Connell Smith, ‘The Ledger of Thomas Howell,’ EcHR 3 (1951), pp. 363–370, at p. 363. 16 Connell-Smith, ‘The Ledger of Thomas Howell,’ p. 364. 17 However, Heather Dalton is currently producing an edition of Howell’s ledger for the ­London Record Society.

136

chapter 4

The ledger itself is not lengthy, just 100 of 250 folios are completed and cover over ten years of trading activity, although there are gaps and entries are not always perfectly chronological.18 Neither is Howell’s faith a dominant theme. As Sylvia Thrupp noted of London merchants in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they were pious but not overwhelmingly so, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that any among them was ‘so overcome by religious emotion [as] to give up his way of life and enter a religious order.’19 Merchants were essentially worldly individuals and whilst religion shaped their lives, for most, it did not dominate them. Nonetheless, Howell adhered to the custom of heading each page with ‘Jesus,’ something also seen until the mid-sixteenth ­century in livery company and churchwardens’ accounts. The practice of invoking ­Jesus was something suggested by the first Italian treatise on doubleentry accounting by Luca Pacioli.20 It was a method both of demarcating the Christian merchant from non-Christian and also a way of demonstrating the supposed truth and equity of his accounts. We know that Howell placed great store by honest accounts, stating that they should be ‘easelly perceyved by every man that hath any knowledge and not to be gevyn yn suche forme as noo man can understonde yt but hym selfe orelles the marchauntes of Spayn wyll call him noo playn marchaunt.’21 Consequently, Howell adopted the easier to follow method of double-entry accounting. The rise of this form of accounting is seen as evidence of a move towards capitalist enterprise fixated with the generation of profit. The contemporary perception of the parsimonious merchant prevailed in popular culture. Literary representations of merchants have tended to be negative, portrayed as individuals who valued profit above all else – p ­ articularly from the sixteenth century.22 Yet Howell did not account for profit or loss, and the haphazard nature of the accounts suggests he was not concerned with such calculations.23 This could be seen as reflective of his Catholic faith and indirect support for the Weber thesis that it was only ­Calvinist merchants, preoccupied with signs of grace, that were equally preoccupied with the calculation of profit. Sixteenth-century accounts, however,

18 Winjum, Role of Accounting, pp. 114–120. 19 Sylvia Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London (Chicago, 1948), p. 188. 20 Luca Pacioli, Ancient Double-Entry Bookkeeping: Luca Pacioli’s Treatise, Trans. John B ­Geijsbeek (Denver, 1914). 21 tna, sp 1/48, fo. 138. 22 John McVeaugh, Tradeful Merchants: The Portrayal of the Capitalist in Literature (London, 1981). 23 Winjum, Role of Accounting, p. 119.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

137

rarely calculated profit and this is certainly true of the records under consideration in this chapter. In examining Howell’s ledger there is little suggestion that piety informed the conduct of his trade beyond invoking Jesus and keeping honest accounts. Whilst Howell traded during the earliest decades of religious change, we still see diversity within his circle of trading associates. It suggests that merchants were not, by dint of their occupation, preternaturally predisposed to Protestantism. Most of the English merchants he traded with were Catholic. For example, the Catholic priest, Sir Thomas Allen, brother of the alderman and mercer, Sir John Allen, features frequently in Howell’s accounts.24 Howell also shipped broadcloth in a ship named the St Maria de Rodys whose patron was Charles Farron, servant to Thomas Docwra, grand prior of the Knights Hospitaller.25 He also traded with the grocer Richard Fermor who remained Catholic until his death in 1550 and excluded his Protestant children from his will.26 Howell was solidly Catholic when he expressed his faith, but was not untouched by change. For example, the grocer William Mery features in Howell’s accounts. Mery was grocer to Henry viii but we also know that he owned a Wycliffe Bible and passed this on to the grocer Thomas Bowyer at his marriage to Mery’s niece.27 Bowyer oversaw Mery’s will of 1547 which revealed a confessionally mixed social network, but an individual evangelical piety.28 Given Mery’s links to the crown, he doubtless kept his Lollard Bible quiet, but even so cross-confessional trade was entirely justifiable for Catholic and Protestant alike. Medieval and early modern thinkers from Aquinas to Calvin saw that the fruits of trade would benefit the Christian commonwealth by providing for the family and generating wealth for the nation.29 In many respects, Howell was the perfect medieval Catholic merchant (and, as we shall see, so was the evangelical John Johnson). In line with Franciscan theology, Howell countered the generation of wealth with the distribution of charity. As he had no living children he sought to devote a huge portion of 24 25 26 27 28 29

dh, Howell’s Ledger, fo. 2v; Elizabeth Lane Furdell, ‘Sir John Allen (c. 1470–1544),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. dh, Howell’s Ledger, fo. 25v. Ibid., fo. 27v; see Ch. 5 of this book. Mary Dove, The First English Bible the text and context of the Wycliffite versions ­(Cambridge, 2007), pp. 41–43. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 315r–317r. Lianna Farber, An Anatomy of Trade in Medieval Writing: value, consent and community (Ithaca, 2006); David Jones, Reforming the Morality of Usury: A study of differences that separated the Protestant Reformers (Dallas, 2004); William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A ­Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford, 1988), p. 76.

138

chapter 4

this wealth to charity as demonstrated in a series of wills. He used his ledger to record testaments in 1520 and 1528, both of which are similar, but quite different to his final testament of 1536; even so, they indicate a continuing strong allegiance to Catholicism. The earlier wills stated his desire to be buried in the parish of St Benet Fink and left 200 marks for a priest to sing for his soul for twenty years. If his wife died before him, he wanted his house to be turned over to charity – a form of charity not present in any of the pcc wills examined in Chapter 5. A draper and his wife were to live at the house with three servants for a salary of £100 a year on the condition that they also housed orphan or illegitimate children: thirty boys and ten girls of Welsh or English descent. The children were to take the name Howell, and wear clothing inscribed with his name. They were to be taught by an Augustinian monk and provision was also made, if they were apt, for a university education for the boys and a religious life for the girls.30 His revised will of 1528 was identical but for two additions: he left money for Thomas ap Morgan, the illegitimate son of his brother; and as a member of the livery he left gilt plate and £5 for a dinner to the Drapers.31 The key contrast with his will of 1536 is that he requested to be buried in S­ eville, and replaced his request for a twenty-year chantry with 30,000 Masses. H ­ owell’s significant act of charity had also been transformed into marriage dowries worth 12000 ducats; presumably this was motivated by practicality. His wife had died in 1529 and Howell is thought to have taken up at least semi-permanent residence in Seville at around the same time.32 Howell’s wills show no sign of religious change and it appears he remained wedded to his Catholic faith. Coupled with his residence in Seville from 1529, this could be interpreted as a sign of his opposition to the impending break with Rome and a desire to live under a Catholic monarch who was loyal to the Papacy. Howell was certainly perceived by Richard Abbis, Thomas Cromwell’s agent, as a traitor. In a letter of 1538 Abbis wrote that Howell’s former master was in Spain trying to recover Howell’s assets but that as he had died in Seville he was a traitor to the king and the money should go to Henry viii himself. There is no evidence, however, to support Howell’s opposition to the king and he dutifully lent money to ‘King Harry my souveren.’33 Howell was by no means the only English merchant living in Spain. His ­contemporaries included the merchant taylor Thomas Bridges, who lived in Seville from 1491, and the Bristol merchant taylor Robert Thorne, who had f­ amily 30 31 32 33

dh, Howell’s Ledger, fos. 30v–31r (1522 will). Ibid., fo. 94v. (1528 will). Glanmor Williams, ‘Thomas Howell (1480–c. 1537),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. dh, Howell’s Ledger, fos. 67v, 75r; L&P, xiii (ii), p. 610.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

139

links with Spain dating to the mid fifteenth century.34 With the e­ stablishment of colonies in the New World trade with Spain was increasingly valuable, too valuable for issues of religion to prevent commerce. In a further letter of 1538, Abbis reported to Cromwell that Englishmen in Spain found little favour and were generally regarded as heretics or Lutherans; whatever Howell’s faith it seems that living in Seville was not the easiest option available to him.35 ­Despite trading privileges granted to English merchants, they encountered difficulties in recovering debts and, for those that died in Spain, there were frequent problems in recovering their property – as happened to Howell’s estate in 1536.36 It should also be noted that, although Howell himself stated in 1528 that he had been living for the most part in Spain for about twenty-six years, it was rarely continuous.37 Whilst Howell employed factors across Spain and had an agent in London in the form of the draper Robert Leese, he still split his time between Spain and London. His place on the court of assistants and stint as a warden in 1527 is suggestive of his presence in London and willingness to serve his company, alongside evangelicals like Humfrey Monmouth. His ledger provides examples of everyday expenses incurred whilst in London. He paid his quarterage and livery fees to Drapers’ Hall and bought a new livery cloak in 1527.38 We also see payments for repairs to his London property and more mundane transactions such as payments to the butter wife. These attest to his peripatetic lifestyle and, as the Johnson letters likewise demonstrate, it was routine for merchants to split their time in this manner and is indicative of trading behaviour rather than religious allegiance. His final will of 1536 was written in Castilian, as his trade there necessitated fluency in the language, but he by no means cut himself off from England for reasons of religion39 Neither 34

35 36

37 38 39

Heather Dalton, ‘Negotiating Fortune: English Merchants in Early Sixteenth-Century Seville,’ in Caroline A Williams (ed.), Bridging the Early Modern Atlantic World: People, Products and Practices on the Move (Aldershot, 2009), p. 61; idem, Merchants and Explorers: Roger Barlow, Sebastian Cabot and Networks of Atlantic Exchange 1500–1560 (Oxford, 2016). Peter Marshall, Religious Identities in Henry viii’s England (Aldershot, 2005), p. 112. When Howell’s factor, the grocer Thomas Malliard, died in 1522 his family struggled to recover his estate as his mistress claimed that she should be regarded as his wife. See Blanca Kruel, ‘Events surrounding Thomas Malliard’s will: An English merchant in Seville (1522–1523),’ in Santiago Gonzalez Fernandez-Corugedo (ed.), Proceedings of the ii Conference of the Spanish Society for English Renaissance Studies (Oviedo, 1992), pp. 158–159; Heather Dalton, ‘Negotiating Fortune,’ pp. 57–74. tna, sp 1/48, fo. 138. dh, Howell’s Ledger, fo. 62v. See Ch. 2 of this book.

140

chapter 4

was Spain entirely free from religious change with Erasmian groups identified from at least the 1520s.40 Moreover, Howell seems at times to have been motivated by a desire to promote his business, even if it broke the bonds of love and charity that infused Drapers’ Company ordinances, suggesting that ultimately his move to Spain was motivated by business concerns. When we examine the court minutes of the Drapers, Howell seems like the hard-headed businessman who was prepared to ignore company rules in order to further his business. He appeared before the court on at least four occasions, as both defendant and claimant, for late payment of debts. In 1515 he appeared before court to settle a debt owed to him, but ‘utterly refused’ to accept the offer of 40s a quarter; a further dispute went to arbitration with William Hayot of Chelmsford; again in 1517–8 Howell was in debt and promised to abide by the decision of the arbitrators to pay back Thomas Samson.41 And in 1522, Howell, along with Thomas Hammond, Peter Harrison, John Carter and Richard Griffiths, appeared before court warned for setting foreign dyers to work. They were forgiven but made to pay a fine of 40s.42 As late as 1534 Howell was reprimanded by the court for ‘kepyng foreyns in his housse and settyn them a worke.’43 Thus, Howell was a merchant who expressed a lavishly Catholic piety in his will, but his attitude to trade compromised the fraternal Christian ethos of the Drapers. Neither should his residence in Seville be seen as a marker of his faith. The godly mercer Anthony Hickman and his partner Edward Castelin traded with Spanish territories, particularly the Canaries, during the reign of Mary i, but their factor, Thomas Nicholas, was arrested at the accession of ­Elizabeth for ‘living according to English law’ and was imprisoned for three years ‘­seeing neither sun nor moon.’44 John Foxe recounted the stories of E ­ nglish merchants, like Nicholas Burton, John Baker and William Margate martyred at Seville in 1560 for ‘professing the most Christian religion.’45 Moreover, when the Spanish Company was formally incorporated in 1570, it sought to exclude from its membership those who were members of other overseas companies, ­specifically the Merchant Adventurers, who traditionally traded in 40

Andrew Pettegree, The Reformation World (London, 2002), pp. 299–305; Leslie K Twomey (ed.), Faith and Fanaticism: Religious Fervour in Early Modern Spain (Aldershot, 1997). 41 dh, Rep. 7(i), pp. 4, 11, 16, 81. 42 Ibid., pp. 232–233. 43 Rep. 7(ii), p. 473. 44 L. de Alberti and A B Wallis Chapman (eds), English Merchants and The Spanish Inquisition in the Canaries (London, 1912), pp. xiv–xv. 45 Foxe, tamo (1563 edition), pp. 1813–1814 [accessed 10 Nov 2016].

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

141

cloth.46 Amongst their founder members were zealous Protestants like Francis ­Bowyer. Even if merchants did not calculate profit, they were still motivated by the fruits of trade and were able to set aside religious differences in the pursuit of riches that sustained their commonwealth.

The Letters of John Johnson 1542–c. 1553

Whilst Howell’s ledger represents trading activity in Spain during the earliest stages of the Reformation, it is not starkly different to later trade records. The letters of the Johnson Company represent the largest collection of mercantile correspondence in sixteenth-century England and remind us that individuals could express religious zeal in private but moderation in public. Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie have argued that ‘some individuals refused to be drawn into confessional stone-throwing, despite themselves having a clear confessional identity. [And that] this, too, is a form of moderation and deserves to be recognized as such,’ the Johnsons are just such an example.47 John Johnson and his brothers Otwell and Richard were born in Calais, where the family had lived for at least two generations; their grandfather ­William is thought to have originated from Geldersland.48 John was sent to England as a youngster and raised by a friend of his father, the draper Anthony Cave. John remembered the debt he owed to Cave, writing in a letter of 1545, ‘I do not forget that ye brought me up from my chyldhood.’49 Cave thus acted as master to John and he was freed from the Drapers in 1539, with his brother Otwell following in 1541.50 John did not join the livery, but Otwell was admitted in 1551 and Anthony Cave was a member from 1528.51 John married Cave’s niece, Sabine Saunders in 1541 and in doing so married into a well-connected evangelical family.52 The Saunders were cousins of Sir Francis Walsingham and were early converts to Protestantism; amongst Sabine’s brothers were the 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and L­ ondon’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 2003) p. 5; Pauline Croft, The Spanish Company (London, 1973). Racaut and Ryrie, ‘Introduction: Between Coercion and Persuasion,’ in idem (eds), Moderate Voices, pp. 11–12. Barbara Winchester, ‘The Johnson Letters 1542–1552,’ 4 vols. (University of London PhD, 1952), vol. 1, p. 18. Ibid., vol. 2, Letter 211, p. 403. Boyd’s Roll, p. 105. Ibid., pp. 36, 105. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 1, pp. 302–303.

142

chapter 4

Marian martyr Laurence, and the grocer Blase who likewise worked for the Johnsons.53 Otwell Johnson married Maria Warner the brother of the draper Bartholomew Warner who also worked for the Johnsons.54 The Johnsons were also distantly related by marriage to the evangelical draper Sir William Chester, one-time master of Laurence Saunders, and thus this circle of merchants provide us with a neat example of the multiplicity of ties that held trading companies together.55 The letters, of which there are 946, cover the period 1542 to 1552, with a handful of letters from 1553 and 1557 and represent the correspondence sent and received by John. As well as being free of the Drapers, the Johnsons were also free of the Staple at Calais and the wool trade is therefore at the centre of their correspondence. The majority are written in English but sixty-nine are written entirely in French and thirty-seven in Flemish, whilst Otwell would occasionally lapse into French when wanting to impart information in secret or to express a potentially controversial or critical opinion.56 The letters have survived because the Johnson Company went bankrupt in 1553 and their accounts and correspondence were seized by the Exchequer and have been preserved by the state ever since. Four hundred years after Johnson was declared bankrupt, a doctoral dissertation was completed by Barbara Winchester which transcribed almost all of the letters along with a variety of supporting documentation.57 Although it has been suggested that Winchester ‘almost completely ignores’ religion in her thesis, this is not true.58 The introduction to the letters, which runs to almost 600 pages, provides a narrative reconstruction of the Johnsons and their world and, whilst not providing a clear historiographical argument, does note the significance of religion to the family, recognising that it was their ‘dominant intellectual interest.’59 Whilst Winchester’s work is impressive in scope, the sole publication to result was a narrative popular history of the 53

54 55

56 57 58 59

T S Willan, The Muscovy Merchants of 1555 (Manchester, 1953), p. 121; Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1925), vol. 3, p. 370n. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 309, pp. 559–563. William Chester’s niece, Elizabeth Lovett, married Anthony Cave, see Robert Edmund Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chester of Chicheley: their ancestors and descendants (London, 1878), p. 49. The content of the Flemish letters was usually summarised in English in the following letters to other members of the company. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters.’ Danae Tankard, ‘The Johnson Family and the Reformation 1542–1552,’ hr 80 (2007), p. 469. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 1, pp. 64–73.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

143

Johnsons entitled Tudor Family Portrait.60 Whilst the letters have come to the attention of historical linguists, they have remained largely unexplored by historians despite their easy accessibility and value to our understanding of trade, religion, and family during the mid-Tudor period.61 Recently, Danae Tankard has taken steps to revive interest in this historical source in the form of two articles. The most recent article suggests that whilst scholars have demonstrated the fluidity of religious identities during the early Reformation, the Johnson circle suggest that some did forsake Catholicism very early on, and had a clear Protestant identity and sophisticated understanding of theological ideas.62 And there is clear evidence that the Johnsons were engaged with Reformed ideas. The letters make clear that they hated the Pope, they believed in justification by faith, they hoped that they were the members of the elect and they gave their children names typical of the godly like Israel, Charity and Evangelist.63 It is these factors that Tankard highlights most clearly in a quest to demonstrate that whilst the Johnsons might have had links to Catholics in their extended circle, they were well-defined Protestants from at least the 1540s. It is my aim, therefore, to trace the imprint of Catholic culture and practice upon the Johnsons. And whilst the Johnsons had strong evangelical religious beliefs that influenced how they viewed themselves and their fortunes in trade, there is little evidence to suggest that evangelicalism had any discernible impact on the conduct of their trade. With the exception of Arnold’s Chronicle (1502) which, alongside a host of customary information, provided sample indentures and bills of exchange for 60 61

62

63

Barbara Winchester, Tudor Family Portrait (London, 1955). Christian Kay, Simon Horobin and Jeremy J Smith (eds), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Lexis and Transmission (Amsterdam, 2004); Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (Berlin, 1998). Danae Tankard, ‘Protestantism, The Johnson Family and the 1551 Sweat in London,’ lj 29 (2004), pp. 1–16; idem, ‘The Johnson Family and the Reformation 1542–1552,’ hr 80 (2007), pp. 469–490. On the fluidity of early Reformation identities Tankard cites in particular: Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie, ‘Introduction: Protestantisms and their Beginnings,’ Marshall and Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 1–13; Alec Ryrie, ‘The Strange Death of Lutheran England,’ jeh 53 (2002), pp. 64–92; idem, The Gospel and Henry viii: evangelicals in the early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003). Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 190, pp. 362–365; Letter 231, pp. 433–434; Letter 279, pp. 513–514; vol. 3, Letter 555, pp. 978–979; vol. 4, Letter 769, pp. 1346–1347; Letter 811, p. 1425. Karen E Spierling, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community 1536–1564 (Aldershot, 2005); Will Coster, Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2002); Scott Smith-Banister, Names and Naming Patterns in England 1538–1700 (Oxford, 1997).

144

chapter 4

merchants, there were few letter-writing guides published in English until the late sixteenth-century.64 The Johnson letters therefore bear more resemblance to the fifteenth-century Cely letters.65 The Celys were also merchants of the Staple and traded at the end of the fifteenth century. Both sets of letters began with an invocation of God and an enquiry into the health and well being of the recipient before moving into the purpose of the letter, which would overwhelming concern day-to-day business transactions, before concluding with a final flourishing reference to God. The construction of the letters conformed to mercantile customs, but would occasionally hint at shifting identities. As an indication of a Protestant interpretation of the Passion, Otwell Johnson was more likely to preface his letters with ‘the lord lyveth,’ but many more were prefaced simply with ‘Jesus,’ in the same manner that Thomas Howell headed his accounts in the 1520s.66 The content of the letters also serve to remind us of the fluidity of religious change in the mid Tudor period: we see the juxtaposition of individuals who held evangelical beliefs making reference to, or continuing to adhere to, certain traditional Catholic practices. When John was in Calais he would stay at the house of Margaret Baynham, a widow who continued her husband’s ­business, and a relative of Anthony Cave. In a 1543 letter of thanks for some food that John had sent her, she apologised for having nothing to give him ‘but thus you bind me to be your bedewoman and ever shall so long as I live.’ ­Referring to oneself modestly at the end of a letter as a ‘poor bedeman’ continued to be customary practice throughout the sixteenth century, despite being reminiscent of Catholic intercessory practices.67 It also remained entirely 64

65

66

67

The Customs of London: otherwise called Arnold’s Chronicle, ed. Richard Arnold and Francis Douce (London, 1811); Lawrence Green, ‘Dictamen in England 1500–1700,’ in Carol Poster and Linda Mitchell (eds), Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present (Colombia, 2007), pp. 102–126; Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England (Cranbury, 2005); W Newbold Webster, ‘Traditional, Practical, Entertaining: Two Early English Letter Writing Manuals,’ Rhetorica 26 (2008), pp. 267–300. The Cely Papers: selections from the correspondence and memoranda of the Cely family, merchants of the Staple 1475–88, ed. H E Malden (London, 1900); Alison Hanham, The Cely Letters 1472–1488 (Oxford, 1975); idem, The Celys and their World: An English Merchant Family of the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 2002). Tankard, ‘The Johnson Family,’ pp. 476–477. Bishop Bonner complained that Protestants would say ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘Our Lord,’ see Edmund Bonner, A profitable and necessarye doctrine with certayne homelyes adioyned thereunto (London, 1555), sig. D2v. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 37, pp. 65–66; Thomas Wright (ed.), Queen Elizabeth and her times: A series of original letters…, 2 vols. (London, 1838), vol. 1, pp. 93, 426.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

145

­ ormal for the Johnsons and their circle to refer to priests by the traditional n title of ‘sir,’ although John Johnson also routinely referred to his parish priest as a knave.68 John and his family also appear to have conformed to the prevailing state religion and practices. They continued to observe the Lenten fast during the reign of Henry viii and took the custom seriously. In November 1545, long before the season of Lent, Otwell urged John not to forget ‘our power Lyme Streat howsehold provision for Lenting.’ In the same letter he made reference to deaths from the plague amongst his close friends and prayed that ‘the Lorde is mightfull to delyver or preserve His elect in the middes of all tribulacions.’69 The following year John wrote to his factor in Calais asking him where his two barrels of herring were. He stated ‘I nor no man for me could or ever sins heir anny manner of worde from you of the same, and therf[or]e do I not a litle marvayle. We ne not only yet unfurnysshed for our provition for Lentten stuffe, but if ye do not make spedy answer hierof…ye shall cause both my said oncle and me to be moche disapointed.’70 Although Edward vi continued the fast it was justified on economic, rather than spiritual, grounds and thus the annual scramble for Lenten herring disappears from the letters.71 During the reigns of Henry viii and Edward vi, the social circle of the Johnsons remained confessionally mixed, but with clear evangelical elements. As noted, John’s brother-in-law was the preacher Laurence Saunders, who wrote with great warmth and affection to John. Saunders was originally an apprentice draper so the Johnsons’ links with him were long-held. Whilst only four letters from Saunders to John Johnson are preserved, Laurence would frequently be mentioned in letters and asked to be remembered to John. It also seems that, on occasion, he would assist the company by carrying correspondence or ­money.72 John was also friends with the Staplers’ chaplain, Sir Phillip Smith, who came to attention of the authorities in 1528 for having a chamber filled with books, at least twelve of which were by Luther or ‘his favourers,’ and thus Smith was labelled a ‘mischievous heretic.’73 He was replaced by Sir John Butler, although he too was ‘endicted for a sacramentary’ in 1540.74 Butler was thought to have said that a ‘drink of aqua vitae’ bought from the grocer 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 190, pp. 362–364; Letter 231, pp. 433–434; vol. 3, Letter 316, pp. 573–574; Letter 377, pp. 671–672. Ibid., vol. 2, Letter 279, pp. 513–514. Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 322, p. 582. trp, vol. 1, pp. 413–415. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 564, pp. 998–999; Letter 611, pp. 1081–1082. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 67; E E Rich, The Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple (Cambridge, 1937), p. 46; L&P, iv, 2, pp. 1902, 1926. L&P, iv, 2, pp. 2064; Chronicle of Calais, p. 180.

146

chapter 4

John Spicer would ‘do a man as much good as the body of Christ, contained in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar could do.’75 Both Smith and Butler feature in the Johnson letters with Butler described by Otwell in 1542 as one of their friends in Calais; he also hoped to borrow money from John to buy land with.76 John wrote to Philip Smith in 1546, and although the meaning of the letter is obscure, Winchester surmised that it could relate to the courtship of Richard Johnson to Margaret Mattrys of Calais.77 There were also ties of trade to other merchants noted for their evangelical beliefs such as the Lockes, Calthorpes, Quarles, and the Protestant line of the Throckmortons. But these were not necessarily strong ties of friendship and there is no evidence to suggest that these families were part of John’s social network. The letters make most frequent reference to his immediate family: the Caves, the Saunders, the Warners, and also to John’s brother-in-law Christopher Breton. But John lived in Glapthorn in Northamptonshire, a county known for its gentry that remained attached to Catholicism throughout the sixteenth century and beyond.78 Consequently, he also had links with the Brudenells, a family divided by religious change although predominantly Catholic.79 In particular, Sir Thomas Brudenell, thought to be a Protestant, was a frequent correspondent. When plague threatened John’s family, Sabine wrote to her husband that Brudenell had offered them a place to stay at his house in Dene.80 Brudenell also entrusted the Johnsons with the sale of his wool and often bought from them. In 1546 John wrote to his factor Henry Southwick that ‘Mr Brudenell, my friend, hath desiryed me to provide a round tent, shoche one as I bought ii yeares past for my oncle Sir Ambrose Cave.’ It was to be in his colours – blue and red – and measure twenty four feet wide with ‘a place for a jaques joynyng to the tent’ and it was to be sent to London ‘the sonest that can be.’81 John’s closest associates therefore seem to have shared his religious convictions, even if their families had only partially converted to Protestantism. 75 76 77 78

79

80 81

L&P, xiv, 1, p. 487. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 13, p. 20. Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 324, 2n. John Bossy, The English Catholic Community 1570–1850 (London, 1975); Margaret Sena, ‘William Blundell and networks of Catholic dissent in post-Reformation England,’ in ­Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington (eds), Communities in early modern England: networks, place, rhetoric (Manchester, 2000), pp. 54–75. Joan Wake, The Brudenells of Deene (London, 1953); for examples of Protestant gentry in seventeenth century Northamptonshire see John Trevor Cliffe, The Puritan Gentry: the great puritan families of early Stuart England (London, 1984). Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 445, p. 791. Ibid., Letter 318, pp. 577–578.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

147

But despite this apparent exclusivity, the Johnsons do not appear to have been anti-Catholic and did not necessarily avoid associating with those of different beliefs. Most notably, Otwell Johnson worked for Sir John Gage for many years. Whilst Gage conformed to Henrician changes he was nonetheless a religious conservative who welcomed the restoration of Catholicism by Mary i.82 Gage’s conservatism is referred to knowingly by Otwell in a letter to John of July 1546. As he spent a significant amount of time in London, Otwell would share news of the latest political and religious developments, which frequently included the fortunes of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles v. In July 1546 Otwell wrote that Gage had informed him that Charles v’s ‘quarell agenst the Germains was not for anny cause of religion, but for theyer certain disobedience agent him in thinges that concern th’Empire. Moost men ellis thinke otherwise, but vous cognosces l’home.’83 In 1548 an incident took place in Glapthorn involving some of John’s neighbours which was referred to by his brother Otwell as ‘follisshnes aboute the Mass and sacrament, tending to a kinde of sedicious uprore.’84 We know very little more about exactly what happened, but we can surmise that there was resistance within the community to Edwardian religious change. Amongst the letters is one from Protector Somerset to Sir Thomas Brudenell informing him that the ringleaders of the disturbance had been sent to prison ‘for a season, untill they be taught to studye and applye to quietnes and Godlynes, for suche is the obstinacye of many people that without sharpenes they will not amende.’85 John was also praised by Somerset for ‘your sobernes in the pacifieng of the mater so honestlye,’ he also lobbied for their release from prison if only because it was recognised by Otwell that the longer they remained in prison ‘the greater displeasur they will conceyve agenst you, which is alredy to moche; and I am hartely sorry that the thinges have so sharpely passed against them (so knowith God) for doubt of the continuance of thayer evill agenst you alway hierafter.’86 In a confessionally mixed community setting therefore, whether for pragmatism or for a desire to preserve order in a Christian commonwealth, the ­Johnsons could moderate their zeal. In their correspondence amongst their closest circle of associates, however, they expressed strong beliefs and show 82 83 84 85 86

David Potter, ‘Sir John Gage (1479–1556),’ odnb; idem, ‘Sir John Gage, Tudor Courtier and Soldier (1479–1556),’ ehr 117 (2002), pp. 1109–1146. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 401, p. 714. Ibid., Letter 565, p. 1000. Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 572, p. 1013. Ibid., Letter 565, p. 1000; Letter 577, p. 1022.

148

chapter 4

their engagement with evangelical ideas. For example, there is a strong theme of anti-popery and Otwell and John would criticise the Pope with gusto. In 1545, Otwell informed John that Charles v was still in Worms and would not agree with ‘the Protestantes by reason of the develisshe suggestion of the great and abominable harlett of Babylon.’ Otwell hoped that the ‘lyving Lorde’ would transform Charles v ‘into a more Christian mynde.’87 Such strong words were not just shared between immediate family members, suggesting that members of the company, including factors, were aware of the allegiances of the Johnsons, and felt confident in sharing their own views. In 1545 Henry Bostock wrote to John from Venice with news of a Papal Bull convening the Council of Trent which Bostock had apparently ‘most rudely translated owt of ­Italyon into ­Englyshe,’ before speaking of the Pope’s ‘extreme and pressymtuose folyshenes – I might say madnes.’88 More usually the Pope was portrayed as Antichrist For example, in a letter of 1547, in response to gains made by Charles v against the German princes, John prayed that ‘God will showe fourthe His Myghty arme, and sende smaule pouer unto siche as put on armour for the mantenaunce of the gret Antechryste of Rome and his sinagoge, which God grante, and send us universall peas and reformacion of Popishe errours.’89 They also exchanged views on preachers and sermons they had heard. In 1544 Otwell cut a letter short because he was ‘goyng to a good sermon.’90 He praised Edward Crome, stating that from his pulpit he ‘set fourth the glory’ of the eternal living God.91 He was thus disparaging of the recantation of Edward Crome in 1546, referring to it as ‘canting, recanting, decanting or rather double-canting,’ particularly as Crome urged the people of London to ‘embrace auncientnes of Catholicke doctrine and forsake newfanggelnes.’92 Whilst ­Otwell, living in London, had the greatest access to evangelical preachers he was not alone in appreciated evangelical sermons. In 1548 Richard Johnson wrote to John to tell him that Miles Coverdale would be preaching in Calais 87 88 89 90 91 92

Ibid., vol. 2, Letter 190, pp. 362–363. Ibid., Letter 87, p. 174. Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 476, p. 842. Ibid., vol. 2, Letter 49, p. 91. Ibid., Letter 17, p. 27. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 401, pp. 714–715; Crome recanted on at least three occasions; Susan Wabuda believes the episode in 1546 to have been the most damaging to his reputation amongst the godly, although Alec Ryrie has pointed out that he was convinced to recant by another evangelical, Richard Cox. Susan Wabuda, ‘Equivocation and Recantation During the English Reformation: The “Subtle Shadows” of Dr ­Edward Crome,’ jeh 44 (1993), pp. 224–242; Alec Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry viii, pp. 54, 72, 88, 200, 249.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

149

soon and John’s wife, Sabine, wrote approvingly of Laurence Saunders’ sermons in Glapthorn.93 Tankard described the Johnsons as ‘precisely the group of people to whom Protestantism was most likely to appeal,’ based upon Christopher Haigh’s notion that Protestants were most likely to derive from the literate middling sort who could afford books.94 There is doubtless some truth to this, but given that often-illiterate artisans have also been highlighted amongst the earliest and most fervent adopters of Protestantism, it seems that social status does not easily explain adherence to Protestantism. Artisans, particularly weavers, feature amongst the Marian martyrs and the presence of craftsmen amongst early Reformed communities seems to have been replicated across much of Europe.95 Susan Brigden has suggested that the ‘reformed community was diverse’ both economically and socially.96 Moreover, Protestantism was spread as much, if not more, through the spoken word than the written, particularly for those outside of theological circles. Merchants were, by necessity, literate individuals and the Johnsons, John in particular, were highly literate and fluent also in French and Flemish. Despite these skills, references to sermons and preachers pepper their letters but there are just three references to texts. In 1542 John asked Otwell to procure a ‘book of disputations’ for him; whilst there are several titles that this could refer to, we know that it was a prohibited text and that Otwell had to procure it with ‘much secretness.’97 In 1547 John bought ‘three stories of Scripture’ and the following year Richard Johnson promised to send John his Bible but asked for another in return.98 A sermon might last an hour, but reading and analysing the Bible took up a considerable amount of time. A 1544 letter from the merchant taylor Richard Hilles to Heinrich Bullinger (not part of the Johnson letters) provides an insight into the life of a merchant. Hilles wrote to thank Bullinger for the Bible he had sent but apologised that he was not able to dedicate all his time to reading the Bible as he had no servant to assist him with his business and thus he was 93 94

Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 146, p. 289 Tankard, ‘Johnson Family,’ p. 487, Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation R ­ evised (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 195, 213. 95 Henry Heller, The Conquest of Poverty: The Calvinist Revolt in Sixteenth-Century France (Leiden, 1986); Susan C Karant-Nunn, Zwickau in Transition, 1500–1547: The Reformation as an Agent of Change (Columbus, 1987); Philip Benedict, Rouen During the Wars of Religion (Cambridge, 1980), p. 80; Natalie Zemon Davis, ‘Strikes and Salvation in Lyon,’ in idem Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight Essays (Stanford, 1974), pp. 1–16. 96 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 411. 97 Tankard, ‘Johnson Family,’ p. 488. 98 Ibid.

150

chapter 4

‘almost always engaged in correspondence [and] settling my accounts. Yet last winter, by God’s blessing, I read the whole of the holy Bible which you gave me, besides the New Testament…I have learned…that when the prophets, according to this your translation, intended to describe a knave or impostor, they called him a merchant. I learn from hence, as you also say, what a dangerous and slippery thing is trade, in which occupation I may fall very soon, and I wish I may not have fallen very frequently.’99 Clearly, some evangelical merchants were troubled by their sinful occupation rather than being attracted to newly cast religious ideas because of their status as merchants. Whether the Johnsons encountered evangelical ideas through the written or spoken word, we can be sure that even if they were zealous they were not representative of the dour godly stereotype. John’s letters to his wife Sabine, in particular, are marked by their warmth and humour. When Sabine wrote of her fears that he would succumb to the plague in Calais, John, demonstrating his belief in providence, sought to reassure her that he was in the hands of God and that if God chose to take him she ‘must be content to receyve it thanckfully at the Lorde’s haundes.’ He went on playfully to say that that if the opposite happened and God saved only him he would be the only man in Calais and then ‘the women of this towne wold kepe me perfo[rce] from you, and then ye were never the better. By Sainct Mary, I shuld have muche ado to please so manny women! God save me from being towbled with manny women, for I have moche ado to please you allone, as ye knowe!’100 Sabine responded that she would rather every widow in Calais had two husbands, than John be troubled by them.101 Husband and wife would refer to their children as little jewels (and occasionally as brats) and Sabine prayed that God would bless them with a son.102 An unnamed boy child died within a few weeks of his birth and John was consoled by his brother-in-law Christopher Breton who said, ‘Brother, I am sory (if God had ben otherwise pelased) that ye have loste your littell, littell faire somer floure. I trust bothe you and my suster will take itt no otherwise but even as the losse of a floure, and He that hathe taken thatt shall reffere you another (I trust shortely).’103 Within time Sabine gave birth to Evangelist and then Edward and she would write to John asking for him to buy clothes or toys for the children whilst in Calais.104 99 100 101 102

Original Letters, vol. 1, pp. 244–245. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 268, pp. 493–494. Ibid., Letter 291, p. 532. Ibid., vol. 2, Letter 127, p. 250; Letter 134, p. 266; vol. 3, Letter 378, p. 673; vol. 4, Letter 666, p. 1176. 103 Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 417, p. 739. 104 Ibid., vol. 4, Letter 881, p. 1554.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

151

Theirs was an affectionate piety, but it was also a private piety. There was one occasion, however, when a relative of the Johnsons expressed her beliefs in such a way, we are told, that she was lucky to escape with her life. John’s youngest brother, Richard, married into the Mattrys family in Calais and it was clearly a family with sympathetic evangelical elements. We know this because in 1548 Richard wrote of delays to business caused by the imprisonment of his wife’s aunt. It seems that one night, after too much ale, Aunt Mattrys, ‘said foolish words’ to an image of St Adrian about the saints.105 As she had been in St Omer, a town just outside of Calais in Spanish territory, she was imprisoned and her case put before the Regent’s court. The matter was clearly taken very seriously as Richard needed the assistance of Somerset to intervene and smooth things over with the Imperial Ambassador stating that she had ‘taken more drink than she should have done.’106 Apart from this one indiscretion, the Johnsons seem to have been able to conduct overseas trade without courting controversy. And despite their antipopery there is never any suggestion in their correspondence that this translated into outright anti-Catholicism or that they would not trade with, or on the behalf of, those with traditional religious beliefs. Long distance trade was, by its very nature, cross-cultural and often cross-confessional and it should come as no surprise to realise that Catholics and Protestants were perfectly willing to trade with one another. Gayle K Brunelle, in a study of early modern Rouen, noted a similar pattern. Trade across confessions was effective, she argued, because the majority eschewed extremism in favour of moderate beliefs or ­Nicodemism.107 The Johnsons had clear, and at times zealous, beliefs, but there was little need to express such beliefs to others in the conduct of trade. The ability of the Johnsons to work alongside Catholics is indicative both of a recognition of their status as a[n elect] minority, and also of what Alexandra Walsham has labelled the ‘amicable confusion’ of the early Reformation when ideology remained fluid.108 It is equally a characteristic of merchants who had long traded across cultural divides. A recent study of a cache of over 13000 letters of a Sephardic Jewish merchant family trading out of Livorno in the eighteenth century, suggests that merchants were entirely capable of coupling

105 Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 501, p. 942. 106 Cited in Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 1, p. 77. 107 Gayle K Brunelle, The New World Merchants of Rouen 1559–1630 (Kirksville, 1991), pp. 151–154. 108 Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 269–270.

152

chapter 4

economic trust with religious prejudice.109 Francesca Trivellato notes that merchants would criticise those of different religions whilst happily trading with them.110 The Johnsons, however, did not clearly criticise Catholic merchants, despite the invective aimed at the Pope. For example, in 1545 John advised Anthony Cave to talk to Sir Robert Dormer to declare that his fells had been shipped jointly with John’s in accordance with the ordinances of the Staple.111 The Dormers were a family that remained committed to Catholicism throughout the century, and Sir Robert’s brother-in-law, Sebastian Newdigate, was martyred in 1535 for refusing to recognise the supremacy of Henry viii.112 Merchants had no qualms it seems about trading and living in other territories where, if made public, their religious beliefs could lead to their arrest at the very least. Despite this, John’s factors Bartholomew Warner and Ambrose Saunders, spent several months a year in Bordeaux, La Rochelle, and Antwerp sourcing wine and complaining that excessive drinking at Christmas hindered the swift shipping of their goods.113 We also know that another factor, Blase Saunders, was acquainted with John Knox, a man who urged the godly not to live under Catholic idolatry, yet Saunders handled the Johnson’s trade in Spain. For a grocer, Spain was a particularly valuable source of spices, raisons, and olive oil – too valuable to be set aside on confessional grounds.114 John also referred to the Catholic Sir John Gage as a ‘greate freind to the poer Staple’ and was commissioned by Gage to buy floor tiles for the Staplers’ chapel in Calais.115 It took some months for John’s factor in Antwerp, Robert Tempest, to procure the tiles as he did not always conduct trade in a timely fashion. Tempest was quickly replaced with Robert Andrews and John wrote to him asking for news of the tiles. He said, ‘I promes you by my faithe I am ashamed to speke to them that wylled me to make provision of them.’116 He clearly wished to retain his good reputation with Gage and was embarrassed when their standards fells short. The desirability of a good reputation (or fame) in early modern Europe had its roots in Christianity. It was entrenched in Canon law and the r­ ecommendation 109 Francesca Trivellato, The Familiarity of Strangers: The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno and Cross-Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period (New Haven, 2009), p. 82. 110 Ibid., pp. 177–193. 111 Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letters 472, p. 831; Letter 476, p. 842. 112 Hugh Hanley, ‘Dorothy Pelham (d. 1613)’; Virginia R Bainbridge, Sebastian Newdigate (1500–1535), odnb [accessed 20 Nov 2016]. 113 Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 4, Letter 870, p. 1531 [drunks in Antwerp]. 114 The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols. (London, 1846–64), vol. 4, pp. 83–85. 115 Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 2, Letter 300, pp. 545–546; Letter 302, p. 548. 116 Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 342, p. 614.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

153

of neighbours of your fame was enough to discharge many legal disputes.117 Equally, the Franciscan school of theology emphasised good reputation as the marker of an equitable merchant. Medieval mercantile treatises, such as the writing of Pegolotti, emphasised that a merchant should possess a variety of qualities including trustworthiness, good manners and honourable behaviour.118 Bernadino da Sienna’s treatise on contracts stated that the duty of merchants was to be ‘rich [but] at the same time honourable men.’119 Possessing a good reputation was not therefore a specifically mercantile trait but the need for good repute took on an extra layer of significance. The pursuit of wealth could so easily lead to sin, but long distance trade also entailed buying and selling goods from strangers, and the diplomatic skills required to effectively manage company officers from afar. The qualities of a merchant therefore, often derived from medieval theologians, were also those the Johnsons prized. ­Merchants were always identified by their reputation rather than their religious identity. From their correspondence the features of a good reputation seem to have been honesty, accuracy, and timely completion of transactions. When John appointed a new factor he wrote to his partner, Anthony Cave, to reassure him that he was ‘a very honest yong man, and paynfull.’120 Guides on accounting in particular do seem to have drawn a parallel between honesty and Christianity but the Johnson letters are never explicit on this issue.121 It also seems that, on occasion, reputation was of greater significance than religious allegiance. John’s factor Robert Tempest had long links with reform. ­During the 1530s he and draper John Chester cared for the children of the grocer Thomas Poyntz following his arrest in the Low Countries for attempting to secure the release of William Tyndale.122 But as a factor, Tempest was tardy in 117 Richard Wunderli, London Church Courts and Society on the eve of the Reformation ­(Cambridge, Mass., 1981), p. 43. 118 Giacomo Todeschini, ‘Theological Roots of the Medieval / Modern merchants’ Self-­ Representation,’ in Margaret C Jacob and Catherine Secretan (eds), The Self-Perception of Early Modern Capitalists (New York, 2009), pp. 19–28. 119 Ibid., p. 34. 120 Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 373, p. 663. 121 Patricia Parker, ‘Cassio, Cash, and the “Infidel 0”: Arithmetic, Double-entry Bookkeeping, and Othello’s Unfaithful Accounts,’ in Jyotsna G Singh (ed.), A Companion to the Global Renaissance: English Literature and Culture in the era of Expansion (Oxford, 2009), p. 237. 122 Brian Buxton, ‘Thomas Poyntz: Brought Unto Misery for so Godly a Cause,’ Tyndale Society Journal 24 (2003), pp. 8–21; John Abernethy Kingdon, Incidents in the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton: two citizens and grocers of London who suffered loss and incurred danger in common with Tyndale, Coverdale and Rogers, in bringing out the Bible in the vulgar tongue (London, 1895).

154

chapter 4

business and hence was replaced with Andrews. Moreover, shared faith was no guarantee of friendship. In Tempest’s will of 1550 he remembered a plethora of Calais merchants but none of the Johnson family or their associates.123 Also in line with the Franciscan school was the deep sense of fraternity that infused the letters. Todeschini argues that the sense of concordia within later mercantile writings stemmed from medieval communal theology that stressed the ‘city’s mystic body as earthly representative of Christ’s body.’124 Whilst I doubt that the Johnsons had such ideas consciously in mind as they composed their letters, their ongoing influence is clearly present. John placed great value on observing the ordinances of the Staple and spoke with disdain of those who tried to flout the rules for their own financial gain to the detriment of the company. In 1546 Thomas Offley and his men had been caught importing more wool than ordinances allowed with a view to dominating trade. He was fined the requisite £200 but apparently boasted that he would spend as much as £2000 in his defence. John wrote to Anthony Cave seeking his counsel and making clear that the ‘Company wold not be toden underfote in the matter, the same standing as it were on the welthe of the Staple [and we] be determyned to stand stedfastly in the deffenes thereof.’125 A sense of fraternity was just as clear in letters to newly-appointed members of the Johnson Company. For example, in appointing Robert Andrews as his factor in Antwerp John wrote very warmly to him, thanking him for his ­‘greate paynes and gentleness.’ John also promised he would help him ‘so farre as my power wyll extend’ and that his friends would also do the same. ­Andrew’s response was suitably fraternal, stating that ‘I shall remayn youres to the uttermost of my sma[ll] power, wisshyng that it may consist to me to deserve parte of your frendship, which I do est[em]e more worth than an honest som of mony.’126 For Anthony Cave it was also important that his goods were sold to those with whom he was acquainted. In April 1546 John wrote to Anthony Cave asking for further instructions on selling his wool, ‘I would be lothe to credit anny man with your goodes without your comussion, bycause ye were offendyd with me the last tyme I was with you for selling your goodes (ye said) to soche as wold not kepe the daie with you.’127 A strong theme within much research on medieval and early modern trade has been that whilst merchants would trade across cultural and confessional 123 124 125 126 127

tna, pcc, Prob. 11/34, fos. 228v–229r. Todeschini, ‘Theological Roots,’ p. 24. Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 360, pp. 642–644. Ibid., Letter 385, p. 685. Ibid., Letter 338, pp. 606–607.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

155

boundaries, they sought to associate with those of the same faith above those of the same nationality. Olivia Constable, studying medieval Muslim Spain, noted that merchant communities segregated on religious lines more so than geographic lines. Cross-confessional trade occurred but merchants ‘never – or very rarely – formed lasting interfaith partnerships.’128 Constable identified informal co-operation in the form of ships carrying a variety of cargoes, but formal trading partnerships were incredibly rare.129 J F Bosher has noted that whilst Huguenots would trade with Catholics, the rest of their relationships were based upon shared religious convictions and that confession came before national identity.130 Certainly, when under threat, confessional identity seems to have taken on greater significance than national identity, as demonstrated by the experience of exile of Protestants and Catholics alike during the early modern period. But in times of economic hardship, merchants could harden their stance towards other nationalities, irrespective of shared religion.131 What is striking about the Johnson letters, therefore, is their increasingly poor relationship with Flemish merchants who were presumably as susceptible to Protestantism as London merchants. The circle of Flemings that they traded with were regarded as tardy in their payments and contributed to the significant cash flow problems that the Johnsons endured. One particular dispute over late payment had reached the stage of arbitration and two factors were appointed to end the matter. John wrote to his factor that he was not so much interested in the money but wanted to ‘teache Adrian another tyme to see and provide for the paiementes of his debtes in season, whiche maie also be an insample of other in the lyke case.’132 In 1548 Richard Johnson complained that the ‘Hollanders’ were obstinate and possessed ‘subtyll demeanures.’133 When these same merchants were in dispute with the governors of the Staple about the price of wool, Richard Johnson wrote that they ‘fell to requyryng frendship…and so upon submysson favour hathe bene shewe[d them] by 10s in a

128 Olivia Remie Constable, Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial Realignment of the Iberian Peninsula 900–1500 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 57–59. 129 Ibid., pp. 68–69. 130 J F Bosher, ‘Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant International in the Seventeenth Century,’ William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995), pp. 77–102. 131 In seventeenth century London, artisans and mercantile elite alike resented Dutch merchants who were thought to be getting rich at the expense of their hosts, Ole Peter Grell, Dutch Calvinists in Early Stuart London: The Dutch Church in Austin Friars 1603–1642 (Leiden, 1989), p. 149. 132 Winchester, ‘Johnson Letters,’ vol. 3, Letter 353, p. 627. 133 Ibid., Letter 552, p. 971.

156

chapter 4

serpeller.’ The merchants bought 80 from him but he said that ‘if they had not played the jackes, they myght have had 100 serpellers more.’134 It is not clear what the confessional allegiance of the Flemish merchants was, and despite their tardy payments, religion was not used as basis for criticism. It seems that for the Johnson family their religious identity shaped how they viewed themselves first and foremost. They were devout but at the same time pragmatic and moderate. Despite a belief in providence, it was most clearly in evidence when trade began to fail. Whilst the Johnsons were thankful to God for their every success, the generation of profit was not an overt theme within the letters. Certainly, as trade declined for the company the letters are filled with prayers to God for cheap wool, more trade and a return to profit. More ominously, in 1549 Anthony Cave wrote to John stating that while he hoped God would send them sales, he feared that they would not be successful as their wools had been packed incorrectly and for this ‘God must and will ponyshe’ them with poor sales.135 The company continually struggled to find credit, with Richard Johnson complaining of having to take money at ‘unreasonable interest.’136 Ambrose Saunders, a factor in Antwerp, frequently complained of this lack of money but hoped that ‘God [would] guyde us for ever in the waye of the trewth.’137 They struggled to understand how or why their debts continued to mount. In 1552, Ambrose Saunders wrote assuring you even as truly as the Lorde lyvith, I would rather dygg the grownd contynually for a poure lyving then to be in this disquieture…the more monney that we make by saeles…the more we be in debt, which I understond not. God… defend us from this secret ennemitie, which is most ongodly and onnaturall.138 When the company was declared bankrupt in March 1553, it seems that John very much felt that this was his punishment, as professed in a series of letters to William Cecil. I lefte myself never a penne nor pennewourth in the world: for God knowith it is no litle greafe to my hart to contynew in this miserable ­estate, beseching God to geve me grace to take it patiently as the ­poneshment 134 135 136 137 138

Ibid., vol. 3, Letter 556, p. 980. Ibid., Letter 617, p. 1095. Ibid., vol. 4, Letter 880, p. 1551. Ibid., Letter 832, p. 1466. Ibid., vol. 4, Letter 925, p. 1631.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

157

of God justely laied apon me for my synnes, having deservid a great dealle more, but that God of his mercy ponesheth me not according to my deservinges. Demonstrating a strong belief in vocation, John said that whilst God had ­appointed him to be a merchant, he would do something else if it would please him.139 At this point the letters end, but we know that John was imprisoned intermittently between 1555 and 1557, along with his brother Richard, and factor Ambrose Saunders. Although John managed to find a new living as secretary to Lord Paget, some of his closest friends continued to spurn him; most notably, his former business partner, Anthony Cave.140 John owed Cave £1500 and despite their long ties of friendship, Cave excluded John, Sabine and the rest of his family from his lengthy will of 1558.141 It seems that even those who shared a faith struggled to forgive such an enormous debt and perhaps he too saw John’s bankruptcy as a marker of his sinfulness.

Godly Moderation? George Stoddard (c. 1553–1568)

It has been noted that moderation in the early modern period had ‘many layers, and many flavours.’142 In a study of the Mercers, Anne Sutton noted that despite the presence of evangelicals within the company ‘most mercers took a more moderate and circumspect line on reform, and little is known of their beliefs.’143 As examples of moderation she suggested John Allen, Ralph Warren and Richard Gresham who all served as mayor between 1535 and 1539. Sutton highlighted Ralph Warren in particular as someone whose ‘household ­contained genuine reformed sympathies as well as political obedience.’ His inventory of 1552 also revealed he owned portraits of himself, St Jerome and Sultan Suleiman, indicative of his involvement in trade with the Levant.144 He was an individual with reformed links but who was able to put them to one 139 140 141 142

Ibid., vol. 4, Letter 940, p. 1661. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 476. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/42A, fos. 55v–63v. Racaut and Ryrie, ‘Introduction: Between Coercion and Persuasion,’ idem, Moderate Voices, p. 4. 143 Anne Sutton, The Mercery of London: trade, goods and people 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005), p. 394. 144 Ibid., pp. 394–396.

158

chapter 4

side in order to serve his city, in the same way that the Johnsons had clear beliefs but, in serving God as good merchants, put aside their differences to work peaceably alongside Catholics. Stoddard seems to have conformed accordingly to the prevailing religion and customs of the time, and was situated within a network of merchants who possessed malleable Protestant identities that appear far from zealous in the records they have left behind. Consequently, it is difficult to see a strong religious influence in the way that he conducted trade, particularly an influence that was distinctly Protestant. George Stoddard joined the livery of the Grocers in 1554 before rising up the ranks to serve as renter warden in 1565, alongside Laurence Sheriff, and he was appointed chief warden in 1576.145 Although a consistent member of the court of assistants until his death in 1580, he was never appointed master and does not seem to have served on the Common Council; something which is more likely to be indicative of refusal to serve, perhaps because of time spent ­‘beyond the seas,’ rather than because of a lack of financial or social status. ­During the 1550s and 1560s Stoddard worked as factor for fellow grocer Sir Thomas Lodge, to whom he had probably been apprenticed. He also traded on his own account in wares typical of the grocer such cloves, pepper and cinnamon, and became a major exporter of cloth from Lancashire to Rouen.146 Stoddard composed his will in 1578 and outlines a moderate Elizabethan piety that is present in many mercantile wills of the late sixteenth century. Not all were zealous early converts or particularly strong in their expressions of faith, even if they had direct contact with trading centres like Antwerp. ­Stoddard thus committed his soul simply to God, beseeching ‘our Lorde to have mercye uppon me.’ He requested that the dean of St Paul’s, Alexander Nowell, deliver his burial sermon, and that twelve further sermons be delivered in the year following his death ‘by the best learned mene that maie be had.’ He left small bequests of 14s 4d to each of the seven prisons, a total of £40 to Christ’s, St Bartholomew’s and St Thomas’s and 40s to the poor of his parish of St Olave’s. The majority of his estate, however, was not devoted to acts of charity but distributed in the form of rental income from land to his wife Anne and children Nicholas and Judith. He remembered his wife’s daughter, Barbara, who married his former apprentice, the grocer Martin Archdale; and his wife’s brothers, Thomas, John and Edward Herdson. He was also related by marriage to the Champion family and remembered Richard Champion, son of the draper and alderman of the same name.147 Richard Champion Snr and Martin Archdale 145 gl, ms 11588/1, fos. 140r, 276v. 146 Norman Lowe, The Lancashire Textile Industry in the Sixteenth Century (Manchester, 1972), p. 72. 147 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/62, fos. 304v–306v (George Stoddard).

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

159

also produced wills suggestive of a moderate Protestant faith and thus Stoddard provides an example of the moderate merchant who adhered to religious rituals but does not seem to have been strongly guided by his faith in his trade or other aspects of his life.148 Our key sources for Stoddard are his petty cash book, which covers the period 1553 to 1568 and a small collection of letters from his apprentices and factors that cover the early 1560s.149 Combined with his will, the picture that emerges is of a merchant who slowly became Protestant through acculturation. Whilst his cash book, understandably, does not betray strong beliefs of any kind, during the reign of Mary i we see evidence of on-going adherence to traditional Catholic rituals. Such ritual culture could be suggestive of pragmatic conformity, but it seems just as likely that his beliefs changed more slowly. In contrast to the image of the Protestant merchant searching for signs of God’s grace within their life, Stoddard reminds us that not all merchants were preoccupied with piety, although that is not to say that he had no faith and did not behave as a Christian (of any kind) should. Stoddard’s accounts begin in 1553, a year before he joined the livery, and give an insight in particular into his social network and how a merchant deployed the fruits of his trading wealth. He was already wealthy enough to spend extensively on clothing as well as supporting his family and friends, giving charity to the poor, and funding his local clergy. The spending on clothing appears striking: when appointed warden of the bachelors in 1553 he spent a not insignificant £3 18s 3d for black cloth for a gown. This perhaps reflects the expense of black cloth, but we see additional payments of £1 6s to the skinner for furring his gown and 2s for a pair of slippers. His clothes were made from silk, satin, damask and velvet and his shoes of the finest Spanish leather. Stoddard should not be seen, however, as unusually ostentatious but as one of many merchants who bought some of the fineries they traded in for themselves. The 1565 ordinances of the Staple set out clear rules on dress for apprentices – including how many ruffles they were allowed on their shirt – as so many had been dressing beyond their station.150 Whilst we only have occasional and fragmentary expense accounts for John Johnson, we know that he too bought himself fine clothes from the Low Countries.151

148 Prob. 11/50, fos. 169r–169v (Richard Champion, 1568); Prob. 11/90, fos. 445v–451r (Martin Archdale, 1597). 149 tna, sp 46/185, fos. 1–44; sp 46/13 fos. 110–144; sp 46/16 fos. 20, 203; sp 46/43 fos. 141–193. 150 E E Rich, The Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple (Cambridge, 1937), p. 189. 151 At the Pasche Mart in 1538 John Johnson’s personal expenses record he spent £3 10s 7d on new clothes including two doublets of satin, one russet and one striped. tna, sp 1/196, fo. 218r.

160

chapter 4

In the same year (1553), Stoddard paid just 8d to the gatherers for the poor in his parish of St Botolph, but when he returned home to London that year he also paid for alms that he ‘gave a waye to the folkes in the houses at my cumyng from Andwarpe.’152 He paid lip service to the notion of the charitable merchant, although he was much more generous to his friends and family. He was infused with a genuine sense of fraternity imprinted upon him, at least in part, by the Grocers and thus his accounts are littered with gifts and dinners for his closest associates. There were frequent ad hoc payments of money to his mother and siblings; he would organise sumptuous dinners for his extended family and when visiting others would take expensive gifts like sugar loaves.153 He bought clothes for Ralph Hill’s wife, and gave a firkin of sturgeon to the skinner Thomas Bannister.154 He also took on his nephew, Ambrose Coxe, as apprentice and paid for his school boarding fees in Antwerp which amounted to £2 a quarter.155 Under Mary i, Stoddard continued to adhere to Catholic rituals and there is no hint in his cash book that this was in any way against his will. Throughout the reign we see payments of 6s to the clerk of St Botolph for half a years’ wages.156 He also paid 1s 2d to the priest in the English house, presumably a contribution to the wages of the Catholic chaplain who served the English merchants. Long-standing baptismal rituals were observed and there are frequent payments for dinners at the christening of friends’ children. He spent £4 on one such dinner, and made an offering of 3s 10d at the christening of Robert Jackson’s child, including a payment of 6d to the midwife. In 1556 he paid for a silver spoon with a ‘posells hede’ as a christening gift along with an offering of money to the midwife.157 He continued to observe the Lenten fast and in 1557 spent £1 2s 6d on ‘fresh fish now in Lent.’158 And there were also small semi-regular charitable payments at the marriage of poor maidens.159 Perhaps unintentionally, Stoddard, like Howell and the Johnsons before him, met many of the theological ideals of the medieval merchant. He might have furnished himself with expensive clothing, but he provided for his mother and extended

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

tna, sp 46/185, fos. 4r, 6r, the figure for alms is illegible. sp 46/185, fos. 8r, 9r, 10v, 11r–v. Ibid., fo. 5v. Ibid., fo. 8r–v. Ibid., fo. 7r. Ibid., fos. 4r, 7r, 8r. Ibid., fo. 12v. Ibid., fo. 7r–v.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

161

family, provided charity (however small) to parishioners, strangers and friends alike; and his financial support of clergy suggests at least tick-box piety. But Stoddard was also clearly a keen risk taker; his chief social activity was gambling, and in addition to trade he was also a moneylender. Whilst puritans might have scorned such activities, for mainstream Protestants they were not necessarily incompatible with a Christian existence. Gambling expenses – usually losses – recur frequently in Stoddard’s cash book and it seems to have been one of the favourite social activities of the merchant after drinking, such that both featured in the ordinances of overseas trading companies. The 1565 ordinances of the Staple stated that gambling was acceptable only between December and 20 January and only for small stakes.160 Stoddard was a merchant adventurer, rather than a stapler, but he nonetheless seems to have to have engaged in all sorts of gambling on a regular basis. In 1555 he recorded one of his largest losses of £5 10s ‘at dyvers tymes at the dyes playing whan I was in Fflanders.’161 He frequently gambled with fellow grocer, Francis Robinson, and also with his master, Thomas Lodge.162 We know that he lost 13s 2d at bowls since returning to Antwerp and 13s at dice against Mr Robinson, and that he paid 10s for a handkerchief for Lodge ‘wyche I lost upon a wayger.’163 Most notably, Stoddard recorded that his master owed him £1 20s for a ‘wayger lyde with hee upon a boye or a gerle the wyche I have wone.’164 However, both gambling and money lending were not necessarily at odds with a Protestant identity. For merchants the element of risk involved in gambling must have provided some training for the strategizing required in trade. More probably, it passed the time whilst in Antwerp away from their family and friends, and solidified relationships between trading associates. It was not until the late sixteenth century that puritan divines like William Perkins linked such activities clearly with sin, and thus perhaps this is why Stoddard was happy to detail his gambling losses so clearly in his records. If anything, gambling on English soil was a secular offence. The proclamations of the 1530s prohibited dice and other such games because they distracted people from practising their archery skills, thought to be necessary for the defence of the realm.165 Even in the later sixteenth century, attitudes to such activities were 160 tna, sp 46/185, fos. 1–44; sp 46/13, fos. 110–144; sp 46/16, fos. 20, 203; sp 46/43, fos. 141–193. 161 tna, sp 46/185, fo. 9r. 162 Francis Robinson joined the livery in 1554 and served as warden in 1564, he was thus one of Stoddard’s cohort. 163 tna, sp 46/185, fo. 9v. 164 Ibid., fo. 29v. 165 trp, vol. 1, pp. 152–153, 172–174, 240–241.

162

chapter 4

varied. Gambling for small stakes was acceptable for some, like Richard ­Baxter in the seventeenth century, as long as it did not encourage covetousness. ­Linda Woodbridge has argued that ‘the ideal Christian gambler, as imagined by ­Anglican divines, frequents not a gaming house with its quaffing and swearing, but a private gathering…glowing with neighbourliness. He gambles for small change, not coveting his neighbour’s pence.’166 This, it seems, is how Stoddard approached gambling. He did not quite play for pennies, but his losses, compared to his total personal expenditure, were minimal. He would regularly pay several pounds for new clothes, but lost shillings at gambling. As the Elizabethan lotteries were justified as both an opportunity for personal gain and also an aid in the maintenance of the commonwealth, perhaps this is how Protestant merchants justified their activities that, in other circumstances, would be seen as sinful.167 Nonetheless, there was still some unease with gambling. The Merchant Adventurers’ ordinances of 1608 prohibited games, stating that, ‘no persone of this ffellowshipe being his owne man shall playe either at dyce, cardes or tables in these partes one this syde the Seas,’ nor were they to gamble ‘in the conseirges or ffree hostes houses one the saboth daye upon payn of ffyve shillings fflemishe.’168 It has been suggested, however, that by the later sixteenth century magistrates rarely prosecuted individuals for gambling and that prohibitions against it were the mainstay of Protestant moralists alone.169 Whilst Stoddard’s gambling could be reconciled within an emerging Protestant identity, usury is perhaps harder to explain. Yet some of the wealthiest (and apparently godliest) merchants lent money for interest. Norman Jones has used the legal definition of usury as ‘to contract intentionally for more than the principal of a loan without risk to the lender,’ and it was something that both Catholic and Protestant theologians could agree was sinful.170 The Scriptures, however, could be read variously which led to different interpretations of what constituted usury. There were two broad schools of thought in sixteenth-century England. The conservative school, based upon Thomas 166 Linda Woodbridge, English Revenge Drama: Money, Resistance, Equality (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 117–118. 167 David Dean, ‘Elizabeth’s Lotteries: Political Culture and State Formation in Early Modern England,’ jbs 50 (2011), pp. 587–611, at p. 598. 168 W E Lingbach, The Merchant Adventurers of England: Their Laws and Ordinances with other Documents (New York, 1902), pp. 174–175. 169 Richard Dean Smith, The Middling Sort and the Politics of Reformation: Colchester 1570– 1640 (New York, 2004), pp. 176–177. 170 Norman Jones, God and the Moneylenders: Usury and Law in Early Modern England ­(Oxford, 1989), p. 4.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

163

Aquinas and supported by Luther, saw that lending at interest was always wrong as it led to inequality and injustice and therefore went against the ideal of a charitable Christian. The other interpretation, which drew upon Reformed thought, argued that ‘it was evil intent that made lending at interest a sin,’ rather than the act itself, and that there was some justification for lending at interest.171 The 1571 usury act made a distinction between charging interest and usury, with interest of up to ten per cent being legal and anything above that considered usurious. And, as Jones argued, usury gradually became relegated from an issue of issue of theology and ethics to one of conscience and expediency.172 Conscience was to guide the individual to do to others as you would be done by. As we see from Stoddard, much lending was undertaken by friends and trading associates, but at times it threatened to ruin those friends. And, given that usury, or at least the use of interest, seems to have been common practice and little-prosecuted, it is not hard to understand how the merchant reconciled this with his faith. The only other study of Stoddard’s ledger was undertaken by Hubert Hall in the nineteenth century, and he certainly cast him as the sinful usurious merchant. In a way characteristic of Victorian morality, Hall took a dim view of Stoddard and argued that he bought fine silk clothes in order to gain the business of the ‘well dressed roisters on whom he preyed.’173 He was like many o­ thers of the time who ‘passed in his own day for a clever and successful knave.’174 Hall even suggested that Stoddard was the inspiration for a character in the play An Alarum against Usurers (1584) by Thomas Lodge, the son of ­Stoddard’s master of the same name. Stoddard certainly contributed to the debt and eventual bankruptcy of his master, Sir Thomas Lodge. He meticulously kept note of everything Lodge owed him, adding compound interest as he went. As his factor, Lodge was meant to pay him £20 a year but had not done so for nine years.175 The fact that Stoddard was able to bear this, and other debts from Lodge that amounted to over £700, suggests that he was already trading successfully on his own account.176 Lodge’s debt to Stoddard was so high, however, because Stoddard compounded the interest. Lodge’s debts are neatly listed and included expenses borne by Stoddard whilst in Ireland for seven months and also for bearing the debt of 171 172 173 174 175 176

Ibid., p. 19. Ibid., p. 5. Hubert Hall, Society in the Elizabethan Age (London, 1886), p. 49. Ibid., p. 57. tna, sp 46/185, fo. 37v. Ibid., fos. 37v–38r.

164

chapter 4

£443 6s 8d for three and a half years which ‘woolde have gayned in ockapying or other wyse put forth at lest £670 14s 6d.’177 Lodge ended up in the debtors’ prison, the Fleet, in 1563 either during his mayoralty or just after it ended.178 He resigned as alderman in 1566 and by 1567 he was in debtors’ jail again.179 In 1569 the court received a letter from fellow grocer, and relative of Lodge, Peter Osborne, urging monetary donations from all those who had not done so. The court, of which Stoddard was part, agreed to lend him £100 as long as it was repaid within seven years.180 Contributing to his master’s downfall, particularly when Stoddard was able to bear the debt with ease for so many years, certainly does not fit into the definition of charitable lending, and the extortionate interest he applied to Lodge was replicated in other transactions. For example, in 1555 or 6 he lent £400 to the draper John Fabian on the condition that he pay twenty per cent of the loan each year during Stoddard’s life. Fabian was committed to pay £80 a year and Stoddard lived until 1580.181 There are no records to confirm if Fabian repaid any or all of this debt, but the aim to charge interest in excess of usury laws is clear. Besides this entry is another transaction with Fabian for a loan of £80. Fabian was to repay the money if ‘he doo ever in all his lyffe tyme playe at dyse or tabylles.’182 If he did not, he would ‘forfyt as more playn shall apere by his bill’ which does not survive. This is notable because it suggests that, despite enjoying gambling himself, Stoddard took a harder moral stance with those whose gambling led to indebtedness. Stoddard was not the only merchant of our study, however, to commit usury. Perhaps the most notable example is of the draper Francis Barnham, the very same man whose godly inclinations can be seen through his naming of an orphan left on his doorstep Charity of God.183 We know that merchants would sometimes try and dodge usury laws by offering goods, instead of cash, at an inflated value to conceal the rate of interest and this was the form of usury that Barnham was accused of. Lena Cowen Orlin also believes that moneylending was Barnham’s primary business evidenced by his ‘low profile as an importer of merchandize,’ although he could simply have employed a variety of factors on his behalf.184 It is not clear from Exchequer records if the judgement went 177 Ibid. 178 Charles Jasper Sisson, Thomas Lodge and other Elizabethans (London, 1933), p. 22. 179 Ibid., p. 33. 180 gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 194v; the Drapers also agreed to lend Lodge £100, dh, Rep. D, fo. 70r. 181 tna, sp 46/185, fo. 30r. 182 Ibid., fo. 30r. 183 Lena Cowen Orlin, Locating Privacy in Tudor London (Oxford, 2007), pp. 141–142. 184 Ibid., p. 277.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

165

against him, but for those it did, it was not an impediment to further civic advancement. As Orlin has demonstrated, the usurer Stephen Slayne went on to serve as alderman, sheriff and finally, as lord mayor of London along with a host of other civic offices.185 It seems that the sheer demand for money during a period of economic expansion was as much a driver of usury as the desire of the moneylender to make a profit. After all, even the crown took a flexible attitude to the charging of interest. With the exception of the years 1545 to 1552, usury was illegal, yet in 1561 the crown promised a rate of ten per cent to those, including the grocer Sir William Chester, who would lend to the crown, without fear of punishment.186 Lending for interest might well have been commonplace, but not all financial activity by merchants was ruinous and some did fit into a more charitable mould. We know that Stoddard would lend money to friends even though he was doubtful of return. He leant £3 6s to his brother-in-law William Coxe and when he failed to repay on time simply noted that it was due ‘whan I can gyt yt.’187 There was also an element of risk to some wagers that gave the purchaser the hope that they would not have to repay the debt or else repay only a ­portion of it. Stoddard sold a grey gelding to a clothworker named Small. The bargain was that he would be paid £7 at the birth of his next child, or £5 at the day of his death, whichever came first.188 Whilst John Johnson saw his ruination in trade as a judgement from God, when Stoddard experienced losses he blamed his apprentice (and future sonin-law) Martin Archdale, for negligence. Stoddard’s letters do not survive, but Archdale wrote to him in October 1562 to defend himself against such accusations. He pleaded with Stoddard, as God was his witness, that he was simply the victim of bad luck. I desyar your mastarshipp to be good unto me and not for this cawsse to be worke my undoinge or dystrockion, in which thear ys no proffet, nor for this mattar on my parte I have not desaired yt, neythar have I gevin you evar any ocassion to doo by me as you have donne, not only in taking your doinge from me hear in the worst mannar, to my great shame and discreadit, but also muche more in deffaminge me…amongst marchantes and my ffryndes, which maye be to my uttar undoinge, as Godd forbidd I wish not to lyve to desarve that at your handes… as the Lorde 185 Ibid., p. 273. 186 Jones, God and the Moneylenders, pp. 47–49, 63, 121; Orlin, Locating Privacy, p. 275 n29. 187 sp 46/185, fo. 30v. 188 Ibid.

166

chapter 4

God knoweth, whom I praye to send me bettar dayes than I have had…desyaringe your worshippe for godes sake to be good unto me, to consydar me your pooer sarvavt and to exstend your goodnes to wardes me, and not in other respecktes to cast me awaye, but to have remorse uppon me accordinge to your goodness, in whome yt standes to make me or destroy me. Trustinge that of your goodnes you will consydar me in soch sort that I maye not have any occasion by you to cursse, but to praye unto god for you and youres, and praying the same almyghty God to kepp your hartt and mynd in his fear and trewth.189 Stoddard might not have viewed his losses in strongly providential terms, but the letter from his apprentice demonstrates the on-going normality of mercantile correspondence being infused with appeals to God, particularly in times of hardship. Archdale was prohibited from handling Stoddard’s business and worked instead for Gamaliel Woodford who was both Stoddard’s factor and son-in-law of Thomas Lodge. Woodford wrote sympathetically in defence of Archdale stating that ‘your servant is wonderfull heavy… I doo se him penytent of his mysfortune, and so willing to mend…I wold request you to wright him som sparck of comfort.’190 Given that Archdale went on to marry Stoddard’s daughter, their dispute must have been reconciled. Nonetheless, records of Stoddard do not suggest a man driven by his piety, although he was certainly driven by the generation of money, even at the expense of his master. The absence of any letters from Stoddard himself means that we cannot be entirely certain of his understanding of the relationship between trade and religion. Even so, from the remaining evidence, Stoddard appears to us as a fallible Christian who was not doctrinaire and was perhaps more representative of the mercantile community because of it.

New Trade Routes and Encounters with Different Confessions

Whilst our three case studies traded as independent merchants, the sixteenth century also witnessed the establishment of new forms of mercantile organisation, chiefly the joint-stock company. Such companies attracted nobles and officer holders, alongside wealthy merchants, who invested money in such ventures and shared in their profits. The East India Company (1601) and the Spanish Company (1570) were the largest and most well known examples, but 189 sp 46/13, fos. 137r–138r. 190 Ibid., fos. 142r–143r.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

167

the earliest was the Muscovy Company, otherwise known as the Russia Company. Established in 1553 and formally incorporated in 1555, it initially sought to find a northeast passage to the Indies but instead opened a trade route (and diplomatic relations) with Russia and Persia. It counted amongst its membership many of the most elite grocers and drapers. Of 201 charter members, it has been estimated that at least thirteen belonged to the Mercers, ten to the Drapers and eight to the Grocers.191 They were the chief of the livery who had served as masters, aldermen and mps and were further united by ties of friendship and trade. From the outset there was a current of religion to be found in their rhetoric. The voyagers of 1553 carried with them a letter from Edward vi addressed to ‘all kings, princes, rulers, judges and governours of the earth.’ It stated that trade was divine and that the ‘God of heaven and earth greatly providing for mankinde, would not that all things should be found in one region, to the end that one should have neede of another, that by this meanes friendship might be established among all men, and every one seeke to gratify all.’192 Their aim to both further friendship and trade in the name of God continued during the reign of Mary i, despite the Protestant connections of many of their chief members. Most of the company records for the Muscovy Company were destroyed in 1666, meaning that we do not have a full record of their corporate culture, but from documents gathered by Richard Hakluyt we can see that ordinances drawn up by the first governor, Sebastian Cabot, in 1553 drew directly upon the Christian language of livery companies. The very first ordinances stressed that the diverse members of the company, from the captain, mariners and merchants, were ‘to be so knit and accorded in unitie, love, conformitie, and obedience in every degree on all sides, that no dissention, variance, or contention may rise…betwixt them.’193 Other ordinances that governed behaviour were easily more doctrinaire than those of the liveries. It was 191 T S Willan, The Muscovy Merchants of 1555 (Manchester, 1953), p. 17. The biographical index, however, suggests sixteen grocers and fifteen drapers. Grocers: Thomas Chamber, Richard Duckett, Arthur Edwards, Henry Flammacke, Rauf Greenway, Edward Jackman, Francis Lambert, Thomas Lodge, John Ryvers, Francis Robinson, Blase Saunders, Drew Saunders, Edmund Stile, Richard Taylor, William Tucker, John Harte. Drapers: Francis Barnham, John Branch, John Broke, Thomas Castell, William Chester, John Dimmock, Walter Garraway, George Hopton, John Kemp, Richard Pointer, John Quarles, Henry Richards, Edmund Roberts, Thomas Starke, William Strete. 192 Richard Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, Voiages, and discoveries of the English Nation, 8 vols. (London, 1907), vol. 1, pp. 241–243; Willan, Early History of the Russia Company, pp. 1–18. 193 Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, vol. 1, p. 232.

168

chapter 4

made clear that each day the Bible or Paraphrases were to be ‘read devoutly and Christianly to God’s honour.’194 Playing at dice, a past time so favoured by merchants, was deemed devilish. It was thought that such games led to poverty, strife, and even murder that would provoke ‘God’s most just wrath.’195 Disputes between individuals were to be ‘chastened charitably with brotherly love’ and reminded that their endeavours would benefit not only their wives and children but also serve to increase the ‘common wealth of this noble Realme’ and the glory of God, indicative of a providential belief that a dutiful Christian would be a blessed merchant.196 The ancient overseas trading companies also continued to retain a devotional culture throughout the sixteenth century. In 1564, when the Merchant Adventurers were stationed at Emden, divine service was held daily at 6am in the English House, and sermons were preached also there in English.197 The inclusion of prayer in company life goes further to discredit the notion that institutions secularised their cultural and ritual life in order to avoid religious division and retain harmony. The governors of the Muscovy Company had the perfect opportunity, had they wanted, to create an entirely secular organisation that focussed solely upon trade. The very fact that there is evidence of a spiritual element to company life demonstrates that even during a time of religious upheaval it was impossible to conceive of establishing a public institution that did not seek to serve God. Before another voyage in 1561, Anthony Jenkinson was given a letter of advice from the grocers Thomas Lodge and Blase Saunders, haberdasher William Garrard and merchant taylor William Merrick. Whilst the governors praised his wisdom and previous success, the prominent role of God within their trade was clear. The governors stated: knowing your approved wisdedome with youre experience, and also your carefull and diligent minde in the atchiebing and bringing to good successe (by the help of almighty God) all things that you take in hand, we doe commit our whole affaires concerning the said adventure wholly unto your good discretion, praying God so to prosper you, as may be first for his glory, secondly for the honour and commoditie of this realme, and next for our profit, with the increase of your good name for ever.198 194 Ibid., p. 235. 195 Ibid. 196 Ibid., p. 240. 197 Wolf-Rudiger Baumann, The Merchant Adventurers and the Continental Cloth Trade 1560s– 1620s (Berlin, 1990), p. 147. 198 Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, vol. 2, p. 8.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

169

The pursuit of profit was afforded the least significance. It was enhancing the glory of God that was set out as his prime motivation and this was doubtless more than mere rhetoric. Just as the 1557 ordinances of London’s hospitals reminded officers that their first duty was to God, it fed into the basic but fundamental medieval notion of communal theology that all members of the commonwealth together constituted the body of Christ.199 Such ideas served, perhaps unintentionally, to remind those of different confessions of their common ground. Certainly, Catholics and Protestants worked alongside one another to forge these new trade links in the 1550s. In 1556 the draper John Dimmock held a dinner at his house for the Russian ambassador. Amongst the guests were the Catholic Rauf Greenway, and those with strong and early links to Protestantism like Blase Saunders and William Chester.200 Around the same time, these merchants assembled at Drapers’ Hall where a second dinner was held at which there was a ‘notable supper garnished with musicke, Enterludes and bankets’; when the ambassador left London there were ‘divers farewells not without expressing of teares,’ suggestive of a successful and convivial meal attended by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox alike.201 Despite mixed company membership, letters home suggest that many were imbued with a sense of providence. In a study of maritime piety covering the period 1580 to 1640, Sarah Parsons has suggested that whilst contemporaries believed mariners were impious and superstitious, they actually had a strong belief in providence. Storms in particular were interpreted along providential lines as punishment for sins and surviving such events was seem as a sign of God’s mercy.202 This argument tallies with evidence from the 1560s; for example, in a 1566 journey through Russia by Thomas Southam and the draper Thomas Sparke, they remarked that ‘wee found many rockes and if the great prouidence of God had not preserved us, we had then perished.’203 In the same year, grocer Arthur Edwards regarded his good relationship with the Persian Shah in providential terms, stating that God ‘sent me friendes that were allwaies about the Shaugh.’204 However, whilst the generation of profit for the 199 Whitney R D Jones, The Tudor Commonwealth 1529–1559 (London, 1970), idem, The Tree of Commonwealth 1450–1793 (London, 2000). 200 Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, vol. 1, p. 366. 201 Ibid., pp. 363–364. 202 Sarah Parsons, ‘The “wonders of the deep” and the “mighty tempest of the sea”: nature, Providence and the English seafarer’s piety c. 1580–1640,’ in Peter Clark and Tony Claydon (eds), Gods Bounty?: The churches and the natural world (Studies in Church History 46, Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 194–204, at pp. 201–202. 203 Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, vol. 2, p. 193. 204 Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia, ed. E D Morgan and C H Coote, 2 vols. (New York, 1886), vol. 2, p. 399.

170

chapter 4

glory of God, commonwealth and company was often the stated aim of extraEuropean trade, the merchants who ventured forth were concerned p ­ rimarily with their continued safety. In fact, the expeditions to Russia were a litany of woe and misfortune; and faith in God, rather than a desire for profit, must have provided greater solace for the factors and apprentices who had to cope with extreme weather conditions and, on occasion, fight for their lives. Laurence Chapman wrote from Casbin in Persia to tell the company governors how miserable his travels were and of the danger of ‘infidels, who doe account it remission of sinnes to wash their hands in the blood of one of us. Better it is therefore in mine opinion to continue a beggar in England during life, then to remaine a rich Merchant seven yeeres in this Countrey.’205 In recognition of the fact that Russia merchants were trading with Orthodox Christians and Muslims, members were advised to avoid discussion of religion. The 1553 ordinances stressed that merchants were ‘not to disclose…the state of our religion, but to passe it over in silence… [and] beare with such lawes…as the place hath where you arrive.’206 The fact that they had to issue such guidance suggests that English merchants might be all too happy to discuss matters of religion, potentially to the offence of others. There are occasional glimpses which suggest that the Russia merchants were assured of the superiority of their form of Christianity. In 1569 Laurence Chapman wrote to the governors of the company regarding a chance meeting with the governor of Grozny whose merchant was keen to trade with him. Chapman stated that ‘hearing good account of him from the Armenians also, and that he was a Christian, I was much more willing to bargen with him, and solde him a hundred pieces [of silk].’207 It was even thought that the murder of a Muscovy merchant in 1563 was a result of a discussion about religion. Thomas Alcock was first arrested in Poland in 1559; he complained that all his possessions had been taken from him including his bow and arrows ‘that cost four marks’ and his ‘book of the Flowres of godly prayers’; a publication by the evangelical divine Thomas B ­ econ.208 ­Following his murder in 1563, fellow factors in Russia suggested that his death was the result of a disagreement about money, but the governors back in ­England thought otherwise. In 1567 the governors issued further instructions to their agents. Most of these instructions concerned trade, but they also made clear that suspected Alcock had insulted the religion or manners of the people of Persia. Consequently, they advised that merchants were not to ‘utter any misliking of the religion or gouernement but to seame [my emphasis] onely 205 Ibid., p. 412. 206 Hakluyt, Principall Navigations, vol. 1, p. 237. 207 Morgan and Coote, Early Voyages, vol. 2, p. 409. 208 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 396.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

171

to followe the trade of merchandiz.’209 Such instructions suggest that private criticism was acceptable, but this was not to compromise outward conformity. Overseas trading companies took a much stronger interest in the moral conduct of their members than the livery companies did. Trading in a territory of which you were not also the magistrates, meant good behaviour and maintaining a good reputation in line with prevailing customs took on extra significance, and this was true of the ancient companies also. In 1565 the Merchants of the Staple reissued their ordinances. The only one to make any reference to God was the ordinance which forbade the keeping of concubines stating that: In asmuche as by goodes lawes every christian man ought to live in decent and lawdable order exchewing the companie of eville women. It is therefore agreed… for the avoiding of thindignation of almighty god and slaunder to the company of this estaple that no fellowe…shalle privatly or appertly keape any concubin or woman for misrule.210 Trying to control merchants living, not in comparatively nearby Antwerp, but in Russia or Persia, meant that correct conduct was of particular importance. Thus, the 1567 instructions of the Muscovy Company exhorted members not only to avoid speaking of religion but to also live a moral life or face being ‘banished’ to London. The governors complained that housekeeping costs had doubled, which led them to suspect ‘riotousness, remiscenes and idleness of our servunts.’ They also noted that is it was not the custom of the Persians to greet visitors with wine and that as this was a ‘corruption’ brought by ­English merchants they would no longer send any. Servants were suspected of ‘horedom, incontinency and dronckenness and idellnes,’ and such individuals were to be sent back as ‘where ether of these vices do raigne is no diligence or faithfull dealing.’ Servants were also accused of dressing like lord and keeping ‘dogges, beares and other superfluous burdens.’211 Immoral life was therefore seen to be detrimental to trade, but neither was it specifically Reformed but equally redolent of ancient practice. For example, in Coventry in addition to daily attendance at church, from 1492 senior civic officers were forbidden specifically from adultery and usury, as high moral standards were linked to legitimate authority.212

209 Ibid., pp. 216–217. 210 Rich, Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple, p. 190. 211 Morgan and Coote, Early Voyages, vol. 2, pp. 214–215. 212 Charles Phythian-Adams, ‘Ceremony and the Citizen: the communal year at Coventry,’ in Clark and Slack (eds), Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500–1700, pp. 57–85, at p. 61.

172

chapter 4

Implicit in the advice to focus on trade and avoid discussion of religion, was the fear of conversion. Early modern travel literature warned against travel to countries that were not Protestant, and feared that engaging with other c­ ultures and religions would compromise the purity of the Protestant ­Commonwealth. In 1642 James Howell wrote that the traveller, particularly to the Mediterranean, should be ‘well grounded and settled in his Religion’ and aware of the ‘controversies’ between England and Rome. He went on to state that ‘he that is well instructed in his own religion, may passe under the torrid zone and not be sun-burnt’ and would thus return home ‘an untainted Protestant.’213 It was similarly feared that individuals would ‘doff their religion, as they doe their clothes.’214 An English agent in Persia wrote of the fourth voyage in 1568 that Englishmen who converted to Islam were promised gifts and a living. It seems this was a tempting option for ‘naughtie servants’ who could take their master’s goods with them, and be safe from prosecution.215 In trying to explain why they would convert to Islam, the agent stated that it was because the ‘devill entered into his heart to forsake his faith.’216 He recounted a story of a servant who, disgruntled at criticisms from his master, intended to convert but ‘fell suddenly sicke and died, before he gave himselfe to the devill.’217 In a study of Venetians in Constantinople Eric Dursteler has argued that individual and collective religious identities should be regarded as a fluid process and whilst the results can often be ‘contradictory and ambiguous’ they are also ‘more historically sensitive and accurate’ for it.218 Whilst complexity and nuance do not of themselves guarantee greater accuracy, Dursteler does provide some useful examples from the diary of Thomas Dallam, illustrating the potential for peaceful cultural cross-pollination and for a shared national identity to be of greater significance than religious solidarity. Dallam was a member of the Levant Company on an initial voyage in 1599–1600. He recounts meeting an Englishman from Lancashire called Fincke who was ‘in religion a perfit Turk, but he was our trustie frende,’ and another ‘Turke [who was] a Cornishe man borne.’219 213 Daniel Vitkus, ‘Poisoned Figs, or The Traveller’s Religion: Trade, Travel and Conversion in Early Modern Culture,’ in Goran Stanivukovic (ed.), Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Basingstoke, 2007), pp. 41–57, at pp. 42–43. 214 Ibid., p. 52. 215 Morgan and Coote, Early Voyages, vol. 2, p. 417. 216 Ibid., p. 420. 217 Ibid., pp. 420–421. 218 Eric R Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Baltimore, 2006), p. 105. 219 Ibid., p. 104.

Mercantile Attitudes towards Money and Trade

173

It seems, therefore, that the rhetoric of Christianity could be called upon to unite and motivate merchants on treacherous long-distance voyages but individual attitudes to religion varied greatly. Some, like Thomas Howell, were definitely Catholic yet his faith did not dominate his existence, and some of his actions went against the ideals of brotherly love. The evangelical Johnsons saw God’s judgement most strongly when their business began to fail. And George Stoddard was able to match his outward behaviour to the demands of the time. Whilst, according to the Weber thesis, Reformed theology would have provided especial support for his trading activities, it seems to have held no special appeal for this wealthy merchant.

chapter 5

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks In his will of 1587 the grocer John Rogers left his copy of Acts and Monuments to the company, instructing that it be ‘placed in the Hall uppon a deske at my charge.’1 It was usual for liveried guildsmen to leave some sort of gift to their company, but this was an act of brotherly love that clearly aimed at the ­continued spiritual edification of his brethren. On the one hand, his bequest underlines that company halls were not – and never had been – entirely secular spaces, but on the other, it reinforces pre-existing notions that continue to link those engaged in trade with an ardent Protestant identity. In actuality, revisionist scholars have emphasised that despite early and eager converts amongst the mercantile community, the reformed were long in the minority. At the accession of Edward vi the Protestant faith in London was only established ‘among a minority of the ruling oligarchy as well as among the masses.’2 Susan Brigden’s survey of London wills during the Henrician period suggests that the Reformation was slow to manifest itself in changing testamentary p ­ rovisions.3 And David Hickman’s research similarly emphasises the slowness of change amongst London’s rulers.4 According to his schema of will preambles and ­religious bequests, Protestants did not dominate the Court of A ­ ldermen until the 1570s. Post-revisionist scholarship has highlighted the potential for religious identities to be both deeply fluid and multifaceted, particularly in the early decades of change.5 But such research has only just begun to be applied to the mercantile community, most notably by Anne Sutton. Sutton identified cells of ­evangelicals, Catholics and those of ambiguous or ambivalent faith amongst the Mercers in the 1530s, but we learn little of how they interacted and 1 2 3 4 5

1 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/74, fos. 346v–348r. John Rogers was originally from Chester and does not appear to have been related to the Marian martyr of the same name. 2 Claire Cross, ‘The State and the Development of Protestantism in English Towns 1520–1603,’ in A C Duke and C A Tamse (eds), Church and State Since the Reformation: Britain and the Netherlands 7 (The Hague, 1981), pp. 22–44, at p. 25. 3 Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), pp. 380–392. 4 David Hickman, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite 1520–1603’ (University of London PhD, 1996). 5 Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge, 2002).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_007

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

175

i­ ntersected with one another.6 Through a close study of wills, it is the purpose of this chapter to explore the diversity of mercantile religious identities and demonstrate that those of differing faiths did not operate in mutually exclusive hubs but interacted with their company brethren irrespective of confessional identity. Steve Rappaport has highlighted that most livery companies, excluding apprentices, numbered little more than 100 members and consequently individuals ‘developed very strong bonds both to the social organisations themselves and to other people in them.’7 Whilst the twelve great companies were amongst the largest, the livery of the Grocers and Drapers never numbered more than eighty and was rarely above fifty. Merchants’ loyalty to their company and its members had the potential therefore to transcend difference, particularly ties of faith that were doubtless expressed with moderation, if at all, during company gatherings. The reliability and validity of wills as windows into the soul has remained a hot topic of debate since this methodology was pioneered by A G Dickens in the 1960s. His approach examined the preamble formulations of wills as indicators of an individual’s faith.8 Dickens outlined three types of preamble. The ‘Catholic’ or traditional version bequeathed the soul to God, Mary and all the saints in heaven. The second ‘Protestant’ version omitted Mary and the saints and instead bequeathed the soul to God and Jesus and instead stressed a belief in salvation through the merits of Christ’s passion. The third ‘neutral’ formulation left the soul to God alone.9 Such a methodology has proved controversial and infectious in equal measure.10 Dickens stressed that his findings were provisional and that wills had their limitations, and certainly scholars have done much to further our knowledge of these limitations.11 It has been underlined that wills were public documents and often as ­mundane in nature as they were spiritual.12 We also know that they were often

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

6

Anne F Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 379–393. 7 Steve Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth-Century London (Cambridge, 1989), p. 215. 8 A G Dickens, Lollards and Protestantism in the Diocese of York (Oxford, 1959). 9 Ibid., pp. 171–172. 10 Others that have extended Dickens’ thesis include Peter Clark, English Provincial Society from the Reformation: Religion, Society and Politics in Kent 1500–1640 (Sussex, 1977), and David M Palliser, The Reformation in York 1534–1553 (York, 1971). 11 Dickens, Lollards, pp. 215–218. 12 Christopher Marsh, ‘Departing well and Christianity: will-making and popular religion in early modern England,’ in Eric Josef Carlson (ed.), Religion and the English People 1500– 1640: New Voices, New Perspectives (Kirksville, 1998), pp. 204–240, at p. 235.

176

chapter 5

written by clergy who might have influenced the spiritual tenor of the will and that preambles could hint at a form of piety that was not reflected in the rest of the document.13 Claire Cross argued that wills were highly formulaic and cannot be regarded as statements of faith.14 By contrast, Caroline Litzenberger’s study of 3500 Gloucestershire wills delineated no fewer than seventeen types of preamble and argued that whilst most adhered to one of these formulae, testators nonetheless had a choice of preamble if they chose to exercise it.15 Others, such as M L Zell, have suggested that religious bequests are a better marker of religious allegiance than preambles alone.16 It is also true that some wills could express a deeply pious and charitable nature that was reflective of a last ditch attempt at salvation rather than lived experience. Equally, in dangerous times, those known to us as evangelicals could produce entirely pedestrian wills that sought to conceal their true inclinations to ensure the safe passage of their estates and the future safety of their family. More recently, the use of preambles has come under attack from Eamon Duffy who pointed out that Catholics would have found nothing with which to disagree in a so-called Protestant preamble and any changes we see may reflect ‘the limits of the possible and the approved.’17 Even so, wills remain of great value as they allow us to assess how individuals dealt with a confluence of networks; from ties of family and friends, company and parish, corporation and commerce. The length and detail of many wills suggests that they were of great significance to those who composed them. 13 14 15 16 17

13

14 15

16

17

Margaret Spufford, ‘The Scribes of Villagers wills in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and their Influence,’ Local Population Studies 7 (1971), pp. 28–43; idem, Contrasting Communities: English Villagers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1974), pp. 320–334. Claire Cross, ‘Wills as evidence of popular piety in the Reformation period: Leeds and Hull 1540–1640,’ in David Loades (ed.), The End of Strife (Edinburgh, 1984), pp. 44–51. Caroline Litzenberger, ‘Local Responses to Changes in Religious Policy Based on Evidence from Gloucestershire Wills 1541–1580,’ Continuity and Change 8 (1993), pp. 417–439; idem, ‘Local Responses to Religious Changes: Evidence from Gloucestershire wills,’ in Carlson (ed.), Religion and the English People, pp. 245–270; idem, The English Reformation and the Laity: Gloucestershire 1540–1580 (Cambridge, 1997). M L Zell, ‘The Use of Religious Preambles as a Measure of Religious Belief in the Sixteenth Century,’ bihr 50 (1977), pp. 246–249; J D Alsop, ‘Religious Preambles in Early Modern English Wills as Formulae,’ JEH 40 (1989), pp. 19–26. Analysing preambles alongside religious bequests has also been used by Robert Whiting, The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1989). Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–1580 (New Haven, 2nd edn. 2005), pp. 522–523.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

177

Livery wills in particular were often read (and re-read) at court meetings as the administration of chantries, obits and other bequests were agreed upon. Some went even further: in 1524 the draper John Grover requested that his will ‘be written in ii volumes of parchemyn or velome and oon of them to be registered or sett in the best masse boke of kyngestone churche aforsaid and the other in the best antiphoner of the same churche to theneyent that my sesseres that nowe be and that here after shalbe, and also that myne heires and all other may resorte at all tyme to have the parfite knowlige of the declaration hereof.’18 It is recognised, however, that wills do not represent the totality of an individual’s religious identity but rather one expression of their identity at one point in time. Wills do not demonstrate change over time as experienced by the individual, and whilst some might have made their religious principles clear in all aspects of their life it seems that most recognised the need, on occasion, to moderate or conceal their inner beliefs. This chapter will take a holistic approach to wills by considering preambles and testamentary provisions alongside those named in wills as executors, overseers, witnesses and recipients of bequests. The aim is to reconstruct some of the overlapping networks that these merchants lived within and demonstrate the extent to which ties of fraternity cut across those of faith. It appears that many merchants had been successfully inculcated with the notions of civic Christianity and brotherhood which underpinned the government of their companies. This manifested itself in wills which often made bequests to those with different religious outlooks because of ties of loyalty and duty derived from family, company, civic government or commerce. Using court minutes and accounts 977 individuals have been identified as having been appointed to serve on the livery for the Grocers and Drapers during the period 1510–1600. An initial trawl through pcc records found 588 potential wills for the liverymen. After consulting these wills, I have excluded those whose identity could not be confirmed, those who joined the livery but did not serve and those whose wills were composed long after 1600. Consequently, this chapter is largely based on a working sample of 373 pcc wills. I have also excluded those members of the livery with wills proved in other courts. However, the sample remains sufficiently large and diverse to draw meaningful conclusions. The tables below represent the percentage of religious and charitable bequests displayed in the sample of wills. Of course, for contemporaries, the distinction between religion and charity did not exist in any meaningful way. Nonetheless, it is possible to distinguish between bequests directed towards 18

18

tna, pcc, Prob. 11/21, fos. 184r–186v (John Grover).

1510–19 aldermen (6) livery (18) total (24) 1520–29 aldermen (5) livery (27) total (32) 1510–29 aldermen (11) 1510–29 livery (45) 1510–29 total (56) 1530–39 aldermen (8) livery (33)

5 11 16

4 19 23 9

30

39

7 10

6 16 22

4 26 32 10

42

52

6 21

2 3

13

9

2 4 6 4

2 5 7

5 9

41

30

5 17 22 11

6 13 19

Tithes Church Clergy Soul gift gift Prayers

Religious bequests 1510–c. 1600.19

Religious bequests

Table 1

4 5

25

18

4 8 12 7

3 10 13

5 5

28

18

5 11 16 10

5 7 12

2 5

13

10

2 6 8 3

1 4 5

7 8

21

18

1 13 14 3

2 5 7

5 2

28

18

5 9 14 10

5 9 14

6 0

12

7

2 2 4 5

3 5 8

5 5

26

18

4 8 12 8

4 10 14

1 1

1

1

0 0 0 0

0 1 1

Chantry Obit Lights Parish Religious Religious Masses Sermons fraternities (M) (F)

178 chapter 5

total (41) 1540–46 aldermen (5) livery (35) total (40) 1530–46 aldermen (13) 1530–46 livery (68) 1530–46 total (81) 1510–46 aldermen (24) 1510–46 livery (113) 1510–46 total (137) 1547–53 Aldermen (4) livery (30) total (34)

17

2 9 11 9

19

28 18

49

67

1 1 2

27

2 13 15 8

34

42 18

76

94

0 4 4

0 2 2

26

20

14 6

11

0 8 8 2

5

1 3 4

68

51

27 17

21

1 12 13 6

14

0 0 0

41

30

16 11

12

0 7 7 4

9

0 0 0

45

29

17 16

11

1 6 7 6

10

0 0 0

25

20

12 5

10

0 5 5 2

7

0 0 0

39

29

18 10

11

0 3 3 7

15

0 0 0

35

20

7 15

2

0 0 0 5

7

0 0 0

19

8

7 11

1

0 1 1 6

6

0 0 0

38

25

12 13

7

0 2 2 5

10

0 10 10

5

4

4 1

3

0 2 2 1

2

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

179

1553–58 aldermen (4) livery (20) total (24) 1559–69 aldermen (6) livery (33) total (39) 1570–79 aldermen (4) livery (37) total (41) 1580–89 aldermen (9) livery (28) total (37)

2 5 7

2 4 6

0 0 0

0 1 1

3 5 8

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 3 3

0 3 3

2 2 4

2 1 3

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 1

1 0 1

Tithes Church Clergy Soul gift gift Prayers

Religious bequests 1510–c. 1600. (cont.)

Religious bequests

Table 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 1 2

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

4 3 7

4 14 18

2 9 11

0 0 0

Chantry Obit Lights Parish Religious Religious Masses Sermons fraternities (M) (F)

180 chapter 5

19

19

0 2 2 2

7 9 34

169 203

0 0 0 0

0 0 21

85 106

41 52

18 21 11

1 10 11 3

55 74

1 1 19

0 0 0 0

30 41

0 0 11

0 0 0 0

29 45

0 0 16

0 0 0 0

20 25

0 0 5

0 0 0 0

29 39

0 0 10

0 0 0 0

21 37

0 0 16

0 0 0 0

9 20

0 0 11

0 0 0 0

25 38

0 0 13

0 0 0 0

50 62

36 47 12

1 10 11 11

Church gifts represent either donations of money to church works or fabric. Clergy gifts represents donations of money or gifts (such as rings) to named clergy. By the late sixteenth century this was often money to sustain named lecturers.

1590–1600 aldermen (5) livery (56) total (61) 1559–1600 aldermen (24) 1559–1600 livery (154) 1558-1600 total (178) 1510–1600 aldermen (56) 1510–1600 livery (317) 1510–1600 total (373)

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

181

182 Table 2

chapter 5 Charitable bequests 1510–c. 1600

1510–19 aldermen (6) livery (18) total (24) 1520–29 aldermen (5) livery (27) total (32) 1510–29 aldermen (11) 1510–29 livery (45) 1510–29 total (56) 1530–39 aldermen (8) livery (33) total (41) 1540–46 aldermen (5) livery (35) total (40) 1510–46 aldermen (24) 1510–46 livery (113) 1510–46 total (137) 1547–53 aldermen (4)

Parish

Prison

Hospitals Highways Maidens Universities Schools

3 6 9

3 5 8

3 1 4

2 2 4

2 3 5

0 0 0

0 0 0

3 11 14 6

3 8 11 6

3 2 5 6

3 3 6 5

4 3 7 6

1 0 1 1

0 0 0 0

17

13

3

5

6

0

0

23

19

9

10

12

1

0

8 11 19

6 8 14

4 1 5

5 3 8

6 6 12

3 2 5

2 0 2

3 18 21 17

1 9 10 13

0 2 2 10

1 3 4 11

1 2 3 13

1 0 1 5

1 0 1 3

46

30

6

11

14

2

0

63

43

16

22

27

7

3

3

1

2

1

0

0

0

183

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

Alms Parish Preachers Stranger Turkish City Company Company Other houses dinner churches captives bequest gift loans company

0 2 2

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

3 5 8

0 0 0

2 0 2

0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

3 12 15 6

0 0 0 0

0 2 2 2

2

1

0

0

0

0

17

0

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

23

0

4

0 1 1

0 1 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 0

5 13 18

1 1 2

2 1 3

0 1 1 0

1 4 5 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

2 13 15 13

0 0 0 1

0 1 1 4

4

6

0

0

1

0

43

1

4

4

7

0

0

1

0

56

2

8

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

184 Table 2

chapter 5 Charitable bequests 1510–c. 1600 (cont.)

livery (30) total (34) 1553–58 aldermen (4) livery (20) total (24) 1547–58 aldermen (8) 1547–58 livery (50) 1547–58 total (58) 1559–69 aldermen (6) livery (33) total (39) 1570–79 aldermen (4) livery (37) total (41) 1580–89 aldermen (9) livery (28) total (37) 1590–1600 aldermen (5) livery (56) total (61)

Parish

Prison

Hospitals Highways Maidens Universities Schools

17 20

12 13

16 18

4 5

7 7

2 2

2 2

4 12 16 7

4 5 9 5

3 6 9 5

0 5 5 1

2 3 5 2

0 1 1 0

1 1 2 1

29

17

22

9

10

3

3

36

22

27

10

12

3

4

5 23 28

5 12 17

5 20 25

2 1 3

4 2 6

3 5 8

1 2 3

3 23 26

3 20 23

3 24 27

1 0 1

0 1 1

2 10 12

1 2 3

6 17 23

3 10 13

2 14 16

0 0 0

1 1 2

1 5 6

0 0 0

5 37 42

3 22 25

4 29 33

0 2 2 3

1 2 3

3 4 7

3 1 4

185

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

Alms Parish Preachers Stranger Turkish City Company Company Other houses dinner churches captives bequest gift loans company 3 4

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

12 15

2 2

0 0

1 0 1 2

0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

4 9 13 7

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

3

1

0

0

0

0

21

2

0

5

2

0

0

0

0

28

2

1

1 1 2

0 2 2

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 0

2 0 2

3 18 21

3 2 5

0 0 0

0 2 2

1 4 5

0 0 0

1 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

3 20 23

1 2 3

1 3 4

0 0 0

1 0 1

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

6 13 19

1 0 1

1 2 3

1 1 2

0 5 5

0 5 5

1 1 2

1 0 1

0 0 0

3 26 29

3 4 7

0 3 3

186 Table 2

chapter 5 Charitable bequests 1510–c. 1600 (cont.)

1559–1600 aldermen (24) 1559–1600 livery (154) 1559–1600 total (178) 1510–1600 aldermen (56) 1510–1600 livery (317) 1510–1600 total (373)

Parish

Prison

Hospitals Highways Maidens Universities Schools

19

14

14

3

6

9

5

100

64

87

3

6

24

5

119

78

101

6

12

33

10

43

32

29

15

21

15

9

175

111

115

23

30

31

8

218

143

144

28

51

46

17

the church and those directed towards institutions and individuals beyond. We can see immediately the speed with which state change was implemented and the corresponding compliance of the laity. Examining the data alone it appears that the Reformation was swift: by 1547 traditional religious bequests were all but gone, and institutional charity rose significantly [Table 1: Religious bequests 1510–c. 1600]. When we examine the wills in their totality, however, we see that the experience of religious change was much more nuanced – it is difficult to discern entirely Protestant religious identities until the end of the sixteenth century, particularly as social networks tended to be religiously mixed.

1510–1547: The Intersection of Continuity and Change

From the 1510s we know that the livery companies had Lollards amongst their membership. Susan Brigden has identified a number of them including the ­grocer John Sercot and the drapers Richard Wolman and William Mason.20 Wolman was admitted to the Drapers by redemption in 1509 and is listed as a kytter of Uxbridge. His son, Charles, was admitted by patrimony in 1531.21 20 21

20 Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 87, 106–107. 21 Boyd’s Roll, p. 204.

187

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

Alms Parish Preachers Stranger Turkish City Company Company Other houses dinner churches captives bequest gift loans company 2

1

0

2

1

2

15

8

2

4

11

5

3

0

0

77

8

8

6

12

5

5

1

2

92

16

10

4

3

0

2

1

2

35

9

7

11

19

5

3

1

0

141

9

13

15

22

5

5

2

2

176

18

20

­William Mason was an apprentice bound in 1507.22 None of these Lollards though, ever rose to the ranks of the livery. The majority of Henrician wills from the livery display a continuing commitment to medieval Catholic devotional practices and suggest that those with a mercantile background were as slow to display Protestant ideas as other sectors of society, even if they were amongst the first to encounter them. Nonetheless, whilst most wills were conservative in their expressions of faith they were not homogenous or necessarily doctrinally consistent. From early on we see links with humanism and a consistent need to enact their Christian duty by providing for family, friends, parish and company that saw Catholics and evangelicals remembering each other in their wills. The strength of the corporate bond to the company as displayed in these wills is striking, particularly as merchants, like others, operated in so many other spheres. Scholars have suggested the importance of the parish community to the laity as a locus of charity and piety.23 As table 2 demonstrates, whilst 58% of testators remembered their parish, 47% remembered their c­ ompany, 22 23

22 23

Ibid., p. 123. Kytters made gowns and petticoats, and appear to have been admitted to the Drapers by redemption rather than apprenticeship. For example Katherine L French, Gary Gibbs, Beat Kümin, The Parish in English Life 1400– 1600 (Guildford, 1997); Beat Kümin, The Shaping of a Community: the Rise and Reformation of the English Parish 1400–1560 (Aldershot, 1996).

188

chapter 5

suggestive of the significance also of the livery company to the lives of its members.24 It seems that drapers worked with drapers, were friends with drapers, married their children to drapers and, after their family, remembered drapers above all others.25 Long-held ties of corporate loyalty and a sense of fraternal brotherhood helped the livery companies survive a century of religious turmoil and this loyalty and moderation is reflected in their testamentary provisions. The draper William Game, for example, was totally subsumed in the corporate community. His will of 1525 bequeathed six silver spoons ‘to those six persones of my crafte that shall bringe or bere my body.’ He gave 40s to fellow draper Peter Cave and his wife to pray for his soul, and drapers also made up his executors: alongside his wife Elizabeth and brother William, were Edmund Trendal and William Dolphin. His will was also witnessed by the rector of the Drapers’ church, Sir Rowland Phillips.26 The 1521 will of draper and alderman, John Wilkinson, likewise demonstrates enthusiastic orthodox piety alongside a strong inculcation in c­ orporate brotherly love. After bequeathing his soul in the traditional manner, he requested to be buried in the trinity chapel of St Mary Abchurch before the image of John the Evangelist. He requested a chantry priest sing for his soul for fifteen years and left £100 to the Drapers for a perpetual obit. He asked that the Drapers’ chaplains and bedesmen pray for him as well as the observant friars at Greenwich. He gave £10 to St Mary Aldermary towards ‘the new glasing with the storye of the roote of jessy of a windowe at the est ende on the south syde of our lady chappell.’ And his charitable bequests were likewise conventional: London’s hospitals, highways and poor maidens were remembered, as were his aldermanic brethren. He left gowns to the mayor Sir John Brugge, and Sir Laurence Aylmer, both drapers, and to the grocer Nicholas Partridge. Drapers also served as his overseers in the form of John Milborne, William Brothers and Gilbert Gentyll. Milborne and Brothers both wrote wills that were ostentatiously Catholic, although Brothers’ will of 1547 used what is regarded as the Protestant preamble commending his soul to ‘almighty god my only redemer and saviour in whom and by the merites of whose blessed passion is all my 24 25 26

24 25

26

Table 2: Charitable bequests 1510–c. 1600. Justin Colson, ‘Commerce, Clusters and Community: a re-evaluation of the occupation geography of London c. 1450–c. 1550,’ EcHR 69 (2016), pp. 104–130. C ­ olson’s prosopographical study illuminates that for companies like the Mercers, Grocers and Drapers they lived in many different parishes across the city which, combined with occupational specialization, led to a disconnect between occupation and corporate identity. This chapter shows that, despite this, ties of friendship, kinship and civic service, knit members of individual companies together. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/21, fos. 315v–316v (William Game).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

189

hole trust of clere remission and forgyvenes of all my synnes.’27 As seems to have been the custom, Wilkinson’s daughter Johanne married a draper, John Branch, ensuring that for Wilkinson, as for countless other merchants, family and company were tightly bound together.28 But from the late 1510s some liverymen hinted at an engagement with humanism alongside a continuing commitment to traditional devotional practices. This is not to suggest that humanism was necessarily at odds with orthodox piety but rather to demonstrate that some merchants, or their close friends and relatives, were actively engaged with intellectual religious development. One such example is the grocer Rauf Wetton. In 1517 he bequeathed his crucifix to the convent of Sheen and ‘my relike of the holy crosse set in gold’ to the churchwardens of St Stephen’s Walbrook so that ‘my soule to be the more spcially remembered amongest the parisshenes there.’ He bequeathed to his sister Margery and her husband, fellow grocer Nicholas Partridge, his ‘cloth of Saint John Baptist with silke and nedleworke velevett with golden lces and fringed with silke.’ Wetton was not an especially prominent member of the Grocers; he joined the livery by 1511 but achieved no higher office. Nonetheless, he moved in an influential pious circle; amongst his executors were Henry Edyall, the former archdeacon of Rochester and master of the College of Arundel, and the physician and humanist Thomas Linacre.29 Wetton bequeathed a diamond ring to Edyall in exchange for prayers for his soul.30 Sir Henry Keble, lord mayor, merchant of the staple, and four times master of the Grocers, provides a neat example of a devout Catholic associated with humanism.31 Keble is best remembered for his bequest of £1000 towards the new building of St Mary Aldermary. Consequently, the Grocers’ Company historian stated that ‘the events connected with the life of this worthy and charitable citizen are of so little interest, that they are not worth recording, and I should not have inserted his name in this place, did not his munificence and generosity entitle him to rank among the eminent members of the ­Grocers’ Company.’32 His will displays a slew of traditional religious and charitable bequests. Many merchants remembered their home parishes and so he left vestments and books to Holy Trinity and St Michael’s in Coventry, in which he established an obit, and a second obit in Warwick. There are bequests to a host 27 28 29 30 31 32

27 Prob. 11/31, fos. 234v–235r (William Brothers); Prob. 11/25, fos. 264v–266r (John Milborne). 28 Prob. 11/20, fos. 109v–111r (John Wilkinson). 29 Vivian Nutton, ‘Thomas Linacre (c. 1460–1524),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 30 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/18, fos. 260v–262r (Rauf Wetton). 31 Prob. 11/18, fos. 232r–234v (Henry Keble). 32 Heath, Grocers, p. 210.

190

chapter 5

of other rural parishes that it can be presumed he had trading links with, as they were accompanied by bequests of shears to poor husbandmen. William Ingram, a monk at Canterbury, was exhorted to pray for his soul, whilst he also requested that a trental be said by each of the five orders of friars of ­London and also by the Grey and White friars of Coventry for twenty years. Keble, however, did not trade as a grocer and instead left a jewel to the chapel of the Staple at Calais. The Staple was long associated with heresy and ­perhaps his continental ­trading explains his links with humanism.33 According to custom he appointed close relatives as executors in the form of his daughter and sonin-law, William Blount, Lord Mountjoy and Alice, Lady Mountjoy. We know that Blount was tutored by, and lived with, Erasmus in Paris. Blount’s links to Erasmus brought him into contact with other humanist scholars such as Thomas More and John Colet.34 Blount’s links with Colet might also explain why Colet served as overseer for Keble. Other overseers were Sir Henry Wyatt, a courtier who bought up former monastic lands to establish a chantry; William Butler, alderman and eight time master of the Grocers, and John Baker, labelled ‘Butcher Baker’ by John Foxe for his enthusiastic intervention in Marian heresy proceedings. Baker, however, was able to serve as Speaker of the House of Commons under successive Tudor monarchs and was said to have possessed ‘a remarkable ability to work with those of opposing viewpoints.’35 There are also indications that merchant adventurers and those engaged in (or linked to) overseas trade were the earliest supporters of the Protestant faith as they encountered such ideas on the continent. The will of grocer Robert Basford, composed in 1525 and proved in 1528, is the earliest example from the sample that can be identified as that of a merchant adventurer from his bequest of £5 to the company.36 In many senses his will is a straightforward example of a moderately wealthy early modern Catholic. He bequeathed his soul to God, Mary and the saints in heaven and ensured he paid for tithes ‘negligently witholden.’ He requested a trental of Masses in each of London’s conventual churches and asked the poor householders of his parish, All ­Hallows Honey Lane, to pray for his soul. He gave 6s 8d to Sir Robert Fleming ‘my ghostly father’ 33 34 35 36

33

The Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple, ed. E E Rich (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 46–47. 34 James P Carley, ‘William Blount, fourth Baron Mountjoy (c. 1478–1534),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; Alec Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry viii: Evangelicals and the Early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003), p. 211. 35 Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 2, p. 22; J D Alsop, ‘Sir John Baker (c. 1489–1558),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; vch Kent, vol. 2, pp. 221–222. 36 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/22, fos. 327r–328r (Robert Basford).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

191

to pray for his soul, and asked for bread and drink to be distributed amongst the poor prisoners of London. He did not establish a chantry or obit, but perhaps he lacked the funds rather than the piety. Alongside his wife ­Katherine and brother Edward, fellow grocer William Laxton was appointed executor. Laxton has been labelled a ‘pious Catholic’ partly because he is thought to have been amongst the last (in 1556) to appoint bedesmen to pray for his soul.37 However, Laxton’s name features in the wills of a number of grocers who seem to display evangelical leanings or links to known evangelicals. For example, Basford’s will was witnessed by the evangelical rector of his parish, Dr Robert Forman, and was written by the scrivener William Carkke, who was identified as one of the so-called ‘brethren’ in the 1520s.38 This demonstrates that evangelical scriveners and clergy were happy to write and witness wills that might not have fully correlated with their own views. Given that Basford wrote his will three years before his death, he clearly wanted Forman and Carkke’s involvement. What is less clear is if Basford was purely motivated by parish loyalty, or indeed convenience, or if we are seeing here the intermingling of traditional and evangelical religious identities in the earliest stages of religious change. Likewise, in 1522 the grocer John Rest requested to be buried at Crossed Friars, with a perpetual chantry and obit, and five trentals. He also gave 40s to ‘Sir Thomas Forman preest to pray for my soul.’39 Of course in 1522 not even Luther would have objected to prayers for the soul, but the bequest is indicative of the intermingling of Catholics and evangelicals in the 1520s and 30s. But overseas trade was not a guarantee of engagement with evangelical ideas and the companies remained dominated by those of traditional faith. The grocer, alderman and former lord mayor William Butler produced a will in 1528 (proved in 1534) suggestive of traditional faith, although familial links demonstrated that he was just one generation away from Protestantism.40 He bequeathed 20s each to the friaries and convents of London to pray for his soul ‘as a brother of theirs,’ and requested three trentals and that a daily and weekly Mass be said for him at St Nicholas of Acon for three years. He established a seven year obit with the Grocers and requested lights at his funeral like those 37 38 39 40

37

J D Alsop, ‘Sir William Laxton (d. 1556),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; David Hickman also categorizes Laxton as a Catholic based upon the religious bequests in his will, Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 127. 38 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 279; Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry viii, pp. 242–243. 39 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/21, fos. 17r–17v (John Rest); contemporaries and scholars alike frequently refer to Dr Forman, the rector of All Hallows Honey Lane, interchangeably as Robert or Thomas. He was presented as ‘Thomas.’ 40 Prob. 11/25, fo. 62 (William Butler).

192

chapter 5

at the funeral of Sir James Yarford, mercer. A further chantry was established in the parish church of Biddenham in Bedfordshire, among other traditional religious bequests. Butler was also a stapler, however, and although he was not moved by reform in Calais he was linked to those who were. As executors, Butler appointed his son William, and son-in-law John Fayrey. The Fayreys had ties of trade and friendship to the evangelical Johnson Company.41 For those engaged in trade with areas less touched by the Reformation, it was easier for their social network to be homogenous. For example, the draper Thomas Howell traded with Spain and spent at least twenty years living for part of the year in Seville, with the final seven years of his life lived almost exclusively in Spain. He began his will of 1536 by declaring that God had blessed him with a strong belief in ‘the holy trynitie and also in the holie articles of the faith catholik.’ He thus bequeathed his soul in the traditional manner to ‘amightie god and to our blessed lady and to all the holie company of heaven.’ Given that he asked for an astonishing 30,000 Masses to be said for his soul in the churches and monasteries of Seville, we can be assured that he was unmoved by religious change. His distribution of charity was equally ostentatious – he left 12000 gold ducats to the Drapers, 4000 of which was to be used to buy property that would fund marriage dowries for poor maidens ‘next of my kynne and of bludde.’ 2000 ducats were to be distributed amongst the poor of Bristol and London, and his relatives and friends benefitted financially too. His niece Katherine was to receive 1000 ducats on the condition that she did not marry his servant Thomas Onell; Howell’s former master, William Roche ‘that brought me upp,’ was to receive 400 ducats and his servants were given 20 ducats each on the condition that they prayed for his soul, ‘mourne for me and were blacke.’42 Howell is exceptional in the size of his bequests, but he was by no means the only overseas trader who remained solidly Catholic. Howell also traded with the draper and merchant adventurer, William Bowyer who, in his capacity as mp for the city of London, had opposed the passage of the Statute in Restraint of Appeals in 1533, which forbade appeals to the Pope for any matter – religious or not.43 Bowyer’s will of 1544 is likewise revealing; amongst his numerous religious bequests he asked the Drapers to keep a perpetual obit ‘as they doo for Master Wilkinson late Alderman.’ His friends were similarly conservative and included fellow mps Clement Smythe and Robert Broke.44 41 42 43 44

41 42 43 44

Barbara Winchester, ‘The Johnson Letters 1542–1552,’ 4 vols. (University of London PhD, 1952), vol. 1, p. 359. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 192v–193v (Thomas Howell). dh, Howell’s Ledger, fo. 16r; Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 103. Prob. 11/30, fos. 87r–89v (William Bowyer).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

193

Nor did literacy and increased access to books mean that merchants who traded overseas were compelled to buy Lutheran texts. In 1538 the grocer Thomas Crull left his ‘matyns boke writt in vellem and lynyd with gold and pictures accustomed to lye upon my counter borde’ to his godson John Ticheborne, son of grocer and merchant of the staple, Nicholas. And to Thomas Chamberlayn he left ‘my twoo ffrenche bokes of the lif of King Arthur imprnted in paper and covered in bored and redd lether.’ For his troubles his executor Robert Draper received a chalice and a ‘prymar booke with davides psalter therin.’45 Whilst historians have quibbled over the extent to which preambles are representative of testators’ beliefs, the 1530 will of the JP William Tracy, which entrusted his salvation to the merits of Christ alone, was taken by Convocation to be a clear expression of heretical Lutheran beliefs. Tracy’s fate was to be exhumed, posthumously condemned as a heretic, and burnt at the stake in 1532. Tracy’s will was circulating in London from 1531 and printed in Antwerp in 1535, and whilst his gutsy statement of faith might have been much-admired by the godly of early sixteenth-century England, it was not much imitated amongst this sample of mercantile wills.46 In fact, some of the more committed evangelicals in the 1530s and 40s produced the most mundane wills which rarely named individuals they were linked to – of any religious disposition. The grocer John Petyt did just that.47 His will of 1533 bequeathed his soul simply to God alone and made no religious bequests; he left his estate to his wife Lucy, who also served as executor. If we knew nothing more about Petyt this would serve as a pedestrian example of a very brief will. Even his biographer has sought to explain away the brevity of his will and reassure us that he was, in the words of John Louth, archdeacon of Nottingham, ‘an aunciente protestante.’48 Louth was particularly keen to account for the lack of charitable bequests by Petyt. We are told that Petyt had been wealthy largely as a result of fortuitous marriages, first to an (unnamed) wealthy widow and secondly to Lucy, daughter of John Watts who served as grocer to Henry viii. Louth recounts that Petyt was left with so little money to distribute because he ‘lente unto Chryste’ much money during his life to support the true church. He was also left impoverished when Thomas More forced Petyt to pay the debt of a man to whom he was bound as surety. Apparently More, ‘of popyshe charyte, wold neades lett the pryncypall go.’49 Although this is doubtless an apologetic account of Petyt, we 45 46 47 48 49

45 46 47 48 49

Prob. 11/28, fos. 65r–66r (Thomas Crull). John Craig and Caroline Litzenberger, ‘Wills as Religious Propaganda: The Testament of William Tracy,’ jeh 44 (1993), pp. 415–431. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/24, fos. 167v–168r (John Petyt). Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 25–28. Ibid., p. 28.

194

chapter 5

know from other sources that he supported anti-clerical legislation whilst serving as an mp for the city of London in the Reformation Parliament, and that he also supported the likes of Robert Barnes, Robert Forman and Edward Crome, suggesting that Petyt was very definitely part of an evangelical network even if his will does not suggest this.50 In the same year (1533) we can find individuals whose preambles and bequests are entirely Catholic whilst they were linked to those who were evangelical. The draper Thomas Richardson bequeathed his soul to God, the Virgin and the ‘celestiall company of hevin’ and requested that his son Henry, a monk at Dereham monastery, pray for ‘my soule, the soules of my wife his mother, his brethren and sistren and all Christian soules.’51 Although Richardson made no religious bequests beyond those stated, it reflects his level of wealth. He had served as clerk to the Drapers and retired from his post in 1531 to join the ­livery.52 In his role as clerk he would have received an annual wage of 50s, a small sum when compared to the wealth of elite drapers.53 Company clerks and beadles were often elected to the livery in an honorary capacity in recognition of their service, rather than because of their wealth or social status. ­Richardson also tells us that his son-in-law and fellow draper, John Parnell, owed him £220 which doubtless accounts for a lack of further bequests. He left his worldly goods to his wife Catherine and appointed Humfrey Monmouth as his sole overseer. Richardson must have been aware of Monmouth’s association with evangelicals and previous trouble with the authorities, but still felt able to entrust the administration of his estate to him. It seems that whilst Richardson displayed nothing other than traditional piety, he was no more than once removed from a circle of evangelicals. At some point between 1533 and 1536 Richardson’s son-in-law, John ­Parnell, married Lucy the widow of John Petyt.54 In 1526 Parnell, along with Petyt, had pleaded with Cromwell for the release of the evangelical preacher R ­ obert Barnes.55 Parnell’s eldest son, Thomas, was Barnes’ ‘scholar,’ whilst his apprentice was an early convert and one of those who ‘bare fagotis at Powles’ 50 51 52 53 54 55

50 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 184. 51 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/25 fos. 124r–v (Thomas Richardson). 52 dh, Rep. 7(ii), p. 399. 53 dh, ra, 1527–8, fo. 6r. 54 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fo. 103r–v (John Parnell). 55 Susan Brigden, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the “brethren,”’ in Claire Cross, David Loades and J J Scarisbrick (eds), Law and Government Under the Tudors (Cambridge, 1988) pp. 31–50, at p. 44.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

195

in November 1531.56 These friendships were reflected in Parnell’s will of 1536, although he studiously avoided making bequests of a suspect nature. He bequeathed his soul in the traditional manner but made none of the standard religious bequests of a late medieval Catholic beyond that of a torch to the parish church of Islington. Instead, he focussed on the distribution of his estate to his wife, and her three children by John Petyt. His eldest son, Thomas, served as executor and Robert Barnes as overseer. Whilst Parnell’s will situates him amongst evangelicals only, it seems that many evangelicals of the 1530s and 40s had not fully extricated themselves from medieval religious practices, or from those who held dear to them. In fact, they too often retained certain traditional elements in their wills. Although we might think of evangelicals as proto-protestants, many were essentially ‘late medieval Catholics, albeit ones who had become deeply unhappy with important aspects of medieval Catholic theology and devotion.’57 Humfrey Monmouth, alderman and draper, is known to us for the strength of anti-popery displayed in his will and for harbouring William Tyndale, for which he was imprisoned in the Tower in 1528.58 His petition to Wolsey seeking release is particularly revealing of his religious history.59 Doubtless motivated in part by pragmatism, Monmouth emphasised his history as a pious Catholic, stating that he went on pilgrimage to Rome and Jerusalem and received pardons from the Pope. Monmouth also pleaded for his release as his trade had suffered in line with his declining reputation, although it must have quickly recovered as he had the wealth to serve as alderman for Tower Ward from 1534–7 and as master of the Drapers in 1536–7.60 Unusually, in the same year (1528), he was appointed sheriff by the mercer lord mayor John Allen.61 Monmouth’s views were clearly not repugnant enough to impede his ascent through civic office. Monmouth has been identified by David Hickman as the only evangelical to serve on the Court of Aldermen in the 1530s, and consequently much has been made of his will.62 Susan Wabuda stated that Monmouth’s will was circulated and his provisions imitated to the extent that he ‘started an ­important 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

56 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 122; idem, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the “brethren,”’ p. 44; Two London Chronicles, p. 5. 57 Peter Marshall, Religious Identities in Henry viii’s England (Aldershot, 2006), p. 4. 58 David Daniell, William Tyndale: a Biography (New Haven, 1994), pp. 102–107. 59 L&P, iv, ii, p. 1883. 60 Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 2, p. 28. 61 Ibid. 62 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 51.

196

chapter 5

trend, and it was something of a hybrid, an acknowledgement that the departed should be honoured soon after death, but that salvation was dependent upon faith.’63 From the sample of wills written before the accession of Elizabeth, however, Monmouth’s is the only one which is avowedly anti-Papal and shuns many, but by no means all, traditional Catholic rituals. Monmouth adopted what became the standard Protestant preamble in bequeathing his soul to Jesus ‘my maker and redemar in whome and by the merites of whose blessed passion is all my hole truste of ther remission and forgivenes of my synnes.’ At his burial he still requested staff torches but no additional lights. A trental of Masses was replaced, effectively, by a trental of sermons delivered by evangelicals such as Edward Crome, rector of St Mary Aldermary, Robert Barnes or Rowland Taylor. He requested a sermon at his months mind, a limited number of mourners and only a peal of bells to the sermon, but nevertheless requested the maintenance of these traditions. Again in line with tradition he gave gowns to his servants, but stipulated that they were not to be black. In fact, Monmouth’s will reads like that of an ardently loyal Henrician. He asked that the sermons praise God but were also to ensure the ‘setting forth of my prynces goddly and hevinly purpose to the utter abolishing and exturcting of the usurpes and false feynes power of the bisshop of Rome.’ Monmouth underlined this further by again praising God and hoping for the preservation of the king and the furtherance of his ‘Godly and gracious purpose, Amen.’ In 1536 Archbishop Cranmer used even stronger words when he preached that the Pope was the Antichrist, so Monmouth was not the most extreme in his utterances.64 Perhaps Monmouth’s loyalty to Henry viii was genuine, but it might also have been motivated by a desire to ensure the safe passage of his estate. Furthermore, he entrusted the care of his children to his mother and father-in-law Elizabeth and William Denham, ironmonger and alderman of London, whose own will revealed only traditional religious elements.65 Consequently, Monmouth’s executors were a mixed bag in terms of religion – he appointed his wife Margery, father-in-law Denham, and as overseer the preacher Robert Barnes, to whom he left £5. Perhaps this was his way of both adhering to custom by appointing close relatives as executors, and displaying his piety through the appointment of Barnes and by requesting that William Carkke write his will.66 63 64 65 66

63 64

65 66

Susan Wabuda, Preaching During the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002), p. 58. Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘Archbishop Cranmer: Concord and Tolerance in a Changing Church,’ in Ole Peter Grell and Robert Scribner (eds), Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 199–215, at p. 203. Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 91. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fos. 98r–99v (Humfrey Monmouth).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

197

The scrivener William Carkke was certainly evangelical – he was in trouble during the 1530s for importing Tyndale’s works and in 1543, when the preacher Edward Crome was imprisoned, Carkke was one of those who stood surety for him.67 His name appears on five Henrician wills written between 1528 and 1545, three of them drapers and two grocers. They were all buried in different parishes and their names do not feature in each other’s wills suggesting that these tiny evangelical hubs were barely-organised networks.68 Whilst all five wills feature the Protestant preamble characteristic of Carkke, the wills were not overwhelmingly suggestive of evangelicalism either. In 1536 the draper Geoffrey Vaughan commended his soul using the Carkke preamble to ‘allmighty Jesu my maker and redemer in whome and by the merites of whoes blessed passion is all my whole trust of clere remission and forgevenes of my synnes.’ He wanted a lavish funeral leaving £80 to cover his expenses and asked for a priest to sing for his soul for three years.69 Such bequests even led David Hickman to categorise Vaughan as a Catholic.70 The draper Robert Laurence provides a clearer example of an individual with strong godly links, although given the small numbers of evangelicals he had to look outside of his company to forge these friendships. His will of 1545 bequeathed his soul to God hoping to be saved by the merits of his passion.71 There were no specific religious bequests beyond a request for a sermon at his burial, although by 1545 so many of the usual recipients of religious bequests no longer existed. His will was witnessed by Carkke and Robert Cosyn, the vicar of his parish, St Lawrence Jewry. As overseer he appointed fellow parishioner and ‘trusty friende’ Robert Meredith, mercer. Meredith was related by marriage to the Locke family and his own will of 1546 places him within a network of godly mercers and future Marian exiles such as Thomas Locke, Anthony Hickman and Richard Springham, whilst also exhorting them to pray for his soul.72 67 68 69 70 71 72

67 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 349; idem, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the “brethren,”’ p. 35n. 68 Carkke is listed as the scrivener on the following grocers’ wills: tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fos. 92v–93r (Edward Murrell, 1537); Prob. 11/22, fos. 327r–328r (Robert Basford, 1528); and drapers: Prob. 11/25, fos. 247v–248r (Geoffrey Vaughan); Prob. 11/27, fos. 98r–99v (Humfrey Monmouth); Prob. 11/30, fos. 250v–251r (Robert Laurence). 69 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/25, fos. 247v–248r (Geoffrey Vaughan). 70 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 86. 71 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/30, fos. 250v–251r (Robert Laurence). 72 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 126. Meredith married Jane, a daughter of William Locke, and from another marriage Meredith’s widow married William Locke. John Goodwin Locke, Book of the Lockes: A Genealogical and Historical Record of William Locke of Woburn (Boston, 1853), p. 358.

198

chapter 5

Evangelical networks certainly existed but they were often small and do not appear organised either in practical or doctrinal terms; and as we have seen, some displayed a continuing attachment to prayers for the dead. Likewise, the grocer Roger Smythe’s will of 1539 was overseen by the mercer evangelicals William Locke and John Wilkinson. His will began conventionally enough by bequeathing his soul in the traditional manner, requesting to be buried near his pew door at St Mary Woolchurch and leaving 20d for unpaid tithes. He made no other specific religious bequests, but did request that the third part of his estate be used for ‘deades of charitie for my soule and all Christian souls.’ His only specific bequest was to ‘Sir Robert [Thomas] Garrett preest in recompence partely of his paynes taken with me in my sickenes, my tawnye satten doblett.’73 Garrett was the evangelical rector of All Hallows Honey Lane under the patronage of the Grocers. Susan Brigden has argued that whilst many were unconvinced by evangelical ideas in the 1530s, by contrast the 1540s was characterised by the ‘conversion of some, and the confusion of many.’74 The draper Ralph Bilby was indicted under the Six Articles in 1540 for denying the true presence of Christ in the sacrament, which makes him one of the earliest amongst the sample that we can be sure was engaged with specifically Reformed theology.75 Bilby earned his freedom of the company in 1533 and served as warden in 1543 suggesting that he was a member of the livery when he was indicted.76 Bilby lived in the parish of St Andrew Hubbard, known for its godly rector Thomas Grene who served from 1537–1545. Clive Burgess, in a study of wills from that parish, uncovered what he believes to be the influence of Grene on a number of testaments and cites Bilby’s will of 1544 as an example of the ‘pithy and Protestant.’77 Many of Grene’s wills featured a Protestant preamble which bequeathed the soul to God and emphasised ‘redemption through his moste holie preciouse bloode.’ Bilby, and Grene by association, also demonstrated that to be evangelical was not to forsake all elements of the faith that they had inherited. Bilby left a ‘bellow of clothe of golde and redde velvett’ to the high altar and in appointing his wife executor he asked her to ‘do for mee as godly love bynde her to the wealthe of my soule and the honour of God.’ Bilby named only his wife, Elizabeth, 73 74 75 76 77

73 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fo. 205v (Roger Smythe). 74 Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 383. 75 Foxe, tamo (1570 Edition), p. 1377 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 76 Boyd’s Roll, p. 18. 77 Clive Burgess, ‘London Parishioners in Times of Change: St Andrew Hubbard, Eastcheap c. 1450–1570,’ jeh 53 (2002), pp. 38–63, at p. 43.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

199

as executor and his will was witnessed by Grene and Thomas White – perhaps a parishioner, or servant of Bilby’s. It is thus very difficult to discern clear, uncomplicated networks that can be identified by religious allegiance alone, and where they did exist links to those of other beliefs or elements of medieval piety often remained intact. In 1539 the grocer William Pratt composed a will in which his first request was for fiftytwo sermons by Edward Crome and Thomas Garrett which were to be said in his parish of All Hallows Honey Lane, immediately setting out his evangelical credentials.78 He bequeathed a dozen silver spoons with ‘deadmenes heddes uppon them’ to each of his brothers – John, Edmund and Richard Askew (all drapers), and the same to the mercer Stephen Vaughan, who he also referred to as his brother.79 It appears that Pratt worked for Vaughan and although Vaughan stated that he was ‘neither Lutheran nor Tyndalian,’ we know he supported preachers such as Robert Barnes, and that his daughter Anne was avowedly godly and married into the Locke family.80 Pratt also stipulated that no more than £20 was to be spent on his funeral in line with a general trend seen amongst many requesting a modest funeral.81 Mourning gowns were to be given only to his wife, mother and children, and also William Laxton and his wife. Laxton was appointed overseer for which he received a gold death’s head ring. The close involvement of Laxton is again interesting because of the traditional Catholic piety demonstrated in his own will of 1556, but in the 1530s he was linked to other grocers who displayed clear evangelical traits. Perhaps he too engaged with these ideas and later reconciled with Catholicism or equally this may be a display of corporate loyalty by Pratt in entrusting his estate to a senior company member.82 Laxton was appointed alderman in 1536 and had served as master of the Grocers in 1538–9; he was therefore a man of good repute who could be trusted to implement Pratt’s demands. Witnesses to the will were Laxton, Thomas Garrett, and Pratt’s half brother Edmund Askew. John 78 79 80 81 82

78 79 80

81

82

tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fo. 227r–v (William Pratt). Boyd’s Roll, p. 7. Ian Blanchard, ‘Stephen Vaughan (b.c. 1502, d. 1549),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; Marshall, Religious Identities, pp. 65–66; Patrick Collinson ‘Anne Locke nee Vaughan (c. 1530– 1590 × 1607)’ odnb [accessed 1 Nov 2016]. Vanessa Harding, The Dead and the Living in Paris and London 1500–1670 (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 225–227; Peter Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2004); for a discussion of continuity in burial practices in Germany see Robert Scribner, ‘The Impact of the Reformation on Daily Life,’ in Lyndal Roper (ed.), Religion and Culture in Germany 1400–1800 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 275–301. Alec Ryrie, ‘Paths Not Taken in the British Reformations,’ hj 52 (2009), pp. 1–22.

200

chapter 5

Askew’s will of 1544 utilised a traditional preamble but made no religious bequests and limited charity.83 The wills of Edmund and Richard Askew, both of 1552, demonstrate links with other moderate Protestant merchants such as the grocer Thomas Lodge and the draper John Sadler.84

1547–1553: Continuity and Change

The reigns of Edward vi and Mary i represent the peak of religious flux during the sixteenth century, yet despite the evangelical impulses seen in a growing number of Henrician wills we do not see a massive outpouring of enthusiasm at the accession of Edward. In fact, we see solidly Catholic identities and networks reflected in wills as much as we see emerging Protestant identities. For the majority, however, wills are indicative of what Alexandra Walsham has termed the ‘amicable confusion’ of the mid sixteenth century – this explains why ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ were able to co-exist in testamentary provisions precisely because such binary divisions were not yet in place and thus the ‘preconditions of persecution’ were yet to develop. Walsham concludes that ‘this was not “tolerance” so much as an inertia born of a combination of bewilderment and resignation in the face of an era of change.’85 As evangelicals had often inadvertently expressed their identity through their silence under Henry viii, under Edward vi we see bewildered Catholics following suit and producing uncontroversial and doctrinally indistinct wills. The apothecary Thomas Asshe is one such example who provides us with a small but influential network which connected both trade and Catholicism. Free of the Grocers and a member of the livery from 1540, our only other information on Asshe is that in 1539 he was listed as apothecary to Margaret Pole, countess of Salisbury, providing, amongst other things, a supply of treacle for her monkey.86 As an apothecary he had links with physicians and presumably worked for them, as it was them that he remembered in his will of 1549. His will is short and largely unremarkable, aside from his bequest of hoops of gold to the physicians John Clement and John Freer and to the printer turned lawyer William Rastell.87 John Clement, a physician patronised by Thomas More, sought exile in Louvain at the accession of Edward vi. Clement’s wife 83 84 85 86 87

83 84 85 86 87

tna, pcc, Prob. 11/30, fos. 267v–268r (John Askew). Prob. 11/35, fo. 8r–v (Edmund Askew); Prob. 11/34, fos. 239v–240v (Richard Askew). Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500–1700 (Manchester, 2006), pp. 269–270. tna, sp 1/142, fo. 193; gl, ms 11571/5, fo. 138v. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/32, fo. 256r–v (Thomas Asshe, 1549).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

201

Margaret – the adoptive daughter of More – was similarly devout in her ­Catholicism.88 It seems fair to suggest that Asshe was Clement’s servant and they lived and worked in close quarters. From 1525 Clement lived at ­Thomas More’s residence in London – the Barge – and Asshe rented a tenement linked to the property.89 These were thus very close links of trade and religion. ­William Rastell also spent Edward’s reign in exile in Louvain: Thomas More was his uncle, and his wife, Winifred, was the daughter of John Clement and thus Thomas More’s granddaughter; whilst his relative Ursula married John Freer.90 This network, however, was not untouched by change. Of course, Thomas More is famous for his humanism but John Freer was known to have engaged with L­ utheran ideas in his youth at Cambridge, he reconciled with Catholicism but did not seek exile during Edward’s reign and was able to serve as president of the College of Physicians in 1549 and 1550.91 Mercantile intermarriage helped, on occasion, to perpetuate trading companies by blurring the boundary between commerce and family. We also know that marriage could be used as a way of binding together religious minorities; as we have seen evangelical networks were often defined by ties of marriage and remarriage within a close circle. But we also find examples of an increasing disconnect between the religion of parents and their offspring; the grocer Richard Fermor was one such individual. Either because of a sense of loyalty or genuine opposition to doctrinal change, Fermor was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1540 for misprison of treason having supposedly supported his chaplain, Nicholas Thayne, who maintained the supremacy of the Pope. ­Fermor was subsequently released in 1541 and pardoned the following year, but his will of 1551 is understandably reticent.92 As an alderman we would expect such a will to be filled with religious and charitable bequests in line with his wealth but he made none. His will featured an assertively Catholic preamble: ‘I bequeathe my sole unto Almightie God, my maker and my redemer, and to our blessed Ladye Saynt Mary the virgyn mother of Christ, and to all the company in heaven, beseching them to be mediatores and intercessors unto Almightie God for the salvation of my synfull soule.’ Nonetheless, he gave no institutional charity and made no reference to his company or aldermanic brethren.93 88 89 90 91 92 93

88 Patrick Wallis, ‘John Clement (d. 1 572),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 89 Ibid.; Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem for the City of London, ed. G S Fry, 3 vols. (London, 1896), vol. 1, pp. 149–165. 90 J H Baker, ‘William Rastall (1508–1565),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 91 F V White, ‘John Freer (1498/9–1563),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 92 Basil Morgan, ‘Richard Fermor (1480 × 84–1551),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 93 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/35 fos. 19r–20r (Richard Fermor).

202

chapter 5

Fermor’s will is demonstrative of the potential pitfalls of examining an individual by their will alone. Fermor paints a picture of a Catholic man whose family shared in his faith – his was a Catholic network untainted by religious change. In actuality, Fermor quietly excluded his Protestant children. His ­Catholic children and their children were provided for. His daughter Joan, for example, had been a lady in waiting to Princess Mary and married John Mordaunt, the second Baron Mordaunt, who was imprisoned in 1561 for attending Mass.94 We also know that Fermor’s sons, Richard and John, retained their Catholic faith throughout their lives.95 However, Fermor had other children who do not feature in his will. His daughter Ann died in 1550 but had been married to Sir William Lucy and had a son, Thomas, who was tutored by John Foxe.96 Whilst his other grandchildren were provided for, there was nothing for Thomas. Likewise, in 1556 his daughter Mary, also not mentioned in his will, married the Protestant Sir Richard Knightley.97 Whilst Fermor could not reconcile himself with the religious diversity of his family, he had little choice but to serve alongside his Protestant counterparts on the Grocers’ court of assistants. One such Protestant was William Mery, whose Wycliffite Bible survives to this day. Inside the Bible is written a brief family history by his descendant, Robert Bowyer. Bowyer records that Mery gave his Bible, annotated by John Bale, to his niece Joanne at her marriage to the grocer, Thomas Bowyer.98 This provides clear evidence of links with Lollardy and evangelicalism. Mery’s will of 1547 is the first Edwardian will of the sample and suggests enthusiastic conversion to religious change. Mery’s will is also unusual in that it is the first of the sample to bequeath the soul to the trinity alone. Caroline Litzenberger has suggested that such preambles should be regarded as ‘the most traditional of all the ambiguous preamble categories’; however, from this sample of 373 wills, seventeen bequeathed their souls to the trinity and all are clearly Protestant both in tenor and in most network connections.99 Fifteen of those wills were composed by grocers between 1547 and 1598 and across different parishes.100 Despite these small numbers, it ­questions 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

94 Morgan, ‘Richard Fermor,’ odnb. 95 Ibid. 96 Robert Bearman, ‘Sir Thomas Lucy (1532–1600),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 97 William J Sheils, ‘Sir Richard Knightley (1533–1615),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 98 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 315r–317r (William Mery); Mary Dove, The First English Bible: The Text and Context of the Wycliffite Versions (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 41–43, 193. 99 Litzenberger, The English Reformation and the Laity, p. 156. 100 Grocers with trinity soul bequests: tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 315r–317r (William Mery, 1547); Prob. 11/35, fos. 111r–112r (John Blage, 1552); Prob. 11/41, fos. 90r–v (Thomas Bowyer,

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

203

the ambiguity of this preamble formulation given the consistency of the wills. Mery, for example, requested a burial sermon by ‘some well lerned man’ who would both praise God and provide a ‘declaracion and testymonye of my faith towardes the same certenly beleving that at the last day of judgement almightie God of his mercyfull goodnes shall joyne agen my body and soul which shall ever lyve together in everlasting joye and blisse.’ He also wished that funeral ceremonies be moderate and ‘without all curyositie pompe and excesse.’101 Taken in isolation these requests are not strikingly Protestant, but when we consider them alongside bequests, and the individuals to which he was linked, we see someone of Protestant character situated within a similarly Protestant network. His most overtly Protestant religious bequest was for a hundred sermons to be delivered within four years of his death; forty were to be preached in London and sixty in other counties at the discretion of his executors. ­Following the suit of many other wealthy merchants, Mery bequeathed £200 to London’s hospitals and underlined his support of Edward vi by stating that the king had ‘of his most Godly dispotition… erected and instituted an universall Godly order to be had within the Citie of London for the relief, succour and helpe of impotent, sicke and feble persones.’ In a gesture of corporate loyalty he donated £20 to the Grocers for the maintenance of Ratcliffe almshouses and school which had been established by fellow grocer, Nicholas Gibson, in 1536.102 Mery also left £3000 to his wife Johan and, as they had no children, was particularly generous to his extended family, thereby introducing us to a predominantly godly circle. He left £100 to the children of his niece Joanne Bowyer who was married to the grocer Thomas Bowyer and following Bowyer’s death in 1558 married Alexander Nowell, dean of St Paul’s.103 Another niece named Elizabeth, daughter of John Mery, clerk to the spicery of Henry viii, married Thomas Bacon, salter and brother of Sir Nicholas Bacon. Thomas Bacon’s other 101 102 103

1558); Prob. 11/56, fos. 114v–116v (Henry Mylles, 1574); Prob. 11/57, fos. 291r–v (Simon Lundford, 1575); Prob. 11/62, fos. 19r–v (William Haywarde, 1580); Prob. 11/64, fos. 21v–23r (John Lambert, 1580); Prob. 11/62, fo. 406r–v (William Bodnam, 1580); Prob. 11/65, fo. 13r–v (Nicholas Ryvell, 1583); Prob. 11/76, fos. 178r–179r (Thomas Gardener, 1590); Prob. 11/76, fos. 167v– 169r (Robert Winch, 1580); Prob. 11/80, fos. 28r–30r (William Horne, 1591); Prob. 11/97, fos. 382r–v (Thomas Gore, 1597); Prob. 11/97, fos. 192r–194r (Robert Brook, 1598); Prob. 11/96, fos. 145r–v (William Coles, 1600). Drapers with trinity soul bequests: Prob. 11/42A, fos. 55v– 63v (Anthony Cave, 1558); Prob. 11/45, fos. 242r–243r (Arthur Dedicote, 1562). 101 From the 1560s requesting a funeral without pomp was increasingly a characteristic of godly wills, see Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead, p. 164. 102 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/28, fo. 93 (Nicholas Gibson); Strype, Survey, vol. 1, p. 278. 103 Stanford Lehmberg, ‘Alexander Nowell (c. 1516/17–1602),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

204

chapter 5

brother, James, married Anne, daughter of Humfrey Packington and widow of the grocer alderman Edward Jackman – all godly families.104 But William Mery’s sister Elizabeth was married to the draper John Lowen whose will of 1557 suggests a man of more traditional religious sensibilities. Lowen requested prayers for his soul and his draper son-in-law Owen Clome was also a Catholic who strongly rejected Protestant traditions – making clear that he did not want a sermon at his burial.105 Unlike Fermor, Mery did not exclude the Catholic Lowens from his will and forgave his nephew Edmund Lowen a debt of £200. From this will we see that many were linked to those of different religious outlooks and ties of marriage and business generated a sense of loyalty and unity that contributed to the comparatively peaceful transition from Catholic to Protestant in sixteenth-century London. The most zealous, however, wrote wills which appear to demonstrate small but closed circles of evangelicals, such as the 1552 will of the grocer John Blage. Blage was a ‘leading evangelical’ who worked for Archbishop Cranmer and was amongst those arrested in July 1540 under the Six Articles, charged with possessing a copy of Melanchthon’s Epistle.106 Nonetheless, in the same year he joined the livery of the Grocers, although he attained no higher company or civic office. His will confirms his Protestant identity: he requested ‘certeyn singingmen to attende upon my bodye to the churche whiche shall singe suche godly psalmes for me as accustomed for the deade.’107 At his burial or on the following morning he asked for Bishop Hooper ‘or some other godly preacher’ to give a sermon, and a series of sermons thereafter. Blage is known for his work as a printer and most notably for his apprentice Richard Grafton.108 Blage left his ‘Bible of Matthew’s translation’ to his friend and grocer Robert Kyndersley. Kyndersley was also named as one of his overseers alongside the scrivener Thomas Pierson. Blage also remembered his son-in-law Richard Goodryck – described by Hugh Latimer as a ‘godly man of law’ – with a gold ring ‘for a token of remembrance.’ This is particularly significant as Goodryck was said to have divorced Blage’s daughter Mary in 1551 and married again in 1552 to Dorothy – the widow of the Protestant courtier Sir George Blage, possibly the brother of John.109 104 105 106 107 108 109

104 Visitation of London 1568, p. 112. 105 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/42, fos. 357v–358v (John Lowen); Prob. 11/47, fos. 55r–56v (Owen Clome). 106 Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 102, 306, 412; Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry viii, pp. 41, 114, 204, 244–245. 107 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/35, fos. 111r–112r (John Blage). 108 Meraud Grant Ferguson ‘Richard Grafton (1506/7–1573),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 109 P R N Carter, ‘Richard Goodrich (1508–1562),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016].

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

205

Blage is unusual in displaying Protestant links alone, although as we have seen from Richard Fermor’s will such an impression can be misleading. It nonetheless seems that for many during the mid-sixteenth century we simply cannot classify them neatly as representing one confession and it was much more usual for individuals to operate within a social network that was both Catholic and Protestant. Nor was this an exclusively urban or mercantile phenomenon. In 1546 John Hooper wrote to Heinrich Bullinger stating that he was unable to visit him because his father, who was opposed to him ‘on account of Christ’s religion,’ would turn into a ‘cruel tyrant’ if he did so. Despite lamenting his father’s lack of faith on several occasions, he still made dutiful visits to rural Devon to see his parents.110 Only those with the most fervently-held beliefs would go out of their way to exclude friends, relatives and trading partners from their wills on the basis of religious difference. The draper Jasper Allen provides a clear example of a mixed network.111 Allen, a victim of the 1551 sweat, composed his will in 1548. He requested no vainglory at his funeral, alongside a sermon and thirteen subsequent weekly sermons. He made bequests to the hospitals and prisons and to the poor householders of his parish. He also provided gowns for twentyfour poor men and women ‘to thentent that they may desyre almightie God in their prayers to take me to his mercy,’ whilst not quite an overt indication of belief in purgatory, it does suggest a continuing belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead. As was customary, rings and money were distributed to friends and family on a sliding scale of seniority, ‘cosyn Campion,’ the alderman Richard Champion and his wife Barbara received gold rings worth 30s and 40s in money each. Allen’s friends received slightly less valuable rings (worth 23s 4d) including the future Marian exile and grocer, Blase Saunders, brother of the martyr Laurence Saunders.112 Despite these godly links we know that Jasper Allen was married to Katherine Soda, daughter of John de Soda, who was free of the Grocers and served as apothecary to Princess Mary.113 Katherine’s brother, John Soda, worked for Allen and his partner Thomas Hawkes, and both remembered Soda in their wills.114 The fact that her father served a Catholic monarch is not of itself evidence of his own Catholicism. However, the fact that Katherine’s second and 110 111 112 113 114

110 111 112 113 114

Original Letters, vol. 1, pp. 34, 74–75. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/34, fos. 175v–177r (Jasper Allen). For more on Blase Saunders see Ch. 4 of this book. The Visitation of London 1568, p. 7n. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/32, fos. 178r–179v (Thomas Hawkes).

206

chapter 5

third husbands were Catholic seems more than mere coincidence.115 It seems that Jasper converted whilst his wife remained unconvinced but he nonetheless appointed her executor and left much of his estate in her hands. For a rare few merchants we can trace their religious identity from their wills and contemporary accounts of their funerals. Whilst Henry Machyn is best known for recounting such events, the court minutes of the Drapers are also full of references to funerals held for their brethren. Many simply record when they occurred and perhaps which members of the company attended, but the most lavish funerals could be recorded at length. William Roche’s funeral of 1549 is one such example and has been highlighted for being ‘distinctly after the new order.’116 Yet it seems rather to represent the opacity of religious identities during the Edwardian period. Roche served as master of the Drapers six times between 1531 and 1548 and rose to the office of mayor in 1540. He also served as one of the mps for the city. His will of 1549 was particularly restrained.117 He bequeathed his soul simply to God ‘my saviour and redemer’ and left 4s to the high altar of St Peter le Poor for forgotten tithes. The rest of his will concerned the distribution of comparatively small bequests (given his social stature) the largest of which was £6 12s 8d to the Drapers for a repast and £5 to St Bartholomew’s Hospital. He also left 40s to the poor of his parish and ward and 40s to other parishes with which he had links, always requesting prayers for his soul in return. He also left money to his servants for the same purpose. Whilst prayers for the soul are associated with a belief in purgatory and increasingly indicative of a Catholic identity, Roche’s will was witnessed by Stephen Tennant chaplain to the Lord Treasurer, William Paulet, a man who conformed to every religious change confirming that he was ‘sprung from the willow, not from the oak.’118 Roche’s funeral was appropriate for a former lord mayor but not unduly extravagant. It was neither assertively Catholic nor Protestant but represents the transitional moment. We learn that

115 116 117 118

ij branchys of whyte wexe borne before, then preists and clercks in surplesys syngyng, then a standard of his creste…thereafter certayne morners;

115 Katherine Soda’s second husband was the grocer and alderman Rauf Greenway and her third grocer and alderman John White; tna, pcc, Prob. 11/55 fos. 306v–307v (John White); Visitation of London 1568, p. 7n. 116 Johnson, Drapers, vol. 2, p. 102. 117 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/32, fos. 323v–342v (William Roche). 118 Norman Jones, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2002), p. 202.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

207

then a pyneon of his armys and his cote armour borne by the herald… Then the corps borne next after the cote armure, by certayne clerks. And iiij of thassystens of the Drapers, viz. Maister Warner, Maister Blower, Maister Spencer, and Maister Tull, went in their lyuerey and hodes about the said corps. Then folowyd Maister John Roche hys sone chief morner alone, and after hym ij copies of morners moo. Then the sworde berer and my Lorde Maire in black, then the Aldermen and Shiriffs; after theim the hole lyuerey of this feloshipp in order: then the ladys and jentyllwomen as thaldermens wyfes and other, which after dirige, cam home to his house and dranke, where they had spyce brede and comfetts, wyne ale and bere.119 On the following day the mourners heard a sermon delivered again by Stephen Tennant, followed by communion. At the end of the service the livery returned to Drapers’ Hall for the funeral dinner. The Drapers’ clerk records finally that ‘my Lady Roche of her jentyllnes sent theym more iiij gallons of frenche wyne, and also a boxe of wafers and a pottell of ipocras, for whose soule lett vs praye, and all christien Soules Amen.’120

1553–1558: Concealment, Conformity and Caution

Whilst we see elements of enthusiasm and indifference, but more often diversity, in the reign of Edward vi, we see a slightly different pattern in the reign of Mary i. Even more so we see concealment of both traditional and Protestant devotional impulses. For example, of twenty Marian wills none made bequests for sermons or psalms, but neither do we see the reappearance of Masses. Gifts to churches remain fairly constant but other traditional religious bequests almost entirely disappear – alongside those associated with the Protestant faith such as sermons. Concealment, however, was not necessarily intentional or indicative of unorthodox views; rather the stripping away of religious institutions by the Henrician and Edwardian crowns gave less opportunity for casual demonstrations of piety. Whilst some late medieval Catholics might have almost unthinkingly made the religious bequests that were expected for someone of their social status, after 1547 an individual would have to go out of their way to make their piety clear. The remaining acceptable religious bequests were often not 119 120

119 dh, Rep. 7(iii), p. 960. 120 Ibid.

208

chapter 5

distinctly Catholic or Protestant when considered in isolation. Few made zealous or doctrinally consistent statements of faith; instead more often we are presented with what Ethan Shagan has referred to the as the cultural ‘crosspollination’ of the Reformation with a patchwork of religious ideas nestling side by side and those who possessed them no less sincere in their faith.121 Those with largely traditional beliefs during the reign of Mary i demonstrated them in a more subtle manner than their Henrician forefathers. The draper Robert Warner, writing in 1555, suggests a Catholic faith which also valued the Protestant emphasis on preaching.122 Warner bequeathed his soul to God, Mary and the saints in heaven and asked to be buried without ‘to motche pompe,’ but also asked that there be an ‘honest, discrete man being lernyd to shewe forthe to the people there being the word of God.’ The same priest (his word) was to pray for his soul, the souls of his parents, wives and children and all Christian souls. How often the priest should pray for his soul was not specified but he was to receive 6s 8d in payment. And Warner was clear in his belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead: in leaving £6 to the Drapers for a dinner he stipulated that at his dinner they were to say three times ‘God have marcie on my soule and all christen soules.’ As well as those who demonstrate the subtle influence of the Protestant faith whilst retaining their adherence to Catholicism, others in the 1550s hint at the possibility of earlier association with Protestant ideas only to later reconcile with Catholicism. During the mid Tudor period in particular we see the potentially impermanent nature of religious identities – those who were associated with evangelicalism in the 1520s and 30s could equally have hedged their bets and reconciled with Catholicism at the end of their life.123 Sir William Laxton is one such figure that is difficult to label consistently and clearly as representing one set of ideas. Laxton was made free of the Grocers in 1518–9 and first served as warden of the company in 1534. Between 1536 and 1552 he served as master of the Grocers a remarkable eight times suggestive of a degree of popularity alongside seniority.124 Laxton also served as alderman from 1536 and sheriff in 1540. As lord mayor in 1544–5 he took part in the cross-­ examination of the martyr Anne Askew.125 121 122 123 124 125

121 Ethan Shagan (ed.), Catholics and the ‘Protestant nation’: Religious Politics and Identity in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2005), p. 2. 122 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/37, fos. 219r–220r (Robert Warner). 123 Ryrie, ‘Paths not taken in the British Reformations,’ pp. 1–22. 124 J D Alsop, ‘William Laxton (d. 1566),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]; Laxton’s odnb entry incorrectly states that he served as master six times, it was actually eight – he was master in 1536, 1538, 1541, 1543, 1545, 1548, 1550 and 1552, see Grocers’ Wardens, pp. 18–19. 125 Alsop ‘William Laxton,’ odnb; Edward Tenney, Thomas Lodge (Ithaca, 1935), p. 7.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

209

As a wealthy merchant and successful civic leader it naturally follows that he was well connected. Yet, as we have seen, his name only appears on the wills of fellow grocers thought to hold evangelical beliefs.126 Laxton served as co-­executor to the will of Robert Basford in 1528, overseer to the will of ­William Pratt in 1539, and to that Robert Deane in 1540.127 All three were members of the livery, but only Deane rose to the office of warden which he served in 1537.128 Given that Laxton was appointed warden just three years earlier, it seems that these guildsmen were close members of his cohort and represent friendships rather than being former apprentices or servants to whom his duty to provide and protect would have been stronger. Consequently, Laxton’s will and his connections, suggest that we need to reassess his religious identity as only ever having been a ‘pious Catholic.’129 In his will of July 1556 Laxton bequeathed his soul in a traditional manner to God his maker and redeemer and the holy company of heaven. In line with Protestant wills he began, however, not with overtly religious bequests but with the distribution of charity, leaving £200 to the hospitals of Christ’s and St Bartholomew’s. As he had no children with his wife Joan – widow of grocer Henry Luddington and daughter of grocer William Kirkby – he gave generously to his extended family, including £200 each to his cousin Johan Wanton’s children and £1000 to Johan herself. He gave gowns to his servants and remembered his civic brethren also, giving a gown to the lord mayor and requesting that he and the rest of the aldermen dine at Laxton’s house on the day of his burial as befitted his social status. He left a gown to his ‘very good lord and friend’ Sir Robert Broke, Speaker of the House of Commons, who has been described as a ‘zealous Catholic.’130 From Henry Machyn we also learn that on the day following Laxton’s burial three requiem Masses were said, and Archdeacon Nicholas Harpsfield, likewise a zealous Catholic, preached at the third.131 It is not clear, however, who appointed Harpsfield to speak and Laxton made no request for 126 127 128 129 130 131

126 In the 1541 subsidy assessment roll Laxton was estimated to be worth 2000 marks, Two Tudor Subsidy Rolls for the City of London: 1541 and 1582, ed. R G Lang (London, 1993), p. 52. 127 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/22, fos. 327r–328r (Robert Basford); Prob. 11/27, fo. 227r–227v (William Pratt); Prob. 11/28, fos. 86v–87v (Robert Deane). 128 Grocers’ Wardens, p. 18. 129 Alsop, ‘William Laxton,’ odnb; David Hickman and Joseph Ward have also categorised Laxton as Catholic because of his bequest for bedesmen. They do not take his past or links of friendship into consideration. Hickman ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 56; Ward, Metropolitan Communities: Trade Guilds, Identity and Change in Early Modern London (Stanford, 1997), p. 104. 130 J H Baker, ‘Robert Broke (d. 1558),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 131 Diary of Machyn, pp. 111–112.

210

chapter 5

a specific speaker in his will. Choice of preacher is not always an accurate barometer of religious identity; for example, the goldsmith Martin Bowes, whose expressions of faith were Catholic until at least the reign of Mary i, requested a cycle of sermons by godly preachers Robert Crowley, John Philpot and John Gough following his death in 1566.132 It is the codicil of Laxton’s will, though, which has led to suggestions of an affinity with traditional piety. He established a grammar school and almshouses at Oundle in Northamptonshire, where seven poor men were to be supported with lodging and a weekly pension. Almost a folio into the codicil these seven poor men are finally referred to as ‘bedemen for me’ and subsequently as ‘the seven bedemen of Sir William Laxton.’ Use of the term bedesmen, however, was not of itself indicative of a specific religious identity and its use continued throughout the sixteenth century, albeit on a reduced scale. The draper William Chester, for example, who had freed the martyr Laurence Saunders from his apprenticeship to study divinity, established alms for poor women at St Bartholomew’s Hospital following his death in 1573. The accounts refer to the recipients of Chester’s charity as bede women until the 1580s.133 Laxton’s family links also suggest that he was not operating within a n ­ etwork defined by its continuing attachment to medieval Catholicism. He remembered his wife’s children: Nicholas Luddington, Johan, the wife of alderman John Machell, and Anne, wife of grocer alderman Thomas Lodge. Again, according to custom, his wife was appointed executor and members of his family served as overseers, his sons-in-law John Machell and Thomas Lodge alongside John Southcott, the undersheriff of London. Machell and Lodge were both members of the Muscovy Company and were also identified by Foxe as evangelicals during the reign of Mary i.134 They and Nicholas Luddington produced wills suggestive of a Protestant faith. Luddington stressed that Jesus was the only mediator, whilst Lodge famously omitted his son, the playwright, Thomas Lodge.135 This quiet disinheritance might have been motivated by Lodge the younger’s Catholicism or equally his criticism of mercantile moneylending, a pursuit which resulted in his father’s bankruptcy and subsequent imprisonment whilst serving as alderman.136 Lodge’s disownment of his son could 132 133 134 135 136

132 Hickman, ‘Religious Belief and Pious Practice Amongst London’s Elizabethan Elites,’ hj 42 (1999), pp. 941–960, at p. 955. 133 See Ch. 3 of this book. 134 Narratives of the Reformation, p. 298. 135 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/38, fos. 79r–80v (William Laxton); Prob. 11/86, fos. 15r–16r (Nicholas Luddington, 1589); Prob. 11/41, fo. 201 (John Machall, 1558); Prob. 11/68, fos. 230r–231v (Thomas Lodge). 136 Charles J Sisson, Thomas Lodge and other Elizabethans (London, 1933), pp. 18–34.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

211

simply reflect his bombastic personality above any pious considerations. He was sent to Newgate in 1576 after ‘inadvisedly’ punching draper alderman John Branch at the Guildhall, and also defied convention in 1562 as the first mayor to sport a beard.137 In its totality, therefore, Laxton’s religious identity was neither solidly ­Catholic nor Protestant. By the 1550s it is increasingly difficult to identify anyone untouched by religious change, but neither had the commitment to Catholicism been extinguished either. In 1558 the alderman and grocer Rauf Greenway displayed his allegiance to Catholicism whilst also showing the fraternal ties to his company by remembering those who were equally committed to the future of the Protestant faith.138 As was increasingly common for all, Greenway bequeathed his soul in the standard Protestant manner to God his maker and redeemer but in distributing charity he gave £13 6s 8d to each of the universities to be distributed by ‘the reverend father in God the lorde abbott of westmynster.’ From 1556–9 the last abbot of Westminster was John Feckenham; he recognised the supremacy of Henry viii but would go no further in religious reform and was thus imprisoned throughout the reign of Edward vi. He was restored to favour under Mary i and, partially at the prompting of Cardinal Pole, was amongst those who sought to restore (a reformed) Benedictine monasticism to Westminster and remained wedded to his Catholic faith until his death in 1584.139 Greenway’s family ties, however, were religiously mixed. His wife Katherine Soda was the daughter of John Soda apothecary to Mary i and her grandfather was French-born John de Soto who was apothecary to Katherine of A ­ ragon and subsequently Mary i until his retirement, conveniently, in 1547.140 As we have seen, Katherine had been married to the draper Jasper Allen. Allen hints at a Protestant disposition in his will; nonetheless, Greenway left £20 to each of ­Allen’s children: William, John and Mary. Greenway left £40 to Richard Soda, his wife’s brother and his factor in Spain, and also made a bequest to his mother-in-law Johan Soda. Although he did not have children of his own, he left the most money to his blood relatives including a bequest of £500 to his brother Thomas and £300 to his sister Alice Dixe. Nonetheless, he ensured that his relative John Greenway was bound apprentice to John Allen l­eatherseller, 137 138 139 140

137 lma, Repertory 19, fo. 137v, Anita McConnell, ‘ Sir Thomas Lodge,’ odnb. 138 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/40, fos. 240v–242v (Rauf Greenway); a relative named John Greenway also remained Catholic, see Robert Whiting, The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2nd edn. 1991), pp. 217–218. 139 C S Knighton, ‘John Feckenham (c. 1510–1584),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 140 Elizabeth Lane Furdell, The Royal Doctors, 1485–1714: Medical Personnel at the Tudor and Stuart Courts (Rochester, ny, 2001), pp. 21–22.

212

chapter 5

further unifying his family with that of Jasper Allen’s. As overseer he appointed his friend the leatherseller (later mercer, alderman and mayor) William Allen. It seems their friendship stemmed not just from familial ties but also from the fact that ­Allen succeeded Greenway as alderman for the ward of Bridge ­Without.141 His executors were his brother Thomas and the draper John Q ­ uarles whose own will of 1578 suggests strong Reformed piety.142 Witnesses included the grocer and alderman Richard Champion whose will of 1568 was essentially Protestant but also demonstrates traditional elements.143 Greenway also left a gown to the printer and grocer Richard Grafton who was known to be an early convert to the Protestant faith but also served alongside Greenway as warden of the Grocers.144 Greenway provides us with a will that prioritises distributing his estate to his family and making small bequests to those he worked alongside in civic life whether they were Catholic or Protestant. John Lowen was another alderman who displayed a continuing commitment to Catholicism but familial links to the Protestant faith. Lowen was elected alderman for Billingsgate in February 1555 but in November of the same year paid a £500 fine to avoid public office.145 Despite his avoidance of office it fits in with the broad, if imperfect, notion that the city elders, those with the most to lose, displayed conservative religious tendencies.146 Lowen, in his will of 1557, demonstrates the fluidity and plurality of the time and covers all eventualities by bequeathing his soul first in the more Protestant manner to ‘God my maker and creator to his only sonne jesus christ our lord my saviour and redeemer’ by the merits of the passion received remission of his sins. He then left his soul to Mary and all the saints in heaven. He also makes one of the latest requests for prayers for his soul by asking for the assistance of the friars at Greenwich and St Bartholomew’s.147 Lowen’s named bequests were largely to his family and demonstrate the significance of the ties of family and the accompanying sense of duty above individual religious differences. His son-in-law Owen Clome wrote a will in 1563 which was assertively Catholic but Lowen also demonstrates links to Thomas Branch whose family were producing Protestant wills from the 1550s 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

141 Allen nominated Greenway for the post of alderman in 1556; Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 1, p. 63. 142 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/60, fos. 18r–21r (John Quarles). 143 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/50, fos. 169r–169v (Richard Champion). 144 Grant Ferguson, ‘Richard Grafton,’ odnb; John Abernethy Kingdon, Richard Grafton, Citizen and Grocer of London (London, 1901). 145 Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 1, p. 25. 146 Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ p. 65. 147 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/42, fos. 357v–358v (John Lowen).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

213

onwards.148 Lowen was also linked to the Mynors family making a bequest to Ralph Mynors. In 1567 the draper John Mynors (brother of Ralph) remembered John Lowen’s descendants in his will, even though he was avowedly Protestant, as shown by his bequest of gowns to Robert Crowley, John Philpot and James Young.149 John Mynors appeared also in the 1557 will of fellow draper William G ­ ilborne who demonstrated that despite the conformity of many, there were hubs of Protestants operating throughout the reign of Mary i. Alongside a Protestant preamble he asked for a Christian burial without ‘gloriouse pompe or muche showe.’ He distributed extensive charity including £20 to the scholars at the universities ‘in the setting forthe of Goddes worde.’150 He remembered the hospitals and prisons, the poor of his ward and parish and the parish of his birth. Like so many others his priority was providing for immediate and extended family members and also his employees, including a bequest of 40s to his fool Richard Alldick. We gain the greatest insight into his religious leanings from his overseers; he appointed his friend John Mynors and the scrivener Thomas Witton, who is cited in Acts and Monuments as having assisted the martyr Bartlet Green in the reign of Mary i.151 Gilborne’s witness was John Philpot who is listed as a notary but was probably also the godly preacher who the Drapers appointed to the benefice of St Michael’s Cornhill in 1562 and was later involved in the vestiarian controversy.152

1558–1600: Competing Visions of Conformity

After 1558, preambles become increasingly uniform favouring the Protestant formulation that stressed Christ’s role as the only intercessor by bequeathing the soul to Christ the redeemer hoping for remission of sins through the merits of Christ’s passion. Wills were also increasingly formulaic in that many distributed charity to the same institutions. As a result, unpicking interdependent networks takes on greater significance when assessing individual religious identities. 148 149 150 151 152

148 Prob. 11/37, fos. 185v–186r (John Branch, 1555); Prob. 11/48, fo. 206-v (Thomas Branch, 1565); Prob. 11/72, fos. 433r–434r (John Branch, 1588); Prob. 11/47, fos. 55r–56v (Owen Clome). 149 Prob. 11/49, fos. 98r–99v (John Mynors). 150 Prob. 11/35, fos. 348r–349r (William Gilborne). 151 Foxe, tamo (1570 Edition), p. 2067 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 152 Hennessy, Repertorium, p. 332; Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), p. 54.

214

chapter 5

Whilst the reign of Elizabeth i has been characterised as the period during which England became Protestant, there were still those who were unconvinced by Protestantism.153 The draper Owen Clome is one such individual who was assertive in shunning Protestant beliefs.154 He began his will of 1563 with a long exposition of his belief in the trinity, paralleling the Apostles’ Creed, and concluded by stating that ‘This is my very faithe: num senex teneo fidem qua natus sum puer parvulos, Amen.’ Although the Apostles’ Creed was something which, in theory, Catholic and Protestant could unite behind, Clome went further in stating that he was dating his will according to the ‘computation of the catholicke churche.’ He asked to be buried in a place where ‘God by his visitatacon shall separat my soule from my bodie.’ As proof of the difficulty of judging preambles alone he bequeathed his soul in the Protestant fashion to God, maker and redeemer, believing himself saved by the merits of the passion. Nonetheless, Clome also made clear that his soul was to be prayed for at his burial by twelve poor householders and requested that ‘no sermon to be made.’ He enjoined the Drapers, at the yearly dinner held by the yeomanry, to pray for his soul, that of his wife Agnes and all Christian souls, and left 40s a year to the poor of St Clements to pray for the soul of Benedict Jackson until 1569. Finally, he left money to fund two divinity scholars at Oxford at the ‘assignement of the Bisshopp of London being Catholicke.’ This charity was only to stand, therefore, if the bishop of London was Catholic. But there was much more charity in his will that was less dogmatic – if his daughter died without issue, his lands were to pass to the Drapers who were to distribute the profits in the form of loans and alms to the poor of the company, and company records shows Clome’s alms being administered from at least 1595.155 He also left 40s a year to be given to the master and wardens of the company in perpetuity ‘in recompence for their godly travell.’ Clome also requested that part of his estate be used to provide twelve pence a week in perpetuity to poor prisoners in exchange for yet more prayers for his soul indicative ultimately of his Catholic faith. Clome does not delineate a vast network in his will but remembered his closest relatives including his mother-in-law Johan Lowen. As we have seen, Clome’s father-in-law John Lowen was a man of traditional Catholic faith also. Lisa McCain has suggested that the Grocers’ company in particular counted Catholics amongst its membership in the late sixteenth century.156 It is true

153 154 155 156

153 Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Basingstoke, 1988), p. xi. 154 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/47, fos. 55r–56v (Owen Clome). 155 dh, Rep. C, fos. 1–48 (at back of volume). 156 Lisa McCain, Lest We Be Damned: Practical Innovation and Lived Experience Amongst Catholics in Protestant England 1559–1642 (London, 2004), pp. 159–160.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

215

that a handful of grocers were arrested for recusancy in the 1570s. However, they were not of the livery and were not therefore directly influencing company governance or their response to religious change.157 Having examined the recusant returns for London in 1577 and 1588, I can identify no member of the livery of the Grocers or Drapers. We can, however, find one grocer who was linked by company and friendship to a recusant and, remarkably, it is ­Laurence Sheriff, who was featured in Acts and Monuments for his defence of Princess Elizabeth and was described by Foxe as an ‘honest and zelous man.’158 On the face of it, Sheriff’s will of 1567 displayed nothing more than conventional ­Elizabethan piety. He bequeathed his soul to Christ his saviour and redeemer hoping to be saved by the merits of the passion. He asked for a learned man to preach the word of God at his ‘decent’ burial. Most notably, he provided for the establishment of a ‘free grammar schoole [to be named] the free schoole of Laurence Sheriff,’ better known as Rugby. Sheriff also provided almshouses for four poor men, and whilst the term bedesmen was not used this does echo the charity of his fellow grocers William Laxton and Nicholas Gibson. It is clear, however, that the establishment of the school and almshouses was left to the direction of his friends George Harrison, gentleman, and Bernard Field, grocer.159 Bernard Field joined the livery in 1567 but little more is known about him or his religious identity. We do know that his wife was Catholic as she is listed on the 1577 return for London.160 We cannot read too much into these links, beyond confirming the notion that many Elizabethans still had links either to Catholics or their traditions. Particularly in the 1560s, many wills expressed religion in a moderate fashion. Such wills were written by those who had served their company and city during a time of flux and had little choice but to outwardly conform for the preservation of self and city. One such example is the grocer John Lyon; he served as master of the company four times between 1547 and 1558, straddling the reigns of Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. Reflective of religious plurality coupled with co-operation of the times, he was nominated as alderman in 1547 by the moderate John Gresham, and two more godly individuals – the mercer Richard Hill and the grocer John Lambert.161 We also know that Lyon had b­ enefitted from religious change and bought up former monastic land including ­Buckhurst in 157 158 159 160 161

157 ‘Diocesan Returns of Recusants for England and Wales 1577,’ ed. Patrick Ryan in Miscellanea xii, Catholic Record Society (London, 1921). 158 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), p. 2015 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 159 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/49, fos. 201r–202r (Laurence Sheriff). 160 ‘Diocesan Returns of Recusants for England and Wales, 1577,’ p. 45; McCain, Lest we be damned, p. 160. 161 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/64, fos. 21v–23r (John Lambert); Prob. 11/50, fo. 50r (Richard Hill, 1564).

216

chapter 5

Essex, formerly of the monastery of Stratford Langthorne, and land of Abingdon Abbey.162 His son, a grocer of the same name, was trading with the ­evangelical Johnson Company by 1546 and whilst this association does not make either of them Protestant, it is indicative of the influence of reform. But as a result of the tumultuous time he had lived through his will fastidiously excluded religious bequests. He bequeathed his soul to God, believing himself saved by the merits of the passion and simply asked to be buried near his first wife in St Benet Sherehog, leaving £50 for a ‘substantiall tombe of stone.’ He made no reference to his funeral, preachers or sermons as most did. As he had no living children he distributed charity to his extended family, friends and city institutions. The hospitals of London received £100, as did the grocer Rafe Johnson and his wife Ellen. The majority of his charity, however, was directed towards the furtherance of trade. He contributed £100 towards the building of a new market house in Queenhithe and donated £200 to the Grocers to act as two-year loans for four poor young men of the company (two retailers, and two merchant adventurers), with his servants benefitting from the first distribution. Lyon was concerned primarily, therefore, with supporting his company and displayed strong corporate loyalty by helping to establish his servants in business. His wife served as executor, but as overseers he appointed grocers Edward Jackman and Robert Broke, and John Fuller, esquire.163 Jackman, as we shall see, was of a godly disposition. Moreover, Lyon’s name features on two other wills in the sample indicative of his ability to forge ties of friendship with those who chose to express their faith quite differently. In 1541 he witnessed the will of the grocer John Bodnam who, aside from a Protestant preamble, expressed a Catholic faith that saw the establishment of an obit for four years, left 12d towards the continuation of the Corpus Christi Mass, and 6s 8d to the ‘bretherine of the ffraternytie of our Lady and Sainte Gyles without Crepulgate to drink at my buryall.’164 In 1562, grocer and fellow parishioner of St Benet Sherehog, Peter Bristow expressed his faith in a more overtly Protestant manner utilising the increasingly standard Protestant preamble, and requesting a ‘godlie sermon by some discreete and lerned man’ on the day of his burial, to be followed by a yearly sermon for five years following his death. Again, the Protestant Edward Jackman served as overseer.165 That Lyon was able to successfully hold public office across these monarchs’ reigns suggests that he put civic duty before (or alongside?) individual religious beliefs. 162 163 164 165

162 163 164 165

tna, sp 10/2, fo. 13. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/48, fos. 17r–19r (John Lyon). Prob. 11/26, fos. 288r–v (John Bodnam). Prob. 11/45, fos. 38r–40r (Peter Bristowe).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

217

It remained true into the late sixteenth century that even those who produced wills suggestive of a broadly Protestant faith and counted amongst their friends some of London’s godly elite, could not yet divorce themselves fully from the practices and culture of their recent Catholic past. In an otherwise Reformed will of 1578, John Quarles referred to his company as ‘the guyld or fraternytie of the blessed Marye of the Drapers’ when bequeathing £200 for loans.166 This was alongside loans of £100 for young merchant adventurers, £60 to the universities for divinity scholars and £25 for the Italian, French and Dutch stranger churches.167 A sense of corporate loyalty and a desire to distribute their wealth in charitable causes meant that Elizabethan Protestants sought to re-edify the charity of their deceased mercantile brethren. Sir Richard Champion, draper, merchant adventurer, and lord mayor in 1565–6, composed his will in 1568 and was noted by Strype for his charitable bequests which were both extensive and generous in scope.168 He left a total of £300 to the hospitals of St Bartholomew’s, St Thomas’s and Christ’s, and forty marks a year for ten years to the prisoners of London; more unusually he left four marks to each of the wards of the city of London for the poor. He also remembered named individuals – like £20 he left to ‘Robert Neweborne the blynde boye which nowe dwelleth with me.’ What is particularly significant, however, is that he also asked his executors to buy as much land as necessary to continue ‘the yearelye almes of Mr Mylborne of London draper deceased, to contynue forever that I maye be prayed for as Mr Mylborne is and had in remembrance forever.’169 Milborne’s almshouses had been established in 1535 and ­inhabitants were ­directed to recite the De Profundis, Ave Maria, Pater Noster, and Creed, and directly pray for his soul. Champion had witnessed the Reformation from the time of Henry viii onwards, and his name features in wills that reflect the variety of religious change. In 1545 he witnessed the will 166 167 168 169

166 Prob. 11/60, fo. 18r (John Quarles). 167 Ibid., fos. 18r–20v; Quarles was not the only London merchant associated with the stranger churches – the draper John Bodley served with the French Church and fellow draper, Bartholomew Warner, was an elder in the Italian Stranger Church. See Patrick Collinson, ‘The Elizabethan Puritans and the Foreign Reformed Churches in London,’ in idem, Godly People, pp. 245–272, at pp. 267–268; Ole Peter Grell, ‘The French and Dutch Congregations in the early Seventeenth-Century London,’ phsl 24 (1987), pp. 362–377; Andrew Pettegree, ‘The French and Walloon Communities in London 1550–1688,’ in Ole Peter Grell, Jonathan Irvine and Nicholas Tyacke (eds), From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England (Oxford, 1991), pp. 77–96. 168 Strype incorrectly dates Champion’s charity from 1565 instead of 1568, Strype, Survey, vol. 1, p. 273. 169 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/50, fos. 169r–169v (Richard Champion).

218

chapter 5

of grocer R ­ obert Wheeler, who e­ stablished a ten-year obit, four-year chantry, and wanted five alms people to bear tapers at his funeral to represent the five wounds of Christ.170 Just three years later, Champion was referred to by draper and early Protestant, Jasper Allen, as his cousin.171 And in 1558 he witnessed the will of the assertively Catholic alderman and grocer, Rauf Greenway.172 Champion’s own will, however, demonstrates a web of friends and associates dominated by godly aldermen and merchant adventurers including his former apprentice, Francis Barnham, and fellow drapers Sir William Chester, Bartholomew Warner, and John Quarles. Such links do not guarantee that Champion shared their faith, but he shared their friendship, or at the very least sought to repay their service. Bartholomew Warner, for example, although a member of the Italian Stranger Church from at least 1570, was also clerk of the Drapers at the time of Champion’s death and so his bequest represented, at least in part, recognition of Warner’s company service.173 Champion’s generosity and remembrance was similarly repaid and fellow merchants continued to make bequests to his wife, Dame Barbara, long after his death. In 1576 Champion’s former apprentice, Francis Barnham, left Barbara Champion a gown to the value of 25s a yard and a gold ring worth 50s – this was more than he gave to his brother-in-law William Bradbridge, bishop of Exeter and former Marian exile, whose own gown was worth 20s a yard and was given nothing else.174 Ties of corporate loyalty therefore could, in symbolic material terms, be stronger than those of kin. Whilst Champion fulfilled his role as a civic-minded Christian through extensive charity that was neither assertively Catholic nor Protestant. Francis Barnham, representative of the next generation, was more doctrinally obvious in his faith. He requested fifty sermons to be delivered weekly in the five weeks following his death which were to be delivered by Alexander Nowell or John Foxe ‘yf theye or ether of them can be entreated to take paynes.’ He also gave £20 ‘to the poore afflicted people for the gospelles sake in the frenche churche and duche churches in london.’ This was not a significant sum of money, but a gesture symbolic of some level of unease with the Elizabethan via media. Barnham’s son, Benedict, was even clearer in his faith. His will of 1597 runs to eleven 170 171 172 173 174

170 171 172 173

Prob. 11/32, fos. 161v–162v (Robert Wheeler). Prob. 11/34, fos. 175v–177r (Jasper Allen). Prob. 11/40, fos. 240v–242v (Rauf Greenway). Unity in Multiformity: The Minutes of the Coetus of London 1575 and Consistory Minutes of the Italian Church of London 1570–1591, ed. O Boersma and Auke Jelsma (London, 1997),  p. 29. 174 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/58, fos. 76v–78r (Francis Barnham).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

219

pages and features a lengthy preamble in which Benedict bequeathed his soul to the holy trinity and made clear his belief that he was among the elect and would live amongst the saints in heaven.175 Whilst the Barnhams indicate the crystallization of Protestant identity that came with generational change, it was in the 1560s that, for the first time, we can delineate almost fully godly networks of merchants who were linked by ties of family and trade. There was never a particularly co-ordinated godly network and whilst names reoccur in wills, it was often only within a close circle of friends and family. Within the Grocers, for example, the Stile, Lambert and Jackman families intermarried and shared both confessional and commercial ties. Whilst we see evidence of generational change and crystallization (and confidence in expressing) forms of Protestant identity, we can also delineate networks of the some of the earliest Protestants linked again by trade and marriage. Edmund Stile, for example, was appointed to the livery of the Grocers in 1542–3 and served as warden in 1553 and master in 1563.176 He was listed by John Foxe as a ‘credible person’ who witnessed a conversation between Richard Grafton and Bishop Bonner and assisted Grafton in the printing of the Bible, setting out his status as an early convert to Protestantism.177 Despite this, until his will of 1564 his name only features in one other will – that of William Laxton – who bequeathed him a black gown presumably in recognition of his company service.178 Stile’s will lacks the uncertainty of Laxton’s in his assertive hope of being one of the elect. Stile was also a merchant adventurer, which was perhaps how he encountered Protestant ideas in the 1530s and also explains his bequest of £4 to John Baye ‘that came out of Flanders whome I brought up in my house for God his sake.’ Most of Stile’s bequests were to the Lambert family – to his brother-in-law Richard Lambert he bequeathed his freedom of Russia and it was Richard who served as overseer and witness of Stile’s will.179 Stile and Lambert both left money to a cleric named Charles Wentworth. Wentworth was listed on the 1548 chantry certificate as one of two priests at St Michael Bassishaw appointed to sing for the soul of the mercer Sir James Yardford.180 The memory of former practices lived on even in these godly circles. Stile lived in that parish and, writing in 1567, Richard Lambert referred to Wentworth as a friend and minister at the same church. Lambert also left £3 175 176 177 178 179 180

175 Prob. 11/91, fos. 304r–309r (Benedict Barnham). 176 gl, ms 11571/5, fo. 121r; Grocers’ Wardens, pp. 19–20. 177 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), p. 1886 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 178 Prob. 11/38, fos. 79–80v (William Laxton). 179 Prob. 11/47, fos. 52v–54r (Edmund Stile). 180 London and Middlesex Chantry Certificate 1548, ed. C J Kitching (London, 1981), p. 74.

220

chapter 5

to Robert Cole the rector of his church, St Mary-le-Bow, often characterised as both a wealthy and godly parish.181 Lambert, unlike Stile, was an alderman as well as a member of the Grocers and this might account for his wider circle of friends, although they were still a consistently godly circle shaped as much by faith and marriage as by ties of trade. It is striking how these emerging godly circles were still influenced and dominated by the livery company to which an individual belonged. When Richard Lambert mentioned members of other companies it was because they were part of his extended family. For example, he left gold rings to the value of 40s to his brothers-in-law and aldermen Roger Martin, Edward Jackman, ­Lionel Duckett, and to John Packington, and Richard Hollyman.182 The Packington and Duckett families were in turn related by marriage and also associated with reform from early on.183 Duckett, for example, served his apprenticeship in the Mercers under John Colet and was the lord mayor in 1573 responsible for banning excessive feasting and encouraging godly moderation.184 It seems that the links between the Lambert family and the Packingtons were particularly strong as Margaret and Margery Packington were Richard Lambert’s sisters-inlaw and he referred to William and Edward Packington as his brothers. Lambert’s ‘loving friendes,’ however, were largely fellow godly grocers including Sir Thomas Lodge, Francis Bowyer, William Coles and Thomas Hale, although he was also friends with the gentleman Giles Estcourte who served as executor to Edmund Geste, bishop of Salisbury in 1577.185 Estcourte, along with Lambert’s other trusty friend, Edward Jackman, was to assist his wife in ensuring that his children were ‘brought upp in the feare of God.’ In addition, Lambert remembered his ‘frend and lovinge neighboures’ William Pierson and his wife. Lambert was likely selecting a neighbour based on religious history, as William Pierson was a scrivener who had served under the evangelical William Carkke.186 Lambert’s friend Edward Jackman was also a grocer and served from 1561 to 1569 as alderman for Walbrook which included the Grocers’ parish of 181 182 183 184 185 186

181 Michael Byrne and G R Bush (eds), St Mary-le-Bow: A History (London, 2007). Robert Cole was also involved in the vestiarian controversy. 182 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/49, fos. 191v–194r (Richard Lambert). 183 Peter Marshall, ‘The Shooting of Robert Packington’ in idem, Religious Identities, pp. 61–79. 184 John C Appleby, ‘Sir Lionel Duckett (d. 1587),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 185 Henry Geast Dugdale, The Life and Character of Edmund Geaste, stp (London, 1840), p. 59. 186 William Pierson is listed as Carkke’s servant on the 1537 will of Edward Murell: tna, pcc, Prob. 11/27, fos. 92v–93r.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

221

St S­ tephen’s. He also served as sheriff in 1564–5.187 Jackman was one of eleven parishioners of St Stephen’s identified during the visitation of 1554 who ‘­eyther…hang downe theyre heddes at the sacrynge tyme of the masse, or elles to sytte in suche a place of the church as theye cannot see the sacrynge.’188 This would suggest someone who rejected transubstantiation and it seems his closest friends shared a Reformed identity. His name appears in the wills of similarly Protestant grocers: he was overseer of Peter Bristow’s will of 1562 and John Lyon’s of 1564 and served as executor for Richard Lambert in 1567.189 Many of the names in Richard Lambert’s will are replicated in Jackman’s. Edward was married to Ann, daughter of Humfrey Packington, and their eldest son John was married to Jane the daughter of Richard Lambert. Consequently, members of these families featured prominently in his will. As an alderman he remembered his colleagues also and seems the model of a civic-minded man. Of all the wills in the sample Jackman distributes the most varied range of charity. He remembered parishes, hospitals, prisons and poor maidens, universities, his company as a corporate entity and also loans for its members, alongside civic charity in the form of a bequest of £100 to repair water pipes. Given the number of people that he was connected to, and that very many of them derived from godly families, it is perhaps notable that he made a bequest for four preachers to deliver ten sermons each, but did not specify their identity beyond insisting that they should have attained the level of doctor of divinity and that they should preach at both St Stephen’s Walbrook and St Peter le Poor, both parishes noted for their increasingly Protestant, even puritan, clergy.190 From the 1570s, networks identified by Protestantism alone are increasingly common and links to Catholicism are increasingly difficult to discern, probably because there was a greater need to conceal such tendencies or links from the 1570s. Amongst the godliest we increasingly see, for the first time since Humfrey Monmouth’s will of 1536, anti-Catholic references, as notions of what it meant to be Protestant crystallized. In 1590 the grocer James Huish stated that if his male heir was ‘a papist in profession or religion’ then he would be disinherited ‘as if he weare deed,’ and only those who lived according to the gospel 187 188 189 190

187 Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. 2, p. 37. 188 Cited in Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship 1547–c. 1700 (Oxford, 2007), p. 29. 189 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/ 45, fos. 38r–40r (Peter Bristowe); Prob. 11/ 48, fos. 17r–19r (John Lyon); Prob. 11/49, fos. 191v–194r (Richard Lambert). 190 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/52, fos. 23r–26r (Edward Jackman).

222

chapter 5

of England or Geneva would receive his estate.191 Similarly, in 1594, the draper Thomas Bullman stated ‘my will and minde is that no papist shall have any parte of those my giftes.’ In leaving charity to poor scholars he again stated that they should ‘fear God and deny the Pope and all his treachery.’192 In 1598 John Bilby left £100 for scholars at Emmanuel College, Cambridge stating that they must be ‘a man fearing God and professing the Gospell of Jesus Christe in all thinges accordinge to the forme of religion nowe established and professed by the Church of England.’193 Some made clear precisely why certain traditions, such as the distributions of alms at burial, were no longer to be performed. In 1604 the grocer and alderman Richard Goddard stated that he felt it was a ‘popish imitation’ by those seeking prayers for their soul.194 By the 1580s therefore, for some Protestants their religious identity was stronger than that of family, or other, loyalties. Such vehement anti-Catholicism however, was still quite rare. More often a godly identity can be discerned from strong links to those known for their faith such as Marian martyrs or those cited by Foxe. Occasionally, however, we see that attempts to perpetuate a godly faith were not successful. Thomas Lodge is most well known for quietly disinheriting his Catholic son, the playwright of the same name, but he was not alone.195 In 1590 grocer William Ormeshaw disinherited his son Emmanuel, for his disobedience and unruly behaviour towards me and divers others of his best friends whom I will to have no childes part, hoping that neyther any ordinance of this Cytty nor any helpe of the Lord Mayor or Court of Aldermen shalbe extended unto him for such [is] his ungodly behaviour, but that they will rather extend their help against such an ungodly childe in not yeldinge to any thinge without rigour of lawe.196 Ormeshaw had a history of strong words that hinted at strong Protestant belief. In 1563 he refused to serve as a steward at St Anthony’s dinner saying that he would rather spend £20 and ‘lye in prison than to be one of the stewardes for it was but a slaverye.’197 He paid his fine of 40s accordingly and perhaps this was 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

191 192 193 194 195 196 197

Prob. 11/76, fos 782v–187v (James Huish), at 184v. Prob. 11/84, fos. 248r–249v (Thomas Bullman). Prob. 11/91, fos. 436r–438r (John Bilby), at 436r. Prob. 11/103, fo. 272v (Richard Goddard). Anita McConnell, ‘Thomas Lodge (1509/10–1585),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/77, fos. 135v–136r (William Ormeshaw). gl, ms 11588/1, fo. 87v.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

223

his way of expressing opposition to his company continuing to celebrate the feast day of its patron saint. More often we can uncover the godliest amongst these merchants by continuing ties of friendship and assistance to former Marian exiles. The mercer Locke family, known to have converted in the 1530s, are prominent in the 1593 will of grocer Edward Elmar. He made bequests to Mrs Throckmorton, Mrs Bullingham and Dr Mumford and his wife. These individuals are Rose ­Throckmorton who married the mercer Anthony Hickman in 1543 and in 1610 composed an account of their life as part of a godly circle during the reign of Mary i.198 Mrs Bullingham was her sister Elizabeth, whose first husband was the mercer Richard Hill, and in 1570 she married the former Marian exile Nicholas Bullingham, bishop of Lincoln and Worcester. Dr Moundeford was a physician who, in his publication of 1622, wrote of his admiration for Theodore Beza.199 His wife, Mary, was the daughter of Elizabeth Bullingham. Elmar also made a bequest to his ‘cousin’ Zachary Locke, son of the merchant adventurer Michael Locke, grandson of William Locke and nephew of Rose Throckmorton. Finally, Elmar left his emerald ring to his relative, John Aylmer, bishop of London.200 The role of corporate ties in shaping these interdependent networks of family, trade and confession can also be seen through the choice of clergy to deliver burial sermons. Elizabethan drapers demonstrated a strong preference for John Philpot who served at St Michael’s from 1562–7, and Robert Crowley. Crowley did not serve in the parish but was the favourite to deliver the sermons at the annual election day services.201 The draper Nicholas Backhouse requested that Crowley speak at his burial in 1576, and in 1579 Richard ­Reynolds ­requested that Crowley or Layfield preach.202 In 1586 Nicholas Wheeler referred to Crowley as his good friend and in 1587 he (Crowley) served as overseer to the will of Brian Calverley.203 And in 1598 the draper John Bilby made requests to a host 198 199 200 201 202 203

198 Maria Dowling and Joy Shakespeare, ‘Religion and Politics in mid Tudor England through the eyes of an English Protestant Woman: The Recollections of Rose Hickman,’ bihr 55 (1982), pp. 94–102; Jennifer Higginbotham, ‘The Exile of Rose Hickman Throckmorton,’ Reformation 15 (2010), pp. 99–114. 199 Norman Moore and Patrick Wallis, ‘Thomas Moundeford (1550–1630),’ odnb [accessed 5 Oct 2016]. 200 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/82, fos. 339v–342v (Edward Elmar). 201 dh, Rep. D, fos. 73r; 157r, 269v; Rep. E, fo. 102v. 202 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/62, fos. 213r–214r (Nicholas Backhouse); Prob. 11/61, fos. 78v–79r (Richard Reynolds); Layfield is presumably Edward Layfield, rector of Fulham, Person id: 69243, CCEd [accessed 20 November 2016]. 203 Prob. 11/69, fos. 121r–122r (Nicholas Wheeler); Prob. 11/71, fos. 157r–159v (Brian Calverley).

224

chapter 5

of godly preachers, including to Crowley’s widow.204 John Bilby’s father, Ralph, was the draper indicted under the Six Articles in 1540 for denying the true presence, demonstrating that Protestant ideas were beginning to be perpetuated successfully down the generations.205 Grocers’ wills demonstrate a strong loyalty to the clergy that they appointed to St Stephen’s or All Hallows Honey Lane even where the individual did not live in that parish (in fact, they rarely did). Consequently, Thomas Becon features almost exclusively in the wills of Grocers. He witnessed the will of William Mery in 1547, received a bequest from Rauf Bodnam in 1553 and in 1569 the draper John Kemp contributed £6 13s 4d a year for ten years towards the divinity exhibitions of Theodore Becon (Thomas’s son) alongside that of John Wimshurst.206 Kemp had stood surety for John’s father, Alexander, for first fruits in 1560.207 Kemp also made a bequest of £20 to Robert Crowley who was to assist in appointing preachers to fulfil his request for 300 sermons following his death.208 Kemp had strong and close links with evangelical preachers such that Becon dedicated his summary of the New Testament, Christ’s Chronicle, to him in 1560.209 The reason for these links is partially explained in the 1576 edition of Acts and Monuments in which Kemp is described by Foxe as both a London merchant and a minister on the Isle of Wight.210 In the 1563 edition, Foxe made reference to a man named John Kemp, who was a leader of the ‘Freewillers,’ a group that denied predestination.211 In order to make clear that this was not him, Kemp wrote an account of his activities during the reign of Mary and included his fourteen-point articles of belief. We learn that Kemp refused to attend Mass and converted his friends, despite attempts by local jps to arrest him. His brother-in-law, John Wood, even beat Kemp’s younger sister in an attempt to find out where he was. He also had ties of friendship to Lewes martyrs Derek Carver and George Stevens. 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

204 Prob. 11/91, fos. 436r–438r (John Bilby). 205 Foxe, tamo (1570 Edition), p. 1377 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 206 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/31, fos. 315r–317r (William Mery); Prob. 11/36, fos. 27r–v (Rauf Bodnam). 207 Brett Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism: the London godly, the exchequer and the Foxe circle,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), p. 129. 208 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/51, fos. 167v–168v (John Kemp). 209 Thomas Becon, Prayers and other pieces of Thomas Becon, stp, ed. J Eyre (Cambridge, 1844), p. 542. 210 Foxe, tamo (1576 edition), pp. 2002–2004 [accessed 10 Nov 2016]. 211 Thomas S Freeman and Elizabeth Evenden, Religion and the Book in Early Modern ­England: The Making of John Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’ (Cambridge, 2011), p. 264; Freeman, ‘Dissenters from a Dissenting Church: the Challenge of Freewillers, 1550–8,’ in Marshall and Ryrie, The Beginnings of English Protestantism, pp. 129–156.

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

225

But Kemp did not cut himself off from his company and continued to work as a draper and was protected by fellow drapers, Thomas Pullison and William Walker – his former master – when in London. Kemp repaid their loyalty to him in his will with bequests of money. Also indicative of the extent to which merchants were inculcated in the brotherly love and civic Christianity of their companies, is their use of language. In 1567 John Mynors left £8 to the Drapers ‘whereof I am a brother…to be made them at their hall for to call theym together whereby love and amitie may be the more increased amonges theym whiche God grante.’212 The 1574 will of alderman and grocer Henry Mylles is indicative of the influence of corporate ideology and Protestantism. He commended his soul to the trinity and asked for a learned preacher to deliver a sermon at his burial ‘of matters mete for them to knowe and remember concerninge the dyeing and rysinge againe of Chrystiannes.’ He provided for a dinner for his friends and the ‘best of the parrysshe’ of Croydon and gave an additional £13 6s 8d to the Grocers for a dinner on the Monday following his burial, asking that they ‘beare there brotherly fame and good will’ towards his wife and children and insisting that the dinner be in his memory alone and not combined with any other. He provided 20s for a learned preacher to deliver a sermon at St Mildred’s for the Grocers that would act as a testimony to his faith and would also be to the ‘commendacion of charytie, unytie and good agreamente in religion and christian lyfe.’ A desire for unity was coupled with ties of friendship to London’s godly elite including Alexander Nowell, dean of St Paul’s, and grocers Francis Bowyer, Gerard and Thomas Gore, and grocer alderman Thomas Ramsey.213 Previous studies of post-Reformation religious culture have commented upon the significant increase seen in charitable giving and argued that it was directed towards institutions, particularly parishes, prisons and hospitals, in contrast to Catholic charity which was expressly linked to prayers for the soul to speed salvation.214 A Catholic will would nominate (often by name) poor parishioners to pray for their soul in exchange for bread and money. But it is very rare to find examples of charity being explicitly linked to religious k­ nowledge or confessional affiliation throughout the century. In 1594 draper Thomas ­Bullman left 20s to the poor of St Olave’s on the condition that they ‘can saye 212 213 214

212 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/49, fos. 98r–99v (John Mynors). 213 Prob. 11/56, fos. 114v–116v (Henry Mylles). 214 W K Jordan, The Charities of London 1480–1660: the aspirations and the achievements of the urban society (London, 1960), pp. 267–270; a continuing charitable impulse is seen in Claire S Schen, Charity and Lay Piety in Reformation London 1500–1620 (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 251–252.

226

chapter 5

the Lordes prayer, the tenne Cammendementes and the Articles of the Christian faithe.’ He also made clear that no papists were to receive any charity and in leaving £5 to imprisoned preachers, doubtless puritan preachers, he stressed that only ‘zealous professors of the Gospell’ were to receive assistance.215 It is clear that the greatest change seen in wills during the reign of Elizabeth  i is the dramatic increase in the provision of institutional charity. Of Elizabethan wills that made charitable bequests, 73% included a gift to at least one of London’s hospitals; under Henry viii this figure was 48%.216 Nonetheless, we should be cautious in linking this rise solely to the Reformation as fluctuations in charitable giving had been seen before the onset of religious change.217 Moreover, when charitable giving is examined on a decade-by-decade basis the change seems less stark.218 What is striking, however, is that bequests to institutions, like the hospitals and prisons, were often quite small when compared to the total wealth of such merchants. It was quite normal for bequests to range from a few shillings to maybe £10 or £20 for individual institutions. Certainly, bequests of over £100 were unusual. Bequests to parishes and charitable institutions, therefore, often appear to have been a token gesture and it seems that many spent as much money, if not more, on their friends who were not in need of charity. It seems that the size of the bequest was meant to correlate with size of affection. In 1581 the alderman and grocer Francis Bowyer left 20s to each of the prisons of London and a total of £50 to the hospitals, yet he gave £20 to the Grocers for a dinner in his memory, and a host of gowns, plate and rings to his friends of far greater value. Alexander Nowell received either black cloth or a ring to the value of £10; to his ‘loving cosen’ Henry Colthurst and wife he gave £50 in black cloth and plate; fellow grocer Nicholas Stile received £20 in cloth and plate. Similar bequests fill a folio of his will.219 An increase in bequests to the livery companies themselves was also seen and this suggests that personal reasons for deploying charity, and a desire for remembrance, continued to influence charitable donations, very much redolent of earlier Catholic impulses. Of Henrician wills, 42% included a bequest to their company compared to 52% of Elizabethan wills. After bequests to family, the single biggest charitable bequest was often to the company. Donations of 215 216 217 218 219

215 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/84, fos. 248r–249v (Thomas Bullman). 216 100 of 137 Elizabethan wills that made charitable bequests remembered at least one London hospital, compared to 43 of 89 Henrician wills; Table 2: Charitable bequests, 1510–c. 1600. 217 J A F Thomson, ‘Piety and Charity in Late Medieval London,’ jeh 16 (1965), pp. 178–195. 218 See table 2: Charitable bequests, 1510–c. 1600. 219 tna, pcc, Prob. 11/63, fos. 211r–213v (Francis Bowyer).

Mercantile Religious Identities and Social Networks

227

between £50 and £200 to act as interest-free loans to help establish freemen in business became increasingly popular amongst the wealthiest merchants. Seventeen Elizabethan wills made such bequests, whilst just two Henrician wills (those of Peter Cave and Humfrey Monmouth) had made similar gestures.220 William Megges left £150 to the Drapers to serve as loans for poor young men ‘in respecte of the paines and godlie care to be used by the said company in, or concerning the promisses, and for the loyaltie and love I beare unto the said company.’221 In giving loans to the freemen of the company it was simply ­emphasised that they were to be poor and honest young men, underlining the importance of good repute for successful trade. By the end of the sixteenth century the Drapers’ Company was administering loans to the value of £1050.222 This form of charitable giving was at once an invention of the sixteenth century and simultaneously evocative of the founding late medieval aspirations of the livery companies. By seeking to establish others in trade, rather than the donor purely perpetuating their own business ventures, echoes the desire of medieval company ordinances to join together their brethren in love and charity. Also redolent of Catholic modes of giving was the presence of a reciprocal obligation. As these bequests were loans recipients had a duty, both to the donor and future recipients, to use their money wisely so that they could repay their good fortune, ensure its perpetuation, and thereby promote strong fraternal bonds. Wills, like all sources, remain an imperfect tool, but we can continue to learn from them in order to better understand religious experiences during the Reformation. From the sample we see huge diversity in mercantile religious identities and the extent to which those of different confessional hues intersected and overlapped with one another. It will surely no longer do to see merchants as being preternaturally drawn to Protestant creeds above and beyond any other sector of society. Of course, merchants doubtless played a significant role in the circulation of new doctrine, but their personal responses to religious change were enormously varied. It has also been established that merchants – whatever their confessional stance – had a strong bond to other members of their guild, and the significance of the guild in shaping their professional and private lives needs to be better recognised by scholars. An individual might move parish numerous times, but their guild was, with few exceptions, the one constant in their life. This bond seems to have allowed many to overcome religious differences and work, live, and trade alongside those of opposing 220 221 222

220 Prob. 11/25, fo. 162r–v (Peter Cave); Prob. 11/27, fos. 98r–99v (Humfrey Monmouth). 221 Prob. 11/93, fos. 73r–79v (William Megges), at 75v. 222 See Ch. 2 of this book.

228

chapter 5

o­ utlooks across the course of the sixteenth century. If anything, merchants, far from being unusually zealous in their expressions of faith, have much to tell us about expressions of religious moderation and how they managed successfully (for the most part) to meld continuity with change. As noted, the increasing direction of charity to the livery companies suggests an on-going value attached to the notion of brotherly love. The likes of John Rogers and his bequest of a copy of Acts and Monuments to the Grocers, as stated at the start of this chapter, is a particularly unusual gift in its confessional nature. But it surely stemmed from the same impulse of Christian self-denial that saw many more bequeath loans to young men to help edify and perpetuate their guild, and contribute to the wealth and stability of the commonwealth. London’s elite merchants had a number of responsibilities beyond the honest conduct of trade, and whether they were ardent Protestants, zealous Catholics or something in between, they had to come together each week to run their guild, serve as churchwardens in their parishes, and as common councillors and aldermen on the Corporation of London. In these roles they had to confront religious change head-on, but their diversity of religious identities, coupled with the pragmatic ability to conceal or moderate their stance, and an on-going recourse to fraternal behaviour, took the heat out of London’s Reformation. At the same time, we should take care not to cast merchants as exemplars of confessional diplomacy. Religious conflict was real and its impact rending, and this is also reflected in the wills of Grocers and Drapers. From Humfrey Monmouth in 1536 hoping that Henry viii would utterly usurp the false power of the pope, to William Ormeshaw in 1590 disinheriting his son for his ungodly behaviour, London’s citizens were also capable of deploying immoderate invective. But such examples of uncompromising belief are also rare, and the overall picture is one of confessional co-existence stemming, in part, from the irenic discourse of London’s livery companies.

Conclusion In 1689 the clerk of the Grocers referred to the company as a ‘nursery of charity and a seminary of good citizens.’1 In one neat phrase he demonstrated that across the seventeenth century the liveries continued to frame their worldly functions in Christian terms. Despite this, until now, research has sought to cast the livery companies as examples of institutions that blithely conformed to the varied religious changes of the sixteenth century and in doing so secularized their religious culture and ethos in order to maintain corporate and civic harmony. At the same time, we are told that merchants, above other sectors of society, abandoned the Catholic faith with speed.2 It has been the aim of this book to explore both the relationship between institutional and individual responses to religious change, and also to consider the validity of associating merchants with Protestant religious identities. In particular, this book has challenged the notion of institutional and ritual secularisation advanced, in an English context, by scholars such as Robert Tittler, and C John Sommerville.3 In 1990 Robert Scribner suggested the idea that the Reformation led to the secularisation of the world was at once ‘the most accepted of commonplaces’ and ‘misleading,’ yet it is a notion that continues to hold sway for some eminent Reformation scholars.4 With specific reference to London’s livery companies, previous judgements of their response to the ­Reformation have been based upon research that either considered only part of the sixteenth century, or one company in isolation.5 By examining the ­Grocers’ 1 Cited in Peter Earle, The Making of the English Middle Class: business, society and family life (Berkley, 1989), p. 260. 2 On merchants as early adopters and sustainers of Protestantism see, for example, C W D’Alton, ‘The Suppression of Lutheran Heretics in England 1526–1529,’ jeh 54 (2003), pp. 228–253; Brett Usher, ‘Backing Protestantism: the London Godly, the exchequer and the Foxe circle,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 105–134; Christina Garrett, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism, (Cambridge, 1938). 3 Robert Tittler, Townspeople and Nation: English Urban Experience 1540–1640 (Stanford, 2001), pp. 16–17; C John Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England: From Religious Culture to Religious Faith (Oxford, 1992). 4 Robert Scribner, ‘The Impact of the Reformation on Daily Life,’ in Lyndal Roper (ed.), Religion and Culture in Germany 1400–1800 (Leiden, 2001), p. 282; Brad Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (London, 2012). 5 Scholarly company histories have not been subject to synthesis or comparison. See Ian Archer, The History of the Haberdashers’ Company (Chichester, 1991); Matthew Davies and Ann Saunders, The Merchant Taylors’ Company (Leeds, 2004). Equally, Ian Archer’s consideration­

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004330702_008

230

Conclusion

and Drapers’ records across the course of the century we now see that company governance was consistently driven by Christian ideals as demonstrated by appeals to peace, charity and brotherly love. Such appeals represented the rhetoric of Christianity without being limited to a specific doctrine, and were a common trope of the sixteenth century. As Lucy Wooding has highlighted, it was the language of both Catholic and Protestant homilies, which stressed that to be out of charity with one another would diminish the spiritual health of the commonwealth.6 As Chapters 1 and 2 established, such Christian rhetoric punctuated the language of company governance throughout the century, and played a central role in the ability of the liveries to retain both a vibrant spiritual culture and fraternal stability. The language of perfect love and charity was also to be found in London’s hospitals, churches, and particularly vestries whose records were ‘soaked in the rhetoric of neighbourly unity.’7 When new trading companies were established during the Reformation, they too framed their purpose in terms of maintaining a godly commonwealth. It seems, therefore, that with such pious language as the basis of many of London’s institutions, their response to the Reformation cannot helpfully be seen in terms of straightforward secularisation.8 The research of Norman Jones has proved valuable in setting out the long process of cultural adapatation that companies underwent. But Jones’s ultimate conclusion that religion ceased to be of importance to the companies by the end of the sixteenth century has to be rejected. In fact, religion continued to play an important role in the corporate life of the Grocers and Drapers. Partly, this was because the sacred and secular were not as clearly delineated to contemporaries as they have subsequently become; but it was also because their reliance on the notion of brotherly love came increasingly to reflect the rhetoric of the Church. In addition, the liveries were essentially conservative institutions that were wedded to their customs and thus the communal ritual culture that they had enjoyed was adapted rather than removed. This is not to deny the irrevocable changes brought by the Reformation but it is important to recognise the ability of social stability focuses on the 1590s see Archer, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991); whilst Susan Brigden’s magisterial London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989) concludes with the death of Mary i. 6 Lucy Wooding, ‘Charity, Community and Reformation Propaganda,’ Reformation 11 (2006), pp. 131–169. 7 Archer, Pursuit, p. 84. 8 Norman Jones, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2001), p. 112; Tittler, Townspeople and Nation, pp. 16–17, see also idem, The Reformation and the Towns in England: Politics and Political Culture 1540–1640 (Oxford, 1998), esp. Chapters 12–14.

Conclusion

231

of London’s civic elite to transform traditional practices and ancient customs into a Protestant context. We should regard the companies not as secularizing their corporate religious culture, but rather as, in several senses of the term, reforming it. We now have a firm understanding of the ability of the laity to adapt Catholic rituals to a new context, and it seems this is true also of the Grocers and Drapers.9 The livery continued to attend church together, but at the end of the sixteenth century they heard sermons and the singing of psalms instead of Mass. There is even evidence to suggest that the companies had a more developed religious ritual culture in the sixteenth century than they had in the fifteenth century.10 From 1567 the Drapers’ bachelors, of their own volition, established the tradition of hearing a sermon before their election day festivities.11 Even in a Protestant context, therefore, communal ritual and worship remained important. Research on both friendship and reading practices amongst Protestants, has highlighted the folly of conflating the Protestant desire to cultivate a direct relationship with God with that of an entirely private faith.12 Naomi Tadmor has argued that Protestantism was not individualistic, but possessed an ‘ethos of communalism in the making.’13 In this sense, we can further understand the continuing desire of the livery companies to attend church, appoint clergy and promote divinity scholars at the universities. Even apparently secular activities often possessed a spiritual element. ­Memorializing deceased brethren shifted from obits to dinners of commemoration at the company hall, but in 1600 the grocer Thomas Tyrell requested a burial sermon for the ‘better solemnization’ of his funeral dinner at the company hall.14 It is true, however, that in what has been seen as an increasingly ‘iconophobic’ society, images proved the trickiest to adapt. Robert Tittler has interpreted the replacement of images of saints with those of deceased 9

10 11 12 13

14

On religious adaptability see Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham (eds), Angels in the Early Modern World (Cambridge, 2006); Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2004); Walsham, The Reformation of the Landscape: Religion, Identity and Memory in Early Modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2011). Pamela Nightingale, A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company and the Politics and Trade of London 1000–1485 (Yale, 1995), pp. 177–180, 295. dh, Rep. D, fo. 3v. Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading: Print, Manuscript and Puritanism in England 1580–1720 (Cambridge, 2011). Naomi Tadmor, ‘Friends and Neighbours in Early Modern England: biblical translations and social norms,’ in Laura Gowing, M C W Hunter and Miri Rubin (eds), Love, Friendship and Faith in Europe 1400–1800 (Basingstoke, 2005), p. 152. tna, pcc, Prob. 11/95, fos 163v–164v.

232

Conclusion

­company members, as evidence of secularisation, and in one sense it was.15 When the Grocers removed religious images from the company burial cloth because some found them offensive, they were replaced with images of camels to signify their trade. But a desire that no-one should be offended, and that harmony should be maintained, fed back into their elemental functions of unity,­ charity and brotherly love. Hanging the portraits of generous benefactors on company walls, like the reading of their names, was designed to stir similar fraternal acts in others. Robert Scribner has provided the example of images of Luther being worshipped as if he were a saint: these mercantile portraits were also, in effect, didactic civic saints who engendered pious charity, thereby blurring the boundary between the secular and sacred spheres.16 The livery companies retained this religious life even though it could sometimes lead to strife, especially in their role as ecclesiastical patrons. The ­Grocers, in particular, seem to have had trouble making appointments under Mary i that met with the approval of both the company and the bishop of London. In part, this seems to have been because one of their benefices, St Stephen’s Walbrook, was also where many grocers lived, and thus they were appointing the individual that would be providing them personally with religious instruction. For the Drapers, who did not dominate their parish of St M ­ ichael’s Cornhill, religious appointments seem less fraught, but still the subject of much debate. The involvement of the liveries in ecclesiastical matters was extended from the 1560s with their role as patrons of divinity exhibitions to the universities. This role caused them, once again, to confront and enforce religious orthodoxy, something which they did not shy away from. When young scholars, like Edmund Campion, were deemed unsound in religion, they were stripped of financial support despite ties of kinship to the Grocers. Again, this points to a genuine and ongoing impulse to engage with religious matters. Whilst the companies did not remove religion from either their ethos or their activities, it would equally be incorrect to exaggerate the religiosity of their corporate life, or to deny entirely their secular functions which they possessed from their foundation.17 Company records are often mundane and 15 16 17

Robert Tittler, The Face of the City: Civic Portraiture and Civic Identity in Early Modern England­(Manchester, 2007), p. 108. Robert Scribner, ‘Incombustible Luther: the image of the Reformer in Lutheran Germany,’ P&P 110 (1986) pp. 38–68. Some have suggested that the livery companies were entirely secular organisations, see George Unwin, The Guilds and Companies of London (London, 1925), p. 202; C John Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern England, p. 78; the most scholarly account of the spiritual and secular life of the medieval Grocers is provided by Pamela Nightingale,

Conclusion

233

business-like in nature, and much of their time was spent settling disputes between members and managing their property portfolio. Even when engaged in more obviously religious matters, like making ecclesiastical appointments, it was a process of negotiation. The companies sought to appoint individuals that were approved by the parish and thus an evangelical appointment, like that of Robert Forman to All Hallows Honey Lane, could reflect parish desires as much, if not more than, those of the company. No longer, therefore, can we label the Grocers as inherently ‘evangelical,’ or even as possessing a disproportionately influential evangelical minority, as Joseph Ward has suggested, based upon such appointments.18 Previous notions, therefore, of a simple, linear secularisation of ritual and governing culture are no longer adequate. It is accepted that London experienced reform further and faster than anywhere else in England, yet the livery companies still managed to retain a ritual culture that married the sacred with the secular. If they could retain a spiritual life throughout a time of turmoil, and with a religiously stratified membership, then it seems we need to look again at the experience of the Reformation in England’s towns. Studies of the urban Reformation in England have often taken local magistrates as their focus for understanding the implementation of religious change.19 Certainly in ­London, it is vital that attention is paid to the background of the common councillors and aldermen as company governors, as the livery company was one of the most influential of the overlapping networks that London’s citizenry­ inhabited. In fact, at least for London, there is a case to be made for the significance of the livery company over the parish as a unit of social life. Whilst the parish is now rightly well-established as a lens through which to study local religious and political life, it appears that the livery company was hugely influential in shaping the social life of its members – certainly for its elite governors. Parish of residence was impermanent and shifting, but company membership was for life. Moreover, when we consider that by the middle of the sixteenth century 75% of London’s adult male population were freemen, it seems striking that

18 19

A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers Company and the Politics of Trade 1000– 1485 (Yale, 1995). Joseph P Ward, Metropolitan Communities: Trade Guilds, Identity and Change in Early Modern London (Stanford, 1997), p. 110. David Hickman, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite 1520–1603,’ (PhD thesis, University of London, 1996); Muriel McClendon, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1997); Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c. 1560– 1640 (Woodbridge, 2005).

234

Conclusion

our understanding of the liveries (and the craft guilds also) is so slight.20 Nonetheless, by examining the wills of grocers and drapers we can say with some certainty that merchants can no longer be caricatured as being ardent and early adopters of reform. Some clearly were, but when the wills of grocers and drapers are examined, the religious complexion of the mercantile community seems more diverse than previously thought. Research on the early English Reformation has highlighted the fluidity of religious identities during the 1530s and 40s, and it seems that until at least the late sixteenth century, the religious identities of London’s citizens represent growing religious plurality rather than stark confessional polarisation.21 Whilst Anne Sutton’s identification of cells of evangelicals, moderates and conservatives in the Mercers’ Company has been useful in highlighting the spectrum of mercantile religious identities, it is only a tenable concept if we recognise that these cells were porous.22 Particularly in the early years of change, Catholics and evangelicals inhabited the same social worlds. They were tied together by company membership, kinship, friendship and civic service, which together transcended religious difference. The example of the grocer Richard Fermor excluding his Protestant children from his will of 1551 is notable because it is exceptional. More often, people of different religious outlooks managed to find a way to co-exist, and this was the case even for those who were clear-headed and assertive in their faith. For example, the Catholic Rauf Greenway made clear in his will of 1558 that he would support scholars at the universities only if the bishop of London were a Catholic. Nonetheless, during the 1550s he had served as warden of the Grocers alongside the evangelical Richard Grafton and he rewarded that service with the gift to Grafton of a gown in his will. Muriel McClendon suggested that Norwich’s magistrates managed to avoid religious conflict by adopting an unwritten policy of religious toleration.23 Similarly, in an essay on London’s Grocers, Joseph Ward stated that ‘tolerance, based on godliness and common economic interest, was the foundation of the Grocers’ Company’ which enabled them to provide a harmonious community for those of diverse theological (and economic) views.24 It seems more ­accurate 20

Steve Rappaport, Worlds Within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth Century London (Cambridge, 2002), p. 53. 21 Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge, 2002); Peter Marshall, Religious Identities in Henry viii’s England (Aldershot, 2006). 22 Anne F Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 379–408. 23 McClendon, The Quiet Reformation, p. 28. 24 Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 122.

Conclusion

235

to state, however, that the livery companies did not actively tolerate religious pluralism, but they had very little need to enquire into the inner beliefs of individual members. Only on one occasion, in the 1590s, did the G ­ rocers remove charity from an individual who did not attend church. When he presented the court with a certificate of his orthodoxy, the charity was swiftly­reinstated. When precepts from the lord mayor sought action over matters of religion, such as prohibited religious texts, the companies complied, but allowed members to deposit such texts in secret. The stability of the companies was thus finely balanced between protecting its membership and meeting the demands of London’s magistrates. Civic office was one area in which it might be expected to see more religious conflict and instability than within the companies where the duty to respect the fraternal bond could be more easily called upon. London’s hospital governors, like civic officers more generally, were drawn from across the companies and although they could not call upon the company-specific bond, they too employed the common fraternal language. Their charitable purpose was supported equally by those of a variety of religious inclinations, although the establishment of the hospitals was framed by certain contemporaries in distinctly godly terms. Despite this, hospital ordinances – whether Edwardian or Marian – underlined that in helping the sick and needy they were serving God. They drew upon former monastic practices whilst observing the changes in religion, but the hospitals were rarely doctrinaire in the pronouncements they made to their charges. London’s governors, it seems, were moderate in their expressions of faith and the Reformation was not advanced by a small and zealous group of civic elites, as David Hickman has suggested, but by a pragmatic and moderate majority.25 It is only by studying individual merchants across different spheres of public and private life that we can see the multifaceted nature of religious identities. It has long been suspected that dissimulation was widespread but has been understandably difficult to trace.26 This study has demonstrated just how many were able, for example, to work for their parish and implement religious change, even if it was at odds with their own beliefs. Dissimulation took many forms, some more subtle than others. For example, when Humfrey Monmouth acted as churchwarden of St Margaret Pattens in the 1520s he doubtless saw himself very much as part of the Catholic Church. He objected to certain traditional practices but not to the extent of rejecting the opportunity to serve 25 26

Hickman, ‘Religious Allegiance,’ pp. 2, 205. Andrew Pettegree, ‘Nicodemism and the English Reformation,’ in idem, Marian Protestantism: Six Studies (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 86–117.

236

Conclusion

his parish. His will of 1537 certainly suggested anti-Papal rather than anti-­ Catholic beliefs. Others, like the grocer Ralph Clervis, take a little more explaining. ­Clervis, along with several other parishioners, was indicted under the Six ­Articles in 1540 for supporting Lutheran preachers, and he continued such support under Edward vi. By the reign of Mary he was acting as churchwarden, presiding over a parish that faithfully complied with religious change. His will suggests that he remained inclined to reform, yet somehow he could reconcile these beliefs with active involvement in the restoration of Catholicism. Many must simply have been pragmatic in concealing their faith, particularly as reformers themselves were divided as to the legitimacy of Nicodemism. Few were radical enough to see active resistance to the Restoration as valid, and more, including Foxe, saw the reign of Mary as punishment for insufficiently godly behaviour under Edward. It seems, therefore, that ‘zealous’ and ‘moderate’ behaviour were not mutually exclusive traits and those with a strong faith could moderate their behaviour in certain contexts. The Johnson letters provide an apt example. When faced with Catholic resistance to Edwardian change in his home parish, John Johnson saw that his neighbours were released from prison early, in the hope that they would harbour no ill will towards him. Whilst the Johnsons appear, at first sight, to fit the stereotype of the early mercantile evangelical, their beliefs co-existed alongside continuing traditional practices and ties of trade and friendship to Catholics. Anti-Catholicism, in the sense of blanket hostility towards Catholics, was a trait not seen until the very end of the sixteenth century. The famous Weber thesis notwithstanding, merchants do not appear to have been particularly drawn to the doctrine of predestination because it justified their accumulation of wealth.27 The wealthiest merchant considered in Chapter 4, Thomas Howell, was not a pious man but was resolutely Catholic in his expressions of faith. The Johnsons, likewise resolute but evangelical, drew upon their faith as a marker of God’s judgement during times of distress more than during periods of success. Merchants, undeniably, encountered reformed ideas at home and abroad, but they do not seem to have been unusually susceptible to Protestantism. Exposure to ideas was no guarantee of conversion. Many rejected reform and remained outwardly Catholic until the 1560s. Others appear unmoved by religious change, and some dabbled with evangelicalism in their youth only to later abandon such ideas and return to a more conservative faith at the end

27

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (­ London, 1930, reprinted 1992).

Conclusion

237

of their lives. Spiritual conversion, it seems, was not always permanent.28 The most significant contribution by London’s merchants to the Reformation, therefore, was not to catalyse reform but, in their capacity as civic governors, to act as a moderating influence on the pace and extent of change. By implementing a skilfully negotiated conformity to state directives, and by harking back to their ‘ancient and laudable’ foundations as religious fraternities, they managed simultaneously to satisfy the authorities, protect their members, and provide them with a binding element of continuity during a time of unprecedented change. 28

Alec Ryrie, ‘Paths Not Taken in the British Reformations,’ hj 52 (2009), pp. 1–22.

Bibliography Manuscripts The National Archives, Kew SP 1 State Papers, Henry VIII. SP 12 State Papers, Elizabeth I. SP 46 Johnson Papers, George Stoddard’s petty cash book. PCC Prob. 11 Prerogative Court of Canterbury, will registers. London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) Manuscript Records of the City of London Journal of the Court of Common Council COL/CC/01/01/001 – 027 1507–1605 Repertories of the Court of Aldermen COL/CA/01/01/002 – 027 1506–1604 819/1 5090/1 5090/2 4956/1 4956/2 9163 4835/1 1264/1 7673/1 1431/1 1432/1 1432/2 1432/3 2088/1 1046/1 1568 877/1 1454 9236 9235/2 943/1

Parochial Records (Listed Using Guildhall Library, London, References) All Hallows the Great, Vestry Minutes, 1574–1655 All Hallows London Wall, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1455–1536 All Hallows London Wall, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1566–1681 All Hallows Staining, Vestry Minutes, 1574–1655 All Hallows Staining, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1534–1628 Christ Church Newgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1593–5 Holy Trinity the Less, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1582–1662 St Alban Wood Street, Vestry Minutes, 1583–1676 St Alban Wood Street, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1584–1639 St Alphage London Wall, Vestry Minutes, 1593–1608 St Alphage London Wall, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1527–53 St Alphage London Wall, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1553–80 St Alphage London Wall, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1580–1621 St Andrew by the Wardrobe, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1570–1668 St Antholin Budge Row, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1574–1708 St Benet Gracechurch, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1578–1674 St Benets Paul’s Wharf, Vestry Minutes, 1578–1674 St Botolph Aldersgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1466–1636 St Botolph Aldgate, Vestry Minutes, 1583–1640 St Botolph Aldgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1586–1691 St Botolph Billingsgate, Vestry Minutes, 1592–1673

Bibliography

239

4524/1 St Botolph Bishopsgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1567–1632 4424 St Christopher le Stocks, Book of Records, 1483–1725 4887 St Dunstan in the East, Vestry Minutes, 1515–1651 2968/1 St Dunstan in the West, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1516–1608 3016/1 St Dunstan in the West, Vestry Minutes, 1588–1625 4241/1 St Ethelburga Bishopsgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1569–1681 951/1 St George Botolph Lane, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1590–1676 9235 St Helen Bishopsgate, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1547–1585 6836 St Helen Bishopsgate, Vestry Minutes and CWA, 1565–1654 4810/1 St James Garlickhithe, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1555–1627 577/1 St John the Baptist Walbrook, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1595–1679 590/1 St John Zachary, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1591–1682 2590/1 St Lawrence Jewry, Vestry Minutes, 1556–1669 2593/1 St Lawrence Jewry, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1579–1640 3907/1 St Lawrence Poutney, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1530–1681 3476/1 St Margaret Moses, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1547–97 1175/1 St Margaret New Fish Street, Vestry Minutes, 1578–1789 4570/1 St Margaret Pattens, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1506/7–1557 4570/2 St Margaret Pattens, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1558–1653 1311/1 St Martin Ludgate, Vestry Minutes, 1576–1715 959/1 St Martin Ongar, Vestry Minutes and CWA, 1471–1615 6842 St Martin Outwich, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1508–56 3556/1 St Mary Aldermanbury, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1569–92 3579/1 St Mary Aldermary, Vestry Minutes, 1569–1609 2596/1 St Mary Magdalen Milk Street, Vestry Minutes and CWA, 1518–1606 1542/1 St Mary Staining, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1586–8 1013/1 St Mary Woolchurch Haw, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1560–1672 1002/1 St Mary Woolnorth, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1539–1641 3579 St Matthew Friday Street, Vestry Minutes, 1576–1743 1016/1 St Matthew Friday Street, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1547–1678 4071/1 St Michael Cornhill, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1455–1608 4072/1 St Michael Cornhill, Vestry Minutes, 1463–1697 2895/1 St Michael le Querne, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1514–1604 4409/1 St Olave Old Jewry, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1586–1643 4415/1 St Olave Old Jewry, Vestry Minutes, 1574–1680 4165/1 St Peter Cornhill, Vestry Minutes, 1574–1717 645/1 St Peter Westcheap, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1435–1601 4457/2 St Stephen Coleman Street, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1586–1640 594/1 St Stephen Walbrook, Vestry Minutes, 1587–1614 593/1 St Stephen Walbrook, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1474–1538 593/2 St Stephen Walbrook, Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1549–1637

240

Bibliography

St Thomas’s Hospital H01/ST/A1/1 Court Minutes, 1555–64 H01/ST/A1/2 Court Minutes, 1564–8 H01/ST/A1/3 Court Minutes, 1568–80 H01/ST/A1/4 Court Minutes, 1580–1608 H01/ST/A24/1 Book of Court inc. 1576 Ordinances and Treasurers’ Accounts, 1561–82 H01/ST/E29/2 Hospital Rental, including Treasurers’ Accounts, 1583–1619 London Guildhall Library Bridewell Hospital 33011/1 Court Book, 1559–62 33011/2 Court Book, 1574–6 33011/3 Court Book, 1576–9 11588/1 11588/2 11571/3 11571/4 11571/5 11571/6 11571/7 11571/8 11571/9 11616

Grocers’ Company Court Minutes, 1556–91 Court Minutes, 1591–1616 Accounts, 1511–20 Accounts, 1521–33 Accounts, 1534–55 Accounts, 1555–78 Accounts, 1579–92 Accounts, 1592–1601 Accounts, 1601–11 Evidence Book

12806/1 12806/2 12806/3 12819/1 12819/2

Christ’s Hospital Court Minutes, 1556–63 Court Minutes, 1562–92 Court Minutes, 1592–1632 Treasurers’ Accounts, 1552–8 Treasurers’ Accounts, 1561–1608

Drapers’ Hall, London Ordinance and Oath Book, c. 1460–1600 Dinner Book, 1563–1602 Repertory 7 (i) Court Minutes, 1515–29 Repertory 7(ii) Court Minutes, 1529–42 Repertory 7(iii) Court Minutes, 1542–52

Bibliography

241

Repertory B Court Minutes, 1552–57 Repertory C Court Minutes, 1557–61 Repertory D Court Minutes, 1567–74 Repertory E Court Minutes, 1574–84 Repertory F Court Minutes, 1584–94 Repertory G Court Minutes, 1594–1603 MB 4 Rough Court Minutes, 1547–52 MB 5 Rough Court Minutes, 1552–7 RA1 Renters’ Accounts Volume 1, 1506–25 RA + year Renters’ Accounts, 1526–1603 individually bound WA3 Wardens’ Accounts Volume 3, 1508–46 WA4 Wardens’ Accounts Volume 4, 1546–1562 WA + year Wardens’ Accounts, 1562–1603 individually bound Thomas Howell’s Ledger St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London Ha1/1 Court minutes, 1549–61 Ha1/2 Court minutes, 1567–86 Ha1/3 Court minutes, 1586–1607 Hb1/1 Treasurer’s Accounts, 1547–61 Hb1/2 Treasurer’s Accounts, 1562–88 Hb1/3 Treasurer’s Accounts, 1589–1614

Printed Primary Sources

Abstracts of Inquisitions Post Mortem for the City of London, ed. G S Fry, 3 vols. (London, 1896). The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of St Michael, Cornhill in the city of London, from 1456–1608, ed. William Henry Overall (London, 1868). de Alberti, L and A B Wallis (eds), English Merchants and the Spanish Inquisition in the Canaries: Extracts from the Archives in the Possession of the Most Hon. the Marquess of Bute (London, 1912). Athenae Cantabrigienses, ed. Charles Henry Cooper and Thompson Cooper, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1858–61). Beaven, Alfred B, The Aldermen of the City of London, 2 vols. (London, 1908–13). Becon, Thomas, Prayers and other pieces of Thomas Becon, STP, ed. J Eyre (Cambridge, 1844). Benbow, Mark, ‘Index of London Citizens Involved in City Government 1558–1603,’ ­deposited at the London Metropolitan Archives.

242

Bibliography

Bonner, Edmund, A profitable and necessarye doctrine with certayne homelyes adioyned thereunto (London, 1555). A Calendar of Dramatic Records in the Books of the Livery Companies of London, ed. Donald James Gordon and Jean Roberston, Malone Society Collections 3 (Oxford, 1954). Calvin, Jean, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, ed. David and Terrance Torrance, 3 vols. (St Andrews, 1972). The Cely Papers: selections from the correspondence and memoranda of the Cely family, merchants of the Staple 1475–88, ed. H E Malden (London, 1900). The Chronicle of Calais in the reigns of Henry VII and VIII until the year 1540, ed. John Gough Nicholas (Camden Society, old series, XXXV, London, 1846). The Church Records of St Andrew Hubbard, Eastcheap, c. 1450–1570, ed. Clive Burgess (London, 1999). The Customs of London, Otherwise called Arnold’s Chronicle, ed. Richard Arnold and Francis Douce (London, 1811). Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia, ed. E Delmar Morgan and C H Coote, 2 vols. (1886). Grafton, Richard, Chronicles, ed. H Ellis, 2 vols. (London, 1809). Hakluyt, Richard, Principall Navigations, Voiages, and discoveries of the English Nation, 8 vols. (London, 1907–09). John Howes’ MS 1582, ed. William Lempriere (London, 1904). Keene, Derek and Vanessa Harding (eds), Historical Gazetteer of London Before the Great Fire (London, 1987). Kingdon, Robert M (ed.), Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the time of Calvin, Volume One: 1542–44 (Grand Rapids, 1996). Knox, John, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols. (London, 1846–64). Lancashire, Anne (ed.), Records of Early English Drama: Civic London to 1558, 3 vols. (Woodbridge, 2015). The Ledger of John Smythe 1538–1550, ed. Jean Vanes (Bristol, 1974). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII 1509–47, ed. J S Brewer, J Gairdner and R H Brodie, 21 vols. (London, 1862–1910). Lingbach, W E, The Merchant Adventurers of England: Their Laws and Ordinances with other Documents (New York, 1902). List of the wardens of the Grocers’ Company from 1345 to 1907, ed. William Wilson Grantham (London, 1907). London and Middlesex Chantry Certificate 1548, ed. C J Kitching (London, 1981). Machyn, Henry, The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant Taylor of London from A.D. 1550 to 1563, ed. J G Nichols (Camden Society, old series, XLII, London, 1848). Memoranda, References and Documents relating to the Royal Hospitals and the City of London (London, 1836).

Bibliography

243

Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Chiefly from the Manuscripts of John Foxe the Martyrologist with two contemporary biographies of Archbishop Cranmer, ed. J G Nichols (Camden Society, old series, LXXVII, London, 1859). Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinese, ed. George Hennessy ­(London, 1898). The Ordre of the Hospital of S. Bartholomewes in West-Smythfielde in London (London, 1552). Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. H Robinson, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1846). Pacioli, Luca, Ancient Double-Entry Bookkeeping: Luca Pacioli’s Treatise (AD 1494 – the earliest known writer on bookkeeping) reproduced and translated with reproductions, notes and abstracts from Manzoni, Pietra, Mainardi, Ympyn Stevin, and Dafforne, Trans. by John B Geijsbeek (Denver, 1914). Peile, John, A Biographical Register of Christ’s College 1505–1905 (Cambridge, 1910). Report on the Charities of the Grocers’ Company: Part 1, City of London Livery Companies Commission. Report; volume 4 (London, 1884). Rich, E E, The Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple (Cambridge, 1937). Roll of the Drapers’ Company of London: collected from the company’s records and other sources, ed. Percival Boyd (Croydon, 1934). Ryan, Patrick (ed.), ‘Diocescan Returns of Recusants for England and Wales 1577,’ in Catholic Record Society Miscellanea XII (London, 1921), pp. 1–114. Sermons by Hugh Latimer, ed. G E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844). Strype, John, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster…written at first in the year MDXCVIII by John Stow, 2 vols. (London, 1720). Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials, relating chiefly to religion and the reformation of it…under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary I, 3 vols. (London, 1721). Tudor Constitutional Documents 1485–1603: with an historical commentary, ed. Joseph Robson Tanner (Cambridge, 1922). Tudor Economic Documents, ed. R H Tawney and E Powers, 3 vols. (2nd edn., London, 1951). Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. P L Hughes and J F Larkin, 3 vols. (New Haven, 1964). The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches, ed. John Griffiths (Oxford, 1869). Two London Chronicles from the Collections of John Stowe, ed. C L Kingsford, Camden Miscellany 12 (Camden Society, 3rd ser., XVIII, 1910). Two Tudor Subsidy Rolls for the City of London: 1541 and 1582, ed. R G Laing (London, 1993). Unity in Multiformity: Minutes of the Coetus of London 1575 and the Consistory Minutes of the Italian Church of London 1570–1591, ed. O Boersma and Auke Jelsma (London, 1997).

244

Bibliography

Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, ed. W H Frere, 2 vols. (London, 1910). The Vestry Minute Books of the Parish of St Bartholomew Exchange in the City of London 1567–1676, ed. Edwin Freshfield (London, 1890). Minutes of the Vestry Meetings and Other Records of the Parish of St Christopher le Stocks in the City of London, ed. Edwin Freshfield (London, 1886). The Visitation of London 1568, ed. H S London and S W Rawlins (Harleian Society, 109–110, London, 1963). Thomas Wright (ed.), Queen Elizabeth and her times: A series of original letters…, 2 vols. (London, 1838).



Printed Secondary Sources

Abray, Lorna Jane, The People’s Reformation: Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in S­ trasburg 1500–1598 (Oxford, 1985). Adams, Julia, The Familial State: Ruling Families and Merchant Capitalism in Early M ­ odern Europe (Ithaca, 2005). Adams, Tracy, ‘Noble, wyse and grete lordes, gentilmen and marchauntes’: Caxton’s Prologues as Conduct Books for Merchants’, Parergon 22 (2005), pp. 53–76. Aho, James Alfred, Confession and Bookkeeping: the religious, moral, and rhetorical roots of modern accounting (New York, 2005). Andrews, Jonathan (ed.), The History of Bethlem (Abingdon, 1997). Annais Charles Littleton and Basil S Yamey (eds), Studies in the History of Accounting (London, 1956). Arblaster, Paul, Antwerp and the World: Richard Verstegan and the International Culture of Catholic Reformation (Leuven, 2004). Arblaster, Paul, Gergely Juhasz, and Guido Latre (eds), Tyndale’s Testament (Turnhout, 2002). Archer, Ian, The History of the Haberdashers’ Company (Chichester, 1991). Archer, Ian, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991). Archer, Ian, ‘The government of London 1500–1650’, London Journal 26 (2001), pp. 19–28. Archer, Ian, ‘The burden of taxation in sixteenth-century London,’ Historical Journal 44 (2001), pp. 599–627. Archer, Ian, ‘The charity of early modern Londoners,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 12 (2002), pp. 223–44. Archer, Ian, ‘The arts and acts of memorialization in early modern London,’ in Julia Merritt (ed.), Imagining Early Modern London: Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stow to Strype 1598–1720 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 89–116.

Bibliography

245

Ash, Eric, ‘Mercantile Advisors in Sixteenth-Century England,’ Sixteenth Century Journal 33 (2002), pp. 1–31. Barron, Caroline M, The Parish Fraternities of Medieval London,’ in Caroline Barron and Christopher Harper- Bill (eds), The Church in Pre-Reformation Society (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 13–37. Barron, Caroline M, London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2005). Barry, Jonathan, ‘Civility and civic culture in early modern England: the meanings of urban freedom,’ in Peter Burke, Brian Howard Harrison and Paul Slack (eds), Civil Histories: Essays presented to Sir Keith Thomas (Oxford, 2000), pp. 181–96. Barry, Jonathan and Christopher Brooks (eds), The Middling Sort of People: Culture, ­society and politics in England 1550–1800 (Basingstoke, 1994). Barry, Jonathan and Henry French (eds), Identity and Agency in England 1500–1800 (Basingstoke, 2004). Bartram, Claire, ‘“Some Tomb for a Remembrance”: Representations of Piety in PostReformation Gentry Funeral Monuments,’ in Robert Lutton and Elisabeth Salter (eds), Pieties in Transition: religious practices and experiences c. 1400–1640 ­(Aldershot, 2007), pp. 129–145. Baumann, Wolf-Rudiger, The Merchant Adventurers and the Continental Cloth Trade 1560s–1620s (Berlin, 1990). Beier, A L, ‘Foucault Redux?: the roles of Humanism, Protestantism and the urban elite in creating the London Bridewell 1500–1560,’ in Louis A Knafla (ed.), Crime, Gender and Sexuality in Criminal Prosecutions: Criminal Justice History, vol. 17 (Connecticut, 2002), pp. 33–60. Beier, A L and Roger Finlay (eds), London 1500–1700: The Making of The Metropolis ­(London, 1986). Ben-Amos, Illana Kraussman, The Culture of Giving: Informal Support and Gift-­Exchange in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2008). Benedict, Philip, Rouen During the Wars of Religion (Cambridge, 1980). Berlin, Michael, ‘Civic ceremony in early modern London,’ Urban History 13 (1986), pp. 15–27. Bishop, Jennifer, ‘Utopia and civic politics in mid-sixteenth-century London,’ Historical Journal 54 (2011), pp. 933–953. Black, Christopher and Pamela Gravestock (eds), Early Modern Confraternities in ­Europe and The Americas (Aldershot, 2006). Bland, Mark, A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts (Oxford, 2010). Blickle, Peter, Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century G ­ ermany (London, 1992). Blunden, Edmund, The Christ’s Hospital Book 1553–1953 (Horsham, 1953).

246

Bibliography

Bosher, J F, ‘Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant International in the Seventeenth Century,’ William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995), pp. 77–102. Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community 1570–1850 (London, 1975). Bossy, John (ed.), Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West ­(Cambridge, 1983). Bossy, John, Peace in the Post-Reformation (Cambridge, 2010). Boulton, Jeremy, ‘The Limits of Formal Religion: The administration of Holy ­Communion in the Elizabethan and early Stuart Church,’ London Journal 10 (1984), pp. 135–153. Boulton, Jeremy, Neighbourhood and Society: A London Suburb in the Seventeenth C ­ entury (Cambridge, 2008). Bouwsma, William, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford, 1988). Brady, Thomas, Communities, Politics and Reformation in Early Modern Europe (Leiden, 1998). Branch, Laura, ‘Fraternal Commemoration and the London Company of Drapers c. 1440–1600,’ in Elizabeth Tingle and Jonathan Willis (eds), Death, Dying, Burial and Commemoration in Reformation Europe (Aldershot, 2015), pp. 115–136. Bremer, Francis J, ‘William Winthrop and Religious Reform in London 1529–1582,’ London Journal 24 (1999), pp. 1–17. Bremer, Francis J, John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father (Oxford, 2003). Brenner, Robert, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Trade 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993). Brigden, Susan, ‘Popular Disturbance and the fall of Thomas Cromwell and the ­Reformers, 1539–1540,’ Historical Journal 24 (1981), pp. 257–278. Brigden, Susan, ‘Youth and the English Reformation,’ Past and Present 95 (1982), pp. 37–67. Brigden, Susan, ‘Religion and Social Obligation in Sixteenth-Century London,’ Past and Present 103 (1984), pp. 67–112. Brigden, Susan, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the “brethren”,’ in Claire Cross, David Loades, and John Scarisbrick (eds), Law and Government under the Tudors: Essays presented to Sir Geoffrey Elton on his retirement (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 31–49. Brigden, Susan, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989). Broadhead, P J, ‘Guildsmen, Religious Reform and the Search for the Common Good: The Role of the Guilds in the Early Reformation in Augsburg,’ Historical Journal 39 (1996), pp. 577–597. Brown, Andrew, Civic Ceremony and Religion in Medieval Bruges c. 1300–1520 ­(Cambridge, 2011). Brown, Andrew, ‘Civic Religion in Late Medieval Europe,’ Journal of Medieval History, (2016), pp. 358–356.

Bibliography

247

Burgess, Clive, ‘The churchwardens’ accounts of St Andrew Hubbard, Eastcheap, and their implications,’ Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 1 (1999), pp. 61–6. Burgess, Clive, ‘Pre-Reformation churchwardens’ accounts and parish government: ­lessons from London and Bristol,’ English Historical Review 117 (2002), pp. 306–332. Burgess, Clive, ‘London Parishioners in Times of Change: St Andrew Hubbard, ­Eastcheap, c. 1450–1570,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53 (2002), pp. 38–63. Burgess, Clive, ‘The Broader Church? A rejoinder to “Looking Beyond”,’ English Historical Review 119 (2004), pp. 100–16. Burnett, Amy, ‘The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist,’ Past and Present 211 (2011), pp. 77–119. Buxton, Brian, ‘Thomas Poyntz: Brought Unto Misery for so Godly a Cause,’ The Tyndale Society Journal 24 (2003), pp. 8–21. Byrne, Michael and G R Bush (eds), St Mary-le-Bow: A History (London, 2007). Carlson, Eric, ‘The origins, function, and status of the office of churchwarden, with particular reference to the diocese of Ely’ in Margaret Spufford (ed.), The World of Rural Dissenters 1550–1725 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 164–207. Carlson, Eric (ed.), Religion and the English People, 1500–1640: New Voices, New Perspectives (Kirksville, 1998). Chamberland, Celeste, ‘Honor, Brotherhood, and the Corporate Ethos of London’s Barber-Surgeons’ Company 1570–1640’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Science 64 (2009), pp. 300–332. City of London, The Corporation of London: its origins, constitution, power and duties (Oxford, 1950). Clark, Peter, English Provincial Society from the Reformation: Religion, Society and ­Politics in Kent 1500–1640 (Cranbury, 1977). Clark, Peter, British Clubs and Societies 1580–1800: The Origins of an Associational World (Oxford, 2000). Clark, Peter and Paul Slack (eds), Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500–1700: Essays in Urban History (London, 1972). Cliffe, John Trevor, The Puritan Gentry: the great puritan families of early Stuart England (London, 1984). Close, Christopher, The Negotiated Reformation: Imperial Cities and the Politics of U ­ rban Reform 1525–1550 (Cambridge, 2009). Coffey, John, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1555–1689 (Harlow, 2000). Coletti, Theresa, ‘Social Contexts of the East Anglian Saint Play: The Digby Mary Magdalene and the Late Medieval Hospital?’ in Christopher Harper Bill (ed.), Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 287–302.

248

Bibliography

Collier, Heather, ‘Richard Hill: A London Compiler,’ in Evelyn Mullally and John Thompson (eds), The Court and Cultural Diversity (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 319–29. Collinson, Patrick, ‘The Elizabethan Puritans and the Foreign Reformed Churches in London,’ Proceedings of the Huguenot Society 20 (1964), pp. 528–55. Collinson, Patrick, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism ­(London, 1982). Collinson, Patrick, ‘From Iconoclasm to Iconophobia: The Cultural Impact of the ­Second English Reformation,’ in Peter Marshall (ed.), The Impact of the English Reformation 1500–1640 (London, 1997), pp. 278–308. Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, reprinted 2000). Collinson, Patrick, ‘Merry England on the Ropes: The Contested Culture of the Early Modern English Town’ in Simon Ditchfield (ed.), Christianity and Community in the West (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 131–47. Collinson, Patrick, ‘Servants and Citizens: Robert Beale and other Elizabethans’, ­Historical Research 79 (2006), pp. 488–511. Colson, Justin, ‘Commerce, Clusters and Community: a re-evaluation of the occupation geography of London c. 1450–c. 1550’, Economic History Review 69 (2016), pp. 104–30. Colson, Justin, ‘Alien Communities and Alien Fraternities in Later Medieval London,’ London Journal 35 (2010), pp. 111–143. Connell-Smith, Gordon, ‘The Ledger of Thomas Howell,’ Economic History Review 3 (1951), pp. 363–70. Connell-Smith, Gordon, Forerunners of Drake: A study of English trade with Spain in the early Tudor period (London, 1954). Constable, Olivia Remie, Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial Realignment of the Iberian Peninsula, 900–1500 (Cambridge, 1996). Cooper, J H, ‘Cuckfield Families, II,’ Sussex Archaeological Collections 42 (1899), pp. 19–54. Coster, Will, Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2002). Cowen Orlin, Lena, Locating Privacy in Tudor London (Oxford, 2007). Cowen Orlin, Lena (ed.), Material London, ca. 1600 (Pennsylvania, 2000). Cowie, L W, ‘Bridewell,’ History Today 23 (1973), pp. 350–8. Craig, John, Reformation, Politics and Polemics: The Growth of Protestantism in East ­Anglian Market Towns 1500–1610 (Aldershot, 1992). Craig, John and Caroline Litzenberger, ‘Wills as Religious Propaganda: The Testament of William Tracy,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993), pp. 415–31. Cressy, David, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in ­Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989). Cressy, David, Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Dangerous Talk in Pre-Modern England (Oxford, 2011).

Bibliography

249

Croft, Pauline, The Spanish Company (London, 1973). Cross, Claire, ‘The State and the Development of Protestantism in English Towns 1520– 1603,’ in Alistair Duke and C A Tamse (eds), Britain and the Netherlands Volume VII: Church and State Since the Reformation: Papers delivered to the seventh Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference (The Hague, 1981), pp. 22–44. Cross, Claire, ‘Wills as evidence of popular piety in the Reformation period: Leeds and Hull, 1540–1640,’ in David Loades (ed.), The End of Strife: papers selected from the proceedings of the colloquium of the Commission International d’histoire Ecclesiastique comparee held at the University of Durham, 2 to 9 September 1981 (Edinburgh, 1984), pp. 22–44. Cross, Claire, Urban Magistrates and Ministers: Religion in Hull and Leeds from the ­Reformation to the Civil War (York, 1985). Dabhoiwala, Faramerz, ‘Summary Justice in Early Modern London,’ English Historical Review 121 (2006), pp. 796–822. D’Alton, C W, ‘The Suppression of Lutheran Heretics in England 1526–1529,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 54 (2003), pp. 229–253. Dalton, Heather, ‘Negotiating Fortune: English Merchants in Early Sixteenth-­Century Seville,’ in Caroline A Williams (ed.), Bridging the Early Modern Atlantic World: ­People, Products and Practises on the Move (Aldershot, 2009). Dalton, Heather, Merchants and Explorers: Roger Barlow, Sebastian Cabot and Networks of Atlantic Exchange 1500–1560 (Oxford, 2015). Daniell, David, William Tyndale: a Biography (New Haven, 1994). Davies, Catharine, A Religion of the Word: the defence of the Reformation in the reign of Edward VI (Manchester, 2002). Davies, Matthew and Andrew Prescott (eds), London and the Kingdom: Essays in honour of Caroline Barron (Donington, 2008). Davies, Matthew and Ann Saunders, The Merchant Taylors’ Company (Leeds, 2004). Davis, Natalie Zemon, ‘Religion and Capitalism Once Again? Jewish Merchant Culture in the Seventeenth Century,’ Representations 59 (1997), pp. 56–84. Davis, Natalie Zemon, ‘The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,’ Past and Present 59 (1973), pp. 51–91. Davis, Natalie Zemon, Society and Culture in Early Modern France: eight essays ­(Stanford, 1975). Dean, David, ‘Elizabeth’s Lotteries: Political Culture and State Formation in Early ­Modern England,’ Journal of British Studies 50 (2011), pp. 587–611. Dickens, A G, The English Reformation (London, 1964). Dickens, A G Lollards and Protestantism in the Diocese of York (Oxford, 1959). Dixon, Donald F, ‘Changing Concepts of the Virtue of Merchants in Seventeenth-­ Century England,’ Business and Economic History 28 (1999), pp. 155–165. Doran, Susan, Elizabeth I and Religion 1558–1603 (London, 1994).

250

Bibliography

Doran, Susan, Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London, 1996). Dove, Mary, The First English Bible: the text and context of the Wycliffite versions ­(Cambridge, 2007). Dowling, Maria and Joy Shakespeare, ‘Religion and Politics in mid Tudor England through the eyes of an English Protestant Woman: the recollections of Rose ­Hickman,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 55 (1982), pp. 94–102. Dring, Edmund, Annals of Christ’s Hospital (London, 1867). Duffy, Eamon, The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village (New Haven, 2001). Duffy, Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–1580 (New Haven, 2nd edn., 2005). Duffy, Eamon and David Loades, The Church of Mary Tudor (Aldershot, 2006). DuPlessis, Robert S, Transitions to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1997). Dursteler, Eric R, Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Baltimore, 2006). Earle, Peter, The Making of the English Middle Class: business, society and family life in London 1660–1730 (Berkley, 1989). Edward, John and Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor (Aldershot, 2005). Esser, Richard, ‘“They obey all magistrates and all good lawes…and we thinke our cittie happie to enjoye them”: migrants and urban stability in English towns,’ Urban H ­ istory 34 (2007), pp. 64–75. Falconer, Thomas, The Mystery of Improvidence: The Charity of Thomas Howell established for the benefit of his Monmouthshire kinsfolk and others A.D. 1540 (London, 1860). Farber, Lianna, An Anatomy of Trade in Medieval Writing: value, consent and community (Ithaca, 2006). Fincham, Kenneth and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship 1547–c. 1700 (Oxford, 2007). Fincham, Kenneth and Peter Lake (eds), Religious Politics in Post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006). Fisiak, Jacek and Marcin Krygier (eds), Advances in English Historical Linguistics ­(Berlin, 1998). Forrest Scott Pearson, Andrew, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism 1535– 1603 (Cambridge, 1925). Fortier, Mark, The Culture of Equity in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2005). Freeman Foster, Frank, The Politics of Stability: A portrait of rulers in Elizabethan L­ ondon (London, 1977).

Bibliography

251

Freeman, Thomas S, ‘Dissenters from a dissenting Church: the challenge of the Freewillers 1550–8,’ in Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 129–56. Freeman, Thomas S and Elizabeth Evenden, Religion and the Book in Early Modern ­England: the making of John Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” (Cambridge, 2011). French, Katherine L, Gary G Gibbs and Beat A Kümin (eds), The Parish in English Life 1400–1600 (Manchester, 1997). Fudge, John D, Commerce and Print in the Early Reformation (Leiden, 2007). Furdell, Elizabeth Lane, The Royal Doctors 1485–1714: medical personnel at the Tudor and Stuart Courts (Rochester, 2001). Gadd, Ian Anders and Patrick Wallis (eds), Guilds, Society and Economy in London 1450– 1800 (London, 2002). Gadd, Ian Anders and Patrick Wallis (eds), Guilds and Association in Europe 900–1900 (London, 2006). Gaimster, David and Roberta Gilchrist (eds), The Archaeology of the Reformation 1480– 1580 (Leeds, 2003). Garrett, Christina, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1938). Geast, Dugdale Henry, The Life and Character of Edmund Geaste, STP (London, 1840). Goldgar, Anne and Robert Frost (eds), Institutional Culture in Early Modern Society (Leiden, 2004). Goose, Nigel and Luu Lien (eds), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England ­(Brighton, 2005). Grassby, Richard, Kinship and Capitalism: Marriage, Family and Business in the EnglishSpeaking world 1580–1740 (Cambridge, 2000). Grassby, Richard, The Business Community of Seventeenth-Century England ­(Cambridge, 2002). Gray, Jonathan Michael, Oaths and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2012). Green, Ian M, Humanism and Protestantism in early English education (Aldershot, 2009). Green, Lawrence, ‘Dictamen in England 1500–1700,’ in Carol Poster and Linda ­Mitchell (eds), Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present ­(Colombia, 2007), pp. 102–126. Greene, Molly, Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants: A Maritime History of the Early Modern Mediterranean (Princeton, 2010). Grell, Ole Peter, ‘The French and Dutch Congregations in London in the early ­Seventeenth-Century,’ Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London 24 (1987), pp. 362–377.

252

Bibliography

Grell, Ole Peter, Dutch Calvinists in Early Stuart London: The Dutch Church in Austin Friars 1603–1642 (Leiden, 1989). Grell, Ole Peter, ‘Merchants and ministers: the foundations of international Calvinism,’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alistair Duke and Gillian Lewis (eds), Calvinism in Europe 1540–1620 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 254–273. Grell, Ole Peter (ed.), Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe 1500–1700 ­(London, 1997). Grell, Ole Peter and Robert Scribner (eds), Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (Cambridge, 1996). Griffiths, Paul, ‘Secrecy and Authority in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century ­London,’ Historical Journal 40 (1997), pp. 925–951. Griffiths, Paul, ‘Contesting London Bridewell 1576–80,’ Journal of British Studies 42 (2003), pp. 283–315. Griffiths, Paul, Lost Londons: Change, Crime and Control in the Capital City 1550–1660 (Cambridge, 2008). Griffiths, Paul and Mark Jenner (eds), Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London (Manchester, 2000). Haigh, Christopher (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987). Haigh, Christopher, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993). Haigh, Christopher, The Plain Man’s Pathway to Heaven: kinds of Christianity in PostReformation England 1570–1640 (Oxford, 2007). Hall, Hubert, Society in the Elizabethan Age (London, 1886). Halvorson, Michael J and Karen E Spierling (eds), Defining Community in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2008). Hamilton, Donna B, Anthony Munday and the Catholics 1560–1633 (Aldershot, 2005). Hanham, Alison, The Cely Letters 1472–1488 (Oxford, 1975). Hanham, Alison, The Celys and their World: An English Merchant Family of the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 2002). Harding, Vanessa, The Dead and the Living in Paris and London 1500–1670 (Cambridge, 2002). Harreld, Donald J, High Germans in the Low Countries: German Merchants and ­Commerce in Golden Age Antwerp (Leiden, 2007). Harris, Philip R, ‘An Allepo Merchant’s Letter-Book’ British Museum Quarterly 22 (1960), pp. 64–69. Hawkes, David, The Culture of Usury in Renaissance England (Basingstoke, 2010). Heal, Felicity and Rosemary O’Day (eds), Church and Society in England: Henry VIII to James I (London, 1977). Heath, John Benjamin, Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London (London, 1829).

Bibliography

253

Heller, Henry, The Conquest of Poverty: The Calvinist Revolt in Sixteenth-Century France (Leiden, 1986). Hentschell, Roze, The Culture of Cloth in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2008). Hentschell, Roze, ‘Moralizing Apparel in Early Modern London: Popular Literature, Sermons, and Sartorial Display,’ Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 39 (2009), pp. 571–595. Herbert, William, The History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies, 2 vols. (London, 1834). Hickman, David, ‘From Catholic to Protestant: the changing meaning of testamentary religious provisions in Elizabethan London,’ in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), England’s Long Reformation 1500–1800 (London, 1998), pp. 117–40. Hickman, David, ‘Religious Belief and Pious Practice among London’s Elizabethan elite,’ Historical Journal 42 (1999), pp. 941–60. Higginbotham, Jennifer, ‘The Exile of Rose Hickman Throckmorton,’ Reformation 15 (2010), pp. 99–114. Higgs, Laquita, Godliness and Governance in Tudor Colchester (Ann Arbor, 1998). Hill, Tracey, Pageantry and Power: A cultural history of the early modern Lord Mayor’s Show 1585–1639 (Manchester, 2010). Hinkle, William G, A History of Bridewell Prison 1553–1700 (Lampeter, 2006). Hoskins, W G, ‘The Elizabethan Merchants of Exeter,’ in Peter Clark (ed.), The Early Modern Town: A Reader (London, 1976), pp. 148–167. Houlbooke, Ralph, ‘Review of Matthew Reynolds, “Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich, c. 1560–1640 (Woodbridge, 2005)”,’ English Historical Review 497 (2007), pp. 751–3. Houston, R A, ‘What did the Royal Almoner do in Britain and Ireland c. 1450–1700,’ English Historical Review 125 (2010), pp. 279–312. Huelin, Gordon, Think and Thank God: The Mercers’ Company and its contribution to the Church and religious life since the Reformation (London, 1994). Hutton, Ronald, ‘The local impact of the Tudor Reformations,’ in Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 114–138. Hutton, Ronald, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994). Jacob, Margaret C and Catherine Secretan (eds), The Self-Perception of Early Modern Capitalists (New York, 2009). Johnson, W A, The History of the Worshipful Company of Drapers of London, 5 vols. ­(Oxford 1914–22). Jones, David, Reforming the Morality of Usury: A study of differences that separated the Protestant Reformers (Oxford, 2004). Jones, Norman, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation (Oxford, 2002).

254

Bibliography

Jones, Norman, God and the Moneylenders: Usury and the Law in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1989). Jones, Whitney R D, The Tudor Commonwealth 1529–1559 (London, 1970). Jones, Whitney R D, The Tree of Commonwealth 1450–1793 (London, 2000). Jordan, W K, The Charities of London 1480–1680: The Aspirations and the Ambitions of the Urban Society (London 1960). Jordan, W K, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 4 vols. (London, 1932–40). Kaplan, Benjamin, Divided by Faith: Religious Practice and the Policy of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Boston, 2007). Kaplan, Benjamin, Bob Moore, Henk van Nierop and Judith Pollman, Catholic Communities in Protestant States: Britain and the Netherlands c. 1570–1720 (Manchester, 2009). Karant-Nunn, Susan C, Zwickau in Transition 1500–1547: The Reformation as an Agent of Change (Columbus, 1987). Kaushik, Sandeep, ‘Resistance, Loyalty and Recusant Politics: Sir Thomas Tresham and the Elizabethan State,’ Midland History 21 (1996), pp. 37–72. Kay, Christian, Simon Horobin and Jeremy J Smith (eds), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Lexis and Transmission (Amsterdam, 2004). Kazmierczak Manzione, Carol, Christ’s Hospital of London 1552–1598: “A Passing Deed of Pity” (London, 1995). Keene, Derek and Andrew Saint (eds), St Pauls: The Cathedral Church of London 604–2004 (New Haven, 2004). Kempshall, M S, The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1999). Kingdon, John Abernethy, Incidents in the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton (London, 1895). Kingdon, John Abernethy, Richard Grafton, citizen and grocer of London and one time master of his company, servant and printer to Edward Prince and King and first treasurer general of Christ’s Hospital: A sequel to Poyntz and Grafton (London, 1901). Kreider, Alan, English Chantries: The Road to Dissolution (Boston, 1979). Kruel, Blanca, ‘Events surrounding Thomas Malliard’s will: An English merchant in Seville (1522–1523),’ in Santiago Gonzalez Fernandez-Corugedo (ed.), Proceedings of the II Conference of the Spanish Society for English Renaissance Studies (Oviedo, 1992), pp. 167–75. Kümin, Beat, The Shaping of a Community: The Rise and Reformation of the English ­Parish, c. 1400–1560 (Aldershot, 1996). Kümin, Beat, ‘Parishioners in court: litigation and the local community 1350–1650’ in Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (eds), Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A tribute to Patrick Collinson from his students (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 20–39.

Bibliography

255

Kümin, Beat, ‘Late Medieval Churchwardens’ Accounts and Parish Government: ­Looking beyond Bristol and London,’ English Historical Review 119 (2004), pp. 87–99. Lake, Peter, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982). Lake, Peter, The Boxmaker’s Revenge: ‘Orthodoxy,’ ‘Heterodoxy’ and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London (Manchester, 2001). Peter Lake and Steven Pincus (eds), The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007). Lancashire, Anne, London Civic Theatre: City Drama and Pageantry from Roman Times to 1558 (Cambridge, 2009). Langholm, Odd, The Merchant in the Confessional: Trade and Price in the Pre-­ Reformation Penitential Handbooks (Leiden, 2002). Laursen, John and Cary Nedermen (eds), Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious toleration before the Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 1998). Lehmberg, Stanford, The Reformation Parliament (London, 1970). Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, Carnival in Romans: Mayhem and Massacre in a French City (London, 1980). Little, Lester K, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, 1978). Litzenberger, Caroline, ‘Local Responses to Changes in Religious Policy Based on ­Evidence from Gloucestershire Wills (1541–1580),’ Continuity and Change 8 (1993), pp. 417–39. Litzenberger, Caroline, ‘Local Responses to Religious Changes: Evidence from Gloucestershire wills,’ in Eric Carlson (ed.), Religion and the English People 1540–1640: New Voices, New Perspectives (Kirksville, MO, 1996), pp. 245–70. Litzenberger, Caroline, The English Reformation and the Laity: Gloucestershire 1540–1580 (Cambridge, 1997). Loades, David (ed.), John Foxe at Home and Abroad (Aldershot, 2004). Loades, David, The Religious Culture of Marian England (London, 2010). Locke, John Goodwin, Book of the Lockes: a genealogical and historical record of William Locke of Woburn (Boston, 1853). Lowe, Nicola A, ‘Women’s Devotional Bequests of Textiles in the Late Medieval English Parish, c. 1350–1550,’ Gender and History 22 (2010) pp. 407–29. Lowe, Norman, The Lancashire Textile Industry in the Sixteenth Century (Manchester, 1972). Lucas, Scott, A Mirror for Magistrates and the Politics of the English Reformation ­(Amherst, 2009). Luu, Lien, Immigrants and the Industries of London 1500–1700 (Aldershot, 2005), Lyell, Laetitia, ‘The Problem of the Records of the Merchant Adventurers,’ The ­Economic History Review 5 (1935), pp. 96–98.

256

Bibliography

MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London, 1999, reprinted 2001). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, The Later Reformation in England 1547–1603 (Basingstoke, 2001). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Mary Laven, and Eamon Duffy, ‘Recent trends in the study of Christianity in Early Modern Europe’, Renaissance Quarterly 59 (2006), pp. 697–731. Mackenney, Richard, Tradesmen and Traders: The World of the Guild in Venice and ­Europe, c. 1250 – c. 1650 (London, 1987). Manley, Lawrence, Literature and Culture in Early Modern London (Cambridge, 1995). Marnef, Guido, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis (Baltimore, 1996). Marsh, Christopher, ‘Departing well and Christianity: will-making and popular religion in early modern England’ in Eric Josef Carlson (ed.), Religion and the English People 1500–1640: New Voices, New Perspectives (Kirksville, 1998), pp. 204–240. Marshall, Peter, ‘Papist as Heretic: the burning of Friar Forest 1538,’ Historical Journal 41 (1998), pp. 351–74. Marshall, Peter, ‘Mumpsimus and Sumpsimus: The Intellectual Origins of a Henrician Bon Mot,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52 (2001), pp. 512–520. Marshall, Peter, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2002). Marshall, Peter, Religious Identities in Henry VIII’s England (Aldershot, 2006). Marshall, Peter, ‘(Re)defining the English Reformation,’ Journal of British Studies 48 (2009), pp. 564–586. Marshall, Peter, ‘The Naming of Protestant England,’ Past and Present 214 (2012), pp. 87–128. Marshall, Peter and Alec Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism ­(Cambridge, 2002). Marshall, Peter and Alexandra Walsham (eds), Angels in the Early Modern World ­(Cambridge, 2006). Martin, J W, Religious Radicals in Tudor England (London, 1989). McCain, Lisa, Lest We Be Damned: Practical Innovation and Lived Experience Amongst Catholics in Protestant England 1559–1642 (London, 2004). McCants, Anne M C, Civic Charity in a Golden Age: Orphan Care in Early Modern A ­ msterdam (Illinois, 1997). McClendon, Muriel, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of ­Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1999). McVeagh, John, Tradeful Merchants: The Portrayal of the Capitalist in Literature ­(London, 1981). Merritt, Julia, Imagining Early Modern London: Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stowe to Strype 1598–1720 (Cambridge, 2001). Merritt, Julia, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster: Abbey, Court and Community 1525–1640 (Manchester, 2005).

Bibliography

257

Merritt, Julia, ‘Contested Legitimacy and the Ambiguous Rise of Vestries in Early ­Modern London,’ Historical Journal 54 (2011), pp. 25–45. Moore, Norman, The History of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, 2 vols. (London, 1918). Morrissey, Mary, Politics and the Paul’s Cross Sermons 1558–1642 (Oxford, 2011). Muir, Edward, Ritual in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1997). Muldrew, Craig, The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1998). Newbold, W Webster, ‘Traditional, Practical, Entertaining: Two Early English Letter Writing Manuals,’ Rhetorica 26 (2008), pp. 267–300. Newman, Karen, Cultural Capitals: Early Modern London and Paris (Woodstock, 2009). Nightingale, Pamela, A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company and the Politics and Trade of London 1000–1485 (New Haven, 1995). O’Donoghue, Edward Geoffrey, Bridewell Hospital: Palace, Prison, Schools: I, from the Earliest Times to the Time of Elizabeth (Oxford, 1923). Oldland, John, ‘The Wealth of Trades in Early Tudor London,’ London Journal 31 (2006) pp. 127–155. Oldland, John, ‘The Allocation of Merchant Capital in Tudor London,’ Economic ­History Review 63 (2010), p. 1058–80. Overell, Anne M, Italian Reform and the English Reformations c. 1535 – c. 1585 ­(Aldershot, 2008). Owen, H Gareth, ‘Tradition and Reform: Ecclesiastical Controversy in an Elizabethan Parish,’ Guildhall Miscellany 2 (1961), pp. 63–7. Ozment, Steven E, The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to ­Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven, 1975). Page, William (ed.), A History of the County of London: Volume 1: London within the bars, Westminster and Southwark (London, 1909). Page, William (ed.), A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2 (London, 1926). Palliser, David M, The Reformation in York 1534–1553 (York, 1971). Parker, Patricia, ‘Cassio, Cash, and the “Infidel 0”: Arithmetic, Double-entry Bookkeeping, and Othello’s Unfaithful Accounts,’ in Jyotsna G Singh (ed.), A Companion to the Global Renaissance: English Literature and Culture in the era of Expansion (Oxford, 2009), pp. 223–241. Parson, Frederick Gymer, The History of St Thomas’s Hospital, 3 vols. (1933–6, London). Parsons, Sarah, ‘The “wonders of the deep” and the “mighty tempest of the sea”: nature, Providence and the English seafarers’ piety c. 1580–1640,’ in Peter Clarke and Tony Claydon (eds), God’s Bounty: The Churches and the Natural World (Studies in Church History 46, Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 194–204. Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1959).

258

Bibliography

Pearl, Valerie, ‘Change and Stability in Seventeenth Century London,’ London Journal 5 (1979), pp. 3–34. Pettegree, Andrew, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London ­(Oxford, 1986). Pettegree, Andrew, ‘The French and Walloon communities in London 1550–1688,’ in Ole Peter Grell, Jonathan Israel and Nicholas Tyacke (eds), From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England (Oxford, 1991), pp. 77–96. Pettegree, Andrew (ed.), The Reformation World (London, 2000). Pettegree, Andrew, The Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge, 2005). Phillips Ingram, Jill, Idioms of self-interest: credit, identity and property in English Renaissance Literature (London, 2006). Phythian-Adams, Charles, ‘Ceremony and the Citizen: the communal year at Coventry 1450–1550’ in Peter Clark (ed.), The Early Modern Town: A Reader (New York, 1976), pp. 106–128. Plant, Marjorie, The English Book Trade: An Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books (London, 1974). Pollard, Graham, ‘The English Market for Printed Books: The Sandars Lectures, 1959,’ Publishing History 4 (1978), pp. 7–48. Pollman, Judith and Andrew Spicer (eds), Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries (Aldershot, 2009). Postles, Dave, ‘Religion and Uncertain in Four Midland Urban Centres, c. 1529–1546,’ Midland History 34 (2009), pp. 22–43. Potter, David, ‘Sir John Gage, Tudor Courtier and Soldier (1479–1556),’ English Historical Review 117 (2002), pp. 1109–1146. Pugh Meyer, Judith, Reformation in La Rochelle: Tradition and Change in Early Modern Europe 1500–1568 (Geneva, 1996). Rabb, Theodore K, Enterprise and Empire: Merchant and Gentry Investment in the ­Expansion of England 1575–1630 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969). Racaut, Luc and Alec Ryrie (eds), Moderate Voices in the European Reformation ­(Aldershot, 2006). Ramsay, George D, ‘Industrial Discontent in early Elizabethan London,’ London Journal 1 (1975), pp. 227–239. Ramsay, George D, The city of London in International Politics at the Accession of E­ lizabeth Tudor (Manchester, 1975). Ramsay, George D, ‘Clothworkers, Merchant Adventurers and Richard Hakluyt,’ English Historical Review 92 (1977), pp. 504–521. Ramsay, George D, ‘The Recruitment and Fortunes of Some London Freemen in the Mid-Sixteenth Century,’ Economic History Review 31 (1978), pp. 526–40. Ramsay, George D, ‘A Saint in the City: Thomas More at Mercers’ Hall, London,’ English Historical Review 97 (1982), pp. 269–88.

Bibliography

259

Ramsay, George D, ‘Victorian Historiography and the Guilds of London: The report of the Royal Commission on the Livery Companies of London,’ London Journal 10 (1984), pp. 155–166. Ramsay, George D, The Queen’s Merchants and the Revolt of the Netherlands: The End of the Antwerp Mart (Manchester, 1986). Rappaport, Steve, Worlds Within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth-Century London (Cambridge, 1989). Rawcliffe, Carole, ‘The Hospitals of Later Medieval London,’ Medical History 28 (1984), pp. 1–21. Read, Conyers, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. ­(Oxford, 1925). Rees, Joseph Aubrey, The Worshipful Company of Grocers: An Historical Retrospect 1345–1923 (London, 1923). Rex, Richard, ‘The New Learning,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993), pp. 26–44. Reynolds, Matthew, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: ­Religion in Norwich c. 1560–1640 (Woodbridge, 2005). Robinson, William B, ‘The Bawdy Masters of St Thomas’s Hospital,’ Historical Research 83 (2010), pp. 565–74. Rosser, Gervase, ‘Going to the fraternity feast: Commensality and social relations in late medieval England,’ Journal of British Studies 33 (1994), pp. 430–46. Rosser, Gervase, The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages: Guilds in England 1250–1550 (Oxford, 2015). Rubin, Miri, Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge (Cambridge, 1987). Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1991). Rupp, E G, Studies in the making of the English Protestant tradition mainly in the reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1949). Rupp, E G, Six Makers of the English Religion 1500–1700 (London, 1957). Ryrie, Alec, ‘The strange death of Lutheran England,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53 (2002), pp. 64–92. Ryrie, Alec, The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003). Ryrie, Alec, ‘Paths not taken in the British Reformations,’ Historical Journal 52 (2009), pp. 1–22. Ryrie, Alec, Becoming Protestant in Reformation Britain (Oxford, 2013). Safley, Thomas Max, Matheus Miller’s Memoir: A Merchant’s Life in the Seventeenth C ­ entury (Basingstoke, 2000). Schama, Simon, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York, 1988). Schen, Claire S, Charity and Law Piety in Reformation London 1500–1620 (Aldershot, 2005).

260

Bibliography

Schneider, Gary, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England (Cranbury, 2005). Scott Dixon, C, Dagmar Freist, and Mark Greengrass (eds), Living with Religious Diversity in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2009). Scribner, Robert, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London, 1987). Scribner, Robert, ‘The Impact of the Reformation on Daily Life,’ in Lyndal Roper (ed.), Religion and Culture in Germany 1400–1800 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 275–301. Scribner, Robert, Roy Porter, and Mikulas Teich (eds), The Reformation in National Context (Cambridge, 1994). Seaver, Paul S, Wallington’s World: A Puritan Artisan in Seventeenth-Century London (Stanford, 1988). Selwood, Jacob, Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London (Aldershot, 2010). Sena, Margaret, ‘William Blundell and networks of Catholic dissent in post-­Reformation England,’ in Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington (eds), Communities in Early Modern England: networks, place, rhetoric (Manchester, 2000), pp. 54–75. Shagan, Ethan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003). Shagan, Ethan, (ed.), Catholics and the ‘Protestant nation’: Religious Politics and Identity in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2005). Shagan, Ethan, ‘Beyond Good and Evil: Thinking with Moderates in Early Modern ­England,’ Journal of British Studies 49 (2010), pp. 488–513. Shagan, Ethan, The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2011). Shakespeare, Joy, ‘Plague and Punishment,’ in Peter Lake and Maria Dowling (eds), Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth Century England (Chatham, 1987), pp. 103–123. Sheils, William, ‘Catholics and their Neighbours in a Rural Community: Egton Chapelry 1590–1780,’ Northern History 34 (1998), pp. 109–133. Shepard, Alexandra, Accounting for Oneself: Worth, Status, and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2015). Shepard, Alexandra and Phil Withington (eds), Communities in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2000). Simon, Joan, Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge, 2006). Sisson, Charles J, Thomas Lodge and Other Elizabethans (London, 1933). Slack, Paul, ‘Social Policy and the Constraints of Government 1547–58,’ in Jennifer Loach and Robert Tittler (eds), The Mid-Tudor Policy c. 1540–1560 (London, 1980), pp. 94–115. Smith Banister, Scott, Names and Naming Patterns in England 1538–1700 (Oxford, 1997). Smith, Richard Dean, The Middling Sort and the Politics of Reformation Colchester 1570– 1640 (New York, 2004). Smyth, Adam, Autobiography in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2010).

Bibliography

261

Sommerville, C John, The Secularization of Early Modern England: From Religious Culture to Religious Faith (Oxford, 1992). Spierling, Karen E, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community 1536–1564 (Aldershot, 2005). Spufford, Margaret, ‘The Scribes of Villagers wills in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and their Influence,’ Local Population Studies 7 (1971), pp. 28–43. Spufford, Margaret, Contrasting Communities: English Villagers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1974). Spufford, Peter, Power and Profit: The Merchant in Medieval Europe (London, 2002). Stevenson, Laura, ‘Anti-Entrepreneurial attitudes in Elizabethan sermons and popular literature,’ Journal of British Studies 15 (1976), pp. 2–20. Stevenson, Laura, Praise and Paradox: Merchants and Craftsmen in Elizabethan Popular Literature (Cambridge, 2002). Stone, Laurence, ‘The Educational Revolution in England 1560–1640,’ Past and Present 28 (1964), pp. 41–80. Stubbings, Frank, The Statues of Sir Walter Mildmay for Emmanuel College (Cambridge, 1983). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (ed.), Merchant Networks in the Early Modern World 1450–1800 (Aldershot, 1996). Sugahura, Miu, ‘The Coopers’ Company’s management of a grammar school in the suburbs of London in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries,’ in Kazuhio Kondo and Miles Taylor (eds), British History 1600–2000: expansion in perspective: proceedings of the sixth Anglo-Japanese conference of historians held at the University of Tokyo, 16–19 September 2009 (London, 2010), pp. 213–24. Sullivan, Ceri, The Rhetoric of Credit: Merchants in Early Modern Writing (London, 2002). Sutton, Anne F, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods and People 1130–1578 (Aldershot, 2005). Tankard, Danae, ‘The Johnson family and the Reformation 1542–52,’ Historical Research 80 (2007), pp. 469–490. Tankard, Danae, ‘Protestantism, the Johnson Family and the 1551 Sweat in London,’ The London Journal 29 (2004), pp. 1–16. Tawney, R H, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (London, 1926). Tenney, Edward, Thomas Lodge (Ithaca, 1935). Thrupp, Sylvia, The Merchant Class of Medieval London 1300–1500 (Chicago, 1948). Tittler, Robert, ‘Harmony in the Metropolis: Writings on Medieval and Tudor London and Westminster,’ Journal of British Studies 31 (1992), pp. 187–191. Tittler, Robert, ‘Civic Portraiture and Political Culture in English Provincial Towns, c. 1560–1640,’ Journal of British Studies 37 (1998), pp. 306–29. Tittler, Robert (ed.), Townspeople and the Nation: English Urban Experiences 1540–1640 (Stanford, 2001).

262

Bibliography

Tittler, Robert, The Face of the City: Civic Portraiture and Civic Identity in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007). Tittler, Robert, ‘Portraiture, Precedence and Politics amongst the London liveries c. 1540–1640,’ Urban History 35 (2008), pp. 349–62. Tittler, Robert, ‘Faces and Spaces: Displaying the Civic Portrait in Early Modern England,’ in Tara Hamling and Catherine Richardson (eds), Everyday Objects: Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture and its Meanings (Aldershot, 2010). Todd, Margo, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge, 1987). Trevor-Roper, Hugh, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London, 1967). Trivellato, Francesca, The Familiarity of Strangers: The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno and Cross-Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period (New Haven, 2009). Tumbleson, Raymond, Catholicism in the English Protestant Imagination 1660–1745 (Cambridge, 1998). Twomey, Leslie K (ed.), Faith and Fanaticism: Religious Fervour in Early Modern Spain (Aldershot, 1997). Tyacke, Nicholas (ed.), England’s Long Reformation 1500–1800 (London, 1998). Unwin, George, The Gilds and Companies of London (London, 1908). Unwin, George, ‘The Merchant Adventurers’ Company in the reign of Elizabeth I,’ ­Economic History Review 1 (1927), pp. 35–64. Usher, Brett, ‘The Silent Community: early puritans and patronage of the arts,’ in Diana Wood (ed.), The Church and the Arts (Studies in Church History 28, Oxford, 1992), pp. 287–302. Usher, Brett, ‘Backing Protestantism: the London Godly, the exchequer and the Foxe circle,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 105–34. Usher, Brett, ‘Expedient and experiment: The Elizabethan Lay Reader,’ in Robert N Swanson (ed.), Continuity and Change in Christian Worship (Studies in Church ­History 35, Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 185–98. Van Gelder, Maartje, Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern V ­ enice (Leiden, 2009). Vigne, Randolph and George Littleton (eds), From Strangers to Citizens: the Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America 1550–1750 (London, 2001). Vitkus, Daniel, ‘Poisoned Figs, or The Traveller’s Religion: Trade, Travel and Conversion in Early Modern Culture,’ in Goran Stanivukovic (ed.), Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Basingstoke, 2007), pp. 41–57. Vitullo, Juliann and Diane Wolfthal (eds), Money, Morality and Culture in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2010). Wabuda, Susan, ‘Equivocation and Recantation during the English Reformation: The “Subtle Shadows” of Dr Edward Crome,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993), pp. 224–242.

Bibliography

263

Wabuda, Susan, Preaching During the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002). Waddell, Brodie, God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life 1660–1720 (Woodbridge, 2012). Wake, Joan, The Brudenells of Deene (London, 1953). Walsham, Alexandra, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity and Confessional Polemic in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 1999). Walsham, Alexandra, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999). Walsham, Alexandra, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500– 1700 (Manchester, 2006). Walsham, Alexandra, ‘Inventing the Lollard Past: The Afterlife of a Medieval Sermon in early Modern England,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58 (2007), pp. 628–655. Walsham, Alexandra, ‘The Reformation and “The Disenchantment of the World” Reassessed,’ Historical Journal 51 (2008), pp. 497–528. Walsham, Alexandra, The Reformation of the Landscape: religion, identity and memory in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2011). Ward, Joseph P, Metropolitan Communities: Trade Guilds, Identity and Change in Early Modern London (Stanford, 1997). Ward, Joseph P, ‘Godliness, Commemoration and Community: The Management of Provincial Schools by London Trade Guilds,’ in Muriel C McClendon, Joseph P Ward, and Michael MacDonald (eds), Protestant Identities: Religion, Society and SelfFashioning in Post-Reformation England (Stanford, 1999), pp. 141–158. Ward, Joseph P, Culture, Faith and Philanthropy: Londoners and Provincial Reform in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2013). Wareham, A F, and A P M Wright (eds), A History of the County of Cambridgeshire and Ely, vol. 10 (Oxford, 2002). Warnicke, Retha M, ‘A Dispute Among the Freemen of the Drapers,’ Guildhall Studies in London History 1 (1974), pp. 59–67. Warnicke, Retha M, ‘The Merchant Society of Tudor London: John Lambarde – A Case Study,’ Indiana Social Studies Quarterly 27 (1984), pp. 57–69. Waters, Robert Edmund Chester, Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chester of Chicheley: their ancestors and descendants, 2 vols. (London, 1878). Watt, Tessa, Cheap Print and Popular Piety 1550–1640 (Cambridge, 1991). Waugh, Evelyn, Edmund Campion: Jesuit and Martyr (London, 1935). Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London, 1930, reprinted 1992). Whitfield White, Paul, ‘Interludes, economics, and the Elizabethan stage,’ in Mike Pincombe and Cathy Shrank (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Tudor Literature 1485–1603 (Oxford, 2009) pp. 556–570. Whiting, Robert, The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1989). Willan, T S, Muscovy Merchants of 1555 (Manchester, 1953).

264

Bibliography

Willan, T S, The Early History of the Russia Company 1555–1603 (Manchester, 1956). Williams, Dorothy, ‘London Puritanism: The Haberdashers’ Company,’ Church History 32 (1963), pp. 298–321. Williamson, Magnus, ‘Evangelicalism at Boston, Oxford and Windsor under Henry VIII: John Foxe’s Narratives Recontextualised,’ in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe at Home and Abroad (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 31–47. Willis, Jonathan, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England: Discourses, Sites and Identities (Aldershot, 2010). Winjum, James O, ‘The Journal of Thomas Gresham,’ The Accounting Review 46 (1971), pp. 149–55. Winjum, James O, The Role of Accounting in the Economic Development of England 1500–1750 (Urbana, 1972). Withington, Phil, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005). Withington, Phil, ‘The semantics of “peace” in early modern England,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 23 (2013), pp. 127–153. Wizeman, William, SJ, The Theology and Spirituality of Mary Tudor’s Church ­(Aldershot, 2006). Wood, Andy, The Memory of the People: Custom and Popular Senses of the Past in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2013). Woodbridge, Linda, English Revenge Drama: Money, Resistance, Equality (Cambridge, 2010). Wooding, Lucy, ‘Charity, Community and Reformation Propaganda,’ Reformation 11 (2006), pp. 131–169. Wright, Louis B, Middle Class Culture in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill, 1980). Wright, Susan (ed.), Parish, Church and People: Local Studies in lay religion 1350–1700 (London, 1988). Wrightson, Keith, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern England (New Haven, 2000). Wunderli, Richard, London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation (Cambridge, Mass., 1981). Wunderli, Richard, ‘Evasion of the Office of Alderman in London 1532–1672,’ London Journal 15 (1990), pp. 3–18. Zell, M L, ‘The Use of Religious Preambles as a Measure of Religious Belief in the Sixteenth Century,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 50 (1977), pp. 246–249.



Unpublished Secondary Sources

Colson, Justin, ‘Local Communities in Fifteenth Century London: Craft, Parish and Neighbourhood’ (University of London PhD, 2011).

Bibliography

265

Hickman, David J, ‘The Religious Allegiance of London’s Ruling Elite 1520–1603’ ­(University of London PhD, 1996). Kilburn-Toppin, Jasmine, ‘Crafting Artisanal Identities in early modern London: the spatial, material and social practices of guild communities c. 1560–1640’ (V&A/RCA PhD, 2012). Parsons, Sarah, ‘Religion and the Sea in Early Modern England c. 1580–1640’ (University of Exeter PhD, 2011). Winchester, Barbara, ‘The Johnson Letters 1542–1552,’ 4 vols. (University of London PhD, 1952).



Online Sources

Clergy of the Church of England Database (CCEd) www.clergydatabase.org.uk. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) www.odnb.com. John Foxe, The Unabridged Acts and Monuments Online (TAMO) www.johnfoxe.org. Bridewell Hospital, Minutes of the Court of Governors www.museumofthemind.org .uk/collections/archives.

Index Abbis, Richard 138–9 Accounting, double entry 136 Acts and Monuments see Foxe, John Adees, Henry 52 Alcock, Thomas 170 Alldick, Richard 213 Allen, Jasper 125, 205–6, 211–3, 218 Allen, John Sir 137, 157, 195 Allen, John 211 Allen, Thomas 137 Allen, William 212 Alms 33, 36, 46, 54–5, 76, 79–80, 92, 110, 160, 183, 185, 187, 203, 210, 214–5, 217–8, 222 Alsop, Thomas 118 An Alarum Against Usurers 163 Andrews, Robert 152, 154 Anes, Dunstan 107 Anti-Catholicism 147, 151, 221–2, 236 see Anti-popery Antichrist 148, 196 Anti-popery 63, 128, 129, 143, 148, 151, 195, 196 see Anti-Catholicism Antwerp 7, 14, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160–1, 171, 193 Apothecaries 15, 125, 200, 205, 211 see London, city companies Apprentices 1n, 5, 21n, 37, 45, 57–8, 60, 64–6, 107, 127, 135, 145, 158–9, 160, 165–6, 170, 175, 187, 194, 204, 209–11, 218, 220 see   London, city companies Aquinas, Thomas 137, 162–3, 201 Arnold’s Chronicle 143 Archdale, Martin 158–9, 165–6 Aristotle 22, 88, 133 Ashbold, William 84 Askew, Anne 208 Askew, Christopher 28, 35 Askew, Edmund 199–200 Askew, John 199–200 Askew, Richard 199–200 Asshe, Thomas 200–1 Augsburg 109 Augustine 88 A Warning for England 59 Ayliff, John Sir 109

Aylmer, John Bishop 107, 223 Aylmer, Laurence Sir 26, 188 Bacon, James 204 Bacon, Nicholas 203 Bacon, Thomas 203 Baker, John (martyr) 140 Baker, John 190 Baker, Thomas 26, 49 Bankruptcy 142, 156–7, 163, 210 see Trade Bannister, Thomas 160 Baptism 160 Barne, George 96 Barnes, Robert 50, 194–6, 199 Barnham, Benedict 218–9 Barnham, Francis 8, 103, 104, 106, 109, 164, 167n, 218 Bartlett, John 82 Basford, Robert 190–1, 197n, 209 Bate, Robert 107 Bayly, Lady 30, 32 Bayly, William 30 Baynham, Margaret 144 Becon, Theodore 224 Becon, Thomas 57, 64, 80, 117–8, 123, 170, 224 Bede-roll 79 Bedesmen 36, 55, 76n, 92, 111, 144, 188, 191, 210, 215 see Charity Bell-ringing 196 Beswick, William 59, 64, 118, 123 Bible 2, 9, 82, 117, 137, 149, 150, 168, 202, 204 Bilby, John 222–3 Bilby, Ralph 198–9, 224 Blage, George Sir 204 Blage, John 120n, 202n, 204–5 Blage, Mary 204 Blount, Alice, Lady Mountjoy 190 Blount, Michael 128 Blount, William, Lord Mountjoy 190 Bodnam, John 115, 117n, 216 Bodnam, Rauf 118, 224 Bodnam, William 81, 203n Boleyn, Anne Queen 38, 43, 56, 127n

Index Bonner, Edmund, Bishop 23n, 41, 62–3, 119–21, 144n, 219 Book of Martyrs see Foxe, John Bordeaux 132, 152 Bostock, Henry 148 Bowyer, Francis 81, 141, 220, 225–6 Bowyer, Henry 129 Bowyer, Robert 202 Bowyer, Thomas 60, 61n, 81–2, 137, 202–3 Bowyer, William 192 Boxe, William 104 Bradbridge, William, Bishop 218 Brady, Hugh, Bishop 82 Branch, John 52, 213, 189 Branch, John 191n, 211, 213 Branch, Thomas 212–3 Breton, Christopher 146, 150 Brinklow, Hugh 123–4 Bristol 111, 135, 138, 192 Bristow, Peter 216, 221 Broke, Robert 192, 209 Brooke, Humfrey 105 Brotherly love see London, city companies; Friendship As expressed by Companies 16, 22–5, 28, 30, 39–42, 44–6, 52, 64–66, 80, 85–7, 168 As expressed by Individuals 174, 188, 225, 228 Brothers, William 28, 188–9 Brudenell, Thomas Sir 146–7 Brugge, John 26–7, 30, 188 Brugge, Giles 30 Bucer, Martin 3 Bucknell, Mistress 53 Bullinger, Heinrich 149, 205 Bullingham, Elizabeth 223 Bullingham, Nicholas 223 Bullman, Thomas 222, 225–6 Bullock, Thomas 117 Busby, Humphrey 63 Buskell, Giles 83 Butler, John 145–6 Butler, William 190–2 Butler, William 192 Cabot, Sebastian 167 Calais 36, 141–2, 144–8, 150–4, 190, 192

267 Calthorp, John 59, 64, 110, 146 Calverley, Brian 223 Calvin, John 83, 132–3, 137 Calvinism 2–3, 5, 15, 136 Campion, Edmund 74–5, 84, 96–7, 232 Campion, Edward 75 Campion, William 75 Capell, William 29–30 Capitalism 4, 133, 136 see Weber, Max Carey, George Sir 107 Carkke, William 115, 191, 196–7, 204, 220 Carr, Robert 87 Cartwright, Thomas 73n, 74 Carver, Derek 224 Castelin, Edward 140 Cater, William 57 Cave, Ambrose 146 Cave, Anthony 141, 144, 152–4, 156–7, 203n Cave, Peter 188, 227 Cecil, William 81, 156 Chantries 19, 31, 37, 42, 50n, 103n, 177, 219 see London, city companies Establishment 115–6, 138, 178, 180, 188, 190–2, 218 Dissolution 50–4 Charity see Bedesmen; Divinity scholars; London, city hospitals; Obits; Schools From Companies 10, 20, 33, 35–7, 41, 46, 55, 74, 76–80 From Individuals 40, 46–7, 54, 76, 96, 110, 138, 159, 182–6, 192–228 Charles v, Emperor 35, 147 Champion, Barbara Dame 205, 218 Champion, Richard 158 Champion, Richard Sir 103, 158, 205, 212, 217 Champion, William 24 Chapman, Edmund 110 Chapman, Laurence 170 Chapman, Thomas 123 Chester, John 153 Chester, Thomas 110 Chester, William 51, 55n, 58, 64, 102, 110, 111n, 142, 165, 167n, 169, 210, 218 Christianity, Orthodox 169–70 Christopherson, John, Bishop 62, 100 Church courts 25–6 Church, William 37 Cicero 22, 88

268 Clarke, William 83 Clement, John 200–1 Clergy see London, city churches; London, city companies: ecclesiastical patronage Clervis, Ralph 120–22, 125, 130, 236 Clome, Owen 80, 204, 212, 214 Coke, John Dr 38, 50 Colclough, Mathew 128 Cole, Robert 83, 220 Coles, William 220 Colet, John 190, 220 Colthurst, Henry 226 Common Council 96, 158 Communion tables 103 Cooke, Thomas 85 Cope, Anthony Sir 84 Corpus Christi 34, 115–6, 216 Cosyn, Robert 197 Court of Aldermen 44, 58, 61n, 96, 108, 116, 170, 174, 195, 222 Coventry 6, 171, 189–90 Coverdale, Miles 74, 81–3, 148 Cranmer, Archbishop 23n, 50, 54n, 196, 204 Crome, Edward 127n, 130, 148, 196–7, 199 Cromwell, Thomas 44, 48, 138–9, 194 Croser, Richard 85 Crowley, Robert 70, 83–4, 105, 124, 126, 128, 210, 213, 223–4 Crull, Thomas 193 Cuttes, Thomas 101 Dallam, Thomas 172 da Sienna, Bernadino 153 Deane, Robert 209 de Soto, John 211 Denham, Elizabeth 196 Denham, William 196 Dimmock, John 167n, 169 Discovery of a Gaping Gulf, The 66 Divinity scholars 110 see London, city companies: charity Bequests 79, 213, 214, 217, 222, 224, 234 Company sponsorship 69, 73–5, 81, 231–2 Dixon, William 28 Dobbs, Richard Sir 95 Docwra, Thomas 137 Dolphin, William 188

Index Dormer, Robert Sir 152 Downing, William 103 Dragon 34 Drayton, Peter 38 Duckett, Lionel 67, 117, 220 Duckett, Richard 167n Dunne, Angel 73 Edward vi, King 3, 48, 50, 81, 92–3, 98, 116, 120, 123, 145, 167, 174, 200, 203, 207, 211, 236 Edyall, Henry Archdeacon 189 Elizabeth i, Queen 5, 22n, 41n, 56, 63, 66, 215 Elizabethan Settlement 5, 64, 126 Elmar, Edward 123–4, 223 Ely, Richard 25 Emden 168 Erasmus 83, 103, 117, 168, 190 Exiles 2, 57, 81–2, 105, 122n, 124, 126–7, 155, 197, 200–1, 205, 218, 223 Fabian, John 164 Factors 108, 139–40, 145–6, 152–4, 156–9, 163, 166, 170, 211 see Trade Fanshaw, Thomas 105 Farron, Charles 137 Fayrey, John 192 Feckenham, John 211 Fermor, John 202 Fermor, Mary 202 Fermor, Richard 137, 201 Fermor, Richard 202 Field, Bernard 215 Fitzmary, Simon 91 Fleet 59, 100, 164 Flud, Thomas 26 Forman, Robert 38, 50, 191, 194, 233 Foxe, John 2, 40, 55n, 83, 140, 174, 190, 202, 210, 213, 215, 218–9, 222, 224, 228, 236 Francis, Duke of Anjou 66 Fraternities, religious 12, 20, 114, 216, 237 Freer, John 200–1 Friendship 2, 17, 22, 25, 27, 32, 40, 46, 231, 234, 236 see Brotherly love Displayed in wills 176, 187, 195, 197, 204–5, 209, 212–3, 215–21, 223–6 Importance in trade 134, 141, 145–6, 157, 159, 161, 163, 167, 169 Fuller, John 216

269

Index Gage, John Sir 147, 152 Gambling 161–4 Game, William 25, 38, 188 Gardiner, John 129 Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop 100, 120 Garrard, William 168 Garrett, Thomas (aka Robert) 38, 50, 198–9 Geneva 84, 102, 107, 222 Gentyll, Gilbert 188 Germany 7, 9 Geste, Edmund 220 Giant 34 Gibson, Nicholas 32, 203, 215 Glapthorn, Northamptonshire 146–7 Goade, Roger 76 Goddard, Richard 222 Goodryck, Richard 204 Gore, Gerard 225 Gore, Robert 44 Gore, Thomas 203n, 225 Gough, John 83, 210 Gowsell, George 115 Grafton, Richard 2, 41, 60, 62, 68, 82, 85, 93, 95–6, 98–100, 103–6, 109, 120n, 130, 204, 212, 219, 234 Great Twelve 11, 74, 88, 125 see London, city companies Green, Bartlett 213 Greenway, Rauf 60, 61n, 125, 167n, 169, 206n, 211–2, 218, 234 Grene, John, Common Serjeant 27 Grene, Thomas 198 Gresham, John 215 Gresham, Richard 92, 157 Grindal, Edmund, Bishop 81, 104 Grover, John 177 Guildhall 59, 211 Guilds see London, city companies Gunter, Philip 119, 123 Hakluyt, Richard 167 Hale, Thomas 220 Hardy, Robert 64 Harrison, George 215 Harpsfield, Nicholas, Archdeacon 209 Hawkes, Thomas 205 Henry viii, King 1, 38, 43, 50, 56, 92–4, 97, 138, 152, 196, 200, 211, 217, 228

Herdson, Edward 158 Herdson, John 158 Herdson, Thomas 158 Heresy 1, 7, 39, 40–1, 44, 50, 59, 62, 86, 114n, 115, 133, 120, 129, 139, 145, 190, 193 Heton, Thomas 126 Hickman, Anthony 122n, 140, 197, 223 Higham, Francis 58–9, 128 Hill, Richard 215, 223 Hill, Rowland Sir 56, 93 Hilles, Richard 149 Homilies 23n, 41, 62, 230 Hooper, John 56, 59, 204–5 Hopton, George 58–9 167n Horne, Robert, Bishop 129 Hospitaller 95–8, 103 see London, city hospitals Howell, James 172 Howell, Thomas 16, 46–8, 134–141, 144, 160, 173, 192, 236 Howes, John 99–100, 108–9 Huggard, Miles 116 Huguenots 132, 155 Huish, James 107, 221 Humanism 88, 95, 187, 189–90, 201 Huntingfeld, Thomas 24 Iconoclasm 72, 117, 119–20, 124, 129, 232 Iconophobia 72, 231 Institutes of the Christian Religion 83 Islam 155, 170, 172 Iyan, Thomas 49 Jackman, Edward 81, 167n, 204, 216 Jackson, Benedict 214 Jackson, Robert 160 Jane, Queen 57, 81, 85 Jenkinson, Anthony 168 Jerome, William 50 Jewel of Joy 118 Johnson Company 17, 128, 141–157, 192, 216 see Trade Johnson, John 134, 137, 141–157, 159, 159n, 165, 236 Johnson, Otwell 128, 141, 142, 144–9 Johnson, Rafe 216 Johnson, Richard 146, 148–9, 155–6

270 Joint Stock Companies see Merchant ­adventurers; Staplers; Trade East India Company 166 Levant Company 172 Muscovy Company 17, 103n, 134, 167ff, 210, 219 Spanish Company 140, 166 Keble, Henry 36, 46, 54, 189–90 Kemp, John 167n, 224 Kidderminster, John 62, 116 Kirkby, William 209 Kirkley, Bartholomew 63 King’s Book 47 King, William 117 Kington, John 106 Knightley, Richard Sir 202 Knolles, Thomas 82, 92 Kyndersley, Robert 204 Lady Mayoress 33 Lambert, Francis 167n Lambert, John 203n, 215 Lambert, Richard 219–21 Lane, John 32n, 115 Lane, William 108 La Rochelle 152 Latimer, Hugh, Bishop 40, 50, 53, 114n, 204 Layfield, Edward 223 Layfield, Richard 81 Laxton, William 55–6, 76, 127, 191, 199, 208–211, 215, 219 Leese, Robert 139 Lent 145, 160 Levant 157, 172 Lewis, Geoffrey 57 Linacre, Thomas 189 Locke, Mathew 118 Locke, Thomas 197 Locke, William 198 Locke, Zachary 223 Lodge, Anne 210 Lodge, Thomas 75, 103, 109, 158, 161–4, 166, 167n, 168, 200, 210–1, 220, 222 Lodge, Thomas 163, 210 Lollards 23, 186–7, 202 Lollard Bible 137 London, city churches

Index All Hallows Honey Lane 37–8, 50, 82, 82n, 84–5, 117n, 190, 191n, 198–9, 224, 233 All Hallows London Wall 117n All Hallows Staining 87, 104 Christ Church Newgate 94–5, 99, 105–6 Mercers’ Chapel (formerly St Nicholas Acon / Acres) 33, 191 Paul’s Cross 53, 62n, 74, 75 St Andrew Hubbard 17n, 198 St Antholin Budge Row 19, 83, 126, 128 St Bartholomew the Less 94 St Benet Fink 128 St Benet Gracechurch 114n, 120, 123, 125 St Benet Sherehog 216 St Botolph Aldersgate 117n St Christopher le Stocks 117n, 119, 129 St Clement 214 St Dionis Backchurch 31 St Ewen 94 St Helen Bishopsgate 124 St John Walbrook 117n St Katherine Coleman Street 117n St Katherine Cree 117n St Laurence Jewry 83, 123–4, 126, 197 St Leonard Eastcheap 120 St Magnus Martyr 82, 84, 120 St Margaret Pattens 113–4, 235 St Martin Ludgate 117n St Martin Outwich 116 St Mary Abchurch 32, 188 St Mary Aldermary 126–7, 189, 196 St Mary-le-Bow 83, 220 St Mary Magdalen Milk Street 117 St Mary Overie 33, 53, 59 St Mary Staining 117n St Mary Woolchurch 198 St Mary Woolnorth 93n St Michael Bassishaw 71n, 219 St Michael Cornhill 26–7, 32–3, 37, 37n, 38, 43, 49, 56, 59, 61, 73, 79, 83–4, 119, 123–4, 189, 213, 223 St Mildred 67, 225 St Nicholas Shambles 94 St Paul’s Cathedral 53, 76, 82, 158, 203, 225 St Peter Cornhill 117n St Peter-le-Poor 206, 221 St Peter Westcheap 57

Index St Stephen Walbrook 36–7, 62–3, 71, 75, 80, 82, 84–5, 114–7, 117n, 118, 122–5, 189, 221, 224, 232 St Swithun 33, 48, 117n St Thomas the Apostle 103–4 London, city companies see Apothecaries; Apprentices; Great Twelve Clothworkers 74n Drapers Charity 35–7, 55 see Bedesmen, Divinity scholars; Schools; Obits Loans 79–80, 214, 216, 227–8 Pensions 54, 77–8, 210 Remembrance of benefactors 79–80 Company clerk 29, 32, 48, 53, 55, 59, 64–5, 69, 71, 78–9, 84, 128, 194, 207, 218 Burial dinner 52, 67, 231 Discipline 21–4, 32, 43–6, 59–60, 64–5 Ecclesiastical patronage 37–39, 49–50, 61–3, 83–6 Election Day 28, 32, 36, 47, 56, 59–62, 68–71, 74, 81, 223, 231 Material culture 73 see Iconoclasm; Iconophobia Ordinances 10, 18, 21–3, 28, 32–3, 40, 41n, 45, 47–8, 52, 65, 67–8, 70–1, 79 Religious observance (inc. funerals)  28–35, 47–8, 52–3 see Chantries;  Mass; Sermons Goldsmiths 28, 45 Grocers Charity 35–7, 46, 53–4 see Bedesmen; Divinity scholars; Schools; Obits Loans 79–80, 214, 216, 227–8 Pensions 54, 77–8, 210 Remembrance of benefactors 78–9 Company clerk 71, 78–9, 229 Discipline 32, 60, 65 Ecclesiastical patronage 37–39, 49–50, 61–3, 80–6 Election Day 71–74, 231 Material culture 72 see Iconoclasm; Iconophobia

271 Ordinances 18, 22, 28, 32, 65, 96n Religious observance see Chantries; Mass; Sermons Haberdashers 3n, 77n, 168 Ironmongers 66 Mercers 1, 10–11, 13, 19, 65n, 128, 157, 167, 174, 188n, 234 Merchant Taylors 41, 96, 116 London, hospitals 90–111, 129–30, 169, 182, 184, 186, 188, 203, 205–6, 209–10, 213, 216–7, 221, 225–6, 230, 235 Bethlem 91–4, 101, 109 Bridewell 78, 90–1, 93, 98–99, 99n, 102–109 Christ’s Hospital 93, 98–9, 100–1, 105, 108–9, 130, 158, 209, 217 Elsing Spital 92 St Thomas’s Hospital 92–3, 98–9, 101–4, 109, 158, 217 London, religious houses see London, city hospitals Austin Friars 48 Bethlem 91–2 Greyfriars (Christchurch) 26–7, 33, 37, 100 Crossed Friars 46, 191 Elsing Spital 92 Merton priory 50 New Abbey at Tower Hill 92 Observant friars, Greenwich 188, 212 Sheen priory 189 St Bartholomew 29, 94, 212 St Thomas Acon / Acres 33 Knights Hospitaller 33, 137 Lord Mayor 6, 21, 22, 33–6, 56–9, 65–7, 69, 74–7, 80, 86, 92, 96, 157, 164–5, 188–9, 191, 195, 206, 208–9, 211–2, 217, 220, 222, 235 Lotteries 162 Low Countries 9, 153, 159 Lowen, Elizabeth 204 Lowen, John 204, 212–3 Lucy, Thomas 202 Lucy, William Sir 202 Luddington, Henry 209 Luddington, Nicholas 210 Luther, Martin 1, 3, 38, 40, 139, 145, 163, 191, 232, 236 Lyon, John 95, 97, 215–6, 221

272 Machell, Johan 210 Machell, John 210 Machyn, Henry 206, 209 Marmalade 31 Martin, Roger 220 Martyrs, Protestant 140, 142, 152, 174n, 205, 208, 210, 213, 222, 224 Mary I, Queen 57, 85, 100, 107, 121 Mason, William 186–7 Mass 16, 18, 28, 33, 37, 41, 47–9, 53, 54n, 56, 61, 64, 93, 100, 114–5, 119, 122n, 138, 147, 178, 180, 190–2, 196, 202, 207, 209, 216, 221, 224, 231 Mathew, Richard 84 Mattrys, Margaret 146, 151 Mayne, Cuthbert 129 Medwel, John 115 Megges, William 227 Merchant Adventurers 46, 65n, 140, 161–2, 168, 190, 192, 216–9, 223 see Joint-stock   Companies Merrick, William 168 Mery, John 203 Mery, William 137, 202–3 Midsummer Watch 34–5 Milborne, John 46, 92, 188, 217 Mildmay, Walter Sir 76–7 Millington, Thomas 78 Moon, John 78 Monmouth, Humfrey 2, 35, 39–40, 44, 113–5, 139, 194–7, 221, 227–8, 235 Monmouth, Margery 196 Monoux, George 26–7 Mordaunt, John, second Baron 202 More, Margaret 201 More, Thomas 190, 201 Morris dancers 34 Moundeford, Mary 223 Moundeford, Thomas Dr 223 Mullins, John, Archdeacon 82–3 Muscovy Company 17, 103n, 134, 167ff, 210, 219 Mylles, Henry 61n, 67, 203n, 225 Mynors, Ralph 213 Mynors, John 213, 225 Newdigate, Sebastian 152 Newgate prison 97–8, 211

Index Newman, Gregory 72 Nicholas, Thomas 140 Nicodemism 122, 130, 151, 236 Norwich 1, 7, 68, 234 Nowell, Alexander 67, 76, 81–2, 84, 105, 158, 203, 218, 225–6 Oath of Supremacy 43–4 Obits 10, 19, 21, 23, 26–33, 36, 39, 42, 48–55, 62, 67, 82, 114–6, 177–8, 180, 188–9, 191–2, 216, 218, 231 see Prayers for soul Offley, Thomas 154 Ordinances Guild 10, 21–4, 28, 45 see London, city companies Hospital 94, 96–7, 100–1, 107, 129 Merchant Adventurers 162 Muscovy Company 167–8 Parish 87 Organs 113–4, 116–7, 124, 129 Ormeshaw, Emmanuel 222 Ormeshaw, William 107–8, 222 Osborne, Peter 76, 81, Osborne, Richard 81, 84, 164 Pacioli, Luca 136 Packington, Edward 220 Packington, Humfrey 204, 221 Packington, John 220 Packington, Margery 220 Packington, Margaret 220 Packington, Robert 1 Packington, William 220 Pageants 34–5 Pageant of Paradise 68 Papacy 43, 143, 192, 195, 201, 222, 228 Parker, William 58, 79, 128 Parliament 1 Parnell, John 194–5 Parnell, Thomas 194–5 Partridge, Nicholas 188–9 Paulet, William 30, 206 Paynell, Thomas 50 Peace see Brotherly love; Charity Peche, John Sir 31, 36, 46, 54 Peche, Lady 31 Pendleton, Henry 62–3 Perkins, William 161

273

Index Persia 167, 169, 170–2 Perry, Edmund 49 Petyt, John 193 Petyt, Lucy 194 Philip ii, King 59, 107 Phillips, Rowland 26–7, 38, 43, 188 Philpot, John 83–4, 124, 210, 213, 223 Pierson, Thomas 115, 204 Pierson, William 220, 220n Pole, Margaret 200 Porter, John 104 Potytt, Philip 80–1 Power, William 74 Poynter, Richard 59, 64, 167n Poyntz, Thomas 153 Pratt, William 199, 209 Prayers for soul 79–80, 115, 178, 180, 189, 191, 198, 204–6, 212, 214, 222, 225 see Obits Preambles 17, 174–7, 214 see Wills Protestant 188, 193, 196–8, 213, 216 Trinity 202–3, 219 Traditional 194, 200–1 Predestination, double 133, 236 Providence 134, 150, 156, 169 Prynne, Rauf 122 Psalms 70, 83, 98, 102, 118, 125, 127, 204, 207, 231 Purgatory 115, 205–6 Puritanism 2, 6–7, 9, 12–13, 66–7, 70, 72, 76, 84, 90, 107, 126, 161, 221, 226 Pyke, Nicholas 37 Pyckett, Thomas 60 Quarles, John 73, 212, 217–8 Ramsey, Thomas 225 Rastell, William 200–1 Recusants 56, 77, 215 Refugees, religious 65 Regiment of Povertie, The 84 Reputation 17, 108, 134, 148n, 152–3, 171, 195 see Trade Reynolds, Richard 223 Richardson, Thomas 194 Ridley, Nicholas, Bishop 91, 95, 117 Robinson, Francis 161, 167n Roche, William 86, 135, 192, 206

Rogationtide 34 Rogers, John 174, 228 Rolles, John 45–6 Rome, bishop of see Papacy Rood 113, 114n, 115–7, 121, 123–6 Rouen 151, 158 Royal Supremacy 94, 152, 211 Rycrofte, John 31 Ryvers, John 72, 127 Russia 166–173, 219 see Muscovy Company Sadler, John 77 Sadler, John 200 Saunders, Ambrose 152, 156–7 Saunders, Blase 124, 142, 152, 167n, 168–9, 205 Saunders, Laurence 58, 142, 145, 149, 205, 210 Saunders, Sabine 141, 146, 149–50, 157 Scarlet, Francis 106 Schools 53, 55, 101, 109, 160 Bequests to 182, 184, 186, 203 Company administration 73, 76–7, 77n Oundle 76–7, 210 Ratcliffe 203 Rugby 215 see Sheriff, Laurence Secularisation 4, 6–10, 16, 20, 52, 54, 68, 71, 89, 95, 134, 229–33 Sercot, John 186 Sermons 16, 40, 47, 50, 53, 59, 61, 62n, 63–4, 67–71, 74, 83, 102, 102n, 103, 114n, 123–4, 127, 129, 148–9, 158, 168, 178, 180, 196–7, 199, 203–5, 207, 210, 214, 216, 218, 221, 223–225, 231 Sheriff, Laurence 158, 215 see Schools, Rugby Six Articles, Act of 50, 57, 86, 120, 130, 198, 204, 224, 236 Slayne, Stephen 165 Smith, Phillip 145–6 Smythe, Clement 192 Smythe, Roger 198 Soda, John 114n, 125–6, 211 Soda, Katherine 205, 211 Soda, Richard 211 Somerset, Protector 57, 147, 151 Southam, Thomas 169

274 Southwark Fair 69 Southwick, Henry 146 Spain 16, 100, 135ff, 152, 155, 192, 211 Sparke, Thomas 169 Spencer, Thomas 26 Springham, Richard 197 St Bartholomew’s Fair 69 Staple, Edward Dr 63 Staplers 65n, 142, 144–5, 152, 154–5, 159, 161, 171, 189–90, 192–3 see Joint-stock  companies Star Chamber, Court of 107 Statute in Restraint of Appeals 192 Steelyard 1 Stevens, George 224 Stile, Edmund 167n, 219 Stile, Nicholas 226 Stoddard, George 17, 134, 157ff, 173 St Omer 151 Story, John Dr 100 Stranger churches Bequests to 183, 185, 187 Dutch 13, 68, 128, 217–8 French 13, 94, 217, 217n, 218 Italian 128, 217, 217n, 218 St Simon and Jude’s day 34, 69 Strasbourg 7 Stubbs, John 66 Swan, Mistress 53 Tawney, Richard 3–4 Taylor, Rowland 196 Tempest, Robert 152–4 Thayne, Nicholas 201 Theology, Franciscan School of 153–4 Thornhill, Richard 65 Tower of London 33, 38, 57, 84, 195 Trade 1–4, 7, 24–6, 122n, 132–173 passim, 190–3, 223 see Bankruptcy; Factors; Joint-stock companies; Johnson Company; Merchant Adventurers; Reputation; Staplers Throckmorton, Nicolas Sir 59, 64 Throckmorton, Rose 223 Tracy, William 193 Treason 201 Trendal, Edmund 188 Tresham, Thomas 77

Index Tripp, Henry 84 Tyndale, William 39–40, 44, 113, 115, 153, 195, 197 Tyrell, Thomas 129, 231 Tull, Richard 73 Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop 33, 67 Umpton, Hugh 31 Universities 38, 53, 109, 231–2 Company benevolence 54, 74 Bequests 182, 184, 186, 211, 213–4, 217, 221 Cambridge 69, 74, 76, 110, 201, 222 Oxford 74–5 95–6, 126 Usury 3, 132, 162–5, 171 Vaughan, Geoffrey 197 Vaughan, Stephen 199 Venice 148 Vestments 72, 94–5, 99, 116, 118, 122–3, 129, 189 Vestries 16, 57, 87, 89, 95, 106, 112–3, 123–4, 126–7, 129 Vycars, Thomas 96 Walsingham, Francis 141 Wanton, Johan 209 Wanton, Thomas 60 Warfield, Roger 108, 118 Warner, Bartholomew 69, 127–8, 152, 217n, 218 Warner, Maria 142 Warner, Robert 207–8 Warren, Ralph 157 Weber, Max 3, 132–3, 136, 173, 236 Wentworth, Charles 219 Wetton, Rauf 189 Wheeler, Nicholas 110, 223 Wheeler, Robert 218 White, John Sir 74, 127, 206n White, Thomas 75 White, Thomas 93, 86 Whitgift, John 76–7 Widows 31, 56, 78, 81, 110, 128, 144, 193–4, 197n, 204, 209, 224 Wilkinson, John 29, 32, 188, 198 Willoughby, John 56

275

Index Wills 174–228 passim see Preambles Winthrop, William 84, 119, 128 Witton, Thomas 213 Wolman, Richard 186 Wood, John 224 Woodcock, Andrew 115 Woodcock, Rauf 123, 126–7 Woodford, Gamaliel 166 Wright, Henry 81

Wright, William 61–2 Wriothesley, Thomas 56 Yarford, James Sir 192, 219 Young, James 84, 213 Young, John 33, 76 Zwingli 38