History of the Reformation in Wales

History of the Reformation in Wales The Reformation is one of the most studied, most discussed and heavily analysed periods of English history, arousing controversy and interest through the works of academics and the private study of interested individuals alike. J.A. Froude called it [T]he greatest incident in English history, but it would be just as easy to call it an act of sacrilege motivated by a selfish tyrant, interested more in perpetuating his own line than fulfilling his self-proclaimed role as defender of the faith. No matter the differences of historical opinion, its importance cannot be denied, and nor can its impact. Yet few authors have deigned to focus on the impact of this turbulent course of events on the principality of Wales, nor has there been much discussion of the role of its governor, Rowland Lee. This essay will do exactly that. It will begin with an analysis of the Reformation Acts as this author has dubbed them, the statutes enacted by Henry with the specific aim ofremaking the English church in his image. These measures affected thecountry as a whole, and any aspects peculiar to Wales will be examined. The essay will continue with a detailed look at the Welsh Acts,†statutes often called (wrongly) Acts of Union. Obviously, their effectis specific to Wales, and the attitudes of the Welsh people will be especially noteworthy here. Finally, the scope of the inquiry will turn to the man who implemented those policies as President of the Council of Wales: Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. To some he was a blood-thirsty man,the hanging bishop who instigated a reign of terror. To others he was a skilled and efficient administrator, a man who was given a job to do and who took the actions necessary to its success. Once this essay isfinished, the thoughts of the writer will be well known, it will be upto the reader to make the final judgement. The background to the Reformation is long and complex, and is morethan a simple matter of a childish egotists desire to take what he hasbeen told he cannot have. Nor is the motivation as simple as apolitical need to secure the continuation of his line through the birthof a healthy son. Both of these were factors in Henrys thinking, butthey were not as simplistic as they have been portrayed. Henry was ascholar and had the capacity for intelligent, theoretical and theological thought. The Reformation was in part the end result of atheory of kingship based on the kingship of David in the Bible, and ona notion of imperium, that a king was the sole final arbiter of allmatters within his realm. Unfortunately, we do not have the available time or space to go into the causes of the Reformation in more detail. All that need concern the reader for the purpose of this study is that the Popes refusal to annul Henry VIIIs marriage to Catherine of Aragon (thereby invalidating the papal dispensation that had made the marriage legal inthe first place) led Henry to break with the Church of Rome and taketotal control of the church in England. The Church of England, as it became known, had the King at its head; he was the defender of the faith, and no foreign power could determine religious policy in his realm, just as it could not determine administrative policies or set taxation. There is a logical (if not theological) sense in this policy,and it was one that fitted with Henrys newfound theory of kingship. (i) The Reformation in General: A Legislative Revolution Henry was a king who ruled with parliament, and this makes analysis ofhis policies easier, since there is a clear legislative framework toalmost every reforming measure he undertook. Indeed, the parliamentthat enacted this legislation was dubbed the Reformation Parliament.It was through Parliament and the legal apparatus at his disposal thatHenry and Cromwell conducted the reformation of the Church, which wasto become Henrys church. The birth of the Reformation (at least in legal terms) came in the formof the Act of Restraint of Appeals (1533). It stated that as King ofEngland, Henry owed submission to no man, not even the Pope. The actproceeded on the basis that a king owed allegiance and obedience to Godand God alone. No earthly being could tell him how to interpret theScripture, or prevent him from annulling a marriage he had adjudgedsinful. In both theory and practice, it created an autonomous Church ofEngland, with the King at its head. The Act (as with almost alllegislation) was politically motivated, for (as its name implies) itbarred an English citizen from appealing to the Vatican against anydecision made by an English ecclesiastical court. The motivation forthis was obvious. It meant that if an English ecclesiastical courtruled that the marriage between the King and Catherine of Aragon wasinvalid, Catherine could not appeal to the pope. If she did, anyresponse would have no legal force within the Engli sh realm. Since theecclesiastical courts were now as much the kings courts as any otherlegal forum, they would dispense a decision in line with hisinterpretation of the law. This may seem tyrannical and corrupt tomodern eyes, but in Tudor England it made perfect sense. The courtsystem existed because the king was meant to dispense justice but couldnot hope to adjudicate every case himself. Personal intervention ofthis sort was impracticable. With this in mind, for a king to advisethe court of the correct decision was a constitutional act of theutmost legality. Part of the coronation oath was the preservation ofjustice; that is (in theory) all interference in a court case was; theking assuming duties he had previously sworn to perform. It is clear that dealing with his political and marital problems werefar more important to Henry and his government than reforming theChurch itself. The second key measure in the Henrician/Cromwellianreform programme was the Act of Succession (March 1534). The Actconfirmed the bastardy of Mary Tudor, (who had lost her title ofPrincess and was now referred to as the Lady Mary). Mary wasdisinherited and the Princess Elizabeth was named the kings truesuccessor. More importantly, the Act provided that any subject, if soordered, should swear an oath recognising its provisions. Most peoplecomplied without question, but both Thomas More and Bishop John Fisherrefused to take it. Both men paid for this allegiance to the Pope withtheir lives. The Princess Dowager (as Catherine of Aragon was nowdesignated), and her daughter also refused, but their relationship tothe Emperor restrained Henry, who left them to their own devices. It wasnt until later in 1534 (November) that the real changesbegan. The Act of Supremacy gave a legal, statutory definition of thekings position within the structure of this newly created Church ofEngland. It gave the king a statutory title of Supreme Head of theChurch of England and assigned the king all prerogatives to the saiddignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining.In effect, the pope was being displaced as the head of the church inEngland. Henry of course, had a different view. It was the kings ofEngland who had been displaced by the pope, based on spurious doctrinethat contradicted the Holy Scriptures. God had always intended that theking be master of all matters in his realm. That was why He selectedkings personally, putting them on the throne through his divine powers.His intervention at Bosworth Field had put the Tudors in control of thekingdom of England, and Henry was not about to let some bishop of Romeusurp his God-given authority. That would be to defy the will of God.Naturally, Henry was able to find theologians with concurring views.Richard Sampson, Bishop of Chichester wrote a treatise on the subjectthat made the very point Henry was making in the Act of Succession. Itsaid that The word of God is to obey the King, and not the Bishop ofRome.† Despite all of this, the Church of England remained an essentiallyCatholic church, since Henry had little interest in Protestantism.Indeed, many of the measures he did introduce of an evangelical naturewere later reversed. The Ten Articles of 1536 are a prime example ofHenrys attempts to steer a level course between the extremeCatholic/conservative and Anglican/evangelical wings of his new church.He was eager to keep it a broad church, but not willing to countenanceheresy (he burned papists and people who denied the sacraments withequal vigour). They were supposed to constitute a formulary for the newand improved Henrician church and were not without their controversies.For one thing, it only explicitly recognised three sacraments(baptism, penance and the Eucharist), where the Catholic Churchrecognised seven. Emphasis was laid upon the words of the Scriptures,and the merits of simple Christian life (something difficult torecognise in the grandiose magnificence of Renaissance royal co urts).It was not however, an anti-Catholic formulation as such. It did notcondemn the Mass, nor did it condemn the Catholic call for good works.It was a balancing act, with a little something for everybody, and Weirhas described it as a tentative move in an evangelical direction. Ifit was such a move, it was one that Henry soon reversed. The Act of SixArticles in 1539 resolved any latent ambiguity that existed in theEnglish church, returning it to a clearly Catholic structure. Clericalmarriage was condemned and the vows of chastity were now held to besacred and unbreakable, which put Archbishop Cranmer in an unfortunateposition as his marriage had been an open secret for some time. He wasundoubtedly not alone in finding himself in what was now a compromisingsituation, and it is somewhat ironic that Henry was enactinglegislation to combat illegal marriages. One thing of course, remainedunchanged; papal supremacy was not restored, nor could it be. Henry hadspent years espousing his ow n supremacy over the church, and it hadbeen the guiding principle behind his reign for the past decade. Evenif he had wanted to reverse what he had done and re-enter the CatholicChurch, it would be a political mistake of the highest order, and notone that he was prepared to make. Only one man could have dominion overEngland, and that man was its king. (ii) The Dissolution of the Monasteries: Royal Motives and a Welsh Perspective The Dissolution of the Monasteries was seen by some as an unwarrantedattack on a helpless class of people with no means to defendthemselves, and by others as a necessary purging of a corrupt andparasitical class of clergymen who served no pastoral or practicalpurpose. In reality, it was in the main, a land grab. There was anincreasing likelihood of war with France and Henry had gained fewfriends following Englands break with Rome. As the arch-pragmatist andchief minister Cromwell saw it, the monasteries were an untappedresource. Now that the king was overall arbiter of the churchsfuture, he had a legal authority over the monasteries that he had neverhad before. With this new ecclesiastical power came a desire toexercise it. Cromwell managed to push through an extremely efficientprogramme of dissolution, despite the objections of the kings newbride, Jane Seymour. In four short years, all five-hundred andsixty-three religious houses would be closed, and their inmatespensioned off. This freed up an enormous amount of land and finances which, naturallybecame the property of the Crown. With the injection of the abbeysrevenues into the treasury, the royal income doubled. This new moneywould help to finance Henrys extensive (and expensive) buildingprojects and the acquisition of new property (among other things). TheCrown also annexed monastic lands worth  £120, 000 a year, a massiveamount of money at the time, which amounted to one fifth of thekingdoms landed wealth. The Reformation was a time when the king had no significant standingarmy, despite the threat from the Catholic powers of France and Spainand the not unlikely threat of civil rebellion. To offset this risk,Henry redistributed a third of this new land to secure the loyalty ofimportant men, men who he would come to depend on when the northerupted in rebellion in 1536-7. Whilst the church held one quarter of all Welsh land it was notprolific in its membership. In 1500, Cistercian monasteries averagedonly six monks. Augustinian monasteries averaged five monks, with theBenedictine order averaging a mere three monks a monastery. Theso-called Great Abbey at Tintern only had thirteen monks. All in all,the dissolution displaced two hundred and fifty monks, nuns and friars,not an extreme number. Indeed, Henry could easily have described them as a minor casualty that benefited the whole nation. The effect on the people of Wales was somewhat more serious, as thepoor relied on the benefactory nature of the Welsh monasteries andpriories. This was a country where fifty per cent of the populationsuffered from malnutrition and an equal percentage of newborn babiesfailed to survive their first year. A lifespan of thirty-five years wasalso not uncommon, which is low, even for medieval Europe. The sheerpoverty and susceptibility to illness (a result of their malnutrition)of the Welsh working class made them dependent on the principalitysforty-six monasteries for alms and food. What made this worse was thatall of the Welsh monasteries were relatively poor, and so all of themwere dissolved in the initial cull of the lesser monasteries. In onefell swoop, Welsh monasticism was ended; for the Welsh there was noadjustment period, no breathing space; all of their monasteries went atonce. With the monasteries gone, a vital source of relief was cut off,a fact that no doubt hit hard in poor h omes throughout Wales andengendered a lot of distaste for the Tudor regime. A dynasty that theWelsh people had supported at its inception was taking away a vitalsource of support. It was to get worse too, as the new Church ofEngland cracked down on idolatry and (in Welsh eyes) took an axe to thepeoples heritage. (iii) The Idolatry Crackdown: A Welsh Perspective As has been stated above, the Reformation began as an essentiallypolitical process, resolving the question of absolute dominion andwhether the church was to be ruled from Rome or by the divinelyappointed sovereign of the nation in question. However, as the TenArticles of 1536 demonstrates, the Reformation did incorporate somereform of the church into its programme. A part of this thatparticularly affected Wales was the crusade against idolatry andimages. In 1538, Thomas Cromwell issued an Injunction ordering every parishchurch to stock an English bible to be made available for all whowished to read it and interpret the Scriptures themselves. As we willsee below, this was of little benefit to the Welsh. In the same year, asimilar Injunction ordered that every shrine in the country was to bedestroyed. This is where the popular image of thugs running around thecountry smashing up churches comes from, and it is a view that is notwithout some justification. As always, Cromwell was very effective, andeven the shrine of Thomas Becket (one of the countrys holiestpilgrimage places) was lost as a result of the zealous evangelicaldestruction squads. This had a particularly damaging effect on Wales,where cultural-religious relics were highly venerated. In a move thataccorded perfectly with the Reformations attempt to completelyassimilate the Welsh nation and culture, the principalitys relics wereruthlessly swept away, with almost nothing (if any thing) surviving thecull. Village processions would often have sacred images carried inthem, these priceless relics were lost. One such relic was the healing cup of Nant Eos. This sacred relicwas in reality no more than a cracked piece of wood, but to the Welshit had mystical powers. Whilst such a phrase sounds laughable to modernears, there is little doubt that the Welsh believed in the cupsproperties. Not only did it have remarkable healing properties, itpossessed the ability to cleanse your soul, keeping you out of hell andin extreme cases, it was believed to bring you back from that foulplace of purgatory. To the Welsh therefore, this was not merely avenerated image, but a physical key to salvation and a medical toolthat went far beyond contemporary healing techniques. As we have seen,Tudor Wales was a grim place and to remove relics such as the cup ofNant Eos was to eliminate hope itself for many of the people whobelieved in them. At a time when the Acts of Union were doing theirvery best to dilute and destroy the very basics of Welsh culture, thepolicies of the Reformation were providing a complementar y service inthe field of religious relics. (i) Why unify? The Welsh Problem The Welsh problem had been of concern to Henry VIII for some time bythe coming of the Reformation. Even though he had never been anyfarther west than Bristol, he was aware that the country which hadhelped his father to the throne was an alien one, out of step with therest of his realm. In a period of heightened nationalism, thedifferences between the Principality and its ruler were brought into amuch sharper focus, and became more clearly defined as a threat to theuniformity of the Henrician imperium. The Welsh language was an ugly tongue when compared to the Latin,French and Greek he had learned at the hands of his tutors, and it hadan alien sound to it. To a paranoid man, it could also be construed asthe ideal way to foment rebellion; after all, it is hard to root outtraitors when you cannot understand what they are saying It wasnt just the Welsh language that concerned the king. Walesstill had a distinct legal system, based on Gaelic traditions whichwere alien to a country based on Norman ideals. The Welsh system was sodifferent that it did not even recognise the English distinctionbetween civil and criminal cases; one of the central tenets of thecommon law system. Outrageously to a modern western audience,manslaughter and deliberate homicide were not even considered realcrimes. In England, such acts were offences against the community, tobe judged in royal courts, and nothing could alter the prosecutorsright to pursue a criminal case. In Wales (and Ireland), it was the kinwho had been wronged, and they who sought a remedy, and as in somemodern cultures, the family could seek financial reparations. None of this was, strictly speaking, a threat to society, or the soundadministration of the Principality. What was (or at least should havebeen) a genuine cause for central concern was that the conquest had notmanaged to eliminate the operation of the law of galanas, a lawregarding blood feuds and the appropriate resolution of such disputes.The principle of compensation was fundamental to the justice of thefeud, and it is not impossible that compensation could have included alife in return for a life. As we have seen above, tolerance was not one of Henry VIIIs qualities.He did not recognise alternative forms and systems of justice,especially when they were operating in his imperium. The root cause ofthe Reformation was his determination to see that his law was the law,and that no legal system, ecclesiastical or civil, could co-exist withhis own. Henry himself said that the Welsh laws were sinister usagesand customs used by the lords of the March for thraldom and tyranny. Of a more practical concern, there was a serious problem with law andorder throughout Wales and it was this that was the root cause ofHenrys acts of union. As Henry himself said in 1520: realms withoutjustice be but tyrannies and robberies Wales was not as much of aproblem as the Marches, which were a patchwork of autonomous fiefdoms,where lawlessness and violence abounded. The main problem with theMarcher lordships was centuries old. The constant threat of rebellionin Wales had led to the Marches becoming a buffer zone between thePrincipality and England, a medieval Rhineland, designed to keep theWelsh wolf from the door. To combat the Welsh threat, extensive powershad been delegated to the Marcher lords, powers that had never beenreclaimed. Within any one lordship, the lord had legislative power and,as Susan Brigden has said, they possessed virtual judicialomnicompetence within their own domain. There were a total of onehundred and thirty-seven separate jurisdictions where the king s writsimply did not run. They were notorious hideouts for outlaws andcriminals, a situation not helped by the fact that a murderer couldsimply cross state lines into another lordship to avoid punishment.For serious, career criminals the Marches were a safe haven that theking could simply no longer permit. The situation is believed to havebeen so bad that J.A. Williamson described Wales as wild anduntroubled by Parliaments laws, or by any law at all, being in aworse state of crime and disorder than England had been in the civilwars. For a king so obsessed with sovereignty and control over hisown domains, reform of the Marches and the principality as a whole wassimply a matter of time. All of these things, coupled with thetheoretical imperative that England was an empire, ensured that theActs of Union were not a long time coming. (ii) The Acts of Union: Aims and Effects Before the Acts are examined, one thing must be made clear; Henrywanted control of Wales, he did not want to set up an effective Welshgovernment, capable of managing its own affairs and getting a grip onlaw and order. He was not interested in bolstering the Welshadministration by giving them the tools to get the job done. What hewanted was a full scale incorporation of the Principality into theEnglish sovereignty. Once this was accomplished, the traditionalEnglish mechanisms could see to law and order in the tried and testedways. As has been exhaustively discussed above, the biggest problem wasthat the very nature of the Marcher lordships hindered the maintenanceof law and order. Therefore, they were a primary target of the 1536 Actwhich saw to their abolition. Some were combined with the unshiredWelsh lands to create the new counties of Monmouth, Brecon, Radnor,Montgomery and Denbigh (in 1543 Monmouth was transferred to England andtwo new counties of Glamorgan and Pembroke were crea ted). The rest ofthe lordships were incorporated into adjacent English counties. Crimescommitted in Marcher lordships could not be avoided by fleeing toanother jurisdiction; they were to be tried in English courts. Thepractice of cymortha, the imposition of obligatory gifts (a majorsource of revenue for Marcher lords) was forbidden. Any Marcherlordship official deemed guilty of corruption or oppression could betried and punished by the Council of Wales, whose powers wereincreased. The patchwork of anarchy had been abolished. Welsh law was another target of the 1536 Act. Henrys distrust of alienjurisdictions could lead to only one natural outcome; English law wasestablished as the law of the land throughout Wales. There were to beno more dual systems, with Welsh and English law operating side byside; from 1534 onwards, the Welsh legal system was no more differentto the national system than was the Sussex or Derbyshire legal system.English rules of tenure and inheritance replaced older Welsh customs.There was only one law in Wales: the Kings law. Of course, the change in legal structure would have meant nothingwithout the mechanisms and means to enforce it. Courts of greatsessions and Justices of the Peace were introduced to bring the Englishcommon law to Wales. The Council of Wales (which sat in Ludlow castlein Shropshire) was now the equivalent of a Welsh Privy Council andCourt of Star Chamber combined, and under the leadership of BishopRowland Lee, was responsible for enforcing the law in Wales (below, wewill examine the success and question the methods of Bishop Lee). To ensure the erosion of the Welsh language, English was to be thenational legal language of Wales. All court hearings were to beconducted in English (which caused obvious problems) and all publicofficials in Wales had to speak English. This was a clever move, itwedded the Welsh gentry to the Crown, anglicising them and driving afirm wedge between them and the Welsh lower classes. Any student ofhistory knows that a revolution needs the support of the middleclasses; the Act of Union ensured there was no benefit to suchco-operation. The Acts of 1536 and 1543 were not all bad news for the people ofWales. Indeed, they had some very tangible benefits. For one thing, thelegal distinctions between Henrys English and Welsh subjects wereeliminated. The Welsh were no longer second class citizens, they couldexpect the same level of due process as their English neighbours anddecades-long impediments to the acquisition and inheritance of landwere therefore removed. Whilst Welsh courts operated on Englishprinciples they were not answerable to Westminster but to theChanceries in Caernarfon and Carmarthen; thereby giving the Welshcourts an autonomy granted to no other section of the kingdom. Mostimportantly to modern eyes (although the reaction at the time wasprobably fairly moderate), the 1536 Act entitled Wales torepresentation at Parliament for the first time in its history. In 1543it sent twenty-seven MPs to Westminster. Clearly, the incorporationinto England was total, with Wales deriving the benefits as well as thecultu ral assaults of a full-blown union with England. Whilst somehistorians claim that the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) created a unionbetween the two countries, this is somewhat short-sighted. Rhuddlan putWales under the auspices of the English kings, but it made Wales acolony, where its own inhabitants were left to their own devices andtreated as less than their English counterparts. Whilst the acts of1536 and 1543 were a clear attempt to assimilate and dissipate theWelsh culture, it also took positive steps to bring the Welsh into thefold, giving them rights they had never before enjoyed. In Henryscase, the lord giveth at the same time as the lord taketh away.Whatever the pros and cons of Henrician reforms, the Welsh language isstill alive over four hundred and fifty years later, and the Welshcontinue to be proud of their culture and their history. Rowland Lee was appointed president of the Council of Wales as partof a move to gain greater central control of the realm. In Ireland, theEarl of Kildare was replaced as governor by Sir William Skeffington (amilitary captain) and Lord Dacre was replaced as warden of the westmarches in the north by the Earl of Cumberland. All of this happened inthe space of a single month. As has been outlined above, Wales was ananarchic area, in need of a firm hand. Lee was to be that hand, andover the next nine years he conducted what some historians wouldcharacterise as a reign of terror. Like any sensible person, and in line with the thoughts of hissovereign, Lee was alive to the possibility that a Catholic nation suchas France or Spain was likely to invade. Lee took active measures todefend the coasts, recruiting soldiers and hunting out resources torepair the royal castles which had been falling into disrepair. At thetime of their construction, Welsh castles such as those built by EdwardI were designed as Welsh outposts, military strongholds in a freshlyconquered and belligerent colony. By the 1530s, the age ofcastle-building was over. Having mentioned above that Henry VIII hadused the monastic income to fund his extensive building projects; thismay surprise the reader of this piece. But do not be surprised. HenryVIII was a palace builder. He wanted large, glamorous and opulentresidences to relax in and house a Renaissance court that was worthy ofthe name. The type of uncomfortable and old-fashioned castle thatEdward I had deemed necessary in the thirteenth century was deemed ananachronism. They were also hugely expensive. This meant that Lee hadto make do with the castles he already had and hope that there wasntan invasion. Since his prayers were answered in this respect, we cannotjudge Lees success in this area. All we can say is that he seems tohave taken all the precautions a reasonable man could have taken. Lees greatest success and the biggest anvil dragging his reputationdown is his policy regarding law and order. This essay has discussed atsome length the lawlessness and turbulence that abounded in the WelshMarches prior to the arrival of Bishop Lee. His reports were in partresponsible for the reforms found in the 1536 Act, an act which gavethe Council of Wales the means to take Welsh matters in hand. Itensured that the patchwork of private judicial enclaves and palatinatesbecame a large English common law blanket under Lee’s jurisdiction.There is no doubt that Lee earned his nickname of the hanging bishop.Indeed, his entire policy on law and order was to hang people, the morethe better. Hanging was to be done frequently and publicly, especiallyif the criminal in question was of a more respectable background thanthe common criminal. Davies credits Lee with saying that executing agentleman was better than dispatching a hundred petty wretches andclaims he boasted that he had exe cuted four of the best blood inShropshire. Even if this is true, it is a sound policy. One of themajor scourges of the Wars of the Roses had been the major families andtheir constant liberty-taking where the law was concerned. Greatfamilies would wage private wars and other nobles would keep a hold ontheir territories by fear and licensing thugs and criminals to run riotthroughout their lands. The Marcher lordships were no different. Therewas little respect for the law. One way to instil a healthy fearfulrespect of the law was to prove that no-one was above it. If a wealthylanded gentleman could swing from the gallows for a crime then anyonecould. This author is no fan of capital punishment and would point tothe fact that people still kill each other in states where the deathpenalty exists. But in the case of Bishop Lee, it would be incrediblydifficult to argue that his policy of hanging did not act as adeterrent. The Marches and the rest of the principality quickly fellinto line. T he chronicler Elis Gruffyd claims that Lee executed fivethousand men in six years and this would certainly accord with theprinciple ascribed to Lee that it was better to hang a hundred innocentmen than let a guilty one escape the noose. If Lee really did despatchfive thousand souls to meet their maker, then it is easy to see whyWales became a more orderly region under his rule. In 1538, the manhimself said that order and quiet such as is now in England prevailedall over Wales. A key question when determining Lees success is the extent to whichLee benefited from the reforms of 1536, and whether the success of Leewas really the success of administrative reform as imposed byWestminster. After all, the key thread running through the criticism of the Marcherlordships is that they lacked a uniform legal system and an effectiveand unified administrative machine. The Act of 1536 gave Wales boththese things and therefore, the argument could be made, brought orderto the Principality. Before this argument is debunked, it is necessaryto give it a full airing by going over exactly how the Act aided BishopLees pursuit of order. Much was made in the previous section of the legal, jurisdictional andpolitical patchwork that existed in the Marches. Naturally this causedserious administrative problems for Bishop Lee. The extensive rightsgranted to the Marcher lords in the previous century still existed,even if the political and military justification for such a delegationof royal authority no longer did. This left the Council prettypowerless where the lordships were concerned, and meant that any reformLee undertook had to be confined to the Principality. Not that that wasan easy task, for the Principality had, in many places, Welsh andEnglish law operating side by side. These jurisdictional problems weresolved in one fell swoop by the 1536 Act; Lee went from having littleor no jurisdiction to having legal authority over all of Wales. Withoutthis reform of Marcher and Principality law, Lees task would have beenmuch more difficult than it was. Lee now had the power to punish History of the Reformation in Wales History of the Reformation in Wales The Reformation is one of the most studied, most discussed and heavily analysed periods of English history, arousing controversy and interest through the works of academics and the private study of interested individuals alike. J.A. Froude called it [T]he greatest incident in English history, but it would be just as easy to call it an act of sacrilege motivated by a selfish tyrant, interested more in perpetuating his own line than fulfilling his self-proclaimed role as defender of the faith. No matter the differences of historical opinion, its importance cannot be denied, and nor can its impact. Yet few authors have deigned to focus on the impact of this turbulent course of events on the principality of Wales, nor has there been much discussion of the role of its governor, Rowland Lee. This essay will do exactly that. It will begin with an analysis of the Reformation Acts as this author has dubbed them, the statutes enacted by Henry with the specific aim ofremaking the English church in his image. These measures affected thecountry as a whole, and any aspects peculiar to Wales will be examined. The essay will continue with a detailed look at the Welsh Acts,†statutes often called (wrongly) Acts of Union. Obviously, their effectis specific to Wales, and the attitudes of the Welsh people will be especially noteworthy here. Finally, the scope of the inquiry will turn to the man who implemented those policies as President of the Council of Wales: Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. To some he was a blood-thirsty man,the hanging bishop who instigated a reign of terror. To others he was a skilled and efficient administrator, a man who was given a job to do and who took the actions necessary to its success. Once this essay isfinished, the thoughts of the writer will be well known, it will be upto the reader to make the final judgement. The background to the Reformation is long and complex, and is morethan a simple matter of a childish egotists desire to take what he hasbeen told he cannot have. Nor is the motivation as simple as apolitical need to secure the continuation of his line through the birthof a healthy son. Both of these were factors in Henrys thinking, butthey were not as simplistic as they have been portrayed. Henry was ascholar and had the capacity for intelligent, theoretical and theological thought. The Reformation was in part the end result of atheory of kingship based on the kingship of David in the Bible, and ona notion of imperium, that a king was the sole final arbiter of allmatters within his realm. Unfortunately, we do not have the available time or space to go into the causes of the Reformation in more detail. All that need concern the reader for the purpose of this study is that the Popes refusal to annul Henry VIIIs marriage to Catherine of Aragon (thereby invalidating the papal dispensation that had made the marriage legal inthe first place) led Henry to break with the Church of Rome and taketotal control of the church in England. The Church of England, as it became known, had the King at its head; he was the defender of the faith, and no foreign power could determine religious policy in his realm, just as it could not determine administrative policies or set taxation. There is a logical (if not theological) sense in this policy,and it was one that fitted with Henrys newfound theory of kingship. (i) The Reformation in General: A Legislative Revolution Henry was a king who ruled with parliament, and this makes analysis ofhis policies easier, since there is a clear legislative framework toalmost every reforming measure he undertook. Indeed, the parliamentthat enacted this legislation was dubbed the Reformation Parliament.It was through Parliament and the legal apparatus at his disposal thatHenry and Cromwell conducted the reformation of the Church, which wasto become Henrys church. The birth of the Reformation (at least in legal terms) came in the formof the Act of Restraint of Appeals (1533). It stated that as King ofEngland, Henry owed submission to no man, not even the Pope. The actproceeded on the basis that a king owed allegiance and obedience to Godand God alone. No earthly being could tell him how to interpret theScripture, or prevent him from annulling a marriage he had adjudgedsinful. In both theory and practice, it created an autonomous Church ofEngland, with the King at its head. The Act (as with almost alllegislation) was politically motivated, for (as its name implies) itbarred an English citizen from appealing to the Vatican against anydecision made by an English ecclesiastical court. The motivation forthis was obvious. It meant that if an English ecclesiastical courtruled that the marriage between the King and Catherine of Aragon wasinvalid, Catherine could not appeal to the pope. If she did, anyresponse would have no legal force within the Engli sh realm. Since theecclesiastical courts were now as much the kings courts as any otherlegal forum, they would dispense a decision in line with hisinterpretation of the law. This may seem tyrannical and corrupt tomodern eyes, but in Tudor England it made perfect sense. The courtsystem existed because the king was meant to dispense justice but couldnot hope to adjudicate every case himself. Personal intervention ofthis sort was impracticable. With this in mind, for a king to advisethe court of the correct decision was a constitutional act of theutmost legality. Part of the coronation oath was the preservation ofjustice; that is (in theory) all interference in a court case was; theking assuming duties he had previously sworn to perform. It is clear that dealing with his political and marital problems werefar more important to Henry and his government than reforming theChurch itself. The second key measure in the Henrician/Cromwellianreform programme was the Act of Succession (March 1534). The Actconfirmed the bastardy of Mary Tudor, (who had lost her title ofPrincess and was now referred to as the Lady Mary). Mary wasdisinherited and the Princess Elizabeth was named the kings truesuccessor. More importantly, the Act provided that any subject, if soordered, should swear an oath recognising its provisions. Most peoplecomplied without question, but both Thomas More and Bishop John Fisherrefused to take it. Both men paid for this allegiance to the Pope withtheir lives. The Princess Dowager (as Catherine of Aragon was nowdesignated), and her daughter also refused, but their relationship tothe Emperor restrained Henry, who left them to their own devices. It wasnt until later in 1534 (November) that the real changesbegan. The Act of Supremacy gave a legal, statutory definition of thekings position within the structure of this newly created Church ofEngland. It gave the king a statutory title of Supreme Head of theChurch of England and assigned the king all prerogatives to the saiddignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining.In effect, the pope was being displaced as the head of the church inEngland. Henry of course, had a different view. It was the kings ofEngland who had been displaced by the pope, based on spurious doctrinethat contradicted the Holy Scriptures. God had always intended that theking be master of all matters in his realm. That was why He selectedkings personally, putting them on the throne through his divine powers.His intervention at Bosworth Field had put the Tudors in control of thekingdom of England, and Henry was not about to let some bishop of Romeusurp his God-given authority. That would be to defy the will of God.Naturally, Henry was able to find theologians with concurring views.Richard Sampson, Bishop of Chichester wrote a treatise on the subjectthat made the very point Henry was making in the Act of Succession. Itsaid that The word of God is to obey the King, and not the Bishop ofRome.† Despite all of this, the Church of England remained an essentiallyCatholic church, since Henry had little interest in Protestantism.Indeed, many of the measures he did introduce of an evangelical naturewere later reversed. The Ten Articles of 1536 are a prime example ofHenrys attempts to steer a level course between the extremeCatholic/conservative and Anglican/evangelical wings of his new church.He was eager to keep it a broad church, but not willing to countenanceheresy (he burned papists and people who denied the sacraments withequal vigour). They were supposed to constitute a formulary for the newand improved Henrician church and were not without their controversies.For one thing, it only explicitly recognised three sacraments(baptism, penance and the Eucharist), where the Catholic Churchrecognised seven. Emphasis was laid upon the words of the Scriptures,and the merits of simple Christian life (something difficult torecognise in the grandiose magnificence of Renaissance royal co urts).It was not however, an anti-Catholic formulation as such. It did notcondemn the Mass, nor did it condemn the Catholic call for good works.It was a balancing act, with a little something for everybody, and Weirhas described it as a tentative move in an evangelical direction. Ifit was such a move, it was one that Henry soon reversed. The Act of SixArticles in 1539 resolved any latent ambiguity that existed in theEnglish church, returning it to a clearly Catholic structure. Clericalmarriage was condemned and the vows of chastity were now held to besacred and unbreakable, which put Archbishop Cranmer in an unfortunateposition as his marriage had been an open secret for some time. He wasundoubtedly not alone in finding himself in what was now a compromisingsituation, and it is somewhat ironic that Henry was enactinglegislation to combat illegal marriages. One thing of course, remainedunchanged; papal supremacy was not restored, nor could it be. Henry hadspent years espousing his ow n supremacy over the church, and it hadbeen the guiding principle behind his reign for the past decade. Evenif he had wanted to reverse what he had done and re-enter the CatholicChurch, it would be a political mistake of the highest order, and notone that he was prepared to make. Only one man could have dominion overEngland, and that man was its king. (ii) The Dissolution of the Monasteries: Royal Motives and a Welsh Perspective The Dissolution of the Monasteries was seen by some as an unwarrantedattack on a helpless class of people with no means to defendthemselves, and by others as a necessary purging of a corrupt andparasitical class of clergymen who served no pastoral or practicalpurpose. In reality, it was in the main, a land grab. There was anincreasing likelihood of war with France and Henry had gained fewfriends following Englands break with Rome. As the arch-pragmatist andchief minister Cromwell saw it, the monasteries were an untappedresource. Now that the king was overall arbiter of the churchsfuture, he had a legal authority over the monasteries that he had neverhad before. With this new ecclesiastical power came a desire toexercise it. Cromwell managed to push through an extremely efficientprogramme of dissolution, despite the objections of the kings newbride, Jane Seymour. In four short years, all five-hundred andsixty-three religious houses would be closed, and their inmatespensioned off. This freed up an enormous amount of land and finances which, naturallybecame the property of the Crown. With the injection of the abbeysrevenues into the treasury, the royal income doubled. This new moneywould help to finance Henrys extensive (and expensive) buildingprojects and the acquisition of new property (among other things). TheCrown also annexed monastic lands worth  £120, 000 a year, a massiveamount of money at the time, which amounted to one fifth of thekingdoms landed wealth. The Reformation was a time when the king had no significant standingarmy, despite the threat from the Catholic powers of France and Spainand the not unlikely threat of civil rebellion. To offset this risk,Henry redistributed a third of this new land to secure the loyalty ofimportant men, men who he would come to depend on when the northerupted in rebellion in 1536-7. Whilst the church held one quarter of all Welsh land it was notprolific in its membership. In 1500, Cistercian monasteries averagedonly six monks. Augustinian monasteries averaged five monks, with theBenedictine order averaging a mere three monks a monastery. Theso-called Great Abbey at Tintern only had thirteen monks. All in all,the dissolution displaced two hundred and fifty monks, nuns and friars,not an extreme number. Indeed, Henry could easily have described them as a minor casualty that benefited the whole nation. The effect on the people of Wales was somewhat more serious, as thepoor relied on the benefactory nature of the Welsh monasteries andpriories. This was a country where fifty per cent of the populationsuffered from malnutrition and an equal percentage of newborn babiesfailed to survive their first year. A lifespan of thirty-five years wasalso not uncommon, which is low, even for medieval Europe. The sheerpoverty and susceptibility to illness (a result of their malnutrition)of the Welsh working class made them dependent on the principalitysforty-six monasteries for alms and food. What made this worse was thatall of the Welsh monasteries were relatively poor, and so all of themwere dissolved in the initial cull of the lesser monasteries. In onefell swoop, Welsh monasticism was ended; for the Welsh there was noadjustment period, no breathing space; all of their monasteries went atonce. With the monasteries gone, a vital source of relief was cut off,a fact that no doubt hit hard in poor h omes throughout Wales andengendered a lot of distaste for the Tudor regime. A dynasty that theWelsh people had supported at its inception was taking away a vitalsource of support. It was to get worse too, as the new Church ofEngland cracked down on idolatry and (in Welsh eyes) took an axe to thepeoples heritage. (iii) The Idolatry Crackdown: A Welsh Perspective As has been stated above, the Reformation began as an essentiallypolitical process, resolving the question of absolute dominion andwhether the church was to be ruled from Rome or by the divinelyappointed sovereign of the nation in question. However, as the TenArticles of 1536 demonstrates, the Reformation did incorporate somereform of the church into its programme. A part of this thatparticularly affected Wales was the crusade against idolatry andimages. In 1538, Thomas Cromwell issued an Injunction ordering every parishchurch to stock an English bible to be made available for all whowished to read it and interpret the Scriptures themselves. As we willsee below, this was of little benefit to the Welsh. In the same year, asimilar Injunction ordered that every shrine in the country was to bedestroyed. This is where the popular image of thugs running around thecountry smashing up churches comes from, and it is a view that is notwithout some justification. As always, Cromwell was very effective, andeven the shrine of Thomas Becket (one of the countrys holiestpilgrimage places) was lost as a result of the zealous evangelicaldestruction squads. This had a particularly damaging effect on Wales,where cultural-religious relics were highly venerated. In a move thataccorded perfectly with the Reformations attempt to completelyassimilate the Welsh nation and culture, the principalitys relics wereruthlessly swept away, with almost nothing (if any thing) surviving thecull. Village processions would often have sacred images carried inthem, these priceless relics were lost. One such relic was the healing cup of Nant Eos. This sacred relicwas in reality no more than a cracked piece of wood, but to the Welshit had mystical powers. Whilst such a phrase sounds laughable to modernears, there is little doubt that the Welsh believed in the cupsproperties. Not only did it have remarkable healing properties, itpossessed the ability to cleanse your soul, keeping you out of hell andin extreme cases, it was believed to bring you back from that foulplace of purgatory. To the Welsh therefore, this was not merely avenerated image, but a physical key to salvation and a medical toolthat went far beyond contemporary healing techniques. As we have seen,Tudor Wales was a grim place and to remove relics such as the cup ofNant Eos was to eliminate hope itself for many of the people whobelieved in them. At a time when the Acts of Union were doing theirvery best to dilute and destroy the very basics of Welsh culture, thepolicies of the Reformation were providing a complementar y service inthe field of religious relics. (i) Why unify? The Welsh Problem The Welsh problem had been of concern to Henry VIII for some time bythe coming of the Reformation. Even though he had never been anyfarther west than Bristol, he was aware that the country which hadhelped his father to the throne was an alien one, out of step with therest of his realm. In a period of heightened nationalism, thedifferences between the Principality and its ruler were brought into amuch sharper focus, and became more clearly defined as a threat to theuniformity of the Henrician imperium. The Welsh language was an ugly tongue when compared to the Latin,French and Greek he had learned at the hands of his tutors, and it hadan alien sound to it. To a paranoid man, it could also be construed asthe ideal way to foment rebellion; after all, it is hard to root outtraitors when you cannot understand what they are saying It wasnt just the Welsh language that concerned the king. Walesstill had a distinct legal system, based on Gaelic traditions whichwere alien to a country based on Norman ideals. The Welsh system was sodifferent that it did not even recognise the English distinctionbetween civil and criminal cases; one of the central tenets of thecommon law system. Outrageously to a modern western audience,manslaughter and deliberate homicide were not even considered realcrimes. In England, such acts were offences against the community, tobe judged in royal courts, and nothing could alter the prosecutorsright to pursue a criminal case. In Wales (and Ireland), it was the kinwho had been wronged, and they who sought a remedy, and as in somemodern cultures, the family could seek financial reparations. None of this was, strictly speaking, a threat to society, or the soundadministration of the Principality. What was (or at least should havebeen) a genuine cause for central concern was that the conquest had notmanaged to eliminate the operation of the law of galanas, a lawregarding blood feuds and the appropriate resolution of such disputes.The principle of compensation was fundamental to the justice of thefeud, and it is not impossible that compensation could have included alife in return for a life. As we have seen above, tolerance was not one of Henry VIIIs qualities.He did not recognise alternative forms and systems of justice,especially when they were operating in his imperium. The root cause ofthe Reformation was his determination to see that his law was the law,and that no legal system, ecclesiastical or civil, could co-exist withhis own. Henry himself said that the Welsh laws were sinister usagesand customs used by the lords of the March for thraldom and tyranny. Of a more practical concern, there was a serious problem with law andorder throughout Wales and it was this that was the root cause ofHenrys acts of union. As Henry himself said in 1520: realms withoutjustice be but tyrannies and robberies Wales was not as much of aproblem as the Marches, which were a patchwork of autonomous fiefdoms,where lawlessness and violence abounded. The main problem with theMarcher lordships was centuries old. The constant threat of rebellionin Wales had led to the Marches becoming a buffer zone between thePrincipality and England, a medieval Rhineland, designed to keep theWelsh wolf from the door. To combat the Welsh threat, extensive powershad been delegated to the Marcher lords, powers that had never beenreclaimed. Within any one lordship, the lord had legislative power and,as Susan Brigden has said, they possessed virtual judicialomnicompetence within their own domain. There were a total of onehundred and thirty-seven separate jurisdictions where the king s writsimply did not run. They were notorious hideouts for outlaws andcriminals, a situation not helped by the fact that a murderer couldsimply cross state lines into another lordship to avoid punishment.For serious, career criminals the Marches were a safe haven that theking could simply no longer permit. The situation is believed to havebeen so bad that J.A. Williamson described Wales as wild anduntroubled by Parliaments laws, or by any law at all, being in aworse state of crime and disorder than England had been in the civilwars. For a king so obsessed with sovereignty and control over hisown domains, reform of the Marches and the principality as a whole wassimply a matter of time. All of these things, coupled with thetheoretical imperative that England was an empire, ensured that theActs of Union were not a long time coming. (ii) The Acts of Union: Aims and Effects Before the Acts are examined, one thing must be made clear; Henrywanted control of Wales, he did not want to set up an effective Welshgovernment, capable of managing its own affairs and getting a grip onlaw and order. He was not interested in bolstering the Welshadministration by giving them the tools to get the job done. What hewanted was a full scale incorporation of the Principality into theEnglish sovereignty. Once this was accomplished, the traditionalEnglish mechanisms could see to law and order in the tried and testedways. As has been exhaustively discussed above, the biggest problem wasthat the very nature of the Marcher lordships hindered the maintenanceof law and order. Therefore, they were a primary target of the 1536 Actwhich saw to their abolition. Some were combined with the unshiredWelsh lands to create the new counties of Monmouth, Brecon, Radnor,Montgomery and Denbigh (in 1543 Monmouth was transferred to England andtwo new counties of Glamorgan and Pembroke were crea ted). The rest ofthe lordships were incorporated into adjacent English counties. Crimescommitted in Marcher lordships could not be avoided by fleeing toanother jurisdiction; they were to be tried in English courts. Thepractice of cymortha, the imposition of obligatory gifts (a majorsource of revenue for Marcher lords) was forbidden. Any Marcherlordship official deemed guilty of corruption or oppression could betried and punished by the Council of Wales, whose powers wereincreased. The patchwork of anarchy had been abolished. Welsh law was another target of the 1536 Act. Henrys distrust of alienjurisdictions could lead to only one natural outcome; English law wasestablished as the law of the land throughout Wales. There were to beno more dual systems, with Welsh and English law operating side byside; from 1534 onwards, the Welsh legal system was no more differentto the national system than was the Sussex or Derbyshire legal system.English rules of tenure and inheritance replaced older Welsh customs.There was only one law in Wales: the Kings law. Of course, the change in legal structure would have meant nothingwithout the mechanisms and means to enforce it. Courts of greatsessions and Justices of the Peace were introduced to bring the Englishcommon law to Wales. The Council of Wales (which sat in Ludlow castlein Shropshire) was now the equivalent of a Welsh Privy Council andCourt of Star Chamber combined, and under the leadership of BishopRowland Lee, was responsible for enforcing the law in Wales (below, wewill examine the success and question the methods of Bishop Lee). To ensure the erosion of the Welsh language, English was to be thenational legal language of Wales. All court hearings were to beconducted in English (which caused obvious problems) and all publicofficials in Wales had to speak English. This was a clever move, itwedded the Welsh gentry to the Crown, anglicising them and driving afirm wedge between them and the Welsh lower classes. Any student ofhistory knows that a revolution needs the support of the middleclasses; the Act of Union ensured there was no benefit to suchco-operation. The Acts of 1536 and 1543 were not all bad news for the people ofWales. Indeed, they had some very tangible benefits. For one thing, thelegal distinctions between Henrys English and Welsh subjects wereeliminated. The Welsh were no longer second class citizens, they couldexpect the same level of due process as their English neighbours anddecades-long impediments to the acquisition and inheritance of landwere therefore removed. Whilst Welsh courts operated on Englishprinciples they were not answerable to Westminster but to theChanceries in Caernarfon and Carmarthen; thereby giving the Welshcourts an autonomy granted to no other section of the kingdom. Mostimportantly to modern eyes (although the reaction at the time wasprobably fairly moderate), the 1536 Act entitled Wales torepresentation at Parliament for the first time in its history. In 1543it sent twenty-seven MPs to Westminster. Clearly, the incorporationinto England was total, with Wales deriving the benefits as well as thecultu ral assaults of a full-blown union with England. Whilst somehistorians claim that the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) created a unionbetween the two countries, this is somewhat short-sighted. Rhuddlan putWales under the auspices of the English kings, but it made Wales acolony, where its own inhabitants were left to their own devices andtreated as less than their English counterparts. Whilst the acts of1536 and 1543 were a clear attempt to assimilate and dissipate theWelsh culture, it also took positive steps to bring the Welsh into thefold, giving them rights they had never before enjoyed. In Henryscase, the lord giveth at the same time as the lord taketh away.Whatever the pros and cons of Henrician reforms, the Welsh language isstill alive over four hundred and fifty years later, and the Welshcontinue to be proud of their culture and their history. Rowland Lee was appointed president of the Council of Wales as partof a move to gain greater central control of the realm. In Ireland, theEarl of Kildare was replaced as governor by Sir William Skeffington (amilitary captain) and Lord Dacre was replaced as warden of the westmarches in the north by the Earl of Cumberland. All of this happened inthe space of a single month. As has been outlined above, Wales was ananarchic area, in need of a firm hand. Lee was to be that hand, andover the next nine years he conducted what some historians wouldcharacterise as a reign of terror. Like any sensible person, and in line with the thoughts of hissovereign, Lee was alive to the possibility that a Catholic nation suchas France or Spain was likely to invade. Lee took active measures todefend the coasts, recruiting soldiers and hunting out resources torepair the royal castles which had been falling into disrepair. At thetime of their construction, Welsh castles such as those built by EdwardI were designed as Welsh outposts, military strongholds in a freshlyconquered and belligerent colony. By the 1530s, the age ofcastle-building was over. Having mentioned above that Henry VIII hadused the monastic income to fund his extensive building projects; thismay surprise the reader of this piece. But do not be surprised. HenryVIII was a palace builder. He wanted large, glamorous and opulentresidences to relax in and house a Renaissance court that was worthy ofthe name. The type of uncomfortable and old-fashioned castle thatEdward I had deemed necessary in the thirteenth century was deemed ananachronism. They were also hugely expensive. This meant that Lee hadto make do with the castles he already had and hope that there wasntan invasion. Since his prayers were answered in this respect, we cannotjudge Lees success in this area. All we can say is that he seems tohave taken all the precautions a reasonable man could have taken. Lees greatest success and the biggest anvil dragging his reputationdown is his policy regarding law and order. This essay has discussed atsome length the lawlessness and turbulence that abounded in the WelshMarches prior to the arrival of Bishop Lee. His reports were in partresponsible for the reforms found in the 1536 Act, an act which gavethe Council of Wales the means to take Welsh matters in hand. Itensured that the patchwork of private judicial enclaves and palatinatesbecame a large English common law blanket under Lee’s jurisdiction.There is no doubt that Lee earned his nickname of the hanging bishop.Indeed, his entire policy on law and order was to hang people, the morethe better. Hanging was to be done frequently and publicly, especiallyif the criminal in question was of a more respectable background thanthe common criminal. Davies credits Lee with saying that executing agentleman was better than dispatching a hundred petty wretches andclaims he boasted that he had exe cuted four of the best blood inShropshire. Even if this is true, it is a sound policy. One of themajor scourges of the Wars of the Roses had been the major families andtheir constant liberty-taking where the law was concerned. Greatfamilies would wage private wars and other nobles would keep a hold ontheir territories by fear and licensing thugs and criminals to run riotthroughout their lands. The Marcher lordships were no different. Therewas little respect for the law. One way to instil a healthy fearfulrespect of the law was to prove that no-one was above it. If a wealthylanded gentleman could swing from the gallows for a crime then anyonecould. This author is no fan of capital punishment and would point tothe fact that people still kill each other in states where the deathpenalty exists. But in the case of Bishop Lee, it would be incrediblydifficult to argue that his policy of hanging did not act as adeterrent. The Marches and the rest of the principality quickly fellinto line. T he chronicler Elis Gruffyd claims that Lee executed fivethousand men in six years and this would certainly accord with theprinciple ascribed to Lee that it was better to hang a hundred innocentmen than let a guilty one escape the noose. If Lee really did despatchfive thousand souls to meet their maker, then it is easy to see whyWales became a more orderly region under his rule. In 1538, the manhimself said that order and quiet such as is now in England prevailedall over Wales. A key question when determining Lees success is the extent to whichLee benefited from the reforms of 1536, and whether the success of Leewas really the success of administrative reform as imposed byWestminster. After all, the key thread running through the criticism of the Marcherlordships is that they lacked a uniform legal system and an effectiveand unified administrative machine. The Act of 1536 gave Wales boththese things and therefore, the argument could be made, brought orderto the Principality. Before this argument is debunked, it is necessaryto give it a full airing by going over exactly how the Act aided BishopLees pursuit of order. Much was made in the previous section of the legal, jurisdictional andpolitical patchwork that existed in the Marches. Naturally this causedserious administrative problems for Bishop Lee. The extensive rightsgranted to the Marcher lords in the previous century still existed,even if the political and military justification for such a delegationof royal authority no longer did. This left the Council prettypowerless where the lordships were concerned, and meant that any reformLee undertook had to be confined to the Principality. Not that that wasan easy task, for the Principality had, in many places, Welsh andEnglish law operating side by side. These jurisdictional problems weresolved in one fell swoop by the 1536 Act; Lee went from having littleor no jurisdiction to having legal authority over all of Wales. Withoutthis reform of Marcher and Principality law, Lees task would have beenmuch more difficult than it was. Lee now had the power to punish

Return Of The Native Essay -- essays research papers

In Thomas Hardy’s poem “Her Dilemma,'; it relates to book one of the novel Return of the Native in the concept of marriage and distrust of feelings. In both the poem and the novel, the woman’s feelings and emotions cause conflict in her marriage. It is interesting that both these literary works has a marriage transpire with one person doubtful, especially during a time when divorce was unconceivable. The question arises, should a lifetime decision be made solely upon the basis of one’s personal desires?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In “Her Dilemma'; the title gives the reader a clue that a choice must be made between equally undesirable alternatives. Hardy uses iambic pentameter as the rhyme scheme to make the poem flow smoothly. The first stanza uses detail to describe an ancient church where the couple is soon to be married. Once this stanza ends Hardy’s attitude changes to one of sorrow. “For he was soon to die, --he softly said, ‘Tell me you love me!’—Holding hard her hand.'; It is pathetic that this is the last wish of a dying man. Hardy’s use of consonance allows the reader to understand the man’s feelings. Next stanza the tone changes again, to one of pity for the woman who sells her soul “to be a moment kind.'; Regardless of whether the woman decides to marry, the man will die. Eventually, her sympathy for the man overwhelms her consciou...

Return Of The Native Essay -- essays research papers

In Thomas Hardy’s poem “Her Dilemma,'; it relates to book one of the novel Return of the Native in the concept of marriage and distrust of feelings. In both the poem and the novel, the woman’s feelings and emotions cause conflict in her marriage. It is interesting that both these literary works has a marriage transpire with one person doubtful, especially during a time when divorce was unconceivable. The question arises, should a lifetime decision be made solely upon the basis of one’s personal desires?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In “Her Dilemma'; the title gives the reader a clue that a choice must be made between equally undesirable alternatives. Hardy uses iambic pentameter as the rhyme scheme to make the poem flow smoothly. The first stanza uses detail to describe an ancient church where the couple is soon to be married. Once this stanza ends Hardy’s attitude changes to one of sorrow. “For he was soon to die, --he softly said, ‘Tell me you love me!’—Holding hard her hand.'; It is pathetic that this is the last wish of a dying man. Hardy’s use of consonance allows the reader to understand the man’s feelings. Next stanza the tone changes again, to one of pity for the woman who sells her soul “to be a moment kind.'; Regardless of whether the woman decides to marry, the man will die. Eventually, her sympathy for the man overwhelms her consciou...

“Eve’s Diary” by Mark Twain Essay

â€Å"Eve’s Diary† is a satirical account of the days in the Garden of Eden. Twain recounts the well-known tale of Genesis through a series of journal entries written by Adam and Eve; these personal accounts make for an entertaining and thought-provoking read. Twain’s personifications of gender stereotypes are easily identified but lead the reader into a further exploration of Twain’s deeper purpose. Twain’s writing style explicates the paradoxical relationship between men and women. Furthermore, Adam and Eve’s conflicting perspectives within the journal entries provide an illustration of their magnetic reliance on one another, despite their polar differences. The story begins with Eve on the day after her creation; Twain creates a tone of despair as Eve ponders her situation and existence. â€Å"That is what I AM-an experiment; just an experiment, and nothing more† (Twain 10). As Eve deducts that there must be a counterpart to her existence, her disposition abruptly changes from anguish to optimism. Through this character development, Twain portrays companionship as Eve’s salvation and furthermore, mocks the modern idea of the contingency of a woman’s survival on that of a man’s. Eve’s perception changes as abruptly as her disposition. Once her mind is at ease, she becomes conscious and appreciative of her surroundings. â€Å"This majestic new world is indeed a most noble and beautiful work. And certainly marvelously near to being perfect, notwithstanding the shortness of the time† (Twain 14). Twain uses Eve’s passionate and enthusiastic mentality as a personification of the model of femininity according to nineteenth century stereotypes. The diction and timing of Adam’s introduction exaggerates Eve’s naivety and sets a precedent for Twain’s exploration of their paradoxical relationship.  Eve’s entry reads, â€Å"All the week I tagged around after him and tried to get acquainted. I had to do the talking, because he was shy, but I didn’t mind it. He seemed pleased to have me around, and I used the sociable ‘we’ a good deal, because it seemed to flatter him to be included† (Twain 35). Though it is told from Eve’s perspective, Twain wants the reader to negate Eve’s idealization when reading of her interactions with Adam. When one does so, Adam’s annoyance with Eve is apparent. In addition, Twain makes a considerable effort to portray Adam as haughty, cynical, and drastically unattached in comparison to Eve; Twain uses Adam as a personification of stereotypical conception of masculinity. â€Å"During the last day or two I have taken all the work of naming things off his hands, and this has been a great relief to him, for he has no gift in that line, and is evidently very grateful† (Twain 178). If interpreted in the manner Twain intended, it is clear that Adam has no concern with naming the creatures and is equally indifferent towards Eve. Twain develops these satirical personifications even further to serve two slightly less superficial purposes. Twain uses these conceptions to delve into the profound relationship between men and women but also to denounce them through his diction. Twain’s defiance begins with his decision to give Eve, a woman, the predominant voice in the narrative. He shows further disregard for popular opinion when he tells of the creation of fire. â€Å"I had created something that didn’t exist before; I had added a new thing to the world’s uncountable properties; I realized this, and was proud of my achievement, and was going to run and find him and tell him about it, thinking to raise myself in his esteem-but I reflected, and did not do it. No-he would not care for it† (Twain 67). Twain’s decision to credit such a pivotal aspect of human survival to a woman exhibits either an immense reverence for women or a severe distain for unoriginal thought. Regardless, Twain’s upheaval of the hierarchy of traditional Western gender roles transcends time and leaves the reader to contemplate the validity of gender roles. Ursula LeGuin, a published and renowned author of short stories herself, discusses the prevalence of personification of stereotypical gender roles  within _Adam and Eve’s Diary_. LeGuin argues that Twain’s personifications of gender stereotypes are the most important aspect of any literally analysis of works by Mark Twain (LeGuin 32). Deviating slightly from the focus of LeGuin’s analysis, the most important purpose of â€Å"Eve’s Diary† to be the paradoxical relationship between men and women. As the journal progresses, so does the connection between Adam and Eve. Although their differences remain vast, Adam and Eve demonstrate a dynamic reliance on one another. They compliment one another in a sense of discord; their stereotypical personas seem to become less obtrusive as they grow together. Through Eve, Adam is humbled and learns to be appreciative and observant of his surroundings. Adam has a similar effect on Eve; her interest in aesthetics diminishes and while she remains optimistic, she is not so dangerously naà ¯ve. The story digresses to forty years later, with Adam at Eve’s grave. Adam’s eulogy for his lifeless wife is ingeniously engineered to resonate with nearly every reader. He says, â€Å"Wheresoever she was, THERE was Eden† (Twain 129). Adam, and therefore the male gender collectively, possessed a magnetic dependence on Eve that was as involuntary as the polar differences between the two. Twain accomplished a feat that the laws of nature could not; through â€Å"Adam and Eve’s Diary,† Twain provides an unprecedented look into why men and women attract in circumstances that should naturally repel them from one another. Works Cited LeGuin, Ursula K. Introduction. The Diaries of Adam and Eve. By Mark Twain. New York: Oxford UP, 1996. XXXI-XLI. Twain, Mark. _Adam and Eve’s Diary_ â€Å"Eve’s Diary, Complete.† Project Gutenburg. 14 June 2004. PDF iBook.

Inherit the Wind: Henry Drummond Essay

The authors, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s, main purpose through Inherit the Wind is proving that humans hold the right to think. Henry Drummond is vital in this discovery because of his firm belief that one should hold this right. Drummond’s hero archetype is the cause for his strong feelings, and he succeeds when convincing the audience of his beliefs by revealing the contradictions underlying his witnesses’ inherited religious beliefs. Henry Drummond arrives in Hillsboro as an atheist, and leaves as a hero. The townspeople’s initial reaction to the news that Drummond is defending Cates, alerts the audience. This is most apparent when Melinda, a young girl, first sees him and screams â€Å"It’s the Devil!† (Lawrence and Lee ). Drummond does not let the citizen’s misconstrued interpretation of him distract him from his goal, to take a stand. Drummond uses the case as an opportunity to fight for the right to think and develop one ’s own truths. Slowly the townspeople start to see through Brady and start to see the true Drummond. The Drummond who is committed to defending Cates and respects Cates for â€Å"standing up when everybody else is sitting down.†(Lawrence and Lee ). Brady and Drummond are alike in multiple ways such as their mutual respect for each other as well as their past together, but there are also very significant differences between them, such as their character. Drummond’s reason to defend Cates is to share a message throughout the world as well as protect an innocent man. Meanwhile Brady’s purpose is to gain popularity throughout the world, and only to help himself. Brady’s lack of dedication towards this case results in his downfall. In Act III of the play, the readers see Drummond’s quick mind, his ability to function under pressure, and his creativity. When the judge refuses all of Drummond’s witnesses he switches tactics and decides to call Brady to the stand a s an â€Å"expert† on the bible. Drummond’s character serves as a foil for Brady’s character, Drummond’s patient demeanor and open-minded, progressive way of thinking accentuates Brady’s narrow-minded way of thinking which causes the audiences support in his direction and opens their eyes to truth. The point where the Drummond’s point is finally made is when he stumps Brady. Drummond’s cross-examination of Brady causes humiliation and hysteria. Brady self-destructs when his convictions about the literal truth of the Bible are questioned and proved false due to Drummond. Drummond’s attack of Brady is not mean-spirited, it is  devastating. At the same time, the power of Drummond’s attack stems not so much from Drummond’s wit as from the weight of Brady’s egotism, stubbornness, and arrogance. Basically if Brady was not so cocky and arrogant he might have been able to prevent the case going the way it did. Although the trial in Inherit the Wind concerns the battle between creationism and evolutionism, a deeper conflict exists beneath the surface. Drummond points to this more basic issue when he asks his young witness Howard whether he believes in Darwin. When the boy responds that he hasn’t made up his mind, Drummond insists that the boy’s freedom to think—to make up his own mind—is what is actually on trial. This point in the book is where Drummond’s point becomes obvious; freedom of thought becomes the freedom to be wrong or to change one’s mind. Even though Cates is found guilty, Drummond wins a moral victory. He reveals his integrity when he defends freedom of thought, even for those he disagrees with. When Hornbeck criticizes Brady and Brady’s fundamentalist beliefs, Drummond tells Hornbeck that † . . . Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong† (Lawrence and Lee )! Drummond’s hero archetype and his initial analysis of Brady are the cause of his success with the people of Hillsboro. At the end of the play, Drummond feels the same way and is still fighting for people’s â€Å"right to be wrong† (Lawrence and Lee ).

Brown versus Board of Education

Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas was one of a group of cases that was being brought before the Supreme Court in the early 1950’s by the NAACP to challenge the concept of â€Å"separate but equal. † The story began in 1950 when several parents went up against the Topeka school board that would only allow black children to attend one of the four segregated schools in the area. Oliver Brown was one of this group, having brought his daughter to the local school, tried to enroll her and was turned away (National Park Service, 10).The case was brought to court by the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, and was later combined with several other cases such as Briggs v. Elliot and Bolling v. Sharpe (National Park Service, 10). The NAACP brought the suit with the focus that school segregation was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s clause that provided for equal protection. Its original purpose had been to ensure all blacks equal status as citizen s of the United States after the Civil War (Martin 2).The legal team also put forth that when black children attended racially segregated schools, it caused them harm by creating a â€Å"stigma of inferiority (Martin 2). † This stigma was supported by research stating that racial segregation could have a harmful impact on a child’s development as they grew and on individual self-worth. There was even evidence presented of the bad effects that segregation could also have on whites (Martin, 11).The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Justice Earl Warren, found in favor of the plaintiff’s to end school segregation on May 17, 1954 (National Park Service 11-12). Overturning the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson, which originally established the concept of separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education opened up the doors of public and higher education to blacks all over the country. This also eventually opened up doors to new fields and opportunities that had once been closed off.Today, this landmark decision has been the basis for the Civil Rights movement that reached its zenith during the 1960’s and later groundbreaking legislation (National Park Service 14). It also laid the foundation for other equal rights movements, including the struggle by those with disabilities who wanted equal access to public facilities and end to job discrimination. American education now can offer a free and appropriate public education to all, regardless of color, race, disability or any other distinguishing factor.Just as children who were black were given the chance to attend integrated schools, the case laid the legal framework for later legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA, that mandated educational standards and services for children with disabilities. Without Brown v. Board of Education laying the framework for these kinds of laws, other student populations would not have achieved the equality they have. The legacy of Brown is one of tolerance, equality and the lingering memory that in order to preserve the freedoms that we have, we sometimes have to fight for them.One avenue that freedom can be one in is the courtroom, where sweeping changes can be brought into reality. References Martin, Waldo E. Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998. 23 May 2010 from http://books. google. com/books? id=KRxIUFnaFs8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=br own+v. +board+of+education&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Maruca, Mary. â€Å"Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site. † National Park Service. 23 May 2010 from http://www. nps. gov/history/history/online_books /brvb/brown. pdf

Should Marijuana Be Legalized Essay - 1520 Words

Isaiah Pitts Eng Mcguire 12/7/16 Should Marijuana Be Legalized In Texas? Should marijuana be legalized in Texas? This a question people have debated for years now. Today, there are 29 states that have some form of weed legalization. Even people who opposed cannabis legalization before are now realizing that marijuana could benefit us in many different ways. But there are still some who say that it would lead to other drugs, raise crime in communities, and harm young children. Although this has been the case for many years, it’s time to change how we think and live in today s society. Marijuana should be legalized because of all the pros it would bring to Texas such as medicinal, social, recreational uses. First, weed or cannabis, is a green plant that naturally grows out of the earth. When being first discovered by natives, people used the plant for it’s hemp properties. Hemp was a better alternative than other plants because of it’s many uses. Such as, hemp seed foods, oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, pulp, paper, and even fuel. ( David E. Newton, â€Å"Marijuana: a reference handbook.†) These are just some of the many different ways marijuana is used. It was then that people discovered its recreational uses and began abusing the substance. This was back when segregation still existed and gave white people a reason to ban marijuana because it allegedly made people of color more violent and solicit sex from white women. This is when America introduced the Marijuana taxShow MoreRelatedShould Marijuana Be Legalized?849 Words   |  4 Pageswhether marijuana should be legalized. Around 23 states have legalized marijuana for medical and recreational use. In the state of Illinois, medicinal use of marijuana has been passed on April 17, 2013. Since January 2014, patients are able to obtain marijuana with a doctor s recommendation. The new debate is whether marijuana should be legalized for the general public as a recreational drug. Although some believe that marijuana is harmless, and that it has beneficial medic inal uses, marijuana shouldRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1715 Words   |  7 PagesMarijuana in Society Cannabis, formally known as marijuana is a drug obtained from the tops, stems and leaves of the hemp plant cannabis. The drug is one of the most commonly used drugs in the world. Only substances like caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are used more (â€Å"Marijuana† 1). In the U. S. where some use it to feel â€Å"high† or get an escape from reality. The drug is referred to in many ways; weed, grass, pot, and or reefer are some common names used to describe the drug (â€Å"Marijuana† 1). Like mostRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1489 Words   |  6 Pagescannabis plant or marijuana is intended for use of a psychoactive drug or medicine. It is used for recreational or medical uses. In some religions, marijuana is predominantly used for spiritual purposes. Cannabis is indigenous to central and south Asia. Cannabis has been scientifically proven that you can not die from smoking marijuana. Marijuana should be legalized to help people with medical benefits, econo mic benefits, and criminal benefits. In eight states, marijuana was legalized for recreationalRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1245 Words   |  5 PagesMarijuana is a highly debatable topic that is rapidly gaining attention in society today.   Legalizing marijuana can benefit the economy of this nation through the creation of jobs, increased tax revenue, and a decrease in taxpayer money spent on law enforcement.   Ã‚  Many people would outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, gambling, and tanning beds because of the harmful effects they have on members of a society, but this is the United States of America; the land of the free and we should give peopleRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1010 Words   |  5 PagesThe legalization of marijuana became a heated political subject in the last few years. Twenty-one states in America have legalized medical marijuana. Colorado and Washington are the only states where marijuana can be purchased recreationally. Marijuana is the high THC level part of the cannabis plant, which gives users the â€Å"high† feeling. There is ample evidence that supports the argument that marijuana is beneficial. The government should legalize marijuana recreationally for three main reasonsRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1350 Words   |  6 Pagespolitics in the past decade would have to be the legalization of marijuana. The sale and production of marijuana have been legalized for medicinal uses in over twenty states and has been legalized for recreational uses in seven states. Despite the ongoing support for marijuana, it has yet to be fully legalized in the federal level due to cultural bias against â€Å"pot† smoking and the focus over its negative effects. However, legalizing marijuana has been proven to decrease the rate of incrimination in AmericaRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1231 Words   |  5 Pagesshows the positive benefits of marijuana, it remains illegal under federal law. In recent years, numerous states have defied federal law and legalized marijuana for both recreational and medicinal use. Arizona has legalized marijuana for medical use, but it still remains illegal to use recreationally. This is absurd, as the evidence gathered over the last few decades strongly supports the notion that it is safer than alcohol, a widely available substance. Marijuana being listed as a Schedule I drugRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized? Essay1457 Words   |  6 PagesSHOULD MARIJUANA BE LEGALIZED? Marijuana is a drug that has sparked much controversy over the past decade as to whether or not it should be legalized. People once thought of marijuana as a bad, mind-altering drug which changes a person’s personality which can lead to crime and violence through selling and buying it. In the past, the majority of citizens believed that marijuana is a harmful drug that should be kept off the market and out of the hands of the public. However, a recent study conductedRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1596 Words   |  7 Pages But what needs to be known before a user can safely and completely make the decision if trying Marijuana is a good idea? Many do not want the drug to be legalized because they claim that Cannabis is a â€Å"gateway drug†, meaning it will cause people to try harder drugs once their body builds up a resistance to Marijuana, because a stronger drug will be needed to reach a high state. This argument is often falsely related to the medical si de of the debate over legalization. It is claimed that this wouldRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?985 Words   |  4 PagesLegalize Marijuana Despite what people believe about marijuana, it hasn’t once proved to be the cause of any real issue. It makes you wonder what the reason as to why there is a war on drugs. Why is marijuana the main concern? Since the time that alcohol and tobacco became legal, people wonder why marijuana isn’t legal yet. The fact that marijuana is illegal is mainly caused by the amount of money, jobs, and pride invested in the drug war. Once the government starts anything, they stick to it. At

Daniel Websters Seventh of March Speech

As the United States struggled with the deeply divisive issue of slavery a decade before the Civil War, public attention in early 1850 was directed to Capitol Hill. And  Daniel Webster, widely regarded as the nations greatest orator, delivered one of the most controversial Senate speeches in history. Websters speech was widely anticipated and was a major news event. Crowds flocked to the Capitol and packed the galleries, and his words traveled quickly by telegraph to all regions of the country. Websters words, in what became famous as the Seventh of March Speech, provoked instant and extreme reactions. People who had admired him for years suddenly denounced him as a traitor. And those who had been suspicious of him for years praised him. The speech led to the Compromise of 1850 and helped to hold off open warfare over slavery. But it came at a cost to Websters popularity. Background of Websters Speech In 1850, the United States seemed to be splitting apart. Things seemed to be going well in some regards: the country had concluded the Mexican War, a hero of that war, Zachary Taylor, was in the White House, and newly acquired territories meant the country reached from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The nations nagging problem, of course, was slavery. There was a strong sentiment in the North against allowing slavery to spread to new territories and new states. In the South, that concept was deeply offensive. The dispute played out in the U.S. Senate. Three legends would be the major players:  Henry Clay of Kentucky would represent the West;  John C. Calhoun of South Carolina represented the South;  and Webster of Massachusetts would speak for the North. In early March, John C. Calhoun, too frail to speak for himself, had a colleague read a speech in which he denounced the North. Webster would respond. Websters Words In the days before Websters speech, rumors circulated that he would oppose any sort of compromise with the South. A New England newspaper, the Vermont Watchman and State Journal, published a dispatch credited to the Washington correspondent of a Philadelphia newspaper. After asserting that Webster would never compromise, the news item lavishly praised the speech Webster had not yet delivered: But Mr. Webster will make a powerful Union speech, one which will be a model of eloquence, and the memory of which will be cherished long after the orators bones shall have mingled with the kindred of his native soil. It will rival Washingtons farewell address, and be an admonition to both sections of the country to fulfill, through union, the great mission of the American people. On the afternoon of March 7, 1850, crowds struggled to get into the Capitol to hear what Webster would say.  In a packed Senate chamber, Webster rose to his feet and gave one of the most dramatic speeches of his long political career. I speak today for the preservation of the Union, Webster said near the beginning of his three-hour oration. The Seventh of March Speech  is now considered a classic example of American political oratory. But at the time it deeply offended many in the North. Webster endorsed one of the most hated provisions of the compromise bills in Congress, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. And for that, he would face withering criticism. Public Reaction On the day after Websters speech a leading newspaper in the North, the New York Tribune, published a brutal editorial. The speech, it said, was unworthy of its author. The Tribune asserted what many in the North felt. It was simply immoral to compromise with slave states to the extent of requiring citizens to become involved in capturing fugitive slaves: The position that Northern States and their Citizens are morally bound to recapture fugitive Slaves may be good for a lawyer, but is  not good for a Man. The provision is on the face of the Constitution. True, but that does not make it the duty of Mr. Webster nor any other human being, when a panting fugitive presents himself at  his door begging for shelter and the means of escape, to arrest and bind him and hand him over to the pursuers who are hot upon his trail. Near the end of the editorial, the Tribune stated: We cannot be converted into Slave-catchers, nor  can Slave-catchers operate freely among us. An abolitionist newspaper in Ohio, the Anti-Slavery Bugle, blasted Webster. Quoting the noted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, it referred to him as the Colossal Coward. Some northerners, especially business people who preferred tranquility between the regions of the nation, did welcome Websters appeal for compromise. The speech was printed in many newspapers and was even sold in pamphlet form. Weeks after the speech, the Vermont Watchman and State Journal, the newspaper which had predicted that Webster would deliver a classic speech, published what amounted to a scorecard of editorial reactions. It began: As to Mr. Websters speech: it has been better praised by his enemies and better condemned by his friends than any speech ever before made by any statesman of his standing. The Watchman and State Journal noted that some northern papers praised the speech, yet many denounced it. And in the South, the reactions were considerably more favorable. In the end, the Compromise of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Act, became law. And the Union wouldnt split until a decade later when the slave states seceded.